|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 16, 2014 20:54:02 GMT -5
The DNR GotInput said – “We're also seeking your comments on petitions already received by the Natural Resources Commission and DNR for additional changes. The topics listed below were brought forward for review via citizen petitions. The Division of Fish & Wildlife would like your input on these topics. They do not reflect the opinion or input from Division of Fish & Wildlife staff.”
1.Allow additional rifle cartridges: Such as the .45-70, .30-30, 7.62 x 54, 7.62 x 39, .223, .243 Winchester, .308 Winchester, .270 Winchester; increase the legal cartridge case length allowable for deer hunting to 2.250 inches in order to make the .444 Marlin and .45-70 Government legal to use.
Using the input file from the DNR I did a quick count on the folks giving input on this subject and here is what I came up with:
Against – 173
In favor – 372
In favor on private ground or certain areas – 19
Quite a few wanted to go beyond the “citizen petition” and legalize all center fires. A few also wanted to use an air gun.
So, what is YOUR pleasure on this?
Allow the mentioned calibers
No
Allow all center fires
No Opinion
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 16, 2014 21:13:44 GMT -5
I say allow, even air rifles. There are some pretty big ones out there!! Suppressors are legal to use for hunting, and that would give me a VERY good reason to buy one (CF suppressor).
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 17, 2014 4:23:44 GMT -5
I can't see why the use of cartridges like: .35 Rem., .30-30, 7.62 X 39 m/m, 7 X 57 m/m, .45-70 Springfield, shouldn't be allowed. After all one can use ANY caliber for hunting Coyotes, Groundhogs, and even Squirrels; so why not Deer. Sabot shogun loads & M/Ls currently have more "rifle like" ballistics similar to centerfire rifle calibers, than the old smoothbore foster slug firing shotguns.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Mar 17, 2014 4:27:48 GMT -5
I am, of course in favor of it.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 17, 2014 5:11:46 GMT -5
Heck yeah! No caliber limitations!
|
|
|
Post by featherduster on Mar 17, 2014 5:22:38 GMT -5
Keep things the way they are, with the way urban sprawl is taking up hunting ground I feel that long range guns do not have a place in my part of the state. I also feel that the allowed guns should have sufficient knock down power to clean kill an animal, that being said I feel air rifles have no place in wild free roaming big game hunting.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Mar 17, 2014 5:41:45 GMT -5
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the "proposal" was a mix of options for us to pick and choose and give our input since within it there is more than one option. "1.Allow additional rifle cartridges: Such as the .45-70, .30-30, 7.62 x 54, 7.62 x 39, .223, .243 Winchester, .308 Winchester, .270 Winchester; increase the legal cartridge case length allowable for deer hunting to 2.250 inches in order to make the .444 Marlin and .45-70 Government legal to use." The 270 Win , based on an 06 case..IS NOT under 2.250" but is 2.540". www.saami.org/pubresources/cc_drawings/Rifle/270%20Winchester.pdfWith that in mind I vote for "option 5" where I created a different set of regs all together and were offered just as my opinion including MY reasons and hardly worth posting since it IS only my opinion. There, as here, I offered such as food for thought to throw in the mix. My main point here is just saying that the original offered petition info was a head scratcher for me for the above reasons and why I dumped THAT in the toilet and started from scratch. Basically, my opinion opened up the field (pun intended) to many rounds, most easily accessible yet DID excluded some fine old rounds simply because I did set a length minimum that would exclude the really big boy, super long range rounds such as the Weatherby magnums or rounds developed for and 99 percent used for dangerous game which **I FEEL** have no place in Indiana deer hunting. So, while a great thread......I cannot vote. As always I have absolutely NO intention of giving a "negative" input. My thoughts just run in other directions. (Boy now THERE is an epiphany! Any one remembering any of my posts over the years might have figured that one out already. ) For the record? I am going to be IMMENSELY surprised should the powers that be make a change at all. They, as I am, HAVE TO BE hugely disappointed at the number of sportsmen and women that responded. Such low numbers could easily offer the impression that NOT MANY want a change.......at all. (IMHO) So why make one??? God Bless
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 17, 2014 6:24:11 GMT -5
Keep things the way they are, with the way urban sprawl is taking up hunting ground I feel that long range guns do not have a place in my part of the state. I also feel that the allowed guns should have sufficient knock down power to clean kill an animal, that being said I feel air rifles have no place in wild free roaming big game hunting. You might have a valid point about the urban sprawl factor. When I wrote my post on this thread it was early morning and before my first cup of coffee. You're correct that many parts of Indiana might be considered too flat and highly populated for centerfire rifle use, but still these areas might be fine for using cartridges like: .44 Magnum and current legal PCRs. as well as modern sabot firing shotguns and M/Ls. There are areas in Southeast Indiana that [might] be safe enough to allow at least .35 Remington or .30-30s for hunting Deer. Other cartridges like .444 Marlin, .450 Marlin or even the .243 Winchester could also be safe enough in this hilly country of Indiana, where the Human population is a bit less then say around the Central or Northern part of the State or SW Indiana Counties.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 17, 2014 6:27:05 GMT -5
