Muzzleloader 1X vs All-Scope-Ban?

G

GunCarver

Active Member
Messages
107
It has been a while since I have heard anything new on this. I think everyone has come to terms that the regs will change for 2024. Are the proposals for an all out ban on scopes of any kind (like New Mexico), or will 1X scopes still be allowed (like it was years ago)? I know guys that can see & shoot farther with a peep than I can with a 1X scope. I know of a lot of guns aren't even drill/tapped for a front sight (CVA Accura MR for example). I'm hoping 1X will still be allowed simply so I don't have to make a trip to a gun smith. Anybody have good info on this?
 
With an open sight, there is no guessing what is on the barrel. With 1X scope, there is nothing keeping someone with quick detach rings/bases from making the switch once away from the truck. Someone's ethics on the matter is irrelevant. Somebody will do it. Somewhere...

As far as advantage of a 1X vs open sight, I installed a Williams Western on mine when the rule change happened in NM.

I can "competently" hit a gallon jug dead-center (enough) at 225 yds with corrective vision, I don't have the eyes of an 18 year old anymore :(.

The 1X might eliminate the need for some degree of corrective vision and would open up the sight picture and that's about it.

No clue what will be decided, but I will be going open sight on my speedgoat hunt this fall in UT. I could use a scope, but I don't have the time to really work something up to tap one at 359 yds with a BDC or adjustable turrets (the kind you can quickly adjust and not unscrew the cap and use a quarter).
 
Last edited:
The 1X Power Scopes are a JOKE!

The Average DRAT Eye is 1.6X Power!

They Are CHEAP!

And I've Destroyed Several of Them!

"Hey Joe!"

Look at That Buck With Your Bare Eyes!

Then Take a Look at that Buck through your 1X SmokePole Scope!

Ya!

I Thought He Might Be A Shooter Until I Looked At Him Through My Scope!
 
At age 50 I couldn’t see well enough to use open or peep sights. I started using a non-magnifying red dot. It’s worked well.
I spoke up at the RAC meeting asking them to leave the regulations alone. Now I’m at risk of not being able to use my red dot. SMFH
 
roadrunner said:
With an open sight, there is no guessing what is on the barrel. With 1X scope, there is nothing keeping someone with quick detach rings/bases from making the switch once away from the truck. Someone's ethics on the matter is irrelevant. Somebody will do it. Somewhere...

As far as advantage of a 1X vs open sight, I installed a Williams Western on mine when the rule change happened in NM.

I can "competently" hit a gallon jug dead-center (enough) at 225 yds with corrective vision, I don't have the eyes of an 18 year old anymore :(.

The 1X would merely eliminate the need for corrective vision and would open up the sight picture and that's about it.

No clue what will be decided, but I will be going open sight on my speedgoat hunt this fall in UT. I could use a scope, but I don't have the time to really work something up to tap one at 359 yds with a BDC or adjustable turrets (the kind you can quickly adjust and not unscrew the cap and use a quarter).
Click to expand...
There will always be people who figure out how to skirt around the regs. There are many pic-mounted peep sight options that could easily be removed and replaced with a high power scope away from the truck, so I'm not sure that would help deter those who think that way. The same thinking could be used when talking about electronic ballistic skopes. They are illegal on the rifle hunt, but people could easily get around that if they wanted to using quick release mounts/rings, but they haven't made all skopes illegal on rifles just to deter those who don't want to play fair.
 
elkassassin said:
The 1X Power Scopes are a JOKE!

The Average DRAT Eye is 1.6X Power!

They Are CHEAP!

And I've Destroyed Several of Them!

"Hey Joe!"

Look at That Buck With Your Bare Eyes!

Then Take a Look at that Buck through your 1X SmokePole Scope!

Ya!

I Thought He Might Be A Shooter Until I Looked At Him Through My Scope!
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of this fact. I guess that's what I am asking. It seems to me that a 1x scope gives no advantage over a peep site (especially over a Gunwerks peep), so are 1X scopes on the chopping block or not?
 
GunCarver said:
Yes, I am aware of this fact. I guess that's what I am asking. It seems to me that a 1x scope gives no advantage over a peep site (especially over a Gunwerks peep), so are 1X scopes on the chopping block or not?
Click to expand...

If a 1X scope gives no advantage, why are we even concerned whether or not it's on the chopping block?
 
roadrunner said:
If a 1X scope gives no advantage, why are we even concerned whether or not it's on the chopping block?
Click to expand...
The advantage is that it doesn't require a thousand+ utah hunters to go get their barrels tapped for a peep or front sight. So I guess that is the advantage that I see. I wonder how well the peep sight supply can keep up. I wonder how well it is even keeping up with the New Mexico change.
 
Last edited:
My main question is simply if anyone knows what the current debate of those in power is centered on. Is it centered only on magnified scopes, or are 1X scopes still being scrutinized. Just wondering if anyone is in the know.
 
GunCarver said:
The advantage is that it doesn't require a thousand+ utah hunters to go get their barrels tapped for a peep or front sight. So I guess that is the advantage that I see. I wonder how well the peep sight supply can keep up. I wonder how well it is even keeping up with the New Mexico change.
Click to expand...

I would speculate the ones it will impact the most are the ones that bought the specific rifles mentioned, or a custom made rifle.

For Po-dunk fools such as myself that has a standard nothing-special rifle it's a non-issue. The surge in getting an open sight such as the Western Precision in NM went in two waves; the first where I was in seeing the writing on the wall and getting one before the rule was final and second, those trying to switch because they drew a muzzy tag this year (day late and a dollar short if you ask me).

