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.

April 17, 2007

Purpose, Objective, Approach, and Qualifications

• 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: – Examine the record of incidents– Compare the danger areas of firearm-ammunition combinations based upon

likely aiming errors and possible distances projectiles will travel

• Qualifications:– MTT, Johnstown, PA– ATS, Inc. Lancaster, PA– US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC),

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

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

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 • 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:AdamsAllegheny*Bucks*CumberlandLancasterLehighMontgomery*NorthamptonSomersetYork

Counties with Second Order Clusters:AdamsBerksBucks*Chester*LehighMontgomery*NorthamptonYork

* Counties within Special Regulations Areas

What Do the Maps Mean?

• Not to be taken as the relative risk between Special Regulations Areas and non-Special Regulations Areas – No reliable estimate of the number of hunters

in any particular area– No means to estimate the number of shots

fired in an area– Topography, land use, and structure density

need to be taken into consideration

Maximum Range as Represented in the 1998 Report

ARDEC’s Contribution

• The inadequacies in defining firing range danger areas forced the US Army to find an alternative method

• The alternative was to development of probability based approach to evaluate the parameters contributing to the danger areas (zones)

• Emphasis was placed on ricochet because of its complexity and the significant affect

• Ricochet and firing conditions are modeled to produce

the probable danger areas

Study Assumptions

1. The typical hunter exercises reasonable care 2. Hunters will tend to use the best available legal firearm-

ammunition combination3. On the average, a typical hunter will discharge the firearm at a

height of 3 feet to impact a standing deer at approximately 3 feet height

4. On the average, the following firing conditions (aiming errors) will occur:

– The projectile’s trajectory will most frequently be approximately level with the earth’s surface (approximately a 0 degree angle of elevation)

– The majority of the discharges will be at an angle of 10 degrees of elevation or less

– Discharges at an angle delivering the maximum range (approximately a 35 degree angle of elevation) are possible but not frequent

5. The firearm-ammunition combinations used in this report are used to hunt deer in Pennsylvania

Firing Conditions (Errors)Used in this study

Firing elevation (d)

Feet above a standing deer at 300 feet

0.95 5.0

0.19 1.0

More on the 4th Assumption

MostFrequently

• On the average, when shooting at a deer:

– Most frequently projectiles will strike near the center of the target

– Nearly all projectiles will be within 10 degrees firing elevation of the center of the target

– While possible, it is unlikely that projectiles will be at 35 degree firing elevation of the center of the target

Rifle-AmmunitionCombination

30-06 Springfield soft pointMass = 150 grains, MV = 2910 fps

Shotgun-AmmunitionCombination

12 gauge sabot .50 caliber HP semi-spitzerMass = 385 grains, MV = 1900 fps

Muzzleloader-AmmunitionCombination

.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

• All of the projectiles maintain sufficient energy throughout their flight to do bodily harm

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(Ricochet Distance)

Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 13926 13926 0

Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 10378 10378 0 25%

Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 9197 9197 0 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(Ricochet Distance)

Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 10004 10706 702

Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 7163 8112 949 24%

Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 6247 7160 913 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(Ricochet Distance)

Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 7504 8743 1239

Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) 5118 6865 1747 21%

Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 4367 6010 1643 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(Ricochet Distance)

Rifle (.30-06 150 grains) 1408 4835 3427

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

Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) 686 4498 3812 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• Popular opinion does not always reflect a complete understanding

of the issue

• When considering extreme, high, and moderate firing errors:– shotguns with saboted ammunition and muzzleloaders are less risky

than the centerfire rifle

• When considering small or no aiming errors:– a shotgun with saboted ammunition 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 firing single projectile ammunition is to be used as an effective risk management option

Recommendations

• Address the public perception that a shotgun is inherently less risky than centerfire rifles in all circumstances

• Reduced ricochet projectiles should be investigated

• Suggested reference:– “The Scoop in Slugs” by Dave Henderson, American Hunter,

2005, http://www.nrapublications.org/tah/Slugs.asp

Closing Thought

Paragraph from a letter submitted to the PGC on September 10, 1997