muzzy plight

[madmoose]

has anybody ever heard what fish and games plight over the 209 primer was/is? hammer system?
that is something that im really not understanding. we can break it down to the simpliest of its form.
1. each shot loaded from the muzzle idividually
2. seperate ign. system
3. iron sights.
just from what has been said in the past they want to lean towards traditional/ primitive etc.(keeping things fair?)

my questions.. why only loose powder(over pellets) but pyrodex is allowed?
when was pyrodex considered traditional/ primitive?

why only percussion/musket cap?
ignition is ignition is ignition.
why the specifics on hammer style?
does hammer style let you shoot another 100yds further.does a bolt stlye load the gun itself

the basis of a muzzy explained and known... has to be handloaded each time it is shot, has to be fitted with an ignition system that is seperate no matter what type is used. taking sight through iron sights.
so know matter what combo you use, it should not matter because you are still under those basic fundamentals.

you should be able to use a 3lb. keg touched off with a road flare.. it doesnt matter.. you still can only see what you can see through iron sights, handload etc.

fish and game cannot tride the traditional train on this one because what is traditional with the archery products out there..not bashing bowhunters because im one myself.. but there seems to be no just cause for thier plight.

seems to me that F&G needs to think about what they do and say for a change.

lord knows that mech. releases, fall aways, carbon arrows, fiber optic sights, compound bows are as traditional as an 1861 springfield


anybody have insight or have heard what drives there decision making process on this topic?

 

[wtrfowl]

I would think that they do it because none of the commissioners hunt with black powder, so they really don't know the difference. maybe if they took some hunters up on an offer to go shooting with them they would have a new outlook on smokepole hunting!

 

[steelheader]

I have been after them for that same thing for years. I was told that if the hunters that use the new stuff formed there own organization ( like the traditionalists ) the fish and game would then start to listen. Squeaky wheel gets the grease!!!

 

[Yoyak]

There are special interests involved. I went to the F&G meeting when they changed the rules back to allowing inlines. It was a two hour parade of traditional hunter vs. inline hunters, each standing up infront of the commissioners and speaking their minds until the commissioner were falling asleep.

To summarize the traditional hunters claimed they wanted a more primitive experience and that inline were too effective and efficent in killing. But in reality from what I saw that night traditonal guys were mainly older, slightly overweight, and not the type of hunters that you'd see 2-4 miles back in away from roads. So what they were really wanting increased opportunity with decreased competition. I can't say I blame them, who wouldn't want more opportunity and less competition.

The inline guys basically argued that F&G displaced a lot of modern muzzy hunter by allowing inlines for awhile then banning them leaving some hunters with a $400 target rifle. They also argued what is the point of forcing hunter to use inferior projectiles and ignition system when you limit range with iron sights?

The traditional guys are more organized and got more response from the F&G. The only reason inlines were brought back is because enough people were upset about the inline ban. So IMO the current situation is a compromise to satisfy both sides.

IMO the F&G should allow whatever projectile, ignition and powder type availible as long as they LIMIT RANGE WITH IRON SIGHTS. Forcing us to use inferior stuff only increases the likelihood of someone wounding an animal by way of delay fire or the inconsistent flight of a round ball.

The only real special interest that should ever influence F&G's decision is the health of big game herds. Do whatever is best for the recovery of the deer,elk,etc., while still allowing opportunity. If you alienate special interest groups who gives a chit as long as our grandchildren still have big game to enjoy.

 

[madmoose]

Yoyak, your second to last paragraph... nail on the head!!
thats what im tying to say. doesnt matter if its a 209 primer inline or a swinging hammer on a musket cap. the bullet is going to come out of the barrel and its only going as far as you can physically see with iron sights. taht is the natural born limit right there. not unless you were born with eagle eyes. inlines would be/ could be more effective in accuracy, as stated less chance of wounding something. but they sure as hell dont make you see farther.....

so fighting within the muzzy hunter groups has obviously diff. goals or objectives. there fighting for a particular isolation not just for the ability.

