ORIGINAL: cma3366a
I dont think anyone is looking for the "easy way out" with regards to switching from slugguns to rifles, most people shoot deer at the same distance with a rifle as they do with a shotgun (less than 150yds).The real difference, for me anyways, is that I ammore proficient with my rifles as I can afford to get more pratice with them. I can handload my .270 with Sierra Pro-Hunters and IMR4831for $0.34 a round. My Mossberg 695 likes Winchester Platinum-Tips which costs 11.99 plus 8.25%tax per 5 or $2.59 a shot. That, coupled with the fact that the slug gun shoots 2.25MOA and the rifle shoots .75MOA means that using a rifle will more likely result in a properly placed shot, and a clean kill.
I'll secondyour comment as well!!!
Another point to ponder is this: We can now use in the southerntier, High powered single shot pistolsthat use "rifle" cartridges, and in-line Muzzel loaders with rifled bores. So now, tell me exactly why using a "rifle" would be more risky????? A rifle is much more accurate than a shotgun, and delivers more energy at 100-150 yards than a shotgun does, and yet there are some guys who routinely shoot at deer at that distance with slug guns??? Talk about crippling a deer or what. A rifle will get the job done at those distances much more reliably than a slug gun ever will. This just boils down to the same in-line VS the flintlock, recurve VS the compound bowdebates. Lets stop getting worked up over nothing. I hate using a slug gun, they are heavy to carry all day, and most of them can't group worth a darn past 75 yards anyway. I'm in all favor for this new Bill to be passed, and it's about time!!!!