Rifle's allowed in Waupaca County 2010?

[Gafrage]

Oh, trust me, I want to be persuaded.  I'd use my grandpas .35 Remington in a heartbeat.

I use Remington 12 gauge 2 3/4 inch 1oz. rifled slugs, in a smooth bore factory stock...I don't shoot more than 40 yards at a deer...with my bow or my gun.  The shells used to be $1.99 for 5, now they are closer to $3.29 for 5.

$0.40 - $0.66 per shell. 

It doesn't get much cheaper than that.  They do have 20 gauge, 28 gauge, 16 and .410's for shotguns.  Hard to say whether or not those kick less than a .270, .243, .300 or whatever you might have in mind, but my guess is that they kick a lot less than a 10 or 12 gauge.  I've used a 12 gauge my whole hunting career, even when I hunted in rifle country the first 9 years of my hunting career...as a matter of fact, I had a piece of crap shotgun for the first 3 years, to make sure I was interested in hunting, I literally used grandpas 12 gauge.  To me hunting wasn't a matter of killing something.  It was spending time with family members, having a group of hunters go out on cold, cold mornings in Marinette County.  We owned/leased roughly 155 acres when I started.  Between 13 people, we made it happen.  I wasn't the best shot when I started out, but when it came down to it, people started asking me what my trick was.  It was time with my gun.  I ended up switching hunting style from "if it's brown, it's down" to selective harvest.

So back to the studies...I will admit...I didn't read up on all of the details, but I did see that the effective range of a rifle is 2.64 miles, and a shotgun is 1.97 miles or something like that.

To me, that says rifles are more dangerous.  If they weren't, the military would be using them to snipe enemies at over a mile away.

That reminds me.

Do rifles have barrels that aren't rifled?  I suppose not, or they wouldn't be called rifles.

My point being this...the results in these study are skewed.

There is no mention of the grain of the bullet, the distance both the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader are sighted in at, which can make a huge difference.

If they take the lower end of the rifle ballistics, and compare it to the higher end of the shotgun ballistics, then this story might be believable, but "in most hunting scenarios", the average shotgun hunter does not have a rifled barrel, and 3" sabot slugs.  That's just the way it is.

Anyway, rifle bullets go farther than shotgun slugs...only in one case do the shotgun slugs out "perform" rifle bullets.  Which I don't believe, because the specifics of the studies were not specified by any means, and there was no documentation of any control groups.  So to argue against this, I'm not using emotion, is purely scientific.  In order to make your studies valid, Science is the answer my friends, not just a bunch of words.

Any ballistics nut knows that the distance traveled by a bullet is simply calculated by what distance the gun is zeroed in at, the bullet weight, elevation, wind drift and a few other factors.

I don't know of anyone who has a shotgun zeroed in at 10 or 1000 yards, but if it was common, then these ballistic test would be more believable.  Had they said both the 12 gauge, and the 30-06 were both sighted in at 100 yards, then I could say, well, this is the reason why.  When they leave that out of the study...you go on common knowledge, and common knowledge tells you to look a little deeper.  When those specifics aren't supplied, then the story is false.

[deerbeans]

Gafrage,

A little background.  I am an engineer, and I read the study.  The assumptions are reasonable, the data
and conclusions are valid.  I am a state certified firearms safety instructor, a hand loader, rifle builder,
practiced long range shooter, and a slug launcher in Shawano County.  I get the whole ballistics thing.

If you want to maintain the raw effective range of a rifle makes it more dangerous with no consideration
of situation or what physics shows will happen when accelerated objects strike stationary objects, fine. 
It makes my point that I am skeptical that you really want to shoot your "grandpas .35 Remington".

On the topic of shotgun shooters, on our 320 acres, all 6 hunters shoot fully rifled sabot launchers.
Or as in my case, I also carry a bolt action pistol, in 308 Win.  Most of our neighbors also shoot
fully rifled shotguns, or muzzleloaders.  About the only folks that shoot rifled slugs through smooth bores,
are the local farm gangs.  They start driving deer on the second day of the season, or even late
the first day, and since they are brown is down shooters, they buy rifled slugs by the case, and spread
them liberally around the neighborhood.  For them they just want to kill the corn field raiders, and if
they wound a deer, they could care less.  We find their handiwork often in our cedar swamps.  My hope
is that if the WDNR allows rifles these guys might start thinking firearms safety instead of skipping slugs off
the ground and then acting surprised that something got a hole punched in it 400 yards away from them.

