PDA

View Full Version : HB 5416 (2009) Allow Use of Certain Firearms During Firearm Deer Season



PhotoTom
09-18-2009, 06:48 AM
HB 5416 of 2009 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5416)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow.

Introduced: 9/17/2009
Last Action: 9/22/2009 printed bill filed 09/18/2009

RSF
09-18-2009, 07:56 AM
Humm interesting

wJAKE19
09-18-2009, 09:45 AM
I've been waiting for this... I hope it passes. my .375win is looking forward to getting more time in the woods.

RSF
09-18-2009, 09:52 AM
my 357 marlin lever gun might get a work out now.

wJAKE19
09-18-2009, 10:02 AM
the 357 would be a fun gun too

dougwg
09-18-2009, 10:06 AM
So they opened up the shot gun zone to also be able to use the .357 and .44 mag lever guns, cool, a step it the right direction.

appliancebrad
09-18-2009, 10:21 AM
It's about time we recognized that if modern muzzle stuffers that can shoot rifle velocities and distances may be used that one can use at least a straight walled modern rifle cartridge.

wJAKE19
09-18-2009, 03:09 PM
looks like it is just in the house right now.. nothing passed yet!?!?!?
correct?

muddyboots
09-18-2009, 06:51 PM
First, I am new to website.
Second, I was author of HB5416 proposed to Rep. Matt Lori in 59th District in SW MI.

As you have seen, the bill was posted up today on MI website. The bill number is HB 5416 and it will have to be put through the House Journal for its first reading, and then be assigned to a committee, which will probably happen next week. Still a chance for this year but depends upon how much support it gets or opposition. Everyone still believes it will go through as written.

Please contact your representative and express support for HB 5416 and maybe we can get it through this year. Although there are plenty of sponsors for this bill, it wouldn't hurt to get more influence.

When you talk to your representative, please consider using the following arguments:

Indiana already allows pistol calibers in rifle configuration.

The current MI regulation allows the use of a handgun with straight wall pistol cartridge.

A rifle chambered in a pistol cartridge will provide a better opportunity to bring in youth and female hunters since the recoil from these cartridges will be significantly less than a 12 gauge or 20 gauge shotgun slug.

A rifle will be more accurate that a shotgun, thus, improve deer recovery. The reduced recoil will allow both youth and female hunters to shoot more accurately as well.

A pistol cartridge that is currently allowed under MI regulations in a rifle will not significantly change ballistics of same cartridge.

There is no cost or risk to MI for this change.

There will be economic benefit for new hunters, firearms, ammunition and tourism.

Thanks in advance to all that will contact legislative representatives to support this bill.

BTW - nice site!!
Regards,
Craig

hopeitsfast
09-18-2009, 07:24 PM
First, I am new to website.
Second, I was author of HB5416 proposed to Rep. Matt Lori in 59th District in SW MI.

As you have seen, the bill was posted up today on MI website. The bill number is HB 5416 and it will have to be put through the House Journal for its first reading, and then be assigned to a committee, which will probably happen next week. Still a chance for this year but depends upon how much support it gets or opposition. Everyone still believes it will go through as written.

Please contact your representative and express support for HB 5416 and maybe we can get it through this year. Although there are plenty of sponsors for this bill, it wouldn't hurt to get more influence.

When you talk to your representative, please consider using the following arguments:

Indiana already allows pistol calibers in rifle configuration.

The current MI regulation allows the use of a handgun with straight wall pistol cartridge.

A rifle chambered in a pistol cartridge will provide a better opportunity to bring in youth and female hunters since the recoil from these cartridges will be significantly less than a 12 gauge or 20 gauge shotgun slug.

A rifle will be more accurate that a shotgun, thus, improve deer recovery. The reduced recoil will allow both youth and female hunters to shoot more accurately as well.

A pistol cartridge that is currently allowed under MI regulations in a rifle will not significantly change ballistics of same cartridge.

There is no cost or risk to MI for this change.

There will be economic benefit for new hunters, firearms, ammunition and tourism.

Thanks in advance to all that will contact legislative representatives to support this bill.

BTW - nice site!!
Regards,
Craig
Glad to have you here and good work getting this bill as far as you have. :thup:

Done Deal
09-19-2009, 10:32 AM
Wow, I have a single shot .357 rifle and better yet, one of the old Ruger .44Mag semi's that hasn't seen a deer woods in years.

Unfortunately, I don't hunt hunt south of 57 any longer.

Good rule change though....for lots of reasons.

Pistol Teacher
09-19-2009, 11:15 PM
..

gjgalligan
09-20-2009, 09:52 AM
Is a 45/70 a straight walled cartridge? Isn't it tapered and if so would that remove it from the "straight" category?
A .35 isn't a straight walled cartridge.

devilsbite
09-20-2009, 05:20 PM
This would be fantastic! Especially because I just passed up buying a slug gun last week. I've been sweating that decision, now I'm glad I held onto my $$$.

My Marlin 1894 may actually see some woods now!

art
09-22-2009, 01:08 PM
Is a 45/70 a straight walled cartridge? Isn't it tapered and if so would that remove it from the "straight" category?
A .35 isn't a straight walled cartridge.
I asked the DNR to clarify, and a 45-70 is considered a straight walled cartridge.
Taper doesn't count.

remingtondude58
09-22-2009, 03:07 PM
45-70 is not out because of the taper, it is because of length.

rbethune
09-23-2009, 08:47 PM
This talking point:

"A pistol cartridge that is currently allowed under MI regulations in a rifle will not significantly change ballistics of same cartridge."

isn't accurate. On my chronograph, Hornady 180 grain HTP/XTP factory loads deliver 1700 fps from a 7.5" revolver barrel and 2230 fps from a 24" lever-action rifle. That's a significant difference: (2230-1700)/1700 = about 31%.

So let's not use that talking point.

PhotoTom
09-24-2009, 08:10 AM
Status updated in first post

Done Deal
09-25-2009, 07:24 AM
This talking point:

"A pistol cartridge that is currently allowed under MI regulations in a rifle will not significantly change ballistics of same cartridge."

isn't accurate. On my chronograph, Hornady 180 grain HTP/XTP factory loads deliver 1700 fps from a 7.5" revolver barrel and 2230 fps from a 24" lever-action rifle. That's a significant difference: (2230-1700)/1700 = about 31%.

So let's not use that talking point.

So true...

You can take a wadcutter out of a snubby that won't go through one side of a 55 gal drum and out of a rifle barrel will go through and through both sides.

MAJOR difference....

Quaamik
09-28-2009, 09:04 PM
(b) A .35 caliber or larger pistol capable of holding no more
than 9 shells at 1 time in the barrel and magazine combined
and loaded with straight-walled cartridges.

............

(d) A .35 caliber or larger rifle loaded with straight-walled
cartridges with a minimum case length of 1.16 inches and
a maximum case length of 1.80 inches.


It sounds good, as far as it goes, but I don't understand why we need a minimum length for cartridges from a rifle. Especially when it is not listed for pistols.

According to the Hornady reloading manual legal cartridges would include (case trim length):
.50 Beowulf (1.644 - 1.655)
.454 casull (1.380)
.45 colt (1.275)
.45 win mag (1.188 )
.44 mag (1.275)
.41 mag (1.280)
.357 mag (1.280)

Prohibited cartridges would include:
.45 ACP (0.893)
.44 special (1.150)
10 mm (0.985)
.40 S&W (0.840)
.38 special (1.145)
.38 super (0.890)
9 mm (0.744)

Now I understand the rational to limit the upper level to limit trajectories. And I understand wanting to ensure that individuals don't hunt with underpowered cartridges. But it seems pretty stupid to set up the law so that you can legaly hunt deer in zone 3 with a pistol in a one of the cartridges I listed under "prohibited" but not with a rifle in the same caliber.

Power wise, 10 mm easily exceeds .357 mag. .45 Super (admitadly not a common round) is the same dimension as .45 auto and also exceeds .357 mag in power. And I know several people who use, or have used, .45 ACP, 10 mm and .40S&W to take deer. In fact, out of the cartidges I listed, .38 special is the only one I would catagoricly dismiss from using to hunt deer (and I know of gentelmen who have dropped thier deer - legally - with .38 special).

Personaly I'd rather see no minimum listed. If they really feel a minimum is needed, I'd rather see a minimum power (energy or momentum) like some other states use.

For those who feel I'm nit-picking an improvement in the law: Maybe I am. And please don't get me wrong - I'd love to hunt with a rifle in .45 colt in zone 3. I proposed, and tried to get support for, changing the law to allow pistol calibers in rifles years ago (at that time everyone said a max cartridge length wouldn't work).

I'm just concerned that, once they use the minimum cartridge length to define what is acceptable for rounds out of a rifle in zone 3, someone will propose (and get support for) applying that to pistol cartidges as well - statewide. That would mean the end to handgun hunting with a semi auto in Michigan (there are only a few, very expensive, semi auto handguns that chamber cartriges with a case length over 1.16").

TFin04
09-28-2009, 09:19 PM
PLEASE give me an excuse to buy a 44 levergun!

What can us peons do to help move this along?

Clipper
09-29-2009, 06:35 AM
The minimum length requirement makes no sense at all when compared to the current pistol allowances. I too can see this as a first-rate opportunity to lose those calibers for handgun hunting, and I can not support the legislation as long as that restriction stays in it. I will be advising my legislators to oppose as long as it remains part of the bill.

wombat12
10-08-2009, 09:40 AM
Wildcatters and gunsmiths are going to love this! Dibs on a 45-70 cut to 1.8" out of a Marlin lever action or a .458 Win mag cut to 1.8" out of a short action bolt gun. Bet you can get over 3000 foot pounds out of either and relatively flat trajectory from either with a Barnes 300 gr sp.

Toledo Kid
10-08-2009, 12:00 PM
Yes Sir I seen this coming and its GREAT!!! As a matter fact traded my XD9 to a fella just this past weekend for a beautiful 1894 Marlin in 44 mag...

No reason why it shouldn't pass with flying colors. :thumbup:



PLEASE give me an excuse to buy a 44 levergun!


The 1894 makes a great urban assault rifle!!!

pkuptruck
10-08-2009, 12:08 PM
It sounds good, as far as it goes, but I don't understand why we need a minimum length for cartridges from a rifle. Especially when it is not listed for pistols.

