Shotgun Zone Elimination

Legislation has been introduced to eliminate the shotgun-only zone in Minnesota for deer hunting. The argument in favor is that technology using shotgun slugs, ammo, and muzzle loaders has advanced to the point where it has closed the gap when comparing it to long range rifles. The DNR has not stated whether they are in favor or against it. The MN Deer Hunters Association has yet to weigh in either. Getting their endorsement/approval is seen as significant and without it the legislation will likely fail.

I personally only hunt in a rifle zone so this really doesn’t affect me to be honest. Given a choice, I’m sure every hunter in the shotgun zone would rather use a rifle though.

gimruis wrote:

I personally only hunt in a rifle zone so this really doesn’t affect me to be honest. Given a choice, I’m sure every hunter in the shotgun zone would rather use a rifle though.

I hunt in the shotgun zone and I would still use a shotgun, at least for the first year or two. I don’t own a rifle and where we hunt we rarely have shots at more than 50 yards anyway, and it’s what I’ve always been used to. So in my personal situation it wouldn’t effect me, but I’m sure there are plenty of others who would rather use a rifle.

I’m impartial to the legislation, but just for simplicity sake it would make sense to allow rifles statewide.

I hunt both and would really like to keep the shotgun zone a shotgun zone since my house is in a shotgun zone. I strongly disagree that shotgun/muzzy technology has bridged the gap to high power rifles. It has gotten a little closer, but it’s still a far cry between a shotgun and a high powered rifle.

I’d be fine if they allowed straight walled rifle rounds like other states do.
Allowing all rifles would allow the weekend warriors to make even more poor decisions on shot selections. I see enough guys on drives try to make 200 plus yard shots on running animals. Now they’d be shooting at 400 plus yards without knowing what was behind their target.
It’s certainly a minority of hunters that do it, but in this case safety should be the main concern.

I may be in the minority but I’d keep using my muzzleloader. I could use my rifle in WI but I use my muzzleloader there also.

Wow, that’d be the dream. My zone is balls deep into the shotgun zone and is right on the line of the CWD testing zone. Unlimited antlerless tags less than a mile from the property I hunt. Got rid of the antler point restrictions. Added additional seasons around christmas time. I’m surprised they havent already allowed rifle in some of these zones! A loooot of hunters, roads, and houses in those woods though…

The bill, as currently written, simply eliminates the shotgun zone entirely with no regard to semi-suburban areas where rifle use would be dangerous. I can’t believe this will pass or even move forward as-is.

I think it’s going to require a more nuanced plan to have a chance at passing, but I would like to see straight wall cartridges allowed in shotgun zones and an expanded rifle zone.

Grouse

I don’t think it will pass in this form. If I remember correctly when Wisconsin got rid of their slug zones, they allowed counties to keep them if they wished. Straight wall calibers would be an improvement from where we are now.

Maybe some kind of restriction to just bolt action or single shot rifles would be viable.

I do enough hunting in both the rifle and shotgun zones that I don’t think there will be much of an issue with doing away with the shotgun only zone. There is quite a bit of ag land and lots of urban areas in the rifle zone and I don’t hear anybody suggesting that they should expand the shotgun zone.

disco bobber wrote:

I don’t think it will pass in this form. If I remember correctly when Wisconsin got rid of their slug zones, they allowed counties to keep them if they wished. Straight wall calibers would be an improvement from where we are now.

Maybe some kind of restriction to just bolt action or single shot rifles would be viable.

disco bobber wrote:

I don’t think it will pass in this form. If I remember correctly when Wisconsin got rid of their slug zones, they allowed counties to keep them if they wished. Straight wall calibers would be an improvement from where we are now.

Maybe some kind of restriction to just bolt action or single shot rifles would be viable.

It only takes 1 bullet, it’s the distance that bullet will travel that’s the issue. I dont hunt in mn but I can see the why there’s a concern

Has anyone heard any updates on this legislation? I’ve been trying to look it up but with no luck. I know other priorities have popped up but just curious if anything has been proposed or not. Depending on what the legislature says will determine if I buy a rifle or shotgun this year. It be nice to get both but can only do one this year likely.

Thanks!

gimruis wrote:

The argument in favor is that technology using shotgun slugs, ammo, and muzzle loaders has advanced to the point where it has closed the gap when comparing it to long range rifles.

This is interesting…Where did they pull those stats from? I find this really hard to believe but I haven’t followed slug technology for some time.

I’m going to take my 12 gauge out west to pound antelope at 700 yards this fall.

Anyone have an update as to the status of this bill?

