Any reports of hp rifle accidents this deer season?

[Field King]

Always common sense from a bird hunter. Thanks Murph.

 

[boman]

too simple

Why not just copy Wisconsin's rules on rifles?

I think that would be too simple for the legislators in this state. DNR's original proposal was much closer to Wisconsin rules.

Bottom line though----WE got a rifle bill passed.

Steve

 

[oldpink]

Geesh, here we go again.

It was shut down first try.
2nd try, given the appearance of limits (cartridges listed at 5, but not by proper name)...........it passes (remember there were other restrictions that were dropped).
But all the .270 owners are so freakin' smart they think they were excluded out of ballistic error.

Kinda tired of the same ol nonsense.

We are in a test period, duh.

Politics..................state passed a poorly worded law, DNR made a clarification that opened it up more.............did they do that to make it easier for enforcement and Fudd comprehension?

Or did they open it up to make it easier to fail?

Be happy for the generous allowance in cartridges in this test period, and that in spite of our ranks stupidity, things should go smoothly and be opened up in a couple of yrs.

I have to agree, and for those of you unfamiliar with Hookeye, he was initially less than enthusiastic for the law being opened up to allow even the two bore diameters allowed as of last year.

I would love to get the .270 included. How did someone go about getting their state rep to draft the bill. Maybe we could get them to add an amendment to in include .270 and well as the other missed calibers.

It really says something that even a skeptic is okay with it and endorses an expansion of the law as written, so please, all you .270 Winchester, 7mm Remingtom Magnum, and other non-.243/non.308 bore diamater rifle owners, please just chill and keep your own legislators informed that you would like them to vote to expand it in the simplest way possible -- i.e. any cartridge currently allowed for deer hunting in handgun platforms (.243 minimum bore diameter and 1.16" minimum case length) should have that legalized in rifle platforms -- at the end of this five year trial period.
Lots of you may not know that the DNR the year before last proposed that all calibers currently legal in handguns be legalized in rifles, but it got torpedoed by all the Fudds, so the legislature took it up early last year, again running into resistance by more Fudds, so the law as currently written was a compromise, with the trial period as a part of that to placate the nay-sayers and give a deadline to (probably) expand the law to have no time limit and expand the allowed cartridges from .243 on up instead of just the two bore diameters.
If the backers of the law as currently written had been recalcitrant that all rifles calibers be legalized for deer hunting, it never would have made it past the Fudds...PERIOD.
I get it that lots of you have other caliber rifles that you'd love to take deer hunting, but you were not specifically excluded as a personal slight, so please don't look this gift horse in the mouth and recognize that the compromise will allow the backers of the law as currently written to expand it to allow your rifles in four more years when those of us with the currently allowed rifles demonstrate that we are responsible, ethical, and safe hunters.
Indiana is notorious for being resistant to change, even when sensible, so remember that handguns for deer hunting here were only legalized in the 1980s, while handgun caliber rifles were only legalized in the late 1990s, with several amendments expanding the allowed calibers for both platforms after their initial passage.
It's a huge step for any genuine high-powdered rifle to be legal for deer hunting

 

[Leo]

.270 is pretty popular for deer in Texas with long shot distances benefiting from the flatter trajectory. The lighter recoil is nice also, especially as hunters get older. I like the 7mm express, which is also currently in limbo.

As others have already discussed, approach this all with a cool head and be patient, it may work out.

 

[gregr]

Geesh, here we go again.

It was shut down first try.
2nd try, given the appearance of limits (cartridges listed at 5, but not by proper name)...........it passes (remember there were other restrictions that were dropped).
But all the .270 owners are so freakin' smart they think they were excluded out of ballistic error.

Kinda tired of the same ol nonsense.

We are in a test period, duh.

Politics..................state passed a poorly worded law, DNR made a clarification that opened it up more.............did they do that to make it easier for enforcement and Fudd comprehension?

Or did they open it up to make it easier to fail?