Since installing mine and sighting it in, I prefer it over a fixed 1X. The problem I've found with it is the rear peep will not adjust down the dovetail slide far enough for a true zero at 100 yds with the load I'm using. The true zero is 150 yds because of it. It shoots 2" - 3" high at 50 yds (depending on powder) and dead-on with both at 150. The BDC hashmark is dead-on at 225.

The supply will keep up just fine, so long as everyone doesn't wait till the last minute. With all the tech limitations talk going on in other states, expect it to happen in UT. I'd order one now, and if it doesn't change, you can sell it to some poor sap in NM that put it off to the year they draw a muzzy tag ;).
 
Last edited:
While I understand the aging process,

getting too old to pull a bow, means it's time to give it up.

If you can't see open sights, it's time to give it up.

Ya, that's harsh. The responsibility to be able to use the weapon should be on the individual, not the hunt.

If your truly disabled, sure, but old age ain't a disability.

If you're truly so blind you can't see 22", perhaps we need those car keys too?
 
hossblur said:
While I understand the aging process,

getting too old to pull a bow, means it's time to give it up.

If you can't see open sights, it's time to give it up.

Ya, that's harsh. The responsibility to be able to use the weapon should be on the individual, not the hunt.

If your truly disabled, sure, but old age ain't a disability.

If you're truly so blind you can't see 22", perhaps we need those car keys too?
Click to expand...

This is a dumb post. Yeah, I could've been more harsh...
 
GunCarver said:
I would be shocked if they allow any magnification, but I was shocked when they allowed it before, so your guess is as good as mine. Why fixed 4X? Why not 1-4X?
Click to expand...
Good point, I misspoke, I meant 4x and below. It would seem like a compromise between taking it all and doing something to me. Guys can still make 300 yard shots with 4x. But it gets harder with no has marks or turrets
 
scopenstalk said:
Good point, I misspoke, I meant 4x and below. It would seem like a compromise between taking it all and doing something to me. Guys can still make 300 yard shots with 4x. But it gets harder with no has marks or turrets
Click to expand...
Makes sense to a degree. However, a lot of scopes still have very repeatable turrets under the cap.
 
But honestly, I only posted this to see if anyone knew if they had limited the scope of the debate at all, or if anything and everything was still on the table for next year.

I wasn't necessarily trying to stir the pot.
 
Yes Sir!

They're Gonna PLUCK Something From hawky's Bow!

They're Gonna PLUCK A Couple Items From The KINGS Rifle!

Then They Can Clamp Down On SmokePoles & Take Us Down to 4X Powered Scopes!:D:D:D

GunCarver said:
I don't disagree at all with your points. If the idea behind removing scopes from muzzleloaders is for limiting the effective range of the weapon, then it has to occur across the board.
Click to expand...
 
elkassassin said:
Yes Sir!

They're Gonna PLUCK Something From hawky's Bow!

They're Gonna PLUCK A Couple Items From The KINGS Rifle!

Then They Can Clamp Down On SmokePoles & Take Us Down to 4X Powered Scopes!:D:D:D
Click to expand...
Okay, you baited me ?. Removing scopes from muzzleloaders is a drastic change. If they do that, then the changes for archery and rifle need to be equivalently drastic. Merely outlawing the Burris Eliminator on rifles isn't going to cut it.
 
Let’s just piss everyone off and end the debate.

Take scopes off all fire arms, only allow “primitive” weapons for all hunts. So long bows with hand made arrows, side lock percussion caps at most for muzzys, 30/30, 45/70 etc etc lever action open sight for rifles.

Not allowed to “pre-scout” or use range finders, binoculars, etc.

Also no 4 wheelers, side by side, or 4 wheel drive pick ups.

I mean these are all just logical steps and eventually if we take it all away from everybody equally. You old. Crotchety bastards can’t ***** and argue anymore.
 
GunCarver said:
But honestly, I only posted this to see if anyone knew if they had limited the scope of the debate at all, or if anything and everything was still on the table for next year.

I wasn't necessarily trying to stir the pot.
Click to expand...
I would ask slamdunk, he was/is actually on the committee. Sounds like they were mulling manny options over and the low power scope was one of those options.
 
We (tech committee) have a meeting next week on this very subject.
I personally am pushing for a 4x maximum on GS and LE hunts, HAMS and Primitive, scopeless.

As I have tried stressing multiple times throughout these technology restrictions that are coming, the muzzleloader was never intended to be or become a weapon capable of the ranges that we are seeing and will continue seeing with growth in popularity if we don't draw the lines in the sand now.

Long range rifles are not in this discussion and have already been addressed that scopes with automated ranging and angle compensation built in are now illegal.
No built in electronics with the only exception being illuminated reticles.
 
slamdunk said:
We (tech committee) have a meeting next week on this very subject.
I personally am pushing for a 4x maximum on GS and LE hunts, HAMS and Primitive, scopeless.

As I have tried stressing multiple times throughout these technology restrictions that are coming, the muzzleloader was never intended to be or become a weapon capable of the ranges that we are seeing and will continue seeing with growth in popularity if we don't draw the lines in the sand now.

Long range rifles are not in this discussion and have already been addressed that scopes with automated ranging and angle compensation built in are now illegal.
No built in electronics with the only exception being illuminated reticles.
Click to expand...
Slam,

Thanks for that info. I just want to make sure I understand your position.

-General Season Rifle (4X scope Max).
-All other gun hunts (no scopes).

Is that correct? Or are you suggesting an additional LR rifle category that allows for higher power scopes? Sorry, I was a little confused by your wording.

