collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?  (Read 24021 times)

Offline Pat/Rick

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 363
Re: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?
« Reply #45 on: May 13, 2009, 02:48:45 PM »
Just my preferance to keep a primitive season that.I don't really care for 'em.If someone wants to use them thats fine,just not my choice.You are right though, dialogue is good.

Offline Moose Eyes

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2008
  • Posts: 427
  • Location: Western Washington
Re: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?
« Reply #46 on: May 13, 2009, 08:37:09 PM »
Primative should be just that Primative but that coming from someone who shots a Knight Bighorn inline

Just curious how you define "primative"?  Is it looks?  Lack of certain features?  If so, which ones?
NRA
NAHC
Washington for Wildlife

Offline sss5358

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 28
Re: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2009, 12:04:17 PM »
Per WDFW
"The Department polled hunters extensively on these
topics and the result is what you see in the proposed
rules. The majority of hunters did not want to allow a
change in ignition systems."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/comments_232-12-051_muzzleloading_firearms.pdf

Is that true with most here?  If so why?  not sure what I'm missing (I dont have a muzzleloader yet), but seems like the 209 primer would be the way to go?

The so called poles used by Washington Fish and Wildlife are notoriously skewed. The way they word questions can skew the answer the way they want it to come out.  Had a big questionare last year about why people seemed to be getting out of muzzleload hunting. They made a big deal out of it and the results. Found it was because they had raped us 3 years ago and used the reason that we were 3% higher on the Elk take than other weapons. Then they made a big deal about correcting that situation Well, take a look at the regs this year. Do you see any corrections?  Perhaps a few minor changes and and added weekend of deer here and there, but deer and elk seasons still lie atop each other and dual bag area's are very infrequent.   So go figure.



Offline Pat/Rick

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 363
Re: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?
« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2009, 04:50:33 PM »
The ATF,classifies muzzleloaders that use modern primers as modern firearms.Could be some technical issues there?

Offline sss5358

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 28
Re: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2009, 07:06:24 AM »
Per WDFW
"The Department polled hunters extensively on these
topics and the result is what you see in the proposed
rules. The majority of hunters did not want to allow a
change in ignition systems."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/2009-2011_recommendations/comments_232-12-051_muzzleloading_firearms.pdf

Is that true with most here?  If so why?  not sure what I'm missing (I dont have a muzzleloader yet), but seems like the 209 primer would be the way to go?

209 primers.  Why?  If you are careful and within the present law, you can prevent most if not all misfires. I used regular caps for years. Had one misfire and that was because I hunted in bad weather and did take care of my rifle when I got back for the night.  I now use musket caps instead and have not had a misfire in 8 years. So why go to the next whizz bang gadget when what we have works.



Offline Intruder

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 1722
  • Location: Spo-Vegas
Re: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2009, 07:37:48 AM »
My  :twocents:

The whole basis for all the laws surrounding muzzleloaders should focus on limitting range and obviously repeatable fire.  I completely support no scopes and would support other measures to limit effective range(poweder charges maybe???).  That being said, improving reliability, and killing ability doesn't bother me at all.  At some point I want to insure that the animals are being humanely killed.

I do see the points people are making about making it too easy and thus increasing the # of dudes roaming around with smoke poles.   

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Lynx kittens confirmed in the Kettle Range by WapitiTalk1
[Yesterday at 11:21:59 PM]


AUCTION: SE Idaho DIY Deer or Deer/Elk Hunt by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 11:04:54 PM]


2025 Montana alternate list by yogi
[Yesterday at 10:42:18 PM]


Cowiche Quality Buck by buglebuster
[Yesterday at 10:29:26 PM]


50 inch SXS and Tracks? by bearpaw
[Yesterday at 08:08:34 PM]


Accura MR-X 45 load development by kyles_88
[Yesterday at 08:03:44 PM]


Best all around muzzy (updated) by SeaRun1
[Yesterday at 07:47:54 PM]


2025 Crab! by KP-Skagit
[Yesterday at 03:52:38 PM]


Oregon special tag info by Judespapa
[Yesterday at 12:24:57 PM]


wings wings and more wings! by birddogdad
[Yesterday at 11:27:43 AM]


Sockeye Numbers by CP
[Yesterday at 10:51:20 AM]


Archery elk gear, 2025. by Drewski
[Yesterday at 10:03:17 AM]


10 years ago- Now by MackDaddy509
[Yesterday at 08:57:48 AM]


Kings by hookr88
[Yesterday at 06:51:45 AM]


MA 6 EAST fishing report? by hookr88
[Yesterday at 06:50:41 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal