One of the big discussions in regards to allowing magnified scopes on muzzys was it might mean higher success rates. There were some that felt that the success rates might even rival those using rifles. What are you experiences and feelings for what has or hasn't occurred this year for muzzy success for deer and elk?
Higher Success Rates for MuzzleLoaders ?
- Thread starter nebo12000
- Start date
fullthrottle
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,361
^^^what he said^^^
My 2 cents-- It helped us kill two bucks that would probably have lived without a magnifying scope. It helped a couple guys I know wound bucks at over 250 yards. No doubt it makes killing them easier at closer ranges and easier to wound them at longer ranges. ML success rates were already close to Any Weapon, but it just kinda felt like cheating to me, but it worked.
My 2 cents.
Magnification allows us to place our shots more accurately. When you dial a scope up to 9 power you can't shoot long distance because the sight picture is smaller. Your hold over would put the animal out of the sight picture. It's similar to archery equipment. With a recurve and no sights you could shoot 30 yards but now with the compounds you can shoot 80-90 yards. Do you draw a line when it comes to technology and the latest gadgets? It boils down to how much we put into our weapons and how confident we are at what range. People make poor decisions not the technology. Besides some of us oldtimers need some help in order to place a shot.
Magnification allows us to place our shots more accurately. When you dial a scope up to 9 power you can't shoot long distance because the sight picture is smaller. Your hold over would put the animal out of the sight picture. It's similar to archery equipment. With a recurve and no sights you could shoot 30 yards but now with the compounds you can shoot 80-90 yards. Do you draw a line when it comes to technology and the latest gadgets? It boils down to how much we put into our weapons and how confident we are at what range. People make poor decisions not the technology. Besides some of us oldtimers need some help in order to place a shot.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>You mean there IS a difference
>between a modern muzzleloader and
>a rifle?
>
>Rut
Yep, There is still a big difference!
Even with the new Utah scope deal the effective range is way less than half the distance of a center fire rifle. I guess a guy needs to actually go shooting to know this however.
There's no question at all that it will make some hunters more productive within the effective ranges of the muzzleloading rifle.
Slobs will always be slobs regardless of the technology.
Zeke
>between a modern muzzleloader and
>a rifle?
>
>Rut
Yep, There is still a big difference!
Even with the new Utah scope deal the effective range is way less than half the distance of a center fire rifle. I guess a guy needs to actually go shooting to know this however.
There's no question at all that it will make some hunters more productive within the effective ranges of the muzzleloading rifle.
Slobs will always be slobs regardless of the technology.
Zeke
DirtyTough
Active Member
- Messages
- 442
>My 2 cents.
>Magnification allows us to place our
>shots more accurately. When you
>dial a scope up to
>9 power you can't shoot
>long distance because the sight
>picture is smaller. Your hold
>over would put the animal
>out of the sight picture.
>It's similar to archery equipment.
>With a recurve and no
>sights you could shoot 30
>yards but now with the
>compounds you can shoot 80-90
>yards. Do you draw a
>line when it comes to
>technology and the latest gadgets?
>It boils down to how
>much we put into our
>weapons and how confident we
>are at what range. People
>make poor decisions not the
>technology. Besides some of us
>oldtimers need some help in
>order to place a shot.
>
That makes zero sense. Do you think guys shooting 1500 yards leave the scope on 3 power and hold over?
No they twist to 18 power, range, dial the scope and aim dead on. Same can happen with a muzzy at 250-300 yards.
>Magnification allows us to place our
>shots more accurately. When you
>dial a scope up to
>9 power you can't shoot
>long distance because the sight
>picture is smaller. Your hold
>over would put the animal
>out of the sight picture.
>It's similar to archery equipment.
>With a recurve and no
>sights you could shoot 30
>yards but now with the
>compounds you can shoot 80-90
>yards. Do you draw a
>line when it comes to
>technology and the latest gadgets?
>It boils down to how
>much we put into our
>weapons and how confident we
>are at what range. People
>make poor decisions not the
>technology. Besides some of us
>oldtimers need some help in
>order to place a shot.
>
That makes zero sense. Do you think guys shooting 1500 yards leave the scope on 3 power and hold over?
No they twist to 18 power, range, dial the scope and aim dead on. Same can happen with a muzzy at 250-300 yards.
