Download
spatial and ballistic analysis conducted pursuant n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Prepared by: MountainTop Technologies, Inc. March 28, 2007 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Prepared by: MountainTop Technologies, Inc. March 28, 2007

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

87 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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