Indiana To Change Deer Rifle Laws

[hoosieroutdoorsman]

On February 13,2007 The IDNR will be holding a open to discuss the change in current policy to allow the use of rifles for deer hunting. The rifles will have to be able to fire handgun rounds larger than .357 .
Indiana has always been against the use of rifles for deer hunting but after receiving many requests and complaints of being able to predator hunt with rifles but not deer hunt has decided to hold the open hearing to ammend the changes.

[410]

LEAVE things the way they are. I think it will be a big mistake to do this.

[anon782010]

How many people are hunting coyotes with handgun rounds? Anyone? No. Its the first step of several...politics at work...don't see how this one is gonna go...

[QuailDancer]

In addition to the proposed rule change allowing pistol cartridge rifles for deer hunting is allowing youth hunters to be exempt from the HIP program.

All of us are aware of the shortcomings in obtaining accurate information on our wildlife populations. Although the HIP program is far from perfect, it is at least a fair attempt to gain harvest information on migratory birds taken by hunters. The HIP program is inexpensive, easy to use as making a phone call. This proposed change makes no sense to me, I believe our youth should be encouraged to take full part in the HIP program and learn those lessons early to become ethical, responsible hunters.

Regardless of how you feel personally regarding the use of rifles for deer hunting or the HIP program, I’d urge those who may not attend the meeting, like myself, to send a quick email to the powers that be in effort to make your opinions known. We all have a stake in these outcomes.

Make your comments at http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/about/ (http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/about/) or jkane@nrc.in.gov (jkane@nrc.in.gov) it only take a brief moment of your time.

[tinyt]

LEAVE things the way they are. I think it will be a big mistake to do this.

YES

[anon782010]

Quail, thanks for the e-mail link, I sent my 3 and half cents worth just now.

[cjones46]

this has got to be one of the most unnecessary changes I have ever seen...
I'm waiting for someone to tell me why this is absolutely necessary. I don't see too many folks on this site that had any problems killing deer with a shotgun or m/l this year. Someone please enlighten me as to why we need to make this change??? :mad::mad::mad:

[mason]

i dont know what to think, except maybe the door will be left open in the future for bigger rifles. but with the striaght wall shells what is the difference in performance with the new inlines?

[fordgo6]

Trajectory, and with any muzzleloader, ONE SHOT. If you have a single shot you are more apt to take your time and aim at a spot and make it count. With a rifle, you may hurry your shot and shoot several times at a running deer, and some hunters don't pay attention to whats beyond the deer. By the way, how many cartridges do these rifles carry? Some might say the performance is the same as a modern in-line muzzleloader, OK, so why do we need these rifles then? My 2 cents and no offense to you Mason.

[Arrowmaster]

Im definetly against it...

[jackc99]

Regarding the HIP:

The reason is that the free hunting week-end for kids means they don't need a license to shoot doves. No license, no HIP number. It's merely a way to avoid a computer problem. The number of kids this will affect is in the hundreds not thousands and should be passed to help hunter recruitment. If they go any week-end other than the free one they will have to have a license anyway and hence get a HIP number.

Regarding the pistol cartridge rifles:

Many in this state feel that since the ballistics of the pistol cartridges are the same or less than many of the modern in-line muzzleloaders that the "cowboy guns" should be allowed. I have no opinion one way or the other but this is a very divisive subject on 2 of the other Indiana boards. Been hunting with T/C Renegade .54 caliber for 30 seasons now. I see no reason for the change but I won't oppose it.

Jack

[Indianahunter]

LEAVE things the way they are. I think it will be a big mistake to do this.


Why?

[Tine Lock]

The current laws in place and OBR are working great for us right now. So why take a chance at ruining it?

[Indianahunter]

Trajectory, and with any muzzleloader, ONE SHOT. If you have a single shot you are more apt to take your time and aim at a spot and make it count. With a rifle, you may hurry your shot and shoot several times at a running deer, and some hunters don't pay attention to whats beyond the deer. By the way, how many cartridges do these rifles carry? Some might say the performance is the same as a modern in-line muzzleloader, OK, so why do we need these rifles then? My 2 cents and no offense to you Mason.

So, lets limit the number of shells an 870 or 1100 can hold!

[JL]

So, lets limit the number of shells an 870 or 1100 can hold!

I'm all for it!

[scrapewatcher]

So, lets limit the number of shells an 870 or 1100 can hold! i'm all for that.

[anon782010]

i'm all for that.


Me too...

Limit the shotguns, don't expand the rifles...

I just met a guy with a lever action .44 that rifle held 11 shots, dont tell me you couldnt hustle 11 shots out of that thing in 25 seconds...

Lee Harvey pulled that ratio out of a bolt action after all...

[goggleye57]

Does anyone know if this new regulation passes muster would it be in effect this coming fall?

[QuailDancer]

So, lets limit the number of shells an 870 or 1100 can hold!
I agree with that.
Pardon me for the question, but how many rounds would a lever action hold? Honest question, I really have no knowledge of these types of guns but I assume they'll hold more than three rounds. Can they also be limited by use of a plug in the magazine?

[mason]

Trajectory, and with any muzzleloader, ONE SHOT. If you have a single shot you are more apt to take your time and aim at a spot and make it count. With a rifle, you may hurry your shot and shoot several times at a running deer, and some hunters don't pay attention to whats beyond the deer. By the way, how many cartridges do these rifles carry? Some might say the performance is the same as a modern in-line muzzleloader, OK, so why do we need these rifles then? My 2 cents and no offense to you Mason.
yes i understand the one shot but i would think the trajectory would be not much difference at your average hunting shots

[Indianahunter]

This information is for the use for those questioning the current proposal.
**Most hand loads are know for being a bit hotter than factory and Hornady is know for the hottest reloading data at the time of printing
*Data from Hornady Handbook of Cartridge reloading Volume 2 page 414 under .357 Magnum (Rifle)

Rifle:
Winchester Model 1892 Barrel length 22 3/4"
Capacity 10 rounds

.357 Magnum 125 GR XTP Muzzle 1950 fps / 1055 ft lbs of energy 50 yds 1711 fps / 812 ft lbs of energy

.357 Magnum 158 GN XTP Muzzle 1550 fps / 842 ft lbs of energy 50 yds 1405 fps / 692 ft lbs of energy

.410 Slug (foster type rifled slug) 1/5 ounce (or 87 grains) Muzzle 1800 fps / 788 ft lbs of energy 50 yds 1288 fps 403 lbs of energy

“410 rifled slugs and they are definitely not adequate deer loads. The less said about these small bore rifled slugs the better.” Chuck Hawks http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotgun_slugs.htm


“This is actually somewhat funny in an ironic way, as the one thing slugs do really well is penetrate brush. Rifled slugs are probably the most dangerous type of ammunition to use in a wooded area crowded with hunters and other humans, as they plow through visually impenetrable brush, leaves, and small tree limbs with aplomb. A high velocity rifle with a frangible bullet would be far safer in such an environment. I have, for instance, seen .22 varmint bullets fired at very high velocity turn into a puff of blue smoke on a blade of grass!” Chuck Hawks http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotgun_slugs.htm


“I have primarily concentrated on slug loads for hunting, for which purpose I feel that they are most appropriate. Even so, they are a stopgap alternative to a rifle, primarily useful where rifles are banned for political reasons. Shotgun slug loads intended to be fired from smooth bore barrels manage to combine the worst properties of any hunting projectile: marginal accuracy, low velocity, low sectional density, low ballistic coefficient, rainbow trajectory, and heavy recoil. Nearly the worst of all possible worlds! If you can legally hunt with a rifle, you owe it to both yourself and your quarry to do so. If not, but the law allows the use of fully rifled "shotgun" barrels and saboted projectiles, that is what you should use.” Chuck Hawks http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotgun_slugs.htm



***Personal note: Enough said here!

[hoosieroutdoorsman]

I too agree to leave things the way they are, we have hunted for well over 30 years in this state without rifles for deer so making the change wouldn`t be to great unless they are going to post CO`s at every woods hunted to make sure someone isn`t slipping in the high powered rounds instead of handgun rounds. I recieved that info from the Wild Bulletin I recieve and thought I would pass it on here. We have other areas for improvement outside of weapon acceptance.

[Indianahunter]

I too agree to leave things the way they are, we have hunted for well over 30 years in this state without rifles for deer so making the change wouldn`t be to great unless they are going to post CO`s at every woods hunted to make sure someone isn`t slipping in the high powered rounds instead of handgun rounds. I recieved that info from the Wild Bulletin I recieve and thought I would pass it on here. We have other areas for improvement outside of weapon acceptance.

Why must I be judged by the lowest common denominator in society? I do not care what law you pass people will break it! To restrict me, a law abiding, tax paying citizen is absurd!!!:mad::coco:

[Indianahunter]

.44 Magnums vs. 20 gauge saboted slugs

This information is for the use for those questioning the current proposal.

*Most hand loads are know for being a bit hotter than factory and Hornady is know for the hottest reloading data at the time of printing
**.44 data from Hornady Handbook of Cartridge reloading Volume 2 page 446 and 447 under .44 Magnum (Rifle)

Winchester 280g OZ # SSP203 SABOT SLUG data is published at http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/shotdetail.aspx?symbol=SSP203&bn=5&use=7

Rifle
Ruger Carbine barrel length 18”
Capacity four rounds

.44 Magnum 200 GR XTP Muzzle 2000 fps / 1776 ft lbs of energy, 100 yards 1583 fps / 1113 ft lbs of energy, Trajectory 0 @100 yds / -4.5 @ 150 yds..(** past 100 yards the energy falls below an accepted minimum of 1000 ft lbs of energy need to cleanly harvest a deer)

.44 Magnum 240 GR XTP Muzzle 1800 fps / 1726 ft lbs of energy, 100 yards 1478 fps / 1163 ft lbs of energy, Trajectory 0 @ 100 yds / -5.2 @ 150, (150 yds has a marginal ft. lbs or energy at 957)

.44 Magnum 300 GR XTP Muzzle 1550 fps / 1600 ft lbs of energy, 100 yard 1245 fps / 1032 ft lbs of energy, Trajectory 0 @ 100 yds / -7.5 @ 150 (Both 125 and 150 yard have less that 1000 ft lbs of energy)

Winchester 280g OZ # SSP203 SABOT SLUG Muzzle 2000 fps / 2309 ft lbs of energy, 100 yds 1641 fps / 1555 ft lbs of energy, Trajectory 0 @ 100yds / -7.2 @ 175 yds

Personal observation:

DO I really need to do the work on the 12ga slug?

[anon782010]

I agree with that.
Pardon me for the question, but how many rounds would a lever action hold? Honest question, I really have no knowledge of these types of guns but I assume they'll hold more than three rounds. Can they also be limited by use of a plug in the magazine?


Like I said quail, i just met a guy with a lever action .44, and it held 11 rounds...

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Don't waste your Time....Your not changing anyone's MIND...RIFLES NOT NEEDED.

[Indianahunter]

Don't waste your Time....Your not changing anyone's MIND...RIFLES NOT NEEDED.

Needed, maybe not! Wanted, maybe so and that is an individual’s choice given the written, debated and passed law signed by the Governor... Therefore, the only minds needing changed; pro or con are with your local legislators. Now if they vote differently that you like, vote them out office next election!

[Indianahunter]

Does anyone know if this new regulation passes muster would it be in effect this coming fall?

Yes

[anon782010]

Don't lose sight of what is really going to happen here...it will not stop with handgun rounds. It won't. Period.

I would never use them, not with the distance and accuracy I can get out of a sabot slug.

The issue for me is the higher number of pushing parties starting on opening day. Those idiots don't look where they are shooting. Right now, they push about a three quarters of a mile away, and when they start pounding away with their slugs, i curse their existance under my breath and shake my head. Let them use thier 30-06, and i am going to need a kevlar surround for my treestand.

Why is this so freaking difficult to understand?

The maximum ranges can be more than a mile for some handgun bullets and more than 4.5 miles for some rifle bullets.

The examples calculated below show the surprising maximum range of just a single handgun cartridge, the 45 ACP loaded with Sierra’s 230 grain Full Metal Jacket Match bullet to a muzzle velocity of 850 fps under several variations of firing conditions. All these examples are calculated for standard atmospheric conditions, of course adjusted for altitude automatically within Infinity. Firing Pt. ReferenceMaximumBore ElevationAltitude SlopeRangeAngle500 ft. 0 deg.2096.3 yds.+ 33 deg500 + 15 1851.0 + 42 500 - 15 2450.4 + 23 5000 0 2265.7 + 33 5000 + 15 1992.7 + 43 5000 - 15 2663.0 + 24

It is evident that the maximum horizontal range of this cartridge is well over a mile (1760 yards) and that it varies significantly with the altitude of the firing point. It is also quite apparent that the reference slope angle has a large effect on the maximum range

A .30-caliber going its maximum distance of 15,000 feet impacts with sufficient force to penetrate about 2 inches of wood.

Find me a shotgun slug that goes 15,000 feet with deadly force...please...

[trdtnlbwhntr]

alright ive been reading all of this for the last year about how we need these rifles.. Suprise suprise there havent been more than five or six supporters to show up and say they "need" them. Here is what i see funny in the negotiating and reasoning for the change as posted in the first initial post that started this thread.

first thread reads something like this....
On February 13,2007 The IDNR will be holding a open to discuss the change in current policy to allow the use of rifles for deer hunting. The rifles will have to be able to fire handgun rounds larger than .357 .
Indiana has always been against the use of rifles for deer hunting but after receiving many requests and complaints of being able to predator hunt with rifles but not deer hunt has decided to hold the open hearing to ammend the changes.

Lets examine where these complaints are coming from... Predator hunters... whats the population of a predator hunters in the woods versus the number of opening weekend deer hunters in the woods. If the issue is that you can use your rifles during predator season then why in the world are we tying them to a possible law change that will more than likely ban the same guns they predator hunt with? Seems like we are mudding up the water here a little bit. How many people do you know that predator hunt with a .44 mag. hmmmm NONE? Lets take a look at the weapons they do use...243 .22-250 .223 .30-06 .30-30 the predator hunters are complaing because they can use those rifles to predator hunt but want to change a law that bans those very same weapons? The same weapons they are in support of and are using as an example? Im calling BS on this one and one last question i would like to know.. is where does it stop at? Handgun loads now... necked down cartridges five years from now when people "need" a little more.

We get into this debate and how these are allowed in various other states around the midwest... Wisconsin? Michigan? Western States. If we are really going to do this throw ballistics aside and lets look at safety. Sure a rifle load may "turn to blue dust after hitting a blade of grass.." (that guy must have the most amazing vision ever to see the bullet actually strike a blade of grass... at what distance? Give me a break. A rifled slug bores holes through brush without the slightest bit of deflection.. amazing yet their performance and ft/lbs of energy are lower than a rifle bullet that disintegrates on contact with grass. If that were the case how in the hell would that bullet penetrate a deer? It would be nothing more than throwing a dirt clod at it and watching it break apart on contact. Back to safety issues consider topography average size of the ranches and tracts of land? Rolling hills and ridges stop bullets pretty easy compared to the relatively flat ground that most of indiana is made up of. I think that is enough said on the issue of topography.

In reading this whole debate over and over again.. the only proof you have supporting this change is ballistics. Ballistics may look better on paper but real world topography and demographics must be considered and i see no way that ballistics can make up for these very demanding issues in this change. Case dismissed. Find something else you 'NEED"

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Good post ....Dustin

[Indianahunter]

Let them use thier 30-06, and i am going to need a kevlar surround for my treestand.

Where in the current proposal does it allow a .30 caliber bottle necked cartridge?

[anon782010]

Where in the current proposal does it allow a .30 caliber bottle necked cartridge?

It will...wildfires start with a match...

[Indianahunter]

JBM Maximum Distance Output
Input Data
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.176 G1 Bullet Weight: 260.00 gr Muzzle Velocity: 2000.0 ft/s

Initial Angle: 30.0 deg Terminal Angle: 64.6 deg
Terminal Range: 2376.7 yds Terminal Velocity: 290.3 ft/s
Terminal Time: 20.900 s Terminal Energy: 48.7 ft•lbs

1 1/3 mile for a simple Winchester 20 ga slug....Humm, It looks like anything from here on up is way to much for the citizens of Indiana to handle... Right??

[cjones46]

Which is a slipperier slope? Expanding the rights to use firearms or restricting the rights to use firearms…

You must have voted for Bill Clinton and then John Kerry!

This is not a red state-blue state issue. This is not a matter of restricting the rights of POSSESSION in the state of indiana. Its a matter of rights where the hunting of animals is concerned. No one is saying you can't keep your precious rifles, we're just saying that during deer season you must use a DIFFERENT FIREARM. No one said you had to put your rifle away during deer season and go back to killing wild animals with long spears with hand chiseled rock spearheads. Nor did the current law in any way infringe upon your right to bear arms.

The second amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The current law regarding the use of rifles during the hunting of whitetail deer in the state of indiana in no way infringes upon that right.

