|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 17, 2014 12:37:45 GMT -5
I have to disagree. The areas where the longer-range HPR's have been allowed in other states are areas with more hills and with fewer people per square mile, whether we are speaking of entire states or portions of states.
To use the safety record from such areas that may actually be appropriate for long-range HPR use as being applicable to Indiana's rural areas statewide is inaccurate to the point of being dishonest.
If used correctly, longer range rifles are and have been used in the state for many years for varmints and practice, primarily by the more dedicated enthusiasts who shoot regularly and are more aware of the range of their weaponry and it's danger to anyone a mile or more away if shot in an inappropriate direction. I do recall hearing some of even those dedicated and aware individuals chatting about making crows disappear in a puff of feathers when they were seen sitting on a high limb.....at 300 yards.
But that usage by a few enthusiasts, mostly responsible, is MUCH different from equipping 200,000 deer hunters with rifles of that range capability and expecting similar results.
I expect the vast majority of that number to use good sense and proper gun safety. However, I also expect that among the users of the newly legal long range rifle cartridges will be the normal percentage of careless, ignorant, and otherwise unsuitable users that we have always had in our midst. I see nothing in the regulation change that will screen such users from participating.
The only changes will be that they will now be endangering a multiplied number of potential victims with the exact same misbehavior, and they will be tempted into such irresponsible behavior more often by the presence of skyline or extreme long range shots that were well beyond their ammunition's capacity before, but will only require a little more holdover with the new toy.
I can agree with the often-quoted proponents who say it will make little difference in the deer population. In the longer run, I expect the land being closed to hunting due to insurance regulations and local restrictions on weaponry will actually see the herd increase in many areas after firearms hunting there is banned.
As to the reduced recoil bringing more people into the sport, I think that has already been done with the PCR's (I'll still refer to them as that, as I think the inclusion at the same time of the wildcats was a mistake and they should have been limited then to actual PCR's). I also recall being pounded pretty well by my first few shots with a shotgun as a kid, but I also remember getting the hang of holding the gun tightly to my shoulder and learning the way to ease the shock of the impact by easing up on the body stiffness and letting the shoulder move a little while keeping gun pulled into it. Didn't take that long to learn, and I felt like I had accomplished something when I caught on.
I've been a Life Member in the NRA for forty years, and am a VERY firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and that we have already let way too much gun freedom slip away. However, with all freedoms come responsibilities. And it is my opinion that greatly increasing the numbers of hunters during the orange army invasion every fall who are using weapons of vastly greater potential range, will be an irresponsible mistake that WILL come back to bite us. Yes, we have gotten by with allowing PCR's and smokeless ML's. But because we have so far survived a few "steps in the right direction" does NOT necessarily make it a good idea to take another step in that direction. That next one could be the step off the cliff edge. Maybe we should also remove the blindfold and use our eyes and brains to determine the safety versus the real need, and make the decision based on that input instead of our luck to this point. The Titanic was sailing along quite smoothly in 1912 and the passengers were very sure of their safety, until they hit that iceberg.
I have very much the same feeling about this that Woody expressed in the post about the increased infusion of thousands of Muslim refugees into the country, "this isn't going to end well".
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 17, 2014 12:39:59 GMT -5
Hopefully now that AR-15's are the top-selling rifles in the U.S., public perception on them can change.
