Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Stray rounds and pass-throughs

Hello all:

I read threads like "How many...really hunted with?" and am green with envy. I live in a densely populated region of an mid-Western state (Michigan). We have a fairly restrictive set of firearms laws for deer hunting in my part of the state. We can use shotguns, muzzle loaders and certain handguns. I have harveted deer with each of these three types of firearms.

So, where would I push to make high powered, centerfire rifles legal? The picture in my head is that high powered, centerfire rifles could easily meet the standards of prudence (minimum risk of stray rounds and pass-throughs) given a few simple restrictions. That is, a magazine plug to restrict the firearm to single-shot mode (like a muzzle loader) and only when hunting from an elevated stand (to maximize strike angle with ground).

I think the majority of the benefit of going single-shot is that, at least in Eaton County, shots 2-through-6 are called F-U shots. And F-U does not stand for Follow-Up shots, but rather, a term that denotes frustration. Nearly everybody agrees that the first shot is delivered with the most precision and the most awareness of the background.

I would gladly live with these restrictions so I could harvest a deer with my 8mm Mauser and/or my 30-06. They live in my gun safe and dream unfullfilled dreams.

Any advice regarding how to package the idea and where to push? Do you think I am giving away too much with the idea of going single-shot? Are there any other suggestions that might enhance the "prudence" of the concept?

Must run...my night to put the young-uns to bed.

-Joe

Joe the thing I find most interesting is that you can hunt varmits in zone 3 with a centerfire rifle but not deer. If (a big if) they would have allowed to hunt from treestands years ago we might still be able to hunt the southern section with rifles, can't ever see it changing now with the population growth. Zone 3 has been restricted to shotgun/muzzle loader back as far as I can remember. You stand a better chance at winning the mega lottery than changing the restrictions.

Hey, if it was easy it would have been done long ago.

They way I see it, there are a lot of people living in areas that have similar restrictions. So there is a huge, new market if the restrictions could be eased a little bit. Huge new markets often attract a litte bit of "wager" money. For example, NEF and Rossi have a vested interest in their lobby calling a few State Representitives.

I think they need a well thought-out package to float in front of them. Wedges can slip in where 8 pound mauls bounce off. The picture in my head is some kind of limited trial that, if successful, might be used as a pattern or template for other densely populated areas.

An example of a wedge is the Michigan Dove season. It was floated as an experiment (i.e., would sunset after a predetermined number of years) and was opened in a limited number of counties.

Soooo, applying that principle to deer hunting might read something like...
"...Trial highpower centerfire rifle season for southern tier of counties excepting those counties with a population density in excess of 1000 people/square mile (Macolm, Oakland, Wayne) counties. Season will run concurrent with current firearm season. Legal firearms include highpower centerfire rifles as defined for the other two districts. Additional restrictions include either a magazine plug or some other means to render firearm so only 'single shot' mode is possible. Additional restriction is that highpower centerfire rifles are to be loaded and used (discharged) from elevated stands with a floor that is a minimum of (pick a number...6', 8', 10') above the ground. This trial highpower, centerfire rule is in effect for a three year period starting 20XX"

Three years should generate enough data to either recommend a continuance, an adjustment (maybe to those counties with less than 500 people/square mile) or a termination of the easing of the restrictions.

Trying to make something happen.

-Joe

joe..,

Just recently read of a test comparing shotgun slugs to rifle bullets. Seems states require slugs for deer hunting because 'everyone knows' they don't carry as far rifle bullets. The test showed there isn't as much differance as once thought.

Believe it was Ohio that did the test. They are a shotgun only state for deer hunting. Yet allow varmint hunting with about anything.

I'm in the same boat in Illinois. Archery Muzzleloaders and shotgun slugs. About three years back they made legal certain handguns and I was tickled. I still cannot believe this gun hating state allowed the use of handguns. One Conservation Officer I talked to said he heard the reason they allowed handgun hunting was to "hopefully" have an increase in firearm tragedies so the politicians could say"see, we told you they were dangerous". Don't know if thats true but these Illinois Bastids headed by Mayor Daley in Chicago it wouldn't suprise me.
I have a ton of rifles I would love to take some Illinois whitetails with. And compared to the souped up muzzle loaders guys use nowadays my Marlin 35Rem is a pussycat.