Do you think your opinion is widely accepted within the committee so far?
 
GunCarver said:
Slam,

Thanks for that info. I just want to make sure I understand your position.

-General Season Rifle (4X scope Max).
-All other gun hunts (no scopes).

Is that correct? Or are you suggesting an additional LR rifle category that allows for higher power scopes? Sorry, I was a little confused by your wording.

Do you think your opinion is widely accepted within the committee so far?
Click to expand...
Muzzleloader hunts, both GS & LE, 4x maximum.
HAMS & Primitive, no scopes

There was interest in it yes, but it was tabled last winter until now when we meet early next week.
 
roadrunner said:
Hide and watch ?‍?
Click to expand...
Oh I know!!!

Half of the people complaining about banning scopes on muzzys are also the ones that complain about 300+ yard shots with muzzys.

They complain about baiting/trail cams when guides are doing it, then complain when it’s outlawed.

It’s a never ending cycle of just not being able to be pleased.
 
Hey D!

Can You Speed That Process Up before It's Too Late?:D


DBG3285 said:
Let’s just piss everyone off and end the debate.

Take scopes off all fire arms, only allow “primitive” weapons for all hunts. So long bows with hand made arrows, side lock percussion caps at most for muzzys, 30/30, 45/70 etc etc lever action open sight for rifles.

Not allowed to “pre-scout” or use range finders, binoculars, etc.

Also no 4 wheelers, side by side, or 4 wheel drive pick ups.

I mean these are all just logical steps and eventually if we take it all away from everybody equally. You old. Crotchety bastards can’t ***** and argue anymore.
Click to expand...
 
elkassassin said:
Where Ya Been PUNK?
Click to expand...
I've been out your way fishing on Big Sand wash!
Screenshot_20230719_203808_Gallery.jpg
 
travishunter3006 said:
But what is the success rate?!?! What is the science behind the decision? Or is it just feelings? Are too many deer being killed? Are too many people getting their feelings hurt?
Click to expand...
It’s knee jerk reaction from the uneducated who wanna cry. Success rates have stayed the same for muzzleloader season, however they don’t care about anything but their own personal agendas.
 
So, if I shoot an antelope with my open sight muzzy at 219 yds in a couple of months, can I stand in as a witness it's very doable and no scopes at all need to be on muzzleloader's? :devilish:
 
Those of you who are arguing to keep high power scopes on, explain why.

Is it a need or a want?

You need it, why?

You want it, why?

If you don't believe it changes the effectiveness of your muzzleloader, please explain.

I will show and share your comments next week at our meeting.

DM me if you'd rather not post publicly.
 
shootem said:
It’s knee jerk reaction from the uneducated who wanna cry. Success rates have stayed the same for muzzleloader season, however they don’t care about anything but their own personal agendas.
Click to expand...

Uneducated?
Your comment is a "knee jerk reaction".


Go take a look at any sporting goods store at all the emerging components for muzzleloaders and "educate" us how they are NOT trending in ways to reach further.

The ONLY reason these LR components are being developed is because of the ability to "see" farther.

These changes on all three weapons is not focused on "saving deer", it's about taming the emerging technologies.
Of course not every muzzleloader hunter is killing deer at long range, but where will we be in even 5 years?
500 yards is very easily attained with what we can purchase at a basic Cal-Ranch.
Not everyone had an Inline the first few years after they came out, but we all do now.

There is no denying the trend.
 
travishunter3006 said:
But what is the success rate?!?! What is the science behind the decision? Or is it just feelings? Are too many deer being killed? Are too many people getting their feelings hurt?
Click to expand...
Success rates haven't budged on the rifle hunts either, but we are reaching farther.
Same with archery....
 
I'll Post It Once & Again For The Umpteenth Time!

I'm Willing To GIVE!

But It Needs To Be A FAIR & EQUAL GIVE/TAKE Across The Board of All Types Of Weaponry!

Every Weapon Type Has Advanced With Technology and It Just Keeps Advancing!

The Archery Hunter Whines About The Muzzle Loaders & The Long Range Rifle Hunters Use!

The Muzzle Loader Hunters Whine About The Archery Hunters & Long Range Rifle Hunters Equipment!

The Long Range Rifle Hunters Whine About The Archery Hunters & The Muzzle Loader Hunters Equipment!

Does That Not Make All Off Us Guilty of Advancements of Technology?

Yes It Does!

Every Weapon Type Now Is Capable Of Longer Shots by Double Or Triple of What They Use To Be!

In Other Words:

We Are All Guilty Of Some Sort Of Technology Rather It Be Weaponry,Rangefinders,Spotting Scopes,Binoculars,ATV's,UTV's,Trail Cams,The List Goes On & On!

We/My Family Hunts With All 3 Weapon Types & My Weaponry is only Considered Mid-Grade & Maybe Even JUNK By Most Other Hunters!

Let's GIVE Some!

Let's Let Them TAKE Some!

And Make It a FAIR GIVE & TAKE Fairly Across The Board of All Weaponry!

Let's Put The HUNT Back In To Hunting Rather Than Just Shooting!

Are We Gonna Do Something To Try & Help Our Suffering Deer Herds?

Or Are We Gonna Wait Until It's Too Late?

Yes slamdunk!

Please Show This Comment to Them!

bobcatbess
 
Last edited:
elkassassin said:
And Make It a FAIR GIVE & TAKE Fairly Across The Board of All Weaponry!

Are We Gonna Do Something To Try & Help Our Suffering Deer Herds?

Or Are We Gonna Wait Until It's Too Late?

Yes slamdunk!