Heck yeah! No caliber limitations! You might want to reconsider that any bullet under .243 (6 m/m) would be unreliable, for harvesting Deer sized game, for the average "weekend" Hunter.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Mar 17, 2014 6:44:22 GMT -5
I can't see why the use of cartridges like: .35 Rem., .30-30, 7.62 X 39 m/m, 7 X 57 m/m, .45-70 Springfield, shouldn't be allowed. After all one can use ANY caliber for hunting Coyotes, Groundhogs, and even Squirrels; so why not Deer. Sabot shogun loads & M/Ls currently have more "rifle like" ballistics similar to centerfire rifle calibers, than the old smoothbore foster slug firing shotguns. (I was typing this while you posted above and had not seen such yet. ) You and I, my friend, have shared some great PM's so PLEASE do not let this poison the pot between us but I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to this. You make good points BUT......some points to keep in mind. The MINIMUM caliber of said "rifle like" sabot slugs and MLs is? ? There IS a caliber limitation that does limit the ranges of such, ever popular.....agreeably longer range guns. NONE are "300 yard" capable having adequate bullet sectional density and the "excepted by most" 1000 ft/lbs of energy at those ranges. For those unfamiliar with hunting, loading, shooting with centerfires FOR BIG GAME be advised it is an entirely new "ballywick" where most (all?) look at down range effectiveness including energy at given range, as IMHO more importantly the velocity MINIMUM required for your bullet of choice AT that range WILL PERFORM in penetration and expansion. <---- This is going to be scoffed at by many who have known this for decades but my observation with locals that HAVE NOT considered such is that they look at ONE SINGLE FACTOR........trajectory. Yes YOU (not the gun mostly) have to HIT the deer in lethal area...but will the BULLET perform there? (2 cents) BELIEVE ME, and ask within your own hunting acquaintances, my mentioned 300 yard distance will come up within quite a few hunters as "desirable". Keep in mind I am not, in any way, advocating such for the "average" hunter but instead, saying the same average hunter WANTS ONE. As for calibers allowed for varmints.......even DEER for depredation permits? Again, you point is valid but again BUT.........I ask you only to look at the NUMBER of hunters that are in the field at the SAME TIME during firearm season (as well as any one else out and about) and compare that to the number of hunters out hunting coyotes/dep deer..whatever. The numbers of such are not even comparable. AS in many things "dangerous" (driving for example) "the more people doing the same thing in the same area RADICALLY increase the possibility of injury". Put me driving down town INDY (OR the loop around it!!) I'm one DANGEROUS guy. Put me driving down a dirt road without a car in sight and......."we be good". Like the "average Joe Hunter unfamiliar with all the factors...I SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING in high traffic, high speed situations. SO I DON'T. Putting longer range capable rounds in the hands of most IS GOING TO increase the danger factor "some". HOW MUCH we can do so to please those wanting and the DNR WITHOUT endangering the general population and hunters in the field A LOT, regardless of those saying otherwise, IS......one of the determining factors. While you live elsewhere but HAVE hunted here, let me give you a small cross section example of MY hunting are that I feel is "pretty average" in N. IN. I can see, regardless of trees, hills, etc.......AT LEAST a dozen "orange hats" from one of my tree stands. Move me out on the fencerow (where the rifles come into play with more range capability) and that number....doubles. It's the same at my buddy's hunting area. I've sat there counting. Do I want the AVERAGE hunter, who DOES NOT shooting his "deer gun" more than a half dozen times a year before and often TOTAL a year (ask the guys you run into in the gun shop. You'll be flabbergasted),.....400 yards from me? OH H*ll no. In the same breath, even in my rural area, I HAVE 5 homes less than a half mile from my stand......and two roads with steady traffic. Even with the currently legal rounds I have needed to pass up shots due to such. My first buck with my 350JR had to be shot where he was since heading for a "no shot zone" between me and a home. The five does he was with stood 75 yards from me (I have LT license) yet I could not shoot because 125 yards or so on the other side of them was Highway 10. NOT ALL have the same consciousness of "where the bullet will go if I miss" considerations. 2 cents only as always and offered as what we see HERE and where I come from with NEEDED limitations on such. God Bless
|
|
|
Post by parson on Mar 17, 2014 7:08:57 GMT -5
Seems to me that one can use the equivalent of the "big guns" now, if they have the resources to acquire one of the wildcats. I'm not investing in one because, hopefully, I'll be able to use the .243,or .308, or ought-6 that I already have, before too long.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 17, 2014 7:10:28 GMT -5
Like always I will go with "leave it alone".
