# **** Take Our Survey ****



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Deer hunters take a moment and participate in our public opinion poll:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8189


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

i took it and voted no on 3 outta 4:C because I AM in favor of the 3 shot law.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ezbite said:


> i took it and voted no on 3 outta 4:C because I AM in favor of the 3 shot law.


I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

Pistol cartridges reached the limits of their performance envelope years ago. Modern inline muzzle loaders are pushing 3100FPS. Modern sabot technology in shotguns are pushing 2000FPS with a 0 drop in inches at 150 yards. We're already using superior equipment in the field which will never be recalled. The reason for not allowing pistol caliber rifles is obsolete. Advances in technology have seen to that.

Hunting a 1/2 hour after sunset is the best hunting of the day. It is already enjoyed by the archery community. There is still plenty of visible light on a clear day. With light gathering technology in modern optics the target is as visible 1/2 hour after sunset as it is 1/2 hour before dawn which is currently legal to hunt.

The 3 shot rule legitimizes the anti gun claims that there is no purpose for high capacity firearms. It does not apply to handguns which can include an AR-15 pistol chambered in .45 with a 30 round magazine. Desert Eagle handguns with a 14 inch barrel and a 10, 9 or 8 rounds capacity. A Glock with custom barrel in .40 S&W could accommodate 30 rounds and also be legal right now. People are firing 4, 5 or even 6 rounds now by reloading. That removes focus from the target and what is beyond and places it on the act of reloading. Which is more dangerous than the high capacity.

I am sure you had some good reasons though.


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

It sure would be nice to see the results of the poll after you have voted.....


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

So, if people don't answer the way you want you'll explain why they should. Interesting technique!

I agree with EZ. 

1. As you stated Dan, there are sufficient weapons available without adding pistol rounds.
2. If hunters are not required to properly ID their target during daylight hours. I certainly don't want them trying to in low light.
3. Three shot rule has been good enough for migratory birds for years. In those ventures you actually can take multiple targets in one pass. Deer must be tagged before a second can be taken. If you can't put a deer on the deck with three rounds I certainly don't want you throwing ten rounds through the timber.

X2 on the results!


----------



## floater99 (May 21, 2010)

I was raissed only using three rounds in any shotgun,my dad kept all guns plugged for three shots,Dad always said,if you cant get em with three youre not gonna.I am for pisstol caliber rifles in ohio.


----------



## poloaman (Mar 26, 2008)

Took the survey and agree with the laws they have now just remember you may be responsible but that doesn't make everyone I don't want someone out there throwing lead cause they got 5 or more slugs and up north the ground is to flat for someone to start using a riffle 


Polo
Outdoor Hub mobile


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

buckeye dan said:


> I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
> 
> Pistol cartridges reached the limits of their performance envelope years ago. Modern inline muzzle loaders are pushing 3100FPS. Modern sabot technology in shotguns are pushing 2000FPS with a 0 drop in inches at 150 yards. We're already using superior equipment in the field which will never be recalled. The reason for not allowing pistol caliber rifles is obsolete. Advances in technology have seen to that.
> 
> ...


Buckeye Dan, first I do not think there is a any muzzle loader that shoots 3100 fps. second 0-drop at 150 yds may well be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this sight.
So Show me, because you are wrong. Now for the other part of your post I also agree with the three shot rule and to go along with it I do not think handguns should be legal period.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Muskarp said:


> So, if people don't answer the way you want you'll explain why they should. Interesting technique!


It's got nothing to do with what I want. I don't own a pistol caliber rifle. I would like to hunt with one though. I use a smoke pole so the 3 shot capacity limit doesn't apply to me. I have a really nice scope on my crossbow that lets me see in mild darkness with great detail out to 40 yards. It seemed silly not to afford a firearm the same privilege. Their optics are even better. Gun hunters also wear orange. That alone should add a little time to the twilight hours.

I was playing devils advocate by applying logic to the discussion. There is no legitimate reason not to allow pistol caliber rifles. One group of hunters that don't wear orange are already hunting after daylight. The 3 shot rule doesn't apply to anything but long guns.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

leupy said:


> Buckeye Dan, first I do not think there is a any muzzle loader that shoots 3100 fps. second 0-drop at 150 yds may well be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this sight.
> So Show me, because you are wrong. Now for the other part of your post I also agree with the three shot rule and to go along with it I do not think handguns should be legal period.


http://badbullmuzzleloaders.com/


> A Bad Bull Muzzleloader will shoot a 275 gr. Jacketed Bullet at a muzzle velocity of 3100 FPS. The 275 gr. Bullet fired at 3100 FPS has over 6000 ft/lbs. of energy at the muzzle. This power is attained through the use of Smokeless Powder and our patented Mag-Prime Ignition System.


http://ultimatefirearms.com/


> Ultimate Firearms makes the BP Xpress, the Ultimate Muzzleloader, the world's best custom muzzeloader. With velocities approaching 2400 feet per second (fps) with a 300 grain bullet (with 200 grains of Pyrodex Pellets), the ability to burn up to 4, 50 grain pyrodex pellets (200 grains!)


Hornady SST Slugs 12 Gauge Trajectory in inches
Muzzle 50 100 *150* 200
-1.50 2.40 2.70 *0.00* -6.70
http://www.hornady.com/store/12-ga-Slug-300-gr-FTX/

Winchester XP3 Elite Sabots 12 Gauge
0 at 100 yards. Not quite as good but close enough.
http://www.winchester.com/Products/...ite/xp3-sabot-shotgun-slug/Pages/default.aspx

I wonder if there are any gun or bow hunters out there that do not like what you hunt with? If we each had our own special interests catered to then we would cancel each other out and none of us would be hunting with anything. 

What we should be doing is supporting each other so that we will always hunt using whatever we like based on sheer numbers. The best way to grow those numbers is with diversity.

I'll explain that position. Some anti hunting people have a real problem with arrows being poked into a deer and waiting for it to die from hemorrhage. If they have their way...Ohio looses 300,000 bow hunters. Knock off the pistol hunters, modern inline guys, smoke poles and what is left? About 150,000 hunters in a state with 11 million people. POOF you don't hunt no more.

You'll never catch me attacking another hunter for using any legal humane method of harvest. In fact I want the opposite.I want more choices in hopes to grow our numbers.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

poloaman said:


> Took the survey and agree with the laws they have now just remember you may be responsible but that doesn't make everyone I don't want someone out there throwing lead cause they got 5 or more slugs and up north the ground is to flat for someone to start using a riffle
> 
> 
> Polo
> Outdoor Hub mobile


Pistol caliber rifles perform more poorly in most cases than what we are already using and they would be limited to 3 shots. A level shot from shoulder height puts a typical .44 magnum hunting bullet fired from a Henry Rifle into the dirt in under 250 yards. Effective hunting velocities drop off around 150 yards. The 3 shot question is not exclusive to the rifle question. Just a FYI.


