# Magnified Scopes in 2016



## MarkM

Was reading though the big game proposals for next year and it looks like the DWR is proposing to allow magnified Scopes on Muzzleloader's next year.

Below is a link to download the proposals.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac/...rd-meeting-agendas-materials-and-minutes.html


----------



## Dirtbag08

So from the link you attached, where do I click to find the muzzleloader proposals? I looked in the November proposals and couldn't find them.


----------



## Dirtbag08

nevermind, i found it. Thanks for posting


----------



## utahgolf

On muzzleloaders, I wish they'd allow the primer, powder and bullet to be in a solid 1 piece casing and also a magazine for extra rounds ... I'm sure the division will propose that in 2017.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

utahgolf said:


> On muzzleloaders, I wish they'd allow the primer, powder and bullet to be in a solid 1 piece casing and also a magazine for extra rounds ... I'm sure the division will propose that in 2017.


 LOL


----------



## lunkerhunter2

I think i like the proposal. My eyesight is very messed up and this will allow me to see the animal much better to make a clean shot. Not to mention i will be able to shoot 4 or 500 yards now like everybody else(sarcasm here)


----------



## Packout

Utahgolf-- Thanks for the laugh!

Lunker- good to see you are getting on the LR train. Having hunted with a magnifying, variable power scope on my ML I can assure you that you can be shooting out to 400 yards if you have a decent ML and spend some time getting to know your scope. (no sarcasm here)

Now, I wonder if the FS will change its policy for me to ride my motorcycle on the trails along the Front. My knees aren't what they once were.......


----------



## lunkerhunter2

There are several motorcycle accessible trails on the front that quads arent allowed on.:grin:


----------



## RandomElk16

Packout, I just use one of these:

https://www.rokon.com/

Figure I don't need permission.

I am also buying one of these if the rule passes:

http://www.gunwerks.com/Shooting-Systems/muzzleLoader

I mean, they have only used it to kill at 700. But I google guns a lot so I should be able to swing 1000 yards with that. Suddenly ML just got a whole lot easier.


----------



## Fishracer

utahgolf said:


> On muzzleloaders, I wish they'd allow the primer, powder and bullet to be in a solid 1 piece casing and also a magazine for extra rounds ... I'm sure the division will propose that in 2017.


Dont forget the gps tracking device inside the slug! ;-)


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> I am also buying one of these if the rule passes:
> 
> http://www.gunwerks.com/Shooting-Systems/muzzleLoader
> 
> I mean, they have only used it to kill at 700. But I google guns a lot so I should be able to swing 1000 yards with that. Suddenly ML just got a whole lot easier.


Due to the locking lugs on the action, they dont count as a muzzleloader to the BATF, and will need a FFL transfer. There is a site I follow that hardcore people are doing incredible things to smokepoles... if you can still call them that. Most of them are now dropping to 40cal and the ranges are incredible. They are building them off Rem700 actions.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

As my eyes deteriorate, I can see a point in the future where I'll have to give up smokepole hunting w/ 1x scopes, so only due to that point would I support a 2x magnification change. 

1x scopes actually makes the image smaller, so a 2x scope would only make the target appear slightly larger. 

I am opposed to any magnification greater than 2x on muzzleloaders.


-DallanC


----------



## Critter

DallanC said:


> As my eyes deteriorate, I can see a point in the future where I'll have to give up smokepole hunting w/ 1x scopes, so only due to that point would I support a 2x magnification change.
> 
> 1x scopes actually makes the image smaller, so a 2x scope would only make the target appear slightly larger.
> 
> I am opposed to any magnification greater than 2x on muzzleloaders.
> 
> -DallanC


One other thing on my muzzle loaders that I have found is that if I am using my inline with a smaller rear sight I can't focus on both it the front sight and the animal so that is why I went to a peep sight. On my side lock with a larger rear sight I have no problem focusing on all three at the same time.


----------



## Mavis13

If I may add;
Ya cuz there's not enough dough heads up there now that have no idea what they are doing so lets add some more by continuing to make it easier!!!!!!! What happened to primitive?????? I want it back. This kind of crap is what the General season is for.


----------



## mack1950

a 2 power scope would have been real nice last night on a spike I had coming in to me it was a real race to see if it got to dark for proper sight alignment or if I would have to let him pass, with a two power scope the situation would have been greatly improved and while anything over 2 power I cringe at it would have helped to have had a bit more light and magnification. by the way I had to pass on the shot :neutral:


----------



## utahgolf

mack1950 said:


> a 2 power scope would have been real nice last night on a spike I had coming in to me it was a real race to see if it got to dark for proper sight alignment or if I would have to let him pass, with a two power scope the situation would have been greatly improved and while anything over 2 power I cringe at it would have helped to have had a bit more light and magnification. by the way I had to pass on the shot :neutral:


almost as if stricter regs gives those animals more of a chance ;-)


----------



## Springville Shooter

Sign me up for the early season, orange free, single shot rifle season.-----SS


----------



## goofy elk

Springville Shooter said:


> Sign me up for the early season, orange free, single shot rifle season.-----SS


This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Magnifying scopes will make the popular Muzzy hunt even more popular..:!:..


----------



## utahgolf




----------



## Critter

goofy elk said:


> This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Magnifying scopes will make the popular Muzzy hunt even more popular..:!:..


I agree with you to a point but I know a lot of rifle hunters that just don't want to deal with what you have to with a black powder rifle. I have even tried to talk them into it since it has been a easy tag to draw and the weather is usually so much better the end of September than the middle of October. But they refuse to even think about it.

Perhaps it will happen when they allow a higher magnification scope on the ML hunts, it will be interesting. I do know that if it does happen I have a real nice 3x9x40 scope that is going to go onto mine, but then I'll have to pick up another ML for hunting out of state in Colorado.


----------



## johnnycake

I would be OK with aa 2x limit on the scope. Personally, I think the biggest limiting factor in the muzzleloader is the reload time, and as long as that doesn't change, I really don't care if they allow magnifying scopes


----------



## utahgolf

it is a complete game changer with a more magnified scope. People are kidding themselves when they say it isn't. A 1x was the single determining factor on me not being able to take a shot on 3 different bucks this year. It would've been a cake walk. and a lot of people are going to realize that. Here comes the 1st true early rifle season.


----------



## torowy

I really hope they don't approve higher magnification. I was reading through the RAC meeting notes a little. Seems like most people are open with a slight increase. It will just turn into a rifle hunt.

When I was 14 and starting hunting (1996). Anything over 300 was considered a long shot with a rifle. Most people had 4x or 6x scopes and they were fixed power. Now most people consider anything over 500 yards a long shot. The problem is... of all the people I know that will take a 500 yard shot, almost all have never actually shot their rifle 500 yards at a target. Most don't even know their actual bullet drop at that range. I know LOTS of hunters. They are just slinging lead. But since they can see the deer in their 9x scope they think they should be able to hit them. 

The ideal situation is people knowing their equipment and knowing at what level they can be proficient. But I am sad to say that most people throw ethics out the door when the animal is in their sights. Rather than trying to get closer or some other tactic they decide to shoot and pray. Hey, sometimes it even works out.

I think if we want muzzle-loading to keep what semblance of primitive hunt it still has. We can't put higher powered scopes on them.


----------



## Rspeters

I'm not a fan of it. I personally think the line should have been drawn at open sights, not allowing any optics on the rifle at all.


----------



## Critter

Rspeters said:


> I'm not a fan of it. I personally think the line should have been drawn at open sights, not allowing any optics on the rifle at all.


It's a whole different world when you go hunt in another state where they don't allow any scopes, pellets, or sabots. You get back to what the muzzle loader season really was suppose to be. 
Then you get to the states that don't allow closed ignition systems and the rifle has to have a exposed hammer.


----------



## DallanC

Critter said:


> It's a whole different world when you go hunt in another state where they don't allow any scopes, pellets, or sabots.


Thats really the starting spot to limit ML success / ranges. I've always argued against the "inline vs sidelock" arguments as todays sidelocks are just as technologically improved as inlines.