To attempt to push this matter towards the arena of national politics is absolutely absurd. I asked two pages ago for someone, ANYONE (that includes you indianahunter) to tell me why this change is NECESSARY!!! Don't tell me why you want it to happen, tell me why it needs to happen. Because someone wants something other than what the current law allows is not now, and never will, be a reason to rewrite legislation that has been in place for over 30 years.

Ballistics numbers are just like any other piece of statistical data, you can make them say whatever you want them to say (right al gore??) The fact of the matter is when I shoot at a target with my shotgun i see a noticeable drop off in performance after 125 yards. You show me a rifle thats only reliable up to 125 yards and i'll show you a poorly made gun. The realistic effective range for nearly any rifle is going to exceed that of a shotgun.

I say this to you as a right wing conservative zealot that has never in his life even considered voting for anyone even remotely associated with the democratic party. I do apologize if this post seems a bit combative but I've read every single post in this thread and still haven't seen a single reason that this law NEEDS to be changed. It is in no way faulty or unconstitutional. Laws cannot be changed because someones feathers were ruffled...

[Tine Lock]

You said it cjones. There's no need. All of the negative factors out weigh the positive factors on this issue.

[mason]

i got one question? why the change? i been reading all of the replys and i can understand the cons i really dont see any real benefit to allow them. ido agree that it will keep the door open for bigger rifles and i dont want that its bad enough that gun is where it is now

[HuntinIN]

Being a gun toting member of NRA, I will not oppose opening up more opportunities to use these rifles for deer hunting in a safe manner. Unfortunately, it kind of scares me for the same reasons stated previously regarding multiple shots and such. I am not for it in general, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it getting passed, either. I just wish all firearms seasons would be moved out of the rut and shortened in length, then I wouldn't care if grenades got legalized.:bonk:

[goggleye57]

Getting too negative guys, there is a fine line we are crossing between useful conversation about an important issue and personal attacks. We are not going to be that kind of website.

[Indianahunter]

.44 Magnum 300 GR XTP Muzzle 1550 fps / 1600 ft lbs of energy, 100 yard 1245 fps / 1032 ft lbs of energy, Trajectory 0 @ 100 yds / -7.5 @ 150 (Both 125 and 150 yard have less that 1000 ft lbs of energy)

Winchester 280g OZ # SSP203 SABOT SLUG Muzzle 2000 fps / 2309 ft lbs of energy, 100 yds 1641 fps / 1555 ft lbs of energy, Trajectory 0 @ 100yds / -7.2 @ 175 yds
Both sets of numbers are from well-respected manufactures, Hornady and Winchester, whose products are used daily by shooters everywhere. In addition, the physics of ballistics are absolute. NASA proved these formulas 50 years ago! Given this information, it would appear that a 20ga slug firing a Winchester Partition 260 grain .458 bullet at 2000 feet per second from a rifled barrel has an addition 50 yards of range and more energy.
If this is truly, a safety issue then someone please explain this!
Both sets of numbers are from well-respected manufactures, Hornady and Winchester, whose products are used daily by shooters everywhere. In addition, the physics of ballistics are absolute. NASA proved these formulas 50 years ago! Given this information, it would appear that a 20ga slug firing a Winchester Partition 260 grain .458 bullet at 2000 feet per second from a rifled barrel has an addition 50 yards of range and considerably more energy. So, a Winchester 1894 loaded with the above load will not
If this is truly, a safety issue then someone please explain this!

[buckhead]

i'm all for it 3day season for shotguns and 3 day for center fire guns pistols included
second thought it would be a huge mistake to many Kmart cowboys out there now during firearm season
if they do pass a centerfire weapon i want to use my 308 not just certain calibers it discrimination (you know what i mean)

[trdtnlbwhntr]

i dont think anyone is getting personal... its a debate and nobody is singling anyone out here. IF you feel the need to close the thread do so but nobody is singling anyone out.. At least not in this thread. I dont think there are any fine lines that have been crossed these are all valid points that should be said. This is a discussion based forum and thats simply what this is. A discussion with debate occuring in the inner core. Nobody is getting singled out.

[Indianahunter]

i dont think anyone is getting personal... its a debate and nobody is singling anyone out here. IF you feel the need to close the thread do so but nobody is singling anyone out.. At least not in this thread. I dont think there are any fine lines that have been crossed these are all valid points that should be said. This is a discussion based forum and thats simply what this is. A discussion with debate occuring in the inner core. Nobody is getting singled out.

Agreed!

[tilesetter]

Being a gun toting member of NRA, I will not oppose opening up more opportunities to use these rifles for deer hunting in a safe manner. Unfortunately, it kind of scares me for the same reasons stated previously regarding multiple shots and such. I am not for it in general, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it getting passed, either. I just wish all firearms seasons would be moved out of the rut and shortened in length, then I wouldn't care if grenades got legalized.:bonk:

Great post Eric,,,,,TAKE firearms outa rut!!!!!!!

[scrapewatcher]

Where in the current proposal does it allow a .30 caliber bottle necked cartridge? that's the magic word "current". we all know this is is not where it will stop. it's a foot in the door. it won't be long they'll be pushing for bottlenecked cart.
no offense intended. i think this has been a very good thread. friendly debate on the subject.

[cjones46]

simply take a look at the number of views for this thread...
(as I post this its at 519 views) and its obvious that this is a very hot issue. I hope my previous post wasn't taken in the wrong way. It wasn't meant as an attack or a slam on anyone. Whenever you have people arguing about something that they love you are going to have somewhat heated disagreements. Even though I may disagree with what indianahunter is saying I respect his opinion and understand that deep down he and I want the same thing. We both want whats best for the Indiana deer hunter (also nice big bucks and plenty of meat in the freezer :biggrin:).

That said...if all the ballistics information that you've shown indicates a higher velocity and more force being carried through a shotgun slug than a rifle cart. why wouldn't you want to use the good old shotty? If your ballistics number are correct than a good old sabot provides you with the best opportunity to make a clean killing shot on a deer which is really what this is all about isn't it? If your numbers are correct then perhaps we shouldn't use rifle's in the interest of reducing the number wounding or non-lethal hits. The drop in velocity and sustained inertia coupled with the ability to fire more rounds in a short period would surely lead to more non-lethal hits.

(Now i'm just being contrary for the sake of discussion :evilsmile It's a great thread and I hate to see the discussion end so I'll do my part haha)

[tenring]

It will...wildfires start with a match...


Yup! Just like muzzleloaders and crossbows!

[410]

Everyone ask me why I don't like the idea of hunting deer in Indiana with a rifle. Let me ask this why should we use rifles? What good will it do? Will using rifles way it safer in the woods and why do you have to shoot 200 to 400 yards? To me there is no reason for rifles. SORRY

[tenring]

Everyone ask me why I don't like the idea of hunting deer in Indiana with a rifle. Let me ask this why should we use rifles? What good will it do? Will using rifles way it safer in the woods and why do you have to shoot 200 to 400 yards? To me there is no reason for rifles. SORRY

I don't need to hunt with the .44 Magnum I bought for next year, I want to. Just like I don't need to deer hunt, I want to. It will give me the opportunity to use a different method of take, which will allow me to practice more because of the reduced cost. Safe is determined by the user and not the firearm [same as powerful engines and the speed limit]. And the maximum range for my .44 is 100 yards. Who said we "have" to shoot 2-400 yards? I have not read any regulation concerning this new rule. Where is it located on the net?

But then, I have worked up a good load for my heavy barreled .308 Remington 700. Will my Mil Dot scope and a bit of practice, I should be able to branch out into the 1000 yard range. NOT!

[Gunfighter45]

OK, OK Guys I am worried about the iddiot that may be out there, w/ a rifle!
But I do Hunt Deer W/ a 44mag that has a 10 inch barrel, and will take a yote if i can as well. But my weapon of choice in this case is a single action Ruger Blackhawk...... I am afraid of the guy who shoots several rds. in succession as the deer is running, and is not watching what he is doing. I am not affraid of the rifle, but the guy behind it, thats a whole differant thing. I do agree w/ limiting the rds. one can have in the weapon, but limiting the weapon no.....Some of us are responsable sportsmen, and i understand everyones concern, mabe we should give it a 3 day probationary season? Just a thought! Ballistics aside, a muzzel loader is pretty efficient at killing deer, and it has all the distance i need........ I am for a short rifle season tho.

[anon782010]

Whatever happens, the key is going to be enforcement, and that is not going to happen, it doesnt happen now. It won't then. If the key to passing a new weapon depends on making that weapon "safer" by further laws, when in all actuallity, you cannot enforce the laws already in place, you SHOULD NOT be passing said law.

[tenring]

Negative on the short season, same as the shotgun time will be sufficient.

[tilesetter]

Everyone ask me why I don't like the idea of hunting deer in Indiana with a rifle. Let me ask this why should we use rifles? What good will it do? Will using rifles way it safer in the woods and why do you have to shoot 200 to 400 yards? To me there is no reason for rifles. SORRY
Come visit where I live 410, or ask Treehugger or Mr.C. You can see for miles around where I live,,with little residential interferance. I would love to take a 200-400 yard shot on the bucks I see around my area!

[tedbower]

i hunt with a t/c pistol in 35 remington why ? because it legal to do so and for me it is for the sport of it ,the deer is at an advantage by me hunting with that versus my muzzle loader or shotgun . ihave heard that if this goes through they will do away with the necked down pistol cartriges,i dont know if that is true or not,i hope not,does anyone know?

[Indianahunter]

that's the magic word "current". we all know this is is not where it will stop. it's a foot in the door. it won't be long they'll be pushing for bottlenecked cart.

I disagree, as your conclusion will bring the kind of problem many here have suggested!

I put faith in those who make these rules... Great thought goes into each and everyone proposed and passed law... IDNR, State biologists, State and local lawmakers, and the public all dig deep into the debate at every level, including this forum.

I for one do not understand the rifle cartridges in pistols and was not in favor of it but I cannot find anywhere in my search where a single person was injured or a single fatality recorded in the public records in Indiana. Other than climbing up and down from their tree stands our rules have made hunting in Indiana as safe as possible.

My research, while not complete, leads me to believe the addition of the proposed limited pistol cartridges in rifles will not aversely affect safety in any way.

Let’s face it, the same yahoo that will empty his gun at a running deer with a .44 magnum lever action rifle is in fact the same yahoo that will unload their 12ga 11-87 at the same deer. He will also unload a .22 in the air at a squirrel or unload his Mini-14 in the air on New Years Eve…. We all know this hunter; we see and hear him every opening day. However, he is in the minority!

Respectfully submitted,


Indianahunter

[410]

Tile here where I am at, I can see 1/2 mile across which is all open field. So I still don't want to shoot or have someone shooting my way with a rifle. I came from WV where they are allow to hunt deer with rifles and I hunted with a 243 and a 30.06 when I lived there, But there is one different there and here. Indiana in my area is flat and in WV you have the mountains. If they pass this law I hope they will allow rifles in the southern part of the state only. Most of the gang on this site knows me and I say what I feel. So I feel I have posted enough on this thread.

[catdaddy75]

i thought the rule change was medium range rifle's.not .243 or 30/06

[Dean Weimer]

Shotguns and muzzleloaders are plenty adequate firearms for the firearms seasons. Safety is the biggest issue...if ANY rifle is legalized then the future would find many more human accidents than there already are, rather it's personal injury or property damage. Folks, there are just too many houses and buildings in close proximity to the whitetails that we're hunting. Rifles just don't belong in this part of the midwest...regardless of what cartridge or caliber it is. Leave it like it is.

[Old Ironsights]

Shotguns and muzzleloaders are plenty adequate firearms for the firearms seasons. Safety is the biggest issue...if ANY rifle is legalized then the future would find many more human accidents than there already are, rather it's personal injury or property damage. Folks, there are just too many houses and buildings in close proximity to the whitetails that we're hunting. Rifles just don't belong in this part of the midwest...regardless of what cartridge or caliber it is. Leave it like it is.

If "safety is the biggest issue" then do you mean "leave it like it is" where people using Rifle Caliber Pistols with 2 to 3 times the effective range of Pistol Caliber Carbines or Slugs are allowed to shoot where "there are just too many houses and buildings in close proximity to the whitetails that we're hunting"? Ballistics is Ballistics. Let's be consistent about this.

Dean, you normally spend a great deal of time being scientific and precise in your debates over things like the OBR & seasons. Why not in this case?

This is about cartridges with ballistic profiles that are equivalant or less than that of Sabot Slugs or Sabot Muzzleloaders - and that is all. The DNR has specifically stated that the intent is to keep the terminal ranges in the short to "medium" range envelope.

Again, I wonder if anyone who is against this rule change actually understands what they are supporting.

By arguing against the rule change, you are SUPPORTING the use of long-range spitzer bullets in “hand-rifles” like the Encore or Contender G2. That is hardly indicative of promoting safe shooting ranges.

The current law cannot not withstand a legal challenge, and if it is allowed to stand you could lose everything you are currently agitating “for”. Consider:

Originally Posted by INDNR HATG0607_1-19.pdf Pg 16
Legal Handguns for Deer Hunting
Handguns, other than muzzleloading, must have a barrel at least four 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. A handgun may not be concealed. Handguns are not permitted on any military areas. Some types of handgun cartridges 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 illegal handgun cartridges 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 also.



A strict interpretation of this Rule means that TC Encore Pistol with a 20” barrel is currently legal in any caliber over (and including) .243.

But put an accessory thumbhole or Flex-Tech shoulder stock on it and it becomes an “illegal rifle” even though there is no change in ballistics.

How does adding a shoulder stock make the cartridge less safe?

The converse is also true. An "Illegal" .375 H&H (or 7mm Mag or whatever) Encore Rifle becomes "legal" by swapping stocks for a pistol grip.

The existing rule is simply absurd.

If challenged in court by someone who actually wants to shoot long-range spitzer cartridge rifles, it can and will be successfully argued that precedent has already been set in favor of allowing long-range spitzer cartridges.

That, as you say, would be disastrously dangerous.

The ONLY way to prevent this is to change the Rule to authorize only those cartridges that have trajectories consistent with safe hunting in close farmland – regardless of platform. Such a change/Rule would be defensible in court, as it is a empirically based ruling that leaves no room for exceptions like “hand Rifles”.

I don’t want Pistol Carbines because I necessarily think they are “better”, I want the DNR to have rules that can support and resist a Legal Challenge from both Antis – who will use the “safe range” argument against us - and people who would use ballisticlaly inappropriate spitzer cartridges.

Use science to make game laws - not opinions.

[trdtnlbwhntr]

Alright get rid of the hand cannons and all other "rifles" for the use of deer hunting. If you want to hunt with a .243 pistol then by all means take up predator calling and varmint hunting. You talk about precedent.... Precedent means a lot of a things and when the word rifle is put into the laws precedent is set that rifles are allowed why not mine? They get to use their rifles I want to use mine. Youve already biased yourself in the use of rifles why cant they all be used.. Simply allowing one and not the other is going to create a pandoras box of problems.

Think of it this way..
If a kid asks his teacher if he can bring a magazine to school for show and tell, she says yes but only if it is a clean magazine, "yeah yeah no problem says the student." Timmy over hears the conversation and says he wants to bring his magazine to school. Precedence is set that magazines are going to be allowed so she cant tell him no and she agrees. Timmy comes back with a Playboy magazine and the debate begins between parent and teacher on what clean really is. Timmy cant get in trouble for bringing the magazine as she already let one student bring a magazine and now Playboys arent dirty because of the big long huge debate that pits the parents against the faculty of the school. Simply saying no magazines are allowed at school would have cleared up the whole issue on the spot.

Maybe i went too far on the analogy but it makes sense.

[BRICH60]

I DO NOT HAVE A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY. IF IT`S ALLOWED I`M OK WITH IT, I MAY EVEN TRY IT. IF NOTHING CHANGES, IT WILL NOT AFFECT ME EITHER. I`LL KEEP USING THE WEAPONS THAT I HAVE ALWAYS USED.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT SEE ALL THE DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS COMING TRUE IF IT PASSES. IT`S NOT GOING TO GIVE USERS AN ADVANTAGE OVER EXISTING WEAPONS. IT`S NOT GOING TO SUDDENLY CONVERT A RESPONSIBLE HUNTER INTO A LEAD SLINGING IDIOT. THOSE GUYS WILL DO THE SAME WITH A SHOTGUN. IT`S NOT GOING TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF NON HUNTERS INTO HUNTERS, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN NOW SHOOT A RIFLE. IT`S NOT GOING TO LEAD TO NECKED DOWN HIGH POWERED ROUNDS. IT`S NOT GOING TO LEAD TO THOUSANDS MORE DEER KILLED EACH YEAR. STATISTICS SHOW IT`S NO LESS SAFER THAN ANY OTHER GUN IN RESPONSIBLE HANDS.

THE RIFLE IS JUST ANOTHER TOOL SOME MAY USE TO KILL THEIR DEER, JUST LIKE A SHOTGUN OR MUZZLELOADER. IT IN AND BY ITSELF IS NOT A TOOL OF THE DEVIL.
IF THEY ALLOW IT FINE, IF NOT, OK TOO. BUT LETS AT LEAST DISCUSS IT LOGICALLY AND TRUTHFULLY.