 

[steelheader]

I told the f&g in Idaho Falls the same thing, you can take your scope off your 300 winney and still can not shoot a deer past 140 yards, the iron covers the whole deer! The guy just kept saying he has read about mz's that can shoot 400 yards (YAH, WITH A SCOPE!!) I was sure this guy doesnt hunt! He writes about bird watching, so there you have it.

 

[Yoyak]

I thought I heard someone argue one time that there are iron sights out there that you can still use out to like 300+ yards. I think they are a peep sight type? You guys know anything about these sights? Because if there are iron sights capable of this then I can see why the F&G would want to limit effective range some other way.

 

[madmoose]

even if there were sights like that, i really dont see how you could efficeiently kill animals at that range. seems like bowhunting at 200 yds. so many other variables other than sight. not saying that it couldnt be done but the general hunting public i would think wouldnt shoot at something that they cant physically put the sights on the vital area for a clean kill.


steelheader.... its really a sad thing for (professionals) to come back with a statement like that, after you ask them a question that you CAN NOT defy the facts on....... thats like something you would hear from a 4th grader.

 

[foxtrot4elk]

3rd on the "squeaky wheel" while I'll only comment on the panhandle region, the f&g has meetings for season & equipment proposals w/no facts or #s to support their proposed changes.IMO IDFG "game management" is based on good ol boy politics.

 

[Idahoron]

The Muzzleloader season was first made in a time when only traditional guns were around. These hunts were not offered to help reduce the HUGE populations of game. They were offered to allow a ?different? type of opportunity without affecting the overall population.
Soon the inlines were becoming popular after the mid 1980?s and the modern Muzzleloader age was born. The new inline had a more reliable ignition system, and the new sabot's were much more flat shooting compared to the large conicals and round balls that were being used.
Throughout most of the 80?s and 90?s Southern Idaho had little to no opportunity for big game with a ML. Most of the hunts that were offered in the state saw success rates that in some cases exceeded the regular rifle seasons. So when the Southern end started to get some hunts they wanted them to be more like the hunts that were originally offered. For some time we had, muzzleloader hunts, and muzzleloader ONLY hunts. That was when the wheels stated to come off the track.
Technology is affecting all hunting. Roboducks, ultra long range shooting scopes and rifles. Electronic calls, pyrodex pellets, cleaner burning smokeless power, 209 primers. Then there is ATV?s, and gortex, and the list goes on and on.
Where do we stop? Do we need to increase the harvest on BG in Idaho? If we allow pellets, and 209 primers, why not allow a cartridge that was made before 1890? My point is if you want to use a scoped rifle with a pre measured charge of powder and the flattest shooting bullet on the market there is already a season to use that stuff. The any weapons season is the place and time.
Before you start calling me names and dragging me through the mud look at the reason you want to participate in the ML hunt. To enjoy the all the things that muzzleloader hunting involves, or do you want to participate in a special season? Do you want to spend the time to learn the equipment and it's potential or do you want to just get a rifle that will be easy to shoot and not have to fool around with it so you can go on a special buck hunt? I have both types and to be honest my traditional rifles are more accurate than my Knight.
I have more questions.
If we allow scopes, sabots, pellets, and 209 primers in ML hunts do you think the success rates will go up or down?
If the success does go up should the F&G cut tag numbers?
Should they reduce tag numbers in any weapons hunts to support the ML hunts?
In My opinion, instead of allowing al the latest technology into the ML hunts maybe we should do away with the ML, and archery hunts. Then we would have a season set up like Montana. You can hunt with what ever you want.
The last option is to make all ML hunts antlerless only. Now if all you could shoot were does and cows would this thread even be here? I don't think so. Most of the guys that are pushing for more technology are going after Buck and Bull tags. They want to go on a special hunt, and they want to do in on their own terms.
BTW, yes there are sights that will allow you to shoot out to 300 yards, and yes they are considered traditional sights.

Ron

 

[Lowlandmulies]

Ron

First off, most muzzleloader hunters are limited to 150 yards because they don't practice and they don't know that their lead drops an average of 20 inches at 200 yards.

