Muzzleloader 1X vs All-Scope-Ban?

In other words, this technology committee and this debate could go on forever!
This committee is most definitely a long term thing, it is actually just as permanent as the Elk and Deer committees.
There will be two people appointed annually to attend the Las Vegas Shot Show as well since that is the crystal ball of emerging technologies.
 
Slam, I know decisions aren’t being made on success rates. I also understand your stance and what the committee is trying to accomplish. That being said I see many of your posts with all this high tech equipment and long range shooting making it so easy to kill animals. With all this technology in weapons, scopes, gear and equipment why do you feel it doesn’t appear to lead to much higher success rates?? Success rates seem to be relatively flat across all weapons even though all this technology makes it so easy. Just curious on your thoughts about it?
Post 393 states it perfectly and is a major reason for the assembly of this committee.

As I stated in a previous post, this committee will meet every year going forward to discuss new and emerging technologies and try staying ahead of them.

It has been eye opening learning from other members what is being developed right now for the hunting world, mind blowing actually.
 
Post 393 states it perfectly and is a major reason for the assembly of this committee.

As I stated in a previous post, this committee will meet every year going forward to discuss new and emerging technologies and try staying ahead of them.

It has been eye opening learning from other members what is being developed right now for the hunting world, mind blowing actually.
Variable power scopes aren't a new or emerging technology. So why is that the topic of discussion?

All decisions for our Wildlife should be based on studies and data, seems like there are plenty of emerging technologies that should make data harvesting as east as everyone thinks an 1100 yard shot with a muzzleloader is.
 
Variable power scopes aren't a new or emerging technology. So why is that the topic of discussion?

All decisions for our Wildlife should be based on studies and data, seems like there are plenty of emerging technologies that should make data harvesting as east as everyone thinks an 1100 yard shot with a muzzleloader is.
Because without them, the "emerging" technology in components are useless.
 
You can Google this stuff all day long


Slam
It appears that the focus to remove scopes on a muzzle loader is that the tech for that weapon has increased more than archery and rifles.
I do not agree with this at all. I can google extreme hunting videos with rifles all day long with shots on animals 3 times the distance of any muzzleloader. And most of it is done without electronics on scopes.

Just because a few have claimed that they have shot an animal at xxxx yards doesn’t mean everyone can. And that’s what’s being presented to the tech committee as a sale to remove scopes on muzzleloaders ?
So now that someone has made a 4.417 mile shot with a rifle - this surely can’t be ignored. And of course rifles haven’t evolved at all or have they ?

I hope someone one the tech committee can see the BS sale of how a muzzleloader has evolved more than a rifle or a bow.
I’m not sold on this……..
 
I think that the Wildlife Board will take the Technology Committees "recommendation" and do what they want with it.

Personally, I think 4x would be fine. Especially, for kids who struggle with peep sights. 1x is not worth installing. I prefer open fiberoptic sights. I rarely shoot past 200 yards.

I don't like the long range muzzleloaders and high powered scopes. I think that is why the DWR and wildlife board have started creating HAMS and primitive hunts. People who want traditional weapons now have a place to call home.
 
Post 393 states it perfectly and is a major reason for the assembly of this committee.

As I stated in a previous post, this committee will meet every year going forward to discuss new and emerging technologies and try staying ahead of them.

It has been eye opening learning from other members what is being developed right now for the hunting world, mind blowing actually.
I understand the reason for the committee and understand what it‘s about as I stated. I was just curious about your opinion on why success rates haven’t went through the roof with all this technology that makes it so easy for everyone to harvest these animals? Yes, I understand the committee isn’t basing any decisions success rates. Just asking your personal opinion?
 
I understand the reason for the committee and understand what it‘s about as I stated. I was just curious about your opinion on why success rates haven’t went through the roof with all this technology that makes it so easy for everyone to harvest these animals? Yes, I understand the committee isn’t basing any decisions success rates. Just asking your personal opinion?

The problem is the word committee. Committees seem to always just meet and discuss, never making progress.
 
Well, some of you did. Others just got their names added to a backorder list because that's what happens when everybody in the entire state suddenly needs the same thing at the same time.

Almost want to laugh at your comment, but that's like a paper cut with lemon juice.
 
I think that the Wildlife Board will take the Technology Committees "recommendation" and do what they want with it.

Personally, I think 4x would be fine. Especially, for kids who struggle with peep sights. 1x is not worth installing. I prefer open fiberoptic sights. I rarely shoot past 200 yards.

I don't like the long range muzzleloaders and high powered scopes. I think that is why the DWR and wildlife board have started creating HAMS and primitive hunts. People who want traditional weapons now have a place to call home.
And there are other hunts that could be (or are now) primitive weapon only hunts ie: CWMU, depredation, landowner, urban, youth, state parks, extended, etc! Plus, you have to remember that the ANY WEAPON hunts are just that; ANY LEGAL WEAPON!

My ONLY concern is that some of these restrictions that have no impact on opportunity or game populations will end up in the General Season, Limited Entry and Once-in-a-Lifetime hunts. As long as the hunter can shoot safely and accurately and follows up on the shot and doesn't waste game, I have no issue with the distance or weapon gadgets he/she used to do it.
 
Long range muzzle loader are so overrated. Some make as if the scope is some magical thing that guarantees hits at long rang. What I’ve come to understand they’re good for 200 yards with no wind. There’s too many variables plus weather to make a consistent shot placement.
 
If most long range muzzy shots are 200 and under, there will be no impact on future tag opportunity as success rates will stay the same. If shots are over 200 yds, there will be an increase in future opportunity to have a tag as success rates will dwindle.

200 yds is easy with open sights, unless you're shooting cottontails against a gray backdrop.
 

Slam
It appears that the focus to remove scopes on a muzzle loader is that the tech for that weapon has increased more than archery and rifles.
I do not agree with this at all. I can google extreme hunting videos with rifles all day long with shots on animals 3 times the distance of any muzzleloader. And most of it is done without electronics on scopes.

Just because a few have claimed that they have shot an animal at xxxx yards doesn’t mean everyone can. And that’s what’s being presented to the tech committee as a sale to remove scopes on muzzleloaders ?
So now that someone has made a 4.417 mile shot with a rifle - this surely can’t be ignored. And of course rifles haven’t evolved at all or have they ?

I hope someone one the tech committee can see the BS sale of how a muzzleloader has evolved more than a rifle or a bow.
I’m not sold on this……..
Changes in archery equipment in my lifetime:
-1941-Aluminum arrows used to win American National Archery Championship (Expensive custom arrows)
-1946-Aluminum arrows available (Easton)
-1951-Hard plastic vanes replace feathers (Plastiflech)
-1953-Recurve bows (Bear Archery)---(Surprised ?)
-1956-Pistol grip bow handle (Hoyt)
-1961-Torque stabilizer (Hoyt)
-1966-Compound bow (Holless Wilber Allen) (triangular wheels)
-1970-1982-Offcenter round wheels
-1970-Mechanical release
-1971-Flipper rest (Andy Rimo)
-1971-Soft plastic vanes (Flex Fletch)
-1974-Dual prong arrow rest (Freddie Troncoso)
-1982-Cam wheels on compound bows
-1983-Carbon arrows (Easton)
Enough already! I found the above list on the internet and I don't have time to do all the research for the other stuff, but limbs, risers, cams, grips, broadheads, arrow rests, bow sights, releases, strings, string sights, cables, stabilizers, bow configurations, and bow materials have all been changed/improved. and that's not counting the increase in knowledge about shooting and tuning up your equipment for you to get the most out of it. Lots of changes!

