|
|
Post by crystalmountain1 on Mar 30, 2016 7:06:50 GMT -5
I'm new so go easy! Ha! I'm not here to debate the new controversial high caliber rifle law. I hunt in southern Indiana and never shoot at a deer with any possiblity of a non-deer target it the background. Even miles into the background. I hunt with a H&H single shot slug gun or muzzleloader for firearm season. Both have the capibility of traveling very far down range if a shot is missed. My question is this: How did the new bill get narrowed from a minimum .243 caliber and 1.6" casing to 5 very specific calibers? I am biased as I own a .270, which is one of the most popular calibers on the market. How did it get left off the list? I know Indiana legislators went behind the back of DNR, and they had no input, but how did they come up with that list? Was the .270 left off for a specific reason or just a bunch of idoits who did a google search for popular calibers and went with the first 5 they found?
|
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Mar 30, 2016 7:29:22 GMT -5
Good question Crystalmntn!!! I'm also in the same boat and have been wondering the same thing even though the vast majority of many deer have been taken with a smokepole which I will continue to use while also packing my TC Contender in .308 for a long shot with a steady rest if the need should ever arise....that TC is pretty well dialed in out to 250 yards the hand loads that my son made up for it  |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 30, 2016 7:30:16 GMT -5
A guy or guys who know relatively little about guns got together and that is what they came up with....why those fellas decided to get together is more of a mystery. Maybe it was because one of those particular fellas had an influential lobbyist in his ear asking for rifles or a specific rifle. Maybe that lawmaker himself wanted to use rifles or a specific rifle.
|
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Mar 30, 2016 7:40:05 GMT -5
Greetings
The answer to your question is simple they did not know what they were doing.
Had they said a minimum hundred grn bullet with 1750 ft lbs at the muzzle that would of given most calibres of 243 upwards.
I could of understood if they had put a ceiling on it,to stop ridiculous stuff.
Regards
Billy
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Mar 30, 2016 7:45:39 GMT -5
Because this is what you get when you get a bunch of ignorant politicians making laws about things which they know nothing about. This is a perfect example of how our government works - it's no different than anything else they get involved in.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 30, 2016 7:48:27 GMT -5
Greetings The answer to your question is simple they did not know what they were doing. Had they said a minimum hundred grn bullet with 1750 ft lbs at the muzzle that would of given most calibres of 243 upwards. I could of understood if they had put a ceiling on it,to stop ridiculous stuff. Regards Billy It would be hard to come up with language sillier than 5 specific cartridges but I think your idea would be in the running. Officers would have to carry around a scales and a chronograph in order to measure compliance. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 30, 2016 8:15:10 GMT -5
All they had to say was .223 centerfire and up. I hunt in several states each year, and this is similar to how most of the regs are worded. Everything has to be complicated in Indiana though.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Mar 30, 2016 8:21:26 GMT -5
Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help you.  I can understand the .243, the 30-30, the 30-06 and the .308 but to just name .300??? I thought these guys were supposed to have assistants to keep them in line and do research so they seem to know what they are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 30, 2016 8:52:37 GMT -5
All they had to say was .223 centerfire and up. I hunt in several states each year, and this is similar to how most of the regs are worded. Everything has to be complicated in Indiana though. "IF" I were for inclusion I'd say .243 and up not .223 but that is a whole debate not worth having. To the OP, this is as others have said is what happens when legislatures play DNR and make game laws which go around the DNR...and those legislatures know as much about guns as I do about quantum physics from watching Scorpion and the Big Bang Theory. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Mar 30, 2016 8:58:10 GMT -5
.223 is legal in a lot of states for deer-sized game. A .223 with a well constructed bullet would be better than a .308 with a varmint bullet.
My point was, though, they could have just named a minimum caliber and left it at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalmountain1 on Mar 30, 2016 9:00:16 GMT -5
Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help you. I can understand the .243, the 30-30, the 30-06 and the .308 but to just name .300??? I thought these guys were supposed to have assistants to keep them in line and do research so they seem to know what they are doing. I agree on this one as well .300?? One would assume they mean a .300 Win Mag. but who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Mar 30, 2016 9:09:18 GMT -5
Side tracking a little, but what group or organization pushed to get HP rifles legalized in the first place?