[anon782010]

If "safety is the biggest issue" then do you mean "leave it like it is" where people using Rifle Caliber Pistols with 2 to 3 times the effective range of Pistol Caliber Carbines or Slugs are allowed to shoot where "there are just too many houses and buildings in close proximity to the whitetails that we're hunting"? Ballistics is Ballistics. Let's be consistent about this.

Dean, you normally spend a great deal of time being scientific and precise in your debates over things like the OBR & seasons. Why not in this case?

This is about cartridges with ballistic profiles that are equivalant or less than that of Sabot Slugs or Sabot Muzzleloaders - and that is all. The DNR has specifically stated that the intent is to keep the terminal ranges in the short to "medium" range envelope.

Again, I wonder if anyone who is against this rule change actually understands what they are supporting.

By arguing against the rule change, you are SUPPORTING the use of long-range spitzer bullets in “hand-rifles” like the Encore or Contender G2. That is hardly indicative of promoting safe shooting ranges.

The current law cannot not withstand a legal challenge, and if it is allowed to stand you could lose everything you are currently agitating “for”. Consider:


A strict interpretation of this Rule means that TC Encore Pistol with a 20” barrel is currently legal in any caliber over (and including) .243.

But put an accessory thumbhole or Flex-Tech shoulder stock on it and it becomes an “illegal rifle” even though there is no change in ballistics.

How does adding a shoulder stock make the cartridge less safe?

The converse is also true. An "Illegal" .375 H&H (or 7mm Mag or whatever) Encore Rifle becomes "legal" by swapping stocks for a pistol grip.

The existing rule is simply absurd.

If challenged in court by someone who actually wants to shoot long-range spitzer cartridge rifles, it can and will be successfully argued that precedent has already been set in favor of allowing long-range spitzer cartridges.

That, as you say, would be disastrously dangerous.

The ONLY way to prevent this is to change the Rule to authorize only those cartridges that have trajectories consistent with safe hunting in close farmland – regardless of platform. Such a change/Rule would be defensible in court, as it is a empirically based ruling that leaves no room for exceptions like “hand Rifles”.

I don’t want Pistol Carbines because I necessarily think they are “better”, I want the DNR to have rules that can support and resist a Legal Challenge from both Antis – who will use the “safe range” argument against us - and people who would use ballisticlaly inappropriate spitzer cartridges.

Use science to make game laws - not opinions.


You have a tremedous point. Wonderful, that is not sarcasm, this is the best post I have seen to date, and I want to ask you a question and everyone else, and see if it will alleviate some things.

Legalize the TRUE pistol cartridges for use in a lever action rifle.
Continue use of said pistol cartridges in pistols.
AND DISALLOW use of pistols firing long range rifle calibers.

The problem I have had, is that eventually the pistol cartridges will become .308's because, by the current writing of the pistol law, you could use that cartridge in a pistol, and then if some rifles are allowed, why not use the bigger pistol cartridges in the rifles, using the lever action pistol cartridges as a bridge from handgun to long rifle.

Elimination of the rifle caliber handgun loophole would put my mind to rest about the "medium range" capabilites that the state would be trying to impliment.

Would that change anything?

[Indianahunter]

If "safety is the biggest issue" then do you mean "leave it like it is" where people using Rifle Caliber Pistols with 2 to 3 times the effective range of Pistol Caliber Carbines or Slugs are allowed to shoot where "there are just too many houses and buildings in close proximity to the whitetails that we're hunting"? Ballistics is Ballistics. Let's be consistent about this.

Dean, you normally spend a great deal of time being scientific and precise in your debates over things like the OBR & seasons. Why not in this case?

This is about cartridges with ballistic profiles that are equivalant or less than that of Sabot Slugs or Sabot Muzzleloaders - and that is all. The DNR has specifically stated that the intent is to keep the terminal ranges in the short to "medium" range envelope.

Again, I wonder if anyone who is against this rule change actually understands what they are supporting.

By arguing against the rule change, you are SUPPORTING the use of long-range spitzer bullets in “hand-rifles” like the Encore or Contender G2. That is hardly indicative of promoting safe shooting ranges.

The current law cannot not withstand a legal challenge, and if it is allowed to stand you could lose everything you are currently agitating “for”. Consider:


A strict interpretation of this Rule means that TC Encore Pistol with a 20” barrel is currently legal in any caliber over (and including) .243.

But put an accessory thumbhole or Flex-Tech shoulder stock on it and it becomes an “illegal rifle” even though there is no change in ballistics.

How does adding a shoulder stock make the cartridge less safe?

The converse is also true. An "Illegal" .375 H&H (or 7mm Mag or whatever) Encore Rifle becomes "legal" by swapping stocks for a pistol grip.

The existing rule is simply absurd.

If challenged in court by someone who actually wants to shoot long-range spitzer cartridge rifles, it can and will be successfully argued that precedent has already been set in favor of allowing long-range spitzer cartridges.

That, as you say, would be disastrously dangerous.

The ONLY way to prevent this is to change the Rule to authorize only those cartridges that have trajectories consistent with safe hunting in close farmland – regardless of platform. Such a change/Rule would be defensible in court, as it is a empirically based ruling that leaves no room for exceptions like “hand Rifles”.

I don’t want Pistol Carbines because I necessarily think they are “better”, I want the DNR to have rules that can support and resist a Legal Challenge from both Antis – who will use the “safe range” argument against us - and people who would use ballisticlaly inappropriate spitzer cartridges.

Use science to make game laws - not opinions.

I've been thinking the same thing....Just did not want to open the gap in the devide even more...However, it does make for consistent law...

[anon782010]

indianahunter, i dont think it opens the gap more, i think that the consistency would close the gap. It isn't a perfect answer, and i still dont know to what degree i agree, but if it is one or the other, i would rather have a consistancy that will close the loopholes that have been so contentcious.

I think the key to all of this is losing the hand cannons. Then there is no easy way to say, "but we are already"...the balistics do support that...

[Old Ironsights]

You have a tremedous point. Wonderful, that is not sarcasm, this is the best post I have seen to date, and I want to ask you a question and everyone else, and see if it will alleviate some things.

Legalize the TRUE pistol cartridges for use in a lever action rifle.
Continue use of said pistol cartridges in pistols.
AND DISALLOW use of pistols firing long range rifle calibers.

The problem I have had, is that eventually the pistol cartridges will become .308's because, by the current writing of the pistol law, you could use that cartridge in a pistol, and then if some rifles are allowed, why not use the bigger pistol cartridges in the rifles, using the lever action pistol cartridges as a bridge from handgun to long rifle.

Elimination of the rifle caliber handgun loophole would put my mind to rest about the "medium range" capabilites that the state would be trying to impliment.

Would that change anything?

It most certainly would.

I think that for the sake of Logic, Stated Goals (short & medium range) and Ballistic Consistancy, eliminating Rifle Caliber (i.e. bottlenecked spitzer cartridges) from "pistols" is a no brainer - and the only way the Rule can withstand Legal Challenge.

The DNR needs to decide what the maximum terminal ballistic range of a "deer gun" in Indiana is to be then compile a straight forward list of factory cartridges that meet it. Doesn't matter what it's shot out of.

Under the specifications given by the DNR for a "pistol caliber cartridge", no cartridge within those specifications, now or future, will produce the kind of ranges that a modern (non black powder design) bottleknecked/spitzer rifle cartridge will.

Supposedly, we write laws to apply to the lowest common denominator - i.e. the loose screw behind the trigger.

It has astounded me that the argument FOR "hand rifles" is that hand rifle shooters are by definition "better" and more careful because they buy a specialty gun, yet Traditional Carbine (Levergun) shooters (also called a special interest group with specialty guns) won't be.

It still all boils down to the simple fact that a miss with a .308/7mm/.270(whatever bottleneck spitzer you choose) Hand Rifle is going to go much further than a miss with either a shotgun, muzzleloader or a pistol caliber anything.

The rest of the arguments about rapid fire and ammunition capacity vaporize with the 1100. It's not the Gun, it's the loose screw behind the trigger that's the problem there. And even in that case, while I have said elsewhere that I believe that calling for plugged guns plays into the hands of the Anti Gun Crowd (and I do, but that's another argument), if, for "safety" all deer guns, auto, pump, or lever, were mandated to be plugged to 3 I would not protest all that much.

[Old Ironsights]

Alright get rid of the hand cannons and all other "rifles" for the use of deer hunting. If you want to hunt with a .243 pistol then by all means take up predator calling and varmint hunting. You talk about precedent.... Precedent means a lot of a things and when the word rifle is put into the laws precedent is set that rifles are allowed why not mine? They get to use their rifles I want to use mine. Youve already biased yourself in the use of rifles why cant they all be used.. Simply allowing one and not the other is going to create a pandoras box of problems.

Think of it this way..
If a kid asks his teacher if he can bring a magazine to school for show and tell, she says yes but only if it is a clean magazine, "yeah yeah no problem says the student." Timmy over hears the conversation and says he wants to bring his magazine to school. Precedence is set that magazines are going to be allowed so she cant tell him no and she agrees. Timmy comes back with a Playboy magazine and the debate begins between parent and teacher on what clean really is. Timmy cant get in trouble for bringing the magazine as she already let one student bring a magazine and now Playboys arent dirty because of the big long huge debate that pits the parents against the faculty of the school. Simply saying no magazines are allowed at school would have cleared up the whole issue on the spot.

Maybe i went too far on the analogy but it makes sense.

Not really. A "clean"/"dirty" magazine is a matter of opinion, not an objective reality.

If you define a ballistic range then that's it. There are no questions because ballistics is an objective, reproducable science.

Putting a .357 Magnum Pistol Cartridge into a longer barrel with a shoulder stock does not turn it into a .375 H&H.

[anon782010]

Not really. A "clean"/"dirty" magazine is a matter of opinion, not an objective reality.

If you define a ballistic range then that's it. There are no questions because ballistics is an objective, reproducable science.

Putting a .357 Magnum Pistol Cartridge into a longer barrel with a shoulder stock does not turn it into a .375 H&H.


This is discussion...wish we could have pulled this off 3 pages ago...


I will not, however, support the use of rifles in any cartridge until the hand cannons have been elminated...that bridge has to be burnt before the troops line up in front of it...

[Old Ironsights]

This is discussion...wish we could have pulled this off 3 pages ago...

I will not, however, support the use of rifles in any cartridge until the hand cannons have been elminated...that bridge has to be burnt before the troops line up in front of it...

Well, I DID try with this same line of reasoning once before.... and the thread completely died immediately thereafter. :banghead3

Anyway, I can respect your position.

Disagree with the basis, but it is an understandable position. :cool:

[fordgo6]

I'm with you Tmarsh! I wasn't for handguns of any kind when they came and I'm not for Rifles of any kind in Indiana. If we have to have a medium for everyone as DNR is suggesting, do away with handguns and let them try a selected medium range cartridge for a 3 day season after our shortened, "late" gun season and make everyone happy! I don't like being in the woods now on the opener so I do most of my deer hunting before gun season. But I will voice my opinion for my sons future, if he chooses to gun hunt, I want it to be with a Muzzy or Shotgun and as safe as possible.

[Dean Weimer]

If "safety is the biggest issue" then do you mean "leave it like it is" where people using Rifle Caliber Pistols with 2 to 3 times the effective range of Pistol Caliber Carbines or Slugs are allowed to shoot where "there are just too many houses and buildings in close proximity to the whitetails that we're hunting"? Ballistics is Ballistics. Let's be consistent about this.

Dean, you normally spend a great deal of time being scientific and precise in your debates over things like the OBR & seasons. Why not in this case?

This is about cartridges with ballistic profiles that are equivalant or less than that of Sabot Slugs or Sabot Muzzleloaders - and that is all. The DNR has specifically stated that the intent is to keep the terminal ranges in the short to "medium" range envelope.


Point taken. I am no firearms expert, but I just think that allowing any cartridged rifle-of any caliber-will open the way for all rifles to eventually be used. By allowing "rifles" then the people who are indiscriminate will start using any rifle even before it might become legal. If these rifles are comparable in ballistics, etc. to modern shotguns, etc. then why not just use a shotgun?
What's wrong with shotguns and muzzleloaders????

[scrapewatcher]

Point taken. I am no firearms expert, but I just think that allowing any cartridged rifle-of any caliber-will open the way for all rifles to eventually be used. By allowing "rifles" then the people who are indiscriminate will start using any rifle even before it might become legal. If these rifles are comparable in ballistics, etc. to modern shotguns, etc. then why not just use a shotgun?
What's wrong with shotguns and muzzleloaders????true enough said !!

[dleslie217]

At first I was undecided on this issue but, after reading all the post, it seems to me it boils down to what you need versus what you want to deer hunt with. I think we already have everything we need to take a deer. While I can understand and respect some wanting to deer hunt with rifles, I think it will lead to further efforts to legalize high powered rifles and could also lead to an influx of out of state hunters gobbling up our hunting areas.

[jkd]

Old Ironsights - you're right on the money, and saying what I've been saying for years about IDNR hunting regs!!!

Ballistics is a science. period...

If safety is everyone's concern, then let's stop arguing about CALIBER and talk instead about limits based on ballistic energy. Example: new rule which states that all firearms used for deer hunting must have a minimum of 500 ft. lbs. @ muzzle and <=1800 ft. lbs @ 100 yards. (Suggest those worried about pistol cartridge rifles go to www.winchester.com and look up the ballistics for a .357 magnum compared with any shotgun>20ga... now check the Winchester Platinum Tip 400gr Sabot cranking 1791 ft lbs @ 100, 1640 ft lbs @ 125 yds) Now that type of rule would also allow some centerfire rifle rounds (I will not confuse the issue further with terms like "high-power", etc.) like the .223, .243, .30-30, and so forth, which would not be included under IDNR's proposal. For those worried about terminal range, you could fine tune the above rule with a requirement of a trajectory >= -25" @ 400, something like that.

I just have to shake my head every time I see someone say, "oh, this IDNR rule change will only lead to people wanting to hunt with .270 and .308 calibers..." WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! Folks are ALREADY hunting with these rounds in Encores and have been for what - 20 years???? As said before, putting a long piece of wood on the other end of the firearm doesn't make the round come off the brass any slower.... :banghead3

If folks want to argue single-shot vs. bolt vs. semi-auto vs. plugged magazine tube, whatever, that's fine... but relative to caliber/guage, we need to get to some sort of more rational and scientific basis for allowing/disallowing a given round for deer hunting.

For those fearing "an idiot behind every tree firing rounds everywhere", I talked to a buddy of mine who's hunted PA for decades with his dad, and as he put it, "it sounds like a war zone opening morning every year, but the rules are simple... if it's got orange on, don't shoot it..."

PA posted 47 hunting related accidents, 3 fatalities for 2005, for a rate of 4.92 per 100,000 participants... and that's for ALL types of hunting!!!! Here you go... REAL data....

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=168066

Are you basing your decision on this issue on facts/science, or on emotion???

[Dean Weimer]

Do you have facts/science of the number of hunters in Indiana using these pistols vs. those who are not?

[fordgo6]

Then what is the advantage to having a rifle over a shotgun or muzzy since you are comparing?
Are some just wanting to use they're weapon of choice? For anyone who puts an effort into deer hunting, I just can't see why you would need more than what we have!

[Old Ironsights]

Point taken. I am no firearms expert, but I just think that allowing any cartridged rifle-of any caliber-will open the way for all rifles to eventually be used. By allowing "rifles" then the people who are indiscriminate will start using any rifle even before it might become legal. If these rifles are comparable in ballistics, etc. to modern shotguns, etc. then why not just use a shotgun?
What's wrong with shotguns and muzzleloaders????

Nothing. (Unless you are small &/or recoil sensitive & can't afford premium ammo...). The problem is with the LAW not the guns.

It is inconsistant and arbitrary, not objective (based upon science).

Arbitrariness in Law is a bad thing. Pick a terminal range then allow the equipment that operates within it. In no way would that change the tactics that have been used in Indiana - at least not since the inception of Rifled Slug Barrels, Sabots and "High Performance Muzzleloaders".

If it doesn't change the tactics, is less expensive to operate, easier to reload, easier to shoot, and is no more dangerous (ballistics) what's wrong with it?

[Old Ironsights]

Then what is the advantage to having a rifle over a shotgun or muzzy since you are comparing?
Are some just wanting to use they're weapon of choice? For anyone who puts an effort into deer hunting, I just can't see why you would need more than what we have!

Not everything has to be an "advantage". That's why some people still use Flintlocks.

But, FWIW, as stated above the primary "advantages" are:

Lower Recoil
Cheaper/easier to reload ammo

Both of which could/would likely lead to more practice time.

You can't tell me it's "fun" to shoot a Slug Gun, but tons of Cowboy Action Shooters world wide will spend hours telling you how much fun a .357 or .45 Levergun can be.

Fun = Practice... somthing I'm sure we all can agree is a good thing.

