Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Muzzleloader Hunting => Topic started by: Bob33 on October 04, 2017, 04:01:32 PM

Title: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Bob33 on October 04, 2017, 04:01:32 PM
WDFW WILDLIFE PROGRAM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov

Dear Elk and Deer Hunters,

As part of the outreach to the hunting public for the upcoming 2018-2020 three-year hunting season package, the Fish and Wildlife Commission requested the department include a discussion of muzzleloader equipment.  Therefore, we are conducting a short survey at this time that is specific to whether 209 primers should be allowed as part of the ignition system for muzzleloader firearms during muzzleloader seasons.  Currently, 209 primers or any primer designed to be used in centerfire cartridges are not allowed for muzzleloader hunting in Washington state except for muzzleloaders used during modern firearm seasons. 

Please take 5 minutes out of your busy schedule to answer the four questions in the survey at the link provided below.  The department will consider all survey input received before October 31 at 5:00 p.m.

Link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/N2JZMPG

Thank you for all that you do for wildlife in the state of Washington and thank you for your interest in hunting season development for the 2018-2020 seasons.

Respectfully,

Anis Aoude
Game Division manager
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: bowhunterforever on October 04, 2017, 04:18:49 PM
No
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on October 04, 2017, 04:27:51 PM
I just got on here to post this. I say hell ya and keep the open sights rule. Washington is so wet and rainy let us use the 209 primers.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mfowl on October 04, 2017, 04:29:38 PM
No, you can use them during modern season already. Keep it a primitive weapon season.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: CP on October 04, 2017, 04:34:09 PM
Yes.  Scopes too.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: steeleywhopper on October 04, 2017, 04:38:46 PM
Let us use 209,it’s just an ignition source it’s not turning a muzzy into a 7mm-08.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: cm2cb4 on October 04, 2017, 05:27:09 PM
Just submitted the survey with a resounding yes. I wish I could have added a comment though. I think that 209 is fine as long as primitive / No 11 primer users get to hunt the last week of archery into the first week of October. Then 209 users get the first weekend of October up to modern rifle. After that, all can add scopes unless you have a medical reason for placing on a scope during muzzy season. Spreads the season out a bit and gives everyone a fair chance
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: vandeman17 on October 04, 2017, 05:36:04 PM
Just submitted the survey with a resounding yes. I wish I could have added a comment though. I think that 209 is fine as long as primitive / No 11 primer users get to hunt the last week of archery into the first week of October. Then 209 users get the first weekend of October up to modern rifle. After that, all can add scopes unless you have a medical reason for placing on a scope during muzzy season. Spreads the season out a bit and gives everyone a fair chance

In a word, no.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: rackattack on October 04, 2017, 05:44:17 PM
Wish I could have commented on my no answer.  I like it the way it is, if you want a modern ignition system then go modern firearm season.  My worry is then muzzleloading success goes up and I lose more days that I can hunt. :twocents:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 04, 2017, 05:58:57 PM
No
[/quote

Nor should compound bows, carbon arrows or expanding broad heads. Right
I said yes, people are wrapping their breaches with siran wrap. Taping their barrel, we live in a rain forest. Anything to make your shot more powerful, it is not going to increase your range.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 04, 2017, 06:05:30 PM
I had to put no.  Until WDFW determines if it is supposed to be a primitive season or muzzleloading season, I'll defer to primitive. If just a muzzleloading season then scopes/209/two barrels/etc would be fine, but I would need to see how they move seasons and adjust lengths first.
Let us use 209,it’s just an ignition source it’s not turning a muzzy into a 7mm-08.
maybe not that extreme, but it does add quite a bit to the muzzy.  The hottest #11 magnums or musket caps are really only good for about 110-120 gr of FFg or two pellets.  With the 209s you can go to 150+ gr or FFg or use three pellets.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on October 04, 2017, 06:12:13 PM
I had to put no.  Until WDFW determines if it is supposed to be a primitive season or muzzleloading season, I'll defer to primitive. If just a muzzleloading season then scopes/209/two barrels/etc would be fine, but I would need to see how they move seasons and adjust lengths first.
Let us use 209,it’s just an ignition source it’s not turning a muzzy into a 7mm-08.
maybe not that extreme, but it does add quite a bit to the muzzy.  The hottest #11 magnums or musket caps are really only good for about 110-120 gr of FFg or two pellets.  With the 209s you can go to 150+ gr or FFg or use three pellets.

I don't think the extra 50 grains really gives the bullet all that much more power but could be wrong
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Whitenuckles on October 04, 2017, 06:14:46 PM
I don't muzzy hunt often. But I voted yes. Anything to advance the hunters agenda and not the tree huggers is a win in my book. :twocents:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: CP on October 04, 2017, 06:16:21 PM
I had to put no.  Until WDFW determines if it is supposed to be a primitive season or muzzleloading season, I'll defer to primitive. If just a muzzleloading season then scopes/209/two barrels/etc would be fine, but I would need to see how they move seasons and adjust lengths first.
Let us use 209,it’s just an ignition source it’s not turning a muzzy into a 7mm-08.
maybe not that extreme, but it does add quite a bit to the muzzy.  The hottest #11 magnums or musket caps are really only good for about 110-120 gr of FFg or two pellets.  With the 209s you can go to 150+ gr or FFg or use three pellets.

That's not my experience.  I shoot 209s at the range over chrono and the FPS difference over musket caps is insignificant.  velocity peaks around 110g and actually decreases with more powder -209 or MCs no difference
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: tbotts on October 04, 2017, 06:16:38 PM
i voted yes.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Magnum_Willys on October 04, 2017, 06:21:00 PM
Preserving a system that fosters misfires due to a poor ignition system is not really an integral part of primitive weapons IMO.
YES permit different primers that allow the primitive weapon to work as its designed. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: lonedave on October 04, 2017, 06:40:40 PM
Definitely no and I do hunt the wet west side too.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: trophyhunt on October 04, 2017, 06:42:35 PM
Yes.  Scopes too.
:yeah:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: cohochemist on October 04, 2017, 06:44:21 PM
Not sure how a dual cam, carbon fiber bowtech fits the "primative" definitions either...  209 primers are safe, reliable and will help make cleaner kills... anything that can help drop an animal faster and more humanely I fully support.   
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Russ McDonald on October 04, 2017, 06:47:59 PM
Not sure how a dual cam, carbon fiber bowtech fits the "primative" definitions either...  209 primers are safe, reliable and will help make cleaner kills... anything that can help drop an animal faster and more humanely I fully support.
:yeah:  you beat me to it.  Exactly what I wanted to say.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Odell on October 04, 2017, 06:50:43 PM
yes
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Pegasus on October 04, 2017, 07:11:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 04, 2017, 07:39:02 PM
Just so you all know what I think I know - have shot several test range shoots, shooting Musket Caps, 11 caps, and 209's both the cooler ones and the Magnums across a chrono.  There is not a significant difference in velocity between any of them.

It does not increase accuracy of the rifle nor the range that each us can effectively shoot the rifle.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: carpsniperg2 on October 04, 2017, 07:46:06 PM
I don't see how so many people think the way that the gun goes off attracts more people and ups your chances of harvest?
How many of the guys saying that hunt with a muzzleloader?

I have no problem with a more reliable ignition system, it does not help increase any range.

Yes for me.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: northwesthunter84 on October 04, 2017, 07:53:16 PM
I voted yes, have shot both. No significant benefit between ignition systems as far as ballistics. Does the gun go off more frequently yes. So what you all are saying that having a gun that fails to fire or potentially misfires is a gun you prefer because it lowers the success ratio. It's muzzleloader season not a primitive weapons season, I can use a modern compound during that same season if I buy the tag. Next the limiting factor is actually range. I was around for this same discussion in Illinois when they first allowed muzzleloader use during shotgun season. It doubled the range but guess what success ratio were not increased much. I say keep it scope free and there is no difference. Why shouldn't people who bust their butt to get on animals enjoy success, it's not supposed to be a lottery when you pull the trigger, it should be the culmination of hard work and effort.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JakeLand on October 04, 2017, 08:26:51 PM
Yes on 209 primers
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Timberstalker on October 04, 2017, 08:33:33 PM
100% yes.
It's 2017. We are advancing and it gives options to hunters. We need not limit anything at this time.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: teanawayslayer on October 04, 2017, 08:38:23 PM
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:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: full choke on October 04, 2017, 08:41:25 PM
No.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Alpine Mojo on October 04, 2017, 08:48:16 PM
Suck it up and enjoy what you have already been given.

That statement sums up what the anti-gun politicians have been telling us for years.   :tdown:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: SeaRun1 on October 04, 2017, 08:49:19 PM
Yes...
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: hunter399 on October 04, 2017, 08:54:20 PM
Voted no!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Stein on October 04, 2017, 08:54:36 PM
I tend toward no unless the notion of splitting the season into primitive and muzzleloader is an option.  The primitive weapon idea in my mind is something with a) very limited range, b) open sights and c) something that doesn't always go bang when you pull the trigger.

I really don't know how much more of an advantage against the weather a 209 does, so I do admit this isn't a very well informed opinion.  But, if you get 95+% ignition on the west side during your average week of hunting, I think you have something that is much different than the traditional muzzleloader in your hands.

I could get jacked about a true flintlock season though, wood stock, plain metal, 10 feet long.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on October 04, 2017, 08:57:09 PM
NO, and I love ML hunting.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: j_h_nimrod on October 04, 2017, 09:03:19 PM
Before I started reading the posts I was against the use of 209s. My thinking was that this hunting method should be more difficult and not be given another edge. After further reflection I have changed my opinion to yes, which I will put on my survey. This is more of a means than an ends argument, the addition of 209 primers does not make the weapon more effective, increase the range, or more powerful, just more reliable.

This would be akin to mandating the type of release or rests for archery.  Finger or string loop releases only, no mechanical releases. No drop away rests or Whisker Biscuits, stationary rests only. These are not things that increase the overall power or range of the system, just the reliability and accuracy assuring the chance of a more clean kill when the opportunity arises.

