2016 centerfire deer rifle push?

[Willie]

Shortening the firearm and muzzleloader season wont fly as a "compromise". The DNR got their rear ends handed to them the last time they tried that. 85% of the deer hunters said "No Way!".

There would be more hunters against CF if that was offered up as package compromise..

 

[jblomenberg16]

I agree. This is the same argument anti-2A folks try to use on handguns and high-capacity magazines. If you want to get into that thought pattern, then you better advocate researching what vehicles they use and make them illegal.

You guys are right...I didn't word my concerns very well. I was hinting at the same argument you make with my "slippery slope" comment. I absolutely agree...Poachers will poach no matter what, just like other criminals will commit crimes with guns in spite of gun control laws. So that wasn't the argument I was trying to make.

What I did a poor job of trying to say is that an unintended consequence could be increased temptation for people to use similar tactics to what poachers do now (such as go out and glass, and shoot from the road or right of way outside of existing laws), or could encourage someone that might not have trespassed poached before, to now take that longer range shot onto private property that they wouldn't have otherwise taken. So I see it as a risk that we need to consider and contemplate in our push as responsible hunters to have more access to more diverse firearms.

I think existing caliber restrictions are a lot like other gun laws...it keeps the honest people honest, and those that break the law will still break the law.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Excellent post.. Along with the other posts that have mention bag limits in regards to population decline.

IMO, the whole thing is just silly. Only in my beloved state of Indiana can one hunt with an unwieldy 338 Lapua Magnum handgun, but God forbid one adds 10" of barrel and a butt stock to make it more controllable. And to think the anti rifle folks were up in arms about "safety". It's laughable at best.

With the current .358/1.8 regs. It took about no time for wildcatters to come up with serious chamberings that fit within the "regs". The 358 Grant 1.8, 358 WSM 1.8, and the like are true magnum chamberings by any definition. Loaded correctly, are capable of taking deer a Loooong way out there.

I agree, and also may not have made that clear in my post. It really makes no sense in terms of "safety" that we can use high power rifle rounds in handgun form only. I think the intent is more about limiting the range at which someone might take a shot as well as also limit the number of hunters, since those willing to invest in a super expensive special purpose hunting handgun are probably a pretty small % of actual hunters.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Speaking of high power handguns...


[video=youtube_share;kv4ZsFTwbwM]http://youtu.be/kv4ZsFTwbwM[/video]

 

[Woobie]

People have different motives for their opinions on this. Associating all opposed to changing the regs as in favor of gun control is wrong.

Are you attempting to correct me, or agree with me? Text lacks inflection, so I'm not sure which you meant.

 

[bwframe]

Are you attempting to correct me, or agree with me? Text lacks inflection, so I'm not sure which you meant.

Calling others anti-gun for a differing opinion is inappropriate.

 

[Woobie]

Calling others anti-gun for a differing opinion is inappropriate.

Well, I didn't aim that comment at anyone in the thread. I was pretty clear in stating that many of the viewpoints stated in this thread were well thought out. But I stand by my statement that a lot of the arguments I hear on this subject do smack of gun control. "Where would all those bullets go?" "Why would anyone need that kind of firepower?" "We can't trust those idiots with that kind of gun!" How is this inaccurate?

 

[bwframe]

Well, I didn't aim that comment at anyone in the thread. I was pretty clear in stating that many of the viewpoints stated in this thread were well thought out. But I stand by my statement that a lot of the arguments I hear on this subject do smack of gun control. "Where would all those bullets go?" "Why would anyone need that kind of firepower?" "We can't trust those idiots with that kind of gun!" How is this inaccurate?

Just because people are scared does not mean they are anti-gun.

 

[cschwanz]

I don't think shortening the season is the answer either. Ohio has a 7-day firearms season and they kill about the same amount we do in 16 days.

Bonus tag numbers should come down, depredation permits should be severely limited if not done away with and (this is going to make me sound like an ******* but...) the Hunters for the Hungry program needs to be altered if not removed. Too many people go out to just kill deer because they like it and then donate it away. At least its getting used that way but it gives people more chance to just kill for the sake of killing.

 

[avboiler11]

Just because people are scared does not mean they are anti-gun.

Would you not admit that "being scared" is an extremely common emotion of anti-gunners?

In this particular instance, I simply cannot comprehend grown men that own guns and hunt animals being "scared" of fellow hunters using modern centerfire rifles for deer, especially when the experiences of other states that allow modern centerfire rifles for deer mythbust all the worst-case scenarios ever presented here.