[Dean Weimer]

I see your point Ironsides. Personally, I love shooting shotguns. The kick is part of the game. Shooting any gun is fun I feel. Let's face it..guns kick. If you're little then shoot a 20 guage. I shoot a 12 guage Remington and can't tell you the last time I ever felt the thing kick...especially when a deer is involved.

I don't know much about these calibers you guys speak of, I'll be honest. It's just scary to think of one day having thousands of rifles cracking off on opening day in close proximity to barns, houses, motorists, etc. You can't tell me that this couldn't happen, can you? I mean, why are rifles allowed in Northern Michigan, while the southern portion is shotgun only?

And, your argument about practice time involves only, or at least primarily, those of us who would practice with our weapons (shotguns, muzzleloaders, etc.) in the first place.

[Razortec]

I've been reading thru this topic and here are my 2 cents.

As far as the allowance for what type of amunition is allowed for being a safety issue. It doesn't matter if its a .410 or a 300 win mag it is the person behind the gun that makes it safe. Both guns are safe when handle and discharged in a safe manner. If allowing straight walled cartiages to indianas legal firearms will increase the amount of hunter I'm all for it. We need as many hunters as we can get these days to help protect are sport.

Now as for the pistol ammo. How many people complaing about this have ever used one. I've hunted with a encore in a .243 for 8 years or so. It is not may primary weapon but it gives me another challenge. And yes it is a challenge It is alot and I mean alot easier to get on a deer with a shotgun than with the handgun. As for the safety of these again it is not the gun it is the person behind it.

Just my 2 cent.

[Old Ironsights]

I see your point Ironsides. Personally, I love shooting shotguns. The kick is part of the game. Shooting any gun is fun I feel. Let's face it..guns kick. If you're little then shoot a 20 guage. I shoot a 12 guage Remington and can't tell you the last time I ever felt the thing kick...especially when a deer is involved.

I don't know much about these calibers you guys speak of, I'll be honest. It's just scary to think of one day having thousands of rifles cracking off on opening day in close proximity to barns, houses, motorists, etc. You can't tell me that this couldn't happen, can you?

It happens already with 1100s & Pumps. Same Same.

And, your argument about practice time involves only, or at least primarily, those of us who would practice with our weapons (shotguns, muzzleloaders, etc.) in the first place.

True, but there is Practice and there is Practice. As far as I know the only "game" you can get involved in with Slugs is IDPA 3 gun - and that's a smoothbore/riot gun game.

OTOH there is a whole industry built around Pistol Caliber Carbines, Single Action Revolvers and Coach Guns (with shot).

That's practice too. Every little bit (or extra person practicing) helps.

[anon782010]

Lots to catch up on.

First, Dean, those lever guns...an absolute joy to shoot. Period, they are fun, accurate within their range and relativly cheap. I have a 30/30 lever gun (not something i now advocate for hunting deer, but as just a general gun to shoot) and if you want to give it a whirl sometime, I am sure I can arrange that. I recently shot a .45 lever gun, and they are virtually the same animal. I think you would enjoy them.

Now, there are two ways to look at the situation. The first is to just say no to rifles, but I think, with the quality of deer we are beginning to grow, the influx of outfitters (as addressed in another thread) and the big money for the state that hunting has the potential to be, rifles are coming, by one means or another. I look at this as a mean by which to close the loophole. Limit the cartridges, not the type of weapon they are fired from.

What would you all rather have in the woods, a .308 handgun or a .45 lever action? The hoophole for handguns needs to close and the emphasis on the cartridge abilities needs to be brought to the forefront.

As with most things, digging in our heels isn't going to help, it is only going to make the other side pull harder.

Ask yourself, which is the better arguement...

A) "We are already shooting .308's out of handguns, what does the addition of a stock do to change that gun?"

B) "The rifles currently in use have ballistic capabilites lower than that of most new muzzleloaders on the market, they in no way approach the ballistic capabilites of a typical centerfire rifle cartridge."

I don't like the situation...I just see how this is going to play out politically...

[Dean Weimer]

You misunderstood. I meant, if ALL rifles became legalized. The effective range of a modern slug gun is still under 200 yards. You can't say that about a .270 etc.

[Old Ironsights]

I've been reading thru this topic and here are my 2 cents.

As far as the allowance for what type of amunition is allowed for being a safety issue. It doesn't matter if its a .410 or a 300 win mag it is the person behind the gun that makes it safe. Both guns are safe when handle and discharged in a safe manner. If allowing straight walled cartiages to indianas legal firearms will increase the amount of hunter I'm all for it. We need as many hunters as we can get these days to help protect are sport.

Yep.

Now as for the pistol ammo. How many people complaing about this have ever used one. I've hunted with a encore in a .243 for 8 years or so. It is not may primary weapon but it gives me another challenge. And yes it is a challenge It is alot and I mean alot easier to get on a deer with a shotgun than with the handgun.

Depends on the range, sights, and whether or not your shotgun is a smoothie with brennekes or a big bore rifle(d barrel) with Sabots I suppose.

As for the safety of these again it is not the gun it is the person behind it.

True. But everybody misses once in a while. A miss with a Rifle Cartridge has a much greater potential for disaster than a Pistol Cartridge (as defined)/Slug/Muzzy does.

[tenring]

I see your point Ironsides. Personally, I love shooting shotguns. The kick is part of the game. Shooting any gun is fun I feel. Let's face it..guns kick. If you're little then shoot a 20 guage. I shoot a 12 guage Remington and can't tell you the last time I ever felt the thing kick...especially when a deer is involved.

I don't know much about these calibers you guys speak of, I'll be honest. It's just scary to think of one day having thousands of rifles cracking off on opening day in close proximity to barns, houses, motorists, etc. You can't tell me that this couldn't happen, can you? I mean, why are rifles allowed in Northern Michigan, while the southern portion is shotgun only?

And, your argument about practice time involves only, or at least primarily, those of us who would practice with our weapons (shotguns, muzzleloaders, etc.) in the first place.

You mean that on opening morning of firearms season this year [2007] that I will only be allowed to hunt with my Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum in close proximity to barns, houses, motorists, etc. When did this happen? I have never come across this rule, sounds rather stupid to me.

[anon782010]

The rifle propostion is in addition to the current regs Tenring...they arent taking anything away shotty wise...

[Old Ironsights]

You misunderstood. I meant, if ALL rifles became legalized. The effective range of a modern slug gun is still under 200 yards. You can't say that about a .270 etc.You can about all the pistol cartridges thatfit into the DNRs carefully worded specifications. :tongue:

But, I agree 100%. That's why once the range is Defined by the DNR, and a proper regulation is written, that won't happen.

It all hinges on defining the range. The DNR has essentially done that with their most recent release pertaining to this Question. I would like a more specific number, but "short to medium range" is a pretty well understood phrase. "Close" range is Iron Sight territory. "Medium" Range is still Irons plus up to maybe 3x Optics (200, maybe 250 yds). Long range is anything where Iron Sights would normally be considered to be useless to the layman. Essentially anything 250+

Again, a 16" Contender in .44 shoots exactly the same (ballistically) as a 16" Rossi M92 or Winchester 94 Levergun in .44... except that you are more likely to miss with the Contender (basic gun stability).

I don't like misses.

(Really, the ballistics don't change significantly over 16" either, but accuracy does.)

[Dean Weimer]

Ironsights,

Why do you want to use said rifle as opposed to shotgun, or muzzleloader? Just curious.

And, are you for, or against ALL rifles becoming legalized for Indiana's firearms season?

[jbwhttail]

We/you can debate this from now to eternity here but the majority should rule ........ if you do not comment to IDNR per the link on the first page of this thread, you have no voice or will not be heard.

This topic was started by ONE(1) individual (who has that right) by going to his legislator. For years he had tried to influence IDNR without success. But with a threat of legislative action IDNR proposed this rule and the "bandwagon" began. When you use the legislators to influence IDNR decisions we are on a slippery path!

I was at the initial hearings on allowing pistols some 20+years ago, I listened as IDNR told people that "only a very few Hoosiers" would hunt with them and they were "short range weapons, 50 yards or less, much like archery equipment". and at that time it was .357 or larger and a case of 1.625(sound familiar?). Then we had a IDNR employee who had a contender in .243 and he wanted to use it, guess what...... we have rifle cartridge in pistols. Make no mistake folks......... History does repeat itself.

My son owns one of those rifle cartridge LEGAL pistols, he has invested over $1200.00 in it to make it the most efficient weapon he can. Now today some of the pistol cartridge rifle people are now ready to make his choice illegal if they can get what they want. How may I ask is this fair? He purchased a legal fire arm and customized it to fit his need. Does he now just "junk" it? It is a long range weapon, I watched as he shot a doe at 340 yards! range finder and a bipod, it is awesome...

Now we have added a modern powder muzzleloader, they proclaim 250 yard+ shots. Was that the "intent" of having a "muzzleloading" season? IDNR has allowed them because the load from the muzzle. Notice there is no comparison betwenn the ballistics on them........hmmm. Or do we sacrifice those for these "medium range rifles"? People have been allowed to purchase these for deer hunting, now we outlaw them along with rifle pistols?

And let's really look at the true centerfire rifles, safety issues are unfounded! I challenge anyone to show a higher accident rate from rifles to shotguns on a per hunter basis. Both Michigan and Kentucky have shotgun and rifle zones, is Indiana so much different?

I can shoot a deer with a pistol firing a rifle cartridge...... I can shoot deer on out of season permits with a rifle firing a rifle cartridge........ I can shoot ANYTHING in season with a rifle firing a rifle cartridge EXCEPT deer, turkey and waterfowl.........

Yet the proponents of of the pistol cartridge are willing to leave me out as long as they get the weapon they want. What happened to the "I want to use it"?

Finally.........

On another site I surveyed asking 1.leave it as is 2.pistol cartridge calibers only 3. all centerfires

106 votes total

50 leave it as is..............................48%

34 pistol cartridge rifle only...............32%

22 all centerfire rifles.......................21%

People could only vote for one choice, note that the all centerfire rifle people will support the pistol cartridge proposal. and they WILL be back in the future. Where will the vote be then?

Send in your emails or attend the meeting, if not you get what those who participated decide.........

this is not a safety issue........ it is a tradition issue!

[jbwhttail]

If we are going to legalize rifles, let's get it over with and make them all legal.

I have a .300wsm I'd like to use........

[Tine Lock]

Point taken. I am no firearms expert, but I just think that allowing any cartridged rifle-of any caliber-will open the way for all rifles to eventually be used. By allowing "rifles" then the people who are indiscriminate will start using any rifle even before it might become legal. If these rifles are comparable in ballistics, etc. to modern shotguns, etc. then why not just use a shotgun?
What's wrong with shotguns and muzzleloaders????

If we are going to legalize rifles, let's get it over with and make them all legal. I have a .300wsm I'd like to use........

Thank you soooo much Jbwhttail. You just prove Dean's and everyone else's including my point about rifles. This is the main reason we don't want rifles to open up in this state that allready has fine laws in place for what firearms we can use.

[Old Ironsights]

Ironsights,

Why do you want to use said rifle as opposed to shotgun, or muzzleloader? Just curious.

I already have and use a Muzzleloading Handgun (Traditions BuckHunter Pro) and a TC Firestorm Flintlock,

I dislike the lack of accuracy and excessive recoil provided by my M500 Shotgun(for that much recoil, I should at least be able to shoot it like my old Marlin 45/70...) and have no desire to purchase a specialized Slug Gun that is useful only during one season. Plus, I already have a .357 levergun.

If it were just all about me wanting to shoot a Levergun,I could aldeady do that, as I have a Winchester 9410 (a feeble excuse, but useable out to 50yds, no more...) and could easily get a Win 1887 (12ga Levergun clone) if I so desired. But I don't. (Desire or have the money...)

And, are you for, or against ALL rifles becoming legalized for Indiana's firearms season?

I am for Short/Medium range ballistic consistency in regulations. I am NOT "for" legalizing the use of "rifle" cartridges, whether in rifles or "handguns". The terminal ballistics of bottlenecked cartridges firing spitzers ("rifle" cartridges) exceed what is prudent in the farmland of Indiana.

I would (and do) oppose the use of such cartridges on verifiable ballistic grounds.

Honestly, look at what the DNR is doing here:

Current Regulations define a deer-compliant "handgun" only by minimum barrel length, minimum bullet diameter and minimum cartridge length.

Thus, a "Pistol" can fire a .50 BMG and still be "legal" for deer in a "short to mediium range" State. This is an absurdity created by bad lawmaking - i.e., the lawmakers not looking at how the regulation may be used or circumvented.

HOWEVER, in this case, the DNR has very carefully avoided this trap by defining the acceptible cartrdge(s) with specific dimensions based upon commercial loadings and by defining the essential ranges acceptable for safe deer hunting.

Not only that, by defining a "Pistol Cartridge" (to be used in a Pistol Cartridge Carbine) they are settind a standard by which all other "pistol" cartridges can be compared. Under such a definition, no extant bottlenecked centerfire cartridge (except the old .38-40 & .44-40 BP revolver cartridges) will comply - ever.

This presents the DNR two seperate avenues to remove long-range rifle cartridges from Indiana's Deer season:

#1) Declassifying Rifle Cartridges (not Contenders, just Rifle Caliber Barrels) for excessive (unsafe) range, and
#2) Declassifying Rifle Cartridges for being definitionally/dimensionally outside of the defined specification of "Pistol Cartridges".

Until the proposed regulation passes, there is, and will likely be no categorical maximium dimension for pistol cartridges - and people will continue to be allowed to miss their deer wit cartridges with 300+yd effective terminal ballistics.

If for no other reason than defining the minimum and maximum dimensions of a "pistol" cartridge, this rule change would be a good thing.

[Old Ironsights]

this is not a safety issue........ it is a tradition issue!....

If we are going to legalize rifles, let's get it over with and make them all legal.

I have a .300wsm I'd like to use........

Nope, it's not a safety issue, it's an issue of whether the DNR has the right to determine/set a "safe" terminal range. There is a difference.

As for Tradition - What was allowed before Indiana became "Shotgun" (when that meant pumpkin balls out of smoothbores) only?

When did Indiana become "Shotgun" (when that meant pumpkin balls out of smoothbores) only?

What was the reason that Indiana became "Shotgun" (when that meant pumpkin balls out of smoothbores) only?

Does any of this apply any more?

Maintaining "Tradition" means getting kids out there hunting. It doesn't matter if they are using a Smoothbore Flintlock Musket or a Kill-O-Zap ray gun with a max 200yd range.

"Safe Range" is the range that one can (mostly) "safely" miss. A .300 WSM is not safe to miss with in Indiana.

[jbwhttail]

"it's an issue of whether the DNR has the right to determine/set a "safe" terminal range. "

IDNR has ALWAYS had the "right" to determine wildlife rules and legal weapons. they had made the decision UNTIL a person went to his legislator. Then IDNR was circumvented.

IDNR passed the rifle cartridge in a pistol WITHOUT public comment, just added the additional calibers.......... Now they want to change it....... don't think so!

"When did Indiana become "Shotgun" ?"

First season 1952

Before a shotgun........... you have to go back to 1897 when the last native deer was killed. By what........ who knows......

Tradition does include what we hunt with, to use kids is the same as what was originally posted.......... we want these cowboy guns for women and children. Once it was found out it was adult men who wanted them and the words "cowboy guns" didn't set well it became "medium range rifle". Cheaper amo, give me a break, amo prices never make a difference. Less recoil, well there is a price to pay for every sport, if a person can't take recoil they need to use a lighter shot gun or muzzleloader.

Tell the truth.... the issue is "I WANT TO USE IT" and I want to use my .300wsm.

My final questions to you IronSights......... how many seasons have you hunted deer in Indiana, have you been in Southern Indiana, northeastern Indiana....... On what basis can you tell me I am not safe with my rifle?

By the way I have hunted with a Black powder muzzle loader ONLY as a firearm for over 20 years. I have used sabots for only the past 9 years. Yes Tradition is important to some of us. But if we go the way of a rifle I want it all, I own a 30-06 and a .300wsm and I WANT TO USE IT.......on deer.

[Old Ironsights]

I told the truth. I already have a Levergun that is legal, and could easily get another. That is not the issue (for me).

I have no doubt that you are safe with your rifle. Just as I have no doubt that the majority of Hand Cannon shooters are safe with their TCs.

Laws are not written for people who take care, but for people who are careless.

The fact remains that a careless person is no more dangerous with a Pistol Carbine than with a Pump/Auto/Lever Shotgun. But a Careless person with a long-range bottleneck spitzer IS objectively more dangerous.

As to where I have hunted - I live within the Urban Deer Zone of North Western Indiana. I don't even have the option of using a shotgun OR muzzleloader, much less my pistol caliber carbine without getting south or east of I-94. However, I have done my best to unerstand the terrain of the entire State, but have not yet shot at a deer while living here. In what way is that germain to the discussion? Ballistics is ballistics. Terrain is terrain. Logic is Logic.

Yes, there are more hills and woods the further south you go. So? Unless the DNR takes the position of allowing local/county COs to set "safe" ranges based upon terrain (makes sense, but is nigh impossible to determine/enforce) or even, like Wisconsin, pick a line above (below) which a certain range should obtain, the State must dictate across the board what that range should be. That's their job. It's ourjob to make sure they make these changes logically and without opening the State up to litigation.

