prepared by: mountaintop technologies, inc. march 28, 2007
Post on 03-Jan-2016
67 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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:AdamsAlleghenyBucksCumberlandLancasterLehighMontgomeryNorthamptonSomersetYork
Counties with Second Order Clusters:AdamsBerksBucksChesterLehighMontgomeryNorthamptonYork
Maximum Range as Represented in the 1998 Report
Firing Conditions (Errors)
Rifle-Ammunition
30-06 Springfield soft pointMass = 150 grains, MV = 2910 fps
Shotgun-Ammunition
12 gauge sabot .50 caliber HP semi-spitzerMass = 385 grains, MV = 1900 fps
Muzzleloader-Ammunition
.50 caliber CVA Powerbelt Mass = 348 grains, MV = 1595 fps
Ricochet Distance
• Initial and ricochet trajectories were computed
• Trajectory Plots are provided with both initial and maximum ricochet distances
Trajectories for 35° Firing ElevationRifle vs Shotgun/Muzzleloader Analysis
35 Degree Firing Distance
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Distance (feet)
Alt
itu
de
(fee
t)
RF - .30-06 150 grains
SG - .50 cal 385 grains
ML - .50 Cal 348 grains
No ricochets after impact
Maximum Ranges
No Ricochet
Firing Elevation at 35 degrees
Ammunition Initial Impact Distance (ft)
Ricochet Distance (ft)
DifferenceDistance (ft)
% Less than Rifle
Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 13926 13926 0 Initial Ricochet
Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 10378 10378 0 25% 25%
Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 9197 9197 0 34% 34%
Trajectories for 10° Firing ElevationRifle vs Shotgun/Muzzleloader Analysis
10 Degree Firing Elevation Distance
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
Distance (feet)
Alt
itu
de
(fee
t)
RF - .30-06 150 grains
SG - .50 cal 385 grains
ML - .50 Cal 348 grains
10o Elevation with Ricochet
BandThickness is Ricochet
Firing Elevation at 10 degrees
Ammunition Initial Impact Distance (ft)
Ricochet Distance (ft)
DifferenceDistance (ft)
% Less than Rifle
Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 10004 10706 702 Initial Ricochet
Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 7163 8112 949 28% 24%
Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 6247 7160 913 38% 33%
Trajectories for 5° Firing Elevation
Rifle vs Shotgun/Muzzleloader Analysis 5 Degree Firing Elevation Distance
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Distance (feet)
Alt
itu
de
(fee
t)
RF - .30-06 150 grains
SG - .50 cal 385 grains
ML - .50 Cal 348 grains
5o Elevation with Ricochet
BandThickness is Ricochet
Firing Elevation at 5 degrees
Ammunition Initial Impact Distance (ft)
Ricochet Distance (ft)
DifferenceDistance (ft)
% Less than Rifle
Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 7504 8743 1239 Initial Ricochet
Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 5118 6865 1747 32% 21%
Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 4367 6010 1643 42% 31%
Trajectories for 0° Firing ElevationRifle vs Shotgun/Muzzleloader Analysis
0 Degree Firing Elevation Distance
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Distance (feet)
Alt
itu
de
(fee
t)
RF - .30-06 150 grains
SG - .50 cal 385 grains
ML - .50 Cal 348 grains
0o Elevation with Ricochet
Band Thickness is the Ricochet
Firing Elevation at ~0 degrees
Ammunition Initial Impact Distance (ft)
Ricochet Distance (ft)
DifferenceDistance (ft)
% Less than Rifle
Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 1408 4835 3427 Initial Ricochet
Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 840 5205 4365 40% -8%
Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 686 4498 3812 51% 7%
Affected Areaas a
Percent of the Rifle Danger Area
Firearm-Ammunition Combination
Percent of Rifle Danger Area
35 deg. Firing
Elevation
10 deg. Firing
Elevation
5 deg. Firing
Elevation
~0 deg. Firing
Elevation
Rifle (.30-06 150 grain) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grain) 55.5% 57.4% 61.7% 115.9%
Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grain) 43.6% 44.7% 47.3% 86.5%
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
Recommendations
• Address the public perception that a shotgun is less risky than centerfire rifles in all circumstances
• Reduced ricochet projectiles should be investigated
top related