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

Nice post, of course I still do not believe the 3100fps but I do own a chrony and only live a few miles from Colmbus with access to a range, so bring it out.
Now to #2 your statment was zero drop at 150 yrds. If you can learn to read your own chart it says 4.20 drop at 150yds.
As far as supporting hunting and fishing I will be glad to compare my checkbook with yours, if it is legal I support it but I do not have to agree with it. I have seen friends I thought were very safe hunters unload a six-shooter in seconds when I watched them shoot the day before and they could not hit a 55 gal drum at 10 yds. (I don't hunt with handgunners).
Bring me a muzzle loader that shoots 3100 fps I will gladly give you a public apology until then you and what ever you read are full of s....;


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.


if you've ever heard a slug (4th shot of the series, from an open field) go cracking thru the tops of the tree youre sitting by while its still dark on opening day of slug season, you might know my reasoning..

if you cant drop a deer with 3 shots (in reality, 1 shot, 2 at the most) you need to go home and watch tv. you are nothing more than an accident waiting to happen.IMO

3100fps muzzleloader, i want one :Banane21:


----------



## eyecatcher929 (Dec 3, 2009)

Many times bro, makes me laugh & duck for cover. All I use is the muzzleloader. 1 SHOT 1 KILL BABY !

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

leupy said:


> Nice post, of course I still do not believe the 3100fps but I do own a chrony and only live a few miles from Colmbus with access to a range, so bring it out.
> Now to #2 your statment was zero drop at 150 yrds. If you can learn to read your own chart it says 4.20 drop at 150yds.
> As far as supporting hunting and fishing I will be glad to compare my checkbook with yours, if it is legal I support it but I do not have to agree with it. I have seen friends I thought were very safe hunters unload a six-shooter in seconds when I watched them shoot the day before and they could not hit a 55 gal drum at 10 yds. (I don't hunt with handgunners).
> Bring me a muzzle loader that shoots 3100 fps I will gladly give you a public apology until then you and what ever you read are full of s....;


Had you read the supplied information you would see the Bad Bull muzzle loader uses 140gr of IMR 4350. That is a magnum smokeless powder. You would have also found the projectile to be a .45 caliber 275gr Parker/Bad Bull Ballistic Extreme bullet. Apparently you don't know how to do the math to achieve muzzle velocity calculations from a 28" barrel based on that recipe. 

You could have flipped through any number of reloading manuals looking for similar loads in brass casings and confirmed as well. A .416 Rigby for instance is very close in performance as are all of the .450's. The only difference is chamber pressure and brass. I assure you the Bad Bull is capable of much greater chamber pressures than those recipes and has no brass limitations.

If you were going to do that much reading you probably wouldn't have skipped over the ballistic information of the Hornady SST 12 gauge sabot that I quoted previously. Here is a picture of their label so you don't miss it this time. What does it say the trajectory is at 150yards by the way?


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

leupy said:


> Nice post, of course I still do not believe the 3100fps but I do own a chrony and only live a few miles from Colmbus with access to a range, so bring it out.
> Now to #2 your statment was zero drop at 150 yrds. If you can learn to read your own chart it says 4.20 drop at 150yds.
> As far as supporting hunting and fishing I will be glad to compare my checkbook with yours, if it is legal I support it but I do not have to agree with it. I have seen friends I thought were very safe hunters unload a six-shooter in seconds when I watched them shoot the day before and they could not hit a 55 gal drum at 10 yds. (I don't hunt with handgunners).
> Bring me a muzzle loader that shoots 3100 fps I will gladly give you a public apology until then you and what ever you read are full of s....;


I hate to even say this, but he's right about the muzzleloader. We researched these at work just a few weeks ago because one of the guys wanted to buy one.... that is until he saw the $6000.00 price tag!!! They are built on a magnum caliber rifle action. Usually remington or savage. As far as the other stuff, i have no problem with the way the rules are now. I wouldn't vote to change any of them. If you want to rifle hunt, wv. And pa sell non-resident licenses every day.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Bad Bub said:


> I hate to even say this, but he's right about the muzzleloader. We researched these at work just a few weeks ago because one of the guys wanted to buy one.... that is until he saw the $6000.00 price tag!!! They are built on a magnum caliber rifle action. Usually remington or savage. As far as the other stuff, i have no problem with the way the rules are now. I wouldn't vote to change any of them. If you want to rifle hunt, wv. And pa sell non-resident licenses every day.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Oh, and they kick like a mule! It's not a matter of only having 1 shot in the gun, most people only have 1 shot in their body!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ezbite said:


> if you've ever heard a slug (4th shot of the series, from an open field) go cracking thru the tops of the tree youre sitting by while its still dark on opening day of slug season, you might know my reasoning..
> 
> if you cant drop a deer with 3 shots (in reality, 1 shot, 2 at the most) you need to go home and watch tv. you are nothing more than an accident waiting to happen.IMO
> 
> 3100fps muzzleloader, i want one :Banane21:


Those are legitimate concerns. For you. I hunt private land in SE Ohio clear cut and hill country that is limited to family and friends. The circumstances you describe don't apply to me. Did you not take into consideration the conditions of other hunters across the state or what? I don't entirely follow you. In hot counties where 5000+ deer are taken each year they move. Smacking a few trees is not uncommon.

Removing the focus of the shooter from the target by forcing them to reload the 4th round is actually more dangerous than if they had the capacity and could stay on target. People are less apt to forget their shooting lanes that way. They can maintain a focus of their target and what is beyond more efficiently too.

You voted down pistol caliber rifles that are technologically capped at 30% to 40% or less performance than what is currently legal. Yet you said "3100fps muzzleloader, i want one". Maybe you didn't intend to hunt with it and I jumped to conclusions?


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> Removing the focus of the shooter from the target by forcing them to reload the 4th round is actually more dangerous than if they had the capacity and could stay on target. People are less apt to forget their shooting lanes that way. They can maintain a focus of their target and what is beyond more efficiently too.



do you actually believe this or are you one of those "always right" guys??
if he needs to shoot a 4th shot, hes already lost focus.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> I hate to even say this, but he's right about the muzzleloader. We researched these at work just a few weeks ago because one of the guys wanted to buy one.... that is until he saw the $6000.00 price tag!!! They are built on a magnum caliber rifle action. Usually remington or savage. As far as the other stuff, i have no problem with the way the rules are now. I wouldn't vote to change any of them. If you want to rifle hunt, wv. And pa sell non-resident licenses every day.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


One point I guess I am not getting across is we are already rifle hunting. We've converted flint locks into modern inline high powered rifles and we're shooting rifle projectiles with rifle performance envelopes in our shotguns. The pistol caliber rifle is a matter of nostalgia or antique attraction. They can't compete with what we are already using. That doesn't keep me from wanting to use one.

Following that logic we should discard long bows and recurve bows because compounds and crossbows are all we need. Might as well throw flint locks and side hammers under the bus too.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ezbite said:


> do you actually believe this or are you one of those "always right" guys??
> if he needs to shoot a 4th shot, hes already lost focus.


I am a certified range safety officer (RSO). It's first hand experience.

Google combat reloading and competition reloading. The people that maintain proper focus and presence of mind during reloading have practiced it thousands of times.

Ask any 3 gun or IDPA shooter here. I am sure there are several.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> that is until he saw the $6000.00 price tag!!


Good news for him. They go for $3,950.00 now.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

I thought we were talking about your average Joe hunter.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ezbite said:


> I thought we were talking about your average Joe hunter.


We are which makes this statement true:


> Removing the focus of the shooter from the target by forcing them to reload the 4th round is actually more dangerous than if they had the capacity and could stay on target. People are less apt to forget their shooting lanes that way. They can maintain a focus of their target and what is beyond more efficiently too.