You want to limit Smokepoles, you do it via its components. Full bore lead projectiles, pyrodex or Black powder propellant, caps only. DONE.



> You get back to what the muzzle loader season really was suppose to be.


What do you base that on? I have tags going back to when the hunt started... its always just said "muzzleloader" on them. I cant find a single reference to the word "primitive" in any of my hunting regs that I still have, going back to the 80s.



> Then you get to the states that don't allow closed ignition systems and the rifle has to have a exposed hammer.


Yup, wish that hadn't been allowed. Waterproofing ML's was a artform and easily done. You never see a "calfs knee" anymore in the hills... just dorks with condoms on their barrels. :mrgreen:

I ran a test once with a hawkin barrel I waterproofed. Submerged the entire thing for 10-15 minutes then test fired it. It went off without a hitch!

-DallanC


----------



## mcc9

If this passes I don't know if I will put a multiple magnifying scope on, just a 4x. I have 2 of them being unused right now. I think it gives better accuracy for cleaner kills. I am ok with my 1x scope now, but would like to use my 4x scope. It won't change the distances I shoot. No matter what sighting mechanism is on my ml I wouldn't shoot much further that 150 yards max. I know that at that distance I can take something down with enough energy at impact to kill cleanly and quickly. I haven't shot anything more that about 80 yards and will hope that never changes. I also think that it will give my kids a better chance at filling tags when opportunities arise. Even with a rifle I like to stay as close to 200 yards or less as possible. I hate wounding animals and choose my shots accordingly. That is just me though.


----------



## Mavis13

I'd still like to see it be loose powder, 100% lead projectile and no glass sights. I'm a traditionalist and have been since I was 17. That's the fun in it for me. As Dallan pointed out, I've been learning the tricks and techniques to do this right for a couple of decades now. There is some art to it. But now that there's so much 200yd plus equipment out there that use bullets and pellets that take no skill to use that there's no longer any deer for me. Sure I could just go buy a new ML rifle start using pellets and put a scope on it but then I might as well just do the General hunt and use my 06. This will no longer be a Muzzy hunt it will just be an early hunt.


----------



## toasty

I don't think it will change anything. We have the idiots that think they can hit a deer with open sights at 300 yards with no clue what the ballistics or holdover are at the range. Now you'll have the same idiots with scope that will miss for the same reason. There are ethical hunters and non ethical hunters. In my opinion, this will only help the ethical hunters with better shot placement. 

They sell all the tags anyway, so it won't result in more hunters, maybe just a point or two more to draw a muzzleloader tag in the coveted GS areas making draws a little easier in non coveted areas. I am not ashamed to say I fully support this. 

I feel for the guys that used to hunt primitive back in the day, I was too young, but had uncles that did. They would give almost anything to get that back again. However, today we have inlines that are capable of MOA accuracy at 300 yards, fire 99% of the time, it is not primitive anymore, it makes no sense to limit one component. I don't see it going to backwards, I guess the only chance primitive guys have is if they make a primitive season.


----------



## Critter

DallanC said:


> Thats really the starting spot to limit ML success / ranges. I've always argued against the "inline vs sidelock" arguments as todays sidelocks are just as technologically improved as inlines.
> I guess that my problem with my sidelock is over 30 years old now but with huge pieces of lead it more accurate than my inline with open sights.
> 
> You want to limit Smokepoles, you do it via its components. Full bore lead projectiles, pyrodex or Black powder propellant, caps only. DONE.
> I'm with you on that one. When I started to hunt with a ML all you could purchase was Black Powder and lead projectiles.
> 
> What do you base that on? I have tags going back to when the hunt started... its always just said "muzzleloader" on them. I cant find a single reference to the word "primitive" in any of my hunting regs that I still have, going back to the 80s.
> People misinterpet the words "primitive and muzzle loader" and think that they mean the same thing which they don't. In my opinion it was started to allow people that were more interested in shooting a muzzle loader to be able to hunt deer during their own season. But back then there were only flintlocks, and sidelocks that used caps along with some matchlocks from what I remember. I don't think that inlines were even being though of.
> 
> Yup, wish that hadn't been allowed. Waterproofing ML's was a artform and easily done. You never see a "calfs knee" anymore in the hills... just dorks with condoms on their barrels. :mrgreen:
> 
> I ran a test once with a hawkin barrel I waterproofed. Submerged the entire thing for 10-15 minutes then test fired it. It went off without a hitch!
> I have used enough grease in the barrel that as long as you kept the caps dry you didn't have any problems. But I have seen where during a long rain storm where you would get a real nice hang fire when you pulled the trigger. A friend of mine almost shot a hefer one year after his rifle didn't go off when he pulled the trigger. He pulled it down from his shoulder and it went off about 30 seconds later.
> 
> -DallanC


My reply is in red.


----------



## DallanC

We are more in agreement than not.



Critter said:


> I guess that my problem with my sidelock is over 30 years old now but with huge pieces of lead it more accurate than my inline with open sights.


I rebarreled my Hawkin with a fast twist quality White muzzleloader barrel, same twist as my Rem700. With the same load, they shoot pretty much identically. Condolences to people with hawkins and the crappy 1/48" twist barrels they used to come with. Terrible performance that will never be very good... but if a guy rebarrels, or gets a proper twist to begin with... hawkins / flintlocks are every bit as accurate as any inline.




Critter said:


> I'm with you on that one. When I started to hunt with a ML all you could purchase was Black Powder and lead projectiles.


I was using cut patch ticking and using pistol bullets from about my first season hunting with the old hawkin. Maxiballs sucked in my gun, and I hadn't discovered "Ball-ets" yet.ah,

_


Critter said:



People misinterpet the words "primitive and muzzle loader" and think that they mean the same thing which they don't. In my opinion it was started to allow people that were more interested in shooting a muzzle loader to be able to hunt deer during their own season. But back then there were only flintlocks, and sidelocks that used caps along with some matchlocks from what I remember. I don't think that inlines were even being though of.

Click to expand...



_
White had their production inline out pretty early compared to when the first season came out... and for those that don't remember or were too young, it was never its own season. It was merely a short extension to the rifle season, which you had to use your rifle tag on.




Critter said:


> I have used enough grease in the barrel that as long as you kept the caps dry you didn't have any problems. But I have seen where during a long rain storm where you would get a real nice hang fire when you pulled the trigger. A friend of mine almost shot a hefer one year after his rifle didn't go off when he pulled the trigger. He pulled it down from his shoulder and it went off about 30 seconds later.


LOL thats funny... scary but funny. I'd put a piece of black electrical tape over the barrel, wrap wax around the cap where it meets the nipple. Later I started using 1/8" Vinyl hose cut 3/16" long, slip it over the cap / nipple and it would seal it pretty good. THEN I'd toss a calfs knee over it... just cuz it looked cooler :mrgreen:

Man I loved hunting in those stormy Nov days.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter

My first muzzle loader season in Utah was back in 1976 if I remember right. It was in September and you could also hunt with center fire pistols.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

MarkM said:


> Was reading though the big game proposals for next year and it looks like the DWR is proposing to allow magnified Scopes on Muzzleloader's next year.
> 
> Below is a link to download the proposals.
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac/...rd-meeting-agendas-materials-and-minutes.html


Any idea when they will let us know when all these changes are final and if they pass? :noidea:


----------



## DallanC

I wish they would:

Require exposed ignition,
Require full bore lead conicals,
Require loose Powder,
Require Pyrodex or Black Powder only,
Require #11 caps only.

Minimally, that would reign in max ranges for most people.

I have two guns, inline and Hawkin that shoot sub 2" groups all day long with loads that fit the above. 


