Is a blackpowder muzzleloader equal to a rifle or superior ?

[hossblur]

So Hoss
I like your thought process on this. And I like that emerging tech is being looked at. I do question what motivates the current tech committee for scope removal on muzzleloaders. 1970-2023. Over 50 years for the muzzy hunt. 2015 utah hunters vote for scopes = 8 years. If we wanted to keep the regs for 1970 -where were all those to support it?
The tech committee has said that this isn’t about saving animals - just want it to be different from the rifle hunt.
All the hunts that we knew back then are different now - but the muzzy gets the chopping block.

The tech committee is picking on muzzleloaders without the facts to back up their claims.
Those bows from the 1970,s advanced
Those rifles from the 1970,s advanced
Those muzzleloaders also advanced.

A you tube video of an muzzleloader antelope kill at 700 yards isn’t a correct representation of the average hunter.

Neither is a 330 yard shot with a bow

Or a 7774 rifle shot.

All 3 had electronics removed and I support that. I completely disagree that tech has advanced way more with a muzzleloader vs rifles and bows. My plan is really a simple one. Expose the tech committee for their BS lies about muzzleloaders.
My article that I shared is just the beginning
And I’m an old timer that believes in keeping our rights and liberties. Let them take your scopes off muzzies and you’ll get exactly what you deserve going forward.

Hopefully. Hopefully it is just the beginning. Hopefully they go after extremes soon, because this is just low hanging fruit.

The free for all if someone makes money off it that Utah hunting has become is a JOKE.

And it's not the DWR that profits. Short of Texas, I can't think of a more industry driven state be that CWMU, "conservation tags", or the free for all that exists in means of take.

We have a RIGHT to hunt in Utah. You DO NOT have a right to a scope.

I've read all your comments. Lots of ballistic nerd data, lots of bullshit, not a single mention of how unlimited muzzleloaders INCREASE OPPURTUNITY.

It's the typical Utah attitude. Always gotta be pushing boundaries then squealing about rights or liberties.

Hunters hunt. Shooters shoot. If you want to shoot, great, go shoot. But the ballistics geeks should definitely not be in charge of hunting.

So yes. YES, YES, YES, I hope they stop the advance. Stop it in bows, muzzys AND RIFLES.

Time for guys to decide if they want to hunt, or if they want to shoot.

 

[elks96]

Depends on the rifle I suppose. I would think that a modern muzzy is every bit as good if not better than say an old 30/30...

 

[Ballistic]

Hopefully. Hopefully it is just the beginning. Hopefully they go after extremes soon, because this is just low hanging fruit.

The free for all if someone makes money off it that Utah hunting has become is a JOKE.

And it's not the DWR that profits. Short of Texas, I can't think of a more industry driven state be that CWMU, "conservation tags", or the free for all that exists in means of take.

We have a RIGHT to hunt in Utah. You DO NOT have a right to a scope.

I've read all your comments. Lots of ballistic nerd data, lots of bullshit, not a single mention of how unlimited muzzleloaders INCREASE OPPURTUNITY.

It's the typical Utah attitude. Always gotta be pushing boundaries then squealing about rights or liberties.

Hunters hunt. Shooters shoot. If you want to shoot, great, go shoot. But the ballistics geeks should definitely not be in charge of hunting.

So yes. YES, YES, YES, I hope they stop the advance. Stop it in bows, muzzys AND RIFLES.

Time for guys to decide if they want to hunt, or if they want to shoot.

Oh Hossy Hossy

You’re loosing your edge buddy. Time for you to wake up in your old age.
But thanks for letting me correct you as you obviously have profiled me.
I’ll start with your 4th paragraph and move down.
1-“Hunting is a privilege not a right” -see utah proclamation.
2- “Nerd data- my BS” -well that’s your opinion and that’s ok. At least I provided actual data. What have you provided other than your emotions ?
3-“Unlimited muzzleloaders increase opportunity-those are your words”. I didn’t say 1 way or the other. Actual data can be argued both ways. And can be argued for rifle and archery as well.
4- “The typical utah attitude”. We all have our own.
5-“Rights and liberties” -No I’m not joining your HOA.
6-“Hunters are hunters and shooters are shooters”. I’m not sure where you’re getting your meat from Hossy? I have to actually shoot mine with a legal weapon.
7-“Ballistic geeks should not be in charge of hunting”
If precision is putting a round where you want it to go -then why do you sight in your weapon ? Why would you shoot it when the wind is blowing or see how it shoots in zero to hot temps ? And recheck your zero when you arrive where your hunting ?

Well Hossy
It’s time for me to profile you now.

You’re probably not a resident of Utah.
You’re the president of an HOA.
You refuse to look at facts.
You’re driven by your feelings.
You buy your meat at the grocery store or maybe you’re a vegetarian.
You don’t know anything about precision or ballistics.
If you’re a hunter - you hired the local range officer to zero your gun in a lead sled.
You still have that same old box of corelocks for the past 15 years because your too cheap to buy another box.

And lastly
You were trying to close the gap (50 yards or less) with that old smoothbore patch and ball POS from 1970 - when someone shot that buck out from beneath you. And by gosh that 2 point has now grown into a 12 point. Remove the scopes on muzzleloaders you say because it’s not a right to have one- current proclamation says it is.

Hossy
I’m giving you the chance to prove me wrong on all the above. Please use facts and data - along with your precious feelings. But this time use some facts. Copies of the utah big game proclamation can be found online and at your local sporting goods store.

 

[hossblur]

Oh Hossy Hossy

You’re loosing your edge buddy. Time for you to wake up in your old age.
But thanks for letting me correct you as you obviously have profiled me.
I’ll start with your 4th paragraph and move down.
1-“Hunting is a privilege not a right” -see utah proclamation.
2- “Nerd data- my BS” -well that’s your opinion and that’s ok. At least I provided actual data. What have you provided other than your emotions ?
3-“Unlimited muzzleloaders increase opportunity-those are your words”. I didn’t say 1 way or the other. Actual data can be argued both ways. And can be argued for rifle and archery as well.
4- “The typical utah attitude”. We all have our own.
5-“Rights and liberties” -No I’m not joining your HOA.
6-“Hunters are hunters and shooters are shooters”. I’m not sure where you’re getting your meat from Hossy? I have to actually shoot mine with a legal weapon.
7-“Ballistic geeks should not be in charge of hunting”
If precision is putting a round where you want it to go -then why do you sight in your weapon ? Why would you shoot it when the wind is blowing or see how it shoots in zero to hot temps ? And recheck your zero when you arrive where your hunting ?

Well Hossy
It’s time for me to profile you now.

You’re probably not a resident of Utah.
You’re the president of an HOA.
You refuse to look at facts.
You’re driven by your feelings.
You buy your meat at the grocery store or maybe you’re a vegetarian.
You don’t know anything about precision or ballistics.
If you’re a hunter - you hired the local range officer to zero your gun in a lead sled.
You still have that same old box of corelocks for the past 15 years because your too cheap to buy another box.

And lastly
You were trying to close the gap (50 yards or less) with that old smoothbore patch and ball POS from 1970 - when someone shot that buck out from beneath you. And by gosh that 2 point has now grown into a 12 point. Remove the scopes on muzzleloaders you say because it’s not a right to have one- current proclamation says it is.

Hossy
I’m giving you the chance to prove me wrong on all the above. Please use facts and data - along with your precious feelings. But this time use some facts. Copies of the utah big game proclamation can be found online and at your local sporting goods store.

I'll start here:.

Right to hunt and fish. The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Copies of the Utah constitution are available on line, Google it.


2. I was born in Utah lived here my whole life, and just for funzies, my great..... grandpa rolled into town with Brigham, how about you

3. Every elk/deer I've ever killed with a gun that shoots about 1-2 inch groups, died. An elks heart and lungs don't require that type of precision.

4. No on HOA, but not sure how that relates.

5. I have no issue with corelokts, the 2 bulls hanging above my staircase did. But I've since moved on to trophy bonds.

6. While you hang out at the range sporting wood over 1foot per sec increase, I was hunting. I'll start in 2 weeks, end shut it down last day of waterfowl.

7. You've still never explained how hunting is ruined if you can't shoot a scope on a muzzy. You've cried about your loss of financial investment. Nor have you supplied that makes any sense on kill%. As I said, as a dedicated guy, I don't burn the tag with a smokepole on avg deer, thus, helping to decrease success rates artificially, as if muzzy hunting was the only weapon, I would pull the trigger. And I'm in the majority of dedicated guys, thus skewing the success rates.

10-1,000.

Enjoy the range. Send the NRA some cash for the latest threat to America, and keep that TV on OAN.

 

[Ballistic]

I'll start here:.

Right to hunt and fish. The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Copies of the Utah constitution are available on line, Google it.


2. I was born in Utah lived here my whole life, and just for funzies, my great..... grandpa rolled into town with Brigham, how about you

3. Every elk/deer I've ever killed with a gun that shoots about 1-2 inch groups, died. An elks heart and lungs don't require that type of precision.

4. No on HOA, but not sure how that relates.

5. I have no issue with corelokts, the 2 bulls hanging above my staircase did. But I've since moved on to trophy bonds.

6. While you hang out at the range sporting wood over 1foot per sec increase, I was hunting. I'll start in 2 weeks, end shut it down last day of waterfowl.

7. You've still never explained how hunting is ruined if you can't shoot a scope on a muzzy. You've cried about your loss of financial investment. Nor have you supplied that makes any sense on kill%. As I said, as a dedicated guy, I don't burn the tag with a smokepole on avg deer, thus, helping to decrease success rates artificially, as if muzzy hunting was the only weapon, I would pull the trigger. And I'm in the majority of dedicated guys, thus skewing the success rates.

10-1,000.

Enjoy the range. Send the NRA some cash for the latest threat to America, and keep that TV on OAN.

Oh my goodness Hossy

You’re clinging to your heritage of Brigham Young and proud of it. I’m happy for you - I’m sure you “know” that the church is true.

And your clinging to the original state constitution.
You at least brought some half facts into this and I’m proud of you. And since hunting is a right - why did you have to buy a license or put in for a draw?
And dedicated only allows 2 harvests in 3 years ? Hmm I thought it was a right.


If you’re truly a dedicated hunter -it’s required you take a course. In that course you have to pass 100%. A few questions were asked in that course that define your rights and privileges to hunt. Did you lie to pass the test ?

Here’s a pic Hossy from the field regs book. This can also be found in the 2023 big game application guide book.

And 2 questions from dedicated orientation course. Can you find the words “privilege” in the text ? Imagine if all 3 million plus utahs had the right to hunt -and not the privilege (permit) needed.

