# muzzy scopes



## 7mm Reloaded

What brand and power do you have on yours? I'm ditching my 1x finally.


----------



## DallanC

Currently have a Vortex Diamondback on mine. 4-12x ... usually leave it on 4x when hunting. Still wish the DWR set a limit on magnification. 

-DallanC


----------



## muddydogs

Could do like I did, I upgraded a scope on one of my center fire rifles and put the old scope on my muzzy. About any 2x and up variable will be just fine on a muzzy, if I was going to purchase a scope just for the muzzy a 2-7 would probably be my choice but then again the 9x sure is nice when sighting in at 100 yards for tired eyes.


----------



## BPturkeys

Muzzy scopes are for sissies. I am for no scopes, open sights only, uncovered primers and round ball only...now that's a muzzy!


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

BPturkeys said:


> Muzzy scopes are for sissies. I am for no scopes, open sights only, uncovered primers and round ball only...now that's a muzzy!


I agree but I figure why should I be the one disadvantaged when they only let me hunt my spot every other year :-?


----------



## DallanC

Anyone find it interesting a Ferguson Flintlock rifle use by the British in 1776 during the revolutionary war... is illegal to hunt with today in Utah... as its too advanced, it doesn't meet the definition of a "muzzleloader" weapon.

LOL. There's your thought for the day.


-DallanC


----------



## derekp1999

I put a Leupold Freedom scope on mine this year.


----------



## Critter

DallanC said:


> Anyone find it interesting a Ferguson Flintlock rifle use by the British in 1776 during the revolutionary war... is illegal to hunt with today in Utah... as its too advanced, it doesn't meet the definition of a "muzzleloader" weapon.
> 
> LOL. There's your thought for the day.
> 
> -DallanC


I think that we all can agree that there were more advanced muzzle loaders way back when but we also have to ask ourselves what was the intent of the DOW when they decided to have a muzzle loader season in Utah. Was it to allow for the most advanced muzzle loader out there along with the highest power scope to be placed onto it where a 300 yard shot is a common and quite easy shot? For some reason I don't think that was their intent, it ended up there but I don't think that was suppose to go there.

For me I agree that I am not going to be disadvantaged when it comes to hunting. Why should I drag my sidelock .54 with open sights around shooting 430 grain maxi balls or round balls when I can just as easily pull out my .50 inline with a 3-9x40 scope on it that shoots modified pistol bullets over either loose powder or pellets?

By the way my scope on my ML is a Leupold Freedom 3-9x40. I shot my deer this last year at under 100 yards with a sabot 250 grain Barnes TEZ round over 100 grains of Bh209. That deer would of been just as dead with my .54 shooting a round ball.


----------



## DallanC

Critter said:


> I think that we all can agree that there were more advanced muzzle loaders way back when but we also have to ask ourselves what was the intent of the DOW when they decided to have a muzzle loader season in Utah. Was it to allow for the most advanced muzzle loader out there along with the highest power scope to be placed onto it where a 300 yard shot is a common and quite easy shot? For some reason I don't think that was their intent, it ended up there but I don't think that was suppose to go there.
> 
> For me I agree that I am not going to be disadvantaged when it comes to hunting. Why should I drag my sidelock .54 with open sights around shooting 430 grain maxi balls or round balls when I can just as easily pull out my .50 inline with a 3-9x40 scope on it that shoots modified pistol bullets over either loose powder or pellets?
> 
> By the way my scope on my ML is a Leupold Freedom 3-9x40. I shot my deer this last year at under 100 yards with a sabot 250 grain Barnes TEZ round over 100 grains of Bh209. That deer would of been just as dead with my .54 shooting a round ball.


Oh I agree. I just think its amusing where we draw lines sometimes.

There was a Prince in Germany in 1734 that had cartridge based guns made for his hunting exploits.

IDK why I'm in a gun history mood today... maybe my next post will include reference to the Puckle Gun... the 1718 repeating flintlock. LOL

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Critter said:


> I think that we all can agree that there were more advanced muzzle loaders way back when but we also have to ask ourselves what was the intent of the DOW when they decided to have a muzzle loader season in Utah. Was it to allow for the most advanced muzzle loader out there along with the highest power scope to be placed onto it where a 300 yard shot is a common and quite easy shot? For some reason I don't think that was their intent, it ended up there but I don't think that was suppose to go there.


Sometime within this last year, I forget manufacturer and model, but I got some email from muzzleloader.com on some new inline that guarantees accuracy out to 300 yards. Maybe even 4, I forget, I just recall being floored at the claims the ad was making. At this point, I think muzzy's have progressed to the point of being equivalent to single shot centerfire rifles.

I wish DWR would implement some rule changes as muzzy's go. It's getting ridiculous. I don't think "300 yard single shot centerfire rifles" was the intent nor spirit, of muzzleloader season. Aside from that, the optics some folks are mounting, should be on a 300 win mag or a 338 lapua, not a smoke pole.

It's supposed to be a primitive weapon, one bump up from a bow.

Right now, my muzzy still has aperture peep sights on it. If I was to mount a scope on it, it would be a fixed 4 power. As it is, not too many manufactures make fixed 4 power optics these days.


----------



## DallanC

Critter said:


> I think that we all can agree that there were more advanced muzzle loaders way back when but we also have to ask ourselves what was the intent of the DOW when they decided to have a muzzle loader season in Utah. Was it to allow for the most advanced muzzle loader out there along with the highest power scope to be placed onto it where a 300 yard shot is a common and quite easy shot? For some reason I don't think that was their intent, it ended up there but I don't think that was suppose to go there.


