|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 19, 2006 8:50:11 GMT -5
Old ironsights, I stand corrected! Do you think it might be on the list to legalize for deer hunting in Indiana? h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 8:58:21 GMT -5
Nope. It has a case OAL of zero inches and the bullet is less than .357 dia.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Dec 19, 2006 9:05:28 GMT -5
Yep, that is the type of caseless ammo I was thinking about, I'm still certain that remington tried to produce a version of it a few years back.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 19, 2006 9:09:22 GMT -5
We need to think of a name for modern archery gear. We cant be confusing a wheeled cable and string system, held drawn with a mechanical device and capable of launching a steel tipped carbon projectile with a bow and arrow. It just wouldnt be right to continue to call them bows.
And shotguns that are designed to shoot slugs .... they arent really SHOTguns are they ... so we will have to have a name for them as well.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 9:15:39 GMT -5
We need to think of a name for modern archery gear. We cant be confusing a wheeled cable and string system, held drawn with a mechanical device and capable of launching a steel tipped carbon projectile with a bow and arrow. It just wouldnt be right to continue to call them bows. Except that they are used in fundamentally the same way over the same ranges. Not so with the different types of "Muzzleloaders". Can't argue with that. They ARE essentially large-caliber Rifles - some are even bolt action...
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 19, 2006 9:22:38 GMT -5
Except that they are used in fundamentally the same way over the same ranges. Not so with the different types of "Muzzleloaders".
Go to Friendship, In and watch the matches and then tell me how much of a dis-advantage side hammer guns shooting black powder have. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 9:27:36 GMT -5
Dealing with Pros and Amateurs are two different games.
Hunting Regulations are written for Amateurs. You know, the ones who go buy a firearm because "it" will shoot 300yds then not practice with it.
The people who win trophys (and a large number of those who don't) shoot more in a weekend than most people do in a year.
Not to mention that punching paper at 500yds with a paper-patched chunk gun is vastly different than punching deer hide with a kentucky long rifle.
The comparison is specious.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 19, 2006 9:32:31 GMT -5
Well .... I shoot a recurve and a compound. I feel confident shooting my recurve to about 20 yards or so. I feel confident in shooting my compound to 60 or so.
That is 3 times the effective range in one vs the other. I do not think modern muzzleloaders triple the effective range of traditional cap and round ball muzzleloaders.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 19, 2006 9:56:04 GMT -5
As long as the IDNR says the weapon is legal to use why would anyone object? Do you feel you have a disadvantage with your weapon of choice? If so, then why not change?
If I'm hunting my own property with a legal weapon why would you care what i use or try to limit my legal weapon choices?
When hunters want to limit other hunters with weapon choices it confuses me as to their motives. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 10:05:38 GMT -5
HH, I'm NOT objecting. I OWN ONE. And I'm all about REMOVING restrictions within the ballistic limitations of whatever arbitrairly established range the DNR chooses.
I'm just pointing out that there is a significant difference between a scoped fast-twist sabot-loaded smokeless inline and an ironsighted full caliber, slow twist sidelock - significant enough IN MY OPINION that they should not be classified as equivilent firearms. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Dec 19, 2006 10:24:21 GMT -5
I'd love to use a pistol caliber rifle. I'd go for a lever action rifle- if affordable... fun to shoot, as for the caseless ammo- there was interest a few years back in a bullet with powdercharge attached. The gun was fired with an elctronic trigger- much quicker than sear and firing pin. an electric spark fired the powder. The original design was intended for the military snipers, I don't think it caught on though.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Dec 19, 2006 10:26:52 GMT -5
According to our hunting regulations both modern in-lines and more primitive muzzleloaders are equivalent, in that they are all loaded from the muzzle. Beyond that it becomes personal choice. Given current deer populations, I don't see any forthcoming restrictions on muzzleloading season but a "primitive" season may be a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 19, 2006 10:32:58 GMT -5
I'm just pointing out that there is a significant difference between a scoped fast-twist sabot-loaded smokeless inline and an ironsighted full caliber, slow twist sidelock - significant enough IN MY OPINION that they should not be classified as equivilent firearms. That is all. A muzzleloader is a muzzleloader no matter what propellent or bullets you use as long as it has a fixed breech and is loaded from the muzzle. Now we are way off topic and i suggest we get back to the subject. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by dec on Dec 19, 2006 11:50:15 GMT -5
... want to be trophy hunters ... Don't call me a wanna be! I AM a trophy hunter! ;D Anyway, in all honesty, I could careless if they pass a pistol caliber rifle law. If it gets more people into hunting then cool. I'd consider one for my daughters, but would have to do some serious research. I voted that I would support it simply to offer it as an opportunity for my kids. I'm for anything that will help get kids into the field. Personally, I'll stick with my bow. Don't need a gun to do a job that a bow does much better. ;D
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Dec 19, 2006 11:59:37 GMT -5
I see know reason for me to . I dont object to it but Im not going to buy a new gun to do it. If someone on here wants to give me a gun I will try it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 19, 2006 13:32:51 GMT -5
Can't argue with that. They ARE essentially large-caliber Rifles - [glow=red,2,300]some are even bolt action[/glow]...[/quote]
There have been bolt action shotguns around for years. Just because a firearm is "bolt action" does NOT make it a rifle!