Hossy
I’ve provided plenty of data that shows a muzzleloader isn’t equal to or superior to a centerfire rifle. And that it’s tech has not surpassed that of archery and centerfire rifle tech. That data goes back 170 years. And it disproves what you thought you “knew” in 1970. That data vs your word -no contest.
Oh Hossy
I’m also an advid hunter and a shooter as well. I’m in the dedicated program and answered those “privilege” questions. I have all 3 weapons ( the latest and best tech and equipment that $$$ can buy).
It won’t hurt me as much as it will hurt you when optics are removed. I’ll adjust and still shoot that animal out from underneath you.
Will your tiny years be from anger or envy or true tears from bearing that testimony of yours on fast Sunday ?
Your data is just your word and what you “know”-your testimony. And while I admire it - there aren’t any facts to back it up.

 

[Hawkeye]

This thread has now officially moved from ridiculous to pure comedy. Your personal digs at Hossy and his religious views highlight how little you really know about him. Carry on with the nonsense.

Hawkeye

 

[Ballistic]

This thread has now officially moved from ridiculous to pure comedy. Your personal digs at Hossy and his religious views highlight how little you really know about him. Carry on with the nonsense.

Hawkeye

You must be his friend ?
What about his personal digs at me ?
That’s ok when your beasties -lol !

And you’re correct -it’s a damned comedy now.
It needs to go back to its intents.
Is a muzzleloader equal to or superior to a rifle ?

 

[elkassassin]

Hopefully. Hopefully it is just the beginning. Hopefully they go after extremes soon, because this is just low hanging fruit.

The free for all if someone makes money off it that Utah hunting has become is a JOKE.

And it's not the DWR that profits. Short of Texas, I can't think of a more industry driven state be that CWMU, "conservation tags", or the free for all that exists in means of take.

We have a RIGHT to hunt in Utah. You DO NOT have a right to a scope.

Have A RIGHT?

I Thought It Was A Privilege?

I've read all your comments. Lots of ballistic nerd data, lots of bullshit, not a single mention of how unlimited muzzleloaders INCREASE OPPURTUNITY.

It's the typical Utah attitude. Always gotta be pushing boundaries then squealing about rights or liberties.

Hunters hunt. Shooters shoot. If you want to shoot, great, go shoot. But the ballistics geeks should definitely not be in charge of hunting.

So yes. YES, YES, YES, I hope they stop the advance. Stop it in bows, muzzys AND RIFLES.

Time for guys to decide if they want to hunt, or if they want to shoot.

 

[elkassassin]

You Just Failed Hunters Safety Hossy!

That Was One Of The Questions On The Hunters Safety Test 50+ Years Ago!

 

[hossblur]

Sorry Bess, but both you and Ballistic apparently didn't vote in 2020?

 

[hossblur]

And as to the swipes at my nice neighbors who do attend church, raise good kids, and are pretty good folks?

But, like everything else @Ballistic has put out, he's just wrong, and arrogant in his wrongness.

So, as to me and my "know it's true" crack

But great, let's get rid of the scopes, but preferably the powder, ignition, and projectile.

If you can shoot out from under me, great, it would confirm the consensus about you being a tool, but I'd probably walk over and congratulate you.

My schlong size will be safe, either way

 

[Ballistic]

And as to the swipes at my nice neighbors who do attend church, raise good kids, and are pretty good folks?

But, like everything else @Ballistic has put out, he's just wrong, and arrogant in his wrongness.

So, as to me and my "know it's true" crackView attachment 117303


But great, let's get rid of the scopes, but preferably the powder, ignition, and projectile.

If you can shoot out from under me, great, it would confirm the consensus about you being a tool, but I'd probably walk over and congratulate you.

My schlong size will be safe, either way

Hossy
You took the swipes at me first.
A little payback -you had it coming !

I’ll tell ya what - I’ll go 1st and apologize on the swipes. The tech stuff NO.
Or we can keep going with this nonsense?

 

[hossblur]

Hossy
You took the swipes at me first.
A little payback -you had it coming !

I’ll tell ya what - I’ll go 1st and apologize on the swipes. The tech stuff NO.
Or we can keep going with this nonsense?

Smacking my Mormon neighbors wasn't a smack at me,.

Feel free to keep going. The more dudes cry, the more they expose themselves. We saw it with bait, then cams, now tech.

@slamdunk and the fellas, have got it dead to nuts.

 

[Ballistic]

Smacking my Mormon neighbors wasn't a smack at me,.

Feel free to keep going. The more dudes cry, the more they expose themselves. We saw it with bait, then cams, now tech.

@slamdunk and the fellas, have got it dead to nuts.

Your quote at me Hossy.
“But, like everything else @Ballistic has put out, he's just wrong, and arrogant in his wrongness.”

Tried to apologize to you.
Now who’s the arrogant one?

Anyway - done with you.

 

[elkassassin]

Ya!

Figured This Was Coming!

I Was Just Checking To See If You Voted!

I'm Sick Of Voting For Lesser Of Evils!

Hows That Sound?

Sorry Bess, but both you and Ballistic apparently didn't vote in 2020?View attachment 117301

 

[notdonhunting]

So Hoss
I like your thought process on this. And I like that emerging tech is being looked at. I do question what motivates the current tech committee for scope removal on muzzleloaders. 1970-2023. Over 50 years for the muzzy hunt. 2015 utah hunters vote for scopes = 8 years. If we wanted to keep the regs for 1970 -where were all those to support it?

What are you talking about, there was never a VOTE!
Biden, your plane has already left Utah.

 

[hossblur]

Your quote at me Hossy.
“But, like everything else @Ballistic has put out, he's just wrong, and arrogant in his wrongness.”

Tried to apologize to you.
Now who’s the arrogant one?

Anyway - done with you.

If you drag guys out in the deep end eventually they expose themselves. Or, the "5 whys " theory.

All that posting of "data" that didn't it doesn't pertain to real life was an attempt to muddy the water.

So in order to get to the real issue you had, I drug you out of the safe space of charts and graphs.

When you dropped the line about buying the best equipment money can buy, it was over. The reason at the end that you are so fired up is because you see this issue as an attack on your investment. Which is fine, but it has nothing to do with all the "data".

I don't get flustered by this topic because I think it misses the actual tech in muzzys, however, something is better than nothing.

You don't owe me an apology, you exposed so bigotry to a lot of other dudes in here, but I'm not an active member so the slander missed it's mark.

But do realize, everytime you post some new "data" point, you'll see your quote about buying the best equipment money can buy following it.

 

[Ballistic]

Hossy
Your pathetic
You just keep that big head of yours buried in the sand.
Because you know what real world experience is. Your little world of knowledge is very limited and again -you only having your feelings- no facts. No data

Having the best equipment that money can buy is a freedom. Just like you have your freedom to shoot a smoothbore from 1970.

You think you’ve exposed me for who I really am ?
I can dish it out if you haven’t noticed and you’ve gotten those precious feelings hurt or you would have let this go.

At least I’m willing to offer an apology and shake hands.
You’re not - but you call me out as being arrogant and that’s fine.
And now I’ve exposed you for who you are.
Are we even now ?
I’m not using my (online groupies) friends as an excuse like you have.

Tell you what -PM me if you want to keep this nonsense going.

 

[Ballistic]

What are you talking about, there was never a VOTE!
Biden, your plane has already left Utah.

DWR: What hunting equipment should/shouldn't be allowed in Utah?

The Division of Wildlife Resources released a survey and wants feedback on what hunting equipment should and shouldn't be allowed in Utah.

www.ksl.com

You are correct
It was a survey and done in 2015. Effective 2016 so 7 years of magnified scopes.

“57 percent supported the use of magnifying scopes on muzzleloaders during deer and elk seasons”

What does that have to do with “Bidens Plane Landing” ?
Lol

 

[Ballistic]

What are you talking about, there was never a VOTE!
Biden, your plane has already left Utah.

See 2015 KSL article survey as posted before this thread.
Do you think the WB voted on this to make it official ? Usually that’s the process but it’s unclear from data in 2015 but was on the WB agenda.
Thanks

 

[elkassassin]

Hey Hossy!

You're Gonna Get Your New YOTA All Trimmed Out!

Custom Tires!

Custom Rims!

Winch!

Gun Holders/Racks!

SpotLights!

Mud Flaps!

Bug Shield!

Ranch Hand Deer Catcher!

Tool Box!

Tool Box Accessories!

Tire Chains!

Shovel!

Tools!

YETI!

Some Michelobs!

Custom Michelob Cooled Holders!

Custom Stickers For The Back Window!

A Booster Cell Antenna!

Weather-Tech Floor Mats Throughout!

Custom Cover For The Steering Wheel!

Camo Seat Covers!

SWARO Spotting Scope!

And Then When The Committee's Start Dissecting That New Rig You're Sure Gonna Be In A Sweet Mood When That Happens!

Ya!

Go Ahead!

Thump Your Chest!

Tell Us They Ain't Taking Anything From You!

If you drag guys out in the deep end eventually they expose themselves. Or, the "5 whys " theory.

All that posting of "data" that didn't it doesn't pertain to real life was an attempt to muddy the water.

So in order to get to the real issue you had, I drug you out of the safe space of charts and graphs.

When you dropped the line about buying the best equipment money can buy, it was over. The reason at the end that you are so fired up is because you see this issue as an attack on your investment. Which is fine, but it has nothing to do with all the "data".

I don't get flustered by this topic because I think it misses the actual tech in muzzys, however, something is better than nothing.

You don't owe me an apology, you exposed so bigotry to a lot of other dudes in here, but I'm not an active member so the slander missed it's mark.

But do realize, everytime you post some new "data" point, you'll see your quote about buying the best equipment money can buy following it.

 

[hossblur]

Hossy
Your pathetic
You just keep that big head of yours buried in the sand.
Because you know what real world experience is. Your little world of knowledge is very limited and again -you only having your feelings- no facts. No data

Having the best equipment that money can buy is a freedom. Just like you have your freedom to shoot a smoothbore from 1970.

You think you’ve exposed me for who I really am ?
I can dish it out if you haven’t noticed and you’ve gotten those precious feelings hurt or you would have let this go.

At least I’m willing to offer an apology and shake hands.
You’re not - but you call me out as being arrogant and that’s fine.
And now I’ve exposed you for who you are.
Are we even now ?
I’m not using my (online groupies) friends as an excuse like you have.

Tell you what -PM me if you want to keep this nonsense going.

You know, if you'd just jumped in on this topic and said you'd invested a lot of money on equipment, and a bunch of time on loads so thats why you opposed it, everyone could understood that, whether they agreed or not.

But you didn't. You trotted out stupid data, that doesn't work, which you should know because your a DH skewing that data.

You don't owe me an apology, silly that you think you do.

But as to my "groupies"???? I'm sure my best friend Hawkeye enjoyed that one.

Like I said, good luck. But, like I said, I'll drop your line in every time you trot out more" data."

Next time, just be up front to start with

 

[hossblur]

Hey Hossy!

You're Gonna Get Your New YOTA All Trimmed Out!

Custom Tires!

Custom Rims!

Winch!

Gun Holders/Racks!

SpotLights!

Mud Flaps!

Bug Shield!

