|
Post by realhunter on Oct 31, 2014 14:49:35 GMT -5
[/quote]Bows can not shoot but a fifth of the distance of a rifle. Where I live in Indiana it is pretty rural but I can still see roads and houses everywhere I hunt. As for shotguns, they shoot in a rainbow pattern with a much heavier shot and slower velocity. When everyone goes out and buys a 30-30 or etc. and we have bullets bouncing off of frozen ground and traveling through houses, cars, or past your buddy on the other side of the property, we will find out how good of an idea it is to adopt this proposal. There goes any type of trophy hunting. What states do you consider as comparable that has adopted these cartridges?[/quote]
Really... "If we must provide you with data on states that are comparable".
How about you do some research, and provide us with data from standard rifle cartridges "States" that (in your words) have "bullets bouncing off of frozen ground and traveling through houses, cars, or past your buddy on the other side of the property"
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Oct 31, 2014 17:09:48 GMT -5
I understand that you can use all calibers for hunting coyotes, but the number of hunters and the location are limited for coyotes. There are 100x more deer hunters than coyote hunters in the local area. Many hunters in my area are already hunting ILLEGALLY with high-powered rifles during firearms season now. I can name quite a few guys within a mile of where I hunt that have been busted for hunting deer with rifles. I've talked about this rifle proposal to others, only to have them say, "It doesn't make any difference to me. I already hunt with one." The woods are full of rifles --- you just don't see them. I did have two guys trespass where I was hunting once about 15 years ago that were both packing rifles. They even came right up to me and spoke to me, telling me that they almost had a shot at a deer, but the farmer showed up in his truck and spooked it. They weren't ashamed to trespass or poach. You don't think that there are guys out there right now that can't hit crap with a slug? Heck, I'd like to think that they'd be a little better shot with a rifle. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but they certainly can't shoot any worse with a rifle.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Oct 31, 2014 18:07:45 GMT -5
What states do you consider as comparable that has adopted these cartridges? Southern wisconsin was shotgun (slug) only for a long time. 2-3 years ago they dropped it and now the whole state is rifle. I used the bowhunting thing to show that if a person doesn't practice, no matter what they use they will be a poor shot. Don't forget that a projectile that is going at a high velocity is more apt to disintegrate than a slow projectile, reducing the chance of a richocet, not increasing it. I believe there was a study done in Pa. that proved that theory. Allowing the rifle cartridges might bring more women and kids into the sport due to the reduced recoil of a rifle vs a slug gun too, and still allow the same effective hunting range of a full house slug round.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Oct 31, 2014 18:41:56 GMT -5
[/quote]You don't think that there are guys out there right now that can't hit crap with a slug? Heck, I'd like to think that they'd be a little better shot with a rifle. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but they certainly can't shoot any worse with a rifle.[/quote] This is NOT a "rant"..........I don't think. Just, and only, my 2 cents once again. I am in agreement. Some are just naturally good students of proper shooting technique and understand the value of habitual practice while others struggle all their lives to shoot what most consider to be average groups. Some never get over the "buck fever" most experience when first coming into the hunting sports. Some just refuse to spend the time and money to give their shooting abilities a tune up each year. Some don't have an experienced family member or friend to guide them along and there is the (IMHO) the worst of the lot that just don't give a rip and spray slugs in the direction of a deer in hopes of "getting one in it" to slow it down for a killing shot and I'm sure most of you can come up with other examples of hunters doing, or not doing, something that a lot of us feel should be changed. There is a WHOLE bunch of reasons people miss, even when they practice adequately. Misses are compounded in number when people are one of the examples above and, more often than not, and these shooters are taking shots that the odds of them making a "one and done" lethal hit are REAL low, yet they shoot anyway. It's still going to happen. It doesn't matter one lick WHAT their weapon of choice is. If not fully familiar with that particular weapon and loads (or arrows/bolts) chosen to hunt with, gained by dedicated practice at ALL ranges they are willing to take a shot at game, then in reality their shots at game is a "Point, Pull and Pray" method. Like it or not (not, lol) there are TONS of deer shot this way annually. The number of deer shot and lost is one we can only estimate and grieve about. There isn't much any of us can add to all that has been said on this subject. Lots and lots has been brought up, hashed over, beaten to death with the end result being that those that had a certain opinion before such.....still had that same opinion when each had their say, or it seemed to ME that was the ending result of such. Nothing "wrong" with that. Much on any forum involves (hopefully) respectful comparisons of varying opinions. Obvious to me, and I am positive to each of you, each of us CAN find examples of Pro or Con "for instances" on the subject and will offer them as "proof" supporting our own personal opinion. It's human nature for us each to simply "find what we are looking for". If looking for a reason to "prove" rifles are no more, or less, dangerous. There are examples "proving" such is accurate. Those looking for the opposite to support THEIR opinion are ALSO going to find them. All said and done, for anything from BB guns to hand grenades the "SAFETY" of that particular