Back then we had so many deer you could get 2 buck tags per year (I had two tag some years). They didnt care how many people killed... the first ML hunt was an extension to the general rifle season tag.

The DWR got an extra $10 per hunter that wanted to shoot terribly inaccurate guns at deer, with no more actual deer killed than they were already issuing rifle tags for.

So, that first ML hunt gave the DWR some free money, and a few hardcore guys some of the best Nov rut deer hunting of their lives.

It was fun.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

BPturkeys said:


> Muzzy scopes are for sissies. I am for no scopes, open sights only, uncovered primers and round ball only...now that's a muzzy!


The 1x scope helped my astigmatism so I was a fan of that. Same basic premise though.

I would have voted no to the mag change 100X over. People are literally letting it fly at 500 yards on 2 year old deer.


----------



## DallanC

I hoped for 2x, just due to aging eyes. Maybe 4x max would have been plenty. 

-DallanC


----------



## PBH

Lone_Hunter said:


> It's supposed to be a primitive weapon, one bump up from a bow.


Well....today's bows, and many of the people that shoot them, are shooting over 100 yards. So, wouldn't a 300 yard muzzy fall right in line with it being "one bump up from a bow"?

I'm not saying it's right. I still want the close shot.

Heck, our rifle hunts are turning into long range contests. Everybody is walking around with a custom-turret that can dial in to 1000 yards. Heck, let's make it fair all the way around and not only restrict muzzleloaders, but pull the reins back on archery and rifles too.

While we're at it: move the LE rifle elk outside the rut.


----------



## DallanC

Agreed PBH.

The ML thing is easy to fix / nerf. You just make the following restrictions:

1. Full bore conicals only, no sabots
2. Black Powder or Pyrodex only
3. Exposed #11 cap only.
4. Open sights or 1x scope only

Done. That would eliminate most of the long range heros. A few guys will rock the vernier tangs like before, but not many.


-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter

PBH said:


> Well....today's bows, and many of the people that shoot them, are shooting over 100 yards. So, wouldn't a 300 yard muzzy fall right in line with it being "one bump up from a bow"?
> 
> I'm not saying it's right. I still want the close shot.
> 
> Heck, our rifle hunts are turning into long range contests. Everybody is walking around with a custom-turret that can dial in to 1000 yards. Heck, let's make it fair all the way around and not only restrict muzzleloaders, but pull the reins back on archery and rifles too.
> 
> While we're at it: move the LE rifle elk outside the rut.


I can't wrap my head around 100+ yards with a bow. I'd figure 60 was the extreme end. Heck, my bow, at 100 yards, would be minute of mountain. :grin:

I don't know how you'd restrict archery, or if it is even necessary. 100 yards to me sounds like an ethics issue. That said, I don't know much about modern archery equipment, so I'm hardly the person to be making any judgement calls on archery.

If i were to limit muzzy, i'd say 
- open sights, or 1X to 2X for aging eyes
- full bore conical only

and just call it good from there. That second one is painful for me, because I like my barnes TEZ, however, if it meant getting muzzy back to the spirt of things, i'd let it go.

Long range in general is in style these days. Long range shooters of Utah? We have associations on it. This last deer rifle, one of my inlaws was lugging around a 12 pound 6.5 creedmore with an optic about half the length of the rifle. I'm pretty sure he could have hit a gnat in the ass at 600 yards with it.

And, I thought LE Elk during the peak rut was a muzzy hunt? Honestly, I stopped looking at rifle season a few years ago. One of the reasons I like to hunt is for the solitude, and you ain't getting that with the orange army afield. That, and rifle season, you will see all kinds of people in the mountains, and I'll leave it at that. :roll:


----------



## Stinky Boots

I mostly keep my trap shut on these type of threads but wouldn't mind if they reined in the firearms that pass as primitive arms now days. I disagree with the comment of using a terribly inaccurate firearm ( traditional) weapon. With range time and load development the old sidelocks are deadly within the intended range. Same with archery and the traditional bows, But then again I am an odd duck and still use sidelocks and recurves because I still know how to use them and enjoy a hunt whether I make a kill or not.


----------



## Critter

I'm not just sure of when the first muzzle loader hunt in Utah was but I am pretty sure that I remember back in 1976 that they had a muzzle loader/handgun hunt in September. That is unless someone can prove me wrong, then I'll admit it.

I worked with a guy down in Cedar City at the time that went out on it.


----------



## BPturkeys

I think you're about right on the first "muzzy" hunt, but I clearly remember that it was called a "primitive weapons" hunt and was a result of the "bow hunter" guys getting their own special time. Who would have thunk that a couple "special hunts" back then would lead to what we got now. I mean criminently, you got a proclamation just to explain "how to apply" for the hunts. 
I actually don't have any real objections to the the muzzy hunt as it is today...gee, a guy just wants to go hunting, let him go. Opportunity is good.

Speaking or "Proclamations"...how many of you guys remember when the entire proclamation was about a 1/2 page long and published in the daily newspaper for all to see and understand?


----------



## PBH

Lone_Hunter said:


> I can't wrap my head around 100+ yards with a bow. I'd figure 60 was the extreme end. ...
> I don't know how you'd restrict archery, or if it is even necessary. 100 yards to me sounds like an ethics issue. .


i agree with you. But archery hunters are still taking, and succeeding, at 100 yards +. I call this the "dedicated hunter" phenomenon. Rifle hunters with a bow in their hand.

Consider that many of today's bows claim 320 (+) FPS.
For fun: 
255 FPS (draw length, poundage, peep, silencer, string loop all result in loss of FPS)
425 grain arrow = ~61 ft-lbs of kinetic energy @ point blank (@255FPS).
Expect to lose ~1.5 ft-lbs for every 10 yards traveled.
@ 100 yards, ft-lbs = 44 ft-lbs of kinetic energy

According to Easton's Kinetic energy hunting chart, this is still enough for large game:

< 25 ft-lbs	Small Game (groundhog, rabbit, wild turkey)
25-41 ft-lbs	Medium Game (Antelope, Whitetail deer)
42-65 ft-lbs	Large Game (black bear, wild boar, elk)
> 65 ft-lbs	Largest Game (Grizzly bear, Cape buffalo, Musk Ox, African elephant)

Right / wrong, ethical / unethical -- it's doable, mathematically.

My personal feelings? Get closer.


----------



## RemingtonCountry

I won't get into the ethics "squabble" 

I just got a new Burris Timberline that I LOVE! The eye relief on that this is ridiculous, perfect for those hard kicking, light muzzys.


----------



## RandomElk16

PBH said:


> i agree with you. But archery hunters are still taking, and succeeding, at 100 yards +. I call this the "dedicated hunter" phenomenon. Rifle hunters with a bow in their hand.
> 
> Consider that many of today's bows claim 320 (+) FPS.
> For fun:
> 255 FPS (draw length, poundage, peep, silencer, string loop all result in loss of FPS)
> 425 grain arrow = ~61 ft-lbs of kinetic energy @ point blank (@255FPS).
> Expect to lose ~1.5 ft-lbs for every 10 yards traveled.
> @ 100 yards, ft-lbs = 44 ft-lbs of kinetic energy
> 
> According to Easton's Kinetic energy hunting chart, this is still enough for large game:
> 
> < 25 ft-lbs	Small Game (groundhog, rabbit, wild turkey)
> 25-41 ft-lbs	Medium Game (Antelope, Whitetail deer)
> 42-65 ft-lbs	Large Game (black bear, wild boar, elk)
> > 65 ft-lbs	Largest Game (Grizzly bear, Cape buffalo, Musk Ox, African elephant)
> 
> Right / wrong, ethical / unethical -- it's doable, mathematically.
> 
> My personal feelings? Get closer.


You were even conservative with those numbers - it's not hard to hit faster fps with that light of an arrow. You can hit ~245-255 with a 600g+. That's besides the 
"should" convo.

I think there are hunting ethics issues across the board.

It's AMAZING how many people can't shoot. There is not enough practice with each weapon. Archery needs tons of practice.

Small sample size but Deseret hosted a shooting class for hunters who wanted to go on the guided hunt and save 50%. About 100 shooters came, and 30-40 needed their optics adjusted. That was for sub 300 yard shooting. Those people were going to happily walk into the field with that rifle. It happens with all of our weapon types!

Heck - how many people have patterned a shotgun?


----------



## Lone_Hunter

RandomElk16 said:


> You were even conservative with those numbers - it's not hard to hit faster fps with that light of an arrow. You can hit ~245-255 with a 600g+. That's besides the
> "should" convo.
> 
> I think there are hunting ethics issues across the board.
> 
> It's AMAZING how many people can't shoot. There is not enough practice with each weapon. Archery needs tons of practice.
> 
> Small sample size but Deseret hosted a shooting class for hunters who wanted to go on the guided hunt and save 50%. About 100 shooters came, and 30-40 needed their optics adjusted. That was for sub 300 yard shooting. Those people were going to happily walk into the field with that rifle. It happens with all of our weapon types!
> 
> Heck - how many people have patterned a shotgun?


I remember when taking my CFP course, during the live fire portion of it, at 7 yards, 3/4's of the people there were hitting minute of man and at least hitting the paper - which ain't saying much at all. Generally speaking, people don't practice as much as they should, across the board regardless if their Hunters or not.

Anyone serious about archery should have a range set up in their home somewhere if they can't shoot in their backyard.

And i've patterned loads, several times. But, I'm a gun guy, it's all fun to me.


----------



## 1trhall

I feel the same argument can be made for archery with the technology advances for compound bows these days. I don't think they originally envisioned 70, 80, 90+ yard shots with them either when they basically gave all the rut hunting opportunities for elk to archery. I find it interesting that people complain all the time about the advances in muzzle loaders but not many complain about the advances in archery.


----------



## middlefork

Archers have been shooting a 100 yards for several hundred years. Long before the compound came along.

And as far as Utah is concerned the Any Weapon / Muzzle-loader hunters are getting the prime rut for elk.

It is the person releasing the arrow at 100 yds or the person shooting a muzzle-loader at 300+ yards or the rifle hunter shooting at 1000 yrds that are successful because they practice religiously to do that. And there might be 10% of the hunters that can be successful doing it.

I have a Konus 3-9 scope on mine. It seems to do the job.


----------



## weaversamuel76

Didn't the Dwr just create new language for a new primitive weapon season so that the sfw proposal could move forward

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## moabxjeeper

I've got what is likely the first rifle scope anyone in my family ever used on there. I believe my dad told me he bought it for my grandpa, who was stubborn about using anything other than open sights with his 1959 Win M70. It's a fixed 4x Weaver scope that shows the years of use and is still clear as day. The one year I really got serious and tried hunting with the muzzy, I had it dialed in shooting 3" groups at 200 yards. I consider it the perfect scope for the ranges I intend to use it for.


