Doc Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 NYS is beginning to experience a movement to open former 'shotgun only' areas for the use of rifles. It is happening county by county, and this year the movement has arrived in our county. I have seriously mixed feelings on the issue because we do have a fair population density here. On the other hand I would really like to be able to use a rifle instead of that old 12 ga. shoulder beater. My question regards a study that I seem to recall reading about that officially showed that rifle use in the deer seasons are actually safer than shotguns and they listed and explained all the reasons why. The problem is that I have now idea where I heard about this study, have no idea who did it, have no idea as to even what state it involved and most of all, have no idea how to get ahold of a copy of it. Has anyone ever heard of such a study and can anyone point me in the right direction for getting a copy of it. Perhaps the arguments put forth in this study might help me make up my mind as to whether I should be actively campaigning for or against the change. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RackBlaster Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Here is one article I remember reading. http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 South Dakota allows rifles for deer hunting in all but Minnehaha County which is the county north of mine. Minnehaha has the highest population density what with Sioux Falls, the biggest city in the state, and its surrounding suburbs. This area has also recently become a big buck hot spot in the state with giants being hit by cars and still even bigger monsters inhabiting the smallest little nooks and crannies of hardwoods riverbottom along the interstate and inbetween Sioux Falls and Brandon, one of its suburbs. This area is open only to slug hunters and bowhunters with most of the huntable land closed to the public. Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 No centerfire rifles for deer here in IL. I'd say some centerfire rifles send bullets a lot further than any shotgun and slug. I compared the velocity and energy of the highest Remington slug and highest centerfire (the Remington 300 ultra mag) rifle and found the centerfire to be almost double at 100 yards. At 500 yards the RUM was still higher than the slug. Ballistic information for the slug only go to 100 yards which is telling in my opinion. Granted I wouldn't think many hunters would use a high powered RUM on deer, but if rifles are legal, then they could. I don't generally see max. power laws put into effect, only min. Bottom line is the hunter is who we have to watch out for, not the weapon. There are a lot of wierdos out there as we all know. Seems like I read a story or two every year of some hunter shooting a trailer or cow or something. I'd be against rifle deer hunting in IL. since I hunt public land a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_218 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Maybe you can petition, your state of New York, to allow the use of PCR's (Pistol Cartridge Rifles) like the .44 Magnum. The State of Indiana passed a law allowing the use of PCR's for Deer Hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Maybe you can petition, your state of New York, to allow the use of PCR's (Pistol Cartridge Rifles) like the .44 Magnum. The State of Indiana passed a law allowing the use of PCR's for Deer Hunting. Pistols are already a legal deer hunting weapon in NYS. That is another argument that seems to favor legalization of centerfire rifles for deer. Also, we have legal muzzleloader rifle use, and modern muzzleloaders are getting to be in the "semi long-distance" category or a couple hundred yards or so. The big difference is that these kinds of weapons are still in the novelty category as far as the actual number of users, so making the assumption that accident rates of pistols and muzzloaders are an indication of what it would be like with a near 100% switchover to centerfire weapons probably is a bit flawed. I don't know, but that is why I was interested in that study that actually looked scientifically (I assume) at the safety potentials of centerfire rifles vs. shotgun. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Do not recall the study you are talking about Doc. Don't remember reading that. Bottom line is the hunter is who we have to watch out for, not the weapon. There are a lot of wierdos out there as we all know. Seems like I read a story or two every year of some hunter shooting a trailer or cow or something. That is it. Those weirdos in most cases are not hunters at all. Following the simple ten commandments of firearm safety would prevent most shootings from happening. I have no problems with rifles Doc. Seems there are accidental or irresponsible shootings all over the country with all types of firearms, including shotguns loaded with shot, most cases seem to turn out to be the result of someone who just did not think(irresponsibility). Rifles have been legal here longer than I have been here, we do get quite a few hunters on top of our lines during the rifle season and there is reason for concern, I show no less concern during the ml season. Have not checked TN's accidental or iresponsible shootings from last year, don't recall hearing about any accidental shootings last season on our news channel, but that might only indicate