John Silva Photography wrote:
There are some extremely conservative models. There is a very well known MM model that is so trumpy that every time I see her pics all I see is trumps face on her. I could never shoot her, as was said we have to draw a line somewhere. I'm from between SF/Sac and sometimes travel to Oregon and Washington. Like many photographers when we travel I often look for a shoot while there. It's so obvious as you go north you start to see guns in many of the models portfolios. It just goes with the geography in many cases.
John

Wouldn't it be best to ask a model who she / he voted for before the shoot to be sure you aren't about to hire someone you hate and despise?

Znude! wrote:
I'm tired of seeing Hollywood glorify killing in movies. And don't like the idea of video games doing it either.

This

...plays a big part in the way things are today.

There is no simple or easy solution though, as censorship of any kind is a difficult thing to talk about, let alone implement.

rxz wrote:
I've photographed (not shot) a model hell bent on posing nude with a side arm.  But posing with a military style weapon used to kill kiddies, some folks just draw the line.

Umm... handguns kill way more kids every year than AR15's.  Both handguns and AR's are legal for law abiding folks to posess, so go ahead and take the picture.  If I'm offended I'll just click to the next image.. 

There are ton's of movie posteres that feature a sexy woman holding a military style weapon. Does that offend you?

Jefferson Cole wrote:
So thoroughly fed up seeing cutsie bikini girls cuddling the mass murderers weapon of choice.

I guess that's sexy for some members who should work on their social lives.

WAY more people are killed with handguns than with AR-15s. Are you complaining about those too? For that matter, WAY more people are killed with fists than AR-15s as well. Are you going to voice your distain for any model who puts hands in their photos?

JQuest wrote:
As usual JSouthworth gets it wrong yet again. The M-16 is an adaptation of the AR-15 not the other way around. The AR-15 predates the M16 by some ten years. Additionally since the AR-15 style of rifles are the most popular rifles in the United States it would stand to reason that some individuals hunt with them. That said, serious hunters typically do not favor the use of the AR style rifles for hunting.

Yes and no. The rifle was originally designated AR (for Armalite Rifle) 15 when it was in development, but at that time it was a fully automatic weapon, whereas the designation AR15 is today applied to semi-automatic variants, to distinguish them from the fully automatic M16. (source; Small Arms of the world, 10th revised edition. The wikipedia article "M16 Rifle" is also useful).

Recent versions of the M16 have a three-round burst capability rather than continuous full automatic.

Serious hunters don't favor the AR15 because the 5.56mm round is not really powerful enough, the bullet too small and light to reliably kill an animal the size of a deer or larger, cleanly with a single shot.

roger alan wrote:

This

...plays a big part in the way things are today.

There is no simple or easy solution though, as censorship of any kind is a difficult thing to talk about, let alone implement.

There is a relatively simple solution and it's called good parenting. Parents need to spend more time with their kids and make careful decisions about what they are mature enough to be exposed to.

Znude! wrote:
There is a relatively simple solution and it's called good parenting. Parents need to spend more time with their kids and make careful decisions about what they are mature enough to be exposed to.

Yes that is a good idea of course. For some cases that could be effective.

But reality is messy. Many parents do not have as much time as would be ideal. Not every kid has two parents. Not every parent has common sense. Not every parent even cares.

And violence in the media also affects parents. Being a parent might (hopefully) instill a sense of responsibility, but it does not make someone immune from soaking up the same negative messages that their kids are being exposed to.

JQuest wrote:
As usual JSouthworth gets it wrong yet again. The M-16 is an adaptation of the AR-15 not the other way around. The AR-15 predates the M16 by some ten years. Additionally since the AR-15 style of rifles are the most popular rifles in the United States it would stand to reason that some individuals hunt with them. That said, serious hunters typically do not favor the use of the AR style rifles for hunting.

My experience with a M16 goes back over 50 years so it may be dated.  I only fired it at a range in single shot and fully automatic to get accustomed to firing it.  I was given one as a backup weapon in the event of problems but never had to use it. My weapon was a M60 with 7.62 NATO rounds.  As I recall the M16 rounds we had were designed to tumble when fired after a set distance/time.   The reason was to cause a more damaging wound when hitting a target.   The round would breakup and stay in the target.  It doesn't make sense using it for hunting game due to the smaller caliber plus cleaning the fragments of the round in the wound.  ER doctors now don't talk much about removing AR15 rounds from present day victims.

JSouthworth wrote:
Serious hunters don't favor the AR15 because the 5.56mm round is not really powerful enough, the bullet too small and light to reliably kill an animal the size of a deer or larger, cleanly with a single shot.

AR 15s are actually favored by many serious hunters because of their modular design. You can mount an upper chambered for .223 for small varmints like woodchucks and easily swap the upper for one chambered in .300 when Deer season opens. You can build an AR to fit your particular needs.

Jefferson Cole wrote:
So thoroughly fed up seeing cutsie bikini girls cuddling the mass murderers weapon of choice.

I guess that's sexy for some members who should work on their social lives.

You expect the entire world to cater to your taste ?
I'm sure some insults will win hearts and minds

Jefferson Cole wrote:
So thoroughly fed up seeing cutsie bikini girls cuddling the mass murderers weapon of choice.

I guess that's sexy for some members who should work on their social lives.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...no one cares.

Who gives a crap what you're fed up with?  No doubt there are ultra-conservatives out here who would want your portfolio banned simply because you shoot nudes.  Doesn't matter if the quality of work is more artistic than some glam or porn photographer; the fact is some people will be offended by it because you like to show bare female skin (I'm not one of them, by the way, I'm just being objective).  Does their opinion give you any reason to stop shooting what YOU want to shoot?

I've been off MM and social media for a while, mainly because I got tired of listening to everyone (Including myself) scream into the void.  None of us is going to change another person's opinion about religion, politics, race, or social issues, regardless of how many facts or statistics we post.  I wholeheartedly like intelligent discussions and debates about these topics, but why just throw your opinion out there when nobody asked for it?  Seems futile, while at the same time opening the door for unneeded agitation in your life. 

That's just my opinion, of course, because this thread caught my eye.  MM first allowed controversial topic in the forums, and then banned them, and it looks like they've opened them up again.  After taking a few years off, I wonder if this site is even worth coming back to. 

