# Smokeless in muzzy



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

Surely, everyone here knows we can't use smokeless powder in muzzy in Utah, right? 

I keep seeing bolt action muzzleloaders at the range, have smelled a couple that definitely weren't BP or substitute, and I sold some h4198 to a guy a couple months ago that said he was using it in his bolt muzzleloader. 

I'm reading the regs today to refresh myself on a couple of things and lo and behold it says you can't use smokeless in a muzzleloader. 

I didn't know that because I have never owned a muzzy or bought a tag. Now I know. I wish others did too and wish the ones that do would follow rules. 

People stretching every law they can to gain an edge drives me nuts.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem is that they are building muzzle loaders now that will handle the pressures that smoke less powders produce and they are actually recommended to use a smoke less powder. 

It's up to the consumer, hunter, shooter, or whoever to know the rules. The problem is that they are quite likely not to get caught.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

after living and hunting here for over two decades i'm pretty sure the rules are optional. it's somewhere in the guidebook if you read it.


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

I knew some newer ones could handle high pressures but didn't know using smokeless was recommended in them. 

It's unfortunate we can continue to push the envelope with all weapons as much as the governing state allows. The capability of shooting game to 1000+yds with a rifle, 100 with a bow, and 400 or more with a muzzy is nuts.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The rules for a muzzle loader here in Colorado is that you can't use pellets, or saboted bullets. I was hunting with a couple of people a few years ago that when they went to load up their muzzle loaders they dropped in some powder pellets and saboted bullets and rammed them home. I mentioned that they were not suppose to be using the pellets and bullets but their explanation was that as long as they got their first shot with what gave them the best accuracy out of their rifles no one will know. They also mentioned that they didn't carry any extra pellets or bullets with them so that if they were checked in the field the DWR officer wouldn't see anything unless he made them unload their muzzle loaders. 

I'm glad that was a one time hunt with those two.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Back in 1989 we had a buck shot with a ML and a round ball from a .50 Hawken Rifle. The F&G check us as we were coming out of the woods. The officer had some kind of a liquid that he placed on the entrance hole. When he was prepping to do this, he said that it it detects black powder residue and will turn color if it is black powder. 

I knew some officers are close at being a CSI guru, but that was amazing to see that technology in the day. They use the liquid to determine if an animal was shot with a centerfire cartridge I guess. Smokeless powders don't have the Sulphur in them I guess.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

APD said:


> after living and hunting here for over two decades i'm pretty sure the rules are optional. it's somewhere in the guidebook if you read it.


They’re more guidelines really 😂


----------



## cweiss1787 (Oct 19, 2021)

rtockstein said:


> I knew some newer ones could handle high pressures but didn't know using smokeless was recommended in them.
> 
> It's unfortunate we can continue to push the envelope with all weapons as much as the governing state allows. The capability of shooting game to 1000+yds with a rifle, 100 with a bow, and 400 or more with a muzzy is nuts.


It's ridiculous anymore. I know a guy that's shooting his muzzle loader out to 1500 yards. I wish they'd at least take it back to where you can only use a 1 power scope or open sight on them. I'll never put a scope on mine. 

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

I think the guys at Quigley would scoff at these new MLs and then go harvest a big game animal at 500 with their vernier sight and BP in a sharps 1874. Power to them! 

I'm looking forward to the day I can get a long rifle or flinter hawken and go lug that around the woods and be happy to harvest one at 50 with BP. That will make me happy


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

rtockstein said:


> I think the guys at Quigley would scoff at these new MLs and then go harvest a big game animal at 500 with their vernier sight and BP in a sharps 1874. Power to them!
> 
> I'm looking forward to the day I can get a long rifle or flinter hawken and go lug that around the woods and be happy to harvest one at 50 with BP. That will make me happy


The difference with the Sharps is that it takes a black powder cartridge and is loaded from the breach and not the muzzle.

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

Critter said:


> The difference with the Sharps is that it takes a black powder cartridge and is loaded from the breach and not the muzzle.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


DUH! I knew that.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

rtockstein said:


> DUH! I knew that.


You might be surprised at how many people don't. They figure that it is a black powder rifle so they can hunt with it as long as they use black powder in the cartridge. 



Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Some folks don't know that cartridge's as the like of 45-70, 38-55, 50-100 were named that from the caliber being the first number, and the second was the volume of black powder loaded.


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

taxidermist said:


> Some folks don't know that cartridge's as the like of 45-70, 38-55, 50-100 were named that from the caliber being the first number, and the second was the volume of black powder loaded.


And that you'll rarely get 70gr black powder in to modern cases because the head of the case back in the 1800s had more room for powder. 

The shooting of that era is very interesting


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

APD said:


> after living and hunting here for over two decades i'm pretty sure the rules are optional. it's somewhere in the guidebook if you read it.





Ray said:


> They’re more guidelines really 😂








Anyway, I haven't been hunting with smoke poles very long, but even a newbie like me can tell things are getting out of hand.
Like the CVA paramount:








CVA Paramount Muzzleloader: Read This Before You Buy One!


