Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Indiana Boys - What rifle will you use in 2015?

See link for all proposed hunting rules and regulations changes.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2362.htm

From the proposed changes:

Allows additional rifles to be used by reducing the bullet size required to .243 and eliminating the maximum rifle cartridge case length. This will allow high-powered rifles such as the .30-30 and .45-70 during the deer firearms seasons. Full metal jacketed bullets would be unlawful because since they do not expand when fired, and therefore, do not kill as humanely.

The acutual proposed regulation makes the minimum legal cartridge a bullet of 0.243 and is longer than 1.16 inches. No specific wording for lever actions, rims etc. FMJ are also specifically banned.

I know we are just into the 2014 season and the rule change is just a proposal but what rifle(s) will you use in 2015?

I will probably use my 35 Indiana (1.8 inch 35 Remington with a longer leade) but have thought about having it re-chambered to 358 Winchester. I am going to pull out the 7x57 and will likely pick up a 30-30 or 35 Remington lever action. Where I hunt, this is all I really need. Should be fun if the proposal goes through.

Scott

I hope it goes through and sent in my comments on the indiana .gov website. My, I'll probably be using my 260 Rem. My then 8yo will probably use the 30-30 if I can find a youth buttstock for it.

If I start feeling mean, I'll crack out the 338 Win Mag...

I was just watching this auction but could be useful...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=452457702

Pointer, I found my old copy of JB's Medium Medium's article and was looking at some of the deer loads. Might be fun with a 375 H&H deer load.

Kudos to Indiana for taking steps in the right direction regarding their firearms regulations. First time I've seen a state admit that modern smokeless muzzleloaders are equivalent to many centerfire rifles. That point is lost on many, unfortunately.

One of my Savage 99's in 300 Savage

My 358 Hoosier will probably get rechambered to 358 Win for woods hunting. 358 WSSM will go in the classifieds.
Otherwise, I'll use 243AI, 6 creedmoor, 260 or the 6.5 SAUM.
Son 1 will use his youth model 700 in 243.
Son 2 will knock them out with his auto fire nerf guns!!!

I started deer hunting in 1964 with a 20 gauge Ithaca single barrel shotgun, and took my first 2 deer with it. Progressed through an 870 Rem. with with a 28" modified barrel. Then added a smooth more slug barrel,followed by a rifled slug barrel that was pinned to the receiver and a trigger job for a lot of years. If this change goes through the first year I will hunt with an Alexander Arms AR 15 chambered in 6.5 Grendel. After I take a deer with it, I will settle on my favorite 260 Remington for the rest of my deer hunting days. From a single barrel 20 gauge, to a rifle on the AR platform.......only took 50 years....lol.

I don't think the auto fire's are going to be legal, you may have to get him a lever action !

Probably will use my lever action 45-70 guide gun.

That said, I'm all for certain centerfire calibers to be used, but I live up in NW Indiana, in very flat farm country. I'm a little concerned about the use of unlimited centerfires. Not by responsible hunters, but the opening weekend bubbas that may drive the country roads seeing how far across a section they can kill a whitetail with their 7mm/300 mags. In heavier wooded or hilly sections of Indiana, this may not be an issue. Maybe it won't be up here, but until we get a year or two under our belt, I'm a little concerned.


maddog

maddog, A handful of us pushed the legislation to take Wisconsin to all rifle use statewide. 2013 was the first year it was implemented. We had one of the safest seasons in 100 years.

Most of the problems had always occurred in the parts of the state that were shotgun areas. These problems went away. No more excessive gunfire reports for the most part, and no shotgun slugs skipping off frozen ground.

Because of reduced recoil, reports of young hunters becoming better marksman was also one of the results. This resulted in fewer shots fired, and less problems reported to the conservation wardens.

The myth of the shotgun being a safer platform is just that, a myth.

Any bad reasons to go into bigger rifles? I use a Ruger 44mag. After using a .54 black powder for 33 yrs. and harvesting over 30 deer. Do I need to use a .300 mag?

Chainsaw, not disagreeing with you. Been using a 44 mag. for 6 yrs. Haven't used a shotgun in 7 yrs. You may be right. Time will tell.


maddog

Kimber7man:

How many steps to make the 358 Hoosier?

I was working on a 358-6.5 Creedmoor and a 358-300 Savage AI before I heard about the proposed rule changes. Both seemed "easier" than the 358 Hoosier from what I have heard. The Creedmoor needed necked up to 308 and 338 prior to 358 and then a trim of about 0.1 inches. Should have same case capacity or a little more than the Hoosier without moving the shoulder. I hadn't gotten as far with the 358-300 Savage AI but I likely wouldn't have been much more than a neck up, trim and fire form. I would have had a case capacity much closer to the 358 Winchester with a shorter neck.

