# Question for SLP COs



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

We have been given a proposal for legislation to restrict the use of some handguns and handgun ammunition for hunting south of the rifle line. The argument made by the proponent of the legislation is some modern handguns have near rifle length barrels and some even use a rifle type cartridge and that these handguns present a safety problem in the more densly populated SLP.

My question is whether recent experience has shown a need for added handgun restrictions in the SLP or if this person is attempting to fix a problem that in the practical sense doesn't exist.


----------



## bigcountrysg (Oct 9, 2006)

Makes no sense at all. Reason being there are shotgun loads that are accurate and go the same range as some rifles. Personally I see no need for the rifle line any more. Being the shotguns out there shooting sabot slugs are just as accurate for the long range shots as rifles.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

bradymsu said:


> We have been given a proposal for legislation to restrict the use of some handguns and handgun ammunition for hunting south of the rifle line. The argument made by the proponent of the legislation is some modern handguns have near rifle length barrels and some even use a rifle type cartridge and that these handguns present a safety problem in the more densly populated SLP.
> 
> My question is whether recent experience has shown a need for added handgun restrictions in the SLP or if this person is attempting to fix a problem that in the practical sense doesn't exist.



I cant speak to event that may or may not have happened in the last 3 years but.

Any handgun usage was not allowed prior to 1986 which 1986 was the first year using a handgun in the shotgun only zone was legal. I never understood why handguns were not legal prior to 1986 because shotguns with slugs had a greater range anyway. Even at that time single shot handgun were not allowed.

Although I cant remember the exact year the single shot handgun became legal in the shotgun area (about 10 years ago) those single shot handguns were still restricted to straight walled cartridges. The straight walled cartridge took care of using a long barreled single shot handgun for rifle rounds like 30-06 etc.

I believe, if memory serves, that only made it legal to add 2 additional possibilities outside of other cartridges that could be used in a typical handgun. Those two were to .444 and 45-70 cartridges. (Just some general info on cartridges http://www.chuckhawks.com/444Marlin.htm & http://www.chuckhawks.com/45-70Govt.htm ) Both of those particular rounds, providing just like any other firearm, practice, provides and extended distance for a kill shot. The part that is often overlooked when comparing it to a typical handgun or even a shotgun, it is only a single shot so one only normally gets one chance.

During the time I was still working I never seen a single shot handgun being used by a hunter in the southern part of the state. In my District, which included Allegan, Barry, Calhoun, Kalamazoo, VanBuren, Branch, St. Joe, Cass and Berrien Counties we never had an incident, being a person or building being hit with one. We had incidents of houses being hit with shotguns every year.

Bottom line, my opinion it would be fixing a problem that doesnt exist but also it would affect very few if the law was changed too providing you are only talking about the rounds or equivalent rounds. .44 magnum or lower in a typical handgun shouldnt even be considered to change the legality of use.

Of course on a side note, I finally received my CCW for Florida, only took 3 months.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

bigcountrysg said:


> Makes no sense at all. Reason being there are shotgun loads that are accurate and go the same range as some rifles. Personally I see no need for the rifle line any more. Being the shotguns out there shooting sabot slugs are just as accurate for the long range shots as rifles.


I will disagree with you on that one. Lets get a mile apart, me with a 30-06 and you with your best shot gun and see what happens.:yikes:


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

bradymsu said:


> handguns present a safety problem in the more densly populated SLP.
> 
> 
> My question is whether recent experience has shown a need for added handgun restrictions in the SLP or if this person is attempting to fix a problem that in the practical sense doesn't exist.


I am not a CO but, The person is 100 % clueless.....

A very small % of the hunters use a Contender-Encore pistol as that is what you are talking about. So you are talking about a single shot, expensive handgun. People that shoot them do not start flying lead around the woods. They are part of the " one shot, one kill "group.

What is a "rifle type cartridge" ? We have rules that state must be a straight walled for deer hunting in the shotgun zone ? 

If this was passed, what is next ,attack Muzzy's/shotguns ??

A Contender pistol is the only weapon that I hunt with..


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Thank you for your thoughts. I suspect the motivation behind this proposal may be to open the SLP to rifles. I will refer this gentlemen to the NRC. If the NRC recommends a change in statutory law, so be it.


----------



## Bear4699 (Aug 24, 2008)

This is a dumb thread !!!!! i have a 44mag and use it during gun season there is no way it will go as far as a shotgun this is dumb!!!!


----------



## Violator22 (Nov 10, 2004)

Okay, serious question, since it is a fact that even the 44 mag will not shoot farther than a 12 gauge slug, why will Michigan not open up Lever Actions in straight walled PISTOL caliber's like Indiana has done below the rifle line? heck, even New york State dropped their rifle line, I am thinking Ohio and Michigan are two of the few states that do not allow Handgun Cartridges in rifles across the state. Les


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

I'm somewhat surprised no one mention the new in-line muzzleloaders. They are more than capable of shooting two yards. If were going to compare pistols to rifle and shot guns fair is fair


----------



## ajmorell (Apr 27, 2007)

Violator22 said:


> Okay, serious question, since it is a fact that even the 44 mag will not shoot farther than a 12 gauge slug, why will Michigan not open up Lever Actions in straight walled PISTOL caliber's like Indiana has done below the rifle line? heck, even New york State dropped their rifle line, I am thinking Ohio and Michigan are two of the few states that do not allow Handgun Cartridges in rifles across the state. Les


x2. The shotgun line sounds like a good idea on paper but doesn't hold much water IMO. It makes no sense to me that I can use a centerfire rifle in the "shotgun zone" outside of "deer rifle" season to take coyotes and the like. I know the argument is that more hunters are in the woods but IMO that is a crock of *****. Many people that hunt deer hunt during rifle season are still out in the woods pursuing other game outside of deer season.