Yes, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, But you also need to look at the ethics of a good clean harvest.

Yes, Idaho is missing out on a great management tool. The muzzleloader! It's not as successful as a rifle and it will never be if you leave it open sights.

Yes, they can take some away some of the rifle and even bow tags and turn them into muzzy tags. Look at Nevada They have a muzzy hunt in almost every unit. Why can't Idaho figure this out. It would displace hundreds of hunters and lower the success rate. The deer could use a break and front stuffers could use more hunts.

BTW when we go like Montana, I want to buy your muzzies because, I know you will be hunting with a rifle! You did on your 44 hunt!

Also if you allow sabots, pellets and 209 primers the success rate will go down if you are comparing it to a rifle! Which it sounds like you are half the time? Not everybody has the time nor the patients to work their muzzies like you have. That doesn't mean they don't deserve the opportunity to hunt with a muzzy. They are all open sited and they all load from the barrel And 99% are one shot! That all equates to less success and more time in the field!

No smokeless powders and no scopes unless your eye site justifies it. I think there are exceptions, kind of like a handicap permit! Again giving some people the opportunity to try something different that they might not ever get the opportunity to try with open sights.

Just some food for thought.

Steve

 

[Idahoron]

Steve, I would like to think that the guys that don't practice would limit them selves but I don't think they do. I know the one and only guy to kill the doe in the ML hunt in 06. He shot at it with a smooth bore rifle and a PRB at almost 200 yards. Then the doe ran to him and he shot her at 50 yards. He shoots the rifle about 3 times a year. Like I said I think that most guys given the chance will over extend their effective yardage.

A clean kill is always what a guy wants. When the F&G added the conical to the traditional ML hunt they addressed the problem of wounding to a point. Again they can't keep a guy that only shoots 100 yards in practice from shooting at 200 yards.

I will agree that the ML hunters are getting the raw end of the deal. Archery is KING in Idaho. Like I said before, here in the Southern end we have been screwed over for a long time. I will disagree that ML hunts are lower success. There has been several hunts over the years that the ML hunts surpass the CF hunts in success. I don't think that it means the ML is a better tool. What that says is the hunt given, and the guys that got them were serious about getting their deer or elk.
If we are going to allow MORE technology than we currently have I don't think we can argue a separate season. Technology has pushed the ML into a whole realm.

Steve, you said
?Not everybody has the time nor the patients to work their muzzies like you have. That doesn't mean they don't deserve the opportunity to hunt with a muzzy.

I don't think that the current regulations are barring anyone from hunting. There are plenty of guns and loads that will work great that fall into the current regulations. I ask this, if someone has no patients or time to work on a load or practice, why do they think they deserve to hunt at all? We are a society that wants everything NOW and we don't want to work for it. We want it handed to us on a silver platter. I even saw an add from a guy wanting to buy a ML all sighted in and a load developed here in this site.
Again I ask how far are we going to go to allow Technology?
What if a guy says I don't have the time to shoot my ML and I don't see well, and I cant walk, and I can't shoot a heavy recoiling gun. I need to use a 243 winchester in the ML season, and I need to be able to shoot from the seat of the truck. When do we say no?

I personally don't want to see us go the way Montana did. I do like my ML seasons. And yes I did carry my CF on some of my hunts in 44 but I also did carry my ML on a few. This last year I used my ML in a short range hunt instead of a shotgun. My son used his ML on his youth doe tag that was for any weapon. There are opportunities out there for a guy to use the high tech ML?s. If I can use mine in any weapon hunts so can they.

I don't think we will EVER see the F&G reducing tags for CF or archery big time, to give to ML?s. Unit 45 lost their early season Bull tag to the bow hunters. I told them that if they were going to do away with the rifle hunt it should go to the ML hunters. There is already a ML hunt going on then. The bow hunters got the hunt anyway. All tag numbers are dropping but it seems that the ML hunters give up the most. With our success already fairly high I don't see them changing any time soon to give us more. In this state if you want to shoot a bull elk with a ML your options are VERY limited.
We should not be arguing about technology, we should be banding together to get better hunts. That is food for thought. Ron

 

[gemstatejake]

I wanna know what kind of medical practice you guys have where you get all these "patients". Not sure what it has to do with muzzleloader hunting, but I'll bet it took plenty of PATIENCE to earn that medical degree.


