|
Post by cambygsp on Oct 13, 2005 7:12:02 GMT -5
"Many of the new slugs will cleanly kill a deer as far as your son can accurately shoot."
Uhhh....that would be ABOUT 50 yards
|
|
|
Post by drs on Oct 13, 2005 7:26:15 GMT -5
[quote author=mbogo 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. [/quote]
Thanks, mbogo, I am just trying to do what I think is right. When the State Of Indiana, legalize the use of the "useless" .410 Slug; I started to thinking that since the subject of recoil played a major role in legalizing it, I thought that if they could legalize the use of pistol cartridges in rifles like the .41 or .44 Magnums this would be more humane to use for Deer hunting. I fully understand that a 12 gauge ore even a 20 gauge produces too much recoil for some individules. I personally injured my shoulder sighting in a 12 gauge slug gun back in 1987. The nerve in my right shoulder was injured and to-this-day I can only withsatand no more recoil than what is produced by a 20 gauge sabot. I even once bought a Savage M-210 12 gauge slug gun but the recoil was too much for proper sighting in even though it was a heavier gun than my Ithaca M-37. I now own a Browning Gold Deer Hunter in 20 gauge which is okay as far as recoil goes. BUT, I still find it rather strange that one can use a .30-30 or .270 to hunt Squirrels, Groundhogs, and coyotes, but can't use these for Deer, unless fired from a Hundgun. I am not proposing the use of High powered rifle cartridges like the .270 for Deer Hunting here, due to the range of the cartridge
|
|
|
Post by squirrelhunter on Oct 13, 2005 10:13:00 GMT -5
The 30/06 or .308 I can see,but the 30-30 and the .35 Rem I don't see a problem with out of a pistol like it already is.There effective range isn't much farther than a shotgun or muzzleloader.Just my 2 cents ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) .
|
|
|
Post by pbr on Oct 14, 2005 11:29:15 GMT -5
Woodie said - There is some mutual back scratching going on here for sure..
Hey Woodie,
What do you mean by "mutual back scratching"..
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 14, 2005 11:44:36 GMT -5
Woodie said - There is some mutual back scratching going on here for sure.. Hey Woodie, What do you mean by "mutual back scratching".. Probably not what you think it means. I was not implying that the pols say "If you do this for us, we will do that for you" OR that the IDNR says "if you do this for us, we will do this for you". IOW - NO quid pro quoMy meaning is that what I have seen so far is that Kyle Hupfer has gotten the pols attention. That happened early on when he attended a Natural resouces Comitteee meeting and basically told them that they were in this thing TOGETHER, not seperately as has been in the past on occasions.. Since then I've seen some "lets get along" and working together to acomplish what is best for the natural resources of Indiana. That is my meaning of "mutual back scratching".. BTW - that is Woody with a Y , thank you..
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Oct 17, 2005 18:41:20 GMT -5
I have no problem with the use of pistol caliber rifles here , the shooter is just as liable regardless of the weapon used . I would also agree with a minimum caliber . If JB is correct , and the normal process of introduction was skirted , then I don't like that . It reminds me too much of the way the deer "procurers" operate .
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Oct 17, 2005 23:56:22 GMT -5
I'm in !!! I get tired of cleaning my "smokepoles" anyway. I can see no reason we should not have these legalized. The sooner, the better !!!!
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 17, 2005 23:58:50 GMT -5
Just to clarify for everyone, the process to turn this proposal into a law has not been skirted. It was introduced at the summer study as it should be and if the group rules in favor then a sponsor will be found and the proposal will become a part of the next legislative session. I think the problem stems from the fact that a sitting member of the summer study actually introduced the idea which is unusual but not illegal. Most new laws (and another debate is whether it needs a new law or an administartive rules change) are suggested by the public or the IDNR and rarely by the committee. At least in the few years I have been watching them.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by drs on Oct 18, 2005 7:45:03 GMT -5
Just to clarify for everyone, the process to turn this proposal into a law has not been skirted. It was introduced at the summer study as it should be and if the group rules in favor then a sponsor will be found and the proposal will become a part of the next legislative session. I think the problem stems from the fact that a sitting member of the summer study actually introduced the idea which is unusual but not illegal. Most new laws (and another debate is whether it needs a new law or an administartive rules change) are suggested by the public or the IDNR and rarely by the committee. At least in the few years I have been watching them Jack Jack, Glad to see that this proposal has not been "skirted". But it seemed that it took far less time when the State okayed the use of handguns for Deer hunting, back in the '90's.
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Oct 18, 2005 10:02:30 GMT -5
David - not to step on anyone's toes but the public perception is that handguns have a limited range and rifles belong in states other than populous Indiana. That perception is what has held up this proposal. I'm on the fence on this one. I don't see the need but I'm not going to fight against it.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by drs on Oct 18, 2005 11:48:28 GMT -5
David - not to step on anyone's toes but the public perception is that handguns have a limited range and rifles belong in states other than populous Indiana. That perception is what has held up this proposal. I'm on the fence on this one. I don't see the need but I'm not going to fight against it. Jack No "toes" steped on here, Jack, but I think you're right about handgun & Rifles. The general public has been subjected to much misinformation regarding ANY guns. When you mention the .44 Mag. they start thinking interms of "Dirty Harry" of Magnum Force. The general public really lacks knowledge of Firearms and the "Powers-that-be" Law Makers are for the most part anti-gun & anti-Hunting. The sad truth of this is the sabot shotguns we now use with rifled barrels are actually more powerful than any pistol cartridge I listed. I just think we deer hunter should have a say in what equipment we can use for hunting deer, with in reason of course. <Thanks> ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|