Ranch Hand Deer Catcher!

Tool Box!

Tool Box Accessories!

Tire Chains!

Shovel!

Tools!

YETI!

Some Michelobs!

Custom Michelob Cooled Holders!

Custom Stickers For The Back Window!

A Booster Cell Antenna!

Weather-Tech Floor Mats Throughout!

Custom Cover For The Steering Wheel!

Camo Seat Covers!

SWARO Spotting Scope!

And Then When The Committee's Start Dissecting That New Rig You're Sure Gonna Be In A Sweet Mood When That Happens!

Ya!

Go Ahead!

Thump Your Chest!

Tell Us They Ain't Taking Anything From You!

Um, so I guess since I spent that much, I should get a key to every gate in the mtn, RIGHT? I mean it's about freedom and rights. This is 'Merica after all. Restricting my ability to run that Yota into a wilderness area goes against the constitution or bill if rights or something, correct? I mean, there are roads there, then they put up a gate, so I've lost my rights and all.?

Btw, did you and Ballistic go read amendment E so you know the difference now?

 

[slamdunk]

Good Lord, I take a day or two off to defuse from the poll and I see this sh!t show before my coffee even kicks in.

My head hurts already.....

 

[Ballistic]

Your quotes

“but I'm not an active member so the slander missed it's mark.”
“ But, like I said, I'll drop your line in every time you trot out more" data."

9116 posts and your not an active member - and threats - really ???

Here’s the deal Hossy
Provide something besides your feelings. Data tells the truth.
Your amendment data is admirable but the data also says that your license is a privilege. At least it’s data.
Provide some data that contradicts what I have posted on a muzzleloader being equal to or better than a rifle.
Something that questions 170 years of the Minnie Ball and how advanced those Hawkins really were.

Just PM me.
This nonsense is between us (not elkassasain and I vs you) and whos really looking at it ?
This is between the 2 of us.

 

[hossblur]

View attachment 117330

Your quotes

“but I'm not an active member so the slander missed it's mark.”
“ But, like I said, I'll drop your line in every time you trot out more" data."

9116 posts and your not an active member - and threats - really ???

Here’s the deal Hossy
Provide something besides your feelings. Data tells the truth.
Your amendment data is admirable but the data also says that your license is a privilege. At least it’s data.
Provide some data that contradicts what I have posted on a muzzleloader being equal to or better than a rifle.
Something that questions 170 years of the Minnie Ball and how advanced those Hawkins really were.

Just PM me.
This nonsense is between us (not elkassasain and I vs you) and whos really looking at it ?
This is between the 2 of us.

I'm not an active member of the church you were busy slandering. That's what I said, thus the Ultra on the dashboard as an example.

Slow down man, you keep getting waaaaaay out ahead of your skis.

Im no lawyer, but I'm guessing the state constitution trumps the DWR proclamation, but whatever.

There was no data used to allow scopes, just dudes wanting them instead of laser surgery or glasses, so there's no need for it to remove them.

Take a breath man, you got so wound up yesterday you were blasting Mormons, don't get wound up again today.

You can still play at the range with the best equipment money can buy, you'll just have to hunt a little more come seasons without it.

If your older than me, your too damn old to get that wound up, relax

 

[scopenstalk]

“but I'm not an active member so the slander missed it's mark.”

9116 posts and your not an active member - and threats - really ???

Active member of the LDS church is what Hossy means there.

You really did no favors for your case by lowering the conversation into bashing religion and talk of shooting deer out from others.

I mentioned a few comments ago to take a step back and read your own comments and think about them. You really should have done that.

 

[slamdunk]

"Date tells the truth"
No, an individuals personal presentation of data only gives an arguing point, it does not tell a complete story.

"Data" was provided to the tech committee on the first meeting that was provided by one singular individual opposed to scope restrictions and was quickly disputed by many.

Then we have another member who personally claims to have harvested an animal at 1100 with a Gunwerks muzzleloader.

And another member who openly stated his particular muzzleloader set up is more accurate and trustworthy in his hands than any centerfire he owns and would choose to use it on the ALW hunts over anything else without question.

Every Committee is comprised of individuals of various interests, backgrounds.
No one committee is comprised of biased opinions, otherwise what would the point be.

Does the Elk Committee compromise of majority of either general season spike hunters, Trophy bull hunters, Outfitters, landowners or Cattlemen to get a majority vote?
Absolutely not, this committee is no different.

 

[Ballistic]

Active member of the LDS church is what Hossy means there.

You really did no favors for your case by lowering the conversation into bashing religion and talk of shooting deer out from others.

I mentioned a few comments ago to take a step back and read your own comments and think about them. You really should have done that.

I’m glad that Hossy has now clarified what his post was about -didn’t before. He started it with his comments about his descendants coming into the state with Brigham Young. And Hossy “knows” just like the Mormons “know” but no facts to back either up.
And shooting it out from under his feet - I knew it would fire him up.
If he wants to limit the ranges that I’m shooting and the same to you - you can go and ___ yourself.

That’s not for you to decide. But that’s what the agenda is about. A bunch of cry babies that can’t handle it when someone that “can” does it. There aren’t many that “can” most get lucky.
Do as Hossy thinks is best -limit powders/ignitions/bullets. And I will still be out there pissing you poor little cry babies off.
You’re not going to be able to stop it.

Where’s the data that proves a muzzleloaders tech has grown more than a rifle or archery ?

If this is an ethics debate bring it on !
Hossy and his remarks at ballistics and long range BS -he should have left it alone. He’s still stuck in 1970 and doesn’t know what a hawken with a Minnie Ball can do.

And I’m still waiting for you to post wether or not the votes from your poll are from utah? And why Slam would recommend taking optics off scopes based off a possibly biased vote on this thread?

Are you working on that one yet ?

 

[scopenstalk]

And Hossy “knows” just like the Mormons “know” but no facts to back either up.

Keep talking about religion it makes you look so smart and good and will get people to listen to your argument.

And shooting it out from under his feet - I knew it would fire him up.
If he wants to limit the ranges that I’m shooting and the same to you - you can go and ___ yourself.

I give zero fcks how far you shoot at game.

And I’m still waiting for you to post wether or not the votes from your poll are from utah? And why Slam would recommend taking optics off scopes based off a possibly biased vote on this thread?

Are you working on that one yet ?

I did answer you champ. It is unkown who voted. Already stated. If you would read you would see that.

Keep typing. You are just continuing to show what an idiot you truly are.

And with that piss off, I won't be responding anymore because arguing with a pig makes both dirty but the pig likes it.

 

[Ballistic]

"Date tells the truth"
No, an individuals personal presentation of data only gives an arguing point, it does not tell a complete story.

"Data" was provided to the tech committee on the first meeting that was provided by one singular individual opposed to scope restrictions and was quickly disputed by many.

Then we have another member who personally claims to have harvested an animal at 1100 with a Gunwerks muzzleloader.

And another member who openly stated his particular muzzleloader set up is more accurate and trustworthy in his hands than any centerfire he owns and would choose to use it on the ALW hunts over anything else without question.

Every Committee is comprised of individuals of various interests, backgrounds.
No one committee is comprised of biased opinions, otherwise what would the point be.

Does the Elk Committee compromise of majority of either general season spike hunters, Trophy bull hunters, Outfitters, landowners or Cattlemen to get a majority vote?
Absolutely not, this committee is no different.

Slam
Why did you use the vote poll from the other thread to recommend eliminating or reducing optics on muzzleloaders ? And since that poll may or may not be utah based why would you use it ?

And other than what you have just posted plus the 700 yard muzzleloader antelope video and other (speed of 3200 fps that you in fact corrected yourself on) -
Wheres the data to back up the claims that a muzzleloaders tech has grown more than a rifle or archery ?
That’s what has really pissed me off about the optics issue.
Show me the data and I’ll be happy to understand why the muzzleloader is the scapegoat. Ok -maybe not happy -but will comprehend it.
Thanks

 

[slamdunk]

Slam
Why did you use the vote poll from the other thread to recommend eliminating or reducing optics on muzzleloaders ? And since that poll may or may not be utah based why would you use it ?

Assuming you are referring to the poll here on MM posted in the Utah forum?
Obviously a majority of the voters would be from Utah since it's posted in the Utah forum.
I don't use any poll as a personal tool, the polls are speaking for themselves.
I am one vote, I am not the entire committee.
Having said that, every state around us recognizes the obvious trends in that weapon and have addressed it before Utah has even officially taken it's first entry level voting process.
So even if non Utah people voted on a Utah poll, their opinions should be valid since they have a right to hunt here and saw the same reasoning (left or right) to give a vote.

And other than what you have just posted plus the 700 yard muzzleloader antelope video and other (speed of 3200 fps that you in fact corrected yourself on) -
Wheres the data to back up the claims that a muzzleloaders tech has grown more than a rifle or archery ?

There is no actual "data" on the components and enhancements made to muzzleloaders to stretch their capabilities, a walk through a simple Cal-Ranch store see what's on the shelves for sale goes without question.
10 years ago a 500 yard kill was unheard of with a muzzleloader, today they are being seen all over YouTube and social media in growing fashion.
Step into the muzzleloader forum and look at all the long range chatter, it's crickets for short range Hawkin style guns.
10 years from now, what would we have?
The high power scope is the driving force behind it all, without dispute or argument.
Again.....the muzzleloader hunt was never forecasted to become what it is becoming.
The argument in 2015 to ask for scopes was poor eyesight and a muzzleloader was still a 200 yard weapon for the vast majority of users but is obviously exploding into much more.

This isn't a "save the dwindling herd" issue, this is a "keep it what is was intended to be" issue.

Archery will never be a 100+ yard weapon, far too many natural elements to deflect an arrow in flight off course, but banning electronics now keeps the emerging technologies from developing something silly like laser guided arrows.
If you laugh at that possibility, you aren't paying attention to today's world.
As with anything....if someone invents it, it will become a hot commodity.

 

[elkassassin]

Hey Hossy?

I Don't Care what your Religion Is!

You Can Be Whoever You Wanna Be & Believe In Whatever You Want To!

But Please Do Tell Us?

Are You A Member?

If Not I'm Sending Some Visitors Over!

I'm not an active member of the church you were busy slandering. That's what I said, thus the Ultra on the dashboard as an example.

Slow down man, you keep getting waaaaaay out ahead of your skis.

Im no lawyer, but I'm guessing the state constitution trumps the DWR proclamation, but whatever.

There was no data used to allow scopes, just dudes wanting them instead of laser surgery or glasses, so there's no need for it to remove them.

Take a breath man, you got so wound up yesterday you were blasting Mormons, don't get wound up again today.

You can still play at the range with the best equipment money can buy, you'll just have to hunt a little more come seasons without it.

If your older than me, your too damn old to get that wound up, relax

 

[Ballistic]

“There is no actual "data" on the components and enhancements made to muzzleloaders to stretch their capabilities, a walk through a simple Cal-Ranch store see what's on the shelves for sale goes without question”.