----------



## 270win

I'll go old school 3x9 tasco


----------



## ridgetop

I pulled my old Leupold 3x9-40 VX-1 off my 7mm and put it on my muzzy.


----------



## gunplay

Just make range finders illegal and all factions of hunting go back 30 years


----------



## middlefork

gunplay said:


> Just make range finders illegal and all factions of hunting go back 30 years


A lot of truth to that statement.


----------



## 2full

I put a Nikon in line 3x9 on mine last year. Finally caved in and succomed to the pressure. 
It was a great help on my bull last year I do admit.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

gunplay said:


> Just make range finders illegal and all factions of hunting go back 30 years


Go back to the MK 1 Eyeball? Aww come on now, that's taking things a bit too far! :rotfl:


----------



## KineKilla

I have an old Bushnell Banner 3-9 on mine now but will likely switch to something with longer eye relief. Been considering the Nikon P3 MZ scope.


----------



## DallanC

gunplay said:


> Just make range finders illegal and all factions of hunting go back 30 years


30 years back isn't all that much. We still had inline muzzleloaders, rangefinders kestrel wind gauges, 44x rifle scopes, carbon fiber arrows and limbs etc etc.

Leupold has had range finding rifle scopes since the 1960s, that's almost SIXTY years ago.

The genie is out of the bottle at this point though.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter

Years before all this fancy electronic stuff we actually learned how to guess the range fairly accurately.

If I was bow hunting from a blink I would step off distances to stumps, rocks, and trees. For those long range rifle shots we learned that if you put that front sight onto a animal and he disappeared that he was too far away to take a shot at. But we would also step off ranges as we walked somewhere after taking our best guess at how far away a object was. If you do it enough you can get pretty good at ranges out to 600 or so yards. 

But I have also found that most hunters have no idea at how far that they are shooting. They say that they placed the cross hairs on the top of a elks back and pulled the trigger on a 700 yard shot and dropped him even without knowing that the round would drop over 4', now that is one tall elk. I have done this with others and when they think that they are taking a 300 yard shot it actually turns out to be 100 yards.


----------



## DallanC

Critter said:


> But I have also found that most hunters have no idea at how far that they are shooting.


Agreed. Which is crazy considering the subtend on most modern rifle scopes is 4MOA. That means bracket a deer with a roughly 16" brisket to backbone... if it fits exactly its 400 yards away. If its bigger than the bracket, its closer... if it fits with room to spare its further.

If its 400 yards, most modern rifle calibers are 16" low so you just put the tip of the bottom post on the heart, done deal.

I'll bet you cant find 1 out off 100 casual hunters that know even that simple thing.

-DallanC


----------



## ridgetop

The whole point of going out hunting is to put a tag on something and bring it home. Why do we want to make it harder for people to be unsuccessful and end up wounding and loosing more game. That doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## weaversamuel76

ridgetop said:


> The whole point of going out hunting is to put a tag on something and bring it home. Why do we want to make it harder for people to be unsuccessful and end up wounding and loosing more game. That doesn't make sense to me.


Does everyone need to successful? Tag sells say no

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## BearLakeFishGuy

I shoot a .50 CVA Accura and use a Konus scope (made by CVA especially for myzzleloaders). It is a 3x9 and has bullet drop compensation cross hairs for different weight bullets and powder charges. The BDC works great out to 300 yards! Oh, I’m shooting 100gr of White Hot pellets with 245gr Powerbelt Aerotip bullets. Extremely accurate and lethal combination!!


----------



## Lone_Hunter

ridgetop said:


> The whole point of going out hunting is to put a tag on something and bring it home. Why do we want to make it harder for people to be unsuccessful and end up wounding and loosing more game. That doesn't make sense to me.


True, but I think there's a point where things are getting overboard. Personally, I think that point is where muzzleloader starts looking like another a rifle in terms of reliability, AND range. It's things like this that get my panty's in a twist:

https://cva.com/product-line/paramount-rifle/

Yup, I'm sure that's a great rifle. For 1 grand it had better be. But therein lays the point of contention. 300 yards and beyond? I freaking zero my 308 at 300 yards. So that's basically a singleshot centerfire rifle that happens to load from (I'm assuming) the muzzle. It's things like that, that will take umpteen rifle hunters, and put them straight into the muzzy hunt when they otherwise wouldn't even try. My fear is that in the long term, rifles like that CVA paramount will make muzzy season look like rifle season in terms of how many jackwagons will be out on the mountain. Allowing scopes I think was a bad idea. Scopes on these newer muzzeloading rifles will basically kill muzzy as a primitive weapon season like archery and turn it into just another rifle season. Heck, at 300 plus yards, I wouldn't be surprised if DWR changed the regs to require blaze orange.


----------



## DallanC

Lone_Hunter said:


> True, but I think there's a point where things are getting overboard. Personally, I think that point is where muzzleloader starts looking like another a rifle in terms of reliability, AND range.


Dwr has always considered them a form of rifle. Until the micro units thing started up, ML tags were the same pool as the rifle tags. You could pay the $10 fee and switch between one for another at will, until the actual hunt started. There were only two GE tag pools, rifle and archery.

I doubt the dwr will ever require orange on the ML hunts. First off... there just arent that many smokepole hunters. Secondly, the number of people with long range specialty guns like that, are extremely few and far between.



