S.B. 0775 rifles in shotgun zone

[Tallbear]

SB 0775 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0775)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 10/25/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM

[RayMich]

The bill says it will be legal to hunt in the shotgun area with,

(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.

According to my information, a .357 Magnum rifle should be legal since the cartridge dimensions are:

Bullet Diameter: 0.357" and Case Length is: 1.29 inch

However, I am wondering about using .38 Special ammunition. According to the specs I have found for the .38 Special, the cartridge dimensions are:

Bullet Diameter: 0.357" and Case Length is: 1.155 inch

http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?sn=fXWefIGEHL&catid=48


How picky will the DNR be with regards to the case length? Can the .38 Special case length dimension be rounded UP to 1.16 inch?

It's interesting that you can hunt with a 9mm pistol (Case Length: 0.754 in), but NOT with a 9mm carbine. Why do they have a minimum case length for the rifles? This doesn't make sense at all.

[RSF]

So next year looks good for this then...hopefully

[Joeywhat]

This makes me really want a 10mm carbine...

[RSF]

This makes me really want a 10mm carbine...


LOL 10mm encore would be nice better off getting a 357 mag or 44 carbine to be honest or even a 460 or 454

[Joeywhat]

Yeah, but I have a hard on for 10mm. And I've always thought a good 10mm carbine would be the best pistol caliber carbine around.

The issue is finding a platform that doesn't suck hard, and mags. Although I've heard of the Lone Wolf AR lowers, but I don't know if they make them for 10mm/.45ACP or if they're even any good.

I'd still like a Win 94 in .44 mag but they seem to cost much more then the .30-30 models. Or maybe if I can get my dad to let go of his Ruger .44 mag carbine...

[RSF]

So no 45/70 444 etc i gather based on OACL or is it OAL

[45/70fan]

AGAIN, if it doesn't fall within the parameters laid out here then it's not going to be allowed. I didn't develop them I just compiled the list of common cartridges that fall within the max/min for case length and bullet diameter.
Pistol Cartridges acceptable in Rifles for deer hunting in the Shotgun area. The parameters are case length1.16 min to 1.8 max, straight walled and bullet diameter of 35 cal or greater.

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

[zigziggityzoo]

Seems dumb that I could hunt with a .50 Beowulf but not a .308 rifle.

[SlowDog]

Um...not to kick the cart here but, I load 44-40 and it's not a str8 walled cartridge....just sayin :shrugs: :hide:

And dammit I wanna use my 444:cry: :cry:

[Cackler]

Seems dumb that I could hunt with a .50 Beowulf but not a .308 rifle.

Not really, way different cartridges. That big fifty is a short range gun, period.

What seems dumb is not being able to use a .357 Sig if one so desired.

[wrinkledshirt]

The rifle/shotgun area thing is g0dam stupid. The whole state should be rifle legal. At the least, restrict rifles only in heavily-populated areas. There is lots of very rural land in the southern part of the LP.

[45/70fan]

The rifle/shotgun area thing is g0dam stupid. The whole state should be rifle legal. At the least, restrict rifles only in heavily-populated areas. There is lots of very rural land in the southern part of the LP.

Talk to the DNR then, it is their regulation that put the no rifles in place many years ago. A search of \Michigan mcl was unsuccessful to find any legislation that enacted the ban.

[Stephen220243]

ta ta

[Roundballer]

I have to agree with RayMich. It is just GOOFY that you can hunt with a 9mm or such handgun but can't use the same cartridge in a carbine. They have excluded things like the 9mm, which can be found in loadings that a very similar to some .357 Mag loads, or the .38 Super which is every bit as good. These same rounds will most likely have slightly more energy from a carbine barrel compared to a pistol. For this portion of the law, they should at least drop the minimum case length to 0.75 (the 9mm is .754 IIRC).

And don't worry about there not being a lot of rifles in these calibers. If the law says that they are good to go, the manufacturers will make them.


(4) A person hunting deer during any firearm deer season in the limited firearms area may only use the following firearms:

(a) A shotgun with a smooth or rifled barrel.
(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.
(c) A muzzle-loading rifle or black-powder pistol loaded with black-powder or a commercially manufactured black-powder substitute.
(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.

The above bolded part also is just plain wrong. This is the first time that this is being put into law and they are making it more strict than it has been. Why are they limiting it to RIFLES? What is wrong with muzzle-loading smooth bores?

I will be contacting Pavlov and asking him some very pointed (but politely worded) questions. This law needs to be right the first time. Playing around and getting "something" passed, just to have to work very hard again to get it "fixed" is just plain STUUUUUUPID.

[zigziggityzoo]

Why does it matter what round I choose to kill a deer with?

As long as I'm being a good sportsman and taking its life as quickly and efficiently as possible, then why not let me decide what's best?

We need a bill to repeal the shotgun zone.

[45/70fan]

Why does it matter what round I choose to kill a deer with?

As long as I'm being a good sportsman and taking its life as quickly and efficiently as possible, then why not let me decide what's best?

We need a bill to repeal the shotgun zone.

Common sense would say it doesn't matter yet look at what gets elected to represent us and tell me common sense is wide spread!!

It matters because not all cartridges are adequate for killing a deer humanely as you pointed out, nor are all people that choose to hunt sportspersons. Standards are established to give some guidance for what works and what doesn't. Much like a professional license to practice law, medicine, nursing, driving a vehicle, etc., standards are set so that minimum standards are maintained and measureable.

I agree the shotgun zone should be abolished, common sense says it doesn't make sense to ban deer hunting with a rifle yet allow it for everything else.

[luckless]

The simplest thing would be to require hunters in Zone 3 to hunt from an elevated stand. This would safely direct all shots into the ground. Other states do this and it is a good idea.

The caliber limitations seem arbitrary. As long as your bullet can generate the same energy as an arrow, you should be good.

[Cackler]

.

The caliber limitations seem arbitrary. As long as your bullet can generate the same energy as an arrow, you should be good.

Broadheads to bullets is apples to oranges.

[Quack Addict]

I'd still like a Win 94 in .44 mag but they seem to cost much more then the .30-30 models.

You mean kinda like my 94AE 44 Mag? It was wearing the 4x Leupold scope and Leupold mounts/rings when I got it. Came with a bunch of ammo (300+ factory loads), die set, a bit of brass and a LNIB S&W 629 as a kicker. :whistle:

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq135/QuackAddict/IM002920.jpg

16" barrel on that sucker. The 629 wears a 6.5" and shoots the same exact ammo... yet the 629 is legal to sling lead with... and the 94 isn't legal in same area for slinging same lead at same target with more inherent accuracy...:confused:

[RayMich]

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the "straight-wall cartridge" restriction for pistols? - I can legally use a 9mm pistol and even a .380 pistol or a .38 Special revolver, but a .357 SIG is out of the question. This makes absolutely no sense at all!!!

If they are worried about the power from a .357 SIG, that is ridiculous. -- A .357 Magnum, a .41 Magnum and a .44 Magnum are MORE powerful than the .357 SIG, but since they have straight-wall cases, they are OK to use.

Who comes up with these totally DUMB arbitrary regulations?

[Toledo Kid]

Hope it passes. But I think they should drop the bullet dia to .30. I got a nice little semi auto carbine a 1907 Win in 351 that I haven't use in some time that would work perfect!!!

[45/70fan]

The regulations are being proposed so that we can use a rifle that is shooting a cartridge which is capable of putting down an average sized deer effectively. To allow the use of calibers less than 35 or cases shorter than the proposed 1.16 would open the field to the use of 32 acp, 22 shorts or 30 luger etc. none of which are efficient but that would not stop some idiot from saying hey I've got this so I might as well use it. Will any of the smaller than proposed take a deer, sure if properly placed under ideal conditions by a marksman that is capable of doing it at unknown distances.
To open it to longer than proposed 1.8 or non straight walled would open it to just about anything used in a rifle, so why not just open it to any rifle?? That isn't going to happen so folks either support the use of rifles shooting a pistol cartridge within proposed capable limits or STFU.

[buckey]

wondering what the feelings in Lansing are on this bill, and if it passes.

[fegPA63]

the whole things dumb my buddy has 350 acres of farmland in conklin we hunt for deer they grow apples etc, corn stuff like that.....have to use the rifled slugs or muzzleloader for shots across the cornfield, why not rifle? Where I hunt up north is just as wide open. "Shotgun Zone" is dumb IMO, at least this bill will inject a SMALL amount of common sense:idea2:

[Ironhand]

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the "straight-wall cartridge" restriction for pistols?

This reg was to eliminate the "hand rifles" that shoot 30-30 and 30-06 class rounds from what is basically a one handed rifle like the Encore or the bolt action pistols.

The basic premise is protecting public safety by limiting the ballistics of hunting guns in high population density areas. I have seen no follow up research to prove or disprove this premise.

[45/70fan]

the whole things dumb my buddy has 350 acres of farmland in conklin we hunt for deer they grow apples etc, corn stuff like that.....have to use the rifled slugs or muzzleloader for shots across the cornfield, why not rifle? Where I hunt up north is just as wide open. "Shotgun Zone" is dumb IMO, at least this bill will inject a SMALL amount of common sense:idea2:

Not everyone has access to that piece of property.

[EricF517]

Just make all rifles legal throughout the state

[zigziggityzoo]

The basic premise is protecting public safety by limiting the ballistics of hunting guns in high population density areas. I have seen no follow up research to prove or disprove this premise.

If true, it's complete BS.

Outside of Deer season, nothing's stopping me from hunting squirrel with a .50BMG.

[EricF517]

If true, it's complete BS.

Outside of Deer season, nothing's stopping me from hunting squirrel with a .50BMG.

