HB1231 passes in house- (Centerfire rifles for deer hunting)

[two70]

Varmint hunters use varmint bullets, are lesser in # than deer hunters and hunt wider areas.
I'm not sure what any of this is a valid against using rifles for deer. 1. There are far more people that shoot varmints as targets of opportunity with whatever rifle and ammo they have at hand than there are dedicated varmint hunters 2. Varmint hunters don't usually hunt out of trees and shoot towards the ground as deer hunters do. 3. Neither casual or dedicated varminters have caused injury to another person while using rifles. 4. Rifle bullets, whether varmint, hunting, FMJ, or solid, tumble and disintegrate quickly after making contact with the ground or a hard object, slugs do not. 5. For that reason, rifles are safer than shotguns shooting slugs and yet we have rarely had safety problems with shotgun slugs.
The fact that I have to keep pointing this out to so many Fudds...............proves that they dont understand rifles or logic as much as they think they do.
And IMHO those are the types who pose the most danger risk when using "regular rifles".
I'm not sure how such irrelevant arguments prove either a lack of understanding of rifles or logic?

My beef with HP rifle usage, is with how it will affect hunting.

We already have folks who think the limit for bonus means they should be able to take that limit, per county............yeah, deer are evenly distributed like that.
Again I'm not sure what your complaint is here, the limits are by county precisely because the deer are not evenly distributed.

To a sportsman, the allowance of HP rifle will not change much.
IMHO the avg deer hunter is no sportsman.
Sure as hell is not a rifleman or really a gun person.

It'll just be bore sighting other stuff the night before the opener.
The people that would treat a rifle like that are the same ones that already depend on a full magazine of slugs from a pump shotgun to bring down a deer. IMO, simply using a rifle with actual sights is a step ahead of using a shotgun with a bead in terms of safety and accuracy, regardless of how well it may or may not be sighted in. Personally, I would prefer a lower volume of better aimed, safer projectiles being used to take deer than the alternative that we have now.

Big ground, private...............might not have any effect, the rule change.
HP rifle is legal, pre hunting season, on nuisance control. But then there's less people doing that.

 

[phatgemi]

The chairperson of that committee is Sen Jean Leising. She is neighbor here in SE Indiana. I just emailed her and encourage all to do so. She is a local farmer and her family is involved in farming.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I guess there are some that are feel the blood will run in the streets, and some concerned it will severely decrease the herd. I don't see either. I don't see how Kentucky has any deer left with all the people using 7mm win mags.

Until 2 or 3 yrs ago Wisconsin had half the state as shotgun only for deer and the other half rifle.

They finally did away with the silly restriction on using a rifle in about 95% of the state. Can't use one in Milwaukee or Dane (Madison) as well as a couple other areas.

Then the amazing thing happened. There were fewer hunting accidents. The deer taken didn't appreciably change but I bet you there were quite a bit fewer deer that were wounded and never recovered.

The whole idea that rifles are more dangerous than shotguns has been studied and debunked.

 

[ben992]

Until 2 or 3 yrs ago Wisconsin had half the state as shotgun only for deer and the other half rifle.

They finally did away with the silly restriction on using a rifle in about 95% of the state. Can't use one in Milwaukee or Dane (Madison) as well as a couple other areas.

Then the amazing thing happened. There were fewer hunting accidents. The deer taken didn't appreciably change but I bet you there were quite a bit fewer deer that were wounded and never recovered.

The whole idea that rifles are more dangerous than shotguns has been studied and debunked.

Yeah, this has been shown numerous times. Facts and logic doesn't play into this debate.

 

[d80hunter]

Until 2 or 3 yrs ago Wisconsin had half the state as shotgun only for deer and the other half rifle.

They finally did away with the silly restriction on using a rifle in about 95% of the state. Can't use one in Milwaukee or Dane (Madison) as well as a couple other areas.

Then the amazing thing happened. There were fewer hunting accidents. The deer taken didn't appreciably change but I bet you there were quite a bit fewer deer that were wounded and never recovered.

The whole idea that rifles are more dangerous than shotguns has been studied and debunked.