Now, whether that's more or less than muzzys or rifle I couldn't say but ALL weapons have changed and are changing. BUT, is it making a difference in success rates and will those changes result in more opportunity? Don't count on it!
 
People are still focused on the wrong things. I guess it doesn't matter how many times it's stated that none of this about herds, success rates, opportunity, or anything else besides drawing a line in the sand philosophically.

Oh well. I tried!
I think most guys are fine with drawing a line in the sand, they’re just not wanting to go backwards because a few guys want to go back to how they used to hunt and draw it there. I just don’t feel that’s a real good reason to redraw the line.
 
There will never be consensus on where to draw that line because you are simply talking about personal preference at that point. Everyone has their preferred way of doing it, and nobody is really right or wrong in this scenario.

You are seeing the democratic republic representation model play out in this in all its glory...
 
That might be right but if we had a vote on where the majority is I don’t believe most hunters would want the change. The way it is now they want to slamdunk this down are throats.
 
We’re not Colorado… Utah has already opened the doors to scopes. It’s been going on for awhile with no side effects. Now some want to change it because it doesn’t look right.

NM isn't CO either, but here we are...

I'm just glad Utahns will no longer apply for choice muzzy tags in NM anymore, whether it's mulies or elk.
 
That might be right but if we had a vote on where the majority is I don’t believe most hunters would want the change. The way it is now they want to slamdunk this down are throats.
You might be surprised. You said yourself the only reason you became interested was the change. There was a hell of a lot of guys who were interested prior to 2015. I really don’t even care what they do at this point jus t make the damn decision so I can be ready for 2024 season.
 
Are you saying prior to scopes those hunters are not hunting the muzzle loader season now because of the change?
You might be surprised. You said yourself the only reason you became interested was the change. There was a hell of a lot of guys who were interested prior to 2015. I really don’t even care what they do at this point jus t make the damn decision so I can be ready for 2024 season.
 
Are you saying prior to scopes those hunters are not hunting the muzzle loader season now because of the change?
Negative maybe I misunderstood you but if we put it to a vote the outcome would be very interesting and might surprise people by how many might vote to go back to 2015 and prior regs. That’s all. If I misunderstood my apologies
 
No…don’t apologize it’s all good If they did vote I’m good for whatever ever the outcome is …not one sided by a few. By the way when they open up this hunt up to scopes they open up a honey hole for big bucks regardless of scopes.
 
I know this is UT and UT can do what UT wants. But, coming from a state that recently did away with scopes on muzzleloaders, we went through the same uproar for and against it.

At the end of the day, the game commission did the hell what they wanted and made a new rule. The sun rose the next morning and people still put in for muzzy tags just like always. We all just put Western Precision peep and globe sights on. And the sun came up again the next day...
In your opinion would the same amount of people put in for muzzy if new regs included open ignition only and #11/musket cap ignition only?
 
In your opinion would the same amount of people put in for muzzy if new regs included open ignition only and #11/musket cap ignition only?

Yep, but that's not good comparison for popularity since it would require buying a new musket whereas scope removal is merely loosening a few screws and using the same...
 
Last edited:
In your opinion would the same amount of people put in for muzzy if new regs included open ignition only and #11/musket cap ignition only?
Probably not but…I know some who would because of the potential of harvesting a big buck. That’s why they keep going back scope or no scope.
 
Probably not but…I know some who would because of the potential of harvesting a big buck. That’s why they keep going back scope or no scope.

He was asking about NM when I brought up how people bitched and moaned about scope removal but put in anyway after the fact.
 
I don’t know about NM? Maybe your right if that’s already happened they’re maybe it could happen here?
 
I don’t know about NM? Maybe your right if that’s already happened they’re maybe it could happen here?

Wouldn't surprise me to try and align with what other states are doing. There are other similarities with other things that are common, one of which is the breech loading "muzzleloader" being illegal.

CO went to allowing inlines a few years ago because of its wide range use elsewhere and popularity but stopped there.

Other states are more restricted but never left that original restriction to go back to it.

I doubt that once a state allows an inline it would go all the way back to percussion cap only.

NM already has a restricted muzzy hunt for some hunt codes, but certainly not the majority. Now that the big push was done to eliminate scopes here, it won't make changes anytime soon. Probably. Maybe...
 
I will be applying for muzzy next year if they do away with scopes in hopes to burn my deer points...... I think there's plenty of guys who would do the same to get out of the points game.
 
But Remember Niller!

Your Mama Tried As Well!:D


People are still focused on the wrong things. I guess it doesn't matter how many times it's stated that none of this about herds, success rates, opportunity, or anything else besides drawing a line in the sand philosophically.

Oh well. I tried!
People are still focused on the wrong things. I guess it doesn't matter how many times it's stated that none of this about herds, success rates, opportunity, or anything else besides drawing a line in the sand philosophically.

Oh well. I tried!
 
People are still focused on the wrong things. I guess it doesn't matter how many times it's stated that none of this about herds, success rates, opportunity, or anything else besides drawing a line in the sand philosophically.

Oh well. I tried!
OK, Draw your line in the sand and then have a great time explaining your reasons for doing so. But remember, you can't mention "higher success rates", "increased opportunity", "reduced game populations", or "there's no hunts for "primitive" weapons". Also have fun explaining the hunt schedules, area descriptions and where those tags will come from and how many there will be. And please don't allow those nonimpact restrictions to hit the General hunts. These regulations will undoubtedly affect some longtime family or friends hunts, so don't be too surprised if the hunter satisfaction rates drop.

Now, you other guys, FWIW, in 2022 only 4 archery units had higher 3yr success rates than in 2015, while the other 25 were lower. And statewide archery success stats were:
2015=23.5------2022=18.8 (LOWER)

Edited: I might just as well finish this out with the any weapon stats:
In 2022 only 8 units had higher 3yr success rates while 21 were lower. And the statewide any weapon success stats were:
2015=42.4-------2022=43.5 (HIGHER) So, there was some increase overall, but not much. In any case, technology likely wouldn't have been much of a factor. The weather/snowfall controls this hunt.
 
Last edited:
OK, Draw your line in the sand and then have a great time explaining your reasons for doing so. But remember, you can't mention "higher success rates", "increased opportunity", "reduced game populations", or "there's no hunts for "primitive" weapons". Also have fun explaining the hunt schedules, area descriptions and where those tags will come from and how many there will be. And please don't allow those nonimpact restrictions to hit the General hunts. These regulations will undoubtedly affect some longtime family or friends hunts, so don't be too surprised if the hunter satisfaction rates drop.

Now, you other guys, FWIW, in 2022 only 4 archery units had higher 3yr success rates than in 2015, while the other 25 were lower. And statewide archery stats were:
2015=23.5------2022=18.8 (LOWER)

It's absurd to think that limiting the ability to fill a tag by removing the ability to do so using a scope capable of setting the crosshair on the ranged target as the new "zero" for that scope won't have an impact on future success rates. It's naive really.

If none of this is about reducing success rates to ensure tags numbers are not being cut (reducing opportunity), then what the hell is it about anyway? A feel good measure? I'm calling bullshit on that one.

If scopes are not an issue, why did one neighboring state already make this move for those very reasons all the while the live discussion was being made ad nauseum in this state?
 
It's absurd to think that limiting the ability to fill a tag by removing the ability to do so using a scope capable of setting the crosshair on the ranged target as the new "zero" for that scope won't have an impact on future success rates. It's naive really.