item lays in the hands of the operator. This applies to even every day items such as the vehicles we drive daily. Put an idiot behind the wheel who don't care one way or another and you will have a VERY lethal and therefore UN-safe piece of machinery that WHEN USED AS INTENDED by a person with adequate experience and whom uses a little common sense is capable of being used for decades without incident due to the operators fault. I personally hope and expect the proposal to pass. For ME, and ME ONLY? Yes. I will take a LOT more time looking beyond my target at what lays behind simply BECAUSE I WILL be practicing for, and taking, longer shots than I would DREAM of doing with a slug gun. It is just common sense that tells me that OUT THERE anything that may be in danger of being hit will be HARDER for me to SEE so the time and effort to really LOOK....IS going to be mandatory. I'm confident any of you whom have shot longer distances ALSO exercise this precaution. It would be easy for me to say that this "makes rifles more dangerous".....IN THAT example and is why I deem it mandatory to LOOK and LOOK HARD before shooting. In another situation where there is cover behind a deer at 50 yards, the simple fact remains I CANNOT see what is IN that cover and SLUGS WILL go through a BUNCH of light brush that IN MY OPINION would fragment or at least turn a high speed, lighter, thin jacketed bullet of my choice from a rifle round. I could AS easily say that slugs are MORE dangerous in THAT SITUATION. To prove EITHER is "more dangerous than the other" is impossible. Literally so. As in all shots taken, the terrain and number of people or buildings in the area, the distance of shots taken, amount of light remaining (think of THAT on long shots), all have a plus or minus effect on each "for instance". NO TWO will be identical. ALL safety is going to lay DIRECTLY in OUR use of rifles, JUST like it has been for decades for slug guns, or bows, or cross bows, or handguns........or playing darts at the bar. Regardless of the "tool" in use, someone, some time or another didn't use the SOP safety procedures, or ignored common sense, or used that particular tool for something other than it was intended for and there was an "accident". I've never read about a vehicle being ticketed or that type and model outlawed for use because Joe Blow the local "good time Charlie" crashed it into neighbor Sam's hog lot and killed Sam's prize 4H hog on the way home from the bar. No firearm, regardless of type, has "accidents" any more than a hammer does. If you "hammer" your thumb (or your helpers thumb, LOL)......it is NOT the HAMMER'S fault, be it sledge hammer or tack hammer. There is NO SUCH THING as a "dangerous firearm" but there certainly IS dangerous firearm.....USE, in the field or at home. Just an old man adding his paint to the entire picture is all. No offense intended towards any single person or group. God Bless Steve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 18:49:04 GMT -5
Makes good sense to me, Steve.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Nov 1, 2014 4:13:45 GMT -5
Us older hunters can easily equate this to something that has occurred in the not too distant past. Not so very long ago the advice given to new slug gun hunters was to NOT shoot at deer beyond 75 yards. The, then common, use of smooth bore shotgun barrels and "punkin ball" slugs made even THAT a "long shot" due to the ballistics of such. While the distance a rifled slug gun with today's high speed 3 or 3.5 inch slugs is sensible to use and still be 100 percent lethal is still an on going debate in some forums but for the sake of THIS discussion lets just use 150 yards as MAXIMUM. Regardless of the distance grabbed from a hat, someone "knows someone" who successfully shot a buck beyond that distance but it's just common for an advertisement to list that manufacturer's slug to be shown in "down range efficiency charts". In most cases this ballistic change came from a lighter projectile simply pushed at greater velocities and the result, generally speaking, doubled the effective range that hunters were accustomed to when shooting slugs. PRETTY MUCH the exact same thing has happened in our archery equipment. Lighter projectiles and faster speeds have been the "soup de jour" for hunters ordering new hunting equipment across the board for some time now. In ALL aspects of deer hunting weaponry what we use today is a RADICAL departure from what was commonly used only a few decades ago and their use has greatly increased the ranges even the average hunter can and will shoot, often double the ranges (or more) of when some of us started hunting. The use of common rifle rounds can easily been viewed as just another continuation of that train of thought. While a slightly DIFFERENT type of firearm than generally used, rifles will deliver "lighter projectiles driven at greater velocities" and with this being the above mentioned choice in equipment capabilities for a few decades now, very few are going to not wish to take advantage of, once again, extending their range capabilities. "More range". That single factor has driven more to "upgrade" their deer hunting weapon of choice more than all the other factors added together, at least that is what I have noticed and heard the most from hunters doing so. Centerfire rifle rounds common to the world of hunting are just another step towards what most hunters wish to have..........flatter trajectories. Greater ranges that one can lethally take deer. This is not a "new" concept by any stretch of the imagination for us here in Indiana. What it IS, is perhaps a newly allowed way to do the same thing most have been doing when buying equipment for quite some time. Even WITHIN the world of centerfire rifles, hunters will debate which bullet diameter, at what speeds, with a minimum of a certain ballistic coefficient......"gives them a flatter trajectory" and what is or is not "needed". Should the proposal pass, expect THOSE "discussions" to be gracing our forum as well. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Nov 1, 2014 5:57:47 GMT -5
Hadn't thought about that; no doubt that will be true (or not!)