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:

No, using a crossbow during archery would be like using one of the smokeless powder muzzleloaders that drive .375 caliber bullets close to 3000 fps and are accurate over 300 yards. The 209 does not appreciably increase the effective range of a muzzleloader.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JakeLand on October 04, 2017, 09:08:51 PM
Before I started reading the posts I was against the use of 209s. My thinking was that this hunting method should be more difficult and not be given another edge. After further reflection I have changed my opinion to yes, which I will put on my survey. This is more of a means than an ends argument, the addition of 209 primers does not make the weapon more effective, increase the range, or more powerful, just more reliable.

This would be akin to mandating the type of release or rests for archery.  Finger or string loop releases only, no mechanical releases. No drop away rests or Whisker Biscuits, stationary rests only. These are not things that increase the overall power or range of the system, just the reliability and accuracy assuring the chance of a more clean kill when the opportunity arises.
Well said  :tup:
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:

No, using a crossbow during archery would be like using one of the smokeless powder muzzleloaders that drive .375 caliber bullets close to 3000 fps and are accurate over 300 yards. The 209 does not appreciably increase the effective range of a muzzleloader.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: snowshoes22 on October 04, 2017, 09:11:33 PM
yes for 209 primers. No advantage difference in my opinion. No to scopes 100%
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 04, 2017, 09:13:00 PM
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.

Years ago they did not take the time away from bow hunters, the new season they currently have, put them at the beginning, and some years right in the meat of the rut. The season they now have, was fostered by KBH with the support of some past and present WDFW employees, and many other archery clubs.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: j_h_nimrod on October 04, 2017, 09:13:38 PM
I tend toward no unless the notion of splitting the season into primitive and muzzleloader is an option.  The primitive weapon idea in my mind is something with a) very limited range, b) open sights and c) something that doesn't always go bang when you pull the trigger.

I could get jacked about a true flintlock season though, wood stock, plain metal, 10 feet long.

I like the idea, but then you are splitting already short seasons into more short seasons. If there were a true primitive muzzleloader season then archery guys would want a season for recurve an long bows shooting wooden arrows with finger release.  Then you would get the modern guys wanting a season for cartridges or guns designed before 1874. Then you would get the group wanting to use an atlatl or spear.  Then a group only wanting air powered guns...

I like the idea of a true primitive season but would always want to use the most effective weapon for the season.  I personally want my freezer to be full of game meat, not going out to the store buying beef solely because I chose to make an already difficult season more so.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Stein on October 04, 2017, 09:27:42 PM
Valid points.  I guess that puts it back to whether it should be a traditional weapon season or a modern muzzleloader season.  I don't see any valid reason to allow some modern elements but not others.  Like archery, if you are going to have a modern smokepole, limit a few things like bore diameter, muzzleloading and powder and then have at it with the rest.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on October 04, 2017, 09:38:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Seahawk12 on October 04, 2017, 09:42:01 PM
That division managers first name though!  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Jimmy33 on October 04, 2017, 09:43:37 PM
Yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: REHJWA on October 04, 2017, 09:45:44 PM
I voted yes 209. It is hard to understand how one group of hunters think another group gets an advantage over the other... You can choose which season and method works best for you. We are all hunters and should support clean ethical harvests.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Old Dog on October 04, 2017, 10:59:14 PM
I took the third option.  I shoot a caplock, but if anyone wants to shoot an inline with 209 ignition it's alright with me.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 04, 2017, 11:01:40 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: winshooter88 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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JeffRaines 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!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: huntnphool 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:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: PolarBear on October 05, 2017, 12:28:58 AM
Hell no
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Fl0und3rz 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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: trophyhunt 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. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: floatinghat 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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: C-Money 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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JimmyHoffa 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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: boneaddict on October 05, 2017, 07:51:46 AM
I voted no.  It gets to a point where it's modern.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JDHasty 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
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: dominknows on October 05, 2017, 08:17:22 AM
How about some more early season oppurtunity ie, one more day or more gmu's opened.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: CP on October 05, 2017, 08:19:45 AM
Bump stocks on muzzies should be banned.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: fishsticks 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.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Bob33 on October 05, 2017, 08:37:14 AM
I hunt modern, so I don’t have a strong personal interest but it seems to me that if primers don’t improve ignition there’s no need to make them legal.

If they do improve ignition, then it’s logical they should improve overall harvest.

If they improve overall harvest, then ultimately the seasons will be altered.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Rainier10 on October 05, 2017, 08:37:41 AM
I voted neutral on it.  There are valid points on both sides.  There wasn't any information on what the next step would be as far as how it would affect seasons.  In my opinion they can do whatever they want and then adjust seasons as needed.  Based on what they decide I will then make my decision on which method of hunting to participate in.

I would say that if I was leaning one way or the other it would be towards allowing 209 primers just because there are more options for purchasing a muzzleloader with 209 primers.  If that does happen I would definitely want them to keep a close eye on harvest data and adjust seasons if needed.

My guess is if they allow 209 primers you may see more people transition from modern to muzzy.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: baker5150 on October 05, 2017, 08:56:25 AM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Stein on October 05, 2017, 09:00:03 AM
It's difficult to say that a failed ignition would have been prevented by a 209 primer.  From my research, the #11 is pretty good at preventing weather from getting in.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: CP on October 05, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

I’ve had a hang fire, which resulted in a clean miss.  I can postulate that it could have resulted in a bad hit and a lost animal.  Anything that reduces the possibility of a bad hit and a lost animal should be legal, especially if there is no compelling reason to ban them.

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Duckslayer89 on October 05, 2017, 09:03:02 AM
Bump stocks on muzzies should be banned.

 :chuckle:  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: cohochemist on October 05, 2017, 09:04:50 AM
What date in history defines the cut-off between primitive vs modern weaponry???  The percussion caps were introduced in the 1820's while rudimentary center-fire cartridges were introduced in 1808, with even earlier examples dating back further to the French in the 1500's.  My point, calling something primitive vs calling something modern is subjective, and can be argued all the way back to the first hominoids.  Hey, if flinging rocks and spears is your thing, let me know, I can put you in contact with a few people back in Nebraska, where you can atlatl and spear throw for whitetails! 

Why I vote yes for 209 primers, is because a modern muzzle-loader with a 209 primer is a safer, more reliable weapon.  That is the only advantage to caps.  You don't get the gain in FPS or range or knockdown power compared to caps, its just safer and more reliable.  The first time I used a cap here in Washington, I had a misfire at the range.  How long do you point your muzzle down range before clearing the barrel? That crap is dangerous, when I load a weapon, I want to be able to unload it without risking my face/life. Yes, using a 209 primer reduces the number of mis-fires, but, you still need to subscribe to the 1 shot - 1 kill mentality.  This is still very different than a center-fire rifle hunting, where you load up 5-6 shots, or have back up mags ready and can play Rambo in the field.  This difference, how the weapons are re-loaded, will keep most modern people away.  Coupled with an earlier comment that center-fire users travel in packs...  I worry the bigger draw for people getting into muzzle-loading will be reading the harvest reports and seeing there are fewer people, more kills leading to higher success %. 

 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 05, 2017, 09:20:19 AM
I hunt modern, so I don’t have a strong personal interest but it seems to me that if primers don’t improve ignition there’s no need to make them legal.

If they do improve ignition, then it’s logical they should improve overall harvest.

I must admit when I first started hunting with a cap lock - I did experience - hang fires and no fire situations both at the range and while hunting.  Today and with experience and education it does not happen at all, with the inline I currently use, or even one of my cap locks. If I have prepared it for wet weather (legally) I would have not problem putting it a creek. After retrieving it I am 99% sure that it will fire.

209 primers can improve reliability of ignition over cap ignition only IF you do not protect and understand your cap ignition.  There are several things you can do to protect the integrity of the cap and the breech plug from moisture.  Even the way you pore the powder in can often make a difference in ignition especially in sidelock. 209 ignition does not guarantee ignition. I believe it helps ignition for the most part but it does not insure ignition. 209 Ignition can also be susceptible to moisture getting into the breech if the 209 system is not water tight and in most cases from the factory they are not.

Quote
If they improve overall harvest, then ultimately the seasons will be altered.

The first question for me would be - are you meeting or even exceeding the States current achievement numbers.  I would suggest that in most cases that is not happening and it is managed that way.

If you are meeting or exceeding as is then things would have to stay the same or altered as you have suggested.


Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 05, 2017, 09:24:58 AM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

I’ve had a hang fire, which resulted in a clean miss.  I can postulate that it could have resulted in a bad hit and a lost animal.  Anything that reduces the possibility of a bad hit and a lost animal should be legal, especially if there is no compelling reason to ban them.

Although I voted for the primer, I respectfully disagree with your statement as it is. With your reasoning, we all should only be allowed to hunt with a rifle. Maybe when you said "anything", you didn't mean it the way I took it. There are many advances in each category/implement of hunting which aren't allowed, and many, for good reason. Cohochemist also makes a valid point: who decides which advancements make the tool no longer a primitive hunting tool? We've had this discussion many times in different threads. There are ML hunters who would like to see only the most basic and primitive firearms allowed. Some archers feel that compound bows with 85% let-off are too advanced to be called primitive (and truly, they are far from primitive). Lighted nocks, mechanical broadheads, fiber optics on MLs - it goes on and on.  The point is, in the end it's the state that gets to decide which advancements get to be used and which, not. It seems rather arbitrary to me.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 05, 2017, 09:26:10 AM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

I’ve had a hang fire, which resulted in a clean miss.  I can postulate that it could have resulted in a bad hit and a lost animal.  Anything that reduces the possibility of a bad hit and a lost animal should be legal, especially if there is no compelling reason to ban them.

And if the truth were to be known - You can get a HANGFIRE with a 209 also... it happens
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on October 05, 2017, 09:27:24 AM
While I'm not the most experienced muzzleloader hunter..... In my limited experience all of my problems that 209 primers supposedly would fix went away when i switched to using loose powder.  It ignites faster and burns hotter than those pellets.  I really liked the pellets at first, but after I got over the intimidation factor with the loose powder, it's the only way I'll go.  You can still fill up a speed loader, you just get a higher quality shot.

With loose powder, I don't know that I see a benefit to 209 primers.

The one regulation I'd like to see fixed is a clarifying statement on the nipple being exposed to the weather. 

Quote
Quote from: wapiti hunter2 on Yesterday at 09:38:40 PM
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!

I guess you would have to help me understand what you consider to be modern.  Honestly I think that  could be the next hunt-wa blowup debate.  I still say house cat.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 05, 2017, 09:33:34 AM
While I'm not the most experienced muzzleloader hunter..... In my limited experience all of my problems that 209 primers supposedly would fix went away when i switched to using loose powder.  It ignites faster and burns hotter than those pellets.  I really liked the pellets at first, but after I got over the intimidation factor with the loose powder, it's the only way I'll go.  You can still fill up a speed loader, you just get a higher quality shot.

With loose powder, I don't know that I see a benefit to 209 primers.

The one regulation I'd like to see fixed is a clarifying statement on the nipple being exposed to the weather. 

Quote
Quote from: wapiti hunter2 on Yesterday at 09:38:40 PM
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!

I guess you would have to help me understand what you consider to be modern.  Honestly I think that  could be the next hunt-wa blowup debate.  I still say house cat.

I know it was not you that made the comment - but if you want to go primitive why stop at going back to the flint lock - go all the way back to the  wheel lock or even the match lock

(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/00/134400-004-D5D66DB5.jpg)

(https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=A15a37151bbbb482e6b4b54b3a672cb65&w=242&h=160&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.7)

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: CP on October 05, 2017, 09:33:45 AM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

I’ve had a hang fire, which resulted in a clean miss.  I can postulate that it could have resulted in a bad hit and a lost animal.  Anything that reduces the possibility of a bad hit and a lost animal should be legal, especially if there is no compelling reason to ban them.

Although I voted for the primer, I respectfully disagree with your statement as it is. With your reasoning, we all should only be allowed to hunt with a rifle. Maybe when you said "anything", you didn't mean it the way I took it. There are many advances in each category/implement of hunting which aren't allowed, and many, for good reason. Cohochemist also makes a valid point: who decides which advancements make the tool no longer a primitive hunting tool? We've had this discussion many times in different threads. There are ML hunters who would like to see only the most basic and primitive firearms allowed. Some archers feel that compound bows with 85% let-off are too advanced to be called primitive (and truly, they are far from primitive). Lighted nocks, mechanical broadheads, fiber optics on MLs - it goes on and on.  The point is, in the end it's the state that gets to decide which advancements get to be used and which, not. It seems rather arbitrary to me.  :dunno:

You’ve disregarded my subordinate clause.  But point taken, “anything” may be too far reaching.

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on October 05, 2017, 09:37:34 AM
@sabotloader

Mike - I'm not as well versed as others but the term "modern" seems to be used pretty loosely here.  I mean the Henry rifle was produced 160 years ago and it would be considered a modern firearm.

Curtis
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 05, 2017, 09:39:37 AM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

I’ve had a hang fire, which resulted in a clean miss.  I can postulate that it could have resulted in a bad hit and a lost animal.  Anything that reduces the possibility of a bad hit and a lost animal should be legal, especially if there is no compelling reason to ban them.

Although I voted for the primer, I respectfully disagree with your statement as it is. With your reasoning, we all should only be allowed to hunt with a rifle. Maybe when you said "anything", you didn't mean it the way I took it. There are many advances in each category/implement of hunting which aren't allowed, and many, for good reason. Cohochemist also makes a valid point: who decides which advancements make the tool no longer a primitive hunting tool? We've had this discussion many times in different threads. There are ML hunters who would like to see only the most basic and primitive firearms allowed. Some archers feel that compound bows with 85% let-off are too advanced to be called primitive (and truly, they are far from primitive). Lighted nocks, mechanical broadheads, fiber optics on MLs - it goes on and on.  The point is, in the end it's the state that gets to decide which advancements get to be used and which, not. It seems rather arbitrary to me.  :dunno:

You’ve disregarded my subordinate clause.  But point taken, “anything” may be too far reaching.


I did, that.  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Bob33 on October 05, 2017, 09:41:17 AM
The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on October 05, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.

Every time I read your posts I feel that your Zebra is staring into my soul. :yike:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 05, 2017, 09:44:13 AM
So if 209 primers are no more successful or reliable than musket caps and are also, paraphrasing,  "exposed to the elements" and subject to moisture like musket caps, what then is the reason to preclude them for legit muzzleloader weapons?
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 05, 2017, 09:47:48 AM
@sabotloader

Mike - I'm not as well versed as others but the term "modern" seems to be used pretty loosely here.  I mean the Henry rifle was produced 160 years ago and it would be considered a modern firearm.

Curtis

Curtis - I know exactly what you mean!  One of the things that we need to remember or think about Traditionalists and Archers are very well organized and make their presence and wishes known in the right places.  On the other hand we the regular shooters hunters - really including the bulk of the modern day rifle hunters - WE are not organized and do not offer a united front.  I compare us to the farmers of America - do you know how strong and powerful they could be it they were truly organized and united.  The problem is as with us a lot of the time, how do you tell a group of independent strong willed farmers - this is the way we are going to do it because that is the way we want you to do it!!

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 05, 2017, 09:51:54 AM
The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Not necessarily true!!!  I can get a lot of extra shots with a 30-30, actually even many more than a normal modern bolt action rifle. With a modern ML I still only get normally one good shot!  And you know what I still way prefer the ML.

Quote
Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Bob33 on October 05, 2017, 09:53:06 AM
The terms “primitive” and “modern” are not necessarily two distinct points 180 degrees apart. There’s a continuous spectrum with many points between. A scoped inline muzzleloader with 209 primers is probably every bit as or more effective than an iron-sighted 30-30 lever action.

Technology has progressed in all three hunting methods: modern, muzzleloader, and archery. A case could be made that of the three muzzleloaders have progressed slower than the other two in recent years.

Where the line is drawn to limit technological advances will always be debatable.

I do think it’s important to recognize that WDFW sets season dates and lengths based on anticipated harvests, and attempts to balance opportunity and harvest between the three methods.

Every time I read your posts I feel that your Zebra is staring into my soul. :yike:
It is, but I won't post what is sees. :chuckle:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mr Mykiss on October 05, 2017, 10:21:57 AM
No
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Machias on October 05, 2017, 10:55:26 AM
Before I went to Virginia in 2012 I would have voted no.  I voted yes.  I've never been to a state that pits it's user groups against each other like this state does.  Pretty sad really, pit each user group against each other and cram everyone into certain GMUs, so more over crowding goes on.  Amazing.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 05, 2017, 11:00:52 AM
 :yeah: That's why I voted yes. I have no dog in this fight - don't hunt or own an ML.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Jonathan_S on October 05, 2017, 11:42:05 AM
nope
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on October 05, 2017, 11:44:39 AM
Nope
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: The100Road on October 05, 2017, 12:08:59 PM
Yes!

If you hunt muzzy and don't like 209 then don't use them.

If you don't hunt muzzy then why do you care what I use? If it makes it more "modern" then stop rifle hunting and switch to muzzy.

I don't archery hunt, but why would I vote no to lighted knocks and expandable broad heads? If you want to use them then go for it. If you don't then don't. Why would I care what you use as long as its not illegal?
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JDHasty on October 05, 2017, 12:15:36 PM
Yes!

If you hunt muzzy and don't like 209 then don't use them.

If you don't hunt muzzy then why do you care what I use? If it makes it more "modern" then stop rifle hunting and switch to muzzy.

I don't archery hunt, but why would I vote no to lighted knocks and expandable broad heads? If you want to use them then go for it. If you don't then don't. Why would I care what you use as long as its not illegal?

The reason for the discussion being opened up is because if a change in equipment affects harvest rate then the way that WDFW will address that is by changing the Season length.  I personally think the longer ML Season is worth having to deal w/caps instead of primers being allowed.  If you think allowing 209s will not have any affect on ML Season length or you think a more reliable ignition is a fair tradeoff for having a shorter ML Season then you probably will be for the allowance of 209 primers. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 05, 2017, 12:38:57 PM
Yes!

If you hunt muzzy and don't like 209 then don't use them.

If you don't hunt muzzy then why do you care what I use? If it makes it more "modern" then stop rifle hunting and switch to muzzy.

I don't archery hunt, but why would I vote no to lighted knocks and expandable broad heads? If you want to use them then go for it. If you don't then don't. Why would I care what you use as long as its not illegal?
I don't think it is about being a muzzy hunter or a bowhunter.  If muzzy is someone's it thing, they have a few seasons to use it in (early muzz, modern, late muzz, bear, cougar).  There are a few guys that do go after bear with muzzy because they like using muzzy.  Mostly, it seems like trying to get as close to having a 'modern' weapon outside of the 'modern' season especially in an optimally timed season.  Basically trying to use a rifle ahead of the rifle guys.  If modern had an Oct 1-7 option for elk, how many muzzies would still be out in the woods?  If modern was Sept 15-30, what percent of current bowhunters would be switching to a rifle?
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: WSU on October 05, 2017, 12:54:40 PM
The limiting factor for a muzzy is a single shot and open sites.  Keeping your powder dry is a pain and a 209 might be more reliable (I don't know, never used them), but I've never had ignition problems with No. 11 or musket caps.  Keep your powder dry and the gun goes boom every time.   :twocents:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: BENCHLEG on October 05, 2017, 01:10:51 PM
No for me!!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: superdown on October 05, 2017, 01:27:00 PM
I hunt all three season off and on and have been successful in all three.I voted yes because i would like to have less cleanup and would like more options as far as muzzle loaders go i know i only need one but who here only has one style of each gun? A coupe of years ago hunting muzzy season i fired 5 caps off at a deer and did not get it. I went back to camp cleaned the nipple and it went off fine a piece of fuzz/lint or something was in the nipple. I got my deer the next day. Would a 209 have fired through the obstruction? I don't know and honestly don't care I will continue to muzzy hunt regardless whether they allow 209's or not. A person is only as accurate as they are with a weapon that has open sights.The ignition system is irrelevant to the marksmanship one possesses or how many shot opportunities you get you still have to hunt and get yourself on animals.   
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: elkboy on October 05, 2017, 01:34:27 PM
So, for all you smoke pole guys, how often do you have a filed ignition, one that a 209 primer would have prevented, and while attempting a shot at an animal?  And how often did it cause you to not get a shot off ie: weren't able to re- cap in time for a second chance? (I'm not a muzzy guy so please bare with me on the lingo)
Are mis-fires a real issue for you?
Maybe a poll of our own is necessary.  I'm just curious if adding these primers will actually cause an increase in the amount of game taken, or if it's just a luxury that would make things easier and more reliable.

