Poll- non magnifying scopes on muzzle loaders?

[Sabotloader]

Just throwing this out there for a different perspective...

Wondering.... why is the General Muzzleloading season for either deer or elk considered by so many to be a 'primitive' hunt?  I am sure that is the way it may have started and I really appreciate those that were able to get them started, but today I can not find anything in the Washington Regulations to indicate that they are considered a 'primitive' or even 'Traditional' hunting any longer.  They might be more correctly identified as a short range weapon season especially since you can use modern bows in the scheduled season.  But in reality that does not work either because shotguns would need to be considered then. I believe shotguns are ruled out because of the ignition system they use.  So.... Washington might be right on the correct track calling it a 'Muzzleloading Season' that also allows bows.  I think long ago the ML seasons moved from 'primitive' to what they have progressed to now.

In Idaho we have progressed through the same type of changes, actually you in Washington are even ahead of us since you do allow sabots and modern projectiles. 

Under the current regulation in the three Pacific Northwest states there is really know difference in the abilities of a traditional muzzleloader and the more modern inline.  The current rules with the cap on the type of ignition system is the greatest equalizer going for the two types of rifles.  What one can do with a Western inline can easily be duplicated with a perceived Traditional side hammer.
rifle.

It is my belief that ML seasons have progressed the way they have is that the State Agencies in charge have found these shorter range seasons as a valuable tool in the management of wildlife especially in populated areas where wildlife damage can be a costly factor.  Of course another probably larger factor is the extra income that ML hunters provide the agencies.  In fact the more people that venture into the ML hunts the more revenue generated for the Agency. From my viewpoint that is what really changed the traditional ML seasons to the current types of changes that has allowed more hunters to make the move to Muzzleloaders.  But, in fact that is still only 10-15% of the hunters that pursue game during the regular rifle seasons.

Another thought I have we owe the animals that we hunt something also.  The opportunity to harvest a game animal quickly after a shot opportunity should be one of the big considerations.  In that, I know there are probably a lot more traditional hunter in Washington and now maybe even a bit in Oregon that really do not like the thought of allowing Washington hunters the use of sabot and modern projectiles. Once again I believe this move made by Washington was a positive + I am sure that it also played a factor in the increase of rifle hunters making the move to ML again generating more revenue.

So to me.... Scopes -> would the use of a scope, even a limited power scope, allow a more positive chance of a quick humane harvest? And would it reduce the number of wounded animals?  To me I am not really sure...

To me this rifle is setup that within Washington rules and with the right circumstances a 150 yard shot on a deer is not really a problem



This is the rifle that I hunt ML seasons with - and again using Washington rules I feel very comfortable choosing a shot on a deer to 150 yards.



So there really is no difference between the two other than my perceived perception as to which might be better for me.

[trophyhunt]

Sabotloader, you have gave a ton of help to people about muzzle loaders, it's always appreciated.  I'm curious how you feel about NON magnifying scopes on muzzys? 

[Sabotloader]

Sabotloader, you have gave a ton of help to people about muzzle loaders, it's always appreciated.  I'm curious how you feel about NON magnifying scopes on muzzys?

This is just my two cents only... If I were allowed to use a 1X scope I probably would do it. I am not sure it would give me anymore advantage over the system that I am using because when I sight down through the peep to the front sight I really believe I am looking through a 1X scope.

The ONLY reason I might make the move is because I have hunted with scopes 99% of my hunting life and feel more comfortable with them.

I really do not think that I 1X scope s going to increase the effective range of what you can shoot with today when you consider energy and Terminal Performance.  The GREAT equalizer remains the you use of cap ignition.

A 1X power scope MAY increase the confidence of some and certainly would/could help keep people with failing eyes in the field a little longer doing something they really really enjoy.

I would also like to think it might reduce the number of poor shots taken - WILL NOT eliminate them but should reduce them.

I guess I am good either way 

[Skillet]

I really do not think that I 1X scope s going to increase the effective range of what you can shoot with today when you consider energy and Terminal Performance.  The GREAT equalizer remains the you use of cap ignition.