Anyway, go on with trying to convince each other your stance is the right one, when it comes to girls posing with rifles.  I'll go back to the bleachers and watch from afar.  No doubt if I check in five years from now, the debate will still be underway and no one will be any closer to a consensus.

JSouthworth wrote:
The AR15 is the semi-automatic version of the military M16. It seems to be a popular weapon among survivalists and people use them for hunting as well.

I am an old person, a veteran of the US Army. we trained with M-16's. on the m-16, there is literally a switch for semi. the semi-automatic version of the military M16 - is an m-16.

rfordphotos wrote:
Once more JSouthworth demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding firearms- (his -book- let him down again.) The AR 15 is available up to .50 caliber (the .50 Beowulf, admittedly not common) with rounds like the 450 Bushmaster being much more common at that end of the list. Common hunting rounds include the 6.5mm Grendel, the .300 Blackout and the 350 Legend.

What JSouthworth  fails to understand is that the AR 15 was designed from the outset to be "modular". It consists of two main parts- the "upper" and the "lower". Basically the "upper" can be changed (in the field if you choose) by pulling two "take down pins"  lifting off the "upper" and replacing it with a new "upper"--- takes about 30 seconds or less----

In VERY basic terms:

The "lower" is the legally regulated part-- it has a serial number and that number is what is used to track the firearm from manufacture, thru sale to the end user.

The "upper" is what determines the "caliber"--- uppers for VARIOUS calibers can easily be mounted (one at a  time of course) to any "lower". So I could buy an AR 15 in .223 caliber, then buy another upper in 6.5mm Grendel or 450 Bushmaster and have a rifle in a completely different caliber. I could have half a dozen different uppers if I chose. Since they wont work without a "lower" (which is regulated by law), these "upper" kits are legally sold by many "aftermarket" dealers.

That makes the AR 15 VERY versatile- one rifle can be used for many different types of hunting, plinking or serious target shooting. This is one of the main reasons the AR 15 is a top selling rifle ... (Remember thousands are sold every year that are NEVER illegally used.)

do you trust Joe Biden with hydrogen bombs?

DCurtis wrote:
do you trust Joe Biden with hydrogen bombs?

Great question!

Especially as it's public record that General Miley and the Pentagon quietly blocked Trump from launching any nukes without telling him.  We actually KNOW the answer in Trump's case.  No hypotheticals there.

In fact they also blocked Trump from launching any kind of an attack on China, also without telling him.

When intelligence reached the U.S. that China thought that Trump was getting ready to attack them (they were worried about his stability at the end), General Miley with the backing of everyone up the chain except Trump (who was kept in the dark) personally assured China via Gen. Li Zuocheng, the head of China's military, that steps had been taken to keep America "stable" and that the U.S. "was not going to attack".

Dangerous times indeed.  But the Pentagon and the National Security Team took extraordinary steps to protect us all.  But thanks for bringing it up!

DCurtis wrote:
do you trust Joe Biden with hydrogen bombs?

I dont trust ANYBODY with Hydrogen Bombs.

Given what I know- I suspect Biden is less of a "loose cannon" than Putin, or Kim Jong-un.... or probably Trump.

But I dont TRUST any of them.

How about you--- who do YOU TRUST with Hydrogen Bombs?

rxz wrote:
My experience with a M16 goes back over 50 years so it may be dated.  I only fired it at a range in single shot and fully automatic to get accustomed to firing it.  I was given one as a backup weapon in the event of problems but never had to use it. My weapon was a M60 with 7.62 NATO rounds.  As I recall the M16 rounds we had were designed to tumble when fired after a set distance/time.   The reason was to cause a more damaging wound when hitting a target.   The round would breakup and stay in the target.  It doesn't make sense using it for hunting game due to the smaller caliber plus cleaning the fragments of the round in the wound.  ER doctors now don't talk much about removing AR15 rounds from present day victims.

It's good to see a comment which looks as though it's written by someone who knows what they're talking about for a change.
You're right about the original ammunition, it would tumble on impact and cause more damage that way. This is also true of the Soviet 5.45mm X 39mm rifle round used in the AK74 assault rifle, and several other types of military ammunition. The NATO standard SS109 5.56mm ammunition used today is claimed not to exhibit this effect, however.

rfordphotos wrote:
Once more JSouthworth demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding firearms- (his -book- let him down again.) The AR 15 is available up to .50 caliber (the .50 Beowulf, admittedly not common) with rounds like the 450 Bushmaster being much more common at that end of the list. Common hunting rounds include the 6.5mm Grendel, the .300 Blackout and the 350 Legend.

What JSouthworth  fails to understand is that the AR 15 was designed from the outset to be "modular". It consists of two main parts- the "upper" and the "lower". Basically the "upper" can be changed (in the field if you choose) by pulling two "take down pins"  lifting off the "upper" and replacing it with a new "upper"--- takes about 30 seconds or less----

In VERY basic terms:

The "lower" is the legally regulated part-- it has a serial number and that number is what is used to track the firearm from manufacture, thru sale to the end user.

The "upper" is what determines the "caliber"--- uppers for VARIOUS calibers can easily be mounted (one at a  time of course) to any "lower". So I could buy an AR 15 in .223 caliber, then buy another upper in 6.5mm Grendel or 450 Bushmaster and have a rifle in a completely different caliber. I could have half a dozen different uppers if I chose. Since they wont work without a "lower" (which is regulated by law), these "upper" kits are legally sold by many "aftermarket" dealers.

That makes the AR 15 VERY versatile- one rifle can be used for many different types of hunting, plinking or serious target shooting. This is one of the main reasons the AR 15 is a top selling rifle ... (Remember thousands are sold every year that are NEVER illegally used.)

Colt's patents on the AR15 design ran out in 1977, and numerous manufacturers now make "AR15 style" rifles in various calibres. But strictly speaking only the original Colt rifles in 5.56mm can be referred to as AR15s.

JSouthworth wrote:
Colt's patents on the AR15 design ran out in 1977, and numerous manufacturers now make "AR15 style" rifles in various calibres. But strictly speaking only the original Colt rifles in 5.56mm can be referred to as AR15s.

