Rifle vs Shotgun which is "safer"?

C

cnimrod

New member
So after shooting low with a slug gun for the 3rd time in about 10 NJ hunts I wish all the more I could use a rifle.
So yes I need to work on range estimation but if i'd used a rifle like i grew up with and can in NY it be a different story. I know it'll never happen but I've read articles on how slugs are more prone to deflecting then a rifle bullet and since you're better able to hit what you're aiming at with a rifle they'd be "safer".
So whadaya think?
 
Rifles are (generally) more likely to be deflected substantially by small obstacles. Shotguns slugs are (generally) more likely to "bounce" and remain intact after striking larger obstacles.


However, I don't think either of those equates to danger.


The VAST, VAST majority of hunting accidents are not from one in a million deflections or bullets hitting someone three valleys over. The majority of accidents are from intentionally shooting someone who was mistaken for a legitimate target, or from not seeing someone on the other side of the target.

As such, it's the nut behind the butt that's most dangerous, not the choice of firearm.

Incidentally, most of NY now allows rifle hunting for deer. Pennsylvania has been almost entirely rifle for decades.

Pennsylvania has a better safety record that NY.

So far, I have heard of one rifle incident in NY and there are several shotgun accidents every year.
 
I have also read that a ricochet 1 oz slug can travel twice as far as a .30 cal rifle round. (IIRC)

Cnimrod, have you tried any of the new 209 primed muzzleloaders? With all the new powders and bullets we have available muzzleloader season has become more like single shot rifle season.
 
So yes I need to work on range estimation
Click to expand...

How far are you trying to shoot with a shotgun?

If it is so far that you have to hold over (you shot low), then you need to know the range. Guessing ain't gettin' it. Rangefinders are better and cheaper than when I bought mine. They work.

Pennsylvania has a better safety record that NY.
Click to expand...

Fewer "nuts behind the butts", I'm guessin' ...........
 
JimBob86 said:
Fewer "nuts behind the butts", I'm guessin' ...........
Click to expand...


Yeah, but it's per capita... Fewer hunters do make for fewer accidental "targets" but considering that the majority of accidents (almost everywhere) involve accidental shooting of someone in your own party, or yourself, I don't think the larger open spaces and fewer hunters necessarily account for the variance.

Personally, if there's anything "safer" it's that most people hunt with bolt action rifles so you don't get the "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM...... BOOM BOOM!" like you do with semi-auto or pump shotguns.


Most accidents come from stupid, not from firearm choice.

Just this year, a former acquaintance of mine killed his uncle by setting up blinds on opposite sides of a field and then shooting at a deer that ran between them.... with 12ga slugs... but that accident simply would have happened, regardless of weapon choice.
 
Yeah, but it's per capita...
Click to expand...

I understand that- I did not say fewer "people" ..... though that may be the case. I surmise that NY has a higher percentage of inexperienced City folk hunting ..... I don't live in either place, but I understand PA has more of deer hunting culture ......
 
JimBob86 said:
I understand that- I did not say fewer "people" ..... though that may be the case. I surmise that NY has a higher percentage of inexperienced City folk hunting ..... I don't live in either place, but I understand PA has more of deer hunting culture ......
Click to expand...


I couldn't give you the numbers, but I highly doubt that's true. Upstate NY is very much like any other rural area of any state. Thousands upon thousands of acres of wooded areas, small towns and rural communities populated by people who have lived on and hunted the same land for generations. Small farms, dairy, beef and crop.

I suspect that the "city hunters" are from, and go to, both NY and PA.... I also suspect that the numbers of "city hunters" are far, far smaller than the legends surrounding their stupidity would have us believe.

Me, I have not one time in my life met someone from "the city" that was up here hunting. I see plenty of out-of-area hunters, but they have universally been from another relatively rural/suburban area and just traveling somewhere to hunt.

To add to that, almost every accident I've ever known of has been committed by "the good 'ole boys" who basically did a stupid thing. They're from the country, they grew up hunting, many of them have been doing stupid things for years... and it finally catches up.

It's not usually the FIRST stupid thing you do that kills you, or someone else.
 
Jimbob....I think your right. Too many nuts from NYC think they know what they are doing with a gun. Going out hunting and shooting up the place. I grew up hunting in PA outside of Philly. My buddy and I have run into more than a few (who knows how they ended up there) guys that were from out of state, either NY or the nut jobs from NJ (where you can't even hold a BB gun at the store without a permit). They would pile out of some beat old caddy or other long car and go stormin into the woods shooting everything with their cool rifles. More than once we found a deer they shot and didn't even try to find. I hate wasting my tag on a small doe, just because some idiot didn't do his part and I had to put her down.
 
Deerhunter,

How many of those city slobs shot people?


I'd also be curious as to the "beat up old caddy". People from cities that go hunting generally have money. They don't drive beat up junk.

The yahoos in the beat up junk are almost certainly not city people but much more likely "country bumpkins".