If none of this is about reducing success rates to ensure tags numbers are not being cut (reducing opportunity), then what the hell is it about anyway? A feel good measure? I'm calling bullshit on that one.

If scopes are not an issue, why did one neighboring state already make this move for those very reasons all the while the live discussion was being made ad nauseum in this state?
What data did new Mexico use to come up with the theory that success rates would drop significantly??? My guess is you will not see a significant drop now that the rule is in place.

Here in Utah we have data conducted by the state that shows that success rates did not significantly increase with the implementation of scopes on muzzleloaders.

You do raise a valid point, why do they want to take scopes away if it isn't going to affect management? All the guys pushing for removal used the reduced success rate argument in the beginning of all this, then it was thoroughly debunked with real data. Now it's "this is not about success rates"
 
What data did new Mexico use to come up with the theory that success rates would drop significantly??? My guess is you will not see a significant drop now that the rule is in place.

Here in Utah we have data conducted by the state that shows that success rates did not significantly increase with the implementation of scopes on muzzleloaders.

You do raise a valid point, why do they want to take scopes away if it isn't going to affect management? All the guys pushing for removal used the reduced success rate argument in the beginning of all this, then it was thoroughly debunked with real data. Now it's "this is not about success rates"

Required harvest reporting showing an increase in success rates (and trophy class animals taken) as long range muzzleloaders started becoming popular and more widely used. NM has done required harvest reporting for years. You could always use a scope in NM, so there is no data to compare scope vs non scope when inlines became more widely used over percussion cap open sight. I've had a scope on my muzzy in NM since 2006 when I first gave blackpowder a whirl on elk in Oct.

The data in UT of no scope compared to scope isn't valid because there wasn't an increase in the use of long range components; rifle design, powder substitute, and projectile like there is now. The only data that will be valid going forward is with these same components but with the high mag scope with dope ability removed. The year scopes became legal, the same rifles and loads were used as the year before without a scope.

So, over on the NM forum, this very question had been raised if in fact scopes being removed has had an impact on some youth encouragement tags that went on sale (like every year). Unit 15 has muzzleloader hunts still available that last year sold out within a few hours of the hunts going on sale. These hunts in Nov and Dec obviously require longer range shots where a scope is a needed advantage, shots over 250 yds essentially. Yes. The removal of scopes will definitely have an impact on success rates. Next year will tell how much it did.

The problem with having tunnel vision on just UT is that it's irresponsible to not think other data from other states won't have any comparative impact on anything UT wildlife...
 
The data in UT of no scope compared to scope isn't valid because there wasn't an increase in the use of long range components; rifle design, powder substitute, and projectile like there is now. The only data that will be valid going forward is with these same components but with the high mag scope with dope ability removed. The year scopes became legal, the same rifles and loads were used as the year before without a scope.
Yes the next year they used the same guns, but what about all the years after that, the success rates have not climbed from pre scope levels in a major way.

As far as youth hunters not getting those elk tags in new mexico that does make some sense because it's a lot harder to train a youth to shoot open site. I would imagine they will still sell all of them. How many would have been left over had they been available to adults?

Was most of the data in new mexico driven by the muzzleloader elk hunts??? I believe it was, I honestly did not follow NM process while all that was being discussed, it's a lot to follow everything going on in Utah. I could see what you are talking about having more of an effect on the rut muzzleloader hunts down there. Most of the data we are going off of here in Utah is from the general deer hunts, to me these are the fairest way to assess the true level of how the scopes affect the success rates, as its the largest population of people and people will not have as many outside forces weighing there decisions to shoot or not. LE hunts already had very high success rates, because virtually everyone most definitely had an opportunity to fill there tag and maybechose not to as they didn'tfind the qualityof anima they wanted.

General hunts the majority are just trying to fill there tags so their decision to shoot or pass is more in the favor to shoot therefor you will see the difference between scoped and unscoped seasons which utah has had. We have 7 years of data with scopes on muzzleloaders, and in that 7 years even with the advances in muzzleloaders the last few years the success rates have not exploded.
 
Required harvest reporting showing an increase in success rates (and trophy class animals taken) as long range muzzleloaders started becoming popular and more widely used. NM has done required harvest reporting for years. You could always use a scope in NM, so there is no data to compare scope vs non scope when inlines became more widely used over percussion cap open sight. I've had a scope on my muzzy in NM since 2006 when I first gave blackpowder a whirl on elk in Oct.

The data in UT of no scope compared to scope isn't valid because there wasn't an increase in the use of long range components; rifle design, powder substitute, and projectile like there is now. The only data that will be valid going forward is with these same components but with the high mag scope with dope ability removed. The year scopes became legal, the same rifles and loads were used as the year before without a scope.

So, over on the NM forum, this very question had been raised if in fact scopes being removed has had an impact on some youth encouragement tags that went on sale (like every year). Unit 15 has muzzleloader hunts still available that last year sold out within a few hours of the hunts going on sale. These hunts in Nov and Dec obviously require longer range shots where a scope is a needed advantage, shots over 250 yds essentially. Yes. The removal of scopes will definitely have an impact on success rates. Next year will tell how much it did.

The problem with having tunnel vision on just UT is that it's irresponsible to not think other data from other states won't have any comparative impact on anything UT wildlife...
When it comes to tunnel vision - we should look at all 50 states -not just utah and its neighboring states. Most of the eastern states allow scopes on muzzleloaders and do not allow rifle hunts.
And those are not open canyon areas to hunt in like we have out west.

Utah definitely has tunnel vision -only looking at neighboring states. Peer pressure.
 
When it comes to tunnel vision - we should look at all 50 states -not just utah and its neighboring states. Most of the eastern states allow scopes on muzzleloaders and do not allow rifle hunts.
And those are not open canyon areas to hunt in like we have out west.

Utah definitely has tunnel vision -only looking at neighboring states. Peer pressure.
Apples to Oranges! Neighboring states have Mule Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, and cougars. We also have high mountains, steep rocky canyons and cliffs, vast sagebrush flats, dry desert badlands and washes, lots of public lands, pine and aspen forests and smaller populations. Most of the eastern states have none of that. Scopes in the west are used for distant viewing and making accurate longer range rifle shots, but in the east they are used more for picking out whitetails in the tight hardwood forests and on close private property that's being farmed and waiting for an animal to go through an opening big enough to shoot through or from a treestand.

As far as tunnel vision goes, it's usually the other way around. Utah is far ahead in many aspects of game management with satellite collar studies, underpasses and overpasses, migration studies, captures and transplants, highway escape ramps, birth and mortality studies, and habitat improvement, among other things. Indeed, why did a neighboring state happen to make the same move with scopes as Utah was planning on making. Maybe you should ask them and get the full story.

But back to the issue of scopes on muzzleloaders. I'm just the messenger! I don't make any decisions and I'm not a spokesman for anyone who does. I just gave you and them the Utah muzzleloader hunt numbers tied to this issue. You and they can decide what to do with them if anything. And I, as a Utah hunter, am allowed to give my opinion about what to do with them and I've done that on this forum and will do it through the Utah public process, and so could you. And we'll all arrange our hunts by the outcome.
 
I’m really liking Nilllers approach to this—I want scopes to come off because I want the muzzy hunt to be very different than the any legal weapon hunt. Currently it is not.

Variety is the spice of life and having a hunt that forces folks to develop a new set of differing skills is cool. One that is based in history and harkens back to the settlement of this great country is a neat idea. There is an appeal to that.
 
OK, Draw your line in the sand and then have a great time explaining your reasons for doing so.

