Shotgun Vs. Rifle
I have been getting a lot of flak over my recent article on Indiana moving to centerfire rifle for deer in 2015. Fewer, but still a few, folks have been complaining to me about Ohio’s move to Pistol Caliber Rifles (PCR). I would like to set the record straight.
1) If you really have a problem with either decision, I am not the one to be telling. Write your state representative. The truth is, Indiana and Ohio are on there way to the same point, allowing all centerfire rifles in their modern weapons seasons. It has been in the works for as long as I have been hunting deer (early 1980’s) The outcome was not in question. It was just a matter of timing.
2) There never was a good reason for shotgun-only proscriptions. It was a knee-jerk reaction to problems encountered at the dawn of the new modern seasons. The real cure was mandatory Hunter Orange and Hunter Education. Now that we’ve had a generation of hunters properly educated in gun safety, we can take the training wheels off and allow big-boy rifles.
3) After two generations’ worth of data, there is simply no difference between shotgun-only and anything-goes states. A couple of hunters get shot every year, but it is still close-range mistaken-for-game incidents. Almost no one ever dies in Kentucky, Indiana, or Ohio because a bullet carried too far– shotgun or rifle. The standard model for a deer hunting accident is Fred hears a noise, throws his gun up and shoot his buddy, Dave at 25 yards. Dave was not wearing Orange. It matters not what Fred had in his hands, Dave is dead.+
So why is it that shotgun-only rules ever got on the books in the first place? Back at a time when all you had was “Punkin’ Ball” loads for shotguns, and the effective range on them were 50 yards or less, it might have made sense. In my recollection, it was New York that thought up the bright idea. The problem was that, when modern deer seasons were first instituted, there was appalling carnage. However, you have a bunch of things coming together:
a) Deer hunting had been banned for two generations prior, so nobody who could get in the woods really knew how to hunt deer effectively, let alone safely.
b) Populations had grown. Hunter densities had grown. Things that might have been safe 100 years ago when the woods were empty were now a big problem.
Something needed to be done, and so they put a limit on what you could use to shoot a deer– simple, handy, easy to enforce. It brought down the numbers of dead hunters a little. Everyone called it a success.
The real underlying problems were harder to solve. The real solutions are two-fold. First off, mandatory Hunter Orange. I will not go into that topic here, but you can read my thoughts on it:
The other was Hunter Education. Like Hunter Orange, I did my best to skirt it. I was grandfathered, so I did not have to take it. I finally did attend when I took it with Mooseboy and I liked it so much I went back and took it with Angus. I learned something every time I went. If you go to Hunter Ed, and take what they say to heart, you stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution– regardless of the firearm you use. The bottom line is that safe gun handling cures the problem, and improper gun handling is deadly, no matter what you are carrying.
But are shotguns inherently safer? Check out this article:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/28/are-shotguns-safer-than-rifles/
The nut here is a bit counter-intuitive. However, the thing most people miss is that whether you’re talking about a shotgun or rifle, the bullet is going to probably bounce off something before it hits an unintentional target. Rifle bullets generally fragment. Shotgun slugs will bounce. With that realization, two generations of wrong-headed thinking goes out the window.
So what is left? I have heard all sorts of theories put forward defending shotguns. I can sort of see the idea of tradition. That is until, the next breath, when the same shotgun defender says he can hit a deer at 200 yards with his shotgun. Then I have to wince. We have come a long way from Punkin’ Balls. The wildest theory is that Ohio and Indiana and Iowa are all big buck destinations, and they all have had proscriptions on centerfire rifle. The idea is that shotgun-only rules somehow promote larger bucks. Then you have to look at Kentucky, that has been voted the top trophy buck destination in the country. You can lob anything you want at the deer in Kentucky– 25 ACP, 45 Auto, 223 REM. Considering that Zone 1 in KY has an unlimited bag limit on antlerless deer right now, I don’t think liberal firearm restrictions are hurting things.