Please Show This Comment to Them!

bobcatbess
Click to expand...

I thought it had nothing to do with saving deer herds. At least that's what one guy said...
 
Last edited:
slamdunk said:
Quote to me from a well known Instagram influencer Utah muzzleloader hunter.

"I shoot long range muzzleloaders because I can, and I'm ok with them removing scopes.
I will continue killing deer regardless, I'll just have to do it closer".

He understands and gets it.
Click to expand...
So if the same amount of deer are going to be killed, what is the point, really?

I have not heard a solid, logical and concise answer for any of this from anyone involved. By the way, I agree 100% with removing the emerging tech that is pushing the line of ethics (scope/rangefinder sync, cellular cameras, Infrared tech, etc.), but feels like this push on current equipment (muzzy scopes) really doesn't have much merit ?‍♂️
 
elkhunterUT said:
So if the same amount of deer are going to be killed, what is the point, really?

I have not heard a solid, logical and concise answer for any of this from anyone involved. By the way, I agree 100% with removing the emerging tech that is pushing the line of ethics (scope/rangefinder sync, cellular cameras, Infrared tech, etc.), but feels like this push on current equipment (muzzy scopes) really doesn't have much merit ?‍♂️
Click to expand...

Sure it does. If neighboring states can't have them, then neither should UT. Afterall, deer don't understand what border fences are and hop across them all the time :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
elkhunterUT said:
So if the same amount of deer are going to be killed, what is the point, really?

I have not heard a solid, logical and concise answer for any of this from anyone involved. By the way, I agree 100% with removing the emerging tech that is pushing the line of ethics (scope/rangefinder sync, cellular cameras, Infrared tech, etc.), but feels like this push on current equipment (muzzy scopes) really doesn't have much merit ?‍♂️
Click to expand...

So should we allow CF rifles to have the Burris Eliminator type of technology and let it feed into the future of something that'll make it look cheap in years to come, even if success rates haven't changed?
Same with allowing technology to help an archer hit targets at 150 yards?

When do we stop??‍♂️
 
slamdunk said:
So should we allow CF rifles to have the Burris Eliminator type of technology and let it feed into the future of something that'll make it look cheap in years to come, even if success rates haven't changed?
Same with allowing technology to help an archer hit targets at 150 yards?

When do we stop??‍♂️
Click to expand...
Read my post again - I am 100% supportive of banning things like the Burris Eliminator, Garmin bow sight and other emerging tech that are really pushing/blurring the line of ethics/fair chase. No issues there on that type of stuff and think we should be proactive on those items.

What I have issue with is banning scopes on muzzy's in the name of limiting harvest, but not doing anything with the long range rifle. That approach feels very much like rifle guys wanting to save some deer on the muzzy hunt in September, just so they can pound them at 700-900 yards later in October. Makes ZERO sense!!
 
elkhunterUT said:
Read my post again - I am 100% supportive of banning things like the Burris Eliminator, Garmin bow sight and other emerging tech that are really pushing/blurring the line of ethics/fair chase. No issues there on that type of stuff and think we should be proactive on those items.

What I have issue with is banning scopes on muzzy's in the name of limiting harvest, but not doing anything with the long range rifle. That approach feels very much like rifle guys wanting to save some deer on the muzzy hunt in September, just so they can pound them at 700-900 yards later in October. Makes ZERO sense!!
Click to expand...
I understand your points, but a rifle has always been a LR weapon whereas the muzzleloader has integrated into one because there has been no limitations to technology on them.
It's not about saving deer, it's about letting technology get away from us before we have lost all sense of ethics in all three weapons.

CF scope technology has been addressed.
 
Last edited:
elkassassin said:
A Question For Hossy?

If You Take Every-bodies Magnification?

How The HELL You Gonna Make Them PISSCUTTERS Look Like Shooters?
Click to expand...
Take?

Does anyone have a 4x on their hawken?

Shouldn't have been a thing to start with.

Luckily I guess there's no older, blind dudes in Idaho or Colorado?
 
In all honesty, I obviously know first hand that the WB wants changes, that is why they put together a technology committee for input.
Changes are inevitable, period.

I am trying to push for a compromise on 4x maximum because I know that 1x actually decreases the visual distance through a scope.

I have zero issues taking off my 4x12 turret scope from my muzzleloader.
In fact, it will make me be a better hunter by needing to get closer for my humane and ethical kill with a short range weapon.
 
curlycoyote said:
It amazes me this committee thinks a 3X-9X scope is new technology.
Click to expand...
Absolute horrible comment.

Were there 3x9's on Hawkins when that's all we had before inlines?
No, we didn't even use a 1x.
Technology emerged and caused the need for scopes simply due to their range capabilities.
In a few years, your 9x won't be enough.

This isn't that hard to understand ?
 
slamdunk said:
Absolute horrible comment.

Were there 3x9's on Hawkins when that's all we had before inlines?
No, we didn't even use a 1x.
Technology emerged and caused the need for scopes simply due to their range capabilities.
In a few years, your 9x won't be enough.

This isn't that hard to understand ?
Click to expand...
Emotional and financial investment very likely have an effect on some of these responses both for and against. Either way people are lying to themselves if they think the long range muzzle loader hasn't affected the hunt enough to matter. Never in my dreams did I wear orange prior to the changes. Now I do. Given someone could be trying to shoot the deer im stalking from the next canyon over. That's a significant change in the thought paradigm of a muzzle loader hunt.