The muzzy scope restrictions are not my line. I’m not pushing for the restrictions. I’m simply explaining what the discussion is really about and why it will leave people upset regardless.

And for others: I collated the success rates for every unit the three years prior to allowing magnification scopes compared to the three years after they were allowed well over a year ago and posted the results online. I’m well aware of what the success rates did. (And didn’t do) Although not a perfect analysis, as there are are other factors contributing throughout those 6 years that were not controlled, it was still very enlightening for me to see it. They certainly didn’t climb as I would have expected.
 
I’m really liking Nilllers approach to this—I want scopes to come off because I want the muzzy hunt to be very different than the any legal weapon hunt. Currently it is not.

Variety is the spice of life and having a hunt that forces folks to develop a new set of differing skills is cool. One that is based in history and harkens back to the settlement of this great country is a neat idea. There is an appeal to that.
If you want to "harken" back to the settlement of this great country nobody, and I mean literally nobody is stopping you.

Why force people to hunt the way you want to.

A muzzleloader even the new ones are still a far cry from being on the same level as a centerfire rifle. Even a single shot rifle like everyone compares them too.

There are a litany of variables that go into getting a muzzleloader to not only shoot well, but consistently. You can't just throw your bullets in the gun, take 5-10 shots to sight it in and then go out and hunt with it.

This is especially true for the guys shooting longer ranges, they have to get the right bullets, they may have to size the bullets to there barrel, use the right powder, weigh each load of powder perfectly, take the time to shoot these loads, then go out and test them to the gun to find what is working best. Then there is the added pressure when loading the gun especially during a hunting situation, got to make sure your barrel stays dry, and your primers stay dry.

There are multiple things that go into muzzleloader hunting that makes it way different and more difficult than the rifle hunts.

All you guys saying that are truly being disingenuous, as most of you are muzzleloader hunters so you know all this.

this is where I come down on this, are the guns better then they we're 10 years ago? Absolutely does a scope make shots easier yes it does, but does the harvest data compiled over the last 20+ years show that adding scopes 7 years ago made a significant difference? It does not, not on the general deer hunts that are probably the fairest comparison to make.

I fully support the tech committee getting together to ensure that future and new emerging technologies are being reviewed to see if they fit into the vision, scope, merits and standards of fair chase that the hunting community demands. But the direction they are going with this issue does not meet that criteria in my opinion.

And I still believe this is a slippery slope that we need to be careful on, they take scopes from muzzys today, what are they going to be looking at tomorrow. I know the wildlife board has final say in these issues, but the committee can drum up whatever they want to present to them and slam has already pointed out this is a new long standing committee that is not going away after this issue.
 
I’m really liking Nilllers approach to this—I want scopes to come off because I want the muzzy hunt to be very different than the any legal weapon hunt. Currently it is not.

Variety is the spice of life and having a hunt that forces folks to develop a new set of differing skills is cool. One that is based in history and harkens back to the settlement of this great country is a neat idea. There is an appeal to that.
Having a hunt (or two) like that is commendable, but do we want ALL muzzleloader hunts to be like that? And do we expand that philosophy into the other weapons? The law of diminishing returns tells me that at some point this neat idea could go beyond it's intent and become a liability to the hunting population, not an asset. I'd hate to see that happen!
 
Lots of slippery slope fallacies around here

I want the muzzy hunt to be another level different than the rifle hunt. I want to go back to pre 2016, that’s not crazy pants. I don’t need to type up a paper to justify it, it’s an easy thing to understand and is my opinion.
 
If you want to "harken" back to the settlement of this great country nobody, and I mean literally nobody is stopping you.

Why force people to hunt the way you want to.

A muzzleloader even the new ones are still a far cry from being on the same level as a centerfire rifle. Even a single shot rifle like everyone compares them too.

There are a litany of variables that go into getting a muzzleloader to not only shoot well, but consistently. You can't just throw your bullets in the gun, take 5-10 shots to sight it in and then go out and hunt with it.

This is especially true for the guys shooting longer ranges, they have to get the right bullets, they may have to size the bullets to there barrel, use the right powder, weigh each load of powder perfectly, take the time to shoot these loads, then go out and test them to the gun to find what is working best. Then there is the added pressure when loading the gun especially during a hunting situation, got to make sure your barrel stays dry, and your primers stay dry.

There are multiple things that go into muzzleloader hunting that makes it way different and more difficult than the rifle hunts.

All you guys saying that are truly being disingenuous, as most of you are muzzleloader hunters so you know all this.

this is where I come down on this, are the guns better then they we're 10 years ago? Absolutely does a scope make shots easier yes it does, but does the harvest data compiled over the last 20+ years show that adding scopes 7 years ago made a significant difference? It does not, not on the general deer hunts that are probably the fairest comparison to make.

I fully support the tech committee getting together to ensure that future and new emerging technologies are being reviewed to see if they fit into the vision, scope, merits and standards of fair chase that the hunting community demands. But the direction they are going with this issue does not meet that criteria in my opinion.

And I still believe this is a slippery slope that we need to be careful on, they take scopes from muzzys today, what are they going to be looking at tomorrow. I know the wildlife board has final say in these issues, but the committee can drum up whatever they want to present to them and slam has already pointed out this is a new long standing committee that is not going away after this issue.
I’m pretty sure slamdunk had his mind made up before he came on here. It’s a not easy going back to 2016… time and money spent. On my muzzle loader I couldn’t find the bullet,powder or primers right up until the hunt. Even now you still can’t find some ammo for rifles. You know what a rat race that would be if they changed the scopes.
 
Ya!

If They Changed It Back to 1X TRASH!

I Can Only Imagine The GOUGING That DRATS Will Have To Deal With To Get One!



I’m pretty sure slamdunk had his mind made up before he came on here. It’s a not easy going back to 2016… time and money spent. On my muzzle loader I couldn’t find the bullet,powder or primers right up until the hunt. Even now you still can’t find some ammo for rifles. You know what a rat race that would be if they changed the scopes.
 
Hey Niller?

So Keep Thinking!

Shouldn't Be Too Hard To Understand What Else Has Been Happening For Many Years Now!

To JUST Take The SmokePole Scopes Fixes ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing!

Yes!

I'm Willing To GIVE!

As Long As It's An EQUAL/FAIR GIVE/TAKE Across The Board Of Weaponry!

What I Expect To See Is NOT A FAIR/EQUAL TAKE Across The Board!

And They'll Say:

We're Gonna Study This TAKE For 5 to 10 Years To See If It Helps!

Don't Know If This Is True But A Few Different Guys Have Mentioned This:

They're Claiming If They/DWR Makes The TAKE On Smokepole Scopes,In Their Eyes It Will Lower Success Rates So They Can Sell More Deer Tags For More Opportunity?

If This Is True? (Which I Don't Know That It's GOSPEL?) I Am Totally Against Any TAKE!

Anybody That Might Know The Facts On This Wanna CHIME In?

JFP!


The muzzy scope restrictions are not my line. I’m not pushing for the restrictions. I’m simply explaining what the discussion is really about and why it will leave people upset regardless.

And for others: I collated the success rates for every unit the three years prior to allowing magnification scopes compared to the three years after they were allowed well over a year ago and posted the results online. I’m well aware of what the success rates did. (And didn’t do) Although not a perfect analysis, as there are are other factors contributing throughout those 6 years that were not controlled, it was still very enlightening for me to see it. They certainly didn’t climb as I would have expected.
 
If you want to "harken" back to the settlement of this great country nobody, and I mean literally nobody is stopping you.

Why force people to hunt the way you want to.

A muzzleloader even the new ones are still a far cry from being on the same level as a centerfire rifle. Even a single shot rifle like everyone compares them too.

There are a litany of variables that go into getting a muzzleloader to not only shoot well, but consistently. You can't just throw your bullets in the gun, take 5-10 shots to sight it in and then go out and hunt with it.

This is especially true for the guys shooting longer ranges, they have to get the right bullets, they may have to size the bullets to there barrel, use the right powder, weigh each load of powder perfectly, take the time to shoot these loads, then go out and test them to the gun to find what is working best. Then there is the added pressure when loading the gun especially during a hunting situation, got to make sure your barrel stays dry, and your primers stay dry.

There are multiple things that go into muzzleloader hunting that makes it way different and more difficult than the rifle hunts.

All you guys saying that are truly being disingenuous, as most of you are muzzleloader hunters so you know all this.

this is where I come down on this, are the guns better then they we're 10 years ago? Absolutely does a scope make shots easier yes it does, but does the harvest data compiled over the last 20+ years show that adding scopes 7 years ago made a significant difference? It does not, not on the general deer hunts that are probably the fairest comparison to make.

I fully support the tech committee getting together to ensure that future and new emerging technologies are being reviewed to see if they fit into the vision, scope, merits and standards of fair chase that the hunting community demands. But the direction they are going with this issue does not meet that criteria in my opinion.

And I still believe this is a slippery slope that we need to be careful on, they take scopes from muzzys today, what are they going to be looking at tomorrow. I know the wildlife board has final say in these issues, but the committee can drum up whatever they want to present to them and slam has already pointed out this is a new long standing committee that is not going away after this issue.
Very well put !
I’m sick of the propaganda that’s being presented that muzzleloaders have advanced 10 fold vs rifles. That is simply not true.
In addition to all of the variables you have listed the black powder (even the gold $$$ priced blackhorn 209) is temperature sensitive. It changes 2 fps in speed per degree of temp. Large doses of it often raise a barrels temp close to 20 degrees so the next shot will be 40 fps faster.

Then you have the newer tech where bullets are sized to fit the bore. Bullet sizing is also an issue. If you size in warm temps the bullets almost fall down the barrel when the temps drop. -when this happens speeds can drop 150-200 fps or worse -failed ignition. And just the opposite when temps rise - a mallet and solid ramrod are needed to beat the bullet down the barrel - then speeds increase 100-200 fps.
So the latest tech has its issues - which isn’t being discussed.
 
Very well put !
I’m sick of the propaganda that’s being presented that muzzleloaders have advanced 10 fold vs rifles. That is simply not true.
In addition to all of the variables you have listed the black powder (even the gold $$$ priced blackhorn 209) is temperature sensitive. It changes 2 fps in speed per degree of temp. Large doses of it often raise a barrels temp close to 20 degrees so the next shot will be 40 fps faster.

Then you have the newer tech where bullets are sized to fit the bore. Bullet sizing is also an issue. If you size in warm temps the bullets almost fall down the barrel when the temps drop. -when this happens speeds can drop 150-200 fps or worse -failed ignition. And just the opposite when temps rise - a mallet and solid ramrod are needed to beat the bullet down the barrel - then speeds increase 100-200 fps.
So the latest tech has its issues - which isn’t being discussed.
But it looks so easy on instagram!!!
 
I keep reading the argument that Utah should fall in line with neighboring states in terms of muzzleloader scopes. So if Utah should try to be more like neighboring states, does that mean that we should hunt deer well into November like Colorado or start hunting them with a rifle in mid September like Wyoming or vote for Joe Biden like New Mexico (sorry Roadrunner, I couldn't resist)? I see no reason why we can't have certain things remain unique to Utah.

And let's not forget that AZ (neighboring state) still has some of the most loosely defined muzzleloader restrictions in the west.
 
Anybody That Might Know The Facts On This Wanna CHIME In?

Bess, I’ve already chimed in. None of what you are talking about matters. I’ve told you this. A member of the actual committee has told you this. None of those reasons are the reasons they’re having this discussion. They are openly admitting it. Time to start paying attention.

I will say it again: the muzzy scope discussion by the tech committee and eventually the WB is about one thing and one thing only. Do we want the muzzy hunt to be different? If yes, the scopes are coming off. (At least the magnification will be restricted) If we don’t want it to be different, they don’t need to do anything. That’s it. Simple as that. You can decide what side of that argument you’re on, and nobody can tell you that you’re right or wrong for feeling that way. But this is all this discussion is about. I’m not the one that brought it up. I’m not the one pushing for changes. I’m simply the messenger here. This is 100% what this discussion is about. None of that other crap even matters to them.

And you keep banging that “fair” drum in this world and let me know how it works out for ya. I’ve got news for you, sweetheart…
 
Bess, I’ve already chimed in. None of what you are talking about matters. I’ve told you this. A member of the actual committee has told you this. None of those reasons are the reasons they’re having this discussion. They are openly admitting it. Time to start paying attention.

I will say it again: the muzzy scope discussion by the tech committee and eventually the WB is about one thing and one thing only. Do we want the muzzy hunt to be different? If yes, the scopes are coming off. (At least the magnification will be restricted) If we don’t want it to be different, they don’t need to do anything. That’s it. Simple as that. You can decide what side of that argument you’re on, and nobody can tell you that you’re right or wrong for feeling that way. But this is all this discussion is about. I’m not the one that brought it up. I’m not the one pushing for changes. I’m simply the messenger here. This is 100% what this discussion is about. None of that other crap even matters to to them.

And you keep banging that “fair” drum in this world and let me know how it works out for ya. I’ve got news for you, sweetheart....
But what does matter is how this is promoted to the public and the extent of the change, ie; ALL muzzleloader hunts? New muzzleloader hunts? Split muzzleloader hunts? How many tags will be locked up into this program and where are these tags coming from? What's the timing of these hunts and will that affect other hunts? Is this a test or prelude to other changes in other weapon hunts? Are there exceptions to the rule per age or disability? Are they General or LE? and how do they fit into the point system and waiting period rules? Do we now cater to traditional archers who want their own hunts as well?

The committee may not care about these items, but this proposal will have to go through the public RAC and WB system and the DWR, RAC's and WB will need to respond to these kinds of questions from the public. They better be ready!
 
I think you’re over-thinking the issue, EFA.

This isn’t a special different hunt. It’s the muzzleloader hunt. The regulations will apply to muzzleloaders in general, just like they did for 90+% of your hunting life prior to 2016.

They went through those same processes and got major pushback in 2015 when they allowed for magnification scopes in the first place. I think our WB has shown they are not afraid of negative public comment to do what they want. Since when have their decisions had to make sense to the rest of us?

Remember, it was the WB that commissioned this committee to come up with suggestions. It was not hunters or the DWR. A member of the WB is on the committee. Another member of the WB has also already stated in a public WB meeting that he had received enough info and was ready to vote to make restrictions on technology, there wasn’t any more need for the committee to do its work to make recommendations.

You are way more well-versed in this process than I am, and I think you’re bias (not a negative bias, but a bias nonetheless) is making you a bit naive to the realities here.
 
It sound like we’ve got some renegade people running the show a dictator ship.
I think you’re over-thinking the issue, EFA.

This isn’t a special different hunt. It’s the muzzleloader hunt. The regulations will apply to muzzleloaders in general, just like they did for 90+% of your hunting life prior to 2016.

