# Should pistol caliber rifles be legalized for deer hunting in Ohio?



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Should pistol caliber rifles be legalized for deer hunting in Ohio?

Submitted by cbaus on Tue, 07/31/2012 - 07:00.

BFA News
Sports and Hunting

Editor's Note: The following article was originally published in the Ohio Farm Bureau's official newsletter, Buckeye Farm News. Republished with permission.

Here's a debate taking place in Ohio's hunting community. Ohio Farm Bureau currently doesn't have a position on this issue. What do you think?

Legalize pistol caliber rifles

Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania all allow rifle hunting in one form or another, the Buckeye Firearms Association noted in a proposal to legalize pistol caliber rifles for deer hunting in Ohio.

But the organization is quick to point out that these guns are not high powered rifles.

"There is a negative perception with pistol caliber rifles because people don't get past the word rifle without thinking high powered," said Dan Allen, a Buckeye Firearms volunteer.

According to Aaron Kirkingburg, a Buckeye Firearms leader, pistol caliber rifles are similar to pistols, with a longer barrel and a stock for stability. The group acknowledges that perception is an issue and that some education will be necessary.

"This is a tool for keeping the deer population under control and the pistol cartridge rifle is an easy, effective and inexpensive tool that appeals to many," Kirkingburg said.

"These guns have a reduced recoil and are lighter, which appeals to women, youth and those with medical conditions," Allen said. "My father has a pacemaker; therefore, he cannot use a shotgun, but he could use a pistol caliber rifle."

They also emphasized that private property owners have the final say of what hunters can use when hunting on their property.

"Ultimately the decision is up to the property owner, and if they don't want hunting on their property with pistol caliber rifles they can make that a rule for their property," Allen said.

Concerns

Ohio Department of Natural Resources' Division of Wildlife is concerned that legalizing these guns will lower access to private property because of the misconception that these are high powered rifles.

"Currently in Ohio you can hunt with pistols. What folks are pushing for is why can't we hunt with pistol cartridges in rifle form? Let's put it on our shoulder rather than in our hand,'" said Mike Tonkovich, Division of Wildlife state deer project leader.

"It's about perception because we are very concerned about access to private property. We've done a lot of work with Farm Bureau trying to increase access to private property, which is where most of the deer are in the state and we don't want to compromise that by misinforming the public that Ohio has legalized rifles," he said.

Tonkovich wants landowners who are allowing hunters on their property to study the issue.

"I don't see this as a way to effectively manage our deer herd by legalizing these rifles," he said. "The positive side of it will be that it would keep hunters in the game that may not otherwise and may add some younger hunters."

Current Source: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8454
Original Source: http://ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/2676/


----------



## sherman51 (Apr 12, 2011)

i dont even live in ohio but in indiana where its already legal. my opinion is that if there going to allow hunters to use hand guns then they should make it legal to use the same guns in a rifle. now you have to many people out there with pistols that will take shots they just cant make, and you end up with to many wounded deer. with any gun putting your shot in the right place is alot more important than the gun you use. i think the idea of using rifles will just help alot of people make better shots. more deer get harvested and less deer get wounded to just run off and die later from bad shots. this is just my opinion.
sherman


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

Here we go again....


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

I_Shock_Em said:


> Here we go again....


exactly.... 

Just like the horsepower limit "discussion" has become an annual event on the site. The experts at ODNR are never right...


----------



## Big Dev (May 14, 2009)

Only If They Are Limited To The Same Amount Of Shots As A Shotgun,And Or A Single Shot,And Only In The Legal Pistol Calibers,If You Do Not Limit The Weapons Capacity There Will Be Even More Wounded Deer Runnin Around When Joe Dumbass Shows Up With His Lever-Action .357 And Goes Rambo In The Woods-Just MY Opinion.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## billk (Feb 2, 2008)

And how many idiots would take to using 30/30's or 35 Remingtons in the same lever action guns, just trying to gain an edge?


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

I_Shock_Em said:


> Here we go again....


Took the words right off of my keyboard....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

The original proposal was:



> Rifle Hunting Proposal for Ohio
> 
> Any cartridge currently legal to hunt with in a handgun, would be legal in a rifle.
> 
> ...


Making some accommodations for using pistol caliber rifles is not new. It's never gone away. This project is going into it's 7th or 8th year now. I've been involved with it for almost 4 years. Indiana accomplished the same thing in roughly 2-3 years.