Sort of counter productive wouldn't it be? I am not sure if you would find any meat, let along be able to tell, hide, bone, and meat apart LOL.

I can yote hunt with my 308 everywhere I only can use a ML or Shotty. I call BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ironhand]

Outside of Deer season, nothing's stopping me from hunting squirrel with a .50BMG.

True but the risk to the public would be limited as the probability of of this happening is slim. Of greater concern is the use of rifles in predator hunting, a sport which was uncommon when the shotgun zone was established and is still less common then deer hunting. It is a question of probabilities and acceptable risk levels.

[EricF517]

True but the risk to the public would be limited as the probability of of this happening is slim. Of greater concern is the use of rifles in predator hunting, a sport which was uncommon when the shotgun zone was established and is still less common then deer hunting. It is a question of probabilities and acceptable risk levels.

And I could get struck by lightning, but it doesn't stop me from going out in a storm. There was a risk when tree stands were unable to be used for gun season. Why is there a concern about the use of rifles during predator hunting?

[SlowDog]

I agree. I use a tree stand and am up 20' in the air. I am shooting down at a severe angle and the thought I am gonna shoot way across country is pure :bs:

[Roundballer]

The regulations are being proposed so that we can use a rifle that is shooting a cartridge which is capable of putting down an average sized deer effectively.
The intent of the proposed bill is not in question. The language and limitations of what has been put forward at this time are not what is wanted or needed.

To allow the use of calibers less than 35 or cases shorter than the proposed 1.16 would open the field to the use of 32 acp, 22 shorts or 30 luger etc. none of which are efficient but that would not stop some idiot from saying hey I've got this so I might as well use it.
Leaving the restriction of 35 caliber language does what it needs to in eliminating the lower powered .32 or .25, this is okay. The .22 rimfire's are eliminated in other laws.

Will any of the smaller than proposed take a deer, sure if properly placed under ideal conditions by a marksman that is capable of doing it at unknown distances.
Yes, as has been pointed out already, there are cartridges that are being eliminated that would be more than adequate to do the job effectively.

To open it to longer than proposed 1.8 or non straight walled would open it to just about anything used in a rifle, so why not just open it to any rifle??
This just part of the problem. The Upper limit should not be a problem, but the lower limit is. We don't need the double restriction (or triple if you count caliber, case size, and type) to effectively narrow the field. Either limit only the case size, or the type. A limit on size ( a range ) will work the best, and can be worded to include the use of .357 Sig.

That isn't going to happen so folks either support the use of rifles shooting a pistol cartridge within proposed capable limits or STFU.
The first response I wrote has been redacted.... That is not the way it works. If the proposed legislation does not meet the requirements of "the people" then the Legislators need to be told about it. It is our RIGHT to voice our opinions AND to address government for redress of grievances.

Here is what I would propose, and the thinking behind it.


(4) A person hunting deer during any firearm deer season in the limited firearms area may only use the following firearms:
(a) A shotgun with a smooth or rifled barrel.
(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, or any other .35 caliber or larger cartridges with a minimum case length of 0.75 inches and a maximum case length of 1.80 inches.
(c) A muzzle-loading rifle, smooth-bore, or black-powder pistol, 40 caliber or larger, loaded with black-powder or a commercially manufactured black-powder substitute.
(d) A .35 caliber or larger rifle loaded with straight-walled cartridges with a minimum case length of 0.75 inches and a maximum case length of 1.80 inches.

There is nothing wrong in "a", this is what we currently have.
If "b" is worded similarly to this, it would include things like .357 Sig, but will eliminate "rifle" cartridges in firearms like the Contender while still allowing what we currently have for the most part. I also find it odd that a .380, a lot of the 9mm, and .38spl would be allowed in a pistol, but not a rifle.
With "c", they have effectively eliminated all smooth-bore muzzle loaders, but have neglected to specify a caliber minimum. I own a .32 caliber flintlock rifle. I personally would not use it for deer, but this bill would allow it. The load for my .32 is a (1) single "0" buckshot ball over 40 gr of 3F. What they have done here is to allow in a muzzle loader what there is a concern for in a pistol round, yet eliminate a viable and useful option in a close range firearm.
In "d" is the new wording that allows a rifle. The issue here is that with a "triple" definition, there are too many effective loads that are being eliminated. Wording it with just the cartridge size and caliber limitations does both jobs of eliminating the "necked" rifle loadings and eliminating the under powered smaller bored pistol rounds.


Here is a pretty comprehensive list of loads that would be allowed. The list is not all inclusive, but I have not found a "necked" rifle load that would fall into this list.
The limitations for this list are the Caliber and Case limits that I suggest.


http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/Roundballer/Fliers/CaseChart1.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/Roundballer/Fliers/CaseChart2.jpg

I will be placing my thoughts with my Senator. This bill needs to be fixed because it "takes away" while also appearing to "give permission".

[Ironhand]

Here is a pretty comprehensive list of loads that would be allowed. The list is not all inclusive, but I have not found a "necked" rifle load that would fall into this list.
The limitations for this list are the Caliber and Case limits that I suggest.


Your argument for necked cartridges is based on existing cases but the history of cartridge development is the story of experimenters wildcatting new rounds to fit specific needs. If the regs allow necked cases of 1.8" or less then new necked rounds will be developed to exploit that niche.

Look for instance at the WSM case family. Current max case length is 2.1". How long do you think it would be before some gunsmith started marketing rifles in a WSM based 35cal magnum CTG with a max case of 1.8". All he would need to do is neck the case up and shorten it .3". Want to bet how much the ballistics of that round would exceed the intent of the law?

In theory your approach would allow a 35cal round based on the 50 BMG, as long as the case length was right.:cannon:

[45/70fan]

The intent of the proposed bill is not in question. The language and limitations of what has been put forward at this time are not what is wanted or needed.

Leaving the restriction of 35 caliber language does what it needs to in eliminating the lower powered .32 or .25, this is okay. The .22 rimfire's are eliminated in other laws.

Yes, as has been pointed out already, there are cartridges that are being eliminated that would be more than adequate to do the job effectively.

This just part of the problem. The Upper limit should not be a problem, but the lower limit is. We don't need the double restriction (or triple if you count caliber, case size, and type) to effectively narrow the field. Either limit only the case size, or the type. A limit on size ( a range ) will work the best, and can be worded to include the use of .357 Sig.

The first response I wrote has been redacted.... That is not the way it works. If the proposed legislation does not meet the requirements of "the people" then the Legislators need to be told about it. It is our RIGHT to voice our opinions AND to address government for redress of grievances.

Here is what I would propose, and the thinking behind it.


There is nothing wrong in "a", this is what we currently have.
If "b" is worded similarly to this, it would include things like .357 Sig, but will eliminate "rifle" cartridges in firearms like the Contender while still allowing what we currently have for the most part. I also find it odd that a .380, a lot of the 9mm, and .38spl would be allowed in a pistol, but not a rifle.
With "c", they have effectively eliminated all smooth-bore muzzle loaders, but have neglected to specify a caliber minimum. I own a .32 caliber flintlock rifle. I personally would not use it for deer, but this bill would allow it. The load for my .32 is a (1) single "0" buckshot ball over 40 gr of 3F. What they have done here is to allow in a muzzle loader what there is a concern for in a pistol round, yet eliminate a viable and useful option in a close range firearm.
In "d" is the new wording that allows a rifle. The issue here is that with a "triple" definition, there are too many effective loads that are being eliminated. Wording it with just the cartridge size and caliber limitations does both jobs of eliminating the "necked" rifle loadings and eliminating the under powered smaller bored pistol rounds.
Here is a pretty comprehensive list of loads that would be allowed. The list is not all inclusive, but I have not found a "necked" rifle load that would fall into this list.
The limitations for this list are the Caliber and Case limits that I suggest.


http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/Roundballer/Fliers/CaseChart1.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/Roundballer/Fliers/CaseChart2.jpg

I will be placing my thoughts with my Senator. This bill needs to be fixed because it "takes away" while also appearing to "give permission".

Good luck with that! When you get it flying I'll go find a pig with wings.

[45/70fan]

Your argument for necked cartridges is based on existing cases but the history of cartridge development is the story of experimenters wildcatting new rounds to fit specific needs. If the regs allow necked cases of 1.8" or less then new necked rounds will be developed to exploit that niche.

Look for instance at the WSM case family. Current max case length is 2.1". How long do you think it would be before some gunsmith started marketing rifles in a WSM based 35cal magnum CTG with a max case of 1.8". All he would need to do is neck the case up and shorten it .3". Want to bet how much the ballistics of that round would exceed the intent of the law?

In theory your approach would allow a 35cal round based on the 50 BMG, as long as the case length was right.:cannon:

I think Ironhand has a grasp of the reason the limitiations are written as they are.

[Roundballer]

Your argument for necked cartridges is based on existing cases but the history of cartridge development is the story of experimenters wildcatting new rounds to fit specific needs. If the regs allow necked cases of 1.8" or less then new necked rounds will be developed to exploit that niche.

Look for instance at the WSM case family. Current max case length is 2.1". How long do you think it would be before some gunsmith started marketing rifles in a WSM based 35cal magnum CTG with a max case of 1.8". All he would need to do is neck the case up and shorten it .3". Want to bet how much the ballistics of that round would exceed the intent of the law?

In theory your approach would allow a 35cal round based on the 50 BMG, as long as the case length was right.:cannon:
We could further limit the range for necked cartridges, but at a certain point it is just unreasonable to create a round with such a fat case and small bore. We could limit it for necked cases down to the area of .900 or slightly larger than the .357 Sig. Or it could be limited to commercially available cases/loads as of the date of passage of the bill.

