Front Stuffer Debate on KOMO

[wadu1]

Well I'm one of the front stuffer that still uses a sidelock. Yes my eyes are not what they were when I was young but with the correct glasses I can still see my sights just fine. I made the big mistake this past year an used my trifocals and shot over a spike elk in the early season. Now I have a new set of shooting glasses without the extra garbage, yes I need to take them off and put on my trifocals to read a map or GPS but in the long run I love it. Hope the link works!

http://www.komonews.com/outdoors/featured/37036224.html

[bobcat]

Interesting article.

What did the author mean by this: 

In Washington, one of those policies has been not to allow scopes on muzzle-loading guns, which can fire a bullet faster and farther than a traditional gun.

 

[stumprat]

It probably would, and with scopes and higher-tech ignition systems, their rate of success could also expected to go up, too. That could have an undesirable consequence.

"The agency would be duty-bound to look at whether the seasons should be adjusted accordingly. And adjusted means shortened. And that's not what people are looking for," says Mik Mikitik, the state Wildlife Department's head of hunter education.

"Be careful what you wish for."



Be careful to wish for success? ....................LIMITED SUCCESS IN SO FEW GMU'S 

[CP]

That is an interesting article, thanks for posting that.  I’m not sure which of the two camps I belong to. 

My eyes not being what they once were, I really wanted to scope my muzzleloader when I decided to hunt ML last year.  Rules being what they are, I had to teach myself to shoot all over again.  Now I’m glad that I did and I shoot pretty well with open sights.  My next goal is to master the peep sight.

[Gobble]

I personally like that we can't use scopes on a ML. Thats why its called a primitave weapon  . I have a Lyman .54 cal Trade Rifle that I have killed ELK with and had no problem doing so. Technology is advancing to the point where these new ML are not much different than shooting a modern rifle. I'm usually for letting the hunter decide whats best for them but in the case for scopes I'm against it.

[DBake]

No scopes, no 209, yes to copper and jacketed bullets.

[C-Money]

    I use a side lock when I Muzzleload. Pennsylvania makes you use a Flintlock! Untill reciently, you had to use a patched round ball too. Flint and roundballs are very deadly! Lets keep the scopes off the Mloaders, and no 209's.

[HawkenBob]

Im with Gobble. Also, the early ML elk season is set at a time when you can get close. Thats why I chose to hunt ML. I would hunt with a bow if my bad wrist could handle it.

Also, I enjoy just shooting my Hawken 50. I spend a great deal of time shooting it even in the off season. I bought it to hunt with years ago, then really liked shooting it. Its a challenge. Working up loads and learning to shoot out to 100 yards or so with open sights.

I think a 100 yard shot for most is way too far. Most guys I know that hunt inlines spend absolutely no time learning the weapon. They take it out once a year, stuff 150 grns down it and go hunt. They might shoot it 3 to 10 times a year.

IMO, 95% of the guys out during ML shouldent be shooting that far. There is already enough animals not recovered. Most guys couldent hold a 6 inch group at 100 yards, how can they expect a clean kill if there 6 inches low, or rearward? If your eyes are getting bad, get closer!

[HawkenBob]

Interesting article.

What did the author mean by this: 

In Washington, one of those policies has been not to allow scopes on muzzle-loading guns, which can fire a bullet faster and farther than a traditional gun.

 

It's a true general statement in the fact that a ML can and does shoot faster and farther than say a down loaded 45 or somthing. He should have said "some" traditional guns.
Or better yet, just left the statement out.

[Sagedawg]

Thats a good article to consider. I have sidelock and inline, so I guess Im a fence rider.I started hunting the muzzy season to escape the crowds, and like has been said ALOT of the guys you see out there now are carrying inlines.  Im glad our state didnt allow the 209's, but I do wish they had given some thought for the older hunters to use some sort of scope,holosight or red dot. I dont belive this would be an advantage, and it would allow for better sighting.


Sage

[CP]

Interesting article.

What did the author mean by this: 

In Washington, one of those policies has been not to allow scopes on muzzle-loading guns, which can fire a bullet faster and farther than a traditional gun.

 

I think what they meant is in-lines fire a bullet faster and farther than a traditional ML. 

I’ve spent a considerable amount of time lately on the range with my Knight .50 cal shooting .44 & .45 jacketed bullets with various loads including 209 primers and I can tell you that it doesn’t come close to the performance of a modern centerfire rifle.  The best point blank distance (+/- 3”) that I can get is about 130 yards. 

While that does beat a .45 colt (hardly a modern round) it is well below a 45/70, .444 marlin even below the .44 mag. 

In-lines don’t make a ML equivalent to a modern CF rifle, either do 209 primers, or jacketed bullets.

[HawkenBob]

I think I read it wrong and the author wanted to say "in line, muzzle loading guns". I missed "traditional".

[longstevo]

Interesting article.

What did the author mean by this: 

In Washington, one of those policies has been not to allow scopes on muzzle-loading guns, which can fire a bullet faster and farther than a traditional gun.

 

It's a true general statement in the fact that a ML can and does shoot faster and farther than say a down loaded 45 or somthing. He should have said "some" traditional guns.
Or better yet, just left the statement out.

I bet a Jim Shokey muzzleloader could rival the performance of many modern rifles... 

[Curly]

For you guys that want scopes because their eyesight isn't what it used to be.................have you tried a peep sight?

As far as this quote:

In Washington, one of those policies has been not to allow scopes on muzzle-loading guns, which can fire a bullet faster and farther than a traditional gun.

.....he probably did mean inline vs. traditional muzzle loader.  Some inlines can handle larger powder charges than traditional ML's, thus they can get better velocity.  However, that really isn't relevant to the scope issue.  If scopes were allowed, and all I had were a traditional ML, I might consider placing a scope on it.

[Curly]

It probably would, and with scopes and higher-tech ignition systems, their rate of success could also expected to go up, too. That could have an undesirable consequence.

"The agency would be duty-bound to look at whether the seasons should be adjusted accordingly. And adjusted means shortened. And that's not what people are looking for," says Mik Mikitik, the state Wildlife Department's head of hunter education.

"Be careful what you wish for."



Be careful to wish for success? ....................LIMITED SUCCESS IN SO FEW GMU'S 

I agree with Mik.  If WDFW allows scopes and other modernizing things, success rates could go up and they will shorten the seasons.  I have no problem with the way the rules currently are.  The problem I have is the lack of hunting units available and the short seasons.

[bucklucky]

IMO, if they allow you to scope a pumpkin stuffer, they should run the season with the modern firearm guys  Lets keep the ML to a somewhat traditional type hunting. I think the scopes are too much.

[Antlershed]

Pretty interesting article. I like the current regs on muzzleloaders in WA. No scopes, and no 209's.

[deerslyr]

I think we should be able to use copper jacketed bullets. All the other rules are fine but i heard of 3 animals this year lost to muzzleloaders and im convinced they could of been recovered if a jacketed bullet was used.

[jdb]

I think we should be able to use copper jacketed bullets. All the other rules are fine but i heard of 3 animals this year lost to muzzleloaders and im convinced they could of been recovered if a jacketed bullet was used.

Not trying to be a jerk but I find that VERY hard to believe. imho jacketed bullets are less reliable than a good conical bullet.

[Curly]

I could see where one of the Barnes solid copper ML bullets would work better than a "lightweight" all lead bullet in a sabot. 

Guys use sabots and "light" all lead bullets for a flatter trajectory, thus increasing the range that they feel comfortable shooting.  The problem is that the bullet needs double lung the elk to be effictive, especially at longer ranges IMO.  With a solid copper Barnes bullet, you could probably shoot the elk right in the shoulder and have the bullet pass through into the vitals.  With the all lead bullet, it would likely not make it into the vitals.

I think Oregon doesn't even allow sabots and maybe Colorado too.........Idaho maybe.  I'm a little surprised that this state even allows saboted bullets.  If sabots weren't allowed, then heavy conicals would be the norm; then ranges would be limitted to +/- 100 yards and I think less animals would be wounded by guys trying bad shots at longer ranges.

A big conical could bust right through the shoulder too, and into the vitals.