Vanilla
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,633
nebo,
No individual experience will accurately paint the picture on this. We're hoping people in your position can get the DWR to accurately gather the data and share it so we can know over the next couple years what the overall impact, if any, will be.
Of course a magnification scope is more useful than open sights. But was there a statistically significant difference in harvest rates due to the rule change? We can analyze that it 2-3 years.
No individual experience will accurately paint the picture on this. We're hoping people in your position can get the DWR to accurately gather the data and share it so we can know over the next couple years what the overall impact, if any, will be.
Of course a magnification scope is more useful than open sights. But was there a statistically significant difference in harvest rates due to the rule change? We can analyze that it 2-3 years.
LAST EDITED ON Oct-19-16 AT 04:50PM (MST)[p]More animals hitting the ground, more wounding. The hunters who have the high power scopes that can dial in distance and practice out to 300-500 yards have a big advantage over the old one power scopes.
Higher success rates equals less tags, equals less opportunity to hunt in the big picture.
Higher success rates equals less tags, equals less opportunity to hunt in the big picture.
deerkiller
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,127
I know a bigger scope killed my buck this year. He was @ 290 the first shot, 313 for the second and 350 for the final one. I dialed the scope each time to the exact distance for the shot. All were in the kill zone, but I wouldn't say that the bullets at that distance performed "well". The deer should have been dead in 10 seconds after the first shot. Although I had exit holes on every shot, I think range played a big part in the effectiveness of the bullets (hornady 250 gr sst). I'm very familiar with my gun and knew where it would hit, but I'm fairly certain that someone less familiar with their gun at that range, even with a semi decent hit, has a higher chance to lose the animal than they normally would at 150 yards or less.
The long range muzzy deal isn't for everyone. But as far as everyone else goes around where I was hunting, I saw a significant decrease in success in that area. Don't know if it was just an off year or what, but there wasn't 'more' deer killed than usual
The long range muzzy deal isn't for everyone. But as far as everyone else goes around where I was hunting, I saw a significant decrease in success in that area. Don't know if it was just an off year or what, but there wasn't 'more' deer killed than usual
Idahoron
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,980
Here in Idaho we have seen our success rates increase with the allowance of inlines. The fact has always been that the ML hunts are in better spots a lot of the time so high success is normal. But Over the last 10 years I have seen the tags available shrink by at least 50% and in that same time frame I have seen the quality of those hunts decrease.
We have a rotating hunt that needs to be expanded. If they put more units into the hunt so the rotation for any one unit has more years between drawings.
Adding new technology is the wrong direction. I do believe that here in Idaho they need to have a new rule on bullets. Right now there is a minimum 45 cal for deer and antelope. and a 50 cal minimum for elk bear and others. I honestly think we should go to a minimum bullet weight not caliber. In Idaho you can use a 25 ACP pistol for elk on a short range hunt. But you can't use a 409 gr 45 caliber rifle bullet out of a 45. I think minimum for deer and elk should be the same 177 grains.
We have a rotating hunt that needs to be expanded. If they put more units into the hunt so the rotation for any one unit has more years between drawings.
Adding new technology is the wrong direction. I do believe that here in Idaho they need to have a new rule on bullets. Right now there is a minimum 45 cal for deer and antelope. and a 50 cal minimum for elk bear and others. I honestly think we should go to a minimum bullet weight not caliber. In Idaho you can use a 25 ACP pistol for elk on a short range hunt. But you can't use a 409 gr 45 caliber rifle bullet out of a 45. I think minimum for deer and elk should be the same 177 grains.
I think a powered scope is ok to achieve a better aim point. Trouble is, your going to have nimrods who think that just because they can see a deer better that it means 300+ yard muzzleloader shots are good opportunities. And because of knuckleheads like that, I would like to see iron sights only. If you can't hit with open sights, practice more and learn how. If you can't see the sights, get glasses.
>>You mean there IS a difference
>>between a modern muzzleloader and
>>a rifle?
>>
>>Rut
>
>Yep, There is still a big
>difference!
>Even with the new Utah scope
>deal the effective range is
>way less than half the
>distance of a center fire
>rifle. I guess a guy
>needs to actually go shooting
>to know this however.
>
>There's no question at all that
>it will make some hunters
>more productive within the effective
>ranges of the muzzleloading rifle.
>
>
>Slobs will always be slobs regardless
>of the technology.
>
>Zeke
Please define "effective range" for each weapon gun guru.
