|
Post by sakorifle on Mar 30, 2016 11:40:03 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. give your officers some credit for having some brains, does everyone have to be stopped and checked. Is there no trust at all over there? 243 up, its an awful lot simpler that what you have now i am sure of that. look your books up anything below Cannot meet the criterea. No one runs around here with scales etc. and its worked since 1958. and i would be suprised it they are going to run around with calipers measuring bullets, would you not be? regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 30, 2016 12:18:03 GMT -5
And nearly anything larger than 243 could be loaded in a manner to not comply. Bullet weight and mz energy is not the way to go IMO.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Mar 30, 2016 12:36:09 GMT -5
Greetings So if anything can be loaded not to meet the criterea then how is the officer. going to check in anycase. need to carry gear with him to do it. Factory stuff is all well over that, and im not sure folk are daft enough to load there ammo way down, In my experience they are wanting the opposite. exept for learning there kids Only other way i can think of is to name every calibre with every legal load, 243 with minimum 100 grn bullet is the only sensible way to go, if one want to include them all like 270, 25/06 all good deer rifles.And stop at a ceiling yet to be decided, lol Had you been on roe deer i would of dropped the bullet weight but you are not. Over here for anything above roe it is 100grn, its worked well here, no reason why it could not work there. Thats my suggestion. anymore coyotes? Regards to you and yours Billy
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 30, 2016 12:49:53 GMT -5
If you're asking me how I would do it....if I were to want it done....
I would do as nearly every other state does where centerfire rifles are legal and say either 223 or 243 and larger. If there is ever a question of compliance 9 times out of 10 it would be settled by looking at the headstamp. In that odd case it could be settled by measuring a bullets diameter.
No weighing and chronoing each round in possession necessary.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 30, 2016 12:54:41 GMT -5
I hadn't even bothered to look at the energy you proposed....of the charts I just looked at even a commonly loaded 44 Magnum wouldn't meet the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Mar 30, 2016 13:08:00 GMT -5
yes i agree with you entirely, the uk added the bullet weight and energy in for the bigger deer such as reds. No one that i know of has been prosicuted for not obeying the law. for instance we use a 25/06 with 75 grn bullet for roe thats legal and does a good job, shoots like a rapier. but hit a big woodland red with a 75 grn bullet at range in the shoulder and one could be in trouble. Hence the bullet weight and velocity
Could go like i said and say minimum of one hundred grains for all six species over here, but they didnt. For wild boar it is recommended a 308 and 180 grn ammo I suspect that will be law when they get round to it. regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Mar 30, 2016 13:12:11 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. I think you may have that slightly backwards esshup.....the millionaires WERE helping make the decision!!
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Mar 30, 2016 13:19:46 GMT -5
I apologise of course i forgot at the moment you are shooting pistol bullets in rifles and they will not meet the muzzle velocity, i certainly would not want to outlaw what you already have. forget about the muzzle velocity for those pistol rifle variants then. i would add in all newly legal hpr rifles. lol sorry living over here i forget these things regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by bullseye69 on Mar 30, 2016 17:46:08 GMT -5
I apologise of course i forgot at the moment you are shooting pistol bullets in rifles and they will not meet the muzzle velocity, i certainly would not want to outlaw what you already have. forget about the muzzle velocity for those pistol rifle variants then. i would add in all newly legal hpr rifles. lol sorry living over here i forget these things regards Billy We will let you slide on that Billy. But some of our pistol calibers will out do some HPR calibers. The 460S&W WILL knock a 200lbs mule deer over at 230 yards, I know, I've done it.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 31, 2016 8:29:07 GMT -5
The bill started out with the ".243 and up" verbiage. From watching the meetings, it was obvious this bill would not have passed allowing "all" those rifles to be legal. It was agreed upon to do a 4-year "trial" with the 5 "cartridges". If there are no crazy accidents or extraordinary circumstances, I believe at the end of this "trial" we will see a new bill or DNR proposed legislation that will expand on what we are seeing in this bill.
I'm not saying it makes any sense, but this is how it happened. The author wanted a foot in the door and did what he could to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by MuzzleLoader on Mar 31, 2016 8:33:34 GMT -5
The bill started out with the ".243 and up" verbiage. From watching the meetings, it was obvious this bill would not have passed allowing "all" those rifles to be legal. It was agreed upon to do a 4-year "trial" with the 5 "cartridges". If there are no crazy accidents or extraordinary circumstances, I believe at the end of this "trial" we will see a new bill or DNR proposed legislation that will expand on what we are seeing in this bill. I'm not saying it makes any sense, but this is how it happened. The author wanted a foot in the door and did what he could to make it happen. I think you nailed the reasoning exactly.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 31, 2016 9:31:51 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial "
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 31, 2016 9:39:46 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial " A friend of mine purchased an hpr this week. Before he did I explained to him that this was a four year trial and @ the end he could be stuck with a rifle that he may not have much use for. I guess he figured it was worth the risk.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 31, 2016 9:47:08 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial " If nothing negative happens in the next five years, they won't have a leg to stand to deny making it permanent.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Mar 31, 2016 10:03:56 GMT -5
Four year trial ..... yeah right ??
This will be just like OBR, crossbows and everything else they have changed. Permanent and here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 31, 2016 10:30:32 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial " The very well might, but we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Mar 31, 2016 10:53:19 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. Then too bad they weren't into Black powder cartridge rifles. I would be interested in a .45-90+.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Mar 31, 2016 11:08:09 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial " That could happen, if there are any accidents/property damage caused by H.P.R. used for Deer. So one should be extra careful where they hunt & shoot.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 31, 2016 13:39:38 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial " That could happen, if there are any accidents/property damage caused by H.P.R. used for Deer. So one should be extra careful where they hunt & shoot. Certainly everyone should be careful shooting a firearm, regardless of the type. There is no excuse for anything less. That said, even an accident involving a HPR shouldn't be grounds for banning them from deer hunting. We've had countless accidental shootings with slug guns in Indiana (at least one last season), and slug guns are still legal for deer. Heck, people have been shot with bows. I'm just not sure if any happened in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 31, 2016 13:44:16 GMT -5
That could happen, if there are any accidents/property damage caused by H.P.R. used for Deer. So one should be extra careful where they hunt & shoot. Certainly everyone should be careful shooting a firearm, regardless of the type. There is no excuse for anything less. That said, even an accident involving a HPR shouldn't be grounds for banning them from deer hunting. We've had countless accidental shootings with slug guns in Indiana (at least one last season), and slug guns are still legal for deer. Heck, people have been shot with bows. I'm just not sure if any happened in Indiana. Could you post the article from last years accidental shooting.... Interested in reading what happened!
|
|