That of course has no practical bearing on this conversation....

AND STRICTLY SPEAKING  that continues to demonstrate your ignorance.
At one time or another COLT ALSO chambered its AR 15 in 9mm, .222 Remington, and 7.62 x 39...

EVERYONE reading these posts knows that you know diddly shit about firearms.

Why dont you answer the questions you have been asked?


HOW MANY FIREARMS DO YOU OWN? HOW MANY AR 15's HAVE YOU FIRED? HOW MANY COLT SINGLE ACTION PISTOLS HAVE YOU FIRED? HOW MANY PISTOLS OF ANY KIND HAVE YOU FIRED? HOW MANY RIFLES OF ANY KIND HAVE YOU FIRED? HOW MANY SHOTGUNS OF ANY KIND HAVE YOU FIRED

HAVE YOU ----EVER--- FIRED A REAL FIREARM OF  ---ANY--- KIND?

Stop trying to be some sort of expert about things you are so obviously clueless about.

JSouthworth wrote:
Serious hunters don't favor the AR15 because the 5.56mm round is not really powerful enough, the bullet too small and light to reliably kill an animal the size of a deer or larger, cleanly with a single shot.

A 5.56×45mm NATO round has a .223 cartridge and the bullet diameter is .224. That makes the bullet diameter 0.016 inches (1/64th of an inch) smaller than a .24 caliber.  A .243 has a .308 cartridge and a bullet diameter of .243 or 6.2 mm.  Therefore, a 5.56 is 0.64 mm smaller than a 6.2 mm bullet (or 0.019 inches smaller than a .243).  (1/64th = .015625 of an inch.)  (Diameter of a human hair in inches: 0.001)  You hold a .243 next to a 5.56 mm and you might be able to see the difference with your eye, but do you really think that difference makes one projectile big enough and the other too small?

In Pennsylvania the minimum caliber required for hunting deer is .24 caliber.   That isn't because a .222 or a .223 won't kill a deer.  They are both high powered rifles.  A .22 long will kill a deer if you hit it the right place.  Hitting a deer in the heart will do it, but not as quickly as you probably think.  Also, the heart isn't that big (feeds two people with modest portions).  The heart weighs about a pound and a half.  If I recall correctly, it is about the size of my hand if I was gripping a tennis ball.

Therefore, the heart is a small target and you have to estimate the location of the heart from the angle you are looking at.  You are likely to miss.  If you shoot for the heart from the side, you have a good chance of hitting a lung or two, but, that doesn't kill them right away either.  You also have to account for movement.  In this area, it is not wise or safe to shoot at a running deer.  Shooting a running deer also increases the chances of hitting the abdomen, which you really don't want to do. 

If you take a shot at a deer's heart from the side, ie. perpendicular to the deer's body, then you are shooting the heart through the upper part of the front leg, and probably blowing the opposite leg apart, assuming the shot is level.  Then you have just wasted a lot of good meat.

The vital zone on a whitetail is about a 6 inch circle.. That includes the heart, lungs, and liver from the side view. 6 inches ain't so big when you are looking through leaves and brush and it is a hell of a lot smaller if the animal is moving fast.  Then, what do you do when what you see is tail?  If is a doe that is just slightly concerned about what is around her, the tail is up.  There is a great patch of white with a circle, but the circle ain't a target.  You really don't want to take that shot.  It is much better to let it go.

There are reasons that wildlife experts don't want people to use small bullets that are all about human behavior, not killing ability.  An arrow doesn't have punch or knock down ability.  Arrows kill by causing hemorrhaging.  Arrows weigh more than bullets but are traveling much slower.  Sometimes a deer doesn't flinch when an arrow passes through it.  Sometimes it reacts to the sound of the bow string and in the fraction of time that it takes for the arrow to reach the deer, the deer has moved enough to change an effective shot (still a slow death), into a death that is much slower.  Arrows are also deflected by twigs.  So are bullets, sometimes.

For an example regarding knock down power: Many years ago I shot a deer while I was in a tree stand.  The deer was directly below me.  I doubt I was more than 20 feet off the ground.  I shot it through its right lung just right of the spine. I used a .357 magnum and you would think that would have knocked it flat.  It did not.  It ran and I had to put another round in its neck, from about 25 yards out.  I only got the chance to take that shot when the buck paused because of another threat ahead of it.

Given the opportunity, I have learned to always shoot for the neck or head.  A bullet tearing through the neck flips the deer off of its feet because of the incredible leverage applied.  But the animal still doesn't hit the ground dead.  I have slit the throats on many mortally wounded animals.  (Some of which had been hit by cars.)  I learned not to shoot an animal again after decimating a rabbit many years before I ever killed a deer.

In reference to your comment about a "clean kill:"  It hardly ever happens.  Rabbits, grouse, ducks, deer.  They die vocally and writhing.  Running if they still can. You want to watch a deer struggling to get on its feet, pawing the ground, ... screaming?  Screaming in fear.  Screaming in pain.  Have you ever heard the vocalizations of a deer that you have critically wounded?  You can see the fear in their eyes as you come to them.  They die alone- apart from the deer they run with.  Apart from the fawns they just raised. 

While working one day a few years ago, I found a first year deer laying in the forest. It had been wounded by an arrow.  It was laying there alive, desperate to move away from me, but completely unable to rise.  It probably had been wounded for days.  The wound was festering.  I had no gun.  I had no knife.  I had my colleague walk the 5 pound hammer up the hill to me.  He did not watch.  You wouldn't either.   Well, you wouldn't watch if you had any compassion.   Maybe someone that isn't woke would have enjoyed it.  That was probably the last sentient being I have killed.

