New Study Shows Shotguns Are Not Safer Than Rifles For Deer Hunting
March 29, 2007
What is sure to set off a firestorm of disagreements, a recent Pennsylvania state-sponsored study shows that today, with the advancement of technology, deer hunting with shotguns is no safer than with rifles.
In 2004 Casey Burns was hit by a rifle bullet that came from a deer hunter’s rifle. She was approximately 1/2 mile away. She has since recovered from the injuries. As a result, a campaign was waged to eliminate deer hunting with rifles in that area of Pennsylvania - the Lehigh Valley area. Following what many other states have done and what Pennsylvania does in several of its counties, officials believed shotguns were safer and banned their use.
This prompted the state to find out if that claim was backed by science. They began contacting other states that prohibit the use of rifles, also claiming shotguns to be safer but nobody had any evidence to prove the claim. The state mounted a study to find out. They hired Mountaintop Technologies of Johnstown.
The study’s conclusions are based on ballistics analysis of shots fired by deer rifles, shotguns and muzzleloaders. Ballistics data were calculated for Mountaintop by the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Here’s how the study went.
”Technology has changed for the shotgun and muzzleloader, and the difference between them and a [deer] rifle is decreasing from what it was years ago,” Mountaintop consultant Todd Bacastow said.
The study examined ballistics data on three popular deer-hunting guns: a .30-06 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a .50-caliber muzzleloader. The rifle had the greatest maximum range at 2.64 miles, followed by the shotgun at 1.97 miles and the muzzleloader, which generally uses heavier and slower bullets, at 1.74 miles.
However, Bacastow noted that to achieve maximum range, shots must be fired at a 35-degree angle, which is highly unlikely in a hunting situation. He noted that a bullet fired at a 35-degree angle toward a deer 100 yards away would fly 210 feet above the animal’s back.
Most shots fired by hunters are relatively flat, and even a slight aiming error usually results in a shot less than 5 degrees above the horizon. When shots are fired at an elevation of 5 degrees, the total distances traveled, including ricochets, are 1.66 miles for a rifle bullet and 1.3 miles for a shotgun slug.
When shots are fired holding the guns level 3 feet off the ground, the shotgun slug will travel 0.99 of a mile, 16 percent farther than the rifle bullet will travel under the same circumstances.
The reason, Bacastow said, is that slugs tend to hold together better and lose less energy during ricochets than rifle bullets. Therefore, slugs often can travel farther than rifle bullets in common hunting scenarios.
For those now thinking that states will change their minds and begin allowing deer hunting with rifles, don’t get too excited. Being that some people always see a glass of water as either half full or half empty, some are already saying that if this study is true, then all guns should be banned in places where officials thought shotguns were safer. Others are simply saying the study isn’t accurate.
The real issue here of course is public safety. It should be noted that it would appear that many of the states presumed knowledge that shotguns were safer, has actually not been the case at all. States believing they were making people safer, now have to begin looking at this issue differently.
But before everyone begins yelling and screaming to ban all guns, this entire issue should tell us all something. It should remind us that passing so-called public safety laws for the sake of passing a law that makes us all think we are safer, is irresponsible. Officials need to gather data, facts and scientific evidence in order to make sound decisions involving public safety.
We should look at the rate of accidents from the so-called “stray” bullets. Together with information about what public safety factors are at risk by outlawing guns to hunt deer, it needs to be determined which scenario is best for the publics’ safety. We might find that more people are injured and killed from deer-auto accidents and Lyme disease than from “stray” bullets.
One thing is for sure. The results of this study will sure set off a reaction from not only those anti-gun and anti-hunting people but also from ballistics experts, including those at the local coffee shop.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
It’s a fact anti’s have a good share of legislative control. This “study”, to the extent it may be as “scientific” as any of the Brady Bunch, will be just as useful to them.
I was hoping this would slip below the radar. Unfortunately, someone thought it needed further public attention.
Your point, regarding irrelevant “safety” laws is fine. It just has very little, to nothing, to do with the point at hand.
Submit a proposal to state’s DNR and/or legislature, asking that rifles be allowed where only shotguns are now, citing that they are no safer than rifles, and I guarantee what ya’ll get is a flat-out ban … not even pistols.
For Christ’s sake, look at your title. You did absolutely nothing to call the study into question … either in the title, or in your article. A 12ga slug will travel 16% further than a .30-06 when fired level at 3ft off the ground eh? Momentum eh? It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Sarah Brady herself paid this Todd Bacastow.