Rut
>>between a modern muzzleloader and
>>a rifle?
>>
>>Rut
>
>Yep, There is still a big
>difference!
>Even with the new Utah scope
>deal the effective range is
>way less than half the
>distance of a center fire
>rifle. I guess a guy
>needs to actually go shooting
>to know this however.
>
>There's no question at all that
>it will make some hunters
>more productive within the effective
>ranges of the muzzleloading rifle.
>
>
>Slobs will always be slobs regardless
>of the technology.
>
>Zeke
Please define "effective range" for each weapon gun guru.
Rut
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,587
"I know a bigger scope killed my buck this year. He was @ 290 the first shot, 313 for the second and 350 for the final one. I dialed the scope each time to the exact distance for the shot."
There is your answer right there. Of course success will increase. Can't see how that won't end in reduced tags.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
There is your answer right there. Of course success will increase. Can't see how that won't end in reduced tags.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,587
>I think a powered scope is
>ok to achieve a better
>aim point. Trouble is, your
>going to have nimrods who
>think that just because they
>can see a deer better
>that it means 300+ yard
>muzzleloader shots are good opportunities.
>And because of knuckleheads like
>that, I would like to
>see iron sights only. If
>you can't hit with open
>sights, practice more and learn
>how. If you can't see
>the sights, get glasses.
Easier said than done. I have hunted with open sights for more than 25 years and now either the target is fuzzy or there are more than one front sights, no matter what glasses I wear.
I am totally for a 1x scope, that would solve my problem. But I think that going with multiple power scopes goes too far.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
>ok to achieve a better
>aim point. Trouble is, your
>going to have nimrods who
>think that just because they
>can see a deer better
>that it means 300+ yard
>muzzleloader shots are good opportunities.
>And because of knuckleheads like
>that, I would like to
>see iron sights only. If
>you can't hit with open
>sights, practice more and learn
>how. If you can't see
>the sights, get glasses.
Easier said than done. I have hunted with open sights for more than 25 years and now either the target is fuzzy or there are more than one front sights, no matter what glasses I wear.
I am totally for a 1x scope, that would solve my problem. But I think that going with multiple power scopes goes too far.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 37,331
>>I think a powered scope is
>>ok to achieve a better
>>aim point. Trouble is, your
>>going to have nimrods who
>>think that just because they
>>can see a deer better
>>that it means 300+ yard
>>muzzleloader shots are good opportunities.
>>And because of knuckleheads like
>>that, I would like to
>>see iron sights only. If
>>you can't hit with open
>>sights, practice more and learn
>>how. If you can't see
>>the sights, get glasses.
>
>Easier said than done. I
>have hunted with open sights
>for more than 25 years
>and now either the target
>is fuzzy or there are
>more than one front sights,
>no matter what glasses I
>wear.
>
>I am totally for a 1x
>scope, that would solve my
>problem. But I think
>that going with multiple power
>scopes goes too far.
>
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)
Before You say that txhunter!
You might wanna look through a 1X Scope!
The Average TARD Eye is 1.5X!
[font color="blue"]She put a Big F.U. in My Future,Ya She's got a
way with Words[/font]
>>ok to achieve a better
>>aim point. Trouble is, your
>>going to have nimrods who
>>think that just because they
>>can see a deer better
>>that it means 300+ yard
>>muzzleloader shots are good opportunities.
>>And because of knuckleheads like
>>that, I would like to
>>see iron sights only. If
>>you can't hit with open
>>sights, practice more and learn
>>how. If you can't see
>>the sights, get glasses.
>
>Easier said than done. I
>have hunted with open sights
>for more than 25 years
>and now either the target
>is fuzzy or there are
>more than one front sights,
>no matter what glasses I
>wear.
>
>I am totally for a 1x
>scope, that would solve my
>problem. But I think
>that going with multiple power
>scopes goes too far.
>
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)
Before You say that txhunter!
You might wanna look through a 1X Scope!
The Average TARD Eye is 1.5X!
[font color="blue"]She put a Big F.U. in My Future,Ya She's got a
way with Words[/font]
Your right txhunter58, my assessment of those not able to shoot open sights is too broad, I don't mean to offend anyone having trouble using open sights. My point is, I think the advantage to the Hunter has been pushed too far this time and with the new scope rule, there will be those who shoot beyond their guns capable energy, and at deer within a reasonable range, the effectiveness is increased to a point where the poor deer don't stand a chance. And for my own little selfish reasons, I hate seeing that muzzleloader hunting has boomed in popularity and scopes will only compound that.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>>>You mean there IS a difference
>>>between a modern muzzleloader and
>>>a rifle?