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Nov 1, 2014 7:03:59 GMT -5
I have a muzzle loader that will consistently out preform my 30/30, but I still want the 30/30 legal. No reason a .358 is and a 30/30 isn't. I'm kinda old school, all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Nov 1, 2014 7:36:31 GMT -5
I have a muzzle loader that will consistently out preform my 30/30, but I still want the 30/30 legal. No reason a .358 is and a 30/30 isn't. I'm kinda old school, all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Nov 1, 2014 7:59:33 GMT -5
Also, remember that hunters have been packing centerfire rifles for deer in many states for the better part of the last century. It's the norm in most places, and Indiana is one of the odd states. When you read about nostalgic deer hunting, what are the hunters carrying? It certainly isn't likely to be a slug gun. People in Indiana act like centerfire rifles are the new big thing, when in reality they've probably killed more deer in the United States than slug guns ever did.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Nov 1, 2014 8:14:42 GMT -5
Same here with my muzzleloader. Data for a 30-06 2340 ft/sec at muzzle, 200.0 yd zeroed, 200g bullet. Range (yd) 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 ------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Bullet Height (in) -1.50 1.58 2.95 2.48 0.00 -4.68 -11.67 -21.20 -33.52 Wind Drift 10.0 mph 0.00 0.20 0.85 1.98 3.63 5.85 8.57 11.87 15.80 Wind Drift @15.0 mph 0.00 0.29 1.27 2.98 5.45 8.77 12.86 17.80 23.71 Wind Drift @20.0 mph 0.00 0.39 1.69 3.97 7.26 11.69 17.14 23.74 31.61 Data for my muzzleloader: 195g MZ FB, 2835 ft/sec at muzzle, 200.0 yd zeroed. Range (yd) 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 ------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Bullet Height (in) -1.50 0.94 2.13 1.89 0.00 -3.82 -9.88 -18.55 -30.31 Wind Drift 10.0 mph 0.00 0.32 1.36 3.16 5.79 9.38 13.99 19.74 26.74 Wind Drift @15.0 mph 0.00 0.49 2.05 4.74 8.68 14.06 20.99 29.60 40.12 Wind Drift @20.0 mph 0.00 0.65 2.73 6.32 11.58 18.75 27.98 39.47 53.49 Wind drift is worse due to the lower BC of the .400" dia bullet than the .308" dia bullet. Muzzleloader at 400 yds, 1557 fps, 1050 fpe 30-06 at 400 yds, 1584 fps, 1114 fpe I can shove the ML bullet around 200 fps faster, but that chart is for the fps where it's the most accurate.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Nov 1, 2014 9:00:35 GMT -5
If it aint broke Dont fix it things are going as Planned as far as management in Indiana and the weapons allowed are just fine IMO
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 1, 2014 10:04:56 GMT -5
If the IT folks get the site done the NRC will start accepting input on their site some time next week..
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Nov 1, 2014 12:15:04 GMT -5
I think it would be just the opposite in regarding to marksmanship. Cheaper ammo *should* mean that they go and practice more. Like I said earlier, Wi. opened up rifle hunting in the southern part of the state with no more accidents than when it was shotgun only. Marksmanship case in point. (as in you can'r fix stupid) Neighbors son. In his 30's, maybe early 40's. EVERY year goes out bowhunting and wounds, not recovering, at LEAST one deer. Last weekend, shot a doe "double lunged her" and she went over 1/2 mile, crossing a 2 lane highway, onto property that he didn't have permission to go onto. Really? A double lung shot and it went over 1/2 mile??? Talked to his dad, who's property he was hunting on, and he said that his son never picked up the bow once since last year. "The sights never changed, so why should it shoot any different?" Bows can not shoot but a fifth of the distance of a rifle. Where I live in Indiana it is pretty rural but I can still see roads and houses everywhere I hunt. As for shotguns, they shoot in a rainbow pattern with a much heavier shot and slower velocity. When everyone goes out and buys a 30-30 or etc. and we have bullets bouncing off of frozen ground and traveling through houses, cars, or past your buddy on the other side of the property, we will find out how good of an idea it is to adopt this proposal. There goes any type of trophy hunting. What states do you consider as comparable that has adopted these cartridges? Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin... to name a few. The vast majority of states have only a minimum caliber restriction.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Nov 1, 2014 12:41:50 GMT -5
If it is going to be a problem it would be happening already with what is legal now.
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Nov 1, 2014 14:24:39 GMT -5
If it is going to be a problem it would be happening already with what is legal now. If this was the case. Why wouldn't a 358 to soooooooooo dangerous? Is there something about this round that I'm missing?
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Nov 1, 2014 15:53:04 GMT -5
Not understanding that one? I have no problem with the 358's
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Nov 1, 2014 16:06:41 GMT -5
All I was saying is. If the 358 is safe in Indiana. I'm pretty sure the 3030's and other center fire HP's would also be just as safe.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 1, 2014 16:15:21 GMT -5
The ONLY dangerous thing about ANY gun is the person shooting it. If they are unsafe then that makes the gun a danger
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Nov 1, 2014 16:17:23 GMT -5
We're actually saying the same thing. Just approaching it from 180 Deg. If a HPR is dangerous in a certain spot then so is what is legal now
|
|