> It's things like this that get my panty's in a twist:


Dont sweat it. To get that performance, they use sabots to get down to .40 cal bullets... not legal in Utah for big game hunting. You see someone packing that gun on a Utah hunt, call your local DWR officer.

-DallanC


----------



## BPturkeys

Actually the whole idea of the "muzzy" hunt was to set aside some time for the guys that wanted to play "mountain man"...which was a big fad a few years ago. There where a lot of clubs and organizations for guys to play that game. It was more than just the guns that these guys used. They would go out dressed up in their buckskins, carry "possible bags" and big knives and try and reenact a hunt from the early 1800's. The whole scene was fun and rewarding. 
Then Mr. Knight came along and capitalism took over. If you look at the modern "muzzy hunter", it appears that reenactment of the past is, well...something from the past.


----------



## Critter

I never did see anyone out in buckskins stalking a deer, perhaps that was the best camo? 

There is still a rendezvous up in Pindale, Wyoming in the month of July. It has been quite a few years since I have been up there but it is quite fun and interesting.


----------



## 2full

Up in the area I hang out, the muzzle hunt is already more crazy than the rifle hunt. 
The last couple of years especially.


----------



## DallanC

2full said:


> Up in the area I hang out, the muzzle hunt is already more crazy than the rifle hunt.
> The last couple of years especially.


Really? Wow... I've noticed a steady decrease in smokepole hunters year after year. I'm talking vehicles parked at the trailhead. On the mountain, I haven't seen another ML deer hunter in 4 years. I see the occasional discouraged ML Elk hunter, but deer hunters have apparently given up and moved to your area.

-DallanC


----------



## PBH

Critter said:


> I never did see anyone out in buckskins stalking a deer, perhaps that was the best camo?


It wasn't muzzy, but rather the archery hunt a couple years ago. Matt Graham was out walking around in nothing but a loin cloth. I'm glad that fad hasn't caught on...


----------



## Critter

I remember watching a couple of those survival shows that he was on in Southern Utah and wondered just when the shows were being filmed when they were taking big game.


----------



## PBH

This wasn't during any filming.

Matt actually lives, part time, around Boulder. A guy that hunts with us each year brought Matt with him. Matt was actually hunting -- this wasn't for show. He was just out walking around in his "nothings" with his home-made long bow.

I'm glad he doesn't come any more...


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

DallanC said:


> .
> 
> Dont sweat it. To get that performance, they use sabots to get down to .40 cal bullets... not legal in Utah for big game hunting. You see someone packing that gun on a Utah hunt, call your local DWR officer.
> 
> -DallanC


Am I missing something I've been using a .45 cal TC Black Diamond XR to hunt deer for years. I've read the regs looks legal to me ? You would have to use a .45 cal 210 gr. power Belt for elk though


----------



## Critter

A .40 caliber bullet is not legal but a .45 is.


----------



## DallanC

7MM RELOADED said:


> Am I missing something I've been using a .45 cal TC to hunt deer for years. I"ve read the regs looks legal to me ? Says a .40 cal bullet 170 grain sabot or larger for deer and for elk a 210gr. full caliber .45 cal bullet or 240gr. sabot . Power Belt make a 210 gr. bullet that legal for elk . I use my 50 cal. Knight for elk anyways with a 300 gr XTP.


+1

You are right, sorry I was in a discussion with someone about elk when I wrote that. And I was also thinking about those 40cal MLs they use sabots on to get down to even smaller bullets.

Apologies for any confusion.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

Critter said:


> A .40 caliber bullet is not legal but a .45 is.


Actually as 7MM Reloaded stated, it is. I just looked up the regulation:



> •To hunt big game, you must use a lead
> or expanding bullet or projectile that's at
> least 40 caliber in size


Now I'm questioning when this changed... the more I think about it, I do remember a 40cal restriction at some point. But as I've never owned anything smaller than a 50cal, I honestly never paid too much attention to smaller bores.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> Really? Wow... I've noticed a steady decrease in smokepole hunters year after year. I'm talking vehicles parked at the trailhead. On the mountain, I haven't seen another ML deer hunter in 4 years. I see the occasional discouraged ML Elk hunter, but deer hunters have apparently given up and moved to your area.
> 
> -DallanC


How can there be a decrease if Muzzy tags sell out every year? The tag allocation is a % and has been that way.

This year I was up wondering the hills on the Muzzy and saw more than ever. One step further, I saw way more on the ML elk hunt. I personally hate the 3 season tag after this season.


----------



## RandomElk16

Lone_Hunter said:


> True, but I think there's a point where things are getting overboard. Personally, I think that point is where muzzleloader starts looking like another a rifle in terms of reliability, AND range. It's things like this that get my panty's in a twist:
> 
> https://cva.com/product-line/paramount-rifle/
> 
> Yup, I'm sure that's a great rifle. For 1 grand it had better be. But therein lays the point of contention. 300 yards and beyond? I freaking zero my 308 at 300 yards. So that's basically a singleshot centerfire rifle that happens to load from (I'm assuming) the muzzle. It's things like that, that will take umpteen rifle hunters, and put them straight into the muzzy hunt when they otherwise wouldn't even try. My fear is that in the long term, rifles like that CVA paramount will make muzzy season look like rifle season in terms of how many jackwagons will be out on the mountain. Allowing scopes I think was a bad idea. Scopes on these newer muzzeloading rifles will basically kill muzzy as a primitive weapon season like archery and turn it into just another rifle season. Heck, at 300 plus yards, I wouldn't be surprised if DWR changed the regs to require blaze orange.