Be happy for the generous allowance in cartridges in this test period, and that in spite of our ranks stupidity, things should go smoothly and be opened up in a couple of yrs.

For starters, as far as ballistics go, there was no reason to not include cartridges such as the .270, other than non-hunters crafted the bill. Secondly, it makes no difference that we`re in a trial period, hunters have every right to ask, and know, why other similar rounds weren`t included, and if they will be added after the trial period.

Beyond that, while happy, no, THRILLED that we have the new rounds we have, in spite of the fudds who are against it, it`s ok to discuss it here, and make plans to ask for additional options.

 

[Hookeye]

Ballistically, the deer herd was well managed without HP rifles.
IMHO there was no need to go past the previous PCR allowance.

Changing gear doesn't change thinking...........idiots before HP rifle are idiots after.

 

[Hookeye]

BTW, guy on backside of field, below the roll..............did not hunt treestand this past yr, he had a ground blind.
Deer run the edge of the roll, halfway out. Usually below, but sometimes above.
Road hunters would be blasting right toward that guy, and never know he was there. 200 yds from the road the ridge is.
Just far enough that shotgun poachers would not take that shot.
See what the local morons do next season.
Nothing happened last season that we are aware of. But we park where they can see our vehicle, so nothing silly while we are there.

 

[Hookeye]

I've had enough slugs fly by during the old shotgun days (other properties-private).
Think only one was PCR..........dunno, before legal light, deer close.......as I walked in.
Trespasser's muzzle flash was impressive. Deer was between us.

 

[Hookeye]

The law was not a ballistics law.
It was a deer management law.
Think people management in there and indeed it does make sense.

It passed, with the appearance of limits, and the legislature and DNR..................neither one gets full blame if things go bad.

Pretty smart politically.

Either they lucked out, or it was................planned.

Yup I used a HP rifle last yr. Big whoop. All the law did was save me 600 bucks for a rebarrel job (which I'd still like, but maybe buy another rifle for the project). I could have used PCR, shotgun or handgun...........deer would be just as dead. Hell it was only 50 yards.

 

[Hookeye]

If people keep blasting does, it aint gonna matter what gun you have by the end of the test period.

 

[Hookeye]

If HP rifle went away at the end of the test period it would not affect my hunting.

If they made PCR drop from 1.8 back to 1.625.................I'd still like a .35 remington Ruger #1............just to have.

I could run a .44 mag rifle.............or even an 870 12 gauge. They work. While the latter thumps a bit, I don't see the problem.
Don't really feel it when nailing your deer.

 

[gregr]

Ballistically, the deer herd was well managed without HP rifles.
IMHO there was no need to go past the previous PCR allowance.

Changing gear doesn't change thinking...........idiots before HP rifle are idiots after.

The recurve guys complained when the compound bows came along, said they weren`t necessary. Then the compound guys complained about the crossbow guys. The flintlock guys hated the inline muzzleloader hunters. It isn`t about managing the deer herd here, it`s about choices for people, and generally bringing more people into the field, and letting them grow to love hunting. As long as any hunter hunts legally and ethically, I don`t care what equipment they use to kill their game. Hunting is about the experience for each hunter, it`s not about anyone else deciding what buck is "a shooter", or whether a deer should have been killed with a recurve bow or a 30.06. PCR or HP rifle, it`s no one`s business but that hunter who paid for their license, sighted in their weapon, scouted, and set up and hunted their deer.

 

[Paul30]

I am glad they are on the right track to making it legal to use the same type rifle every state around us uses to ethically hunt deer. The points have been well made and the "trial period" will become a well written law after the blood doesn't run in the streets as predicted by the fudds. Hunters have used Modern Sporting Rifle's (MSR) to hunt coyote for decades with no problems. Modern Muzzle Loaders are about as lethal as a MSR, and have also been used to hunt deer for a long time with no problems. The MSR is more accurate so we should have less deer wounded only to go off and die a long agonizing death somewhere while the person who shot it with a shotgun and missed the kill zone will shoot however many they need to shoot until they luck out and one dies within recovery range. I don't see a single down side to legalizing a more accurate MSR to hunt animals, and I am very glad it will likely be permanent on all private and public land after the trial period. The legislators will have no reason not to make it permanent and include all reasonable calibers rather than a few. Happy hunting to all, and thanks for all who worked hard to make it happen.