that there were not any fatal shootings in this part of the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkneck Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Here is one i saw referenced in a google seach Doc. http://www.buckmasters.com/bm/Resources/Articles/tabid/135/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/575/The-Slug-Gun-Ricochet-Factor.aspx Hardly what i'd call scientific. Folks love to find one little scenario and then question the whole shooting match. Who in the heck takes level shots at hard targets?... I dont have a problem with rifles. I have had a good friend shot and killed with a 30-06 coming out one night with no orange. I also had a friend years ago that killed his father at point blank range with as 12 gage. I did not personally hunt with either of them, but i will say that obviously their lack of safety as well as those around them was lacking severely. I use these stories to put a cold chill in my 9 year old twins when i take them hunting and dont like the way they're carrying the gun. There are no second chances, no apologies..... i tell them. I know i'm way off subject here, you were looking for a study, not an opinion poll, but like was previously posted, it's always the hunter, not the weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJL Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I believe that it has alot more to do with "hunter density" rather than "population density". They will allow centerfire rifle use for varmit hunting, and the general population hasn't moved. Someone is just as likely to shoot at a house with a .243 while shooting at a coyote as when they are shooting at a deer. When deer season rolls around the sheer numbers of hunters in certain areas make it necessary to limit the range. Coming from Illinois, I've seen 8-10 hunters covering a 100 acre woodlot. Personally, I was glad that they didn't have 300 wm's............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodshed Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I remember reading a study like that too. The main point I remember was surprising to me. I'm no ballistic expert just remember what it said. That is, a slug can travel just as far as a bullet due to the kinetic energy is stores from it's weight. The reason they really aren't safer is because they go just as far but at some point they become wildly unpredictable in direction. Whereas a bullet will still stay mostly oncourse til it hits the ground. Still unsafe, but the slug statistically hits as many people and buildings around the country as bullets do. The article's point was that just because you are only effective to 100-150 yards does not mean it doesn't keep going long past that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washi Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think if you look at statistics with an open mind and compare similar states that the only difference is shotgun or rifle, you will see that they have very similar accidental shooting rates. I believe rifles are no more dangerous than shotguns for deer season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluelund79 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 WI just went to the use of rifles in out CWD zones that were historically shotgun only. The NRA magazine was where I had read that same article that was posted. The fatalities that occured during our gun deer season were not in any of the "new" rifle areas. One incident made a local paper about a round hitting a house, but that also happens yearly with slugs as well, and you had to take the story with a grain of salt due to the area and the owners of the home...By the way, for the past few years prior, you could use handguns (also handguns in centerfire rifle cartridges) in the shotgun areas, and during coyote hutning you could use centerfire rifles prior to them being legalized for this past years deer hunt. Its a hot topic for sure, and yes I used a rifle because I could and have alot that I wanted to play with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesse8953 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I am glad ohio does not allow rifle, to many people hunting in one area. It is also to flat here in n.w. ohio.I can't say anything about southern ohio ,never hunted down there.:confused:I just know what type of people hunt here and they don't need any rifles in there hands. Don't get me wrong I love to hunt with a rifle,I have hunted in Arkansas with a .270 and love those long shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I have found some articles that get into a description of the study done by Mountaintop Technologies for PA. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_11_53/ai_n20512665 http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2007/03/29/new-study-shows-shotguns-are-not-safer-than-rifles-for-deer-hunting/ This thing raises more questions than it answers. Actually, the premise and conclusions of this study are controversial enough to form a pretty good new topic for this forum. I'm just not sure I can believe all this stuff about shotguns and rifle lethal distances. I'm thinking there may be some specially arranged or biased procedures. Yes, I agree with the ricochet observations, but the shotgun ballistics sound a bit fishy to me. I'm just not sure that I buy it all. Take a look at one of these and let me know what you think. It sounds like it might be another case of "figures don't lie, but liars figure". Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 This thing raises more questions than it answers. Actually, the premise and conclusions of this study are controversial enough to form a pretty good new topic for this forum. I'm just not sure I can believe all this stuff about shotguns and rifle lethal distances. I'm thinking there may be some specially arranged or biased procedures. Yes, I agree with the ricochet observations, but the shotgun ballistics sound a bit fishy to me. I'm just not sure that I buy it all. Take a look at one of these and let me know what you think. It sounds like it might be another case of "figures don't lie, but liars figure". Doc That research by the picatinny team is pretty interesting. The mountaintop research showing that a shotgun slug fired horizontally will travel about a mile is also pretty interesting. Guessing that a slug will still be carrying a good bit of energy out past a quarter mile, which might contradict some people's thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 That research by the picatinny team is pretty interesting. The mountaintop research showing that a shotgun slug fired horizontally will travel about a mile is also pretty interesting. Guessing that a slug will still be carrying a good bit of energy out past a quarter mile, which might contradict some people's thoughts. But what I am finding kind of interesting also is the little graphic that is on the side of an old Remington slug box that I've got that shows the slug dropping in excess of 10" when fired horizontally. At that rate of fall, the slug would not be going a whole lot farther before it hit the dirt, certainly no where near a mile. In fact the drop-off depicted on that graphic shows that the drop is not linear, but geometric in terms of how fast it's dropping as a function of distance. In fact they are depicting a very rapid rate of fall by the time it gets out to 100 yards. So who's really got it right?.... these scientists or the slug manufacturer? Now granted, nobody fires any gun in an absolutely horizontal fashion. We sight it in at some distance like 50 or 75 yards, and the gun is elevated to hit the target at that distance. That's why we don't see massive drops in the point of impact between 75 and 100 yards. So that extends the range slightly. However, that still is not anywhere near what these guys are describing as the range of a shotgun. Plus they are claiming that the gun is horizontal, aren't they? The fact is that even if we pointed the gun up in the air at say a 35 degree angle, I sincerely doubt that the slug would make it anywhere near a mile. So, I guess I don't really understand exactly what they are talking about, and I really don't have a whole lot of confidence in their findings. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 But what I am finding kind of interesting also is the little graphic that is on the side of an old Remington slug box that I've got that shows the slug dropping in excess of 10" when fired horizontally. At that rate of fall, the slug would not be going a whole lot farther before it hit the dirt, certainly no where near a mile. In fact the drop-off depicted on that graphic shows that the drop is not linear, but geometric in terms of how fast it's dropping as a function of distance. In fact they are depicting a very rapid rate of fall by the time it gets out to 100 yards. So who's really got it right?.... these scientists or the slug manufacturer? Now granted, nobody fires any gun in an absolutely horizontal fashion. We sight it in at some distance like 50 or 75 yards, and the gun is elevated to hit the target at that distance. That's why we don't see massive drops in the point of impact between 75 and 100 yards. So that extends the range slightly. However, that still is not anywhere near what these guys are describing as the range of a shotgun. Plus they are claiming that the gun is horizontal, aren't they? The fact is that even if we pointed the gun up in the air at say a 35 degree angle, I sincerely doubt that the slug would make it anywhere near a mile. So, I guess I don't really understand exactly what they are talking about, and I really don't have a whole lot of confidence in their findings. Doc Don't know Doc I would tend to agree with you about the drops on slugs, but I have not got a research science degree, maybe the slug bounces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2labs Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Doc, you must be from the same county as I? I bought a new rifle last December in hopes to use it But, I hunt waterfowl alot in deer season(field hunt) and it scares me to think of someone 4 fields over shooting at a deer running through a field. I know it could happen with a shotgun also, (it is the distance thing that scares me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2labs Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I was reading the balistic part and I know a shotgun should not shoot to far, but as someone who has had their house an shed shot(I was inside) the shots came from a distance of over 1800ft to the house and 1580ft to shed a shotgun will shoot a distance farther than you would think. The one that shot was shooting up hill over a rise!