A 1X power scope MAY increase the confidence of some and certainly would/could help keep people with failing eyes in the field a little longer doing something they really really enjoy.

I would also like to think it might reduce the number of poor shots taken - WILL NOT eliminate them but should reduce them.

I guess I am good either way 

Isn't the terminal ballistics argument a red herring?  You could hang a VX3i w CDS on a muzzleloader, wouldn't change the terminal ballistics.  Or the lock time (disagree with the premise that an inline is the same as a sidelock, btw - world of difference in lock time), or the expised nipple, etc.

The argument is the glass will make it a more effective weapon system.  Both sides can agree on that, can they not?  Isn't that why the question came up?  What do you get if you mount glass in place of a traditional sighting system on a traditional weapon? Better light gathering, eliminating the mis-alignment between front and rear sight, repeatability, fine target acquisition.  All will go towards making the total package far more effective.  To say we owe it to the animals to kill as quickly and humanely as possible brings up a total argument against archery in general. Do we really want to go there?  Id bet my last dollar the average time to death from the most primitive muzzleloader is a small fraction of that of the most technologically advanced stick and string.

The fundamental difference is what we believe will happen when these more effective weapons are allowed.  World you rather have more, and less crowded, days in the field? More units to choose from?  Or would you prefer to move the season towards the modern rifle experience, where there will be far more hunters given far fewer days to kill the same nimber of animals.  That is unavoidable if we keep allowing tech creep into what was intended to be primitive weapons seasons.

[grundy53]

I think the main advantage that a non magnified scope would give is the ability to use a reticle with a bullet drop compensator. You can't honestly say that wouldn't help more muzzeloader hunters shoot farther.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[Sabotloader]

I really do not think that I 1X scope s going to increase the effective range of what you can shoot with today when you consider energy and Terminal Performance.  The GREAT equalizer remains the you use of cap ignition.

A 1X power scope MAY increase the confidence of some and certainly would/could help keep people with failing eyes in the field a little longer doing something they really really enjoy.

I would also like to think it might reduce the number of poor shots taken - WILL NOT eliminate them but should reduce them.

I guess I am good either way 

Isn't the terminal ballistics argument a red herring?  You could hang a VX3i w CDS on a muzzleloader, wouldn't change the terminal ballistics.

No I believe that 'Terminal Ballistics' is a function of your load - projectile and powder.  And then the location of your shot.

Or the lock time (disagree with the premise that an inline is the same as a sidelock, btw - world of difference in lock time), or the expised nipple, etc.

Not necessarily so... Lock time was an old argument about the differences but todays newer sidehammers have a greatly improved lock time.  Several years ago TC changed the design of their locks just specifically to improve lock time.  I ended up changing all of my TC locks out to the new lock.

Triggers could be a valid argument - most triggers in todays inline rifle are certainly better. but even then it is fairly easy to re-work a TC trigger.

I think the rules that all three states have in place address the exposed nipple to further reduce the difference between the two platforms.  And then as I have stated before if you use a #11 nipple and the correct nipple the exposure to the elements problems go away, for either a sidehammer or a inline.

The argument is the glass will make it a more effective weapon system.  Both sides can agree on that, can they not?

I do not know about all but for some or even a lot you would in my mind be correct! But, isn't that a more positive thing for the animal in the long run.?

Isn't that why the question came up?  What do you get if you mount glass in place of a traditional sighting system on a traditional weapon?

It does not have to be a 'traditional' weapon it could be either.  Again in the regulations there is not a place that says you must use a Traditional or Non Traditional rifle.  And if you take a close look at history in-lines are not as new as you might think they are.

Better light gathering, eliminating the mis-alignment between front and rear sight, repeatability, fine target acquisition.  All will go towards making the total package far more effective.

Thank you made the point very well and who or what really benefits?

To say we owe it to the animals to kill as quickly and humanely as possible brings up a total argument against archery in general. Do we really want to go there?

