The history of deer hunting firearms in Indiana

[Kirk Freeman]

Don't care about studies.

Then how are we to formulate policy if science is not central to any policy?

Hunches? Feelings?

The Pennsylvania study shows that shotgun slugs are more dangerous than centerfire rifle bullets. If we are going to have safety problems it would be with shotgun slugs. What problems have we had with shotgun slugs? Negligent shootings? Property destruction?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The science disproving that "shotguns are safer" is finally bubbling up to the popular media. Heck, it even made NRA's The American Hunter recently.

Are Shotguns Safer than Rifles?

 

[Broom_jm]

If guys want to argue that continuing to disallow centerfire rifles will keep the deer population high and prevent hunters from shooting big bucks at longer ranges...I can buy both of those arguments. The "safety shield" just doesn't wash. The data, both scientific and anecdotal (studies and results in similar states) prove that traditional rifles are no more dangerous than shotgun slugs or muzzle-loader sabots. In this case, the statistics are very clear. The DNR persists with their short-to-medium-range mantra largely out of tradition and resistance to change. Sadly, many "seasoned" Hoosier hunters gulp down the Kool Aid and help keep things as they are, simply because they fear the alternative. It is my hope that knowledge and information continue to alleviate that particular ailment.

 

[45fan]

I am not crazy about the idea of the 7.62x39 as a hunting cartridge... Many of the rifles that fire it are not the most terribly accurate things known to man. Even if things like 308 and 30-06 are legalized for deer. I would still want 7.62x39 banned.

A poor marksman could miss a barn by a mile even with a bench rest rifle...

Sounds to me like the 7.62x39 caliber rifles you have encountered were either sub-par, or the operator behind the trigger was lacking in skill. I own two different rifles in that chambering, both of them capable of 6-8" groups without any serious effort out to 200 yards. (past the distance that I would feel comfortable with deer sized game in a cartridge of this power level)

 

[Broom_jm]

Load up an accurate 7.62x39 rifle with 125gr Ballistic Tip bullets. Shoot deer out to 200 yards or so. Presuming reasonable bullet placement, these will kill whitetail deer with the same authority as the venerable 30/30. Anyone who doesn't understand this simply doesn't appreciate what this round is capable of, from an accurate gun.

This round, like the 30/30, actually meets the spirit of the Indiana regulations. It's one of many they could legalize and not even create the appearance of "danger" from long-range cartridges.

 

[6mm Shoot]

Here around Rising Sun. I see deer in the corn fields and in the woods at the house.

I can understand hunters wanting to use a 243 Winchester or 308 Winchester to take deer in the corn fields. Your odds are better with them than say a 44mag or 12 gag.

There are a lot of hunters that don't have the cash to spend on a custom built rifle in one of the wild cat calibers.

I don't feel that a 300 Winchester mag is needed to take deer at long range. If all rifle calibers are allowed some one will be using one. I see a lot of problems with that. Down off of 56 or 156 you shoot in the corn fields toward the river you will have no back stop other than the bank of the river on the other side. I see a problem with that.

I had a 300 Weatherby Mag that my dad gave me after he had a heart attack. He had bought it for a bear hunt up North. I have shot it and know how much stuff that thing will shoot through. It is a beast and I don't think it has any use in Ohio, Indiana or Kentucky. There is nothing that takes that kind of power to kill that lives around here.

If they change the rules to any rifle calibers there will be trouble because people will use the biggest and baddest thing they can find. I would say that we have to have some sort of restrictions.

Hay, I would be glad if they would just let me use my 358 Winchester.

 

[Broom_jm]

Much has been made over the years about the various "power" levels of common, centerfire rifle cartridges. The facts are really quite different, when you dig deep into the numbers and science of the matter. Whether it's well-constructed, heavy-for-caliber .224" bullets from rounds like the 22-250 and 220 Swift, all the way up to heavy solids from a 460 Weatherby, the effective range of these cartridges simply doesn't vary all that much.

