|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 18, 2006 18:28:50 GMT -5
Not trying to be funny I'm dead serious...I am discussing the proposal, you just don't like my discussion..like always, it's okay as long as the discussion promotes this sites views, but if not ...look out...last week you were crying about OBR just tranfers the harvest to gun hunters and now you want rifles to be legalized to hunt deer with. So when you guys say" Us archery hunters are passing up deer, and the gun hunters are shooting them", by gun hunters you mean yourself?.....right? So you really don't have nothing to complain about, becuase you're getting the same chance at the bucks you're passing up in archery, in gun season...
|
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Dec 18, 2006 19:01:12 GMT -5
You're not discussing the issue at all.
It appears to be an effort on your part to derail the discussion by bringing up the OBR AGAIN.
Now if you think you have a reason for or against the pistol cartridge rifles being legalized state it and leave this "you guys, blah, blah, blah..." out of it.
This is a TOTALLY different subject than the OBR, so don't try and turn it into another OBR debate.
IOW - stay on topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 18, 2006 19:12:14 GMT -5
I see them as no ballistic advantage in their current form.
But, if the rule comes to pass, I would like to see it well defined to keep the metamorphosis from occurring.
Meaning ... they legalize the .454. Pretty soon a gunmaker starts making a bolt action .454 that will allow the shooting of pointed, spitzer type ammo. Hornady starts making a polymer tip bullet that weighs 180 grains that allows handloaders to push them at 3000fps out of the new bolt actions. Remington decides to introduce a new line of .454 factory ammo that makes the Hornady available to anyone.
The rules need to be well thought out and enforced as intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Dec 18, 2006 19:32:45 GMT -5
I see them as no ballistic advantage in their current form. But, if the rule comes to pass, I would like to see it well defined to keep the metamorphosis from occurring. Meaning ... they legalize the .454. Pretty soon a gunmaker starts making a bolt action .454 that will allow the shooting of pointed, spitzer type ammo. Hornady starts making a polymer tip bullet that weighs 180 grains that allows handloaders to push them at 3000fps out of the new bolt actions. Remington decides to introduce a new line of .454 factory ammo that makes the Hornady available to anyone. The rules need to be well thought out and enforced as intended. I agree. Hopefully the DNR learned it's lesson from the rifle cartridge handguns. No, I'm not advocating banning the rifle cartridge handguns. I think it is too late for that and I wouldn't support it now.. As far as I can see they have caused no problems in the Indiana deer hunting world. So let that sleeping dog lie.. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 18, 2006 19:47:04 GMT -5
Since when has anyone, at any level of Government, learned anything through mistakes? I dont care if it is Federal, State, County or Local. Most people/business's learn through trial and error. Government doesnt seem to.
A Business leader slams his hand in a car door more than likely he thinks "dang, that hurt. I wont do that again."
A Government leader slams his hand in a car door and they are more likely to think .... "dang, that hurt. Lets do a study to see why it hurt. Slams hand in different kinds of car door to see if they all hurt or if it is just this particular brand. Spend millions of taxdollars on political campaign to ban all car doors. When campaign is shot down by a close house vote a new Federal Law forces all manufactures of car doors to apply warning label to consumers "WARNING: Slamming hand in car door may cause sever injury.""
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 18, 2006 20:14:50 GMT -5
I voted no i wont use one but its not because i don't want them to be legal. I voted no because I've got all the deer guns i need. I hunt with a muzzleloader all threw the gun seasons.
I hope the DNR legalize handgun cartridge in rifles and also crossbows in regular archery season. Any weapons added mean more opportunity and that means more hunters in the woods which is a good thing.
I'm not one of those selfish hunters who wants to limit the weapons used because they don't want to share the woods. h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 18, 2006 22:03:32 GMT -5
Not trying to be funny I'm dead serious...I am discussing the proposal, you just don't like my discussion..like always, it's okay as long as the discussion promotes this sites views, but if not ...look out...last week you were crying about OBR just tranfers the harvest to gun hunters and now you want rifles to be legalized to hunt deer with. So when you guys say" Us archery hunters are passing up deer, and the gun hunters are shooting them", by gun hunters you mean yourself?.....right? So you really don't have nothing to complain about, becuase you're getting the same chance at the bucks you're passing up in archery, in gun season... The way I read those posts, no one was "crying" about the transfer kills, just stating the fact to show that the OBR has not accomplished its stated goals. Why would anyone opposed to the OBR be crying about a statistic that shows how useless it is? Meh. As for someone designing a .454 to use Spire Points... not practical from an ammunition design & marketing perspective. You can't put a spire point in a pistol cartridge and have it work. Not enough case capacity to make it supersonic... not if you want it to maintain the correct OAL for feeding/cylinder rotation. (that tiny FN & 17HMR notwithstanding - it's a case-capacity to OAL ratio thing...) Yes, The polymer-tipped LeveRevolution ammunition has a better Ballistic coefficient than the tradidional blunt-nose, but the cases they are used in are high-powder-capacity RIFLE cases (and even then the ballistics are only marginally better than the SSTs...). Could someone theoretically design an out-set spire-pointed wildcat for use in a long-throated specialty gun? Sure. At what cost? Price it some time. Even if every hunter in Indiana jumped on the bandwagon for a particular spire-pointed-pistol-caliber wildcat no gun manufacturer is going to make it. There would be no margin. As I have always said, the key here is basic math - i.e. the Ballistic Tables. Pick a Range and a Drop. I don't care what. Just pick one. Allow ALL commercially produced (or once-produced) bullet/calibers combinations that comply and NONE of the ones that exceed that range. Blunt-nose/Tube-fed calibers are Ballistically Equivilent to modern Sabot Slugs. Nothing can change that simple, demonstrable fact. You want shorter ranges "for Safety"? Ban Spitzers and Sabots. That's easier to police and is a heck of a lot more Logical. Doing so won't make my pistol caliber carbine more or less of a 100yd deer gun - but it might bring Shotguns and Caseless Ammo Centerfire Rifles back down to 150yds or less. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 18, 2006 22:19:06 GMT -5
It was just a theoretical example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 18, 2006 22:28:31 GMT -5
Yep, and it deserved a response based in the theories of cartridge development and marketing.