Just understand that the way the bill is currently proposed, 45/70, hell even 45/120 is not restricted in a "pistol". That and the major screw-ups with the muzzle loading sections. There is also no restriction on the length of the barrel or the weight of said "pistol", so just think up what a gun maker could come up with that line of thinking.

The section with the muzzle loader descriptions is still just FUBAR, it is as if who ever was advising on this section knew nothing about muzzle loaders or hunting..

[45/70fan]

We could further limit the range for necked cartridges, but at a certain point it is just unreasonable to create a round with such a fat case and small bore. We could limit it for necked cases down to the area of .900 or slightly larger than the .357 Sig. Or it could be limited to commercially available cases/loads as of the date of passage of the bill. So at what limt is the upper limits set? Your proposing doing the very thing that is being put forth now with convential pistol cartridges

Just understand that the way the bill is currently proposed, 45/70, hell even 45/120 is not restricted in a "pistol". That and the major screw-ups with the muzzle loading sections. There is also no restriction on the length of the barrel or the weight of said "pistol", so just think up what a gun maker could come up with that line of thinking.True if it will fit in a pistol go ahead and shoot it, hehehe 577 T-rex comes to mind, let me know how that works out for your hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder.

The section with the muzzle loader descriptions is still just FUBAR, it is as if who ever was advising on this section knew nothing about muzzle loaders or hunting.. Your right, when the muzzle loader rules were written the conventional M/L loaded from the front with loose powder and was fired with either a percussion cap or flint with side lock mechanisms. .

As Ironhand pointed out the mfg's got on board and started pushing in line magnums shooting saboted slugs designed for modern firearms with 209 primers. Muzzle loading season is no longer carried out in the intended manner of using truly primitive weapons it has become a weapon race to find the biggest, baddest animal killer.

[Ironhand]

Roundballer:
We could indeed write a complex series of ctg specifications into the law just as we could write in a whole series of regs for specific smaller jurisdictions based on highly localized population density figures (as some have suggested).

These things are possibly but not advisable. The net effect is to create an unintelligible and unenforceable patchwork of regulations that makes honest citizens criminals out of ignorance, not intent. Legislation is best written using the KISS principle.

The BP section is indeed poorly written. The writer clearly had little understanding of the subject.

45/70fan:
You make a good point. Based on the ballistics published here an argument could be made that the high tech inlines are an example of using technology to follow the letter of the law while circumventing the spirit of the law. I strongly suspect that ctg development would follow the same route.

[Roundballer]

We could further limit the range for necked cartridges, but at a certain point it is just unreasonable to create a round with such a fat case and small bore. We could limit it for necked cases down to the area of .900 or slightly larger than the .357 Sig. Or it could be limited to commercially available cases/loads as of the date of passage of the bill. So at what limt is the upper limits set? Your proposing doing the very thing that is being put forth now with convential pistol cartridges
I already proposed a set of limits for necked cartridges in pistols. The only changes I made to the bill in that respect is to lower the lower limit. I left it so that any straight walled cartridge could be used in a pistol. The limits for a pistol would only apply to necked cartridges, and in that section of the law I see no reason that it couldn't be lowered even more, but we should be working to allow any reasonable round in a pistol i.e. .357 Sig.

The problems come in with the rifle limitations. We want to include as many reasonable pistol cartridges as we can, necked or not. But because of longer barrels, higher velocities, and better inherent recoil control, etc, we do want to limit the loadings to traditional pistol cartridges. Whereas we would allow 45/70 in a pistol, we want to limit it out of a rifle. I proposed one thing, but I am not married to it. We could apply logic to the descriptions in the rifle section similar to what I proposed in the pistol section. One set of limitations for one case type and another for the other, just make sure that odd ball cases like rebated or belted are covered in one area or the other.



Just understand that the way the bill is currently proposed, 45/70, hell even 45/120 is not restricted in a "pistol". That and the major screw-ups with the muzzle loading sections. There is also no restriction on the length of the barrel or the weight of said "pistol", so just think up what a gun maker could come up with that line of thinking.True if it will fit in a pistol go ahead and shoot it, hehehe 577 T-rex comes to mind, let me know how that works out for your hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder.
You are being very closed minded on this subject. The TC Contender is already offered with a 14" 45/70 barrel. Controlling recoil on even more powerful loadings is simply a matter of providing more mass/inertia for the recoil to overcome. Or a simple matter of a bi-pod and a stout webbing check strap for the gun to recoil against. Neither of these are prohibited and would cost very little to implement.



The section with the muzzle loader descriptions is still just FUBAR, it is as if who ever was advising on this section knew nothing about muzzle loaders or hunting..Your right, when the muzzle loader rules were written the conventional M/L loaded from the front with loose powder and was fired with either a percussion cap or flint with side lock mechanisms. .

As Ironhand pointed out the mfg's got on board and started pushing in line magnums shooting saboted slugs designed for modern firearms with 209 primers. Muzzle loading season is no longer carried out in the intended manner of using truly primitive weapons it has become a weapon race to find the biggest, baddest animal killer.
And in this section they are taking things away from us. Besides the hypocrisy of allowing a muzzle loading pistol with no caliber restrictions.

Look we can either work together to get a good workable bill, or we can fight amongst ourselves over this piece of crap that has been proposed in the Senate.

Statements like the following sure don't sound like you want to garner any support for this bill. This is the first time that it is being put into law, and I think that we should do our best to make the bill the fairest and most comprehensive that we can.

Good luck with that! When you get it flying I'll go find a pig with wings.

That isn't going to happen so folks either support the use of rifles shooting a pistol cartridge within proposed capable limits or STFU.

hehehe 577 T-rex comes to mind, let me know how that works out for your hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder.

I am giving my inputs to my Senator. If there seems to be no support to fixing this bill, I can just as easily do everything I can to junk the bill, it will eventually have to pass both houses. Without this bill we haven't lost anything. With the bill as it is, we do lose some and gain very little.

[45/70fan]

...



I am giving my inputs to my Senator. If there seems to be no support to fixing this bill, I can just as easily do everything I can to junk the bill, it will eventually have to pass both houses. Without this bill we haven't lost anything. With the bill as it is, we do lose some and gain very little.

Your free to do whatever your lil~ ole heart desires, I'll start shopping for flying pigs now.

[EricF517]

I am not sure why this legislation is even a good thing? Our hunting laws now, are written by people who have no clue about weapons it seems. Why are we limiting cartridge size, and only pistol calibers? This should be the first question asked. There is no reason that the use of centerfire rifles should be limited in this state. People are going to talk about how a centerfire cartridge will shoot around the world if it doesn't hit something. These are the same people who know nothing of the ballistics of a rifle.

[Ironhand]

I am not sure why this legislation is even a good thing? Our hunting laws now, are written by people who have no clue about weapons it seems. Why are we limiting cartridge size, and only pistol calibers? This should be the first question asked. There is no reason that the use of centerfire rifles should be limited in this state.

Here is the DNR position:

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/legislationdocs/position/HB%205416%20Analysis_09.htm

Any Ad-man will tell you that image matters more than fact

[sullyxlh]

I am not sure why this legislation is even a good thing? Our hunting laws now, are written by people who have no clue about weapons it seems. Why are we limiting cartridge size, and only pistol calibers? This should be the first question asked. There is no reason that the use of centerfire rifles should be limited in this state. People are going to talk about how a centerfire cartridge will shoot around the world if it doesn't hit something. These are the same people who know nothing of the ballistics of a rifle.Hell half the Hunters in MI no nothing about a rifle let alone ballistics.

[Dabears!]

The bill says it will be legal to hunt in the shotgun area with,


According to my information, a .357 Magnum rifle should be legal since the cartridge dimensions are:

Bullet Diameter: 0.357" and Case Length is: 1.29 inch

However, I am wondering about using .38 Special ammunition. According to the specs I have found for the .38 Special, the cartridge dimensions are:

Bullet Diameter: 0.357" and Case Length is: 1.155 inch

http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?sn=fXWefIGEHL&catid=48


How picky will the DNR be with regards to the case length? Can the .38 Special case length dimension be rounded UP to 1.16 inch?

It's interesting that you can hunt with a 9mm pistol (Case Length: 0.754 in), but NOT with a 9mm carbine. Why do they have a minimum case length for the rifles? This doesn't make sense at all.


basically you are saying i know the gun i want to shoot is excluded from the ones that they are saying can legally be shot so can i break the law and not worry.


dont be silly.

[ck25ta]

Wow

[EricF517]

Not to mention centerfire rifles are inherently more accurate than a scatter gun. I would be taking nothing but head shots with my 308 at my place it I could use it. No suffering of the animal at all. Even if it was legal to use one I don't think you would have many people doing it.

[Quaamik]

Personally, while I like and support changing the law to allow rifles in zone 3, I do not like or support this law.

reasons:
1) The law restricts cartridges allowed in rifles by an arbitrary measure that does not relate to performance OR safety while allowed prohibited cartridges to be used in pistols.
2) I do not trust the DNR or the legislature to make the new limits on cartridge size only apply to rifles. I expect that either by the time this bill is voted on, or at some future time, cartidges prohibited for rifles will be prohibited for pistols as well. I also expect that prohibition will be state wide.

I could support it if it just extended the current wording for pistols to rifles. i.e.:


(4) A person hunting deer during any firearm deer season in the limited firearms area may only use the following firearms:
.....
(b) A .35 caliber or larger pistol or rifle capable of holding no more than 9 shells at 1 time in the barrel and magazine combined and loaded with straight-walled cartridges.
.........


It still would be a arbitrary restriction, but at least it would be simple to understand and make sense when compared to current laws.