Either Hoosiers are less ethical, trustworthy, and competent as residents of states that allow MCF rifles...or they're pretty much the same and people are allowing FEAR to drive their reaction.

And would you not admit that "fear" is an extremely common emotion of anti-gunners?

 

[BigMatt]

Just because people are scared does not mean they are anti-gun.

He never said they were anti-gun, he said their arguments sound like a lot of the same ones used by anti-gunners - I agree with him.

There are 4 main arguments that I have hears against the centerfire rifle push:

1) Shotguns are safer than centerfire rifles at long distances. - This is untrue. There have been studies done that show that a shotgun ricochet carries more energy and retains its ballistic properties better than a rifle round.

2) Stupid people will shoot at 500 yards at a brown speck at the other end of a bean field and kill someone. - This doesn't happen in other states, why would it happen here? This is a lot like an anti-gunner argument.

3) People will start glassing and shooting from the road onto other peoples' property. (poaching) - If a poacher is going to break the law and poach on someones' property, why do they need to use a legal hunting cartridge? They are already breaking the law by poaching, why would they not be carrying a 300 Win Mag now? And why would centerfire rifles turn everyone into a poacher that shoots a deer from the road at 600 yards? This is also a lot like an anti-gunner argument.

4) The deer population would decline dramatically - Regulate the deer population with tags. There are counties in Indiana that allow up to 8 bonus antlerless deer. If you want more deer, let me hunt with my great-grandpa's 30-30 and cut the bonus antlerless quota in Johnson county to 7.

 

[bwframe]

Would you not admit that "being scared" is an extremely common emotion of anti-gunners?...

...And would you not admit that "fear" is an extremely common emotion of anti-gunners?

I'm sure you have "common emotion" with all different sort of folks. It doesn't make you one of them.
That's the same "common emotion" as serial killers, I guess you must uhhhh...

You don't have to look very far to find sloppy, irresponsible, dangerous gun handling among some hunters. A lot of other hunters, land owners, CO's and other LEO are exposed to this with frequency. Opinions are developed and yes, we are all painted with broad brushes.

As much as I'd love to hunt deer with my 308's, I'll not try to shame those who don't agree with me into submission with name calling, directly or by association. I would hope that others would choose their wording wisely also. We'll never win the battle playing the "you are anti-gun," because you don't agree with me card.

 

[avboiler11]

NOBODY IS SAYING YOU ARE ANTI GUN.

What people *are* saying, however, is that the arguments you are employing are reminiscent of and eerily similar to those used by anti-gunners.

 

[bwframe]

NOBODY IS SAYING YOU ARE ANTI GUN.

What people *are* saying, however, is that the arguments you are employing are reminiscent of and eerily similar to those used by anti-gunners.

I don't really care what you call me. My reputation is well established. I do get name called by association occasionally here on INGO though. It is fairly commonly used to nullify or shame by those who cannot back their own side of the argument. It's also easily debunked.

What I'm trying to educate you and others is that this sort of tactic is unsuccessful. It alienates friends who think similarly, but may not agree with your specifics. The proof is in the fact that we are even discussing this in a thread that would have never been created had such attempted shaming been successful on it's last attempt.

 

[JimH]

I don't think shortening the season is the answer either. Ohio has a 7-day firearms season and they kill about the same amount we do in 16 days.

Bonus tag numbers should come down, depredation permits should be severely limited if not done away with and (this is going to make me sound like an ******* but...) the Hunters for the Hungry program needs to be altered if not removed. Too many people go out to just kill deer because they like it and then donate it away. At least its getting used that way but it gives people more chance to just kill for the sake of killing.

Nothing in your statement that I would disagree with.

 

[Willie]

I don't think shortening the season is the answer either. Ohio has a 7-day firearms season and they kill about the same amount we do in 16 days.

Bonus tag numbers should come down, depredation permits should be severely limited if not done away with and (this is going to make me sound like an ******* but...) the Hunters for the Hungry program needs to be altered if not removed. Too many people go out to just kill deer because they like it and then donate it away. At least its getting used that way but it gives people more chance to just kill for the sake of killing.

Actually Ohio kills more than we do.

Bonus licenses have come down. 73,287 in 2011 to 24,241 in 2014. People are shying away from them on favor of the "bundle". 62,092 bundles were sold in 2014. Good luck in getting the bundle eliminated. People like it.. a lot...

Nuisance deer permits have been also reduced. The deer reported being killed with nuisance deer permits has held steady at about 2,400. This year that has dropped to about 1,400. An extremely small percentage of the over all harvest.

