|
Post by js2397 on Oct 11, 2006 10:52:10 GMT -5
A TC Encore Pistol with a 16"+ barrel is currently legal in any caliber over (and including) .243. The barrel has to be less than 16 inches.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 11, 2006 11:38:14 GMT -5
The barrel has to be less than 16 inches. Nowhere in the regulations does it say that. All it says is that it must be over 4". As far as I know there is no limitation anywhere in any regulation either State or Federal that limits the length of handgun barrels. Rifles, yes, handguns, no. Edit: (This is why I specified 16"+. With a stock, a sub 16" barrel TC falls under NFA/BATFE grumpiness.)
|
|
|
Post by drs on Oct 11, 2006 12:14:44 GMT -5
More Sermon Notes for the Choir: I wonder if anyone who is against this rule change actually understands what they are supporting. By opposing the Rule Change, they 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 law as it stands could not withstand a legal challenge, and if it is allowed to stand Hoosier Hunters could lose everything they stand “for” in regards to "safety". Consider: A TC Encore Pistol with a 16"+ barrel is currently legal in any caliber over (and including) .243. Put an accessory thumbhole or Flex-Tech stock on it and it becomes “illegal” 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 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 thing they are “better”, I want the DNR to have rules that can support and resist a Legal Challenge from both Antis - who can use the "safe range" argument against us - and people who would use ballisticlaly inappropriate spitzer cartridges.
Those who don’t think a bad Rule won’t ever be challenged, are dangerously politically naive.I agree!
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 11, 2006 12:52:51 GMT -5
The barrel has to be less than 16 inches. Nowhere in the regulations does it say that. All it says is that it must be over 4". Edit: (This is why I specified 16"+. With a stock, a sub 16" barrel TC falls under NFA/BATFE grumpiness.) There is nothing in the hunting guide but once its barrel is over 16 inches it is considered a rifle.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 11, 2006 12:57:55 GMT -5
Nowhere in the regulations does it say that. All it says is that it must be over 4". Edit: (This is why I specified 16"+. With a stock, a sub 16" barrel TC falls under NFA/BATFE grumpiness.) There is nothing in the hunting guide but once its barrel is over 16 inches it is considered a rifle. Doesn't seem to be anything in the regular IC either. I'd really like to see a citation.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 11, 2006 13:38:57 GMT -5
I called the the DNR law enfrcement one time and they told me the barrel had to be less than 16 inches. That may not be correct that is just what I was told.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 11, 2006 14:10:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 11, 2006 14:17:48 GMT -5
That is what I was told when I called. The reason I called is I wanted to put a stock on my encore pistol. They told me it was ok if it was under 26 inches. I have also heard that would be a no no from the ATF as it would be considered a short bareled rifle and big trouble. If it is legal I know a company that will custom make a stock in any length of pull you want. 15 inch barrell with an 11 inch length of pull for an overall length under 26 inches. Maybe it is legal maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 11, 2006 15:09:12 GMT -5
Which still begs the question. The operative word is "or". A pistol gripped Encore with a 16 to roughly 22" barrel is both under 26" nominal AND "designed to be fired with one hand", therefore a handgun. According to the ATF, any firearm with an OAL of 26" nominal AND a 16" or greater barrel is considered a Rifle, therefore any firearm without a shoulder stock AND a nominal length of under 26" is a handgun (or NFA "other"). Of course, it's exactly this sort of ambiguity that has caused all this trouble in the first place. Good laws aren't ambiguous.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 13, 2006 17:47:07 GMT -5
Here is the letter I just sent to the Commission:
Hearing Officer Natural Resources Commission 402 W. Washington Street, W272 Indianapolis, IN 46204
Greetings:
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed Rule Change that would allow Pistol Caliber rifles to be used for Deer Hunting in Indiana.
This change is a critical step in correcting what I see both as a huge potential legal liability that the DNR has, to date, fortunately avoided and an unsupportable lack of ballistic consistency in approved cartridges.
Those who have vocally opposed this Rule Change have only been able to do so on the basis of personal opinion, “tradition” and misapplied arguments about safe shooting trajectories.
A long and detailed case can easily be made that modern Sabot Slugs and fast-twist muzzleloaders have removed the trajectory issue from the equation. As this case is empirically based and made obvious from the data provided by the manufacturers of the firearms and cartridges in question, I will not belabor the point in this statement.
Also, ignoring, for the moment, the ancillary issue(s) of the high-powered rifle cartridge pistols that are currently legal, I will address the issue of substantial equivalence between Pistol Caliber Carbines and currently allowed Pistol Caliber “Hunting Pistols” like the Thompson Center Contender and Encore.
A straight-walled pistol cartridge, such as those being proposed in this rule change, is designed to completely burn its powder charge and reach maximum pressure & velocity in barrels under 12” in length. No ballistic or trajectory advantage is gained in using a longer barrel. Thus, both a currently legal closed-breech pistol like the Contender or Encore and the currently disallowed Pistol Caliber Carbines like the Winchester 1892 and its clones, the Marlin 1894, the Ruger Deerfield or 96-44, or any single-shot rifle-stocked carbine – to include the Encore or Contender – have exactly the same range and game taking ability. One is no less (or more) safe than the other at any range – in fact, some are actually identical in all respects but the stock, and therein lies INDNR’s potential legal issue.
1. IC 35-47-1-6 clearly acknowledges that there is NO maximum length requirement for a firearm to be declared a Pistol. So long as it is designed to be fired with one hand OR has an overall length of less than 26 inches.
