collapse

Author Topic: 209 Muzzy's In Washington  (Read 3494 times)

Offline jamesfromseattle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Nov 2014
  • Posts: 262
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2018, 09:51:21 PM »
I would like it to stay the way it is and I hunt with a muzzy on the westside. If we allow 209's then whats next? Scopes? Closed breech? There is a lot of long range muzzleloader talk these days with the new Remington being introduced. Say the 209's become legal then 5 years from now scopes are legal and guys are taking deer at 300 yards. Why would a muzzleloader hunter deserve to get the first crack at deer. At that point they may just lump muzzy and modern hunters together for a mid October 14 day season. I like it the way it is. If it is dumping rain I've got electrical tape over my muzzle and breech. It hasn't failed me yet but if and when it ever does that is part of the muzzleloader hunters challenge and that is part of the reason muzzleloaders get to be the first weapons that go bang in the woods.

I think the new proposed regs does away with the open breech/exposes to the elements thing, right?

Offline duckmen1

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: outdoors
  • Shoot to kill. Kill to eat. Eat to live. Repeat
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2018, 10:32:04 PM »
I would like it to stay the way it is and I hunt with a muzzy on the westside. If we allow 209's then whats next? Scopes? Closed breech? There is a lot of long range muzzleloader talk these days with the new Remington being introduced. Say the 209's become legal then 5 years from now scopes are legal and guys are taking deer at 300 yards. Why would a muzzleloader hunter deserve to get the first crack at deer. At that point they may just lump muzzy and modern hunters together for a mid October 14 day season. I like it the way it is. If it is dumping rain I've got electrical tape over my muzzle and breech. It hasn't failed me yet but if and when it ever does that is part of the muzzleloader hunters challenge and that is part of the reason muzzleloaders get to be the first weapons that go bang in the woods.

I think the new proposed regs does away with the open breech/exposes to the elements thing, right?

Thats the way i read it yes.
My prey is my biggest enemy. That's why my first shot is lethal.

Offline jackelope

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 36341
  • Location: Duvall, WA
  • Groups: WSB RMGA NRA RMEF BHA
209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2018, 11:05:04 PM »
My bighorn with musket caps and peep sight is a 200 yard gun when I do my part, Iím sure using a 209 is not going to turn it into a 300 yard gun. You still gotta keep your powder dry and you still gotta use open sights whether or not caps or 209 is used. Iím all for another ignition option personally.

Funny all these guys who donít muzzleload trying to claim itís like Hunting with a modern firearm. No way to get the ballistics from a muzzy like a modern gun.

All Iím saying is that itís supposed to be a primitive season. Like the others said, whatís next? Remington Ultimate Muzzleloaders scoped? Maybe while weíre at it we should put laser sights on our bows or make crossbows legal for everyone during archery season. I have only ever bowhunted elk so donít pull the ďguys that donít bow huntĒ card on me. 
:fire.:

" In today's instant gratification society, more and more pressure revolves around success and the measurement of one's prowess as a hunter by inches on a score chart or field photos produced on social media. Don't fall into the trap. Hunting is-and always will be- about the hunt, the adventure, the views, and time spent with close friends and family. " Ryan Hatfield

My posts, opinions and statements do not represent those of this forum

Offline Duckslayer89

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 2781
  • Location: Orting
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2018, 11:53:00 PM »
My bighorn with musket caps and peep sight is a 200 yard gun when I do my part, Iím sure using a 209 is not going to turn it into a 300 yard gun. You still gotta keep your powder dry and you still gotta use open sights whether or not caps or 209 is used. Iím all for another ignition option personally.

Funny all these guys who donít muzzleload trying to claim itís like Hunting with a modern firearm. No way to get the ballistics from a muzzy like a modern gun.

All Iím saying is that itís supposed to be a primitive season. Like the others said, whatís next? Remington Ultimate Muzzleloaders scoped? Maybe while weíre at it we should put laser sights on our bows or make crossbows legal for everyone during archery season. I have only ever bowhunted elk so donít pull the ďguys that donít bow huntĒ card on me.