CVA made some impressive claims with their new CVA Paramount muzzleloader, but does it live up to the hype? I've gotten a chance to test it




thebiggamehuntingblog.com





I don't think a smokepole should be have "an effective range nearly on the level of a centerfire rifle ".

I wish DWR didn't authorize scopes either. What was that, 3 or 4 years ago? I forget. I finally (and begrudgingly) mounted one on my optima this year and zeroed it at 150 yards. Which i'm sheepish to admit, but the ballistics on the sabots supports it. Only reason I use either, is because the state allows it. Honestly, Id much rather have a 50 cal hawken with a peep site, and something resembling a minnie ball. I've also grown to wish that things like onX didn't exist. Genie is out of the bottle though, and there's no putting it back now.

Sometimes hunting feels like it's become a technological arms race. Especially with the increased crowds and population. Things that once gave an edge, now seem like a minimum requirement.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Anyway, I haven't been hunting with smoke poles very long, but even a newbie like me can tell things are getting out of hand.
> 
> I don't think a smokepole should be have "an effective range nearly on the level of a centerfire rifle ".


They don't, nor ever will. ML bullet BC's just aren't high enough. As good as ML's get, rifles are double their range... or triple.



> I wish DWR didn't authorize scopes either. What was that, 3 or 4 years ago? I forget.


Not remotely close, they have been allowed for over 30'ish years now. Its been so long I really cant remember when they first allowed them. What they changed is allowing higher magnifications. IMO I'd have been happy with a 2x limit due to aging eyes, but really I don't find the higher magnifications that big of a deal.



> Honestly, Id much rather have a 50 cal hawken with a peep site, and something resembling a minnie ball. I've also grown to wish that things like onX didn't exist. Genie is out of the bottle though, and there's no putting it back now.


Nothing stopping you from hunting with a Hawken and Mini/Maxi's... nothing at all. OnX sucks... used it once, it failed in the field when I most needed it. Ended up resorting to my old school paper maps I had with me as a backup.



> Things that once gave an edge, now seem like a minimum requirement.


Not at all. Plenty of people still hunt with old guns, crappy binoculars and levi's. I've said it for ages here... the VAST majority of deer I've killed in my life, have been around 60 yards. None of the technology you mentioned above would have mattered in the slightest.



> Especially with the increased crowds and population.


DWR issues around 90,000 deer tags a year for all seasons... When I was first old enough to hunt, they issued 280,000 tags. Younger people simply have no concept of how crowded it used to be, and how good we have it now actually.

-DallanC


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

DallanC said:


> They don't, nor ever will. ML bullet BC's just aren't high enough. As good as ML's get, rifles are double their range... or triple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While that's all true, I have a huge problem with the seemingly limitless improvements that are made to gear and weapons and states allowing their use. Hunters are more capable than ever (given actual hunting knowledge and capability) of taking animals consistently at greater and greater distances. This is just going to drive issued tag numbers down if the agency issues them according to herd health and population and we will be helping to decrease our own hunting opportunity for success reasons instead of just hunter numbers


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Meh, not really. See we have this thing called the Harvest Report that the dwr puts out yearly. 

My unit was roughly 24% last year. The oldest data they show was 2013... and that year was just under 24%. Pretty similar.

Technology having an effect? Not enough to notice. The weather probably has more impact on harvest rates.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

BTW, I just compared the any weapon success for my area between 2020 and 2013. Success has dropped by 10% over that period. Maybe people aren't buying enough new tech to stay competitive? Rofl...

Archery success increased by 1% though.

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

DallanC said:


> Not at all. Plenty of people still hunt with old guns, crappy binoculars and levi's. I've said it for ages here... the VAST majority of deer I've killed in my life, have been around 60 yards. None of the technology you mentioned above would have mattered in the slightest.


Honestly, I was thinking about OnX when I said that. I have my reasons, but the summation is, family members I know who've avoided it, are now adopting it.. saying to me "ive seen the downsides, figured i might as well see the benefits." Most spots now can be found by anyone with OnX and the time to use it. I sat down for two hours showing him how to use it. The thing is, every tom dick and harry with onx has been finding their traditional hunting area. If you didn't have onX, you'd assume the whole area is private. That is information, provided by technology. That is an edge. Everyone uses it now. If you don't have onX or something like it, your behind the curve.

Being competitive is a thing, and many are always looking for ANY edge, real or perceived, they can get. I just avoid people in general cause while people are usually friendly, it starts to feel too much like a competition. I'm just not into that, id rather be left alone.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

Lone_Hunter said:


> If you don't have onX or something like it, your behind the curve.


Curious on this one: What does OnX give the public land hunter that you can't get with a combination of the DWR Hunt Planner, Google Maps/Earth, and the USGS National Map server? Is it just having it all in one place, having it in the field linked to GPS positioning, or is there that much more content?


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

TheOtherJeff said:


> Curious on this one: What does OnX give the public land hunter that you can't get with a combination of the DWR Hunt Planner, Google Maps/Earth, and the USGS National Map server? Is it just having it all in one place, having it in the field linked to GPS positioning, or is there that much more content?