The problem here is public perception of the word "rifle" and the possibility of hunting lands being denied because of it. Not cosmetics, ballistics, capacity or safety. We're using look-a-likes, we can limit capacity, ballistics are already inferior to what is legal and safety is dependent on the hunter which is uncontrollable in some part.

Pistol caliber rifles did not get to inherit their titles and performance perceptions like "muzzle loaders" and "shotguns". Pistol caliber rifles are just rifles to most people. People that are unaware of what shotguns and muzzle loaders have become still equate the word "rifle" to be something bad. Even if they are inferior.

We continue to reach out to every organization we can that has an interest in this subject. Public awareness and education is the focus for the moment.

Hunter support is there and the debates regarding cosmetics, ballistics, capacity and safety have ended for the most part. What is missing is general public opinion and feedback. Specifically property owners who allow hunting or have the potential to allow hunting.

Convincing those folks that these rifles are OK is the task at hand. The biggest part of that is educating the farmers and land owners about these rifles without throwing other technologies under the bus in the process. Just as important is letting the farmers and land owners know that they get to decide what is used for hunting on their land, who hunts, what is hunted and when it is hunted. Within the regulations of course.

There are still people that will not allow hunting due to liability issues. They won't even look at the ODNR permission slip which also includes a liability waiver with it and a box for hand written additional rules that the land owner can specify.

If that article opens up one more property to hunting then it's a success regardless of whether pistol caliber rifles are ever legalized. Obviously the pistol caliber rifles are the goal but keeping the pot stirred is very much a part of it.

The people that never allow hunting may never allow hunting. The people that would allow hunting opposed to that form of hunting need to know they can opt out that form of hunting if they desire. Once enough people are aware of that we'll have our pistol caliber rifles. Hopefully we gain a lot more land to hunt in the process once the landowners realize they get to call the shots. Pun intended.

There is nothing to stop the ODNR from regulating where the rifles are used on public lands or regionally either. Michigan does this with high powered rifles as I am sure other states do too.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> The original proposal was:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Buddy, I mean no disrespect, but I believe this issue was beat to death last year. And you read everybody's opinion on it. Maybe try a different forum before this thread gets shut down again....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## I_Shock_Em (Jul 20, 2008)

bad bub said:


> buddy, i mean no disrespect, but i believe this issue was beat to death last year. And you read everybody's opinion on it. Maybe try a different forum before this thread gets shut down again....
> 
> Outdoor hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


......+1000


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

I am confident that everyone has not made their opinion known. The odds are pretty fair that some people missed this subject the last time it was discussed. Anyone becoming a member since then would not have participated at all.

An extensive search indicates that none of the threads regarding this subject have ever been closed/locked/shut down.

This IS a controversial subject. People that are sensitive to the subject matter should exercise restraint or avoid the topic altogether by clicking past to the next subject.

With that said I welcome everyone's opinion for or against as long as they are civil. While a small minority are vocal and opposed to this proposal on this particular forum, the state data shows overwhelming hunter support for at least some inclusion for pistol caliber rifles being used in deer season. Please don't allow the former to discourage anyone from voicing an opinion.

The negative opinions may be the most relevant at this point. Public awareness and education is the focus right now as I stated before. 

The people that are for pistol caliber rifles do not need convincing. Some of the people that are against it (based on information from a prior survey) are against it for reasons that are based on obsolete perceptions and inaccurate information. That needs to be addressed so that every sportsman can make an informed decision of their own.

Discuss...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> ballistics are already inferior to what is legal


I believe this is your biggest hang up. Hunters, as a whole, generally want the quickest and most humane kill possible. If my shotgun has better ballistic performance, and higher energies, why would I want to carry a gun that may not get the job done? Or a gun with accuracy that may only wound an animal? I just don't understand why you are making a push to legalize pistol caliber rifles if they are inferior to the firearms that are already legal.... we don't want a bunch of wounded deer running around. We have enough already.

Also, if other states have allowed it in 2-3 years, and you've been at it for 7 years here, I believe that gives you an idea of the general hunting populations opinion about it.

And it's not about resistance from landowners. The state of Ohio could make it legal regardless of the opinions of private landowners. That's why they have public hunting areas. And most farmers around my area would be all for it if they felt it would reduce the crop damage they endure every year.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Also, the problem is not the word "rifle". I use rifles for squirrels, groundhogs, coyotes and foxes. I have no problem with rifles. I would rather see high powered rifles made legal in certain areas than pistol caliber rifles. Atleast a .30-06 would get the job done...quick.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

It is true that many hunters migrate to the most efficient and effective tool they can afford. But I can't agree that is the biggest hangup.