I have a 54 cal sidelock and a 50 cal inline.  I use saboted bullets in the inline and big conicals in the sidelock.  I only take broadside lung shots, though with the inline.....125yd max range.

I'm on the fence re: allowing the use of jacketed bullets, but I lean toward not allowing them. 

Actually, I'd prefer to limit ML's to sidelock only and no sabots and then get some more units and move the season a week earlier (so that it is during the end of the rut).  But I won't hold my breath for that wish to happen.

[MeatDown]

Keep it traditional… Proud sidelock shooter … Lyman Great Plains .50 open sights…

If you want a scope on a muzzle loader and want to shoot long range with it… you can… just hunt during Modern Firearm Season

No Scope, No 209 – More GMU’s

Also, this article plays into the states ability to “divide and concur”

[CP]

If you want a scope on a muzzle loader and want to shoot long range with it… you can… just hunt during Modern Firearm Season

No you can't even do that;

From: TeamMillCreek [mailto:TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov]
Subject: Re: Question on muzzleloader regulations:

The muzzleloader regulations regard to all muzzloaders at all times.  So no,
you would not be able to use that weapon in the modern firearm season or
muzzleloader season.
 
Sincerely,
Region 4 Customer Service

Do the muzzleloader regulations on page 67 of the Big Game Hunting
Seasons & Regulations pamphlet apply to muzzleloaders used during the
modern firearms season or just during muzzleloader season?
Specifically, I'd like to use a scoped muzzleloader with a 209 primer
system for deer hunting during modern firearm deer season. Would that
be a violation?

Thank you,

[BIGBULLBALLS]

I see a lot of you guys don't want scopes and 209 primers.  I could not agree more about the whole no scope issue but what is the big deal about 209 primers.  I bow hunt elk and front stuff for deer in washington.  Here is one fact I have learned, ever time I draw my bow, I touch the trigger and my arrow flies toward my target.  Now if my smokepole gets a little wet all I get is click and not click boom like it should.  All I'm saying is we could use 209 primers, gain little to no accuracy over conventional systems, and gain reliability.  A win win in my book

[Ridgerunner]

MZ regs in this state are a joke, you can't tell me that technology has not made bowhunting more easy, perhaps we should only allow bows to be shot without a trigger or longbow only, no compounds(keep it more primitive).  Its pretty sad imo, I'd love to try MZ hunting but with the current regs in the state I probably won't. 

[DBake]

MZ regs in this state are a joke, you can't tell me that technology has not made bowhunting more easy, perhaps we should only allow bows to be shot without a trigger or longbow only, no compounds(keep it more primitive).  Its pretty sad imo, I'd love to try MZ hunting but with the current regs in the state I probably won't. 

No offense to you Ridgerunner, but I really like to hear that from people with the same opinion as you. Less people when I am hunting. 

[jdb]

I see a lot of you guys don't want scopes and 209 primers.  I could not agree more about the whole no scope issue but what is the big deal about 209 primers.  I bow hunt elk and front stuff for deer in washington.  Here is one fact I have learned, ever time I draw my bow, I touch the trigger and my arrow flies toward my target.  Now if my smokepole gets a little wet all I get is click and not click boom like it should.  All I'm saying is we could use 209 primers, gain little to no accuracy over conventional systems, and gain reliability.  A win win in my book

I agree.

[bucklucky]

MZ regs in this state are a joke, you can't tell me that technology has not made bowhunting more easy, perhaps we should only allow bows to be shot without a trigger or longbow only, no compounds(keep it more primitive).  Its pretty sad imo, I'd love to try MZ hunting but with the current regs in the state I probably won't. 

Valid point! I do agree to a point 

[muzzleman]

No scopes, no 209, yes to copper and jacketed bullets.
I like the idea you need to be close.  The more modern you make front stuffing the more hunters you will get.  If the changed it to completly to flintlock I would still do it.  Just go spend a couple of days out hunting in the modern season.