The folks that compete or practice reloading drills are the ones that statement has less meaning for. Your average Joe hunter maintains situational awareness more efficiently without adding reloading to the mix. That doesn't apply to just hunters. That is a true across the board under any circumstances. Any NRA Instructor here will agree.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

where are the survey results? why cant i find my comments (or any comments) on that survey page? you ask us to take a survey and neglect to post results, i wonder why


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ezbite said:


> where are the survey results? why cant i find my comments on that survey page? you ask us to take a survey and neglect to post results, i wonder why


Sorry folks the results won't be published until the ODNR open house meetings. This is a real blind survey. I don't even know what the results are. Only our web guy knows and he isn't part of this project. He isn't talking either.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Well I took the survey but there is no way I will say how I voted since I can tell from this thread I'm sure it was wrong. Seems to only be one person here who has all the right answers.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

buckeye dan,

You may actually have some sound reasoning and argument for your positions hidden in there somewhere however you do not convey them in a very persuasive manner, rather you come across as a rather arrogant, your way or the highway type fella. many will fail to see your message because of the messenger.

Beyond all of that, I would have no issue in a change that would allow pistol cartridge rifles. There are inferior in ballistics to many of the sabot shotgun slugs used today and as such no less safe, and maybe more safe that shotguns. Your statement about shotgun slugs having NO drop out to 150 yds is course not true, As a CERTIFIED range safety officer I would hope you already know that.

During the Ohio deer gun seasons, Yes there are a couple muzzleloaders that can push 3100 FPS, they are few more that are in the 2600-2800 FPS range, even more in the 2200 - 2400 FPS range and the rest, the vast majority, well over 95%, in the 1700- 2100 FPS range. So saying that pistol cartridge rifles should be fine because we have MZ's over 3100 FPS is not a fair comparison of how they could be used in OH. The fair comparison is with the 1700-2100 FPS MZ's that almost everyone in Ohio hunts with. Again the pistol cartridge rifle compares closely with these MZ's and I have no problem with them being legalized at all

I would have no problem with a change to permitting a 1/2 hour after sunset. Today 1/2 hr before is legal and it is MUCH darker 1/2 prior than a 1/2 after. There is much more available light after sunset than before. If this restriction is about safety due to available shooting light it is backasswards. This just makes sense if morning is OK the afternoon should be also.

I am very much in favor of the 3 shot rule, I only wish it could become a one shot rule. I really don't care if my position gives fodder to the anti crowd or not. I only care about what I think is best for the the deer and hunters of Ohio. Your argument about loosing focus or not loosing focus is such a crock of crap. Anyone that needs more than 3 shells in the gun and a couple of spares in his pocket to kill a deer is too stupid to have his deer killing ability enhanced by higher capacity magazines. 

I will be curious to hear the outcome of your poll.

Kim


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

[I am very much in favor of the 3 shot rule, I only wish it could become a one shot rule. I really don't care if my position gives fodder to the anti crowd or not. I only care about what I think is best for the the deer and hunters of Ohio. Your argument about loosing focus or not loosing focus is such a crock of crap. Anyone that needs more than 3 shells in the gun and a couple of spares in his pocket to kill a deer is too stupid to have his deer killing ability enhanced by higher capacity magazines. 



Bingo! very well put Kim. I think that is what most ethical hunters also believe.
Bob


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

The 3 shot rule was put into place for safety reasons. This was the statement of the ODNR when it was put into effect. The same arguement for pistols being allowed unlimited magazine capacity was brought up during our Findlay District Office meeting and their reply was: "The pistol hunters aren't shooting each other. The careless method of magazine extensions, just so the shooter can put more lead in the air, has brought this regulation to our attention. This is the reason for making this regulation, since the hunters can't seem to regulate themselves."

It's like any other regulation, where people aren't making a conscience effort to protect themselves...from themselves. Unfortunately, we end up with a "blanket policy" that effects us all.

Understanding the ODNR's reasoning for making this decision has not made me feel like it's an attack on magazine capacities as a whole. This was a plain and simple safety issue and this how it was handled. 

Bowhunter57


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

buckeye dan said:


> Gun hunters also wear orange. That alone should add a little time to the twilight hours.
> 
> One group of hunters that don't wear orange are already hunting after daylight.


Not so fast! Not everybody in the woods is hunting or required to be dressed in orange. Didn't we just see an "accident" this year? 

Just because other "hunters" are hunting after hours we should all lower our standards? Or is it you feel you can't compete with these "hunters" with this advantage? Range Masters shouldn't need such an advantage, should they? 
Johnny's mom let's him do it! Is that your arguement?

Even if available light is better in the evening. There are more variables pushing poor shot selection during this time. In the morning you are not rushed, you have all day ahead of you. In the evening many feel they must get something and will take questionable shots in their haste. In the morning light is getting better, reveiling potential shot busting branches, in the evening you are quickly losing your shooting lanes (I'm a night 'yote hunter. I know about what you see and what's really there when the lights come on.) and your ability to identify a target. Taking these late rushed shots through branches at less than well illuminated targets will only increase lost and wounded game, and possibly increase hunter accidents as well. 

I really can't get your arguements. You state weapons are better today (which is true), yet think we need less restriction. Do you need someone to bag the deer for you too? What did you do back in the days before in-lines and saboted shotgun rounds?


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> Even if available light is better in the evening. There are more variables pushing poor shot selection during this time. In the morning you are not rushed, you have all day ahead of you. In the evening many feel they must get something and will take questionable shots in their haste. In the morning light is getting better, reveiling potential shot busting branches, in the evening you are quickly losing your shooting lanes (I'm a night 'yote hunter. I know about what you see and what's really there when the lights come on.) and your ability to identify a target. Taking these late rushed shots through branches at less than well illuminated targets will only increase lost and wounded game, and possibly increase hunter accidents as well.


I don't think I agree with you on this one.

If the criteria is available light to make a safe shot then the amount of light is really the only viable question. What a hunter might or might not do with the available light is really individual to the hunter. There is no disputing that there is more available light a 1/2 hr after sunset than there is a 1/2 hr before sunrise. The fact that light is fading rather than increasing really doesn't or shouldn't play into shot selection, at least it wouldn't to me or anyone I hunt with. There is the fact that there is more light available in the evening. In my mind hunters that make poor choices in regards to shot selection don't do it based upon available light, I think they make poor choices during all times of the day.

I had many a deer this year around me during legal morning shooting times where it was WAY too dark for me to even think about taking a shot if I wanted to.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Lundy said:


> I don't think I agree with you on this one.
> 
> If the criteria is available light to make a safe shot then the amount of light is really the only viable question. What a hunter might or might not do with the available light is really individual to the hunter. There is no disputing that there is more available light a 1/2 hr after sunset than there is a 1/2 hr before sunrise. The fact that light is fading rather than increasing really doesn't or shouldn't play into shot selection, at least it wouldn't to me or anyone I hunt with. There is the fact that there is more light available in the evening. In my mind hunters that make poor choices in regards to shot selection don't do it based upon available light, I think they make poor choices during all times of the day.
> 
> I had many a deer this year around me during legal morning shooting times where it was WAY too dark for me to even think about taking a shot if I wanted to.