-DallanC


----------



## Mavis13

DallanC said:


> I wish they would:
> 
> Require exposed ignition,
> Require full bore lead conicals,
> Require loose Powder,
> Require Pyrodex or Black Powder only,
> Require #11 caps only.
> 
> Minimally, that would reign in max ranges for most people.
> 
> I have two guns, inline and Hawkin that shoot sub 2" groups all day long with loads that fit the above.
> 
> -DallanC


Amen


----------



## Springville Shooter

DC,

You should go hunt in Oregon.....those are their exact rules. If you want to see some cool muzzy hunting, check out the Juniper, Applegate, or Chetco hunts in Oregon or look up the Devils Garden, Bass Hill, East Lassen, or Doyle muzzy hunts in California. 

Trophy Blacktails in SW Oregon is on the short list for upcoming hunts. Exposed ignition, thick coastal rain forest, huge rutting Blacktails. I'm there.------SS


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

I do like having the option of having a scope on my ML. 

If that pulls more people out of the rifle pool of applicants, then I see it as a good thing.

Right now, ML tags are capped and ML's are the third most popular weapon in Utah. 

This may increase the popularity with more people taking the opportunity to choose ML's as a weapon or it will stay the same or the popularity will go down because people fear the change will ruin their hunt.

Predicting the future is tough, but I do like the change. I may be the minority on this forum on this, but I think it would be a good change.


----------



## mack1950

unless the up the cap on tags I really don't think there will be much of a change oh a few may switch but it will be a shuffling of those who already hunt elk as far our little group no one is switching the rifle hunters like the benefits with there extended ranges and while I agree I just hope those who do go to the extra magnification they realize poking holes in paper is not the same as poking a hole in a elk my top end range on elk is 200 yards and puts me in at about 900 that's with 3 pellets and a 300 grain slug that will get the job done but over that and your loosing to much energy to make a good ethical shot but again that's just one ole farts view


----------



## Broadside_Shot

If only I had a rifle during my archery hunt then I would have got one...
If only I had a cross bow during the archery hunt, then I would have got one...
If only I had only I had a 10X scope on my muzzle loader, then I would have got one...
I am 400 lbs so let me ride a 4 wheeler everywhere, then I would have got one...
If my coach in High School didn't hate me so bad, then I would be playing for the Yankees...

Boo Wah!!! It is called hunting for Hell Sake!!! What ever happen to the thrill of hunting!!!

There is a style of hunting that will accommodate every hunter out there if they choose to hunt.

We are continually losing the integrity of what Hunting is and it will eventually be the downfall.

Enjoy the Hunt!!!


----------



## justismi28

> If my coach in High School didn't hate me so bad, then I would be playing for the Yankees...


You as well eh? He even had the nerve to make me practice.


----------



## Dahlmer

Broadside_Shot said:


> We are continually losing the integrity of what Hunting is and it will eventually be the downfall.


 I don't see how allowing a magnified scope is going to deteriorate the integrity of hunting. I think there is more being made of this issue than really exists.


----------



## 4pointmuley

I called the DWR. They said if it passes we should know by December 2.


----------



## GeTaGrip

Well I wouldn't hold my breath for it to pass the WB, it was voted against at 2 of the RAC meetings. The one I attended, and it was obvious it was not going to get the support of the RAC.


----------



## utahgolf

GeTaGrip said:


> Well I wouldn't hold my breath for it to pass the WB, it was voted against at 2 of the RAC meetings. The one I attended, and it was obvious it was not going to get the support of the RAC.


this is good news!


----------



## DallanC

I wonder if I can get zoom contacts...


-DallanC


----------



## Dahlmer

GeTaGrip said:


> Well I wouldn't hold my breath for it to pass the WB, it was voted against at 2 of the RAC meetings. The one I attended, and it was obvious it was not going to get the support of the RAC.


Except the WB is not bound by anything that happens at the RAC meetings. What do you do when the RACs say one thing and the hunters want something different per the survey?


----------



## utahgolf

Dahlmer said:


> Except the WB is not bound by anything that happens at the RAC meetings. What do you do when the RACs say one thing and the hunters want something different per the survey?


well we just have to hope that anyone dealing with surveys knows how incredibly stupid they can be. and you can't always have the lunatics run the asylum. I'm sure we could get a bunch of hunters who would want loaded guns in trucks, shooting from a vehicle legal, paved roads up every mountain, zero 4 wheeler restrictions. etc.....


----------



## GeTaGrip

Dahlmer said:


> Except the WB is not bound by anything that happens at the RAC meetings. What do you do when the RACs say one thing and the hunters want something different per the survey?


I understand the WB does not have to accept the RAC recommendations, but they usually do.I kind of remeber some of the survey numbers. So out of 19000 hunters surveyed, they were pretty close to split, 56% of muzzleloader hunters were for magnafying scopes. I think overall there was like 53% support for magnafying scopes. Some want restrictions on magnification, fixed 2x or 4x. So lets see if the board cares about the survey.


----------



## mack1950

being a older hunter I like the idea of a fixed 2-4 power scope for clarity and bit of magnification. I don't like the idea of variables I mean what's the sense of a 12 power scope for a 200 yard shot. that is my take, maybe the dwr could rewrite there proposal and keep it at a lower fixed power that may appease those who don't really care for this as it is.


----------



## Critter

So what is really the difference between say a 4x scope and a 20x scope on a muzzle loader. They both will allow you to see the animal way better than you can with open sights and allow you to see a animal to shoot him a lot earlier and later in the day. 

Once they started to allow any scope onto a muzzle loader they might as well as allow any scope that you can afford onto one. Remember with a scope you are only limited on distance to the amount of elevation you want to hold on the animal.


----------



## Dahlmer

A 4x scope seems like a pretty good compromise to me. It would allow enough magnification to give precision at distances that most muzzleloaders are capable of shooting without making extreme distances a reality.

As I've studied this issue, I seem to have run into 3 primary objectives:

1. Increased success ratios
2. Increased wounding rates
3. Increased unethical shots

Have I missed anything? If not I will address these in a later post.


----------



## mack1950

those are pretty fair objectives it seems and I can only address it from my side there will without a try and stretch the limits of there weapons those that do not respect the quarry there after and have no idea of the limitations charges there using. there are folks who are a lot more proficient than I with a muzzleloader but for myself I keep the ranges at 200 are less heck if I want to shoot a elk at 500 id use my 338 wincherter mag. so that s why I like keeping the magnification on the lower end and im afraid that when you allow to much magnification there are those who will wind up wounding and taking shot s that they shouldn't but again that's just my opion


----------



## Dahlmer

Remembered a fourth objection.

4. Effectively turns muzzleloaders into single shot rifle.


----------



## Critter

Dahlmer said:


> Remembered a fourth objection.
> 
> 4. Effectively turns muzzleloaders into single shot rifle.


Ever since they allowed 1x scopes onto a ML it has been a single shot rifle.

On mine even with a peep sight at 150 yards the front sight covers enough of the animal that it is hard to get a real accurate shot into them. I can cover the front shoulder but I couldn't tell you just where on that shoulder that the bullet is going to hit. Now allow me to put a set of cross hairs onto the same shot and I become a lot better shooter at that range.


----------



## Dahlmer

Objection: Variable Power Scopes =>Increased Success ratios => Less opportunity

I understand the concern here, but after looking at the numbers I don't believe that this is likely to happen.

I looked at success ratios for rifle, muzzleloader and archery going back to 2001. The average success ratio over that time frame for rifle and muzzleloader hunts are as follows:

Rifle - 31.81%
Muzzleloader - 29.08%

The difference is 2.73%

The Mean is:

Rifle - 31.05%
Muzzleloader - 30.05%

Difference - 1%

The point is that muzzleloader success ratios are only marginally lower than rifle success ratios under the current regulations. In fact there are 3 years in which muzzleloader success ratios were higher than those for rifle hunters. The state currently issues 15,500 muzzleloader tags. If success ratios were to increase to the same level as rifle tags (which I don't think is realistic) that would result in an additional 423 bucks being killed using the average and 156 bucks using the mean. Obviously there will be years that the numbers exceed the average, but I don't see the DWR lowering tag numbers because of increase that small.

The muzzleloader hunt started out as an extension of the rifle hunt and has always been viewed by the DWR as essentially the same thing. In their mind, (and I believe hunters need to grasp this as well) in regard to deer management, there is no difference.