If I compare all the "types" of hunters that I've ever met... the "good ole' boys" are the most careless, least polite, most polluting, most dangerous of them all. The country boys are the ones who shoot at everything that moves, chase deer with shotguns loaded with birdshot to "keep them moving".... all that nonsense.

The more suburban types are generally well-to-do, polite and careful. They drive expensive vehicles, own expensive guns and wear expensive clothes. They're often not terribly successful, though even that's a stereotype, but they are far from the most dangerous hunters in the woods.

Once again though, per the topic of the OP.... it's the guy pulling the trigger that's dangerous, not the choice of weapon.
 
it's the guy pulling the trigger that's dangerous, not the choice of weapon.
Click to expand...

+100.

And I'm not sure "missing 3 times out of 10 NJ hunts" has anything to do with the question asked...

I hunt with a bow and it has a worse trajectory than a slug, but I still hit what I am aiming at...
 
I missed low for sure

nicked the brisket and my son then finished the job thankfully. I site in at 100 yds (taped) and I'm good. These deer were all about 100 yds (not taped) I don't practice with the slug gun much it's just too darn painful. I will try some shots at a greater distance 125-150yds and see what's happening. but we could analyze my misses till the cows come home I do enough of that myself thanks.
point was:
I certainly don't think any of my misses were dangerous and I put safer in quotes because yes, safety is in the hands of the hunter but states don't allow rifles solely for their increased range, generally in areas of denser populations and flatter terrain. So the state says shotguns are safer. Bottom line for me, I can shoot a rifle better. If most hunters can do likewise, doesn't that make it "safer"
 
I think the logic would be something like - All things equal which is going to hit the ground first? And the answer to that would be the slug.

Do I agree with that logic? No, because you can't legislate stupidity out of the equation, despite the many attempts to do so.
 
ANY projectile will be negatively impacted by any form of brush or limb.

If you are not willing to practice with your choice of ammo, perhaps you need to change your ammo???? As an ethical hunter, you OWE it to the animal to dispatch it quickly and humanely - that means putting your shot where it needs to be - and that takes practice
 
I agree that it's the shooter that causes more accidents.

But in some areas a rifle is more dangerous than a shotgun. A wild shot with a rifle can travel a lot further than a shotgun slug. Shooting up hill at a ridge line target, a stupid move no matter what you shoot, the bullet will travel further than the slug and thus have a greater chance of hitting someone down range.
A high speed rifle bullet is also more likely to penetrate an object than a slug at greater distance.
 
I site in at 100yds(taped) and I'm good.
Click to expand...

Do you mean you're zero'ed in at 100yds or you just shoot at 100yds?

Also, what's your setup; 12-20ga? Using what ammo?

When you shoot 'good' at 100yds are you benchrested or free-handed?

I will try some shots at a greater distance 125-150yds to see whats happening.
Click to expand...

No disrespect but I've been hunting with the same 12ga shotgun for a long time and I still don't think I'd take a 150yd shot at a deer and I practice. Slugs are heavy and you have to practice enough to know where the POI is going to be at different ranges versus where your zeroed at. Course your POI will change shooting uphill or downhill. Only way to really determine that is, again, to practice.

Peezakilla has a good thought with the BOOM,BOOM,BOOM,BOOMBOOM...BOOM,BOOM theory.
All those BOOMs have a projectile attached to them landing somewhere.

Ohio has always been a shotgun state(no rifles) for deer hunting. Although we have to plug our shotguns to hold no more than 3 shells, I just know somewhere there's a law I've not yet read that states "if you pull the trigger once, you have to pull it till shotgun is empty". Soooo... I guess Ohio has the BOOM,BOOM,BOOM theory going on.:rolleyes: Never understood the idea of shooting my deer meat up like that. Course most shots are triple taps so probably 2 out of the 3 were misses. Those slug went somewhere.
IMO, thats more dangerous than using a bolt action rifle.

On the other hand, most shotgun slugs don't have the range of most high powered rifles.

As to whether 'shotguns or rifles are safer'. Guess that would depend on how close the nearest population(house's etc.) was to the hunting area, what kind of terrain the area was, etc...
 
I agree with Shortwave.

Taking a shot over 100yds with a slug slinger is stretching it's capabilities. You wouldn't shoot a bear with a .22, because you know its limitations. The same holds true for the range of a slugger.

Past 100yds, the POI drops significantly. It sounds like your range estimation needs work, and that you should be working on getting a closer shot.
 
good ole boys

True good ole boys aint the ones polluting and putting game in harm. Our dads wouldve tore our asses apart for such things. sorry just a little sensitive about that saying. Anyways its always the single person who is firing who is responsible..
 
if you want my opinion and/or to answer your question:

the shotgun is "safer" as far as accidental or negligent discharges go when it comes to people. I might be wrong about this, But its been my experience rifles can be more dangerous to the average, clueless 'joe' than pistols or shotguns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top