1 / 23

Prepared by: MountainTop Technologies, Inc. March 28, 2007

Spatial and Ballistic Analysis Conducted Pursuant to Pennsylvania House Resolution 61 Relative to the Question: “Do Shotguns and Muzzleloaders Pose Less Risk than Centerfire Rifles for Hunting Deer in Pennsylvania?”. Prepared by: MountainTop Technologies, Inc. March 28, 2007.

beatrice-owens
Download Presentation

Prepared by: MountainTop Technologies, Inc. March 28, 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Spatial and Ballistic Analysis Conducted Pursuant to Pennsylvania House Resolution 61 Relative to the Question: “Do Shotguns and Muzzleloaders Pose Less Risk than Centerfire Rifles for Hunting Deer in Pennsylvania?” Prepared by: MountainTop Technologies, Inc. March 28, 2007

  2. Purpose, Objective and Approach • Purpose: To answer the question “Do shotguns and muzzleloaders pose less risk than centerfire rifles for hunting deer in Pennsylvania?” • Objective: To provide a scientific basis for policy pertaining to the mandatory use of shotguns and muzzleloaders for deer hunting in designated areas of Pennsylvania. • Approach: Compare the danger areas of firearm-ammunition combinations and representative cases of error

  3. Important Assumptions • The typical hunter exercises reasonable care • Hunters will tend to use the best available legal firearm-ammunition combination • The typical hunter will discharge the firearm at a height of 3 feet to impact a standing deer at approximately 3 feet height • The projectile’s trajectory will most frequently be approximately level with the general trend of the earth’s surface • A hunter may discharge the firearm above a 0 degree angle of elevation • The majority of these discharges will be at an angle of 10 degrees or less • Discharges at an angle delivering the maximum range are possible but not frequent • The firearm-ammunition combinations used in this report are representative of those used to hunt deer in Pennsylvania

  4. Legend Counties Total Incidents (366 Incidents) 0 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 9 10 - 16 17 - 23 Incidents Firearm Type (313 Incidents) Muzzleloader Pistol Rifle Shotgun Unknown Special Regulations Areas Reported IncidentsSince 1998 Since 1998, 464 reported incidents, 98 incidents not associated with hunting deer; of the 366 remaining incidents: • No rifle incidents in Special Regulations Areas • 19% of the incidents occurred in Special Regulations Areas • 75% of the incidents involved rifles (None of which happened in Special Regulations Areas) • 21% of the incidents involved shotguns • 4% of the incidents involved muzzleloaders

  5. Legend Counties Counties Incidents Firearm Type Muzzleloader Pistol Rifle Shotgun Unknown Special Regulations Areas 2nd Order Hot Spots 1st Order Hot Spots Hotspot Analysis • Counties with First Order Clusters: • Adams • Allegheny • Bucks • Cumberland • Lancaster • Lehigh • Montgomery • Northampton • Somerset • York • Counties with Second Order Clusters: • Adams • Berks • Bucks • Chester • Lehigh • Montgomery • Northampton • York

  6. Maximum Range as Represented in the 1998 Report

  7. Firing Conditions (Errors)

  8. Rifle-Ammunition 30-06 Springfield soft point Mass = 150 grains, MV = 2910 fps

  9. Shotgun-Ammunition • 12 gauge sabot .50 caliber HP semi-spitzer • Mass = 385 grains, MV = 1900 fps

  10. Muzzleloader-Ammunition • .50 caliber CVA Powerbelt • Mass = 348 grains, MV = 1595 fps

  11. Ricochet Distance • Initial and ricochet trajectories were computed • Trajectory Plots are provided with both initial and maximum ricochet distances

  12. Trajectories for 35° Firing Elevation No ricochets after impact

  13. Maximum Ranges No Ricochet

  14. Trajectories for 10° Firing Elevation

  15. 10o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is Ricochet

  16. Trajectories for 5° Firing Elevation

  17. 5o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is Ricochet

  18. Trajectories for 0° Firing Elevation

  19. 0o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is the Ricochet

  20. Affected Areaas a Percent of the Rifle Danger Area

  21. Conclusions • Conventional wisdom is not always true • When considering extreme, high, and moderate firing errors: • shotguns and muzzleloaders are less risky than the centerfire rifle • When firing with smaller or no aiming error: • a shotgun proved to be riskier than a centerfire rifle • The muzzleloader was always less risky than both the rifle and shotgun • Eliminating or controlling the ricochet seems essential if the shotgun is to be used as an effective risk management option

  22. Recommendations • Address the public perception that a shotgun is less risky than centerfire rifles in all circumstances • Reduced ricochet projectiles should be investigated

More Related