Until sportsmen band together and bring a class action lawsuit on them for destroying our herd when it happens


When, not if

the real question is how did the .270, , .240, .25-06, .280, 7mm-08 Remington, etc...get left off that list?!

Dead deer is a dead deer, does not matter which weapon killed it

We let the govt in on it. The ones that could ruin a wet dream.

From watching the meetings and conferences, the bill was originally written (".243 and up"), but it would have never passed written that way so they amended it to make it look more like a "trial" to "test the waters" of adding more rifles to the legal list.

thanks for the reply, this makes sense. Likely expand from this list down the road.

I wonder what number of incidents of property damage, injuries, or deaths will be acceptable to them? For me, my main disagreement with it is a safety issue. I hunt on 100 acres with two other hunters, surrounded by identically sized and number of hunter properties. We have almost never taken a shot past 100 yards and we harvest deer just fine every year. I don't feel there is a need to use a round that could potentially strike someone three properties over. If you are out target shooting, you're responsible for shooting with an appropriate backstop. How many people are going to only take an appropriately backstopped shot when there is a big buck in their sights or have their stand in an area where it's safe to shoot a weapon like that in every direction in their line of sight? Whether I think it’s “sporting” or not is far and away from my safety concern. No, I don’t think it is, but that is purely personal preference. I like the thrill of sitting in a ground blind and having deer come within 20ft of me; some guys prefer or enjoy just as much sighting in at a deer 200 yards away. Like has been said, dead deer is dead deer. I’m just more worried about dead or injured humans.

There are several states (KY, PA, MI, WI) that have the same general hunter density and property sizes that allow rifles without any problems. Putting a rifle in a hunter's hand doesn't make him all-of-sudden reckless and dangerous. We have to AT LEAST assume hunters follow basic hunting safety, as we have for years with shotguns, rifles, handguns and muzzleloaders.

Let's be fair about the ballistics of rifle's vs currently available ammunition now, too.

Here's a chart showing the drop of a 150gr .308 (will probably be very popular) in the "A" column, and a 300gr slug doing 2000fps in the "B" column. Both firearms zeroed at 100 yards.



Now, if the the hunter were sitting in a ground blind and shooting level, and were to miss their target, the .308 will hit the ground around 400 yards and the slug will hit the ground at around 300 yards.

Now, the .308 will lose nearly all its energy the moment it hits the ground, not making it more than a few feet after hitting the ground. It has been proven, however, that the 300gr slug will not stop near as quickly as the 150gr .308. In fact, the shotgun slug has been proven to actually ricochet so much to the point that the slug ends up past where the .308 round struck the ground.

As we know, not all shots are fired level, but are quite commonly fired at a downward angle. At even a 10 degree angle, the rifle round has less than a 0.6% chance of ricocheting. However, the slug still has over a 7% chance ricocheting.

INDIANA is the SMALLEST land mass west of the Appalachian Mountains..... Not sure how that makes us like other states :rolleyes:

Overall land mass doesn't matter if hunter density and property sizes are similar.

According to QDMA:
IN: 13-16 hunters per sq mi
WI: 17-20 hunters per sq mi
MI: 5-8 hunters per sq mi
KY: 5-8 hunters per sq mi
PA: 17-20 hunters per sq mi

The chart isn't showing up, but I'll respect the ballistics you quoted. Despite the "science" behind that way of looking at it, it just doesn't convince me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it doesn't change my mind or my opinion. I know in a 200+yd engagement with an enemy, I’d “feel” safer knowing the enemy had pump action 12 gauges rather than high powered rifles, so maybe it’s not fact based, it’s gut feeling based.

But, I'm also not sure comparing us to KY, PA, MI, and WI is an accurate comparison of the suitability of rifles for Indiana. Not only is the physical geography/topography different, I would argue that parcel size and hunter density are also not equivalent. I’m saying, from my experience, a lot of Indiana private land hunters hunt relatively small parcels where long range rounds could more easily endanger hunters in neighboring parcels. There simply are not as many 500+ acre privately owned wooded/recreational parcels in Indiana as there are in the other states you referenced. Heck, if you go on any of the three or four top land listing websites, it’s not uncommon at all to find properties with 1000+ acres for sale in those states at any given time. In Indiana, you’re hard pressed to find over 300 acre properties that are not flat agricultural.

Ever hear the term crossroads of America?

That's INDIANA ..... Just like other states? :rolleyes:

I edited my post while you were replying, but our density is fairly "median" to those other states. The topography is not really an issue when it comes to safety, as I've described in my ballistics. I could effectively make a case that "hill country" would be more dangerous for rifles than flat land.

