# Blackhorn 209



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I noticed they are recommending this change (http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-04_packet.pdf) on page 3:



> This change allows for the use of the product Blackhorn 209 that contains nitrocellulose
> Studies show an average of 5% increase in velocity when comparing Blackhorn 209 with
> traditional propellants
> Blackhorn 209 is cleaner burning and would require less frequent cleaning of muzzleloaders


So IF this gets approved we can use Blackhorn 209?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Looks like it.

IMO, its a bad precedent to set. The line should remain drawn at using nitrocellulose. If BH209 is legalized, why not Accurate Arms 5744, or Reloader 7? Burn rates are really close to BP. Once you allow nitrocellulose, people will keep pushing the types of powder they want allowed. 

Just keep the line at nitrocellulose and avoid all of the headaches that will undoubtably follow.


-DallanC


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

If it is safe, if it is cleaner to use and still must be used as a propellent poured in to the barrel, what the heck is the problem? I don't get it? Sounds like the same arguement we get why crossbows should not be allowed during archery season. Some elitist against others based on personal preference. Hunting is hunting, some folks need to get over themselves!


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

I don’t think a State entity should endorse or allow any commercial product by brand name. There may be conflict of interest issues. Time for an ethics refresher at DNR.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Cooky said:


> I don't think a State entity should endorse or allow any commercial product by brand name. There may be conflict of interest issues. Time for an ethics refresher at DNR.


If that is the case, ask them what is acceptable and they will tell you pirodex, tripple seven and regular black powder is acceptable. So much for endorsing products!? NEXT?


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

richardjb said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think a State entity should endorse or allow any commercial product by brand name. There may be conflict of interest issues. Time for an ethics refresher at DNR.
> ...


And I repeat; I don't think a State entity should endorse or allow any commercial product by brand name. There may be conflict of interest issues. Time for an ethics refresher at DNR.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

richardjb said:


> If it is safe, if it is cleaner to use and still must be used as a propellent poured in to the barrel, what the heck is the problem? I don't get it? Sounds like the same arguement we get why crossbows should not be allowed during archery season. Some elitist against others based on personal preference. Hunting is hunting, some folks need to get over themselves!


+1


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Cooky said:


> I don't think a State entity should endorse or allow any commercial product by brand name. There may be conflict of interest issues. Time for an ethics refresher at DNR.


There are many drugs on the market that are known by product names because you need to be a pharmacist to recognize the generic name. If the DWR referred to the complex chemical description of the substance in question, no one would know what the _______ they were talking about. Until patents run out and there are more than one brand names for the same product and a recognizable generic name (like black powder) is common, I have no problem with being specific.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

As for whether it should be legalized, I agree with sagebrush. The line should be "muzzle loading" single shot firearms not the chemical composition of propellent. The line of "primitive weapons" was crossed a long time ago though it still is debated.


----------