It IS a valid concern swilk, but one that is much more easily addressed than trying to explain why cartridge A with a 9" drop at 200yds is legal but cartridge B with the same ballistics is illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Dec 19, 2006 6:28:20 GMT -5
Funny all these guys who oppose one thing are now jumping on the band wagon with the "gun hunters"....I thought you guys( you know who you are) were making the point just recently that OBR " just transfers the harvest to " GUN HUNTERS" and now suddenly you're a gun hunter.....Now you can shoot some of those bucks you passed up in archery season, in gun season. SO you will benifit, after all, from OBR.....Flip Flop comes to mind...PBR's avatar is fitting.....LMAO...Thats funny too! I am a hunter, period. I am for more opportunity and more choice, period. I am against obviously flawed restrictions, conjured up by want to be trophy hunters, needlessly reducing hunting opportunity. The two positions are not incompatible, indeed, they are both extensions of the same philosophy. Now, as amusing as this has been, please quit trying to hijack this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Dec 19, 2006 6:30:17 GMT -5
I could leave the issue as is, I have a muzzle loader, shot gun, and a bow if I want to be in the woods I have all the tools needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by danf on Dec 19, 2006 6:54:34 GMT -5
Voted undecided, but only because there's no category for "Not the first year but eventually probably will".  I'd have to either buy a rifle, or the appropriate parts to turn my Contender into a carbine. The budget doesn't allow for either at the current time. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 19, 2006 6:58:02 GMT -5
[Caseless Ammo Centerfire Rifles back down to 150yds or less.[/quote] They are called Smokeless Powder [glow=red,2,300]MUZZLE LOADERS[/glow]!  |
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 19, 2006 7:42:10 GMT -5
[/quote]
Caseless Ammo Centerfire Rifles back down to 150yds or less.[/quote]
Never heard of any weapon called that. Wouldn't that be an un-loaded rifle? What if the gun shoots blackpowder? Would it be a caseless ammo blackpowder centerfire rifle?
The .460 S&W already shots a 200grn spirepoint bullet to 2300fps but the cartridge length limits wouldn't permit the use of this cartridge in a long gun. h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Dec 19, 2006 7:43:25 GMT -5
You betcha. Can't wait for them to become legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 19, 2006 8:08:12 GMT -5
Now, as amusing as this has been, please quit trying to hijack this thread. [/quote]Look at your First post!!! want to talk OBR..  I can get the Ball rolling if you LIKE....  |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Dec 19, 2006 8:17:16 GMT -5
Actually, there was/is a weapon like that. A few years ago Remington came out with a rifle and caseless ammunition. The "caseless" case was made out of the propellant and it was fired by battery powered electronic ignition. As far as I know it lasted all of a year or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 19, 2006 8:25:17 GMT -5
mbogo,
There is no such thing as caseless ammo round. ammo is either rim fire or centerfire. if its not then its a muzzleloader or breechloader using ammo components. the Remington used cartridges that had a special primer to ignite using electricity. the selling point was suppose to be fa aster lock time. h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 8:31:17 GMT -5
They are called Smokeless Powder [glow=red,2,300]MUZZLE LOADERS[/glow]! Yes they are. And they are fine firearms in their own right. But IMO calling them "muzzleloaders" intentionally confuses them black powder sidelocks - a whole different class of firearm. It's like this: While a .357 Magnum can be loaded down to .38sp specs you don't call it a .38. It's confusing and incorrect. The new High Performance "muzzleloaders" use centerfire ignition and fire an uncased projectile. Thus, Caseless Ammunition Centerfire Rifle. Not a knock, just accuracy in terminology. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 8:40:42 GMT -5
mbogo, There is no such thing as caseless ammo round. ammo is either rim fire or centerfire. if its not then its a muzzleloader or breechloader using ammo components. the Remington used cartridges that had a special primer to ignite using electricity. the selling point was suppose to be fa aster lock time. h.h. Sorry to disabuse you of the notion, but yes there is.  The Heckler & Koch G11 ( remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g11/caseless.htm ) used a projectile encapsulated in propellant. No case to eject or carry. Also, this style of Caseless round is not a centerfire - it's a whole different bird. |
|
I can get the Ball rolling if you LIKE.... 