They went through those same processes and got major pushback in 2015 when they allowed for magnification scopes in the first place. I think our WB has shown they are not afraid of negative public comment to do what they want. Since when have their decisions had to make sense to the rest of us?

Remember, it was the WB that commissioned this committee to come up with suggestions. It was not hunters or the DWR. A member of the WB is on the committee. Another member of the WB has also already stated in a public WB meeting that he had received enough info and was ready to vote to make restrictions on technology, there wasn’t any more need for the committee to do its work to make recommendations.

You are way more well-versed in this process than I am, and I think you’re bias (not a negative bias, but a bias nonetheless) is making you a bit naive to the realities here.
 
Lots of slippery slope fallacies around here

I want the muzzy hunt to be another level different than the rifle hunt. I want to go back to pre 2016, that’s not crazy pants. I don’t need to type up a paper to justify it, it’s an easy thing to understand and is my opinion.
And nobody is stopping you from doing just that. You want to dress in your best mountain man attire and traips through the woods like Davey Crockett with your trusty flintlock rifle more power to you. Go ahead you are free to do so.

Just because that is what you want doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit.
 
It sound like we’ve got some renegade people running the show a dictator ship.

There are certainly members of the wildlife board that forget they are a public body that represents us. I had felt for a while it was getting better and they were listening more, but that all went out the window the last couple meetings. It’s clear they are still very agenda driven and what the public or the DWR says matters very little for some of them.

The cynical person in me thinks that the decision on muzzy scopes was already made when the WB created the tech committee and it’s all a farce and folks like Slam are wasting their time and resources to try and come up with good selections. We do have a couple new board members since that happened, and I generally try to not be too cynical and give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s not easy in my world, that’s for sure!

Every time a certain board member openly gives the public the middle finger, it makes it harder to do with the board as well.
 
I think you’re over-thinking the issue, EFA.

This isn’t a special different hunt. It’s the muzzleloader hunt. The regulations will apply to muzzleloaders in general, just like they did for 90+% of your hunting life prior to 2016.

They went through those same processes and got major pushback in 2015 when they allowed for magnification scopes in the first place. I think our WB has shown they are not afraid of negative public comment to do what they want. Since when have their decisions had to make sense to the rest of us?

Remember, it was the WB that commissioned this committee to come up with suggestions. It was not hunters or the DWR. A member of the WB is on the committee. Another member of the WB has also already stated in a public WB meeting that he had received enough info and was ready to vote to make restrictions on technology, there wasn’t any more need for the committee to do its work to make recommendations.

You are way more well-versed in this process than I am, and I think you’re bias (not a negative bias, but a bias nonetheless) is making you a bit naive to the realities here.
That answers MOST of my questions and you're right, I am biased. But not about the muzzleloader rules 'cause I've never hunted with a muzzleloader and have only fired one once when shooting with a friend at the range. It was fun, but too much trouble for hunting.

However, I have been primarily a solitary bowhunter since I was 21 (1962) with occasional rifle hunts with family and friends and it's my last question that troubles me. I haven't been able to use a longbow or recurve for many years. I can't hold them long enough to get the shot I want and trying to draw and release quickly only alerts the animal in time for him/her to "jump the string". (They can do that even at 20 yards! They hear the release before the arrow gets to them and they are quick enough to drop 10 to 12 inches below the flight path in preparation to jump and run away, thus ducking the arrow.) Also, my eyes can't focus on the sight pin and the animal at the same time and I have to focus on them one at a time which takes my tired old eyes a few micro-seconds to do. Bottom-line, if the technology Committee and the Wildlife Board changes my bow set-up, I'm done hunting(At least one poster on this thread would be happy about that. That is, until they reach that point in their hunting life.) The Technology Committee isn't going to stop at muzzleloaders!!!!. And I want to know where this philosophy is going. Do we further split the ranks by catering to other groups who just want to be "different"? Especially if it's ALL hunts like the Muzzleloaders. Those pushing for these changes not only want to be different from the rifle hunters, they want to force their ethics on the other Muzzleloaders as well. Where does it stop? or does it? Enjoy the worms, boys and girls, there's more cans coming!
 
I keep reading the argument that Utah should fall in line with neighboring states in terms of muzzleloader scopes. So if Utah should try to be more like neighboring states, does that mean that we should hunt deer well into November like Colorado or start hunting them with a rifle in mid September like Wyoming or vote for Joe Biden like New Mexico (sorry Roadrunner, I couldn't resist)? I see no reason why we can't have certain things remain unique to Utah.

And let's not forget that AZ (neighboring state) still has some of the most loosely defined muzzleloader restrictions in the west.

Simply consider what others are doing and why instead of "we're Utah and nothing else matters".

Biden, Romney, same difference... ;)
 
Last edited:
So are there other groups behind this change?
I'm not into the muzzleloading world (Other than a few I have rebuilt/refurbished.) and I'm not aware of any "organized" muzzleloader groups behind this change. The NMLRA doesn't even have a chapter in Utah and has no plans for any activities here, so I doubt they are involved. There may be some local clubs, but I'm not aware of them either. But the loose "groups" that form on the internet who feed off of each others posts are enough to keep any drive going.

However, we have at least 2 statewide bowhunter organizations with local chapters and many local archery clubs and shops that would surely get involved with any archery technology changes. Some of those clubs may be traditional clubs and some may be target clubs, but archers tend to stick together and many cross those lines (We even had a local girl (Denise Parker) once on the cover of a DWR Big Game Proclamation (1993) who happened to be an archery Olympian) and they too would have strong opinions about archery technology changes in hunting and would possibly show up at the RAC's and Wildlife Board Meetings. And surely the archery shops and shooting lanes would be interested. That's their livelihood! I suspect the Wildlife Board would have a much tougher time banning any bowhunting tech and the rifle tech would even be tougher. But they have chosen to make these moves for whatever reason(s) and once they own them, they aren't about to lose face no matter the outcome. My suggestion to all of you is to plan your hunts now with the gadgets removed and use your head to come up with alternative actions that compensate for those lost gadgets. Be safe and have fun!
 
Just a quick FYI. The truth about long range Muzzleloaders…@700 yards you are looking at a 124 inch over 10 foot) drop and a 36 inch (3 foot) drift in a 10 mile an hour crosswind.

You can’t simply pick up a long range muzzleloader and hit an animal at long range. This takes significant practice to be proficient. Most people won’t put in the work to be able to shoot past 300 or so yards. JMO

Also, if people don’t want scopes on their muzzleloaders, they can take them off. Why force everybody to take their scopes off. Again, this is an Utah issue and I will comply with the decision but it’s totally arbitrary line in the sand. I have not seen any data that would support this decision other than a group of people not liking scopes on muzzleloaders.
 
Hey Niller?

That Last Sentence Is Making Me Nervous!

I'm Taking My Chances Sitting Up Front With The Driver/hawky on The RIDE!:D

That Or I'm Sittin In The Back Alone!



Bess, I’ve already chimed in. None of what you are talking about matters. I’ve told you this. A member of the actual committee has told you this. None of those reasons are the reasons they’re having this discussion. They are openly admitting it. Time to start paying attention.

I will say it again: the muzzy scope discussion by the tech committee and eventually the WB is about one thing and one thing only. Do we want the muzzy hunt to be different? If yes, the scopes are coming off. (At least the magnification will be restricted) If we don’t want it to be different, they don’t need to do anything. That’s it. Simple as that. You can decide what side of that argument you’re on, and nobody can tell you that you’re right or wrong for feeling that way. But this is all this discussion is about. I’m not the one that brought it up. I’m not the one pushing for changes. I’m simply the messenger here. This is 100% what this discussion is about. None of that other crap even matters to them.