If that were true we would not be using primitive muzzle loaders (not to be confused with the high powered modern inlines). We would not be using handguns, traditional bows, compound bows, crossbows or fostered slugs from smooth bore shotguns.

Some hunters, myself included enjoy the challenge of bow season or using a handgun or flintlock to hunt with. It's not all about rifled slug barrels, sabots, optics and modern inlines.

The pistol caliber rifles are quite capable at harvesting deer. Possibly more capable than flint locks and smooth bore shotguns and certainly more capable than their handgun counterparts. That does depend on the user to some degree however. I know people that hunt exclusively with stick and string type traditional bows who are more proficient than some people with firearms and regularly harvest high scoring deer to prove it.

Depending on the caliber and configuration (optics, hand loads etc) the pistol caliber rifles are on par with everything we use now. All of our neighbors are already using them effectively. They have been for some time now.

Regarding the 2-3 years part. Indiana was able to enact their regulations and create their season in that short period of time. I am sure the hunters campaigned for it many years prior. The same as here.

According to the work we have done with the ODNR the only thing stopping this from happening is public perception. That is why it is important that people understand we aren't asking for high powered rifles and dispel the myths regarding the pistol caliber rifles.

As for legalizing high powered rifles for deer season I am all for it. They do create additional concerns however. Those concerns are quickly becoming obsolete due to the progress being made with modern inline muzzle loaders and shotgun sabot technology. We'll either have to regulate the technology advances of those platforms or reexamine the possibilities of including high powered rifles in deer season as well.

The custom inlines are already hyper velocity and taking game at 400 yards humanely. Rifled shotguns are pushing the envelope at 300 yards as well. The technology potential of either are not close to their limits yet. The question is how well does what we allow now need to perform before we put a cap on it or finally give in and allow high powered rifles?

I'm not going to go there since this is about pistol caliber rifles which should already have been allowed years ago if not always.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

I still do not understand your push for adding pistol caliber rifles. I don't see the gain for either us as hunters, or the state of Ohio. I've honestly never heard another hunter say "I wish the state would let me carry a 30-30 during deer season". I just don't see an advantage for anyone over even a foster slug through a smooth bore shotgun. (Which is the only type of gun/ammo I use). And it surely won't lead to more humane kills. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

I would rather see people using pistol cal. rifles and not allowing pistols. I keep as far away as I can from anyone hunting in our group with a handgun, unless it is a single shot.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

See, now maybe there&#8216;s part of the problems you&#8217;re running into, your exagerations and half truths. 
Telling us that inline muzzleloaders are capable of taking deer at 400 yards, shotguns at 300 yards? Come on, do you think we&#8217;re not smart enough to know better. Don&#8217;t try citing examples, I know they exist. But they don&#8217;t represent reality. You say that only a small minority are against the idea, but it&#8217;s public perception that&#8217;s holding it back? It seems clear that is just doesn&#8217;t have the overall support of the hunting community. Maybe it&#8217;s me, but I think you&#8217;d get more respect and open minds if you were just honest and left out the exaggerations and half truths. 
Personally, my opinion is the same as Leupy&#8217;s; some of the handguns allowed in Ohio have no place in the deer woods. But, this looks less like trying to get these particular guns legal, and more like a backdoor way to get high powered rifles legal in Ohio for deer hunting. I could be wrong, that&#8217;s just what it looks like to me.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Doesn't really matter to me either way.

There would be some that would prefer to hunt with a pistol caliber rifle for reduced recoil and cost of ammunition as compared to a shotgun.

In fact I personally would rather see the pistol cartridge rifles permitted and .410 slugs for deer NOT permitted. The youth hunters and those looking for a light recoil could benefit from these rounds and gain greatly in performance at the same time.

I guess I just don't see the big deal either way. It really would have very little impact on what most deer hunters or landowners do today. 

They offer zero gain in performance, in fact they are a reduction in ballistic performance from what we are shooting today in almost every instance.

Hard to think of any good reasons of why they shouldn't be permitted. Easy to come up with a few reasons why it would be nice if they were legal.

PS: I would be actively opposed to rifle calibers being made legal in Ohio.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

Bad Bub said:


> And it surely won't lead to more humane kills.


REALLY....
Hunting fatalities are becoming more and more rare. But when hunters shoot at a human mistaking them for a deer (which is usually the cause of hunting fatalities), even a BB gun can be lethal...
Poor argument of sure.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

BigV said:


> REALLY....
> Hunting fatalities are becoming more and more rare. But when hunters shoot at a human mistaking them for a deer (which is usually the cause of hunting fatalities), even a BB gun can be lethal...
> Poor argument of sure.


Humane.... not human. (Translation: kills quickly with the least amount of pain and suffering as possible)

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Ted Dressel (Dec 16, 2006)

Personaly I quit gun hunting in Ohio because of all the armchair hunters who only goes out during gun season.On the other hand I think that a hunter should hunt with what he whats.I do go to Indiana for their gun season and use my Henry .44 mag but I do have private land to hunt on.You have to remeber its the dumda$$ behind the firearm not the firearm.As firearm owners we should all support each other.This is how ANTIS use us against each other.


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

Lundy said:


> Doesn't really matter to me either way.
> 
> There would be some that would prefer to hunt with a pistol caliber rifle for reduced recoil and cost of ammunition as compared to a shotgun.
> 
> ...


Well said Lundy.

It just sounds like more of the crossbow vs longbow crap to me.
There's only one degree of dead, they all get it done. Pick your weapon and go have fun.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

Bad Bub said:


> Humane.... not human. (Translation: kills quickly with the least amount of pain and suffering as possible)
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


WOW, I really miss read that one!
My Apologies sir.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

M.Magis said:


> See, now maybe theres part of the problems youre running into, your exagerations and half truths.
> Telling us that inline muzzleloaders are capable of taking deer at 400 yards, shotguns at 300 yards? Come on, do you think were not smart enough to know better. Dont try citing examples, I know they exist. But they dont represent reality. You say that only a small minority are against the idea, but its public perception thats holding it back? It seems clear that is just doesnt have the overall support of the hunting community. Maybe its me, but I think youd get more respect and open minds if you were just honest and left out the exaggerations and half truths.
> Personally, my opinion is the same as Leupys; some of the handguns allowed in Ohio have no place in the deer woods. But, this looks less like trying to get these particular guns legal, and more like a backdoor way to get high powered rifles legal in Ohio for deer hunting. I could be wrong, thats just what it looks like to me.



This doesn't make any sense to me. The examples don't represent reality but you know they exist and I am not allowed to show them to you to prove that what I am saying is not half truths or lies?

That is the same as me claiming you don't catch big catfish and I refuse to look at you in photos holding them.

Since you created a situation where I could not possibly substantiate what I claim then I am going to ignore your request to not cite them and do it anyway.

http://ultimatefirearms.com/testimonials.php (hover over the photos)
http://www.badbullmuzzleloaders.com/testimonials.htm

Nikon BDC type and other manufacturer's scopes marketed for magnum muzzle loading rifles and shotguns compensate to 250 to 300 yards depending on model(s).

http://madogre.com/?p=345
http://www.hornady.com/store/Slugs/

Also read the reviews on the Winchester Supreme Partition Gold and Hornady SST's slugs at Cabelas.

You can also google or bing for the H&R Ultra Slug Hunter using various sabots as well as the Savage Bolt action slug gun. Those are production guns and not terribly expensive. Similar searches will turn up several custom slug guns that are easily capable of 250-300 yards.

There are quite a few videos on youtube if you don't believe what you read. I have personally shot an Ultra Slug Hunter that I would not blink twice at taking a 250 yard shot using Hornady SST's and a Nikon Omega BDC. Same hole and hole touching groups at 100 yards.

It's all already out there and it is already legal. The moment we introduced a rifled slug barrel to a shotgun it became a rifle. Plastic cartridge or brass doesn't matter much. The rumor mill has a new sabot on the drawing board using a shell casing that is entirely alloy with a new sabot design in it that will compete with some mid range rifles in the 2500FPS category. We can almost do it now with the SST.

Shotgun slugs will eventually reach an apex but what is to stop smokeless powder muzzle loaders? They are just caseless high powered rifles now. Add a few pounds and poof you could double your charge. Lengthen the barrel and tinker with the sabot/loads and 3600FPS is already doable (on paper) with extreme accuracy.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Ted Dressel said:


> Personaly I quit gun hunting in Ohio because of all the armchair hunters who only goes out during gun season.On the other hand I think that a hunter should hunt with what he whats.I do go to Indiana for their gun season and use my Henry .44 mag but I do have private land to hunt on.You have to remeber its the dumda$$ behind the firearm not the firearm.As firearm owners we should all support each other.This is how ANTIS use us against each other.


