PLT OF B34 ENTERS EXPANDED P-40 WHEN ADJUSTING SPD AND COURSE TO MESH WITH TFC IN PATTERN AT HGR.

Narrative

WE WERE APCHING HGR FROM THE NE AT 6500 FT. BTWN 10-15 MI FROM HGR I CALLED THE TWR FOR CLRNC TO LAND AT HGR. I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT A STRAIGHT-N APCH FOR RWY 27; AND LATER; TO CALL A 2 MI FINAL. AS I GOT CLOSER TO THE ARPT; ATC ISSUED TFC TO FOLLOW; 2 ACFT IN THE L HAND PATTERN. I SQUARED MY HEADING SO THAT I WAS NOW ON A WIDE R BASE RATHER THAN HEADING DIRECTLY FOR THE RWY. THIS WAY I WOULD NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER TFC AND IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THEM TO SEE ME AND FOR ME TO SEE THEM. I WAS ABOUT 3 MI FROM THE RWY AT THIS TIME. AFTER I HAD SQUARED MY TURN; ATC ADVISED THAT I WAS 1/8 MI INSIDE THE EXTENDED 10 MI RING OF P-40. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED DIRECTLY TO THE RWY. IN HINDSIGHT IT APPEARS THAT ATC'S CLRNC FOR A STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 27 WITH THE EXTENDED 10 MI RADIUS OF P-40 WAS INAPPROPRIATE. ONCE ON THE GND IN MARKED THE 10 MI RADIUS OF P-40 ON THE MAP AND FOUND THAT A FINAL LONGER THAN 2 MI WOULD BE I P-40. WHEN I ACCEPTED THE STRAIGHT-IN APCH IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOULD REMAIN CLR OF P-40. ATC HAD ME ON RADAR AND KNEW WHERE I WAS AND EXACTLY WHERE P-40 EXTENDED TO. BY THIS TIME I WAS BUSY LOOKING FOR TFC AND SLOWING TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT FOR LNDG; SO MY MAP WAS PUT AWAY. WHEN I HAD CALLED FSS THAT MORNING FOR A BRIEFING; I WAS TOLD ABOUT THE EXTENDED P-40. HOWEVER; NO MENTION WAS MADE AS TO HOW CLOSE IT WAS TO AN ACTIVE RWY. HAD IT BEEN MENTIONED; THEN I AM SURE MY ARR WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.