And I agree but that is not what the conversation is about.  With the animal rights groups getting larger and stronger we had better get our acts together.  The next battle you folks in Washington may be facing is lead free bullets. That will be a political thing also.

Id bet my last dollar the average time to death from the most primitive muzzleloader is a small fraction of that of the most technologically advanced stick and string.

You also gotta thing the Archery hunters out there think they are the 'True" primitive hunters. I can not argue that that or really even address it - I am not an archery hunter nor do I know the correct methods to go about it.

The fundamental difference is what we believe will happen when these more effective weapons are allowed.  World you rather have more, and less crowded, days in the field? More units to choose from?  Or would you prefer to move the season towards the modern rifle experience, where there will be far more hunters given far fewer days to kill the same nimber of animals.

It is very difficult to keep a good thing to exclusive group of people.  There really are benefits as well as non-benefits to hunting with a ML. Also remember you are talking about 10-15% of rifle hunters that might try a ML (this as a national number).  They are still far more people that believe in the benefits of the centerfire rifle and now even more and more switching to the AR platform which really bugs me...

That is unavoidable if we keep allowing tech creep into what was intended to be primitive weapons seasons.

I would agree that years ago the ML season were established as possibly 'primitive' seasons.  I would then say 'today' the ML seasons in most all states, including Washington is not being managed as a 'primitive' season.  It is being managed to serve all ML hunters, traditional and modern, and as a management tool and a revenue source for the State, not to even mention the revenue generated for Sporting Goods Companies.

I really enjoy shooting my collection of sidehammer guns, I was never able to quickly master a rock-sparker.  Today even as hooked into the inlines as I am I would never dish my sidehammers.  The fact is whatever my Western Inlines can do I can do the same with a most any one of my Lock built TC's.  Today you can not even use twist rate as a divider - Lock guns come with a 1-24, 1-28, 1-32, 1-48, and all the way up the line.  And they are built with accuracy in mind.

[Karl Blanchard]

You all would be amazed how fast an arrow and a sharp broadhead kills.  I've had animals not even know what happened, stand there, then drop over dead in their tracks in seconds.   Agreed it is not part of this discussion, just wanted to point this out.  Good insight and discussion guys.   

I agree with skillet on the glass though.  I've shot an eotech a good amount and it is faster, more accurate, less complicated, and more "dummy" proof than any open sight setup. 

Like I've said several times before, youtube long range muzzleloader hunting and you can see pretty clearly what a stiff powder charge and good scope will allow a 50 cal muzzy to do.  An accurate zero, a trued up ballistic calculator and a small amount of knowledge on form and 300-400 yards wouldn't even be a challenge.  Guys are stretching them even farther.

[Skillet]

Agree, great discussion, and good points made.  Except maybe for BLRMAN's promise that we will all end up bang-flopping mulies at 700 yards, and by the time we walk up on them they will be a pile of cut and wrapped steaks.   

I would like to address the "keeping a good thing to an exclusive group of people" comment.  Muzzleloader isn't inherently a good thing, and there is no exclusivity involved.  Anybody can buy the gun and OTC tag.  Muzzleloading is hard to be successful with for good reason. This was by design when they created the special seasons for muzzleloaders.  If you take on muzzleloading, you take on the challenge.  By continually letting tech creep impact the spirit of the primitive weapons seasons, we are basically lowering the commitment and acceptance of the challenge that muzzleloading represents.  I feel pretty strongly that this constant tech creep represents a bad thing for muzzleloader (and archery) seasons for the reasons I've stated, which is why I am always going to err on the side of "no" when a change that further pushes the weapon system towards modern firearms effectiveness from the original intent of the season. 

[Sabotloader]

Agree, great discussion, and good points made.  Except maybe for BLRMAN's promise that we will all end up bang-flopping mulies at 700 yards, and by the time we walk up on them they will be a pile of cut and wrapped steaks.   