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

My job title has had the term "Analyst" in it for the last 18 years, so believe me when I say I am generally very much a "The numbers don't lie." type of person. So, if a bunch of data can be pulled from the ether to prove they're safe, then this is something I guess I'm going to have to fess up and say it's just how I "feel" about it. It's not always the numbers. A lot of science (and money and politics) have gone towards determining if global warming is real and, if so, manmade or natural, and they haven't managed to convince me either way yet!

Curiously, what don't you agree with? I've been trying to find studies, data, anything that would prove a safety concern is warranted.

I respect that. I too deal with mounds of data. So that's just how my brain works, I guess (you get it).

Whether it convinces anyone, and whether it proves true, will all just have to be proven empirically.

In Indiana where talking general population not just Hunter population big deference . I been all over the the Midwest traveling and working and Indiana is not like other states at all in many ways... IMO

Do I think someone will be shot with a HPR ... Most likely not, but rest assured there will be property damage ..IMO

So what is it about rifles that will cause these more property damage incidents?

If you can't understand that I can't help you.

Maybe someone else can guide you though them answers ....

All I needed to hear thanks

Chart I see compares a 500 s&w to 308 not a shotgun slug. I hunt with the 500 and that bullet explodes on impact I have never had a pass through and always find fragments in the deer. Doe I got last year had the copper jacket mushroomed in the heart but no lead to be found

I disagree with the No-Rifles Rule. Just like the time change. Indiana needs to get with the program. over 90% of the state is boondock farmland. It is ridiculous that the shotgun-only rule was in place, they slowly allowed rifles.

I like the new policy. In 10 years everyone here will own a 30-30, 30-06 or .308 and love using it. They are fun to have, shoot and hunt with. I love them.

:-)

The program I used only had rifle and handgun cartridges. The 300gr slug in the 12ga has the same ballistics.

Ok I use 350gr out of my 500 and when I use the shotgun I use 1oz foster slugs. Those ballistics are with sabots and rifled barrel i assume

it's a trial period, if some morons shoot at a deer on a hill top and hits a house, leading to public outcry it might very well be the end of it... It is set to sunset in 2020.

Correct.

I'm not a fan of this, but not gonna argue about something that's GOING to happen...I'll say this though:
Analyzing data statewide and averaging it all together to prove a point and move forward is pretty much how we do our deer herd...and that's exactly why in some parts of the state deer are every where and others hunters barely see any.
There are certainly places that rifles will be just fine. But we already have idiots shooting through walls of houses in subdivisions a few times per year and deer hunting with HPR's hasn't even been legal...Wait till "Joe six pack" wobbles outa walmart with his bundle license,brand new blaze orange cap, couple boxes of slugs and a cheap 30.06 and goes out in a cornfield to sight it in before it gets dark the friday before opening day.yep...multiply that by a few thousand over the next few years...Can't wait.I decided not to hunt in the gun season anymore, but I live in the country...there will be people in the tiny woodlots with 300 yard guns all around me.

HS, it not only that, but those in densely populated areas, Marion, Porter, Lake and St. Joe counties and a few others are going to have a very rude awakening... I hope this stupidity NEVER come to pass on our F&W areas.... Kingsbury and blood alley has always been a war zone, cant even imagine it with guys and 300 win.'s and others lined up on it.... god help those that try .... the herd on many F&W areas have plummeted, hate to see it if these things become legal on 'em .....

I'll stick to Krogers and Meijers....

I've probably hunted my last firearm season......just cannot deal with the stupidity anymore!!!

Made the exact same stand on opening day of the 1991 general firearms season. Loading my buck in the truck at noon I swore never again. Difficult to explain that level of aggravation following a successful hunt...but believe me, it was the real deal. It was bad enough then...without rifles.

As with most things "deer hunting" there are opposing views....

Here are two....

http://wildindiana.com/a/editorial-sky-isnt-falling-because-hb1231/

http://wildindiana.com/a/deer-rifle-controversy/

No one seems concerned that the LEGISLATURE has now stepped in and made wildlife rules!

We will "pay" for this for years!

"You" can post all the pro or con statistics you want but........ We now have lawyers making wildlife rules........SAD DAY.

I think I voiced my concerns early on with this topic, Joe. Pandoras box has been opened.

I'm as green as it gets to following legislation, so this is the first time ever that the IGA has made a law regarding hunting/fishing/etc?

If that's the case, it is concerning...

But at the same time....we can FIRE those elected officials and replace with someone more to our liking and in line with our thinking


There's always a sliver of silver

Just have to get the dead beats to the polls

A couple of points....

1. The second link addressed this very subject..

http://wildindiana.com/a/deer-rifle-controversy/

2. This is what happens when one political party holds all the power.

Please post the list of wildlife rules the IGA has made in the past...

I don't believe you understood arlowe13's comment, Brew. He was asking a question...