Is a blackpowder muzzleloader equal to a rifle or superior ?

[hossblur]

Can't lie, I wasn't aware it was law enforcement that stopped component ban.

I get checked duck hunting probably 4-6 times a year. They ram a choke checker in, and, they stick a magnet on my shells.

I'm of the something(scope) better than nothing hit, but the best hit is simply copying Idaho (and others).

Why do I feel there is some industry backroom pushback on all of this? Those long range guns cost a hell of a lot more than a CVA optima.

Seems like adopting similar if not the same limits surrounding states have, forces industry to adapt, instead of the other way around.


Pretty easy to check a quick load and for open sights, I feel like the law guts might need to lose this one

 

[hossblur]

Full bore bullets and loose powder does nothing but improve accuracy. If you want to really hurt someone, require a sabot and pellets. With as much variance in pellet performance when ignited, it’ll take 500 yards shots out of the realm of possibility 9/10 times. Put the biggest scope on your rifle you want. Pellets are a major limiting factor

Na. Put all the BH you want, ignite it with a #11, the delays alone screw you

 

[MrShane]

Full bore bullets and loose powder does nothing but improve accuracy. If you want to really hurt someone, require a sabot and pellets. With as much variance in pellet performance when ignited, it’ll take 500 yards shots out of the realm of possibility 9/10 times. Put the biggest scope on your rifle you want. Pellets are a major limiting factor

Fair enough.
I could get by with ‘open/exposed ignition by percussion or flint only’ and run as big a scope as you want.
How’s that sound?

 

[hossblur]

For those of you who have been paying attention since this FlusterCuck started several years ago, the whole end goal of this was to improve quality and to save bucks. That was stated numerous times throughout the WB and RAC meetings. Thus the azzhole crotch goblin baby was born that we now call the technology committee. Slamydaddy and his fellow disciples, who were all chosen based upon who could give the best oral report under a desk, then began their crusade on what they saw as “fair”. This has evolved from putting the hunt back in hunting AND saving bucks, to “THIS ISNT ABOUT SAVING BUCKS” in just 3 years time.

That’s pretty fuggin scary these people are having back room meetings deciding our fate, with zero regard for public opinion.. or even the intent to do what’s best for our wildlife as top priority.

Side note: I have heard what’s been discussed in these meetings. Things we haven’t been told as the public. Decisions have already been made and the WB has been instructed on how to vote, and an official proposal hasn’t even been made. Regardless of any RAC decisions or polls conducted for public opinion, we are going back to 1x scopes as far as muzzleloaders are concerned. And there’s more…

At least slammydaddy finally spoke some truth. I didn’t think he had it in him. If only he knew how to be truthful on other things that are going on…

So? Explain how lowering the success rate is bad? And don't, for the love of God, put up those useless stats that don't separate out otc muzzy and dedicated. Dedicated holds out, skewing odds.

 

[MrShane]

Can't lie, I wasn't aware it was law enforcement that stopped component ban.

I get checked duck hunting probably 4-6 times a year. They ram a choke checker in, and, they stick a magnet on my shells.

I'm of the something(scope) better than nothing hit, but the best hit is simply copying Idaho (and others).

Why do I feel there is some industry backroom pushback on all of this? Those long range guns cost a hell of a lot more than a CVA optima.

Seems like adopting similar if not the same limits surrounding states have, forces industry to adapt, instead of the other way around.


Pretty easy to check a quick load and for open sights, I feel like the law guts might need to lose this one

Idaho has an EXCELLENT restriction on muzzys.
They even give the option to obtain a COR type exception for poor eyesight to allow mounting up to a 4x scope if justified.
Slam, what has the WB said about copying Idaho’s rule on muzzys?
Win/win/win!

 

[Bux n Dux]

So? Explain how lowering the success rate is bad? And don't, for the love of God, put up those useless stats that don't separate out otc muzzy and dedicated. Dedicated holds out, skewing odds.

? it won’t lower success rates. There’s data to back that up. They are choosing to conveniently ignore that.

 

[elkassassin]

Can't lie, I wasn't aware it was law enforcement that stopped component ban.

I get checked duck hunting probably 4-6 times a year. They ram a choke checker in, and, they stick a magnet on my shells.

I'm of the something(scope) better than nothing hit, but the best hit is simply copying Idaho (and others).

Why do I feel there is some industry backroom pushback on all of this? Those long range guns cost a hell of a lot more than a CVA optima.

Seems like adopting similar if not the same limits surrounding states have, forces industry to adapt, instead of the other way around.

Ya!

All You'd Need Is A F'N Search Warrant For Every Hunter!

Quick Loads That Are Legal & Some That Are Not!

Quick Release Scope Mounts!

DO SHOW ME THE ENFORCEMENT Hossy!

Pretty easy to check a quick load and for open sights, I feel like the law guts might need to lose this one

 

[Bux n Dux]

So? Explain how lowering the success rate is bad? And don't, for the love of God, put up those useless stats that don't separate out otc muzzy and dedicated. Dedicated holds out, skewing odds.

Sure, but the state, or even better the RMEF, is going to buy everyone a new rifle. I have 4 inlines. Most have at least 1. You wanna change the rules this far into the game, fine. But be ready to fork out some cash for everyone that can’t afford a new rifle.

 

[Bux n Dux]

I get checked duck hunting probably 4-6 times a year. They ram a choke checker in, and, they stick a magnet on my shells.

WTF is a choke checker? ?

Here’s comes a witty smartass reply telling me how I’m wrong again.

A magnet huh? What about tungsten loads? Other nontoxic shot? The magnet doesn’t tell you chit about what’s in that shell

 

[elkassassin]

Does This Mean They'd Have To Buy My Imaginary Long Range SmokePole With The NightForce Scope on it That hawky Thinks I Have?

Sounds Good To Me!

Maybe I Do Have One!

Sure, but the state, or even better the RMEF, is going to buy everyone a new rifle. I have 4 inlines. Most have at least 1. You wanna change the rules this far into the game, fine. But be ready to fork out some cash for everyone that can’t afford a new rifle.

 

[elkassassin]

CHOKE CHECKER For Hossy:

They Gonna Check To See If Hossy's Been Chokin Any Chickens Or Quackers Lately!

 

[elkassassin]

If The Magnet Doesn't Stick To Hossy's Shotshells There Might Be An Issue!

 

[MrShane]

WTF is a choke checker? ?

Here’s comes a witty smartass reply telling me how I’m wrong again.

A magnet huh? What about tungsten loads? Other nontoxic shot? The magnet doesn’t tell you chit about what’s in that shell

I would think he meant a plug checker.

 

[2lumpy]

Historical, easily documentable facts( plus or minus a year or two, memory getting old):

Inline muzzleloader patented in 1808.
Rifle scopes patented 1835.
209 ignition patented 1996.

These are hard facts/dates the WB could use to determine what is ‘new tech’ since the 1980’s.
Slamdunk and 2 Lumpy, do you agree and if not how/why do you disagree?

I don’t know how to access patent records so I’ll accept your information as correct. I was wrong……… again.

 

[slamdunk]

If the WB wants to accomplish what it sounds like they are trying to accomplish,
Then simply ban anything except full bore bullets/loose powder/percussion-flint ignition, and most importantly exposed ignition.
Let a guy run a scope since they have been around forever also.
Doesn’t that solve the dilemna?

The different muzzleloader definitions
distinguish Modern, Traditional and Primitive.
These hunts vary in restrictions.

 

[slamdunk]

There

Can't lie, I wasn't aware it was law enforcement that stopped component ban.

I get checked duck hunting probably 4-6 times a year. They ram a choke checker in, and, they stick a magnet on my shells.

I'm of the something(scope) better than nothing hit, but the best hit is simply copying Idaho (and others).

Why do I feel there is some industry backroom pushback on all of this? Those long range guns cost a hell of a lot more than a CVA optima.

Seems like adopting similar if not the same limits surrounding states have, forces industry to adapt, instead of the other way around.


Pretty easy to check a quick load and for open sights, I feel like the law guts might need to lose this one

There is no way to check components inside a loaded muzzleloader without unloading it from the breech.
I can't even fathom an officer coming into my blind and tearing my muzzleloader apart to see if I am using pellets or loose powders......this one isn't hard to understand at all.

 

[slamdunk]

? it won’t lower success rates. There’s data to back that up. They are choosing to conveniently ignore that.

No....you are continuing to ignore the reasons behind limiting advancing technology....

 

[slamdunk]

Idaho has an EXCELLENT restriction on muzzys.
They even give the option to obtain a COR type exception for poor eyesight to allow mounting up to a 4x scope if justified.
Slam, what has the WB said about copying Idaho’s rule on muzzys?
Win/win/win!

Absolutely yes.

We took information from every states muzzleloader definitions and regulations into play, Idaho has one of the best in our opinion.

Also discussed in our last meeting was the COR program and how it might play out with however the WB chooses to go on this matter.

 

[elkassassin]

Well PUNK!

Don't Think For a Second They Won't Check If You Run In To The Right Warden!

You May Not Know Or Remember When SABOTS Were FLAT-ASS Illegal To Use In Your SmokePoles In This State For Hunting?

Me And A Friend Got Checked One Year By A Warden With An Aussie Accent That Had Some Kind of a Little Cheap Bore Scope That He Claimed He Bought With His Own Money!

He Did Admit That He Thought We Both Had Round Balls Just As The Spares We Were Packing!

At That Time And I Still Don't Know Why There Was A Law That Said: NO SABOTS?

Then Years Later Go Ahead & Shoot Whatever The Hell You Want To Including A Variety of Sabots?

It Wouldn't Be Hard For Them To Say:

Pull The Breech Plug & Push The Load Out So I Can Inspect It!

(Pulling The Breech Plug Out & They'd Have It!)

Or With Today's TECHNOLOGY They've Probably Got Ways To SWAB The Barrel & Tell What Kind Of Powder You've Pushed Down It!





!

There
There is no way to check components inside a loaded muzzleloader without unloading it from the breech.
I can't even fathom an officer coming into my blind and tearing my muzzleloader apart to see if I am using pellets or loose powders......this one isn't hard to understand at all.

 

[slamdunk]

For those of you who have been paying attention since this FlusterCuck started several years ago, the whole end goal of this was to improve quality and to save bucks. That was stated numerous times throughout the WB and RAC meetings. Thus the azzhole crotch goblin baby was born that we now call the technology committee. Slamydaddy and his fellow disciples, who were all chosen based upon who could give the best oral report under a desk, then began their crusade on what they saw as “fair”. This has evolved from putting the hunt back in hunting AND saving bucks, to “THIS ISNT ABOUT SAVING BUCKS” in just 3 years time.

That’s pretty fuggin scary these people are having back room meetings deciding our fate, with zero regard for public opinion.. or even the intent to do what’s best for our wildlife as top priority.

Side note: I have heard what’s been discussed in these meetings. Things we haven’t been told as the public. Decisions have already been made and the WB has been instructed on how to vote, and an official proposal hasn’t even been made. Regardless of any RAC decisions or polls conducted for public opinion, we are going back to 1x scopes as far as muzzleloaders are concerned. And there’s more…

At least slammydaddy finally spoke some truth. I didn’t think he had it in him. If only he knew how to be truthful on other things that are going on…

Please enlighten us, especially me on what information is being withheld from the public, I must have fallen asleep during that discussion......?

You sound like a poor picked on little boy who was spoiled his whole life and taught to defy rules, laws and regulation of all types.

 

[Bux n Dux]

Please enlighten us, especially me on what information is being withheld from the public, I must have fallen asleep during that discussion......?

You sound like a poor picked on little boy who was spoiled his whole life and taught to defy rules, laws and regulation of all types.

It’s all being withheld from the public. And you know what I’m talking about.

Defy all rules, laws and regulations... hahaha That’s a very broad statement there, knobgobbler. Sure I’ve made some mistakes in the past. We all have. It just bothers most, apparently you included, that I learned from them and bettered myself because of it. I thought that was the goal?

Do you use the original knee pads issued by the RMEF in your committee meetings? Or did they hand out their own special edition committee knee pads with extra padding? Surely you’d need industrial strength ones for all the oral presentations that take place in those back rooms.

 

[slamdunk]

@Bux n Dux
Are you going to threaten to personally confiscate all the scoped muzzleloaders you find in the hands of hunters like your threats on the trail cameras?

Asking for a friend.....

 

[Bux n Dux]

No....you are continuing to ignore the reasons behind limiting advancing technology....

You’ve conveniently forgotten why a technology committee exists in the first place. And the initial reason had nothing to do with social feeling management. Go back and watch the RAC and WB where to all started. Animal numbers and hunt quality is what spurred that discussion. You have evolved it into something it was never intended to be.

 

[Bux n Dux]

@Bux n Dux
Are you going to threaten to personally confiscate all the scoped muzzleloaders you find in the hands of hunters like your threats on the trail cameras?

Asking for a friend.....

Take a firearm from a person? How dumb are you?

 

[slamdunk]

Obviously not as dumb as the guy making all the personal threats.....

 

[Bux n Dux]

Obviously not as dumb as the guy making all the personal threats.....

Personal threats? How have I threatened you big boi?

 

[MrShane]

There
There is no way to check components inside a loaded muzzleloader without unloading it from the breech.
I can't even fathom an officer coming into my blind and tearing my muzzleloader apart to see if I am using pellets or loose powders......this one isn't hard to understand at all.

