collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: 209 primers in WA. Cant believe no one wants them?  (Read 23930 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

3 pintails by metlhead
[Today at 04:44:03 PM]


1993 Merc issues getting up on plane by Happy Gilmore
[Today at 04:37:55 PM]


A lonely Job... by AL WORRELLS KID
[Today at 03:21:14 PM]


Sauk Unit Youth Elk Tips by Kales15
[Today at 02:10:11 PM]


Unit 364 Archery Tag by buglebuster
[Today at 12:16:59 PM]


In the background by zwickeyman
[Today at 12:10:13 PM]


A. Cole Lockback in AEB-L and Micarta by A. Cole
[Today at 09:15:34 AM]


Willapa Hills 1 Bear by hunter399
[Today at 08:24:48 AM]


Bearpaw Outfitters Annual July 4th Hunt Sale by Threewolves
[Today at 06:35:57 AM]


Sockeye Numbers by Southpole
[Yesterday at 09:02:04 PM]


Selkirk bull moose. by moose40
[Yesterday at 05:42:19 PM]


North Peninsula Salmon Fishing by Buckhunter24
[Yesterday at 12:43:12 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal