Muzzleloader 1X vs All-Scope-Ban?

[JakeH]

You continue missing the point by a freaking mile.
No one is trying to save deer with these restrictions......it's getting old trying to explain this over and over and over.

The purpose of this appointed committee is to tame technology, period.

Your archery equipment hasn't been crippled by banning electronics and neither has the centerfire rifles by banning electronics.

Your bow still shoots as far as it did 10 years ago, just as centerfire rifles do.
Those two weapons are both the short and long respectfully.

It's the muzzleloader that continues to evolve because of high power scopes.
That hunt was never intended to be what it is becoming.

Even you I believe once stated a bow will never shoot over 100 yards accurately and consistently, simply because of natural elements like wind.
No gadget will help an arrow find it's way to long range and never will. There are far too many natura variables.

Magnum cartridge rifles were designed to shoot longer distances and have been around since the H&H magnums were introduced in 1912.

Do you know what a "top of the line" muzzleloader looked like in even 1980?
It was a Hawkin style with open sights.
What do our muzzleloaders look like today?
Go look at the Gunwerks website for starters and come back try convincing the hunting world these types of muzzleloaders won't be widespread in our future if we don't apply the brakes right now.
The scope is what is causing the advancements in the rifles themselves along with the components.

For the last time........NO ONES END GOAL IS SAVING BUCKS.

You can say the exact same thing about a long rage rifle, the scope is the biggest advancement.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or at least is should be.

Even still a muzzleloader is not a rifle, or even a single shot rifle.

Go get a single shot rifle whatever caliber you want and let's have a shooting competition between it and a top of the line muzzleloader. You have one min to shoot as many rounds as you can at a target that is 500 yards away. Which one is going to have the most hits on the target?

 

[Bigwiffy]

You continue missing the point by a freaking mile.
No one is trying to save deer with these restrictions......it's getting old trying to explain this over and over and over.

The purpose of this appointed committee is to tame technology, period.

Your archery equipment hasn't been crippled by banning electronics and neither has the centerfire rifles by banning electronics.

Your bow still shoots as far as it did 10 years ago, just as centerfire rifles do.
Those two weapons are both the short and long respectfully.

It's the muzzleloader that continues to evolve because of high power scopes.
That hunt was never intended to be what it is becoming.

Even you I believe once stated a bow will never shoot over 100 yards accurately and consistently, simply because of natural elements like wind.
No gadget will help an arrow find it's way to long range and never will. There are far too many natura variables.

Magnum cartridge rifles were designed to shoot longer distances and have been around since the H&H magnums were introduced in 1912.

Do you know what a "top of the line" muzzleloader looked like in even 1980?
It was a Hawkin style with open sights.
What do our muzzleloaders look like today?
Go look at the Gunwerks website for starters and come back try convincing the hunting world these types of muzzleloaders won't be widespread in our future if we don't apply the brakes right now.
The scope is what is causing the advancements in the rifles themselves along with the components.

For the last time........NO ONES END GOAL IS SAVING BUCKS.

So there was no logic on why the rifle wasn't restricted further? Evolving from a weapon that typically would kill from 300-500 yards is now killing routinely at double or triple that range, caused no alarm to the committee that maybe that tech should be bridled further than what was passed? The only logic the committee could come up with is "it was originally intended as a long range weapon" got it. Thanks Slam. Hammer away at the smokepolers!

 

[slamdunk]

So there was no logic on why the rifle wasn't restricted further? Evolving from a weapon that typically would kill from 300-500 yards is now killing routinely at double or triple that range, caused no alarm to the committee that maybe that tech should be bridled further than what was passed? The only logic the committee could come up with is "it was originally intended as a long range weapon" got it. Thanks Slam. Hammer away at the smokepolers!

Wiff, look....we all know all three weapons are more effective these days, I'm not arguing that point at all.

I'm not protecting rifles, I am a muzzleloader hunter in utah and I see what MY rifle can do if I apply the time and advanced components to make it reach, but I don't for personal reasons.

If the muzzleloader isn't tamed, you WILL see more and more hunters switch to that hunt and decrease opportunities for those of us who have been doing it annually for years.

It's a mid-season relatively short range hunt and it should be kept that way.

How would you feel if crossbows were made legal to hunt your bowhunt?
It's still a bow that shoots an arrow.
They aren't legal for obvious reasons unless you possess a COR permit.

 

[slamdunk]

@Bigwiffy
So what's your realistic suggestion for centerfire rifle restrictions?

Don't suggest turrets because all scopes have the ability to dial up with the ease of a coin from your pocket.

Also keep in mind AGAIN we are not trying to save deer.
The restriction on the muzzleloader is to save a "traditional" hunt.

 

[JakeH]

@Bigwiffy
So what's your realistic suggestion for centerfire rifle restrictions?

Don't suggest turrets because all scopes have the ability to dial up with the ease of a coin from your pocket.

Also keep in mind AGAIN we are not trying to save deer.
The restriction on the muzzleloader is to save a "traditional" hunt.

I know you are not addressing me with this, but I will jump in.

How bout we stick with emerging technologies, you guys have done your jobs, no need to expand upon it and include existing tech.

But beyond that, if you can limit the power on a muzzleloader why couldn't you do it on a rifle?

And as far as the saving deer part goes, you got a lot of people that think it's going to save deer by limiting muzzleloader. That was the common narrative pushed out at the start of this talk, but once the numbers came out that it really wasn't a factor now it's all about saving the "traditional" hunt.

I would still take my browning 270 with a fixed 6x scope that I started hunting with over a new fangled custom muzzleloader if I had to choose between the two.

Just because it's not as "traditional" doesn't mean it's not still limited compared to a rifle. If someone doesn't want to hunt with a newer muzzleloader they have every right not to, but just because it's not your cup of tea shouldn't mean you get to push your views onto others.

 

[roadrunner]

If removing scopes on muzzleloaders was a big deal, do it already.

It's quite humorous, really, to watch this process being drawn out as long as it has. No need to wait until next years regs to come out, do it on the fly.

Let the crybabies turn their tags in, I'm quite certain there are a lot of people that would be happy to take it...

 

[Bigwiffy]

@Bigwiffy
So what's your realistic suggestion for centerfire rifle restrictions?

Don't suggest turrets because all scopes have the ability to dial up with the ease of a coin from your pocket.

Also keep in mind AGAIN we are not trying to save deer.
The restriction on the muzzleloader is to save a "traditional" hunt.

Fixed 6x scope, no suppressors, no laser rangefinders. Get close enough to know you are in range to make an ethical kill.

Yep I'd be fine with no rangefinder for archery.

Secondary option leave them the way they are, cut rifle tags way back, move the elk hunt out of Sept. add those tags to 1x or scopeless muzzy hunts and archery hunts. Guys that want to hunt with their long range outfits still can. Increase the opportunity by cutting rifle tags and adding archery tags.

 

[middlefork]

Utah already approved the definitions for restricted weapon hunts. Why not try implementing some of them to satisfy the the folk that seem so hell bent on forcing others to hunt the way they think everyone else should?

I think so far they have done ok with the rules. I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish going forward.

 

[slamdunk]

Fixed 6x scope, no suppressors, no laser rangefinders. Get close enough to know you are in range to make an ethical kill.

Yep I'd be fine with no rangefinder for archery.

Secondary option leave them the way they are, cut rifle tags way back, move the elk hunt out of Sept. add those tags to 1x or scopeless muzzy hunts and archery hunts. Guys that want to hunt with their long range outfits still can. Increase the opportunity by cutting rifle tags and adding archery tags.

I would fully support drastic cuts on rifle tags and distribute those same numbers into archery and muzzleloaders hunts without an increase due to lower success rates.
So say 90k total deer tags, just distributed on the two lower success hunts.

 

[middlefork]

But we are already down to what 73000? How low do you go to save the herd?
How about tag cuts are not working? If you think that is the problem.

 

[slamdunk]

But we are already down to what 73000? How low do you go to save the herd?
How about tag cuts are not working? If you think that is the problem.

Yes, I believe it was quite a bit lower this year than my 90k statement.

And you are correct, cutting buck tags doesn't bring herds back, but they definitely could use some relief from the October hunts going into the rut and winter.

 

[elkassassin]

There's No relief On the Deer herd!

Even When They're Not Being Hunted they're Gettin Pushed Around!

 

[hogg_65]

I say we try another route for general deer and general elk. If you draw a general buck deer tag, you can't buy a general bull elk tag. If you draw a buck deer tag or draw a bull elk tag or buy a bull elk tag you can't draw an antlerless tag of any species. Oh, and NO outfitters on public land hunts........

 

[elkassassin]

Well hogg!

You Just PISSED Everybody Off!

I say we try another route for general deer and general elk. If you draw a general buck deer tag, you can't buy a general bull elk tag. If you draw a buck deer tag or draw a bull elk tag or buy a bull elk tag you can't draw an antlerless tag of any species. Oh, and NO outfitters on public land hunts........

 

[JakeH]

I say we try another route for general deer and general elk. If you draw a general buck deer tag, you can't buy a general bull elk tag. If you draw a buck deer tag or draw a bull elk tag or buy a bull elk tag you can't draw an antlerless tag of any species. Oh, and NO outfitters on public land hunts........

And exactly what would that accomplish? What's your goal with making that rule?

 

[hogg_65]

I like this option instead of tag cuts. It looks extreme enough to make guys choose 1 hunt a year. That 1 hunt for some is better than no hunt at all.

 

[JakeH]

I like this option instead of tag cuts. It looks extreme enough to make guys choose 1 hunt a year. That 1 hunt for some is better than no hunt at all.

How will that help with tag cuts?

and you can still hunt general elk every year? So you just want to keep all the elk hunters from being able to put in for deer tags so your odds of a deer tag will go up?

Why do we have to make things extreme?

It amazes me how many people don't want to hunt lol, or they just want to make it harder for others to hunt.

 

[hogg_65]

10 years from now when the allotted general deer tags are only 30,000, or less. This selfish, extreme idea would be an option.
Hope we all can hunt every year.

 

[GunCarver]

@Bigwiffy
So what's your realistic suggestion for centerfire rifle restrictions?

Don't suggest turrets because all scopes have the ability to dial up with the ease of a coin from your pocket.

Also keep in mind AGAIN we are not trying to save deer.
The restriction on the muzzleloader is to save a "traditional" hunt.

Slam,
I have already made my opinion on the matter pretty clear, but I have to ask, if the board thinks that LR muzzleloaders are the new root of all evil, does your 4x scope proposal change anything?

For example, if we use a 1-4x Vortex Crossfire as an example, the reticle dot at 700 yards would only cover up an 11" circle, pushing it but still adequate to make a 700 yard shot.

Whereas a 1x Crossfire would cover up a 26" circle at 700 yards. Basically covers the whole animal and then some.

If the goal of the board is to limit the range of a muzz to 700, then a 4x is a good number. If 300 yards is the goal. Then a 1x is the number.

 

[notdonhunting]

For all the guys that think restricting muzzleloaders will make it so you can get a tag every year in your desired area you are smoking Crack, gonna start calling you Hunter.

For those that want an "opportunity" to have a deer tag every year "somewhere", you just ain't trying hard enough. There are hunts to be had every year.

I'm not enjoying this new trend of "take from this group or that group because I don't like the way they hunt" its a slippery slope and you MF'ers have fallen head first into it.

None of this will be beneficial to game management, or application management as people will adjust to whatever is put on place. You people want to hunt more, and more often there is only one way to make that happen and that is to increase the supply. The demand is not going anywhere.

Again, I fully support getting out in front of the new emerging tech that is getting kinda crazy, but it's starting to go to far.

And I still find it immensely hypocritical to say you are trying to limit tech but not address long range rifles in any significant way. If you want to limit a muzzys scope there is no reason you can't limit a rifle scope as well beyond the electronic elements. Fact of the matter is a muzzleloader is loaded from the muzzle, who cares of its a "single shot rifle" that's basically what they have always been, a less effective rifle, they still are.

I do not think anyone mentioned a word that they have some crazy idea of a permit every year for their preferred unit. But 50% on most units was what muzzleloader chances was before any power of magnification scopes. most units now are at best 30%.
The odds went to 30% after the first year of any power of magnification scopes so yes the drop in odds can be contributed to the NEW RULE the DWR created for muzzleloaders.
For anyone to claim that any magnification scope does not increase their odds of being successful is being disingenuous at best. I personally have missed shots back with open sights that I know I would have made with a 4-16 X 50 scope. I have also passed up numerous shots with my open sights I know I would have been successful with a 4-16 X 50 scope.

 

[deadibob]

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.

Are you saying that success rates are the same now as they were when only 1x scopes were allowed. Unfortunately the DWR doesn't collect data on harvest rates (which could be so easily done and more valuable than any current information they think they have) so there is no hard evidence to prove it one way or not. The only reason that I can see for them not to collect this data is because they don't want to know the truth because that may force the way they operate and in turn hurt their revenue.

Even though the DWR doesn't have a clue how many tags they mail out actually get filled there is no doubt that technology has increased success rates by a large amount. When an unsustainable amount of animals are culled from a herd there is a biological and not a social need to reduce that number. Also what do you mean by a social need to reduce technology?

YOU CAN ONLY TAKE 'X' AMOUNT OF ANIMALS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP A HEALTHY AND HUNTABLE HERD. THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO DO THIS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TAGS OR REDUCE SUCCESS RATES ON THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF TAGS.

Now ask yourself do you want to keep hunting with methods that make it easier to kill but hunt less frequently or are you willing to use more challenging equipment and hunt more often. There is no other choice because herd numbers will never be what they once were.

 

[twopointdn]

Slam,
I have already made my opinion on the matter pretty clear, but I have to ask, if the board thinks that LR muzzleloaders are the new root of all evil, does your 4x scope proposal change anything?

For example, if we use a 1-4x Vortex Crossfire as an example, the reticle dot at 700 yards would only cover up an 11" circle, pushing it but still adequate to make a 700 yard shot.

Whereas a 1x Crossfire would cover up a 26" circle at 700 yards. Basically covers the whole animal and then some.

If the goal of the board is to limit the range of a muzz to 700, then a 4x is a good number. If 300 yards is the goal. Then a 1x is the number.

Spot on.

Slam, someone else gets the difference between a 1x scope and a 4x scope, 6x, 4x-16x, 6x-24x, etc. Anything above a 1x scope will not limit it back towards what it used to be before legalizing magnified scopes and trying to limit the range of the long range muzzleloader being built today. That is why I do not like the so called compromise of the 4x scope. Again, simply copy and paste the old regulations and be done with the mess that was unnecessarily created several years ago.

 

[roadrunner]

Slam,
I have already made my opinion on the matter pretty clear, but I have to ask, if the board thinks that LR muzzleloaders are the new root of all evil, does your 4x scope proposal change anything?

For example, if we use a 1-4x Vortex Crossfire as an example, the reticle dot at 700 yards would only cover up an 11" circle, pushing it but still adequate to make a 700 yard shot.

Whereas a 1x Crossfire would cover up a 26" circle at 700 yards. Basically covers the whole animal and then some.

If the goal of the board is to limit the range of a muzz to 700, then a 4x is a good number. If 300 yards is the goal. Then a 1x is the number.

300 yds with a 1x is a tall order for a lot of people since it's really no different than an open sight.

 

[elkassassin]

And You Could Say The Same Damn Thing About Your Model 94 Versus The Rifle You're Packing Today!

I do not think anyone mentioned a word that they have some crazy idea of a permit every year for their preferred unit. But 50% on most units was what muzzleloader chances was before any power of magnification scopes. most units now are at best 30%.
The odds went to 30% after the first year of any power of magnification scopes so yes the drop in odds can be contributed to the NEW RULE the DWR created for muzzleloaders.
For anyone to claim that any magnification scope does not increase their odds of being successful is being disingenuous at best. I personally have missed shots back with open sights that I know I would have made with a 4-16 X 50 scope. I have also passed up numerous shots with my open sights I know I would have been successful with a 4-16 X 50 scope.

 

[elkassassin]

It's Worse Than An Open Sight!

The Average DRAT Eye Is about 1.6X!

300 yds with a 1x is a tall order for a lot of people since it's really no different than an open sight.

 

[JakeH]

Are you saying that success rates are the same now as they were when only 1x scopes were allowed. Unfortunately the DWR doesn't collect data on harvest rates (which could be so easily done and more valuable than any current information they think they have) so there is no hard evidence to prove it one way or not. The only reason that I can see for them not to collect this data is because they don't want to know the truth because that may force the way they operate and in turn hurt their revenue.

Even though the DWR doesn't have a clue how many tags they mail out actually get filled there is no doubt that technology has increased success rates by a large amount. When an unsustainable amount of animals are culled from a herd there is a biological and not a social need to reduce that number. Also what do you mean by a social need to reduce technology?

YOU CAN ONLY TAKE 'X' AMOUNT OF ANIMALS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP A HEALTHY AND HUNTABLE HERD. THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO DO THIS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TAGS OR REDUCE SUCCESS RATES ON THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF TAGS.

Now ask yourself do you want to keep hunting with methods that make it easier to kill but hunt less frequently or are you willing to use more challenging equipment and hunt more often. There is no other choice because herd numbers will never be what they once were.

And you know this how???? You surveyed every tag holder? You are literally doing what you are accusing the DWR of doing, and just pulling crap out of your @ss.

At least the DWR has some data to back up what they are saying.

I do agree with you and think they should be doing mandatory surveys, and guess what starting this year they are with all antlerless tags, and the plan is to move it to the deer hunts next year, they are using this year as a test run with the antlerless system. So you are about to get your wish.

 

[twopointdn]

300 yds with a 1x is a tall order for a lot of people since it's really no different than an open sight.

You are correct, 300 yards would be tough with a 1x scope and provides little to no advantage over a open sight or peep sight. That is the beautiful of the old regulations, it helped the older eye solve the problems with focusing on multiple points of open sights but offered little to no advantage over open sights . There was way more thought put into the old regulations than what went into the WB passing the new regulations. The WB chair at the time of the change to magnified scopes sums my point up very clearly with his closing remarks just before the vote. The year after the change there was a noticeable difference on the mountain and it is even worse now. Way more shots going off during the hunt and echoing down the canyon than there used to be even with less tags in the field. Some people do not like change and some do, I liked everything better about the way it used to be before the change to allowing magnified scopes on muzzleloaders in Utah. Of course I would love to have the general November muzzleloader deer hunt back and have my side lock in my hands but that will not happen and I have moved on from that dream.

 

[elkassassin]

Since There Isn't Even a Half-Assed 1X Fixed Power On The Market!

Will it Be OK If We Mount a 1X-6X Scope On Our Guns If We Promise To Keep It Down On 1X?

 

[elkassassin]

I Remember When They Went Un-Limited on The Muzz Scopes!

Them Worthless 1X Scopes were For Sale Everywhere & You Couldn't Even Give Them Away!

 

[JB1975]

I Remember When They Went Un-Limited on The Muzz Scopes!

Them Worthless 1X Scopes were For Sale Everywhere & You Couldn't Even Give Them Away!

When is the last time you had a muzzleloader tag?

 

[roadrunner]

Since There Isn't Even a Half-Assed 1X Fixed Power On The Market!

Will it Be OK If We Mount a 1X-6X Scope On Our Guns If We Promise To Keep It Down On 1X?

Since the avg DRAT eye magnification is 1.6x, wouldn't it be better to put on a 2x giving a net magnification of 0.4x satisfying the maximum of 1x?

 

[scopenstalk]

It honestly was a better hunt before the regs changed. Right wrong or indifferent that's my opinion. I remember stalking close to bucks and having them blow out before I could shoot. I use to tell my dad it was the best hunt because it was a mix between archery and rifle. Had to get semi close to kill but it wasnt 100 degrees outside. Fall colors in full swing. I still enjoy it but it's not as good with the long range deal. Ironically both my muzz bucks ive killed although shot with a 3-12X, were shot at 78 and 132 yards lol.... oh well. Im checking out of this thread. Slam good luck with the committee..

 

[elkassassin]

It Would!

I Didn't Invent The POS 1X Muzz Scope!

Since the avg DRAT eye magnification is 1.6x, wouldn't it be better to put on a 2x giving a net magnification of 0.4x satisfying the maximum of 1x?

 

[elkassassin]

Not Since Last F'N Year!

When is the last time you had a muzzleloader tag?

 

[elkassassin]

And Before You Get Real Cocky!

Suggest To The Rifle Hunters/Long Rangers You Wanna Reduce The Power On Their Scopes To a De-Magnification To The DRAT Eyeball & See How That Goes for You!

When is the last time you had a muzzleloader tag?

 

[GunCarver]

It Would!

I Didn't Invent The POS 1X Muzz Scope!

Elkassassin,
You need to stop talking that way! You're going to affect the sale price on my classified ad!

 

[elkassassin]

LOL!

You'd Sell That One!

But Maybe Not Till The New Restrictions Show Up!

Elkassassin,
You need to stop talking that way! You're going to affect the sale price on my classified ad!

 

[JB1975]

And Before You Get Real Cocky!

Suggest To The Rifle Hunters/Long Rangers You Wanna Reduce The Power On Their Scopes To a De-Magnification To The DRAT Eyeball & See How That Goes for You!

I would be fine with that. I shoot quite a bit and won’t take a shot over 500 yards with my rifles.

 

[elkassassin]

I Guess there Are 2 Main Reasons I Hate 1X Scopes!


1- My 600 Grain Conicals Have Destroyed Just About All of Them!

2-You Get In The Habit Of Raising Your Gun To Get A Better Look at Animals and with a 1X POS You Raise Your Gun To Get A Better Look & Whatever You're Looking at Goes Out Another 75 F'N Yards!

 

[elkassassin]

Good On You JB!

I've Got Long Rangers & I Do Not Hunt With Them!

I would be fine with that. I shoot quite a bit and won’t take a shot over 500 yards with my rifles.

 

[elkassassin]

Check Your PM JB1975!

 

[notdonhunting]

I Guess there Are 2 Main Reasons I Hate 1X Scopes!


1- My 600 Grain Conicals Have Destroyed Just About All of Them!

2-You Get In The Habit Of Raising Your Gun To Get A Better Look at Animals and with a 1X POS You Raise Your Gun To Get A Better Look & Whatever You're Looking at Goes Out Another 75 F'N Yards!

What the hell do you need 600 grain conicals for to shoot a pisscutter.

 

[elkassassin]

Because I Can & Will notdon!

Until You've Picked A Buck Up Off The Ground & Throwed Him Over Backwards With Just A Squeeze Of The Trigger You Haven't Lived!

What the hell do you need 600 grain conicals for to shoot a pisscutter.

 

[notdonhunting]

Because I Can & Will notdon!

Getting a little snippy, Bessie

[QUOTE="elkassassin, post: 2196766, member: 1706

Until You've Picked A Buck Up Off The Ground & Throwed Him Over Backwards With Just A Squeeze Of The Trigger You Haven't Lived!
[/QUOTE]
It don't take a 600grain conical to throw a pisscuter over backwards.

 

[elkhuntn247]

Slam I commend you for always entertaining the comments on here. The good ones, and the bad ones.

 

[JakeH]

Since There Isn't Even a Half-Assed 1X Fixed Power On The Market!

Will it Be OK If We Mount a 1X-6X Scope On Our Guns If We Promise To Keep It Down On 1X?

Lol, funny you say this, I actually proposed this to a dwr officer for my dad's cross bow, (no magnification allowed on a cross bow during archery season) sunce I couldn't find a decent fixed 1x scope, told him we would set it to one power and disable the magnification ring somehow. He sent it up the chain of command and they said it was a no go. Ended up getting him a red dot to use.

 

[deadibob]

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.

I can guarantee you that whatever changes are made they will be a half-ass feckless do nothing measure, just like every other change before this one has done. The only thing that is going to work at this point are serious tech restrictions across the board.

Whatever little changes are made will be just enough so the DWR can pat themselves on the back and tell everyone what a great job they are doing.

Archery: Long bow or Recurve only, no exceptions.

Muzzle loader: sidelock or flintlock only. Percussion or musket caps only, full-bore bullets and no magnified optics.

Any Weapon: Screw these guys we will just terminate these hunts completely.???


Chit or get off the pot but no more pussyfooting around like we’ve been doing since the 90’s, and screw these five year plans while we’re at it. When something needs to be done then it needs to be done now and not after it is too late.

Any time you get a committee together nothing gets done. Too many Chiefs and not enough squaws and if you do happen to have enough Squaws they’re always fat, ugly and can’t cook a rabbit.

 

[deadibob]

So explain again why you are still going to use your 4X-16X scope this year ?

The same way Trump explained paying no or low taxes. He didn’t create the tax system or “loop holes” and he wants to change the system so that it is fair for all but he is damn well going to use the system to his advantage while it is legal to do so.

Same school of thought applies here. I will happily give up my optics and 300 yard max range as long as that azzhole next to me shooting 700 yards across the canyon with his paramount gives up his Super-Duper peashooter.

 

[MrShane]

I do not think anyone mentioned a word that they have some crazy idea of a permit every year for their preferred unit. But 50% on most units was what muzzleloader chances was before any power of magnification scopes. most units now are at best 30%.
The odds went to 30% after the first year of any power of magnification scopes so yes the drop in odds can be contributed to the NEW RULE the DWR created for muzzleloaders.
For anyone to claim that any magnification scope does not increase their odds of being successful is being disingenuous at best. I personally have missed shots back with open sights that I know I would have made with a 4-16 X 50 scope. I have also passed up numerous shots with my open sights I know I would have been successful with a 4-12.

I do not think anyone mentioned a word that they have some crazy idea of a permit every year for their preferred unit. But 50% on most units was what muzzleloader chances was before any power of magnification scopes. most units now are at best 30%.
The odds went to 30% after the first year of any power of magnification scopes so yes the drop in odds can be contributed to the NEW RULE the DWR created for muzzleloaders.
For anyone to claim that any magnification scope does not increase their odds of being successful is being disingenuous at best. I personally have missed shots back with open sights that I know I would have made with a 4-16 X 50 scope. I have also passed up numerous shots with my open sights I know I would have been successful with a 4-16 X 50 scope.

I am the one that mentioned the crazy idea of actually being able to hunt muzzy every year.
I like to hunt, and if it means giving up some tech in order to obtain a tag every year than I will gladly do so!
I truly believe if muzzy regs only allowed use of open ignition, loose powder only, no scopes, and cap/flint only ignition that hunters willing to embrace these regs would be able to hunt every year.
Anyone disagree?

 

[roadrunner]

I’ve got a great idea as to where you can put your mouth

Didn't ask, don't care.

By the way, Powell rose 65' this past runoff...

 

[Vitalwave]

This tread is a perfect example of what happens without objective data and a clearly defined goal. I don't believe the tech committee even really knows what their end goal is. Thats part of what is pissing people off...

My recommendation... Don't jam anything through until you...

1. Clarify and narrow down the scope of the Tech Committee.
2. Collect actual data around weapons and technology.
3. Collect actual data around harvest (implement mandatory harvest reporting).

For being a wildlife agency you'd think they could follow the scientific method.

 

[roadrunner]

This tread is a perfect example of what happens without objective data and a clearly defined goal. I don't believe the tech committee even really knows what their end goal is. Thats part of what is pissing people off...

My recommendation... Don't jam anything through until you...

1. Clarify and narrow down the scope of the Tech Committee.
2. Collect actual data around weapons and technology.
3. Collect actual data around harvest (implement mandatory harvest reporting).

For being a wildlife agency you'd think they could follow the scientific method.

The only relevant data would be to compare muzzleloaders used today with and without scopes since that is the assumption made that scopes have allowed the increase in effective range with better muzzleloaders compared to 2013 or whenever variable power scopes were allowed. Those muzzleloaders weren't necessarily able to consistently hit a 1 ft square target at 400 or 500 yds.

All it did was make it easier to see if you were aiming "center of mass" of the kill zone on a deer frombthe same effective range as the year before open sight.

You will not see a difference in kill rate until scopes are removed and open sight only is the rule. Even then, you'll have to wait a season or two for things to normalize a little for consistent data.

 

[Packout]

No chance I am reading 3 pages of back and forth.
If they are going to ban scopes then go back to 1x and be done with it. Allowing up to a 4x scope will do little as people adapt.

I doubt this will save overall numbers much, but it will most likely save some of the age class as targeting specific animals becomes more difficult.

Best thing they could do to save animals is a "Hit one, you're done" rule..... At least they have a start with the "must check the area of the shot" Rule.

 

[elkassassin]

No chance I am reading 3 pages of back and forth.
If they are going to ban scopes then go back to 1x and be done with it. Allowing up to a 4x scope will do little as people adapt.

I doubt this will save overall numbers much, but it will most likely save some of the age class as targeting specific animals becomes more difficult.

Ya!

Enforce The Rule Below!

Best thing they could do to save animals is a "Hit one, you're done" rule..... At least they have a start with the "must check the area of the shot" Rule.

And No Restrictions on The Other Types Of Weapons?

 

[slamdunk]

This tread is a perfect example of what happens without objective data and a clearly defined goal. I don't believe the tech committee even really knows what their end goal is. Thats part of what is pissing people off...

My recommendation... Don't jam anything through until you...

1. Clarify and narrow down the scope of the Tech Committee.
2. Collect actual data around weapons and technology.
3. Collect actual data around harvest (implement mandatory harvest reporting).

For being a wildlife agency you'd think they could follow the scientific method.

Again.....I'm sorry you put so much into your post because it has ALL been discussed soooooo many times I've lost count.

Should we just continue to leave emerging technologies alone to destroy the sport as we know it?
You guys wanting things left unchecked literally amazes me......

 

[twopointdn]

No chance I am reading 3 pages of back and forth.
If they are going to ban scopes then go back to 1x and be done with it. Allowing up to a 4x scope will do little as people adapt.

I doubt this will save overall numbers much, but it will most likely save some of the age class as targeting specific animals becomes more difficult.

Best thing they could do to save animals is a "Hit one, you're done" rule..... At least they have a start with the "must check the area of the shot" Rule.

Slam somebody else gets it. Please pass it along to the committee. Going back to the old regulations is a easy fix. You will never please everyone, that is impossible.

Good luck.

 

[JakeH]

Again.....I'm sorry you put so much into your post because it has ALL been discussed soooooo many times I've lost count.

Should we just continue to leave emerging technologies alone to destroy the sport as we know it?
You guys wanting things left unchecked literally amazes me......

A scope is an emerging technology???? You guys addressed almost all of the emerging technologies last year, you are now expanding into existing technologies.

You guys that want to limit everyone to 1800's technologies amazes me. If you want to hunt with that stuff have at it, nobody is stopping you.

 

[elkassassin]

I Know This Will PISS THE KING Off!

But Can We Go Back To The Red Flannel Days?

I'd Trade Every F'N Piece Of Technology If We Could Bring Em Back!

 

[shootem]

Slam,

I believe the issue that most here have is the committee is only attacking scopes on muzzleloader. You would get much more support if this was with all weapons but it’s not. Restrict rifles to a 9x scope and you will not hear another word from most on here. You want us to support the muzzleloader scope ban? Give us a logical reason and make it fair across the board, then we’ll talk.

 

[Packout]

And No Restrictions on The Other Types Of Weapons?

To be fair they already took some of the tech away on the other weapons. And they created a whole way to hunt with the "Restricted Weapons" definition which passed.

How about this- you have the Restricted Weapons tool in the toolbox. Head over to the NorthEastern RAC, ask to address the RAC and put forth the following proposal--
Make the South Slope Vernal general deer unit and the Book Cliffs limited entry unit Restricted Weapons units. No, not additional hunts. Replace the current weapon rules with the Restricted Weapons rules.
Those 2 units can be the guinea pigs to see how restricting weapon technology impacts the herd and the hunt.

Or you can just rant and rave on an internet forum. Take a few of your friends and have them speak in support of the idea too.
While you are there, tell them to just go back to 1x scopes on MLs and be done with it.

 

[slamdunk]

Slam,

I believe the issue that most here have is the committee is only attacking scopes on muzzleloader. You would get much more support if this was with all weapons but it’s not. Restrict rifles to a 9x scope and you will not hear another word from most on here. You want us to support the muzzleloader scope ban? Give us a logical reason and make it fair across the board, then we’ll talk.

I totally respect your comments and thoughts, I do everyone's even if I get ruffled by a few.

Let's look at the backlash this is causing from a few hundred people that have used high power scopes on muzzleloaders since 2016 (it feels like a 50/50 in support of limiting scopes).
Now let's think about telling 50,000+ rifle hunters who have been able to use variable power scopes since 1840 that they are now limited to 9x.

I wouldn't even want to be a part of that decision......

 

[Bigwiffy]

I totally respect your comments and thoughts, I do everyone's even if I get ruffled by a few.

Let's look at the backlash this is causing from a few hundred people that have used high power scopes on muzzleloaders since 2016 (it feels like a 50/50 in support of limiting scopes).
Now let's think about telling 50,000+ rifle hunters who have been able to use variable power scopes since 1840 that they are now limited to 9x.

I wouldn't even want to be a part of that decision......

That's the problem.....quit catering to one group.

 

[slamdunk]

To be fair they already took some of the tech away on the other weapons. And they created a whole way to hunt with the "Restricted Weapons" definition which passed.

How about this- you have the Restricted Weapons tool in the toolbox. Head over to the NorthEastern RAC, ask to address the RAC and put forth the following proposal--
Make the South Slope Vernal general deer unit and the Book Cliffs limited entry unit Restricted Weapons units. No, not additional hunts. Replace the current weapon rules with the Restricted Weapons rules.
Those 2 units can be the guinea pigs to see how restricting weapon technology impacts the herd and the hunt.

Or you can just rant and rave on an internet forum. Take a few of your friends and have them speak in support of the idea too.
While you are there, tell them to just go back to 1x scopes on MLs and be done with it.

Boom......logic!?

 

[slamdunk]

That's the problem.....quit catering to one group.

Where is the "catering"?

Rifles have had high power scopes for a hundred years, muzzleloader have had them for 7!

 

[Bigwiffy]

Where is the "catering"?

Rifles have had high power scopes for a hundred years, muzzleloader have had them for 7!

How can we remove a few rifle guys from the committee and add more archery, muzzy guys viewpoints? Seems pretty biased too me.

 

[slamdunk]

How can we remove a few rifle guys from the committee and add more archery, muzzy guys viewpoints? Seems pretty biased too me.

How do you know who is on this committee and who is biased to any particular weapon?
That's just crazy.

At least a third if not more DO use muzzleloaders and only ONE is against regulations.
As I have mentioned before, one member killed his muzzleloader buck last year at 1100 yards with a gunwerks and is in full support of stopping this trend.

We also have the President or some top leader of Hoyt on our committee who is all in favor of banning electronics on archery.

You are completely wrong with your assumptions.

This committee is a hand picked nonbiased group of men and women of all the weapon choices.

 

[Bigwiffy]

How do you know who is on this committee and who is biased to any particular weapon?
That's just crazy.

At least a third if not more DO use muzzleloaders and only ONE is against regulations.
As I have mentioned before, one member killed his muzzleloader buck last year at 1100 yards with a gunwerks and is in full support of stopping this trend.

We also have the President or some top leader of Hoyt on our committee who is all in favor of banning electronics on archery.

You are completely wrong with your assumptions.

This committee is a hand picked nonbiased group of men and women of all the weapon choices.

I know Randy is on it and thank goodness. Ben, you....who else? How were you all appointed to push these decisions for all of us, any public input on how the selection process went?

 

[elkassassin]

Ya!

Taking Your Sig BDX Must Of Hurt,Huh?

So?

You Think The Restrictions/NO Sig BDX They Have On Long Rangers Is Gonna Make Any Difference?

Notta!

And When There's Already Too Many Tags Issued In Both Units You Think These PISSCUTTER Restrictions Already In Place Will Help?

Notta!

You Act Like a 1X Scope Is Some Kind Of an Advantage?

If They Take It Down To 1X Just Eliminate All Scopes!

That 1X POS Is A Disadvantage To The DRAT Eye!

Both Units Are guinea pigs Alright:

HOW NOT TO MANAGE A F'N Deer Herd!

To be fair they already took some of the tech away on the other weapons. And they created a whole way to hunt with the "Restricted Weapons" definition which passed.

How about this- you have the Restricted Weapons tool in the toolbox. Head over to the NorthEastern RAC, ask to address the RAC and put forth the following proposal--
Make the South Slope Vernal general deer unit and the Book Cliffs limited entry unit Restricted Weapons units. No, not additional hunts. Replace the current weapon rules with the Restricted Weapons rules.
Those 2 units can be the guinea pigs to see how restricting weapon technology impacts the herd and the hunt.

Or you can just rant and rave on an internet forum. Take a few of your friends and have them speak in support of the idea too.
While you are there, tell them to just go back to 1x scopes on MLs and be done with it.

 

[slamdunk]

I know Randy is on it and thank goodness. Ben, you....who else? How were you all appointed to push these decisions for all of us, any public input on how the selection process went?

Yes, Randy.....dang good guy, he has been an asset.

I cannot vouch for how everyone was chosen, but they were chosen because of backgrounds and or various current involvements.
Several of us are past committee members, some serve on other committees along with this one.
We also have a lawyer and at least two wildlife officers.
The group is very diverse and that is the objective to have just as in any of the committees.

The elk committee doesn't compromise of 80% deer hunters trying to dismantle our elk herds to rebuild deer......

 

[elkassassin]

Hey PUNK?

Can You PM Me The MM Name Of The Lawyer?

I/We Might Know Him!

Yes, Randy.....dang good guy, he has been an asset.

I cannot vouch for how everyone was chosen, but they were chosen because of backgrounds and or various current involvements.
Several of us are past committee members, some serve on other committees along with this one.
We also have a lawyer and at least two wildlife officers.
The group is very diverse and that is the objective to have just as in any of the committees.

The elk committee doesn't compromise of 80% deer hunters trying to dismantle our elk herds to rebuild deer......

 

[GunCarver]

How do you know who is on this committee and who is biased to any particular weapon?
That's just crazy.

At least a third if not more DO use muzzleloaders and only ONE is against regulations.
As I have mentioned before, one member killed his muzzleloader buck last year at 1100 yards with a gunwerks and is in full support of stopping this trend.

We also have the President or some top leader of Hoyt on our committee who is all in favor of banning electronics on archery.

You are completely wrong with your assumptions.

This committee is a hand picked nonbiased group of men and women of all the weapon choices.

How do you know who is on this committee and who is biased to any particular weapon?
That's just crazy.

At least a third if not more DO use muzzleloaders and only ONE is against regulations.
As I have mentioned before, one member killed his muzzleloader buck last year at 1100 yards with a gunwerks and is in full support of stopping this trend.

We also have the President or some top leader of Hoyt on our committee who is all in favor of banning electronics on archery.

You are completely wrong with your assumptions.

This committee is a hand picked nonbiased group of men and women of all the weapon choices.

1100 yards huh? So we have guys pushing morals on us that they themselves don't possess.

 

[slamdunk]

Ya!

Taking Your Sig BDX Must Of Hurt,Huh?

So?

You Think The Restrictions/NO Sig BDX They Have On Long Rangers Is Gonna Make Any Difference?

Notta!

Not directly, but that BDX will be "old school" in 5 years and replaced by the next garbage that we haven't seen yet if we don't put the brakes on that type of tech!

 

[elkassassin]

If A SmokePole is Good For 11?

What Will a Long Ranger Try & Pull Off?

 

[elkassassin]

I Totally Agree With That!

But How Far Did We Have To Go Until We Decided We Mighta Already Over-Stepped It?

GAWD I Was Waiting For The SMART Bullets To Show Up Within The Hunting Community!

Not directly, but that BDX will be "old school" in 5 years and replaced by the next garbage that we haven't seen yet if we don't put the brakes on that type of tech!

 

[slamdunk]

If A SmokePole is Good For 11?

What Will a Long Ranger Try & Pull Off?

I agree Bess, this is exactly why we stopped the use of computerized scopes.

It's not about the actual BDX itself, it's what will be bred from it.

 

[slamdunk]

I Totally Agree With That!

But How Far Did We Have To Go Until We Decided We Mighta Already Over-Stepped It?

GAWD I Was Waiting For The SMART Bullets To Show Up Within The Hunting Community!

We went 7 years exactly.....

"Smart triggers" are already here and in use.

 

[Hunter21]

Again.....I'm sorry you put so much into your post because it has ALL been discussed soooooo many times I've lost count.

Should we just continue to leave emerging technologies alone to destroy the sport as we know it?
You guys wanting things left unchecked literally amazes me......

Most guys on here aren’t wanting things left unchecked, they’re just wanting the focus on “emerging technologies“! If we’re really worried about the sport as we know it maybe we should focus on not hunting these animals for six months straight!! Regardless of weapons or technology used.

Since scopes are going to come off because the top end animals are getting killed on limited entry units by scoped muzzies how about we just make limited entry muzzleloader hunts scope less and leave the general season alone?? Heck you might even be able to give out a few more limited entry tags that way.

 

[Betterluckythangood]

I am not saying holdover is not good or shouldn’t be applied. I am just pointing out the advantage of it on a 1x.

I believe that is the best policy.

1x scope, open sights or peep sights.

 

[elkassassin]

Hey PUNK!

I'm So Far Behind Weapon Technology They Won't Be Taking Much From Me!

And I Still Have My HAWKENS,I Just Can't See The Front Sight Anymore!

They Won't Be Taking a NIGHTFORCE Off Of My SmokePole Like hawky Thinks!

 

[elkassassin]

Remember The GUNWERKS Peep!

I am not saying holdover is not good or shouldn’t be applied. I am just pointing out the advantage of it on a 1x.

I believe that is the best policy.

1x scope, open sights or peep sights.

 

[slamdunk]

Most guys on here aren’t wanting things left unchecked, they’re just wanting the focus on “emerging technologies“! If we’re really worried about the sport as we know it maybe we should focus on not hunting these animals for six months straight!! Regardless of weapons or technology used.