The reality is the law as it exists and as proposed is not about safety and it's not about making sure the cartidges used are adequate for hunting deer. Safety is not a function of cartridge power. Take a saboted slug, or a .357 magnum, and fire either at an upward angel of 30 - 40 degress (such as at a deer that is uphill) - neither is safe. Take a .300 WinMag and fire it where you know there is a solid backstop (like a hill) and it's perfectly safe. Modern cartridges using modern bullet construction have changed what is cartridges are capable of humanely taking deer. Laws like this are about control and, to a lesser extent, satisfying fudds that do not want non traditional firearms used.

If you don't believe the "fudd" factor, look at the comparisons below and give me another reason for them:

Ballistics from Winchester

Allowed in pistols / proposed allowed in rifles
.357 magnum
125 gr @ 1450 fps (muzzle), 1239 fps / 426 ftlbs at 50 yards
158 gr @ 1235 fps (muzzle), 1104 fps / 427 ftlbs at 50 yards

Allowed in pistols / proposed prohibited in rifles:
.40 S&W
155 gr @ 1205 fps (muzzle), 1096 fps / 413 ftlbs at 50 yards

10 mm
175 gr @ 1290 fps (muzzle), 1141 fps / 505 ftlbs at 50 yards

Prohibited in pistols / proposed prohibited in rifles
.30 carbine
110 gr @ 1790 fps (muzzle),
-------1585 fps / 613 ftlbs at 50 yards
-------1403 fps / 480 ftlbs at 100 yards

Allowed in Shotguns:
.410 gauge slug (weight not given)
1800 fps (783 ftlbs) - Muzzle
1275 fps / 393 ftlbs - 50 yards

20 gauge slug (Super X 2-3/4" - weight not given)
1600 fps (1863 ftlbs) - Muzzle
1162 fps / 982 ftlbs - 50 yards
953 fps / 661 ftlbs - 100 yards


There are many more comparisons I could have chosen. .45 super, .300 whisper,.45 ACP+P, 9x23, .357 SIG, .400 corbon, .327 magnum can all be compared favorably (for killng power) in a similar fashion. .45 colt & .44-40, loaded anywhere near the old black powder levels, look to be ridiculous to allow when .45 ACP, .45 GAP & 9 mm+P are prohibited.

[Quaamik]

Here is the DNR position:

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/legislationdocs/position/HB%205416%20Analysis_09.htm

Any Ad-man will tell you that image matters more than fact

Funny thing is thier whole arguement about increased complexities of enforcement goes out the hindow if they eliminate the case length restrictions.

How can you tell a rifle from a shotgun? From more than 25 yards you cannot with modern firearms. There are bolt action and lever action shotguns. There are pump action and single shot rifles. In order to tell the diffrence you have to approach the person.

When you inspect the long gun (if a DNR officer decided too) it's simple. Look at the cartridge. The only change allowing all straight wall cartridges in rifles would make is they would have to check bore diameter also (like they would have to if they checked a pistol). Not much "complication".

[buckey]

anyone have any idea when this bill will ever come up for a vote or if this has a chance of passing ?

[45/70fan]

Probably never, there is no agreement on what would be allowed and the DNR is not going to push for any change.

[Quaamik]

The problem (as I see it) stems from there being three seperate camps wanting to change the law and two that want it to stay the same.


Opposing:

the DNR: They don't want to deal with changes in enforcement and don't want to aswer calls / field responses to calls regarding someone using a rifle.

Conservative hunters: (Don't know what else to call them nicely) They don't see any reason to change the rules from what they were. Many of them don't hunt in zone 3, and never plan to, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion what should be able to be used there.

Supporting a change in the law:
These either hunt in zone 3, or would like to, and want an option other than a shotgun or muzzle loader.

Group 1: They want to limit it to "traditional" hunting rifles, such as the cowboy style lever guns, and so support the long pistol cartridges commonly found in revolvers.

Group 2: They want anything currently allowed in pistols to be allowed in rifles. They see no more issue hunting with a AR with straight walled cartridges than with a lever action winchester.

Group 3: They want the law overhaled to allow th widest possible range of calibers in zone 3, limited only by what is safe and (to a lesser extent) what can be humanely used to take deer.

Until the 3 groups that want change can agree on one proposal, there is o chance of overcoming the inertiaof the other two.

[Leader]

The problem (as I see it) stems from there being three seperate camps wanting to change the law and two that want it to stay the same.


Opposing:

the DNR: They don't want to deal with changes in enforcement and don't want to aswer calls / field responses to calls regarding someone using a rifle.

Conservative hunters: (Don't know what else to call them nicely) They don't see any reason to change the rules from what they were. Many of them don't hunt in zone 3, and never plan to, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion what should be able to be used there.

The General Non-Hunting Public: They truly believe the use of ANY rifle wil result in the death on vast numbers of innocent bystanders.

Supporting a change in the law:
These either hunt in zone 3, or would like to, and want an option other than a shotgun or muzzle loader.

Group 1: They want to limit it to "traditional" hunting rifles, such as the cowboy style lever guns, and so support the long pistol cartridges commonly found in revolvers.

Group 2: They want anything currently allowed in pistols to be allowed in rifles. They see no more issue hunting with a AR with straight walled cartridges than with a lever action winchester.

Group 3: They want the law overhaled to allow th widest possible range of calibers in zone 3, limited only by what is safe and (to a lesser extent) what can be humanely used to take deer.

Until the 3 groups that want change can agree on one proposal, there is o chance of overcoming the inertiaof the other two.

Group 4: Those that want the shotgun zone eliminated. They believe that if you can hunt with anything 50 weeks of the year, you will not see rampant mass killings during the other two weeks if you open the state up to the same rules throughout.

[buckey]

Wow, no wonder nothing gets done. We can't seem to get out of our own way!

[buckey]

Any thing new on this, or are we going to lose another year?

[Tallbear]

Any thing new on this, or are we going to lose another year?


Nothing yet. Lansing is "back to work" starting tomorrow.

[matt11]

The simplest thing would be to require hunters in Zone 3 to hunt from an elevated stand. This would safely direct all shots into the ground. Other states do this and it is a good idea.

The caliber limitations seem arbitrary. As long as your bullet can generate the same energy as an arrow, you should be good.

I had a friend a few years ago that was ticketed for having his blind on a berm, This was before it was ok to hunt with a rifle from elevated spots. He argued for a long time trying to state how much safer he was being.

[45/70fan]

I had a friend a few years ago that was ticketed for having his blind on a berm, This was before it was ok to hunt with a rifle from elevated spots. He argued for a long time trying to state how much safer he was being.

Collection of gold for the kings coffers will trump common sense and reason every time.

[glenway]

Ballistically speaking, this bill falls short. My thoughts below:

When Michigan House Bill 5249 was proposed, this month by Representative Matthew Lori (R) District 59, it appeared as though Michigan’s Zone III (shotgun zone) deer hunters would be allowed a viable alternative to shotguns, muzzleloaders, and handguns. (This is a repeat of an identical proposal by Rep. Green in October of 2011 that went nowhere.) For years, I have wondered why straight-walled cartridges were not allowed in rifle configurations, as opposed to current regulations permitting handguns only. Now, I am wondering why anyone has bothered to open the dialogue with such a limited field of view.

Mr. Lori’s bill would allow the use of .35 caliber or larger rifles loaded with straight-walled cartridges with a minimum case length of 1.16 inches and a maximum case length of 1.8 inches in the shotgun zone. Understand that cases are not cartridges; rather, they are the brass component of a cartridge. The thinking behind the proposal is to allow seniors or disabled hunters to use more manageable firearms than conventional slug guns, which typically kick like mules.

Opposition to the bill centers on the perception that these new rules would present safety problems in heavily populated areas and could lead to more requests by counties and local municipalities to impose more restrictions, effectively nullifying the strategy to make it easier to hunt deer.

A review of the cartridges within the minimum and maximum case lengths reveals that only traditional handgun cartridges would be permitted in rifles. Examples are the .357 magnum, .41 magnum, .44 magnum, .460 and .500 Smith & Wesson. As an illustration of the added velocity that could be obtained, the .44 magnum with a 240-grain bullet fired from an average handgun moves at approximately 1100 feet-per-second (fps); the same load shot from a rifle would gain another 600 fps to approximately 1700 fps. That’s a substantial improvement but it doesn’t compare to what is legally available to hunters in Zone III already.

Modern muzzleloaders will propel the same bullet at over 2000 fps. Since nobody seems to be railing against the power factor of muzzleloaders relative to safety issues, why not add a few handgun calibers in rifle configuration? Better yet, why not add real rifle calibers, as long as they use straight-walled cases? (Straight-walled cartridges do not have the pressure/velocity of bottle-neck cartridges.)

A look at the venerable .45/70 cartridge, which has a case length of 2.105 and, therefore disqualified under the bill, shows that it pokes along at 2000 fps with a 400-grain bullet. Certainly, not a high-velocity threat to safety any more than a modern muzzleloader. Another example is the .375 Winchester, which propels a 255-grain bullet at the pace of 1800 fps. Shotguns and muzzleloaders go just as fast, if not faster, and nobody is bellyaching about these firearms.

HB 5249 is a feeble attempt at a narrow window of opportunity to broaden tools for hunting. It is reminiscent of the crossbow “speed limit” imposed on hunters a couple of years ago, when advertised speed could not exceed 350 fps. A year later, lawmakers came to their senses, and removed velocity restrictions, but not until thousands of Michigan hunters purchased “compromising”, compliant crossbows. Thanks a lot!