 

[gregr]

I am glad they are on the right track to making it legal to use the same type rifle every state around us uses to ethically hunt deer. The points have been well made and the "trial period" will become a well written law after the blood doesn't run in the streets as predicted by the fudds. Hunters have used Modern Sporting Rifle's (MSR) to hunt coyote for decades with no problems. Modern Muzzle Loaders are about as lethal as a MSR, and have also been used to hunt deer for a long time with no problems. The MSR is more accurate so we should have less deer wounded only to go off and die a long agonizing death somewhere while the person who shot it with a shotgun and missed the kill zone will shoot however many they need to shoot until they luck out and one dies within recovery range. I don't see a single down side to legalizing a more accurate MSR to hunt animals, and I am very glad it will likely be permanent on all private and public land after the trial period. The legislators will have no reason not to make it permanent and include all reasonable calibers rather than a few. Happy hunting to all, and thanks for all who worked hard to make it happen.

 

[oldpink]

I am glad they are on the right track to making it legal to use the same type rifle every state around us uses to ethically hunt deer. The points have been well made and the "trial period" will become a well written law after the blood doesn't run in the streets as predicted by the fudds. Hunters have used Modern Sporting Rifle's (MSR) to hunt coyote for decades with no problems. Modern Muzzle Loaders are about as lethal as a MSR, and have also been used to hunt deer for a long time with no problems. The MSR is more accurate so we should have less deer wounded only to go off and die a long agonizing death somewhere while the person who shot it with a shotgun and missed the kill zone will shoot however many they need to shoot until they luck out and one dies within recovery range. I don't see a single down side to legalizing a more accurate MSR to hunt animals, and I am very glad it will likely be permanent on all private and public land after the trial period. The legislators will have no reason not to make it permanent and include all reasonable calibers rather than a few. Happy hunting to all, and thanks for all who worked hard to make it happen.

That's the spirit.

 

[Hookeye]

The coyote HP rifle argument doesn't work.
Lesser number of folks, spread out over more acreage...........using varmint bullets.
I don't think running an MSR is going to change how well people shoot.
Think the problem for many is mentality, not recoil/ergonomics.
Slobs are slobs.

 

[Hookeye]

LOL.............remember the gunshops boresighting slug guns the night before the opener.
Now they boresight MSRs.
The customers may have changed gear, but not genetics.

 

[BuckCreek]

The recurve guys complained when the compound bows came along, said they weren`t necessary. Then the compound guys complained about the crossbow guys. The flintlock guys hated the inline muzzleloader hunters. It isn`t about managing the deer herd here, it`s about choices for people, and generally bringing more people into the field, and letting them grow to love hunting. As long as any hunter hunts legally and ethically, I don`t care what equipment they use to kill their game. Hunting is about the experience for each hunter, it`s not about anyone else deciding what buck is "a shooter", or whether a deer should have been killed with a recurve bow or a 30.06. PCR or HP rifle, it`s no one`s business but that hunter who paid for their license, sighted in their weapon, scouted, and set up and hunted their deer.

 

[Hookeye]

"their deer" ?

Are you talking pre hole in the vitals or afterward?

 

[oldpink]

LOL.............remember the gunshops boresighting slug guns the night before the opener.
Now they boresight MSRs.
The customers may have changed gear, but not genetics.

This is just one reason that I think it's a mistake for rifles to come with the scope already mounted and advertised as boresighted, with too many first-timers not even being aware that boresighted != sighted in.
It would be preferable for these package deal rifles to come with the rings only bolted on, with the scope in its own box in the rifle box with large block letters on the scope box stating that the scope requires mounting, boresighting, then a sight-in for the range at which the rifle is intended to be used.