If you had ever killed anything, maybe you wouldn't be so blasé about it.  I remember the first rabbit I shot when I was 10 or 11.  I remember telling my uncle it wasn't dead and being told what I then had to do and you probably don't want to know what that was.  I remember how I felt.  It was almost my last hunt.  Some of you may think that I am cold for shooting things, for slitting their throats. Or putting chickens on the chopping block when I was a teen, helping my uncle around the farm.  No.  It is just what has to be done and I do it when I have to.  These days, only when I have to.  Maybe that is cold.  I see it as turning something off.  I love the hunt, it is not the same as a hike.  But I take no joy in killing a deer anymore.  There is no pride.  There is no sense of accomplishment, so much so that I hunt with a camera on me and an empty chamber, more so than not.  If I was hunting deer alone, I could put the sites on it and squeeze the trigger, casually forgetting to release the safety and letting the deer go on to the next guy in the forest.  Maybe it will get past him.  But when I am hunting with a group, it is my responsibility to shoot when it is needed.  Particularly when someone else has wounded one.  I know plenty of killers.  I am not one of them. 

The 5.56 mm round is not too small.  I know a couple of people who bought .243s for their first deer rifle because it is versatile.  It has the advantages of the .223 and is still legal to hunt deer with, in the zones of Pennsylvania where rifles are permitted. 

A 30-30 is much smaller cartridge than a 30-06, but people still hunt with 30-30s.  They have their advantages.  In either case, it isn't about knock down power, though plenty of people think it is.  The "one shot, one kill" credo would make someone who is not experienced think it works like it does on TV.  It doesn't.  One shot through the heart and experienced hunters would still expect to have to follow a blood trail, and if we push too hard, or too soon, it will be a long trail.  We want the animal to lay down and bleed out.  And, it takes time.

"Serious hunters" is one of those silly generalizations that means what you want it to mean. Serious hunters have a wide range of views on things.  I no longer consider myself a serious hunter, because, to me, that means I have the enthusiasm for hunting that I did when I was young.  I didn't hunt one single day last year.  Or the year before,  Oh well.  But, when I am hunting, I am a serious hunter.  You better be serious, or you better go home.  I am not taking a shot I can't make.  I am working with my group (I haven't hunted alone for years),  I am going through the terrain that is in front of me, even if there are briars and thorns and really rough ground. The kids next to me are not going to come away thinking that "that guy is too old to be here."  I know where everybody is and they know where everybody is.  I am moving slowly and deliberately.  I am working with a life time of knowledge I built up about the forest and the prey.  I know some critters will let me walk by.  I may be no further than a step from them and they remain still and hidden, until I stop.  Then they freak out- after a while.  I know some will take flight well before I have the chance to see them.  I am rarely carrying the biggest or most powerful firearm I have at my disposal, much less the biggest and most powerful guns I can buy.   

My best day deer and bear hunting in recent years wasn't because I got a deer or even saw a bear. (I have never seen a bear while hunting bear.  I have seen them while hiking, while peeking out my tent flap in the darkness, but never while hunting bear.)  The best hunting day in several years was because I had Ruby Crowned Kinglets flitting about in a spice bush close to me.  I put the gun down and raised the camera.  I didn't get any pics.  Too much lens for too short of a distance with a bird that doesn't alight for but a monument.  It was still a very memorable hunt because of those two birds and those five minutes out of a long, arduous day.

rfordphotos wrote:

That of course has no practical bearing on this conversation....

AND STRICTLY SPEAKING  that continues to demonstrate your ignorance.
At one time or another COLT ALSO chambered its AR 15 in 9mm, .222 Remington, and 7.62 x 39...

EVERYONE reading these posts knows that you know diddly shit about firearms.

Why dont you answer the questions you have been asked?


Stop trying to be some sort of expert about things you are so obviously clueless about.

7.62 X 39 is a RUSSIAN round, used in the AK47 and AKM. I could almost believe a 9mm submachine gun variant.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

A 5.56×45mm NATO round has a .223 cartridge and the bullet diameter is .224. That makes the bullet diameter 0.016 inches (1/64th of an inch) smaller than a .24 caliber.  A .243 has a .308 cartridge and a bullet diameter of .243 or 6.2 mm.  Therefore, a 5.56 is 0.64 mm smaller than a 6.2 mm bullet (or 0.019 inches smaller than a .243).  (1/64th = .015625 of an inch.)  (Diameter of a human hair in inches: 0.001)  You hold a .243 next to a 5.56 mm and you might be able to see the difference with your eye, but do you really think that difference makes one projectile big enough and the other too small?

In Pennsylvania the minimum caliber required for hunting deer is .24 caliber.   That isn't because a .222 or a .223 won't kill a deer.  They are both high powered rifles.  A .22 long will kill a deer if you hit it the right place.  Hitting a deer in the heart will do it, but not as quickly as you probably think.  Also, the heart isn't that big (feeds two people with modest portions).  The heart weighs about a pound and a half.  If I recall correctly, it is about the size of my hand if I was gripping a tennis ball.

Therefore, the heart is a small target and you have to estimate the location of the heart from the angle you are looking at.  You are likely to miss.  If you shoot for the heart from the side, you have a good chance of hitting a lung or two, but, that doesn't kill them right away either.  You also have to account for movement.  In this area, it is not wise or safe to shoot at a running deer.  Shooting a running deer also increases the chances of hitting the abdomen, which you really don't want to do. 

If you take a shot at a deer's heart from the side, ie. perpendicular to the deer's body, then you are shooting the heart through the upper part of the front leg, and probably blowing the opposite leg apart, assuming the shot is level.  Then you have just wasted a lot of good meat.

The vital zone on a whitetail is about a 6 inch circle.. That includes the heart, lungs, and liver from the side view. 6 inches ain't so big when you are looking through leaves and brush and it is a hell of a lot smaller if the animal is moving fast.  Then, what do you do when what you see is tail?  If is a doe that is just slightly concerned about what is around her, the tail is up.  There is a great patch of white with a circle, but the circle ain't a target.  You really don't want to take that shot.  It is much better to let it go.

There are reasons that wildlife experts don't want people to use small bullets that are all about human behavior, not killing ability.  An arrow doesn't have punch or knock down ability.  Arrows kill by causing hemorrhaging.  Arrows weigh more than bullets but are traveling much slower.  Sometimes a deer doesn't flinch when an arrow passes through it.  Sometimes it reacts to the sound of the bow string and in the fraction of time that it takes for the arrow to reach the deer, the deer has moved enough to change an effective shot (still a slow death), into a death that is much slower.  Arrows are also deflected by twigs.  So are bullets, sometimes.