Similarly, when handguns were first allowed in Zone III, single-shot pistols were forbidden. Handgun deer hunters were forced to use revolvers or semi-auto pistols. If ever a handgun was made for hunting, it was the single-shots like the Thompson/Center Contender and Encore, and if common sense were to have prevailed when the law was changed, they would have been included. Subsequently, the law was changed years later. Thanks again.

House Bill 5249 has all the makings of another attempt at change for the sake of change. There are other options for elderly and handicapped hunters like 20-gauge shotguns, porting of barrels to reduce recoil and muzzleloaders with reduced loads. However, a bill based on ballistics – and not perception – could provide the means to take deer humanely with all straight-walled centerfire cartridges in Zone III without any added safety concerns.

With all due respect, Representative Lori, let’s get it right this time or quit wasting the taxpayers’ money.

[durus5995]

Glenway have you tried writing Representative Lori?

http://www.gophouse.com/contact.asp?District=59

[Tallbear]

Ballistically speaking, this bill falls short. My thoughts below:

When Michigan House Bill 5249 was proposed, this month by Representative Matthew Lori (R) District 59, it appeared as though Michigan’s Zone III (shotgun zone) deer hunters would be allowed a viable alternative to shotguns, muzzleloaders, and handguns. (This is a repeat of an identical proposal by Rep. Green in October of 2011 that went nowhere.) For years, I have wondered why straight-walled cartridges were not allowed in rifle configurations, as opposed to current regulations permitting handguns only. Now, I am wondering why anyone has bothered to open the dialogue with such a limited field of view.

Mr. Lori’s bill would allow the use of .35 caliber or larger rifles loaded with straight-walled cartridges with a minimum case length of 1.16 inches and a maximum case length of 1.8 inches in the shotgun zone. Understand that cases are not cartridges; rather, they are the brass component of a cartridge. The thinking behind the proposal is to allow seniors or disabled hunters to use more manageable firearms than conventional slug guns, which typically kick like mules.

Opposition to the bill centers on the perception that these new rules would present safety problems in heavily populated areas and could lead to more requests by counties and local municipalities to impose more restrictions, effectively nullifying the strategy to make it easier to hunt deer.

A review of the cartridges within the minimum and maximum case lengths reveals that only traditional handgun cartridges would be permitted in rifles. Examples are the .357 magnum, .41 magnum, .44 magnum, .460 and .500 Smith & Wesson. As an illustration of the added velocity that could be obtained, the .44 magnum with a 240-grain bullet fired from an average handgun moves at approximately 1100 feet-per-second (fps); the same load shot from a rifle would gain another 600 fps to approximately 1700 fps. That’s a substantial improvement but it doesn’t compare to what is legally available to hunters in Zone III already.

Modern muzzleloaders will propel the same bullet at over 2000 fps. Since nobody seems to be railing against the power factor of muzzleloaders relative to safety issues, why not add a few handgun calibers in rifle configuration? Better yet, why not add real rifle calibers, as long as they use straight-walled cases? (Straight-walled cartridges do not have the pressure/velocity of bottle-neck cartridges.)

A look at the venerable .45/70 cartridge, which has a case length of 2.105 and, therefore disqualified under the bill, shows that it pokes along at 2000 fps with a 400-grain bullet. Certainly, not a high-velocity threat to safety any more than a modern muzzleloader. Another example is the .375 Winchester, which propels a 255-grain bullet at the pace of 1800 fps. Shotguns and muzzleloaders go just as fast, if not faster, and nobody is bellyaching about these firearms.

HB 5249 is a feeble attempt at a narrow window of opportunity to broaden tools for hunting. It is reminiscent of the crossbow “speed limit” imposed on hunters a couple of years ago, when advertised speed could not exceed 350 fps. A year later, lawmakers came to their senses, and removed velocity restrictions, but not until thousands of Michigan hunters purchased “compromising”, compliant crossbows. Thanks a lot!

Similarly, when handguns were first allowed in Zone III, single-shot pistols were forbidden. Handgun deer hunters were forced to use revolvers or semi-auto pistols. If ever a handgun was made for hunting, it was the single-shots like the Thompson/Center Contender and Encore, and if common sense were to have prevailed when the law was changed, they would have been included. Subsequently, the law was changed years later. Thanks again.

House Bill 5249 has all the makings of another attempt at change for the sake of change. There are other options for elderly and handicapped hunters like 20-gauge shotguns, porting of barrels to reduce recoil and muzzleloaders with reduced loads. However, a bill based on ballistics – and not perception – could provide the means to take deer humanely with all straight-walled centerfire cartridges in Zone III without any added safety concerns.

With all due respect, Representative Lori, let’s get it right this time or quit wasting the taxpayers’ money.

It wasn't a "law" change. It was a "policy"change and I tried to get the DNR to change the "policy" on rifles in the shotgun zone last year to no avail. That is why a "bill" was introduced to change it.

[glenway]

It wasn't a "law" change. It was a "policy"change and I tried to get the DNR to change the "policy" on rifles in the shotgun zone last year to no avail. That is why a "bill" was introduced to change it.
Policies, rules, regulations, laws - call them what you will. Semantics won't change the fact that this narrow window of opportunity is not worth the trouble. The politicians have more important things to spend their time and my money on.

As far as contacting any of them, consider them having been contacted today by virtue of my weekly column in today's Argus-Press in the outdoor section. Representative Glardon is sure to share my views with his peers.

[45/70fan]

Policies, rules, regulations, laws - call them what you will. Semantics won't change the fact that this narrow window of opportunity is not worth the trouble. The politicians have more important things to spend their time and my money on.

As far as contacting any of them, consider them having been contacted today by virtue of my weekly column in today's Argus-Press in the outdoor section. Representative Glardon is sure to share my views with his peers.

Rather arrogant aren't we?

[durus5995]

Policies, rules, regulations, laws - call them what you will. Semantics won't change the fact that this narrow window of opportunity is not worth the trouble. The politicians have more important things to spend their time and my money on.

As far as contacting any of them, consider them having been contacted today by virtue of my weekly column in today's Argus-Press in the outdoor section. Representative Glardon is sure to share my views with his peers.
:lolup: :lollol: :roflmao:

While I share your sentiments about the short comings of this bill but, why should we count your column to reach every representative?

Like 45/70 said arrogant much?

[glenway]

[QUOTE=durus5995]:lolup: :lollol: :roflmao:

While I share your sentiments about the short comings of this bill but, why should we count your column to reach every representative?

Like 45/70 said arrogant much?[/QUOTE3]
Name calling isn't going to get it done, either. Just the same, I'll forward the column to Reps. Lori and Glardon with my contact info.

The problem with this weak-spined bill is one of perception, as indicated in the con section of the bill's summary. Centerfire rifles? Oh,no! So, rather than addressing the perception issue through education, the politicians have chosen to water the bill down to appease those who may not understand ballistics.

Yes, being able to tote a .44 Ruger carbine afield would be cool. But, many other legal Zone III-calibers produce much more energy - and, probably better accuracy, so why bother unless you are a fan of firepower, as opposed to bullet placement and/or already own one of the handgun-caliber rifles.

Doing it right in the first place beats going back some time in the future to do it over. Such strategy is too costly, when this state has more pressing priorities.

[45/70fan]

[quote=durus5995]:lolup: :lollol: :roflmao:

While I share your sentiments about the short comings of this bill but, why should we count your column to reach every representative?

Like 45/70 said arrogant much?[/QUOTE3]
Name calling isn't going to get it done, either. Just the same, I'll forward the column to Reps. Lori and Glardon with my contact info.

The problem with this weak-spined bill is one of perception, as indicated in the con section of the bill's summary. Centerfire rifles? Oh,no! So, rather than addressing the perception issue through education, the politicians have chosen to water the bill down to appease those who may not understand ballistics.

Yes, being able to tote a .44 Ruger carbine afield would be cool. But, many other legal Zone III-calibers produce much more energy - and, probably better accuracy, so why bother unless you are a fan of firepower, as opposed to bullet placement and/or already own one of the handgun-caliber rifles.

Doing it right in the first place beats going back some time in the future to do it over. Such strategy is too costly, when this state has more pressing priorities.

Just exactly what is it you are advocating?

[buckey]

Wow, Not only do I still have nothing, I have someone telling me that they know just what gun I need to be packing. Anyone still wondering why nothing gets done?

[Buckwhacka]

I hope this passes for next year. Haven't been able to head up north the last few years and would like to be able to bring out the 44 in shotgun zone.

[EricF517]

I would like to use my 308 in by back yard. Or out in the corn fields of Hillsdale, ect, ect, ect!

[45/70fan]

I would like to use my 308 in by back yard. Or out in the corn fields of Hillsdale, ect, ect, ect!\\

Not gonna happen.

[Leader]

I would like to use my 308 in by back yard. Or out in the corn fields of Hillsdale, ect, ect, ect!

You can.

Anytime except during firearms deer season.
Which the DNR says is Nov. 15 -30.

[EricF517]

\\

Not gonna happen.

I know because people are too worried about getting their specific rifle cleared to be used in the lower half, instead of getting all rifles legal.

[EricF517]

You can.

Anytime except during firearms deer season.
Which the DNR says is Nov. 15 -30.

Yes, but now unfortunately only during daylight hours for some unknown reason that the DNR came up with.

[fr3db3ar]

Yes, but now unfortunately only during daylight hours for some unknown reason that the DNR came up with.

Because we're all potential poachers.:bash:

[45/70fan]

Because we're all potential poachers.:bash:

No more so than the two MSP officers out of Alpena using state vehicles with state issued spotlights, state issued firearms and on taxpayers dime/time.

