Apparently, there are those who don't understand how different the AR is, and why it is superior to guns with manual bolt action, which includes levers.
When you are aiming the rifle at a game animal and pull the trigger, both guns discharge, the AR cycles the action and reloads, becoming almost immediately available for a second shot. You don't move your hand from the trigger, nor do you lose the sight picture to move your face away from the bolt as you would for the manual action gun. A manual could be fashioned that way, not many have yet.
If the shot was poorly aimed, deviated by vegetation, or the animal moved, there is an immediate need to shoot again - you have a wounded animal. If it gets away, it will not get medical treatment. It will eventually sicken and die. The job needs to be finished, and another better shot taken. That is the better ethical decision that both hunters will most likely exercise.
The AR hunter can process that information while tracking the animal in his sights and pull the trigger again. The manual gunner will be going thru the motions of moving his face, then reacquiring a sight picture to shoot again.
It's a fact semi auto's allow a quicker follow up shot, and also a fact that the shooter will be more accurate with it. While there's a lot of chest thumping machismo out there to defend the manual action gun, where it counts, the professionals choose self loading. It's also more reliable. Manual actions can be short stroked, jamming the action. Semi autos less so, as the force to cycle the action is far more consistent and operates in a well designed window of engineering that takes advantage of it.
In terms of power, the AR is usually NOT a high powered rifle. It's considered intermediate, something between the .308 on one end, and .22LR on the other. It can kill a deer, but it's not a magnum or dangerous game gun. Therefore it has less recoil than the typical hunting rifle, and that makes the user typically more accurate. He's not anticipating heavy recoil, nor does he have to recover from it to make a second shot.
Secondly, the AR has a detachable magazine. Although not the only firearm with one, the magazine allows easier loading and unloading without having to cycle the action and lock another round in the chamber with a cocked hammer or firing pin. It's been an all too frequent occurrence that a gun will discharge when being cleared of ammunition. With the AR, you pull out the magazine, pull back the charging handle, lock tee bolt to the rear, and done. No closing the cocked action repeatedly to pick up another round and eject it.
With these two features, the AR is more accurate, easier to use ethically, and safer than the average 100 year old manual design. Which should make some sense - the evolution of design and mechanics keeps going on. In just the last 25 years we've gone from cast iron engines with analog carburetors, to all aluminum ones with direct cylinder injection. Nobody in Government is insisting that we turn in our new cars and stick with the '60s technology as a moral statement.
Don't accept the argument the AR isn't a "legitimate" hunting rifle. Take a long long look at the traditional ones, they are all the leading military advancement of their day, and well regarded as an improvement. So is the AR. If anything, it is the superior hunting rifle now. Which underlines how wrong it is to ban it.
When you are aiming the rifle at a game animal and pull the trigger, both guns discharge, the AR cycles the action and reloads, becoming almost immediately available for a second shot. You don't move your hand from the trigger, nor do you lose the sight picture to move your face away from the bolt as you would for the manual action gun. A manual could be fashioned that way, not many have yet.
If the shot was poorly aimed, deviated by vegetation, or the animal moved, there is an immediate need to shoot again - you have a wounded animal. If it gets away, it will not get medical treatment. It will eventually sicken and die. The job needs to be finished, and another better shot taken. That is the better ethical decision that both hunters will most likely exercise.
The AR hunter can process that information while tracking the animal in his sights and pull the trigger again. The manual gunner will be going thru the motions of moving his face, then reacquiring a sight picture to shoot again.
It's a fact semi auto's allow a quicker follow up shot, and also a fact that the shooter will be more accurate with it. While there's a lot of chest thumping machismo out there to defend the manual action gun, where it counts, the professionals choose self loading. It's also more reliable. Manual actions can be short stroked, jamming the action. Semi autos less so, as the force to cycle the action is far more consistent and operates in a well designed window of engineering that takes advantage of it.
In terms of power, the AR is usually NOT a high powered rifle. It's considered intermediate, something between the .308 on one end, and .22LR on the other. It can kill a deer, but it's not a magnum or dangerous game gun. Therefore it has less recoil than the typical hunting rifle, and that makes the user typically more accurate. He's not anticipating heavy recoil, nor does he have to recover from it to make a second shot.
Secondly, the AR has a detachable magazine. Although not the only firearm with one, the magazine allows easier loading and unloading without having to cycle the action and lock another round in the chamber with a cocked hammer or firing pin. It's been an all too frequent occurrence that a gun will discharge when being cleared of ammunition. With the AR, you pull out the magazine, pull back the charging handle, lock tee bolt to the rear, and done. No closing the cocked action repeatedly to pick up another round and eject it.
With these two features, the AR is more accurate, easier to use ethically, and safer than the average 100 year old manual design. Which should make some sense - the evolution of design and mechanics keeps going on. In just the last 25 years we've gone from cast iron engines with analog carburetors, to all aluminum ones with direct cylinder injection. Nobody in Government is insisting that we turn in our new cars and stick with the '60s technology as a moral statement.
Don't accept the argument the AR isn't a "legitimate" hunting rifle. Take a long long look at the traditional ones, they are all the leading military advancement of their day, and well regarded as an improvement. So is the AR. If anything, it is the superior hunting rifle now. Which underlines how wrong it is to ban it.