For an example regarding knock down power: Many years ago I shot a deer while I was in a tree stand.  The deer was directly below me.  I doubt I was more than 20 feet off the ground.  I shot it through its right lung just right of the spine. I used a .357 magnum and you would think that would have knocked it flat.  It did not.  It ran and I had to put another round in its neck, from about 25 yards out.  I only got the chance to take that shot when the buck paused because of another threat ahead of it.

Given the opportunity, I have learned to always shoot for the neck or head.  A bullet tearing through the neck flips the deer off of its feet because of the incredible leverage applied.  But the animal still doesn't hit the ground dead.  I have slit the throats on many mortally wounded animals.  (Some of which had been hit by cars.)  I learned not to shoot an animal again after decimating a rabbit many years before I ever killed a deer.

In reference to your comment about a "clean kill:"  It hardly ever happens.  Rabbits, grouse, ducks, deer.  They die vocally and writhing.  Running if they still can. You want to watch a deer struggling to get on its feet, pawing the ground, ... screaming?  Screaming in fear.  Screaming in pain.  Have you ever heard the vocalizations of a deer that you have critically wounded?  You can see the fear in their eyes as you come to them.  They die alone- apart from the deer they run with.  Apart from the fawns they just raised. 

While working one day a few years ago, I found a first year deer laying in the forest. It had been wounded by an arrow.  It was laying there alive, desperate to move away from me, but completely unable to rise.  It probably had been wounded for days.  The wound was festering.  I had no gun.  I had no knife.  I had my colleague walk the 5 pound hammer up the hill to me.  He did not watch.  You wouldn't either.   Well, you wouldn't watch if you had any compassion.   Maybe someone that isn't woke would have enjoyed it.  That was probably the last sentient being I have killed.

If you had ever killed anything, maybe you wouldn't be so blasé about it.  I remember the first rabbit I shot when I was 10 or 11.  I remember telling my uncle it wasn't dead and being told what I then had to do and you probably don't want to know what that was.  I remember how I felt.  It was almost my last hunt.  Some of you may think that I am cold for shooting things, for slitting their throats. Or putting chickens on the chopping block when I was a teen, helping my uncle around the farm.  No.  It is just what has to be done and I do it when I have to.  These days, only when I have to.  Maybe that is cold.  I see it as turning something off.  I love the hunt, it is not the same as a hike.  But I take no joy in killing a deer anymore.  There is no pride.  There is no sense of accomplishment, so much so that I hunt with a camera on me and an empty chamber, more so than not.  If I was hunting deer alone, I could put the sites on it and squeeze the trigger, casually forgetting to release the safety and letting the deer go on to the next guy in the forest.  Maybe it will get past him.  But when I am hunting with a group, it is my responsibility to shoot when it is needed.  Particularly when someone else has wounded one.  I know plenty of killers.  I am not one of them. 

The 5.56 mm round is not too small.  I know a couple of people who bought .243s for their first deer rifle because it is versatile.  It has the advantages of the .223 and is still legal to hunt deer with, in the zones of Pennsylvania where rifles are permitted. 

A 30-30 is much smaller cartridge than a 30-06, but people still hunt with 30-30s.  They have their advantages.  In either case, it isn't about knock down power, though plenty of people think it is.  The "one shot, one kill" credo would make someone who is not experienced think it works like it does on TV.  It doesn't.  One shot through the heart and experienced hunters would still expect to have to follow a blood trail, and if we push too hard, or too soon, it will be a long trail.  We want the animal to lay down and bleed out.  And, it takes time.

"Serious hunters" is one of those silly generalizations that means what you want it to mean. Serious hunters have a wide range of views on things.  I no longer consider myself a serious hunter, because, to me, that means I have the enthusiasm for hunting that I did when I was young.  I didn't hunt one single day last year.  Or the year before,  Oh well.  But, when I am hunting, I am a serious hunter.  You better be serious, or you better go home.  I am not taking a shot I can't make.  I am working with my group (I haven't hunted alone for years),  I am going through the terrain that is in front of me, even if there are briars and thorns and really rough ground. The kids next to me are not going to come away thinking that "that guy is too old to be here."  I know where everybody is and they know where everybody is.  I am moving slowly and deliberately.  I am working with a life time of knowledge I built up about the forest and the prey.  I know some critters will let me walk by.  I may be no further than a step from them and they remain still and hidden, until I stop.  Then they freak out- after a while.  I know some will take flight well before I have the chance to see them.  I am rarely carrying the biggest or most powerful firearm I have at my disposal, much less the biggest and most powerful guns I can buy.   

My best day deer and bear hunting in recent years wasn't because I got a deer or even saw a bear. (I have never seen a bear while hunting bear.  I have seen them while hiking, while peeking out my tent flap in the darkness, but never while hunting bear.)  The best hunting day in several years was because I had Ruby Crowned Kinglets flitting about in a spice bush close to me.  I put the gun down and raised the camera.  I didn't get any pics.  Too much lens for too short of a distance with a bird that doesn't alight for but a monument.  It was still a very memorable hunt because of those two birds and those five minutes out of a long, arduous day.

Deer hunting is something I've never done myself but the idea is that you shoot the deer once and it falls over dead. You lose points for style if you end up chasing it through peoples' back gardens.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

A 5.56×45mm NATO round has a .223 cartridge and the bullet diameter is .224. That makes the bullet diameter 0.016 inches (1/64th of an inch) smaller than a .24 caliber.  A .243 has a .308 cartridge and a bullet diameter of .243 or 6.2 mm.  Therefore, a 5.56 is 0.64 mm smaller than a 6.2 mm bullet (or 0.019 inches smaller than a .243).  (1/64th = .015625 of an inch.)  (Diameter of a human hair in inches: 0.001)  You hold a .243 next to a 5.56 mm and you might be able to see the difference with your eye, but do you really think that difference makes one projectile big enough and the other too small?

In Pennsylvania the minimum caliber required for hunting deer is .24 caliber.   That isn't because a .222 or a .223 won't kill a deer.  They are both high powered rifles.  A .22 long will kill a deer if you hit it the right place.  Hitting a deer in the heart will do it, but not as quickly as you probably think.  Also, the heart isn't that big (feeds two people with modest portions).  The heart weighs about a pound and a half.  If I recall correctly, it is about the size of my hand if I was gripping a tennis ball.