Exactly this. They made this to compete with the Remington Ultimate ML. Which fires a disassembled round basically. Their " Remington U.M.L. Ignition System" is a casing that holds the powder, and has a primer in it. At that point the difference is the bullet isn't seated lol.

A bolt action ML that uses a metal casing, 200gr of powder, and any power scope is a rifle.


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> How can there be a decrease if Muzzy tags sell out every year?


There's always tags left over after the draw.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> Exactly this. They made this to compete with the Remington Ultimate ML. Which fires a disassembled round basically. Their " Remington U.M.L. Ignition System" is a casing that holds the powder, and has a primer in it. At that point the difference is the bullet isn't seated lol.
> 
> A bolt action ML that uses a metal casing, 200gr of powder, and any power scope is a rifle.


I think you completely misunderstand the case. Its simply a glorified primer holder and maybe gas seal, nothing more. There is really nothing different about this system, than say the old Knight 209 DISC system that held 209s.

The "case wall" rides on the outside of the breech plug, zero powder ever touches the case. All powder has to be poured down the barrel, and the projectile forced down on top of it.

Its a gimmick, to use pistol primers over 209s, nothing more.










-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> There's always tags left over after the draw.
> 
> -DallanC


For like Boxelder.

And they sell out that day.

Again 100% of tags are allocated. Each year there are less left over, and less units - and 100% get sold.


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> I think you completely misunderstand the case. Its simply a glorified primer holder and maybe gas seal, nothing more. There is really nothing different about this system, than say the old Knight 209 DISC system that held 209s.
> 
> The "case wall" rides on the outside of the breech plug, zero powder ever touches the case. All powder has to be poured down the barrel, and the projectile forced down on top of it.
> 
> Its a gimmick, to use pistol primers over 209s, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DallanC


I understand how it works, but you buy an aftermarket kit and use rifle primers and reduce the flame to powder channel - it's basically becoming a single shot rifle. People are shooting deer at 500-700 yards with them. It's literally going to the gray area between ML and Rifle. I realistically see it being a cartridge you put in that is powder and primer together, then just stuffing bullet down the barrel. Maybe even a system that can 100% be reloaded from the bolt area.

With this description you could have the powder and primer all in 1- as long as the bullet isn't seated:

(e) is capable of being fired only once without reloading;

(f) powder and bullet, or powder, sabot and bullet are not bonded together as one unit for loading;

(g) is loaded with black powder or black powder substitute, which must not contain smokeless powder.


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> I understand how it works, but you buy an aftermarket kit and use rifle primers and reduce the flame to powder channel - it's basically becoming a single shot rifle.


Maybe that's our disconnect then... I've always assumed they are by definition all "rifles". Single shot at that. Civil war snipers shot them out to 1000 yards.

I really dont have a dog in this fight... the vast majority of my smoke pole kills have been around 60 yards. I stretched out for a long range shot this year... right around 100 yards.

But, we've lost the primitive element to these hunts about the time the guns themselves moved from flat springs to coil springs. The DWR figured this out ages ago, hence the ML tags and Rifle tags coming out of the same pool until just recently. They just dont care.

It does bug me when I hear of long range hunting shots... I dont care what weapon used, Bow, ML or Rifle... the longer the ranges get, the more that can go wrong. Even if its the animal just taking that extra half a step during a bullets flight time, and now its guts are sitting where its heart was a moment ago.

I guess a fair question to ask, is what state currently has the most restrictive ML regulations? I'd like to see just how they restrict the technology.

I love my Remington 700ML (not the ultimate, the early/mid 2000s model). I love it feels the same as my other rifles, I love it has an actual Safety. However beyond either of those issues, its no more accurate, or deadly... or reliable, than my Hawkin I rebarreled with the same fast twist rate, and a 209 mag-spark.

-DallanC


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

TOTFP .I wish they would go back to traditional guns and move the hunt back to November, but we know that won't happen .


----------



## Critter

I'd like to see it just go back to a more traditional rifle. 

The end of September is just fine for me.


----------



## justismi28

All this talk of guys shooting over 300 yards on game with a muzzleloader has me questioning my own skill and manhood now. I feel that I can shoot mine pretty well, and have spent a lot of time getting to know what my gun does at 300 yards. I can accurately hit and confidently at that distance, but I know that even small breeze variances between shots play hell with my groups. Anything more than a faint breeze and it doesn't do much to shoot groups at longer ranges. Just helps to practice in it reading it for hunting situations.

I may be wrong and would have to look at my charts at home, but with a 150yd zero at 500 yards it was something near 30-35moa just vertical (something like 13 feet). Add in a light breeze (10-15 mph) on a cross canyon shot and at that far you could be off by 5-7 feet. That's for a 290gr Barnes tez pushed around 1850fps. I've no doubt it could be done, and is done every year by skilled and lucky shooters. But for me knowing the facts and numbers is enough to dissuade me from taking that shot at an animal. And if the numbers weren't enough, go shoot a steel target at that distance with a muzzleloader and realize how long that bullet is in the air and how far that actually is and you quickly realize that you could just get closer.

<rant>
To me, these 'Long Range' muzzleloaders are just another way to market a product and sell it to those that don't take the time to educate themselves on their Max Effective Range. Just because the MER on the gun is '300+' doesn't mean the shooter is. Even with a 20moa base and scope you've dialed, that shot isn't easy under hunting circumstances.
</rant>


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> Maybe that's our disconnect then... I've always assumed they are by definition all "rifles".


