Should 209 primers be legal?

[Bob33]

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.

[Rainier10]

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.

[baker5150]

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.

[Stein]

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.

[CP]

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.

[Duckslayer89]

Bump stocks on muzzies should be banned.

  

[cohochemist]

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 %. 

 

[Sabotloader]

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.

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.

[pianoman9701]

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. 

[Sabotloader]

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

[ctwiggs1]

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 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.

[Sabotloader]

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 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

[CP]

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. 

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

[ctwiggs1]

@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

[pianoman9701]

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. 

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

I did, that.