Therefore, the heart is a small target and you have to estimate the location of the heart from the angle you are looking at.  You are likely to miss.  If you shoot for the heart from the side, you have a good chance of hitting a lung or two, but, that doesn't kill them right away either.  You also have to account for movement.  In this area, it is not wise or safe to shoot at a running deer.  Shooting a running deer also increases the chances of hitting the abdomen, which you really don't want to do. 

If you take a shot at a deer's heart from the side, ie. perpendicular to the deer's body, then you are shooting the heart through the upper part of the front leg, and probably blowing the opposite leg apart, assuming the shot is level.  Then you have just wasted a lot of good meat.

The vital zone on a whitetail is about a 6 inch circle.. That includes the heart, lungs, and liver from the side view. 6 inches ain't so big when you are looking through leaves and brush and it is a hell of a lot smaller if the animal is moving fast.  Then, what do you do when what you see is tail?  If is a doe that is just slightly concerned about what is around her, the tail is up.  There is a great patch of white with a circle, but the circle ain't a target.  You really don't want to take that shot.  It is much better to let it go.

There are reasons that wildlife experts don't want people to use small bullets that are all about human behavior, not killing ability.  An arrow doesn't have punch or knock down ability.  Arrows kill by causing hemorrhaging.  Arrows weigh more than bullets but are traveling much slower.  Sometimes a deer doesn't flinch when an arrow passes through it.  Sometimes it reacts to the sound of the bow string and in the fraction of time that it takes for the arrow to reach the deer, the deer has moved enough to change an effective shot (still a slow death), into a death that is much slower.  Arrows are also deflected by twigs.  So are bullets, sometimes.

For an example regarding knock down power: Many years ago I shot a deer while I was in a tree stand.  The deer was directly below me.  I doubt I was more than 20 feet off the ground.  I shot it through its right lung just right of the spine. I used a .357 magnum and you would think that would have knocked it flat.  It did not.  It ran and I had to put another round in its neck, from about 25 yards out.  I only got the chance to take that shot when the buck paused because of another threat ahead of it.

Given the opportunity, I have learned to always shoot for the neck or head.  A bullet tearing through the neck flips the deer off of its feet because of the incredible leverage applied.  But the animal still doesn't hit the ground dead.  I have slit the throats on many mortally wounded animals.  (Some of which had been hit by cars.)  I learned not to shoot an animal again after decimating a rabbit many years before I ever killed a deer.

In reference to your comment about a "clean kill:"  It hardly ever happens.  Rabbits, grouse, ducks, deer.  They die vocally and writhing.  Running if they still can. You want to watch a deer struggling to get on its feet, pawing the ground, ... screaming?  Screaming in fear.  Screaming in pain.  Have you ever heard the vocalizations of a deer that you have critically wounded?  You can see the fear in their eyes as you come to them.  They die alone- apart from the deer they run with.  Apart from the fawns they just raised. 

While working one day a few years ago, I found a first year deer laying in the forest. It had been wounded by an arrow.  It was laying there alive, desperate to move away from me, but completely unable to rise.  It probably had been wounded for days.  The wound was festering.  I had no gun.  I had no knife.  I had my colleague walk the 5 pound hammer up the hill to me.  He did not watch.  You wouldn't either.   Well, you wouldn't watch if you had any compassion.   Maybe someone that isn't woke would have enjoyed it.  That was probably the last sentient being I have killed.

If you had ever killed anything, maybe you wouldn't be so blasé about it.  I remember the first rabbit I shot when I was 10 or 11.  I remember telling my uncle it wasn't dead and being told what I then had to do and you probably don't want to know what that was.  I remember how I felt.  It was almost my last hunt.  Some of you may think that I am cold for shooting things, for slitting their throats. Or putting chickens on the chopping block when I was a teen, helping my uncle around the farm.  No.  It is just what has to be done and I do it when I have to.  These days, only when I have to.  Maybe that is cold.  I see it as turning something off.  I love the hunt, it is not the same as a hike.  But I take no joy in killing a deer anymore.  There is no pride.  There is no sense of accomplishment, so much so that I hunt with a camera on me and an empty chamber, more so than not.  If I was hunting deer alone, I could put the sites on it and squeeze the trigger, casually forgetting to release the safety and letting the deer go on to the next guy in the forest.  Maybe it will get past him.  But when I am hunting with a group, it is my responsibility to shoot when it is needed.  Particularly when someone else has wounded one.  I know plenty of killers.  I am not one of them. 

The 5.56 mm round is not too small.  I know a couple of people who bought .243s for their first deer rifle because it is versatile.  It has the advantages of the .223 and is still legal to hunt deer with, in the zones of Pennsylvania where rifles are permitted. 

A 30-30 is much smaller cartridge than a 30-06, but people still hunt with 30-30s.  They have their advantages.  In either case, it isn't about knock down power, though plenty of people think it is.  The "one shot, one kill" credo would make someone who is not experienced think it works like it does on TV.  It doesn't.  One shot through the heart and experienced hunters would still expect to have to follow a blood trail, and if we push too hard, or too soon, it will be a long trail.  We want the animal to lay down and bleed out.  And, it takes time.

"Serious hunters" is one of those silly generalizations that means what you want it to mean. Serious hunters have a wide range of views on things.  I no longer consider myself a serious hunter, because, to me, that means I have the enthusiasm for hunting that I did when I was young.  I didn't hunt one single day last year.  Or the year before,  Oh well.  But, when I am hunting, I am a serious hunter.  You better be serious, or you better go home.  I am not taking a shot I can't make.  I am working with my group (I haven't hunted alone for years),  I am going through the terrain that is in front of me, even if there are briars and thorns and really rough ground. The kids next to me are not going to come away thinking that "that guy is too old to be here."  I know where everybody is and they know where everybody is.  I am moving slowly and deliberately.  I am working with a life time of knowledge I built up about the forest and the prey.  I know some critters will let me walk by.  I may be no further than a step from them and they remain still and hidden, until I stop.  Then they freak out- after a while.  I know some will take flight well before I have the chance to see them.  I am rarely carrying the biggest or most powerful firearm I have at my disposal, much less the biggest and most powerful guns I can buy.   

