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) Incidents Firearm Type (313 Incidents) Muzzleloader Pistol Rifle Shotgun Unknown Special Regulations Areas Reported Incidents Since 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 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 * 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 combination 3.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

More on the 4 th Assumption Most Frequently 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-Ammunition Combination Springfield soft point Mass = 150 grains, MV = 2910 fps

Shotgun-Ammunition Combination 12 gauge sabot.50 caliber HP semi-spitzer Mass = 385 grains, MV = 1900 fps

Muzzleloader-Ammunition Combination.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 Elevation No ricochets after impact

Maximum Ranges No Ricochet Firing Elevation at 35 degrees AmmunitionInitial Impact Distance (ft) Ricochet Distance (ft) Difference Distance (ft) % Less than Rifle (Ricochet Distance) Rifle ( grains) Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) % Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) %

Trajectories for 10° Firing Elevation

10 o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is Ricochet Firing Elevation at 10 degrees AmmunitionInitial Impact Distance (ft) Ricochet Distance (ft) Difference Distance (ft) % Less than Rifle (Ricochet Distance) Rifle ( grains) Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) % Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) %

Trajectories for 5° Firing Elevation

5 o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is Ricochet Firing Elevation at 5 degrees AmmunitionInitial Impact Distance (ft) Ricochet Distance (ft) Difference Distance (ft) % Less than Rifle (Ricochet Distance) Rifle ( grains) Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) % Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) %

Trajectories for 0° Firing Elevation

0 o Elevation with Ricochet Band Thickness is the Ricochet Firing Elevation at ~0 degrees AmmunitionInitial Impact Distance (ft) Ricochet Distance (ft) Difference Distance (ft) % Less than Rifle (Ricochet Distance) Rifle ( grains) Shotgun (.50 cal 385 grains) % Muzzleloader (.50 cal 348 grains) %

Affected Area as 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 ( grain) 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,

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