You lost me on this one. There is more to it than availible light for the shot. What about time to retreive game? If hunters push the current hours will they not push a half hour after? Soon they are shooting in complete darkness. Unable to tell if they hit their target and unwilling to search for blood beyond five minutes. In the morning you can wait them out. In the evening people must take the shot as fast as they can or loose the opportunity. It's just reality.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> You lost me on this one. There is more to it than availible light for the shot. What about time to retreive game? If hunters push the current hours will they not push a half hour after? Soon they are shooting in complete darkness. Unable to tell if they hit their target and unwilling to search for blood beyond five minutes. In the morning you can wait them out. In the evening people must take the shot as fast as they can or loose the opportunity. It's just reality.


You see now you are inserting hunters ethics and legalities into the original question of if there is sufficient light for a safe shot.


There is no question that there would be ample light for a safe shot,you would concede that fact right?

How some hunters might utilize they available light and the period following safe shooting light is a whole new area of discussion in my mind, but has no direct impact on the fact of if there is available light or not


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lundy said:


> buckeye dan,
> 
> You may actually have some sound reasoning and argument for your positions hidden in there somewhere however you do not convey them in a very persuasive manner, rather you come across as a rather arrogant, your way or the highway type fella. many will fail to see your message because of the messenger.
> 
> ...


Emphasis and inflection is difficult to convey with text. Don't confuse knowledge and experience with arrogance. I want people to make well informed decisions based on facts. There are a lot more people out there that have no clue what equipment is being used in the field than I could have imagined.

When I make an effort to illustrate what is out there it only results in frustration. 

I've been accused of lying about the existence of 3100fps muzzle loaders even after providing proof they exist. I literally had to provide the load workup information and even then I had to wait for confirmation from another board member with actual experience with the gun.

Now I have you doing it again. I have provided the data on the Hornady SST 12 gauge sabot. It has a flat trajectory at 150 yards which means? With a POA at 150 yards the bullet has a zero drop in inches. Explain to me what the third figure indicating 150 yards means on this label for me please.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bowhunter57 said:


> The 3 shot rule was put into place for safety reasons. This was the statement of the ODNR when it was put into effect. The same arguement for pistols being allowed unlimited magazine capacity was brought up during our Findlay District Office meeting and their reply was: "The pistol hunters aren't shooting each other. The careless method of magazine extensions, just so the shooter can put more lead in the air, has brought this regulation to our attention. This is the reason for making this regulation, since the hunters can't seem to regulate themselves."
> 
> It's like any other regulation, where people aren't making a conscience effort to protect themselves...from themselves. Unfortunately, we end up with a "blanket policy" that effects us all.
> 
> ...


The incident in question occurred on December 1st 1997. A 28 year old hunter shot at a running deer crossing a roadway in Muskingum county. A vehicle was struck killing one of it's occupants. The occupant of the vehicle was related to someone important serving in government. I have been trying to find the exact story in the news archives but can't without using a pay service.

Anyway the investigation concluded that many rounds were fired well out of the shooting lane of the hunter and illegally towards the roadway. The person that was killed was close enough to someone important that every hunter in the state must be punished by being limited to 3 rounds due to the negligence of this one dumb hunter.

I have heard the woman was a deputies wife, a sheriffs wife, a police officers wife, a mayors wife and a councilman's wife. In any event she was connected enough to make a law change. Had the same incident happened to a civilian we probably would not have a 3 shot rule. Many other states don't have it and they get by.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Here's my issues, i agree that if someone needs more than 3 shots at a deer he shouldn't be out there. I can't think of a time when i've missed a deer and felt like i could get 2 more decent shots off at him. I hear three shots out there all the time and just shake my head...

As far as the pistol caliber rifles, you already said the they don't match the performance of modern slug and rifle ammo, which regularly wounds deer and doesn't perform perfect everytime, especially in the hands of a novice or "wal-mart" hunter, so why would you want to add a weapon that would possible wound more deer, and give more people the opportunity to spray more lead across the country side?


Who are you anyway? This is your first topic and you want to tell us our opinions are wrong?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> Emphasis and inflection is difficult to convey with text. Don't confuse knowledge and experience with arrogance. I want people to make well informed decisions based on facts. There are a lot more people out there that have no clue what equipment is being used in the field than I could have imagined.
> 
> When I make an effort to illustrate what is out there it only results in frustration.
> 
> ...


Well.... if it is 2.7" high at 100yrds and zero at 150 yrds I'm guessing it dropped 2.7" did it not? Welcome to OGF, but I must say you are really full of yourself. Must be a bunch of ding dongs on this site til you came along. Thanks for saving us all.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

bobk said:


> Well.... if it is 2.7" high at 100yrds and zero at 150 yrds I'm guessing it dropped 2.7" did it not? Welcome to OGF, but I must say you are really full of yourself. Must be a bunch of ding dongs on this site til you came along. Thanks for saving us all.


Beat me to it....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## BuckeyeHunter (Nov 5, 2008)

To everyone saying you don't even need three shots, I can think of multiple times I've shot a single deer repeatedly. Last year for instance, I shot a doe, she ran 20 yards and stopped, standing there stunned. So I shot her again not wanting to chase her. She ran 30 more yards down the hill away from me, stopped and stood there again broadside to me. So I shot again a 3rd time with which she fell over. Got down from the stand, walked closer to her and she still had her head up looking around. Shot at her head and missed, so I put in another and actually hit the head. Total of 5 shots in under a minute. 3 holes through the lungs and one in the head. Would she have died after 1? sure, but why track her for who knows how far when I can just shoot her again.

I do agree though that we don't need to hunt 1/2 hour after sunset with a gun. Yes there are days when I can see just fine, but I'd say more than half the days its DARK out there in the woods 30 minutes after sunset. Do you really want people roaming around with a gun in the dark who already have trouble IDing a deer based on the accidental shootings every year.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> Now I have you doing it again. I have provided the data on the Hornady SST 12 gauge sabot. It has a flat trajectory at 150 yards which means? With a POA at 150 yards the bullet has a zero drop in inches. Explain to me what the third figure indicating 150 yards means on this label for me please.


Dan, 

I think in your enthusiasm you are confusing "drop" with "point of impact"

It looks like I will need to help you to understand the difference, again.

A slug, bullet, arrow, any projectile begins to "drop" the moment it leaves the barrel, that nasty old gravity stuff.

Your statement of no "drop" to 150 yds is factually wrong. I could very well make the same wrong statement and say that the exact same load, that you use as a benchmark to support your assertion, has zero "drop" at 300 yds and be just as accurate as your statement. All anyone would need to do is zero their gun from 300 yds, bingo presto, no "drop" at 300 yds.

However anyone making such a claim I'm sure would understand that load, 2000 FPS, BC .200 would be 15" high at 100 yds, 17.5" high at 200 yds to achieve this no "drop" at 300 yds. This is all just point of impact data and nothing to do with actual "drop". I'm sure that you also know that the actual "drop" of this same load would be 5.32" at 100yds, 23.86" at 200 yds and 62.05" at 300 yds.

I'm sure as a certified range officer you already knew all of this but elected to dumb down your data to meet the level of expected knowledge of your intended audience.

I'm sure that I am confused in all of this is some manner so please post a picture of another label with ballistic data that doesn't support your position or fact and we'll try and muddle through it together.

Sorry you have had to explain all of this stuff to me again!