I’m not good at copy and paste but that’s your quote above.

And that’s what I will continue to use for debate on the scope removal proposal vs the other tech.

Slam
I have actually (past posts) agreed with you on limiting tech (emerging tech) and have said a 4X scope would be a compromise.

The muzzy is taking the “Hit “ right now and that’s the issue. I hunt with all 3. And I have shot competition at long range with a rifle and past archery 3D shoots.

Do you think the archers would like to see where tech has taken them from 1965?
Back when the recurve turned into a compound and todays bows with 80% let off and speeds over 300 fps with some pushing 350. What do you think the average range was those hunters compared to now?

Or the rifle hunters tech ? Look at all of the factory loaded ammo that you can buy to shoot 1000 plus yards. The factory chambers of yesterdays rifles are garbage compared to todays rifles. An off the shelf cheap savage is a benchrest gun compared to 1965-1970 rifles.

Then take all 3 weapons and see what the average hunter can do with them. It will hurt others worse than it will hurt me. I’ll adjust and folks will cry about it. I’ve called out those that proclaim 1100 yards with a muzzy but no takers. And there’s a reason for it - it can’t be done and if it was true not repeatedly.

Everything has grown in tech not just the muzzleloader.
If your going to take from one - take from them all and I still don’t want that either. That’s why I’m 100% against scope removal on a muzzleloader now.

And thank you for your answer. I’ll be nice to you now……..
Ballistic

 

[slamdunk]

“There is no actual "data" on the components and enhancements made to muzzleloaders to stretch their capabilities, a walk through a simple Cal-Ranch store see what's on the shelves for sale goes without question”.

I’m not good at copy and paste but that’s your quote above.

And that’s what I will continue to use for debate on the scope removal proposal vs the other tech.

Slam
I have actually (past posts) agreed with you on limiting tech (emerging tech) and have said a 4X scope would be a compromise.

The muzzy is taking the “Hit “ right now and that’s the issue. I hunt with all 3. And I have shot competition at long range with a rifle and past archery 3D shoots.

Do you think the archers would like to see where tech has taken them from 1965?
Back when the recurve turned into a compound and todays bows with 80% let off and speeds over 300 fps with some pushing 350. What do you think the average range was those hunters compared to now?

Or the rifle hunters tech ? Look at all of the factory loaded ammo that you can buy to shoot 1000 plus yards. The factory chambers of yesterdays rifles are garbage compared to todays rifles. An off the shelf cheap savage is a benchrest gun compared to 1965-1970 rifles.

Then take all 3 weapons and see what the average hunter can do with them. It will hurt others worse than it will hurt me. I’ll adjust and folks will cry about it. I’ve called out those that proclaim 1100 yards with a muzzy but no takers. And there’s a reason for it - it can’t be done and if it was true not repeatedly.

Everything has grown in tech not just the muzzleloader.
If your going to take from one - take from them all and I still don’t want that either. That’s why I’m 100% against scope removal on a muzzleloader now.

And thank you for your answer. I’ll be nice to you now……..
Ballistic

Lol....I promise I haven't taken anything as "not nice" at all.
This is a sensitive subject and emotions definitely come into play.

I am primarily a muzzleloader hunter for my Utah deer hunts.
My rifle is an older Knight Thumb hole Extreme disk.
When I retired my Thompson Hawkin for that rifle years ago, I was blown away by it in comparison.
Then it got a 1x red dot....it was a 200yd gun without even pushing it.
Then came the Vortex Tactical 4x12 with turrets.
Then came better bullets and powders.
Now I'm easily hitting 300+ with fairly simple adjustments.
This rifle is considered outdated but is as accurate and as powerful as a lever action 30-30, or very close to it.

The point is this.
When my set up was new, I was an "elitist", now I'm old school and have very basic gear by comparison.

Yes, very few have high end gear and can shoot excessive yardage, but that's exactly what was said with mine.

Gunwerks type of technology will be massed produced by average gun makers and sold in Cal ranch stores if we continue the current paths.

 

[hossblur]

I’m glad that Hossy has now clarified what his post was about -didn’t before. He started it with his comments about his descendants coming into the state with Brigham Young. And Hossy “knows” just like the Mormons “know” but no facts to back either up.
And shooting it out from under his feet - I knew it would fire him up.
If he wants to limit the ranges that I’m shooting and the same to you - you can go and ___ yourself.

That’s not for you to decide. But that’s what the agenda is about. A bunch of cry babies that can’t handle it when someone that “can” does it. There aren’t many that “can” most get lucky.
Do as Hossy thinks is best -limit powders/ignitions/bullets. And I will still be out there pissing you poor little cry babies off.
You’re not going to be able to stop it.

Where’s the data that proves a muzzleloaders tech has grown more than a rifle or archery ?

If this is an ethics debate bring it on !
Hossy and his remarks at ballistics and long range BS -he should have left it alone. He’s still stuck in 1970 and doesn’t know what a hawken with a Minnie Ball can do.

And I’m still waiting for you to post wether or not the votes from your poll are from utah? And why Slam would recommend taking optics off scopes based off a possibly biased vote on this thread?

Are you working on that one yet ?

First, I was answering your question about whether I'm really from Utah, so no I didn't start it.

As to muzzy vs bow tech, how about effective range increases?

And, I never said limit the range you shoot, I said limit the tech used to do so.

Yup, I believe the range nerds(calm down Martha) will spend every waking hour maximizing everything be that mini balls or sabots, so they will be on the outer edge of range.

But range vs effectiveness are 2 different things.

Finally, your the man. Just want you to know we all know it. You can whip any man alive, your chick is the hottest, your shlong is the longest, your house is the biggest, your truck is the baddest.

We all know, we all agree, don't want you to blow a gasket this weekend.

 

[hossblur]

Hey Hossy?

I Don't Care what your Religion Is!

You Can Be Whoever You Wanna Be & Believe In Whatever You Want To!

But Please Do Tell Us?

Are You A Member?

If Not I'm Sending Some Visitors Over!

I was active until they told me I couldn't try to see girls neked and drink beer and still do a mission.

I talk to the young guys pretty much every week, generally on Friday night when we are sitting on the porch enjoying a cocktail.

Actually feel bad for them, getting sent to Utah doesn't help with the baptism rates I'm guessing. New kids are from S Texas. Nice kids.

 

[hossblur]

Lol....I promise I haven't taken anything as "not nice" at all.
This is a sensitive subject and emotions definitely come into play.

I am primarily a muzzleloader hunter for my Utah deer hunts.
My rifle is an older Knight Thumb hole Extreme disk.
When I retired my Thompson Hawkin for that rifle years ago, I was blown away by it in comparison.
Then it got a 1x red dot....it was a 200yd gun without even pushing it.
Then came the Vortex Tactical 4x12 with turrets.
Then came better bullets and powders.
Now I'm easily hitting 300+ with fairly simple adjustments.
This rifle is considered outdated but is as accurate and as powerful as a lever action 30-30, or very close to it.

The point is this.
When my set up was new, I was an "elitist", now I'm old school and have very basic gear by comparison.

Yes, very few have high end gear and can shoot excessive yardage, but that's exactly what was said with mine.

Gunwerks type of technology will be massed produced by average gun makers and sold in Cal ranch stores if we continue the current paths.

Yup.

I had a disc until it was antique. Now my Accura is.

But slam, ballistic keeps demanding data, and facts, and.....

What was the data to add scopes?

 

[hossblur]

“There is no actual "data" on the components and enhancements made to muzzleloaders to stretch their capabilities, a walk through a simple Cal-Ranch store see what's on the shelves for sale goes without question”.

I’m not good at copy and paste but that’s your quote above.

And that’s what I will continue to use for debate on the scope removal proposal vs the other tech.

Slam
I have actually (past posts) agreed with you on limiting tech (emerging tech) and have said a 4X scope would be a compromise.

The muzzy is taking the “Hit “ right now and that’s the issue. I hunt with all 3. And I have shot competition at long range with a rifle and past archery 3D shoots.

Do you think the archers would like to see where tech has taken them from 1965?
Back when the recurve turned into a compound and todays bows with 80% let off and speeds over 300 fps with some pushing 350. What do you think the average range was those hunters compared to now?

Or the rifle hunters tech ? Look at all of the factory loaded ammo that you can buy to shoot 1000 plus yards. The factory chambers of yesterdays rifles are garbage compared to todays rifles. An off the shelf cheap savage is a benchrest gun compared to 1965-1970 rifles.

Then take all 3 weapons and see what the average hunter can do with them. It will hurt others worse than it will hurt me. I’ll adjust and folks will cry about it. I’ve called out those that proclaim 1100 yards with a muzzy but no takers. And there’s a reason for it - it can’t be done and if it was true not repeatedly.

Everything has grown in tech not just the muzzleloader.
If your going to take from one - take from them all and I still don’t want that either. That’s why I’m 100% against scope removal on a muzzleloader now.

And thank you for your answer. I’ll be nice to you now……..
Ballistic

Somehow I'm betting you ***** no matter where they start..

All the advancements in archery and for 95% of dudes it's still a 50yrd weapon.

I used my 12 yr old for a reason. His FIRST time shooting his gun, it was 200yrds, simple basic loads, 100gr pyrodex, 245 powerbelts, open sights.

Now I know you have "data" on how pistol powder, #11, lead, was a 200yrd gun, but in reality, it wasn't for the vast majority.

If your the 1% you claim to be, then you'll still launch 400 yard mini balls, but the other 99% won't.

The fact is simple. Tech is flying. Your knowledgeable, you know the military is into self aiming, self firing. Nano tech, and AI are just around the corner.

And as you said, you'll buy the best,.

So where do YOU say enough? You *****, but at what point is it enough?

 

[slamdunk]

Yup.

I had a disc until it was antique. Now my Accura is.

But slam, ballistic keeps demanding data, and facts, and.....

What was the data to add scopes?

There is no data required from public to demand a change, that only applies on a take away ?

 

[Ballistic]

Hossy
I'm going to make an attempt to be nice and not arrogant to you.
I created this thread so if you get a chance read it's opening post.
I never hid what components I was using or my status as a "shooter" and have never hid that I use the best money can buy.
I have however challenged the proclaimed distances that have been posted -on other threads. Asked those shooters to show up - and film them.

I will agree that 99% of hunters can't hit past 50 yards with a bow.
Probably the same for a 300-400 yard shot with a modern mizzleloader
And the same for a 500 yard shot with a new fancy decked out rifle.

Put someone in a shooting/hunting position and that 1/2 Moa bench rifle turns into a 2 Moa weapon. Been around the shooting world and long range steel game for a very long time.

How many shooters get a 3 shot group after the cold bore and think they are amazing?

I've helped the shooters with those best of the west muzzys and haven't seen 1 of them do well. Not to say the muzzy isnt good -its the shooter.

As far as future and emerging tech goes - I'm on board to eliminate or regulate it

The muzzy scope removal put the muzzy on the chopping block - not archery or rifle.