It’ll take a legislative act to get the change done I believe and our legislature is, well, kaput for this session. Not that they ever do anything.

Deer hunters already scare the crap out of me when pheasant hunting, I wouldn’t even go if they were using rifles is those wide open areas. On public land I’ve seen people rattle off about 10 shots at a deer that must have been running up a hill. We were standing on other side of hill and only saw the deer when it reached the crest, maybe their shots were going into hillside but if they went over they’d go a long ways. I’ve also seen someone shoot at a running deer out the passenger window of a moving pickup, there’s no way to evaluate your shot that fast.

Reef W wrote:

Deer hunters already scare the crap out of me when pheasant hunting

While I don’t condone the actions taken by deer hunters sometimes, when you have a lot more people in the woods/fields (which you definitely do during firearm deer season), perhaps the best way to avoid any dangerous encounter is to simply avoid pheasant hunting during those 9 days. I’m guessing that most pheasant hunters are also deer hunters so that is what they are doing given the limited season. Pheasant season is about 2.5 months long anyways so there’s plenty of other time to chase birds other than during the 9 days of craziness.

Unless of course you count the new youth firearms season in October too. Go ahead and add 4 more days to the 9 days in November.

gimruis wrote:

hile I don’t condone the actions taken by deer hunters sometimes, when you have a lot more people in the woods/fields (which you definitely do during firearm deer season), perhaps the best way to avoid any dangerous encounter is to simply avoid pheasant hunting during those 9 days.

I don’t go opening weekend but that wasn’t the point, it was more backstory of how I’ve seen dangerous behavior that I think would be much more dangerous with rifles. What was the reason for creating a shotgun zone in the first place? I always thought it was because of the distance bullets could go in the southwest area of the state but I don’t know if that’s true or not.

Reef W wrote:

What was the reason for creating a shotgun zone in the first place? I always thought it was because of the distance bullets could go in the southwest area of the state but I don’t know if that’s true or not.

I am not sure of the reason Reef. It may have to do with the terrain, urbanization, density of deer populations, or a combination of many items. I honestly think safety had nothing to do with it and the rule was implemented to help protect deer herd numbers. Obviously a scoped rifle is a much more effective weapon than a slugged shotgun not only because of its accuracy but primarily because of the distance. In my original post, one of the reasons legislators were considering the removal of shotgun-only zones was because of the advancement in range/accuracy using them. I personally do not use a slugged shotgun so I can’t comment on how much better they have become compared to a scoped rifle.

Regardless, the rules will be the same as they’ve recently been this upcoming season because the regs are already written.

Population density.

And as for this statement, “Obviously a scoped rifle is a much more effective weapon than a slugged shotgun”, you really have no idea what a shotgun can do, have you? Especially with today’s saboted slugs.

Reef W wrote:

Deer hunters already scare the crap out of me when pheasant hunting, I wouldn’t even go if they were using rifles is those wide open areas. On public land I’ve seen people rattle off about 10 shots at a deer that must have been running up a hill. We were standing on other side of hill and only saw the deer when it reached the crest, maybe their shots were going into hillside but if they went over they’d go a long ways. I’ve also seen someone shoot at a running deer out the passenger window of a moving pickup, there’s no way to evaluate your shot that fast.

Have you ever considered the possibility of all those shots, with a shotgun, at a running deer turning into one well placed shot with a rifle?
I have heard many times, took first shot, wounded, followed up with two more, killed on the fourth shot.
A single shot from a rifle is much safer.
I shoot a pretty accurate shotgun with a scope and sabots, nowhere near the accuracy of my rifle.
Many people overestimate the efficiency of there rifled shotgun.

I would like to see reform of the slug zone before these AR pistols proliferate even more. I agree that fewer but better-aimed shots are safer. Apparently the original intent wasn’t safety but to limit deer harvest.

I would not hunt upland the first weekend. I have done it later but only if there are no signs f deer hunters around and in spots that I can see and be seen.

I’m with Reef. The idea of someone taking one well placed shot with a rifle is great, but why are people all of a sudden going to change their ways. They could be taking one well placed shot with a shotgun as well. They’re certainly capable of being accurate guns. Will the people emptying their guns on a running deer all of a sudden stop because they have a rifle in their hands? I also worry people will think hey I have a rifle, so I can now shoot 400-500 yards even though they don’t practice at those distances. They’ll end up wounding a deer just like they did with the shot gun, when pushing their effective range, and then take multiple more shots on a running deer at that distance. Seems a bit sketchy to me in the more populated and open areas of the state.