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Dec 17, 2014 12:46:42 GMT -5
I hate that some platforms of the AR are acceptable now, I hate that some people still haven't accepted a rifle designed in the 1950's. FOR military use.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 17, 2014 12:47:02 GMT -5
I have to disagree. The areas where the longer-range HPR's have been allowed in other states are areas with more hills and with fewer people per square mile, whether we are speaking of entire states or portions of states. To use the safety record from such areas that may actually be appropriate for long-range HPR use as being applicable to Indiana's rural areas statewide is inaccurate to the point of being dishonest. If used correctly, longer range rifles are and have been used in the state for many years for varmints and practice, primarily by the more dedicated enthusiasts who shoot regularly and are more aware of the range of their weaponry and it's danger to anyone a mile or more away if shot in an inappropriate direction. I do recall hearing some of even those dedicated and aware individuals chatting about making crows disappear in a puff of feathers when they were seen sitting on a high limb.....at 300 yards. But that usage by a few enthusiasts, mostly responsible, is MUCH different from quipping 200,000 deer hunters with rifles of that range capability and expecting similar results. I expect the vast majority of that number to use good sense and proper gun safety. However, I also expect that among the users of the newly legal long range rifle cartridges will be the normal percentage of careless, ignorant, and otherwise unsuitable users that we have always had in our midst. I see nothing in the regulation change that will screen such users from participating. The only changes will be that they will now be endangering a multiplied number of potential victims with the exact same misbehavior, and they will be tempted into such irresponsible behavior more often by the presence of skyline or extreme long range shots that were well beyond their ammunition's capacity before, but will only require a little more holdover with the new toy. I can agree with the often-quoted proponents who say it will make little difference in the deer population. n the longer run, I expect the land being closed to hunting due to insurance regulations and local restrictions on weaponry will actually see the herd increase in many areas after firearms hunting there is banned. As to the reduced recoil bringing more people into the sport, I think that has already been done with the PCR's (I'll still refer to them as that, as I think the inclusion at the same time of the wildcats was a mistake and they should have been limited then to actual PCR's). I also recall being pounded pretty well by my first few shots with a shotgun as a kid, but I also remember getting the hang of holding the gun tightly to my shoulder and learning the way to ease the shock of the impact by easing up on the body stiffness and letting the shoulder move a little while keeping gun pulled into it. Didn't take that long to learn, and I felt like I had accomplished something when I caught on. I've been a Life Member in the NRA for forty years, and am a VERY firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and that we have already let way too much gun freedom slip away. However, with all freedoms come responsibilities. And it is my opinion that greatly increasing the numbers of hunters during the orange army invasion every fall who are using weapons of vastly greater potential range, will be an irresponsible mistake that WILL come back to bite us. Yes, we have gotten by with allowing PCR's and smokeless ML's. But because we have so far survived a few "steps in the right direction" does NOT necessarily make it a good idea to take another step in that direction. That next one could be the step off the cliff edge. Maybe we should also remove the blindfold and use our eyes and brains to determine the safety versus the real need, and make the decision based on that input instead of our luck to this point. The Titanic was sailing along quite smoothly in 1912 and the passengers were very sure of their safety, until they hit that iceberg. I have very much the same feeling about this that Woody expressed in the post about the increased infusion of thousands of Muslim refugees into the country, "this isn't going to end well". A very GOOD intelligent post.....Thanks!!!
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 17, 2014 12:48:26 GMT -5
I hate that some people still haven't accepted a rifle designed in the 1950's. FOR military use. Which is exactly what the Remington model 700 was originally designed for.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 17, 2014 12:55:13 GMT -5
I hate that some people still haven't accepted a rifle designed in the 1950's. FOR military use. I was waiting for that response. Lol! Yes, but we're not talking about a full-auto M16, are we? We're talking about a semi-auto clone that operates in the exact same manner as other semi-autos with their pretty wood stocks. Speaking of M16's, are you aware that they are legal for deer hunting right now in the appropriate calibers? Yep, full-auto.
|
|
|
Post by jjm1966 on Dec 17, 2014 12:59:40 GMT -5
me either ... it's just now(if passed) those errant shots have a possibility of traveling further & with more energy. FWIW, I've read studies that dispute that and claim that rifles are actually safer to use in the woods than slugs. In the woods yes, but what about open ground? compare a Hornady 12ga SST slug to a Hornady 7mmRM w/162gr at 500-600 yards.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 17, 2014 13:01:49 GMT -5
FWIW, I've read studies that dispute that and claim that rifles are actually safer to use in the woods than slugs. In the woods yes, but what about open ground? compare a Hornady 12ga SST slug to a Hornady 7mmRM w/162gr at 500-600 yards. How did a big, heavy .45-70 bullet ever find its way 1000 yards to a buffalo in the old days?
|
|
|
Post by jjm1966 on Dec 17, 2014 13:02:24 GMT -5
me either ... it's just now(if passed) those errant shots have a possibility of traveling further & with more energy. Oh really, ever heard of the PA study? no ... i'm basing my thoughts & experience off of ballistics & human error/carelessness
|
|
|
Post by jjm1966 on Dec 17, 2014 13:05:46 GMT -5
In the woods yes, but what about open ground? compare a Hornady 12ga SST slug to a Hornady 7mmRM w/162gr at 500-600 yards. How did a big, heavy .45-70 bullet ever find its way 1000 yards to a buffalo in the old days? Vernier sights and a 20'+ hold over. how populated were the plains with houses, farms & people?