----------



## old school (Jun 2, 2008)

bigcountrysg said:


> Makes no sense at all. Reason being there are shotgun loads that are accurate and go the same range as some rifles. Personally I see no need for the rifle line any more. Being the shotguns out there shooting sabot slugs are just as accurate for the long range shots as rifles.


 
I agree, along with the Muzzeloaders out there that are capable of shooting over 200+ yds.


----------



## old school (Jun 2, 2008)

Bear4699 said:


> This is a dumb thread !!!!! i have a 44mag and use it during gun season there is no way it will go as far as a shotgun this is dumb!!!!


 
The 460 is supposed to be able to reach out there over 200, don't have one, that's the statistics.


----------



## Violator22 (Nov 10, 2004)

I know my 454 Casull was good for 200 yards. les


----------



## G-Vac (Sep 20, 2004)

Violator22 said:


> even New york State dropped their rifle line,


Yes they did, yes they did! There were some clueless hunters predicting the hills would run red from the blood of accidental shootings. In fact there have been fewer incidents each year since rifles were allowed than when those counties were shotgun only. PA spent big dollars comissioning a study (I believe through Raytheon) that showed shotguns were no safer at all than rifles in populated areas. It was extremely well done if I can find a link to it I'll post it.


----------



## G-Vac (Sep 20, 2004)

Well I was way off when I said the study was done by Ratheon, it was Mountain Top Technologies. Can't find the original report, but here is a link to the PA Legislative Budget and Finance Comittee Report highlights.
http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2007/168fs.PDF

Also A PDF presentation from the company that performed the study

http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd...s.com/documents/AFWA_Presentation_9-18-07.pdf


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Like Boehr, I see it has a fix to a problem that doesn't exist. Good slug guns and muzzleloaders are capable at 200 yards with practice...lots of practice. It's much easier to do with a .30-06 however so those comparing todays muzzleloaders and slug guns with high powr centerfire rifles are way off track when it comes to the ballistic facts. Like Violator22mentioned, there is not a single good reason not to allow centerfire rifles chambered in straight wall Pistol calibers in the SLP. A .44 mag in a winchester 94 lever gun is never going to be a 200 yard gun...about 125 in the right hands at best. We allow more potent guns/ammo in the SLP but because it's a centerfire "rifle" it's illegal. Its dumb, but it's gov't and it's people that just don't understand ballistics. Indiana just saw the light and allowed this, Michigan should follow. 

Todays S&W .460 and .500 either in Big Revolvers or Encore/contenders have a barrel length anywhere from 8" to 12" and are capable out to 200 yards.....but not many use these guns and even fewer have the capability to make such shots. Imo, where the .460 and .500 shine are in their ability to handle heavy bullets at modest velocity....where they are incredible at deer out to reasonable ranges, say withing 125 yards. Most people can't shoot a handgun well enough past that. These guns, at least the revolvers are very expensive and so is the ammo, plus recoil is impressive. All three things add up to the fact that while popular, their are not that many in the field during hunting season.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

bradymsu said:


> Thank you for your thoughts. I suspect the motivation behind this proposal may be to open the SLP to rifles. I will refer this gentlemen to the NRC. If the NRC recommends a change in statutory law, so be it.


Not quit sure how banning one high performance gun/ammo style is a motivation to allow another type of high performance gun/ammo. 
A better guess would be that his person is motivated to move the shotgun line further north.


----------



## jward (Feb 16, 2009)

I probably have between 750 an 850 bucks wrapped up in my encore pistol . It is a .375 winchester . I guarantee that I am a safer shooter than some shotgun users simply by virtue of the fact that it takes so much practice to use the handgun . A lot of guys shy away from pistols due to the recoil alone. Not to mention the price of the gun and the ammo . Heck just finding ammo for the .375 is getting to be a pain . 



Jward


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Here is the way I look at this thread and I am making somewhat of an assumption from using common sense of the question Brady asked. The first paragraph talks about barrel length and rifle ammo in a handgun. I assume the proposed legislation is targeted at single shot contenders with the .444 & 45-70.

Then some mention .44 mags, in-line muzzleloaders.....I sure hope whoever proposed this legislation that Brady was asking about sure doesn't read some of this stuff on this site because you may have given them more ammo (no pun intented) to make their intent sound more persuasive. Some of you may have cooked your own goose for not staying on topic.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Thanks, Boehr. I understand the point people are making here. There very well may not be any need to have the rifle line at all. I don't expect to see legislation coming from this in the near future. I will suggest that the gentleman who contacted us discuss this issue with DNR LED, Wildlife Division and the NRC.


----------

