I just found out while watching Fox news while they were interviewing a retired New York detective who stated (with a straight face) that if you shoot a deer with an AR you will not be able to eat it. He would not elaborate further. So hunters should not use them. Another highly informed emotional response from the experts.

More media farce. I remember a few years ago during one of the "assault weapon" bans that the Lois Lamebrain reporter was talking about semi-autos but the backdrop screen was showing guys shooting full autos. They were deliberately misconstruing John Q. Citizen who knows nothing of the subject.

Sad to see such bullshit being promulgated on the news. Most of it is not negligent news reporting, but intentional, as are those being interviewed with their false ideas.

You're damned right it is intentional. This might be beating a dead horse but using the media to promote fake news to support a political agenda is dirty pool to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
You're damned right it is intentional. This might be beating a dead horse but using the media to promote fake news to support a political agenda is dirty pool to say the least.

sounds to me like its just politics as usual

It is John, but it damn sure doesn't make it right or excusable.

Sigh...

Most of these media firearm experts know nothing about firearms!!!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Most of these media firearm experts know nothing about firearms!!!

Most cops don't either, can't even shoot worth beans.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams1:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Most of these media firearm experts know nothing about firearms!!!

Most cops don't either, can't even shoot worth beans.

Grizz

Agreed.

I remember fox news back when the dc sniper thing was happening long before the perps were caught. The talking heads were talking about the weapon being used. They described it as a high caliber weapon and the hosts repeated the phrase while nodding their heads knowingly. News media try to look knowledgeable when they haven't a clue.

Indeed! I am reminded of a quote by British actor/comedian Stephen Fry, "Many people would no more think of entering journalism than the sewage business, which at least does us some good."

In fact, the .223 is very underpowered for deer sized animals, as well as humans in my opinion. The military adopted that rifle to save weight on ammo over the 7.62 Nato. It clearly does that, but the 7.62 is a much more effective cartridge. Now, they have reconsidered and are adopting a compromise 6.8 mm cartridge.

But back to deer, my father is an avid coyote hunter and he uses AR's in various calibers, including the standard 5.56 mm Nato. He's not much interested in deer but shoots one now and then for the pot. Every one I've ever seen him shoot with an AR was hit right in the white patch on the front of their throat and dropped in their tracks. They were perfectly edible.

Well, shot placement is paramount anyway, + a 223 will do for central Tx. whitetails. The 6.8 that is being considered is roughly equivalent to a 270 dia. + has great revues on its long range performance. Kinda funny in a roundabout way was that Eugene Stoner had something comparable in mind when he designed the AR.

lavaca where else would they drop except in their tracks??

George

George, the redundancy kinda reminds me of the times of misery while serving at a place called Bliss.

Every police shooting seems to involve the firing of dozens of rounds, few if any of which hit the assailant.

Someone should have asked this "detective" how many shots has he fired in the line of duty, and with what firearms, and how many of them hit the target?

Or maybe more to the point, how many deer has he killed, with all of the follow ups noted above?

Buffoons like this should not be allowed to make or influence public policy.