Slingshots you slackers. And I dont mean those fancy a$$ "wrist-rocket" types either. forked stick and a rubber band or your a PUZZY.




BTW-this is a joke so dont get your undies all bunched up.
GSJ

 

[Idahoron]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-09 AT 07:03PM (MST)[p]F--- y-- english teacher.

 

[Lowlandmulies]

GSJ

Sorry, my spell check didn't catch it. I'm sure it will happen again, so don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm a tile contractor not a painting contractor we don't have to spell correctly. We spend all are time working! What am I saying? Maybe its time to go back to school.

Steve

 

[Lowlandmulies]

Ron

Your still comparing apples to oranges. Modern muzzies are not like a modern rifle. Rifles are shooting 500 to a 1000 yards. I know there are a couple muzzies that claim they can shoot out to 500 yards but that is with a scope. The sites are what limmit the guns shotting distance. There is nothing wrong with being accurate out to 150 yards! More then half the time its not the guns limitations, its the hunters! Might as well let the gun do its job.

I guess your forget about the one shot challenge. And no it's not like a single shot that you can reload in 2 seconds. The smoke that blocks your view after the shot. Loading the gun from the end of the barrel. Open ignition. Open to the elements (snow rain and dirt). Open sights, How many people hunt with a modern rifle with open sights, Not very many. So how is this like rifle hunting?

Steve

 

[Lowlandmulies]

Ron

You also keep mentioning the success that the muzzy hunter have. Even a higher success rate then riffle hunters. They are referring to the hunt back in the day when you could hunt 45 in November and kill either sex.

This has nothing to do with the type of gun. It has to do with the seasons that the F&G give to the muzzy hunters. They are counting doe and buck harvest in that stat. You need to look at the variables. Dates of the hunt, species and sex. And don't believe everything they tell you. How can an open site muzzy be as deadly as a scoped rifle during the same hunt? It can't. It is not possible.

Steve

 

[gemstatejake]

jeez...you guys are touchy.

 

[gemstatejake]

Well, if we spend all ARE (our) time working.......a bit of schoolin' prolly won't hurt..........much.


I'm not saying painters are any smarter than your average tile contractor, we just have more PATIENTS. You ever watch paint dry?




.................Dude, I could'nt resist!

 

[gemstatejake]

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-09
>AT 07:03?PM (MST)
>
>F--- y-- english teacher.


Well put!

 

[Lowlandmulies]

GSJ

LOL......that was a good one!

Steve

 

[Idahoron]

Steve, The standard now is to shoot 200 yards (mostly with a scope) with 150 gr of pellets. The days of ML hunters staying under 150 yards is over. Even with fixed buckhorn style sights guys are not staying in their effective range because most of them don't even know what their effective range is. Most don't practice, and that is why they want easier shooting guns and loads.

Steve HOW can I forget about the one shot challenge? I practice a lot but I can't reload in two seconds. In case you have forgotten I do shoot enough to know that smoke blocks vision. If you don't remember I DO SHOOT BLACK POWDER.
But why do we need more technology? What we have is plenty, and if you go back in the F&G records a LOT of guys are filling their tags.

You asked me how is that like rifle hunting. Ok I will ask, if you use a pre formed powder capsule, you push a jacketed bullet in a plastic wrapper down the barrel and you set it off with a shotgun primer, then the shooter gets to use a scope on top of that. HOW is that like the ML hunts that were originally put into place in Idaho decades ago? Also WHY is it not like a CF hunt?
Idaho approved scopes for people that are sight impaired. I have asked what constitutes impaired? The need for glasses? How long before everyone is asking for scopes for everyone? How long before smokeless powder is needed to make a cleaner kill? How long before sabots are back in ML hunts?
When does it end?