Look guys, I made my choices 15 years ago, when I bought property in Kentucky. I am a life-long resident of Ohio, but I could not stand the shotgun-only proscription, and the Sunday hunting proscription. Indiana was similarly goofy at that point. I was always happy to pay the out of state fees to hunt Kentucky. I do not regret the choice, even though Indiana and Ohio have slowly dragged themselves to where Kentucky was 30 years ago. I doubt I will be coming back.
To those of you who still think centerfire rifle is a bad thing, try thinking of it in these terms. A 50 cal muzzle loader or a 12 GA shotgun take a lot of time and money to work into a 200 yard weapon. I can buy a bolt-action 30-06 and have that capability in one afternoon of practice. Furthermore, a 12 GA shooting a full-house deer load can have about the same recoil as a .416 Rigby elephant gun. I can give a 30-30 or a 44 Mag rifle to a nine-year-old, and he can shoot it comfortably. The ammunition? I reload a dozen different rifle chamberings. In fact I have not shot a factory round out of my deer rifles in 15 years. How many of you are doing that with your shotguns? The cost? I load 20 rounds of 30-06 for less than what you pay for a box of 12 GA Remmie Sluggers .
One last thing, and this is for the guys who stuff it in front-ways. I get it. I get how you like muzzleloading. I have a .54 Hawken caplock and I get a gas shooting it. The thing is, this is not about just you. There are plenty of deer in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. The herd is growing. At the same time participation in our sport is going to wane. We have generally lost out to computer games and Facebook. Now is not the time to make things more restrictive. I have heard y’all caterwauling from across the Ohio River for years, and just as you guys think you are losing out to the rifle hunters, I’ve got to contend with rapid bowhunters and rabid squirrel hunters saying that Kentucky’s Modern Weapon’s season screws them up. The truth is that about half the deer harvest in Kentucky comes from those two weeks, and if we did not have that kind of harvest every year, we would have deer coming out our collective wazoo. I do not exactly know what that means, but I am assured the condition is very painful.
My overall suggestion to you guys in Indiana and Ohio who do not like centerfire rifle coming into your state? Try it. You will like it. I spent my formative years in Ohio, shooting a Remington 1100 smoothbore. When I switched to a Remington 742 to hunt Kentucky, it was much better. I never regretted either move.
This post has already been read 2745 times!
d
I have no problem with Indiana allowing all 30 caliber high-powered rifles for deer hunting. Kentucky allows high-powered rifles and there hasn’t been any problems.
I do not like this proposed rule change for many reasons. You state that I should not write you but by not responding to those you support the change it makes it appear that the majority are in favor. I don’t know, maybe the majority is, but if people don’t respond to articles supporting the change it will definitely appear that way. Proponents point to MI and KY allowing rifles. The terrain in KY is completely different, mostly hilly and not flat, which would negate many unwise shots. MI only allows rifles in the northern part of the state which is heavily forested and lightly populated. The southern part of the state which is similar to the northern half of IN is shotgun only. Rifles make sense in N. MI and KY for those reasons. They may also make sense in S. IN but not N. IN. Northern Indiana is flat and relatively densely populated in some rural areas. I agree most people are shot at short range and hunter education is great and the chances of getting hit by a random round is pretty low. There is some truth to your argument regarding ricochets if most hunters are using “slugger” type rounds but the difference isn’t as great between rifle rounds and many of the hollow point rounds in modern sabot slugs that most use. There are a large number of people that show up opening morning that will unload their guns with poorly aimed shots. Just listen on opening morning. Unless those guys are practicing all the time shooting multiple shots, most are flying out into the woods with little hope of hitting their target. Frankly if they were practicing they wouldn’t need more than one or two anyway. I have talked to many farmers in the area I hunt, who are already worried about hunters in the woods, and they have serious concerns about this and are considering no longer allowing hunting. I don’t blame them. Suddenly their house which wasn’t really in range of the woods is now well withing the effective kill range from not just their land but a neighbors as well. This to me is the number one reason to oppose this change as it is already difficult to find farmers who will let non-family members hunt their land. This just gives them another excuse. In addition, there is no need for the change in terms of effectively hunting deer. The stats show that plenty of deer are already killed. Obviously, the rule change isn’t needed to control the herd which frankly is in decline already from bag limits that are too liberal. Since the rule is already long standing most hunters in IN have long ago adopted and already have equipment. This is not an access issue. Some talk about the recoil of shotguns preventing many from participating. Again this isn’t really an issue preventing access to hunting. Use a 20 guage or a muzzleloader if that is the case. Modern shotguns and muzzleloaders provide plenty of range and accuracy without having the extreme range of rifles. Frankly the only real issue and push for this is that those who own rifles want to use them but that isn’t enough to make a policy change such as this with only negative impacts that I can see and no real positive ones. I want to hear a compelling argument how using these rifles will improve safety, not harm access from land ownners, improve the deer herd, and overall improve deer hunting.
Frankly, I think you have your panties in a wad over what is really no big deal. I’ve hunted in KY in the majority of my 30 some years a hunter. I started in Ohio and also did quite a bit in Indiana. The thing you forget about KY is that around the Ohio River, there are a lot of hollows, but the tops of the ridges are dead flat. I can see into 4 counties from my porch. Your idea about N. Indiana being different is just wrong. I also don’t buy the idea that there is an army of slobs running around the woods firing blindly. Most of the fellows I meet are dedicated deer hunters. They are safe and responsible. Over the years, I have become convinced this idea of a legion of slob hunters is a fantasy of the uninitiated.
If you get nothing else from what I’ve said, understand that it does not make a lot of difference what folks hunt with. Everyone who gets wadded up about this envisions opening day with rifles as being some ridiculous circular firing squad in the woods with bullets traveling for miles and knocking over unsuspecting farmers, and wounded deer hobbling about everywhere and it just is not so. My house, built in 1902, stands in the middle of a very heavily hunted area. It had zero bullet holes in it when I bought it, and 12 years after I re-sided it still doesn’t. Go buy a nice 30-06 and have fun.
Pingback:Indiana Rule Changes for 2015– Centerfire Rifle! | Genesis9:2-4 Ministries
I am a 68 year old man who was born, raised and still live in south Florida where I have hunted since the 1960s. I also have a lease in north central Florida and just leased 450 acres in Indiana, my wife’s home state. I own and have been shooting a .22 rifle since I was 9 years old. I now own a .22/250,.308,.270 WSM, .300 Win Mag plus several shotguns and a compound bow. I have recently been exposed to the debate on “High Powered Rifles” for hunting deer in Indiana and much of the debate is over the dangers in flat land. Have you ever been to Florida?? My life has been spent with 90% of my hunting being done less than 50 feet above sea level. I have used my rifles, my bow and my shotguns and my only contact with lead that was propelled by a firearm was a couple of #8s from a side by side 12 gauge in a dove shoot. We have hogs in Florida and the boars have a polymer-like armor just under their skin that can be an inch thick. I have never shot at one with a slug, but most buckshot just makes them angry. My last buck was taken in Buffalo County Wisconsin in a very flat cornfield across the street from my farmer-friend’s home and somewhere north of 200 yards away. The not-so-simple answer to all of this is that the weapon needs to fit the shooter and the game and the shooter needs to be cognizant of his or her surroundings. I have had a number of close calls in the shotgun world, hunting close together with bird and buck shot and not one with a rifle when we are spread out hundreds of yards in a tree stand or ground blind. Speaking of tree stands, they are the number 1 killer of hunters in the USA, perhaps we should ban them. That, however, would be using the same logic that is being used in the rifle, muzzle loader, shotgun debate. That being, the greatest safety device in the woods sits just under our hats and between our ears!
Washington has been using a similar strategy with “Assault Rifles.” Even though their own FBI statistics indicate that more people are killed with blunt objects, than rifles of any kind and pistols are by far the greater choice, they are out to get the black rifles.
Separate the facts from the emotions and this becomes a simple choice. Use the best tool for the job.