Posted by Brett Meyer on 4/16/2026 to
In the 2025 legislative session, Minnesota representatives voted to abolish the long standing Southern Minnesota shogun only rule that restricted the southern half of Minnesota to only allow the use of shotguns in 1942. This was originally enacted to try and restore the deer population by making it more difficult to harvest deer by limiting hunters to using only shotguns, muzzle loaders, or handguns of legal calibers to harvest deer. This regulation seems to have gotten lost in the weeds for many years and it was never reversed or looked at until recent years. Over the decades deer numbers have recovered to goal levels and the law remained in place for decades. In recent years there was a push to remove this outdated law and allow the use of rifles as it was before 1942, and as it has always been in Northern MN. Several attempts were made to pass this at the state level and each time there was not enough support to get the law removed.
After exhaustive efforts in 2025 based on all the data and facts the MN legislature decided that removing the long standing law was in order because it no longer served it's original purpose. The caveat to them passing the law was to basically punt the responsibility over to each county and allow them to put restrictions on their county to impose restrictions on hunters in their county. This brings us to today, where we are quite frankly in a mess, to where each county has to decide what they want to do. The counties were given a choice to do nothing and go with the states ruling, or they were advised to inform the DNR of any restrictions they would impose on hunters.
Many counties to date have had public meetings to hear what hunters in their area would like to see happen. At this time it appears that a vast majority of hunters would like to see the shotgun only law abolished completely. One of the main reasons the opposition gives for imposing shotgun restrictions is the safety aspect of rifles and their effective range. Statistically speaking, based on all available data, rifles do not impose a greater threat to safety over shotguns, in fact, they are slightly safer than shotguns based on 24+ years of MN DNR data, Wisconsin DNR data, and data pulled from a comprehensive study done in Pennsylvania. Gravity still applies to rifle bullets, and areas such as the red river valley in NW MN, and Eastern ND have had always had rifle hunting without incident. That area is flat as they eye can see and similarly populated to many regions that are now imposing shotgun restrictions based on the idea of it being too flat and too many people. There is also the fact that in 24 year of MN DNR incident reports, only one instance of a person getting hit at about 250 yards, and one instance of a person at about 100 yards. Both were hit because the shooter failed to look beyond their target. At this range modern shotguns pose the same exact risk that a rifle would. All other rifle incidents happened within 25 yards or less. The PA study showed that a shotgun ricochet has a higher probability to travel further than a rifle bullet in the same scenario increasing the range over the rifle.
The other argument going around is that rifle bullets have a maximum effective range of 2+ miles. This is an extreme example that is being used as a scare tactic. In order for a rifle bullet to travel that far, you would need to point it at approximately 35 degrees above the horizon, basically shooting towards the sky. Most folks have not shot a rifle past 2-300 yards and don't realize what it takes to make an impact at even 1,000 yards, which is about 0.6 miles. Your average 30-06 shooting a 180 gr bullet will drop 25-30 feet at 1,000 yards. It's not traveling in a laser straight line. It's an arch like hitting a gold ball or throwing baseball. If a person aims at a deer at 200 yards with said rifle, misses just over top of it's back, the bullet will hit the ground in about 250 yards beyond the target. Hitting the ground at that angle, less than 1 degree, the probability of a ricochet is almost zero on dirt, and any ricochet that happens will loose energy and velocity very quickly.
The other argument going around is that rifle bullets have a maximum effective range of 2+ miles. This is an extreme example that is being used as a scare tactic. In order for a rifle bullet to travel that far, you would need to point it at approximately 35 degrees above the horizon, basically shooting towards the sky. Most folks have not shot a rifle past 2-300 yards and don't realize what it takes to make an impact at even 1,000 yards, which is about 0.6 miles. Your average 30-06 shooting a 180 gr bullet will drop 25-30 feet at 1,000 yards. It's not traveling in a laser straight line. It's an arch like hitting a gold ball or throwing baseball. If a person aims at a deer at 200 yards with said rifle, misses just over top of it's back, the bullet will hit the ground in about 250 yards beyond the target. Hitting the ground at that angle, less than 1 degree, the probability of a ricochet is almost zero on dirt, and any ricochet that happens will loose energy and velocity very quickly.
The other fact is that most rifle hunters shoot from an elevated stand or blind. Due to the fact that they can shoot a little further, getting a higher vantage point to potentially take a 200+ yard shot, allows them to see more. At this angle, the bullet is traveling into the ground and actually safer yet because the bullet will have zero chance of ricochet. Over the years sitting or posting on the ground with shotguns has become a tactic. Shooting multiple shots at running deer while others are driving has led to several fatalities and many injuries. Most hunters also keep their shots under 300 yards. Unless you are a practiced or accomplished shooter, ethically hitting game past 300 yards with an average hunting rifle is a task for many people. Due to this fact, most hunters keep their shots to 200 yards are less again minimizing any stray bullets flying 2 miles away.
One of my favorite responses is also "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" meaning leave it as is, it works fine. If that were the case, we should still be driving 1950 Chevy Fleetlines, farming with tractors and implements from 1950, and typing letters on manual typewriters! It all worked fine then, so why did we change? Technology changes, we are able to do more things more accurately or more productively with updated technology and do it safely.
Another aspect of this is with the growing popularity of suppressors, it is a much easier jump to get kids into the sport without getting them behind a heavy recoiling shotgun. I know.... I did it when I was 12, I got a Remington 870 Express in 12ga to go deer hunting and I did fine, but I also acquired a flinch, that I had to overcome later in life. I was also a 110-120 lbs linebacker 12 year old! I can set a kid up now with a small 6mm rifle with a suppressor and they can shoot it all day accurately! An appropriate size rifle with a suppressor moves their focus off the recoil, and moves it to being aware of their target and what's beyond it, and ensuring proper shot placement. This is a much safer situation for everyone and keeps the sport alive for future generations.
I am not oppose to the use of shotguns. I feel that many of the horror stories I witnessed and many others saw in years past are not practiced as much any more. There are situations where a shotgun is still a great choice like river bottoms or dense areas of woods where the longest shot might be 75-100 yards. I also believe that anyone should be allowed to use a 30-30 in that situation if they wanted. The likelihood of someone taking a 300 Win mag into a situation like that are minimal. On the other hand, being an accomplished shooter and competitive shooter, if I see a deer run out at 300 yards, I would like to have the option to use a 243 Winchester, or a 30-06 to ethically and humanely harvest that animal.
Minnesota is one of the last states in the US to restrict hunters to using shotguns only in certain areas. The decisions that are being made today to restrict hunters to using shotguns only are not based on facts, but on fears. If the decision makers read and comprehend the data and facts that are out there instead of basing decisions on fears, there would be no shotgun restrictions in MN.