I am visiting Wisconsin this weekend and been talking to my relatives about this topic. Wisconsin has seen less accidents since they allowed high powered rifles. They also experienced similar opposition revolving around the same safety concerns, they were wrong.

 

[Leadeye]

Doesn't change anything for me, in my woods 100 yards is the long shot and the 44 mag Marlin works just fine at those ranges.

 

[paperboy]

I would love to use a 243 on the private property I hunt!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Tagging for updates. As I understand it, you can hunt a deer with any sort of firearm you want in Tennessee. They've got flat places and hilly places and no blood in the streets.

 

[Expatriated]

You mean deer hunters' dead bodies arent being stacked up like cord wood? Impossible.

 

[ben992]

Doesn't change anything for me, in my woods 100 yards is the long shot and the 44 mag Marlin works just fine at those ranges.

Thats great and this law can pass and you can continue to use your 44.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I am visiting Wisconsin this weekend and been talking to my relatives about this topic. Wisconsin has seen less accidents since they allowed high powered rifles. They also experienced similar opposition revolving around the same safety concerns, they were wrong.

I deer hunt in WI every year. First time I ever was able to use a rifle was 2-3 years ago. The typical WI hunting scene is much like in Indiana. Mixed wood lots and farm fields. Typical shots are less than 200yds and the vast majority I would guess are less than 100yds.

I took a buck the first year 15 minutes after opening. One shot, right on the spot and deer dropped 5 feet from when I pulled the trigger. It was just under 100yds in the woods. Shotgun I might have dropped it like that but probably not.

Now my brother might be another story. We call him Great Wounder. Every year we are tracking deer he has wounded because he never drops them. With shotgun and now rifle..... Maybe the danger of a gun is the person using it? BTW, my brother lives in NYC.

 

[Hookeye]

My cousin hunted rifle zone in Wisconsin for years.
Gave it up, said shotgun hunting Indiana was better (better deer pop, better weather, better racks).
He did go back with the old tuned 870 I sold him, his rifle hunting relatives thought it something comparable to a M37 deerslayer (old version).
At the range he plopped down at the 100 yd bench and put 3 under 2". They were amazed.
He now runs a .35 Rem trimmed, but when an equip malfunction happened he was headed back for the 870.
It has an exceptional track record of slamming deer to the dirt.

For the 100 yard an in shooting...........rifle or shotgun shouldn't matter. Might even say that to 150.
200+ things give a nod to the rifle (depending on cartridge).

Most folks probably don't shoot well enough to take a 200 yarder from field positions.
Let alone off hand.

FWIW I kill about half my deer from ground hunting. Farthest so far is only 178 yards.
I'd be content to nuke them all at 50.

 

[Paul30]

Thats great and this law can pass and you can continue to use your 44.

I agree, there should be no part of the law that eliminates pistol caliber rifles or handguns as long as they meet the current minimum requirements. It makes perfect since that using a rifle causes the accidents to go down and the deer shot and recovered rather than wounded and die later. Shotguns are not as lethal as a rifle because shot placement matters, and a shotgun is nowhere near as accurate as a rifle. The shotgun slug has been proven to bounce off things and continue to be a lethal projectile when a rifle penetrates and is stopped. A person shooting from a deer blind might skip a shotgun slug off a rock where a rifle would drill into the ground and stay there. I see no reason for a state to require it's residents to buy wildcat rifles to do what every other state does with a common caliber hunting rifle. No one should be required to go buy a 44 caliber rifle to hunt deer when they already own a 3006 that will work just fine. I hope this passes, it will make it much nicer for the hunters who wish to accurately and humanely take deer without dislocating a shoulder.

 

[Hookeye]

I agree, there should be no part of the law that eliminates pistol caliber rifles or handguns as long as they meet the current minimum requirements. It makes perfect since that using a rifle causes the accidents to go down and the deer shot and recovered rather than wounded and die later. Shotguns are not as lethal as a rifle because shot placement matters, and a shotgun is nowhere near as accurate as a rifle. The shotgun slug has been proven to bounce off things and continue to be a lethal projectile when a rifle penetrates and is stopped. A person shooting from a deer blind might skip a shotgun slug off a rock where a rifle would drill into the ground and stay there. I see no reason for a state to require it's residents to buy wildcat rifles to do what every other state does with a common caliber hunting rifle. No one should be required to go buy a 44 caliber rifle to hunt deer when they already own a 3006 that will work just fine. I hope this passes, it will make it much nicer for the hunters who wish to accurately and humanely take deer without dislocating a shoulder.