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I was reading the balistic part and I know a shotgun should not shoot to far, but as someone who has had their house an shed shot(I was inside) the shots came from a distance of over 1800ft to the house and 1580ft to shed a shotgun will shoot a distance farther than you would think. The one that shot was shooting up hill over a rise!! That is exactly the kind of ignorance and irresponsibility that gets innocent people killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 This is Ontario County where they are just starting the proposal process. It kind of has me a bit concerned because my house is about 100' from a couple hundred yard long field on state land next door. Quite often, I have had to warn people about hunting within the 500' safety area from our house. Somehow it just looks like a set-up for a very unfortunate mishap if someone starts letting loose with a high caliber rifle from the other end of that field. By the way, Mountaintop Technologies made a special point of mentioning that the ballistics of the shotgun were with the shotgun being shot level. That's the part that makes it all sound a bit wacky as far as the slug traveling a mile. That just doesn't seem likely especially in view of that graphic on the side of Remington's slug box. Anyway, I did note that two fairly publicized episodes did happen in NYS in areas where rifles are currently legal. In one of them, a young girl was killed in the livingroom of the family's trailer. In the other, a rifle bullet penetrated a house wall and went through a crib mattress where just minutes before, an infant had been taken out. I believe there was another hunting fatality that I read about regarding a case of mistaken identity where a rifle was used. The point is that there probably were even more that I haven't heard of which makes the fatalities already exceed those of recent years and so far almost exclusively rlegated to rifle mishaps. I don't know, I think there is not a whole lot of thought or study going into these decisions to open up southern tier counties to rifle, and I may just have to get a little bit activist on the issue in our county just to make sure that the proper attention is being paid to the potential safety issues. I was hoping that this study would show some kind of credible data that would allay any concerns, but I am really getting the impression that this study is flawed. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2labs Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 I live in Livingston co, it is not the rifle used it is the user of the rifle!! we have for ever used shotguns and had very good sucess why not keep it that way,grant it in some areas in Liv and Ont co rifles would have a role but their are to many populated areas that it would not be safe!! The state will probably open these areas anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Country Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Here is a little bit of math to think about...if fired horizontally (perfectly level) over flat ground (good luck finding it where I hunt) a bullet will strike the ground in 0.559 seconds. In that time, a 12 gauge Hornady 300 grain SST at 2000 ft/s will travel 1118 feet or 372.7 yards. A 150 grain Winchester BST from my 7mm Remington Magnum at 3100 ft/s will travel 1733 feet or 577.6 yards. The problem is that no one fires a shotgun or rifle perfectly horizontally on purpose. All barrels are canted slightly upward compared to the line of sight which creates a ballistic flight path (with two zeros...places where the bullet crosses the line of sight). The greater the cant of the barrel, the farther the bullet will travel, both down range and from the line of sight (meaning the bullet / slug could strike objects the shooter could never see). My 12 gauge is sighted in at 150 yards with the SST slugs with a maximum height above the line of sight at 3.7 inches at 90 yards. The SST drops so quickly after the 150 yard zero, it makes for irresponsible shots past 200 yards, even though the slug will continue on... I have seen several "hunters" attempt to make 200+ yard shots with shotguns before. They just do not get why they missed the deer. The 7mm Remington Magnum is sighted in at 200 yards, reaching a height above the line of sight of 1.78 inches at 100 yards. My rifle is equipped with a mil-dot scope and places the BST at 36 inches below the line of sight at 500 yards, dropping quickly. The rifle bullet is inherantly closer to the line of sight that the shotgun slug at its entire range. I have not yet seen anyone (but there probably are some out there) shooting over 500 yards with a rifle. The distance is greater than most common rifle scopes allow good visualization. In Kentucky, deer hunting is allowed with rifles and some of the strip-coal mines in eastern Kentucky allows for very long range shots. I also hunt at Fort Knox, which is muzzleloader or shotgun only, and historically has more deer hunters shot than all public and private lands in the state (minus the accidentally shoots oneself pulling the rifle / shotgun / muzzleloader up into a tree stand). In nearly every case, the shooter got his deer too...the bullet or slug passed through the deer and continued on down range to strike the other hunter (or house, barn, jogger, etc). What a lot of hunters do not think about, unfortunately, is good shooting safety...know what is beyond the target and making sure that the bullet can not go where you do not intend on it going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 High Country- OK.....Here is an excerpt from an article describing how the test was conducted: The study examined ballistics data on three popular deer-hunting guns: a .30-06 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a .50-caliber muzzleloader. The rifle had the greatest maximum range at 2.64 miles, followed by the shotgun at 1.97 miles and the muzzleloader, which generally uses heavier and slower bullets, at 1.74 miles. However, Bacastow noted that to achieve maximum range, shots must be fired at a 35-degree angle, which is highly unlikely in a hunting situation. He noted that a bullet fired at a 35-degree angle toward a deer 100 yards away would fly 210 feet above the animal’s back. Most shots fired by hunters are relatively flat, and even a slight aiming error usually results in a shot less than 5 degrees above the horizon. When shots are fired at an elevation of 5 degrees, the total distances traveled, including ricochets, are 1.66 miles for a rifle bullet and 1.3 miles for a shotgun slug. When shots are fired holding the guns level 3 feet off the ground, the shotgun slug will travel 0.99 of a mile, 16 percent farther than the rifle bullet will travel under the same circumstances. The reason, Bacastow said, is that slugs tend to hold together better and lose less energy during ricochets than rifle bullets. Therefore, slugs often can travel farther than rifle bullets in common hunting scenarios. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So I ask: do these numbers correlate to realistic ballistics? Look at the distances claimed....They are measured in miles, not yards or feet. What I am gathering from your reply (and I wasn't able to follow it all completely) doesn't seem to correlate at all with the magnitudes of numbers in this study. My conclusion is that there is something flawed in the basics of the study data. Do you agree? My understanding of ballistics is extremely limited, and that is why I am asking clarification from those who do understand such things. I understand that they have included ricochet distances into the numbers, but when we are talking about the end of a bullet or slug's trajectory, I would assume that the angle of travel relative to the ground would be rather steep, negating a whole lot of "skidding" or movement beyond the point of impact. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Country Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Their data seems to be badly skewed... 1. A 5-degree angle of elevation lauching a .30-06 bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2800 ft/s would take 15.2 seconds to hit the ground 3 feet below the muzzle, traveling 42,510 ft or 8.05 miles (minus a little bit for wind resistance). The fastest shotgun slug that I am aware of (the Hornady SST at 2000 ft/s) will not go as far...10.89 seconds, traveling 21,697 ft or 4.11 miles (minus a little bit more for wind resistance on the less aerodynamic slug). This is a ridiculous scenerio unless you are firing artillery. The angle of elevation of most hunting rifles is around 0.1 degrees. At that angle the same .30-06 bullet will travel 1714 ft or 571 yards before striking the ground three feet below the muzzle. This produces about a 200 yard zero... The SST shotgun slug at a 0.1 degree angle of elevation travels about 1110 ft or 370 yards before striking the ground. The zero is about 150 yards. 2. The greater problem for me in the actual question (re safety of rifle vs shotgun) is the travel not in the line of sight and the terminal performance of the bullet. A bullet fired at a greater angle of elevation leaves the line of sight more than the one traveling "flatter" and can unintentionally strike objects unseen. My main hunting rifle is a 7mm Remington Magnum. Despite the massive damage done to the deer (some exit wounds have been 5+ inches) every bullet has passed through and continued on it way. Until it hit the dirt behind the deer, which is why I nearly always hunt from a tree stand and shoot downward. The 12 gauge 385 grain SST also has always exited the deer and continued on. With those factors in mind, I always make sure that I know what is immediately behind the deer and will not shoot unless I know the bullet will end up safely in dirt. There is NO EXCUSE for taking an unsafe shot. 3. Since the rifle bullet will always travel about 60% farther than a shotgun slug, then areas with high hunter / civilian densities frequently go for shotgun / muzzleloader only rules. Since many politicians assume that hunters are reckless, unsafe idiots (why else would you be up at 4am crawling into a little 4 ft square treestand 20 feet above the ground in sub-freezing weather...and sit there, sometimes all day long), they feel the need to "protect" everyone by limiting weapons choice. We do live in a society where everyone wants to sue everyone else. These rules are legally and politically safe because of the range limitations offered by the shotgun. They can also show the same math (that I did) and venn diagrams of the ranges in court or in public debate to support themselves. Always appearing to be looking out for public safety. 4. In my opinion, a flat shooting rifle bullet is safer than the ballistic nightmare of a shotgun slug in the hands of a safe hunter. Nothing is safe in the hands of a careless fool, but unfortunately, they show up on opening day too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.