>>>
>>>Rut
>>
>>Yep, There is still a big
>>difference!
>>Even with the new Utah scope
>>deal the effective range is
>>way less than half the
>>distance of a center fire
>>rifle. I guess a guy
>>needs to actually go shooting
>>to know this however.
>>
>>There's no question at all that
>>it will make some hunters
>>more productive within the effective
>>ranges of the muzzleloading rifle.
>>
>>
>>Slobs will always be slobs regardless
>>of the technology.
>>
>>Zeke
>
>Please define "effective range" for each
>weapon gun guru.
>
>Rut
Well bitter man (as long as we're throwing out insults albeit yours was thinly veiled and sarcastic)
The effective range has as much to do with the shooter as it does the firearm. But of course you KNOW what your rifles can do and YOUR limitations are because you shoot all the time so I can't tell you anything you don't already know!
I forgot that your opinion is the only valid one. Wow, better not try to tell you anything.
Keep up the venom Mr rut.
Zeke
>>>between a modern muzzleloader and
>>>a rifle?
>>>
>>>Rut
>>
>>Yep, There is still a big
>>difference!
>>Even with the new Utah scope
>>deal the effective range is
>>way less than half the
>>distance of a center fire
>>rifle. I guess a guy
>>needs to actually go shooting
>>to know this however.
>>
>>There's no question at all that
>>it will make some hunters
>>more productive within the effective
>>ranges of the muzzleloading rifle.
>>
>>
>>Slobs will always be slobs regardless
>>of the technology.
>>
>>Zeke
>
>Please define "effective range" for each
>weapon gun guru.
>
>Rut
Well bitter man (as long as we're throwing out insults albeit yours was thinly veiled and sarcastic)
The effective range has as much to do with the shooter as it does the firearm. But of course you KNOW what your rifles can do and YOUR limitations are because you shoot all the time so I can't tell you anything you don't already know!
I forgot that your opinion is the only valid one. Wow, better not try to tell you anything.
Keep up the venom Mr rut.
Zeke
deerkiller
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,127
>Deerkiller what's your drop at those
>ranges. Let's here your setup.
>Gun,bullets,powder,scope. We killed 3
>deer with that same bullet
>this year.
My guns drop is around 52" at 300 yards, when zeroed at 100 yards. So my first shot was 13 MOA. The next shot was 16.25 MOA. The last shot was 20.5 MOA. I was running 100 gr of 777 and 250 gr hornady sst. 777 209 primer shot out of a CVA accura v2 LRH. It had the vortex diamondback II 4-12x40 AO on it
>ranges. Let's here your setup.
>Gun,bullets,powder,scope. We killed 3
>deer with that same bullet
>this year.
My guns drop is around 52" at 300 yards, when zeroed at 100 yards. So my first shot was 13 MOA. The next shot was 16.25 MOA. The last shot was 20.5 MOA. I was running 100 gr of 777 and 250 gr hornady sst. 777 209 primer shot out of a CVA accura v2 LRH. It had the vortex diamondback II 4-12x40 AO on it
Silentstalker
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,144
My experience makes me think there will not be a huge increase in harvest. Muzzleloaders have always had a limited range and my experience this year was I saw a ton of guys still using iron sights and one power scopes. At least half were sporting new scopes.
I did not see an alarming rate of dead bucks and the ones I did see were mostly yearlings shot from the roadway. Most I talked to were not seeing many bucks and many went home early. If anything I would say harvest was lower based on hunters I talked to.
IMO the sky is not falling and there is no reason to panic. That is not to say that in some areas and with some groups, the hunting was not easier. Most of the time even on the rifle hunt guys are struggling to make a 250 yard shot.
As someone above mentioned, this question can not be accurately answered by any of us with our personal opinions.
I did not see an alarming rate of dead bucks and the ones I did see were mostly yearlings shot from the roadway. Most I talked to were not seeing many bucks and many went home early. If anything I would say harvest was lower based on hunters I talked to.