I didnít mean to specifically call you out about it, but I do understand your concern because I donít agree with the scopes either. Laser sights on a bow arenít a bad idea. New proposal for 2020?  :chuckle:

Offline BigGoonTuna

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Posts: 1856
  • Location: Rainier
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2018, 04:26:21 AM »
i wanna know how anyone's making 300 yard shots with iron sights on a muzzleloader.  on a good day i can stretch mine out to 150 with reasonable accuracy, but that rainbow trajectory is a killer past that. many say that a 45-70 is a 100 yard gun, well, a 50 cal muzzy isn't much different ballistically, other than getting a single chance to get the job done. 

i'm fine with 209 caps, but leave scopes off limits.  i doubt it will extend the range of anyone's rifle, but it will at least widen the variety of rifles that one could use without having a "special edition" northwest gun.  i know i probably won't go running to convert my rifle to 209 ignition, #11 mag caps have always worked great for me.  open sights and a single shot are the handicap in my opinion.  i think there's a reason they don't call it a "primitive" season here, and that seems to rub the hardcore sidelock fanatics (and recurve guys in archery) the wrong way.  other states only allow flintlocks, on the other end of the spectrum, you've got states that allow single shots with straight wall cartridges in their "primitive" seaons.
life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun!

Offline Sabotloader

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 1857
  • Location: Idaho, Northern
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2018, 07:50:17 AM »
My bighorn with musket caps and peep sight is a 200 yard gun when I do my part, Iím sure using a 209 is not going to turn it into a 300 yard gun. You still gotta keep your powder dry and you still gotta use open sights whether or not caps or 209 is used. Iím all for another ignition option personally.

Funny all these guys who donít muzzleload trying to claim itís like Hunting with a modern firearm. No way to get the ballistics from a muzzy like a modern gun.

All Iím saying is that itís supposed to be a primitive season. Like the others said, whatís next? Remington Ultimate Muzzleloaders scoped? Maybe while weíre at it we should put laser sights on our bows or make crossbows legal for everyone during archery season. I have only ever bowhunted elk so donít pull the ďguys that donít bow huntĒ card on me.

Where in the regulations is it called a 'Primitive Season"?  When the ML seasons first started most were considered 'Primitive' hunts arranged and organized by traditionalists.

Long ago they progressed from that when the different fish and game departments recognized the value of them as Management Hunts.  They have and are using the hunts as a tool to reach the goals that wildlife biologists have set for individual areas and in most instances now as method to get a limited harvest and gain a revenue source. 

Maintaining the current sight rules and the fact that you have one shot will still maintain the lower harvest rates.  There will be possibly an increase in the number in the field for a short period of time while the novelty of the 209 first starts but it will level out. There are many other ML rifles out there other than the Remington that can reach to 300+ but the normal hunter without a optics will not find the ability to do that.

Another thought for the 300 yard people - do you not think that a primitive ML of the 1860's in the hands of the right person could not harvest an animal at 300+ yards. I can not for sure, but look up some the longest shots made with sidelock and see what they are especially in the age of the big lead conicals..

 
Keep shooting muzzleloaders - They are a blast!!

Offline GoldenRing270

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 47
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2018, 08:35:36 AM »
I'm sure there are many people capable of shooting an iron sight ML 300 yards but that's not the point. Don't go fixing something that's not broken. Allowing 209's only sets the stage for the addition of scopes which leads to more hunters and greater harvest where long range shots become the norm. This inevitably leads to a more limited ML hunting opportunity and ML hunters already get the short end of the stick as it is. I would support a push for more ML special permit opportunities but keep the weapons as they are.

Offline buglebrush

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Posts: 1114
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2018, 09:03:54 AM »
209 doesn't set the stage for Scopes.  Two completely unrelated issues.  It gets a little tiring when the only argument used is "slippery slope" and general hyperbole. 

I'll wager $50 to any takers that you can't consistently hit a 6" Target at 300 yards with your open sighted muzzy.  It's BS and downright dishonesty to pretend you can.

Offline floatinghat

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 649
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2018, 09:06:01 AM »


Another thought for the 300 yard people - do you not think that a primitive ML of the 1860's in the hands of the right person could not harvest an animal at 300+ yards. I can not for sure, but look up some the longest shots made with sidelock and see what they are especially in the age of the big lead conicals..