It's essentially a GPS with a Google Earth overlay that gives you property boundaries. The benefit is you can also have it in your hand while in the field. Most the full benefiting from it are scouting from thousands of miles away at their work desk. All their hard e-scouting work goes right to their pocket for the trip. 

The biggest advantage is more people now have access to the info that would never bother to look for it.


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

TheOtherJeff said:


> Curious on this one: What does OnX give the public land hunter that you can't get with a combination of the DWR Hunt Planner, Google Maps/Earth, and the USGS National Map server? Is it just having it all in one place, having it in the field linked to GPS positioning, or is there that much more content?


I think it's having it all in one place with a gps navigation system. The ease and accessibility of it. Remove all electronic mapping/navigation/landowner information and revert everyone back to paper map and compass.... Success rates or overall harvest would surely drop. 

Same thing with gear. Make it all really heavy again and there's be less people heading further into the Backcountry and I bet that would drop success rates or overall harvest numbers. 

Revert weapons to more traditional means like a trad bow or open sight rifle. Same thing because we wouldn't be shooting as far. 

It all adds up.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

TheOtherJeff said:


> Curious on this one: What does OnX give the public land hunter that you can't get with a combination of the DWR Hunt Planner, Google Maps/Earth, and the USGS National Map server? Is it just having it all in one place, having it in the field linked to GPS positioning, or is there that much more content?


Springs, sat imagery, topo map, (both at once) ,private property boundaries, roadless areas, wilderness areas, timber cuts by date, burn areas by date, unit boundaries, RMEF records, NWTF records, weather, all trail/road info, etc etc etc. All under one roof, and accessible via a web app that syncs to your phone. "E scouting" has become a thing. I do it a lot. Sometimes what you see on the map doesn't translate to what you see on the ground, but i've found some decent areas using it. So have other people. Seems like everyone uses now. From game wardens, to random strangers. I kid you not, opening weekend of rifle, i ended up chewing the cud with 3 other hunters, and all 4 of us whipped out our phones with onX on it.

Now all that said, I still carry a compass. Phone compass (which onx uses) will screw you.

edit: Picture of some map layer options.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

Thanks for the insight. That is a nice selection of map layers. I was able to put a lot of that, far from all, together from different sources but it is a PITA just trying to find the same spot on three different map sites. That's a compelling value proposition in itself.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

rtockstein said:


> Same thing with gear. Make it all really heavy again and there's be less people heading further into the Backcountry and I bet that would drop success rates or overall harvest numbers.


Funny story (or not). Back in 1968 I had a scout master who wanted to climb Gannett Peak in the Wind Rivers. I couldn't take the time he required for the trip off work so I arranged to meet him at Island Lake on a certain day and we would proceed from there. I have no idea what his pack weighed but the cast iron frying pan can give you an idea.

On his day 5 we met on my day 1. He was too tired to proceed so my friend and I proceeded to climb the peak. On the morning of day 3 we passed him on our way out at the same place.

We were feeling pretty good about ourselves until the two guys passed us in their T shirts and running shorts on our last day. Their goal was up and back in a day. I'm pretty sure they at least came close. Something like 52 miles and no idea of elevation gain/loss.

I guess my moral of the story is that for at least the last 50+ years people have been figuring out how to go farther and quicker into the backcountry. It completely astounds me what the current crop of outdoor athletes are accomplishing.

Good luck on making gear heavier again.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Honestly, I was thinking about OnX when I said that.


Ah, gotcha.



> I have my reasons, but the summation is, family members I know who've avoided it, are now adopting it.. saying to me "ive seen the downsides, figured i might as well see the benefits." Most spots now can be found by anyone with OnX and the time to use it. I sat down for two hours showing him how to use it. The thing is, every tom dick and harry with onx has been finding their traditional hunting area. If you didn't have onX, you'd assume the whole area is private. That is information, provided by technology. That is an edge. Everyone uses it now. If you don't have onX or something like it, your behind the curve.


I've found Google Earth is WAY more effective to find a new spot to hunt. I love the 3D Terrain view. OnX still sucks 

-DallanC


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

DallanC said:


> Ah, gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> I've found Google Earth is WAY more effective to find a new spot to hunt. I love the 3D Terrain view.


Yeah they added 3d terrain to onX recently too.



> OnX still sucks
> 
> -DallanC


I agree! For different reasons, but I agree non the less.

Going back to muzzy's, I know in other states they have all kinds of arbitrary rules. Things like no scopes, no sabots, breech plugs that expose the powder to elements, no pellets, blah blah etc etc. 

I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about arbitrary rules, but i don't like the idea of muzzy as a second rifle season either, which for all intents and purposes, has become. I guess smokeless powder ties into that.

Anyway, to be blunt, I want it to suck ass by modern standards, so people stay in the pumpkin patch, and i get most of the mountain to myself. 

I seriously need to buy one of these shirts


Amazon.com : i like hunting and maybe 3 people


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Yeah they added 3d terrain to onX recently too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That t-shirt pretty much sums me up


----------

