I'm surprised that so far there has been no reaction to the labeling of semi-auto AR/AK as "replica guns."
Sorry. I slept late.
I do not disagree with the assertion that a "military-style" semi-automatic is not the same as an actual military rifle IF that military rifle was originally capable of fully automatic fire.
I DO disagree with an implied assertion that this "replica" status impairs the overall merit of the design. If I remember correctly, the 1903 Springfield was close enough to the Mauser design that a patent infringment was fought and won. If I remember correctly, the Remington 700 is an evolution of that very design.
So therefore, Remington 700 owes its roots to a military design.
And we then cannot escape the fact that the Remington 700 has been brought to military service in the form of the M40 sniper system. Wow... what's a purist to do???
But then again, I used a bolt action for my example. I suspect that it isn't the origins that wrinkle some undershorts. Its the LOOK.
It must be the look, right?
Afterall... until someone demonstrates exactly HOW my father's Remington 7400 semi-automatic deer rifle is effectively different than my AKM semi-auto when he uses a 5 round magazine hunting and I use a 5 round magazine with it, then I must conclude that logic, rational thought, and common sense are not traits found within some participants in this (what seems to be) ongoing debate.
I'll go so far as to say that this is one of the more idiotic lines of dicussion found within the firearms community. Live and freakin' let live. Worry more about what YOU do and less about what OTHERS do.
I've routinely seen threads that have asserted that no one should be allowed to hunt with a semi-automatic because they are not allowed in thier jurisdiction. Or people should not be allowed to hunt with rifles because they are not allowed in their jurisdicition. Both are complete idiocy.
I have to wonder as to the original sentiment behind such positions. Hell, I even had a discussion about it with my father recently. He made a lot of sense with his answer.
He told me that a lot of people live in areas where their circumstances may dictate certain restrictions such as some areas where the entire area hunted is around 10 acres-- and in that 10 acres, there may be a few hunters. In that case, it may well be a good idea not to use rifles.
The problem arises, however, when people who hunt like that seem to operate from an assumption that because they hunt like that, EVERYONE must hunt like that. It is an incorrect assumption-- but a harmless one, right? Well, it WOULD be harmless except for when that person then advocates that EVERYONE be forced to do as he does.
See.. that is the problem. Too many people make sweeping statements and generalisms based solely upon their situation. They seem to have a NEED to export their conditions to everyone. But we all DON'T live in that situation.
If you were to tell me that you drink water from your toliet bowl, I'd nod and walk away. But if you tried to force me to drink from my toliet, we are going to run into some problems.
Now... more about the rifles. I keep seeing these threads talking about military rifles and people "spraying and praying" while hunting. I'm sure that is DOES happen but quite frankly I have literally NEVER seen it. And I have been an avid hunter for over 25 years-- and I grew up in a commnity of hunters.
It really amazes me. We don't have people around here getting shot because we use rifles as opposed to shotguns. We don't have people "spraying and praying" with deer. Frankly, it is a point of SHAME for one of us to have to take a follow-up shot.
So where is all of the carnage? Where are the hunters killing each other routinely with ARs and AKs? Where are the deer climbing trees due to the No-Man's land on the ground?
If this is happening, it ain't happening around here. I'm not saying it doesn't happen somewhere. What I am saying is that if it is happening around you, you live in a Realm of Idiots.
So.. moving along.
I hunt with military-style rifles. Practically exclusively. My first deer was killed with an HK-91 that I saved up for in high school and bought for $600.
We use 5 round maximum magazines here. I had one.
The first day I took out the HK-91, I killed a deer. Amazingly, I did not feel some otherworldly and unholy complusion to mow the poor deer down. Instead, I placed my shot and squeezed on that crappy HK trigger and managed a one-shot kill. I also failed to kill any innocent hunters while I was at it. I know... it's amazing. After all, it was a black rifle and I was a teenager.
Since that day, I have taken MS whitails with:
Remington 700 ADL 30-06
Remington 700 BDL 30-06
HK-91 7.62x51
FAL 7.62x51
AKM 7.62x39
AKM underfolder 7.62x39
Saiga 7.62x51
Remington 1100 12 gauge
Do you know what each of those kills with the above rifles have in common? I have NEVER FIRED a second shot. That's right. Every single shot I've fired was well placed and was a one-shot kill.
How is that possible? Didn't the blackness of the rifle infuse my soul with an overwhelming and burning desire to unleash hell on the forestland creatures? I suppose I must have a strong soul.
What is MORE interesting is that both my father AND mother-- who have also been hunting most of thier lives have had to take follow-up shots and in a couple cases lost deer during that time. Strangely, their Remington 742 and 7400s did not bestow the devine power of the one-shot clean kill. I know... who'da thunk it?
So now we get to the design and/or appearance of the firearm.
You ever look inside a Remington 7400? Frankly, I've always felt a certain "delicate" nature to them. Something that I feel I need to handle with care is not my first choice to toss on the back of my 4 wheeler, drive above our dam, cross a slew, and then drag up my portable stand. I have a few dings and scratches on a Remington 700's beautiful walnut and blueing to attest to that fact.
I personally would be as inclined to carry my wife's bedroom suite into our marshes as I would a beautifully finished showpiece of a sporter.
No. I like to know I have a rugged rifle for a rugged situation. Regardless of the opinion of being a "replica" there is no escaping the reality that many military-style firearms share the ruggedness of their military counterparts. For me, it really isn't debatable. I've never had a military-style rifle fail me while hunting. I can't say the same about a few of the sporters I've seen.
So there we have it.
In terms of the tool, there is NO escaping the ugly little fact that there is no mechanical difference in the firearms in terms of firepower unleashed. There is NO escaping the fact that cosmetic differences seem to fuel a lot of elitism and prejudice. There is NO escaping the fact that those seeking to ban military-style firearms but allow their 7400 are idiotic twits that seek to impose their TASTES upon others.
Ahh... but then there IS a difference: The people that choose such a rifle.
Now we get to the heart of it. Some believe that if you carry a military-style rifle, you MUST be a "spray and pray" Rambo wanna-be.
Frankly, I have no retort to this. I HAVE shown in the above paragraphs that I can show you ONE person that this stereotype does not apply to: ME. But that-- in itself-- is not a convincing arguement. For any rule, I can show you the exception to that rule.
I'll leave you with that prejudice. I hope it serves you well. But as you harbor it, I do hope that you keep in the back of your mind that there are some-- and probably many-- that you unfairly characterize with your stereotype. It seems we have a new "-ism" in our world today.
I'll leave this thread with this:
That said, if I meet you out in the woods and you have a military style semi auto, I'm getting away from you quickly because (sorry) I do think you're a rambo wannabe.
I think that is an excellent idea. If you were to meet me in the woods, you'd be trespassing. If you were hunting, you'd be poaching as well. You'd have FAR worse worries than my choice of firearm. It would not be the first time I've pressed those charges.
-- John
I own hunting rifles. I sporterized an SKS rifle trying to make it a hunting rifle. What I wound up with is a near 9 lb carbine length rifle that shoots 3 MOA with a wimpy cartridge that can't equal a .30-30 winchester. I'd been better off spending the money on a Marlin 336 when it comes to hunting, had a lot more accurate, handier, more powerful rifle. But, the SKS is big fun at the range and surplus milsurp ammo is still pretty affordable to burn up, so I don't have to worry about chasing down brass with it. 