I'm older and cant see well without special glasses for open sight systems.
And don't like to "see"what we have now go away. It's not easy. And you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

If we use the 1% rule for example
A shooter that can make those shots.
Why should the average hunter pay the price for it?

 

[Ballistic]

Somehow I'm betting you ***** no matter where they start..

All the advancements in archery and for 95% of dudes it's still a 50yrd weapon.

I used my 12 yr old for a reason. His FIRST time shooting his gun, it was 200yrds, simple basic loads, 100gr pyrodex, 245 powerbelts, open sights.

Now I know you have "data" on how pistol powder, #11, lead, was a 200yrd gun, but in reality, it wasn't for the vast majority.

If your the 1% you claim to be, then you'll still launch 400 yard mini balls, but the other 99% won't.

The fact is simple. Tech is flying. Your knowledgeable, you know the military is into self aiming, self firing. Nano tech, and AI are just around the corner.

And as you said, you'll buy the best,.

So where do YOU say enough? You *****, but at what point is it enough?

Hossy
I'm going to make an attempt to be nice and not arrogant to you.
I created this thread so if you get a chance read it's opening post.
I never hid what components I was using or my status as a "shooter" and have never hid that I use the best money can buy.
I have however challenged the proclaimed distances that have been posted -on other threads. Asked those shooters to show up - and film them.

I will agree that 99% of hunters can't hit past 50 yards with a bow.
Probably the same for a 300-400 yard shot with a modern mizzleloader
And the same for a 500 yard shot with a new fancy decked out rifle.

Put someone in a shooting/hunting position and that 1/2 Moa bench rifle turns into a 2 Moa weapon. Been around the shooting world and long range steel game for a very long time.

How many shooters get a 3 shot group after the cold bore and think they are amazing?

I've helped the shooters with those best of the west muzzys and haven't seen 1 of them do well. Not to say the muzzy isnt good -its the shooter.

As far as future and emerging tech goes - I'm on board to eliminate or regulate it

The muzzy scope removal put the muzzy on the chopping block - not archery or rifle.

I'm older and cant see well without special glasses for open sight systems.
And don't like to "see"what we have now go away. It's not easy. And you and I will never see eye to eye on this.

If we use the 1% rule for example
A shooter that can make those shots.
Why should the average hunter pay the price for it?

And kudos for you with the 12 yaer old hitting at 200 yards. Thats quite the accomplishment - rare

 

[MrShane]

“There is no actual "data" on the components and enhancements made to muzzleloaders to stretch their capabilities, a walk through a simple Cal-Ranch store see what's on the shelves for sale goes without question”.

I’m not good at copy and paste but that’s your quote above.

And that’s what I will continue to use for debate on the scope removal proposal vs the other tech.

Slam
I have actually (past posts) agreed with you on limiting tech (emerging tech) and have said a 4X scope would be a compromise.

The muzzy is taking the “Hit “ right now and that’s the issue. I hunt with all 3. And I have shot competition at long range with a rifle and past archery 3D shoots.

Do you think the archers would like to see where tech has taken them from 1965?
Back when the recurve turned into a compound and todays bows with 80% let off and speeds over 300 fps with some pushing 350. What do you think the average range was those hunters compared to now?

Or the rifle hunters tech ? Look at all of the factory loaded ammo that you can buy to shoot 1000 plus yards. The factory chambers of yesterdays rifles are garbage compared to todays rifles. An off the shelf cheap savage is a benchrest gun compared to 1965-1970 rifles.

Then take all 3 weapons and see what the average hunter can do with them. It will hurt others worse than it will hurt me. I’ll adjust and folks will cry about it. I’ve called out those that proclaim 1100 yards with a muzzy but no takers. And there’s a reason for it - it can’t be done and if it was true not repeatedly.

Everything has grown in tech not just the muzzleloader.
If your going to take from one - take from them all and I still don’t want that either. That’s why I’m 100% against scope removal on a muzzleloader now.

And thank you for your answer. I’ll be nice to you now……..
Ballistic

I agreed 100% with the “If you are gonna take from one, take from all equally” ( I believe EA was the most vocal on this and I respect his determination).
I felt the changes being talked about was a backdoor way for the long rangers to keep more mature bucks on the landscape for them to gut shoot at 1000 yards in October.
I still feel that way but the last few months of bickering has worn me down.
And then the last few days I have had an epiphany concerning this whole tech thing.
I was in my gun safe the other day getting a shotgun out and was looking at my TC Encore .50.
I have shot both bucks and bulls with it, and love knowing it’s killing capabilities when I am in the field.
My epiphany came to me right then and I realized the muzzleloader tech in that Encore, which pales to todays muzzys, has cost me a lot of hunting time.
And I am not getting younger.
Our collective use of extremely efficient weapons has helped put us on the path of needing two, three, or even more Preference Points to hopefully draw a little piece of paper to notch on a buck that we used to buy over the counter at our local grocery store.
I am now in favor of taking away as much muzzleloader tech as possible while leaving the other two weapons alone and letting them have as much tech as they have now as allowed in 2023.
I would love to see muzzys regulated down to full bore bullets, loose powder, #11/flintlock/musket cap, no scopes, and the most important of all, open ignition only.
I won’t even mind selling my Encore off in exchange for this tech reduction in muzzleloaders.
“Why”, you might ask?
Well, I can’t say ‘I know’ but I 99% believe enough people would jump out of the muzzy pool in favor of the other two weapons which would leave me a muzzy tag I could buy every year and simply just go hunt.
I do feel bad for all the gut shot animals in October though…

 

[elkantlers]

@hossblur
@Ballistic

Girls... Girls..... Calm down and quit fighting. You're both pretty.

 

[slamdunk]

I agreed 100% with the “If you are gonna take from one, take from all equally” ( I believe EA was the most vocal on this and I respect his determination).
I felt the changes being talked about was a backdoor way for the long rangers to keep more mature bucks on the landscape for them to gut shoot at 1000 yards in October.
I still feel that way but the last few months of bickering has worn me down.
And then the last few days I have had an epiphany concerning this whole tech thing.
I was in my gun safe the other day getting a shotgun out and was looking at my TC Encore .50.
I have shot both bucks and bulls with it, and love knowing it’s killing capabilities when I am in the field.
My epiphany came to me right then and I realized the muzzleloader tech in that Encore, which pales to todays muzzys, has cost me a lot of hunting time.
And I am not getting younger.
Our collective use of extremely efficient weapons has helped put us on the path of needing two, three, or even more Preference Points to hopefully draw a little piece of paper to notch on a buck that we used to buy over the counter at our local grocery store.
I am now in favor of taking away as much muzzleloader tech as possible while leaving the other two weapons alone and letting them have as much tech as they have now as allowed in 2023.
I would love to see muzzys regulated down to full bore bullets, loose powder, #11/flintlock/musket cap, no scopes, and the most important of all, open ignition only.
I won’t even mind selling my Encore off in exchange for this tech reduction in muzzleloaders.
“Why”, you might ask?
Well, I can’t say ‘I know’ but I 99% believe enough people would jump out of the muzzy pool in favor of the other two weapons which would leave me a muzzy tag I could buy every year and simply just go hunt.
I do feel bad for all the gut shot animals in October though…

I would toss my Knight into the garbage can and replace it with a flintlock, or Hawkin style at most.
Give me back a true muzzleloader hunt!

 

[Bux n Dux]

I would toss my Knight into the garbage can and replace it with a flintlock, or Hawkin style at most.
Give me back a true muzzleloader hunt!

There’s absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it now.

 

[slamdunk]

There’s absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it now.

You're missing the entire point.

"I can, therefore I will"

 

[hossblur]

There’s absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it now.

Um, shooting a deer in Nov is pretty much poaching

 

[Bux n Dux]

Um, shooting a deer in Nov is pretty much poaching

Is it? Then all those archers on the front and the HAMS tag recipients are going to have a rude awakening

What about all those poor bastages with CWMU tags??

 

[Ballistic]

What is the definition of a true muzzleloader hunt ?

-Deer skin outfits and moccasins with patch and ball -Jeremiah Johnson ?
-Flintlock ignition only ?
-November Rut Hunt ?

1985- Tony Knight invents the inline ignition and shortly after the 209 ignition is introduced by Thompson.

So 38 years later do you see anyone on the mountain with an old hawken in Utah ?

Has the hunt changed -absolutely !
Equipment -absolutely !

Are you going to get a November rut hunt back if you go to pre 1985 patch and ball?
Not a chance in my opinion.
There’s too many limited entry Nov hunts right now on the general season units.

Will utah hunters want to go pre 1985 equipment after 38 years of changing over?
Will those racks at Cal Ranch fill up with Hawkins ?

Right now there’s a HAMS hunt opportunity but I’m not sure what a “true muzzleloader hunt” is ?
Please Tell.

 

[twopointdn]

So Hoss
I like your thought process on this. And I like that emerging tech is being looked at. I do question what motivates the current tech committee for scope removal on muzzleloaders. 1970-2023. Over 50 years for the muzzy hunt. 2015 utah hunters vote for scopes = 8 years. If we wanted to keep the regs for 1970 -where were all those to support it?
The tech committee has said that this isn’t about saving animals - just want it to be different from the rifle hunt.
All the hunts that we knew back then are different now - but the muzzy gets the chopping block.

The tech committee is picking on muzzleloaders without the facts to back up their claims.
Those bows from the 1970,s advanced
Those rifles from the 1970,s advanced
Those muzzleloaders also advanced.

A you tube video of an muzzleloader antelope kill at 700 yards isn’t a correct representation of the average hunter.

Neither is a 330 yard shot with a bow

Or a 7774 rifle shot.

All 3 had electronics removed and I support that. I completely disagree that tech has advanced way more with a muzzleloader vs rifles and bows. My plan is really a simple one. Expose the tech committee for their BS lies about muzzleloaders.
My article that I shared is just the beginning
And I’m an old timer that believes in keeping our rights and liberties. Let them take your scopes off muzzies and you’ll get exactly what you deserve going forward.

I would not say “hunters chose scopes in 2015”. A certain naïve WB board chair push it without even knowing what he created and we are dealing with his mess now. Again, go back to the pre-2016 regulations and move on. The pole in the other thread clearly supports that desire and I hope the WB, RAC’s, and Technology Committee are paying attention.

 

[Bux n Dux]

4x max and let’s call it a day. Everyone wins.

 

[Ballistic]

The facts/ data is there from 57% that were polled from Utah in 2015 that hunters did in fact say “YES”. There’s no debate on this- none.
Do I need to repost this article again ?

Did this start (2015 agenda for magnified scopes) from someone on the WB- looks like that info is also correct.
Is the poll from the other thread garbage when it’s not exclusively from Utah? And I’m not buying that “because out of state hunters hunt here they have a voice”. That’s HOA mentality.
And when your tech committee member says he’s going with that polls results.
A mistrial could be called on it and won. But that’s not how is going to play out right? LOL

This agenda to go back isn’t a lot different than it was to add scopes in 2015.