My best day deer and bear hunting in recent years wasn't because I got a deer or even saw a bear. (I have never seen a bear while hunting bear.  I have seen them while hiking, while peeking out my tent flap in the darkness, but never while hunting bear.)  The best hunting day in several years was because I had Ruby Crowned Kinglets flitting about in a spice bush close to me.  I put the gun down and raised the camera.  I didn't get any pics.  Too much lens for too short of a distance with a bird that doesn't alight for but a monument.  It was still a very memorable hunt because of those two birds and those five minutes out of a long, arduous day.

Deer hunting is something I've never done myself but the idea is that you shoot the deer once and it falls over dead. You lose points for style if you end up chasing it through peoples' back gardens.

JSouthworth wrote:
Deer hunting is something I've never done myself but the idea is that you shoot the deer once and it falls over dead. You lose points for style if you end up chasing it through peoples' back gardens.

You really didn't have quote my entire text, much less twice.
-
Let's break down your post and examine it for validity.

"Deer hunting is something I've never done myself ..."  You admit that you have never gone deer hunting.  Thank you, but that much has been obvious. 

"but the idea is that you shoot the deer once and it falls over dead."  Your ideological perspective is nothing more than an ideological perspective.  You have already established that you have no real world experience in the matter.

"You lose points for style if you end up chasing it through peoples' back gardens."  Style?  Through people's gardens?  Your flair for hyperbole does not make your argument valid.  "A clean kill" is much harder to accomplish than you realize and I explained that you.  You have nothing to offer to counter my explanation other than a sorry assed, utopian ideal?  I can't count the number of deer I have shot.  I have killed a multitude of lambs from my "back garden" and put them in the freezer.  (I let a pro do the pigs.  Do I need to explain why?)  I have shot or butchered ducks, pheasants, grouse, geese, rabbits, squirrels, chickens, raccoons, muskrats, skunks, groundhogs, and more, and you want to tell me what the ideal circumstances are, as if you have any idea what is obtainable in real life?

You go ahead and take that gun you have never shot, practice with it, break some clay birds and put some holes in stationary paper targets and then go out into the forest, or someone's back garden, since that is what you, like a city slicker, would image it is like, and then you walk all day trying to jump pheasants (it ain't like walking down city streets), or sit on your ass in below freezing weather; in driving rain or snow; or "push" the thick brush in an old timber harvest site on a steep mountain side to move the deer.  Then take your fucking shot and see if you can knock down your prey.   

What are you going to do if the deer bounds off?  Assume you missed and go on about your quest, or do your duty and finish the job?  How many days are you willing to put into finding that one deer you hit?  While ignoring all others.  Or, are you going to leave it to suffer?  (Hint: if you have to chase a wounded deer through someone's garden, you are a sorry ass that has no idea what you are doing (and you didn't read the post you quoted.)) 

See if you can find a dead or wounded grouse laying in the leaf litter on the forest floor or a pheasant that drops into briars.  See if you can shoot a deer dead before it hits the ground. 

When you do, then you carefully slice open the deer's gut and figure out how to get the entire digestive and reproductive system out without getting any of the cud, chyme or urine on the meat. You reach up into the chest cavity and pull its lungs onto the ground.  You put the edible organs back into the body cavity and you drag a hundred pounds or so of dead meat, with its legs catching on brush and rocks, up and down the mountain sides, back to the car, house or barn.  You hoist it up onto the meat pole, skin it and then saw, slice and wrap the meat into freezer portions.

Then tell me how many points you got for style.

Why do you insist on displaying your ignorance to the world?

You show up In Pennsylvania this November, with your hunting license and firearm.  I will take you to a range.  If you can shoot- fast and on the money, no semi automatics allowed, I will take you on a deer hunt.  You can carry one round, and only one round.  Then you can show me how it is done, or I will introduce you to the most grueling day you will ever experience outside of the armed services.  (Maybe I will make you sleep out there for a few days.  Hope you can carry enough food and water or find what you need along the way.)  If you have a heart attack, or break a leg, don't expect me to drag your ass out.  I will tell the EMS where to find you.  Maybe I will just lose you on top of a plateau in woods that are so big you can't imagine which way to go to get out.  Maybe we will get lucky and it will be a cloudy day.  BTW, moss can grow on every side of the tree.  (No GPS units or cell phones allowed either.  There won't be any cell service anyway.)   Yeah, you show me.   You can pay me for guide services, too.  In advance.   fah

rfordphotos wrote:
That of course has no practical bearing on this conversation....

AND STRICTLY SPEAKING  that continues to demonstrate your ignorance.
At one time or another COLT ALSO chambered its AR 15 in 9mm, .222 Remington, and 7.62 x 39...

EVERYONE reading these posts knows that you know diddly shit about firearms.

Why dont you answer the questions you have been asked?

Stop trying to be some sort of expert about things you are so obviously clueless about.

JSouthworth wrote:
7.62 X 39 is a RUSSIAN round, used in the AK47 and AKM. I could almost believe a 9mm submachine gun variant.

Believe whatever you choose--- we will continue to deal in facts not your ill-informed "beliefs".

MANY American made firearms are chambered for the old 7.62 x 39  Russian military round. Just like the 7×57mm Mauser service round from Germany became a VERY popular hunting round in the US BECAUSE surplus military rounds were plentiful and cheap after both WWi and WWII--- many American guns were offered from the factory in the "foreign" chamberings. The same goes for SURPLUS 7.62 x 39 rounds available from countless ex-Soviet block countries--- not to mention China. I bought sealed surplus tins from Bulgarian, and Russian armories--- just to plink with with a Ruger Ranch rifle. (The Ruger is still in the catalog in 7.62 x 39)

You dont know what you are talking about. You have ZERO practical experience, ZERO personal knowledge about firearms.

Tell us how many guns you have owned---or fired. I am growing more confident EVERY TIME YOU POST the number for both questions is ZERO.

JSouthworth wrote:
My copy of the Gun Digest Treasury cites the 243 Winchester with 100 grain bullet as the smallest suitable cartridge for deer hunting.