According to the Hornady reloading manual legal cartridges would include (case trim length):
.50 Beowulf (1.644 - 1.655)
.454 casull (1.380)
.45 colt (1.275)
.45 win mag (1.188 )
.44 mag (1.275)
.41 mag (1.280)
.357 mag (1.280)

Prohibited cartridges would include:
.45 ACP (0.893)
.44 special (1.150)
10 mm (0.985)
.40 S&W (0.840)
.38 special (1.145)
.38 super (0.890)
9 mm (0.744)

Now I understand the rational to limit the upper level to limit trajectories. And I understand wanting to ensure that individuals don't hunt with underpowered cartridges. But it seems pretty stupid to set up the law so that you can legaly hunt deer in zone 3 with a pistol in a one of the cartridges I listed under "prohibited" but not with a rifle in the same caliber.

Power wise, 10 mm easily exceeds .357 mag. .45 Super (admitadly not a common round) is the same dimension as .45 auto and also exceeds .357 mag in power. And I know several people who use, or have used, .45 ACP, 10 mm and .40S&W to take deer. In fact, out of the cartidges I listed, .38 special is the only one I would catagoricly dismiss from using to hunt deer (and I know of gentelmen who have dropped thier deer - legally - with .38 special).

Personaly I'd rather see no minimum listed. If they really feel a minimum is needed, I'd rather see a minimum power (energy or momentum) like some other states use.

For those who feel I'm nit-picking an improvement in the law: Maybe I am. And please don't get me wrong - I'd love to hunt with a rifle in .45 colt in zone 3. I proposed, and tried to get support for, changing the law to allow pistol calibers in rifles years ago (at that time everyone said a max cartridge length wouldn't work).

I'm just concerned that, once they use the minimum cartridge length to define what is acceptable for rounds out of a rifle in zone 3, someone will propose (and get support for) applying that to pistol cartidges as well - statewide. That would mean the end to handgun hunting with a semi auto in Michigan (there are only a few, very expensive, semi auto handguns that chamber cartriges with a case length over 1.16").




yeah , I kind of see that as an issue as well. No real good reasonn to
exclude many of those calibers listed....:nono:

Hope that the over excited "it don't affect MY caliber" folks settle down
enough to see that..... :idea2:

45/70fan
10-08-2009, 03:12 PM
I'd like to see some of the oldies included like the 44-40 or 38-40 but they are not straight walled.

EricF517
10-08-2009, 05:25 PM
440 COR®BON 260gr BCHP 1650fps 1572ftlbs

Now there would be a fun round. That is out of a 6" barrel.

Quaamik
10-08-2009, 07:29 PM
.440 corbon is not straight walled either.

I hope that we can get this passed without the min length part.

EricF517
10-08-2009, 08:09 PM
OK be that way!!!

I will take
454 Casull 250gn @1650fps

muzzleloader
10-09-2009, 08:46 AM
lets hope it gets passed. My old Ruger .44 semi carries like a dream, but hasn't been in the woods in years.:prayer:

budd-e-knuckles
10-17-2009, 01:36 PM
The other way to go is to add a safety provision... so that they would not! be able to remove any of the current Handgun cartridges.

A "Cartridge addition only" provision would be OK with me.

Oh!........ PLEASE! pass.:prayer:

Rootsy
10-20-2009, 11:28 AM
I can see a new bolt gun in the works this winter / next spring if this passes..

Take one of the belted magnums, (300 Winchester Magnum for example) part it off @ 1.800, take most of the taper out and set it up for the appropriate projectile....

I reckon it's been done so I'll have to do some googlin...

Toledo Kid
10-20-2009, 11:49 AM
I can see a new bolt gun in the works this winter / next spring if this passes..

Take one of the belted magnums, (300 Winchester Magnum for example) part it off @ 1.800, take most of the taper out and set it up for the appropriate projectile....

I reckon it's been done so I'll have to do some googlin...Your a bit late>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.460_S%26W_Magnum

no need for a belt...

Done Deal
10-20-2009, 12:27 PM
Ya know....

Is anybody wondering about the chances of permitting a few more calibers below the rifle zone so it makes it easier to move the rifle zone further north like has been bandied about for years?

Rolex Dr.
10-20-2009, 12:41 PM
i would so put a .460 on my encore frame

hmmmmmm maybe a .44

hell i got 3 encores need one more suggestion

right now they are 2 ML and 1 20ga slug gun

Rootsy
10-20-2009, 01:49 PM
Your a bit late>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.460_S%26W_Magnum

no need for a belt...

Sure there is... Cause I want to use a rimless cartridge in a bolt gun... Not an encore or a lever, etc etc... I also don't want to headspace off of the case mouth...

I am also quite certain this isn't a "new" idea... And that it has been done before...

Quaamik
10-20-2009, 07:46 PM
Ya know....

Is anybody wondering about the chances of permitting a few more calibers below the rifle zone so it makes it easier to move the rifle zone further north like has been bandied about for years?


Possible, but the way Michigan is hemoraging people it's almost as likely to move the line for the rifle zone to Ohio.

I really think this is just a way to open up hunting opportunities and encourage more hunters. My only concern is to make sure that we don't wind up losing pistol cartridges we can currently use.

mechredd
10-20-2009, 07:56 PM
I hope this passes, then I'll finally have an excuse to buy a revolver cal lever gun. If Marlin would just offer one in .500 S&W.

greg531
10-20-2009, 08:50 PM
My Winchester Model 10, would be King of the woods again with the .401 Winchester if it's not too long....maybe the ammo people will do a special run.....!

budd-e-knuckles
10-21-2009, 10:50 PM
Think it might pass soon?............................. like by November 14,2009 ? :prayer:

wombat12
10-23-2009, 08:46 AM
I can see a new bolt gun in the works this winter / next spring if this passes..
Take one of the belted magnums, (300 Winchester Magnum for example) part it off @ 1.800, take most of the taper out and set it up for the appropriate projectile....
I reckon it's been done so I'll have to do some googlin...

The late Frank C. Barnes of Cartridges of the World, did extensive testing of the .458 Mag case cut down from 1.5" to 2". A light bolt action with a 20" barrel, .458 (or any other .511 base belted mag) cut to 1.8" and loaded with a Barnes 300gr TSX would be a world beater.

jacksdaddy06
10-23-2009, 01:24 PM
This may be a little off subject, but here goes. As I understand the current regs for hunting in Zone 3 with a legally registered handgun, straight walled cartridge, .35 caliber or larger, no more than 9 rds total. So, the Mech Tech system I just bought that converts my full size 1911 frame into a 16" carbine rifle should be legal to hunt deer with in Zone 3 if I choose to. I see no stipulation on bbl length or if it has a buttstock, correct? It's still a legally registered handgun under MI law, and falls into the correct definition under DNR regs, correct?

wombat12
10-23-2009, 08:19 PM
This may be a little off subject, but here goes. As I understand the current regs for hunting in Zone 3 with a legally registered handgun, straight walled cartridge, .35 caliber or larger, no more than 9 rds total. So, the Mech Tech system I just bought that converts my full size 1911 frame into a 16" carbine rifle should be legal to hunt deer with in Zone 3 if I choose to. I see no stipulation on bbl length or if it has a buttstock, correct? It's still a legally registered handgun under MI law, and falls into the correct definition under DNR regs, correct?

Interesting question. If the overall length with stock is between 26 and 30 inches, it is still a pistol under Michigan law. Over 30" with stock, and it is a rifle, regardless how the frame is registered.

pkuptruck
10-23-2009, 08:22 PM
Interesting question. If the overall length with stock is between 26 and 30 inches, it is still a pistol under Michigan law. Over 30" with stock, and it is a rifle, regardless how the frame is registered.


what if it has a collapsable stock, and COULD be under 30" ? I put an M4 stock on mine.... and so I had to ask!:banghead:

wombat12
10-24-2009, 07:55 AM
what if it has a collapsable stock, and COULD be under 30" ? I put an M4 stock on mine.... and so I had to ask!:banghead:

M4 stock on what? Keep in mind that it has to be a straight wall case, .35 caliber or greater.

pkuptruck
10-24-2009, 10:12 AM
M4 stock on what? Keep in mind that it has to be a straight wall case, .35 caliber or greater.


sorry. I was quoting a quote that was quoted....my bad...:smoke:

I have a mechtech 45acp carbine on my 1911. with a m4 type collapsable stock.. is this still a pistol according to the regs? The proposed new regs?

wombat12
10-24-2009, 11:06 AM
:smoke:

I have a mechtech 45acp carbine on my 1911. with a m4 type collapsable stock.. is this still a pistol according to the regs? The proposed new regs?

Length collapsed and fully extended?

Bestboss
10-26-2009, 09:05 PM
OK, help me out here please.
As I read the bill, it only opens a fairly small section of our zone 3, and it is as I read it, between the hwys 46 and 57.
I don't understand it as the entire zone 3 at all, and that is a big problem for most of us in zone 3. Am I missing a revision or something?
Thanks
Larry

MIBIGHNTR
10-27-2009, 02:39 PM
OK, help me out here please.
As I read the bill, it only opens a fairly small section of our zone 3, and it is as I read it, between the hwys 46 and 57.
I don't understand it as the entire zone 3 at all, and that is a big problem for most of us in zone 3. Am I missing a revision or something?
Thanks
Larry

Just went in and read it myself. They are describing any and all areas south of a line made up of all the mentioned roads. The "Rifle Line" if you will.

Boy would I love to see this pass prior to the 15th!!! :score: I have a Ruger Deerfield carbine that needs a workout!

Mark

Bestboss
10-27-2009, 02:54 PM
OK, now I got it. Yes........ That would be a great change. I have a bunch of rifles that could use some deer time!
Thanks
Larry

Karl
10-30-2009, 10:01 AM
There is no reason not to open zone 3 up to all rifles if you consider the real reason the restrictions were put in place in the first place. At the time the deer population in zone 3 was very low and in zones 1 and 2 very high. The restrictions were put in place to control harvest numbers, not for any safety reasons. I know some of you are shakin your heads right now but look at it this way- deer is the only furry thing that has firearm restrictions on it. Take yotes for example, hunt 'em with a rifle with no problem. Just deer. That comes from a retired DNR CO freind of mine who was around at the time and achieved a very high rank in the DNR, so he would be a guy who would know.

Done Deal
10-30-2009, 12:29 PM
Ok, but....lots of folks don't have a clue regarding the whys and what for's behind many of the regulations that are imposed. Even at that, some might say, "that was then and this is now" and "we have safety to think about".

