209 Muzzy's In Washington

[GoldenRing270]

I guess I just like ML hunting the way it is now with relatively few other hunters and the advantage of being the first gun in the woods. Times change but I don't see introducing 209's as a good thing. Scopes may be unrelated but introducing 209's is an improvement to the weapon and one step closer toward making more improvements and adding scopes won't be as far off.

[JimmyHoffa]

I'm sure there are many people capable of shooting an iron sight ML 300 yards but that's not the point. Don't go fixing something that's not broken. Allowing 209's only sets the stage for the addition of scopes which leads to more hunters and greater harvest where long range shots become the norm. This inevitably leads to a more limited ML hunting opportunity and ML hunters already get the short end of the stick as it is. I would support a push for more ML special permit opportunities but keep the weapons as they are.

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

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

[jackelope]

My biggest thing in this it’s just step 1 to allowing scopes and whatever else. Then you have a season in what a lot of the time ends up being prime time west side elk rut with guys shooting muzzleloaders that are almost the same as having a modern rifle.  At that point harvest increases. It’s already hard enough to kill an elk. And we all know WDFW sucks at big game management with the hunter in mind. Otherwise I couldn’t care less about 209 primers.  If the law stays this way and we never are allowed to use scoped muzzleloaders, then great. I’ll swallow all these words.  I’ve applied for muzzleloader elk permits the last few years. I shoot mine and enjoy using it. I just don’t hunt with it unless I draw a permit. I prefer modern firearm deer hunting and my time is limited.  I

[pd]

There are some well reasoned arguments here, on both sides.  My opinion is this:  I don't care one way or the other.

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

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

[andersonjk4]

I have thought quite a bit about this subject and whether I am in favor or against it.  Here is what it has boiled down to for me.

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

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

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

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

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

[Sabotloader]

Extremely well written post...

[James]

I think you guys are approaching this from the wrong direction.

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

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

[headshot5]

I think open sights is the limiting factor, not ignition type.  That is why I will oppose making scopes legal, but welcome this change.     

 

[buglebrush]

I think open sights is the limiting factor, not ignition type.  That is why I will oppose making scopes legal, but welcome this change.     

 

   x10

[andersonjk4]

I think you guys are approaching this from the wrong direction.

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

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

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

[SuperX]

In the end, the more trouble-free we make it, the more hunters will move to ML, the higher the harvest numbers will be, the fewer days ML season will last.

[BULLBLASTER]

Good and well written post. I have been against the 209 but am beginning to see the other side. Caps are hard to come by and like you said it’s very limited in guns and caps that work.
I also agree that the open sites are the limiting factor. And strongly oppose anything more than the current sights being allowed.

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

[James]

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

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

[andersonjk4]

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

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

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

[CP]

The "Should 209 primers be legal?" thread has already long been discussed.

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

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

Too bad it has reverted back to the old argument. 

 

Embrace the change.