Are you for or against the new proposal?

Assuming we are talking just the rifles portion?

Against ... for no other reason than to be consistent. I have been against most every other change simply because I dont usually like change. Im grumpy like that ....

I say let's do it..

Kudos, to our friend, Swilk.

Honesty is a wonderful thing and it's nice to see others (other than me I mean) who don't "need" to find a reason acceptable to others.

We like what we like, and want what we want. Sometimes such has been arrived at considering what it "best" IN OUR OPINION, and sometimes it's not.

Love the post, Swilk!!
God Bless

PS, for the record. Selfish, I know, but it is the main reason I am FOR the caliber change. That single step opens up areas to hunt that distances of the shots made them "unhuntable". Such will also add some drive to finishing a second wildcat in .277 bore that no, I don't "need".

I just want what I want.

You should have gotten an email on the proposal from Woody but it's listed here in the forum too, Feather.

Dang, Son.......you're LATE LOL (that's a joke)

God Bless

I'm usually pro-freedom and anti-regulation unless there's a clear need. But I voted "against" in this case, although I'm really more "leaning towards NO" than "all against it".

I keep remembering a time fifty years ago when I was walking back to my car after a morning squirrel hunt. As I came down a hill to a long and narrow hayfield I needed to cross, I saw a large cardboard box out in middle of the field. This was half a mile from the nearest road and twice that from the nearest house, so a box that size
seemed particularly out of place. Then the box twitched slightly....followed a half second later by a boom from way up the field, halfway out to the road. Mystery solved.

But then I had a new problem to solve. I needed to cross that field. I couldn't yell loud enough to be heard by the shooter, especially if he was wearing hearing protection. Blaze orange wasn't a requirement for squirrel season, and I didn't have any on. I sure didn't want to cross downrange of the target, and I didn't know the shooter to trust his reaction to something slipping along in the woods beside the field.

Finally decided that since the shots were several seconds apart and sounded like one gun, that I would step out immediately after the next shot and wave my hat to try to catch the eye of the shooter.

That worked. They waved back, and I crossed without incident, but I though about it many times aftwerwards, especially when setting up to do some target shooting myself.

Wasn't hard for me to find a good safe place to shoot my longest range weapons, shotguns with slugs and ML rifles. Plenty of hollows where there was a good sturdy hillside backdrop, pretty much within earshot of anyone who might accidentally slip into the target area. But a 300+ yard rifle needs some more serious room and security. The only places where I had seen the kind of room and visibility to use one safely was the river bottom cornfields, after harvest, and there was nothing there to provide a backstop except the occasional ridge
that stuck out towards the river. Maybe the sandbars in the riverbad, where a bend in the river would provide a
backstop, would work, but I think even there there would have been problems with legality, and ricochets.

I am not completely familiar with the legal shooting ranges available. Our range at the two conservation clubs I have been a member of that had them, were limited to 100 yards.

I know, the same rifles are being sighted in and practiced with, and loads being tested for drop and accuracy, etc., now...predator hunters, target shooters, western hunters prepping for their trips, etc. They seem to be getting by either on private ranges or club ranges or on impromptu "ranges" of questionable legality and insurability.

I really have to wonder, though, about the wisdom of greatly increasing the numbers of shooters who will have reason to join that group and set up their TV boxes in long hayfields where they are "sure" no one will suddenly appear downrange.

All practical decisions come down to a matter of upside and downside potentials and probabilities.

I know how difficult it is becoming to even shoot my .22 at a squirrel unless he is pretty much directly overhead, because that bullet will be coming down SOMEWHERE, and the highway is a few hundred yards over there, the farmhouse and barnlot is a few hundred yards this direction, and if I was to miss one in the top of that oak at the lower angle, I might just reach the Walmart parking lot.

Not everything that's illegal is a bad idea, and not everything that's legal is a good one.

Sometimes, personal responsibility and common sense are called for. Usually, those suffice. Once in a while, you have a case like an experienced range officer switching an Uzi to full auto in the hands of a nine-year-old
with zero experience.

Are there THAT many deer walking by you at 300 yards? Are you REALLY certain of the safety of the backdrop at that point? Is it worth the added risk in a state with as high a rural population as we have?

I have to think this would be a case of using too little common sense and too little responsibility in changing the reg's. We currently have 150-yard weapons that are stretched to 200 with some KY holdovers. Do we NEED to find out the consequences of doubling that range in our crowded countryside? Our current restrictions seem to be working very well so far. I just see this move as doubling the height above the ground and mkaing the net smaller at the same time, for almost no good reason.

Maybe should be legal in theory, but in practical terms, not a good idea.

I agree not enough But you must remember until now there was NOTHING . Its a Start and unlike KY the one over 35 and 28 is for the entire Ohio River not just above Cannelton there are no regs in place now

Way to go Russ. You just saved alot of typing for me. I'm on the fence on this one. If it does pass it will be a long time before I get a rifle or a place to use said rifle

Because it's stuck in peoples head and that's all they can see. Yep those 'yote hunters seem to be able to use their rifles in IN and not cause a bloodbath - I'll give everyone here a clue, the deer hunters won't either. KY has been using HPR's and somehow they haven't killed themselves off. But is so much more rural there - well it's not all rural and they are still used in those areas. Where I hunt in KY it's not so different than IN. I and some other have pointed out studies and cases in the past to contradict this notion that HPR's would be so much more dangerous; I used to give a link but I'm getting tired of repeatedly seeing the same old things posted so I've quit doing it. Maybe if people went and researched it for themselves it will get through to them. The gist of it is the only time HPR's really have much of an increased range in lethality is when they are fired elevated, which is not the norm. Second as has been pointed out in another thread what about the case in Ohio where a girl was hit by a sabotted bullet fired from a muzzleloader....from a mile and a half away! Just because the drop from that 44mag rifle is faster than a 308 doesn't mean it is inherently so much safer.

Just as in the case of crossbow inclusion, I am for anything that provides hunter recruitment and retention. There are many good points already posted .....