Honestly, it doesn't much matter to me but....you gotta know that every round expended anywhere near a populated area or a school bus is going to be scrutinized. Granted, that is no reason to prohibit the proposed change but....we have alot of dip***** that can create quite a fuss.

budd-e-knuckles
11-01-2009, 09:55 PM
Any up dates yet?

budd-e-knuckles
11-06-2009, 10:02 AM
9 Days to go till "Opening Day"... what's the verdict? :bounce:

556fanatic
11-06-2009, 12:00 PM
hope this passes for my dad's sake

Bestboss
11-09-2009, 10:55 PM
Gonna be a lot of shotguns for sale soon. I HOPE!
Larry

mechredd
11-09-2009, 11:30 PM
What I find funny about hunting in zone 3 is all the open space that screams rifle. I hunt on a farm and could potentially take 500+ yard shots, but am restricted to about 150 yards with my slug gun.

I've also been to zones 1 and 2, and there are so many trees that it asks the question 'Why a rifle?"

pkuptruck
11-10-2009, 07:38 AM
What I find funny about hunting in zone 3 is all the open space that screams rifle. I hunt on a farm and could potentially take 500+ yard shots, but am restricted to about 150 yards with my slug gun.

I've also been to zones 1 and 2, and there are so many trees that it asks the question 'Why a rifle?"


yeah, but in zone 3, most of it is farm land and your shooting from a coup...
:brow: :poke: most times you can just strangle them when they come to eat from your hands....:spiral: Just kidding!

dont really make any sense... but then again, neither do the trout size limits
anymore.... :hot:

but it will get better when the DNR merges with DEQ...right? right? :barf:

One of Many
11-10-2009, 11:33 AM
Most states that have shotgun restricted zones do so in order to minimize the danger from missed shots traveling long distances (several miles). Open ground, with very few trees and slightly rolling terrain with no hills, does not provide a backstop for shots that miss the intended target. Shotguns typically have much shorter range than rifles and handguns, so they are mandated for safety reasons.

Areas with dense populations will also restrict rifles for the same reason, even when there are terrain features that seem to provide a safe backstop in specific locations. That may be because of the possibility of someone walking out from behind a terrain feature into the line of fire just as the shooter lets go a round at the animal.

Handgun cartridges typically fall between the shotgun and rifle as far as potential range of travel if a bullet misses the target. It has always seemed strange to me that Michigan allows handguns for hunting in the shotgun zone, as it seems to be contradictory to the purpose of limiting long range damage from missed shots.

If every shooter was always aware of where their bullets will impact when they miss the target, and only fired when a safe backstop was present, then laws to restrict hunting to shotguns and archery would not be necessary. We all know that many hunters are not safe shooters, so we have to put up with restrictions because of the history of accidental injuries and deaths caused by careless hunters, and property damage in residential areas.

Opening up the shotgun zone to handgun calibers fired from a rifle, only makes sense when you consider that the accuracy potential of the rifle is greater than that of the handgun that fires the exact same cartridge. That greater accuracy should produce fewer missed shots and reduce the risk of long range damage from missed shots fired from handguns. On the other hand, it is highly likely that many more hunters will be in the fields with those rifles, than would be in the field with a handgun firing the same cartridge, so it may be a case of "six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other" when it comes to total injuries and damages from missed shots.

45/70fan
11-10-2009, 06:34 PM
My understanding of the regulation limiting shotguns in zone 3 has nothing to do with the downrange distance a projectile would travel. Rather, the regulations were written when the deer population in the zone 3 area was low and the DNR wanted to limit the number of deer that could be killed but still sell the licenses.

Karl
11-12-2009, 10:22 AM
see my above post on page 6.

45/70fan
11-12-2009, 10:37 AM
see my above post on page 6.

I see that, guess we got the info from the same source.

mechredd
11-17-2009, 10:16 PM
I just got back from an unsuccessful hunting trip.

The whole time I was there I couldn't stop thinking about what rifle I would want if this law passes. I was considering a rifle chambered in 460 s&w, but then a 450 bushmaster upper came to mind. The 450 with 20 inch barrel is comparable to a .50 cal muzzleloader with a 250 gr bullet over 150 grains of powder.

Muzzleloader performance out of a semi-auto rifle sounds good to me.

What do you guys think?

Bestboss
11-18-2009, 08:25 AM
I think I have several leverguns that will handle pistol cartridges. Any one of them would be a lot more fun than the heavy 870 I have been carrying around this week. The pistol carbines would be a lot better for several reasons, not the least of which is handling. I just hope they write the law so I could use my older 38-40's and 44-40's. It would be a shame to leave them out.
Larry

hawkeyee
11-18-2009, 10:51 PM
Glad to have you here and good work getting this bill as far as you have. :thup:









Thanks for the bill! Great job !

Hemingway1
11-24-2009, 10:13 AM
I just spoke with Lori's office this morning. They said the big hold up is the DNR who is fighting this tooth and nail. The DNR sent a letter to Lori's office stating that the change to include selected rifle calibers would be dangerous. Why the DNR cares one way or the other is beyond me. Call the DNR and voice your opinion? Who knows. His office said this issue is not dropped but on the back burner for now due to the budget. As usual, I am sure that there is more to the story.

Hem

Bestboss
11-24-2009, 08:16 PM
Does anyone have a contact name and/or nmber at the DNR? Also, do we know what the objections are?
Thanks
Larry

TFin04
11-25-2009, 12:54 PM
I have a Marlin 44 lever gun ready to go, who do we contact to work on this?

art
11-27-2009, 06:21 PM
I just spoke with Lori's office this morning. They said the big hold up is the DNR who is fighting this tooth and nail. The DNR sent a letter to Lori's office stating that the change to include selected rifle calibers would be dangerous. Why the DNR cares one way or the other is beyond me. Call the DNR and voice your opinion? Who knows. His office said this issue is not dropped but on the back burner for now due to the budget. As usual, I am sure that there is more to the story.
Hem
This should piss everybody off. Since when is the dnr there to make policy like this?
I thought the were there to do our bidding!

caribouhunter
12-10-2009, 06:55 PM
I got this link back from my representative - I guess the DNR posts its positions on all bills. Thanks to the office of Eileen Kowall.

http://www.michigandnr.com/legislationdocs/position/HB%205416%20Analysis_09.htm


I guess the DNR thinks that people are not already using rifles in zone 3. My guess is that 40% of the gun shots I hear in Unit 047 are from rifles.


Link to the summary page of DNR positions.
http://www.michigandnr.com/legislationdocs/

budd-e-knuckles
12-10-2009, 07:26 PM
The "cons" against riffle in zone-3 are absurd... to say it would be extensively hard to keep policed by the DRN is foolish, laziness!... they don't have any trouble with setting magazine limits... it would be no more difficult than checking a mag'... they're nothing but liberal skunks! in green clothing.:bs:

Quack Addict
12-11-2009, 02:26 PM
http://www.michigandnr.com/legislationdocs/position/HB%205416%20Analysis_09.htm

Thanks for the link - had not seen that yet.


Please allow my commentary on some content from the linked document:


Due to their extended range, there is a perception that rifles would present a safety problem if used in the heavily populated areas of southern Michigan during the firearm deer hunting season. This proposed change is likely to result in more requests by counties and townships for hunting restrictions in populated counties.

BUNK. The cartridges the proposed legislation aims to include DO NOT have ballistics superior to many *legal* sabot shotgun slugs currently on the market. I'll leave modern ML's out of that argument, for now, as that's a TOTALLY different can of worms but still an extremely valid argument.


Enforceability will be difficult. With a clear prohibition against the use of centerfire rifles in the shotgun zone for firearm deer hunting, the regulation is simple, easily understood and enforceable. Except for muzzleloading firearms, all rifles are prohibited for deer hunting in this area.

More BS. Allowing the use of certain pistol cases in rifles during deer season is no more confusing than the current PISTOL regs in place for firearm and ML deer hunting. Seems like a SIMPLE step gauge to check case length with a hole or slot to use as a go/nogo for diameter would be all thats needed to sort out questionable cartridges if the legislation was signed. I recall back when I was a kid one of the streams we use to trout/salmon fish on had a 3/8" single hook requirement. Easy enough to tell the difference between a single and a double/treble hook I guess (being facetious there) but the CO's were smart enough to figure out they could use one of their 38 Spl slugs (cripes am I that old!) as a gauge. If the bullet fit between the hook and the shank of the hook, it warranted closer examination.

If the DNR is SO worried about causing confusion, they should read their own freaking hunting guide...

I honestly don't feel our CO's are dopes. They are proficient at sorting out non-toxic shot used for waterfowl hunting, much of which isn't magnetic (even finding lead reloaded into bismuth hulls from what I've read in the bi-weekly reports). If I were a CO, I'd be a little insulted by Director Humphries' letter - seeing how she is so concerned about her CO's getting the pistol cartridge in a rifle thing wrong.


Any movement to introduce exemptions for rifles chambering pistol cartridges would create unnecessary complexity and inconsistency in the regulation and would complicate enforcement immensely.

Oh, like the current staggered ML season dates... staggered waterfowl dates... the sacred "Zones" which do not align with the "shotgun" line. Baiting in the UP but not in the LP, doe permits, I could go on... an on... (and on) but I think most hunters catch my drift.


The Department has historically opposed this change in legislation out of concern that a rifle-hunting perception may cause more counties and townships to ask for additional, more restrictive local hunting controls.

99.9% of gun non-gunowners can't tell the difference between a shotgun and a rifle: to them a gun is a gun, but for some reason "black guns" are extra bad. If it's "perception" that the DNR is worried about (they mention it twice), they should read their own letter and clarify why readers of it should not perceive them as being LAZY and LAX in their arguments for opposing the proposed legislation.

/endrant


(on edit - clarified some points)

Quaamik
12-13-2009, 04:15 PM
Enforceability will be difficult. With a clear prohibition against the use of centerfire rifles in the shotgun zone for firearm deer hunting, the regulation is simple, easily understood and enforceable. Except for muzzleloading firearms, all rifles are prohibited for deer hunting in this area.

Well if the lower limit on case length was eliminated, it would be a lot easier to check.

If both upper and lower limits on case length were eliminated it would be even easier.

So lets suggest tot he legislature to make the enforcement "easier" on the DNR.