I am using terminology incorrectly, apologies.

I mean they are getting closer to a centerfire rifle. I guess soon the powder will be the only difference.


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> I am using terminology incorrectly, apologies.
> 
> I mean they are getting closer to a centerfire rifle. I guess soon the powder will be the only difference.


If its any consolation... definitions aside, I fully agree with you in that I'd like to see more restrictions than less.

But... IMO, I want to really see it go primitive. IMO, the single greatest improvement to firearms beside the invention of rifling's, is high tensile strength coil springs. Prior to that, guns use lousy flat springs that would lose tension, break from fatigue, get out of alignment etc etc.

Ignition and lock time issues are all but solved with todays modern "replica" firearms.

I see very little difference between a modern inline produced on a computer controlled lathe / mill using the most modern materials man kind has create... and a replica sidelock, made on the same computer controlled lathe / mill, using the most modern materials man has created... you get the idea.

Modern replica muzzleloading firearms are not in any way shape or form, actual primitive weapons, they enjoy the same plethera of improvements to design and materials as any other modern firearm.

Anyone remember the now 20 year old T/C Black Mountain Magnum? It was a flintlock... with a 1/28" twist, used specialized flints and a enhanced flame channel to nearly guarantee ignition. Composite stock, round barrel pre-drilled for scope mounts, or the open sight variation had fiber optics. It was in the magnum class of rifle with 150gr max powder charges.

It was a flintlock, and no-one will ever convince me that gun is "primitive".

Here's something mindblowing: You could get an actual 1717 Ferguson from a museum, and it would be illegal to hunt with today in Utah. An actual 302 year old gun is actually illegal under Utahs current regulations.

LOL

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter

These guys are ringing steel well past 300.


----------



## DallanC

Lone_Hunter said:


> These guys are ringing steel well past 300


LMAO, look at that bullet trail at 3:20, specifically the drop. That thing is following a rainbow trajectory. It would take some time to do specific ranging, then dialing in the scope to make shots in a hunting situation.

People that know the physics can do that with just about any smokepole. Like I said many posts back in this thread, Civil War snipers were making kills at 1000 yards.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> People that know the physics can do that with just about any smokepole. Like I said many posts back in this thread, Civil War snipers were making kills at 1000 yards.
> 
> -DallanC


Is that a literal confirmed? Or just shooting into a massive crowd with a wild holdover?

Gunwerks consistently kill animals at long range with ML. It's figured out.

Some guys out at a range I hit have blown a few up developing muzzle breaks for the remington ultimate lol.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

I'm well aware of the fundamentals of marksmanship. The range in general isn't the issue I have. The issue I have, is should the equipment that makes shooting at that range possible be allowed during a muzzleloader hunting season? I don't think it should, though I realize I am probably alone in that sentiment. I like muzzy because it isn't like rifle season, if that changes due to these advancements, I see little point in continuing with muzzy.


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> Is that a literal confirmed? Or just shooting into a massive crowd with a wild holdover?


Google General John Sedgwick. They shot him down at 1000 yards while his troops were under cover and he was walking back and forth in the open trying to rally them. He had a famous last line just before he got hit.

While some scopes existed back then, the Vernier Tang was the sight of choice around that time. Some of those tangs offered almost 90MOA of elevation adjustment.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

Witworth Muzzleloaders were used by snipers in the Civil war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitworth_rifle



> The Whitworth rifle was designed by Sir Joseph Whitworth, a prominent British engineer and entrepreneur. Whitworth had experimented with cannons using polygonal rifling instead of traditional rifled barrels, which was patented in 1854. The hexagonal polygonal rifling meant that the projectile did not have to bite into grooves as was done with conventional rifling. In 1856, this concept was demonstrated in a series of experiments using brass howitzers.
> 
> Whitworth believed that the same type of system could be used to create a more accurate rifle to replace the Pattern 1853 Enfield, which had shown some weaknesses during the recent Crimean War. Trials were held in 1857 to compare Whitworth's design against the Enfield. The Whitworth rifle outperformed the Enfield at a rate of about three to one in the trials, which tested the accuracy and range of both weapons. *Notably, the Whitworth rifle was able to hit the target at a range of 2,000 yards, where the Enfield was only able to hit the same target at a range of 1,400 yards.*[3]


2000 yards is mighty impressive. Doubtful its very useful though.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

Final thought, quality guns have always really been capable of long range shots. Whats change lately is the mindset of hunters, not willing to get closer, nor pass on a shot that is too far. Some may call it ethics... I dunno. 

I dont remember people trying to stretch ranges in long shots 4 decades ago in hunting situations, or advertisements really trying to push it.

But its certainly first and foremost in most advertising now. And certainly too many hunters think they can buy their way into 1000 yard kills with a super expensive gun.

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter

DallanC said:


> If its any consolation... definitions aside, I fully agree with you in that I'd like to see more restrictions than less.
> 
> But... IMO, I want to really see it go primitive....


I missed this. I guess we're in agreement with more restrictions, though I think we disagree on what those restrictions should be. Personally, I'm fine with inline's, though I can definitely see where a restriction on sabots would really "level the playing field" for lack of a better term, and that's a pill i'd swallow if need be. I know in some states (washington?) there is a restriction on sabot's, scopes, and specific breech plugs that would allow weather to foul the powder, though I think the specific breech plugs is going overboard. My bottom line is i'm fine with centerfire reliability, just not centerfire range.



DallanC said:


> Whats change lately is the mindset of hunters, not willing to get closer, nor pass on a shot that is too far.