Awesome Ted! You are absolutely right. The more divisive we become the more danger we put our hunting heritage in. 

It's bad enough we have to fight against the antis but when we fight their battles for them it really stinks.

QDMA, baiting, plotting, handguns, modern inlines, compound bows, crossbows and the list goes on. Those subjects are all examples of hunters at some point trying to eliminate another form of hunting. The antis love it when we do that.

CASH, PETA and several other anti hunting organizations have been trying to destroy archery almost since it was introduced. To this day we still have to fight against the OBA, NABC, P&Y and the League of Ohio Sportsman regarding the use of certain compound bows, crossbows and draw loc systems. That is after 30+ years of use while we enjoy some of the finest whitetail hunting on earth in this state.

You still have to claim some sort of disability, be tested and authorized after paying an examiners fee to do so just to hunt with a crossbow or draw loc device in other states. The antis aren't fighting the inclusion. The hunters are and it's despicable in my opinion.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

BigV said:


> WOW, I really miss read that one!
> My Apologies sir.


Not a problem. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> This doesn't make any sense to me. The examples don't represent reality but you know they exist and I am not allowed to show them to you to prove that what I am saying is not half truths or lies?
> 
> That is the same as me claiming you don't catch big catfish and I refuse to look at you in photos holding them.
> 
> ...


On paper, a .22 long rifle could kill a squirrel at a half a mile....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

buckeye dan said:


> Awesome Ted! You are absolutely right. The more divisive we become the more danger we put our hunting heritage in.
> 
> It's bad enough we have to fight against the antis but when we fight their battles for them it really stinks.
> 
> ...


We're not eliminating a form of hunting if it's never been here... (modern times)
And I just feel the antis have a little more leverage when there's a bunch of wounded deer laying in peoples back yards because joe blow wanted to take a crack at an 80lb. Doe at 200yrds. With a handgun bullet through a long gun....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Another thing, all that dan has been posting is how powerful and accurate modern rifled shotguns and muzzleloaders are. Which is my point, during the deer gun season, what is the advantage or gain from using a pistol caliber rifle??? That's all I want to know. Show me the advantage, show me how it will help people harvest deer more humanely than the methods currently being used. Because humane kills truly help in the fight against the anti's. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> Another thing, all that dan has been posting is how powerful and accurate modern rifled shotguns and muzzleloaders are. Which is my point, during the deer gun season, what is the advantage or gain from using a pistol caliber rifle??? That's all I want to know. Show me the advantage, show me how it will help people harvest deer more humanely than the methods currently being used. Because humane kills truly help in the fight against the anti's.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Who said there had to be an advantage? Maybe diversity, nostalgia and challenge are important to hunters like myself? 

Based on the above logic I shouldn't ever archery hunt or use primitive firearms against anything because it is inferior to firearms that are popular.

You can choose to buy a long range muzzle loader or a long range shotgun using the finest ammunition and shoot with complete confidence at 100 yards. Why can't a pistol caliber rifle hunter do the same?

You could also choose to buy the finest muzzle loader using the finest powder and the finest projectile and shoot anything in North America out to 400 yards. Why on earth would you ever use a flintlock and round ball? Why would you archery hunt? Why would you use anything less?

If every hunt were about an advantage the stick bow would have been disposed of decades ago when the compound and crossbow came onto the scene.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> We're not eliminating a form of hunting if it's never been here... (modern times)
> And I just feel the antis have a little more leverage when there's a bunch of wounded deer laying in peoples back yards because joe blow wanted to take a crack at an 80lb. Doe at 200yrds. With a handgun bullet through a long gun....
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Preventing the new form of hunting is eliminating it.

Joe Blow actually has a couple of handgun bullet through a long gun options for 200 yards based on the new proposals. He's had those same options in other legal firearms for almost 11 years. He's also had those options in a handgun using the exact same cartridges I would like to see legalized in a long gun.

Wounded deer? Really? If we start blaming wounded deer on the equipment we are allowed to use to hunt them? I think I will blame everyone who uses anything less than a high powered rifle for deer hunting to be at fault.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

O.k. Dan, I give. I don't have the statistics or literature to back up my arguments. I give you credit, you've came prepared. Maybe i just feel like we have a good thing here and personally don't feel there's a need to change it. Not because of the rifle tag, i know what kind of performance they are capable of. I use to breathe bowhunting when i was younger, but no longer do it because i don't have the time to shot throughout the year like i used to. I don't pistol hunt because i don't feel I'm good enough to attempt a shot on anything that I'm not trying to kill out of self preservation. I know not everyone will weigh those things when they decide what they will hunt with, but i also respect the freedom to choose.