 

100% agree and I am concerned that too many over estimate their ability to shoot long range (open sights or scoped).  Many older muzzys have the ability to accurately rainbow out a big chunk of lead a long distance.  Some of the new LR muzzy's have the trajectory too no longer rainbow a lighter bullet backed by 200gr of powder, it will happen.

Offline Duckslayer89

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 2781
  • Location: Orting
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2018, 09:18:04 AM »
I'm sure there are many people capable of shooting an iron sight ML 300 yards but that's not the point. Don't go fixing something that's not broken. Allowing 209's only sets the stage for the addition of scopes which leads to more hunters and greater harvest where long range shots become the norm. This inevitably leads to a more limited ML hunting opportunity and ML hunters already get the short end of the stick as it is. I would support a push for more ML special permit opportunities but keep the weapons as they are.

The argument could be made that the more people that get into muzzy hunting the better the opportunity would be. 

Offline GoldenRing270

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 47
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #60 on: January 28, 2018, 09:31:46 AM »
I guess I just like ML hunting the way it is now with relatively few other hunters and the advantage of being the first gun in the woods. Times change but I don't see introducing 209's as a good thing. Scopes may be unrelated but introducing 209's is an improvement to the weapon and one step closer toward making more improvements and adding scopes won't be as far off.

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9951
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #61 on: January 28, 2018, 09:39:13 AM »
I'm sure there are many people capable of shooting an iron sight ML 300 yards but that's not the point. Don't go fixing something that's not broken. Allowing 209's only sets the stage for the addition of scopes which leads to more hunters and greater harvest where long range shots become the norm. This inevitably leads to a more limited ML hunting opportunity and ML hunters already get the short end of the stick as it is. I would support a push for more ML special permit opportunities but keep the weapons as they are.

The argument could be made that the more people that get into muzzy hunting the better the opportunity would be.
Possible that it could benefit; but with WDFW it might not work out well.  They offer 'opportunity' a lot at times when something isn't really more favorable to the user.  Opportunity to hunt vs opportunity to kill.  Suppose they added a week to early muzzy season, but moved the start to open a week later.  You now get twice the opportunity.  Blacktail modern is kind of a good example--they could open it in mid September and run to Halloween, but how many would trade that extra month and the first ten days of the normal season to get five or six days in the beginning of November?

Offline jackelope

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 36341
  • Location: Duvall, WA
  • Groups: WSB RMGA NRA RMEF BHA
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #62 on: January 28, 2018, 11:58:18 AM »
My biggest thing in this itís just step 1 to allowing scopes and whatever else. Then you have a season in what a lot of the time ends up being prime time west side elk rut with guys shooting muzzleloaders that are almost the same as having a modern rifle.  At that point harvest increases. Itís already hard enough to kill an elk. And we all know WDFW sucks at big game management with the hunter in mind. Otherwise I couldnít care less about 209 primers.  If the law stays this way and we never are allowed to use scoped muzzleloaders, then great. Iíll swallow all these words.  Iíve applied for muzzleloader elk permits the last few years. I shoot mine and enjoy using it. I just donít hunt with it unless I draw a permit. I prefer modern firearm deer hunting and my time is limited.  I
:fire.:

" In today's instant gratification society, more and more pressure revolves around success and the measurement of one's prowess as a hunter by inches on a score chart or field photos produced on social media. Don't fall into the trap. Hunting is-and always will be- about the hunt, the adventure, the views, and time spent with close friends and family. " Ryan Hatfield

My posts, opinions and statements do not represent those of this forum

Offline pd

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Posts: 1809
  • Location: Seattle?
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #63 on: January 28, 2018, 08:46:40 PM »
There are some well reasoned arguments here, on both sides.  My opinion is this:  I don't care one way or the other.

I have only ever hunted elk with a bow and a rifle.  I have never shot a muzzleloader, do not own one.  Currently have no intention to purchase one.  But if the 209 primers become legal, then do as you please, it would not bother me.

A hunting partner of mine (a muzzleloader) is very opposed to the 209s.  I respect his opinion.  But, personally, I don't really care.
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Online andersonjk4

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 797
  • Location: Spangle, WA
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2018, 11:16:09 AM »
I have thought quite a bit about this subject and whether I am in favor or against it.  Here is what it has boiled down to for me.