IMO the sky is not falling and there is no reason to panic. That is not to say that in some areas and with some groups, the hunting was not easier. Most of the time even on the rifle hunt guys are struggling to make a 250 yard shot.
As someone above mentioned, this question can not be accurately answered by any of us with our personal opinions.
Tristate
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,887
LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-16 AT 05:51AM (MST)[p]Here is the other angle on this. Has the state finally realized they can't accurately manage big game by trying to predict hunt failure. The higher the percentage of hunt failure the less accurate their predictions become. The more hunt success they have the easier it is to make predictions, making their wildlife management jobs easier for future years. You obviously have lower success rates in the archery and muzzleloader seasons so you up the percentage of success with technology, decrease the number of tags, and make your job easier next year.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
ridgetops
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,758
Our "wolfpack" group went 5 for 6 on the muzzy hunt and very easily could have gone 6 for 6.
All 4 point or better bucks.
I was the only one not using a magnifying scope this year.
I think it made a difference on a few of the bucks we tagged out on.
Proud member of the Wolfpack!
All 4 point or better bucks.
I was the only one not using a magnifying scope this year.
I think it made a difference on a few of the bucks we tagged out on.
Proud member of the Wolfpack!
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,589
I would go back to side hammer, no sabot in a heartbeat if i can have my nov. hunt back. Would be great to have a primitive, or antique muzzy season. Our camp, with 8 tags, i killed the only deer, 50 yrds. We average maybe a deer per year so our success was stagnant. We try(we are getting young guys now) to be a 4 point or better camp, that limits us more than anything. Having said that, my new accura2 scoped, is much more accurate, much more flawless in ignition than my open sight knight disc was. If we want to push to slow down, lets not chip at it, antique, ooen sight, flint/percussion, loose powder, no sabot. We had a lot of fun back inthe day, say tons of prerut bucks, spent more time chaining up and unfreezing trailers, than lobbing lead slugs at deer.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
GLEDEASY
Active Member
- Messages
- 915
My wife and I went 1 for 2. Of course she only hunted a day and a half.
Last year was my first year hunting muzzy. I hunted open sights and missed a couple of deer. Ended up coming home with a 4x4 shot at 96 yards. This year I hunted with a multiple power scope and shot my buck at 130 yards.
Do I feel like using a scope gave me an advantage? Yes I do. It gave me more confidence in placing a more deadly shot and extended my range a little.
We as hunters need to keep our expectations realistic. Most are thinking that now these muzzleloaders are effective tools to 3-400 yards just like most think a LE tag is going to bring that 200/400" buck or bull.
Like I said I have limited experience with a muzzy, but for me I was ok with the scope rule because I felt my chances of shooting and wounding/losing a buck were lowered. Unfortunately we'll always have those looking to push the limits and may be doing so unethically. But I would bet a large portion of those who did shoot 300 yards or so may not have had a clue how much drop etc. the muzzy would experience, they just read that they could now shoot at 300 yards, and the deer got away.
Last year was my first year hunting muzzy. I hunted open sights and missed a couple of deer. Ended up coming home with a 4x4 shot at 96 yards. This year I hunted with a multiple power scope and shot my buck at 130 yards.
Do I feel like using a scope gave me an advantage? Yes I do. It gave me more confidence in placing a more deadly shot and extended my range a little.
We as hunters need to keep our expectations realistic. Most are thinking that now these muzzleloaders are effective tools to 3-400 yards just like most think a LE tag is going to bring that 200/400" buck or bull.
Like I said I have limited experience with a muzzy, but for me I was ok with the scope rule because I felt my chances of shooting and wounding/losing a buck were lowered. Unfortunately we'll always have those looking to push the limits and may be doing so unethically. But I would bet a large portion of those who did shoot 300 yards or so may not have had a clue how much drop etc. the muzzy would experience, they just read that they could now shoot at 300 yards, and the deer got away.
HA! Try and play the victim after you insinuated that I did not know that difference between the effective range of a muzzleloader and rifle because "a guy needs to actually go shooting to know this".
And then you turn around and give a blanket answer to what is the effective range of each weapon actually is.
Thanks for all the info.
Rut
And then you turn around and give a blanket answer to what is the effective range of each weapon actually is.
Thanks for all the info.
Rut
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>HA! Try and play the
>victim after you insinuated that
>I did not know that
>difference between the effective range
>of a muzzleloader and rifle
>because "a guy needs to
>actually go shooting to know
>this".