As for "adding" the additional calibers, the way the rule is currently written they didn't need to - simply because there is no "maximum" dimension set. What did it say before this "one person" from within the agency got the rule "changed"?

If you don't want the Legislature (lawyers) mucking about in DNR rules, then make sure they can withstand legal/logical scrutiny. If you see a Rule that fails the smell test, then it's time to get it changed... before someone from "outside" (a lawyer, legislator or worse, an Anti) does.

[anon782010]

Ironsights...one question...

Lets say this gets passed...

And in 5 years, Hornaday does with the .44 what they have just recently done with 30/30. Improve bullet design to make a 100 yard gun...a 200 yard gun...how do we regulate it then?

Just playing devil's advocate...

[David4759]

"it's an issue of whether the DNR has the right to determine/set a "safe" terminal range. "

IDNR has ALWAYS had the "right" to determine wildlife rules and legal weapons. they had made the decision UNTIL a person went to his legislator. Then IDNR was circumvented.

IDNR passed the rifle cartridge in a pistol WITHOUT public comment, just added the additional calibers.......... Now they want to change it....... don't think so!

"When did Indiana become "Shotgun" ?"

First season 1952

Before a shotgun........... you have to go back to 1897 when the last native deer was killed. By what........ who knows......

Tradition does include what we hunt with, to use kids is the same as what was originally posted.......... we want these cowboy guns for women and children. Once it was found out it was adult men who wanted them and the words "cowboy guns" didn't set well it became "medium range rifle". Cheaper amo, give me a break, amo prices never make a difference. Less recoil, well there is a price to pay for every sport, if a person can't take recoil they need to use a lighter shot gun or muzzleloader.

Tell the truth.... the issue is "I WANT TO USE IT" and I want to use my .300wsm.

My final questions to you IronSights......... how many seasons have you hunted deer in Indiana, have you been in Southern Indiana, northeastern Indiana....... On what basis can you tell me I am not safe with my rifle?

By the way I have hunted with a Black powder muzzle loader ONLY as a firearm for over 20 years. I have used sabots for only the past 9 years. Yes Tradition is important to some of us. But if we go the way of a rifle I want it all, I own a 30-06 and a .300wsm and I WANT TO USE IT.......on deer.

Indiana's very first Deer Season was in 1951, and I believe it was a three day season.

If you desire to use your .30-06 and .300 WSM rifles; may I suggest you go hunting in the States that allow such rifles. Like Kentucky.

RIFLE Cartridges & loads like the .30-06 and similar big game cartridges, are too dangerous for use in Indiana in either pistol form or in regular rifles. The rifles that fire pistol rounds, like the .44 Magnum have similar ballistics when compared to what we are using currently ie: sabot firing shotguns & Muzzle Loaders. As an added plus these pistol cartridges can be reloaded and don't cost $15/5 shells. The last time I looked, one could buy a box of 50 shells in .44 Magnum for around $30. This cheaper cost would allow the Hunter to pratice more, than with a shotgun using ammo that costs $15 for five shells. Just makes sense legalizing rifles that use pistol cartridges. Also, I seriously doubt if Hornady or some other company would "Beef" up the .44 Magnum. With a 240 grain bullet the .44 Magnum is only capable of producing a maxium velocity of 1,750 FPS.

[scrapewatcher]

nice to see you posting again david.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Where are these people Buying Slugs for $15.00 For 5.....Damm

[Old Ironsights]

Ironsights...one question...

Lets say this gets passed...

And in 5 years, Hornaday does with the .44 what they have just recently done with 30/30. Improve bullet design to make a 100 yard gun...a 200 yard gun...how do we regulate it then?

Just playing devil's advocate...

As someone who wildcats, IMO that's not possible. If you use a low BC spitzer you can't get enough case volume AND maintain cartridge OAL to get those ballistics. You can, however, do that with the longer rifle cartridge cases... which is precicely why I am not advocating for the .30-30, .444, .45-70, .450 Marlin or .35 Rem - all of which have ballistics similar to the Hornady SST slug. (Edit - When not using the new polimer tipped spitzers...)

[anon782010]

As someone who wildcats, IMO that's not possible. If you use a low BC spitzer you can't get enough case volume AND maintain cartridge OAL to get those ballistics. You can, however, do that with the longer rifle cartridge cases... which is precicely why I am not advocating for the .30-30, .444, .45-70, .450 Marlin or .35 Rem - all of which have ballistics similar to the Hornady SST slug.


Fair enough. Thank you.

[Old Ironsights]

Where are these people Buying Slugs for $15.00 For 5.....Damm

Depending on where you live, where you buy them or who you order from, premium Sabot Slugs can run from $10 to $20/bx. Bass Pro is running SSTs at $9.99, Cabelas is running Winchester Supremes at $15-$18 right now.

Occasionally you can find them cheaper.

But on the average these are the prices you have to pay - unless you want to use Fosters or cheap (Wolf) Brennekes.

[David4759]

nice to see you posting again david.

Thanks "scrapewatcher". The reason I haven't been posting (but still reading threads) was that several here seem to be getting on my case on just about everything I posted. I felt friendless here. Also, my Sweet Mother of 81 year old passed away back on the 20th of September; and myself, Brother, and two Sisters, have had a tough time dealing with her passing. Then we've been busy dealing with the settlement of her Trust. Thank you for your "re-greeting" toward me.:)

[anon782010]

I paid 12.99 a box, on sale, for the Remington Copper Solids this year...

[scrapewatcher]

Thanks "scrapewatcher". The reason I haven't been posting (but still reading threads) was that several here seem to be getting on my case on just about everything I posted. I felt friendless here. Also, my Sweet Mother of 81 year old passed away back on the 20th of September; and myself, Brother, and two Sisters, have had a tough time dealing with her passing. Then we've been busy dealing with the settlement of her Trust. Thank you for your "re-greeting" toward me.:) sorry to hear of your loss. i know what your going through. i lost my father in 01 and my mother in 03. it was tough. i think of them every day. i also had the privaledge of dealing with the estate. it took a little over a yr. hang in there. now the memories bring smiles to my face.

[Old Ironsights]

I was at the initial hearings on allowing pistols some 20+years ago, I listened as IDNR told people that "only a very few Hoosiers" would hunt with them and they were "short range weapons, 50 yards or less, much like archery equipment". and at that time it was .357 or larger and a case of 1.625(sound familiar?). Then we had a IDNR employee who had a contender in .243 and he wanted to use it, guess what...... we have rifle cartridge in pistols. Make no mistake folks......... History does repeat itself.

My son owns one of those rifle cartridge LEGAL pistols, he has invested over $1200.00 in it to make it the most efficient weapon he can. Now today some of the pistol cartridge rifle people are now ready to make his choice illegal if they can get what they want. How may I ask is this fair? He purchased a legal fire arm and customized it to fit his need. Does he now just "junk" it? It is a long range weapon, I watched as he shot a doe at 340 yards! range finder and a bipod, it is awesome...

BTW: Funny thing about Contenders and Encores. They aren't caliber specific. If you want to use a Contender or Encore, there is nothing stopping you from using every bit of TC gear you have except a Rifle Caliber Barrel (should long-range cartridges be prohibited).

That's the difference. Prohibiting a Cartridge/Caliber/Maximum Terminal Ballistic Range is not prohibiting an entire class of firearm.

Right now, performance wise, the Rule is essentially saying "You can either drive a Corvette or a Ford 3/4 ton truck or Dodge 3/4 ton truck, but not a Chevy 3/4 ton truck."

We should all be "driving a 3/4 ton truck" (stock performance envelope). Make and Model shouldn't matter.

[lilkrou]

Sorry for your loss David, and hope that your posting resumes!

[anon782010]

Thanks "scrapewatcher". The reason I haven't been posting (but still reading threads) was that several here seem to be getting on my case on just about everything I posted. I felt friendless here. Also, my Sweet Mother of 81 year old passed away back on the 20th of September; and myself, Brother, and two Sisters, have had a tough time dealing with her passing. Then we've been busy dealing with the settlement of her Trust. Thank you for your "re-greeting" toward me.:)


I'm sorry david...

[anon782010]

BTW: Funny thing about Contenders and Encores. They aren't caliber specific. If you want to use a Contender or Encore, there is nothing stopping you from using every bit of TC gear you have except a Rifle Caliber Barrel (should long-range cartridges be prohibited).

That's the difference. Prohibiting a Cartridge/Caliber/Maximum Terminal Ballistic Range is not prohibiting an entire class of firearm.

Right now, performance wise, the Rule is essentially saying "You can either drive a Corvette or a Ford 3/4 ton truck or Dodge 3/4 ton truck, but not a Chevy 3/4 ton truck."

We should all be "driving a 3/4 ton truck" (stock performance envelope). Make and Model shouldn't matter.


Personally, I think the emphasis should be on getting those few people out of corvettes first. Then open up your case for ballistic regulation.

Damned mixed metaphors...

[HuntinIN]

This PCR thing is not a fight that I care to join because of a lack of a real strong position either way on the issue. I agree that the tradition of our shotguns and muzzleloaders is something worth keeping. It will be interesting to see what effects come from the passing of the rule, if it happens. Sometimes you get what you want and it turns out to be a bad thing. :coco: That is my worry and last $0.02.

Eric

[waterswatter]

Thanks for the info. I saw this coming b/c I have a friend that is a C.O. and he warned me to get rid of my T.C. Encore pistol barrell that was chambered in a rifle load b/c word is that they are going to not let you hunt deer with them either. Better look into getting rid of the barrells before the rule change or the market will be flooded with em'. I say they leave things the way they have been!

[Old Ironsights]

Personally, I think the emphasis should be on getting those few people out of corvettes first. Then open up your case for ballistic regulation.

Damned mixed metaphors...

:biggrin:

[lilkrou]

This PCR thing is not a fight that I care to join because of a lack of a real strong position either way on the issue. I agree that the tradition of our shotguns and muzzleloaders is something worth keeping.

This is the thinking that started the Indiana/Michigan debate a few weeks ago. :hide: (Not a personal dig on you, just picked that word out!)

I do not think that it is so much tradition, but safety here in flat Indiana! But what do I know? :help:

[Old Ironsights]

This is the thinking that started the Indiana/Michigan debate a few weeks ago. :hide: (Not a personal dig on you, just picked that word out!)

I do not think that it is so much tradition, but safety here in flat Indiana! But what do I know? :help:

Yep. Flat is Flat and Ballistics is ballistics. Long range Spitzers Bad, Short/Medium Range cartridges (like slugs or the defined pistol cartridges) Good.

Use the Good and drop the Bad. Platform shouldn't matter.

[anon782010]

What ballistic effects would a spitzer type bulet design have on say a .44 in the current cartridge configuration? Any idea?

[Old Ironsights]

What ballistic effects would a spitzer type bulet design have on say a .44 in the current cartridge configuration? Any idea?

Out of a standerd .44mag cartridge case? Almost none. There's not enough case capacity to make it work and maintain the SAMMI OAL.

Out of a .444 Marlin case? (which wouldn't be allowed anyway) See the Hornady LeverEvolution specs. Significant, but not earth-shattering. (The difference out of a .30-30 IS rather remarkable though...)

[anon782010]

Out of a standerd .44mag cartridge case? Almost none. There's not enough case capacity to make it work and maintain the SAMMI OAL.

Out of a .444 Marlin case? (which wouldn't be allowed anyway) See the Hornady LeverEvolution specs. Significant, but not earth-shattering. (The difference out of a .30-30 IS rather remarkable though...)


That is why I ask. I have a 30/30 and recently purchased the LeverEvolution ammuntion.Have not had a change to shoot it yet, but everything I have read says it will push the 30/30 from a shakey 150 yards, out to 250...

Wasnt sure if the .44 mag would see the same sort of 35-50% jump in useable ballistic range...

Thanks

[Old Ironsights]

That is why I ask. I have a 30/30 and recently purchased the LeverEvolution ammuntion.Have not had a change to shoot it yet, but everything I have read says it will push the 30/30 from a shakey 150 yards, out to 250...

Wasnt sure if the .44 mag would see the same sort of 35-50% jump in useable ballistic range...

Thanks

It's a good question, and why I don't support the use of rifle-length cartridges.

Cartridge design/wildcatting is a give & take proposition. The longer the ojive, the further in or out you have to seat it. In, if you want to maintain SAMMI OAL, or Out ifyou want to maintain load (powder) density.

Some of this can be tweaked by using faster powders, but then you have to deal with the pressure curve. A load that will blow upyour gun isn't particularly useful.

Be that as it may, Regulations such as being proposed here can and must only apply to commercially loaded ammunition. Could I design a custom barrel-throating/bullet combination that would both function in the mechanical space allowed by the lever-throw, AND increase the ballistics of a .44 while still using a .44mag cartridge case? Maybe. I'm not sure it would work even then though.

However, from a purely economic/commercial standpoint, such a load would not, and could not become commercialized because SAAMI will NOT approve the commercial production of such a wildcat. The cartridge case length would have to be increased specifically to prevent accidental chambering in non-compliant firearms.

The LeverEvolution ammo succeeds because it operates within the SAAMI specifications for those calibers.

Now, say for instance you trim the 1.67" .223 WSSM case to 1.625" and blow it out to .357 (to make it compliant). What do you have? A cartridge tha will perform miserably if you try to use it in a WSSM action - essentially a "short" WSM (if that would work, don't you think Winchester would have introduced it by now? That's why all the .30+ WSM cases are 2.14"...). Again, there is not enough case capacity to make up for bullet diameter, weight and length if you want to maintain the same OAL.

Consider too, how long a bullet in relation to its diameter has to be to get a good Ballistic Coefficient. A .44 Spitzer must have an OAL that is more than twice the OD of the bullet, i.e. be at least .88 long (more if possible). However, the bullet cannot extend more than .325 from the mouth of the case and still be within .44Mag Spec. (1.285" case, 1.61" OAL) Therefore, it is simply impossible to make a boattail spitzer design work in the cartridge cases as defined.

A lot of techical hooey, I know, but there it is.

See also: http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm and http://ammoguide.com/ ;)

[anon782010]

Good information Ironsights...those cartridges seem to be very limited in what they can acheive...

[Old Ironsights]

Good information Ironsights...those cartridges seem to be very limited in what they can acheive...

Yep. And that's the point.

Here is somthing to play with which should help those interested in Ballistics & Ballistic Coefficients: http://www.uslink.net/~tom1/calcbc/calcbc.htm

Plus Chuck Hawk's article on the subject.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc.htm

BC determines maximum terminal range. Bullet design determines BC. Case capacity/design determines bullet design. There is a give & take in changing any of the variables. :tongue:

[David4759]

sorry to hear of your loss. i know what your going through. i lost my father in 01 and my mother in 03. it was tough. i think of them every day. i also had the privaledge of dealing with the estate. it took a little over a yr. hang in there. now the memories bring smiles to my face.

Thank you, "scrapewatcher". I too lost my Dad in 1984, and one of my Sisters (Nancy) in 2003, from a Brain Aneurysm, which took her life without warning. My Mom died from, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, which anyone can contract at any time, according to the Oncologist. She lived three weeks with this terrible disease. Both myself, Brother, and two remaining Sisters have very fond memories of them. This was a very tough holliday season for us all though.

[Steveb]

Don't waste your Time....Your not changing anyone's MIND...RIFLES NOT NEEDED.


Just more of the I got mine mentality. Fellas, if this passes I'm dropping the hammer on a deer with my 44MAG! I'm all for this change.

Great posts Old Ironsights!

[David4759]

Sorry for your loss David, and hope that your posting resumes!

Thank you, "lilkrou", and I'll participate more often now, We're doing okay.

[David4759]

I'm sorry david...

Thank You, "tmarsh83" I am doing okay, as well as my Brother Steve, and my two Sisters.

[Old Ironsights]

Thank you, "scrapewatcher". I too lost my Dad in 1984, and one of my Sisters (Nancy) in 2003, from a Brain Aneurysm, which took her life without warning. My Mom died from, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, which anyone can contract at any time, according to the Oncologist. She lived three weeks with this terrible disease. Both myself, Brother, and two remaining Sisters have very fond memories of them. This was a very tough holliday season for us all though.

That's really rough. Sorry to hear it. Sounds like you're handling it well though.

[David4759]

That's really rough. Sorry to hear it. Sounds like you're handling it well though.

Yes, we're doing okay.<Thanks> This is something everyone will have to face, so it's not a unique incident. My Mom is not in any pain now, plus she is with my Sister, Nancy, and my Dad now.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

We/you can debate this from now to eternity here but the majority should rule ........ if you do not comment to IDNR per the link on the first page of this thread, you have no voice or will not be heard.

This topic was started by ONE(1) individual (who has that right) by going to his legislator. For years he had tried to influence IDNR without success. But with a threat of legislative action IDNR proposed this rule and the "bandwagon" began. When you use the legislators to influence IDNR decisions we are on a slippery path!
David...what was your intent when you started this???This was you wasn't it??Some people here are just wondering....!!!

