Zumbo fields criticism for disparaging remarks

When Outdoor Life icon Jim Zumbo recently made disparaging remarks toward semi-automatic rifles such as the AK-47, he touched off a powder keg of reaction that cost him many of his major sponsors and much of the high regard with which he was held in the sporting community.

For those unaware of the controversy, Zumbo stated, “(Hunters) don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with (assault rifles), which is an obvious concern.”

Zumbo felt such weapons — generally labeled as “assault” weapons (due more to cosmetic styling than any real functional difference) — in the hands of hunters gave the non-hunting public a sour taste for our sport. He also disparaged these guns’ accuracy.

Apparently he underestimated how many hunters actually like these “black rifles” and how accurate some of them are, as the firestorm that followed was swift and sudden. He was called a traitor by many Second Amendment supporters who felt his words gave ammunition to those who would disarm free Americans, one weapon type at a time.

There certainly is a slippery slope that gun control zealots world-wide would welcome if even one style of currently-legal firearm were suddenly classified as illegal. When banning one semi-automatic gun doesn’t reduce crime (it won’t), the witch-hunt will shift to another make or model.

Some charged Zumbo’s claim that such rifles are inferior for hunting gave gun-haters momentum at a time when their progress was rather stagnant. Apparently some of the guns he questioned also boast good accuracy too.

I will say, though, that I believe Zumbo may be right when he stated the appearance of certain firearms probably does diminish our view in the eyes of many others. While many non-hunters probably accept the visual images of the standard wood-stocked, blued metal barreled used over the last century, I’m not sure the lines of AK-47s and their ilk meet with the same acceptance. Even shotguns are taking on a look that takes some of us veterans time to get used to.

The latest sales flyers for the upcoming turkey season show a myriad of shotgun offerings, almost none of which look much like the popular guns of just 30 years ago.

They had strange stock configurations, many made of polymer instead of wood. Almost every one of them was painted camouflage. Does that make them evil by comparison to the guns I grew up with? Of course not.

Old-timers may remember the indignation met by the release of the Remington Nylon 66 .22 rifle in 1959. That model employed a space-age stock material and was eventually accepted, selling over a million in a 30-year production span.

Young men today tell me they like the new guns because they’re almost indestructible and they think nothing of muddying them up or using them to bust through brush when seeking pheasants. And camouflage is certainly in vogue.

Should we even be concerned about appearances? I admit that if I had my way, all guns would look much like those of yesteryear. Tradition is hard for me to let go of, and I miss the simpler, “earthy” look of hunters and fishermen in times past.

But times have changed, and maybe the old guard, Zumbo included, should accept these space-age guns and even the paramilitary look of the AK-47s. But I feel the now-beleaguered writer does raise an issue that hunters need to be concerned with, and that is our appearance to the general public.