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Dec 19, 2006 14:36:15 GMT -5
There have been bolt action shotguns around for years. Just because a firearm is "bolt action" does NOT make it a rifle! Nope. It's the Rifling that does that. Jeez dude, relax. I'm not kicking your kitten.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 19, 2006 18:39:24 GMT -5
Who is taking 150-200 yard shots at deer?...... Thats my whole argument it used to be 100 yards was the max, and to me unless that deer is standing broadside in a wide open field where you can see beyond the target, a 100 yards shot is irresponsible, at best. It's just flinging lead. So no, I won't support any changes. How does it create more opourtunities when a guy currently can hunt from Oct 1- into the first week of January.
You can hunt with bow from Oct-Jan, you can hunt with shotgun 2weeks in November, Muzzleloader in December for two weeks. The seasons aren't not going to be extended if they allow these rifles. The same oppourtunities will exist as did before, but now we have more weapons to choose from.....? That just what we need Chuck Conners and his lever action rifle scattering bullets through the woods, hoping he can hit a deer at a dead run out to 200 yards, with three hunters between him and the deer. sounds like a good idea to me.....
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Dec 19, 2006 19:43:19 GMT -5
The "opourtunities" will be in the recruitment of new hunters that will be able to handle the mild recoil of the pistol cartridge rifles. They will have a gun that is very capable of downing deer cleanly and humanely with out punishing their shoudlers.
I belong to a rifle club and we do have "cowboy shoots" on occasions. A good number of these fellows have said that they would like to take up deer hunting if this is approved. More recruitment.
The pros for the pistol cartridge rifles are:
1) They are quick and humane killers. 2) The ammo is cheap and reloadable so a person can practice more at less expense. 3) The recoils is a LOT less than any of the present firearms so a person will practice more. That results in a better famliarity of their weapon with the desired effect of less wounded deer. 4) The recoils is a LOT less than any of the present firearms so a person that is of smaller stature (kids and women) can shoot it with no ill effects. 5) "New" weapons generate a new and more interest in hunting. Another choice is good. 6) Their range is no more and most times less than the presently legal firearms. 7) They are fun to shoot. Not so with any slug gun.
The cons are:
1) Some people don't like them.
Please expalin to us how you have come to the conclusion that a hunter hunting with a pistol cartridge rifle would be any less safe than a hunter hunting with a slug gun.
|
|
|
Post by paul3 on Dec 19, 2006 21:17:53 GMT -5
Who is taking 150-200 yard shots at deer?...... Thats my whole argument it used to be 100 yards was the max, and to me unless that deer is standing broadside in a wide open field where you can see beyond the target, a 100 yards shot is irresponsible, at best. It's just flinging lead. So no, I won't support any changes. How does it create more opourtunities when a guy currently can hunt from Oct 1- into the first week of January. You can hunt with bow from Oct-Jan, you can hunt with shotgun 2weeks in November, Muzzleloader in December for two weeks. The seasons aren't not going to be extended if they allow these rifles. The same oppourtunities will exist as did before, but now we have more weapons to choose from.....? That just what we need Chuck Conners and his lever action rifle scattering bullets through the woods, hoping he can hit a deer at a dead run out to 200 yards, with three hunters between him and the deer. sounds like a good idea to me..... Sounds like you need to stay at the house during gun season. Thought you only hunted privet land, what are you scared of?
|
|