[MIKEXRAY]

I am a mz and archer hunter that went archery exclusive 5 years ago. I think there is a huge difference between mz and archery advancements. I was watching a hunting show with the guy using a mz. It had electronic ignition with a flashing led on top to let him know when it was ready, & the breach was totally sealed. It was also topped with a 3x9 scope with a drop compensation reticule. He likes to limit his shots to under 250 yards, but killed the white tail @ 210 yards. I don't see how anyone can argue that this weapon is much different from a rifle and probably better than say a 30-30 as far as performance. Even with all of today's archery technology it takes a hell of a lot of practice to consistently shoot a good group at 40 yards, and after my last five years archery hunting I can attest to how hard it is to get within 40 yards of a big game animal. I think the regs are perfect the way they are as far as equipment used. When I do go out mz hunting I don't want some idiot out there with gun described above. One point : I did go to archery exclusive because the areas, game allowed during mz season suck. They should get longer seasons with better areas. Spike bull only with mz is a bitch. My 

[Ridgerunner]

One point : I did go to archery exclusive because the areas, game allowed during mz season suck. They should get longer seasons with better areas.

IF they changed the above they would get more participation even with the equipment regulations that go too far in my opinion.  Not saying they should allow 209 primers or scopes although one or the other wouldn't be bad but the fact is the MZ hunters in this state get screwed when it comes to opportunity. 

[rasbo]

leave it alone I say..when my eyes are to bad to shoot open sights,I will hunt with rifles only.Muzzle loaders should have a better season..I used to love bow hunting but injuries put a stop to that.We have to play the hand we are dealt.when you get to the disabled point,really disabled,then we should accomodate those with disabilities that want to hunt

[MeatDown]

MZ regs in this state are a joke, you can't tell me that technology has not made bowhunting more easy, perhaps we should only allow bows to be shot without a trigger or longbow only, no compounds(keep it more primitive).  Its pretty sad imo, I'd love to try MZ hunting but with the current regs in the state I probably won't. 

Now… I am not trying to  fight or cause a frukus… just some observations… my opinions…

Family history (Oregon Pioneer roots) half the family hunted traditional archery and shot completive and the other half of the family were modern rifle hunters. All from long lines of hunting and outdoorsmen. When my parents moved to Washington (as I was born) my Dad hunted 1 season and quit because of “City Hunters”. So, when I was growing up I shot both guns and bows as much as possible (2 sets of toy Six Guns and Holsters as baby gifts). Then when I was able to drive myself hunting here began. I hunted modern firearms here because I knew gun shooters and it was easier to get hunting partners. After many seasons of “City Hunters” putting me in their crosshairs (instead of Binos) and brush and sound shooters throwing lead past me… I said I quit… and went to archery, because of population and season length. Did archery for 12 years (I shot both traditional long bow I built with the help of Jay St. Charles – at old Northwest Archery store and several different PSE bows)… then I switched to traditional Muzzleloader. WAY LESS PEOPLE.

Now all that being said… what I have seen at many state season setting meetings were many attempts to use the “Traditional” as a means to spit hunters. At several meetings the Archery hunters would actually argue in front of the state guys about archery equipment. And at what point does it become a “Modern” hunting weapon. The original reason that we have archery season was because of some of the “old ones” like Glen St. Charles fighting/working with the state to get a season for archery hunters. A pretty narrow/simplistic view of this could be… the reason that many people hunt with and want more modern archery equipment is because it allows for longer shots and none practice shooters to harvest animals. (Note: I do believe in proficiencies tests) There are way to many example of archery guys that I have met and talked to that are proud of taking shots out at 80+ yards. And I can tell you (practice 5 out of 7 days makes you better) that for a guy that shoots/practices all the time in all kinds of conditions that might be good/ok… but for the G.I. Smoes and Sportsmans Roehouse walk in buy a bow and shoot it a dozen times, 2 weeks before the season they should NOT be taking those kinds of shots. KNOW and ADMIT Your Limitations, then be willing to pass on shots even if a “trophy” walks by at 70 yards.

And now for the last 5 years I have been front pouring and stuffing… in my opinion it is the same thing… KNOW and ADMIT Your Limitations. And more hunters need to accept that if you can’t “injun” (no offense intended – and some of that blood runs through my veins) in for a close shot don’t “lob” them out there and pray.