Getting it right. That’s a matter of opinion.
Data to back up the advanced tech of a muzzleloader vs a bow or rifle isn’t there -
-See Slams post- scroll up. Other than what is being found on the shelf’s of Cal Ranch and what will be on the shelves tomorrow and I can agree partially to that.

But you also need to see what’s available for rifles and archery on those shelves and that’s where I disagree.

All those inlines since 1985 and now what -Hawkins going forward ?
I am only 1 poll of how many hunters in “utah” -over 100,000 ?
Will be interesting to see what the hunters want on this one.

I will continue to question the intent to paralyze muzzleloader tech - when it’s being compared as more advanced - to rifle and archery tech - especially when there isn’t any data to back it up.

We’ve already been through the “I know” statements. Bring the data and facts.

 

[Ballistic]

4x max and let’s call it a day. Everyone wins.

Do the same (all weapons) equally across the board and I’ll agree.

 

[Bux n Dux]

Do the same (all weapons) equally across the board and I’ll agree.

I’m down.

1,000 yard shots would only happen at the hands of the most experienced shooters. And even then, it’ll be tough. I like that.

 

[mtmuley]

4x max and let’s call it a day. Everyone wins.

That's a bad idea. The guys that mess it up at extended range with the best tech will only get worse. But they will keep on flinging bullets. mtmuley

 

[Bux n Dux]

That's a bad idea. The guys that mess it up at extended range with the best tech will only get worse. But they will keep on flinging bullets. mtmuley

Hahaha holy balls. These counter arguments keep getting dumber.

Let them launch those bullets all they want. They won’t hit anything. Kinda like now using the tech they already have.

 

[slamdunk]

Hahaha holy balls. These counter arguments keep getting dumber.

Let them launch those bullets all they want. They won’t hit anything. Kinda like now using the tech they already have.

Unfortunately there will always be those "flingers" regardless of technology add on's or takeaways in every weapon.

I am guilty of it.
I launched at least a box of shells at a buck on the Henry's back in the mid 80's that was well over 1000+ yards with a 25-06 and a 3x9 scope.
My pay back was getting the thing back up to the truck in almost vertical steep canyon walls.....he died in the very bottom of course.

 

[MrShane]

Hahaha holy balls. These counter arguments keep getting dumber.

Let them launch those bullets all they want. They won’t hit anything. Kinda like now using the tech they already have.

Wrong.
They will eventually hit something….in the guts.

 

[Bux n Dux]

Wrong.
They will eventually hit something….in the guts.

No they won’t. Have you ever witnessed a general deer hunt? Most dudes can’t hit one on purpose at 300 yards with the fanciest rifles and scopes on the market. Limit their scope to a 4x and their accuracy will deteriorate with every passing yard.

 

[mtmuley]

Hahaha holy balls. These counter arguments keep getting dumber.

Let them launch those bullets all they want. They won’t hit anything. Kinda like now using the tech they already have.

Ummmmmm. OK. mtmuley

 

[Ballistic]

For rifles only.

I’m kinda in the middle ground on this. I’ve seen the fancy setups miss at 300 and under and the not so fancy walk them in at long range. And rare to see someone take anything down at extended ranges on the 1st shot.
You can’t tell someone what they can and can’t do out in the field. Lobbing isn’t going to stop.
Try to look at a buck with does on 4X at 500 yards and you won’t know what to shoot at- especially in low light. Increase the distance and it will get harder.

 

[JPickett]

You guys must be really chitty hunters “ oh me oh my! You can’t take my scope off my muzzy loader I’ll never fill a tag again “

Take something off my bow. Guess what, I’ll still kill chit with my bow

Take something off my rifle. Guess what? Yup, you guessed it. I’ll still kill chit with my rifle.

I won’t even cry about. Man up princess

Hell I’ve even killed a half dozen animals with an open sight, open breach muzzle loader. I know that sounds impossible but it’s true

 

[Bux n Dux]

You guys must be really chitty hunters “ oh me oh my! You can’t take my scope off my muzzy loader I’ll never fill a tag again “

Take something off my bow. Guess what, I’ll still kill chit with my bow

Take something off my rifle. Guess what? Yup, you guessed it. I’ll still kill chit with my rifle.

I won’t even cry about. Man up princess

Hell I’ve even killed a half dozen animals with an open sight, open breach muzzle loader. I know that sounds impossible but it’s true

I’d give you a gold star, but I’m all out.

 

[JPickett]

Maybe you should just quit over this whole thing. Hunting may not be for you

 

[notdonhunting]

For rifles only.

I’m kinda in the middle ground on this. I’ve seen the fancy setups miss at 300 and under and the not so fancy walk them in at long range. And rare to see someone take anything down at extended ranges on the 1st shot.
You can’t tell someone what they can and can’t do out in the field. Lobbing isn’t going to stop.
Try to look at a buck with does on 4X at 500 yards and you won’t know what to shoot at- especially in low light. Increase the distance and it will get harder.

Everything in this post is 100 percent correct, but that is not what this committee is about.
This is a committee that was put together to decide on what level of technology will be allowed on each specific weapon (archery, muzzleloader and rifle) no where does this committee say they need to limit each weapon the same. One weapon might be limited to the 1970 technology and one weapon might be limited to 2000 technology and one weapon might be limited to 2020 technology.
But remember this is just a committee that is making recommendations.
If you do not like what they recommend get out and campaign against the recommendations go to the rack meetings and the big game board meeting, take along pepole that think like you.
You might think it won't make a difference but remember the pepole that was against trail cameras got that pushed through by campaigning. I am for trying to get muzzleloader hunting back to the traditional hunt, but I 100 percent support guys right to try and keep it with some technology. I know I will at the very least be at a couple rack meetings.
Arguing and complaining on Monster Muleys won't make much of a difference.

 

[slamdunk]

Everything in this post is 100 percent correct, but that is not what this committee is about.
This is a committee that was put together to decide on what level of technology will be allowed on each specific weapon (archery, muzzleloader and rifle) no where does this committee say they need to limit each weapon the same. One weapon might be limited to the 1970 technology and one weapon might be limited to 2000 technology and one weapon might be limited to 2020 technology.
But remember this is just a committee that is making recommendations.
If you do not like what they recommend get out and campaign against the recommendations go to the rack meetings and the big game board meeting, take along pepole that think like you.
You might think it won't make a difference but remember the pepole that was against trail cameras got that pushed through by campaigning. I am for trying to get muzzleloader hunting back to the traditional hunt, but I 100 percent support guys right to try and keep it with some technology. I know I will at the very least be at a couple rack meetings.
Arguing and complaining on Monster Muleys won't make much of a difference.

Trophy post right here ??

 

[Ballistic]

Everything in this post is 100 percent correct, but that is not what this committee is about.
This is a committee that was put together to decide on what level of technology will be allowed on each specific weapon (archery, muzzleloader and rifle) no where does this committee say they need to limit each weapon the same. One weapon might be limited to the 1970 technology and one weapon might be limited to 2000 technology and one weapon might be limited to 2020 technology.
But remember this is just a committee that is making recommendations.
If you do not like what they recommend get out and campaign against the recommendations go to the rack meetings and the big game board meeting, take along pepole that think like you.
You might think it won't make a difference but remember the pepole that was against trail cameras got that pushed through by campaigning. I am for trying to get muzzleloader hunting back to the traditional hunt, but I 100 percent support guys right to try and keep it with some technology. I know I will at the very least be at a couple rack meetings.
Arguing and complaining on Monster Muleys won't make much of a difference.

I agree with you almost 100% except for the last sentence.

"Arguing and complaining on Monster Muleys won't make much of a difference."

When a tech commitee member states that they will go with the recommendations from a scope voting poll from the results of Monster Muleys - then it does make a difference. How much- hard to tell. Good post though.
Thanks

 

[hossblur]

Is it? Then all those archers on the front and the HAMS tag recipients are going to have a rude awakening

What about all those poor bastages with CWMU tags??

So your saying there isn't a otc muzzy hunt in Nov like the traditional one? Thanks for clarifying

 

[hossblur]

I agree with you almost 100% except for the last sentence.

"Arguing and complaining on Monster Muleys won't make much of a difference."

When a tech commitee member states that they will go with the recommendations from a scope voting poll from the results of Monster Muleys - then it does make a difference. How much- hard to tell. Good post though.
Thanks

Probably going to shock you but if you think @slamdunk is the only person that sits on committees, RAC, WB, or even the legislature, that pays attention to this site youre sadly mistaken.

I asked you, and you blew by it, so here it is again.

Where do YOU draw the line on tech(all 3 weapon systems)

 

[Ballistic]

Probably going to shock you but if you think @slamdunk is the only person that sits on committees, RAC, WB, or even the legislature, that pays attention to this site youre sadly mistaken.

I asked you, and you blew by it, so here it is again.

Where do YOU draw the line on tech(all 3 weapon systems)

See post #254

 

[Ballistic]

Probably going to shock you but if you think @slamdunk is the only person that sits on committees, RAC, WB, or even the legislature, that pays attention to this site youre sadly mistaken.

I asked you, and you blew by it, so here it is again.

Where do YOU draw the line on tech(all 3 weapon systems)

It doesn’t matter that any of the others listed pay attention to this site.
The 1 that does (Slam) in fact matters.
That group of 10 voted 9-1 for scope elimination/restrictions and that will likely be on the RAC and WB agenda.

Let’s use shooting analogy.
The tech committee (10) is trying to hit the target.
They are all given rifles and 1 round to fire . 10 bullets are flying down to hit the target -but 1 of the shooters has a blank. No one knows who has the blank.

It’s a diffusion of responsibility. Is that what your trying to say Hossy ? You believe that slams vote was the blank ?

Once again - I like Slam and most of what he is doing - Just not on board for the scope restrictions on muzzys when the facts can’t back it up. And read all of my posts- I’m for future tech restrictions and almost went with the 4X vote on the poll and on other related threads. This changed my position when Slam said he was going with the vote poll from this site.
Make restrictions equal across all 3 and I’ll agree to it.

 

[Deerlove]

You guys must be really chitty hunters “ oh me oh my! You can’t take my scope off my muzzy loader I’ll never fill a tag again “

Take something off my bow. Guess what, I’ll still kill chit with my bow

Take something off my rifle. Guess what? Yup, you guessed it. I’ll still kill chit with my rifle.

I won’t even cry about. Man up princess

Hell I’ve even killed a half dozen animals with an open sight, open breach muzzle loader. I know that sounds impossible but it’s true

I totally agree with this but the quality animals in my experience are going to go down. Ie smaller bucks bulls.

