# Will Michigan laws change?



## MIoutdoorsjunkie (Oct 11, 2006)

Just wondering how many of you think MI will eventually adopt cartridge laws similar to OH? In other words, do you think straight wall rounds in excess of 1.80" will ever be allowed south of the line? 

I have a .444 Marlin and Marlin model 375 sitting in the safe that I would love to use in southern MI. 

Thoughts?


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

I believe we will follow suit with Indianna.


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie (Oct 11, 2006)

bowhunter426 said:


> I believe we will follow suit with Indianna.


 I get the straight wall law, but am unsure why we capped it at 1.80" case length. What's the difference between a .375 winchester firing a piece of 200g lead at 2200fps with a case length of 2.020" vs the .450 bushmaster firing a 250g piece of lead at 2400fps with a case length of 1.70"?

The case length limit makes no sense to me.

Anyone have any good reason why we adopted a case length threshold for straight walled cases?


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie (Oct 11, 2006)

bowhunter426 said:


> I believe we will follow suit with Indianna.


Wait... aren't we already in line with Indiana. I belive they have the same 1.80 case length cap.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

MIoutdoorsjunkie said:


> Wait... aren't we already in line with Indiana. I belive they have the same 1.80 case length cap.


Nope. In 2017 Indianna opened the doors for most rifles


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie (Oct 11, 2006)

bowhunter426 said:


> Nope. In 2017 Indianna opened the doors for most rifles
> View attachment 462159


Ahh.. ok.. reading again it appears the have the same rules that we do for public land but allow a ton of other cartridges for private land.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

If you can’t kill a deer with what already legal changing the rules to allow more cartridges won’t help you one bit.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> If you can’t kill a deer with what already legal changing the rules to allow more cartridges won’t help you one bit.


Strange, not once was it mentioned that we couldn't kill with what is already available.


----------



## Joel/AK (Jan 12, 2013)

I know I would like to use the 45/70 that I brought back to MI that just sits in my cabinet.


----------



## Quack Addict (Aug 10, 2006)

Joel/AK said:


> I know I would like to use the 45/70 that I brought back to MI that just sits in my cabinet.


Just do this and you can...
The one on the left is trimmed to 1.795", the one on the right is a full length case. Same OAL, same powder charge, same POI.


----------



## Joel/AK (Jan 12, 2013)

Quack Addict said:


> Just do this and you can...
> The one on the left is trimmed to 1.795", the one on the right is a full length case. Same OAL, same powder charge, same POI.
> View attachment 462923


You know I'm cussing you out..lol your gonna make me go buy all new reloading gear. I sold all my old gear due to cost of shipping house hold goods 3500 miles.

If I can still get same performance and still fall in the 1.8" rules....hmmm


----------



## Zkovach1175 (Mar 29, 2017)

Quack Addict said:


> Just do this and you can...
> The one on the left is trimmed to 1.795", the one on the right is a full length case. Same OAL, same powder charge, same POI.
> View attachment 462923


The “45-70 quack addict” go sell the rights to ruger ASAP! .... I want half for the thought.


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie (Oct 11, 2006)

Luv2hunteup said:


> If you can’t kill a deer with what already legal changing the rules to allow more cartridges won’t help you one bit.


I can kill deer just fine, but would like to be able to use some of my other straight wall cartridges down here. Plus, I dont see the point of the 1.80 case length limit


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie (Oct 11, 2006)

Quack Addict said:


> Just do this and you can...
> The one on the left is trimmed to 1.795", the one on the right is a full length case. Same OAL, same powder charge, same POI.
> View attachment 462923


I like your style... you find loopholes...you're an innovator. Very nice. I need to build another reloading bench before I do anything. Sold the last one with my last house. I miss it..


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

MIoutdoorsjunkie said:


> I can kill deer just fine, but would like to be able to use some of my other straight wall cartridges down here. Plus, I dont see the point of the 1.80 case length limit


Start lobbying the NRC just like the last go around. Provide weapons, ammo, luncheons, scientific reports and range time for NRC, DNR officials and heads of Sportsmen’s groups. Prove to them that your selection has merit. It worked before it should work again. 

Until that time enjoying using your rifle selections on game other than deer in the SLP or broaden your deer hunting opportunities in the rest of the state.


----------



## Ken (Dec 6, 2000)

Just tell them to look at Ohio, wake up, and avoid studies and BS


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Ken said:


> Just tell them to look at Ohio, wake up, and avoid studies and BS


Ohio has a lot going for it.
Unlimited baiting.
Private land only baiting
Most importantly a real football team! OSU rocks.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

They have lost even more of their wetlands than we have. I don't believe they have much public hunting land compared to Michigan, not sure on that one.


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Start lobbying the NRC just like the last go around. Provide weapons, ammo, luncheons, scientific reports and range time for NRC, DNR officials and heads of Sportsmen’s groups. Prove to them that your selection has merit. It worked before it should work again.
> 
> Until that time enjoying using your rifle selections on game other than deer in the SLP or broaden your deer hunting opportunities in the rest of the state.


What does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have to do with it.


----------



## wolf76 (Apr 1, 2015)

The idiocy with these laws is the inconsistency. For deer in the limited firearms zone, it's straight wall, slugs, or muzzleloaders. The rationale is that it's for safety reasons - hold that thought for a second.
If you hunt coyotes in the same area, you can use high power center fire rifles. 
So, are they safe or aren't they?

I'd love to use my 308 - still appreciate my 45 raptor option vs 12 ga slugs though.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

DecoySlayer said:


> Interesting. Do you have a link with that information? I had never heard that before. I had always heard, LONG before there were deer down here, that it was a safety issue.


Why would it even be a safety issue? When the law was enacted there were way more hunters in N. MI than in the SLP. And back then, when the SLP was first opened up for deer hunting, there were so few places where deer numbers were high enough to hunt that there were far more people living in deer hunting country up north. But of course you and others will need a link to understand common sense.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Why would it even be a safety issue? When the law was enacted there were way more hunters in N. MI than in the SLP. And back then, when the SLP was first opened up for deer hunting, there were so few places where deer numbers were high enough to hunt that there were far more people living in deer hunting country up north. But of course you and others will need a link to understand common sense.



I had always heard it was because of the distances that modern, bottleneck cartridges, could travel over flat farm land. 

I just asked for a link to the law, when it was passed, so I could read it. There is no need for an argument. GEEZ. You posted something I had never heard before and it interested me.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

DecoySlayer said:


> I had always heard it was because of the distances that modern, bottleneck cartridges, could travel over flat farm land.
> 
> I just asked for a link to the law, when it was passed, so I could read it. There is no need for an argument. GEEZ. You posted something I had never heard before and it interested me.


It gets a little irritating seeing the link demand rebuttal all the time on here. It infers that if you can't provide a link then what you posted is not true.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Trophy Specialist said:


> It gets a little irritating seeing the link demand rebuttal all the time on here. It infers that if you can't provide a link then what you posted is not true.



All I did was ask a question. It was not a "demand rebuttal" at all.

I have never seen the law, or it's history and have had trouble even finding something about it. Thought you may have had something. Sorry I asked.


----------



## ErieH2O (Jan 24, 2018)

Geez is right...like talking politics with a millennial. 

We are much better off than before the recent changes to rifle laws.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

I must say that I really like my .350. LOVE the light recoil and muzzle blast. The short range does not bother me since I no longer even try to shoot beyond 200 yards.


----------



## jstfish48162 (Mar 8, 2003)

DecoySlayer said:


> I must say that I really like my .350. LOVE the light recoil and muzzle blast. The short range does not bother me since I no longer even try to shoot beyond 200 yards.


Have you shot a 450?
Reason for me asking is because I am buying one or the other in January and was looking for opinions on the 350....plenty of 450 opinions.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> It gets a little irritating seeing the link demand rebuttal all the time on here. It infers that if you can't provide a link then what you posted is not true.


A link is always nice. Some folks even get confused with things as simple as what a straight wall cartridge is.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Trophy Specialist said:


> It gets a little irritating seeing the link demand rebuttal all the time on here. It infers that if you can't provide a link then what you posted is not true.


[The state, after years of debate between hunting advocates and government officials, finally loosened firearms rules for the southern part of Michigan by allowing limited use of rifles in the area formerly known as the Southern Shotgun Zone.

Before 2014 the state banned using rifles along a jagged line that stretched from central Muskegon County through northern Kent County and up toward Bay City. The argument was that rifles presented a safety risk due to the range of travel, but hunters pushed back and finally prevailed.]https://www.mlive.com/sponsored/2016/11/changes_to_michigan_firearm_la.html

[Michigan’s shotgun zone encompasses all counties in the lower third of the state including the Thumb region. It covers the most densely populated areas of Michigan. Law enforcement officials say the designation was established due to safety concerns. Shotguns have shorter killing range than high-powered rifles.]https://howardmeyerson.com/2013/12/...wing-some-rifle-use-in-southern-shotgun-zone/

[These changes open up new opportunities for young hunters who cannot handle the recoil from a shotgun as well as those who prefer the precision of a rifle to a shotgun when hunting deer. Because the straight-walled cartridges and air rifles do not have near the range of a conventional rifle, they can be used safely in the more populous areas of the Southern Michigan Limited Firearm Deer Zone.]https://mucc.org/reminder-shotgun-zone-changes/

I do recall safety/range in the more highly populated area of the lower as to why a shotgun zone existed.
Never heard or read or daydreamed of deliberate reduced efficiency/success of method of take offered as the reason for the previous shotgun zone. 
Till now!


