collapse

Author Topic: Should 209 primers be legal?  (Read 12626 times)

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 23923
  • Location: W. WA
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2017, 11:01:40 PM »
Yes.

Offline winshooter88

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 706
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2017, 11:04:58 PM »
First off I have no dog in this fight, but what I noticed in the posts, is that the majority of the folks are saying that the 209 primers don't make any difference most say in velocity. If that is the case why do they seem to want it so badly? To the person who said that Muzzleloader season isn't a primitive weapons season, you might want to check again, it is supposed to be a primitive weapons season, that is why you don't have to hunt with the modern rifle hunters. The reason that caps and nipples were allowed is that they were newest ignition system allowed was that on the primitive muzzleloaders, that was the best option that was still considered primitive, the 209 primers are not considered a primitive form of ignition by any standard I have seen.

Offline JeffRaines

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2014
  • Posts: 305
  • Location: Puyallup
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2017, 12:11:41 AM »
First off I have no dog in this fight, but what I noticed in the posts, is that the majority of the folks are saying that the 209 primers don't make any difference most say in velocity. If that is the case why do they seem to want it so badly? To the person who said that Muzzleloader season isn't a primitive weapons season, you might want to check again, it is supposed to be a primitive weapons season, that is why you don't have to hunt with the modern rifle hunters. The reason that caps and nipples were allowed is that they were newest ignition system allowed was that on the primitive muzzleloaders, that was the best option that was still considered primitive, the 209 primers are not considered a primitive form of ignition by any standard I have seen.

Slightly more consistent ignition coupled with the ability to use BH209 powder.

If you voted no and use a modern muzzle loader like a Knight, you are a hypocrite. You are already using modern technology. The 209 primer doesn't change a thing. If you want it to be "primitive", go back to flint lock and an open pan only.

I agree. I was having an argument on Facebook and someone was trying to say that using musket caps are 'traditional'  :roll eyes:

Look guys, I'd get it if we were voting to allow inlines with cap ignition and modern projectiles... that would be a huge jump in effectiveness over an older flintlock style with pan ignition and more primitive projectiles. Hell, I'd understand if it were a vote on optics(which I am 100% against). The inlines are hardly 'primitive', the projectiles used today are hardly 'primitive'.

I also think its incredibly ridiculous to think that the modern hunters are going to come running over to muzzy once 209 primers are allowed. I could see an influx of people if you were to allow optics, however. I realize the effective range of muzzleloaders nowadays is 150-200 yards, and I've even heard of 300 yard shots being made with optics. Your average guy who hunts modern probably hunts with a group of people, they're not going to jump ship unless a majority of the group does. The road hunter types? Well, I guess you could road hunt with a muzzleloader... wouldn't be too hard really, even in their current state. You'd certainly keep your powder and cap dry!

Offline huntnphool

  • Chance favors the prepared mind!
  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 26682
  • Location: Pacific NorthWest
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2017, 12:23:14 AM »
 This is a really informative debate, I'm loving all the comments.

 I've hunted with a muzzy once, although I've applied for years without a successful draw. Only time I've drawn was a coveted tag in Idaho, and had a blast.....no pun intended.

 I see both sides of the debate, keep the points on both sides coming guys. :tup:
The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those who got there first!

Offline PolarBear

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 9922
  • Location: Tatooine
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2017, 12:28:58 AM »
Hell no
P&Y bucks & bulls, predators and any game fish that swims!!
Life is too short to settle for dinks!

Offline Fl0und3rz

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Legend
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 23923
  • Location: W. WA
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #50 on: October 05, 2017, 05:01:27 AM »
I also think its incredibly ridiculous to think that the modern hunters are going to come running over to muzzy once 209 primers are allowed.

I would give it a go on a TC encore platform, if 209 primers were legal, because it is an economical platform to try, but I also prefer hunting by myself.


I suspect some resistance to the 209 primers from the primative objectors is that they would prefer to limit the hunters afield during their time. 

Nobody likes a pumpkin patch.

Offline trophyhunt

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 10364
  • Location: Wetside
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #51 on: October 05, 2017, 06:16:23 AM »
Big no here. What would be primitive about it if you take away exposed to the elements. Might as well be able to use a crossbow during archery seasons.  :twocents:
I'd rather shoot a compound than my dads crossbow to be honest, its not consistent at all and pulling that string back is no joke.  Plus if you get your finger or thumb in the way of that string at all, it's gone. 
“In common with”..... not so much!!

Offline floatinghat

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 661
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #52 on: October 05, 2017, 06:51:11 AM »

I voted no, I would be open to a primative season, caplock or flintlock (exposed) no sabot.   Ball or full lead conical etc.  I guess I have never had an issue with making sure thinks are right and tight.  I've had successful ignition after3-4 days of Western WA down pours.  I believe add to the success and the opportunity will be reduced.

Offline C-Money

  • V10 Advocate
  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 8573
  • Location: Grant County
  • Let's Go Pens!
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #53 on: October 05, 2017, 07:24:26 AM »
Pennsylvania still makes hunters use flint most of the time and they have always  stacked up the deer like cord wood. I say probably not on the 209s, takes away from the challenge of a muzzleloader hunt. A Good musket cap is plenty for ignition.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 07:10:22 AM by C-Money »
I felt like a one legged cat trying to bury a terd on a frozen pond!

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10234
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #54 on: October 05, 2017, 07:48:45 AM »
Maybe WDFW could make a few test GMUs that allow 209.  Pick units scattered around the state and evaluate later whether pressure and harvest picked up.  Could even dial back the tech allowed for a few others and do the same.

Offline boneaddict

  • Site Sponsor
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 42365
  • Location: Selah, Washington
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #55 on: October 05, 2017, 07:51:46 AM »
I voted no.  It gets to a point where it's modern.
My website.....DDK Photography
http://ddkphotography.pixels.com

Offline JDHasty

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2015
  • Posts: 6777
  • Location: Tacoma
  • Groups: NRA Benefactor Member, GOA Life Member, Father of 3 NRA Life Members
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #56 on: October 05, 2017, 08:15:21 AM »
Definitely NO. You get better seasons than modern rifle because the odds are less that you will kill something while being provided a less crowded field at a better time. If you continue the process of improving the weapon then you deserve less time in the field and at a time when it is harder to hunt. For example the muzzie season for elk is right on the edge of the elk rut. Years ago they took this favorable time for hunting away from the bow hunters who obviously were using a weapon that provides much less of an opportunity for a kill than a muzzleloader. Suck it up and enjoy what you have already been given.

That is where I came down on this

Offline dominknows

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Posts: 8
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #57 on: October 05, 2017, 08:17:22 AM »
How about some more early season oppurtunity ie, one more day or more gmu's opened.

Offline CP

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 4589
  • Location: Everett
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2017, 08:19:45 AM »
Bump stocks on muzzies should be banned.

Offline fishsticks

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2017
  • Posts: 45
  • Location: Vancouver, WA
Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
« Reply #59 on: October 05, 2017, 08:26:01 AM »
I voted yes, improved ignition potential would be a good thing.  Keep the rest of the limitations.  In my opinion open ignition and iron sights keeps it primitive enough.  I don't think 209 primers will impact participation or success rates enough to matter.  For me personally I enjoy muzzleloaders and will continue either way.

 

* Recent Topics