First,  the "primitive weapon" issue.  I don't think the ML seasons are supposed to be primitive season at all.  They may have started out many many years ago as such, but I think that went away the day they allowed inline guns and not just side lock.  However, I do believe the WDFW sees ML season, as well as archery, as a less efficient weapon choice in relation to modern firearm.  In this sense they can expand hunting opportunity into periods where animals may be more vulnerable, but still not risk over harvest.  This works great in Washington because it spreads hunters out into multiple seasons which helps to alleviate some of the crowdedness.  I feel this is the same for archery as well.

Then I asked myself, "will using 209 primers make ML hunting more efficient?  This leads to the question what really are the benefits of 209 primers over percussion caps (and we can lump in the change to a sealed breech)?  To me the big benefit is reliability of ignition.  The current line up of inline muzzle loaders have all but solved reliably issues with percussion caps.  Fail to fires and hang fires are almost a thing of the past as long as the user does their part to keep things cleaned and properly installed.  Also, the current manufacturers have really been skirting the "open breech" regulations by offering legal conversions that have tiny little windows open to the weather.  So in my opinion reliability of ignition is improved a little but not drastically.

So now the big one... 209 primers are way hotter and will basically turn all our muzzle loaders into magnum rifles (okay a little dramatic, but it seams like this is the sentiment coming from some people).  I was a little worried about this at first too.  So I looked at some data and crunched some numbers.  Here is what I found.  Most of the current ML rifles (excluding the new Remington 700 ML and similar) publish max load rating of 150 grain equivalents.  The new Remington 700 ML is claiming with a magnum rifle primer they can reliably ignite 200 grain equivalent.  Most data I could find of 150 grain 777 loads with a 250 grain bullet were right around 2000 fps.  Remington is claiming 2,400 fps out of their new 700ML.  That is a 20% increase in velocity.  That is fairly significant, but put it in the context of other weapons.  Would archery guys be against technology that increased arrow speeds from 280 fps to 336 fps? How about 350 fps to 420 fps?  Lets look at the change in ballistics from 2000 fps to 2400 fps (see ballistic tables below). With a 100 yard zero both loads are pretty much a single point of aim out to 150 yards. At 150 yards: 2000 fps load will be 4.23" low and the 2400 fps load will be 2.79" low.  Pretty much a wash if you as me.  Now for the guys who can accurately shoot with open sights beyond 150 yards (for full disclosure 150 is my absolute max if conditions are perfect) consider this:
2000fps load:            2400fps load:
200yd = -12.7"          225yd = -12.3"
250yd = -25.7"          275yd = -22.81"
Basically you are "gaining" about 25 yards if you are looking at drops.
Again, in my opinion, this is really a negligible difference when you are factoring in the use of open sights. 

As far as modern primer use being the 'gateway drug' to allowing scopes on ML's.  I think it may open up some more discussions of it, but ultimately I don't think it will directly result in any more changes to the ML regulations.

So then, why even make the change if performance isn't greatly affected.  My argument, and the main reason I am for the change, comes down to equipment availability and equipment options.  The ML industry is fully geared toward the use of 209 primers and may be moving to modern rifle primers.  Other than side lock rifles, I don't know a current model of inline ML that was fully designed to use percussion caps.  They are all designed around 209's and then conversions are applied to make them Western compliant.  Instead of 3 manufacturers with a handful of models from each to choose from it will open up essentially the entire ML market to us.  And percussion cap manufacturing is much the same.  The consensus "best" musket cap on the market isn't even made in the US, we have to look to Germany to get those.  I think this will be a good thing for smokepole shooters and like Sabotloader said earlier, it may result in a slight uptick in users, but I think it will be short lived.  I think open sights is the limiting factor, not ignition type.  That is why I will oppose making scopes legal, but welcome this change.     



Offline Sabotloader

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 1857
  • Location: Idaho, Northern
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2018, 11:32:02 AM »
Extremely well written post...
Keep shooting muzzleloaders - They are a blast!!

Offline James

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 163
  • Location: Washington
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2018, 11:45:45 AM »
I think you guys are approaching this from the wrong direction.