I do agree with the Bobcat on the ideal that the changes need to be accross the board and as equal as possible. As of right now, since all they did was remove electronics from the other two weapons the only fair compromise on muzzle loader i can see is a 4 power optic with no range estimation/mil reticle, and no exposed turrets. Still makes 300-350 yards pretty doable which is almost double what most guys could do prior to the change but keeps somewhat inline with the tradition of muzzy hunting being a mid range weapon.
 
slamdunk said:
Absolute horrible comment.

Were there 3x9's on Hawkins when that's all we had before inlines?
No, we didn't even use a 1x.
Technology emerged and caused the need for scopes simply due to their range capabilities.
In a few years, your 9x won't be enough.

This isn't that hard to understand ?
Click to expand...
No it not. The committee was created according to you to look and new/emerging tech. 3X-9X is not new tech period end of story.

This isn't that hard to understand:rolleyes:

It doesn't matter what anyone says the committee with do what it wants to. Have at it.
 
scopenstalk said:
Emotional and financial investment very likely have an effect on some of these responses both for and against. Either way people are lying to themselves if they think the long range muzzle loader hasn't affected the hunt enough to matter. Never in my dreams did I wear orange prior to the changes. Now I do. Given someone could be trying to shoot the deer im stalking from the next canyon over. That's a significant change in the thought paradigm of a muzzle loader hunt.

I do agree with the Bobcat on the ideal that the changes need to be accross the board and as equal as possible. As of right now, since all they did was remove electronics from the other two weapons the only fair compromise on muzzle loader i can see is a 4 power optic with no range estimation/mil reticle, and no exposed turrets. Still makes 300-350 yards pretty doable which is almost double what most guys could do prior to the change but keeps somewhat inline with the tradition of muzzy hunting being a mid range weapon.
Click to expand...
Does a scope like that even exist? Almost all the 1-4x scopes on the market are geared towards AR's. They are tactical-style scopes with at least one of the two features you mentioned. If you come across one that is quality enough to handle the recoil of a muzzleloader, let me know. I might be in the market for one in the near future ?.
 
GunCarver said:
Does a scope like that even exist? Almost all the 1-4x scopes on the market are geared towards AR's. They are tactical-style scopes with at least one of the two features you mentioned. If you come across one that is quality enough to handle the recoil of a muzzleloader, let me know. I might be in the market for one in the near future ?.
Click to expand...
This is a solid point. I can’t remember seeing any of the LPVO optics that are only a duplex
 
curlycoyote said:
No it not. The committee was created according to you to look and new/emerging tech. 3X-9X is not new tech period end of story.

This isn't that hard to understand:rolleyes:

It doesn't matter what anyone says the committee with do what it wants to. Have at it.
Click to expand...
No one said a 3x9 was "emerging technology".
It's simple to understand that your need to have a 9x scope means ypu are looking further out.
 
I don't get the obsession in UT with banning magnifying muzz scopes???

It's hard to know exactly how much scopes impacted success rates for general deer hunting because they can vary so much year to year. One good way to do it is to look at the difference between rifle success rates and muzz success rates each year. That difference seems to track pretty consistently year to year, on a good year rifle success is high and muzz success is high, on a bad year both are lower. If you look at the difference between rifle success and muzz success on general deer hunts pre-magnifying scopes and then compare the difference in those success rates after magnifying scopes were allowed, that will give a pretty good idea of what kind of difference having scopes makes on muzz success.

The difference is a little noisy, but it's about 4% higher success on the muzz hunt since the introduction of magnifying scopes. The muzz hunt is only 20% of the general deer tags. So a 4% increase in success for 20% of the tags and you save few bucks.... for 2 weeks until the rifle season starts and guys can use a 28 Nosler with a turreted NIghtForce and kill them at 1,100 yards. Was worth all the fighting and division and effort?

Utah will give about 65K general buck tags in 2023, 20% of those tags will go to muzz hunters, so 13K. Muzz success rate is 37%, based on the last couple years annual report so that might drop to 33% if scopes were banned. So on 13K tags that is a difference of harvesting 4,810 bucks harvested with scopes vs 4,290 bucks harvested without scopes, so you might save 520 buck statewide. You also have to remember that those 520 "saved" bucks are now going to be fair game to the guy with a $10K Gunwerks rifle 2 weeks after the muzz season ends.

Why do sportsmen fight amongst each other so much about stuff that doesn't really matter and won't make a significant difference? Maybe they should all put that energy into killing more coyotes and lions. Maybe they should put that energy into encouraging the BLM to do something about the public land wild horse disaster? Persuading the Forest Service to do more burns and logging on summer ranges? Instead we spend it arguing with each other about stuff that won't even make a difference. It makes me sad to see sportsmen fight amongst themselves so much when there are much better battles to be fought.
 
slamdunk said:
No one said a 3x9 was "emerging technology".
It's simple to understand that your need to have a 9x scope means ypu are looking further out.
Click to expand...
Twist it however you want. We are talking about scopes here not the muzzleloaders. The committee was formed to address emerging tech. You are removing the 3-9 therefore one would conclude it is emerging tech. Like I said before have at it.
 
DeermanMuleys said:
I don't get the obsession in UT with banning magnifying muzz scopes???

It's hard to know exactly how much scopes impacted success rates for general deer hunting because they can vary so much year to year. One good way to do it is to look at the difference between rifle success rates and muzz success rates each year. That difference seems to track pretty consistently year to year, on a good year rifle success is high and muzz success is high, on a bad year both are lower. If you look at the difference between rifle success and muzz success on general deer hunts pre-magnifying scopes and then compare the difference in those success rates after magnifying scopes were allowed, that will give a pretty good idea of what kind of difference having scopes makes on muzz success.