[JL]

Thank you, "scrapewatcher". I too lost my Dad in 1984, and one of my Sisters (Nancy) in 2003, from a Brain Aneurysm, which took her life without warning. My Mom died from, Acute Myeloid Leukemia, which anyone can contract at any time, according to the Oncologist. She lived three weeks with this terrible disease. Both myself, Brother, and two remaining Sisters have very fond memories of them. This was a very tough holliday season for us all though.

Welcome back, David. Sorry to hear about your loss. I lost my father to AML in '92. Very sudden and unexpected. Glad to see you're posting again.

[fordgo6]

Sorry for your loss David. And welcome back!






Remington Sluggers; $1.99-$2.99 per box/5, no problems!!!

Best quote i've ever heard...."IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THEN i CAN BLAME MIS-SPELLED WORDS ON MY PENCIL" (Larry-the cable-guy)
How true.....Its the IDIOT behind the hammer, and I would like to see them limited to the least amount of shots as possible with as short of range as possible. If you're a serious deer hunter, you don't need more than one shot, if you're not, then practice more and get serious!

[Old Ironsights]

Remington Sluggers; $1.99-$2.99 per box/5, no problems!!!

Oddly, some people like to zero/practice with what they shoot. Since we are discussing ballistic profiles of (primarily) Sabot Slugs and Sabot Muzzleloaders in relation to Pistol Caliber Cartridges, it only stands to reason we are NOT talking about the price of pumpkin balls or Wolf brennekes.

Apples to Apples. Sabot slugs are expensive.

[anon782010]

Sorry for your loss David. And welcome back!






Remington Sluggers; $1.99-$2.99 per box/5, no problems!!!

Best quote i've ever heard...."IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, THEN i CAN BLAME MIS-SPELLED WORDS ON MY PENCIL" (Larry-the cable-guy)
Its the IDIOT behind the hammer, and I would like to limit them to the least amount of shots as possible with as short range as possible.


Just last week I went to a shooting range. I took with me, both regular remington sluggers, and remington copper solids which i prefer. I wanted to know if my money really was better spent on the copper solids.

It wasn't even a comparrison. I was able to produce a 4 inch group at 50 yards open sighted with the copper solids. While the same gun, same conditions, firing the sluggers produced an 8 inch group. The consistancy does not even compare. I prefer to shoot the most accurate ammunition I can, and as far as I can tell, there is no comparison. A buddy of mine was doing the same thing with his 20 gauge at the same distance, scoped, and was getting roughly the same results.

[David4759]

David...what was your intent when you started this???This was you wasn't it??Some people here are just wondering....!!!

Back in 1987, when the use of saboted shotgun shells & saboted M/L using pistol bullets; I found it rather strange. When you compare the ballistics of a 385 grain 12 gauge sabot or even a 20 gauge 260 grain sabot; you'll see that there is very little difference between these and a rifle that fires a 240 grain .44 Magnum cartridge. The same is true with muzzle loaders both that fire Triple "7", Pyrodex RS, or even Black Powder, when they are loaded with a sabot bullet. Then we have the newer Savage Smokeless Powder M/L that can propel a 250 grain bullet at around 2,500 FPS. Also I need to mention the legal use of single shot pistols chambered for "Rifle" cartridges like the .30-06 or .270. So why can't we use a Rifle that fires a pistol round for hunting Deer?? They would be no more dangerous or safer than the modern sabots or the pistols using Rifle cartridges. Also we can now use ANY rifle caliber to hunt Squirrels and varmints. That's all.

[jbwhttail]

Ironsights,

if this was the case then we would all be shooting single shot weapons when hunting. As soon as the topic comes up about plugging weapons it is then not the weapon but people handling the weapon. You can't have it both ways.

You asked how the original pistol rules were written, larger than.357 and case length not to exceed 1.625. When writing a rule nothing is ever permanent. They changed the rule to allow the "few" who would purchase a rifle cartridge pistol, probably at that time the TC encore was the pistol of choice but then Savage came on the market with the Striker bolt action. As I set here I came up with nine(9) friends I know plus my son who purchased the rifle cartridge pistols and hunt regularly with them. Now in order to "tighten" the rules for a weapon you support you are willing to outlaw a weapon THOUSANDS of Indiana residents are using?

You say there can be no improvement on the pistol rounds, they said the same thing about other weapons and yet here we are today, sbots vs pumpkin ball slugs and roundballs in muzzleloaders. Smokeless powder muzzleloaders, compound bows with 99% let off. Crossbows that are now compound crossbows. Technology changes every day and if it will make the manufacturer another dollar he will build it.

I by no means am a ballistic person, I buy a round and if it is accurate I shoot it. My son loves pistols, his new want is the S&W .460, this round will meet all the proposed requirements and he tells me the bullet is leaving the barrel of the pistol at 2600fps. And scoped has a range of over 250 yards. If this is the case the proposed rules are no longer equitable for your position. His S&W 500 also fits, and is not alot less.

Indiana can split regions for centerfire weapons, we do it for seasons on game animals and hunters understand the rules, we do it for bag limits on deer by county. AND>>>>>>>>> you can not show any difference as far as safety in any State it is used in today. Population density, per square mile, city size nothing.

If we open it up let's get the whole topic out there and let the people decide.

[Old Ironsights]

It wasn't even a comparrison. I was able to produce a 4 inch group at 50 yards open sighted with the copper solids. .

Not to knock your shooting (because I shoot shotguns the same way), but this is what makes me crazy.

As a long-time competitive shooter I'm not happy with a hunting gun/load that won't shoot sub 4" groups at 100yds with iron sights.

At 50yds I expect to cloverleaf.

This is my problem with slug guns. Unless you buy super premium ammo and shoot it out of a dedicated slug gun, there is, IMO very little potential for accuracy or consistancy in shot placement.

Sure, some people can do it. I'm not one of them. It's not the recoil either, because when I was stationed in Alaska I carried and shot a Marlin .45-70 Guide Gun - and was still sub 4" at 100yds.

I'd much rather kill a deer with good bullet placement than with Big Slug Maxi-Trauma.

[jbwhttail]

David:

I'm not trying to open an arguement but YOU have posted that you want to see the rifle cartridge pistol outlawed, yet you use them in comparison. You also say we are too populated a state for rifles firing bottleneck cartridges and you use them as a comparison.......

you can't set on both sides......

Your quote:

"They would be no more dangerous or safer than the modern sabots or the pistols using Rifle cartridges. Also we can now use ANY rifle caliber to hunt Squirrels and varmints. That's all."

And why did you use a legislator, you have been around long enough to know Administrative rule process.....

[fordgo6]

Oddly, some people like to zero/practice with what they shoot. Since we are discussing ballistic profiles of (primarily) Sabot Slugs and Sabot Muzzleloaders in relation to Pistol Caliber Cartridges, it only stands to reason we are NOT talking about the price of pumpkin balls or Wolf brennekes.

Apples to Apples. Sabot slugs are expensive.

I rarely hunt with a slug gun, but I shoot/practice with it every year with my buddies, (who use 3" sabots). I have an H&R 12ga. rifled barrel, single shot with a scope that shoots the cheap sluggers straight and accurate at 100 yards, and I've taken every deer I've shot at with it. Are the sabots going to make me more accurate? Can I buy a better shot?

[Old Ironsights]

Ironsights,

if this was the case then we would all be shooting single shot weapons when hunting. As soon as the topic comes up about plugging weapons it is then not the weapon but people handling the weapon. You can't have it both ways.

You asked how the original pistol rules were written, larger than.357 and case length not to exceed 1.625. When writing a rule nothing is ever permanent. They changed the rule to allow the "few" who would purchase a rifle cartridge pistol, probably at that time the TC encore was the pistol of choice but then Savage came on the market with the Striker bolt action. As I set here I came up with nine(9) friends I know plus my son who purchased the rifle cartridge pistols and hunt regularly with them. Now in order to "tighten" the rules for a weapon you support you are willing to outlaw a weapon THOUSANDS of Indiana residents are using? Nope. Only the Cartridge. Every TC out there would still be totally viable because the barrels are so easy to swap. That's why they were designed.

You say there can be no improvement on the pistol rounds, they said the same thing about other weapons and yet here we are today, sbots vs pumpkin ball slugs and roundballs in muzzleloaders. Smokeless powder muzzleloaders, compound bows with 99% let off. Crossbows that are now compound crossbows. Technology changes every day and if it will make the manufacturer another dollar he will build it.
Thing is, there IS a limit to physics and physical engineering. Pistol Cartridges (as defined) have reached that limit.

I by no means am a ballistic person, I buy a round and if it is accurate I shoot it. My son loves pistols, his new want is the S&W .460, this round will meet all the proposed requirements and he tells me the bullet is leaving the barrel of the pistol at 2600fps. And scoped has a range of over 250 yards. If this is the case the proposed rules are no longer equitable for your position. His S&W 500 also fits, and is not alot less.

The .460 has a 1.80-inch straight-wall case. It is outside of the DNR Spec, i.e. it does NOT meet the proposed requirements. For good reason. The .500 S&W is at the maximum case dimenson of 1.625" and has a shorter range envelope than the .460. So sayeth the manufacturer anyway.


Indiana can split regions for centerfire weapons, we do it for seasons on game animals and hunters understand the rules, we do it for bag limits on deer by county. AND>>>>>>>>> you can not show any difference as far as safety in any State it is used in today. Population density, per square mile, city size nothing.

Yes, they could. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Pistol Caliber Cartridge Carbines are equivelent in terms of range and safety to Sabot Slugs, and should therefore be allowed - NOT whether Southern Indiana is more like Kentucky than Northern Indiana.

If we open it up let's get the whole topic out there and let the people decide.

Some people would like that... because it confuses the issue and will make it more likely to be rejected. That's called the Politics of Obfuscation. Homey don't play that.

[fordgo6]

Just last week I went to a shooting range. I took with me, both regular remington sluggers, and remington copper solids which i prefer. I wanted to know if my money really was better spent on the copper solids.

It wasn't even a comparrison. I was able to produce a 4 inch group at 50 yards open sighted with the copper solids. While the same gun, same conditions, firing the sluggers produced an 8 inch group. The consistancy does not even compare. I prefer to shoot the most accurate ammunition I can, and as far as I can tell, there is no comparison. A buddy of mine was doing the same thing with his 20 gauge at the same distance, scoped, and was getting roughly the same results.

Tmarsh, I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for". I've just never had to find another slug or sabot. The sluggers have always shot well and consistent for me. I tryed a few Breneke's sabots years ago and they didn't shoot well out of my gun, but shot better out of a smooth bore for my buddy. As with anything else, I think alot of guys try to buy success, before they realize that its operator error.

[Old Ironsights]

FWIW (because Data is good, and I have nothing to hide...)

RE: the fearsome 500 S&W.

AFAIK there are only 2 non custom rifles available for this cartridge. Of the 2, only the H&R single-shot is reasonably priced.

The WWG04 in .500 S&W starts at $1499. Turnbull & McPherson might do custom mods on a Marlin frame, but I don't know for sure, but they would have comperable or greater prices.

Not exactly guns for or purchased by the average Joe, and not in wide distribution. They are available, but are not "long range" guns either - even if loaded with the 300gr semi-spitzer SST... at $3.33 each... (http://tinyurl.com/y9aqcq ... not exactly hillbilly blasting ammo...)

The Ruger .480 and .454 Casull, neither long range cartridges, were only recently made available in Legacy Sports Puma M92s (produced by Rossi) for $500 - $600.

The .357s, .44s and .45 Colts existing and available from Marlin, Winchester, Uberti and Rossi (plus H&R singles and a few Ruger Deerfields) are going to be mostly what we are talking about here... none of which have practical terminal ranges greater than that of a Sabot load and all of which are/have been inexpensively available for years.

And none of those can load a spitzer.

Just thought you might like to know.

[anon782010]

Not to knock your shooting (because I shoot shotguns the same way), but this is what makes me crazy.

As a long-time competitive shooter I'm not happy with a hunting gun/load that won't shoot sub 4" groups at 100yds with iron sights.

At 50yds I expect to cloverleaf.

This is my problem with slug guns. Unless you buy super premium ammo and shoot it out of a dedicated slug gun, there is, IMO very little potential for accuracy or consistancy in shot placement.

Sure, some people can do it. I'm not one of them. It's not the recoil either, because when I was stationed in Alaska I carried and shot a Marlin .45-70 Guide Gun - and was still sub 4" at 100yds.

I'd much rather kill a deer with good bullet placement than with Big Slug Maxi-Trauma.

Just to clarify, I wasn't firing out of a stationary rest, I was HOLDING my gun...

You expect to cloverleaf that? Maybe my expectations are too low...


I've fired 4 different types of slugs this year, the best performance I got, was from the copper solids.

Apparently I need to keep shooting...

[jbwhttail]

Hillbilly loads? Average Joe? I thought we owed it to the animal to do the "killing" with the most efficient means possible?

The shotgun slug was developed to do the most tissue damage possible........ or kill the deer ASAP with the least amount of accuracy possible.

200 grain bullet from a pistol does not do as good a job at making deer eat dirt.

there is no such thing as overkill on a big game animal..

IronSights, there is no end to what the cost is on a hunting toy. If we want it we buy it.

Same as your arguement about sabot slugs being too expensive, find me a person who did not deer hunt because of sabot costs....

People can't handle the recoil? Maybe you can sell skeet, trap and Sporting Clay people on the medium range rifle.

This is a very well organized agenda to get the weapons made legal. Anyone notice it does not matter who posts the "talking points" are all the same?

Comment to IDNR, it will be the hunters wishes, again it has no negative impact on the resource. It should be up to the hunters of this State.

[tenring]

The rifle propostion is in addition to the current regs Tenring...they arent taking anything away shotty wise...


I know that is simply a rule change, it was meant to bring attention to the fact that "some" individuals believe that an addition of a short range firearm to the table will result in catastrophic situations of unknown proportions. This parallels the hype that I experienced many years ago when the idea of handguns were first proposed for this state.

As far as the use of the term "weapons" is concerned, when I help teach a Hunter Safety course here, that particular word is not allowed. This is brought out at the onset of the course. Personally, I own quite a few firearms [guns] but none of them are "weapons". I haven't held or fired a " weapon" since I was honorably discharged from the Marines after doing a 16 month tour of beautiful downtown VietNam. Using that particular terminology, in my own personal estimation, plays into the hands of the anti-gun, anti-hunting crowd. These people are out there, and they are active. http://www.indianasportsman.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

;) ;) Hillbilly loads? Average Joe? I thought we owed it to the animal to do the "killing" with the most efficient means possible?



Comment to IDNR, it will be the hunters wishes, again it has no negative impact on the resource. It should be up to the hunters of this State.Good points JB...Lets VOTE...send out the surveys!!! Let the HUNTERS decide.;)

[David4759]

;) ;) Good points JB...Lets VOTE...send out the surveys!!! Let the HUNTERS decide.;)

This is from another Indiana Hunting Forum......"JB's" to be exact.

Poll Results: for or against pistol cartridges (84 votes.) for or against pistol cartridges
Choose 1 legalize straight wall pistol rounds in rifles 70% (59)
dont legalize straight wall pistol rounds in rifles 30% (25)

[fordgo6]

Question for some of you, how many of the pro rifle guys bow hunt? and if not, whens the last time you shot a deer in Indiana? No offense intended!

[David4759]

Question for some of you, how many of the pro rifle guys bow hunt? and if not, whens the last time you shot a deer in Indiana? No offense intended!

I am certain that many Hunters, that bow hunt, are also gun hunters.

[jbwhttail]

David the number supporting straight wall pistols was cut in half when you add in all centerfire rifles. That is the crux of the whole discussion.

As long as we do not introduce a firearm with a shoulder stock that fires a straightwall or a bottleneck cartridge we remain where we are, pistols, shotguns and muzzleloaders. As soon as you open the door to the straightwall cartridge all will follow. History shows that, look at where we were with pistols..........

David you can't argue against the safety issue, you I am sure are safe with your rifle, so that makes it ok. I'm safe with my 30-06, .300wsm or the striker handgun......... yet you don't want to allow me the privledge of using it?

Also I'm going to answer the question you have continued to dodge, why you went to a legislator.................

Each time the pistol cartridges have been approached by "administrative rule" they have been tabled by concerns from the Law Enforcement Division. That is a fact!

[oldrookie]

I have posted this question on several sites. I am new to muzzleloading and in doing my research, I purchased several projectiles. In the context of the proposal in question, what is the difference whether I shoot a hornady .45 with sabot out of my brand new muzzleloader or a pistol or a rifle. If its legal in one why not the other? I don't understand all the hoopla.

Forgive me in advance for my ignorance.

[fordgo6]

I am certain that many Hunters, that bow hunt, are also gun hunters.

But how many of them are for rifles. Not very many I would think! I respect your opinion and I will have to accept it if it happens, but I'm not for it.