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 17, 2014 7:55:54 GMT -5
(steve46511 posted): You and I, my friend, have shared some great PM's so PLEASE do not let this poison the pot between us but I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to this.
You make good points BUT......some points to keep in mind.
The MINIMUM caliber of said "rifle like" sabot slugs and MLs is?? There IS a caliber limitation that does limit the ranges of such, ever popular.....agreeably longer range guns. NONE are "300 yard" capable having adequate bullet sectional density and the "excepted by most" 1000 fp/lbs of energy at those ranges. Your saboted shotgun & MLs with their rifled barrels, have ballistics very close to most PCRs, some have even more range/power than some PCRs. I really don't think that a 300 yard firearm is necessary in the State of Indiana, as most such shots would be in the "flat" land part of the State where the "Human" population would be greater, so this 300 yard capable cartridge would be a bit risky in these areas. Most of Indiana is too flat.For those unfamiliar with hunting, loading, shooting with centerfires FOR BIG GAME be advised it is an entirely new "ballywick" where most (all?) look at down range effectiveness including energy at given range, as IMHO more importantly the velocity MINIMUM required for your bullet of choice AT that range WILL PERFORM in penetration and expansion? <---- This is going to be scoffed at by many who have known this for decades but my observation with locals that HAVE NOT considered such is that they look at ONE SINGLE FACTOR........trajectory. Yes YOU (not the gun mostly) have to HIT the deer in lethal area...but will the BULLET perform there? (2 cents)
Most of the legal centerfire cartridges (including the wildcat loads like the .358 Hoosier) have more than enough power to harvest a Deer at a "PROPER" Deer hunting range which would be, in most cases, < 100 yards. Shot placement is very important with any cartridge to bring a Deer sized game animal down. However, everyone who hunts should KNOW HIS/HER rifles capability and most important have enough knowledge of their chosen weapon.BELIEVE ME, and ask within your own hunting acquaintances, my mentioned 300 yard distance will come up within quite a few hunters as "desirable". Keep in mind I am not, in any way, advocating such for the "average" hunter but instead, saying the same average hunter WANTS ONE. The average Deer Hunter may desire a cartridge, with your 300 yard capability, but in reality this type of cartridge is really not needed in the State of Indiana. Most Deer are harvested well within the 100 yard range. As for calibers allowed for varmints.......even DEER for depredation permits? Again, you point is valid but again BUT.........I ask you only to look at the NUMBER of hunters that are in the field at the SAME TIME during firearm season (as well as any one else out and about) and compare that to the number of hunters out hunting coyotes/dep deer..whatever. The numbers of such are not even comparable.
I am uncertain as to the number of Varmint Hunter are out during Deer season using varmint rifles of .243 or less for hunting their chosen Varmint Species. I can conclude that very few Varmint Hunters are out and about hunting varmints during Deer Season.AS is many things "dangerous" (driving for example) "the more people doing the same thing in the same area RADICALLY increase the possibility of injury".
I would imagine that the same danger factor would be less (with firearms) when used by mature Hunters, who know the potential danger if a firearm is misused or that "questionable" shot are taken with out proper consideration as to where a stray bullet might land. I see drivers lots-of-times, I drive into town, that take foolish chances while driving, like passing on a curve, driving without lights on during a foggy day.Put me driving down town INDY (OR the loop around it!!) I'm one DANGEROUS guy. Put me driving down a dirt road without a car in sight and......."we be good".