The difference is a little noisy, but it's about 4% higher success on the muzz hunt since the introduction of magnifying scopes. The muzz hunt is only 20% of the general deer tags. So a 4% increase in success for 20% of the tags and you save few bucks.... for 2 weeks until the rifle season starts and guys can use a 28 Nosler with a turreted NIghtForce and kill them at 1,100 yards. Was worth all the fighting and division and effort?

Utah will give about 65K general buck tags in 2023, 20% of those tags will go to muzz hunters, so 13K. Muzz success rate is 37%, based on the last couple years annual report so that might drop to 33% if scopes were banned. So on 13K tags that is a difference of harvesting 4,810 bucks harvested with scopes vs 4,290 bucks harvested without scopes, so you might save 520 buck statewide. You also have to remember that those 520 "saved" bucks are now going to be fair game to the guy with a $10K Gunwerks rifle 2 weeks after the muzz season ends.

Why do sportsmen fight amongst each other so much about stuff that doesn't really matter and won't make a significant difference? Maybe they should all put that energy into killing more coyotes and lions. Maybe they should put that energy into encouraging the BLM to do something about the public land wild horse disaster? Persuading the Forest Service to do more burns and logging on summer ranges? Instead we spend it arguing with each other about stuff that won't even make a difference. It makes me sad to see sportsmen fight amongst themselves so much when there are much better battles to be fought.
Click to expand...
I hate that you put this much time and effort into your post because it has all been discussed multiple times on more than a handful of threads.

And it's not just a Utah thing, every state around us has either done it or is addressing and adopting the same things.
 
I'm in agreement with the low power scope option being a good compromise. The eyes start to go as we age, so even having a 2.5x scope would be a benefit to being able to make shots at normal Muzzy ranges, say 200 ish yards. Those can be tough with old eyes and open sights.
 
scopenstalk said:
The response also lacks a very key data point regarding deer specifically since thats the data referenced. Bucks in general but specifcally Big bucks are more vulnerable in late september and the first few days of october. I have spent enough time chasing and shooting big deer on GS hunts and speaking with others who do it successfully and the general consensus is big bucks dissapear this time of year. Last year I was chasing a 180+ typical on a GS unit here. I hunted him 13 days on archery and saw him 3 times. I hunted most of muzzy and saw him once at last light, and never saw him once on rifle. This is a story that has repeated itself 4-5 times in my hunting career. Sure someone may shoot one here and there, but it's usually the ultra dedicated guy or pure luck if someone dumps a big deer on general rifle season. There's a reason a lot of the hard core deer hunters choose muzzy and archery over late rifle.....
Click to expand...

Weather has as much to do with it as anything. End of September the mtns are open. End of October, not always, yet the deer, specifically the high country bucks, haven't started coming down yet
 
257Tony said:
I'm in agreement with the low power scope option being a good compromise. The eyes start to go as we age, so even having a 2.5x scope would be a benefit to being able to make shots at normal Muzzy ranges, say 200 ish yards. Those can be tough with old eyes and open sights.
Click to expand...

Except someone already said the harsh truth, if you can't see open sights because of age, it's time to hang it up.

Betterluckythangood said:
I only read the first fifty replies but no one mentioned that on a 1x scope you can hold the crosshairs over the target without totally covering it with the front sight. That is the advantage. I haven’t used peep sights so don’t know about them
Click to expand...

With the thin crosshair reticle on the Western Precision Globe (and peep), it is no different than looking through a 1X with holdover.
 
The only way a fixed [magnified] power scope provides any benefit is when a load is such that the bullet flies flat enough for the magnification at 350 yds to mean anything.

The closer the shot, the easier to fly over (way high), forcing you to do the same close as you would far with holdover, or keeping your shots within a couple inches of zero, like 275 yds to 375 yds.

It's the quick adjusting turrets to "dope your scope" is where the more modern tech comes in for the avg hunter...
 
slamdunk said:
Those of you who are arguing to keep high power scopes on, explain why.

Is it a need or a want?

You need it, why?

You want it, why?

If you don't believe it changes the effectiveness of your muzzleloader, please explain.

I will show and share your comments next week at our meeting.

DM me if you'd rather not post publicly.
Click to expand...
Slam,

I will say this, I will always take a 4X over a 1X or open sights. There is no doubt about that. However, in my worthless opinion, I do think muzzleloaders are receiving a disproportionate level of scrutiny compared to centerfire rifles. I understand that rifles are "meant" to be long range, but the definition of long range has evolved so much in the past 10-15 years. Long Range for my dad was 300 yards. Now a 600 yard shot is a layup for any low-mid grade rifle with a $200 turreted scope, and 1100+ is becoming increasingly common, and more and more people are adopting it. I'm surprised that the committee is willing to let it go so unchecked compared to muzzies.

I also realize that muzzleloaders in the traditional form were never meant to be long range, but Utah is an inline state. Yes, we could have chosen years ago to be a flintlock state, but keep in mind that that would merely drive more hunters towards rifle hunts, and the point creep log jam would only Increase in magnitude. We would all be waiting 7-8 years between rifle tags. Our muzzleloader regs as they are now help to spread the numbers more evenly.

Do I need a 9X scope to make a 100 - 200 yard shot? No, not technically, but there is an aim-small-miss-small principle to consider as well. I can make that shot with open sights, but I can make it with better precision with a magnifying scope.

Feel free to share these thoughts with the committee.
 
So, when do we STOP increasing the regulations on technology and hunting? When half of the current hunter population quits?