----------



## utahgolf

if you want to use a variable scope you can, hunt the any legal weapon hunt.!!! Why do we need to shape the ML hunt to be more like the any legal weapon hunt? If they want to do that than lets have 3 hunts. Early rifle, late rifle, and primitive weapon ML in november with tougher restrictions, open sites, conicals, etc...


----------



## Critter

utahgolf said:


> if you want to use a scope  you can, hunt the any legal weapon hunt.!!! Why do we need to shape the ML hunt to be more like the any legal weapon hunt? If they want to do that than lets have 3 hunts. Early rifle, late rifle, and primitive weapon ML in november with tougher restrictions, open sites, conicals, etc...


Fixed it for you...


----------



## DallanC

Scopes are cool










-DallanC


----------



## Dahlmer

Objection #4: Scopes essentially turn Muzzleloaders into single shot rifles.

I'll address this objection next because it will help address #2 and #3 also.

There seems to be this idea out there that a variable power scope will somehow turn an ordinary muzzleloader into a sophisticated modern rifle. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Maybe we should begin by examining what exactly a scope does. It magnifies the object you are looking at by some power making it appear closer and allows for more precision when aiming. I understand that modern optics do allow for MOA adjustments etc. but that is true of many open sight and red dot options that are already legal and regularly used in Utah. It does not make a rifle shoot better and it certainly doesn't improve the shooting technique of the guy pulling the trigger. I guess we can also argue that it will allow shots during early dawn or late dusk hours with its ability to gather light.

Now before moving into a discussion of ballistics, lets address the most obvious differences between a single shot rifle and muzzleloader. While a single shot bolt action rifle can't be fired and reloaded as quickly as a semi auto action or even as quickly as a bolt action with a magazine, a well practiced hunter can shoot and reload only fractionally more slowly. Simply eject the empty casing put a new shell into the action and close the bolt. It may be the difference between getting 4 shots off instead of 3...maybe.

Now to reload a muzzleloader I must turn the barrel up, drop in powder or pellets, follow it with my bullet of choice, grab the rod and push it all into the bottom of the barrel. Eject my cap or primer, place a new cap or primer into the rifle. Relocate the game if it has not already run over hill and hope to get another shot off. How many guys can do all of this in under 30 seconds? 20? Does a variable power scope make this any quicker or easier?

Now, lets take a look at ballistics...

The Barnes Spit Fire TMZ (290 grain) has one of the highest ballistic coefficients for a muzzleloader. I have seen reports of guys shooting them at 2,300 f/s with accuracy. Assuming you are one of those guys that can get your gun to do that let me first say congratulations, you are a unicorn, and secondly lets examine what happens to your bullet after it leaves your barrel. I am assuming close to a 200 yard zero and a 10 mph crosswind.

yds v corr(inch) h corr (inch)
50, -1.15, .5
100, -2.4, 2.2
150, -1.42, 5
200, 2.13, 9.3
250, 8.74, 15.2
300, 18.9, 22.8
350, 33.31, 32.4
400, 52.76, 44.2
450, 78.27, 58
500, 111.06, 76.1

The numbers are quite manageable out to about 200 yards. A experienced shooter could manage well out to 300. I don't believe it is reasonable that even 5% of hunters could consistently shoot passed 300 yards in hunting conditions. Drop is not the problem, although it starts falling out off the sky pretty quickly at 250 yards, but wind becomes unmanageable for most guys past 250 yards. 2 feet at 300, 4 feet at 400 and over 6 feet at 500.

Compare that to modern hunting rifles at the same range...

270 (130 gr Nosler Accubond @ 3,050 f/s) - 2" at 300, 2.8" at 400, 3.6" at 500 and 8.9" at 1,000 yards.

How about some long range loads....

7mm (168 gr Nosler Accubond LR @ 2,900 f/s) - 1.4" at 300, 1.9" at 400, 2.4" at 500 and 5.5" at 1,000 yards.

300 Ultramag (190 gr Nosler Accubond LR @ 3,100 f/s) - 1.3" at 300, 1.7" at 400, 2.2" at 500 and 5/1" at 1,000 yards.

Using a more realistic number of 2,000 f/s the performance looks much worse. bullet drop stays pretty close out to 200 yards but performs significantly worse beyond that range...12" at 250, 26" at 300, 46" at 350, 53" at 400, 78" at 450 and 111" at 500.

With your muzzleloader you may be able to maintain PBR out to 200 yards. Every modern rifle mentioned above will maintain PBR out to 300. Your MZ bullet has dropped 2 feet at 300 while all 3 rifles mentioned will be over 450 yards before dropping 2 feet.

The reality is that some guys could probably make the adjustment for bullet drop past 250 yards, but very few, including myself, are going to be able to accurately dope the wind and make the necessary horizontal corrections. This is where a muzzleloader falls woefully short of a rifle in terms of performance.


----------



## utahgolf

Dahlmer said:


> It does not make a rifle shoot better and it certainly doesn't improve the shooting technique of the guy pulling the trigger. .


It greatly increases the margin of error for poor technique. Most do not take longer shots due to that margin of error because of the aimpoint size. With a variable scope you are greatly reducing the aimpoint size and can still have poor trigger squeeze and not be that far off..


----------



## DallanC

I really dont believe this will pass, and I'm ok with it. I'll make due with crappy aging eyes until I cant do it anymore.

I do think though, the whole reason this is being floated is the current ML crowd are aging with not enough young people being recruited into it. Floating the idea of scopes is a stopgap for loss of older hunters. I see very few guys younger than me each year with a frontstuffer, just lots of older guys I really like to shoot the sheet with. Occasionally we even kill something.


-DallanC


----------



## Dahlmer

utahgolf said:


> It greatly increases the margin of error for poor technique. Most do not take longer shots due to that margin of error because of the aimpoint size. With a variable scope you are greatly reducing the aimpoint size and can still have poor trigger squeeze and not be that far off..


Which brings us to objection #2: More deer will be wounded.

Is it better to take a 200 yard shot with a 1x scope/open sites or with a 4x or 8x or 12x scope? Given your above statement, I would agree that higher power scope is more likely to result in a clean kill. These shots are being taken today under current regulations with regularity. Maybe not by you, but by many. I can't take that shot right now because I haven't found a load combination that produces results at that range that I'm comfortable with. I don't think a 12x scope is going to change that because my results at 50 yards correlate pretty close with my results at 100 and at 150 and at 200. I've been working on it for 5 years now and have about decided I need to scrap my gun or do some work to get more accuracy out of it.

So, that leads to the argument that more shots will be taken at longer distances. That is probably true, but will that result in more deer being wounded? I don't know; neither does anyone else. It is likely to remain unknown without any data to support it one way or the other. My guess is that wounding rates don't move up or down significantly. There are probably a few more deer taken from 150- 250 yards, which may increase success ratios somewhat, but probably not to rifle rates.

I could argue that wounding rates would fall because poor shooting technique or a lack familiarity with your gun's long range performance results in a clean miss rather than a wounding shot due to poor muzzleloader ballistics. Again, I don't know...there are obviously a lot of factors at play. At the end of the day, my guess is that wounding rates remain static.


----------



## mack1950

seems to me that how hard that slug hits at 200 plus yards is a argument that can be looked at also I haven't do the research that a lot have but I have worked up a load on my muzzy that has stood me very well for the last 10 years I use a 295 grain slug with 100 grains of powder and at 812 lbs of energy that's ok for a deer load but I use the same slug and 150 of powder and that brings it up to 1128 which I like to keep my energy level around 1000 for cleaner kills both these loads drop of significantly at 250 yard s and over and while you can surely poke holes in paper that's not the same as killing a animal at these ranges this is were you may see some extra wounding but one who knows his weapons and skill level will not over shoot the weapons capabilities so im all in favor of a scope that has a bit of magnification to allow me to see the kill zone s more clearly


----------



## Dahlmer

Objection #4: Variable power scopes will result in more unethical shots on animals.

This is circular logic. Ethics function independently of equipment and technology; these are tools only and will not determine a persons decision making process.