Anyways, hopefully don't matter now!

I necked up a 308 case to 358 and seated a 250 gr Speer Hot Cor. I like the looks...

Red:

No absolutely, don't need a 300 WM. But you will have the option if you want.

I am more excited about being able to use more "traditional" deer calibers and rifles. I am picking up a Marlin 336 in 35 Remington this week and have started looking at auctions for Savage 99's. I also like the idea of being able to use my favorite 7x57 that mainly sits in the safe.

I'm not planning on changing my hunting style or location so I won't need or want to shot very far.

I am also hoping we start seeing more rifles at more competitive prices at the LGS.

I suspect we will still see quite a few hunters with their bows, shotguns and smokepoles doing just fine. And that's the way it should be.

Scott

Scott,
358 Hoosier is easy after you cough up the dough for the Hornady dies...
Trim 358 Winchester brass to 1.79", deburr, lube, and run through full length sizing die. Presto, ready to load!

SWJ: They talk about 500 yd shots with a muzzle loader. That would be like hitting a mouse at 50 yds with a .22. One could see the mouse but you can't pick the kill spot.
That would be a rainbow shot for sure.
What concerns me the most is hunters trying for that deer quarter mile away just because their rifle will shoot that far or the hunter that takes the desperation shot at a running target.
I have seen both.
Take a 30-06 semi auto and you will cut down a few saplings and most everything else in it's way.
Indiana does not have the open areas as out west nor the large forest and mountains for backstops. Our southern counties would be more suited for larger rifle calibers but not the flat small farming areas.
I am sure this is a money backed proposal as it has been pushed to the administrative agency to propose and amend the rules.
Pass the buck in more ways than one.
Time will tell but I'm buying more orange....lol

They seem to get by okay in states that are as similarly flat as any part of Indiana with rifles. Desperation shots will be taken by some folks regardless of what guns in their hands. I'm not seeing the falling sky just yet...

Red53, You need to read the Lehigh Valley Study that was commissioned by the State of Pa. and was done at the Piccatinny Arsenal.

I heard the same objections here in Wisconsin and we already had hunters taking rainbow shots with shotguns and having problems.

Our rifle law has now cleared the way for hunters to use whatever they want to hunt with rifle, shotgun, mzldr, handgun or bow. It made things very simple for the Conservation wardens to administer and freed them up to work on other problems.

You are making a problem that doesn't for the most part exist.
As far as freedom goes, like Jefferson said, I'd error on the side of too much than too little. If the anti-gun crowd had their way, they would label your .44 mag as too dangerous and the only acceptable firearm would be a 38-40 moving along at 800 fps. Watch what you wish for.

I'll continue to use a 44mag rifle. Most(if not all) of my hunting/shooting done under 100yds.

The thing I like most about this rule is that we will be able to introduce more youngsters to deer hunting. A youth model 243 with light loads is a heck of a lot more fun for them to shoot than a 20 gauge slug gun...

Precisely!!, the youngin's will become better marksmen like my Grandson who put over 200 rounds downrange practicing with an H&R .223 and then switching seamlessly to and H&R 30-30 Topper both had youth stocks and he was able to take a nice doe with his first shot ever at a deer during his first youth mentored hunt. This would never have happened with a shotgun.

The better marksmenship will cut down on another complaint in the shotgun only areas which was "excessive gunfire".

Perzactly! This rationale was a large part of the comments I submitted to the DNR. If you fellow Hoosiers haven't, I highly suggest you take the time to comment on the proposed rule change.

The thought that shotgun slugs and muzzleloaders are "safer" is comeplete and utter ignorance of trajectory and terminal ballistics. People that believe such do so because that is what they have been told and they keep repeating it, failing to use their critical thinking skills.

6.5x55 Swede for one. Someone put a lot of "love" (aka work) into this one. Jeweled bolt, timney safety, stock is to die for with roll-over monte carlo cheek rest, superb skip line checkering. Fits like it was built for me.



Picked up a Douglas SS 23.5" barrel in 7x57 pre-contoured and threaded to a 700 Rem too......for another project when I can.

358 Winchester that's at the 'smith now. All I have to do now is get some vacation days to get back up there to hunt!

Hey guys, Midway has the 35 cal 200 grain Accubond in stock now!!

nice rifle...

The .44 Magnum is well suited to most Indiana deer hunting situations. Allowing more powerful centerfire calibers I feel will lead to hunters attempting shots beyond their marksmanship capabilities. The greater range of high powered cartridges I feel also carries with it potential danger.

My 2 cent on that is

Some ALREADY "attempt shots beyond their marksmanship capabilities"

There ALREADY is a "potential danger" from those who do stupid things.

We can't fix stupid.
The weapon used wont make them more or less so.
and if we were going to penalize ALL of us because of a few......

NO ONE WOULD HUNT..AT ALL.

Some claim "we don't NEED a centerfire to kill deer"

True.

We have never NEEDED:
rifled slug barrels
scopes
3" slug ammo
Sabot slugs
Treestands
Camo
Buck "lure"
Compounds
Crossbows
Carbon arrows
Mechanical broadheads
and on and on

Ive taken a couple dozen without any of the above so know this for a fact.

Take note that a few of the above ALSO increased the range people shot at deer.........by a LOT!!! What's different?

People just don't like change and will search for reasons "we don't need such".

Heck....MANY decades ago fiberglass laminations on the exterior of bow limbs was snubbed by hunters for the exact same reason some point at the rifle proposal.

"We don't need such". Some actually thought it was "cheating" adding non-natural material to bow limbs in those days.

Oh yeah......we don't "NEED" Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett scores either.

Those wanting to use such will find a reason to talk them up and those not wanting them will also find reasons to talk them down.

It's been that way on all changes in the world since before any of us shot out of the hatch kicking and screaming.

God Bless

gunwizard, many now argue that hunting in itself is a potential danger, and that all firearms are way too hazardous and that killing deer and other animals is just for bloodsport. How would you appease these people, when you think that some guns are way too dangerous as well??

Can you see where this could lead to having rights and hunting opportunities being banned? Remember Pogo!

Never said guns were too dangerous, rather what irresponsible people do with them that's the dangerous part. I also do not buy into the reasoning that just because you can't have something will lead to losing firearm and hunting rights. We seem to go through this paranoia every election and every Newtown/Aurora incident. The PETA and Brady followers will never get thier way, certain factors in the firearm community vastly overinflate this issue. It has been going on since the RFK assination and the creation of the 4473. I stand behind my assertion that the legalization of the .44 Magnum for deer hunting in Indiana was a good thing, larger centerfire calibers is NOT.

I think this is a really terrific point. I witnessed some really bad, actually disgusting marksmanship this year. In the end, I think the guy was closing his eyes and squeezing, fearing recoil.

A good thing for this ol' fart is all I can say.
On top of the lower recoil angle I like this for another and much bigger reason....at least to me. Others have their own reasons to like or not. All good. Not one to say anyone has a "wrong" reason. Priorities and all that vary. No offense intended.

Such opens up areas TO ME that most would never dream of hunting.
Most will stick with their "in the thick stuff" stands but I'm switching to lightly hunted areas where I have seen deer traffic over the years.....were there aren't any hunters.

In my area the demand for huntable cover is insane. 6 hunters in a 13 acre woods in my "best" area and I've lived in this county six decades. There is easily another dozen in the same country block.

If you don't lease it or own it....you have company and lots of it. Some will mess with you on purpose just to get you out. Don't think they wont. Sliced tires, wipers ripped off the truck, stands stolen, steps stolen...I gave up on tree stands years ago because of just that.

I've actually taken years where I only hunted a few days due to such. I didn't hunt 2014 at all. First time since my first deer in 76. The hassle just over took what fun I could get out of it.

I'll take seeing less deer if it comes to that as long as I don't have hunters on top of me, walking by my stand, etc etc.

New and improved IMHO....all the way around.

2015, if this passes, will have me sitting in a picked rolling cornfield about 300 yards from anything big enough to sit IN but also an area I've sat and watched numerous bucks run does back and forth, back and forth.

The "junk" on the other side of the ditch running along the South border of the field gets hit and hit hard but 90 percent is "bedroom" stuff. 8-9 feet tall and when the hunters there pop one and go in after it? It looks like a covey of quail coming out......some with antlers. HA

A buddy hunts the property on the EAST end and popped a nice 10 point around 180lbs 35 minutes after the opening whistle...right after there were 5 shots (happens there a lot it seems??) in the junk area we can't hunt. There is 4 hunters in that small patch where he is.

It was one of 5 bucks he saw that opener by 10am, all under 125 yards and he shot two does too. He said he couldn't see the actual number or how many were bucks but "a bunch" ran across the field where I plan to sit a couple of times that morning.

With the 2015 regs (assuming this passes) I've got 3 spots pegged on a gps out in this field AND got the field tied up for "only me" with the farmer kind enough to allow such. Working on two other similar situations too.

The field is a sleeper. From either road on the two sides it has roads you can't see diddly half way across the field due to the rolling hills in it on the back half. I could park my truck out there within 300 yards of the road and no one would be able to see it, let alone just me.

As you can tell I'm a bit excited over this "new way" to hunt. I'm all over a method I can go hunt and relax. Having a good set of binocs will be fun just glassing what is on the other side and hoping they pop across the ditch. The field is mostly 20-25 feet higher in elevation from the junk too so shots will be safer downward angled shots where I can see what is behind the deer for a long, long ways. Big plus to me.