Before thinking the upper limit would allow too powerful / long range of calibers, look at the actual capabilities of modern muzzleloaders and shotguns with sabots. Velocities of 2300 fps are possible with modern muzzeloaders. 3 1/2" 12 gauge saboted slug loads cna reach 1800 fps. For comparison, the .45-70 with 400 gr bulltes will give a similar tragectory to a modern saboted shotgun slug.

buckey
12-26-2009, 08:58 PM
Whats the chances that this bill will pass and what can a person do to help make this happen.......................TX Buckey

papabear
01-11-2010, 01:50 PM
Any news on this?

buckey
01-11-2010, 06:40 PM
I sent off a note to the outdoor writer of the Grand Rapids Press last week and haven't heard a thing from him at at all. Maybe some one else can bump him on this topic,let him know there is interest. Need a volunteer can some one help out?

stroo
01-12-2010, 02:07 PM
My bro-in-law works for the legislature so I asked him to find out the latest on HB 5416 and this his reply:

"OK, so on that house bill you sent me regarding pistol caliber rifles, since it was introduced during the current legislative session that expires on 12/31/10, the bill is still active and has been assigned to the House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources. BUT, it has not been taken up by the committee yet. Typically, it will be the subject of some public hearings. Those are sometimes just in Lansing at the Capitol, and sometimes they take them on a traveling road show. It kind of depends on how controversial it is, but usually on how the chairperson of the committee feels. They are publicized, but not terribly well. Anyone can go on the Michigan House website and sign up to get email notifications of committee meetings. That's the easiest way to get notice. You can get all of the committees, or just select those you're interested in. The easiest way to find that site is to Google Michigan House of Representatives. The committee notification sign up should be on the Committee tab on that page.

You can get updates on the bill status by going to: //legislature dot mi dot gov/. If you enter the bill number in the appropriate area, it will bring up the bill language and show the history of the legislation at the bottom of the page. If any reports are done you will find clickable links in that area."

My post count too low to post links so I had to strip out some of the info. Hopefully it can be figured out.
Let's keep up on this guys!!!

jbizel1
01-13-2010, 02:29 AM
Sounds like the bill needs some help

gman
01-19-2010, 12:14 PM
It sounds to me by reading alot of these post's that alot of people don't realize that we can currently hunt in zone three with any straight wall cartridge regardless of length as long as you use a pistol. I have a single shot Encore with a .444 barrel in 15" length that will probably not be able to be used once they put a restriction on the length. If I had ordered an 18" barrel, ballistically I could match my Marlin guide gun and currently be legally using it. There's no restriction on barrel length and there's no restriction on cartridge length, but this will all change once this bill passes, I'm sure of that. Why would they restrict your rifles to a pistol caliber and let you keep the pistol you currently legally use and be able to shoot straight wall rifle cartridges out of an 18" or even 20" or 22" pistol barrel.

You know the saying "Watch what you wish for"

For all those guys that posted that they can see a new rifle in their future, I say this...you could spend that money on a revolver or pistol of any straight wall configuration instead and currently use it, no need to change the law so you can by a new rifle. Besides, I love the challange of using the pistol for deer so much that I already sold the Marlin lever that I had in .444 and now I have a .444 that I can use throughout the state, and I didn't need the law to be changed to do it.

Gary

Atheist
01-22-2010, 01:38 PM
I don't really understand why people hunt with such weird guns. I think for the sake of the animal you should use a nice, accurate, powerful rifle (where allowed)

dw1911
01-22-2010, 03:09 PM
I don't really understand why people hunt with such weird guns. I think for the sake of the animal you should use a nice, accurate, powerful rifle (where allowed)

Can you explain "WEIRD GUNS" What cart rifle cartridges do you think are not acceptable? The 444 is an extremely powerful cartridge with in 150-200 yards. Are talking about the 30-30 or what? Because I was taken back with a comment on Tuesday by some older(75year oldish) hunter that was looking at a 30-30 Marlin and stated: " The 30-30 is such an obsolete cartridge that has wounded an maimed more deer than any other round that it should be banned. I said to him the cartridges do not wound or maim deer irresponsible hunters do....

gman
01-24-2010, 06:48 PM
"WEIRD GUNS" I would like an explanation too! Can't figure what's weird about shooting my deer hunting rig.:rotate:

Gary

Done Deal
01-24-2010, 06:57 PM
I don't really understand why people hunt with such weird guns. I think for the sake of the animal you should use a nice, accurate, powerful rifle (where allowed)

I don't understand your screen name either but....why don't you volunteer to hold the target for my Ruger .44 Mag Sporter to fling some weird lead at the weird targets?

There never has been a deer shot with it that did not die and die in a hurry. What is weird about that?

ChaneyD
01-31-2010, 11:03 AM
It's about time we recognized that if modern muzzle stuffers that can shoot rifle velocities and distances may be used that one can use at least a straight walled modern rifle cartridge.

It's about time. Even if it passes we'd still be outgunned by the in-lines.

MrSmithMSU
02-02-2010, 12:54 PM
I would switch from my in-line to a pistol-caliber rifle in a heartbeat. Then I don't have to wait for the smoke cloud to clear before I can see if my deer went down, or which direction it ran in!

longshotbml
02-02-2010, 01:59 PM
I contacted Matt Lori who originally sponsored the bill after getting no where with my state rep. Here are copies of the correspondance:

12/28/2009 5:18 PM
Mr. Lori when are we going to see some movement on
HB 5416? The hunters of MIchigan are waiting. This would be a great step forward in herd management in southern lower Michigan.

Thanks
Dr. Brian M. Long



Rep. Matt Lori (District 59) Jan 7
Dr Long,
Working on it, DNR opposed at this time...trying to show evidence otherwise before the bill goes to committee....

Matt



Kind of a vague response but he is pointing to the problem being the DNR. Has anyone seen any comment as to what the DNR opposition is?

gman
02-02-2010, 10:37 PM
I would switch from my in-line to a pistol-caliber rifle in a heartbeat. Then I don't have to wait for the smoke cloud to clear before I can see if my deer went down, or which direction it ran in!

Why do you have to wate to use a pistol cartridge, just get a scoped handgun now and put the smoke pole away. Are some of you people afraid to try and hunt with a pistol for God sake?

MrSmithMSU
02-04-2010, 02:32 PM
Why do you have to wate to use a pistol cartridge, just get a scoped handgun now and put the smoke pole away. Are some of you people afraid to try and hunt with a pistol for God sake?
Friend, take a couple of deep breaths! How do you know that I haven't?

Man, it's like I insulted your mom or something. Aren't you at least glad that I'm out there hunting, regardless of the weapon being used?

gman
02-04-2010, 11:27 PM
Friend, take a couple of deep breaths! How do you know that I haven't?

Man, it's like I insulted your mom or something. Aren't you at least glad that I'm out there hunting, regardless of the weapon being used?

Dude, I think it's great you're out there hunting, I just hate to see so many hunters getting behind a bill that could lead to more limitations to the choices we currently have as handgun hunters.

So, after trying handgun hunting, what was the reason(s) you decided to give it up? I was hooked the day I pulled that trigger and will never turn back unless the law tells me down the road that my selection of barrels are no longer allowed because the are rifle cartridges and are too long to meet the requirements for hunting in zone 3 with a straight wall cartridge.

Gary

redhawk44
03-26-2010, 12:27 PM
on the proposed legislation to allow the use of rifles shooting straight wall pistol cartridges for deer hunting in zone 3 during the firearms deer season?

buckey
03-27-2010, 07:10 PM
I kinda would like to know also?

Bestboss
03-30-2010, 07:15 AM
I believe Indiana finally changed their long standing shotgun only status to include these poodle shooters. During that time I advocated to the DNR of that state, that they include the 38-40 and 44-40. Maybe not important to some, but there a lot of fine old rifles out there and a lot of cowboy action shooters that would like to hunt their rifles. I don't know how that went.
I would like to see this legislation encouraged as long as it does not detract from the existing use of handguns or the use of rifles used for varmints in the off season. Gotta watch every word in any legislation.
Larry

buckey
04-21-2010, 07:26 PM
Any one heard anything on this one.

august451
04-21-2010, 10:31 PM
Any one heard anything on this one.

if you go to the link at the top of the page it says that the bill was refered to commitee and has not been been updated since, i am guessing that it is dead in comitee but i dont know that for sure.

langenc
04-24-2010, 02:07 PM
Talk about some of the 'other bills' also.

Elimination of CEZs and SoS issue of CPLS-long over due--ALL THREE.

Tallbear
10-08-2010, 08:00 PM
I'll be in a meeting Monday with the DNRE to try and get them on board to support this bill. Once this is accomplished the bill should pass by the end of the year. Not in time for this season, but next year we'll be good to go. I'll try to report back after the meeting with more info.



I contacted Matt Lori who originally sponsored the bill after getting no where with my state rep. Here are copies of the correspondance:

12/28/2009 5:18 PM
Mr. Lori when are we going to see some movement on
HB 5416? The hunters of MIchigan are waiting. This would be a great step forward in herd management in southern lower Michigan.

Thanks
Dr. Brian M. Long



Rep. Matt Lori (District 59) Jan 7
Dr Long,
Working on it, DNR opposed at this time...trying to show evidence otherwise before the bill goes to committee....

Matt



Kind of a vague response but he is pointing to the problem being the DNR. Has anyone seen any comment as to what the DNR opposition is?

dougwg
10-08-2010, 08:24 PM
Thank you Mike!

remingtondude58
10-10-2010, 12:02 AM
Thanks!

Tallbear
10-11-2010, 01:21 PM
Meeting went well today. But, this won't happen this year. More work needs to be done. I'll keep you posted when I get more up dates.

Quaamik
10-17-2010, 01:15 PM
Meeting went well today. But, this won't happen this year. More work needs to be done. I'll keep you posted when I get more up dates.

Can you give any idea of what additional work needs to be done?

Since it won't happen this year it's my understanding the bill has to be re-introduced next year. Is there any chance to get some of the concerns voiced here addressed?:
--wording does not allow calibers such as 9mm, 40, 10mm, .45 ACP
--reasurance / gaurantee that those same calibers won't wind up being prohibited in pistols

Tallbear
10-17-2010, 01:55 PM
No prohibitions indicated. Working on support from others besides DNRE.



Can you give any idea of what additional work needs to be done?

Since it won't happen this year it's my understanding the bill has to be re-introduced next year. Is there any chance to get some of the concerns voiced here addressed?:
--wording does not allow calibers such as 9mm, 40, 10mm, .45 ACP
--reasurance / gaurantee that those same calibers won't wind up being prohibited in pistols

(Sorry about the edit notification......hit the wrong button.)

Quaamik
10-17-2010, 03:55 PM
Tallbear,

I'm not sure I understand the response. Do you mean there is no indication that they will attempt to prohibit calibers I listed from being used in pistols to hunt deer or that they won't be prohibited (still) in long guns in Zone 3 if this passes?