So to the original question, i vote no. Maybe based on personal belief, maybe conservative nature.... but I'm only one vote.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Oh Man! You guys took the bait AGAIN!!


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

buckeye dan said:


> This doesn't make any sense to me. The examples don't represent reality but you know they exist and I am not allowed to show them to you to prove that what I am saying is not half truths or lies?
> .


Im just saying that youre citing examples that arent reality in the hunting world. Yes, those things exist. But so do space ships and none of us are driving those around.

Bobk is right, we took the bait again.  Its a shame that someone would spend so much time and energy on something like this, when we have real issues among hunters and gun owners that need our attention.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> O.k. Dan, I give. I don't have the statistics or literature to back up my arguments. I give you credit, you've came prepared. Maybe i just feel like we have a good thing here and personally don't feel there's a need to change it. Not because of the rifle tag, i know what kind of performance they are capable of. I use to breathe bowhunting when i was younger, but no longer do it because i don't have the time to shot throughout the year like i used to. I don't pistol hunt because i don't feel I'm good enough to attempt a shot on anything that I'm not trying to kill out of self preservation. I know not everyone will weigh those things when they decide what they will hunt with, but i also respect the freedom to choose.
> 
> So to the original question, i vote no. Maybe based on personal belief, maybe conservative nature.... but I'm only one vote.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Now that makes perfect sense to me. Make sure you attend the ODNR Open House in March to voice your concerns. If you can't make it at least try to send a letter or email. 

Whatever happens enjoy your hunt and good luck with whatever you use.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

M.Magis said:


> Im just saying that youre citing examples that arent reality in the hunting world. Yes, those things exist. But so do space ships and none of us are driving those around.
> 
> Bobk is right, we took the bait again.  Its a shame that someone would spend so much time and energy on something like this, when we have real issues among hunters and gun owners that need our attention.


I am not sure how many firearms, ammunition, testimonials and personal experiences are required to become reality based on your definition of it. 

No we don't all own space ships but we all don't have an education in rocket science, a pilot license or several million dollars lying around. Forking out the cash for some high end hunting equipment, a hunting license, good ammo and a deer tag happens every season.

This is just one project. I personally work on many. This thread began because I was approached for an interview from the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and that story was the first post in this thread. It wasn't "bait". I didn't create it and the timing was based on whatever the OFBF wanted. I will do other stories with them regarding other things. At least I hope to and we have discussed them.


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

The PCR regulation is working in all of the states around us and...as usual, Ohio is always the last one to get on the wagon with something that's already been proven effective, enjoyable and safe.

I've been pushing for this regulation for over 3 years. 
Bowhunter57


----------



## treytd32 (Jun 12, 2009)

stupid is going to be stupid no matter what you give them to shoot.. I have an acquaintance who has taken shots that wouldn't be easy from 100 yards from 200 yards with a muzzle loader and injured deer as well as 60 yard shots with bow doing the same thing. Just an example of an idiot being an idiot. No matter if an idiot has a 357 or a 30.06 he will still be an idiot.

I don't mind the idea of pcr's in the hands of normal citizens.


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

flounder said:


> exactly....
> 
> The experts at ODNR are never right...


Are you referring to when they allow their out of state buddies to get resident licenses, and then their bosses also help in the cover up, or when they hunt and fish while collecting my tax dollars in their paycheck?
ODNR is the smartest DNR in the country, simply ask them

So has the hunter accidental death count been through the roof during gun season in IN-WVA-PA compared to OH? Didn't think so.

Just be done with it, and legalize them. Raise the deer tags a couple bucks to raise some ODNR money, which they desparately need. (what, like somebody is gonna quit deer hunting over $2 or $3 ???)

Oh, and to those who say rifle hunting is cheating, then quit using sabots, crossbows, compounds, and inlines and store bought camo...until then, you really don't have a legitimate complaint.


----------



## BuckBlocker (Aug 18, 2012)

Heres my 2 cents. 

First of all, I am a new member - so this is a brand new topic to me and not beat to death. The people that don't want to participate are the ones that should go to a different thread. Nobody is making you read it!