In my opinion, getting closer is harder. Stretching out the range and taking longer shots is the path of least resistance. I would hunt rifle if it wasn't such a zoo. IMO chances of success are higher with a rifle. However, with rifles there is too many people,and too much pressure. I would rather work harder and get in closer with a smokepole, or a bow, then deal with the orange army. I like my solitude, and a less pressured area. Aside from that, getting in closer has it's own rewards.


----------



## middlefork

I don't care either way. I doubt it will go to more primitive though.

But I love reading Dallan's history lessons :smile: Thanks Dallan!


----------



## Critter

If you want to go a little bit more primitive look at Colorado. 

No pellets, no sabots, conical's or round balls only, no pellets, no scopes and inlines are legal.


----------



## DallanC

middlefork said:


> But I love reading Dallan's history lessons :smile: Thanks Dallan!


Ha!

Sorry, I'm in a weird mood this week. I used to go really overboard back when inlines were new and people were wanting them banned. I did alot of research into guns, what improvements came along etc etc. I'd always wade into those arguments, not to really validate inline guns, but to show how silly restricting one over the other is depending really, on only the direction the hammer swings.

Anywho history is interesting, there have been smart innovators for ages. You can find roots to all our modern guns going back hundreds and hundreds of years.

I doubt the genie will ever be put back in the bottle with respect to weapon technology, what will happen however is that as weapons become more and more capable of killing, we will just see a reduction in available tags because more and more critters will get killed.

And back to Lone Hunters point: I very much miss the days of being the only guy in the hills with a gun in early Nov looking for a buck. I'd trade almost all my technology to go back to those days (I'd have a hard time giving up the safety on my guns ... I had a very dangerous fall with a Hawkin once, it could have been the end of my hunting career).

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

Critter said:


> If you want to go a little bit more primitive look at Colorado.
> 
> *No pellets*, no sabots, conical's or round balls only, *no pellets*, no scopes and inlines are legal.


They hate pellets so much, they banned them twice! :mrgreen:


----------



## Critter

Naaaa I just hate them. 

You just can't use them in Colorado.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

I've never used anything but pellets and inlines but would give it all up to hunt in the rut. Maybe I just want a cool new vintage gun too lol


----------



## PBH

I suppose pellets (maybe inlines?) and scopes are all a result of the same "dedicated hunter" phenomenon that we see with archery and 100 yard shots?

Take a rifle hunter and put a muzzy or bow in their hands, and they want to use it like a rifle. I heard my in-laws for years make comments like "put a real weapon in my hands and that deer is dead...". Now, they hunt more archery than anything else, and they are extremely successful at killing trophy quality deer every year. Cameras and chum stations have changed the game as much as extended range of the weapons.


----------



## DallanC

Critter said:


> If you want to go a little bit more primitive look at Colorado.
> 
> No pellets, no sabots, conical's or round balls only, no pellets, no scopes and inlines are legal.


IMO that is the right way to do it, components and accessories to the gun. That limits the upper end of performance. You can only put so much pressure on a lead conical before blow-by destroys accuracy. Thats why minimally, copper gas checks are used on high pressure firearm ammunition.

No pellets is a bit of an over-reaction... there is no accuracy or velocity benefit (actually pellets are more of a detriment), they are probably thinking it makes for faster reload time. That is amusing as a practiced smokepole shooter should be able to reload with loose powder in 15 seconds using speedloaders.

-DallanC


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Don't take away my general deer preference point when I buy an over the counter muzzy tag and I'll leave my 1x on. "@#$%" Looks like they are going to take them away now. So on goes a Burris Eliminator range finding scope why not ? lol


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Am I correct you cannot use scopes on the new HAMS units.


----------



## middlefork

That is the way I read it.


----------



## CPAjeff

7MM RELOADED said:


> Am I correct you cannot use scopes on the new HAMS units.


Here is the authoritative guidances on the HAM hunt -

R657-5-48. Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun-Only Hunt.
(1) The division may establish Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun-Only hunts for any big gamespecies.

(2) An individual may only use the following weapons on a handgun-archery-muzzleloader-shotgun-only hunt:

(a) a legal handgun for the species being hunted, consistent with R657-5-9 and Subsection (5), with no attached scope;

(b) legal archery equipment consistent with R657-5-11;

(c) a legal muzzleloader consistent with R657-5-10, with no attached scope; or

(d) a legal shotgun consistent with R657-5-8, with no attached scope.

(3) A person who has obtained a Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun-Only permit may take one animal of the big game species identified on the permit.

(4) A person who has obtained a Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun-Only permit may only hunt under that permit during the season dates and within the boundaries identified on the permit and in the guidebooks of the Wildlife Board for taking big game.

(5) In addition to the requirements in R657-5-9, a handgun used to take a big game animal in a Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun-Only hunt must:

(a) have no more than a single barrel 15 inches or less in length, including the chamber;

(b) have a single rear handgrip without any form of a:

(i) fixed, detachable, or collapsible buttstock;

(ii) apparatus or extension behind the rear grip capable of being used to steady the handgun against the body while firing; or

(iii) vertical foregrip; and

(c) be no more than 24 inches in overall length.

(6) A Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun-Only hunt is not a centerfire rifle hunt for purposes of Section 23-20-31 or R657-5-49.


----------



## DallanC

If I had to choose from "Handgun-Archery-Muzzleloader-Shotgun" I'm going with a 12GA semi auto Shotgun w/ slug barrel.


-DallanC


----------

