Indiana Hunting regarding Rifles

[Bricball]

I've heard rumors regarding DNR getting ready to allow deer hunting with rifles...Anyone have any ideas on the calibers that they will soon allow? Would love to use my 270win mag or .223

 

[patience0830]

I've heard rumors regarding DNR getting ready to allow deer hunting with rifles...Anyone have any ideas on the calibers that they will soon allow? Would love to use my 270win mag or .223

You new here?

 

[Bricball]

You new here?

new to the forum..yes

 

[Yeah]

I don't see INDNR seeing the light on anything 0.224" any time soon. Their smartest regs are for handguns, and they limit those to 0.243" or bigger.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You can use rifles in certain calibers already even AR15s in .458socom, and handguns in many popular rifle calibers. My own deer gun new this year is actually an AK pistol in 7.62x39 with Remington Corelokt ammo and a red dot sight. I can't wait!

 

[Hookeye]

Rumor has it you can use whatever you want.................LOL





We've been using rifles for a few years in the sporting season, governed by a cartridge spec.
The max has been lengthened from the original spec.

Dunno when or how the spec will next be modified.

 

[Expat]

I currently use a Henry in .45 colt... I wouldn't mind an excuse to buy a 30-30 though. I don't see them allowing any of the "long range" calibers any time soon.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Welcome to INGO!

You can use several handgun cartridges in a rifle, and several rifle cartridges in a pistol for deer during gun season. Check the DNR website page for full details.

 

[Hookeye]

I run a .35 Remington (rifle cartridge) in a rifle.
Do have to trim it some to meet the spec.

 

[patience0830]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/great-outdoors/9472-legal-rifle-cartridges-deer.html

Try this old thread for info.

 

[cedarthicket]

Following is from the online published Hunting Guide for 2013-2014. Regarding cartridges legal in rifles for deer hunting, do not look for ANY changes to be in effect this year (season). Next year there could POSSIBLY be a few changes. We will probably know what DNR PROPOSES sometime this summer. We will have plenty of time to cuss, discuss, debate, and comment on any changes well before any take effect. And, it is possible that there will be no changes for 2015.

Hunting Equipment
Legal Firearms
Shotguns, handguns, rifles with legal cartridges, muzzleloading long guns and muzzleloading handguns are legal during the firearms and special antlerless seasons. Only muzzleloading firearms are legal during the muzzleloader season.

Hunters may carry more than one type of legal firearm when hunting during the firearms and special antlerless seasons only. Shotguns must be 10-, 12-, 16- or 20-gauge or .410 bore loaded with slugs or saboted bullets. Rifled slug barrels are permitted. Combination rifle-shotguns are not allowed.

Muzzleloading firearms must be .44 caliber or larger, loaded with a single bullet of at least .357 caliber. Saboted bullets are allowed, provided the bullet is .357 caliber or larger. A muzzleloading firearm must be capable of being loaded from only the muzzle. Multiple-barrel muzzleloading long guns are allowed.

Rifles with cartridges that fire a bullet of .357-inch diameter or larger; have a minimum case length of 1.16 inches; and have a maximum case length of 1.8 inches are legal to use only during the deer firearms and special antlerless seasons. Some cartridges legal for deer hunting include the .357 Magnum, .38-.40 Winchester, .41 Magnum, .41 Special, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .44-.40 Winchester, .45 Colt, .454 Casull, .458 SOCOM, .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, .50 Action Express, .500 S&W, .460 Smith & Wesson, .450 Bushmaster, and .50 Beowulf.

Handguns, other than muzzleloading, must have a barrel at least 4 inches long and must fire a bullet of .243-inch diameter or larger. The handgun cartridge case, without the bullet, must be at least 1.16 inches long. Full metal-jacketed bullets are not permitted. The handgun must not be a rifle that has a barrel less than 18 inches or be designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder.

Handguns are not permitted on any military areas.

Some handgun cartridges that are legal for deer hunting include .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 Long Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum, .35 Remington and .357 Herrett.

Some handgun cartridges that are illegal for deer hunting are .38 Special, .38 Smith and Wesson, .38 Colt New Police, .38/200, .38 Long Colt, .38 Super, .38 ACP, .38 Colt Auto, .45 ACP, .45 Automatic and .45 Auto Rim. All .25/.20, .32/.20 and .30 carbine ammunition is prohibited.

Muzzleloading handguns are allowed. The muzzleloading handgun must be single shot, .50 caliber or larger, loaded with bullets at least .44 caliber and have a barrel at least 12 inches long, measured from the base of the breech plug excluding tangs and other projections to the end of the barrel, including the muzzle crown.

Carrying Handguns
An individual may carry a handgun while hunting without a license to carry a handgun in accordance with Indiana Code 35-47-2-1 at IN.gov/legislative.

It is not legal to take a deer with a handgun except during the firearms, special antlerless, and muzzleloader seasons and in compliance with DNR regulations.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Would be nice for them to put some clarity around AR pistols. They do legally meet the requirements, but there are a lot of CO's out there that think otherwise.

 

[Hookeye]

AR pistols of .24 cal or larger are legal for deer

 

[jblomenberg16]

AR pistols of .24 cal or larger are legal for deer

I agree...but not all of the IN DNR CO's do. A few of us on the forum have first hand experience with that. In the end we were able to show that they were legal by using the ATF's definition of a "pistol." Hence why it would be nice to see that clearly defined in the code so that legal hunters aren't being wrongfully accused of using illegal equipment. I realize that legal code is written intentionally so that they don't have to call out ever specific possible combination, but the "grey" area in the current wording is open for interpretation.