And you keep banging that “fair” drum in this world and let me know how it works out for ya. I’ve got news for you, sweetheart…
 
Just a quick FYI. The truth about long range Muzzleloaders…@700 yards you are looking at a 124 inch over 10 foot) drop and a 36 inch (3 foot) drift in a 10 mile an hour crosswind.

You can’t simply pick up a long range muzzleloader and hit an animal at long range. This takes significant practice to be proficient. Most people won’t put in the work to be able to shoot past 300 or so yards. JMO

Also, if people don’t want scopes on their muzzleloaders, they can take them off. Why force everybody to take their scopes off. Again, this is an Utah issue and I will comply with the decision but it’s totally arbitrary line in the sand. I have not seen any data that would support this decision other than a group of people not liking scopes on muzzleloaders.
Perfectly stated.
I will add. Wind vectors (direction of wind) can also push a bullet up/down significantly. Ballistic programs don’t solve this. That’s why the best of the PRS rifle shooters stay in the winners circle -and the rest generally miss 1st round hits.
The muzzleloader with the best of high Bc bullets at 2400 fps with blackhorn powder -not in the ballpark for 1st round hits.
A top contender in a PRS event would still struggle to make 1st round hits with a Gunwerks or better modern muzzy. Too many variables to deal with - like speeds that aren’t consistent depending on temps -and loading pressures.

Where does this leave the average hunter with a variable power scope ?
I doubt many can hit a 12 inch target at 300 yards from a bench. Hunting - hardly any. Just my personal observations from lots of days at the range and watching shooters completely miss the 22” square at even 200 yards in a crosswind.
 
There are several ballistic solvers that account for aerodynamic jump.
Are you a long range shooter/competitor ?
Aerodynamic jump is only 1 of 6 factors in a bullets degree of freedom.
Ballistic programs do not solve them.

But emerging tech - likely will.
Just like wind and wind angles -direction of fire and light.
How about the cold bore shot ?
And then the following shots ?

If your a competitor and at the top of your game - you will know this.

The best will also never guarantee a 1st round hit with a rifle. And the best will hand the military shooters their rear ends in comp matches.

That’s why I’m calling BS on all the media hype of shooting anything at long range - as a former long range competitor.
But I don’t know anything -LOL !
 
Are you a long range shooter/competitor ?
Aerodynamic jump is only 1 of 6 factors in a bullets degree of freedom.
Ballistic programs do not solve them.

But emerging tech - likely will.
Just like wind and wind angles -direction of fire and light.
How about the cold bore shot ?
And then the following shots ?

If your a competitor and at the top of your game - you will know this.

The best will also never guarantee a 1st round hit with a rifle. And the best will hand the military shooters their rear ends in comp matches.

That’s why I’m calling BS on all the media hype of shooting anything at long range - as a former long range competitor.
But I don’t know anything -LOL !
Haha let’s pump the brakes Litz. We are talking 500yd muzzleloaders.
 
Haha let’s pump the brakes Litz. We are talking 500yd muzzleloaders.
Hey this is all in good fun - right ?

The reality is it will be easier to hit targets at 1500 yards with a rifle than to hit 500 yards with a muzzy. And thats with competent shooters that have tons of time invested in the best of equipment. I’d place my bets on the rifle every time.
Add in some wind and cut the distance to 250 yards with the muzzy.
JMO and I’ve shot both systems with the time invested.

For those shooters that can do this (muzzy w black powder) at 1100 yards - I’d love to witness it - and will continue to call BS on it.
Come on -there has to be someone out there that can prove me wrong -LOL !
 
Hey this is all in good fun - right ?

The reality is it will be easier to hit targets at 1500 yards with a rifle than to hit 500 yards with a muzzy. And thats with competent shooters that have tons of time invested in the best of equipment. I’d place my bets on the rifle every time.
Add in some wind and cut the distance to 250 yards with the muzzy.
JMO and I’ve shot both systems with the time invested.

For those shooters that can do this (muzzy w black powder) at 1100 yards - I’d love to witness it - and will continue to call BS on it.
Come on -there has to be someone out there that can prove me wrong -LOL !
Haha it is all fun.

1500 and 500? 250? We must be shooting different muzzleloaders ?
 
Haha let’s pump the brakes Litz. We are talking 500yd muzzleloaders.
No!! No!! No!! On this thread, we are talking about a 500yd muzzleloader shot at a live target moving through the trees or brush at an undetermined pace, angle, position, and level of alertness and with an unmarked kill zone of about 8 to 12 inches, along with other live moving targets behind and/or in front of him. BIG difference! And by the time the projectile gets to him, he could be a body-length in any direction away from where you were aiming. Additionally, by the time the smoke clears, hit or miss, you may not even know where he is for a possible second shot. And throw in weather, light conditions, your shooting position and rifle rest, And buck fever and adrenaline! It certainly is no cakewalk or even a reasonable shot sometimes! Just because you and your equipment can casually launch a "bullet" accurately from a bench on the rifle range at a still target at a known distance, that doesn't translate into the field. Shooting ain't hunting and muzzleloaders ain't one-shot rifles.

As far as the long-range civilian shooter vs the military sniper, let's see how the long-range civilian shooter does on the military sniper's turf where the target is hiding or moving and shooting back before we call a winner!
 
Are you a long range shooter/competitor ?
Aerodynamic jump is only 1 of 6 factors in a bullets degree of freedom.
Ballistic programs do not solve them.

But emerging tech - likely will.
Just like wind and wind angles -direction of fire and light.
How about the cold bore shot ?
And then the following shots ?

If your a competitor and at the top of your game - you will know this.

The best will also never guarantee a 1st round hit with a rifle. And the best will hand the military shooters their rear ends in comp matches.

That’s why I’m calling BS on all the media hype of shooting anything at long range - as a former long range competitor.
But I don’t know anything -LOL !
Thank you Ballistic for clearing up long range myths. I believe pretty much every word of what you have said concerning powders, bullet drop, calling bull on a lot of stuff etc. Nothing I like more than someone credibly calling bull on someone else’s shooting. I am no expert, I just pretend to be on MM forums.

On a side note. If you woke up tomorrow and your local wildlife board banned laser rangefinders on rifles and you had to switch over to mils or some other method, how much would that set you back? Others feel free to comment.
 
Thank you Ballistic for clearing up long range myths. I believe pretty much every word of what you have said concerning powders, bullet drop, calling bull on a lot of stuff etc. Nothing I like more than someone credibly calling bull on someone else’s shooting. I am no expert, I just pretend to be on MM forums.

On a side note. If you woke up tomorrow and your local wildlife board banned laser rangefinders on rifles and you had to switch over to mils or some other method, how much would that set you back? Others feel free to comment.
I’ve played the steel game where rangefinders weren’t allowed. Target sizes were given so you could (mil) or (moa) range with decent results. I say decent because an 18” plate at an angle will look like 15” for example.

Animals back to brisket measurements (average) are needed to get an estimate.

The problem is those measurements can vary a lot from a yearling to a mature animal. Post rut elk loose 4” of that back to belly measurement.
So then factor in angles and changing sizes on animals using the mil/moa method and you’ll end up with misses and wounded.

Getting rid of rangefinders in my opinion would take us 20 years backward and would really hurt the archers the most.