The last version of the bill I read sets a lower floor for cartidge case length in long guns that will not allow long guns in those cartridges to be used in zone 3. In and of itself, that is annoying for those who want to hunt using a long gun in one of those calibers. It would be nice to change if the bill is re-introduced.

What is more worrysome is that if the limits are allowed to stand, that they may at some future date be extended to the rest of the state and / or to pistols. It makes logical sense: if these cartridges are "too weak" or "too small" to use in a rifle to hunt deer in zone 3, why should they be allowed in zones 1 & 2? Why should they be allowed in pistols in any zone (producing less energy in a pistol than a rifle)? Eliminating that bottom floor removes that future arguement. Failing that, what arguement can be made to keep those cartridges legal in pistols and in zones 1 & 2?

I'm hoping this bill can be passed (I'd love to hunt in zone 3 with a lever action rifle) but I'm very concerned that it will set the groundwork to limit what pistol cartridges can be used to take deer with no good science behind it. An energy floor I can understand - a cartridge size floor I cannot.

golwise
01-06-2011, 06:03 PM
Has this thing stalled? Haven't heard much about it recently. Seems like now would be a good time to jack up our representatives; maybe get something going for next year.

I also have a several woods guns with which it would be fun to hunt. Any info out there?

Good Old Lenny

buckey
01-10-2011, 02:50 AM
IS there still a plan in place to get this bill going.

Tallbear
01-10-2011, 09:12 AM
MUCC and I are working with the DNR to make this change so, legislation may not be necessary.

buckey
01-10-2011, 06:49 PM
Thanks tallbear, I'm often asked by people that have heard that this might happen if I've heard anything new. This is one law that's overdue.

langenc
01-11-2011, 01:45 PM
When you talk to your representative, please consider using the following arguments:

Indiana already allows pistol calibers in rifle configuration.

The current MI regulation allows the use of a handgun with straight wall pistol cartridge.

A rifle chambered in a pistol cartridge will provide a better opportunity to bring in youth and female hunters since the recoil from these cartridges will be significantly less than a 12 gauge or 20 gauge shotgun slug.

A rifle will be more accurate that a shotgun, thus, improve deer recovery. The reduced recoil will allow both youth and female hunters to shoot more accurately as well.

A pistol cartridge that is currently allowed under MI regulations in a rifle will not significantly change ballistics of same cartridge.

There is no cost or risk to MI for this change.

There will be economic benefit for new hunters, firearms, ammunition and tourism.

Thanks in advance to all that will contact legislative representatives to support this bill.
\



ALSO TELL THEM WE WOULD LIKE TO GET RID OF REGISTRATION!! Hitler loved registration.

gman
01-12-2011, 11:02 AM
When you talk to your representative, please consider using the following arguments:

Indiana already allows pistol calibers in rifle configuration.

The current MI regulation allows the use of a handgun with straight wall pistol cartridge.

A rifle chambered in a pistol cartridge will provide a better opportunity to bring in youth and female hunters since the recoil from these cartridges will be significantly less than a 12 gauge or 20 gauge shotgun slug.

A rifle will be more accurate that a shotgun, thus, improve deer recovery. The reduced recoil will allow both youth and female hunters to shoot more accurately as well.

A pistol cartridge that is currently allowed under MI regulations in a rifle will not significantly change ballistics of same cartridge.

There is no cost or risk to MI for this change.

There will be economic benefit for new hunters, firearms, ammunition and tourism.

Thanks in advance to all that will contact legislative representatives to support this bill.
\



ALSO TELL THEM WE WOULD LIKE TO GET RID OF REGISTRATION!! Hitler loved registration.


"The current MI regulation allows the use of a handgun with straight wall pistol cartridge." Actually, more correctly stated, MI law currently alows use of ALL straight wall cartridges in pistols, not just pistol cartridges

GD

pkuptruck
01-12-2011, 11:03 AM
"The current MI regulation allows the use of a handgun with straight wall pistol cartridge." Actually, more correctly stated, MI law currently alows use of ALL straight wall cartridges in pistols, not just pistol cartridges

GD


a very important distinction..... :yeahthat:

buckey
01-12-2011, 07:08 PM
Tallbear, What kind of timetable would you say we're looking at to make this happen. TX. Buckey

Tallbear
01-12-2011, 08:18 PM
Tallbear, What kind of timetable would you say we're looking at to make this happen. TX. Buckey

Hoping to have this in place for this years season.

GregK
01-13-2011, 09:15 AM
I just picked up a very nice scoped Ruger Super Blackhawk Bisley Hunter 44 mag & I am just waiting to buy a Marlin 1894 44 mag rifle to complete the package. I sure hope this bill passes!

45/70fan
01-13-2011, 09:55 AM
I would like to see it come into law also with a couple of changes:
Minimum cal-.357 bullet dia not just 35 cal, this would stop the use of 380 and 9mm. Allow the use of bottle neck pistol cartridges 44-40 and 38-40. Maybe a list of acceptable pistol cartridges would be the best way to go, that would rule out rifle cartridges that get pistols chambered for them.
357 Mag
357 Max
357 Sig
38-40 Win
10MM/40 S&W
41 Mag
44-40 Win
44 Mag/spl
45 Schofield
45 Colt
454 Casull
460,475,480 and 500.

Maybe base the rules on a minimum/maximum case length,bullet weight, energy factor at the muzzle.

Yes, I left the 38 spl off the list because it is comparable to the 9mm and both I feel are inadequate for deer hunting.

pkuptruck
01-13-2011, 10:00 AM
I would like to see it come into law also with a couple of changes:
Minimum cal-.357 bullet dia not just 35 cal, this would stop the use of 380 and 9mm. Allow the use of bottle neck pistol cartridges 44-40 and 38-40. Maybe a list of acceptable pistol cartridges would be the best way to go, that would rule out rifle cartridges that get pistols chambered for them.
357 Mag
357 Max
357 Sig
38-40 Win
10MM/40 S&W
41 Mag
44-40 Win
44 Mag/spl
45 Schofield
45 Colt
454 Casull
460,475,480 and 500.

Maybe base the rules on a minimum/maximum case length,bullet weight, energy factor at the muzzle.

Yes, I left the 38 spl off the list because it is comparable to the 9mm and both I feel are inadequate for deer hunting.



what about the 30 carbine? Ruger makes a blacjhawk and redhawk.... and AMT made a semi-auto in that caliber...?

just my 2 cents?

45/70fan
01-13-2011, 10:16 AM
what about the 30 carbine? Ruger makes a blacjhawk and redhawk.... and AMT made a semi-auto in that caliber...?

just my 2 cents?

The 30 carbine is totally lacking in energy sufficient for deer hunting besides it is .308 dia.,well below even current acceptable minimum dia.

gman
01-13-2011, 11:54 AM
I would like to see it come into law also with a couple of changes:
Minimum cal-.357 bullet dia not just 35 cal, this would stop the use of 380 and 9mm. Allow the use of bottle neck pistol cartridges 44-40 and 38-40. Maybe a list of acceptable pistol cartridges would be the best way to go, that would rule out rifle cartridges that get pistols chambered for them.
357 Mag
357 Max
357 Sig
38-40 Win
10MM/40 S&W
41 Mag
44-40 Win
44 Mag/spl
45 Schofield
45 Colt
454 Casull
460,475,480 and 500.

Maybe base the rules on a minimum/maximum case length,bullet weight, energy factor at the muzzle.

Yes, I left the 38 spl off the list because it is comparable to the 9mm and both I feel are inadequate for deer hunting.

If you're going to base it on the list of cartridges you have here, then we should ask them to simplify it and go w/ the same any straight wall cartrige 35 cal or larger rules that are in place for hand guns. I can tell you that these 460,475,480 and 500 cartridges you listed has a higher energy level than the .444marlin that I use in my Encore pistol, so why exclude the .444 and 45/70 (which I see you're a fan of) just because they might be a longer case and not originally developed as a hand gun round?

ChaneyD
01-13-2011, 01:16 PM
Yes, I left the 38 spl off the list because it is comparable to the 9mm and both I feel are inadequate for deer hunting.

9mm is NOT comparible to .38 spl. 9mm has TWICE the energy of a .38.

stroo
01-14-2011, 06:50 PM
9mm is NOT comparible to .38 spl. 9mm has TWICE the energy of a .38.

Let's keep this on topic for getting law passed first, it's hard enough trying things like this passed as it is without adding even more details. The opposition is already saying it will be too hard to enforce...

Quaamik
01-14-2011, 09:33 PM
I would like to see it come into law also with a couple of changes:
Minimum cal-.357 bullet dia not just 35 cal, this would stop the use of 380 and 9mm. Allow the use of bottle neck pistol cartridges 44-40 and 38-40. Maybe a list of acceptable pistol cartridges would be the best way to go, that would rule out rifle cartridges that get pistols chambered for them.
357 Mag
357 Max
357 Sig
38-40 Win
10MM/40 S&W
41 Mag
44-40 Win
44 Mag/spl
45 Schofield
45 Colt
454 Casull
460,475,480 and 500.

Maybe base the rules on a minimum/maximum case length,bullet weight, energy factor at the muzzle.

Yes, I left the 38 spl off the list because it is comparable to the 9mm and both I feel are inadequate for deer hunting.

A couple of things:

Part of the problems that hunters have is trying to deal with some well intentioned idea of what constitutes an acceptable hunting round / gun and what doesn't. Yes, we have to consider what can humanely take a given game animal. However, some of the cartridges you leave off your list are legal now in pistols (for deer hunting) and we don't see rash of deer wounded from inadequate cartridges (inadequate shot placement maybe...). Many cartridges that 30 - 40 - 50 years ago were considered far to anemic to take deer have since been used in many states and proven effective (within reason).

As a comparison, you feel justified with prohibiting 9mm because its comparable to the .38 special. Let's look at that:
Cor-Bon
9mm 124 gr JHP: 1250 fps / 434 ft-lb at the muzzle
.38 special+P 125 gr JHP: 950 fps / 250 ft-lb at the muzzle.
I don't think that almost double the energy is "comparable".

So let's look at another comparison. You stated that .30 carbine isn't adequate for deer. So let's look at it compared to two cartridges you list: .357 mag and 41 mag.:
Cor-Bon
.357 mag 125 gr JHP: 1400 fps / 544 ft-lb at the muzzle
.41 mag 170 gr JHP: 1275 fps / 614 ft-lb at the muzzle
Remington
.30 Carbine 110 gr Soft Point: 1990 fps / 967 ft-lbs at the muzzle
So.........which cartridge is inadequate for deer?