Good question! It's happened to me on three different animals, twice with a Knight Bighorn, and once with a Knight Mountaineer.  I am personally OK with this as an additional limitation on my chosen hunting method.  I understand the argument that a modern inline isn't very "primitive" or "traditional", but I believe we do have to draw the line somewhere. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Russ McDonald on October 05, 2017, 01:57:31 PM
So I got curious and started looking at other states.  In the west it seems like it is WA and Idaho that are the only ones that don't allow 209 primers during muzzle loader season only in the western states.  I did see some states don't allow pellets and a lot of open sights only.  I didn't have time to go through all 50 states but I did some random ones here and there and I see that almost all allowed 209 primers during ML only season.  So for the one that say no to 209 primers is it just because of season length.  I agree with I think Machias that said it is pretty bad that all of us as hunters are split and pitted against each other.  I like learning all methods of hunting and enjoy aspects of them all.  I know as an archery hunter we do get a pretty good dates for elk season but I don't mind changes to allow for others to get in on a better part of the season for the method.  I think ML season pretty much stinks one week.  I said 3 years ago a wrote the game department.  I even talked to the manager of game management back then and asked them why can't we at least give each method at least 2 weekends for their seasons.  I have the chance to talk to the manager who put out the survey.  The NWTF is working with the department to rewrite the turkey plan.  He is willing to listen and make some changes that will benefit us all as hunters. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Stein on October 05, 2017, 02:00:35 PM
I don't see it as hunters pitted against each other.  The state reached out to see what we think and we are having an open discussion.  It doesn't seem too realistic for hunters to agree on 100% of the things 100% of the time.  Nothing wrong with a good discussion in my book.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: r67968 on October 05, 2017, 02:09:47 PM
Its a No for me. It takes work to dial everything in, but i have found muzzleloaders can be extremely reliable with caps even in wet weather.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 05, 2017, 02:13:34 PM
So I got curious and started looking at other states.  In the west it seems like it is WA and Idaho that are the only ones that don't allow 209 primers during muzzle loader season only in the western states.

Think you need to add in Oregon.  It is a Pacific Northwest thing...

Quote
  I did see some states don't allow pellets and a lot of open sights only.  I didn't have time to go through all 50 states but I did some random ones here and there and I see that almost all allowed 209 primers during ML only season.  So for the one that say no to 209 primers is it just because of season length.  I agree with I think Machias that said it is pretty bad that all of us as hunters are split and pitted against each other.  I like learning all methods of hunting and enjoy aspects of them all.  I know as an archery hunter we do get a pretty good dates for elk season but I don't mind changes to allow for others to get in on a better part of the season for the method.  I think ML season pretty much stinks one week.  I said 3 years ago a wrote the game department.  I even talked to the manager of game management back then and asked them why can't we at least give each method at least 2 weekends for their seasons.  I have the chance to talk to the manager who put out the survey.  The NWTF is working with the department to rewrite the turkey plan.  He is willing to listen and make some changes that will benefit us all as hunters.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Russ McDonald on October 05, 2017, 02:24:42 PM
 If ML season had better dates would all of you the voted no would you change your vote?  Using this yearsc alendar say early  elk ML seaon  10/7-10/15.
So I got curious and started looking at other states.  In the west it seems like it is WA and Idaho that are the only ones that don't allow 209 primers during muzzle loader season only in the western states.

Think you need to add in Oregon.  It is a Pacific Northwest thing...

Quote
I see it now.  Didn't see it because they used center fire primer instead of 209  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: jagermiester on October 05, 2017, 02:51:18 PM
Yes for me. I watched my dad miss an opportunity at a cow.
For a guy like him it's a no brainer he needs every advantage he can get. Or take a young hunter let's not handicap them. If you don't want to use a 209 don't if you want to use flintlok do it but why restrict people who want to use it. I'm thinking about going back to iron sights during modern for deer. I've also thought about using a crossbow just for the challenge. But my kid's aren't there yet they are focused on success. Same as all of us were when we first started. Now it doesn't seem as important.
 A 209 ignition is more reliable let the people who want to use it do so. That's what I say.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Machias on October 05, 2017, 03:05:51 PM
I don't see it as hunters pitted against each other.  The state reached out to see what we think and we are having an open discussion.  It doesn't seem too realistic for hunters to agree on 100% of the things 100% of the time.  Nothing wrong with a good discussion in my book.

This survey is not pitting us against each other, the state has already done that with creating the choose your weapons requirement.  You don't have this fighting in the vast majority of states, because modern firearms guys are not jealous of the long season the bowhunters have, because if they wanted to bowhunt they could.  We on the other hand are jealous if the archery hunters get an extra day or if the muzzle loaders dates are in a more prime time, because we are all fighting for days in the field and the "enemy" is the other user groups.  In other states they could care less if you hunt with a lighted sight on your bow with mechanical heads, shooting lazers out of the nock.  They don't care if you have a scoped crossbow in archery season.  They could care less if you have a scoped, inline muzzleloader, shooting 209 primers.  None of the hunters fight like we do, because if you don't want to use that equipment then you don't.  If you do, great.  I was a big proponent, for a long time, of no electronics on the bow or arrow.  After living there and realizing what other guys were using had ZERO impact on me, I stopped worrying about.  I personally don't like lighted nocks, so I didn't use them.  Despised crossbows during the archery season, then went to a state that allowed them, so I tried them.  Hunted for 2 weeks with a crossbow and hated it.  Sold it and went back to a compound bow.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Russ McDonald on October 05, 2017, 05:17:05 PM
I don't see it as hunters pitted against each other.  The state reached out to see what we think and we are having an open discussion.  It doesn't seem too realistic for hunters to agree on 100% of the things 100% of the time.  Nothing wrong with a good discussion in my book.

This survey is not pitting us against each other, the state has already done that with creating the choose your weapons requirement.  You don't have this fighting in the vast majority of states, because modern firearms guys are not jealous of the long season the bowhunters have, because if they wanted to bowhunt they could.  We on the other hand are jealous if the archery hunters get an extra day or if the muzzle loaders dates are in a more prime time, because we are all fighting for days in the field and the "enemy" is the other user groups.  In other states they could care less if you hunt with a lighted sight on your bow with mechanical heads, shooting lazers out of the nock.  They don't care if you have a scoped crossbow in archery season.  They could care less if you have a scoped, inline muzzleloader, shooting 209 primers.  None of the hunters fight like we do, because if you don't want to use that equipment then you don't.  If you do, great.  I was a big proponent, for a long time, of no electronics on the bow or arrow.  After living there and realizing what other guys were using had ZERO impact on me, I stopped worrying about.  I personally don't like lighted nocks, so I didn't use them.  Despised crossbows during the archery season, then went to a state that allowed them, so I tried them.  Hunted for 2 weeks with a crossbow and hated it.  Sold it and went back to a compound bow.
Just what I wanted to say and meant :tup:

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Bob33 on October 05, 2017, 05:48:42 PM
I don't see it as hunters pitted against each other.  The state reached out to see what we think and we are having an open discussion.  It doesn't seem too realistic for hunters to agree on 100% of the things 100% of the time.  Nothing wrong with a good discussion in my book.

This survey is not pitting us against each other, the state has already done that with creating the choose your weapons requirement.  You don't have this fighting in the vast majority of states, because modern firearms guys are not jealous of the long season the bowhunters have, because if they wanted to bowhunt they could.  We on the other hand are jealous if the archery hunters get an extra day or if the muzzle loaders dates are in a more prime time, because we are all fighting for days in the field and the "enemy" is the other user groups. In other states they could care less if you hunt with a lighted sight on your bow with mechanical heads, shooting lazers out of the nock.  They don't care if you have a scoped crossbow in archery season.  They could care less if you have a scoped, inline muzzleloader, shooting 209 primers.  None of the hunters fight like we do, because if you don't want to use that equipment then you don't.  If you do, great.  I was a big proponent, for a long time, of no electronics on the bow or arrow.  After living there and realizing what other guys were using had ZERO impact on me, I stopped worrying about.  I personally don't like lighted nocks, so I didn't use them.  Despised crossbows during the archery season, then went to a state that allowed them, so I tried them.  Hunted for 2 weeks with a crossbow and hated it.  Sold it and went back to a compound bow.
Just what I wanted to say and meant :tup:

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
i know you guys seem to despite WDFW, but here are some facts on regulations in other Western states:

Idaho Muzzleloaders

 In addition, the muzzleloading rifle or musket must be:
•   Capable of being loaded only from the muzzle.
•   Equipped with only open or peep sights. Scopes and any electronics are prohibited.
•   Pelletized powders are prohibited.
•   Sabots are prohibited.
•   Loaded with a patched round ball or conical non-jacketed projectile comprised wholly of lead or lead alloy.
•   209 primers are prohibited.

Idaho Archery

During an archery-only season, it is illegal for hunters to use any firearm or implement other than a longbow, compound bow or recurve bow in compliance with general archery equipment requirements, or:
•   Any bow equipped with magnifying sights.
•   Any crossbow. Except disabled hunters possessing a permit may use a crossbow. Applications for the use of crossbows by disabled hunters are available at Fish and Game offices.