First deer I killed with a .243 was with an 85grain spire point--- It was a California blacktail at about 90 yards---.

Ultimately I settled for three "favorite" rifles. A custom .built 257 Roberts Ackley Improved killed more blacktails than any other gun I owned. A heavy barreled "Police Special" Remington Model 700 in .308 did in more mule deer than any other and a Sako in 7mm Remington Mag was my choice for long range mulies or anything larger.

edit to add: I have long since stopped "big game" hunting (deer etc). The woods became too crowded, and I didnt need the meat---. I shot pheasant, grouse, partridge in the wild, when I could, but before I quit altogether I shot game birds on "bird clubs"--planted birds-- to make it a bit more sporting I shot with either a 28ga or a .410 --- l loved watching a good hunting dog work the birds.

JSouthworth wrote:
Getting back to the 5.56mm AR15, the round this fires is sold commercially as the .223 Remington;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

This cartiridge was developed for military purposes and is intermediate in power between the earlier .222 Remingtom and .222 Remington Magnum. All these cartridges are in the same .222/5.56mm calibre despite the designations which are designed to avoid confusion.

The .223 Remington is typically loaded with a bullet of 35 to 75 grains in weight. The weight of the bullet is the issue as far as it's suitability for deer hunting is concerned. If it hits a bone it can be deflected.

My copy of the Gun Digest Treasury cites the 243 Winchester with 100 grain bullet as the smallest suitable cartridge for deer hunting.

Please tell me, if a bullet hits a bone and is deflected. where is the bullet going to go?  Are you saying it will bounce backward?  The term "deflect" implies continued movement, so being stopped dead doesn't count.

If a bullet hits a bone and is deflected by 1 degree, 15 degrees, 45 degrees, does that mean it is not still traveling through the animal?  If it is deflected by a bone on the exit side of the animal, then hasn't the damage to the animal's tissue already been done before the deflection?

You indicate that it is weight which determines if a bullet will deflect off of a bone.  It is more complicated than that.  Bullet type and shape is important.  Velocity is important.  Bone size and density is important.  You should also consider that some bullets will tumble after hitting a denser object.  In the case of a deer or human body, it would make little difference if a bullet failed to penetrate one of the larger bones in the body, but instead tumbled its way through the soft flesh and organs after being deflected. 

The law in Pennsylvania requires .24 caliber or larger.  It does not require a certain bullet weight. 

My current boxes of shells has 150 grain and 180 grain soft cores for the .308 and 30-06 respectively.  Since I don't have an AR-15, I looked on the website of Bass Pro Shops for 5.56x45 ammo to purchase.  The shells are loaded with 55 grain full metal jackets.  Full metal jackets have better penetration and will hold their shape better.  So, even though the bullet is lighter, it will penetrate further.  It will pass through a deer.  One of the draw backs to full metal jackets regarding hunting is that they don't change their shape.  They don't mushroom or expand.  They do minimal damage.  Which is great if you are killing people, but not so much if you are hunting deer.  The idea is to get the deer to the people to eat it.  You don't care where the person dies, as long as they die, or are incapacitated.

The easy fix is to put a heavier bullet and a more appropriate type/shaped bullet in the cartridge.  However, the 55 grain is the commercially available load that I found first. Despite your claim, I personally would not make an effort to stand in front of someone shooting a .243 55 grain fmj in my direction.  Since a 5.56 x 45 is a Remington .223, it is not legal to hunt deer with it in Pennsylvania.  If Pennsylvania would allow a .223 for deer hunting, then there would suddenly be commercially available ammo with hunting projectiles on the cartridges.  A .223 is legal for varmint hunting though. 

"Some basic physics explains why the choice of weapon, or more precisely, the choice of bullet, enabled the suspect, James Hodgkinson, who was killed by law enforcement officers, to wreak so much havoc."

"Projectile weapons work by transferring kinetic energy to a target, which ripples out as a shockwave through tissue as the bullet plows through the body, leaving a cavity in its wake. The amount of energy a bullet radiates into a target is determined by a simple formula taught in high school: It’s the product of one half the projectile’s mass times the square of the velocity. The energy delivered to the target increases geometrically along with increases in mass, and exponentially with increases in velocity. The larger a projectile’s surface area, the greater its ability to transfer its energy to the target, instead of simply penetrating straight through."(1)  Therefore, you should do some calculations and show us the differences.  Though it still isn't going to prove your claim.  I gave you velocities in the footnotes and calculator for determining the energy.  Make a comparison and get back to me.

Congratulations on finding someone that rendered the opinion that a .223 is too small to shoot a deer.  It still doesn't prove your point though, because we don't know if the criteria they used included the fact that a .24 caliber bullet is required by law.   Unless you can back the statement up with science, my personal experience overrides your conjecture.  I also know that human nature is not limited by the one shot, one kill ethos.  A typical guy shooting at a deer or bird will keeping shooting until it drops or is out of sight.  (I hate being in the woods when those guys start shooting.)  They don't care if the thing is hamburger on the hoof.  The goal is to "get it" and you don't know that you got it until it goes down. 

If I was hungry and I wanted to shoot a deer, I would shoot it in the eye from close range with my .22 LR and eat it.  The .22 LR doesn't have the mass or velocity of a .223 and the bullet shape is not ideal.  But it would work, given the right circumstances.

(1) https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physic … 0velocity.
(2) https://www.google.com/search?q=velocit … p;ie=UTF-8
(3) https://www.hornady.com/ammunition/rifl … rontier#!/
(4) https://shooterscalculator.com/bullet-k … energy.php

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
If I was hungry and I wanted to shoot a deer, I would shoot it in the eye from close range with my .22 LR and eat it.  The .22 LR doesn't have the mass or velocity of a .223 and the bullet shape is not ideal.  But it would work, given the right circumstances.

I dont know if it is still true, but a few years back I was told by a Cal Fish and Game officer that they estimated that more California deer were killed illegally with  .22 rimfire cartridges than were taken with legal weapons. .22 Long Rifle rimfires are a poachers favorite... California allows .223 for deer hunting, but ONLY softpoint ammo is allowed. (True for all calibers)  Of course now in California ONLY lead free ammo is allowed for ANY hunting.