Hunters Feeding the Hungry will be self regulated as the DNR lowers bonus licenses in counties. Especially when a county drops out of the "special antlerless season". I talked to a rep for them just yesterday as my church receives meat from them for our food pantry. He said donations were slow this year, even though we could be on a record pace.

 

[jblomenberg16]

He never said they were anti-gun, he said their arguments sound like a lot of the same ones used by anti-gunners - I agree with him.

There are 4 main arguments that I have hears against the centerfire rifle push:

1) Shotguns are safer than centerfire rifles at long distances. - This is untrue. There have been studies done that show that a shotgun ricochet carries more energy and retains its ballistic properties better than a rifle round.

2) Stupid people will shoot at 500 yards at a brown speck at the other end of a bean field and kill someone. - This doesn't happen in other states, why would it happen here? This is a lot like an anti-gunner argument.

3) People will start glassing and shooting from the road onto other peoples' property. (poaching) - If a poacher is going to break the law and poach on someones' property, why do they need to use a legal hunting cartridge? They are already breaking the law by poaching, why would they not be carrying a 300 Win Mag now? And why would centerfire rifles turn everyone into a poacher that shoots a deer from the road at 600 yards? This is also a lot like an anti-gunner argument.

4) The deer population would decline dramatically - Regulate the deer population with tags. There are counties in Indiana that allow up to 8 bonus antlerless deer. If you want more deer, let me hunt with my great-grandpa's 30-30 and cut the bonus antlerless quota in Johnson county to 7.

Matt-

W.r.t. #3 (which I had posted originally), you are absolutely correct. My first post was not worded well. Poachers are going to poach with whatever they want to poach with, whenever they want to do it. So I wasn't implying caliber restrictions have any impact on that. What I said that it could do, is increase the number of people that might be willing to try similar techniques. I.e. why sit in a tree all day and freeze my butt off so I can get a good shot, when I can sit in my truck, stay warm and when I see something in the distance, I can take the shot. Said shot could be tempting if it was also on another person's property. While the person didn't set out to poach, having the temptation could drive additional poaching.

Yes, that absolutely sounds like some of the same things anti-gunners blabber. The key difference here is we are not talking about further restricting rights. We are talking about potential consequences of opening up additional rights. We are talking about what we can do to continue to maintain a sport, vs. limiting someone's fundamental right to self defense. The question we should be asking, is will the hunting community, as a whole, be better off if we allow more types of cartridges and firearms to be used for hunting?

The answer is, in my opinion, maybe. I absolutely think opening up additional calibers for centerfire is the right direction. Do we go from where we are today (essentially "pistol" calibers in a rifle) to use anything and everything? I don't think so. But I think there is plenty of room for healthy debate about what the right combination is to maintain a safe hunting environment, healthy deer population, and also maintaining the sporting aspect of it. While many hunters do of course use the meat from their kill, many are hunting as much for the sport of it as they are for the meat.

I think a great example of this is those that chose to hunt the archery season. That takes extreme skill and preparation and is probably the most challenging hunting season we have right now. There are easier way to legally kill deer, but doing it with a bow and arrow is definitely an exciting and probably gratifying way to do it.

I would argue there is more sport involved in needing to be within 200yds to have a reasonable chance of a kill, vs. being able to kill with relative ease from say 500yds. Those of that hunt know that the closer the deer get, the more easy it is for the hunter to spook his prey. And that is why it is a sport, why it is hunting, and not killing.

It is the same logic applied to sport fishing. I can have all the fish I want by dropping a stick of TNT into the water. That's the easy way. Its much harder when I have to cast a lure and trick the fish into biting.

 

[tyrajam]

I'll just leave this article here from Guns Magazine, Nov, 2007 by Holt Bodinson:
The "safe" slug myth: shotgun slugs are required in some areas, but why?
Holt Bodinson

The shotgun slug is less safe and more dangerous in the field than a 150 grain .30-06 bullet or a 50-caliber muzzleloading projectile. Does that statement sound improbable? Conventional wisdom would say so.

I've just finished digesting a 67-page technical report commissioned by the Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee that blows a hole in conventional wisdom and the increasing establishment of shotgun-slug-only zones by state's game agencies.

What prompted the study? A lawsuit involving a hunting accident in which a woman sitting in a car was struck by a stray rifle bullet coupled with increasing sportsmen's opposition to the expansion of shotgun slug and muzzleloading-only zones on the decision of the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

When the professional staff of the Game Commission questioned other states with about their slug policies, they found no state had any definitive safety data to support the decision to restrict zones to shotgun slugs. Quoting from the report, "They found in the shotgun-only states, this appears to be an issue driven by emotion and politics rather than sound scientific data."