Oregon Muzzleloader
•   Scopes (permanent and detachable), and sights that use batteries, artificial light or energy are not allowed during muzzleloader-only seasons
•   During muzzleloader-only seasons and 600 series hunts where there is a weapon restriction of shotgun/muzzleloader only or archery/muzzleloader only, it is illegal to hunt with jacketed bullets, sabots, and bullets with plastic or synthetic tips or bases.
•   It is illegal to hunt with centerfire primers as an ignition source during muzzleloader-only seasons and 600 series hunts where there is a weapon restriction of shotgun/muzzleloader only or archery/muzzleloader only.
•   It is illegal to hunt with pelletized powders or propellants during muzzleloader-only seasons and 600 series hunts where there is a weapon restriction of shotgun/muzzleloader only or archery/muzzleloader only
•   For muzzleloader-only seasons and 600 series hunts where there is a weapon restriction of shotgun/muzzleloader only or archery/muzzleloader only, the muzzleloader must have an open ignition.
Oregon Archery
•   No device secured to or supported by a bow may be used to maintain the bow at full draw.
•   No electronic devices may be attached to bow or arrow, except lighted arrow nocks that have no function other than to increase visibility of the arrow are allowed.

Nevada Muzzleloading
•   During a “Muzzle-loader-Only” Hunt: Only open sights or peep sights are permitted; scopes prohibited. A sight that is operated or powered by a battery, electronics or a radioactive isotope such as tritium is prohibited.

Nevada Archery
•    A crossbow cannot be used for archery only hunts.

Colorado Muzzleloading Rifles:
•   Only open or iron sights allowed in muzzleloading seasons. Fiber optics and fluorescent paint incorporated into or on open or iron sights are legal. Scopes or any sighting device using artificial light, batteries and electronic gear are prohibited during muzzleloading seasons.

Colorado Archery:
•   CROSSBOWS: Illegal during archery seasons.

New Mexico Restricted Muzzleloader
•   Only black powder, Pyrodex or an equivalent substitute may be used. Smokeless powder, inline ignition, pelleted powder, sabots, belted bullets, multiple projectiles and scopes are illegal.


Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 05, 2017, 05:49:16 PM
A survey without a signature is worthless, sorta like voting for Dancing with the stars you can vote as often as you like until Oct 31st. How is that legit
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: snake on October 05, 2017, 06:45:07 PM
Absolutely no reason not to allow 209 primers. If you are a High and Mighty on primitive go get a Hawken. Still primitive with a 209 btw
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 05, 2017, 07:47:11 PM
I have always believed never endorse limitation, to each their own.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Machias on October 05, 2017, 07:57:57 PM
Bob33, I don't dispise Wa Fish and Game, I save that for Liberals and Terrorist,  but I repeat myself.   I'm not happy with some of their management...er mismanagement decision, but I don't dispise them.  My point wasn't about restrictions on equipment,  if you thought that, I'm guessing you missed my whole point about not caring what equipment they allow or restrict.  My whole point, and thank you for posting Idaho's regs, is in Idaho the various user groups don't care about season lengths or equipment because everyone is not fighting for more time in the field or different dates.  They can all already participate in each of the three seasons.  Now they certainly have discussions about how far to push those restrictions, but you don't have guys bitching about season dates and length of seasons some other guy is getting, because they aren't pitted against and competing against each other.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: konradcountry on October 05, 2017, 08:07:31 PM
Absolutely no reason not to allow 209 primers. If you are a High and Mighty on primitive go get a Hawken. Still primitive with a 209 btw

High and mighty? What about adding a laser? That was developed before 209 primers. Still primitive?

I voted no. Allowing 209 is just one step closer to getting rid of NW rules and allowing scopes. Then more people will flood the already short muzzle season.

You are the one being "high and mighty" by not considering all viewpoints. Easier equipment = more people. It really it is that simple.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: hunter399 on October 05, 2017, 08:30:02 PM
I don't see it as hunters pitted against each other.  The state reached out to see what we think and we are having an open discussion.  It doesn't seem too realistic for hunters to agree on 100% of the things 100% of the time.  Nothing wrong with a good discussion in my book.

This survey is not pitting us against each other, the state has already done that with creating the choose your weapons requirement.  You don't have this fighting in the vast majority of states, because modern firearms guys are not jealous of the long season the bowhunters have, because if they wanted to bowhunt they could.  We on the other hand are jealous if the archery hunters get an extra day or if the muzzle loaders dates are in a more prime time, because we are all fighting for days in the field and the "enemy" is the other user groups.  In other states they could care less if you hunt with a lighted sight on your bow with mechanical heads, shooting lazers out of the nock.  They don't care if you have a scoped crossbow in archery season.  They could care less if you have a scoped, inline muzzleloader, shooting 209 primers.  None of the hunters fight like we do, because if you don't want to use that equipment then you don't.  If you do, great.  I was a big proponent, for a long time, of no electronics on the bow or arrow.  After living there and realizing what other guys were using had ZERO impact on me, I stopped worrying about.  I personally don't like lighted nocks, so I didn't use them.  Despised crossbows during the archery season, then went to a state that allowed them, so I tried them.  Hunted for 2 weeks with a crossbow and hated it.  Sold it and went back to a compound bow.
A few points good points,the choose your weapon ,i can't imagine muzzy,bowhunter,trying to hunt public land in Washington with all the rifle hunters,out at the same time,or having any deer left.I'm also for choose the side of the state your hunting for deer.I'm for equipment changes in all user groups ,I do agree with the idea behind if you don't like it ,than use a different method.But I'm like most people if I don't get changes in my user group than I'm not gonna vote yes for better changes ,At this point I don't want any change in weapon restrictions.Just like the 4pt min in the NE corner a lot people complaining made it go away , now the quality of bucks,or lack of bucks is really starting to take effect,I guess what I'm sayin is sometimes people don't know what's good for them,or know what they had till it's gone.Sometimes no change is needed,if muzzy people don't like the rules there is other options ,multi season permit,or other weapon.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: j_h_nimrod on October 05, 2017, 10:35:15 PM
Absolutely no reason not to allow 209 primers. If you are a High and Mighty on primitive go get a Hawken. Still primitive with a 209 btw

High and mighty? What about adding a laser? That was developed before 209 primers. Still primitive?

I voted no. Allowing 209 is just one step closer to getting rid of NW rules and allowing scopes. Then more people will flood the already short muzzle season.

You are the one being "high and mighty" by not considering all viewpoints. Easier equipment = more people. It really it is that simple.

Not sure about high n mighty but a 209 does not make a muzzleloader hunting easier or more effective. There are only a few wet side areas that would benefit from the intrinsic water resistance of most 209 systems. The major difficulties of hunting with a mz are one shot, slow and difficult reload, and limited range.  The 209 primer changes none of this and only adds the benefit of using different powders and pellets reliably and having a slightly better chance of ignition in the relitively small portions of the state that are very wet. The 209 type primer has been around for a long time, not sure of the full history but the shotshells of the 50s n 60s had a very similar primer design and in reality they are very similar to other primers in their constituent parts.

 I would say you are wrong in stating lasers have been around longer than the 209 type primers. Lasers started in the late 50s or early 60s in a very rudimentary form. The 209 is a refinement of existent primer design that has been around since the mid 1800s.

I cannot see the addition of 209 primers to a legal mz season would make more that a minute difference in the number of hunters or the amount of game killed. There was much less reason for mechanical broadheads being added to archery than the 209 being allowed for mz. I thought archery was supposed to be a "primitive" season as well :dunno:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Damnimissed on October 05, 2017, 11:37:11 PM
No, I hunt the wet side and do not want 209 primers approved. Keep it primitive.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 05, 2017, 11:46:50 PM
Bob33, I don't dispise Wa Fish and Game, I save that for Liberals and Terrorist,  but I repeat myself.   I'm not happy with some of their management...er mismanagement decision, but I don't dispise them.  My point wasn't about restrictions on equipment,  if you thought that, I'm guessing you missed my whole point about not caring what equipment they allow or restrict.  My whole point, and thank you for posting Idaho's regs, is in Idaho the various user groups don't care about season lengths or equipment because everyone is not fighting for more time in the field or different dates.  They can all already participate in each of the three seasons.  Now they certainly have discussions about how far to push those restrictions, but you don't have guys bitching about season dates and length of seasons some other guy is getting, because they aren't pitted against and competing against each other.
Idaho has got a ton more animals per hunter, though.  They can have all kinds of seasons before hand by different user groups and still have decent odds at a legal animal.  Some of the more elky westside units are down below 5% success.  You can drive by some pastures and see a couple hundred elk, all cows/spikes/two points.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 06, 2017, 12:33:37 AM
If you are not shooting a Hawkins with flint, how can you make a statement, like keep it primitive, if you are shooting winged Muscat caps, sabots, anything other then BP and rifles barrels, and say I voted "no" keep it primitive. Please look in the mirror. Choose your method of modernization, and don't choose for others. To each their own
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Machias on October 06, 2017, 07:53:48 AM
Bob33, I don't dispise Wa Fish and Game, I save that for Liberals and Terrorist,  but I repeat myself.   I'm not happy with some of their management...er mismanagement decision, but I don't dispise them.  My point wasn't about restrictions on equipment,  if you thought that, I'm guessing you missed my whole point about not caring what equipment they allow or restrict.  My whole point, and thank you for posting Idaho's regs, is in Idaho the various user groups don't care about season lengths or equipment because everyone is not fighting for more time in the field or different dates.  They can all already participate in each of the three seasons.  Now they certainly have discussions about how far to push those restrictions, but you don't have guys bitching about season dates and length of seasons some other guy is getting, because they aren't pitted against and competing against each other.
Idaho has got a ton more animals per hunter, though.  They can have all kinds of seasons before hand by different user groups and still have decent odds at a legal animal.  Some of the more elky westside units are down below 5% success.  You can drive by some pastures and see a couple hundred elk, all cows/spikes/two points.

And yet they cram us all into a few GMUs
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: baker5150 on October 06, 2017, 08:32:47 AM
If you are not shooting a Hawkins with flint, how can you make a statement, like keep it primitive, if you are shooting winged Muscat caps, sabots, anything other then BP and rifles barrels, and say I voted "no" keep it primitive. Please look in the mirror. Choose your method of modernization, and don't choose for others. To each their own

I think by "keep it primitive" they mean keep it at it's current level of primitiveness (is that a word, probably not).
From what I gather (because it's been stated multiple times already) they are more concerned with making things easier and less challenging, thus creating more hunters in the field, a good point in my opinion.