On a more realistic note, the differences between rounds like the 243 Win and 300 Win Mag are hair-splitting at its finest. The maximum point-blank range (PBR) for both is between 300 and 350 yards, using common bullet weights and velocities. Actually, when analyzing these two, specific rounds, the PBR is 339 yards for the 243 Win and 345 yards for a typical 300WM. From this perspective, neither is more "dangerous".

Now, the 300WM has more bullet mass and energy, but here's the thing: If a person is accidentally shot with a bullet from either cartridge, they're going to be wounded or killed. That means you have to be CAREFUL with either round. And just to keep things in perspective, the max PBR of the 358 Winchester, with a 225gr bullet, is 283 yards...less than 50 yards different than the 300WM "beast".

Safe hunters make for safe discharging of firearms. The cartridges allowed do not define safety. When was the last time someone was shot by a hunter in Indiana, whether by an accidental long-range discharge or by a miss or pass-through? Go back and understand WHY short-range cartridges were originally allowed for Indiana...it wasn't about "safety" back then and it's mostly about inertia, now.

 

[Hookeye]

Copy snip

Safe hunters make for safe discharging of firearms. The cartridges allowed do not define safety.

...................

Maybe not by bullet alone. But by platform?

You can put your faith in rifles, but not in people.

Allow any HP rifle and the stupid will increase.

Those who employ HP cartridges in handguns are not your average hunter. Those types of platforms limit the types of shots one might take.
LER scopes suck for quick deployment and it's very unlikely that some rube tooling down the road is gonna jump out and peel a shot at a trotting buck at 300 yards with one.

Teens/other morons with an SKS or gramps' Winchester 670?

 

[Hookeye]

Maybe the initial reason for the regs was based on knowing how people behave, just given some possibly incorrect (then or now) ballistic excuse to satisfy John Q Public.

 

[Hookeye]

IMHO, under current regs, or even before they allowed handguns (where rifle cartridges came into general use), we had/have enough morons screwing things up.

Work in a gunshop and see the brainpower behind the average deer hunter.

How these people have jobs, get to work every day...........is beyond me. Low/middle/even upper class. There are a lot of stupid people out there.

And........... dumb guy A meets stupid woman B and the result is exponentially jacked up kid C.

Indiana genetics sucks.

 

[Broom_jm]

I will go on record as stating that I'm in favor of the LEAST restrictive regulations that allow law-abiding and conscientious hunters to pursue deer with rifles. I do not support regulations that are written to account for the lowest common denominator. That type of logic, taken to extremes, would have us all hunting with flintlocks and long bows. At the very least it would eliminate the use of ANY repeating firearm.

No, I think more of Hoosier hunters than that. I have 3 teenage children and I expect a lot from them. They are neither irresponsible, nor moronic. Let's raise the standard, as has already been done by hunter education efforts. I do not believe the solution to any perceived threat is restricting lawful use of...well, ANYTHING. It's time to realize that the laws in place were put there to protect a deer herd in its infancy and that it never was about safety. Let common sense rule the day, not talking heads in the State house. We need fewer laws, fewer govt. regulations and greater accountability for what is already on the books.

Indiana has taken steps to increase the availability of lighter-recoiling RIFLES for hunting. Before you dismiss conventional centerfire cartridges entirely, ask yourself these two questions:

Why did Indiana allow PCR cartridges?

Why did they extend the regulations from 1.625" to 1.800"?

Once you understand the answer to those two questions...you will not be able to defend the logic of safety. Hint: The 460S&W is the answer to the 2nd question and it has the same effective range as the 30/30, 35 Remington and is darn close to the 358 Winchester, along with a HOST of other "powerful" centerfire cartridges.

No, the regulations didn't begin because of safety and they're not being perpetuated because of safety. You can tell yourself they are there to protect us from morons, but how is a cerebrally challenged hunter with an AR in 450BM any less dangerous than an "idiot" with an SKS? Same rate of fire...same effective range. If anything, the 450BM would be MORE dangerous, but it's not. A firearm is never any more, or less, dangerous than the person shooting it. This is basic 2nd Amendment stuff, guys.