I don't like it one bit but controlled ML hunt success is being compared to open any weapon hunts. I know it is apples to oranges but it is being done.

Look at unit 46 Antelope. Bow hunters kill more antelope than rifle hunters. Is it because bows are better?
Fact is we don't need more Technology we need more hunts with the technology we have. Ron




>Ron
>
>Your still comparing apples to oranges.
>Modern muzzies are not like
>a modern rifle. Rifles
>are shooting 500 to a
>1000 yards. I know
>there are a couple muzzies
>that claim they can shoot
>out to 500 yards but
>that is with a scope.
> The sites are what
>limmit the guns shotting distance.
> There is nothing wrong
>with being accurate out to
>150 yards! More
>then half the time its
>not the guns limitations, its
>the hunters! Might as
>well let the gun do
>its job.
>
>I guess your forget about the
>one shot challenge. And
>no it's not like a
>single shot that you can
>reload in 2 seconds.
>The smoke that blocks your
>view after the shot.
>Loading the gun from the
>end of the barrel.
>Open ignition. Open to the
>elements (snow rain and dirt).
> Open sights, How many
>people hunt with a modern
>rifle with open sights, Not
>very many. So how
>is this like rifle hunting?
>
>
>Steve

 

[deepforks]

not really a muzzy hunters, but here is my two cents. ron, you said it yourself. the days of shooting under 150 yards are over. why not have a muzzy season that allows all the sabots, 209's, etc....BUT if you truly enjoy the traditional equipment, you can hunt with it.

i look at it this way. it would be like having JUST a recurve archery season. people would go NUTS if that happened. the way it is now, you have the option to shoot your high tech bow, OR a more traditional style.

why not try for that option in muzzleloading? makes sense to me. one other thing. there is no way there will be hunts taken away from general any weapon hunts....money makers. its just the facts. to sling arrows, and push balls of lead, you arent going to get as much, and its going to cost you more. just the sad truth.

 

[Califelkslayer]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-09 AT 00:02AM (MST)[p]And here's my .02 cents. I started archery huntin in "72" Only saw 1 other hunter in Kali except for my Dad til "75" (Same guy every year). In 76 compounds became popular. By 80 I saw dozens of archery hunters. Bad?

NO!!!! They are our allies!!! Make the muzzy hunts nation wide primative and soon you won't have any muzzy hunts cause the "Special Interest" will be too small to be heard. Hunt with what you want to hunt with as long as it's legal. I will.

GemStake, I left the G off of hunting, used the numerial 1, mis-abbreviated California, and may have mis-spelled primative. Not bad for a GED, huh???

And initially spelled abbreviated "appreviated" Great edit option.

 

[Lowlandmulies]

Cali

+1


Ron

You get your best shooting muzzleloader and I will get my best shooting rifle, we will put 200 dollars on who misses the bull eye first. We will continue to move the target out from 50 to 100 and then 150 and 200 so on. We will see how modern muzzy hunting is. Hey you can even use a scope if your eye sight isn't up to par. By the way we will only have 2 seconds to reload and shot again. A three shot group in under 15 seconds. You in?

Are you getting my point! They are not even close to the same.

If I load it from the end of the barrel with a black powder or a sub (not smokeless). What does it matter if I use a sabot or a 209? It still doesn't shot as well as a rifle. I should be able to use what I want in a muzzy hunt and so should you!

You sound as if you got your muzzy figured out, so the heck with everybody else. I don't think that that is right. Sounds to me, like you don't want anymore competition on your muzzy hunts. I don't think that is fair to the others either. Sound to me like your are turning into one of those dreaded leather pouch caring traditionalist. Just what I'm reading from your post. I could be wrong, it would be the first time, and it won't be the last.

Not trying to be a know it all, just sticking up for the average guy! Hope there are no hard feelings I do respect most of what you believe in.

Steve

GSJ

Go a head and pick it a part.

