|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 16, 2010 8:55:55 GMT -5
HOUSE BILL #1343www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/IN/IN1343.1.htmlA bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning natural and cultural resources. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: SOURCE: IC 14-22-2-6; (10)IN1343.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-22-2-6 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]: Sec. 6. <snip> (e) A rule adopted by the director concerning a rifle used during deer hunting season must allow for a rifle that fires a cartridge that meets the following specifications: (1) Fires a bullet of three hundred fifty-seven thousandths (.357) of an inch diameter or larger. (2) Has a minimum case length of one and sixteen-hundredths (1.16) inches. (3) Has a maximum case length of one and eight-tenths (1.8) inches.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 16, 2010 11:29:36 GMT -5
So what's the change, the case length? I don't remember how it originally read.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 16, 2010 11:39:20 GMT -5
The .460 S&W Magnum defines the case length at 1.80", so that appears to be the intent.
The results would be that the .50-70 Govt. and .50 Beowulf would also be legal, and perhaps a couple others.
It also means that a .358 WSSM wildcat (from .25 WSSM brass) would be legal without trimming, such as the .358 BFG.
The Great "PANDORA'S" box is slowly opening.....
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 16, 2010 11:40:50 GMT -5
As it reads now: "Rifles must fire a cartridge with a bullet of .357-inch diameter or larger; have a minimum case length of 1.16 inches; and have a maximum case length of 1.625 inches."
So that means the .460 S&W Magnum would then be legal. The wildcatters will be designing or tweaking a bunch of rounds!
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 16, 2010 12:01:45 GMT -5
Or someone who knows a politician, owns a firearm that fires a round that is just a hair over the current limit and would like to use it to hunt with. Kind of like the fellow who want to get a movement going to legalize the 10mm for deer hunting. Why, because he owns one and would like to hunt deer with it. Took some of us 20 years to get what we have now, expansion seems a bit much. Almost parallels a new 'guvmint program, get the initial rules in place, then add to it, then add some more, then we need to add a little more. Sounds like-how come, why not, it seems to me, I heard. Sorry folks, believe I'll stand pat, quite happy with the hand I was finally dealt.
|
|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Jan 18, 2010 17:08:22 GMT -5
"The Great "PANDORA'S" box is slowly opening..... "
It's been opened. You go get your legislator and and tell them what you want. Even if the bill does not pass the DNR will react and in many cases do the deed. PCR's are legal after John Waterman put forth a bill. It also does not serve the sportsmen well as you also pit sportsmen against one another as well as those legislators who offer up the legislation. They don't like it when they put forth legislation that they have been lead to believe people want only to find others don't.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 18, 2010 18:48:09 GMT -5
Totally against changing it more.
As I understand it Waterman put forth his "cowboy rifle bill" because either him or a good buddy was into "Cowboy re-enactment".
Hupfer asked him to withdraw it and let it go through the Administrative Rules Process.
It went through it and the DNR found out that there was a demand for this type of rifle for deer hunting.
Even though the start of the PCR movement was nefarious, it ended up as what the majority of deer hunters wanted.
I would like to know why this bill is necessary and who really wants it.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 19, 2010 18:33:57 GMT -5
"Nefarious"was not the intent 20 years ago when a few of us suggested this option during some of the input meeting at the Statehouse, when "Big" John Olsen was the facilitator. If it became that way, it was unfortunate at the very least. From what I was able to glean from the rumor mill, it was a few who quickly said that we were advocating the use of what would normally be used out West, which was so far from the truth as to be believed only by the tragically uninformed. What was originally suggested was the use of "straight walled rifle cartridges". The word went up that high powered rifles was the quest, when in fact, nothing could have been farther from the truth. Thus it went into the political arena where it languished a quiet death. The rest is history until Kyle brought it to light again, but in a different form.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Jan 20, 2010 0:09:41 GMT -5
Right, tenring... and in the latest variation, the original proposal as you stated was for straight wall cartridges and when the final version got put forth for a vote, that requirement got dropped, and bottlenecks were in...
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 20, 2010 8:50:24 GMT -5
Looks like you guys were in this from day one on the PCRs.
The first I became aware of it was when Waterman introduced a bill in the legislature. That is what I called "nefarious". I was a fence rider at first until I looked and the pros and cons. The pros heavily outnumbered the cons in my mind and I pushed for adoption of the PCRs. I even went out and traded for a Ruger .44 mag Carbine.
Still against any more modification to the PCR rule.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jan 20, 2010 9:56:21 GMT -5
I wish they would just go .35 or larger. This would allow the use of many great deer calibers and make enforcement and compliance easier. The .358 WSSM is already legal and equal in performance to most of the other rifles that would be included by changing the regs.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Jan 21, 2010 11:18:12 GMT -5
"Looks like you guys were in this from day one on the PCRs."
Hmmmm, could be, then maybe from "year" one!
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jan 22, 2010 14:17:18 GMT -5
I'm with leaving the PCR length at 1.625. Plenty of calibers that fit into that range for guys to hunt with plus the few wildcat versions. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Jan 22, 2010 17:07:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure on any others, but I believe as proposed the .450 Bushmaster and .357 Herret would be legal as well as those that Greg mentioned. If I'm not mistaken the Bushmaster has a case length around 1.7 or 1.75" and the Herret is 1.7". I'm not sure where the .444 Marlin falls in there, but I'm thinking it's longer than 1.8".....? I don't see a reason either way to change the maximum length, personally. Changing it wouldn't allow many other cartridges that are currently in existence and keeping it the way it is certainly isn't hurting anything. However, I do agree that doing it through the legislature isn't the right way to do it. Obviously, not being an IN resident any longer it won't directly affect me unless I come back for gun season anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Jan 22, 2010 17:50:47 GMT -5
I wish they would just go .35 or larger. This would allow the use of many great deer calibers and make enforcement and compliance easier. The .358 WSSM is already legal and equal in performance to most of the other rifles that would be included by changing the regs.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Jan 23, 2010 12:56:08 GMT -5
The over riding difference between 20 years ago and 3 years ago on bringing in Pistol Caliber Rifles is the advent of the internet and the personal computer. 20 years ago what few personal computers there were was mostly considered as a toy or a way of keeping track of owned items.
Leave it alone it is fine as it is. Email your congressperson and tell them you do not want it. Not at all like when you had to write a letter by hand and then hope it got read.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Jan 25, 2010 7:54:02 GMT -5
.35 or larger? Cool! The .375 Remington Ultra Mag would be legal. NOT A GOOD IDEA. I know where you were going with the thought though.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 25, 2010 8:52:10 GMT -5
I think the State of Indiana should concentrate on cartridge "Volume" of powder rather then on cartridge length. This would make seversal of these "Fat" wildcat cartridges questionable. After all the whole purpose of the PCR law was to make PISTOL cartridges legal for Deer Hunting as they have similar ballistics to sabot shotgun slugs.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Jan 25, 2010 11:50:53 GMT -5
There is no way to realisticly enforce the volume rule in the field tho.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Jan 25, 2010 11:52:15 GMT -5
The .460 S&W Magnum defines the case length at 1.80", so that appears to be the intent. The results would be that the .50-70 Govt. and .50 Beowulf would also be legal, and perhaps a couple others. It also means that a .358 WSSM wildcat (from .25 WSSM brass) would be legal without trimming, such as the .358 BFG. The Great "PANDORA'S" box is slowly opening.....Yea Greg your right................ And sad to to say I even helped some of these guys open the box........ It's never enough..
|
|