>And then you turn around and
>give a blanket answer to
>what is the effective range
>of each weapon actually is.
>
>
>Thanks for all the info.
>
>Rut
Well cowboy, you're the one who insinuated that there's no difference between a muzzleloader and a center fire rifle. You either know or you don't. You'd rather just make inflammatory remarks since you were not looking for an answer, were you?
Yep, you either know or you don't and shooting is the only way to find out what you and your rifles can do.
Yes, I could share what my effective range is with each type of firearm but you never had any interest in knowing that.
Zeke
>victim after you insinuated that
>I did not know that
>difference between the effective range
>of a muzzleloader and rifle
>because "a guy needs to
>actually go shooting to know
>this".
>And then you turn around and
>give a blanket answer to
>what is the effective range
>of each weapon actually is.
>
>
>Thanks for all the info.
>
>Rut
Well cowboy, you're the one who insinuated that there's no difference between a muzzleloader and a center fire rifle. You either know or you don't. You'd rather just make inflammatory remarks since you were not looking for an answer, were you?
Yep, you either know or you don't and shooting is the only way to find out what you and your rifles can do.
Yes, I could share what my effective range is with each type of firearm but you never had any interest in knowing that.
Zeke
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,587
>>>I think a powered scope is
>>>ok to achieve a better
>>>aim point. Trouble is, your
>>>going to have nimrods who
>>>think that just because they
>>>can see a deer better
>>>that it means 300+ yard
>>>muzzleloader shots are good opportunities.
>>>And because of knuckleheads like
>>>that, I would like to
>>>see iron sights only. If
>>>you can't hit with open
>>>sights, practice more and learn
>>>how. If you can't see
>>>the sights, get glasses.
>>
>>Easier said than done. I
>>have hunted with open sights
>>for more than 25 years
>>and now either the target
>>is fuzzy or there are
>>more than one front sights,
>>no matter what glasses I
>>wear.
>>
>>I am totally for a 1x
>>scope, that would solve my
>>problem. But I think
>>that going with multiple power
>>scopes goes too far.
>>
>>
>>txhunter58
>>
>>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>>I am)
>
>Before You say that txhunter!
>
>You might wanna look through a
>1X Scope!
>
>The Average TARD Eye is 1.5X!
>
I had already bought a 1x aimpoint 2 MOA red dot scope to use on my wife's AR-15. It is great! Perfectly matches my other eye so that I can sight with both eyes open. Still may use it WHEN I get picked!
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
>>>ok to achieve a better
>>>aim point. Trouble is, your
>>>going to have nimrods who
>>>think that just because they
>>>can see a deer better
>>>that it means 300+ yard
>>>muzzleloader shots are good opportunities.
>>>And because of knuckleheads like
>>>that, I would like to
>>>see iron sights only. If
>>>you can't hit with open
>>>sights, practice more and learn
>>>how. If you can't see
>>>the sights, get glasses.
>>
>>Easier said than done. I
>>have hunted with open sights
>>for more than 25 years
>>and now either the target
>>is fuzzy or there are
>>more than one front sights,
>>no matter what glasses I
>>wear.
>>
>>I am totally for a 1x
>>scope, that would solve my
>>problem. But I think
>>that going with multiple power
>>scopes goes too far.
>>
>>
>>txhunter58
>>
>>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>>I am)
>
>Before You say that txhunter!
>
>You might wanna look through a
>1X Scope!
>
>The Average TARD Eye is 1.5X!
>
I had already bought a 1x aimpoint 2 MOA red dot scope to use on my wife's AR-15. It is great! Perfectly matches my other eye so that I can sight with both eyes open. Still may use it WHEN I get picked!
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>I don't believe there is much
>if any difference between a
>modern inline muzzleloader and a
>30-30 center fire rifle, do
>you?
>
>Rut
You got me on that one!
No, I don't think there's much difference in effective first-shot range. The fact is that it's way easier to rack in follow-up shots with a scoped 336 Marlin than with a muzzleloader.
If you're still hunting big game with a 30-30 then good on you for challenging yourself! I highly doubt that you are however.... unless you come out and say that's what you do.
For the record and I've stated this before: When I was asked about the higher power scopes on the muzzleloader survey by the F&G, I said NO to the power increase. I think it WILL lead to higher success and possibly lead to slobs taking shots beyond their abilities... which they did before anyway since they are slobs.