Back to science and physics.  First, I would like to hear the motive behind "these study are skewed".
The study was done by a respected organization that had no vested interest in the results.  The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was reasonable in contracting for a study of the safety of shotguns versus
rifles, since there were no studies published. And the study was critically reviewed.  So I am interested in
where you believe there is evidence this is bad science.  If anything the study takes great care to identify
and justify the situations and conditions it used in it's conclusions.  They did more than point to data
that shows if held at an optimal angle a center fire rifle has a much longer effective range than a shotgun
slug.  The study also addresses this commonly held notion, and concludes that it is not valid in any
hunting scenario...Yet you continue to use it as evidence "these study are skewed".  OK, so now it is
my turn to plead to be persuaded.  Please show me your evidence that this study has a faulty conclusion.
Just proclaiming it skewed doesn't make it so.

For interested parties...A link to the conclusions printed in a PA Legislative document:

 http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2007/168fs.PDF

As for "no control group" there is no control group for "An empirically tested computer model".  Interestingly
enough, "The model was developed by the U.S. Department of Defense for small arms firing range safety
determination and model runs were made by the Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering
Center.".  I am pretty sure these guys were out to skew this study for some dark government
conspiracy against shotgun only restrictions in Shawano and Waupaca counties. [:D]

[Dan Schmidt]

Back to the question of this thread...I was told yesterday that Waupaca County will not be open for rifles county-wide until 2011. I have been trying to confirm this as fact but haven't been able to yet. I talked with the ranger at Hartman Creek State Park. He said the park is definitely open for rifles this year; he said he "thinks" the county will follow next year.

[swampsitter]

Do most of you even hunt in this county? Do any of you? What township do you hunt in if I may ask?

I hunt in the Town of Helvetia, Waupaca County. My 13 year old and I were hunting the Youth hunt this year. He took a 40 yard shot at a Doe. Had a great hit on it, right thru the heart. (his first deer). Then the slug continued to travel\tumble up hill and went past my brother who was bowhunting 200 yards from us. Luckily, he was 20 feet up in a tree. If he had been shooting a rifle, the bullet would have broken apart and would not have been a danger. We shoot Winchester Supreme Sabot slugs. I firmly support going to rifle's in Waupaca County.

[WI QDM]

I'm also in Helvetia. Personally, I'd love the change to rifle hunting because of a few simple reasons, most have already been stated.

1. The price of sabots is OUTRAGEOUS ($12.50 for a box of 5 Hornadys!!), and the effective range is pushing 200 yards anyway. So as long as you are smart and don't shoot over a hill, what's the difference?
2. Every slug 12 gauge I have ever used kicks like a mule. It's not a problem now, but it was a serious issue when I was 12. As my son approaches hunting age, I would love to give him something he is comfortable with, not to mention something he might even enjoy shooting.

My fingers will be crossed when it goes for approval.

[bullwinkle]

The voting is in April, right? By May we should know?

I have picked out a Tikka 300 WSM with a 30mm Leopold VX3 and I am getting excited to go gun shopping. I also bought a couple new ladder stands since this change will really affect my potential stand locations. Hope I didn't get too ahead of myself. In our area, this change will definitely be interesting.

I know SW Shawano County changed to rifle a couple of years ago. Does anyone hunt there? Was there anything different because of the change?

[bullwinkle]

Picked up "Old Betsy" - Tikka 3 Stainless Steel 300 WSM with a Ziess 3x9 - this baby is a game changer. Dead on at 200 yards, hits 6" low at 300.

I am a little worried about how Betsy will kick - get to shoot her after the 4th. I cant image it kicks more than my 385 grain, 12 gauge Partition Gold Slugs but I will find out

Rifles are going to change the game big time. I normally get this excited for bow hunting.

[Dan Salmon]

Will probably hit with the same force, just a quicker recoil impulse than the slug gun. Just think, it's the same game change as when the 1894 Winchester & the .30-30 hit the fields.

[bullwinkle]

I bought 140 grain winchester bullets - power max. Sighted in at 200 yards, the drop is 6" at 300 yards. I can hold on the deer to 300 yards!!!!!!!! Essentially doubles my range. I put up one stand where I can shoot 300+ yards to the North, 200 yards to the East/West. Never would have considered this spot last year

Judging deer is going to be an issue I need to really think through. I don't want to take anything less than a 3 year old that is mountable.

[Dan Salmon]

Sounds like the next thing you "need" to get is a good binocular. I've got a rifle set up to hit way out there, but haven't taken a shot any longer than 100 yards. But the binocular has paid for itself many time over by being able to pick out deer I'd have never seen with the naked eye.