Remember some people consider this hunting also….

http://www.outdoorlife.com/article/Outdoor-News/Remote-Control-Hunting

 

So… some advances in hunting don’t make it better, they just make it easier and faster.

Cheers… 

Shawn

[Ray]

after my last five years archery hunting I can attest to how hard it is to get within 40 yards of a big game animal.

it takes a hell of a lot of practice to consistently shoot a good group at 40 yards

So true to the T. I hate it when the muzzleloaders compare their opportunities to archers. It is a different dynamic. I am not against muzzleloaders. I am on the verge of buying my first one but am waiting to see what the reg changes could be this year.

I think the regs are perfect the way they are as far as equipment used

I agree. I think that I have no problems with them either. If I don't like the opportunities I will buy a different tag. I'm not for pitting user groups against each other nor am I for comparing apples to oranges.

[bigmv]

I could see where one of the Barnes solid copper ML bullets would work better than a "lightweight" all lead bullet in a sabot. 

Guys use sabots and "light" all lead bullets for a flatter trajectory, thus increasing the range that they feel comfortable shooting.  The problem is that the bullet needs double lung the elk to be effictive, especially at longer ranges IMO.  With a solid copper Barnes bullet, you could probably shoot the elk right in the shoulder and have the bullet pass through into the vitals.  With the all lead bullet, it would likely not make it into the vitals.

I think Oregon doesn't even allow sabots and maybe Colorado too.........Idaho maybe.  I'm a little surprised that this state even allows saboted bullets.  If sabots weren't allowed, then heavy conicals would be the norm; then ranges would be limitted to +/- 100 yards and I think less animals would be wounded by guys trying bad shots at longer ranges.

A big conical could bust right through the shoulder too, and into the vitals.

I have a 54 cal sidelock and a 50 cal inline.  I use saboted bullets in the inline and big conicals in the sidelock.  I only take broadside lung shots, though with the inline.....125yd max range.

I'm on the fence re: allowing the use of jacketed bullets, but I lean toward not allowing them. 

Actually, I'd prefer to limit ML's to sidelock only and no sabots and then get some more units and move the season a week earlier (so that it is during the end of the rut).  But I won't hold my breath for that wish to happen.

If the state gets it way we wont have to worry about using lead only bullets. The State Department of ecology want to ban lead bullets altogether.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0807009.html

[Curly]

If the state gets its way we won't have to worry about using lead only bullets. The State Department of ecology want to ban lead bullets altogether.

Maybe that's why the proposed rule change has the bullet requirements lined thru.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,18662.msg215317/topicseen.html#new

[shag]

I'd love to see us have the option of say a 1x or 2x Fixed scope..  For 1 we could actually hunt every minute allowed in a day.  Another would be better shot placement resulting in fewer lost or wounded animals.

As far as my frontstuffer goes only more powder and lighter weigh bullets gets me more yardage.  With the bullet changes possible I might get to 200yds.  But will I still have the energy?  I don't know.

The way I'm set up right now with a 300gr sabot and 110grs of 777 my max shot is 150yds.  14" drop.  Still pretty damn far to be shooting.  And shot placement is tough under certain conditions.  If I could scope it with a 1x 0r max 2x fixed scope I'd feeel more comfortable with a 150 yd shot.

I practice alot at that range and can put 3 shots just under 4 inches.   Scoped I could prolly keep it at 1-1/2!!!!   

A fixed 1 or 2x power scope isn't gonna extend my range past that.   On an elk at 150 hold at the top of his back and he's dead.  I still have the energy and  ain't gonna hold over any more than that.


During modern firearm season you can scope a frontstuffer and hunt any unit thats open.  With a modern tag.

Scoped or not we all should know our own  limitations.  And restrict ourselves to responsiable distances.   The only advantage a scope would add it better shot placement.  And theres lots out there that need that.

Truthfully, I'm not syre I'd use a scope as my frontstuffer is a perfectly balanced machine and no doubt my favorite to carry. 

[logger]

I use a inline blackdiaomd and will only m.l. hunt now . I would join the wmla but don't want to be chastised for using an inline. I do believe they would benefit from my membership because I will fight for the rights of hunters be it rifle,bow or muzzle loader.