The line in question in the code is:

The handgun must not be a rifle that has a barrel less than 18 inches or be designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder.

The contention was that an AR pistol could be redesiged to fire from the shoulder since a pistol still uses a buffer tube, even though most AR pistols use a buffer tube that cannot mount a stock. Many of us know the ATF's position on this, but the ATF in this case does not have jurisdiction, the DNR does. In essence the CO was saying it was an SBR, which is not legal to hunt with (ironically he never asked me if I had a tax stamp for an SBR).

 

[avboiler11]

I'd rather the DNR better train conservation offers than have the regulation further "specified".

 

[Hookeye]

So you have to prove your innocence in the field, since the CO thought there might be a violation?

If he/she doesn't know the law to the letter then they should leave you the heck alone.
If not, then meet with an attorney.

Bogus tickets IMHO are harassment and as such should be met with a federal complaint.

It should be:

Research, then ticket..................not the other way around.

And unless 100% sure, then there should be nothing but polite discussion, no hassling of either side.
I'll explain things to anybody, one time.

 

[jblomenberg16]

So you have to prove your innocence in the field, since the CO thought there might be a violation?

If he/she doesn't know the law to the letter then they should leave you the heck alone.
If not, then meet with an attorney.

Bogus tickets IMHO are harassment and as such should be met with a federal complaint.

It should be:

Research, then ticket..................not the other way around.

And unless 100% sure, then there should be nothing but polite discussion, no hassling of either side.
I'll explain things to anybody, one time.

In my case, it was after the fact. I had posted a picture here on INGO of the deer I killed last year with the 300BLK pistol in view in the picture. The CO called me and scheduled a time to meet to discuss a recent deer hunting situation that was brought to his attention. Since I was unaware of any issues (and since we had some problems with trespassing on our property) I agreed to meet with him. Once we met, he asked me about that particular post on the forum, saying he had an anonymous tip that I had used a firearm that was against the regulation and showed me a picture (same one from the forum) of the firearm in question. After verifying that I used it, along with me reciting the rule almost verbatim to him (.243" or greater projectile, case length 1.16" or larger, ballistic tip hunting bullet, etc.) he agreed that I knew the regulation very well, but wasn't sure if the firearm met the regulation given that in his eyes it could be easily modified to be fired from the shoulder.

He didn't write me a ticket, but rather agreed to follow up once he had gotten clarity on the AR pistol. After a week he called me back confirming that the ATF definition for an AR pistol did in fact classify it as a "handgun" according to Indiana code, and I was in the clear. He mentioned that he had a few other individuals that he was also following up on for similar situations.


I will add that he was very professional through the entire situation, and stated that I was not "in trouble" and was free to end the conversation at anytime without consequence. It was a very amicable meeting, and I felt like he was legitimately trying to better understand the 300BLK AR pistol classification. I think we know that in just the last few years have there been viable hunting rounds from an AR pistol (several available for the rifle, such as 458socom, etc.) and more and more folks are hunting with the 300BLK. Because I knew I had done nothing wrong, I was ok with answering his questions, especially in the hopes that it would help add clarity to the situation and hopefully prevent future issues for myself or other hunters.

 

[Hookeye]

IMHO if the CO was truly professional he'd have done his research first.

And that "tip", either somebody else doesn't know the law or..............they do, but tried to stir up crap (for whatever reason).

Whoever did that on INGO needs to take an AD through their jimmies.



Glad it worked out, but I'd have sent the CO a bill for taking "the AR 101 class"

 

[jblomenberg16]

IMHO if the CO was truly professional he'd have done his research first.

And that "tip", either somebody else doesn't know the law or..............they do, but tried to stir up crap (for whatever reason).

Whoever did that on INGO needs to take an AD through their jimmies.



Glad it worked out, but I'd have sent the CO a bill for taking "the AR 101 class"

My thinking is this:

Someone on INGO was trying to stir the pot -OR- someone that isn't a member was viewing the pages (perhaps an "anti") and decided to alert the DNR.

The CO probably new the letter of the code (he commented that I knew it well) and neither of us had a copy in front of us. My bet is that they can't train or study for every possible scenario within the grey area of the code, so this provided a field trip to get more data in situ vs. trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios.

Do I wish that he'd never called and visited? Heck yes...while it had a positive outcome I don't think any of us like to have do go through a situation like that where we know we did nothing wrong, yet have to prove it to Law Enforcement of any type. Do I hope that it also may have put me on the "nice list" with that CO. Yes! Never know when our paths may cross again and I'd much rather him remember me as a reasonable guy and law abiding citizen, than let him speculate if I'd have simply told him to pound sand once he started asking me questions.

As this was my first interaction with law enforcement inwhere I was questioned about something I did that may or may not have been legal (1 speeding ticket 15 years ago and there really wasn't any questioning), I'll be a lot smarter on how I answer questions. I'll admit that I am a bit green (fortunately) and always kinda thought that protocol in any situation was the Miranda Rights, but realized in this case that while he told me I didn't have to answer his questions and could walk away at anytime, it wasn't the usual "right to remain silent....right to attorney" talk I was expecting, so I guess I didn't immediately starting thinking "I need to speak with my attorney before I answer this."

 

[Hookeye]

A pic, with no proof of infraction..............should not have caused a fishing trip.
Eh, maybe he had one too many an energy drink that day.

I trust nobody, badge makes no difference.