[EricF517]

No more so than the two MSP officers out of Alpena using state vehicles with state issued spotlights, state issued firearms and on taxpayers dime/time.

:yeahthat:

[DP425]

The regulations are being proposed so that we can use a rifle that is shooting a cartridge which is capable of putting down an average sized deer effectively. To allow the use of calibers less than 35 or cases shorter than the proposed 1.16 would open the field to the use of 32 acp, 22 shorts or 30 luger etc. none of which are efficient but that would not stop some idiot from saying hey I've got this so I might as well use it. Will any of the smaller than proposed take a deer, sure if properly placed under ideal conditions by a marksman that is capable of doing it at unknown distances.
To open it to longer than proposed 1.8 or non straight walled would open it to just about anything used in a rifle, so why not just open it to any rifle?? That isn't going to happen so folks either support the use of rifles shooting a pistol cartridge within proposed capable limits or STFU.


How about you STFU or support the use of ALL pistol cartridges that are legal for PISTOL hunting in this rifle hunting bill.

You are failing to use logic here- if it's legit for pistol hunting, it should be legit for rifle hunting since when chambered in rifles it is more accurate and almost always produces more fps and energy. Both of which mean cleaner kills. You make no sense.

Also your notion that one should either support the bill as written or STFU? Really? REALLY??? Sure, just advocate one lends blind support to all laws and bills or just shut their mouth; that's obviously the best way to have effective legislation.

I
D
10
T

[DP425]

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19531

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_11_53/ai_n20512665/


The whole "rifle is more dangerous than shotgun" is a load of BS anyway. Situation dictates which is actually more dangerous, and the more "typical" of hunting situations has the shotgun being nothing more than a trade-off; shorter range traveled assuming no ricochet, longer if it does ricochet. And lets keep in mind, ricochets are a lot more common than one may assume; it doesn't take much and the low angle of decent when firing around the 0 degrees mark. Rock, stone, water, possibly even a hardwood tree.

[45/70fan]

How about you STFU or support the use of ALL pistol cartridges that are legal for PISTOL hunting in this rifle hunting bill.

You are failing to use logic here- if it's legit for pistol hunting, it should be legit for rifle hunting since when chambered in rifles it is more accurate and almost always produces more fps and energy. Both of which mean cleaner kills. You make no sense.

Also your notion that one should either support the bill as written or STFU? Really? REALLY??? Sure, just advocate one lends blind support to all laws and bills or just shut their mouth; that's obviously the best way to have effective legislation.

I
D
10
T

DP425: Take some time and read the present regulations on handgun use for deer hunting and understand them. What is being proposed is nothing less than what is presently allowed for true handgun cartridges. Granted 45-70 rifle cartridges can be used now under the definition. However, 45-70 or the 45 2 1/10 isn't really a handgun cartridge is it. Granted one mfg does produce a revolver that utilizes it and it can be used in a TC Contender. Under the rifle useage with a true pistol cartridge you could still use the same rounds you do now out of a "handgun" just not a rifle. If you were to actually read what I have said and asked to be included it expands the pistol rounds that can be used to include a couple of the oldest cartridges used in a handgun and rifle, 38WCF and 44WCF (38-40 and 44-40).
Little boy now take your toys and go play your own sand box with the other children while trying to understand what the big boys are trying to do to expand our hunting opportunities.
Once you comprehend the true gist of the legislation you might want to reconsider who the true IDIOT is here.
No Fricking wonder nothing useful ever gets accomplished as a result of the discussions on this forum.

[DP425]

DP425: Take some time and read the present regulations on handgun use for deer hunting and understand them. What is being proposed is nothing less than what is presently allowed for true handgun cartridges. Granted 45-70 rifle cartridges can be used now under the definition. However, 45-70 or the 45 2 1/10 isn't really a handgun cartridge is it. Granted one mfg does produce a revolver that utilizes it and it can be used in a TC Contender. Under the rifle useage with a true pistol cartridge you could still use the same rounds you do now out of a "handgun" just not a rifle. If you were to actually read what I have said and asked to be included it expands the pistol rounds that can be used to include a couple of the oldest cartridges used in a handgun and rifle, 38WCF and 44WCF (38-40 and 44-40).
Little boy now take your toys and go play your own sand box with the other children while trying to understand what the big boys are trying to do to expand our hunting opportunities.
Once you comprehend the true gist of the legislation you might want to reconsider who the true IDIOT is here.
No Fricking wonder nothing useful ever gets accomplished as a result of the discussions on this forum.

"little boy"... now that's funny. As for my "sand box"... yup, I've spent YEARS there, and most would argue that makes more of a man than just about anything else. So scream all you want from your soap box; everyone else here sees clearly the ignorance of your statements.


so folks either support the use of rifles shooting a pistol cartridge within proposed capable limits or STFU.


That says it all- go with what is proposed or stfu; and you call me a little boy? You my friend need to grow up a little bit. Half of the crap you say to members on here I'm just about certain you wouldn't even contemplate saying face to face. Takes a big (ignorant) man to make statements like above on the internet. Intelligent people usually understand there are differing views to fixing a problem and with those differing views comes different approches to solving the problem. Intelligence doesn't tell someone to "get on board or STFU"- rather, one would explain their points then ask for support, understanding fully a person's right to voice opinions differing from your own, and push for legislation according to their stance. You partially succeed at explaining your points, but fail miserably on all other steps. I wouldn't be surprised if you favor the term "sheeple" either- and if you can't see why that term is ignorant, there is little use in explaining it.

And in your response, you're not even addressing the real issue- the fact that true pistol calibers, legal to hunt with in pistols (not just one or two specialized pistols, but widely available makes and models), more powerful at range than a 410 and some more than a 20ga slug when fired from a rifle, but less powerful than a 12ga slug are 100% off the table with this bill. The list is extensive, but some of the more popular are 9x19, .45acp, .40SW, 10mm, .400 corbon, .38 special... Some of the available loadings in these calibers easily out-pacing the best loadings in some of the proposed legal calibers, and ALL perform better than the .410 slug. If you can articulate logic behind this, I'll gladly support this bill. But as of right now I'm going to be petitioning my representatives to vote no on this bill... should it make it out of committee. I just fail to see any sound logic behind this bill. It simply appears it is an attempt to be able to use lever guns chambered in magnum pistol and pistol calibers having the origins in black powder or revolver. If that is the reason you support the bill- fine, that is a justifiable reason. It doesn't hold LOGIC however when tested against legal handgun hunting calibers under the pretense of humane kill and public safety. I am not in the habit of supporting bills that fail on the logic side and have the very real potential to cause further DNR restrictions- even if for no other purpose than bringing continuity to the rules (it would be far too easy to say only calibers authorized in rifles for zone 3 can be used in handguns) However, you will not catch me saying, with any seriousness that if your opinion is different than my, you need to "shut the F up". I don't know, maybe my career has led me to a better appreciation for our legislative process, constitution and individual free thought than most. It would appear very clear you have the misguided belief that yours is the only opinion that counts. Online behavior is often not the same as real life behavior- and I hope this is the case here; otherwise it would be a fairly safe assumption that the result would be a person fairly socially stunted.

Good luck in your endeavors to verbally force everyone into compliance.

[buckey]

WOW, Now we even hate each other?

[luckless]

Wouldn't it be easier to require hunters to use an elevated blind when hunting in zone 3 with a rifle? It wouldn't matter if you used a .50 BMG if it just pounded into the ground.

[DP425]

Wouldn't it be easier to require hunters to use an elevated blind when hunting in zone 3 with a rifle? It wouldn't matter if you used a .50 BMG if it just pounded into the ground.

Well, I'm against the whole zone 3 deal as is... make it by county or whatever if it MUST be done. But anyway, that assumes the bullet won't hit a rock... or that the shot wont be taken from a stand at game standing on high-ground. I'm not saying these are situations that are likely, but they are what those supporting zone 3 restrictions would come up with.

And all of this with absolutely zero scientific study and what appears to be a very hap-hazard set of rules.

[Quaamik]

Back in November I posted this but some still don't seem to want to grasp it:

Comparisons between cartridges that are allowed in pistols and some that wouldn't be allowed under the proposed law (in rifles). Note that under the proposed law as worded, there would not be a change in whether they would be legal in a pistol: (Ballistics from Winchester)

Allowed in pistols / proposed allowed in rifles
.357 magnum
125 gr @ 1450 fps (muzzle), 1239 fps / 426 ftlbs at 50 yards
158 gr @ 1235 fps (muzzle), 1104 fps / 427 ftlbs at 50 yards

Allowed in pistols / proposed prohibited in rifles:
.40 S&W
155 gr @ 1205 fps (muzzle), 1096 fps / 413 ftlbs at 50 yards

10 mm
175 gr @ 1290 fps (muzzle), 1141 fps / 505 ftlbs at 50 yards

Allowed in Shotguns:
.410 gauge slug (weight not given)
1800 fps (783 ftlbs) - Muzzle
1275 fps / 393 ftlbs - 50 yards

20 gauge slug (Super X 2-3/4" - weight not given)
1600 fps (1863 ftlbs) - Muzzle
1162 fps / 982 ftlbs - 50 yards
953 fps / 661 ftlbs - 100 yards

There are many more comparisons I could have chosen. .45 super, .300 whisper,.45 ACP+P, 9x23, .357 SIG, .400 corbon, .327 magnum can all be compared favorably (for killng power) in a similar fashion. .45 colt & .44-40, loaded anywhere near the old black powder levels, look to be ridiculous to allow when .45 ACP, .45 GAP & 9 mm+P are prohibited.