I hope the Tech Committee comes to realize that "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played". Don't make changes with the expectation that the hunters will simply accept the new regulation and continue hunting without changing anything else. They won't! They'll either quit or just find other ways to keep up their success rates. And in my lifetime, I've seen both, but the ones who quit have the most impact on hunting and it's all negative. Be careful what you wish for!
 
45 Years Ago I Filed the Front Sight On My Hawkens Down To a Hair!

Will 4X Reading Glasses Be Legal In The Future So I Can See The Front Sight again?

Or Will they Be Put On The BAN List As well?
 
I currently have a 4-16x on my muzzy and I think we should ban everything but percussion cap or flintlock rifles. No scopes and no sabots, full bore lead ball or conicals. Will I hunt with my scope this year? Yes I will but I will fine with restrictions that reduce success rates because that's the only way tags will be available in the future in any quantity.

I bowhunt and I think we need to restrict it all to primitive equipment. No compounds, longbow, and recurves only.

Any weapon hunts need serious restrictions as well. 4x magnification scopes as a maximum should make a difference. If that isn't good enough then pre-1970 technology for weapon type restrictions as well.

The same folks that cry against weapon restrictions are the same people that moan about not being able to draw tags. Well you can't have both in the future because times have been changing and they are continuing to change at a rapid pace. Success rates are too high and herd numbers won't sustain it for long.

Yes people will cheat but the DNR needs a source of revenue so make the fines huge and give those cheaters a ten year hunting ban when they are caught. Extra bonus points or a tag for those who turn them in if there's a successful prosecution.

Face reality and either quit hunting or learn to hunt with more challenging methods. ...and here comes the Butthurt fairy.
 
elkfromabove said:
So, when do we STOP increasing the regulations on technology and hunting? When half of the current hunter population quits?

I hope the Tech Committee comes to realize that "When you change the rules of the game, you change the way it is played". Don't make changes with the expectation that the hunters will simply accept the new regulation and continue hunting without changing anything else. They won't! They'll either quit or just find other ways to keep up their success rates. And in my lifetime, I've seen both, but the ones who quit have the most impact on hunting and it's all negative. Be careful what you wish for!
Click to expand...
If half the current hunter population quits hunting you still won't be able to draw a tag.
 
4-16X?

JUDAS!

deadibob said:
I currently have a 4-16x on my muzzy and I think we should ban everything but percussion cap or flintlock rifles. No scopes and no sabots, full bore lead ball or conicals. Will I hunt with my scope this year? Yes I will but I will fine with restrictions that reduce success rates because that's the only way tags will be available in the future in any quantity.

I bowhunt and I think we need to restrict it all to primitive equipment. No compounds, longbow, and recurves only.

Any weapon hunts need serious restrictions as well. 4x magnification scopes as a maximum should make a difference. If that isn't good enough then pre-1970 technology for weapon type restrictions as well.

The same folks that cry against weapon restrictions are the same people that moan about not being able to draw tags. Well you can't have both in the future because times have been changing and they are continuing to change at a rapid pace. Success rates are too high and herd numbers won't sustain it for long.

Face reality and either quit hunting or learn to hunt with more challenging methods. ...and here comes the Butthurt fairy.
Click to expand...
 
slamdunk said:
Uneducated?
Your comment is a "knee jerk reaction".


Go take a look at any sporting goods store at all the emerging components for muzzleloaders and "educate" us how they are NOT trending in ways to reach further.

The ONLY reason these LR components are being developed is because of the ability to "see" farther.

These changes on all three weapons is not focused on "saving deer", it's about taming the emerging technologies.
Of course not every muzzleloader hunter is killing deer at long range, but where will we be in even 5 years?
500 yards is very easily attained with what we can purchase at a basic Cal-Ranch.
Not everyone had an Inline the first few years after they came out, but we all do now.

There is no denying the trend.
Click to expand...
If success rates have relatively stayed the same since the 1x days to the magnified days, what does it matter? You’re still shooting a muzzleloader.

You can’t say eliminating electronic rifle scopes will fix anything or impact anything. It really feels like we are trying to create a better general rifle deer hunt. That’s it.

I’m good with a 4x restriction on a muzzy. But I don’t see the biological need for it. Only a social need.
 
It's ludicrous to go full on hippie in any state in regard to extreme limitations to make it all natural.

If UT really wants to see the impact on harvest results limiting magnification on muzzleloaders, wait until NM finishes its season this year.

There are nearly identical scenarios; deer herd numbers compromised due to drought, higher predation, and loss of habitat in areas. Sabots, blackpowder substitutes, and inlines are legal, breech loading rifles are not, and you can't use cell phone trail cameras.

The difference: one allows magnifying scopes and the other is open sight only.

Using data from 10 years ago whether or not scopes made a difference is using irrelevant data.
 
Last edited:
mickeyelk said:
Since they went to muzzleloaders with magnified scopes I haven't drawn a tag to ever take advantage of it. I wear glasses and a little too old. The need for scopes make it easier to see and hunt with. They may need to adjust the scopes reasoning issues and adjustments to seniors.
Click to expand...
Excellent point....variable scopes have brought a lot of new hunters into this category......why??

The answer is easy....
 
I like Idaho's rules. Simple enough to follow, and self-restricting. Push all the RUM's, Paramounts, Gunwerks etc. and super scopes into the Any Legal Weapon pool, and forget about it.
 