 

[notdonhunting]

Why does it have to be equal across all three weapons?
All three are not equal without restrictions. You your self point out the difference between rifles and muzzleloaders.
I personally believe range finders should not be allowed for rifles but I think they should be allowed for archery (not electronic attached to bowsite) and muzzleloaders (if muzzleloaders are restricted primitive).
The difference being all modern day rifles can make a effective kill Shot from 0 to 300 without range finder and beyond that the average hunter will miss judge yardage and will generally be doing good just to scare whatever he is shooting at.
Archery and true primitive muzzeloaders are extremely effected after 50 yards and I belive most hunters under 80 yards will miss judge yardage by 10 or 15 yards. If you guessed the yardage was 50 but the deer was really 60 there is probably a good chance you will still hit the deer but it will be low and a good chance you will not recover the deer.
I will not take a shot at a deer over 40 yards. Depending on the type of terrain you are hunting yardage can be hard to guess and a range finder would keep me from taking a 60 yard shot.
That is just my 2 cents of a opinion.

 

[JPickett]

I totally agree with this but the quality animals in my experience are going to go down. Ie smaller bucks bulls.

Work harder

 

[Ballistic]

Why does it have to be equal across all three weapons?
All three are not equal without restrictions. You your self point out the difference between rifles and muzzleloaders.
I personally believe range finders should not be allowed for rifles but I think they should be allowed for archery (not electronic attached to bowsite) and muzzleloaders (if muzzleloaders are restricted primitive).
The difference being all modern day rifles can make a effective kill Shot from 0 to 300 without range finder and beyond that the average hunter will miss judge yardage and will generally be doing good just to scare whatever he is shooting at.
Archery and true primitive muzzeloaders are extremely effected after 50 yards and I belive most hunters under 80 yards will miss judge yardage by 10 or 15 yards. If you guessed the yardage was 50 but the deer was really 60 there is probably a good chance you will still hit the deer but it will be low and a good chance you will not recover the deer.
I will not take a shot at a deer over 40 yards. Depending on the type of terrain you are hunting yardage can be hard to guess and a range finder would keep me from taking a 60 yard shot.
That is just my 2 cents of a opinion.

I like your thought process on rangefinders as related to archery. That would not be the rescricted option for achery in my opinion. Maybe pins that are set instead of sliders - just a thought- and I have the slider so it would set my extended shots back.
Take the rangefinder from archery and more animals will die from injuries.

Muzzleloaders a 4x max is an option.
Rifles do the same 4x or set a limit

Those changes would be equal across the board.

If you go after changes across the board -the outcry will be massive. When you go after 1 big change it will be less. But rest assured if the muzzy scope elimination passes -expect archery and rifle going forward.

I hunt with all 3 systems -and willing to give - make it reasonable. Don't take rangefinders -especially for archers.
I like your last post.

 

[2lumpy]

Why does it have to be equal across all three weapons?
All three are not equal without restrictions. You your self point out the difference between rifles and muzzleloaders.
I personally believe range finders should not be allowed for rifles but I think they should be allowed for archery (not electronic attached to bowsite) and muzzleloaders (if muzzleloaders are restricted primitive).
The difference being all modern day rifles can make a effective kill Shot from 0 to 300 without range finder and beyond that the average hunter will miss judge yardage and will generally be doing good just to scare whatever he is shooting at.
Archery and true primitive muzzeloaders are extremely effected after 50 yards and I belive most hunters under 80 yards will miss judge yardage by 10 or 15 yards. If you guessed the yardage was 50 but the deer was really 60 there is probably a good chance you will still hit the deer but it will be low and a good chance you will not recover the deer.
I will not take a shot at a deer over 40 yards. Depending on the type of terrain you are hunting yardage can be hard to guess and a range finder would keep me from taking a 60 yard shot.
That is just my 2 cents of an opinion.

I used the exact same logic when the Board was considering magnified scopes for muzzleloaders. My logic being, once the muzzleloaders started hunting with range finders, fast twist barrels, sabots, plastic wads, hotter powder, trigger stick tripods, etc. more shots were being taken at more deer, with open sights or a non-magnified 1power scope. Why, because the hunter believed the weapon he carried was capable of killing the deer, at much longer ranges. So he was trying. I couldn’t prove it but deductive reasoning lead me to believe he was. I believed, shooting at deer or elk, at 300 to 700 yards, with open sights or a one power scope was not ethical…….. for 90% of the muzzleloading hunters. (Admittedly, there are a few who can. A true marksman, with a manual elevating rear sight can shot accurately at amazing distances.) I was of the opinion that too many muzzleloaders were wounding too many deer, as they attempted to kill them, without a scope to match the other advanced technologies of the current muzzleloaders they were hunting with.

In a not shell, muzzleloader hunters now knew the exact range, they had an accurate muzzleloader that was shooting stable long range projectiles, that had enough energy to at least penetrate the heart or lungs……….. but without a matching scope. I was of the opinion a lot of them were taking the shoot anyway and more likely wounding a lot more deer. So I didn’t object to magnified scopes.

It that time, I believed, from an ethical killing perspective, the scope should match the killing range capability of the typical muzzleloading hunter.

I believe IF they are going to allow muzzleloader hunters to use all of the modern technologies except the magnified scope, we’ll immediately revert back to wounding too many deer.

Do I believe the Board won’t see it my way and will remove the magnified scope and not outlaw the other technologies…….

If their logic is they are limiting technology to allow more hunters a tag, and that’s the rational……….. why aren’t they using the same logic with the archery and the rifle seasons. It doesn’t add up for me……. but I’ll never offer another opinion at another Board meeting nor send another letter to a Board member again.

Just wanted to say, notdon is correct in his view of the archery technology and I believe the same logic holds true for the other weapons as well. So…….. why make the muzzleloaders carry the burden of provide more opportunity and more tags….. on their own? Makes no sense….. to me.

 

[slamdunk]

I am enjoying reading all the comments, good, bad, negative, positive, personal jabs.....it's all good stuff and shows the passion for the sport of hunting that we all love.

Notdonehunting asks a very good question.
I've asked it before but it always seems to go unnoticed.

"Why does it have to be equal across all three weapons?
All three are not equal without restrictions."

How would we ever accomplish making archery equipment as successful as a rifle, and why would you?
It's completely impossible.
But technology is sure trying hard to make a muzzleloader as successful on the mountain as a rifle, is it not?

Another thing I'd like to keep attempting to stress that so many are missing-
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAVING BUCKS.

How many of you support and understand that killing bucks does not hurt overall deer herd numbers yet tweak your stance on the restriction recommendations and try making this about "success rate data"?

These recommendations are about taming technology from taking us too far (no pun intended, but it fits like a puzzle piece).

As far as "across the board equality" goes?
Restrictions have been discussed, agreed upon and implemented by the WB that directly and individually affects all three weapons regardless of the pending decision on scope allowances on muzzleloaders.
"No electronics with the exception of illuminated reticles" on any scope, already and directly affects the ability to use an AI type of optic on a muzzleloader, the pending decision is simply magnification.

Having said that, there hasn't been a change to any weapon, the restrictions are in the sighting systems.
No one took away cams on bows, inline ignition on muzzleloaders, or caliber restrictions on centerfire rifles.
The mechanics remain the same as they have been for decades and will remain as is.

 

[Bux n Dux]

So your saying there isn't an otc muzzy hunt in Nov like the traditional one? Thanks for clarifying

Oh now you’re getting specific. Your original statement was very broad. Like most of your comments until someone corrects you with facts, then you get all defensive and start trying to make everyone else feel like the Rtard

 

[2lumpy]

I am enjoying reading all the comments, good, bad, negative, positive, personal jabs.....it's all good stuff and shows the passion for the sport of hunting that we all love.

Notdonehunting asks a very good question.
I've asked it before but it always seems to go unnoticed.

"Why does it have to be equal across all three weapons?
All three are not equal without restrictions."

How would we ever accomplish making archery equipment as successful as a rifle, and why would you?
It's completely impossible.
But technology is sure trying hard to make a muzzleloader as successful on the mountain as a rifle, is it not?

Another thing I'd like to keep attempting to stress that so many are missing-
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAVING BUCKS.

How many of you support and understand that killing bucks does not hurt overall deer herd numbers yet tweak your stance on the restriction recommendations and try making this about "success rate data"?

These recommendations are about taming technology from taking us too far (no pun intended, but it fits like a puzzle piece).

As far as "across the board equality" goes?
Restrictions have been discussed, agreed upon and implemented by the WB that directly and individually affects all three weapons regardless of the pending decision on scope allowances on muzzleloaders.
"No electronics with the exception of illuminated reticles" on any scope, already and directly affects the ability to use an AI type of optic on a muzzleloader, the pending decision is simply magnification.

Having said that, there hasn't been a change to any weapon, the restrictions are in the sighting systems.
No one took away cams on bows, inline ignition on muzzleloaders, or caliber restrictions on centerfire rifles.
The mechanics remain the same as they have been for decades and will remain as is.

And they believe advanced mechanics, with centuries old sighting is a positive change? Okay, I understand they believe that.

What I don’t understand is how they came to that opinion.

Could you please explain what the reasoning is for not matching sighting technology with the current mechanics.

 

[BearBait49]

I'm primarily an archery hunter but I do enjoy the muzzleloader hunt for deer usually every other year. This topic has been hashed out so many times on here its not even comical anymore. Every one has their opinion on scopes on muzzleloaders. I personally didn't want them legalized and never put a scope on mine. I hunt with open sights and have been pretty successful in filling tags. Even thou I am confident out to 200 yards I have never even come close to shooting my buck at that distance,most shots have been 80-100 yards. My opinion is if a hunter wants to be able to shoot 300-400+ yards get a rifle tag. If it comes to a 4x maximum on your hunting muzzy that's plenty. Enjoy the "hunt" more than harvest is my motto.

 

[slamdunk]

And they believe advanced mechanics, with centuries old sighting is a positive change? Okay, I understand they believe that.

What I don’t understand is how they came to that opinion.

Could you please explain what the reasoning is for not matching sighting technology with the current mechanics.

Do we want to see AI, Nano glass, heat sinking or laser guided projectiles introduced into the hunting world?
These technologies are already out there in military applications.
If we laugh at this, roll our eyes and think it's an exaggerated forecast, we're just being naive to what lies ahead.

 

[notdonhunting]

Do we want to see AI, Nano glass, heat sinking or laser guided projectiles introduced into the hunting world?
These technologies are already out there in military applications.
If we laugh at this, roll our eyes and think it's an exaggerated forecast, we're just being naive to what lies ahead.

I believe 2lumpy is asking.
How the committee is ok with muzzeloaders having inline-incloased ignition and advanced technology in bullet but justify limiting to open sights.
Sorry 2lumpy if I am of base.

 

[slamdunk]

I believe 2lumpy is asking.
How the committee is ok with muzzeloaders having inline-incloased ignition and advanced technology in bullet but justify limiting to open sights.
Sorry 2lumpy if I am of base.

I'll try answering that through my words, not quoted from the committee.