It's going to take a few seasons before some realize that using centerfires and with practice and knowing your distances and trajectory there is some awesome areas out there mostly only hunted on the fringes that will be reasonable to hunt and pretty much are not now.

Since I'm planning a ground stand I'm seriously thinking of taking TWO rifles. The one above on a bipod facing the junk down the hill and the 7x57 project now in beginning stages on a bipod sitting pointed parallel to the ditch for anything that comes across to the East. This field is big enough that some of those crossing to the East will still be out of sensible shot range, IMO but Ill have roughly 200 yards in one direction and 325 or so in another covered. West and North has the two roads so no shot options considered.

Sorry to ramble. As said, I'm all about this being added to yet another way for me to take deer. My next will be my 100th whitetail. Doing it "a different way" is as important to me as what it is I drop the hammer on.

God Bless
Steve

Gunswizard, I think you are arguing that you don�t even like the current regulations with the exception of the 44 Mag and believe the proposed regulation changes will make deer hunting less safe. A point you maybe missing is that "larger centerfire calibers" are already legal for deer hunting in Indiana. The new rule won�t be allowing centerfire rifles for the first time. The new rule will actually be applying them uniformly to rifles and handguns (see above from IN DNR). While IN DNR mentions some rounds that are and are not legal, the actual regulations are written very, very loosely. It is not hard to work around them and use what you are calling "larger centerfire calibers".

I hunt with a bolt action rifle that is chambered for 35 Remington trimmed to 1.8 inches and is capable of shooting 200 gr bullet at 2300 to 2400 fps. There are also a fair number of 45-70, WSSM, WSM and 35 Winchester wildcats in use. The 450 Bushmaster, 458 Socom, 460 S&W aren�t small, low powered cartridges either. Also, If any of us wanted to, it is perfectly legal to hunt with a handgun in 243, 7mm-08m, 30-06 or 338 Win Mag if that floats your boat. The tools to shoot 200-300 yards are already there. The current rule will allow equal application between handguns and rifles.

As many have already asserted, people do stupid things at times. Well intentioned and cautious people make mistakes. Even if all we could hunt with were atlatls, then hunters would still be tempted to make shots beyond their ability. That is the nature of hunting and people. I don�t believe the proposed rule will change any of that.

In my opinion the rule changes for the past decade have reflected IN DNR�s desire to have more options to manage the deer herd. The rule changes have always made it �easier� to hunt deer in Indiana. Allowing 410 shot gun, new doe seasons, increased quotas for does, the rifle rules all make it easier for someone to hunt successfully in IN and allows the DNR to achieve their deer population goal. These are likely the goals IN DNR has in mind.

And, in my opinion it just sounds FUN!

Sincerely,

Scott

Great, succinct way of putting it! This also applies to muzzleloaders since the smokeless versions are also legal in Indiana.

FWIW, a gunsmith I had some work done showed me a short video of him taking a doe 2 years ago with a 358 Hoosier at just over 500yds. Pretty slick little rifle he built on the Remington 798 (whatever number they used for the Zatstava's they imported for a while).

gunwizard wrote< I stand behind my assertion that the legalization of the .44 Magnum for deer hunting in Indiana was a good thing, larger centerfire calibers is NOT.> end of quoted text.

What would you say to those that think that the .44 magnum is way too powerful and dangerous to hunt with. After all, most only would have to quote "Dirty Harry" to prove their point!

They're probably the girlymen who insist on hunting deer with varmint rifles, .223,.243 etc..

gunwizard, Why is someones choice of caliber so disagreeable to you? So what if someone chooses a .223 or .243? Can't you see what you are suggesting on a forum about hunting and guns is detrimental to the cause of hunting and guns?

I disagree, I just don't think either of those cartridges are adequate for the task. I don't care how much success shooters of those cartridges have had harvesting deer. You wouldn't select either of them for hunting grizzly bears or cape buffalo would you? Nor would you choose a deer cartridge like .270 or .30-06, you'd select something adequate for the task, .375 Magnum or similar. Why then the insistance on using a varmint rifle on deer? In the case of youth, ladies and the recoil sensitive there are reduced recoil loads available for .30-30,.270, .30-06 and other deer cartridges, also reduced power handloads. Nothing about that is detrimental to guns and hunting, your statement is simply not valid in my opinion.

Really old debate that has never reached a conclusion concerning the .243 but just for the record, the .223 mentioned above is not up on deck for Indiana deer according to the proposal as written.

Just to keep the record straight.

God Bless

That is a comical way to state your argument. Funny how you think you "know" more than all those successful hunters. Just curious, beings you are an IN resident, how many deer have you killed with how many different rifle chamberings?