Since scopes are going to come off because the top end animals are getting killed on limited entry units by scoped muzzies how about we just make limited entry muzzleloader hunts scope less and leave the general season alone?? Heck you might even be able to give out a few more limited entry tags that way.

Those are great points but not in the scope ( no pun intended) of this committee.
Those can be brought up to the actual wildlife committees to discuss.

 

[elkassassin]

It Ain't JUST The SmokePoles!

Look What StickFlippers Can Do With Their Equipment!

Look What Long Rangers Can Do With Theirs!

We Are ALL Guilty Of Some Kind of GADGETRY That We Damn Sure Didn't Have 40-50 Years Ago!

Most guys on here aren’t wanting things left unchecked, they’re just wanting the focus on “emerging technologies“! If we’re really worried about the sport as we know it maybe we should focus on not hunting these animals for six months straight!! Regardless of weapons or technology used.

Since scopes are going to come off because the top end animals are getting killed on limited entry units by scoped muzzies how about we just make limited entry muzzleloader hunts scope less and leave the general season alone?? Heck you might even be able to give out a few more limited entry tags that way.

 

[slamdunk]

Remember The GUNWERKS Peep!

The turreted peeps are definitely being discussed.

 

[elkassassin]

How Would Any Of You Like To Be A Damn Buck Trying To Live Til The Ripe Old Age of 4-1/2 in Today's World?

 

[Betterluckythangood]

Spot on, with my 1x scope I have a 100 yard group that is just over a half inch hanging on my wall. 250 yards gets tough with 1x scopes, peep sights, and open sights for most shooters no matter all the other variables.

Slam just go back to the old regulations before they changed to legalizing magnified scopes and be done with all this mess they created by their naïve decision making.

Thank you for your efforts and have fun.

Yes!!! That is the correct position.

 

[slamdunk]

Hey PUNK!

I'm So Far Behind Weapon Technology They Won't Be Taking Much From Me!

And I Still Have My HAWKENS,I Just Can't See The Front Sight Anymore!

They Won't Be Taking a NIGHTFORCE Off Of My SmokePole Like hawky Thinks!

I won't be personally affected either.

I don't ever shoot over 200 yards with my Muzzleloader anyway, furthest kill has been 125 yards. And I don't have anything crazy on my rifles, they just look mean but are very average at best.

 

[slamdunk]

How Would Any Of You Like To Be A Damn Buck Trying To Live Til The Ripe Old Age of 4-1/2 in Today's World?

Every big game animal out there today with good genetics has a nickname and a price tag already.

 

[elkassassin]

EXACTLY!

And Somebody Or Several People Living On Them 24/7/365!

Every big game animal out there today with good genetics has a nickname and a price tag already.

 

[elkassassin]

OK Guys!

Once Again!

We Fixed Nothing!

We'll HASH & THRASH It Some More Tomorrow I'm Sure!

 

[Betterluckythangood]

Hey PUNK!

I'm So Far Behind Weapon Technology They Won't Be Taking Much From Me!

And I Still Have My HAWKENS,I Just Can't See The Front Sight Anymore!

They Won't Be Taking a NIGHTFORCE Off Of My SmokePole Like hawky Thinks!

There should be an exception for girls under 12 and seniors over 80

 

[elkfromabove]

I am the one that mentioned the crazy idea of actually being able to hunt muzzy every year.
I like to hunt, and if it means giving up some tech in order to obtain a tag every year than I will gladly do so!
I truly believe if muzzy regs only allowed use of open ignition, loose powder only, no scopes, and cap/flint only ignition that hunters willing to embrace these regs would be able to hunt every year.
Anyone disagree?

Yes, I disagree! Like most posters on this thread, you have taken the human element out of your equation, ie: less technology=lower success rates=more tags. Humans aren't machines you can just adjust or tweek in order to get them to perform better (or worse, in this case). They'll adjust themselves to get the results they want and they'll find other legal ways to make the kill and your equation goes down the toilet.

I don't have the past any-weapon or muzzleloader harvest data and maybe those stats would show something different, but the past archery general season harvest stats show there has only been an average increase of 1% in recorded success rates since the invention of the compound bow in 1966. From 1952 to 1965, 17.1%. From 1966 to 2023, 18.1%. So, do we want archery harvest rates to go even lower? And how do we achieve that by limiting technology that, so far, hasn't contributed to a noticeable increase?

Would muzzys or rifles be that much different? I don't know, but I hope the committee members do their homework and stick to the data and consider the human factor.

Something else you might want to consider! In 2022, only 75% of the general archery tag holders, 86% of the general muzzy tag holders and 91% of the any weapon tag holders actually hunted "in the field". That's a total of 7,703 out of 62,175 general season buck tags not used! Yeah, let's make it even harder to be successful.

 

[elkhuntn247]

I always think this forum is dying… then someone brings up banning muzzleloader scopes… and it’s back alive and well ?

 

[Packout]

HOW NOT TO MANAGE A F'N Deer Herd!

I figured it'd just be the usual- All flame and no flux, no solder.

Once Again!

We Fixed Nothing!

We'll HASH & THRASH It Some More Tomorrow I'm Sure!

Truer words have never been spoken! 25 years of hashing and thrashing.

 

[Bux n Dux]

Are you saying that success rates are the same now as they were when only 1x scopes were allowed. Unfortunately the DWR doesn't collect data on harvest rates (which could be so easily done and more valuable than any current information they think they have) so there is no hard evidence to prove it one way or not.

Even though the DWR doesn't have a clue how many tags they mail out actually get filled….

Apparently they think they have somewhat of an idea. At least enough of one to post harvest data on the subject

2022 results

https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2022/2022_gs_buck_deer_hr.pdf

2015 results (the last year 1x was required)

https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/2015/2015_gs_deer_hr.pdf

Success rates are comparable across the board.

 

[Ballistic]

1100 yards with a muzzleloader is hard for me to believe.
Even 500 is questionable.
Why ?
I’ve competed in sponsored steel matches. When shooting at distant targets the best shooters in the country are often at a 50% first round hit ratio and that’s with centerfire rifles.
At the bench or a shooting range (no pressure) results are better. Hunting - there isn’t a bench and conditions are completely different when an animal is in the crosshairs - more like a steel comp.

It would be fun to have a long range muzzleloader shoot. Have the shooters that can shoot them show up. I believe the best would miss a lot at 500 yards. I know shooters back in Kentucky that are using smokeless powders that have these types of shoots and the best shooters miss often as the ranges increase. And they are using scopes of course.

The 1100 yard Gunwerks muzzleloader buck is BS and I’d love to see the shooter make a shot at that distance (on a steel plate) with it to prove me wrong.
I’m sure it’s possible - but how many shots would it take - I believe at least 10.
It’s a good story though for the issue of removing scopes on a muzzleloader.

The very best muzzleloaders built today will never equal a single shot rifle -which seems to be another selling plot to remove scopes. Blackpowder substitutes are so temp sensitive that 2nd round hits can’t be reliably predicted. And lots of blackpowder equals lots of heat in a barrel -even after 1 shot.