Quite simply...an unethical person will act unethically regardless of the tools at his disposal. If I understand the limitations of my weapon and my shooting capacity, then it will matter little whether I am using a longbow or a modern rifle equipped with the latest available technology. My ethics must determine that I not act outside of my ability or the capacity of the weapon I am using.

Ethics remain an independent variable. The same individuals taking unethical shots under current regulations will be the same people taking unethical shots under any new regulations. Adding or subtracting a variable power scope will not change that.


----------



## utahgolf

well I know using the scope for optics will greatly help people kill more deer, in that they will be able to pull up on the deer with there gun instead of having to glass them with bino's and then when that deer stops, bam! I could've done that on 3 different bucks but I had to glass them with my bino's first, they only stopped for that 2 second moment. and blah blah I know you shouldn't use your rifle as optics.... yada yada.


----------



## Dahlmer

utahgolf said:


> well I know using the scope for optics will greatly help people kill more deer, in that they will be able to pull up on the deer with there gun instead of having to glass them with bino's and then when that deer stops, bam! I could've done that on 3 different bucks but I had to glass them with my bino's first, they only stopped for that 2 second moment. and blah blah I know you shouldn't use your rifle as optics.... yada yada.


I addressed this in objection #1. It's not really feasible for MZ success ratios to rise above rifle success ratios which is the what have to happen for a significant increase deer harvest.


----------



## Packout

We need to ask Why. Why do people want a scope on their ML? So if wounding rates won't go up and success rates won't go up then why the need to allow them? If ethics can't be a reason then why the need to put them on a ML? The answer is simple-- a magnifying scope of 4x or greater makes an ML easier to shoot. People want them because they can't hunt well, or they can't get close enough due to the terrain, or because of physical abilities. In the end it is to make the weapon more efficient. So if the weapon is more efficient, then what does that mean? Easier to kill at closer ranges. Also easier to kill/hit at farther distances. 

Scopes on MLs will 1- increase ranges at which hunters will shoot-- thus wounding at longer ranges and negating the benefit from being more proficient at close range. 2- Take away from the experience-- part of the thrill of the ML hunt is to close the distance. 3- Put more pressure on the mature segment of the herd. No one can change my mind on the above because I have lived it. I have hunted with an ML for 3 decades, in many other states. I have personal experience with and personally watched what scoped MLs can do-- and that includes shooting mature bucks at over 300 yards. 

Scope proponents seem to act like scopes will do nothing to improve killing or increase success. If that is true, then why do they want scopes on MLs? Because it makes a ML easier to shoot and KILL the game we all love to chase.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Packout said:


> Scope proponents seem to act like scopes will do nothing to improve killing or increase success. If that is true, then why do they want scopes on MLs? Because it makes a ML easier to shoot and KILL the game we all love to chase.


You can make the same argument about why we allow pins on bows.

Why do we allow pins on a bow?

Pin proponents seem to act like scopes (Arrow drop compensating pins vs bullet drop compensating reticles) will do nothing to improve killing or increase success. If that is true, then why do they want Pins on bows? Because it makes a bow easier to shoot and KILL the game we all love to chase.

Easy to shoot and kill game should be a good thing. Would as many people get into bow hunting if they were forced to shoot a recurve or a longbow?

Would as many people get into muzzleloader hunting if they were forced to shoot open sights, loose powder, ball & patch?

Being the 3rd most popular weapon in Utah there is really no issue with over harvest.

As Dahlmer mentioned you are more likely to clean miss long shots with a ML, so the wounding rate would remain about the same.

If you are so worried about wounding then why do we allow bow hunting?

I've read a few studies that bow wounding rates are 1 in 5 and many tv shows I have watched have shown animals wounded by a bow.

This does not mean that we take away bow hunting, this means we educate people on the ethics of taking a good ethical shot.

Some states require a archery permit in addition to a hunting permit/tag, the same thing can be done with ML's.

Instruct people about how much the bullet drops and moves in the wind, muzzleloader safe unloading and loading practices, and the dangers of barrel obstructions.


----------



## utahgolf

well until they allow sabots from a drone, there are some that won't be happy.


----------



## sagebrush

of the the three most used weapons for hunting today. it seems the muzzle loader is the #1 most people have an issue with. but we have a new one coming into play according to utahgolf the "drone"


----------



## Packout

Muscle-- under that same logic then why don't we allow scopes on bows? Why do we draw the line on technologies which we deem inappropriate? If "easy to kill" is what we are after, will that have an effect on how much hunting opportunity is available? 

Again, having experienced firsthand muzzleloader hunting with a ball, patch, and loose Black Powder to hunting with a variable magnifying scope shooting pellets and sabots-- there is a large proficiency benefit to the latter. That benefit will place more pressure on the top end of the herd and still wound- yet at longer ranges. Those are facts I have witnessed first hand. My opinion is that long-range muzzleloader hunting will take away from my enjoyment of the sport and could result in less permits being issued-- depending on herd growth and each unit. Scopes increase a ML's proficient range.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Packout said:


> Muscle-- under that same logic then why don't we allow scopes on bows? Why do we draw the line on technologies which we deem inappropriate? If "easy to kill" is what we are after, will that have an effect on how much hunting opportunity is available?
> 
> Again, having experienced firsthand muzzleloader hunting with a ball, patch, and loose Black Powder to hunting with a variable magnifying scope shooting pellets and sabots-- there is a large proficiency benefit to the latter. That benefit will place more pressure on the top end of the herd and still wound- yet at longer ranges. Those are facts I have witnessed first hand. My opinion is that long-range muzzleloader hunting will take away from my enjoyment of the sport and could result in less permits being issued-- depending on herd growth and each unit. Scopes increase a ML's proficient range.


I am not against range finders on bows, scopes on bows, or crossbows in archery season.

I think it is the fear of the unknown on these features that scares archers into feeling it will dampen their experience.

Range finding scopes (Burris Eliminator 3) and Scopes with turrets to dial in distance and elevation haven't ruined the rifle hunt. In fact there are people like Jim Shockey that will use a ML during the rifle hunt and Remi Warren who filmed himself using a recurve bow during a rifle hunt.

It just gives people more options on what they can do to their weapon of choice and those that want to hunt without the advances in technology still can.

I just can't see how the 3rd most popular weapon in Utah with capped permits can have a detriment on the deer herd and the associated permits. I would venture to say winter has a much bigger impact on deer herds than ML hunting. Could you explain for increased success in the 3rd most popular hunt with capped permits will decrease the number of tags more than other factors?

I don't see how adding a scope will hurt anyone's experience in ML hunting, if you get away from people and into the animals you will have chances at success.

Modern Sabots and Conicals are to ball and patch as modern long range loads are to 30-30 hollow point loads. Just an advancement in technology.

Imagine if rifle rules were you could only use a 30-30 where everything after 200 yards was a stretch.

Even with modern powders and loads you are dropping so much at 200+ yards it would be hard for even a gifted marksman to be consistent with any sort of wind.


----------



## Mengximing

*ML scope thoughgts*

As a muzzleloader hunter, i can say that i am neither for or against the proposal. There are arguments to either direction.The magnifying scope would do the following:

-easier target acquisition, i can find the buck and biggest buck without using binoculars. it would also reduce the likelihood of mistaking a doe for a small buck.
-better shot placement, i have a 2 moa red dot. Even with this small aim point, shots at over 100 yards with no magnification are difficult to be precise. I was successful this year, but my "ethical" shot was not perfectly placed. With a scope, it would have been more dialed in and reduced the odds of wounding a deer.
-increase the number of longer shots. With my current red dot set up. i can hit a target at 200. With the scope however, i would be much more accurate at this range.
- more deer killed cleanly, i think the success rates would be higher, but overall probably fewer wounded deer. People are making long unethical shots today, but with a magnifying scope, they would be more likely to make a clean kill. I dont see a dramatic increase in the number of 250 plus yard shots. I think the people that would take these shots are already taking the shot without the magnifying scope.