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Fishmaker57 on October 06, 2017, 09:10:08 AM
As we already are allowed to use sabots, and pelletized powder, I can't see a reason not to allow 209 primers. As for the discussion on "primitive weapon" you either go truly primitive i.e. flintlock, patch and ball, or leave it as is and add 209s.  Fewer and fewer manufactures of smoke poles are offering them without the 209 system. The topic of scopes shouldn't even be discussed, as that takes this to a whole new level.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: The Deacon on October 06, 2017, 09:47:31 AM
Yes on 209 primers. Yes on scoped muzzleloaders. It's not a "primitive weapons" season; it's a muzzleloader season. From an ethical standpoint, why not allow hunters to use the most effective tool for the task at hand? You can use a hammer; however, you have to drive the nails with the handle. It's never made any sense (to me) -

Is there WDFW evidence to support the claim that harvest rates will (dramatically) increase resulting in GMU closures and shortened seasons, if 209 primers were allowed? Have harvest rates increased since the inclusion of pelletized powders and saboted bullets? Is there any data pertaining to how many hunters will join the ranks of the primitive weapons crowd should 209 primers be permitted?

Isn't referring to a modern inline muzzleloader as a "primitive weapon" somewhat - well - misleading?

If it's a question of technology in hunting, how can one defend the use of trail cameras? Laser rangefinders? Mechanical broadheads? Compound bows? Synthetic (black)powder? Wireless electronic predator calls?

My concerns are the (constant) wedges being driven into the ranks of today's consumptive user BY the consumptive user. Us versus Them. Us versus Them. Does anyone remember 2000 and WA trapping? Hounds? Bait?
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 06, 2017, 10:01:42 AM
Yes on 209 primers. Yes on scoped muzzleloaders. It's not a "primitive weapons" season; it's a muzzleloader season. From an ethical standpoint, why not allow hunters to use the most effective tool for the task at hand? You can use a hammer; however, you have to drive the nails with the handle. It's never made any sense (to me) -

Is there WDFW evidence to support the claim that harvest rates will (dramatically) increase resulting in GMU closures and shortened seasons, if 209 primers were allowed? Have harvest rates increased since the inclusion of pelletized powders and saboted bullets? Is there any data pertaining to how many hunters will join the ranks of the primitive weapons crowd should 209 primers be permitted?

Isn't referring to a modern inline muzzleloader as a "primitive weapon" somewhat - well - misleading?

If it's a question of technology in hunting, how can one defend the use of trail cameras? Laser rangefinders? Mechanical broadheads? Compound bows? Synthetic (black)powder? Wireless electronic predator calls?

My concerns are the (constant) wedges being driven into the ranks of today's consumptive user BY the consumptive user. Us versus Them. Us versus Them. Does anyone remember 2000 and WA trapping? Hounds? Bait?

Excellent point!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Magnum_Willys on October 06, 2017, 10:13:10 AM
Well Deacon I’m thinking you are on to something here. With all the factors removing opportunity for hunters we should be pushing to expand any opportunities we can to offset wolves, loss of habitat, climate change, social change, etc.  Even more so anything that encourages new and/or youth hunters is good. At the very least let’s let youth muzzle loaders use a scope ?  What a great way to enhance youth success rates - which are so low it really discourages new hunter participation.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2017, 10:22:53 AM
 :yeah: It's like compound v. longbow. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. That doesn't mean another fellow hunter doesn't get to.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on October 06, 2017, 10:34:23 AM
Sorry. I would not support this sentiment. I don't have a problem with 209 primers however. The term "primitive" for the sake of this discussion should be viewed as "less effective". Even of the guys who hunt stick and string, very few run gut strings, or chip flint, or sand their own cedar. Sure a few do, but the vast majority still take advantage of certain luxury afforded by technology.  Certainly all of our equipment has advanced. But restrictions remain in effect to make it "less effective". I do not hunt muzzy, so will defer topics on range and effectiveness to those who are experts in that field. But based on my discussions with others and comments here 209 would not dramatically increase the performance and/or reliability to experts with inline guns.

Similar to the lighted nock and mechanical debate. Neither really help in creating additional opportunity. Those who are successful will remain so, the guy who is in the middle may see a slight increase in opportunity, and the guy who is currently unsuccessful is not likely to benefit either. There is technology that exists that certainly makes both "primitive" weapons far more effective. Those remain restricted, for good reason.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2017, 10:47:45 AM
The only reason they're considering it in the first place is because it doesn't present a possible major change which would noticeably increase the success rate. We're both saying basically the same thing.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on October 06, 2017, 11:02:18 AM
I understand. But the discussion was heading toward allowing anything that could be classified as a "muzzleloader" to include scoped optics.  Do we also allow smokeless powder as long as its loaded from the muzzle? If that were the case I am sure that would open a whole new realm of technology.

Deacons analogy is off IMO, Although not old or cavemanish, during "Primitive" seasons we are choosing to use a hammer vs a pneumatic air nailer. Even though we have options to use a Titanium Stilleto, or a appropriately shaped rock.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2017, 11:45:13 AM
I understand. But the discussion was heading toward allowing anything that could be classified as a "muzzleloader" to include scoped optics.  Do we also allow smokeless powder as long as its loaded from the muzzle? If that were the case I am sure that would open a whole new realm of technology.

Deacons analogy is off IMO, Although not old or cavemanish, during "Primitive" seasons we are choosing to use a hammer vs a pneumatic air nailer. Even though we have options to use a Titanium Stilleto, or a appropriately shaped rock.

Nope, just with regards to the 209 primers.  :tup:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: The Deacon on October 06, 2017, 11:45:45 AM
The "realm of technology" is already open. It's already here -

Two-O-Nine (209) primers would not necessarily make muzzleloaders more efficient, and there's a debate as to whether or not they'd actually make them more reliable. Much, as most shooters know, depends on the person pulling the trigger -

As for the scope/no scope debate - How do you explain a single GMU offering both a muzzleloader season (no scopes) AND a modern rifle season (scopes permitted)? What's the difference there? Increased harvest by muzzleloader users simply due to the addition of a scope? Which would be preferred? Or, better, be more ethical - Muzzleloaders with open sights being used at 150 yards in a Kentucky Windage type fashion - or precise bullet placement at the same distance, thanks, in part, to the use of a glass-filled optical device?

Primitive? Petition the WDFW to allow only sidekick percussion or flintlock muzzleloaders filled with traditional black powder and patched roundball or conicals. Modern muzzleloaders? Two-O-Nine primers, saboted bullets, pelletized powder, AND scopes permitted. Individuals can choose the muzzleloading style they wish. Why hover, noncommittal, somewhere in the middle?

Truthfully? My crystal ball says 209 primers will be okayed; however, scopes will not. Perhaps never. And why no scopes? Too many hunters - HUNTERS - are selfishly against them. It's not a matter of concern for the resource, but rather a question of "How is this going to affect MY hunting?" Shorter seasons? Fewer open GMUs? Reduced opportunity? What's in it - or NOT in it - for me?

No bait. No hounds. No trapping. What's next?
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Stein on October 06, 2017, 12:03:16 PM
It's pretty straight forward, if you make it easier to harvest, the seasons will be shorter.  There is no way around the math.

Scopes will absolutely do that.  Closed breaches will absolutely do that.  I don't know about 209, but very likely it won't have an impact near the other things mentioned.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on October 06, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
I don't know the GMU you refer to. But would agree, if the GMU is open to both simultaneously then it makes sense to allow scoped muzzies, during that hunt in that unit.

  The day we let technology determine ethics, is a day I would rather not see. By design the muzzy is a more difficult weapon to master and comes with self imposed limitations, the hunter should be determining what's ethical.

   You seem stuck on the term "primitive". Implying that if your not wearing buckskin thongs and carrying a bowie as backup then its not "primitive". I agree to an extent, the term is probably outdated. BUT it still denotes imposed limitations based on a weapons inherent design and/or regulations in place to handicap it.

   Everything you speak of is already legal. 209, scopes, blah blah. Its called MODERN season.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2017, 12:52:00 PM
Here's where we disagree. If you choose ML, you get to hunt wherever MLs are allowed, during an earlier season which has a better chance of catching the end of the rut. Just because you choose to hunt a unit which also has Modern going on doesn't mean you get to improve your chances by adding otherwise prohibited accessories. You pick ML, then you hunt by ML rules, whatever they are.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on October 06, 2017, 02:07:59 PM
I don't think we disagree at all Piano :tup:, If your last comment was aimed at me. I don't see any problem with 209, although admittedly, I don't know as much as many on here about muzzy equipment.  Some others have posted about scopes on muzzies, insinuating that scopes etc should be allowed since its not a "primitive weapon".  I would be opposed to such changes if that were the case. I understand that is not the discussion WDFW is having.

The argument that we need to stick together so all individuals are accommodated is moot IMO, since any muzzy hunter who wants to use a breech lock, 209 capped, scoped muzzy is free to do so during the modern season.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 06, 2017, 02:34:41 PM
 :tup:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: jnordwell on October 06, 2017, 02:58:11 PM
Primitive is one thing but jacketed bullets are primitive but neither is compound bows,mech broad heads, mech releases,etc... why not do what some states do offer some units as primitive only. Recurve,longbow only, and flint lock or lead ball only. When they allowed mech broad heads they didn't shorten the seasons. Would have to see how they would word it.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: The Deacon on October 06, 2017, 02:58:49 PM
If I may repeat myself -

Truthfully? My crystal ball says 209 primers will be okayed; however, scopes will not. Perhaps never. And why no scopes? Too many hunters - HUNTERS - are selfishly against them. It's not a matter of concern for the resource, but rather a question of "How is this going to affect MY hunting?" Shorter seasons? Fewer open GMUs? Reduced opportunity? What's in it - or NOT in it - for me?

No bait. No hounds. No trapping. What's next?

It's not about "stick(ing) together so all individuals are accommodated." Such is not possible. It's about presenting a united front as consumptive users in order to (1) prevent the loss of existing hunting opportunities, and (2) hopefully expand opportunities which do not currently exist -

Will scoped muzzleloaders guarantee this loss or expansion? Absolutely not, but - again - I do wonder what will be next on the chopping block?

