Spatial and Ballistic Analysis: Shotguns and Muzzleloaders for Deer Hunting in Pennsylvania

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. April 17, 2007

2. Purpose, Objective, Approach, and Qualifications • 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: • Examine the record of incidents • Compare the danger areas of firearm-ammunition combinations based upon likely aiming errors and possible distances projectiles will travel • Qualifications: • MTT, Johnstown, PA • ATS, Inc. Lancaster, PA • US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

3. 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 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 • 21% of the incidents involved shotguns • 4% of the incidents involved muzzleloaders

4. 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 * Counties within Special Regulations Areas

5. What Do the Maps Mean? • Not to be taken as the relative risk between Special Regulations Areas and non-Special Regulations Areas • No reliable estimate of the number of hunters in any particular area • No means to estimate the number of shots fired in an area • Topography, land use, and structure density need to be taken into consideration

6. Maximum Range as Represented in the 1998 Report

7. ARDEC’s Contribution • The inadequacies in defining firing range danger areas forced the US Army to find an alternative method • The alternative was to development of probability based approach to evaluate the parameters contributing to the danger areas (zones) • Emphasis was placed on ricochet because of its complexity and the significant affect • Ricochet and firing conditions are modeled to produce the probable danger areas

8. Study Assumptions • The typical hunter exercises reasonable care • Hunters will tend to use the best available legal firearm-ammunition combination • On the average, a typical hunter will discharge the firearm at a height of 3 feet to impact a standing deer at approximately 3 feet height • On the average, the following firing conditions (aiming errors) will occur: • The projectile’s trajectory will most frequently be approximately level with the earth’s surface (approximately a 0 degree angle of elevation) • The majority of the discharges will be at an angle of 10 degrees of elevation or less • Discharges at an angle delivering the maximum range (approximately a 35 degree angle of elevation) are possible but not frequent • The firearm-ammunition combinations used in this report are used to hunt deer in Pennsylvania

9. Firing Conditions (Errors)Used in this study

10. More on the 4th Assumption • On the average, when shooting at a deer: • Most frequently projectiles will strike near the center of the target • Nearly all projectiles will be within 10 degrees firing elevation of the center of the target • While possible, it is unlikely that projectiles will be at 35 degree firing elevation of the center of the target Most Frequently

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

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

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

16. Ricochet Distance • Initial and ricochet trajectories were computed • Trajectory Plots are provided with both initial and maximum ricochet distances • All of the projectiles maintain sufficient energy throughout their flight to do bodily harm

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

19. Maximum Ranges No Ricochet

20. Trajectories for 10° Firing Elevation

21. 10o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is Ricochet

22. Trajectories for 5° Firing Elevation

23. 5o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is Ricochet

24. Trajectories for 0° Firing Elevation

25. 0o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is the Ricochet

26. Affected Areaas a Percent of the Rifle Danger Area

27. Conclusions • Popular opinion does not always reflect a complete understanding of the issue • When considering extreme, high, and moderate firing errors: • shotguns with saboted ammunition and muzzleloaders are less risky than the centerfire rifle • When considering small or no aiming errors: • a shotgun with saboted ammunition 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 firing single projectile ammunition is to be used as an effective risk management option

28. Recommendations • Address the public perception that a shotgun is inherently less risky than centerfire rifles in all circumstances • Reduced ricochet projectiles should be investigated • Suggested reference: • “The Scoop in Slugs” by Dave Henderson, American Hunter, 2005, http://www.nrapublications.org/tah/Slugs.asp

29. Closing Thought Paragraph from a letter submitted to the PGC on September 10, 1997