The scope removal issue is mostly hype in my opinion. My buddy can shoot 1000 yards with his muzzy is BS and even 500 yards with the newest best setup that money can buy - again questionable for a 1st round hit. When the temps drop 40 degrees will the average hunter know that blackhorn 209 will loose 80 fps ?
Will that loss in speed result in a low hit at 500 yards ? Do the math.

And please please PM me if you can hit a 12” target (muzzleloader with black powder ) over and over again at 1000 yards. I’ll come and film you doing it and post the footage on YouTube. 99% of shooters can’t do it with a centerfire rifle.
Where does that leave the average hunter?

My opinion is the majority of hunters can’t hit a 12” plate at 300 yards w a scoped muzzy.
“Divide and conquer “it’s right where committees want us.

 

[diablo]

I agree completely with most of that @Ballistic. Average (the vast majority) hunters being able to consistently hit long range targets with centerfire, not to mention (scoped) muzzies, is ridiculously overstated.

I shoot sub and sml muzzies a lot and have found it difficult to be consistent beyond about 500 yards. That’s probably 250-300 for the average guy.

 

[elkhunterUT]

1100 yards with a muzzleloader is hard for me to believe.
Even 500 is questionable.
Why ?
I’ve competed in sponsored steel matches. When shooting at distant targets the best shooters in the country are often at a 50% first round hit ratio and that’s with centerfire rifles.
At the bench or a shooting range (no pressure) results are better. Hunting - there isn’t a bench and conditions are completely different when an animal is in the crosshairs - more like a steel comp.

It would be fun to have a long range muzzleloader shoot. Have the shooters that can shoot them show up. I believe the best would miss a lot at 500 yards. I know shooters back in Kentucky that are using smokeless powders that have these types of shoots and the best shooters miss often as the ranges increase. And they are using scopes of course.

The 1100 yard Gunwerks muzzleloader buck is BS and I’d love to see the shooter make a shot at that distance (on a steel plate) with it to prove me wrong.
I’m sure it’s possible - but how many shots would it take - I believe at least 10.
It’s a good story though for the issue of removing scopes on a muzzleloader.

The very best muzzleloaders built today will never equal a single shot rifle -which seems to be another selling plot to remove scopes. Blackpowder substitutes are so temp sensitive that 2nd round hits can’t be reliably predicted. And lots of blackpowder equals lots of heat in a barrel -even after 1 shot.

The scope removal issue is mostly hype in my opinion. My buddy can shoot 1000 yards with his muzzy is BS and even 500 yards with the newest best setup that money can buy - again questionable for a 1st round hit. When the temps drop 40 degrees will the average hunter know that blackhorn 209 will loose 80 fps ?
Will that loss in speed result in a low hit at 500 yards ? Do the math.

And please please PM me if you can hit a 12” target (muzzleloader with black powder ) over and over again at 1000 yards. I’ll come and film you doing it and post the footage on YouTube. 99% of shooters can’t do it with a centerfire rifle.
Where does that leave the average hunter?

My opinion is the majority of hunters can’t hit a 12” plate at 300 yards w a scoped muzzy.
“Divide and conquer “it’s right where committees want us.

Excellent points with some actual facts and not just hyperbole and emotions.

Too late though, this committee isn't interested or open to those things. They (and Slam) are simply interested in defending the position they have already reached, which is unfortunate.

 

[roadrunner]

By taking scopes from muzzleloaders, you need to move all rifle hunts after the muzzy hunts.

It's idiotic to have a lesser weapon hunt after a greater weapon. But then, it's UT that's being discussed, so...

 

[slamdunk]

1100 yards with a muzzleloader is hard for me to believe.
Even 500 is questionable.
Why ?
I’ve competed in sponsored steel matches. When shooting at distant targets the best shooters in the country are often at a 50% first round hit ratio and that’s with centerfire rifles.
At the bench or a shooting range (no pressure) results are better. Hunting - there isn’t a bench and conditions are completely different when an animal is in the crosshairs - more like a steel comp.

It would be fun to have a long range muzzleloader shoot. Have the shooters that can shoot them show up. I believe the best would miss a lot at 500 yards. I know shooters back in Kentucky that are using smokeless powders that have these types of shoots and the best shooters miss often as the ranges increase. And they are using scopes of course.

The 1100 yard Gunwerks muzzleloader buck is BS and I’d love to see the shooter make a shot at that distance (on a steel plate) with it to prove me wrong.
I’m sure it’s possible - but how many shots would it take - I believe at least 10.
It’s a good story though for the issue of removing scopes on a muzzleloader.

The very best muzzleloaders built today will never equal a single shot rifle -which seems to be another selling plot to remove scopes. Blackpowder substitutes are so temp sensitive that 2nd round hits can’t be reliably predicted. And lots of blackpowder equals lots of heat in a barrel -even after 1 shot.

The scope removal issue is mostly hype in my opinion. My buddy can shoot 1000 yards with his muzzy is BS and even 500 yards with the newest best setup that money can buy - again questionable for a 1st round hit. When the temps drop 40 degrees will the average hunter know that blackhorn 209 will loose 80 fps ?
Will that loss in speed result in a low hit at 500 yards ? Do the math.

And please please PM me if you can hit a 12” target (muzzleloader with black powder ) over and over again at 1000 yards. I’ll come and film you doing it and post the footage on YouTube. 99% of shooters can’t do it with a centerfire rifle.
Where does that leave the average hunter?

My opinion is the majority of hunters can’t hit a 12” plate at 300 yards w a scoped muzzy.
“Divide and conquer “it’s right where committees want us.

Took me less than 30 seconds to find numerous chats like these.
3200ftps with a 300gr projectile hits harder than a 300 Magnum.

If we cannot acknowledge the obvious trend, we are just in denial.

 

[rmanwill]

Where is the "catering"?

Rifles have had high power scopes for a hundred years, muzzleloader have had them for 7!

3X9 scopes is and has always been the most common scopes until some lost their mind and had to start shooting extreme ranges. A 3X9 can do anything that is ethical. Heck, most rifles are topped with a 3X9 still. Always going to be those that go for the extreme and then other's figure they will follow and try it also.

I agree that rifle scopes need addressing as much as muzzleloader scopes. I muzzleloader hunt in this state for both elk and deer. Scopes (1X and red dots) have been on muzzleloaders for way longer then the stated 7 years.

I hated it when the board stated we don't care what magnification they put on a muzzleloader and approved it to be unlimited. Wish they would have stated a common 4x that is easy to find and purchase as the max at the time and we would not be where we are now. Always killed deer and elk with my 1X and red dots for years, but went to the 3x9 when that was the game and approved by the board. I will take them off in a heart beat if that is decided and will be just fine. However, It does come with quit a cost after purchasing and putting them on 5 muzzleloader that me and my son's use. Not to mention going out and buying what ever scope is determined appropriate when all is decided. I'll do what ever is determined and continue to hunt with the muzzleloader hunt because I choose to hunt that season, not because the magnification of a scope. Always was successful with the red dots and will continue to be successful with the red dot/1X, peep sight or open sights. Just hope they decide and don't change it again in 7 years at a cost to the hunter. Heck it will cost me plenty to have eye surgery if it go's to open sights, but I can tell my self that I probably needed the surgery for other situations