How about .40S&W (which you approve of) vs .45 ACP+P (not on your list)?
Cor-Bon
.40 S&W 135 gr JHP: 1325 fps / 526 ft-lb at the muzzle
.45 ACP+P 165 gr JHP: 1250 fps / 573 ft-lbs at the muzzle
Hmmmmm....... fairly comparable. And considering that the .45 ACP+P comes in with more energy than .40 S&W or .357 mag, I have trouble understanding your rational for not including it.

This just highlights the problem with trying to legislate one thing (effective killing power on a game animal) by creating an acceptance criteria based on something only loosly related that's easy to enforce.

If we are trying to get long guns allowed in zone 3, and think that pistol cartridges are the only way it will go through (or are all that is safe in zone 3), we owe it to the hunters currently using handguns in all 3 zones to make the limit the same as currently on handguns. If we are attempting to make a small selection of visually innoffensive rifles legal, while prohibiting the "non-traditional" and "ugly black" guns, then I think we are on the wrong track.

Tallbear
01-14-2011, 09:50 PM
These bills are dead. What I'm working on is getting this done through the DNR so the "Legislators" can't screw it up.

I should know more by this time next month. What we have asked for is simple....Current hand gun calibers in rifles in zone 3.




This just highlights the problem with trying to legislate one thing (effective killing power on a game animal) by creating an acceptance criteria based on something only loosly related that's easy to enforce.

If we are trying to get long guns allowed in zone 3, and think that pistol cartridges are the only way it will go through (or are all that is safe in zone 3), we owe it to the hunters currently using handguns in all 3 zones to make the limit the same as currently on handguns. If we are attempting to make a small selection of visually innoffensive rifles legal, while prohibiting the "non-traditional" and "ugly black" guns, then I think we are on the wrong track.

art
01-14-2011, 10:08 PM
What we have asked for is simple....Current hand gun calibers in rifles in zone 3.
Current handgun calibers meaning industry recognized handgun calibers, or straight walled cartridges as defined in the dnr guide book?

Quaamik
01-14-2011, 10:26 PM
Tallbear, thanks.

Quack Addict
01-15-2011, 01:56 AM
These bills are dead. What I'm working on is getting this done through the DNR so the "Legislators" can't screw it up.

I should know more by this time next month. What we have asked for is simple....Current hand gun calibers in rifles in zone 3.


Still keeping my fingers x'd on this, and I think I like what I'm hearing...

An acquaintance of mine that works with one of the well known slug manufacturers recently stated technology on their end is setting the bar even higher on shotgun slugs this season (or next). If long gun laws aren't relaxed in Zone 3, I have to ask when we will start seeing shogtun (and ML) restrictions in the same?

mechredd
01-15-2011, 02:11 AM
I'm still hoping to use a .450 bushy upper on zone 3 deer.

Tallbear
01-15-2011, 06:51 AM
Current handgun calibers meaning industry recognized handgun calibers, or straight walled cartridges as defined in the dnr guide book?

Current handgun calibers as defined by the DNR.

stroo
01-15-2011, 11:20 AM
I'm still hoping to use a .450 bushy upper on zone 3 deer.
I love my .450 and it has very close ballistics to modern muzzle loaders so there really is no reason to not allow it. I love my muzzle loaders but the just aren't consistent enough to be confident on a vital area shot beyond 150 yards.

45/70fan
01-16-2011, 07:24 PM
Current handgun calibers as defined by the DNR.

That should give us a real cluster xxxx to deal with.

Tallbear
01-16-2011, 07:44 PM
That should give us a real cluster xxxx to deal with.

How so???

Quaamik
01-16-2011, 09:34 PM
Just a guess from 45/70 fan's moniker, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he thinks it'll be a cluster because .45-70 meets the definition of a "pistol cartridge" under the current regulations.

gman
01-16-2011, 11:01 PM
Well, I for one think if you're going to introduce long guns to zone 3, it makes more since to use the same existing caliber rules that we currently have in place for pistols. Since there's no barrel length rules for pistols, we can't use the ballistic arguments, because I have a couple of 18" barrels that I can legally use on my Encore instead of the 15" barrel I hunt with and still use it as a pistol. Ballistically this would be the same as a Marlin guide gun with an 18" barrel.

Tallbear
01-16-2011, 11:11 PM
Well, I for one think if you're going to introduce long guns to zone 3, it makes more since to use the same existing caliber rules that we currently have in place for pistols. Since there's no barrel length rules for pistols, we can't use the ballistic arguments, because I have a couple of 18" barrels that I can legally use on my Encore instead of the 15" barrel I hunt with and still use it as a pistol. Ballistically this would be the same as a Marlin guide gun with an 18" barrel.

This is what I said .......... Perhaps I wasn't clear.

gman
01-17-2011, 10:30 AM
This is what I said .......... Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Sorry, you were clear, I was in agreement with you. I should have quoted 45/70 fan's reply letting him know this would be a much more simple solution than what he is purposing.

Gary

45/70fan
01-17-2011, 11:48 AM
Sorry, you were clear, I was in agreement with you. I should have quoted 45/70 fan's reply letting him know this would be a much more simple solution than what he is purposing.

Gary

I really wasn't proposing an inclusive list but rather trying to get some input that can be used in drafting the bill so as to include some of the fine older pistol cartridges. The bill that was previously introduced excluded some of the fine older pistol cartridges that a lot of people use. Ie: the 44-40 was excluded becasue it has a slight bottle neck and I felt that was wrong.

gman
01-17-2011, 12:43 PM
I really wasn't proposing an inclusive list but rather trying to get some input that can be used in drafting the bill so as to include some of the fine older pistol cartridges. The bill that was previously introduced excluded some of the fine older pistol cartridges that a lot of people use. Ie: the 44-40 was excluded becasue it has a slight bottle neck and I felt that was wrong.

Since the bill is dead, and Tallbear is taking this straight to the DNR, I think simplicity would be the best route to go to get the DNR on board. If we're going to ask for an approval to include rifles in zone three, I'm sure the DNR would be on board much quicker if when they stop someone in the field and check the rifle for compliance that they only have to ask themselves one question...is it a straight wall cartridge.

Gary

45/70fan
01-17-2011, 05:20 PM
Since the bill is dead, and Tallbear is taking this straight to the DNR, I think simplicity would be the best route to go to get the DNR on board. If we're going to ask for an approval to include rifles in zone three, I'm sure the DNR would be on board much quicker if when they stop someone in the field and check the rifle for compliance that they only have to ask themselves one question...is it a straight wall cartridge.

Gary

Thats like asking the fox to write the rules for foxes etiquette on eating chickens. It will only be to the foxes advantage: read, how can we make the most money from this menu.

art
01-17-2011, 09:02 PM
Thats like asking the fox to write the rules for foxes etiquette on eating chickens. It will only be to the foxes advantage: read, how can we make the most money from this menu.
The first bill would have made a two tier system for enforcement- that the dnr didn't like. The bill could have been changed to limit handguns to the same rules as the rifles, and you would have lost the 45-70, .444, etc.
The new proposal would leave the old limits-eliminating the dnr concern, and keeping the 45-70's and 444's and similar cartridges.
And now you want to go the other way and add a whole new family of cartridges? That will just add to the dnr's argument of more complicated enforcement.
Several years ago I contacted the dnr about allowing some rifles in zone three, and the answer I got back then was the same- the enforcement issue.

Tallbear
01-17-2011, 09:10 PM
Thats like asking the fox to write the rules for foxes etiquette on eating chickens. It will only be to the foxes advantage: read, how can we make the most money from this menu.

Glad to hear you're talking with the "foxes" and getting their take on the issue.....

Knowing what I know about the issue and where the DNR is "actually" at on the issue, I can tell you know little to nothing about the issue. But, thanks for the input.

45/70fan
01-17-2011, 10:22 PM
Glad to hear you're talking with the "foxes" and getting their take on the issue.....

Knowing what I know about the issue and where the DNR is "actually" at on the issue, I can tell you know little to nothing about the issue. But, thanks for the input.

I know exactly where the DNR is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Tallbear
01-17-2011, 10:56 PM
I know exactly where the DNR is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Glad to hear you're on top of things. So, how would the DNR make more $$$$$$$ by allowing rifles in zone 3 ??

ChaneyD
01-17-2011, 11:00 PM
More people would hunt with rifles. More people, more fees.

45/70fan
01-17-2011, 11:15 PM
Glad to hear you're on top of things. So, how would the DNR make more $$$$$$$ by allowing rifles in zone 3 ??
Want to hunt with a rifle in zone 3, buy another permit or put in for a drawing, some way shape or form the DNR will figure out a way to make money, they are not there for the hunters and fishermen.

EricF517
01-18-2011, 02:09 AM
Should just open it up to rifle cartridges period!

buckey
01-18-2011, 07:42 PM
IF this law ever gets changed a whole bunch of used muzzle loaders and shotguns will be going up for sale. May I be the first to add to the "FOR SALE, HARDLY USED" list

stroo
02-01-2011, 06:54 PM
Perhaps they could help push this forward!?!

Tallbear
02-01-2011, 06:59 PM
Perhaps they could help push this forward!?!

All bills in the 2009-2010 session are dead including this one. It will have to be re-introduced.

As I said, I'm working on this issue with the DNR and hope to have some information for everyone by Mid March .

Rik M
02-02-2011, 01:28 PM
... I'm working on this issue with the DNR and hope to have some information for everyone by Mid March .

Is there anything WE can do to help your efforts with DNR?

Dansjeep2000
02-02-2011, 01:36 PM
Is there anything WE can do to help your efforts with DNR?
Good question, I'm willing.

buckey
03-10-2011, 08:05 PM
Any new news?

Tallbear
03-10-2011, 08:10 PM
Any new news?

My meeting with Director Rodney Stokes is tomorrow. I'll report back after the meeting.

buckey
03-10-2011, 09:05 PM
You could very well make a lot of people happy if the meeting goes well.
Thanks for all your help!

Tallbear
03-11-2011, 02:36 PM
First meeting with the new director went well. He's willing to listen to new ideas and makes sure his staff is available to answer questions.

There are still concerns about public perception and enforcement issues. More discussion will take place at the next meeting.

buckey
03-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Tallbear, once again Thanks for your help, just hope their not just blowing you off hoping this will go away. Seems nothing ever gets done here in Michigan no matter who we send to Lansing.