[fordgo6]

Oldrookie,
Loads - When poor muzzleloader accuracy is due to your load, it can most often be blamed on a magnum (150 grain) powder charge. A look at the names of the most match-accurate black powder rifle cartridges in history will give you a hint: 45-70, 45-90, 45-110, etc... The first number is 45 caliber, the second is the powder charge. They never went higher than 45-120... or 120 grains of black powder! For further confirmation, ask among experienced muzzleloader shooters and they will usually say your best accuracy comes from loads between 80-120 grains of black powder or Pyrodex®.
But the magnum 150 grain loads are supposed to give you a harder hitting, flatter trajectory for long range shooting, right? Well first of all, long range shooting requires ACCURACY. If the magnum load isn't accurate, the flatter trajectory isn't going to help. Second, the magnum load only gives 100-250 fps more velocity so its not a dramatically flatter trajectory anyway. And finally, the US Cavalry was knocking over Volkswagen sized buffalo with 45-70... only 70 grains of powder. You don't need 150 grains to hit hard.
Here's the truth about shooting flatter trajectories: Smaller diameter, longer bullets have higher ballistic coefficients and shoot flatter trajectories. In 50 caliber muzzle loaders, this can be achieved by using sabots and 45 caliber bullets. For example, consider the Hornady 250 grain 45 caliber SST bullet. Seated in a 50 caliber sabot and loaded over 90 grains of Pyrodex RS powder, it shoots approximately 1623 fps. Zeroed for 150 yards, it is about 4 inches high at 100 yds and 10 inches low at 200 yds. The load itself is an absolute one-hole tack-driver out of a TC Encore, and shoots with manage-able recoil... A 200 yard muzzleloader without a magnum load.
Velocity BC 50yds 100yds 150yds 200yds
1623 fps .210 +3.29" +4" 0.0" -9.87"

For deer, aim center chest out to 150yds, slight hold-over out to 200

Here's the truth about knock-down and penetration: With muzzleloaders, you increase knockdown and penetration by going with a heavier and/or harder bullet. The powder charges that produce accuracy are still between 80-120 grains but, the heavier bullet carries more momentum into the target. Hornady has saboted bullets up 300 grains. Thompson Center has soft, expanding lead Maxi-Hunter bullets up to 470 grains and hard, deep penetrating lead Maxi-Ball bullets up to 460 grains in weight. How much you need depends on the size and toughness of your game animal.
Bullet Recommendations: The relatively lightweight 250 gr. SST Sabot 200 yard load listed above broke through rib bones, lungs and exited breaking more rib bones of a 150 lb. whitetail doe at 80 yards last fall. I highly recommend that load. If your local hunting regulations don't allow sabots, I would recommend the Thompson Center 350 gr. Maxi-Hunter lead bullet for Deer and their 460 gr. Maxi-Ball lead bullet for Elk or Bear.
Powder Recommendations: I use and recommend Pyrodex® RS granular powder. If you use the new Triple 7 powder, remember it's a little faster than Pyrodex so work your loads up from a lower starting point. I believe granular powder gives me more flexibility and reliability than pellets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accuracy Products for the Encore 209X50 Muzzle Loade

I can't say for the pistol or rifle, maybe Ironsights can do the comparison. But the muzzle loader drops off quite a bit after 150 yards and alot more after 200 so it won't carry on for 500 or 1000+ yards and I only have one shot. I use a Hornady 250 grain SST 45-100 load in my 50 cal. Encore and a 300 grain SST in my 50 cal. White. Both are sighted in at 100 yards with a 3-4 inch drop at 150yrds.

[DEC]

I've watched this and pretty much stayed out of this topic over here. Maybe my input is too little too late, don't know, don't care I guess.

I bow hunt. I do take the muzzleloader out on occasion, but it is less and less every year. So I really have no dog in this fight. So I look at this from a common sense perspective. IMO, and I think most agree with me on this, high powered rifle rounds have absolutely no place in Indiana deer hunting. How the hand canons came to be is beyond me and I absolutely despise them. However, I will say that when I look at the ballistics on the rounds in this proposal and compare it with current slug guns and muzzleloaders, I really can't find a bit of lab data evidence that suggest we should not allow these pistol cartridge guns into our seasons. I'm no ballistics expert, but I can certainly understand the numbers when laid out like in this debate or that on other sites.

The problem that I see in the pistol cartridge debate is not the weapon. It is the end user. Even reading through these 10 pages, I am amazed at the lack of understanding of what these guns can and can not do. It is almost like reading the myths of what an X-bow can and can not do. I'm no X-bow guy and don't want to start that debate, but that is an end user issue, not a weapon problem. These pistol cartridge guns are not 250, 300, 400 yard guns. They have nearly the exact same effective range, if not less in some cases, as the slug guns that we currently use.

The problem is the user. I've argued this and argued this in other places, but WE, the members of these types of forums, are NOT the average hunters. By our very nature, we are all hunting junkies to one degree or another. By our very nature, WE spend more time with our weapons of choice and under stand their limitations better then the average deer hunter. WE are not the average deer hunter. What is going to happen, is that the average deer hunter will look at these guns and simply see the word "rifle", that will be it. The word "rifle" to the Average Joe invokes visions of being out west and taking 400 yard shots across an open canyon. The problem is that they will try it. And when that round lands in the dirt 150 yards away, they will simply raise the muzzle, then raise it more. The other problem is the general non-hunting publics' perception. Again, all they will see is "rifle".

My fear like many also is that this will open the door to the necked down high powered cartridge rounds since the argument will be "we get to use them in our hand canons".

Now on the flip side, if done right by the IDNR, the pistol cartridge "rifle" could be the catalyst to getting rid of the hand canons. It could be used to define what an acceptable pistol round is for the State of Indiana. That in itself could be a very good thing.

I don't like the capacity issue. IMO, all deer guns need to be plugged, so this would have to be addressed for the 10 round cowboy guns.

There are other benefits that have been discussed, such as low recoil to women and children, economies in ammo, and a few other issues.

So, I'm torn on the issue, but based on pure data alone, I'm inclined to support it simply because these guns are no less dangerous and no give no advantage in range over what our slug guns have.

Stupid people are always going to do stupid things. So yes, there will be guys that try to lob rounds out there. I'm not sure what we do about that, because they already do it with their 12 ga. guns.

Again, I have no dog in this. I'll take my bow any day over a gun. I've yet to find a gun that can do the job any better then a bow can.:cool:

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Good post Dec...I say Lets Vote.Send out the Suveys and give the common hunter a chance to vote.

[Duckz-N-Buckz30]

I vote for Single-shots only in all firearms no matter what. Then we will start to be a little safer with all firearms short-mid-long ranges; Mzldrs, Rifles and Shotguns.

[tenring]

David the number supporting straight wall pistols was cut in half when you add in all centerfire rifles. That is the crux of the whole discussion.

As long as we do not introduce a firearm with a shoulder stock that fires a straightwall or a bottleneck cartridge we remain where we are, pistols, shotguns and muzzleloaders. As soon as you open the door to the straightwall cartridge all will follow. History shows that, look at where we were with pistols..........

David you can't argue against the safety issue, you I am sure are safe with your rifle, so that makes it ok. I'm safe with my 30-06, .300wsm or the striker handgun......... yet you don't want to allow me the privledge of using it?

Also I'm going to answer the question you have continued to dodge, why you went to a legislator.................

Each time the pistol cartridges have been approached by "administrative rule" they have been tabled by concerns from the Law Enforcement Division. That is a fact!

Last Hunter Safety class I instructed at, our resident Master CO said he had no problem with me carrying a lever action in .44 Mag in the 2007 deer season. Must have been the pencil pushing desk jockys' in Indy that had a problem.

[David4759]

David the number supporting straight wall pistols was cut in half when you add in all centerfire rifles. That is the crux of the whole discussion.

As long as we do not introduce a firearm with a shoulder stock that fires a straightwall or a bottleneck cartridge we remain where we are, pistols, shotguns and muzzleloaders. As soon as you open the door to the straightwall cartridge all will follow. History shows that, look at where we were with pistols..........

David you can't argue against the safety issue, you I am sure are safe with your rifle, so that makes it ok. I'm safe with my 30-06, .300wsm or the striker handgun......... yet you don't want to allow me the privledge of using it?

Also I'm going to answer the question you have continued to dodge, why you went to a legislator.................

Each time the pistol cartridges have been approached by "administrative rule" they have been tabled by concerns from the Law Enforcement Division. That is a fact!

"JB" Joe, you just threw in the ALL Centerfire rifle thing in your poll, on the other forum, inorder to confuse everyone and try to manunipulate the outcome. You and your buddies, that want to have things, your own way, without offering a choice to others is a poor concept at best. You know that those of us that want to see rifles become legal only want those rifles chambered for traditional pistol cartridges, as outlined by the State. Using the traditional RIFLE cartridges, like the one you mention, would be dangerous in Indiana. If you want to use your .30-06 then (again) you should hunt in states that allow their use. <Sorry your facts & excuses don't add up>

[David4759]

But how many of them are for rifles. Not very many I would think! I respect your opinion and I will have to accept it if it happens, but I'm not for it.

It would depend on their hunting area and situation. Everyone need not use a rifle chambered for a .44 Magnum, but it would make sense, that since we have modern sabot firing rifled shotguns, we should be allowed to use these shorter ranged pistol cartridge firing rifles. We can already use a RIFLE cartridge in a handgun!:coco:

[Doc Holiday]

can someone list what calibers will be up for legalization.

Thanks

[David4759]

can someone list what calibers will be up for legalization.

Thanks

The proposed deer firearm season rule change language reads:
- The rifle cartridge must:
(A) have a bullet of three hundred fifty-seven thousandths of an inch (.357) diameter or larger;
(B) have a minimum case length of one and sixteen hundredths (1.16) inches; and
(C) have a maximum case length of one and six hundred twenty-five thousandths (1.625) inches.

Pistol Cartridges like the: .357 Magnum, .41 Remington Magnum, .44 Remington Magnum, .45 Long Colt, and .454 Casull.

[Future_NFL_Father]

I am new to this forum, been hunting since I was old enough to carry a bb gun. I am all for the rule change and will be at the meeting supporting it. But in my opinion seems only reasonable to vote it in or out by the people. If you don't vote you can't whine.

[Old Ironsights]

Hillbilly loads? Average Joe? I thought we owed it to the animal to do the "killing" with the most efficient means possible?

The shotgun slug was developed to do the most tissue damage possible........ or kill the deer ASAP with the least amount of accuracy possible.

200 grain bullet from a pistol does not do as good a job at making deer eat dirt.

there is no such thing as overkill on a big game animal..

IronSights, there is no end to what the cost is on a hunting toy. If we want it we buy it.

Same as your arguement about sabot slugs being too expensive, find me a person who did not deer hunt because of sabot costs....

People can't handle the recoil? Maybe you can sell skeet, trap and Sporting Clay people on the medium range rifle.

This is a very well organized agenda to get the weapons made legal. Anyone notice it does not matter who posts the "talking points" are all the same?

Comment to IDNR, it will be the hunters wishes, again it has no negative impact on the resource. It should be up to the hunters of this State.

If my just Lasiked eyes read your posts right...

Pistol calibers are gread deer rounds out of pistols... but
Are inadequate out of a carbine... but
Are more dangerous than a shotgun
which is so inaccurate that it requires a more traumatic bullet to cleanly kill.

Did I get that right? :16suspect

[Old Ironsights]

I've watched this and pretty much stayed out of this topic over here. Maybe my input is too little too late, don't know, don't care I guess.

I bow hunt. I do take the muzzleloader out on occasion, but it is less and less every year. So I really have no dog in this fight. So I look at this from a common sense perspective. IMO, and I think most agree with me on this, high powered rifle rounds have absolutely no place in Indiana deer hunting. How the hand canons came to be is beyond me and I absolutely despise them. However, I will say that when I look at the ballistics on the rounds in this proposal and compare it with current slug guns and muzzleloaders, I really can't find a bit of lab data evidence that suggest we should not allow these pistol cartridge guns into our seasons. I'm no ballistics expert, but I can certainly understand the numbers when laid out like in this debate or that on other sites.

The problem that I see in the pistol cartridge debate is not the weapon. It is the end user. Even reading through these 10 pages, I am amazed at the lack of understanding of what these guns can and can not do. It is almost like reading the myths of what an X-bow can and can not do. I'm no X-bow guy and don't want to start that debate, but that is an end user issue, not a weapon problem. These pistol cartridge guns are not 250, 300, 400 yard guns. They have nearly the exact same effective range, if not less in some cases, as the slug guns that we currently use.

The problem is the user. I've argued this and argued this in other places, but WE, the members of these types of forums, are NOT the average hunters. By our very nature, we are all hunting junkies to one degree or another. By our very nature, WE spend more time with our weapons of choice and under stand their limitations better then the average deer hunter. WE are not the average deer hunter. What is going to happen, is that the average deer hunter will look at these guns and simply see the word "rifle", that will be it. The word "rifle" to the Average Joe invokes visions of being out west and taking 400 yard shots across an open canyon. The problem is that they will try it. And when that round lands in the dirt 150 yards away, they will simply raise the muzzle, then raise it more. The other problem is the general non-hunting publics' perception. Again, all they will see is "rifle".

My fear like many also is that this will open the door to the necked down high powered cartridge rounds since the argument will be "we get to use them in our hand canons".

Now on the flip side, if done right by the IDNR, the pistol cartridge "rifle" could be the catalyst to getting rid of the hand canons. It could be used to define what an acceptable pistol round is for the State of Indiana. That in itself could be a very good thing.

I don't like the capacity issue. IMO, all deer guns need to be plugged, so this would have to be addressed for the 10 round cowboy guns.

There are other benefits that have been discussed, such as low recoil to women and children, economies in ammo, and a few other issues.

So, I'm torn on the issue, but based on pure data alone, I'm inclined to support it simply because these guns are no less dangerous and no give no advantage in range over what our slug guns have.

Stupid people are always going to do stupid things. So yes, there will be guys that try to lob rounds out there. I'm not sure what we do about that, because they already do it with their 12 ga. guns.

Again, I have no dog in this. I'll take my bow any day over a gun. I've yet to find a gun that can do the job any better then a bow can.:cool:

Good post DEC.

I particularly agree with the bold bits, and from a cartridge design standpoint, I thought I pretty much put the underlined bit to rest, but oh well. As you say, if this ruling defines a Pistol Cartridge, then it will be easier to get the "Pistols" out there to comply to that spec than to allow rifles to use the rifle cartridges now allowed in hand cannons.

Logic must prevail.

[Old Ironsights]

The proposed deer firearm season rule change language reads:
- The rifle cartridge must:
(A) have a bullet of three hundred fifty-seven thousandths of an inch (.357) diameter or larger;
(B) have a minimum case length of one and sixteen hundredths (1.16) inches; and
(C) have a maximum case length of one and six hundred twenty-five thousandths (1.625) inches.

Pistol Cartridges like the: .357 Magnum, .41 Remington Magnum, .44 Remington Magnum, .45 Long Colt, and .454 Casull.

And (off the top of my head) .44-40, .38-40 (old BP "cowboy" loads), .357 Maximum, .45 Win Mag .445 SuperMag, .475 Linbaugh, .500 Linbaugh, .480 Ruger .500 S&W, and, FWIW, .50AE

Specifically excluded are .460 S&W (1.8") and .50 Beowulf (1.65" AR specific)

Of those listed, only the .500 S&W (1.625") offers a spitzer-type bullet in the (muzzleloading standard) Flat Base 300gr Hornady SST - and its ballistics are the same as that of a 12ga SST.

[JohnSmiles]

Ok, new guy here.
Old guy, old hunter, new member to be precise.
I hunt deer with a bow, handgun, muzzleloader and, though I have never owned one, I have used slug guns a few times.
Both rifled and smootbore.
What seems to be the objection here?
Seems like a lot of emotional reaction, but so far I have not read a single valid point AGAINST this proposal.

Some points I have seen I would like to address:
#1. Why would anyone demand a NEED for it?
Do any of you think you could actually show a 'need' to even hunt?
If so I would like to see it.

#2. They hold too many rounds. . . ?
We have slug guns that hold 6 rounds that I know of.
Maybe more.
I am not familiar with all of the available shotguns out there.
Unless you are firing a full auto, 6 rounds is about all you will ever have time to fire anyway.
If that.
Deer don't usually hang around after the first shot.
While this is not always the case, I have found it to be the norm.
The fact is, irresponsible people are just that.
As far as my thinking goes, a 100 round drum will do no good if the game is gone after the first two shots.

#3. The ballistics.
I have seen both sides of this argued, and neither holds up.
I hunt with a 44 magnum.
Going to a rifle will increase my effective range a bit, and increase my shooting ABILITY a great deal.
How is this a bad thing?
We are talking about certain types of cartridges, not actual 'high power' rifle cartridges.
Like you can currently shoot in some legal 'hand-rifles'.

#4. It will eventually lead to high powered rifles being made legal.
I really don't think that will ever happen myself.
But if it does, so what?
What fiction makes anyone thing that will draw more 'loonies' to the woods?
I heard all this back when handguns were being advocated.
If you think back, I am sure many of you are old enough to remember it too.
You just didn't have an internet, so you only heard it in person.
Not from everyone with a computer.