Zeke
>if any difference between a
>modern inline muzzleloader and a
>30-30 center fire rifle, do
>you?
>
>Rut
You got me on that one!
No, I don't think there's much difference in effective first-shot range. The fact is that it's way easier to rack in follow-up shots with a scoped 336 Marlin than with a muzzleloader.
If you're still hunting big game with a 30-30 then good on you for challenging yourself! I highly doubt that you are however.... unless you come out and say that's what you do.
For the record and I've stated this before: When I was asked about the higher power scopes on the muzzleloader survey by the F&G, I said NO to the power increase. I think it WILL lead to higher success and possibly lead to slobs taking shots beyond their abilities... which they did before anyway since they are slobs.
Zeke
BLooDTRaCKeR
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,746
Up until this year, I hunted with traditional equipment, iron sights, round ball, etc. I have missed my fair share of bucks over the years at the 100-130 yard range because of the iron sights and round ball set up.
This year, I purchased an in line muzzy with a 3x12 power scope. I killed my buck at 248 yards with a single, well placed shot to the boiler room.
Do the new laws and equipment give muzzy hunters an advantage? When it comes to killing, Yes sir!
However, when it comes to finding them. You still have to put in the leg work, and effort to locate these animals. They don't fall in your lap just because you have a good firearm.
This year, I purchased an in line muzzy with a 3x12 power scope. I killed my buck at 248 yards with a single, well placed shot to the boiler room.
Do the new laws and equipment give muzzy hunters an advantage? When it comes to killing, Yes sir!
However, when it comes to finding them. You still have to put in the leg work, and effort to locate these animals. They don't fall in your lap just because you have a good firearm.
dack77
Active Member
- Messages
- 207
LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-16 AT 04:57PM (MST)[p]Here is how a Barnes TEZ 250gr performed at 286 yards. This shot broke the right front leg and was found under the hide in the opposite side. In hindsight I wish I had gutted the deer and didn't do the gutless method just to see the damage on the organs but it must have gone through the heart as it took 3 steps backwards and was done. My biggest buck to date and it was a pretty big bodied deer.
Technology has not only helped increase success for muzzleloaders, but for Archery and Rifles as well. It's up to the sportsmen and Departments to draw the line. There are only so many animals that can be harvested. Do we do it quicker because of becoming so efficient with our weapons or make harvesting more difficult with our weapons to help give more opportunity and time for more sportsmen to be in the field.
To put it in perspective. The choice could be, have a hunt for 1 week with a modern muzzleloader and high powered scope in a unit or have the same hunt with a primitive muzzleloader, but in order to harvest the same number of animals the hunt would be required to go for a month or more??
IMO, to only pick on modern muzzleloaders is not being fair. Modernism has hit all facets of hunting and all weapons.
To put it in perspective. The choice could be, have a hunt for 1 week with a modern muzzleloader and high powered scope in a unit or have the same hunt with a primitive muzzleloader, but in order to harvest the same number of animals the hunt would be required to go for a month or more??
IMO, to only pick on modern muzzleloaders is not being fair. Modernism has hit all facets of hunting and all weapons.
I think there may be an old buffalo hunter up there laughing his butt off at someone with a modern muzz. with a scope and thinking a 350 yard shot is a long one, there is a guy that can shoot arrows 300 yards with his feet. confidence comes with practice and if your ready to punch your tag on a lost animal shoot as far as you want,I prefer shooting animals close but I do have an inline with scope, season dates have always been more important than weapon to me and when they start shooting to much game the dates will change or the amount of tags, which may be to late as always.
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,267
The biggest mistake ever made was when they allowed scopes on the inline muzzleloaders in Utah. When they passed the law I purchased an inline and immediately ordered a scope. My grandson took that gun and shot his first deer at 180 yards. We named one ridge where we were hunting "Gut Pile Ridge". The name says it all. Yes I believe the success ratio will go way up. It is no more the primitive hunt I have enjoyed in the past.
Upsetting to say the least, but if it is going to be allowed, I like many, will use it. My old Bridger Hawkens are mantle pieces now, unless of course, I decide to go to Colorado where the Big Game Board has it right.
Upsetting to say the least, but if it is going to be allowed, I like many, will use it. My old Bridger Hawkens are mantle pieces now, unless of course, I decide to go to Colorado where the Big Game Board has it right.