In my mind, hunting/fishing and wildlife/fish conservation needs to be viewed from the efficacy/opportunity ratio.
If there are a given number of animals/fish that are considered a sustainable harvest, given the efficacy of the method (days to kill), number of people participating for how long you can get your season. There is always a balance; some fishermen would rather fish catch and release every weekend all year instead of having a harvest season a few months long.  Same goes for extended archery seasons vs modern rifle.

With this change, more animals will die every day in the ML season from the increase in efficacy.  So my question is where are they coming from?  Are we claiming ML hunters are not hitting their target harvest or have populations rebounded and there is more harvest?  Maybe they want to shorten the season.
You will never shoot a camp bull by spending all your time hunting in the woods.

Online headshot5

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Port Orchard, WA
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2018, 11:50:09 AM »
Quote
I think open sights is the limiting factor, not ignition type.  That is why I will oppose making scopes legal, but welcome this change.     

 :yeah:

Offline buglebrush

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Posts: 1114
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2018, 11:54:20 AM »
Quote
I think open sights is the limiting factor, not ignition type.  That is why I will oppose making scopes legal, but welcome this change.     

 :yeah:

 :yeah:  x10

Online andersonjk4

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 797
  • Location: Spangle, WA
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2018, 12:03:12 PM »
I think you guys are approaching this from the wrong direction.

In my mind, hunting/fishing and wildlife/fish conservation needs to be viewed from the efficacy/opportunity ratio.
If there are a given number of animals/fish that are considered a sustainable harvest, given the efficacy of the method (days to kill), number of people participating for how long you can get your season. There is always a balance; some fishermen would rather fish catch and release every weekend all year instead of having a harvest season a few months long.  Same goes for extended archery seasons vs modern rifle.

With this change, more animals will die every day in the ML season from the increase in efficacy.  So my question is where are they coming from?  Are we claiming ML hunters are not hitting their target harvest or have populations rebounded and there is more harvest?  Maybe they want to shorten the season.

What about the change to 209 primers (or modern cartridge primers) do you think is increasing the efficacy of muzzle loader hunting? 

Online SuperX

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 82
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2018, 12:15:13 PM »
In the end, the more trouble-free we make it, the more hunters will move to ML, the higher the harvest numbers will be, the fewer days ML season will last.

Offline BULLBLASTER

  • Chris McCarthy
  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Posts: 5918
  • Volleyfire brigade
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2018, 12:17:48 PM »
Good and well written post. I have been against the 209 but am beginning to see the other side. Caps are hard to come by and like you said itís very limited in guns and caps that work.
I also agree that the open sites are the limiting factor. And strongly oppose anything more than the current sights being allowed.

Now does anyone want to buy me the conversion for my disc?  :chuckle:

Offline James

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 163
  • Location: Washington
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2018, 12:18:58 PM »
What about the change to 209 primers (or modern cartridge primers) do you think is increasing the efficacy of muzzle loader hunting? 

I would expect the number of misfires and hunter days to be reduced, with an increase in overall harvest.

You will never shoot a camp bull by spending all your time hunting in the woods.

Online andersonjk4

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 797
  • Location: Spangle, WA
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2018, 12:26:36 PM »
What about the change to 209 primers (or modern cartridge primers) do you think is increasing the efficacy of muzzle loader hunting? 

I would expect the number of misfires and hunter days to be reduced, with an increase in overall harvest.

While I agree that this could happen.  I think the increase will essentially be negligible.  How many people each year do not harvest an animal purely because of a failed cap or hang fire?  I'm sure it happens, but not enough to create a noticeable difference in harvest statistics.  And in the case of reduced hang fires, one could argue it will help reduce the number of wounded critters. 

Online CP

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 4497
  • Location: Everett
Re: 209 Muzzy's In Washington
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2018, 12:33:48 PM »
The "Should 209 primers be legal?" thread has already long been discussed.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,219077.0.html

The OP of this thread is asking, now that it looks like the decision has been made " Are you going to be picking up a new muzzy, and if so which one?"

Too bad it has reverted back to the old argument. 

 :beatdeadhorse:

Embrace the change.


 

* Recent Topics