My W94 Big Bore in .307 couldn't keep all shots on the target at 50 yards.
My 742 carbine (mint) shot 7 or 8" groups at 100 (first cold shot 1" high, next 4 in a decent group- 7" low from cold shot).
'66 Ruger sporter .44 mag isn't a tackdriver by any means.
My smoothbore m500 Mossbergs were sub 4" at 100 yds.
My two tuned 870's with rifled bores shot half of that.

I have seen so many Ef'd up rifles, due to crap scopes, mounts, mixed ammo etc...............there's no dayam way one can honestly say rifles are more accurate than shotguns.

If comparing some iron sighted rifle to a bead sighted shotgun, maybe.........but then if the shotgunner had brains and knew WTH he was doing, that super long (if using a field vent rib bbl) might make for a pretty decent and repeatable sight picture (but slow to get on target).

The only two crap shotguns I had were an 1100 and an 870P. The latter shot with only 1 type of slug, smoothbore............it was not a 100yd rig IMHO, but was tolerable to 75. Of course I pinwheeled my deer, at 25.

Folks might be able to shoot some rifles better than slug shotguns. Maybe better triggers.Possibly better sighting systems.
My guess is that clueless shmucks and or cheapskates with slug guns will be as bad with rifle.

We already allow lesser recoil types of rifles now............so if the slug gunners knew they sucked, they'd already have gravitated to .357 and .44 mag stuff (or other).

PCR type rifles have been legal for some time.

As for .45-70 rifles not currently legal....................that's total BS.
The law is cartridge based, so one can trim .45-70 to legal and run it.

Asking if .44 mags will still be legal? Was that a joke?

Again, there will be lost deer. Dunno if rifles will help or hurt with that. Bad shooting is bad shooting, poor judgement is poor judgement.
See how many .243's come into the local gunshop for boresighting the night before the opener.

I really don't give a flying flip anymore, will just sit back and wait for the b*tch threads in a few yrs.

 

[avboiler11]

there's no dayam way one can honestly say rifles are more accurate than shotguns.

Nonsense.

Take the average slug gun made today, heck let's even make it a dedicated one like a Savage 220. Grab three different types/brands of slugs available on a WallyMart shelf.

Now let us compare it to a Savage 11 Trophy Hunter XP in 308, again using three different types/brands of ammo available at WallyMart.

I'd be willing to bet a C-Note that the average 3 or 5-shot group size of the 308 is appreciably smaller than that from the slug gun, when shot by the same marksman on the same day.

 

[Mgderf]

.....there's no dayam way one can honestly say rifles are more accurate than shotguns...

This single statement illustrates a biased attitude, and intellectually disqualifies your argument.
It shows you have no intent or desire for a discussion of the topic on it's merits.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but facts DO matter...

 

[Willie]

Originally Posted by Hookeye .....there's no dayam way one can honestly say rifles are more accurate than shotguns...

This single statement illustrates a biased attitude, and intellectually disqualifies your argument.
It shows you have no intent or desire for a discussion of the topic on it's merits.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but facts DO matter...

WOW! Just WOW! Agreed....I cant believe that anyone who has been around guns much at all would say that.

 

[mike trible]

But, You just don't understand! If we shoot REAL Deer Rifles like other states, THE SKY WILL FALL!!!!!!

 

[ben992]

I say again, facts and logic haven't played into this discussion. That we are even in this spot having such a discussion is ridiculous.

I'm going to go shoot a squirrel with a .300 Win Mag now, because I can.

 

[Willie]

But, You just don't understand! If we shoot REAL Deer Rifles like other states, THE SKY WILL FALL!!!!!!

True***, the crossbows only brought it down half way...