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Bob33 on October 06, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
Washington's general season deer harvest by hunting method, from 2000 through 2016:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Stein on October 06, 2017, 03:49:58 PM
I do wonder what will be next on the chopping block?

What is on the chopping block now?
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 06, 2017, 03:50:33 PM
I don't know the GMU you refer to. But would agree, if the GMU is open to both simultaneously then it makes sense to allow scoped muzzies, during that hunt in that unit.

  The day we let technology determine ethics, is a day I would rather not see. By design the muzzy is a more difficult weapon to master and comes with self imposed limitations, the hunter should be determining what's ethical.

   You seem stuck on the term "primitive". Implying that if your not wearing buckskin thongs and carrying a bowie as backup then its not "primitive". I agree to an extent, the term is probably outdated. BUT it still denotes imposed limitations based on a weapons inherent design and/or regulations in place to handicap it.

   Everything you speak of is already legal. 209, scopes, blah blah. Its called MODERN season.
the high hunt allows either muzzy tag or modern tag and both could be hunting simultaneously.  One is scope/primer/tech restricted and the other is a free for all.  I've never seen any muzzies on the high hunt though.  It is about half old school deer rifles and half long range tacticool artillery pieces.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Kazekurt on October 06, 2017, 04:06:22 PM
I voted yes.  I have performed a couple of two hour stalks(crawls) through wet grass to get in range of a nice muley buck only to have my ignition fail.   As a person who hunts routinely with all three weapons, I will say that making this change will not increase the range of the muzzleloader, just the reliability.   I joke with my friends all the time that in some ways I prefer archery because at least I know I'm going to get something in the air.  Furthermore, there are already a lot of guys cheating the "exposed to the elements"  requirement by using tape, surgical tubing, etc. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on October 06, 2017, 04:17:08 PM
I don't know the GMU you refer to. But would agree, if the GMU is open to both simultaneously then it makes sense to allow scoped muzzies, during that hunt in that unit.

  The day we let technology determine ethics, is a day I would rather not see. By design the muzzy is a more difficult weapon to master and comes with self imposed limitations, the hunter should be determining what's ethical.

   You seem stuck on the term "primitive". Implying that if your not wearing buckskin thongs and carrying a bowie as backup then its not "primitive". I agree to an extent, the term is probably outdated. BUT it still denotes imposed limitations based on a weapons inherent design and/or regulations in place to handicap it.

   Everything you speak of is already legal. 209, scopes, blah blah. Its called MODERN season.
the high hunt allows either muzzy tag or modern tag and both could be hunting simultaneously.  One is scope/primer/tech restricted and the other is a free for all.  I've never seen any muzzies on the high hunt though.  It is about half old school deer rifles and half long range tacticool artillery pieces.

Thanks for the clarification!! In that case I understand if the user purchased a tag allowing them to hunt their respective season and also participate in the high hunt.

 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: steeleywhopper on October 06, 2017, 04:43:53 PM
I don’t see where an exposed nipple and 209 primer will all the sudden make Muzzy guys into lead slinging 500 yard marksmen. It’s still an exposed to the element ignition with open sights and black powder. I also can’t see it making all the modern hunters want to jump to muzzy season tag holders, the multi season tags did that already. I vote yes on 209.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: SureThing on October 06, 2017, 08:51:23 PM
I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm an archer and believe the primitively weapon user groups need to police themselves. Bob33 has constantly provided powerful information and data. i think the WDFW has done a good job balancing out the user groups and the opportunity afield. If you look at the last chart Bob posted the highest line year in and year out is Muzzleloader. So if you think using the 209 primer will have no effect on harvest I would vote yes and you can expect to have the same length of season and the same percentage of success. However, from what I have read from the posts the successful muzzleloader hunters won't be affected by the 209 primers but the guys that only hunt muzzleloader part time or put less time into learning their weapon or are less experienced will have more success which will equate into shorter seasons.
I definitely believe in choosing your weapon and season methodology. I value quality time afield more than quantity of time in the field. Have you guys forgotten what it was like with the orange pumpkin patch hunting we had prior. The state has even accommodated the few guys that feel they have to hunt all three seasons with the multi season tags. You just have to pay to play. 
As far as the latest Archery technology advances that were allowed I personally think that was a mistake. It only helped guys that didn't want to spend the time to master their weapon and I believe was pushed through for the manufacturers of equipment. If and when archery success rate goes up then the season is going to get shorter. It's simple math. With shrinking habitat, access, comes shrinking resources compounded with a rising population we all better stick together and defend what we have and be realistic in what we are asking for.
The other issue I always read about is making it easier for our youth to be more successful. I disagree with this thought process as well. I Believe  we need to encourage our youth to into experiencing the outdoors fishing/hunting and getting them outside instead of leaving them plugged in. The kill is not the success but the time spent afield with family and friends experiencing the thrill of the chase and learning our quarry. So, when we do get to experience the kill it means something. The focus should not be triggering something. They can do that with with their video games. The things I remember the most is all the mistakes I have made over the years  wth my Dad, wife and buddies. The camp fires and lies I have told.
I do believe the short youth only hunts that WDFW have provided are good and help promote our sport without detracting from it.
In the end, I did not participate in the 209 survey but will support what ever the muzzleloader user group decides on. I just hope they get what they truly want and be happy with it in the end.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Machias on October 06, 2017, 10:31:14 PM
 :twocents:  Worst thing ever is CYW, makes all the user groups fight each other and constantly fight for more time.  Most other states NEVER have this BS arguments about how unfair it is that this user group gets this time out or OMG they get an extra day.  That and the fact the state ruins bow and muzzy season by cramming us all in a few GMUs is why I mostly gave up hunting WA.  Just not worth it.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: snake on October 07, 2017, 03:13:21 PM
Its obvious lots of people here do not understand what a 209 primer does or is compared to percussion caps.  It will most definitely not "flood"people to go use a muzzle loader, just like using lighted nocks and mechanicals didn't "flood" the archery seasons with people. Obviously a YES for me on the 209, but in the end I will hunt either way, I will hunt with a blow dart gun if i have to and I would use a rocket launcher as well if they open a season for it.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: bobcat on October 07, 2017, 03:46:49 PM
I'll vote for the 209's to be legal, for nothing other than the fact that they'll be easier to find in the stores. It won't really change the effectiveness of a muzzleloader significantly, so I don't have an issue with it.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 08, 2017, 12:58:09 PM
CYW came around because our animal population where dwindling rapidly, We are a state with half the critter population and 3-4 times the hunter population compared to the PNW states. CYW lowered the overall success rate considerably. I would venture to say that the multi season tag holders share a success rate at least twice as high as the other user combined.
And my rant for the multi season tag is no every user group get to use a weapon they for most part are not comfortable with, ranges ect. So the critters suffer.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 08, 2017, 01:19:37 PM
While I like the idea of faster and more reliable ignitions, I don't do much muzzleloader hunting and think preference should go to the guys who primarily hunt muzzleloader.  I will caution that increased harvest efficiency reduces opportunity, one has only to look at the shortening of seasons and loss of antlerless opportunities for the archers to see the impact of technology on opportunity. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Mallardmasher on October 08, 2017, 05:07:57 PM
Tech had nothing to do with the loss of antlerleas for archers, the years of continued assault on cows and the low calf escapment, causing the herd on the coast to drop to almost half of what was desired, when you have a low recruitment. Every cow is worth her weight in gold. Now if you look at the data, the herds started to plummet in western Washington just a couple years after hounds and baiting of alpha preditors was banned. An upspike in bears and cougars cause a downturn in the food supply, coupled with us taking cows, caused a dire situation
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Romeo 2-6 on October 08, 2017, 06:31:57 PM
No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JDHasty on October 09, 2017, 05:41:02 AM
I'll vote for the 209's to be legal, for nothing other than the fact that they'll be easier to find in the stores. It won't really change the effectiveness of a muzzleloader significantly, so I don't have an issue with it.

If they didn't "really change the effectiveness of a muzzleloader significantly" they would not be almost exclusively used in States that allow their usage.  Fact is they do make a big difference in ignition reliability, particularly among individuals who do not put time and effort into learning how to protect caps from moisture.  High quality 209s have a waterproof lacquer covering the flash hole in the cup that seals out moisture.   
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: WSU on October 09, 2017, 07:52:41 AM
The limiting factor for a muzzy is a single shot and open sites.  Keeping your powder dry is a pain and a 209 might be more reliable (I don't know, never used them), but I've never had ignition problems with No. 11 or musket caps.  Keep your powder dry and the gun goes boom every time.   :twocents:

I said this like I was a bit too sure! Saturday and had a bull at 30 yards. I pulled the trigger and the cap didn't fire! Apparently elk don't like that sound. The bull bolted never to be seen again!

Come on 209 primers!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: LOVEMYLABXS on October 09, 2017, 08:16:07 AM
No

I guess this will be next  :dunno:  after all it is a muzzleloader

https://www.remington.com/rifles/muzzleloading

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: oldschool on October 09, 2017, 08:24:56 AM
Voted no harvest will go up slightly.Thats just a reason for wdfw to take more away. Been using the smokepole 20 years try buying quality primers and changing them out several times during the day, they are cheap. Good luck everyone. :twocents:
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: floatinghat on October 09, 2017, 08:29:50 AM
No

I guess this will be next  :dunno:  after all it is a muzzleloader

https://www.remington.com/rifles/muzzleloading

I voted no but this would be the next step as it's not a 209. 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: elkonastick on October 09, 2017, 08:41:55 AM
yes.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: bobcat on October 09, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
I'll vote for the 209's to be legal, for nothing other than the fact that they'll be easier to find in the stores. It won't really change the effectiveness of a muzzleloader significantly, so I don't have an issue with it.

If they didn't "really change the effectiveness of a muzzleloader significantly" they would not be almost exclusively used in States that allow their usage.  Fact is they do make a big difference in ignition reliability, particularly among individuals who do not put time and effort into learning how to protect caps from moisture.  High quality 209s have a waterproof lacquer covering the flash hole in the cup that seals out moisture.   