Note that to really see the arbitrary nature of the current law and the proposed law, look at the blistics of this straight walled cartidge - currently prohibited in pistols and would not be allowed in rifles in zone 3 under the proposed law:

.30 carbine
110 gr @ 1790 fps (muzzle)
--- 1585 fps / 613 ftlbs at 50 yas
--- 1403 fps / 480 ftlbs at 100yards.

vrs this (propsed to be legal):

.50 bewulf
300 gr @ 1870 fps / 2,330 ftlbs at muzzle (i don't have the downrange ballistics handy).
(edited to add downrange ballistics)
--- 1442 fps / 1385 ftlbs at 100 yards
also
334 gr @ 1980 fps / 2908 ftlbs at muzzle
--- 1639 fps / 1994 ftlbs at 100 yards
--- 1352 fps / 1357 ftlbs at 200 yards

I challange you to show the restrictions on cartridge size are about making sure the cartridge has adequate power to kill a deer, yet limiting its power to a "safe" range. The law appears to have been crafted as DP425 said: ".... an attempt to be able to use lever guns chambered in magnum pistol and pistol calibers having the origins in black powder or revolver." Possibly with a bone thrown in for those who like ARs in specialty calibers, though that could have just been an oversight.

[Dabears!]

so did this pass?

[Darth AkSarBen]

Personally I think it's a dumb idea. What they should have made legal is small and fast bullets. You shoot a .243 or .260, even a 6.8 spc in the brush and that bullet will be very disrupted if you hit any kind or branch. Bigger thick heavy bullets just keep right on traveling. a 22-250 or .220 Swift would literally disentegrate if one used it in a heavy tree and brush area, and even at best would be prone to missing the deer mererly by clipping a branch and destroying itself. Heavy and straight wall is a bad idea.

[shawnz71]

looks like iam hunting with my beowulf

[glenway]

A hearing on the bill was held yesterday and all appears to be on track. However, the DNR was not present for some reason (maybe they didn't get the memo) but its negative views on the issue have already been outlined and IMO will be easily refuted when confronted in the public forum.

Those in attendance asked questions about the implications of enforcement, ballistics, etc. and there was no overt resistance to anything contained in the proposal.

If the bill makes it out of committee, it should pass with the Republican majority in control.

[Darth AkSarBen]

I still think you can have a safer deer cartridge if the specific were very fast and small dia. bullets. I have been a Deputy back in Nebraksa and have known of some small towns that would shoot nuisance cats, in town, with a 22-250 rifle. Well place close in shots, indeed, but even as such the bullet was so varmit designed that the bullet became almost like shot after hitting or even if missed. Richochets with faster bullets is less problematic than say something of .45 ACP, 45 Long Colt, .357 Magnum, 45-70 Springfield and so on. The list is great for straight wall calibers with heavy sectional density.

Conversly, .338 Win Mag, .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Weatherby magnum, etc are designed for larger and/or dangerous game and would be VERY prone to richochet and quite undesirable for more close in populated areas in this state.

I can sit on the knob of my sewer drain hill and use a .223 or 6.8 SPC with it's faster lighter bullets and shoot coyotes, etc an still be withing legal limits of Michigan laws. Just so long as I am not shooting deer on my property, only predators, woodchucks, etc. I am ok.

Just my :twocents: on this matter.....

[Leader]

I still think you can have a safer deer cartridge if the specific were very fast and small dia. bullets. I have been a Deputy back in Nebraksa and have known of some small towns that would shoot nuisance cats, in town, with a 22-250 rifle. Well place close in shots, indeed, but even as such the bullet was so varmit designed that the bullet became almost like shot after hitting or even if missed. Richochets with faster bullets is less problematic than say something of .45 ACP, 45 Long Colt, .357 Magnum, 45-70 Springfield and so on. The list is great for straight wall calibers with heavy sectional density.

Conversly, .338 Win Mag, .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Weatherby magnum, etc are designed for larger and/or dangerous game and would be VERY prone to richochet and quite undesirable for more close in populated areas in this state.

I can sit on the knob of my sewer drain hill and use a .223 or 6.8 SPC with it's faster lighter bullets and shoot coyotes, etc an still be withing legal limits of Michigan laws. Just so long as I am not shooting deer on my property, only predators, woodchucks, etc. I am ok.

Just my :twocents: on this matter.....

I could sit on the knob of your sewer drain and shoot a .30-.30 or .30-.06 and be within MI's laws.
Just not during a firearm deer season.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Crazy, huh?

[glenway]

A hearing on the bill was held yesterday and all appears to be on track. However, the DNR was not present for some reason (maybe they didn't get the memo) but its negative views on the issue have already been outlined and IMO will be easily refuted when confronted in the public forum.

Those in attendance asked questions about the implications of enforcement, ballistics, etc. and there was no overt resistance to anything contained in the proposal.

If the bill makes it out of committee, it should pass with the Republican majority in control.

The bill has been voted out of committee and now heads to the Houose floor where it is expected to pass before break.

[EricF517]

I hope it gets shot down unless they make ALL rifle legal

[glenway]

I hope it gets shot down unless they make ALL rifle legal
Obviously, nobody's going to buy into that logic, as logical as it may seem. In fact, I had pushed to make all straight-wall cartridges legal in the southern zone but was convinced it could have made your wish come true: it would have been shot down.

The concept is to take this smaller step, see how it goes, and if no issues down the road, take another step.

Sorry, but it's the reality of politics. The all-or-nothing argument would leave us with nothing.

[45/70fan]

I hope it gets shot down unless they make ALL rifle legal

Not gonna happen and thanks:wtf: for your non support on the gun issue

[Helspar]

Obviously, nobody's going to buy into that logic, as logical as it may seem. In fact, I had pushed to make all straight-wall cartridges legal in the southern zone but was convinced it could have made your wish come true: it would have been shot down.

The concept is to take this smaller step, see how it goes, and if no issues down the road, take another step.

Sorry, but it's the reality of politics. The all-or-nothing argument would leave us with nothing.

I keep reminding myself of that. A lot of us are eager for this Republican led state to now clear out the mess of restrictions we gun owners have to deal with that other states do not.
We need to have patience sure, but we need to keep the heat on them as well.

[tc scout]

I hope it gets shot down unless they make ALL rifle legal

:boohoo:

[buckey]

I hope it gets shot down unless they make ALL rifle legal

Makes me warm and fuzzy to think this guy's on my side?

[EricF517]

Makes me warm and fuzzy to think this guy's on my side?

I rather you be warm and fuzzy than hard and excited.

[party01]

Any new news on this subject?

I have a .44 mag rifle I am going to sell off if there is no chance of this ever going through.

[shawnz71]

what do you have, old ruger carbine, or 1990 -2000 type

[Quaamik]

Obviously, nobody's going to buy into that logic, as logical as it may seem. In fact, I had pushed to make all straight-wall cartridges legal in the southern zone but was convinced it could have made your wish come true: it would have been shot down.

The concept is to take this smaller step, see how it goes, and if no issues down the road, take another step.

Sorry, but it's the reality of politics. The all-or-nothing argument would leave us with nothing.

I gotta ask, how could pushing for all straight walled cartridges have lead to it getting shot down?

The DNR isn't on board with any, so that cant be it. I have yet to hear anyone brining up the arguement that deer were being wounded by cartridges that were too weak show any example, the lengths selected allow for rounds that have as much reach as the .45-70, and there are cartridges in the selected size range that run through "evil black rifles".

The only advantage I see to the proposed size cartidges is a catering to those who like the lever style cowboy guns. Is the group that wants them and ONLY them strong enough to dictate this?

If it passes as is, is there a plan / timeline in place to go back and ask for more? Or are we going to do the same as with CPLs and go 10 years plus with no changes?

[sasquatchpa]

Has there been any recent activity?
Or are they all out selling their souls and buying votes?

[Kaeto]

They can't sell their souls. You can't sell what you never had.

[buckey]

Send Tall bear a PM, He stays atop of most things and can tell you if this is moving or not

[Magnum Man]

This is the current information on SB0775 from the Michigan Senate website.http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(r5i4ngnvj1zuywuhpjfhhofz))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0775&query=on

[buckey]

Anyone want to guess which way this one goes? May be Tall Bear will weigh in and give his take.

[RayMich]

The only advantage I see to the proposed size cartridges is a catering to those who like the lever style cowboy guns. Is the group that wants them and ONLY them strong enough to dictate this?
Same thing with the pistol requirements.

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.
Which caters to revolvers and the limited magazine capacity of the 1911 crowd. But at least, there is no case length restrictions for handguns and it is fairly easy to reduce magazine capacity for .35 caliber or larger pistols. But makes the .357 SIG pistols illegal for hunting.

It is absolutely ridiculous that I can hunt with a .38 Special revolver, but a rifle that shoots the same exact ammo is illegal.

[45/70fan]

Same thing with the pistol requirements.

Which caters to revolvers and the limited magazine capacity of the 1911 crowd. But at least, there is no case length restrictions for handguns and it is fairly easy to reduce magazine capacity for .35 caliber or larger pistols. But makes the .357 SIG pistols illegal for hunting.

It is absolutely ridiculous that I can hunt with a .38 Special revolver, but a rifle that shoots the same exact ammo is illegal.

Why couldn't you use the rifle shooting a 38 special?

[Roundballer]

Why couldn't you use the rifle shooting a 38 special?
Because the bill says:

(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.
And the nominal case length for the 38 special does not make that lower limit.

The 38 special doesn't appear to be on "THE LIST"

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1423084&postcount=8

[45/70fan]

Because the bill says:

And the nominal case length for the 38 special does not make that lower limit.

