|
|
Post by hoosier on Jan 29, 2009 21:37:15 GMT -5
For deer hunting, that is. As well as the 45/70, the 40/65 and other similar cartridges come to mind for a deer hunting cartridge. Would you like to see these "old" cartridges legalized for whitetails? Possibly in single-shot rifles only, if repeaters would bother you? STRICTLY loaded with BLACK POWDER ONLY (this would suit me just fine). ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Jan 29, 2009 22:00:51 GMT -5
nope
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jan 29, 2009 22:23:54 GMT -5
Yes, but IMO it would create other undesireable issues. The PCR regs as laid out does about as ballanced a job as possible in creating Opportunity without giving too much latitude to the Long Range/Wildcat crowd.
So, Yes, but No.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jan 29, 2009 22:26:29 GMT -5
So, Yes, but No.[/quote]
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by danf on Jan 29, 2009 23:01:10 GMT -5
I agree with OIS. Our rules are hard enough to understand for the general non-gun-nut public that throwing this into the mix would only serve to confuse them more.... I have no desire to use that round for deer, but I wouldn't have a problem with it's inclusion other than what I stated above.  |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 29, 2009 23:05:25 GMT -5
Nah
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 30, 2009 7:18:02 GMT -5
I'd open it up even more; all this fear about cartridges is overblown. The state of PA did a study that shines the light on this whole issue. The reality is what we have now is going to be the way it is; I'm surprised we got what we did. The fears have been so ingrained in people over the years that no amount of studies or facts are going to have much effect - we see that in may areas of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclenorby on Jan 30, 2009 7:58:37 GMT -5
Yes. The 45/70 is a great cartridge. I've shot deer with it in a peep-sighted Marlin 1895. In reality the cartridge offers no more potential than others that are already legal.
As others have said, reality is not the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 30, 2009 9:08:34 GMT -5
I don't think so..
Not against the caliber itself, but I think it would open Pandora's Box..
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Jan 30, 2009 9:24:26 GMT -5
I'd open it up even more; all this fear about cartridges is overblown. The state of PA did a study that shines the light on this whole issue. The reality is what we have now is going to be the way it is; I'm surprised we got what we did. The fears have been so ingrained in people over the years that no amount of studies or facts are going to have much effect - we see that in may areas of life. I read that study. They concluded shotgun slugs may be more dangerous than HPR's |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jan 30, 2009 9:59:17 GMT -5
I'd open it up even more; all this fear about cartridges is overblown. The state of PA did a study that shines the light on this whole issue. The reality is what we have now is going to be the way it is; I'm surprised we got what we did. The fears have been so ingrained in people over the years that no amount of studies or facts are going to have much effect - we see that in may areas of life. I read that study. They concluded shotgun slugs may be more dangerous than HPR's Yep... within specific ranges, and in woodlots/brush. In open "East of the Missippi" farmland, cartridges with MPBR of over 100yds could be a real problem. IMO the old BP cartridges (.45/70, 38-55, even .45-110) wouldn't be a problem, but without going to a "Legal Headstamp/Factory Ammo Only" system, you would get into some serious other issues - like 30rd FNs or AKs. |
|
|
|
Post by varmint101 on Jan 30, 2009 11:39:31 GMT -5
YES, I would.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Jan 30, 2009 12:07:18 GMT -5
hoosier are you the other guy that sends in this to the DNR for suggestions  ? I am 100% in favor. It would be that much more incentive to build that Gemmer Trapdoor Hawken I have been dreaming about ;D. The inline ML is capable of much more powder than a fixed capacity cartridge. Then there is the Smokeless inline shooters. The RCP's already can handle most modern rifle rounds, just in a pistol config. Also as has often been brought up why should honest law abiding hunters be penalized for the actions of poachers? If the range of a round was that big of an issue we would be limited to Foster slugs and round balls. Spell out the rules and let it happen. I vote for iron sights, black powder 38-55 as a minimum external hammers. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jan 30, 2009 12:37:18 GMT -5
It's not the Range, per se, as much as it is how to insure the functional rate of fire for high-BC bullets is minimized.
The External Hammer isn't enough because a BLR has an External Hammer and it is most definately HPR... even though you can also get it in "Brush" calibers.
As an unrepentant advocate of Leverguns, Rollers and Trapdoors, I totally understand where this is coming from. In fact, I have a Winchester 1886 TakeDown in .45-70 that I shoot sillouhette with. But there are some real logistical problems that in designing rules for "Brush Cartridges" that only the "Case Dimension" criteria of the PCR regs were able to (mostly) address.
|
|
|
|
Post by StingyRog on Jan 30, 2009 12:48:52 GMT -5
The .45-70 cartridge is already legal in Indiana as long as you use it in a pistol. I have a couple friends that hunt with it in a TC Contender.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Jan 30, 2009 12:59:23 GMT -5
"It's not the Range, per se, as much as it is how to insure the functional rate of fire for high-BC bullets is minimized."
OK, add single shot to my suggestion. Require a BPCR endorsement on your hunters ed card. Through normal retail the calibers are pretty much limited to 38-55, 40-65 and 45-70. Almost all others would be custom at $1000+. Originals are that or more. So what is the problem? After all you can use anything that is legal to own to hunt squirrels.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 30, 2009 20:06:26 GMT -5
NO! It took us too long to get what we have now, let's not get greedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Jan 30, 2009 21:31:11 GMT -5
NO! It took us too long to get what we have now, let's not get greedy. Yep. My "problems" with BP/"Brush Calibers" like .45-70 have nothing to do with ballistics and everything to do with Logistics. |
|
|
|
Post by trophyhunter1 on Jan 30, 2009 23:03:51 GMT -5
no...
|
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Jan 30, 2009 23:59:41 GMT -5
"I vote for iron sights, black powder 38-55 as a minimum external hammers".
PERFECT stevein! This, with your other suggestion of single shot only is just perfect. How these parameters could be misunderstood by the hunting public is beyond me.
Who wouldn't understand: "Iron-sighted, externally hammered, single-shot, 38 caliber or larger with a case capacity of 55 grains or more loaded with black powder only"?
Seems simple enough to me. ;D
I appreciate all the opinions on this subject guys.
|
|
? I am 100% in favor. It would be that much more incentive to build that Gemmer Trapdoor Hawken I have been dreaming about ;D. The inline ML is capable of much more powder than a fixed capacity cartridge. Then there is the Smokeless inline shooters. The RCP's already can handle most modern rifle rounds, just in a pistol config. Also as has often been brought up why should honest law abiding hunters be penalized for the actions of poachers? If the range of a round was that big of an issue we would be limited to Foster slugs and round balls. Spell out the rules and let it happen.
