|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 10, 2005 8:07:50 GMT -5
Matt - don't make any assumptions. These Hoosier legislators aren't exactly the sharpest people I know. Jack Also, I doubt if ANY of them actually go hunting. You're right inthat "They aren't the brightest "Stars" in the sky!".........and some have been known to pull up and read HuntingIndiana...
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 10, 2005 20:07:41 GMT -5
..and your point would be?
Jack
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 10, 2005 20:12:13 GMT -5
..and your point would be? Jack Big Brother could be watching us.. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 10, 2005 22:57:55 GMT -5
I certainly hope (and know) so. How better to get our opinions across to those elected to serve us than through a public forum? Most of them will admit that they often legislate issues they know little or nothing about. In this issue we are debating "cowboy guns" because of a legislator not because of a DNR suggestion or even input from the public. Seems a little out of whack to me and a bit self-serving.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 11, 2005 5:51:17 GMT -5
I noticed several posts on several sites, concerning the proposal on "cowboy guns". I have seen where one high ranking organized hunting group official has slammed the idea....just based on the fact that the proposal was introduced by an elected official. I think the quote was: ""When was the last time a legislator knew what was good for wildlife?" The elected official that introduced this proposal is Senator John M. Waterman, and here is his biography. www.state.in.us/legislative/homepages/S39/bio.htmlBiography: Leadership Ranking Member, Governmental Affairs & Interstate Cooperation Elected Indiana State Senate, 1994 Political Affiliation Republican Standing Committees Agriculture & Small Business Committee Criminal & Civil Procedures & Public Policy Committee Public Affairs Subcommittee Governmental Affairs & Interstate Cooperation Committee Interstate Cooperation Subcommittee **Natural Resources Committee** Political Background Sullivan County Sheriff, 1986 - 1994 Honors Lewis Schmidt Law Officer of the Year, 1989 Outstanding Law Officer, 1983 Meritorious Certificate, 1979 Civic Activities Farmersburg Emmanuel Baptist Church **Buck Creek, Greene County Muzzle Loaders Club** Occupation Independent businessman Former owner / operator contracting business Personal Married, Cheryl; 6 children Counties Served Clay, Greene, Knox, Monroe, Owen, Sullivan, Vigo
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 11, 2005 6:22:28 GMT -5
The issue of "cowboy guns" has been brought up several times by the public, but for whatever reason was ignored. As to the last comment, it seems to me that most issues that arise are self-serving. At least this issue adds oppurtunity and choice instead of taking it away.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 11, 2005 7:36:03 GMT -5
I'm all for it! Sounds like a great reason to buy a new gun!!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 11, 2005 8:23:18 GMT -5
I certainly hope (and know) so. How better to get our opinions across to those elected to serve us than through a public forum? Most of them will admit that they often legislate issues they know little or nothing about. In this issue we are debating "cowboy guns" because of a legislator not because of a DNR suggestion or even input from the public. Seems a little out of whack to me and a bit self-serving. Jack I know of a few DNR folks tuning in. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) The DNRs in the past have always paid more attention to the organized groups and the legislators than John Q. Public. There is some mutual back scratching going on here for sure.. As long as it is within their authority and does not go against the law who are we to complain if some of us don't like it? Pistol cartridge rifles? I couldn't care less one way or the other. If it gets more people out to hunt then I am for it. However, I haven't seen any indication that it would do that. i'm sure theer are a number of hunters that woudl like to "try" a pistol cartridge rifle" for deer hunting, but new blood is doubtful. I would think there would be some criteria for making such a move and it shouldn't be just a certain legislator wants it cause he likes "cowboy guns". This will be interesting to watch..
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 11, 2005 9:04:43 GMT -5
I have a e-mail off to the Senator asking for some additional information on how this proposal came about. I even sent him a link to this site. It could be that someone has came to the Senator asking him to propose this. I beleive he sits on the Natural Resource Committee ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Can someone explain where the problem lies if the Senator is moving forward with a proposal that deer hunters (that vote) has asked him to pursue? Seems that the biggest issue at hand is not the guns, but with "A" Senator that proposed it.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Oct 11, 2005 17:26:51 GMT -5
The problem isnt with the well intentioned Senator! The problem is that his proposal will be re-written, watered down, and basicly screwed up before it every sees the light of day. Far better off to try and get done via Administrative rule first and then have the Senator come out in support of it.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 12, 2005 6:26:15 GMT -5
We are now up to 4 pages on this subject in a week, perhaps the Senator knew what he was doing when he made this proposal?