The Army Weighs In

The research firm, Mountaintop Technologies, conducted the resulting outside-contracted study. Its prime subcontractor was the US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at the Picatinny Arsenal.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The Picatinny research team used the concept of Surface Danger Zones to compare the relative risk performance of three projectiles: a 150-grain SP fired from a .30-06 with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 fps, a 385-grain, 12-gauge, 50-caliber sabot load with a hollowpoint, semi-spitzer projectile at 1,900 fps and, for the muzzleloaders, a 348-grain, 50-caliber CVA Powerbelt projectile at 1,595 fps.

The March 2007 study looked at the maximum range a projectile would reach at various firing angles of elevation plus the distance the projectile would ricochet after impacting the ground. The data is intriguing.

At a maximum firing angle of elevation of 35-degrees, the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 13,926', 10,378', and 9,197' respectfully. Because of the angle of descent, there are no ricochets.

At a firing angle of 10-degrees, the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 10,004', 7,163' and 6,247' respectfully plus additional ricochet distances of 702', 949' and 913' respectfully.

Ah, but the big surprise comes at 0-degrees of elevation which would be more or less a typical shot at a deer on level terrain. Here the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 1,408', 840', and 686' respectfully plus ricochet distances of 3,427', 4,365', and 3,812' respectfully. Now the total distances traveled by the projectiles are 4,835' for the rifle, 5,205' for the shotgun and 4,498' for the muzzleloader.

"The smaller cross sectional area of the .30-caliber projectile and its shape contributes to a higher loss of energy on impact and, after ricochet, the 30-caliber projectile tends to tumble in flight with a high drag. Test data confirm that the 50-caliber projectile's larger cross sectional area and its shape contribute to less energy loss on shallow angles of impact and, after ricochet, the projectile exhibits less drag which results in a greater total distance traveled.

[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

"It is recommended the Pennsylvania Game Commission address the public perception a shotgun with modern high-velocity ammunition is less risky than centerfire rifles in all circumstances ... Frangible, or reduced ricochet, projectiles for hunting firearms should be investigated as an alternative to the mandatory use of shotguns or muzzleloaders."

Far Reaching

I think the effect of this study may be far reaching and it's why I have covered it in such detail. State game agencies tend to talk to one another and, indeed, tend to copy each other's regulations. It will be interesting to see what impact this study may have on present or future slug-only zones and on shotgun slug design itself.

The answer may be in making the shotgun slug more frangible. Slug design is increasingly taking on the structure and composition of a jacketed bullet. Looking at the design of the new xp3 Winchester, the Hornady SST, and Federal Fusion slugs, it's clear we are already there. They're built like jacketed bullets, and they upset and expand like jacketed bullets. They're the finest rifled shotgun slugs we've ever had plus muzzle velocities keep increasing with every passing year.

I'm sure the major ammunition companies are studying this groundbreaking report from Pennsylvania with keen interest. Knowing them as I do, they will have a solution to slug ricochet problem within months so stay tuned.

COPYRIGHT 2007 Publishers' Development Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale Group

 

[tyrajam]

I'm frustrated by Indiana's rifle hunting laws that are based entirely on emotion. We can go on and on about facts, but unfortunately facts don't trump emotion for most folks when it comes to changing traditions. Daddy and granddaddy hunted with shotguns so we should too. If we want changes, we have to be prepared to make incremental changes to reach the goal. I love the OP's idea of bringing the minimum caliber for rifles to 6mm to make it the same as handguns. Such a small change wouldn't cause too much hand wringing, especially if it was introduces along with a limit on bonus antlerless tags. We need to think long term if we want change. Education and baby steps will get it done.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'm frustrated by Indiana's rifle hunting laws that are based entirely on emotion. We can go on and on about facts, but unfortunately facts don't trump emotion for most folks when it comes to changing traditions. Daddy and granddaddy hunted with shotguns so we should too. If we want changes, we have to be prepared to make incremental changes to reach the goal. I love the OP's idea of bringing the minimum caliber for rifles to 6mm to make it the same as handguns. Such a small change wouldn't cause too much hand wringing, especially if it was introduces along with a limit on bonus antlerless tags. We need to think long term if we want change. Education and baby steps will get it done.

Well said, and I think some of the baby steps were taken when rifles were opened up with pistol calibers. Like you say, start opening up more and more rifle calibers, look at the data, and go from there.