Spatial and Ballistic Analysis Conducted Pursuant to Pennsylvania House Resolution 61 Relative to...
-
Upload
isabella-gibbs -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Spatial and Ballistic Analysis Conducted Pursuant to Pennsylvania House Resolution 61 Relative to...
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
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
Shotgun-AmmunitionCombination
12 gauge sabot .50 caliber HP semi-spitzerMass = 385 grains, MV = 1900 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