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 17, 2014 13:10:28 GMT -5
How did a big, heavy .45-70 bullet ever find its way 1000 yards to a buffalo in the old days? Vernier sights and a 20'+ hold over. how populated were the plains with houses, farms & people? You were comparing heavy and light projectiles. I'm just stating that heavy ones can be shot just as far with the right hold over.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 17, 2014 13:17:22 GMT -5
Oh really, ever heard of the PA study? no ... i'm basing my thoughts & experience off of ballistics & human error/carelessness Then your understanding of ballistics is flawed as it pertains to this issue and human error is present in the same amount under any of the circumstances. Therefore your entire basis for your opinion is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Dec 17, 2014 13:28:50 GMT -5
I doubt limiting the shots will do much. Even though there is a federal limit for waterfowl, there is no law that limits the amount of properly plugged guns lined up and loaded with non-toxic shot in your blind. We have done it on occasion and it is quite handy, especially if a gun decides to jam at a an unfavorable time. There's also no law that prohibits you from getting proficient enough with your firearm to reload it within 2-4 seconds between each burst. There is also no law that prohibits you from making a speed loader like this one for a slug gun or shotgun. www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Hs4do69ms Unless everything is limited to a single shot firearm with a time limit on how quickly you are allowed to reload and a CO standing behind you with a stopwatch, there is always going to be someone who will find a perfectly legal way to get around the laws currently in place to "spray and pray."
|
|
|
Post by jjm1966 on Dec 17, 2014 13:30:28 GMT -5
no ... i'm basing my thoughts & experience off of ballistics & human error/carelessness Then your understanding of ballistics is flawed as it pertains to this issue and human error is present in the same amount under any of the circumstances. Therefore your entire basis for your opinion is flawed. when MPBR of a shotgun is 1/3 or 1/4 of a common deer/elk cartridge, that makes the HPR deadlier do to it's retained energy at extended ranges. you can probably kill a deer with a wrist rocket at 10' with the right shot placement ... try it a 100 yards. everything has it's limitations ... going to HPRs just pushes the limits further
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Dec 17, 2014 13:47:05 GMT -5
I doubt limiting the shots will do much. Even though there is a federal limit for waterfowl, there is no law that limits the amount of properly plugged guns lined up and loaded with non-toxic shot in your blind. We have done it on occasion and it is quite handy, especially if a gun decides to jam at a an unfavorable time. There's also no law that prohibits you from getting proficient enough with your firearm to reload it within 2-4 seconds between each burst. There is also no law that prohibits you from making a speed loader like this one for a slug gun or shotgun. www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Hs4do69ms Unless everything is limited to a single shot firearm with a time limit on how quickly you are allowed to reload and a CO standing behind you with a stopwatch, there is always going to be someone who will find a perfectly legal way to get around the laws currently in place to "spray and pray." Agreed. Even with a 10 round limit, it takes no time at all to swap in a new mag in an AR. I highly doubt there are gonna be that many AR-10's in .308 or other medium to long range calibers in use strictly due to their cost. You're talking $1000 and up, for a bare rifle. Meanwhile, you can get a quality Ruger American bolt-action rifle for less than $300.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Dec 17, 2014 14:45:28 GMT -5
How did a big, heavy .45-70 bullet ever find its way 1000 yards to a buffalo in the old days? Vernier sights and a 20'+ hold over. how populated were the plains with houses, farms & people? They stopped hunting at the nmlra 1000 yard cartridge range xxample 45/70 because of ricochet I've been in that woods when practing was going on trust me I crawed out them bullets were bouncing off of every thing
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 17, 2014 14:55:04 GMT -5
Vernier sights and a 20'+ hold over. how populated were the plains with houses, farms & people? They stopped hunting at the nmlra 1000 yard cartridge range xxample 45/70 because of ricochet I've been in that woods when practing was going on trust me I crawed out them bullets were bouncing off of every thing Big chunks of lead tend to do that. Pretty similar to tracer rounds at the Knob Creek machinegun shoot. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 17, 2014 14:58:19 GMT -5
I see this possibly as the beginning of the end of quality deer hunting in Indiana, greed and stupidity not a good combo for DNR. It will hit the fan when license sales plummet.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 17, 2014 15:09:13 GMT -5
I see this possibly as the beginning of the end of quality deer hunting in Indiana, greed and stupidity not a good combo for DNR. I thought the same thing with crossbows.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on Dec 17, 2014 15:26:30 GMT -5
Deer herd will survive but will continue on decline untill season's are shortened and antlerless limit's reduced. (IMO.) Personally I could care less what you hunt with. If HPR bill passes will it have a dramatic effect in regard's to harvest number's?? I doubt it. Will there be a big surge in number's of new hunter's?? I doubt it. What I would expect to happen is guy's that already hunt will just opt to use different weapon. Sure it's easier to hunt with a high powered rifle than a shotgun, but if you were a poor hunter with shotgun you'll still be a poor hunter with HPR.
|
|