Tallbear
03-11-2011, 06:12 PM
I told them I wanted the DNR to handle this, BUT that legislation is not out of the question.


Tallbear, once again Thanks for your help, just hope their not just blowing you off hoping this will go away. Seems nothing ever gets done here in Michigan no matter who we send to Lansing.

buckey
03-15-2011, 02:51 PM
It's Monday afternoon at 2:00 PM, Done with all the house work while my wife's working ( I'm laid up with a new knee )so I'm kinda bored. Been passing the afternoon away looking out the windows at the vast fields and woods that surround our place here in Ionia county. As I sit here and daydream I can't help but wonder what it would be like to pass my little .44 carbine down to my granddaughter so that maybe she could bag her first deer on the family farm with it. It's a shame that the DNR for what ever reason can't seem be more reasonable on this issue and quit dragging their over priced feet. It doesn't take very long before you start getting kinda bitter with Lansing and the mind set of the DNR.

buckey
04-11-2011, 09:05 AM
Any news or meetings to report on ?

Tallbear
04-11-2011, 11:17 AM
Any news or meetings to report on ?

Next meeting is this week. Also have a meeting coming up with the Chief of DNR law enforcement "probably" next week.

art
04-18-2011, 07:12 PM
Next meeting is this week.
And how did that go?

buckey
04-30-2011, 07:00 AM
They must be giving Tallbear a tough time.:bash:

Tallbear
04-30-2011, 08:25 AM
And how did that go?

Meeting was postponed until this past Weds.

Meeting went good. They still have reservations and I need to do more research. Another meeting will be next month if I can get more background.

Anybody know when Zone 3 went to shotgun only? And why (with references)?

Quaamik
05-01-2011, 01:45 PM
The "shotgun zone", established in 1952 by Public Act 2 of the Second Extra Session, originally restricted the taking of deer in Southern Michigan to shotguns only.

Quote taken from discussion and background in a DNR memorandum dated June 19, 2000. Link attached. The memorandum was regarding allowing single shot pistols in Zone 3.
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/Regulation/00handguns.pdf

Quaamik
05-01-2011, 02:03 PM
I can't seem to find a copy of the original act online, nor any discussion (other than current opinions) as to why.

Tallbear
05-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Quote taken from discussion and background in a DNR memorandum dated June 19, 2000. Link attached. The memorandum was regarding allowing single shot pistols in Zone 3.
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/Regulation/00handguns.pdf


Thanks!!!! That's a big help.

SGT.JEB
05-21-2011, 09:56 AM
ABOUT TIME...AND IT MAKES SENSE WON'T HAPPEN

buckey
05-22-2011, 04:36 PM
Starting to think the DNR is beginning to go into their stall mode and blowing off people that make sense.

Tallbear
06-02-2011, 09:13 AM
Starting to think the DNR is beginning to go into their stall mode and blowing off people that make sense.

I'll be talking with the DNR law division chief again next Friday.

buckey
06-05-2011, 08:11 AM
Thanks Tallbear, Let us know good or bad what's going on
TX...... buckey

Leader
06-05-2011, 09:17 AM
Quote taken from discussion and background in a DNR memorandum dated June 19, 2000. Link attached. The memorandum was regarding allowing single shot pistols in Zone 3.
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/Regulation/00handguns.pdf


This is the quote that I liked.

"Although both may relate to hunting accidents, it is clear that safety in hunting depends on the training, skill and care of the hunter more than on the nature or ballistic properties of the firearm used."

I would use this to eliminate the shotgun zone completely.

art
06-29-2011, 10:20 PM
I'll be talking with the DNR law division chief again next Friday.
Are they stonewalling?

buckey
06-30-2011, 04:17 PM
Seems that way to me.

buckey
07-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Any thing new on this?

Tallbear
07-05-2011, 09:58 PM
This won't happen for this deer season. I've passed on the info I have and will try to get another meeting this month.

art
07-06-2011, 09:45 PM
Seems we were doing better with the previous administration.....

stainless1911
07-09-2011, 11:07 AM
Legislature has failed outright, they arent going to do anything with firearms.

45/70fan
10-19-2011, 05:30 PM
This legislation is pending now!!
Here is a list of Pistol cartridges that I would deem accptable anyone else have one to offer:
Pistol Cartridges acceptable in Rifles for deer hunting in the Shotgun area. The parameters are lenth1.16 min to 1.8 max, straight walled except for the 38/40 (38wcf)and 44/40( 44 wcf) I included these two because they otherwise fall into the pistol cartridge category for length, bullet diameter and power levels. Marlin, Winchester and other mfg have chambered their rifles for this "pistol cartridge ". Both were developed for use initially with black powder prior to 1895 so they do fall into the antique category too.


cartridge- length in.
.357 Mag 1.290
.357 Max 1.605
.375 Super Mag 1.610
.41 Mag 1.290
38/40 (38WCF) 1.300 Originally developed in 1874 for rifle and pistol
414 Super Mag 1.610
44 Spl 1.160
44 Mag 1.285
44-40 (44 WCF) 1.310 originally developed in 1873 for rifle and pistol
44 Auto Mag 1.298
445 Super Mag 1.610
45 Colt (LC) 1.285
45 Win Mag 1.198
454 Casull 1.381
.460 S&W 1.80
.475 Linebaugh 1.50
.480 Ruger 1.285
.500 S&W 1.60

Tallbear
10-19-2011, 07:25 PM
This legislation is pending now!!
Here is a list of Pistol cartridges that I would deem accptable anyone else have one to offer:
Pistol Cartridges acceptable in Rifles for deer hunting in the Shotgun area. The parameters are lenth1.16 min to 1.8 max, straight walled except for the 38/40 (38wcf)and 44/40( 44 wcf) I included these two because they otherwise fall into the pistol cartridge category for length, bullet diameter and power levels. Marlin, Winchester and other mfg have chambered their rifles for this "pistol cartridge ". Both were developed for use initially with black powder prior to 1895 so they do fall into the antique category too.


cartridge- length in.
.357 Mag 1.290
.357 Max 1.605
.375 Super Mag 1.610
.41 Mag 1.290
38/40 (38WCF) 1.300 Originally developed in 1874 for rifle and pistol
414 Super Mag 1.610
44 Spl 1.160
44 Mag 1.285
44-40 (44 WCF) 1.310 originally developed in 1873 for rifle and pistol
44 Auto Mag 1.298
445 Super Mag 1.610
45 Colt (LC) 1.285
45 Win Mag 1.198
454 Casull 1.381
.460 S&W 1.80
.475 Linebaugh 1.50
.480 Ruger 1.285
.500 S&W 1.60



Have a new bill number for this ??

XD40SC
10-19-2011, 07:27 PM
This legislation is pending now!!
Here is a list of Pistol cartridges that I would deem accptable anyone else have one to offer:
Pistol Cartridges acceptable in Rifles for deer hunting in the Shotgun area. The parameters are lenth1.16 min to 1.8 max, straight walled except for the 38/40 (38wcf)and 44/40( 44 wcf) I included these two because they otherwise fall into the pistol cartridge category for length, bullet diameter and power levels. Marlin, Winchester and other mfg have chambered their rifles for this "pistol cartridge ". Both were developed for use initially with black powder prior to 1895 so they do fall into the antique category too.


cartridge- length in.
.357 Mag 1.290
.357 Max 1.605
.375 Super Mag 1.610
.41 Mag 1.290
38/40 (38WCF) 1.300 Originally developed in 1874 for rifle and pistol
414 Super Mag 1.610
44 Spl 1.160
44 Mag 1.285
44-40 (44 WCF) 1.310 originally developed in 1873 for rifle and pistol
44 Auto Mag 1.298
445 Super Mag 1.610
45 Colt (LC) 1.285
45 Win Mag 1.198
454 Casull 1.381
.460 S&W 1.80
.475 Linebaugh 1.50
.480 Ruger 1.285
.500 S&W 1.60



what exactly do you mean: "you deem acceptable"? What does the bill say?

RSF
10-19-2011, 07:33 PM
460 in a 16-18 inch gun would be an awesome killer

Pistol Teacher
10-19-2011, 07:44 PM
Yo, Rumpelstiltskins this bill is dead.

45/70fan
10-19-2011, 09:58 PM
Yo, Rumpelstiltskins this bill is dead.

Care to make a wager on that PT?? $20.00 says its not dead just hasn't been re- introduced yet.


Have a new bill number for this ??Not yet it's being drafted at this time.

45/70fan
10-19-2011, 10:01 PM
what exactly do you mean: "you deem acceptable"? What does the bill say?

Acceptable as classified as a pistol cartridge that can be used in a rifle for deer hunting in the shotgun area. The old wording excluded the 38/40 and 44/40 because they weren't straight wall cartridges but met the criteria otherwise for length and bullet diameter

stroo
10-20-2011, 11:42 AM
Straight walled and can be fired from a pistol too!
:biggrin:

45/70fan
10-20-2011, 04:26 PM
Straight walled and can be fired from a pistol too!
:biggrin:

Stroo, apparently the 450 Bushmaster cartridge would meet the requirements, case length is 1.700, bullet diameter is over 35 cal. The only limiting factor would be the rifle would have to meet other legal requirements. You can already use it for hunting in a pistol but we're talking rifle use here in the lower third of the state.

Pistol Teacher, if your going to challenge the validity of my posting then take up my wager.

dw1911
10-20-2011, 05:17 PM
who is sponsoring this "bill" and can you please post a link or PDF to the actual bill? When is it scheduled for a vote?

RayMich
10-20-2011, 05:47 PM
who is sponsoring this "bill" and can you please post a link or PDF to the actual bill? When is it scheduled for a vote?

Nothing has happened with this bill since it was printed on 9/22/2009.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2009-HB-5416

There are the sponsors of the bill.