Putting longer range capable rounds in the hands of most IS GOING TO increase the danger factor "some". HOW MUCH we can do so to please those wanting and the DNR WITHOUT endangering the general population and hunters in the field A LOT, regardless of those saying otherwise, IS......one of the determining factors.
Personally, I try to avoid driving in areas where the traffic is heavy as you never know what is in the mind of the other drivers. I have the same opinion in areas that are full of would-be Hunters. Again, Human population levels, change how a person is going to evaluate any area whether it is driving or hunting. While you live elsewhere but HAVE hunted here, let me give you a small cross section example of MY hunting are that I feel is "pretty average" in N. IN.
Northern Indiana is FLAT, I have a Sister living near Northern Indiana and it is "flat as a pancake". When I lived in Indiana; my hunting was confined to SW Indiana. I've hunted in Daviess, Pike, Posey, Warrick, Vanderburgh, Perry, and Martin counties. While these Counties are a bit more hilly than Northern Indiana, they are still "flat" compared to where I live here in Kentucky.I can see, regardless of trees, hills, etc.......AT LEAST a dozen "orange hats" from one of my tree stands. Move me out on the fencerow (where the rifles come into play with more range capability) and that number....doubles. It's the same at my buddy's hunting area. I've sat there counting.
In my area, there are very few Hunters, as my Neighbors don't allow any other Hunters outside their family members. So issues of competing with other Hunters is nonexistent, and all Neighbors know where other Neighbors will be Hunting.Do I want the AVERAGE hunter, who DOES NOT shooting his "deer gun" more than a half dozen times a year before and often TOTAL a year (ask the guys you run into in the gun shop. You'll be flabbergasted),.....400 yards from me? OH H*ll no. In the same breath, even in my rural area, I HAVE 5 homes less than a half mile from my stand......and two roads with steady traffic. Good point, which I am in complete agreement with you.
Hope this answers all your questions and points.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Mar 17, 2014 8:03:41 GMT -5
Seems to me that one can use the equivalent of the "big guns" now, if they have the resources to acquire one of the wildcats. I'm not investing in one because, hopefully, I'll be able to use the .243,or .308, or ought-6 that I already have, before too long. The bold underlined section of your post is about 90 percent of the reason I invest my time within this subject both to the DNR and to the gang here. Cost. Within those that I discuss deer hunting with locally, at least HALF that voice an opinion, desire to use a centerfire rifle (and rifle round) 1. Of course because of an over all (but debatable for some) increase in range but for the most part 2. Less recoil. (let's face it the ever heralded 3 inch HV slugs...HURT!!. Forget having your 12 year old shoot your bird gun for deer.........OR ME. Did that one year. NO THANKS. A 458 Win is MUCH more fun to shoot! ) 3. Reloading capabilities, aka "cheaper" rounds in a run of the mill SPS or whatever rifle they can pick up USED, and reasonable for this year and many to come. If they don't reload now (not a lot do anymore) they know some one that will do so for them. The least costly of all is to use your old time bird gun with foster slugs. I'm here to tell you that still works......within range. Some will still stick with such STILL due to cost even if the average 308 type rounds are allowed. Heck, I know some that CAR POOL to their hunting areas due to cost of gas. Extreme you say? Let me give you a small example...my situation. It's 7 miles to my hunting area. I give thanks for THAT. ONE gallon of gas there and back in my beater Jimmy. I hunt. I hunt a lot when wind conditions allow to do so. If the "other guys" are not there. I hunt. I get little time there without others in the woods. Hunt morning and evening, 2 gallons a day. 7 Plus bucks a day. Don't sound like much, eh? 3 (lousy) days a week, 3 months x 7 bucks I push 300 dollars a season....in gas alone. Almost ALL I know that deer hunt drive further than I do. Some much, MUCH further......but do it less than they used to for the same reason. Over the past year or two I've talked to a few that would "like to get into deer hunting" and knew me or knew OF me and asked, politely, if I would offer assistance. Of course, I gladly agreed to. A few changed their minds figuring it all out before hand, a couple figured it out after a single season. They, like myself, are somewhat of a different breed than many of the deer hunters today (but NOT of yesterday!!) 