I would like to address the "keeping a good thing to an exclusive group of people" comment.  Muzzleloader isn't inherently a good thing, and there is no exclusivity involved.  Anybody can buy the gun and OTC tag.  Muzzleloading is hard to be successful with for good reason. This was by design when they created the special seasons for muzzleloaders.  If you take on muzzleloading, you take on the challenge.  By continually letting tech creep impact the spirit of the primitive weapons seasons, we are basically lowering the commitment and acceptance of the challenge that muzzleloading represents. I feel pretty strongly that this constant tech creep represents a bad thing for muzzleloader (and archery) seasons for the reasons I've stated, which is why I am always going to err on the side of "no" when a change that further pushes the weapon system towards modern firearms effectiveness from the original intent of the season.

And the point I am making is that the original intent of the season is long gone there in Washington and most all of the States that even offer ML hunting.

What might/should be presented is, there should be units available that are strictly 'Traditional' hunting.  How you would guys get that into the scheme with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - I have not a clue.

And again as with many States Washington is using a ML season as a management tool with very specific goals.  Goals that they feel can not happen and be as controlled with a regular rifle hunt as they can be with a ML hunt.  It is a tool! A tool that has proved to be very effective.  Why they have moved away from your definition of 'Tradition' ML hunting only they can answer that question.  But I would bet it would come down to revenue.  Over here we have a huge problem with claims to the Fish and Game of animals destroying crops and field and in Idaho the Fish and Game have to compensate the local land owner.  And again here this is a tremendous cost the Fish and Game Department and/or the State of Idaho.  Does that occur in Washington?

Here in Idaho, I really believe the Archery hunters have far more control of the seasons than does either the rifle hunter or a ML hunters and we are more primitive than you.

[Oh Mah]

I think the main advantage that a non magnified scope would give is the ability to use a reticle with a bullet drop compensator. You can't honestly say that wouldn't help more muzzeloader hunters shoot farther.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

just pointing out that both of the muzzy's pictured from sabot has adjustable sights that can adjust for bullet drop.not quite the open site set up.with his rifles i venture to say as they are set up a hunter could repeatably take game at longer distances than that of open sights.THESE ARE LEGAL IN WA. 

[Oh Mah]

Does anyone think that apposes the non mag scope believe these setups are less accurate than a scope?

[floatinghat]

Does anyone think that apposes the non mag scope believe these setups are less accurate than a scope?

Depends on the shooter, I know people who are more accurate than I am and I am more accurate than others.  I voted no, if you want to use a scope, slap one on a hunt during modern.  Or open a primative season for sidelocks with caps and push the inline season back a couple weeks.

[Oh Mah]

I was just reading the thread "can a knight bighorn 209 be switched to a western legal" thread,Some on there seem to agree that covering the primer is a good idea.Is this sticking to what your arguments are as far as if you want to scope your rifle hunt modern?I guess it depends on what everyone else is saying in the thread as to how your opinion goes.

                                                    If you want a covered primer hunt modern then!

[floatinghat]

I was just reading the thread "can a knight bighorn 209 be switched to a western legal" thread,Some on there seem to agree that covering the primer is a good idea.Is this sticking to what your arguments are as far as if you want to scope your rifle hunt modern?I guess it depends on what everyone else is saying in the thread as to how your opinion goes.

                                                    If you want a covered primer hunt modern then!

yeap, I don't have a problem with an exposed cap.  Was out in storms last year during the early and late hunts.  Changed caps daily didn't change the load.  No problem, one day during the early season we had almost two inches of rain.  It was the nastiest day of hunting I have ever experienced.  The next morning after i packed up to go home, I pulled the trigger aiming a log about 50yds and boom.   Now I an very careful to keep water out, but don't use tape a bag or anything else.

I guess I don't feel the need to make this easier, it is called hunting.

So do you or don't you believe that x1 will extend the distance the average person is willing to take a shot?

[Oh Mah]

word for word- no i don't think having a 1x scope will keep or make more  average people from taking a longer shot.i think if they are gonna do it with a scope they are gonna try it without one as well.