Gunswiz:

I'm going let this rest after this post since you seem fairly set in your belief that the 44 Mag is the "Goldilocks" cartridge for Indiana deer hunting and that any other cartridge is too much of something.

I am just not following your logic as to why other cartridges are wrong for deer hunting in Indiana. My understanding was that you were initially stating hunters would use cartridges that are overpowered for deer and have too much range. Now you seem to be suggesting that hunters will use cartridges that are too underpowered for deer but suggest using a 270 or 30-06. Aren't those examples of cartridges that you initial said were too powerful? Even reduced recoil loads are typically producing 2500 to 2800 fps at the muzzle. This seems to be contradictory to your intial argument.

Please, go to the Indiana DNR and give your opinion.

I hope the rule proposal passes so that I can use what ever rifle I like next year and you can too.

Sincerely,

Scott

I don't think my son will take kindly to your calling him a "girly man" for killing his first buck cleanly and humanely with a .243.

There isn't a whitetail on earth that I wouldn't vent with either of those chamberings.

Stunt shot with 243

Woooo what a stud buck. Damn............

I'll GLADLY hunt with my 243 anywhere, any day and all day.

Personally I am hoping that it goes through. I plan on using one of my 300 Savages or my 25/06.

This is a typical response from someone who cannot address the message but disparages the messenger.

Yet amazingly most of the rest of the country manages to use "high powered cartridges" without people routinely getting shot out of trees and spraying down the countryside attempting shots beyond their marksmanship capabilities. Oh, I forgot, Indiana has rolling farmland. It's certainly unique, there's none of that to be found in the rest of America

What we're left to conclude is that Indiana hunters must be a completely undisciplined bunch that are in danger of going on a rampage once they get their new rifles in their hands, the same rifles that hunters in the rest of the U.S. have managed to use for the last century or so without inducing mass carnage.

I have a weblog (see my signature) in which I reported fairly early that Indiana had changed its rules for 2015. As a result, Hoosiers have been hammering my weblog for months looking for info on the rule change as well as looking for help picking new deer rifles.

In the feedback I get, the response to the rule change has been about 3:1 in favor, but the opposition has some pretty far out objections.

1) It will ruin private land hunting, because no IN farmer wants centerfire rifle on his place. It will increase the number of No Trespassing signs.
2) The land is too flat. It will be a circular firing squad.
3) Shotguns are safer to operate.
4) It is destroying a tradition.
5) It will kill all the deer

etc.

The funny thing is that I'm a Buckeye that does 100% of his hunting in KY. I really don't have a huge stake in this, but I get a whole lot of flak.

In regards to this whole .223 vs. 243 vs. . . thing: I hunt KY, where .223 is legal-- so is .25 ACP for that matter. Truth is there is not enough interest in .223 to make it a big deal. The guys who shoot .223 REM at deer seem to know what they're doing. They guys who complain about it are all talking hypothetical armchair schoolmarmisms. They don't do it, so no one else should be allowed, blah, blah.

I started a .223 REM-for-deer project about 15 years ago, and frankly I enjoy my ought-sixes so much that I keep forgetting to finish it off. If I ever decide to do it for real, I'm certain from the writings of the folks on this august forum and elsewhere that it will work just fine.

Bottom line: Shotgun-only is wrong. Pistol-Caliber-only is wrong. Any proscription on centerfire chamberings is wrong, and the sooner we do away with them the better.

Yep Hoosier's are certainly unique and we can't responsibly handle our fire arms!

Thanks for the feed back from your blog. Interesting stuff.

Another benefit for me if the rule change goes through is that I can stop thinking about buying some land in KY so I can hunt deer with a rifle. I will start looking closer to home.

Scott

Yes, I did my decision like that back 15 years ago. I picked KY, partially because of the Sunday hunting proscriptions elsewhere and the shotgun-only goofiness. I'm happy with my choice, but if I was starting to look for property in the coming years, I'd be thinking IN as well.

When I want to hunt with my .257 Roberts or .35 Whelen I go to Kentucky. I have retired the rifled barrel slug gun that I hunted Indiana with for more than 25 years and now hunt with my Ruger 77/44 .44 Magnum.

gunwizard, If the 257 Roberts or 35 Whelen are too dangerous for Indiana, I would be careful with those severely lethal calibers in Kentucky as well.

But then again the 257 being close in dia. to the 243 probably should be lumped in with the 223 and 243 as well.

Really don't know if we should be doing this hunting thing guys, as it appears to be just too dangerous because of the guns.

gunwizard, just maybe the 44 mag is overkill as well.

Final decision is to be made in March of 2015, Interesting you can report the decision so early

To be honest, my understanding was that this was pretty much a done deal. I had not heard there was significant opposition to hold it up. If the outcome is in doubt, please forward me any information you have. I will do my best to report it fairly.