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 12, 2005 6:34:33 GMT -5
The problem isnt with the well intentioned Senator! The problem is that his proposal will be re-written, watered down, and basicly screwed up before it every sees the light of day. Far better off to try and get done via Administrative rule first and then have the Senator come out in support of it. What???...You have never seen proposals "re-written, watered down, and basicly screwed up" through the Admin. Rules Process? Isn't this "just" a proposal that has been thrown out for discussion?......I don't think there is any plans to implement it right away....it's just a proposal that is being tossed about. I sure don't have any heartache with any politician that is PROMOTING the hunting sports, actually its refreshing that they are not attempting to take opportunity away!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Oct 12, 2005 8:30:25 GMT -5
Camby, I NEVER SAID anything against the Senator or against his support for PROMOTING hunting oportunities. Yes things can screwed up in the Adminstrative Rule Process but the chances of it getting REALLY screwed up are far greater when you turn it into the hands of the Legistaors. Thats not an opinion thats a simple fact.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Oct 12, 2005 10:19:24 GMT -5
Here's a bit of information that Senator might consider when he mentions the bill:
In the matter, allowing pistol cartridges being legal for Deer Hunting in Indiana, a good rule would be to allow only those stright-walled pistol cartridges that meet a certain criteria such as: (1) they must have a bullet diameter of atleast .410" (2) They should have a minimum case length of 1.285", but no longer than 1.50". (3) Bullet weight of atleast 180 grains (Spt. or H.P.) (4) Produce a Muzzle velocity of at least 1,400 FPS but under 2,000 FPS. Some legal cartridges would include: .41 Mag, .44 Mag., .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull. Some illegal cartridge woud be all bottle necked cartridges like .38-40, .44-40,and cartridges designed for rifles like: .45-70, .444 Marlin, a few wildcat cartridges like the .357/44 Bain & Davis. The overall rules regarding the use of pistol cartridges would need to be reviewed to pick those that wil be both safe and effective on Deer sized game. The use of rifle ammo like the .308, .35 Remington, .30-30 Win, and .30-06 should not be allowed in either pistol or rifle for hunting in Indiana......"
This might be of some help.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 12, 2005 10:27:45 GMT -5
This "cowboy gun" thing is all new to me as I amnot into handguns(except for a couple of S & W and Ruger .22s) or centerfire rifles.
I've just started weigh the pros and cons of it.
I can see a positive in this as the price of ammo (versus slugs) and lack of recoil..
The price of ammo and lack of recoil WILL help deer hunters to practice more and thus be more familiar with their hunting tool. That is a positive and the result should be less wounded deer.
I know MOST slug gun hunters will only shoot enough to get sighted in and then quit. The price of sabot slugs AND the brutal pounding to the shoulder is enough to get them to stop any sort of sustained practice.
drs,
Keep up with the good factual information..
|
|
|
Post by drs on Oct 12, 2005 13:19:16 GMT -5
Thanks, Woody, ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) I am trying my best. I know some may think I am crazy, judging by the reaction I am receiving from the other Indiana Hunting Forum. I just think the use of these Pistol Cartridges in Rifles is prudent given the fact that the newer sabot shotgun slug ammo simply duplicates the performance of the pistol rounds. Also the lower recoil and lower purchase price of ammo is a definate plus.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 12, 2005 15:54:32 GMT -5
I don't think the cost of ammo is a factor. Nobody is going to switch from slugs to "cowboy" guns because ammo is cheaper. NOW....with that said, the lighter recoil may make it lots more attractive for small stature folks to take up shooting and take up deer hunting.
There is really no reason to not allow these weapons on the list for deer legal guns.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 13, 2005 6:36:19 GMT -5
You're a good job drs, although I don't agree with the attempt to get handguns restricted. I've read the post over there and it seems that many of the people you are dealing with know very little about rifles or handguns. Everyone assumes that a weapon can automatically shoot thousands of yards because it is called a rifle.
I agree Camby, while the cheaper ammo would be nice and may encourage more practice, I think the lesser recoil is the more important part. When I have kids some day, I would rather they have more to choose from than a .410 which lacks power or a 20 gauge which has a lot of recoil for a kid to deal with.
The only reasons not allow these weapons are that they are called rifles and that some resist any change.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 13, 2005 6:54:21 GMT -5
I think it amazing how different opinions are at different places on the net.
I guess if its NOT a antler producing scheme....it's not worth supporting for some.
Am I chomping at the bits to hunt with a "cowboy gun" ?
NO!!!
But I don't think if anyone else does, it will affect anything I am doing!
Mbogo,
I have been there and done that with the .410
Set my son up with a single shot .410 and had a gunsmith weld a scope mount forward of the break-over. We topped it with a no power red dot scope/sight. It was a tack driver out to about 50 yards, but I felt it lacked enough energy at that distance to make a humane harvest.
I would not let him take a shot at more than 30 yards, and he had to pass on several deer that were a little further than 30 yards last gun season.
We got rid of that gun this past spring, and he is now in a 870 youth 20ga. He will still be limited to about 50 yards, but I am confident it will get the job done at that distance.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 13, 2005 7:06:45 GMT -5
Camby, if I recall correctly the .410 only has about 340 ft/lbs. of energy at 50 yards, while the lowly .357 mag has 473 ft/lbs. and provides much better penetration. The 20 gauge will certainly get the job done, especially with newer slugs. I gave up on my 20 gauge when I was younger because of the terrible slugs available at that time. Many of the new slugs will cleanly kill a deer as far as your son can accurately shoot.
|
|