Blank said:
I like Idaho's rules. Simple enough to follow, and self-restricting. Push all the RUM's, Paramounts, Gunwerks etc. and super scopes into the Any Legal Weapon pool, and forget about it.
Click to expand...
But then you have guys saying they are "saving all the bucks for rifle hunters" ?
 
slamdunk said:
But then you have guys saying they are "saving all the bucks for rifle hunters" ?
Click to expand...
That’s why we are going to restrict rifle hunters to Winchester ‘94s;

Anyone who says modern technology hasn’t impacted success rates by leaps and bounds is either a clueless idiot or downright F’n liar!

It’s gonna be either weapon restrictions or permanent tag cuts because those are the only realistic fixes. So would you prefer to hunt with lesser technology or not hunt at all?

Let’s get another thing cleared up and out of the way: IF YOU CAN’T GIVE UP MODERN HUNTING TECHNOLOGY THEN #1 YOU SUCK AS A HUNTER!; #2 ENJOY WAITING EIGHT + YEARS FOR A GENERAL DEER TAG!; #3 F’ U!
 
Hey deadibob?

Can you Make #3 A little More Clear As To What You're Sayin?:D



deadibob said:
That’s why we are going to restrict rifle hunters to Winchester ‘94s;

Anyone who says modern technology hasn’t impacted success rates by leaps and bounds is either a clueless idiot or downright F’n liar!

It’s gonna be either weapon restrictions or permanent tag cuts because those are the only realistic fixes. So would you prefer to hunt with lesser technology or not hunt at all?

Let’s get another thing cleared up and out of the way: IF YOU CAN’T GIVE UP MODERN HUNTING TECHNOLOGY THEN #1 YOU SUCK AS A HUNTER!; #2 ENJOY WAITING EIGHT + YEARS FOR A GENERAL DEER TAG!; #3 F’ U!
Click to expand...
 
deadibob said:
Face reality and either quit hunting or learn to hunt with more challenging methods. ...and here comes the Butthurt fairy.
Click to expand...
Yep, them's the choices alright.! At least until the more challenging methods become so onerous, cumbersome and expensive that the hassle overcomes the fun. For me and the few hunting friends I have left, it's getting close.
 
elkassassin said:
Judas bob!

I Can't Visual PUNK Hunting With a 94!:D
Click to expand...
I'd do it in a heartbeat!

I'll admit, I've got a few fancy nob top setups, but I've never stopped a heart past 413 yards.

I just don't utilize their capabilities, but there are those that make a game out of it.
 
Ya, it would be a real tragedy for a rifle hunter to have to get within 300, 400, or 500 yards.

A muzzy hunter to get within 150 or so, and a bow hunter, around 60.

Good lord, grown men in tears everywhere.

My Friends, for ye are my friends, if we would simply ban rangefinders the pain would be spread equally.

I wish that was my idea but it was tossed out by a prominent member of this community.
 
Last edited:
I agree with some of the comments @elkfromabove and @elkhunterUT have said.

Limiting EMERGING technology is fine by me as long as it's logical and has objective data around it. I think most hunters can stand behind decisions that are tied to cold hard facts.

Limiting EXISTING technology without cold hard facts and throwing out really subjective terms like "ethics" and "fair chase" is where a lot of people, including myself, have problems.
 
deadibob said:
That’s why we are going to restrict rifle hunters to Winchester ‘94s;

Anyone who says modern technology hasn’t impacted success rates by leaps and bounds is either a clueless idiot or downright F’n liar!

It’s gonna be either weapon restrictions or permanent tag cuts because those are the only realistic fixes. So would you prefer to hunt with lesser technology or not hunt at all?

Let’s get another thing cleared up and out of the way: IF YOU CAN’T GIVE UP MODERN HUNTING TECHNOLOGY THEN #1 YOU SUCK AS A HUNTER!; #2 ENJOY WAITING EIGHT + YEARS FOR A GENERAL DEER TAG!; #3 F’ U!
Click to expand...
So explain again why you are still going to use your 4X-16X scope this year ?
 
slamdunk said:
But then you have guys saying they are "saving all the bucks for rifle hunters" ?
Click to expand...
I'm sure some people say that. However I'm also pretty sure that most of those same people came from the rifle hunting camp because they could draw a tag easier. They also understood with the current muzzleloader technology and good hunting skills they could still be very successful. Maybe even more so with longer and more timely seasons.

Now that all the bucks are being saved for the rifle hunters they are free to go back and hunt with a rifle. If they are die hard muzzleloader guys they can still use their muzzleloader in the rifle hunt. They just know it's gonna be harder to draw now and they want to keep the advantage of an easier to draw tag with basically what is becoming a single shot rifle. There lays the rub.

I'm with Blank. I like Idaho's rules and the new muzzy season here in Montana--- It's even more restrictive than that.

I don't know how Utah's Muzzy restrictions have evolved but if they started out like Idaho's and Montana's they should of held the line and this debate wouldn't even be happening
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Blank
Which Red Dot for Utah???
Replies
9
Views
568
elkassassin
elkassassin
Land Hunter
San Juan deer - Muzzy or Rifle
Replies
15
Views
2k
scfam
scfam
N
What would you do ???
Replies
46
Views
3k
notrace
N

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20220803-140303_Gmail.jpg
A3603705-D9A4-45AE-A10C-5FC6BE94ADFB.jpeg
IMG1.jpg
631A26C5-D91E-4D1E-A9C4-34ED3B91C3ED.jpeg
3B5E9ED8-10D5-4D84-A06B-AE7F53EC74A0.jpeg
Huge Bull Elk
IMG_5103 copy.jpg
1.jpg
1641363560709.jpeg
A48BDCE2-27D0-4B1C-B47F-3B496082F575.jpeg
81 nontypical.jpg
Wide Buck 5-18-23.mp4
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom