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

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%


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



10o Elevation with Ricochet

BandThickness is Ricochet





% Less than Rifle




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




BandThickness is Ricochet





% Less than Rifle





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




Band Thickness is the Ricochet

Firing Elevation at ~0 degrees




% Less than Rifle


Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 840 5205 4365 40% -8%


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

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

Documents

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