The magnifying scope would not help with the following:
-reload time, you most often get 1 shot at a deer. By the time you reload, the deer is down or ran out of range. You have to add powder, bullet, ram down the barrel, replace primer. It takes probably 45 seconds to a minute for most people.
-buck fever...need i say more.
-potential for misfire, hangfire. I have never had an issue with a rifle not firing correctly. This has cost my dad and i a couple of nice deer over the years with muzzleloaders.
-bullet drop/windage/energy. The effective range of a muzzleloader is 250 yards imo. After that the drop is rediculous. If i remember right it is 25 plus inches between 250-300. this is comparable to 450+ with a rifle. the majority of people wont be able to consistently hit anything past 300.

With a magnifying scope, i would be effective out to 200 vs 150 now. With a "long shot" going to 250 from current 200. I dont see the scopes adding much more than 50 effective yards to the average hunter. I do see a big improvement to the 150-200 yard shots, which will likely lead to more deer successfully retrieved.

I would be in support of a "primitive ML" season either before the current ML season or after the rifle. I havent seen a traditional used in the field in a long time. In my experience, The inlines are just sooo much more effective and reliable. I have been on these hunts and they are fun, but a different ballgame than the current modern inline ML hunt that we have. I am sure some people can shoot them well, but my experience was 75-100 yards with a traditional.


----------



## GeTaGrip

Packout said:


> Muscle-- under that same logic then why don't we allow scopes on bows? Why do we draw the line on technologies which we deem inappropriate? If "easy to kill" is what we are after, will that have an effect on how much hunting opportunity is available?
> 
> Again, having experienced firsthand muzzleloader hunting with a ball, patch, and loose Black Powder to hunting with a variable magnifying scope shooting pellets and sabots-- there is a large proficiency benefit to the latter. That benefit will place more pressure on the top end of the herd and still wound- yet at longer ranges. Those are facts I have witnessed first hand. My opinion is that long-range muzzleloader hunting will take away from my enjoyment of the sport and could result in less permits being issued-- depending on herd growth and each unit. Scopes increase a ML's proficient range.


Pack, under your same logic, was it 40-45 year ago PSE put wheels and cables on bows and revolutionized archery equipment as we know it. We now have "long range archery" guys shooting at and killing animals out to 100 plus yards. And well they don't take away from my enjoyment of archery hunting. Side note.......... Ya all realize that the lions share of deer permits go to the guys with high power rifles and scopes.


----------



## utahgolf

GeTaGrip said:


> Pack, under your same logic, was it 40-45 year ago PSE put wheels and cables on bows and revolutionized archery equipment as we know it. We now have "long range archery" guys shooting at and killing animals out to 100 plus yards. And well they don't take away from my enjoyment of archery hunting. Side note.......... Ya all realize that the lions share of deer permits go to the guys with high power rifles and scopes.


so shouldn't people who want to use high powered scopes on a ML just hunt the any legal weapon hunt? All these guys wanting regs changed because they are aging is really amusing to me. When my vision goes, I will switch back to rifle. When my knees go, I will road hunt. I wouldn't expect atv roads to be opened up in the back country because of bad knees or handicapped ground blinds for older hunters. It's just part of life, I won't expect regs changed for me because of that.


----------



## mack1950

lets look at the ballistic facts can a muzzleloader shoot over three hundred yards yes but what elevation adjustments do you need to make that shot.
will there be wounding of big game yes there will but don't try and tell me there is not wound with a rifle or archery
will there be more deer taken I believe there will be but all the same were not talking about a major increase in hunter muzzleloader hunters get 20% of the permits, will there be a switch from the other pools to muzzleloader
not much in fact those I have asked said h--- no there no changing.
would there be a major increase in harvest even the dwr says that a 10% would be very unlikely. know im one of the older hunters in the form and I have hunted the last 10 years as a muzzleloader hunter I personally wouldn't mind and if passed im swapping a 4 power I have over to the muzzy I shoot and if it doesn't I keep on using the little one power I have. to me using a variable scope may be a bit excessive but than letting the muzzleloaders having a bit of magnification would not hurt a thing and it may let a few of us older hunters stay in the pool a bit longer I know im not going to hold 5 feet over a bucks back at 300 yards and try to lob a round into him most hunters I know of hate that kind of cr-p with intensity


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

utahgolf said:


> so shouldn't people who want to use high powered scopes on a ML just hunt the any legal weapon hunt? All these guys wanting regs changed because they are aging is really amusing to me. When my vision goes, I will switch back to rifle. When my knees go, I will road hunt. I wouldn't expect atv roads to be opened up in the back country because of bad knees or handicapped ground blinds for older hunters. It's just part of life, I won't expect regs changed for me because of that.


Shouldn't people who do not want use a high powered scope on a ML not use them in an any legal muzzleloader hunt?

Given that the crosshairs of the current 1x regulation cover the deer at 100 yards, would it not make more sense to increase the magnification to allow for a better placement of the shot?


----------



## utahgolf

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Given that the crosshairs of the current 1x regulation cover the deer at 100 yards, would it not make more sense to increase the magnification to allow for a better placement of the shot?


or just move 25 yards closer? or as close as you have to. Why is the "hunting" aspect overlooked and dismissed?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

utahgolf said:


> or just move 25 yards closer? or as close as you have to. Why is the "hunting" aspect overlooked and dismissed?


Sometimes 100 yards is all the closer that you are going to get and sometimes you can cut that distance to 25 yards - I would think both are a part of the "hunting" aspect.

The "hunting" aspect is difficult to define on any level, because it will be based on personal experience or feelings than an actual factual definition.

Situational awareness is easy to point out when you are not in the situation.

A magnifying scope on ML could diminish a personal view of the "hunting" aspect to one individual, but could increase the "hunting" aspect on another individual.

Has the "hunting" aspect changed with bow hunters with modern bows that are capable of shooting more accurate and farther than the more traditional archery equipment?

Has the "hunting" aspect changed with rifle hunters with modern rifle calibers that are capable of shooting more accurate and farther than the .30-30?

It's all a point of view. Some will say it has and others will say it hasn't.

Expanding the regulation to allow for magnified optics will not diminish personal experiences from those who want to limit themselves with open/peep sights or 1x magnification, because you can still use those methods if you still wish. What it will do is allow for those who choose to use the technology to use the technology and allow them to have a muzzle-loading experience. Whether that falls under the "hunting aspect", it depends on the individual.


----------



## Dahlmer

Packout said:


> We need to ask Why. Why do people want a scope on their ML? So if wounding rates won't go up and success rates won't go up then why the need to allow them? If ethics can't be a reason then why the need to put them on a ML? The answer is simple-- a magnifying scope of 4x or greater makes an ML easier to shoot. People want them because they can't hunt well, or they can't get close enough due to the terrain, or because of physical abilities. In the end it is to make the weapon more efficient. So if the weapon is more efficient, then what does that mean? Easier to kill at closer ranges. Also easier to kill/hit at farther distances.
> 
> Scopes on MLs will 1- increase ranges at which hunters will shoot-- thus wounding at longer ranges and negating the benefit from being more proficient at close range. 2- Take away from the experience-- part of the thrill of the ML hunt is to close the distance. 3- Put more pressure on the mature segment of the herd. No one can change my mind on the above because I have lived it. I have hunted with an ML for 3 decades, in many other states. I have personal experience with and personally watched what scoped MLs can do-- and that includes shooting mature bucks at over 300 yards.
> 
> Scope proponents seem to act like scopes will do nothing to improve killing or increase success. If that is true, then why do they want scopes on MLs? Because it makes a ML easier to shoot and KILL the game we all love to chase.


I think this is a fair question, and one that anyone pushing scopes should be able to answer. To start, I guess I should state my position. I lean toward allowing scopes...although if it does not pass, which is likely, I won't be upset.

My posts are more to illustrate what I believe are some of the misconceptions regarding muzzleloader hunting. I have been hunting with a muzzleloader for 5 years now; I shoot sabots over loose powder through an inline. I have never used "traditional" weapons or components for hunting purposes. I understand that probably has impact on my views.