80 or more percent of the REASON to start hunting......was meat for most, but being a life long hunter I REFUSE to give up. The experience, is the icing on the cake...or mushroom sauce on the venison? Most know of my "situation". Let me be clear that I am NOT alone, by any stretch. I have several long time friends who stopped deer hunting. While "access" was the biggest deterrent.... the COST was the straw that broke the camel's back. Within those families the future of hunting lost multiple possible young additions as well as those whom have walked our fields for decades. The "almighty dollar" is culling OUR OWN "herd" in an EVER increasing rate through leases (access), tag fees ammo cost, firearm cost (or bows!) and cost of processing for the "average Joe" and let us not forget transportation costs. While NOTHING wrong with "sport hunting" I only wish to make all aware that such is rapidly becoming the ONLY reason people hunt. Such, in my lifetime within my family and friends, for generations......was not the case. Sorry for spreading the topic a little broad but cost IS one of the reasons some "would like to try" a used centerfire of factory chambering. All, of course...is my observations and IMHO. Last year was my first of hopefully many seasons hunting while "retired". I had never dreamed the very first year to include days I could not go deer hunting.....because I had used up my funds allowed for gasoline for the month. God Bless
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Mar 17, 2014 8:05:47 GMT -5
I would be happy with the 2.250. Wouldn't shorten any more 444's or 4570's.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Mar 17, 2014 8:21:09 GMT -5
"The average Deer Hunter may desire a cartridge, with your 300 yard capability, but in reality this type of cartridge is really not needed in the State of Indiana. Most Deer are harvested well within the 100 yard range." ABSOLUTELY TRUE, drs! Only time will tell us if that changes a bit over the years with more and more using rifles and totally agree that the majority will remain under 100 yards. That said, as I posted previously, "ask the locals" about desires (the MAIN reason people buy anything). Should we stick with what is "needed" in firearms and base it upon the <100 yard "needed" range......rifles would not be in the mix at all with the majority of shotguns being annually used to take deer at that range......for decades. Needed or not, my point only reflects upon what people WANT. You and I will agree that 100 yards is "enough" for the bulk of us. 99 deer brown and down for me "so far". 8 have been past 100 yards (and none with a rifle past 100 for me but buddy does annually. ) 90 percent (or more?) of deer taken with archery equipment (of any kind) remains less than 20 yards. How far do most SET their sights for? Just another example of similar "desires". I did send you a PM on part of your reply for clarification. Thanks for replying! God Bless
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Mar 17, 2014 8:42:31 GMT -5
I would be happy with the 2.250. Wouldn't shorten any more 444's or 4570's. Looking at a viewpoint of "calibers for the average Joe" only......allow me to expand upon this please. I totally understand those wanting to use "their" rifles of choice without adaptation but let us look at what ELSE would be included if ONLY the 2.25 length is chosen. All the Remington short action magnums and all the Winchester short magnums are shorter than this length. Worthy of mention but less accessible to the average Joe is the 350 Remington magnum 6.5 Remington magnum and 284 Winchester, 6.5x284 (A SCREAMER THERE BUDDY) ALL of which have a higher case capacity of any of the 30-06 (270 Win, 280 Rem, 35 Whelen) family with faster capabilities with the 284 family the only exception with slightly less CAPACITY but MORE velocity and range anyway. Trajectory wise they will meet, OR BEAT, and at least come close to MANY of the even bigger round's trajectories. If "okaying" this length alone, we might as well pull the plug on limitations other than the minimum bore and minimum length as set now for handguns and forget about max length.Few general hunting rounds have longer range capabilities. 2 cents God Bless
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 17, 2014 9:54:22 GMT -5
Length and diameter of case designation has created a mess. The ONLY way to straighten it out so everyone can understand it is either go to straight wall ONLY or Full Monty center fires.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Mar 17, 2014 10:14:51 GMT -5
If were at the point where we were discussing rifle rounds for use for the very first time, I would have preferred that the state just list the legal rounds. Sadly the wildcats would not have come to be but, all in all, year to year, it would be more easily understood for all and the state could add (if such was to change) additional rounds as they desired.
Trying to jump back would be a horrible disaster and while full blown opening up the list to all? I just cant see it happening.
However, if you had told me 10 years ago that some day I would hunt deer in Indiana with a centerfire at ALL, I would have laughed in your face. That said I do realize I could be incorrect on what is coming.
God Bless
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Mar 17, 2014 10:21:48 GMT -5
Length and diameter of case designation has created a mess. The ONLY way to straighten it out so everyone can understand it is either go to straight wall ONLY or Full Monty center fires. That's ok also. My 4570 would still be good to go.
|
|