Last year this actually came up for me. I've been hunting for years, and am a hunter education instructor. I own a marlin 44 mag lever action. It is considered a coach gun. My friend owns a 44 mag revolver. He is allowed to hunt with his. I was taking 2 of my daughters hunting for the youth season. 10 and 14 year olds. Man, that 44 mag carbine would be perfect for the little one. Low recoil, nice and small. Can I? I wasn't sure. I called Columbus. Got transferred around several times. Had to give an officer the serial number of the firearm. Then he said nope, can't use it. I asked what the serial number had to do with it? He told me it is all how the ATF actually classifies the firearm as to whether or not it is considered a handgun or long gun. He went on to tell me there are some carbine "rifles" that are registered through the ATF as handguns, and if that is how it's registered, that's how they enforce it. I believe one of the examples is the Rossi Ranch Hand. Check it out. Not much different than my little marlin really. 

I vote YES to using handgun caliber long guns. Of course there should be restrictions to control some of the machine gunners out there. 


Genesis 27:3
|\
| ) ---->
|/


----------



## Mad-Eye Moody (May 27, 2008)

Bad Bub said:


> Another thing, all that dan has been posting is how powerful and accurate modern rifled shotguns and muzzleloaders are. Which is my point, during the deer gun season, what is the advantage or gain from using a pistol caliber rifle??? That's all I want to know. Show me the advantage, show me how it will help people harvest deer more humanely than the methods currently being used. Because humane kills truly help in the fight against the anti's.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Lever revolution Pistol ammunition is incredibly less expensive than high quality sabot slugs. That's the advantage I would like to have. The proper pcr is a very efficient killing to 150 yards in several calibers, which is what I consider the max range for my slug gun. So for me, it is just a matter of the cost of ammo. 1$ bullet vs 4$ slug.

But the pcr debate should be more of a Why not high power rifle debate. Frankly, a One ounce slug that ricochets and goes tumbling through the brush is far more dangerous than rifle bullet doin the same. Heck, a guy with a bolt action rifle in my opinion is less dangerous than a guy with an auto loading 12 gauge for spray and pray issues.

Many states have shotgun counties and rifle counties.

I cannot believe that the state worries too much about humane kills when they allow 410 slugs for hunters. 

But I don't hunt in Ohio anymore. Access is to big of a problem, so I will let you guys fight it out while I kill deer at 200 yds with my 30-30 and lever revolution ammo in WV.


----------



## Bonemann (Jan 28, 2008)

Ohio is a totally different state from any of our neighbors. (Population and topographically)

As everyone knows we have flat lands,rolling hills and the foot hills of the Appalachians (Ohio River Valley). And there are people everywhere.

I would have no problem with pistol caliber rifles but please,the talk of "certain counties being allowed and others not" I don't like that at all !!!

What ever the state decides I will abide by !!!


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

buckeye dan said:


> Who said there had to be an advantage? Maybe diversity, nostalgia and challenge are important to hunters like myself?
> 
> Based on the above logic I shouldn't ever archery hunt or use primitive firearms against anything because it is inferior to firearms that are popular.
> 
> ...


It seems there is plenty of diversity right now. There are currently 5 different kinds of weapons you can use to hunt deer in Ohio. So your diversity example doesn't really have much of a bite to it IMO. As far as nostalgia...... you mentioned flintlocks earlier. I don't know how much more nostalgic you can get other than a long bow. Both of which are available for use in Ohio. As far as your wanting a "challenge" You've been quoting accuracy and range numbers basically throughout this thread. I'd say that your boasting of the accuracy and range of these loads in defense of humane kills is defeating your example of wanting a challenge. If you want a challenge using a fire arm, use a hand gun.

Personally I think the use of a handgun for deer hunting is just asking for wounded deer. Even with a scope they aren't as accurate as a scoped slug gun under most hunting conditions. I don't want to see high powered rifles allowed for deer hunting in Ohio, but I'd rather see them allowed, and handguns be not allowed. Just my personal opinion. To me a handgun is a personal defense weapon, or a gun used to dispense animals caught in a trap. 

I have to side with Bad Bub in the debate you two were having. His points were clear and concise, and when he finally asked you "why" your response basically amounted to you saying "because I wanna" 

Once again, just my personal opinion.