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> Here's my issues, i agree that if someone needs more than 3 shots at a deer he shouldn't be out there. I can't think of a time when i've missed a deer and felt like i could get 2 more decent shots off at him. I hear three shots out there all the time and just shake my head...
> 
> As far as the pistol caliber rifles, you already said the they don't match the performance of modern slug and rifle ammo, which regularly wounds deer and doesn't perform perfect everytime, especially in the hands of a novice or "wal-mart" hunter, so why would you want to add a weapon that would possible wound more deer, and give more people the opportunity to spray more lead across the country side?
> 
> ...


I never said your opinions were wrong. I played devils advocate and debated the topics. I have made no indication of what anyone's opinions are or are not. I haven't even given my opinion of anyone's opinion.

The weapons in question (pistol caliber rifles) are quite capable of harvesting deer. They can have a 3 shot limit. If they wound deer that isn't a weapon issue it is a hunters issue. Following your logic we should remove all inferior weapons? Where do we begin there? Long bows and recurves? How about archery in general since they are sub par to firearms. Flint locks and side hammers? How about smooth bore shotguns using foster slugs?

The question here is why were pistol caliber rifles excluded in the first place? The answer is all the reasons that caused them to be excluded are obsolete today. There is no longer a reason to exclude them. They look like many other guns we use. They perform within the same envelope of any other guns we use. They can be limited in capacity the same as any other gun. We're already using the same cartridges in handguns.

Why are they desirable? Nostalgia. Less recoil is attractive to women, children and especially folks with pace makers. I am sure there would be some attraction to folks with specific physical challenges. They are cheaper to operate which should encourage efficiency. They are priced about the same as anything in the medium to high end that we are already using. I just can't come up with a reason not to use them when looking at the entire picture.

Who am I? I am just another hunter advocating for a different class of weapons to be added to our tool box for deer hunting. I would hope they would recruit new hunters, retain old hunters and expand choice and opportunity for all hunters. I am all about growth in hunting interests and the advancement of hunters rights. I am for just about anything within reason that preserves our heritage.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> I never said your opinions were wrong. I played devils advocate and debated the topics. I have made no indication of what anyone's opinions are or are not. I haven't even given my opinion of anyone's opinion.
> 
> The weapons in question (pistol caliber rifles) are quite capable of harvesting deer. They can have a 3 shot limit. If they wound deer that isn't a weapon issue it is a hunters issue. Following your logic we should remove all inferior weapons? Where do we begin there? Long bows and recurves? How about archery in general since they are sub par to firearms. Flint locks and side hammers? How about smooth bore shotguns using foster slugs?
> 
> ...


Every issue is a hunter based issue. And the law makers take that into consideration. I understand you feel like this will afford more opportunity for hunters through choices, but what about the anti's? Maybe more fuel for their fires? All they will hear is "rifle". In their world there is no difference between an AK-47, .50 cal sniper rifle, 30-06 or a handgun cal. Rifle. Instantly it's high capacity mags, long distance travel of a stray bullet, mass killing of wildlife... etc. Sometimes i just think you have to pick your battles. And i think after this past season, by the way hunter complaints sounded, the deer herd would be my #1 concern.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lundy said:


> Dan,
> 
> I think in your enthusiasm you are confusing "drop" with "point of impact"
> 
> ...


You are nit picking semantics. I am certain you knew what I meant but felt the need to point out that error anyway. In this instance the point of aim is the point of impact at 150 yards. I make zero adjustments for deviation. Or no adjustments in inches. Or no drop in inches to compensate for over that distance. 

Yes there is a natural flight arc and gravity along with all that wonderful science stuff. I didn't realize I needed to teach 8th grade physics to legitimize and make a discernible point. I'll be real careful to say exactly what I mean and use all the appropriate math and references to back that up from this point forward. We all know how vital that is to the conversation. NOT!

I am thankful for my spell checker. I can't imagine how illegitimate my statements would become if I misspelled things.


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

Would someone please send me a link to a 3100 FPS muzzle loader. Thank You.
Buckeye Dan, you did good, your first post and you can already do PM's.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Lundy said:


> There is no question that there would be ample light for a safe shot,you would concede that fact right?


No, and you can not say that for sure either. Cloud cover, density of cover, terrain all would have an effect on light transmission. Either way, I've been able to harvest deer during the day and see no reason to temp shooters in the light glow of twilight.

You would concede the fact that in the evening there is greater pressure to shot or miss the opportunity, right?


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> Every issue is a hunter based issue. And the law makers take that into consideration. I understand you feel like this will afford more opportunity for hunters through choices, but what about the anti's? Maybe more fuel for their fires? All they will hear is "rifle". In their world there is no difference between an AK-47, .50 cal sniper rifle, 30-06 or a handgun cal. Rifle. Instantly it's high capacity mags, long distance travel of a stray bullet, mass killing of wildlife... etc. Sometimes i just think you have to pick your battles. And i think after this past season, by the way hunter complaints sounded, the deer herd would be my #1 concern.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


There was a study conducted by MountainTop Technologies Inc. that you might be interested in. Google for their rifle and shotgun study.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

leupy said:


> Would someone please send me a link to a 3100 FPS muzzle loader. Thank You.
> Buckeye Dan, you did good, your first post and you can already do PM's.


PM's? You mean private messages? I haven't used the private message feature here yet.

3100fps ML is here:
http://badbullmuzzleloaders.com/


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> You would concede the fact that in the evening there is greater pressure to shot or miss the opportunity, right?


Not for me, would it be for you? I personally have real trouble relating to that but I guess there might be some, many, who knows, that might feel that way?????

Do bowhunters that currently have legal shooting times until 1/2 hour past sunset feel that way?

We can agree to disagree all day long and it really doesn't matter to me either way on legal shooting times. I'll still hunt and react the same way to increasing or fading light exactly the same way as I always have. If changing the law to allow that 1/2 hr in the evening would suddenly turn many hunters in to mindless jerks randomly shooting rounds through the woods that last few minutes then I don't want the law changed either.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> No, and you can not say that for sure either. Cloud cover, density of cover, terrain all would have an effect on light transmission. Either way, I've been able to harvest deer during the day and see no reason to temp shooters in the light glow of twilight.


I have to ask sorry,

Given identical climatological conditions, clouds, etc. Is there more available light a 1/2 hr prior to sunrise or a 1/2 hr after sunset?

By the way if they changed shooting time in the AM to 1/2 after sunrise it wouldn't bother me either


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Muskarp said:


> No, and you can not say that for sure either. Cloud cover, density of cover, terrain all would have an effect on light transmission. Either way, I've been able to harvest deer during the day and see no reason to temp shooters in the light glow of twilight.
> 
> You would concede the fact that in the evening there is greater pressure to shot or miss the opportunity, right?


Aren't the conditions self policing? If it's so dark that even your optics fail you then it's time to head for the house isn't it? If it's 22 mins after sundown according to the sunset chart and I can't see after 13 mins then my hunt is over. 

Will there be people that still try to hunt in complete darkness? Not many and the chances are they are doing it anyway. I use a light going in and coming out so people can see me. That could easily be added to the rules.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> You are nit picking semantics. I am certain you knew what I meant but felt the need to point out that error anyway. In this instance the point of aim is the point of impact at 150 yards. I make zero adjustments for deviation. Or no adjustments in inches. Or no drop in inches to compensate for over that distance.
> 
> Yes there is a natural flight arc and gravity along with all that wonderful science stuff. I didn't realize I needed to teach 8th grade physics to legitimize and make a discernible point. I'll be real careful to say exactly what I mean and use all the appropriate math and references to back that up from this point forward. We all know how vital that is to the conversation. NOT!
> 
> I am thankful for my spell checker. I can't imagine how illegitimate my statements would become if I misspelled things.


