Hunter Safety: Shotguns vs. Rifles

Last year a law was passed in Minnesota that would eliminate the state mandated shotgun-only deer hunting zones throughout the southern half of the state (there were no shotgun-only zones in the northern half of the state). While the shotgun-only zones remained in effect for the 2025 hunting season, they're no longer in place for 2026. The one caveat is that counties can opt-in to being a shotgun-only zone and some have. But if a county hasn't opted-in, rifles can be used for deer hunting.

This has a lot of fudds bent out of shape and they continue to parrot baseless claims primarily about hunter safety. Their chief argument is that rifles are more dangerous to fellow deer hunters and therefore more hunters will be injured or killed now that rifles are allowed for deer hunting throughout the state. Before I address those claims, I want to clear up the original purpose of the shotgun-only zones. They weren't established because of concerns about hunter safety. They were established to handicap hunters so deer populations could increase:

The shotgun-only zone was created in 1942 to protect what was then a small deer population because shotguns cannot shoot as far as rifles, said Barbara Keller, big game program leader at the Department of Natural Resources.

With that out of the way, let's analyze the fudds' claims. Are rifles more dangerous to fellow deer hunters than shotguns? Fortunately, Pennsylvania performed a study on the topic in 2005. As far as I know, it's the most recent study on the topic. You can read the study here, but I will highlight the conclusion:

Contrary to the 1998 study, this study concludes that comparing risk using only the maximum range obtained at a 35-degree firing elevation and the corresponding danger area of the firearm-ammunition combination provides the policy maker an incomplete picture. When discharging the examined firearm-ammunition combinations with large (10 degrees) and moderate (5 degrees) aiming errors, the danger areas of the shotgun and muzzleloader are less than that of a rifle; hence, given this firing condition, the shotgun and muzzleloader are less risky than the rifle. However, shotguns firing modern saboted slugs have a larger danger area than the .30-06 rifle when the angle of elevation is approximately level (0 degrees); hence, given this firing condition, the shotgun is riskier than the rifle. In other words, the typical hunter discharging a 12 gauge shotgun fitted with a rifled barrel firing a .50-caliber saboted modern high velocity ammunition at a deer on level terrain is riskier than a hunter firing a .30-06 with a 150 grain expanding bullet at the same deer. The muzzleloader proved to have less risk in all firing conditions.

The explanation for the last case where the shotgun is more risky relates to how the .30-caliber projectile interacts with the impact media at shallow (low) angles and its aerodynamic characteristics after ricochet. The smaller cross sectional area of the .30-caliber projectile and its shape contributes to a higher loss of energy on impact and after ricochet the .30-caliber projectile tends to tumble in flight with a high drag. Test data confirm that the .50-caliber projectile’s larger cross sectional area and its shape contribute to less energy loss on shallow angles of impact and after ricochet the projectile exhibits less drag which results in a greater total distance traveled.

While the fudds' main argument makes sense on paper because a rifle typically has greater effective range than a shotgun slug, the actual research shows that it's not so straightforward. The 1998 study cited in the excerpt compared the lethality of shotgun slugs versus rifle bullets at their respective maximum ranges, which can only be achieved under very specific conditions (in the study's case, firing at a 35° angle) not typically encountered while deer hunting. The 2005 study compares the risks under much more typical deer hunting conditions. Under typical conditions, shotgun slugs present more danger than rifle bullets. This is something people familiar with ballistics already know. Rifle bullets are typically worse at retaining energy after an impact than a shotgun slug.

Research is good and all, but what about in the field data? Does any exist? Yes! Wisconsin went through a similar debate as Minnesota back in 2013 when it opted to eliminate its shotgun-only zones. The state's DNR keeps track of hunting incidents and publishes yearly reports. The information is summarized here, although it's behind a paywall so I'll summarize it. The number of hunting incidents since Wisconsin eliminated its shotgun-only zones has decreased even taking into account the reduced number of hunters. Therefore, at the very least, eliminating shotgun-only zones didn't increase hunting incidents.

The fudds' arguments against eliminating shotgun-only zones aren't support by either research or in the field data. They're parroting claims they've heard elsewhere from sources who likely did the same.