With shotguns, muzzys, pistol cartridge rifles and handguns already legal, I didn't realize there was such a want for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 30, 2016 9:15:15 GMT -5
Short answer is because those are the 5 that the politicians chose. Why did they choose those? If someone can come up with a reason why the elected officials do what they do, then you'd be a millionaire.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 30, 2016 9:26:18 GMT -5
Short answer is because those are the 5 that the politicians chose. Why did they choose those? If someone can come up with a reason why the elected officials do what they do, then you'd be a millionaire. There where people/hunters in the ear of those making the decision on what to allow.... Don't never doubt that! |
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 30, 2016 9:48:43 GMT -5
Because this is what you get when you get a bunch of ignorant politicians making laws about things which they know nothing about. This is a perfect example of how our government works - it's no different than anything else they get involved in. I've been following threads, on this forum, regarding the legalization of high powered rifle calibers. The author of this thread asks a very valid question.... "Why only five calibers"..... My take is that who ever makes all the decisions on what is legal or not; are trying to make thing so confusing in hopes that this will discourage Hoosier Deer Hunters from using high powered rifles. I am getting the impression that Indiana lawmakers are becoming more anti-gun with most of this due to Democrats in office. Their reference to only five calibers being legal hold no water at all and shows they know very little about the cartridges they chose. If the .30-06 is allowed why not the .270?  They are very similar (power wise) that it's hard to compare them when it comes to their use in sport hunting. What they should allow: Any cartridge that is .243" or larger, and bullet weight of 100 grains min., excluding anything smaller like .224" bore sized bullets, like not allowing: .22 Hornet, .222 Rem. .222 Rem. Mag. .223, 220 Swift, and .22-250. |
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 30, 2016 10:13:35 GMT -5
Maybe it was because one of those particular fellas had an influential lobbyist in his ear asking for rifles or a specific rifle. Maybe that lawmaker himself wanted to use rifles or a specific rifle. Maybe the 1100-signature pro-rifle petition the bill's author possessed had something to do with it. We all know that the lawmaker wanted to hunt with them too. As for the five cartridges, they're probably what the lawmakers have in their safes. |
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Mar 30, 2016 10:21:08 GMT -5
It's easy to be critical, but the undeniable fact is that a law was passed that allows the use of rifles chambered for at least 4 very popular deer cartridges during the 2016 season (and at least a few more) that were not legal to use during the 2015 seaon. While perhaps not ideal, I consider this progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by crystalmountain1 on Mar 30, 2016 10:25:19 GMT -5
Everyone's comments are in line with what I was thinking. I appreciate the feedback. I guess I will start saving for a .308. Not because I have to have it for Indiana deer, but at least I can use that excuse with my wife when I really want it for Elk someday.  |
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 30, 2016 10:57:03 GMT -5
Maybe it was because one of those particular fellas had an influential lobbyist in his ear asking for rifles or a specific rifle. Maybe that lawmaker himself wanted to use rifles or a specific rifle. As for the five cartridges, they're probably what the lawmakers have in their safes. Or maybe what some that stuffed money in there pockets also wanted..... Guaranteed there was public influence! |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 30, 2016 11:26:40 GMT -5
My take on the choice is they picked the bottom of what was proposed (.243) and pretty much the top (.300 win mag) and a few extremely common choices in between to try to get some sort of useful data for the "4 year trial".
|
|
They are very similar (power wise) that it's hard to compare them when it comes to their use in sport hunting. What they should allow: Any cartridge that is .243" or larger, and bullet weight of 100 grains min., excluding anything smaller like .224" bore sized bullets, like not allowing: .22 Hornet, .222 Rem. .222 Rem. Mag. .223, 220 Swift, and .22-250.