Maybe I should say they won't extend the range or the effectiveness of a muzzleloader. Sure, they'll likely be more reliable. Just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, I guess. Like I said, musket caps and #11 caps are often in short supply and can be hard to find at times. 209 primers are much more readily available. That's the main reason I'd vote to allow them. My real preference would be no inlines, no jacketed bullets, no sabots, etc. But since all these modern things are already being allowed, I don't see how also allowing 209 primers would change much.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 09, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
bobcat, There are two types of 209 primers--muzzleloading and shotshell.  And shotshell even has a magnum variety.  All have different levels of power.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Sabotloader on October 09, 2017, 10:48:44 AM
bobcat, There are two types of 209 primers--muzzleloading and shotshell.  And shotshell even has a magnum variety.  All have different levels of power.

you are correct but none of them have a much different effect on the velocity of the bullet leaving the barrel.  That is determined by the powder load and weight of the projectile.

This target is one of many that I have shot across a chrono testing different primers...

(https://s26.postimg.org/e27mr51yx/4-25-10_KDEx_BHTest.jpg)

You can see the results from the hottest primer a Federal 209A to the weakest a Remington 209-4 which were made for the 410 shotgun.

I have the same comparison shooting caps versus primers - no remarkable difference...

Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 09, 2017, 10:52:28 AM
Thanks for the solid data, Sabotloader.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JDHasty on October 09, 2017, 01:23:33 PM
The limiting factor for a muzzy is a single shot and open sites.  Keeping your powder dry is a pain and a 209 might be more reliable (I don't know, never used them), but I've never had ignition problems with No. 11 or musket caps.  Keep your powder dry and the gun goes boom every time.   :twocents:

I said this like I was a bit too sure! Saturday and had a bull at 30 yards. I pulled the trigger and the cap didn't fire! Apparently elk don't like that sound. The bull bolted never to be seen again!

Come on 209 primers!

Friday I had a very nice BT buck in front of me w/~ ten minutes of legal shooting time left.  This was a few minutes after I quit my tree stand because I could no longer see my sights.  It was under a dark overcast, drizzling and "foggy," and I have shot a number of bucks under similar circumstances w/my slug guns.  I was sneaking out of the area of my stand and came up on four deer, one of which when I checked him out with my binocular was quite nice.  W/either my scoped slug gun or scoped crossbow it would have been an easy job to have dropped him. 

That's part of the game and I was hunting w/my compound bow during Muzzleloader Season, if I had my muzzleloader instead I still would have quit when I did.  It doesn't change my opinion that scope sights should not be made legal for either Muzzleloader or Archery Seasons and neither would having a cap misfire due to getting damp change my opinion that muzzleloader Season in Washington should keep the same "Western legal" standard we have now.   
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: WSU on October 09, 2017, 01:26:07 PM
The limiting factor for a muzzy is a single shot and open sites.  Keeping your powder dry is a pain and a 209 might be more reliable (I don't know, never used them), but I've never had ignition problems with No. 11 or musket caps.  Keep your powder dry and the gun goes boom every time.   :twocents:

I said this like I was a bit too sure! Saturday and had a bull at 30 yards. I pulled the trigger and the cap didn't fire! Apparently elk don't like that sound. The bull bolted never to be seen again!

Come on 209 primers!

Friday I had a very nice BT buck in front of me w/~ ten minutes of legal shooting time left.  This was a few minutes after I quit my tree stand because I could no longer see my sights.  It was under a dark overcast, drizzling and "foggy," and I have shot a number of bucks under similar circumstances w/my slug guns.  I was sneaking out of the area of my stand and came up on four deer, one of which when I checked him out with my binocular was quite nice.  W/either my scoped slug gun or scoped crossbow it would have been an easy job to have dropped him. 

That's part of the game and I was hunting w/my compound bow during Muzzleloader Season, if I had my muzzleloader instead I still would have quit when I did.  It doesn't change my opinion that scope sights should be made legal for either Muzzleloader or Archery Seasons and neither would having a cap misfire due to getting damp change my opinion that muzzleloader Season in Washington should keep the same "Western legal" standard we have now.   

I was making fun of myself for saying so unequivocally that your gun will go off if you keep your powder dry.  Karma proved me wrong just days later!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: bear hunter on October 12, 2017, 11:30:35 PM
I say yes. Bow hunters get glowing nocks, and mechanical broadheads.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: jagermiester on October 13, 2017, 05:42:04 AM
I say yes. Bow hunters get glowing nocks, and mechanical broadheads.

Right... It doesn't make you shoot better or make the weapon more lethal it just makes it a little more reliable.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: luckyman on October 13, 2017, 05:46:08 AM
I'm ok with 209 primers. Its still not a modern firearm.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: roentgenranger on October 18, 2017, 01:03:53 PM
Agreed.  209's are safer.  Following the primitive argument, we should be shooting sidelocks with a pan full of 4f two inches from your eye.  Yes we get a better season, although it's the shortest in my unit.  At the end of the day, it's still a front stuffer and you only get one shot...

Yes to 209's!
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Pegasus on October 18, 2017, 07:33:55 PM
Right... It doesn't make you shoot better or make the weapon more lethal it just makes it a little more reliable.
[/quote]

If it makes your weapon more reliable, it makes it more lethal. A higher kill rate will ensue. Stop trying to make your weapon a modern weapon and enjoy the privilege of the best season for elk in this state.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: bobcat on October 18, 2017, 07:42:46 PM
Archery has the best season.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Pegasus on October 18, 2017, 07:46:28 PM
Archery has the best season.

Ha. Archery used to have the best season until it was stolen and given to the ML crowd. ML has real rut time. Archery has more days based upon lower kill rates.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on October 18, 2017, 08:11:16 PM
I would disagree for the majority of the west side anyway. Although the Nooksack permit is a straight up gift from the heavens above for anyone with a muzzy :chuckle:

But having spent a significant amount of time during both seasons, I think overall archery has the best dates. This was certainly debatable when the season started earlier in September. But the archery season timing as is IMO is very appropriate. Both seasons fluctuate from year to year so some year the dates may have slight advantages one way or the other. Other factors not considered,  If I had to choose my season going into and including the equinox ( archery)/ or 2 plus weeks after the equinox ( the case with muzzy this year) I will always choose the first.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Machias on October 18, 2017, 08:20:04 PM
Archery has the best season.

Ha. Archery used to have the best season until it was stolen and given to the ML crowd. ML has real rut time. Archery has more days based upon lower kill rates.

Exactly what I was talking about earlier, user groups pitted against each other.  Divided we fall.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: bobcat on October 18, 2017, 08:25:02 PM
Archery has the best season.

Ha. Archery used to have the best season until it was stolen and given to the ML crowd. ML has real rut time. Archery has more days based upon lower kill rates.

Exactly what I was talking about earlier, user groups pitted against each other.  Divided we fall.

I don't agree that it divides us. I don't consider myself a rifle hunter, an archery hunter, or a muzzleloader hunter. Just a hunter, and I hunt all three methods. I don't ever know which one I'm hunting until just before the special permit deadline each year when I'm forced to decide.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: Pegasus on October 18, 2017, 08:25:52 PM
I would disagree for the majority of the west side anyway. Although the Nooksack permit is a straight up gift from the heavens above for anyone with a muzzy :chuckle:

But having spent a significant amount of time during both seasons, I think overall archery has the best dates. This was certainly debatable when the season started earlier in September. But the archery season timing as is IMO is very appropriate. Both seasons fluctuate from year to year so some year the dates may have slight advantages one way or the other. Other factors not considered,  If I had to choose my season going into and including the equinox ( archery)/ or 2 plus weeks after the equinox ( the case with muzzy this year) I will always choose the first.

Well I hunted eastside archery for years and until they changed the dates archery had the best dates. Now I don't think so especially since the archery season starts so early now which is normally hotter than hell and ends normally before the rut really begins. I am a believer that cold weather starts the rut. My wife's birthday is at the end of the first week in October and I hate to tell you what a problem that caused when we were newlyweds that I was gone elk hunting every time.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: floatinghat on October 18, 2017, 11:06:11 PM
Archery has the best season.

Ha. Archery used to have the best season until it was stolen and given to the ML crowd. ML has real rut time. Archery has more days based upon lower kill rates.

Be more than happy to trade, rally support from the Archery crowd and I am pretty sure muzzy will swap.
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: JDHasty on October 19, 2017, 08:21:59 AM
Archery has the best season.

Ha. Archery used to have the best season until it was stolen and given to the ML crowd. ML has real rut time. Archery has more days based upon lower kill rates.

Exactly what I was talking about earlier, user groups pitted against each other.  Divided we fall.

I don't agree that it divides us. I don't consider myself a rifle hunter, an archery hunter, or a muzzleloader hunter. Just a hunter, and I hunt all three methods. I don't ever know which one I'm hunting until just before the special permit deadline each year when I'm forced to decide.

I buy multi Season deer and can hunt w/my slug guns, muzzleloader, crossbow or compound bow.  I haven't taken my slug guns out yet this year, I have taken my muzzleloader along while hunting Muzzleloader Season and set it in the back corner of my blinds (Damnable coyote/dog cross was hanging out behind a screen of brush a couple days in a row watching the same feeding area I was and I had about enough of that crap.  He hasn't been back, but neither has the deer herd that had been using that area), and haven't hunted with my crossbow yet. 

I shot a doe last Saturday, first day of Modern Firearm Season, w/my bow and when I hunt again around Halloween I will probably be hunting /my bow.  What I just don't have any time for is people who want to hunt primitive weapon seasons, for whatever reason, and then don't want to put in the time and effort to become proficient with "primitive" weapons.  And part of becoming proficient w/a muzzleloader is learning how to make percussion caps perform reliably, particularly in western Washington. 

I just haven't felt like hunting w/anything other than my bow.  About half of the properties I have been hunting are places I could use the muzzle loader or slug guns.  If I go out w/my muzzleloader one of two things will happen, either I have protected the cap from the elements and it will go off or I need to become more proficient at that aspect of hunting w/a muzzleloader. 

 
Title: Re: Should 209 primers be legal?
Post by: sjhgraysage on October 19, 2017, 08:45:37 AM
Definitely Yes to 209 primers