# What should we outlaw next?



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Over the years I have heard countless claims by “so called” experts as to why something works or doesn’t work only to come to the sad fact at a latter date that the “Experts" didn’t know beans about what they summarized to the world. Case in point, lawyers and politicians!

I get so tired of hearing all of the hunting purists tout that only a certain caliber, type or restriction should be use or this should be banned because it is not primitive enough and is much to effective on the taking of game. That all inline muzzle loaders are some how evil and should be banned along with my model 1100 Remington shotgun because it fits the definition of an assault weapon. Give me a brake please.... Personally I think that golf clubs should be banned due to the inherent dangers and my poor score card, however, I am not out lobbying congress to get them banned. 

I am not sure what date of design constitutes primitive status, but to some here and maybe the DWR it matters. So, let us talk turkey for a few and delve into history for a moment.

The inline muzzle loader came into modern use around 1800 with Swiss genius Pauly (1812) receiving the patten rights (on one of many) to a design that would latter be refined by Paul Mauser in 1868 to become ths most copied sporting weapon of all time, the bolt action rifle. 

The sabot came into play in the early Fifteen Hundreds by the French and technically a round ball and patch could be, by “definition,” a sabot. 

All muzzle loaders should be restricted to a 50 caliber. Why?
What other than the size of the bore makes a 50 more effective over a 54 or even a 45 for that matter? Is it just that you can stuff a slightly bigger rock down the bore of a 54 caliber that you would have to lengthen on a 50 or 45 caliber.... Is it okay to hunt in Utah with a .530 round ball and patch out of my sling shot?!!! But a ball and patch out of a .50 caliber will not make the 240 grain minimum to hunt elk unless it is cast out of kryptenite. I would like to see some facts on this with logical discussion and not psychobabble. The kinetic energy arguments I have read on this are like trying to limit your choices on beer and cigarettes, all will get you drunk and the surgeon general says that you are likely to get cancer from smoking whatever pack is in your hands.

Show me the supreme being who can shoot 1/4 inch groups out of his in line muzzle loader with open sights at 100 yards and I will bow down at their feet. I do not even try and sight my muzzy in at 100 yards with open sights, because the three inch dot is not legible at that distance for me. I sight in at 60 yards and adjust the drop with great and more accurate results. My best group ever is around three inches and averages around six inch groups at 100 yards depending if I swab on every shot or not. To say that in lines are more accurate than side locks are nothing more than sales pitch and urban legends in my opinion. My sidelock .45 Lyman is as accurate if not more than any in line I own or have ever shot. Again I ask what is fact and what is hypoBSfiction?

Should we discuss the history of scopes on rifles and see at what date they come into use? Is it enough to say that in my opinion anything over a 2.5 power scope takes away from the mystique of the ML hunt, but maybe this issue would be better served by personal choice and not legal requirements. The human eye has an average of 1.5 power by nature. 
Present day rifles, and muzzle loaders are still governed by the laws of physics and more power to the hunter who gets every drop out of their equipment, they are the exception and not the rule. 

Should all muzzle loader hunters be required to get to and from the hunting site by foot or by horse because “so called” modern wheeled or propped transportation removes the primitive status from the special hunt? This would insure that the harvests numbers would be kept to a minimum.

At what point do we legally stop hunting because it is no longer a privilege?


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

Most of our ancestors' bellies were filled with game that was killed by rifles that are deemed either ineffective or illegal for use by today's standard. If you're so inclined to use an inline, go for it. They are good shooting implements in the hands of a competent shooter. I don't choose them, personally, and I might rib you for doing so, but they are fine nonetheless. I think that to restrict a .45 caliber muzzleloader is pure BS! Poor hunting and poor shooting skills are what make a ML ineffective. Too far is too far, no matter what new super powder and sabot you're shooting. Within range a .45 caliber pennsylvania long rifle loaded with a round ball will kill nearly an big game animal. Why do you think the elk is extinct from the Northeastern US? Because, of the effectiveness of the same rifles that are now deemed inadequate for use by our lazy, poor shooting, over marketed to general hunting public. :mrgreen:


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

With regards to weapon restriction, there seems to be two opposing points of view. This is particularly apparent in "primitive weapons special hunts". One point of view is that some weapons are TOO EFFECTIVE ( lethal) to be "sporting enough to meet the "definition" of "fair chase" or to meet the "primitive weapons" "definition". The other point of view is that some weapons are NOT EFFECTICVE (lethal) ENOUGH to be humane. Particularly with regards to "primitive weapons" in an attempt to strike a balance between these opposing points of view we sometimes contradict ourselves. I think that somewhere between the ridiculous extremes is a wise course of action ( restrictions).


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

bigbr said:


> .
> 
> 
> > Personally I think that golf clubs should be banned due to the inherent dangers and my poor score card, however, I am not out lobbying congress to get them banned.


Maybe we should be out lobbing for the banning of gold clubs, and then the lawyers would be too busy to try and take our guns or the right to hunt away from us. :lol:



> One point of view is that some weapons are TOO EFFECTIVE ( lethal) to be "sporting enough to meet the "definition" of "fair chase" or to meet the "primitive weapons" "definition".


Maybe we should get back to using spears to hunt



> The other point of view is that some weapons are NOT EFFECTICVE (lethal) ENOUGH to be humane. Particularly with regards to "primitive weapons" in an attempt to strike a balance between these opposing points of view we sometimes contradict ourselves. I think that somewhere between the ridiculous extremes is a wise course of action ( restrictions).


 I call BS on that agruement, MZ and bows kill very effectively, as someone else mentioned what weapons were used to kill out all those species from our land in the 1800's?