I have to apologize as well. I reported on the proposed rule change on my weblog, but did not take a huge interest in the matter until the deluge of readers hit. Hoosiers have been pounding my weblog for months now. I looked again yesterday: it would seem support among my readers is now closer to 10 to 1 in favor.

Hey jackwagon, I mean Mr. Chainsaw, you need to get your head out of your azz and wipe the chit out of your eyes. Read my replies before you respond, I never said that .257 Roberts or .35 Whelen were too dangerous for Indiana. I do hunt safely and responsibly with those calibers in Kentucky. The .257 Roberts is a deer cartridge, .223 and .243 are varmint cartridges. Never said guns/hunting were too dangerous, nor that .44 Magnum was overkill. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, learn how to read and interpret what others are saying. I am no less entitled to my opinion than those who feel otherwise like yourself.

It will take a bit of time but using centerfire rifles will change the way Indiana hunters hunt. Generally they will become more precision shooters. I have hunted opening morning in many states over the years that use centerfire rifles. One shot here and there. The scariest morning of my life was my first hunt in Ohio ,at the time it was a slug only state. Sounded like a war. Guys taking multiple shots at every deer. Never seen anything like it. Lead flying everywhere. Some Guys were coming back to the trucks saying they had shot ten to fifteen times. Indiana will be just like every other state that uses centerfire. One shot kills will be the norm not the exception. The fewer follow up shots that are taken the safer the woods will be. We all know those second and third shots are generally on running deer and more likely to be wild than the first.
As to what caliber or rifle I would use ? I would select it depending on where I was hunting and how I was hunting just like i would in any other state. But you cant go wrong with any of the all around standard deer calibers in a bolt action rifle with a 20-24 inch barrel decent scope. But use what you got and enjoy it.

I had the exact same reaction to my first Ohio hunts. In fact , my scariest days in the woods have all been Ohio Openers.

It's funny, but where I hunt in KY can have three times the number of shot strings on an Opener, but I never get the same kind of feeling.

Shaman- Here's a quote from a newspaper article that might clear up some things on the rule change:



Getting the rule change through the Division of Fish and Wildlife was the first hurdle. This type of rule change has been denied in the past at this level. Once they proposed the amendment it's open to public comment and possibly a 'hearing'. The NRC has to approve of the rule change to put it in effect. They meet 4 times/year and I think the next meeting is in fact in March.

If you would, please send a citation. I'll make it known on my weblog, and I'll go about trying digging up corroboration as well.

Thanks for the tip.

Here's the news article:
http://www.greensburgdailynews.com/...82c926b-b599-5891-ab77-07ed756f6074.html

Here's a link the Natural Resource Commision website:
http://www.in.gov/nrc/

Here's a link to the actual proposed rule change. This does not just deal with rifles, it's all rules.
http://www.in.gov/nrc/files/lsa14453_proposed.pdf

Schit. I gotta quit killing all those deer with .223 and .243 now.

I've had to track and finish off exactly 3 deer hit fairly well with a bullet out of a Ruger 44 carbine which my late hunting friend claimed was perfect for use in woodlots on whitetails. 2 other occasions, the deer were not found. Probably not the fault of the round, as a deer hit well with a proper bullet out of a 44 magnum inside 150 yards is going to die. But it happened.

I cannot say that I've had any problem with deer going more than a few dozen yards after being hit with a .243, or .223 for that matter.

My suggestion would be to add into the law that a hunter must be elevated 10 feet to hunt with a centerfire rifle for deer, if the folks in your state can't use some fuggin sense with a rifle. Of couse, then all the dumbazzes would fall out of the stand and break their stupid necks, and a whole new issue will be started.

gunwizard, my attempt at satire seemed to fly completely over your head(not surprised). It was done just to show you that your entitled opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, couldn't be more off track. And the fact that you had to resort to disparaging my character shows that you and your opinion are shooting blanks and you are out of ammunition. Typical debate tactic.

Your first post on this topic added nothing to the discussion and you went downhill from there. Your attempt to turn the topic into something else was no better. I've run into a few hunters/shooters like yourself and you add zero to our sport and cause.

gunwizard(an oxymoron) Here is where you said "high powered cartridges"(whatever they are) were dangerous

I know one of the fellows on the NRC. I'll see what he has to say and report back...

Thanks, Pointer. I really did not see a whole lot in there that I had not covered in my weblog. I did, however, edit my story stress that this was not a done deal. I'm going to add another post to let them know where to comment.

The big $$$$ in Indianapolis is pushing this thru comitties so it will pass reguardless of what the common man has to say.

What group or person is the big money behind the proposed rule change?