It's time to THINK and stop towing the line. If the PCR regulations have taught us anything, it's that we CAN move forward without compromising safety. Maybe Indiana is wise to take it slow and see what happens. Hopefully logic and education gradually overcomes inertia and ignorance. THAT is the key to our future, and it always has been in this great country!

 

[Hookeye]

We forum guys, who live/eat/breathe guns/hunting.........we are NOT the average.

 

[Hookeye]

Funny, how you have here and other threads, called Hoosiers pretty much stupid, but think that if given the option of a "regular" rifle they become suddenly safe and smart.

 

[Broom_jm]

If I have ever said anything, in any thread, that seemed to imply that Hoosiers are "stupid", I was out of line. I don't believe I've done so and would very much like to keep this thread free of any personal attacks.

I have said the regulations are stupid and that inertia and ignorance in the Statehouse is the main reason we are stuck with these ridiculous rules. I stand by that. Try explaining our regulations to anybody outside of Indiana and see what kind of looks you get.

This thread is about the history of legal firearms for deer hunting in Indiana. Some folks adhere closely to tradition, which is tied to history. The important point that I'm trying to highlight is that the tradition of short to medium-range cartridge regulations in Indiana came about to protect a small, but growing deer herd...not to protect people. That is the salient point in this thread. If you want to debate that point, I'm glad to hear your side of things.

What I won't do is engage in name-calling or accuse other people of being stupid, moronic or dangerous. The vast majority of Hoosier hunters I've had the pleasure of meeting are intelligent and careful about how they handle guns. If your experience is different, and that's why you don't feel common centerfire cartridges should be allowed, I truly do respect your right to offer up your thoughts and opinions. Let's just agree to do so without impugning anyone's character, OK?

 

[cedarthicket]

Broom_jm, thanks for the very interesting thread. At the risk of some repetition I will add a few comments:

Indiana, and perhaps some other states, has a history of GRADUALLY liberalizing some of its deer hunting regulations. For example, it took several years of people requesting it before IDNR allowed certain center-fire handguns to be used to take a deer. I believe 1986 was the first year and the criteria were minimum bullet diameter of .357 inches, minimum case length of 1.16 inches (no maximum), and minimum barrel length of 4 inches. If I recall correctly, 10 years later, in 1996, the rule was changed to allow a minimum bullet diameter of .243 inches and the other criteria were unchanged. By then handgun hunters had a track record of safety, they did not exist in "overwhelming" numbers, they had general public acceptance, and they did not take an exorbitant number of deer each season. And, as far as I know, very few would rant and rave for a separate season from the other firearm season (shotgun and muzzle loader) hunters.

I believe so-called PCR rifles were first allowed in 2007. The rule specified cartridges with a minimum bullet diameter of .357 inches, minimum case length of 1.16 inches, and maximum case length of 1.625 inches. Five years later (2012) the rule was changed to allow cartridges with a maximum case length of 1.800 inches. Again, PCR users had a track record of 5 years of safety, they did not exist in “overwhelming” numbers, they had general public acceptance, they did not take an exorbitant number of deer, and they gladly shared the firearm deer season with other hunters using shotguns, handguns, and muzzle loaders.

So, if you want most center-fire rifle cartridges legal for deer hunting you may eventually get your wish. However, be prepared to wait several more years. And, be prepared for perhaps another GRADUAL change in that direction before your wish finally comes true. This is just my humble opinion.

 

[Broom_jm]

Thanks for adding that solid bit of perspective and history to the thread, CT. It's true that the regulations have gradually evolved, with hunter numbers increasing and safety not being compromised. As I said before, if the Indiana DNR is going to err on the side of caution, I can support that, although I do believe most of Indiana could be hunted with conventional rifle cartridges and not be "dangerous".