I think that's pretty much the key to the whole idea. There are muzzleloaders available that will rival some centerfire rifles in the accuracy department. I'd rather go that route instead of drawing attention to myself by attempting to fight city hall.

I worked with one guy who claimed to get 2600 fps with his muzzle blaster (150 grains 777).

Oh, I forgot to mention a couple of the higher end, single-shot manufactures: Ruger and Thompson Center. Great rifles but a little out of my price range. These options are fairly new. Nobody really thought about single-shots as a serious option because there were NO manufactures of new rifles in the period 1950-1975 when the deer herd in the eastern US exploded. Now there are several and I think it is a good time to float the issue.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-inmar29,0,837999.story

Here is the story on a Pennsylvania study funded by their Game Department that shows rifle can be less dangerous than shotgun slugs.

Perhaps you can take that story to one of the Michigan pro-hunting groups and work with them.

good luck...

jim

Your gun haters may be in for a big surprise. Back in the 70's westbuhgawd passed a handgun hunting law-for a $10 license,of course. The liberal press decried it,claiming a return to 'the old West' would leave bodies lying around like fallen trees.

To my knowledge there has been only one fatality since. A turkey hunter was killed by his 'friend' using a .30 Herret Contender. About 6 months later, the 'friend' married the victim's wife! We all figgered it murder,but there wasn't enuff evidence to indict. He wound up being charged for misdemeanor negligent shooting tho we all knew it was murder.

Just a few years back the right to carry was passed. There are now thousands of legal concealed carry permit holders here. Again the press wailed "a return to Dodge City". Again, the only story of which I'm aware, a concealed carry permit holder (and a friend of mine) stopped an abduction at a local mall.

How do I know this? I used to be a Conservation Officer here.

I believe Bob Garner quit his position on the NRC but he'd be the one to contact. MUCC would be another avenue, call them and get a feel for how receptive they are to your idea. Your gonna need them on your side to be sucessful.

May be they could re-draw the zone into areas with low population densities.

I consulted with one person (forgot his name) and he said that knives cut both ways. His fear was that Liberals and Gun Control Cranks would use it as a restriction for those areas that already allow "rifle" hunting and are seeing population growth.

Yes, that is a possibility, but his answer had more of "Not invented here" and "I don't hear anybody else asking, so I don't need to act" feel than a considered judgement.

I have a dog in this fight, so I admit that I am biased. Overall, I think it would be good for gun rights if far more people in the mid-West and Eastern states had a '06, 308 and/or 270 bolt action sitting in their gun safe. It is a lot harder to legislate them away when 40% of your constituency will lose a $500 asset if you vote to make something illegal.

It is absolutely logical that they allow CFs for varmints but not for deer. For one thing, everyone knows that gophers don't fly, but deer? What would happen to Christmas if the truth ever got out?

Actually, having shot plenty of bullets out across vacant bodies of water (the Bering Sea), I know which ones bounce and keep going and going - and it isn't the smaller speedier ones. Those big, slow lumps of lead just go and go. It isn't how far a rifle can potentially shoot - any fool could launch them inappropriately at any time if that is the concern, whether legal or not- the real concern is bullets traveling far unintentionally. That could easily be remedied by certain bullet design and speed parameters which would render bullets unstable after first striking something and limiting their continued travel. Cup and core bullets fired at over 2800 fps, for example, are unlikely to go far after striking anything significant regardless their initial caliber to start with.

Here in the Southern Tier of New York rifles were legalized in certain counties in 2005. Despite the naysayers that forecast mass carnage, deer season has proven to be no more dangerous than in previous years, where we were restricetd to slugs, handguns, and muzzleloaders.
Will

If you're hunting on private land, who's gonna know what gun you're shooting? Get the picture?
_