Now, back to why. Because I don' think that the limiting factor in shooting a muzzleloader should be my targeting device. PBR for most modern muzzleloaders can be close 175-200 yards. Open sites, 1x scopes and red dots do not provide precise targeting at those distances. Targeting is somewhat compromised even at 125-150 yards. Others have indicated that max range is probably around 250 yards. I would say for better than 90% of hunters max range under good conditions would be somewhere between 250-300 yards even less for many. Ballistics beyond that range are pretty sketchy at best and I doubt more than a handful of hunters would take the time to become proficient at those ranges. With any kind of wind at all, anything over 200 yards can become really difficult regardless of optics.

Will it make it easier to kill deer? Possibly, maybe even probably. I have yet to kill a deer with my muzzleloader, but its not the lack of a magnified scope that has prevented me from doing so. I just haven't had the right buck in the right situation.


----------



## utahgolf

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Expanding the regulation to allow for magnified optics will not diminish personal experiences from those who want to limit themselves with open/peep sights or 1x magnification, because you can still use those methods if you still wish. What it will do is allow for those who choose to use the technology to use the technology and allow them to have a muzzle-loading experience. Whether that falls under the "hunting aspect", it depends on the individual.


it will put more jackwagons in the field, lobbing longer shots. I think that diminishes a lot of peoples experiences. People hunting the ML know that it is a 1x limitation but in this day in age, if they don't like it, they think it should be changed to cater their experience or needs. I got into ML hunting fully aware of the limitations and regs, I'm not advocating limiting anything currently nor expanding. If I sign up for a golf tournament and can't hit it as far as others, should I have them set up the course at a shorter distance for me? or do I switch to a different flight of players and play from tee's I should be playing from? We can go round and round on this. I'm done talking about it but with technology, Sometimes just because you can, doesn't mean you should. carry on.


----------



## GeTaGrip

utahgolf said:


> so shouldn't people who want to use high powered scopes on a ML just hunt the any legal weapon hunt? All these guys wanting regs changed because they are aging is really amusing to me. When my vision goes, I will switch back to rifle. When my knees go, I will road hunt. I wouldn't expect atv roads to be opened up in the back country because of bad knees or handicapped ground blinds for older hunters. It's just part of life, I won't expect regs changed for me because of that.


I don't expect regs to change for my aliling eye's and I see both sides of this. Me personally, I don't want to hunt in October on a rifle hunt with twice as many people afield just because I can't see my quary. There are a lot of good arguments on this, some good and some not so good. I think it boils down to change and ethics......... we can't legislat ethics, and people usually don't like change. We'll see what the WB decides. My guess, it doesn't change.


----------



## coues52

1+ getagrip...my eyes do not work like I was younger either..i have enjoyed muzzleloader hunts for almost 20 years..but now 1x scope don't work for me, been using a aputure sight,but that's coming to a end now..when I can no longer see whats beyond my target/deer to shot safely its time to walk away from the sport that I love..coues52


----------



## cc6565

Any magnification on a muzzle loader just passed


----------



## Dahlmer

cc6565 said:


> Any magnification on a muzzle loader just passed


Not only passed, but passed unanimously. That surprised me. I thought they may try a motion to limit magnification. Looks like there will be a lot of 1x and red dot scopes on the market now.


----------



## Packout

Now I can use my special Thompson ML topped with a 6.5x20 Leupold. I have shot it in Kansas for years and am able to shoot to 400 yards. I've never shot at deer that far, but 250 is a chip shot. Seriously, 300+ is fairly easy. Anyone who does not believe that doesn't understand, nor have they ever tried. Should make for an interesting hunt this Fall. Baffling they didn't restrict it to a limited magnification.


----------



## RandomElk16

Packout said:


> Now I can use my special Thompson ML topped with a 6.5x20 Leupold. I have shot it in Kansas for years and am able to shoot to 400 yards. I've never shot at deer that far, but 250 is a chip shot. Seriously, 300+ is fairly easy. Anyone who does not believe that doesn't understand, nor have they ever tried. Should make for an interesting hunt this Fall. Baffling they didn't restrict it to a limited magnification.


Every year when I pull my TC encore out of the case I know I will hit bullseye first shot at 125. I can't believe the consistency of this thing. It flies very predictable. I know without a doubt I can hit steel at 400 with even a cheap 3x9. Scary to think what this means for both deer and elk hunting.


----------



## RandomElk16

Honest question, from someone who has eye issues, do any of you talking about eyesight wear contacts? You can shoot with glasses on also.

I am not being inconsiderate, I have astigmatism and my 1x certainly helps. The way some make it sound though, if they need 9x magnification can you drive ok?


----------



## lunkerhunter2

I uust ordered a shephard scope for my optima pro


----------



## sagebrush

RandomElk16 said:


> Honest question, from someone who has eye issues, do any of you talking about eyesight wear contacts? You can shoot with glasses on also.
> 
> I am not being inconsiderate, I have astigmatism and my 1x certainly helps. The way some make it sound though, if they need 9x magnification can you drive ok?


I believe most of this deals with reading glasses. You have a hard time focusing both th he rear and front sights.
I have some progressive lenses to help out for this. They cost twice than regular lenses.


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> Honest question, from someone who has eye issues, do any of you talking about eyesight wear contacts? You can shoot with glasses on also.
> 
> I am not being inconsiderate, I have astigmatism and my 1x certainly helps. The way some make it sound though, if they need 9x magnification can you drive ok?


Yes I do, special weighted ones to try and correct the inoperable, permanent double vision I have.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> Yes I do, special weighted ones to try and correct the inoperable, permanent double vision I have.
> 
> -DallanC


So do you wear these when shooting your rifle(with high power mag) and ML scope, or remove them?

Regardless, what effect do different powers of scopes have on this that you experience? Is there a certain point where you feel you have reached clear vision(magnification wise)?


----------



## utahgolf

absolute joke


----------



## RandomElk16

sagebrush said:


> I believe most of this deals with reading glasses. You have a hard time focusing both th he rear and front sights.
> I have some progressive lenses to help out for this. They cost twice than regular lenses.


With regular lenses, does 1X have a positive effect? What magnification do you notice?

My father uses reading glasses, I have astigmatism. We both feel 1X solves that for us. Trying to learn what conditions the magnification of a scope effect. I am trying to see the difference of a scope for magnification of range, vs as a corrective solution for vision, and at what power these occur.


----------



## DallanC

RandomElk16 said:


> So do you wear these when shooting your rifle(with high power mag) and ML scope, or remove them?
> 
> Regardless, what effect do different powers of scopes have on this that you experience? Is there a certain point where you feel you have reached clear vision(magnification wise)?


Wear them always. Blur is still there but mangable for the moment. Its more a double image, super imposed over each other. Fine details is hard to make out... deer body at 100 takes me a couple try's to get a clear bead on at 1x. Easier at higher magnification but still blurry.

I get by for now, but vision is slowly decreasing. I could use 1x scopes for a while longer, but as I said a while back eventually its going to push me out of the game.

-DallanC


----------



## sagebrush

RandomElk16 said:


> With regular lenses, does 1X have a positive effect? What magnification do you notice?
> 
> My father uses reading glasses, I have astigmatism. We both feel 1X solves that for us. Trying to learn what conditions the magnification of a scope effect. I am trying to see the difference of a scope for magnification of range, vs as a corrective solution for vision, and at what power these occur.


Progressive lenses allow me to be like someone with good vision without any defects. To shoot I have to use them or use a scope . I find myself wearing them more often around the house and working on smaller projects. It's better than taking off reader's all the time.

I have 20/20 vision just not up close .

Any scope works, but 1x sucks but its better than nothing.


----------



## RandomElk16

I am just curious. The only issue I can see with needing a high magnification to see muzzleloading, is that at close range its MORE difficult to use 6X+. With my rifle I have had to turn down mag at ranges out to 300. I like it about 3-4 power at that range. I was curious to know more, I doubt the RAC or WB asked any questions like I have.