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

jstfish48162 said:


> Have you shot a 450?
> Reason for me asking is because I am buying one or the other in January and was looking for opinions on the 350....plenty of 450 opinions.



I sold my .450 up to purchase a .350 bolt action. 

Again, I have bad shoulders, so lower recoil helps. I don't need the range, 200 yards is the max I will shoot, I am no longer good enough for longer shots. The lower muzzle blast is a plus, but I still use ear protection, even when hunting.


----------



## jstfish48162 (Mar 8, 2003)

DecoySlayer said:


> I sold my .450 up to purchase a .350 bolt action.
> 
> Again, I have bad shoulders, so lower recoil helps. I don't need the range, 200 yards is the max I will shoot, I am no longer good enough for longer shots. The lower muzzle blast is a plus, but I still use ear protection, even when hunting.


Thanks DS


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

jstfish48162 said:


> Thanks DS


Happy to help.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

I purchased the Savage Axis II when I bought my .350. The Axis II has the Accutrigger system, the Axis does not.


----------



## TreeDizzle (Oct 19, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> It gets a little irritating seeing the link demand rebuttal all the time on here. It infers that if you can't provide a link then what you posted is not true.


Or that some people like to blow smoke out there behind and expect everyone to believe them. All he asked for are some facts to back up your attempt to educate him. Seems very reasonable


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I think some on here are still butt hurt about how I posted my personal experience with a 350 Legend failing miserably on a deer that I helped recover where several close, well placed shots failed to penetrate worth the crap resulting in a deer needlessly suffering for days before it was finally put down.

As for the original, main purpose for the "shotgun only zone", well I lived though a lot of it and I also know others older than me that lived though the beginnings of it too. I know that it's hard for some of you younger people on here to fathom deer actually being rare in S. MI but at one time the season was closed completely on deer there for many years. You could only hunt them up north. In some areas they actually had to transplant deer to establish local populations in S. MI. When they did finally open up seasons there, they were very conservative and even weaponry allowed was limited to keep the kill down. I don't know if there are links to back it up and really don't care since convincing some naysayers on here that don't have a clue is not very high on my priority list. Ask yourself this though, if the shotgun only zone was based strictly on safety, then why did the DNR allow bottle neck cartridges to be used for varmints or deer there under crop damage permits. Why can people target practice with them there anywhere they want too, but can't hunt with them? Why also did the DNR allow muzzle loaders that equal or exceed many bottle neck cartridges performance?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Luv2hunteup said:


> A link is always nice. Some folks even get confused with things as simple as what a straight wall cartridge is.


And this from someone who has stated on here multiple times that transplanting wolves to the SLP would be a great idea, which makes me wonder if you are suffering from confusion from time to time.


----------



## ART (Jul 7, 2004)

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350--28543--,00.html#PROTECTION


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> And this from someone who has stated on here multiple times that transplanting wolves to the SLP would be a great idea, which makes me wonder if you are suffering from confusion from time to time.


Having 400 LP wolves has always been part of the DNRs wolf plan. I can provide a supporting link, the trouble with some members here is they only post their opinion which is not supported by facts. It no wonder why certain members gets called out for posting fake news.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/wolf_management_plan_492568_7.pdf

Have you ever figured out the difference between a straight walled and bottle neck cartridge?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Having 400 LP wolves has always been part of the DNRs wolf plan. I can provide a supporting link, the trouble with some members here is they only post their opinion which is not supported by facts. It no wonder why certain members gets called out for posting fake news.
> 
> https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/wolf_management_plan_492568_7.pdf
> 
> Have you ever figured out the difference between a straight walled and bottle neck cartridge?


Your push to get wolves into the Lower Peninsula is laughable. I still remember you posting on here where you want to transplant them there from the U.P. I bet a lot of people would not agree with that one. But hay, the DNR thinks its a good idea, so why not you. LOL

As far the classification of straight walled cartridges, no I have not found out for sure what is legal and what is not. I don't know what maximum taper is allowed before a cartridge becomes illegal. I also don't know what the maxim bend in a case is before it is not considered straight walled. I really don't give a rip though since these laws will never affect me. If it did affect me, I'd find out.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

There you go again. Taper has zero to do with the cartridge being called straight walled. It’s no wonder why members are calling you out for not providing supporting facts.


----------