Nobody needs you to teach them anything here. But if your going to argue a point that you started, you better make sure you refering to the right stuff.... i can make a 22 lr. Hit a target at 1000 yrds with the proper point of aim. But the bullet is still dropping.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## huntindoggie22 (Mar 28, 2008)

Maybe this will help some understand a little better. A rifle barrel is not exactly aligned with the sight line. If you are shooting on a level field, the barrel will be slightly angled up to allow for the drop of the bullet caused by gravity. Gravity is acting on the bullet throughout all the time it is in flight. It's pulling it down. The line-of-sight from the shooter's eye to the target is straight, but the bullet will curve downward due to the effect of gravity. The bullet exits the gun slightly below the sight line and climbs above it due to the angle of the barrel. Gravity overcomes the vertical energy of the bullet and pulls it down. If the sights are adjusted correctly for the distance, the bullet will reach the target at the same time it is crossing the sight line on the way down.
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## huntindoggie22 (Mar 28, 2008)

Was just putting that out there because alot of hunters believe that a bullet will actually climb after it exits the muzzle. 

Thought it might help with the understanding. 
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## P-NUT (May 17, 2009)

buckeye dan said:


> Hunting a 1/2 hour after sunset is the best hunting of the day. It is already enjoyed by the archery community. There is still plenty of visible light on a clear day. With light gathering technology in modern optics the target is as visible 1/2 hour after sunset as it is 1/2 hour before dawn which is currently legal to hunt.
> 
> I was hanging back to see how this was all going to unfold but didn't notice if anyone touched on this. If the time were to be extended 1/2 hour past sunset would everyone be required to have modern optics on their weapon? Many people do not use optics on a shotgun. Also, you can add to your wealth of knowledge that optics do not gather light. They merely transmit it to the users eye. This is why a scope with a 40mm objective will be brighter than one with a 32mm objective given they are the same magnification.


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

I am really glad you posted this information, I really thought everyone on this sight would have known this but I was wrong, I hope buckeye dan reads this then maybe he will understand why the box lid he posted shows higher impact at 50 &100 yards then at line olf sight at 150.


----------



## huntindoggie22 (Mar 28, 2008)

leupy said:


> I am really glad you posted this information, I really thought everyone on this sight would have known this but I was wrong, I hope buckeye dan reads this then maybe he will understand why the box lid he posted shows higher impact at 50 &100 yards then at line olf sight at 150.


You learn alot in sniper school. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## beetlebailey (May 26, 2009)

What i like to see is muzzle loader " 2 days" statewide during the rut, weekend before youth season!! Just an extra 2 days during the rut in november!!!


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Lundy said:


> Not for me, would it be for you? No, as I stated earlier I have no problem harvesting deer during daylight hours.I personally have real trouble relating to that but I guess there might be some, many, who knows, that might feel that way????? We have to account for all hunters with varying skill and ethic levels.
> 
> Do bowhunters that currently have legal shooting times until 1/2 hour past sunset feel that way? Apparently, I continually hear stories of people taking shots only to have the arrow strike an unseen limb.
> We can agree to disagree all day long and it really doesn't matter to me either way on legal shooting times. I'll still hunt and react the same way to increasing or fading light exactly the same way as I always have. If changing the law to allow that 1/2 hr in the evening would suddenly turn many hunters in to mindless jerks randomly shooting rounds through the woods that last few minutes then I don't want the law changed either. You know it will only be the same mindless jerks that already hunt sloppy, nice melodrama though.


I agree we disagree and that the topic "doesn't matter" to you.


----------



## ErieRider (Mar 23, 2010)

I like the rules how they are. I liked the one comment that the hours should be extended one half hour after sunset because on clear days there is still plenty of light! Well, what about the cloudy days????????????????? some would say what is the diff. if it is in the morning. To me there are less guys moving in the morning but it's my opinion. keep it like it is.


----------



## JCFring (Aug 16, 2010)

buckeye dan said:


> One group of hunters that don't wear orange are already hunting after daylight.


And they are shooting arrows at 300 fps, not bullets at 3100 fps. It isn't just about shooting the deer, it's about what is behind your intended target. In low light conditions, you can't tell what's behind your target and that is a primary factor in gun safety.

Archery safety.... is taken care of because of the low relative speeds and inability of the arrow to travel very far.

After reading through this, I'm not a fan of Buckeye Firearms. If everyone associated to that group is like you, then I'm glad I'm not a part of it.


----------



## JimmyZ (May 18, 2004)

I never totally understood the only till sunset rule. As more of a waterfowler than deer hunter it's the same way. 1/2 hr. before sunrise to sunset. Really has nothing to do with safety in duck hunting. Shooting in the air with shot that only goes so far @ avg. 1400fps. And average shot for me is usually 30yrds and under. No danger there. Not like I don't know how to run a boat in the dark, not like we don't get out there at unGodly hours in the a.m. So why is it this way? 


I always thought it must have something to do with duck anialation. Shooting them 1/2 hr before is about the easiest time to fool a duck. Throw out some quacks and shoot the shadows. Right at legal time your hoping for greenheads. If we could hunt a 1/2 hr after way more ducks would be killed. Ducks just pour into a marsh even before sunset. After sunset it would just be unfair. 

Maybe it's the same for deer hunting. How many more deer would be killed on a daily basis with that half hour after. As for me when I deer hunt public land during gun, you won't catch me in the woods before SUNRISE.
This past season I hit the woods on the extra shotgun weekend on a public tract at 8am, had a deer at 10am.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

> The people that maintain proper focus and presence of mind during reloading have practiced it thousands of times.


Most hunters have never actually practiced shooting at fast moving targets. Three attempts is more than enough. Of course, if the animal is not running, (which is out of the ordinary after one or two shots) and you've missed it three times, you probably lack the aforementioned and proverbial 'proper focus and presence of mind.

Consider also, the deer drive. Guys line up and push through a given area. A whitetail moving left to right, combined with 5 shots, arguably places the last 2 rounds in the vicinity of other hunters. 

The sunset/sunrise question is valid when you consider how it stands now. But, if anything, I'd like to see the gun season changed to sunrise to sunset.

The pistol ammo question might also be valid as is the argument as to the diversity of terrain in Ohio.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Wow! Some these comments and reactions boggle the mind. A few of you seem to think these proposals are new or unreasonable.

Indiana hunts with pistol caliber rifles.
Hours= 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset

Michigan uses center fire rifles in the northern 2/3rds of the state.
Hours= 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset by default. The state is further divided into 4 time zones by letter. A is the above. B is +6 mins. C is +12 mins. D is +18 mins. For example in time zone D you can hunt 48 mins after sunset with a high powered rifle.

Kentucky uses center fire rifles statewide.
Hours= 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset

The same for PA and WV. PA is similar to MI where you can add +20 to the 1/2 hour after sunset in the western most part of the state. That's 50 mins after sunset.


Ohio is the only state amongst it's bordering states that does not hunt a half hour after sunset and include some provision for rifles.