 

[Idahoron]

Steve no hard feelings, but listen. I am not waving the traditional only flag. I am not saying everyone needs to be daniel boon. What I am saying is we have enough technology. I feel the same way in rifle hunts and bow hunts. ALL hunts are seeing tags reduced. I don't see that changing any time soon. I also don't think addded technology is going to add to any hunts. Ron

 

[Frontier]

I've missed out, I've been gone and now I'm back and need to get my 2 cents in. My opinion is pretty darn close to Ron's. Most hunters will shoot at animals beyond what they should be shooting with any weapons. The current regs in Idaho pretty much keeps the maximum distance at shooting effectively at an animal at 200 yds, beyond that and it gets extremely difficult with sighting and arc of bullet. With current technology shooting sabots,heavy charges and using peeps a hunter can get that to 300 yds with about the same arc. With future technology coming, a sabot shooting .308 bullets with faster and more complete ignition system the arc will probably approach that of a 30-06. Even though the limit of the peep dimishes quickly past 300 yds, people will still shoot at 400, 500 yds because they know if they hit it, they might get it.

The intention of muzzleloader season in Idaho was to give the hunter another season to enjoy the outdoors hunting with a short range weapon.I agree with using the muzzleloader pretty much the way the IDFG has outlined. I am an old bowhunter, and I don't want to see what happened to bowhunting also happen to muzzleloading. The trajectory on bows have flattened out tremendously, and the success rates have gone up. We'll probably start to see a reduction on archery opportunity in the future, because of it. I do believe the line needs to drawn somewhere, and where they have it is just fine with me.

 

[Lowlandmulies]

Ron

I agree with you that were are starting to see seasons cut! However, I don't feel that it is because of muzzleloaders and technology. It is because of lack of management of the wildlife.

What I'm saying is more people will pick up muzzies if they make it a little easier. They could cut back on some of the rifle hunts and allow more muzzy hunts and in turn more deer would make it through to the next season. Hunters still in the field and more deer for next year, I don't see the big problem with this do you? If they are truly hunters and enjoy the outdoors the will continue to hunt with whatever weapon allows them to be in the field. Its better then having hunters in the field shooting deer at 500 to 1000 yards.

It should be viewed as a management tool not an opportunity. To get hunter in the field (more money for the game department) and allow more deer to get to next season. In a few years Idaho could be known as a goto state again instead of a waste of time.


Steve

 

[madmoose]

funny to hear folks talk about shooting 500yds, 300 yds, shooting "beyond there range". thats going to happen know matter what your shooting. thats beating a dead horse.

QUESTION: IF F&G SAID BUCKHORN SIGHTS( NOT ADJUSTABLE TANG SYSTEM FOR LONG RANGE RAINBOWS), 209 PRIMERS, PELLETS, STANDARD CONICAL SHELL SAME BORE DIAMETER, INLINE RIFLE.
DO YOU THINK THAT GUY HAS A MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE OVER SOME BODY SHOOTING THE SAME THING WITH A MUSKET CAP??
DOES IT MAKE THAT HUNTER ABLE TO SEE FARTHER? DOES IT KILL THE ANIMAL MORE DEAD? DOES IT INCREASE THE VELOCITY SEVERAL THOUSAND FPS. MORE SO THAT A HUNTER HAS NO HOLD OVER AT 200YDS? (obviously to idiots that are holding over with iron sights cant even see what there shooting at)

 

[Idahoron]

Steve I see what you are saying, I do. The problem is the F&G are not going to take away rifle hunts and give them to ML hunters in a large scale. They do adjust tag number to accommodate some hunts. I think that by doing that that s a good thing.
I don't think that just making the rifle hunt into ML hunts will do anything to restore big game to the levels we had only a few years ago. Look at the success of the last ML tag in 45 on the east side of the road. That hunt had fairly high success, and the % of bucks to does well there was only 1 doe killed. I hate to say it but that hunt was hard on the buck population.
If we had a spear hunt there would be someone show up with a carbon composite super spear. Even though it works the same it would not be viewed the same.
I am not against the technology as far as competition goes. I am afraid that the more technology that is allowed the fewer tags we will get or even get to keep. Ron