I can see how some groups might be interested, like insurance companies, rifle manufactures, sporting good stores but I just don't see it being worth that much money to any particular group. Despite all the fanfare it may receive here, I suspect it is going to be several years before there are more rifles than shot guns or muzzle loaders out in the field and I don't believe the deer harvest will jump significantly just because rifles become easier to use.

It was bundled with a bunch of other changes so I thought it was just another DNR proposal.

I'm pretty simple and don't look for conspiracies though...

Thanks for any info you can provide.

Scott

From what I understand, the push to include all centerfire rifle was the reason for the earlier push for straightwall cartridges. I heard one time that this has been a gradual process over a generation or more, trying to get IN away from shotguns only.

The same goes for Ohio. Ohio had about a 30 year fight trying to allow Sunday hunting. Ditto for getting rid of the rifle proscriptions. The latter is just taking longer.

In both states, this kind of change only comes about slowly. You've got the tree-hugging greenies on one side and the traditionalists on the other. Both sides are going to whine no matter what. In the latter case, I just cannot fathom the goo, but I understand how it gets there.

If you learn to hunt in IN or OH, you're taught when you are young. Kids ask questions, like why do I have to hunt with a shotgun. Grandpa or Dad has to come up with the answer, and it usually sounds important. For me, the justification for Ohio's shotgun law as put to me as something like: "In Ohio, it's rather crowded, so they don't want the round carrying too far."

Of course, I was a bright little kid, so I couldn't figure out how you could fire anything up into the trees after squirrels, but you could not fire a rifle at a deer. I kept asking the question, and eventually figured out the law was just . . . well, it was just there. However, along the way, I also collected the drivel that every other Buckeye kid got from their Buckeye Dad. Ohio hunters are crazy. It helps protect the herd. It's part of our tradition. . . ad nauseum. I'm sure the same process happened with Hoosier kids and their mentors. The problem with Hoosier kids and Buckeye kids is that most of them drink the Kool-Aid and stop thinking critically. Kentucky kids never got the Kool-Aid, God bless them.

The more I dig into this, I'm fascinated with the process. The idea that this is a big conspiracy and you need to follow the money trail is cute one to be sure. Well, OF COURSE IT IS A CONSPIRACY, and OF COURSE IT HAS BIG MONEY BACKING. It's been the concern of a lot of people to get this problem corrected for years. The basic assumptions were wrong. The technology changed. The idea of shotguns being safer went out the window sometime about 1970. Meanwhile the numbers of hunters are dwindling and those that remain are getting older. It's hard to hand a kid a 12 GA and tell him to suck it up and learn to love the recoil.

Meanwhile you have counties where the deer are so numerous they're crawling up your leg, and no one would particularly mind except the critters are big and are prone to running out in traffic. Once you find yourself wearing one, you get to thinking: somebody should be doing something about this.

So YES! It IS a conspiracy; not only is big money behind it, but so are most hunters. We've been trying gently and nicely and politely to tell the bow [bleep], the greenies, and all the rest that their idea that the state should limit what you lob at deer is a fraud.

shaman, I agree with what you wrote, but I would add, that is just plain the correct thing to do.

We just had our second year of rifle use statewide in WI. and the predictions of the wild west and blood running in the streets did not happen. In fact it was one of the safest years in the history of 100 years of deer firearm seasons. And all the naysayers are nowhere to be found...

I called my local representatives and senator they told me it was in committees that would make the decision, the DNR had no say in the matter until it becomes a law.

The DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife have had their say. They sent the proposal on to the commission for a ruling. They are the first 'bottleneck' for rule change proposals.

The rule changes, as I understand it, come from the Natural Resource Commission. It is composed of representatives of all the major stakeholders. It gets sent to the legislature, where it becomes a bill and the bill is debated in committee, before being passed and sent on to the governor for signature.

The NRC makes the rules. The DNR enforces them. That way you don't have the enforcement arm making law. If the DNR made the rules, then it would be like your local police department passing ordinances. Most states have something similar.

RED53 is technically right, but DNR would have a lot of input to the NRC as to what can practically done, what can be enforced, etc. In fact, I would say the "FIX" has been on this for some time-- nothing sinister, mind you. It's just a large majority of folks decided this was the right way to go. Most hunters agree, and have been wanting this for a generation.

I said "most" not "all" hunters. In my state, Ohio, I just got tired of waiting and moved all my hunting to Kentucky.

Shaman- From the article I linked earlier:


The Division of Fish and Wildlife is part of the DNR. What I meant DNR as having had a say already is that the proposed rule changes come from the F&W. Some are the result of public comments and some are the brainchild of the F&W. In essence they have some control over the proposals sent to the Commision and therefore have had a say...

Pointer, I don't see any disagreement between us.

I was responding more to RED35's comment regarding the DNR having no say.