I guess if Ohio doesn't want the same privileges and freedoms as our neighbors then we won't have them. I on the other hand intend to keep applying for them anyway.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

JCFring said:


> And they are shooting arrows at 300 fps, not bullets at 3100 fps. It isn't just about shooting the deer, it's about what is behind your intended target. In low light conditions, you can't tell what's behind your target and that is a primary factor in gun safety.
> 
> Archery safety.... is taken care of because of the low relative speeds and inability of the arrow to travel very far.
> 
> After reading through this, I'm not a fan of Buckeye Firearms. If everyone associated to that group is like you, then I'm glad I'm not a part of it.


You forgot coyote, raccoon and hog hunters.



> Buckeye Firearms Association is the most active grassroots group in Ohio working to defend and advance Ohioans' rights to keep and bear arms. Because we deal with firearm rights, laws, and issues on a daily basis, we should be your PRIMARY SOURCE for authoritative information for any firearm related subject in Ohio.


If the text in an internet forum discussing a single subject from an individual member of an organization is what you define your opinion of an entire organization on...Then you probably were not going to be an asset to that organization anyway. We do have 30,000+ other members you might take a liking to in the event you change your mind. Your second amendment right is more important than your very narrow screening criteria isn't it?


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

This thread reminds me of the 9.9 hp vs speed limit arguement and whether a 250hp bassboat causes less wake than a 14'er with a 9.9hp motor.


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

buckeye dan said:


> You forgot coyote, raccoon and hog hunters.
> 
> ?


Unfortunatly, you forgot those hunters use the aid of a LIGHT at "low light hours" And last time I checked, shooting a deer with the aid of a light in ANY state was illegal. Your comparison means nothing


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

buckeye dan said:


> If the text in an internet forum discussing a single subject from an individual member of an organization is what you define your opinion of an entire organization on...Then you probably were not going to be an asset to that organization anyway. We do have 30,000+ other members you might take a liking to in the event you change your mind. Your second amendment right is more important than your very narrow screening criteria isn't it?


And this is a perfect example of how one bad apple ruins the bunch. With the way you portray your organization of being all "high and mighty," I would not want to be associated with it.

"We should be your PRIMARY SOURCE for authoritative information for any firearm related subject in Ohio."

I for one will get my information elsewhere.....just saying....


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> Emphasis and inflection is difficult to convey with text. Don't confuse knowledge and experience with arrogance. I want people to make well informed decisions based on facts. There are a lot more people out there that have no clue what equipment is being used in the field than I could have imagined.


I glad to see that was explained in a non-arrogant fashion


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Ok let's try this one more time.

Ohio is the only state amongst it's bordering states that does not hunt a half hour after sunset during deer gun season and include some provision for rifles.

Ohio is the only state amongst it's neighboring states that has a 3 shot rule during deer gun season.

Why shouldn't Ohio enjoy these same freedoms?

Take this public opinion poll please.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8189


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> Ok let's try this one more time.
> 
> Ohio is the only state amongst it's bordering states that does not hunt a half hour after sunset during deer gun season and include some provision for rifles.
> 
> ...


I really like your "one more time" jabs, as if you are speaking to idiots. Maybe it is the messenger

Changing or adopting rules just because everyone else does it is not a strong argument in my opinion. Changes either make sense or they don't, I don't really care what everyone else is doing.

Hunting after sunset would not, in my opinion, be an issue either way.

I am not in favor of changing the 3 shoot rule. I see no positive reason or justification from a change


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> Indiana hunts with pistol caliber rifles.
> Hours= 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset
> 
> Michigan uses center fire rifles in the northern 2/3rds of the state.
> ...


Pure conjecture on my part but I do wonder if the current no-rifle, sunset rules are related to the number of hunters per acre of hunting land as compared to say Kentucky and northern Michigan.  In other words do we have these rules because of the population densities? I think that may factor into ODNR's reasoning. Obviously the areas of northern Michigan and Kentucky are much less densly populated than most areas in Ohio. I really have no clue about Indiana's available hunting and number of hunters as compared to Ohio.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

flounder said:


> Pure conjecture on my part but I do wonder if the current no-rifle, sunset rules are related to the number of hunters per acre of hunting land as compared to say Kentucky and northern Michigan. In other words do we have these rules because of the population densities? I think that may factor into ODNR's reasoning. Obviously the areas of northern Michigan and Kentucky are much less densly populated than most areas in Ohio. I really have no clue about Indiana's available hunting and number of hunters as compared to Ohio.


Population density used to play a large role in the decision to not use rifles. In the most recent years the weaponry we are using in the field right now has advanced beyond the technological limitations of pistol caliber rifles.

Pistol cartridges have pretty much reached their apex in performance. In fact many of the pistol cartridges reached that apex decades ago.

On the other hand we're just scratching the surface of modern shotgun sabot development and what a modern inline muzzle loader can do.

If Hornady can crank out a shotgun sabot in 2 3/4 inch that does 2000 FPS then it stands to reason they can go faster in a 3 inch shell. They could develop all metal shells, experiment further with the sabot sleeve designs, raise and lower bullet weights etc etc. There is still room to play there.

The modern inline muzzle loader has even fewer limitations. They don't use little brass containers with capacity limits. Metallurgy advancements has allowed them to use a hefty amount of magnum rifle powder or 200 grains of pyrodex. The guns themselves can be redesigned from the ground up. Tinkering with various ignition sources, chamber designs, powder compositions and the list goes on and on. All anyone has to do is look at metal storm technology to see where a muzzle loader can go.

The real question is how far does technology have to advance in our present weapons we use for hunting before we are allowed to use great grand pappy's pistol caliber rifle.

If the current trends remain on track we could be looking at 2400-2600FPS from our shotguns and as much as 3600FPS from our muzzle loaders in just a couple of years. I wouldn't be surprised if the prototypes are out there in the R&D phase right now.


----------



## paulboomer1 (May 7, 2008)

The 3 shot rule is for safety...If you cant hit a deer in 3 shots, what good is having a fourth or fifth? If it takes that many rounds to bring down a deer, you need more range time.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

paulboomer1 said:


> The 3 shot rule is for safety...If you cant hit a deer in 3 shots, what good is having a fourth or fifth? If it takes that many rounds to bring down a deer, you need more range time.


I wonder why none of our neighboring states have this safety feature?
Ohio hunters are being held to a higher standard?
Ohio hunters are less competent and can't be trusted with a higher capacity?
Maybe it is to satisfy gun grabbing bureaucrats that want to limit the capacity of all firearms since they have no legitimate sporting purpose?



> A deer hunter can do the following
> Take more than one deer per day as a long as each deer has been tagged with a temporary tag before hunting for the next deer.


Maybe a hunter wants to slap a 10 round mag into their Saiga 12 in zone C and shoot 3 deer out of that single mag with rounds to spare. Loading the gun 1 time before entering the field and having the capacity to take your bag limit without reloading or carting along extra ammo sounds like great idea to me.

Everyone in this thread has determined 3 shots per deer is enough. Well if everyone is using 3 shots or less on deer 1 then what difference does it make if you are loaded for deer 2 through 6?

I guess Ohio hunters are less competent. We had that convenience just a few years ago. All it took is one incompetent hunter to cause a fatality and it ruined it for the rest of us.