Is it just me or should the legislators be completely out of this discussion. The original law was set in place by the DNR. To many times lately every group is running to the legislators to get laws changed or pushed down on the DNR.
I think we need to have a DNR that has less stuff forced upon them from legislation and time for them to make the correct calls. I know that the DNR has a lot of skeptics but a strong commissioner should be able to set a good course. Of course they need to be accountable.

Just something to chew on.

opened a can of worms I think with this comment

Steve

Tom Sawvell wrote:

And as for this statement, “Obviously a scoped rifle is a much more effective weapon than a slugged shotgun”, you really have no idea what a shotgun can do, have you? Especially with today’s saboted slugs.

Are you saying that a slug shotgun is as effective as a rifle? Please be kidding Tom. Those slugs will start dropping much sooner than a rifle shell. The ballistic tests prove it.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
And as for this statement, “Obviously a scoped rifle is a much more effective weapon than a slugged shotgun”, you really have no idea what a shotgun can do, have you? Especially with today’s saboted slugs.

Are you saying that a slug shotgun is as effective as a rifle? Please be kidding Tom. Those slugs will start dropping much sooner than a rifle shell. The ballistic tests prove it.

With the proper setup (rifled barrel, saboted slugs, optics, etc) a PROPER slug gun is capable of doing anything that a rifle can up to probably 200 yards. Is the rifle ballistically superior (energy retainment/flatter shooting)? I’d say in almost all cases absolutely. But that doesn’t mean the modern slug gun isn’t capable of doing it too.

When I worked firearms at Gander in Hermantown during college, I helped out the gunsmith quite a bit. He had a bolt action 20 gauge slug gun come in one time from a guy who guided bears up north. The guy grew up in the southern part of the state so was pretty comfortable with slugs and their capabilities, and ALLEGEDLY took bears and deer regularly at 200 plus. Granted, I don’t have any proof other than the guy’s word, but I whole heartedly believe that it was capable.

waldo9190 wrote:

With the proper setup (rifled barrel, saboted slugs, optics, etc) a PROPER slug gun is capable of doing anything that a rifle can up to probably 200 yards

That is more than I thought. But still not as far as a rifle. Most slug hunters have told me that their range is 100-150 yards and the accuracy is not very good. Maybe they weren’t using a rifled barrel either…

I have a friend with a browning A bolt in 12 gauge.
He is an excellent shot.
At 150 yards he would need a pretty good rest to cleanly kill deer. Coyotes, a much smaller target, not a problem with his 243.
A rifled shotgun is NOT comparable to a rifle.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>waldo9190 wrote:</div>
With the proper setup (rifled barrel, saboted slugs, optics, etc) a PROPER slug gun is capable of doing anything that a rifle can up to probably 200 yards

That is more than I thought. But still not as far as a rifle. Most slug hunters have told me that their range is 100-150 yards and the accuracy is not very good. Maybe they weren’t using a rifled barrel either…

Don’t get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with the fact that the rifles are superior ballistically. The thought of my 270 not being an option gives me the shivers….

The old foster style slugs were a decent round out to 50 yards but without sights accuracy was not the best. With the advent of saboted slugs and newer higher-performance powders shotgun slugs have taken a serious upwards turn in ballistics terminal performance and in accuracy out to and over 150 yards. Decent optics, like those on rifles, will go a long ways in getting today’s rifled barreled guns doing much of what common deer rifles can do at 150 yards or even more.

Ask those who hunt the newer bolt guns with fully rifled pipes in both twenty and twelve gauges what they see delivered from the guns and ammunition both on paper and on animals like deer and bear. The effects of a hollow point, jacketed pistol bullet torqueing out at the 1700-1900 + velocities of todays sabots on a deer or bear are eye opening while some of todays screaming meemies rifle rounds pencil hole thru a deer with little expansion only to see the deer run off with little or no blood.

If you have no first hand experience on deer or bear with the slugs of today and the guns/scopes that round out the package, don’t make idle assumptions.

And on the same page as shotgun slugs are today’s muzzleloaders. They shoot high end pistol bullets well into the 2100 fps arena in 50 cal guns with moa accuracy at 100 yards and beyond. The only center-fire gun I need aside from a shotgun is a varmint caliber gun and inside of 200 yards my .45 cal inline blowing a 195 grain copper bullet out the muzzle in the neighborhood of 2200 fps will turn a coyote to mush at 150 yards and drops a deer right on the spot of impact.

If anything, center fire rifles are over rated.

My preference the last 10 years, has been a muzzleloader.
One shot, and more accurate and powerful than a 12ga.

But, i just hunt through all the seasons with a crossbow now.

Grew up unloading shotguns on deer though. Sportsman are developed, not born.