However -emerging tech in rangefinders is having the ability to pick up mirage angles from the light and pinpoint wind direction and speed. I don’t believe we need that tech for hunting. That type of tech is taking skills that should be learned and earned in my opinion.
It would and will give the average person a very high probability of 1st round hits at extended ranges set up with the appropriate centerfire rifle equipment.
So I believe emerging tech on rangefinders will need to be addressed. Any thoughts on this ?
 
I’ve played the steel game where rangefinders weren’t allowed. Target sizes were given so you could (mil) or (moa) range with decent results. I say decent because an 18” plate at an angle will look like 15” for example.

Animals back to brisket measurements (average) are needed to get an estimate.

The problem is those measurements can vary a lot from a yearling to a mature animal. Post rut elk loose 4” of that back to belly measurement.
So then factor in angles and changing sizes on animals using the mil/moa method and you’ll end up with misses and wounded.

Getting rid of rangefinders in my opinion would take us 20 years backward and would really hurt the archers the most.

However -emerging tech in rangefinders is having the ability to pick up mirage angles from the light and pinpoint wind direction and speed. I don’t believe we need that tech for hunting. That type of tech is taking skills that should be learned and earned in my opinion.
It would and will give the average person a very high probability of 1st round hits at extended ranges set up with the appropriate centerfire rifle equipment.
So I believe emerging tech on rangefinders will need to be addressed. Any thoughts on this ?
I was just thinking it might level the the playing field a bit for rifle hunters if the scope magnification restriction was passed for muzzles.

A competent 1,000 yd shooter under ideal conditions might say “maybe I might pull it back to 600 or 700” because using mils under field conditions and more variables has more margin for error.

Murky waters for sure. I was only thinking this for the rifle hunt and the average marksman like me has a tough time hitting a plate at 500 with a laser but given time……….,
 
And nobody is stopping you from doing just that. You want to dress in your best mountain man attire and traips through the woods like Davey Crockett with your trusty flintlock rifle more power to you. Go ahead you are free to do so.

Just because that is what you want doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit.
Nope--If everyone else is rockin 12X+ power scope and LR front stuffers so am I! Why in the he!! would I want to be at a disadvantage compared to everyone else when it's basically an any weapon front stuffer hunt? This ain't about beaver skin hats and buckskin pants dude. I want the rules to change for all of us because I want the muzzleloader hunt to be different from the any legal weapons hunt--that is it buddy! It's not that different as it stands and you know it as well as I no matter how much you lie to yourself.

Case in point-->I bought my kid a CV wolf, Mid grade scope, triple 7, harvester sabots, 240 grains XTPs. All in maybe $450 bucks--less than a mid grade center fire rifle by itself and here I am all set up!

Right out the gate we were grouping 1" @ 100 yards, 35 clicks on the turret to reach 300 yards which is good enough for a kid. SUPER easy drop chart. It was so dammed easy! That's a front stuffer with a rookie killin deer at 300 yards easy, In low light or what have ya. Muzzy hunting is cheap and killin is easy. I want to make it harder and different--you want to kill sh!t at 500 yards with your front stuffer--ok but I think different. You like the easy road, I like the hard road but we are on on the same road so knock it off with the 'nobody is stopping you bullscrap'!

Utah Archers take note--this is what will happen when you let crossbows through the door--same sh!t will be said by JakeH when he's rockin a crossbow shots at 150yards with his crossbow and your sitting their with your stock crossbow at 70 yards max. 'Nobody is stopping you from shooting a stock compound!' When the flood gates come open there is no stopping Utards from maxing out killing power--if anything we are good at killin sh!t and it shows.
 
There are certainly members of the wildlife board that forget they are a public body that represents us. I had felt for a while it was getting better and they were listening more, but that all went out the window the last couple meetings. It’s clear they are still very agenda driven and what the public or the DWR says matters very little for some of them.

The cynical person in me thinks that the decision on muzzy scopes was already made when the WB created the tech committee and it’s all a farce and folks like Slam are wasting their time and resources to try and come up with good selections. We do have a couple new board members since that happened, and I generally try to not be too cynical and give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s not easy in my world, that’s for sure!

Every time a certain board member openly gives the public the middle finger, it makes it harder to do with the board as well.

I think the wildlife board represents the wildlife board and they enjoy their power which as you know is derived from the legislature. There may be issues where the majority of hunters think one one but the general public thinks another way. This is when the legislature gets involved and supersedes the Wildlife Board (think trail cameras and mountain lions). This upsets the board but they know where their bread is buttered and maybe some of their decisions are now not to represent the hunters but to head off any legislature decisions that they see coming to override them.

I think this may be the case regarding tech in hunting. The general public has a great sense of 'fairness' when it comes to hunting and if they knew half of the capabilities that hunters now have it would turn a bunch of them off. Hence the move to restrict it and make is more 'fair' to kill bambi. Most nonhunters want it kinda hard for hunters to slay game--that is my experience talking with the general public anyways.

Folks here on MM a bunch of folks like JakeH want to kill sh!t easy with front stuffers but I doubt John Q Public sees it the same way. Legislature listens to John Q Public, WB doesn't want to be overruled again and here we are--makes sense if ya think about it.

I really think I need to start typing and sounding like Whoopie on this forum to get my points across-- his HeeHaw hayseed usage of the English language seems to find footing. Prepare for a lot of logical fallacies and more CApITaLiZATion from me in the future.
 
I really think I need to start typing and sounding like Whoopie on this forum to get my points across-- his HeeHaw hayseed usage of the English language seems to find footing. Prepare for a lot of logical fallacies and more CApITaLiZATion from me in the future.

Well Airborne!

I'll Give You a Little Credit!

You're Learning!

SLOWLY!

But Surely!:D
 
There's a simple way to judge things.

Thermal tech got banned, and nearly no one argued.

Scopes on muzzy face a ban and there's 1000's of posts complaining.

It's almost as if, THEY DO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE.

Funny, I started in 92', and there were ZERO scopes, and a Nov hunt.

Now it's wide open, and we have to draw tags.

Coincidence?
 
There's a simple way to judge things.

Thermal tech got banned, and nearly no one argued.

Scopes on muzzy face a ban and there's 1000's of posts complaining.

It's almost as if, THEY DO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE.

Funny, I started in 92', and there were ZERO scopes, and a Nov hunt.

Now it's wide open, and we have to draw tags.

Coincidence?
No. Only people complaining that someone else got a tag and they didn't.
The only reason the November hunt was shut down was it was too successful. Period. Long before the "tech" advantages.
I really don't care one way or the other but it sure is enlightening to watch other hunters bash each other.
The advantage started with gun powder. Eliminate that and all should be well in the world according to some on here.
 
Easy Now!

If Gun Powder Goes!

So Does Wood & String!

And Long Rangers That Shoot anywhere From 800 to 7,000+ Yards!

BAN Vortex Razor 6-36×56 FFP scope with an EBR-7D MOA reticle Scopes!

BAN 350 MOA Rails!

BAN Charlie TARAC Periscopes that are 700 MOA!

BAN Delta TARAC!







No. Only people complaining that someone else got a tag and they didn't.
The only reason the November hunt was shut down was it was too successful. Period. Long before the "tech" advantages.
I really don't care one way or the other but it sure is enlightening to watch other hunters bash each other.
The advantage started with gun powder. Eliminate that and all should be well in the world according to some on here.
 
And With That Set-Up You Can Revert Back To a Shorter Range Rifle Within Seconds With No Major Adjustments other Than Maybe Your Turrets!

Seems Just A Little Better Than The Scope On My SmokePole!

But Who Knows?

Maybe Some Hunters Have Them On Their SmokePoles As Well?
 
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