|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 6, 2014 18:05:53 GMT -5
For the record, I bought a cheap BSA 3-9x power 40mm "deer hunter" scope and mounted it on my 12ga Remington 870 pump shotgun that kicks like a mule firing 385gr slugs at 1850 ft/sec. That scope has been mounted on that gun for over 5 years and it has never lost zero even though I "sight it in" every year at the range (running at least 5 rounds thru it to verify zero). I think I paid less than $50 for that scope when I bought it.
You don't need something uber expensive on a shotgun. An economy rifle scope will work fine.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 6, 2014 17:54:33 GMT -5
Single bead (mounted at the muzzle) sights are terrible on any gun. They only give you a general idea of where the projectile(s) is/are going. If your gun has 2 beads, then that is better as it gives you two points to line up to make sure you are aiming straight (like iron sights do). If all you have is a single bead at the end of the barrel, I would recommend you at least get some iron or fiber-optic sights on there, if not mount a red dot or a scope.
That having been said, I have scopes mounted on all my slug guns with the exception of the .410. The .410 is a bolt action and there is no room for a scope to be mounted because of the high angle the bolt must be rotated to in order to disengage it on this particular firearm. Therefore I mounted a red dot on this gun because it offered an unlimited eye relief distance (unlike most scopes, but I believe you can get some scopes set up with very long eye relief distances).
That having been said, if you are going to limit yourself to 50 yard shots or less, iron sights or red dots work great for this and you really don't need anything else. If your gun is good to 100 yds or more, a scope can be helpful.
My dad tells me, that when he was in the Marine Corps, he had to qualify with an M14 that only had iron sights out to distances of 500 yds in the standing position. He earned marksman qualification. So do you really need a fancy scope or expensive holographic sighting systems? No. But they don't hurt having if you want to spend the money on them.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 5, 2014 15:51:36 GMT -5
NICE!
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 4, 2014 14:24:45 GMT -5
That's not the only concern - if you are in weather that could destroy a blood trail then I have issues with it. True. I should rephrase my post to say "light rain". I agree with what you said and will add that as good as the enclosures are, they won't protect you from heavy, wind-driven rain (because the zip-down windows would need to be open for you to see or shoot anything, and in that case, rain could come right in), nor do they protect you from the rain while walking to and from the stand or while field dressing or loading up the deer. I don't hunt in moderate to very heavy rain or dangerous weather conditions, nor do I condone it. Light rain, sleet, snow, and moderate windy conditions? Yes. I will say the enclosures are very nice from keeping the sleet and wind off of you. Last season's poor weather proved their worth on more than one occasion.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 4, 2014 14:15:40 GMT -5
Awesome buck. Definitely worth hanging on the wall. Do you happen to know what area of the state he got it in?
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 4, 2014 14:11:59 GMT -5
Weather Channel was right for once. Promptly at 10 it started misting. Get down time... Screw that. Buy and put up those tree stand enclosures to keep the elements off of you. I know, guys make fun of them, but hunting isn't worth becoming ill and being laid up in bed for days or weeks. Not only that, but it opens up the poor weather days to hunting which is when WE see all the deer (they must think nobody hunts when it rains).
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 4, 2014 14:04:13 GMT -5
better watch your stuff and get it locked up and quick, been there done that and had stuff stolen right after especially if he seen you. Don't you just love that? People get caught doing something wrong but somehow it's your fault for pointing that out; so that somehow makes you the bad guy "justifying" them to steal or wreck your stuff afterwards...
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 4, 2014 13:36:29 GMT -5
Northern Indiana is FLAT, I have a Sister living near Northern Indiana and it is "flat as a pancake". When I lived in Indiana; my hunting was confined to SW Indiana. I've hunted in Daviess, Pike, Posey, Warrick, Vanderburgh, Perry, and Martin counties. While these Counties are a bit more hilly than Northern Indiana, they are still "flat" compared to where I live here in Kentucky. Not all of Northern Indiana is flat. Huntington county has some hills. I hunt a property in Huntington county that has deep ravines (at least 50') and is hilly. No, it isn't as hilly as KY or PA, but it isn't as flat as a pancake. Yes, I know there are a lot of areas as flat as a pancake here around where I live. Adams county, just to the south of me, is certainly flat. But I don't hunt there. But what does it really matter? If an idiot is standing at the bottom of a ravine and fires at a deer standing at the crest of the hill above him (or her) and misses, where does the trajectory of that shot take the bullet? Several miles, I imagine. Remember the story of the guy in Ohio that killed an Amish girl about 1.5 miles away by a bullet fired from his muzzleloader that he "fired in the air" before cleaning his muzzleloader? What do you suppose the elevation had to be on that shot for that muzzleloader bullet (likely traveling at less than 2000 fps at the muzzle) for it to travel 1.5 miles? How tall of hill would there had to be for that bullet to be stopped? What I'm getting at here is if you want to split hairs and say it is dangerous to hunt with certain guns anywhere that is flat, then a case could be made showing it is dangerous to hunt where there are hills as well - if the shooter is an idiot. You might as well ban all gun hunting if you are going to argue the point of hilly terrain. People can be hurt by idiots with guns in flat or hilly terrain. It doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter as much concerning what equipment is used because we have already had it proven to us that a muzzleloader bullet can kill from 1.5 miles away. Most of your modern saboted shotgun slugs fired thru rifled barrels carry more velocity and energy than muzzleloaders. And there are a number of studies out there that suggest that slower moving, larger diameter, and heavier bullets carry a greater risk of ricocheting than faster, lighter, and smaller diameter rounds do. Concerning the population density argument, if you really want to boil it down, then again, the argument could be made saying NO GUN HUNTING should be allowed if ANYONE lives within XX miles of the hunting area. Most currently legal deer hunting rounds can kill from over a mile away, we have already established that. 1 square mile = 640 acres. How many of you are hunting 640 acre properties where you know there isn't another person? Assuming, of course, your bullet wouldn't travel beyond 1 mile (which we know it can). Basically the point I'm trying to make here is the responsibility ultimately rests on the shooter, not the equipment used. A guy with a 12ga shooting foster slugs can be just as deadly to the human population as a guy using a .30-06 if neither are responsible shooters. Not only that, but it is legal to use ANY equipment to hunt Coyote here in Indiana, which I have seen people use everything from .223's to 30 cal magnum's to take. I am not hearing a bunch of news reports rolling in every week about innocent bystanders being shot by these bullets exiting hunting fields. In contrast, you are far more likely to be struck by a gang-banger's bullet in urban areas than you are to be hit but an errant hunting round on flat land.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Sept 2, 2014 23:14:39 GMT -5
NOBODY wanted to BAN crossbows. Past tense, maybe. But many currently want them banned. And for what? Selfish reasons is the only thing I can think of. Crossbows are more accurate and more powerful than most compound bows which affords a higher probability of a humane kill. What's wrong with that? How many compound bow hunters wound and don't kill their prey every year due to inexperience or any number of other reasons? And what's wrong with me wanting to use a crossbow instead so I DON'T blow out my shoulder? I rely on the health of my body to make a living and I've seen far too many compound bow hunters trash their bodies doing what they love and now they can't make a living doing what they know because of it. And why weren't they made legal for most at the inception of the first regulations and only made legal for a very few? Because of the bow hunting lobby (aka: anti-crossbowers), no doubt. Sorry, but that doesn't make it a legit reason and I'm glad the state of Indiana came to their senses. Again, the only reason why certain weapons were made available to a select few and banned for masses was because of the efforts of a group of selfish people who whined to the state about it in the first place. As for me, I don't care if you use a compound bow and only a compound bow to hunt deer. But don't tell me what I can use and what I can't use because YOU don't think it is enough of a challenge for ME. You don't know me nor do you know my skillset. Perhaps I shoot a compound bow better than you BUT I just choose to not blow out my shoulder on the advice of my doctor. Who's whining? The people I hear crying the loudest about anything on this forum are those who are trying ban crossbows. If you guys had your way the ONLY thing we would be allowed to hunt deer with would be compound bows, I bet. Again, this kind of BS is what is going to KILL this sport for everyone. EDIT TO ADD: FWIW, I don't even hunt over or near a food plot like so many others do which I believe skirts the law a bit. I never use bait and I don't even use scents.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Sept 2, 2014 22:40:11 GMT -5
I am Bow and MZL and I am against it so not all fit that description But I can tell you this any one living in or near a Amish community better be prepared for a HUGE Deer reduction if Passed you can take that to the bank guys I sometimes hunt in Noble county and there are already a ton of Amish who currently hunt with guns (don't know about bows because I haven't bow hunted in Noble Co. yet). So I don't see how allowing the use of more centerfire rifles is going to change that or make the deer population plummet overnight. Like firstwd said, I think the legalization of new rifle cartridges isn't going to bring a host of new hunters into the fold but rather it will just have the effect of changing the type of equipment the current hunters use.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Sept 2, 2014 20:41:45 GMT -5
How many against are strictly bow hunters? From feedback I've been seeing this is where most of the opposition is coming from. I wonder how many of these bow-only hunters are also the same ones that want to ban crossbows? And of those, I wonder how many would vehemently oppose a ban on compound bows - forcing them to only use long bows or recurves? Selfishness is going to bring about the downfall of hunting as a sport. Just give it time.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Sept 2, 2014 20:34:05 GMT -5
So center fire rifles are alright as long as they are only available to those with enough means to afford them? I guess drug dealers would make the list of people that should be allowed to hunt with one. A friend of mine, who is against the proposed opening up of much more common centerfire rifle cartridges, says it would kill entrepreneurs (ie: the little guy) who is carving out a niche making the wildcat stuff. I can understand where he is coming from since he is friends with some of those people. But owning my own business, I have had to learn how to change and adjust to what the market is doing in order to survive. Things happen all the time that are out of my control as a business owner so you have to learn to roll with the punches or I'll just end up folding up and blowing away. But I'm with you, firstwd - I don't have the money to "invest" in a wildcat rifle or conversion and would like something more accurate than a 12ga or muzzleloader available for hunting deer. But that having been said, I can see where a lot of guys who spent tons of money on getting that wildcat gear would be upset if this law passes. My brother-in-law is against it outright. He only hunts public land and fears someone from miles away is going to shoot him. I cited the Ohio story where the guy cleaning his muzzleloader shot and killed an Amish girl from 1.5 miles away by accident but he didn't care. I probably should have told him he could have been hunting in a group with somebody like Dick Cheney and gotten shot from probably just feet away. Doesn't take a HPR to do damage if the person wielding the gun acts like an idiot when he has one. My dad is the same way. He thinks centerfire rifle cartridges are too powerful for hunting deer in this state period. Can't get him to change his mind about that no matter what physics lessons or studies I cite. I think some people have just been indoctrinated for so long with false gun myths it is going to be impossible to change their minds on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Sept 2, 2014 18:28:14 GMT -5
"In 2011, a 15-year-old Amish girl was killed in Fredericksburg, Ohio while she was driving her buggy home when she was struck in the head by a muzzleloader bullet that had been apparently fired a mile and a half away, by a man “cleaning” his gun who had fired it into the air."
ANY currently legal hunting equipment can be dangerous in the wrong hands. My opinion on this rule change is that I am FOR having more accurate tools made available for me to make more precise and humane kills.
I am NOT for a north/south line being drawn on a map (as was mentioned by some in this thread) to determine where a HPR can be used. A HPR can be used to take varmints anywhere in the state where it is legal to shoot guns. Why is deer hunting any different?
If they want to put restrictions on where a HPR can be used in proximity to houses and buildings and such, or urban population zones; I might be ok with that. BUT, I would want to know specifics. And I would also want to know if muzzleloader and shotgun slugs that can carry more energy and sometimes go as far as some HPR rounds will also have to face these restrictions. Again, the above story proves a muzzleloader bullet can kill from 1.5 miles away!
If you don't think a saboted copper slug weighing around an ounce traveling at close to 2000 fps can't penetrate a 1/2" thick piece of plywood, some drywall, some plastic siding, and a little insulation - and still have enough energy to kill; you had better think again. Might as well be shooting thru a screen door with that kind of mass and energy.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Jun 27, 2014 12:46:52 GMT -5
While all good management practice and I am glad to see it, in the real world I have questions just HOW MUCH cutting a county (like Marshall where I live) from 8 to 4 will REALLY effect things. As I've said before, VERY few hunters that I have known and/or just talked to, over the years ever actually shot even four, let alone 8. x2
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Mar 21, 2014 13:50:47 GMT -5
I got the file from the DNR. Looks to be a record amount of input given. Good going guys and gals! Due to the amount they hope to have at least one proposal for the June NRC Advisory Committee to look at. Deer input alone was 1,211 pieces of input. They were: General Deer(includes baiting) - 444
Deer Firearms (lots of wanting all center fires) - 479
Deer (28 gauge) - 110
Deer UDZ - 114
Deer youth - 64I read some of the comments from the link the DNR provided me with in an email that some people submitted for consideration and some of them are just downright comical (partial list below): MY FAVORITE (most of which I agree with): The problem is people look at the deer population based on what they see in their areas and don't consider what is going on in other areas of the state. For example, I've read a lot of posts on this forum from members who say they haven't seen near as much deer this last season (most of those people live in the mid or southern section of the state, I think). In my case, I've seen more deer and continue to see the herds grow in the areas I frequent. IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH HABITAT PEOPLE. If the local environment can support a herd, a herd will be present and flourish. If your local habitat can't support it (ie: no cover, no food, & no water - you need ALL three), you aren't going to see big deer populations. A great example of this are some of the counties just south of where I live (Allen Co.). If you go south, it is mostly flat farmland - very little woods / mostly clear-cut fields. There is plenty of food, but no cover and little water supply. This equals low deer populations in these areas (I can drive for hours and never see 1 deer). Now if I go north into Noble County where there are a lot of lakes, woods, and some farms (still lots of food), the deer population up there is almost in out-of-control proportions. It isn't uncommon to drive around the lakes and see 2, 3, or 4 dozen deer eating in the fields near dusk on any given day. BOTTOM LINE is the DNR needs to consider herd management on a county by county basis and not dial it back or adjust it for the entire state like it sounds some people want done (based on what was put in the comments). And please, stop the BS with wanting to ban crossbows. Some of us like our shoulders and need them for our livelihood (I know more than a few former bow hunters that can no longer shoot a bow because they have blown their shoulders out from doing it too long).
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Feb 28, 2014 1:26:54 GMT -5
The numbers of deer (both antlerless and antlered) I've seen in Steuben, Noble, and DeKalb counties up here in the extreme NE part of the state have done nothing but increased over the past 5 years. Adams county, just to the south of us, is mostly farmland and I rarely see deer "herds" there. But my cousin, who lives in Adams county, just called me today to tell me he spotted about two dozen deer eating in a field right down the road from his house. He said he's never seen the deer in this area before in the 10+ years he's lived there.
I think there are areas of the state that saw a severe thinning of the herd last year due to EHD. But in the aforementioned counties I frequently travel, I'm seeing no such thinning. If anything, I'm seeing more herds and bigger herds.
The drop in harvest numbers for this past season I think can be, at least in part, attributed to the bad weather and heavy snowfall we had (and are still getting). I know I missed a lot of hunting days due to the weather, and so did other friends and family. The heavy snowfall and tough snowpack cover up the fields and make it difficult for the deer to find food in their usual spots, forcing them to move on to other areas we don't usually see them in.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Jan 11, 2014 12:58:29 GMT -5
We have a Savage-Stevens .410 bolt action smoothbore shotgun (w/ 3 round detachable clip) my wife uses for Deer hunting. The clip is set up for 3" magnum shells only and will not feed 2 1/2" shells correctly (although the gun will fire them just fine).
Brenneke makes a 3" magnum rifled (1/4 ounce) slug that works exceptionally well in this gun. This gun with the Brenneke slug keyholes the target at 50 yards every time. Beyond 50 yards, it isn't so accurate (although I have to ask - what smoothbore shotgun is?). Brenneke advertises that this 1/4 ounce projectile leaves the barrel at 1755 feet per sec with an energy of 781 ft/lbs.
In contrast, Cor-Bon makes a .357 magnum deer hunting cartridge that has a muzzle velocity of 1200 feet per second and muzzle energy of 576 ft/lbs. That's less velocity and energy leaving the barrel than what the Brenneke .410 slug boasts (although the .357 bullet is heavier).
The point I'm trying to make is the .410 slug has enough energy to kill a deer when used properly. Same as the .357 magnum. You aren't going to shoot a deer at 300 yards with a .357 magnum, nor should you try doing it with a .410 load.
Furthermore, the .410 slug has more energy than any arrow or crossbow bolt you are ever going to use for deer hunting. So if the argument is going to be made to ban the .410 round for deer hunting because it is "underpowered", then what does that say about archery equipment? I have not seen a bow or crossbow produce projectile energy numbers anywhere close to what even a .410 slug produces.
If the concern here is about wounding and not killing the animal, I am willing to bet there are a lot more deer that are wounded by inexperienced archers (and not killed) than those shot by even .410 rounds. So I have to ask, why is there so much hate for the .410 slug? It has its place along with a host of other weapons for deer hunting. As long as it isn't used outside of its practical capabilities, it does its job just fine.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 28, 2013 2:47:16 GMT -5
What yardage did you shot, where did you hit the deer and how far did the deer run after? About 40 yards. Hit it in the spine just behind the shoulders - he dropped immediately.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 27, 2013 15:52:09 GMT -5
Retrieved the slug from my buck I shot last Saturday: It started out life looking like this: I fire 12ga Remington AccuTip saboted slugs. The box claims they are .58 caliber, 385 grain projectiles. They are made in 2 3/4" 1850 FPS (velocity, feet per second) shells and 3" Magnum 1900 FPS shells. I use the 2 3/4" shells because my Remington 870 Express Magnum Pump Shotgun will hold 4 of these in the magazine tube vs. only being able to hold 3 of the 3" shells; and I figure having the extra shell is worth giving up 50 FPS. This is the only round I have found that shoots well out of my Mossberg made (for the Remington 870) rifled & ported barrel that I have mounted on my 870. Everything else I have tried firing out of this barrel has horrible accuracy past 50 yards. Rural King's regular price for these shells is $12.99 for a box of 5. Remington regularly runs a fall rebate of $5 per box (limit 4 boxes). On top of that, Rural King ran a 10% off all in-stock ammunition sale a few weeks ago. I just got a flyer in the mail yesterday and Rural King is again running this 10% off sale for this week.
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Nov 24, 2013 19:18:26 GMT -5
Very nice. Love those long brow tines. Congratulations for sticking with it.. Honestly, for me, it isn't about me getting a deer. Every year I do a lot of work setting up stands (then taking them down later), preparing gear for everyone else (my Dad and Wife), etc., so everyone can hunt. My dad has gotten at least 1 deer every year for the past 9 years and my wife has gotten one as well. I enjoy the experience more than anything. Getting my buck was just the icing on the cake. The wife has insisted on getting a shoulder mount done and we just dropped the head and hide off at the taxidermist a few hours ago. I enjoy fishing just as much as I do hunting. But I must admit I have more success fishing. However, I would not give either of them up for anything. We are truly blessed to be able to participate in such activities. Thanks for all the comments.
|
|