True.
But extremely easy to check for exposed ignition and detonation methods.
Why is the State not going all the way or nothing at all?
Why just a little baby step to pizz off the majority 99%.
If we are gonna do it let’s just do it and rip off the band aid all at once instead of a tiny little bit of it.
If the proposal of the WB is to have the muzzleloader hunt be a different hunt experience from the alw season, the WB would go for it all.
There are just certain things that don’t add up for what you are saying.
Maybe the WB is not giving you the whole story?
I am trying to keep a level, neutral opinion bystander-type position here but everything is pointing to the committee members just trying to save some extra bucks for orange season.
By going back to a scope minimum of 1x only provides a kinda-sorta slightly little different hunting experience from the alw hunt.

 

[slamdunk]

Personal threats? How have I threatened you big boi?

Your trail cam threats.

It must be painful being so small.......

 

[hossblur]

? it won’t lower success rates. There’s data to back that up. They are choosing to conveniently ignore that.

I've seen the data. If you don't separate out dedicated dudes, who generally are going to sit on a tag, especially in the first year, the success rates are skewed low.

If you do the rates for ONLY otc muzzy, they are going to be higher.

 

[slamdunk]

True.
But extremely easy to check for exposed ignition and detonation methods.
Why is the State not going all the way or nothing at all?
Why just a little baby step to pizz off the majority 99%.
If we are gonna do it let’s just do it and rip off the band aid all at once instead of a tiny little bit of it.
If the proposal of the WB is to have the muzzleloader hunt be a different hunt experience from the alw season, the WB would go for it all.
There are just certain things that don’t add up for what you are saying.
Maybe the WB is not giving you the whole story?
I am trying to keep a level, neutral opinion bystander-type position here but everything is pointing to the committee members just trying to save some extra bucks for orange season.
By going back to a scope minimum of 1x only provides a kinda-sorta slightly little different hunting experience from the alw hunt.

FWIW, I would be all over a proposal of going all the way back to exposed ignition type hunts on the GS & LE hunts and I would still apply for those hunts.

But, as I mentioned a few times, the WB asked us to make seperate definitions of three types of muzzleloaders.
Modern, Traditional and Primitive.
There are no intentions of banning current style inlines.

 

[hossblur]

It’s all being withheld from the public. And you know what I’m talking about.

Defy all rules, laws and regulations... hahaha That’s a very broad statement there, knobgobbler. Sure I’ve made some mistakes in the past. We all have. It just bothers most, apparently you included, that I learned from them and bettered myself because of it. I thought that was the goal?

Do you use the original knee pads issued by the RMEF in your committee meetings? Or did they hand out their own special edition committee knee pads with extra padding? Surely you’d need industrial strength ones for all the oral presentations that take place in those back rooms.

If you "know" something, and don't share it, it's pretty pathetic that you'd call out slam for " knowing" something.

Are your knee pads extra thick??

 

[elkassassin]

Anybody Know Why They Didn't Want Us Using Sabots Back In The Day?

Years Ago I Asked Many People & Wardens!

I Never Got An Answer?

 

[Bux n Dux]

Your trail cam threats.

It must be painful being so small.......

You need to reevaluate what a “personal threat” is…

I didn’t threaten anyone.

I’m helping enforce a law you had a hand in creating. You’re fugging welcome. Azzhat.

 

[Bux n Dux]

If you "know" something, and don't share it, it's pretty pathetic that you'd call out slam for " knowing" something.

Are your knee pads extra thick??

Not as thick as his.

Wait for the proposals coming out in the coming months. You’ll see.

 

[Bux n Dux]

I've seen the data. If you don't separate out dedicated dudes, who generally are going to sit on a tag, especially in the first year, the success rates are skewed low.

If you do the rates for ONLY otc muzzy, they are going to be higher.

I’ve seen the data too. It’s comparable. Across the board.

 

[elkassassin]

Just A matter Of Time At The Tree!

 

[elkassassin]

I Expect THE BOSS To Step In Here Shortly!

 

[Founder]

Ok, the name calling and's petty shots at each other needs to stop.
I’m locking this thread.

 

[slamdunk]

If you "know" something, and don't share it, it's pretty pathetic that you'd call out slam for " knowing" something.

Are your knee pads extra thick??

He doesn't "know" anything.

I've been more than honest and as accurate as
possible about what I know and understand.

If I thought something was shady or fishy, I would resign from my position.

I am not a conspirator, politician or a Nazi SS, I am an average blue collar individual and hunting enthusiast just like 90% of the people on this forum.