Honestly, no dig on you or any other gentle Hoosier for that matter, but this is really not my fight. It's funny, I got another comment on my weblog overnight-- somebody thinks that he likes 44 MAG, so therefore everyone else should give up on high power rifle. That man should put on a dress, and go find himself a 1-room school where he can invoke his will on the young.

I will say this: my last deer hunting trip to IN was 1992. My last Ohio deer hunt was 2001. The IN line is less than 30 minutes from my house in Ohio. 100% of my hunting has been in KY, because it has been the best value for me. I really don't mind KY jacking the non-resident fees up. It's still a better value. That is just my opinion, and any Hoosier or Buckeye can read this and say good riddance.

However, I can take an unlimited number of deer from Sept to January in KY's Zone 1 . I have a good long rifle season in the Middle of November and two Muzzleloader seasons. If I went back to hunting the north side of the Ohio, I'd probably start with Ohio, but only because they will let you bow hunt without serious interruption during the rut. Even though Indiana is just a short drive, I'll probably not be back without serious changes. Allowing me to bring a 30-06 is one of those changes.

Hope to see you here! FWIW, Indiana's bow season is now without a break from 10/1 to sometime in January. They did away with the 1 week 'break' between gun season and muzzleloader a few years back.

Any tips on places to look in KY for a spot to sit?

Red35 must be a younger twin....LOL

I have an old Krag-Jorgensen 30-40 I'd like to try on a deer. The only thing I have ever shot with it was an old stray dog that wouldn't let this old couple out of their house. A sheppard size and would come after you as soon as he seen you. Must of had bad eyesight at long range....lol

Basically anywhere that has water flowing into the Ohio River has deer. The hottest counties are Pendleton and Owen. I'm in Bracken within gun range of the Pendleton line. My stand sounds like a war zone on the Opener.

300 lb bucks with antlers like chandeliers are not all that uncommon. I've seen a few whoppers hanging, and caught sight of one on the last day of season this year. I was tagged out and up in my stand cutting off the camo skirt. They are out there.

Thanks! I'm definitely planning on giving KY a bigger consideration. As my boys are getting older (7 and 4 now) its getting a bit harder to get away for the 7-10 days I take for my western trips. I did kill a small buck in KY back in '96 while in high school near Green River, KY. My dad and I were invited by a co-worker of his for the trip.

I will use a 7mag or .308

257 Weatherby Mag if I get it dialed in, otherwise the 25-06 I use to Coyote hunt with. I hope they get it passed I spent my money on the 257 instead of a 358 Hoosier this season. Took a yote this last weekend with the 270 Winchester so its on the short list too.

Never, never understood why they haven't done this earlier.

Has anyone heard anything about the meeting last Wednesday (March 25th) ?

I'm not sure TWRA has ever asked for input on Anything from the public. You guys are lucky

My son says TWRA's FB page gets bombarded every time they post about anything by folks demanding QDMA, straight-wall cals. During muzzleloader, baiting, etc.

"Wildlife officials at the Department of Natural Resources are recommending against the proposal"

Meeting May 19th to make final decision.
The board could go against DNR but they never have.

. What a joke !! There is no logical reason not to pass it.

When a committee designs a racehorse, you get a camel.
I hope the taxpayers in that state are "permitted" to be American Riflemen.

Cards are stacked against Hoosiers for change in law in up coming season. DFW does not recommend approval of this proposed change.

I read an article about it last night and the DNR says that it doesn't believe that there would be any issues on safety or anything else. Their reason for not reccomending it is that the Indiana hunters are split down the middle for and against. The people that are complaining the most are the bowhunters. Which the bow season is by far the longest season we have. I find it funny that a lot of bowhunters have no problem shooting an arrow at a deer 70 or 80 yards away. But they are worried about someone with a rifle taking a 200 yard shot.

Yep, the squeaky wheel is getting the grease in this case. The DFW were the ones who passed along the rule change to the commission and now seem to be getting cold feet because of a few loud speakers against the rule.

I have read the Lehigh Valley Study but see a few flaws in the report. If a slug from a shotgun will travel further than a rifle bullet why don't they use shotguns out in the western states? I have never seen a 500 yard shot with a shotgun slug across a mountain valley. Have to put my .243 back in the safe.:(
I have talked to several farm owners that won't allow hunting on their farms if a hp is used.

It has been my feeling for some time that there is a rather vocal component of the archery community in Indiana that has too much pull with IN DNR and has hampered hunters that prefer to hunt with firearms.

I have no proof, can't point to a ring leader, don't care how you want to hunt since I hunt both ways myself. It's just a general impression I have after 30 plus years deer hunting here in IN.

I thought the DFW was ultimately responsible for promoting the change.

See this from the website; it is the preamble to the explanation of the changes:



http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2362.htm