Wait a minute … ok … I get it … you’re with the GunGuys.com, aren’t you? Very clever! If Brady hires more and more like you, the NRA doesn’t stand a chance.
You’re no Zumbo. But if some congressional committee doesn’t cite this “study” someday, with your blessing, I’ll eat my hat.
[...] … trying to get hunting banned where shotgun-only is allowed now [link] site accepts comments … FYI —————————— —————————— [...]
The study does sound flawed for example a 45 degree angle is required to obtain maximum trajectory. Also standard .30 cal bullets have much higher balistic coefficient making giving them much flatter trajectories.
However, Mr Quent you’re an idiot. Simply because you do not like what a study says does not mean that is false. As far as bans go, the NRA has done more to promote bans as the Brady Campaign or others, so do some god damn research before you go blasting people for their thoughts on a subject on which you have no right to be speaking. Don’t believe me about the NRA read this:
“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22
“We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. … We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. … That’s why we support Project Exile — the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws…we think it’s reasonable because it works. … We only support what works and our list is proud.”
—NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
“A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. … The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State.” - NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel
“The National Rifle Association believes in no unsupervised youth access to guns, period. We have always supported holding adults responsible for willfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms.” -Wayne LaPierre
“For years the NRA has demanded that Project Exile be deployed nationwide. Makes sense, huh? The laws are already on the books. Just enforce them. But Bill Clinton won’t do it. When he says he’s serious about fighting crime, consider that as a matter of policy — as a matter of policy - the Clinton Administration is not prosecuting violations of federal gun law. In fact, they reversed the Bush Administration’s policy of prosecuting felons with guns. Instead, with plea bargains, a wink and a nod, they’ve been letting armed felons off the hook. From 1992 to 1998, prosecutions have been cut almost in half.†-Charlton Heston
The NRA wants the government to not only expand but also give more teeth to the unconstitutional laws they have already placed on the books.
Well, Delinquent, I’m disappointed that you are a “shoot from the hip” kind of person.
First off, if you took the time to check out my articles etc. under “Guns/Gunrights, you would see that you couldn’t be further from the truth to think that I am one of the Gun Guys or sponsor and support the Brady Campaign.
Secondly, the article is a NEWS story not opinion or commentary. I am not a reactionist and will not give off the cuff commentary on information that I have not gotten all the facts on.
If you look at the piece, it tells any reader that “it will set off a firestorm”. That would pretty much tell a rational person that I don’t support this study.
Wow, this one almost slipped by me.
The core of this topic is one that’s had me concerned for a while. I know that in many places shotguns and muzzleloaders have been allowed, along with archery, as “safe” alternatives to high-powered rifles. This, of course, was due to the rainbow trajectories and relatively short range capabilities of both weapons.
Technology has changed this, though. We have muzzleloaders and shotgun slugs that now exceed the capabilities of my old 30-30 in range, velocity, and knock-down power. It’s no longer accurate to call these weapons “100-yard guns”. In fact, muzzleloaders are taking game well in excess of 200 yards now, and shotgun slugs are fast approaching that same level.
While I never agree with simply banning firearms altogether (throwing out the baby with the bathwater), I do think that some consideration needs to be given to the public safety. Restrictions on the types of weapons and ammunition used in some areas needs to be invoked.
If enforcement becomes unmanageable, then there will be no alternative but to remove firearms from the mix altogether. When this happens, it is not the anti-hunters and anti-gun folks to blame. It’s the jerks and scofflaws who will, once again, ruin things for the law-abiding hunter.
Just because the high-tech solutions exist, doesn’t mean we can’t still use the older tools. There is a time and a place for everything.
Just did the math…….
Looks like this is a fudged study.
The amount of time it takes for gravity to pull “down” a slug can be determined by simply dropping it from 3 feet. There is no difference between a moving object or stationary object. The rate of drop only increases at a distance because the amount of time gravity is effecting the slug has increased, accelerating the fall.
Anyway, this gives us the amount of time it can stay airborne on a flat earth.
Now, some of the slugs have an advertised muzzle velocity of over 2500 feet per second. Maybe we say 1700 to be on the safe side.
A mile is 5280 feet. That means it would have to stay airborne 3.07 seconds, and have no air friction slowing it, and again on a flat earth. We give the slug an extra 8″ benefit of the doubt for curvature of the earth in one mile.
There is no way a 12 ga slug can travel one mile when fired level at anything less than about 15 feet in the air.