Definitely not opposed to health exceptions.

I mainly was surprised it passed with no discussion and unanimous.


----------



## Critter

Sad day for the ML hunt, 

But on the other hand this coming spring my TC Triampth is getting a 3x9x40 put onto it.


----------



## RandomElk16

Critter said:


> Sad day for the ML hunt,
> 
> But on the other hand this coming spring my TC Triampth is getting a 3x9x40 put onto it.


I hate the idea of a bulk scope. I have a 2-7 laying around that I am going to throw on and see. Has the small body still. I think I will end up leaving the 1x. Maybe consider a 1-4. I want the low range for 95% of scenarios. Would just like to have a little additional for the 450 yard shot I am going to throw on my LE ML elk hunt...


----------



## 3arabians

If this would have been approved last year I would have got me a monster this year :shock::doh:


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Here's the video.






Audio is horrible, but none the less it is 7 hours of stuff.


----------



## utahgolf

of course they were going to use that skewed survey as their justification. I wonder how many people on that board have shot a ML? I wonder how many of that 57 percent in the survey have ever held a ML? and then the heart felt old timer sentiment, let the old men hunt ML for a few more years. I guess they can't use their ML in october? or switch to rifle? Clueless members making changes for the whole state. Truly amazing watching some of these guys bumble through the meeting. I wouldn't expect anything less though.


----------



## muddydogs

I'm all for the more magnification scope, I am not sure having unlimited magnification is a good thing and would have been happy with a 4x or 6x restriction. Guys complain that it is supposed to be primitive but we left primitive a long time ago with 209 ignition, inlines, sabots and covered breaches so why keep the toilet paper roll with cross hairs in it. I have no illusions that the 1x scope kept people from shooting to far and I'm sure that guys with 9x scopes will still shoot to far but guys are shooting to far with rifles and shotguns as well. I hope that this doesn't create a muzzy hunting boom, guess time will tell.


----------



## Critter

I personally know of 5 hunters that are going to switch from the general deer hunt to the muzzle loader hunt now that they can use higher power scopes. 

They like the better weather and earlier hunt.


----------



## ridgetop

Critter said:


> I personally know of 5 hunters that are going to switch from the general deer hunt to the muzzle loader hunt now that they can use higher power scopes.
> 
> They like the better weather and earlier hunt.


I still shoot the #11 cap in my 23 year old muzzy but from this day forward. I will be saving for a newer, high performance muzzleloader that can shoot blackhorn 209 with a higher powered scope.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Critter said:


> I personally know of 5 hunters that are going to switch from the general deer hunt to the muzzle loader hunt now that they can use higher power scopes.
> 
> They like the better weather and earlier hunt.


 Better get up earlier cause some one is going to beat you to your spot.


----------



## hunting777

Critter said:


> I personally know of 5 hunters that are going to switch from the general deer hunt to the muzzle loader hunt now that they can use higher power scopes.
> 
> They like the better weather and earlier hunt.


I am still a little torn on this. I don't know what think. I like the idea, it's going to take pressure off the rifle hunt. But in thinking about it, all we are doing is creating a earlier rifle season. Where you are not required to wear orange OR are they going to change that too?


----------



## utahnate

Well this convinced me to put in for LE muzzy elk now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC

I still think its a bad idea... and I absolutely wouldnt be surprised to see a restriction on magnification applied next year, say 4x. We've seen the wildlife board make dramatic reversals on policy regarding smokepoles in the past.


-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> and I absolutely wouldnt be surprised to see a restriction on magnification applied next year, say 4x.
> 
> -DallanC


I would be surprised. They didn't discuss that possibility 1 bit. John said you can only shoot so far no matter the magnification. They even joked about duct taping a spotting scope to the top. I think they are set on leaving it at any magnification.

If for anything, to justify the fact they made a very uninformed vote this year.


----------



## Dahlmer

DallanC said:


> I still think its a bad idea... and I absolutely wouldnt be surprised to see a restriction on magnification applied next year, say 4x. We've seen the wildlife board make dramatic reversals on policy regarding smokepoles in the past.
> 
> -DallanC


4x seemed like a very logical compromise to me. I was really surprised by the lack of discussion given the fact that 3 of the 5 RAC's opposed this regulation. John did make the comment that the emails he had received were overwhelmingly in favor of changing the regulation and maybe the other board members had the same experience...I don't know.

I wouldn't be upset to see them pull back the regulation to 4x, but I don't suspect that will happen.


----------



## DallanC

Bet it comes up at all the rac meetings over the next year, bet they all vote against unlimited magnification too.


-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16

DallanC said:


> Bet it comes up at all the rac meetings over the next year, bet they all vote against unlimited magnification too.
> 
> -DallanC


But will that matter? if 3/5 already opposed it this year and it passed, UNANIMOUSLY, why would it matter next year? Did you watch the board vote?


----------



## Mallardhead12

*Rule Change*

Am I the only one that's opposed to the new magnifying scope for muzzleloader rule that the DWR is putting out for 2016? I feel like it just takes away from the muzzleloader experience. Kind of hard to put in words how I feel about it.

I realize that I can, and will, keep using a 1x scope, but I know a lot of others won't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

Mallardhead12 said:


> Am I the only one that's opposed to the new magnifying scope for muzzleloader rule that the DWR is putting out for 2016? I feel like it just takes away from the muzzleloader experience. Kind of hard to put in words how I feel about it.
> 
> I realize that I can, and will, keep using a 1x scope, but I know a lot of others won't.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Call me crazy, but I'd look in the muzzleloading section of this Forum. There's all kinds of discussion on the new rule.

.


----------



## Spry Yellowdog

Well looks like the Red Dot is going to the A-R. The leupold VX 2 is going on the omega. And the 6mm gets a new scope. I just found me something for Christmas.


----------



## lunkerhunter2

Like 4 threads:shock:


----------



## utahgolf

Little late to the party. Also, Al Gore lost in the recount decision. Just making sure there's no thread started on that one.  ;-)


----------



## Mallardhead12

Wow. How can I delete this thread? Sorry about the dead horse, didn't mean to beat it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mallardhead12

Hah! Just looked at the muzz section and I just realized! Sorry folks I was very confused at to why there was no topics about this and wondered if I should start one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

Mallardhead12 said:


> Hah! Just looked at the muzz section and I just realized! Sorry folks I was very confused at to why there was no topics about this and wondered if I should start one.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're fine, don't worry about it. It's an important issue, glad you brought it up.

.


----------



## Springville Shooter

If you ask nice, Jedi Goob could use the force to move this over to the Muzzy Madhouse.----SS


----------



## wyogoob

Springville Shooter said:


> If you ask nice, Jedi Goob could use the force to move this over to the Muzzy Madhouse.----SS


Jedi? More like Darth Vader.

I moved, got rid of the redirect, and then merged. 8)

Uh....and I got the top of the page!

.


----------



## Winglish

Wonderful news! Way too late in coming! The muzzleloader doesn't shoot that far anyway except for the ten guys who own a long range special. All the rest of us have to hunt within range anyway. Now those of us with bad eyes be able to see what we aim at. Hooray!


----------



## Mavis13

Time to move the 12 miles north to Idaho. Utah seems to be leaving me behind. Very disappointing.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

Mavis13 said:


> Time to move the 12 miles north to Idaho. Utah seems to be leaving me behind. Very disappointing.


That would be a good move on all hunting fronts.

OTC deer and elk for most of the state.

Excellent draw odds on Moose, Goat, and Sheep.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

:deadhorse:


----------



## RobK

Withdrew my ap for deer ,done hunting in Utah ,they don't give a dam about wildlife just $$$$$$$$. I will hunt Idaho . muzzleloader season will be just another over crowded hunt .


----------



## RobK

al's sold three remigton bolt ML this week a . Going to be just another rifle hunt .


----------



## RobK

Mavis13 said:


> Time to move the 12 miles north to Idaho. Utah seems to be leaving me behind. Very disappointing.


I would ,but my son can't afford out of state and we just moved into a new house , otherwise I would start looking asap


----------