The 38 special doesn't appear to be on "THE LIST"

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1423084&postcount=8

Maybe we can get that little oversight changed, the 38 special case is
1.55 in (29.3mm)

[EricF517]

Suck it up and use a shotgun or muzzle loader, or make all rifles legal THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

I find it funny to read some of you guys who post in the political sections about picking winners and losers LOL.

[Quack Addict]

Maybe we can get that little oversight changed, the 38 special case is
1.55 in (29.3mm)

Nope.

38 Spl Case length = 1.155"
38 Spl Cartridge Overall Length = 1.55"

A run of the mill 9mm carries more energy than a 38 Spl slug... even 38 Spl +P. I think the proposal is written as it is, in part, to exclude the 38 Spl...

[wolfy]

1.155" carried to 2 decimal places IS 1.16"

1.155" = 1.16"

but 1.155" does not equal 1.160"

[tc scout]

Nope.

38 Spl Case length = 1.155"
38 Spl Cartridge Overall Length = 1.55"

A run of the mill 9mm carries more energy than a 38 Spl slug... even 38 Spl +P. I think the proposal is written as it is, in part, to exclude the 38 Spl...

What does it matter, both rounds are too anemic for a primary deer cartridge anyway.:twocents:

[Leader]

What does it matter, both rounds are too anemic for a primary deer cartridge anyway.:twocents:

But a pointed stick will do just fine.

[tc scout]

But a pointed stick will do just fine.
Sorry, I guess I missed the fact that pointed sticks
were on the list of accepted calibers.

[Leader]

Sorry, I guess I missed the fact that pointed sticks
were on the list of accepted calibers.

Yup... With the proper license, anywhere in the state from 10/1 -12/31

and during the early seasons too.

[45/70fan]

Sorry, I guess I missed the fact that pointed sticks
were on the list of accepted calibers.

Pointed sticks have been on the accepted list for about the last 20,000 years.

[tc scout]

Yup... With the proper license, anywhere in the state from 10/1 -12/31

and during the early seasons too.

Sorry, didn't specify sticks on HB 5429 as a cartridge caliber. My mistake, not going to get into the usual flame throwing because of a statement that I made and a statement by you that doesn't even pertain to guns or calibers or HB 5429. One cannot even express an opinion on here anymore without an argument or getting bashed by nonsense comments by people who don't have anything better to do.

[buckey]

Amen! Gun people don't seem to work together for the common good, only if there is something in it for themselves.

[Quaamik]

Sorry, I guess I missed the fact that pointed sticks
were on the list of accepted calibers.

Its called archery.

[Quaamik]

Same thing with the pistol requirements.

Which caters to revolvers and the limited magazine capacity of the 1911 crowd. But at least, there is no case length restrictions for handguns and it is fairly easy to reduce magazine capacity for .35 caliber or larger pistols. But makes the .357 SIG pistols illegal for hunting.

It is absolutely ridiculous that I can hunt with a .38 Special revolver, but a rifle that shoots the same exact ammo is illegal.

I agree that it's ridiculous that .357 SIG can't be used. But I can understand that as the law was written before modern bottlenecked pistol cartridges were available. As far as I know it was intended to keep people from chambering a pistol in a bottlenecked rifle round and using it. The capacity limit does cater to 1911s and revolvers. I can see the drive for it as around the time it was passed they also limited the capacity of semi auto rifles.

I'd love to see it opened to any rifle round, but there doesn't seem to be any support for it. If it has to be restricted, then I'd like the restrictions to be the same for pistol and rifle rounds. As the proposal is written, someone could find themselves in trouble if they were carrying a revolver and a rifle both in .357 mag, had .38 special rounds loaded in the revolver and some spare ones in a pocket or belt loops. If one found it's way into the rifle, they could be in trouble. Even if it didn't, an overzealous DNR officer could take issue with it.

[tc scout]

Its called archery.
And what has archery got to do with HB 5429? Did I miss something.
I am not the one who brought up this stick thing. I have probably been bowhunting more years than you are old, so I think I know the the definition of archery.
I am out of this conversation of nonsense.:banghead:

[Leader]

What does it matter, both rounds are too anemic for a primary deer cartridge anyway.:twocents:

That statement is what brought out the stick.
A .38 is too anemic but thousands of deer & at least hundreds of bear are killed buy a mere pointed stick every year.

[45/70fan]

That statement is what brought out the stick.
A .38 is too anemic but thousands of deer & at least hundreds of bear are killed buy a mere pointed stick every year.

I was hunting with an FBI agent in 1980 when he used a mdl 19 loaded with 38 spl FBI rounds (lead hollow point). His muzzle loader failed to fire and while reaching for a new cap his hand hit his revolver, walla up comes the pistol and down goes a bull elk, one round in the boiler room. The 38 may be anemic but proper placement over rules anemia. I didn't believe it either until we dressout out the bull and I recovered the slug.

[Quack Addict]

It's almost comical how easily folks get side tracked on this topic.


What does it matter, both rounds are too anemic for a primary deer cartridge anyway.:twocents:

That's exactly the point I was trying to make by saying that a 38 Spl / 38 Spl+P has less gass than a 9mm... :togo:

[sasquatchpa]

Are they back to work yet?
Vote buying season is over.
Or are they out on Thanksgiving break?

[Roundballer]

Are they back to work yet?
Vote buying season is over.
Or are they out on Thanksgiving break?
They were in session for 1 day (yesterday) and they will be back for about 3 days after Thanksgiving. After that, they will be in session Tue, Wed, Thur for the first three weeks of Dec...... Then they are done.

[Quaamik]

And what has archery got to do with HB 5429? Did I miss something.
I am not the one who brought up this stick thing. I have probably been bowhunting more years than you are old, so I think I know the the definition of archery.
I am out of this conversation of nonsense.:banghead:

Sorry, it was a smart ***** comment addressing the "pointed stick" issue. I doubt you have been bow hunting that long, unless of course you were napping arrowheads out of flint :winker:

The whole "too anemic" bit is a side issue. There are deer and bear taken with .22 rimfire every year (lets leave the "legal" part out of it) as well as with arrows. They used to be hunted (as were hogs) with spears and I wouldn't be suprised if there were people still doing that in North America. All that being said, .38 special is more than enough to take deer with, given reasonable ranges and good shot placement.

The issue that I, personaly, have with the bill as written is that the exact same cartridge that is legal in a pistol is not legal in a rifle with no valid justification as to why. It creates a nightmare for enforcement, as a loose round carried by a person could be legal if loaded into thier pistol and illegal if loaded into thier rifle. On top of that, the difference can be a few hundreths of an inch in case length (not cartridge length).

If the cartridges are too weak, why are they legal in pistols? I'm afraid that down the road it will be used as a reason to eliminate them from pistol hunting as well.

I'll admit that some of my bias stems from favoring a couple cartridges (.45 ACP+P and .45 Super) that I carry, use while hunting and have both a pistol and rifle in. Maybe if I favored .44 mag I'd look at it as no big deal. But as it is I don't see much advantage in the bill but I see a lot of red tape and potential downsides.

[tc scout]

Sorry, it was a smart ***** comment addressing the "pointed stick" issue. I doubt you have been bow hunting that long, unless of course you were napping arrowheads out of flint :winker:

The whole "too anemic" bit is a side issue. There are deer and bear taken with .22 rimfire every year (lets leave the "legal" part out of it) as well as with arrows. They used to be hunted (as were hogs) with spears and I wouldn't be suprised if there were people still doing that in North America. All that being said, .38 special is more than enough to take deer with, given reasonable ranges and good shot placement.

The issue that I, personaly, have with the bill as written is that the exact same cartridge that is legal in a pistol is not legal in a rifle with no valid justification as to why. It creates a nightmare for enforcement, as a loose round carried by a person could be legal if loaded into thier pistol and illegal if loaded into thier rifle. On top of that, the difference can be a few hundreths of an inch in case length (not cartridge length).

If the cartridges are too weak, why are they legal in pistols? I'm afraid that down the road it will be used as a reason to eliminate them from pistol hunting as well.

I'll admit that some of my bias stems from favoring a couple cartridges (.45 ACP+P and .45 Super) that I carry, use while hunting and have both a pistol and rifle in. Maybe if I favored .44 mag I'd look at it as no big deal. But as it is I don't see much advantage in the bill but I see a lot of red tape and potential downsides.
Appology accepted, I was a bit out of line with my comments also,Sorry. I will agree that the bill is not great as proposed.
I was just expressing my opinion that I don't favor a cartridge such as 9MM,38 special and 22 rimfire Etc. as being adequate for deer. I am not a .44 fan either, hunted for years with a 357 Maximum Contender. Bought a rifle in 357 maximum in the hope that this bill would pass and sold the Contender. Unfortunatly I will not be hunting with a handgun this year, back to the ML.
Kind of have a bug for a 10MM now, but not for hunting this year.

[sasquatchpa]

They were in session for 1 day (yesterday) and they will be back for about 3 days after Thanksgiving. After that, they will be in session Tue, Wed, Thur for the first three weeks of Dec...... Then they are done.


Repub or Dem, This is wrong!

PS-edit--I don't mean that the info is incorrect. I mean it is WRONG for OUR representatives to be OFF THE JOB so much of the time!!!!!

[Dirty_Harry]

Any updates on this? I would really like to trade in the slug gun.

[Roundballer]

Any updates on this? I would really like to trade in the slug gun.
This bill died at the end of the legislative session last December.

New legislation was introduced this year, and it has it's flaws.

New thread for this legislative session, <click this line> (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=226470)

[SlowDog]

It should be really simple. If it is a cartridge that is used in a commercially produced pistol then it can be used. Simple and easy. But then that'd mean politicians wouldn't get to write thousands of pages of senseless leaglease.