----------



## buckeye dan (Jan 31, 2012)

Bassbme said:


> It seems there is plenty of diversity right now. There are currently 5 different kinds of weapons you can use to hunt deer in Ohio. So your diversity example doesn't really have much of a bite to it IMO. As far as nostalgia...... you mentioned flintlocks earlier. I don't know how much more nostalgic you can get other than a long bow. Both of which are available for use in Ohio. As far as your wanting a "challenge" You've been quoting accuracy and range numbers basically throughout this thread. I'd say that your boasting of the accuracy and range of these loads in defense of humane kills is defeating your example of wanting a challenge. If you want a challenge using a fire arm, use a hand gun.
> 
> Personally I think the use of a handgun for deer hunting is just asking for wounded deer. Even with a scope they aren't as accurate as a scoped slug gun under most hunting conditions. I don't want to see high powered rifles allowed for deer hunting in Ohio, but I'd rather see them allowed, and handguns be not allowed. Just my personal opinion. To me a handgun is a personal defense weapon, or a gun used to dispense animals caught in a trap.
> 
> ...


"Because I do wanna"
The challenge I speak of is not in the weapon itself in this case. It's more of a bucket list. I've never harvested a deer with a PCR and I would like to in this state. As it stands I have to visit a neighboring state to do it.

The question of "why can't I" has already been answered. The reasons are thin. PCR's are comparable to everything else we use. They are also capable in our neighboring states therefore they would be capable here.

I've seen a couple of comments regarding what others use to hunt with. Namely handguns. Similar arguments occur in the archery community. Crossbows are too powerful and too easy. Stick bows are too hard and too limited. Even the compound bow users divide amongst themselves over how much let off is too much. It would seem that the type of bow you use can only be as easy or difficult as your audience of the day will allow. Now I am seeing that same thing in the firearms hunting community.

I have no idea what the individual experiences are that creates this sort of division but I am a firm believer that it needs to stop. As I stated previously I have met people that hunt with stick and string and are extremely proficient at it. The same applies to handguns.

No matter what you use you must practice. DO NOT blame the weapon because the operator of it failed. You cannot hold the entire hunting community accountable for those that leave their implement in storage until opening day. Yes they do stupid things like hunt beyond their limits, the weapons limits and do not practice enough. That is a hunter issue not a weapon issue.

treytd32 hit the nail on the head with:


> stupid is going to be stupid no matter what you give them to shoot


The more taboo hunting in general becomes the less exposed people become to it. Lack of exposure means lack of education, influence/mentors, training. Statistically speaking our own divisiveness lends to the same problem. 

Someone wanting to hunt in a new and different way to them would naturally seek out like minded individuals with experience in hunting that way with that weapon. When the hunting community as a whole shuns a particular method/technique then the pool of experience to learn from disappears. That causes people to learn on their own which is effective for some but a horrible learning experience for others based on trial and error. Mistakes are made and hunting is given another bad image. Or just as bad the hunter gives in to peer pressure and gives up on their interests replacing them with other more popular forms of hunting.

Trapping, primitive firearms, primitive archery and hand gun hunting are all becoming more and more difficult to find mentors for. When I was a kid I knew lots of people that frog gigged. I don't know a single person that does that still and have not met someone who does it for years. Fortunately I still know folks that use every legal form of hunting so the experience pool is still there but it gets smaller and smaller every year.

Adding more tools to the tool box is an expansion on hunting no matter how you slice it. I want expansion and not decline. With the proper adaptation PCR's are a lateral and logical move towards that expansion without upsetting the balance within the community. Except of course for those that have "personal opinions" against it. Those same "personal opinions" are why hunters with disabilities have to seek out permission and approval from doctors/DNR's to use crossbows in half the country in this day and age. Despite decades of data to support the crossbow, special interests perpetuate the division from within our own folds.

I have no problem with people disagreeing. I do have a problem when the disagreements are based on false information/perceptions, peer pressure and poor examples of so called hunters doing stupid things.

Bad Bub made an informed, educated decision. I respect that but I disagree with the outcome. It's a simple thing to do. Bad Bub also mentioned some things that I fundamentally agree with. Not being able to practice with his bow and lack of ability to hunt with a handgun. That is self limiting which is a quality we should strive to instill in every hunter. If he were in turn against me using those things because he cannot then that would be wrong.

Again...Whatever happens enjoy your hunt and good luck with whatever you use.


----------



## jonnythfisherteen2 (Mar 5, 2011)

make sense that a handgun would be harder to hunt with
a shorter barrel, less range, less power, harder to steady, (not sure about the 5 pound hand cannons)
and the scopes have less magnification.


----------