Sponsors
Matt Lori (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Matt Lori) - (primary)
Pete Lund (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Pete Lund), Kenneth Kurtz (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Kenneth Kurtz), Brian Calley (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Brian Calley), Paul Opsommer (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Paul Opsommer), Phillip Pavlov (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Phillip Pavlov), Kevin Daley (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Kevin Daley), John Proos (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=John Proos), Sharon Tyler (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Sharon Tyler), Kenneth Horn (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Kenneth Horn), Hugh Crawford (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Hugh Crawford), Bill Caul (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Bill Caul), Darwin Booher (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Darwin Booher), Tom McMillin (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Tom McMillin), Kevin Green (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Kevin Green), David Agema (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=David Agema), James Marleau (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=James Marleau), Tom Pearce (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Tom Pearce), Paul Scott (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Paul Scott), Larry DeShazor (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Larry DeShazor), Jim Stamas (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Jim Stamas), Michael Lahti (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Michael Lahti), Gary McDowell (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Gary McDowell), Joel Sheltrown (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Joel Sheltrown), Richard LeBlanc (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Richard LeBlanc), Jeff Mayes (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Jeff Mayes), Terry Brown (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Terry Brown), Gino Polidori (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b0a3043tvcmzxgyocs40so45))/mileg.aspx?page=ExecuteSearch&legislativesession=2009-2010&chamber=House&sponsor=Gino Polidori)

Here is a link to the PDF version.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/pdf/2009-HIB-5416.pdf

45/70fan
10-20-2011, 08:20 PM
who is sponsoring this "bill" and can you please post a link or PDF to the actual bill? When is it scheduled for a vote?

The bill is still being written by the legislative bureau, no number has been assigned as yet but there are 7 co sponsors already. Something should be available for posting in a week.

RayMich, your right that bill died this is an entirely new one.

45/70fan
10-21-2011, 03:49 PM
Also introduced is the bill to permit rifles during deer season in the limited firearms area if they fire bullets over .35 caliber from straight-walled cases, between 1.16 and 1.80 inches long. No bill number until Tuesday.Oct 25, 2011

sparkman10mm
10-22-2011, 04:18 PM
460 in a 16-18 inch gun would be an awesome killer
Oh yeah....20 inch Encore...

bullnose
10-25-2011, 12:48 PM
It's now Senate Bill 775, and was introduced today:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rameoxbhakqzml45dpyjja55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-SB-0775

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2011-SIB-0775.pdf

Quack Addict
10-26-2011, 09:03 PM
Also introduced is the bill to permit rifles during deer season in the limited firearms area if they fire bullets over .35 caliber from straight-walled cases, between 1.16 and 1.80 inches long. No bill number until Tuesday.Oct 25, 2011

I know, I know, baby steps...

Personally, I'd like to see FULL inclusion of rifles - elimination of the the rifle/shotgun zone all together.

As a positive step forward, I like the 1.16 - 1.80" case length legislation.

That being said, personally, I would at least like to see it written up to include ALL straight walled, or tapered, cartridges be included in the current "shotgun zone". It would make enforcement MUCH easier in the field (which seems to be one of the DNR's sticking points). As written, it precludes cartridges like 45-70, 375 WIN, 444 Marlin, 450 Marlin, etc. Ballistics on those are not far off (or even below) the capabilities of today's modern muzzleloaders which are legal for use in deer hunting in the "shotgun zone". Furthermore, ALL of those cartridges I just listed are completely LEGAL if fired from a pistol. The main difference between shooting a 45-70, 45-90, 45-110, 375 WIN, 444 Marlin, 450 Marlin from a pistol vs. being fired from a rifle is accuracy, with the rifle-fired version being more accurate in the hands of 99.9% of shooters.

The way the current MI shotgun zone laws are written, they keep encouraging shotgun ammo manufacturers to turn up the dial, and they keep doing it. I wouldn't be surprised if shotgun slug manufacturers are lobbying to keep the Michigan law the way it is.

As an aside, I'd like to see the method a CO uses in the field to determine if the case length of a crimped, loaded cartridge is between 1.16 - 1.80".

I haven't done in depth case study on what everyone else (other states) are doing but know guys in Indiana (formerly a shotgun only state) that had a similar law passed a couple years ago. They are using 458 SOCOMs fired from AR platforms that push similar ballistics to a 45-70. 458 SOCOM is a bottleneck case...

Disregarding what modern, 'legal' muzzleloaders are capable of, what is the difference between a .458" 300gr JHP fired from a 45-70 and the SAME .458" 300gr JHP fired from a 458 SOCOM if they exit the muzzle at the same velocity?

potatoe = po-tat-oe

But I can still LEGALLY hunt squirrels, rabbits, woodchucks, raccoons, coyotes, etc around Hillsdale, Battle Creek, Brighton, Jackson with a with a 30-378 Weatherby if I desire. Feel SO much better & safer now :coocoo:

Baby steps...........

45/70fan
10-26-2011, 10:50 PM
QA: I understand your frustration and I concur but lets get this passed before pushing for more. I don't know how a CO will determine the length of a case other than using some calipers or just by reading the ctg headstamp. I assume it would be prudent for the CO's to have a reference book handy that cross references head stamp with case/cartridge dimensions.

Are you or anyone aware of any situations in Indiana that have been questionable as it relates to handgun cartrides being questioned or any rifles used that lead to problems?

I know I can use my 454 Casull SRH and ballistically out preform the 45/70 Spfld Gov't using literally the same bullet in each. The DNR argument prohibiting true rifles in the shotgun only area is really a moot point especially, as you point out the use of any rifle for target and or varmit hunting is allowed. Secondly, some of the new inline muzzle loaders and shotguns with the modern powders, closed systems and sabots are preforming at many 'modern rifle' levels.

The way I'm reading the legislation as long as the case meets the min/max length and the bullet dia is 35+ cal it's good to go. Even if the case is a cut down 30-06 to make a 45 Win Mag, it wouldn't matter if the headstamp says 30-06 or 308 Win, that being said the 458 SOCOM would be legal as long as the rifle met the legal limitations if it is a semi auto.

I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly the same definitions of what is legal for a firearm for use in long guns in a rifle zone would apply in the shotgun zone. 5 rds max for semi auto rifle unless your using a pistol then it's 9 rds. So depending on how many shots you need you can carry the 458 SOCOM pistol with 9 rds, or in a rifle configuration with 5 rds.

stroo
10-27-2011, 08:36 AM
It's in committee now. The members on the Senate Outdoor Recreation and Tourism and are:

Senators Hansen (C), Hildenbrand (VC), Brandenburg, Casperson, Moolenaar, Gleason (MVC) and Young

Let's target them in particular to give this baby some legs!

:multi:

Quack Addict
10-27-2011, 09:25 AM
QA: I understand your frustration and I concur but lets get this passed before pushing for more. I don't know how a CO will determine the length of a case other than using some calipers or just by reading the ctg headstamp. I assume it would be prudent for the CO's to have a reference book handy that cross references head stamp with case/cartridge dimensions.

Are you or anyone aware of any situations in Indiana that have been questionable as it relates to handgun cartrides being questioned or any rifles used that lead to problems?

I know I can use my 454 Casull SRH and ballistically out preform the 45/70 Spfld Gov't using literally the same bullet in each. The DNR argument prohibiting true rifles in the shotgun only area is really a moot point especially, as you point out the use of any rifle for target and or varmit hunting is allowed. Secondly, some of the new inline muzzle loaders and shotguns with the modern powders, closed systems and sabots are preforming at many 'modern rifle' levels.

The way I'm reading the legislation as long as the case meets the min/max length and the bullet dia is 35+ cal it's good to go. Even if the case is a cut down 30-06 to make a 45 Win Mag, it wouldn't matter if the headstamp says 30-06 or 308 Win, that being said the 458 SOCOM would be legal as long as the rifle met the legal limitations if it is a semi auto.

I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly the same definitions of what is legal for a firearm for use in long guns in a rifle zone would apply in the shotgun zone. 5 rds max for semi auto rifle unless your using a pistol then it's 9 rds. So depending on how many shots you need you can carry the 458 SOCOM pistol with 9 rds, or in a rifle configuration with 5 rds.


My friends in Indiana haven't indicated any issues since they got the nod on using certain rifles to hunt with there. FWIW, the 458 SOCOM is a bottleneck case so it won't be legal to hunt deer with here as our bill is written, not legal in a pistol as existing legislation is written either. You're probably thinking of the 50 Beowulf (sp?) which is a straight walled case for AR platforms.

If I recall correctly from my discussions with my friends, and it's been a while since I read their law, but I think Indiana specifically named the 'legal' cartridges in their legislation to prevent 'wildcatters' from pushing the limits of the law as has been done here in MI with modern muzzleloaders and shotgun slugs. Not sure if their law in its present form specifies that the bullet must be full bore diameter, or if sabot loads are legal for hunting use...

The 1.16 - 1.80" length x .35 caliber minimum criteria will encourage wildcatting here (I don't have a problem with that) but in a couple years we will have the same effect as inline ML's had on the 'primitive weapons' season. Legal, yes... within the scope of what was intended in the legislation, hardly.

I need to re-read our bill but some rifles like my Win 94 in 44 Mag hold 5+ and although I'm sure I could fab up some kind of 'duck plug' for the magazine tube, I'd have to question the practicality of limiting how many I can put into it to hunt with, seeing how I never load more than 4-5 in it anyhow when going afield up north right now.

Regardless, the phrase "PASS THIS BILL" comes to mind.

45/70fan
10-27-2011, 12:00 PM
My friends in Indiana haven't indicated any issues since they got the nod on using certain rifles to hunt with there. FWIW, the 458 SOCOM is a bottleneck case so it won't be legal to hunt deer with here as our bill is written, not legal in a pistol as existing legislation is written either. You're probably thinking of the 50 Beowulf (sp?) which is a straight walled case for AR platforms.

If I recall correctly from my discussions with my friends, and it's been a while since I read their law, but I think Indiana specifically named the 'legal' cartridges in their legislation to prevent 'wildcatters' from pushing the limits of the law as has been done here in MI with modern muzzleloaders and shotgun slugs. Not sure if their law in its present form specifies that the bullet must be full bore diameter, or if sabot loads are legal for hunting use...

The 1.16 - 1.80" length x .35 caliber minimum criteria will encourage wildcatting here (I don't have a problem with that) but in a couple years we will have the same effect as inline ML's had on the 'primitive weapons' season. Legal, yes... within the scope of what was intended in the legislation, hardly.

I need to re-read our bill but some rifles like my Win 94 in 44 Mag hold 5+ and although I'm sure I could fab up some kind of 'duck plug' for the magazine tube, I'd have to question the practicality of limiting how many I can put into it to hunt with, seeing how I never load more than 4-5 in it anyhow when going afield up north right now.

Regardless, the phrase "PASS THIS BILL" comes to mind.

The magazine limit for rifles/pistols only applies to semi auto's, 5 for rifle 9 pistol. I would imagine that shotguns also have the 5 rd limit with semi autos but haven't read the rules, Lever guns shouldn't be a problem with the 10 rd tube magazines. With that said, we'll have to wait and see what shakes out of the tree in final form.

buckey
10-27-2011, 06:39 PM
Any one care to guess if this bill will pass and when?