Since a hunters proficiency and ethics can be adjusted by the # of rounds he carries in his gun then we can work on other things. Those horrible black rifles and Russian assault weapons don't need high capacity either since there is no legitimate sporting purpose for them. We probably shouldn't allow people to carry high capacity handguns concealed in public either. Let's limit everything to ten rounds or less. The snowball just keeps rolling right on down the domino highway with the Brady Campaign kicking it every step of the way.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> Maybe a hunter wants to slap a 10 round mag into their Saiga 12 in zone C and shoot 3 deer out of that single mag with rounds to spare. Loading the gun 1 time before entering the field and having the capacity to take your bag limit without reloading or carting along extra ammo sounds like great idea to me.


That is exactly what I don't what anyone, including you, heck especially you, doing.

What is your held position in the BFA? You are in fact very counter productive to the message you hope to convey. You try very hard to shove your beliefs and agenda down everyone's throat and then demean them when they don't fully swallow.

If you are representative of the BFA and the average Ohio hunter, then yes, Ohio hunters are less competent, with you somewhere near the top of the list in my opinion.

I still see no benefit to a change in the 3 shot rule, but was, in the beginning of this thread, somewhat neutral in my concern either way. I am beginning to be swayed to be an adamant, active, supporter of no change only because of your arrogant persistence in favor of the change


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Lundy said:


> That is exactly what I don't what anyone, including you, heck especially you, doing.
> 
> What is your held position in the BFA? You are in fact very counter productive to the message you hope to convey. You try very hard to shove your beliefs and agenda down everyone's throat and then demean them when they don't fully swallow.
> 
> ...


All I have done is offer opposing view points. This thread has been sniped, jabbed and border line trolled yet I just keep offering productive points and counter points to the conversation. You see that as shoving my agenda? I thought I was offering a different perspective. No one has been demeaned.

So how does one go about disagreeing here and still make their point while challenging opposing view points? How does one go about injecting information that is new or foreign to at least some of the people involved in the conversation? How does one go about correcting misconceptions?

If I ask you personally to change your mind about a specific thing or consider another perspective then proceed to explain it...Either you are receptive to that or you are not. If you are not? It's only natural to engage you until you are or until both of us share enough of each others perspective to conclude that we must agree to disagree mutually.

When I see a statement like the 3 shot rule is for safety...I have to challenge that. When I am in the middle of a hollow on my private property that is so clearly marked no trespassing that a seeing eye dog would avoid it...Who is that rule making safer? If I use 1 round per deer what difference does it make if I have 6 rounds in my gun or 3 in my gun and 3 in my pocket?

I have to ask what the consequences of this thinking can be? Instead of punishing the hunters that are unethical, immoral or irresponsible...We have attacked an inanimate object such as a magazine in order to blanket control everyone's safety, behavior and ethics.

History is clear where this goes. All magazines used for anything fall under attack. Certain cosmetic features fall under attack. Semi auto falls under attack. The snow ball rolls.

If I can't be trusted to carry 15 rounds in my hunting implement on my own desolate land while hunting then how can I be trusted to carry 15 rounds in my concealed handgun and walk among the population? Why does anybody need 30 rounds, 20 rounds, 15 rounds 10 rounds...Hey they only use 3 for hunting.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

Buckeye dan, not everyone has a hollow on private property to hunt. The 3 shell rule applies to ALL Ohio land and it IS for safety. If the odnr started having separate regs for private and public lands That were possible (which they do have some) the regs would be even more confusing. You can Personally ask me to change my mind all you like, you actually might turn blue in the face, but it still won't convince me. Oh and your arguement about the concealed handgun, 2 totally different things, One is hunting and one is defense.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

ezbite said:


> Buckeye dan, not everyone has a hollow on private property to hunt. The 3 shell rule applies to ALL Ohio land and it IS for safety. If the odnr started having separate regs for private and public lands That were possible (which they do have some) the regs would be even more confusing. You can Personally ask me to change my mind all you like, you actually might turn blue in the face, but it still won't convince me. Oh and your arguement about the concealed handgun, 2 totally different things, One is hunting and one is defense.


You say they are 2 different things. I agree that they are. Now who is going to convince the Brady Bunch to stop using it as an attack on high capacity magazines?



> Large capacity ammunition magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and
> efficiently without reloading. They have been used in numerous mass shootings, including in Tucson,
> Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and Columbine, but they are not useful for hunting or self-defense.


Source: www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Legislation/2011-02_Fact_Sheet_HR_308_S_32.pdf


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

this thread has run its course, good bye dan, maybe someday we'll be as gun smart as the mighty buckeye firearms and YOU!!.

now youre trying to use the BRADYCAMPAIN as a source??? whats wrong with you?? this DAMN thread needs locked......................... BRADYCAMPAIN, really??


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

The three shot rule stinks of the Brady Bunch. Sure it was enacted for our safety but the Brady's still use it against us.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons/highcapacity

There it is in all it's glory. How do you deny that? They use the no legitimate sporting purpose argument as an attack. They use the no legitimate self defense purpose as an attack.

If you think it makes us safer? So be it. The only thing it does for me and those that hunt near me is dictate the number of rounds we can carry loaded. It's one step closer to limiting the capacity of all firearms.

Land owners should have an opt out option.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

WOW!! how did we go from your poll, to the brady campain,,, your arrogance took us there, thats how.. almost all your post are telling us how we should buy into your beliefs and because we dont, you now want to try scare tatics with the BRADYCAMPAIN. go away danny boy, go away... im done with this thread. by the way buckeye dan, why havent you posted anywhere else in the whole site?? im thinking you have an agenda... go away i dont want you here no more, youre as bad as the antis... IMO of course!!


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

The facts took us there. I point them out and it's referred to as arrogance? I've not changed my position at all. I pointed the same thing out in post number 3 in this thread.


> The 3 shot rule legitimizes the anti gun claims that there is no purpose for high capacity firearms.


It's not a scare tactic. It's reality and it is scarey. Apathy among sportsmen is even scarier to me.

Because the topics in this thread are my primary concern right now. When it warms up a little maybe I'll post the pics of all the fish I am catching.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> When it warms up a little maybe I'll post the pics of all the fish I am catching.


i HIGHLY doubt that!!


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

The survey is now closed. I want to thank everyone who participated. The results will be made available to the ODNR during the open house meetings and we will be posting them on our website as well.

I especially want to thank the people that participated in this thread. The constant debate, questions, challenges and deeply rooted opinions allowed all of us to put a lot of information out there for future readers to digest. In spite of the differences we kept it pretty civil too.

Now all of you know about the ODNR open houses so you can attend them.

We're probably forever limited to the 3 shot rule but many of you are now aware of the political implications that concern a 2A organization like the BFA.

Everyone now knows we are the only state among our bordering states that is not allowed to hunt after sunset.

Everyone also knows we are the only state among our bordering states that does not have some provision for rifle hunting.

Everyone is now aware that we are legally using equipment superior to pistol caliber long arms in the field today for deer hunting. 

It's just a matter of time before we can add those pistol caliber rifles to the tool box for Ohio deer hunters to enjoy. I just hope we aren't using gauss rifles, rail guns, laser beams and plasma weapons before we figure out that we should have been using grand pappy's lever action pistol caliber carbine or great grand pappy's rolling block black powder rifle 10 years ago today from a technological perspective.

When our neighbors start hunting with Star Trek weapons I am definitely going to ask if Ohioan's can hunt with high powered rifles. The timing should be on par with current trends.


----------