A person who wants to hunt will do so.
Most will hunt with whatever is deemed legal.
Some will poach, regardless of any laws.
We have some who only hunt with their weapon of choice.
Some bow hunters would like all guns banned from use.
Some muzzies would like all modern guns banned.
And some gun hunters would ban all bows because they deem them as inhumane.
All of which only restrict others, while expanding the potential of the one espousing the restrictions.
No reasoning there.
Just self serving intentions.
The reason some of you feel as if you are in a war zone on opening day is NOT because too many weapons are allowed, but because almost everyone who hunts plans on being there when the season opens.

I myself hunt when I can.
Which is nowhere near as often as I would like sadly.
And I hunt with whatever is legal.
(My actual preference is bow hunting)
If they make it legal to hunt with a 480 or 500 in a rifle, I will happily buy one of the nef single shots.
The lever actions are just too pricey to justify, when I already have a good muzzleloader, handgun and bow.
But $225 I could be talked into.
:)

Now, if anyone actually has a valid reason to deny this proposal, I would like to hear it.
I haven't seen a valid reason posted yet.
My first post here, but to be honest, every post I have read against this seems extremely selfish and closed minded.


And, btw, WHERE is this meeting taking place?
I missed that part if it was posted.

[Old Ironsights]

Howdy John. Sensible Post.

The hearing will be held Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 6 p.m. (EST) at the Garrison Conference Center at Ft. Harrison State Park in Indianapolis.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/inns/images/maps/garrison_lm.gif

The Natural Resources Commission preliminarily adopted these rule changes, along with several others, in July 2006. The preliminarily adopted rules are available online at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/about/

Click on "2006 Additional Wildlife Administrative Rule Changes".

Public comments can be submitted by e-mail, written letter, or at the public hearing.

Written comments can be sent to:
Hearing Officer
Natural Resources Commission
402 W. Washington Street, W272
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Comments can also be e-mailed to:
jkane@nrc.in.gov

Written comments must be received no later than February 15.

A copy of the public hearing report will be available at www.IN.gov/nrc prior to final consideration by the Natural Resources Commission. The NRC will likely consider these rule changes for final adoption in March. If approved by the NRC, attorney general and governor, the changes will become effective this summer.

The Garrison Conference Center is in Ft. Harrison State Park on the east side of Indianapolis, near the intersection of Post Road and 59th St.

Individuals who need reasonable modifications for effective participation in public meetings should call the DNR ADA coordinator at (317) 232-4200 (voice and TDD).

[JohnSmiles]

Thank you very much!
And a map even!
I just might be able to make it!

[JohnSmiles]

The meeting is important.
Regardless of what some may want you to think.
If you are in support of this, better plan on being there.
Many of those against it are counting on you NOT being there, I can assure you.
This is in no way a 'done deal'.
But if you don't show up and voice your opinion, it may very well be.
Done and over with, that is.
As those arguing against this have not been able to supply one single, arguable reason to deny it, the only way this will get defeated is if you don't show up for the meeting.
So by all means, if you want straight walled pistol rounds made legal in rifles, be there.

:Welcome: :woohoo1: :yeahthat:



Those of you who don't, need not appear.
I will make sure your concerns are voiced.
:Protest_e

j/k . . . . :biggrin:



Seriously though, all who can make the trip and have the time should do so.
You have no right to complain if you never voiced your concerns.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

I think EVERYONE should be at the meeting. But, we all have to realize that these meetings don't determine the decision on any issue. This issue is being "look at" behind the scenes already and while the meeting can have some influence, the meeting itself isn't important so long as people send in comments via email, internet and letters. Now, the behind the scenes looks are very important and they provide input from folks that otherwise might not have even known the issue was being considered. Do you have any idea of how many meetings like this has happened over the years that the vast majority of folks at the meeting were either for or against an issue and the result still went against them? The way to influence situations is by getting viewpoints and input from others who aren't seem as seeking self-interest. NOW, I'm not trying to be critical of anyone as to how they want or don't want an issue, but that is simply the truth. ;)

[David4759]

BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS,

At the bottom of your posts you have written "NO RIFLES IN INDIANA" By this do you mean no varmint rifles like the .222 or .243; and that all firearms that fire cartridges other than shotgun shells should be banned??? Even .22 LR rifles for Squirrels???:confused:

[dleslie217]

Oh gawd..........here we go again!!!

[goggleye57]

I think EVERYONE should be at the meeting. But, we all have to realize that these meetings don't determine the decision on any issue. This issue is being "look at" behind the scenes already and while the meeting can have some influence, the meeting itself isn't important so long as people send in comments via email, internet and letters. Now, the behind the scenes looks are very important and they provide input from folks that otherwise might not have even known the issue was being considered. Do you have any idea of how many meetings like this has happened over the years that the vast majority of folks at the meeting were either for or against an issue and the result still went against them? The way to influence situations is by getting viewpoints and input from others who aren't seem as seeking self-interest. NOW, I'm not trying to be critical of anyone as to how they want or don't want an issue, but that is simply the truth. ;)

good comments

[anon782010]

BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS,

At the bottom of your posts you have written "NO RIFLES IN INDIANA" By this do you mean no varmint rifles like the .222 or .243; and that all firearms that fire cartridges other than shotgun shells should be banned??? Even .22 LR rifles for Squirrels???:confused:

You know exactly what he is talking about. You're just spitting out words to see where they splatter.

[tedbower]

hasnt this rifle thing been hashed out enough ? it always end up ugly

[David4759]

You know exactly what he is talking about. You're just spitting out words to see where they splatter.

No, just the way it's written and presented, give one the impression that he want NO rifle use here in Indiana. Yes, I know he means for Deer only but someone unfamiliar, with the forum, may think he means ban ALL rifles for hunting. Don't be so touchy!;)

[David4759]

hasnt this rifle thing been hashed out enough ? it always end up ugly

Know what you mean, it's too bad this issues divides hunters.:(

[Old Ironsights]

What's striking to me, as someone who has been involved in RKBA in Anti-Gun (or nearly so) States, that Sportsmen can't figure out that opposing equipment/styles of hunting/shooting just because it's not what "we" do is utterly suicidal.

There was an Initiative in Washington State, brought out by the Anti's in Seattle, to force handgun owners to "properly store" their handguns. A lot of sportmen supported it - because they didn't have handguns.

What they didn't take care to notice was that the proposed law essentially registered every handgun owner and gave the State Police the authority to do no-knock "inspections" to insure that the guns were "stored properly".

We spent thousands of dollars and man hours trying to get sportsmen involved in opposing this. Hell, even the Cops were on board. But some sportsmen didn't care. It didn't affect them - they didn't have handguns.

Makes you wonder whose side they are on.

I hear Tradidionalists gripe about the Inlines, the Cowboys gripe about the Black Rifles of the IDPA. IDPA gripes about the USPSA, Bowhunters gripe about gun hunters, Bird guys gripe about deer guys, deer guys gripe about rabbit hunters, shotguners gripe about rifles, somebody doesn't like leg traps, "Hunters" saying they are better than "Shooters"/Gamers, etc.

How long will it be before "your" thing is under assault? Who will be there to back you up? Some sportsmen didn't care about the Assault Weapon Ban - because they didn't use ARs for varminting. Gee thanks. How long did we have to put up with that? What's next? Keep an eye out for the 1000% tax on pistol ammo coming up again. But maybe it won't matter because you don't have a pistol or shoot pistol cartridges... except your .22... Or maybe it's the HSUS Bow Hunting Ban... does it matter if you don't have a bow?

Hell, the ARFs and Anti's hardly have to do a thing.

You can't tell me they don't troll these forums looking for things they can use.

Which is more useful to a trolling Anti: "No Rifles in Indiana!" or "No Long Range Cartridges for Deer Hunting!" ?

We're losing incrementally. A ban here, a restriction there, demonizing equipment that we don't have or want to use. That's how they operate, and they are very good at manipulating these divisions between sportsmen.

RKBA - whether Handguns, Assault Rifles or Shotguns - is an all or nothing game. Anti's win incrementally, but lose in a big way when forced to show their real objectives. By not standing together at all times, we aren't forcing them to be the radicals they are - so they win. A little here, a little there, but they win.

Having opinions is good, but we must[b/] be careful about how we express them.... and we [b]must support all the shooting sports.


Or the Antis win - and our grandkids lose.

[David4759]

Great post, "Old Ironsights"

[410]

Good post Brew. NO RIFLES FOR DEER HUNTING IN INDIANA

[Old Ironsights]

Good post Brew. NO RIFLES FOR DEER HUNTING IN INDIANA

Much better. Context is critical. ;)

[jackc99]

And I'm against the canned hunters and high fences on this board also. Old Ironsights makes some good points but we all must decide for ourselves how much we can live with. I'm not enthused by every yahoo I've seen with a gun and I certainly won't support some of their operations or causes.

Jack

[Old Ironsights]

Canned Hunts and High Fences are not an Equipment/RKBA or even Game Management issue (except for unintentional releases).

They are Social Issues. Different animal altogether.

[Flintlocker]

With an eye toward believing the best of our DNR and elected officials, i believe that all of this started as a means to increase sporting opportunity for Hoosier outdoorsmen. Increased opportunity is a cause that we all embrace...we just have differing visions of what those opportunities should be. I remember the worry that my circle felt when handguns were added to the list of legal weapons. Same when crossbows were legalized.

I'm not sure where I stand on legalizing centerfire rifles for deer hunting. I won't hunt with one, but that is my choice. Ironsight's point above is well made, and should be considered by all of us as we consider what our opinions will be...If we don't stand together and support one another, even if we don't completely agree, we will fall individually.

I haven't e-mailed my thoughts to the DNR yet, but you can be sure that I will

[Hunter Hollis]

I think rifles should be regulated like a crossbow. You need a doctors form to be allowed to hunt with one. I do know one gentelman that I used to hunt with cant use a shotgun anymore. He has a defibulator and would hate to jar it around while in the woods. Just like school, work and everything else...a doctors note will allow you to do about anything.

:tongue:

[JohnSmiles]

Sad, that this issue divides a group of people who should NOT be so easily divided.
:tsk:
As I have stated many times, I am 100% in support of it.
I can say 100% because I have yet to see a single valid(in my humble opinion) reason to be against it.
Not a single one.
It restricts no one, and it removes no currently legal weapons or cartridges.
If anyone had a good reason for fighting this, it would have surfaced by now.
So far, every reason I have seen opposing it has, in my humble opinion, been completely without merit.
Some have been utterly fabricated.
That is why I am not just 'mostly' in support, but completely behind this proposal.

This issue will no more go away than any other issue ever has.
But this time it may finally get approved, if enough support is shown.
If not, it could be shelved for several years before it is taken seriously again.

So, don't miss this chance to make your opinion known WHERE IT COUNTS.
:Welcome:
Whichever way you see it.

:yeahthat:

:Protest_e

[jbwhttail]

You say it all when you say........... "my humble opinion"....... we all have one......

[JohnSmiles]

You say it all when you say........... "my humble opinion"....... we all have one......
Yes we do.
Everyone should make their opinion known.
And supply their line of reasoning to support their opinion.
In any debate, or discussion, having all the information preseneted is essential to making a fair judgement.

And, doesn't 'in my humble opinion' sound much nicer than saying 'if you support this stupid ****** law, your just a moron and I don't like you' . . . . . .


:evilsmile

[David4759]

And, doesn't 'in my humble opinion' sound much nicer than saying 'if you support this stupid ****** law, your just a moron and I don't like you' . . . . . .:evilsmile

That's the way I've been treated here, on this issue, John.:(

[trdtnlbwhntr]

careful its so cold outside your tear might freeze before it hits the ground. We have all been disagreed with here once or twice. We have all had our ideas stompped on a few times by someone. The difference between us is that we dont spend the time to mention how horrible we have been treated and we dont take it personal we just move on and make our points and ideas heard again. So sew it up sally and move on!

[JohnSmiles]

I have seen almost that same exact statement used many times David.
In many places about many issues.
It comes up when someone realizes they have no valid reason for taking the stand they have.
Or, as is often the case, when someone has a hidden agenda they do not wish exposed.
They will attempt to confuse, or simply switch, the issue.
Politicians do this a lot.

Newsman: "Hey, Mr. President, why are you avoiding the Border Patrol issue?"
President: "You see, thats why I support this war. Its about Americans like you . . ."

My post was intended to be cute, not to start another bat swinging contest.
My advice would be to overlook the insults completely.
Or accept them for what they actually are most times:
When a person starts throwing insults, it is a sign they full well know you have won the debate and they have lost, but won't accept it.

I have several issues I will not agree on with several here I am sure.
Such is life.
But, stick to facts and retain your composure, and some may eventually see things your way.
Something that never happens if you lose your cool in a debate.

[scrapewatcher]

:eek: thought this thread was closed. :gaga:

[410]

Scrapwatcher I hope this thread is or will be closed

[JohnSmiles]

Who exactly forced you to read it, or to reply?
:confused:
Why are you really trying to get this issue closed?
Again.
No one is forcing you to participate in any way.
Or even asking you to read it.

Silencing the voices of those you do not want heard is rather petty.
If you cannot offer any debate on the issue, get out of the ring fella's.

And stop jumping in telling others to shut up about it.
Not sure about your point & click skills, but I only read the articles I choose to read.

I am really starting to wonder about just how little it takes to get a thread closed by those who don't want it discussed.
We shall wait and see.

[410]

The thread would not be bad, but you go over the same s*** time and time again and only about 1% of the site really cares. Sorry but I am not trying to cause trouble but this thread is like beating a dead horse. sorry I will not be on this thread again. NO RIFLES FOR DEER HUNTING IN INDIANA< WE HAVE NO USE FOR THEM>

[Hunter Hollis]

The thread would not be bad, but you go over the same s*** time and time again and only about 1% of the site really cares. Sorry but I am not trying to cause trouble but this thread is like beating a dead horse. sorry I will not be on this thread again. NO RIFLES FOR DEER HUNTING IN INDIANA< WE HAVE NO USE FOR THEM>

By beating a dead horse you mean clicking the link and responding? If nobody responds, the topic will soon fade away, if you throw a thimble full of gas on a fire it gets 20 feet tall. The horse is dead 410, walk away.

[BREWERSVILLE OUTFITTERS]

Who exactly forced you to read it, or to reply?
:confused:
Why are you really trying to get this issue closed?
Again.
No one is forcing you to participate in any way.
Or even asking you to read it.

Silencing the voices of those you do not want heard is rather petty.
If you cannot offer any debate on the issue, get out of the ring fella's.

And stop jumping in telling others to shut up about it.
Not sure about your point & click skills, but I only read the articles I choose to read.

I am really starting to wonder about just how little it takes to get a thread closed by those who don't want it discussed.
We shall wait and see.Gee..How Rude can one Be!!!!:coco:

[scrapewatcher]

Who exactly forced you to read it, or to reply?
:confused:
Why are you really trying to get this issue closed?
Again.
No one is forcing you to participate in any way.
Or even asking you to read it.

Silencing the voices of those you do not want heard is rather petty.
If you cannot offer any debate on the issue, get out of the ring fella's.

And stop jumping in telling others to shut up about it.
Not sure about your point & click skills, but I only read the articles I choose to read.

I am really starting to wonder about just how little it takes to get a thread closed by those who don't want it discussed.
We shall wait and see. john no one is trying to silence you. or offend you. we are just tired of rehashing it over and over. this isn't the jerry springer show. this is a public forum about hunting and fishing and making friends. why can't you just let it go. all threads die out along the way at some point.

[goggleye57]

As moderators its a tough call on when to shut down debates, we don't want to keep people from discussing issues - just to do it at the right place and in the right way. Another thread was closed. This one had not been closed and had sat idle. It was posted on again and brought to the top again.
What do you guys think? When is enough- enough?

[scrapewatcher]

personally speaking for myself i think it's enough.

[410]

Thanks Hunter Hollis you are right and thank you for reminding me. If we stop posting it will go away. NO MORE GAS

[BRICH60]

I VOTE FOR TERMINATING THE THREAD. EVERYONE HAS HAD ENOUGH TIME TO STATE THEIR OPINION. IT`S ALL UP TO DNR NOW. SEND YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTONS TO THEM AS THEY ALONE HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE OR KEEP THINGS THE SAME. FOR EVERYONE ELESE , IT`S JUST AN OPINION.

[dleslie217]

It's enough...........

[tedbower]

Shut Er Down

[Fuzzy Muzzy]

I don't think we need to bring ANY rifle into Indiana Deer season. I think shotgun , muzzleloader and archery are enough....oh yeah and we allow pistols and "bowguns" ;)
I harvested this deer this year with an OLD single shot 20 gage this year. I left my muzzleloader at my Dad's the night before season after sighting it in then setting in Mom and Pop's kitchen BSing!! lol So, I looked on the gun shelf and there the 20 gage set .............Thanks, Fuzzy
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/flsears/PB150013.jpg

[dleslie217]

Nice buck Fuzzy!!

[goggleye57]

ok:)