I think if you load it down the muzzle then it can be used in the muzzleloader season. I have no problem with a scope on them either, weather it be a 1x or 3x9 power scope. I don't care if you light it off with a 209 primer.

*Some people debating these points need to learn that sportsman need to stick together or we will hang together...................................around the TV because we aren't allowed to hunt anymore.*


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Let me take Idaho as an example of what I am trying to say. In Idaho there are restrictions on "in line" muzzle loaders and 209 primer ignition (supposedly to limit weapons deemed "too effective" for primitive special hunts and should be allowed only in any weapon hunts). At the same time Idaho has minimum draw pull and minimum arrow weight requirements for archery weapons( supposedly to insure weapons are "effective enough" to be humane). I understand the rationale and there will allways be a balancing act. But in my opinion these regulations are overly restrictive and somewhat contradictory. This is a ML forum so getting back to ML, the question is whether a 3x9 variable scope is "too effective" to be allowed in a hunt designated at a time of year to give the hunter a better advantage than using that same weapon on the regular season when most other hunters are using centerfire rifles or whether a scope makes a ML effective enough to reduce wounded loss. The same dilema can be applied to inline guns, 209 ignition, and now even the use of smokless powder. Like I said, there will allways be a balancing act and I do not know what the specific answer is but "somewhere between the rediculous extremes is a wise course of action".


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

campfire said:


> This is a ML forum so getting back to ML, the question is whether a 3x9 variable scope is "too effective" to be allowed in a hunt designated at a time of year to give the hunter a better advantage than using that same weapon on the regular season when most other hunters are using centerfire rifles or whether a scope makes a ML effective enough to reduce wounded loss.


Campfire,

It is important to point out that you can not use a muzzle loader in Utah that is equipt with a scope greater than one power, even if you are using your ML during the any weapon hunt. This means you can not use your ML with a 3X9 scope to hunt big game in Utah period! Even on CWMU or Elk ranches........in the state of Utah.

Bigbr


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

I can see clearly at 100 yards without a scope while looking through the iron buckhorn sights. That's right about where a ML ought to be shot give or take a coulple dozen yards. _(O)_ 

I think that if someone wants to shoot an inline w/scope, go for it. I just think it's a little bit like riding your bike with training wheels. If that's your fancy, go with it. At the time this country (Utah Territory) was settled, the most common ML around was the Hawken/Plains rifle type; Like the ones Jim Bridger, Jedadiah Smith, and Kit Carson toted around. That's the kind of gun that I personally choose, for personal reasons. I'm not just hunting to put an animal in the bag by any leagal means, nor am I there to get my "trophy" so that I can have my picture in a magazine so everyone will stroke my ego. I am there for my own personal experience. If I fail using a period gun, so be it, I still had a blast (pun?!) If I am successful, then oh how sweeter the victory, for me, personally that is. I'm there to have fun. If your idea of fun is a modern ML, go to it! See you on the mountain. 8)


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

I agree completely wooly. Just hunt, don't worry about whether or not the other guy wants to use a scope, or inline or whatever, worry about your own choices.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Give me one good reason why you would need a 3x9 scope on a ML when you should be shooting at game no more than 150 yds????

Is it because your eyes are bad? Is the 1x red dot not good enough? Are you trying to make shoots passed 200 yds which makes you unethical??? Hold a little high right??? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Give me one good reason why you would need a 3x9 scope on a ML when you should be shooting at game no more than 150 yds????
> 
> Is it because your eyes are bad? Is the 1x red dot not good enough? Are you trying to make shoots passed 200 yds which makes you unethical??? Hold a little high right??? :lol: :lol:


I don't hold high, I put the ballistic plex right on him and fire. I have quick release mounts on all of mine. I have 3x9's and 1x's for mine, It's legal down home to use a variable power scope, my groups get tighter at all ranges when I use the variable while shooting, aim small, miss small.
I put the 1x on my MZ for Utah or wherever I go that I need it.

I use a variable because I can. :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I don't hold high, I put the ballistic plex right on him and fire. I have quick release mounts on all of mine. I have 3x9's and 1x's for mine, It's legal down home to use a variable power scope, my groups get tighter at all ranges when I use the variable while shooting, aim small, miss small.
> I put the 1x on my MZ for Utah or wherever I go that I need it.
> 
> I use a variable because I can.


But is a scope really necessary if you are shooting 150yds or closer? Are you really that bad of a shot with a red dot scope or open sights that you need a 3x9 at that distance?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I shoot probably shoot 3,000 plus shots a year with my ML and I know a lot of guys who shoot inlines spend more time cleaning them then shooting them. I want a ML that I can shoot constantly NOT a ML that I have to clean constantly.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

> Are you really that bad of a shot with a red dot scope or open sights that you need a 3x9 at that distance


Nope, I'm a pretty good shot, but I use a 3x9 because I can at home, I don't really like red dots; I'd use a peep over a dot any day. I rarely hunt where you can see more than 50 yards back home. I have a Hawken, and 3 in lines and use them all about the same amount. I am not cleaning mine all the time either; never have much trouble, just clean them after shooting at the range.

I can consistently hit to about 200 yards with a 1 power, that's five out of five shots in the kill zone, don't usually have much call for shooting that far, but you know the Boy Scout motto, be prepared.


----------



## trade rifle (Jun 26, 2008)

their will always be a debate over inlines and traditional muzzleloaders. but i personal like to shoot traditional muzzleloaders cause i can. but when it all comes down it really doesnt matter what the other guy on the mountain is shooting.


----------