2. Thompson Center’s fine firearms are available with multiple lengths of barrel and multiple configurations of stocks and grips.
3. It is easy to own a Thompson Center long barreled pistol that in the pistol-grip configuration has an OAL of less than 26”, but when in a shoulder stock configuration is a “rifle/carbine length” firearm of greater than 26”.
4. Such a firearm does not change in any ballisticly meaningful or technical way by adding or removing a shoulder stock, yet in the stocked configuration it is illegal under the current Rule. This is an absurdity that puts the existing Rule at risk of a legal challenge that INDNR should not be spending resources defending in court.
While there are many other technical/ballistic-parity arguments supporting a total reevaluation of the allowed firearm/cartridge selection taken by DNR, for the above reasoning alone I strongly support the proposed Rule change.
Sincerely, ...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 13, 2006 17:52:50 GMT -5
Well stated...
You have a way with words..
.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 13, 2006 18:29:59 GMT -5
That's one lengthy letter I can guess they won't read out loud.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 13, 2006 21:08:41 GMT -5
Well stated... You have a way with words... Thanks. I try. In my current "line of work" I don't get to use that particular skill nearly enough. Perhaps not, but they now have it in writing that the current Rule stands as a threat to the DNR, and that the only way to mitigate the threat is to change the rule. If they don't change it, they can't say they weren't warned, because someone with Standing (i.e. has a compliant/non-compliant TC) WILL sue. It's only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 19, 2006 19:53:11 GMT -5
BTT. 5 days left to email the DNR. Do it "for the children" (If you've ever seen a 10y/o try to shoot slugs, you will understand...)
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 19, 2006 20:18:46 GMT -5
BTT. 5 days left to email the DNR. Do it "for the children" (If you've ever seen a 10y/o try to shoot slugs, you will understand...) The input for the pistol cartridge rifles will go past that date. There was a mix up on when it would be considered by the NRC. It will be preliminary heard later this year with the final vote early next year.. Never too early to make your voice heard though. The DNR said that they are getting lots of positive feedback on this proposal. Be aware that the leaders of an organized Indiana hunting group are against this and will do what they can stop it. Everyone's input is valued, not just groups. Email today...to jkane@nrc.in.gov .
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 19, 2006 21:15:27 GMT -5
Be aware that the leaders of an organized Indiana hunting group are against this and will do what they can stop it. If they are not careful, they will be publicly shown to be neo-luddite idiots who refuse to look at the basic data that every hunter relies on. Boy, won't THAT be good for hunting.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 19, 2006 21:33:58 GMT -5
Hay Ironsight...What is this Data That ALL hunters relies on? I guess people are Idoits If they dont see things your WAY...Hmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 19, 2006 21:42:24 GMT -5
I believe that every Hunter relies on ballistic tables, either from the manufacturer or self generated, to determine the best possible range of their firearms.
Are you saying that you ignore them?
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me in what practical, measurable way Pistol Caliber Carbines are less safe than Sabot Muzzleloaders or Sabot Slugs, or in what way allowing lower recoil, easier to practice with firearms would be bad for Indiana Hunting.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Oct 19, 2006 22:25:27 GMT -5
I believe that every Hunter relies on ballistic tables, either from the manufacturer or self generated, to determine the best possible range of their firearms. Are you saying that you ignore them? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me in what practical, measurable way Pistol Caliber Carbines are less safe than Sabot Muzzleloaders or Sabot Slugs, or in what way allowing lower recoil, easier to practice with firearms would be bad for Indiana Hunting. You won`t find anyone who will be able to give a rational explanation of why pistol cartridge rifles are less safe than muzzleloader rounds or deer slugs, because there is no rationale for that argument. I spoke with Dr. Mitchell only months ago, quizzing him as to why a slow and relatively short range round like the 30-30 couldn’t be used in Indiana, as it is definitely a short range round, the mythical “brush gun” that you hear neophytes boast of-Dr. Mitchell told me it was a matter of perception by the public-that they fear centerfire repeaters in the hands of hunters. So-not only are you going to battle those here, who want no part of it in “their” deer woods, but there is the non-hunting public as well, who the DNR seem to believe are against it, and should have a voice in that decision. I even was told by a couple of guys on “that other” site that even if the law allowed, they wouldn`t ever allow anyone to use rifles on their land. Bravado to be sure-as the law has allowed the use of centerfire rifles in Indiana for “varmints” for quite some time. To be sure, there is a lot of misconception and myth, even among our own ranks, as to the safety, or lack thereof, of the use of certain centerfire rifles for deer hunting-but we need to come to an agreement among ourselves-and we’ll find it in the facts, and not emotional, knee-jerk reactionary thinking.
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 20, 2006 7:56:36 GMT -5
Old Ironsights,
I really enjoy your posts that are not only factual but laced with humor. Please keep it up.
I think that you will find that some hunters do not deal well in facts. Pure facts befuddle them to no end.
They state such things as "Im against rifles" and provide no "facts" as to why.
It does not matter that a pistol cartridge rifle has basically the same ballistics as a muzzleloader or a slug gun, or that it is cheaper to shoot, or that it has less recoil allowing women and kids a better gun to hunt with or is a pure pleasure to practice with the luddites will not like it because that is not the way they have always done things. Plus numerous other truly emotional issues.
Besides it just might bring in more hunters and they don't want to share their deer woods with anyone. Those new deer hunters just might get that buck that the DNR is growing just for them.
It is the ME generation.
|
|