Inlines are the norm today, we allowed them to be accepted since their invention.
I remember both the excitement and concerns of allowing them, but we did and here we are with probably 99% of hunters using them today.

The only reason there are advancements in components is because of the ability to see a target farther away.
There is no need for the development of high BC bullets and better burning powders to drive them if 100-200 yards is about the farthest one could shoot with no magnification.

The rationale behind not limiting components over optics came from the law enforcement side pointing out the extreme difficulty and safety issues of searching a loaded weapon for components.
Seeing a variable power scope sitting on top was a much better solution from that prospective.

 

[hossblur]

It doesn’t matter that any of the others listed pay attention to this site.
The 1 that does (Slam) in fact matters.
That group of 10 voted 9-1 for scope elimination/restrictions and that will likely be on the RAC and WB agenda.

Let’s use shooting analogy.
The tech committee (10) is trying to hit the target.
They are all given rifles and 1 round to fire . 10 bullets are flying down to hit the target -but 1 of the shooters has a blank. No one knows who has the blank.

It’s a diffusion of responsibility. Is that what your trying to say Hossy ? You believe that slams vote was the blank ?

Once again - I like Slam and most of what he is doing - Just not on board for the scope restrictions on muzzys when the facts can’t back it up. And read all of my posts- I’m for future tech restrictions and almost went with the 4X vote on the poll and on other related threads. This changed my position when Slam said he was going with the vote poll from this site.
Make restrictions equal across all 3 and I’ll agree to it.

First, still gotta get through the RAC and WB, and many of those guys watch this site.

Next, if Slam comes out and says 1min after we take off scopes we are going to address bows, or rifles next is that ok?

This all or nothing approach is just a game that gets played. If the issue becomes to big, with too many moving parts, then it's just done.

I'm on board for all weapons. But I'm not onboard for nothing, or, in other words letting the good die while chasing the perfect.

Bait, cams, muzzy scopes,....... I thinks it's fair to say there is a movement at foot to try to limit the excess. I doubt they will stop at muzzys, because ultimately, the rifles are the bigger issue, based on the size of the rifle crowd. And frankly, the difficulty.

Muzzys are easy, they are simpler.

 

[2lumpy]

I'll try answering that through my words, not quoted from the committee.

Inlines are the norm today, we allowed them to be accepted since their invention.
I remember both the excitement and concerns of allowing them, but we did and here we are with probably 99% of hunters using them today.

The only reason there are advancements in components is because of the ability to see a target farther away.
There is no need for the development of high BC bullets and better burning powders to drive them if 100-200 yards is about the farthest one could shoot with no magnification.

The rationale behind not limiting components over optics came from the law enforcement side pointing out the extreme difficulty and safety issues of searching a loaded weapon for components.
Seeing a variable power scope sitting on top was a much better solution from that prospective.

Seems contradictory to me. You say:

“Inlines are the norm today, we allowed them to be accepted since their invention. I remember both the excitement and concerns of allowing them, but we did and here we are with probably 99% of hunters using them today.”

But magnifying scope have been here looooong before Inline muzzleloaders. Right? All the muzzleloader hunter did was put old technology on a new technology muzzleloader.

I find that contradictory.

If the technology committee is going to draw a line in the sand, the inline is a lot closer to the line than the magnified scope, is it not?

Also, how is it that law enforcement in Utah is anymore at risk checking projectiles in muzzleloaders in Utah than they are in Colorado and other States?

Again, I don’t care what the Board does but there is something amiss here. I’ve already said, my personal preference would be to return to the muzzleloaders and all that goes with them to the 1970’s where we started the muzzleloader season at. But as you say, that is not at all what they are doing. I certainly can understand the frustration of modern muzzleloader hunters feeling held to a different standard, if the archers and the rifle hunters are not being asked to give up some of their technology as well.

It smacks of two side justice to some hunters…… how can the “system” feel comfortable approaching technology concerns like that?

Ya, I get it, nothing is fair in this world….. but when it’s your ox that’s getting gourd, it’s also natural to ask for everyone to pay the fiddler, if their going to come to the dance.

All the best, I guess.

 

[slamdunk]

Seems contradictory to me. You say:

“Inlines are the norm today, we allowed them to be accepted since their invention. I remember both the excitement and concerns of allowing them, but we did and here we are with probably 99% of hunters using them today.”

But magnifying scope have been here looooong before Inline muzzleloaders. Right? All the muzzleloader hunter did was put old technology on a new technology muzzleloader.

I find that contradictory.

If the technology committee is going to draw a line in the sand, the inline is a lot closer to the line than the magnified scope, is it not?

Also, how is it that law enforcement in Utah is anymore at risk checking projectiles in muzzleloaders in Utah than they are in Colorado and other States?

Again, I don’t care what the Board does but there is something amiss here. I’ve already said, my personal preference would be to return to the muzzleloaders and all that goes with them to the 1970’s where we started the muzzleloader season at. But as you say, that is not at all what they are doing. I certainly can understand the frustration of modern muzzleloader hunters feeling held to a different standard, if the archers and the rifle hunters are not being asked to give up some of their technology as well.

It smacks of two side justice to some hunters…… how can the “system” feel comfortable approaching technology concerns like that?

Ya, I get it, nothing is fair in this world….. but when it’s your ox that’s getting gourd, it’s also natural to ask for everyone to pay the fiddler, if their going to come to the dance.

All the best, I guess.

I'll admit it seems contradictory, I actually thought that as I was typing it, but it boils down to this.

There is going to be a change (unless the WB has a drastic change of heart) and we basically have two choices.
Keep the inline or keep the scope.
I believe a majority would not see a need for a scope on top of a Hawkin.

 

[MrShane]

I'll try answering that through my words, not quoted from the committee.

Inlines are the norm today, we allowed them to be accepted since their invention.
I remember both the excitement and concerns of allowing them, but we did and here we are with probably 99% of hunters using them today.

The only reason there are advancements in components is because of the ability to see a target farther away.
There is no need for the development of high BC bullets and better burning powders to drive them if 100-200 yards is about the farthest one could shoot with no magnification.

The rationale behind not limiting components over optics came from the law enforcement side pointing out the extreme difficulty and safety issues of searching a loaded weapon for components.
Seeing a variable power scope sitting on top was a much better solution from that prospective.

With all due respect I think you have the advanced component/scope analogy backwards.
The reason everyone started throwing big scopes on was because the components had already been advancing so fast it was finally a chance to put a big scope to use.
That is why scopes were petitioned for in ‘16.
Components were not petitioned for in ‘16.

 

[Ballistic]

I'll admit it seems contradictory, I actually thought that as I was typing it, but it boils down to this.

There is going to be a change (unless the WB has a drastic change of heart) and we basically have two choices.
Keep the inline or keep the scope.
I believe a majority would not see a need for a scope on top of a Hawkin.

Are you saying the WB told the tech commitee to come up with this on muzzleloaders?
I thought this about scopes and now it's about inlines. Seems even more contradictory now.
Can you explain - maybe I missed something?
Thanks

 

[JPickett]

Why does it have to be equal across all three weapons?
All three are not equal without restrictions."

I think Ive pointed out the idiocy of this at least three times on here

 

[slamdunk]

Are you saying the WB told the tech commitee to come up with this on muzzleloaders?
I thought this about scopes and now it's about inlines. Seems even more contradictory now.
Can you explain - maybe I missed something?
Thanks

To answer what I think your direct question is-
No, the WB didn't tell us to remove scopes from muzzleloaders, they asked us to come up with "recommendations" to curb the growth and expansions of all weapons.

The WB requested this new committee be formed to tackle Emerging Technologies and also address current "tools" being used on all three weapons as the industry is quickly changing.

The committee hit on gadgets that are changing the limitations on all three such as-
Garmin style sights on Archery as well as all electronics which covers anything computerized in the coming future.
Electronics on any and all scopes such as Burris Eliminator and others that automatically calculate and compensate ballistics.
(These also cover muzzleloader scopes obviously)

When it came to our last item to cover, it was determined without question that magnification on muzzleloaders are the catalysts for the emerging long range components, similar to Garmin sights on archery equipment.
As I've stated before, banning numerous types of components was quickly shot down by law enforcement before we even really mentioned the scopes.

Utah isn't the only state addressing technology, New Mexico just restricted scopes on muzzleloaders, just as they are in every state around us.

Optics aren't the only tech being looked at just as we saw with trail cameras, there is AI technology being heavily discussed as well.
We almost lost two way communication for the taking of game on GS and LE hunts as well, but the WB stopped it at the HAMS and restricted hunts.

I know none of this changes the minds of the opposed, but I'm just trying to share the information with everyone.

 

[2lumpy]

I'll admit it seems contradictory, I actually thought that as I was typing it, but it boils down to this.

There is going to be a change (unless the WB has a drastic change of heart) and we basically have two choices.
Keep the inline or keep the scope.
I believe a majority would not see a need for a scope on top of a Hawkin.

? I agree, so……. explain how they can get a twofer, if they outlaw the inline.

 

[slamdunk]

With all due respect I think you have the advanced component/scope analogy backwards.
The reason everyone started throwing big scopes on was because the components had already been advancing so fast it was finally a chance to put a big scope to use.
That is why scopes were petitioned for in ‘16.
Components were not petitioned for in ‘16.

I cannot argue this point, pelletized powders, hotter powders and better bullets were being developed and used prior to 2016.

But there was not yet a market for "ELR" high BC bullets, Remington RUM, CVA Paramount and Gunwerks style rifles until the scopes were implemented.
All useless are without magnification.

 

[MrShane]

? I agree, so……. explain how they can get a twofer, if they outlaw the inline.

Inline muzzys have been around forever and forever.
It is the 209 primer and encased ignition that is new since the first Utah Muzzleloader season was instigated.

 

[MrShane]

I cannot argue this point, pelletized powders, hotter powders and better bullets were being developed and used prior to 2016.

But there was not yet a market for "ELR" high BC bullets, Remington RUM, CVA Paramount and Gunwerks style rifles until the scopes were implemented.
All useless are without magnification.

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?

 

[2lumpy]

Inline muzzys have been around forever and forever.
It is the 209 primer and encased ignition that is new since the first Utah Muzzleloader season was instigated.

Forever and ever began in 1985……. Back before hair……….

 

[MrShane]

Forever and ever began in 1985……. Back before hair……….

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?

 

[Bux n Dux]

Another thing I'd like to keep attempting to stress that so many are missing-
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAVING BUCKS.

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…

 

[MrShane]

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, which zero regard for public opinion.. or even the intent to do what’s best for our wildlife.

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.

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…

While I can’t agree with your description of the people involved as I do not know them, I agree 100% with you this IS about saving big bucks….
Until the 3rd Saturday of October.
WHICH, I agree with if the restrictions to muzzys are ‘harsh’ enough to make most people opt out of the muzzy game so I may hunt every year.
Very similar to thought process of alw guys refusing to pick up a bow because it is ‘too difficult to kill with’.

 

[Bux n Dux]

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?

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