1x scopes vs open sights

[jrebel]

Wasn't there an post that argued most 1 MOA MODERN rifle with high magnification optics (or suggestions of by the shooters) is a bunch of hogwash.  This argument was made by a lot of the same guys saying that these muzzleloaders are now capable of kill shots to 300-400+ yards with a 1MOA red dot.  Do you see the irony in this.....

Matter of fact, the youtube videos shared suggest that most MODERN rifles with high variable power optics realistically shoot 1.5-2 MOA.  Suggesting that shooters claiming their rifles are 1 MOA or better is just a lucky group here and there. 

So lets extrapolate this data / argument and draw a few assumptions with muzzleloaders.  We already know they are not near as accurate as a modern high power rifle, we can probably all agree on that.  We know we are talking 1x scope with a 1-3 MOA dot / crosshair, compared to a 4-32x50 nightforce NX8....again, not much argument there.  The BC of the bullets is significantly worse with a muzzleloader....no argument to be made here.  AAAANNNNNNDDDDD.... Now you want to make the arguemnt that a muzzleloader can shoot equally as wall 1.5-2 MOA at range as the same rifles you all said were not able to hold those groups. 

Color me confused??      What am I missing??   

[jrebel]

209s greatly increased elk harvest rates for Muzzys

Can you show me some info to back that up. I dont believe it. I could see a small increase. But greatly seems like a stretch!

From 2013-2017 the average total number of elk killed in the district (multiple gmus) I hunt was 92. From 2018-2022 increased to an average of 135 elk. This is per the harvest data on the WDFW website. Admittedly, I take these with a grain of salt, because I believe they opened up more seasons for muzzy sometime in the middle of those years. I have personally seen a large increase in success in my party, people who I talk with and a lot more bulls riding through town in people's trucks.

This is in one of the most popular areas for elk in Western WA.

Lets assume this increase is apples to apples.....your telling me the ignition system is what increased success???  Man, that is a hard one to bite off on.  What other factors?  What is the success rate in those same date ranges (hunters / days hunted to kills %).  Did those percentages drop in other categories?  Elk herd numbers?  Permit given out?  etc. etc. etc.  A change from musket cap to 209 is very negligible when it come to overall scheme of things.....I just don't believe the "209" primer is the cause for those increases. 

That would imply that non 209 primer muzzy's had an almost 40% fail to fire / hang fire, causing less kills.  I have never had a musket fail to ignite.  The ignition source doesn't increase your range....though it could be argued that the powder (blackhorn 209) did increase velocities i.e. range.  A 209 primer with ff powder / equivalent really doesn't add much to the experience other than piece of mind for reliable ignition.

No, I would say that the increase in reliability of a muzzy increased the hunter numbers in the units. Which increases total harvest. Muzzy season has gotten extremely popular because it's easier than it used to be. Do you hunt western elk? Rain is a real issue with musket caps and open ignition. My first bull I killed was with my buddy's gun. Mine wouldn't fire with the musket cap

I now understand your argument.  My guess is the rifle or archery harvest has gone down which would likely equate to similar percentages of elk being killed across the board annually.....just hunters leaving one user group to go to another. 

I don't hunt westside, but he areas I have hunted elk can and have been equally as wet.  I grew up hunting and living on the westside so I am aware of the challenges.  The cow elk I killed 10 years ago or so with muzzy....we hunted the entire season is some of the wettest, coldest conditions I have ever seen and my musket cap still went off.  Maybe I got lucky.  I did have a balloon over the muzzle and I protected the nipple with a gloved hand while having the opening facing toward the grounds to keep water out.  I was aware and made efforts to make sure it was as dry as possible.  A 209 system can still fail if water gets to your powder, so it is also not failsafe. 

[Karl Blanchard]

You're missing the part where 2, 3, and 4 moa guns if consistent are more than adequate to hit vital sized targets at 300 and 400 yards. Also scope magnification adds minimal accuracy benefits at those distances. I've done lots of 1x shooting and a 10" plate is a non issue at 300 yards.

Modern powders and bullets in modern inlines are incredibly accurate and consistent.  Here's an example. Clean bore shot followed up by 6 more (my last 6 rounds I had) @100 testing for accuracy.  No doubt 4 more shots would have filled out slightly more but it's an moa gun and load. MORE than adequate accuracy for killing stuff.


Also, you can use my name. You don't have to say "some people". My skin is thicker than that 

[raydog]

209s greatly increased elk harvest rates for Muzzys

Can you show me some info to back that up. I dont believe it. I could see a small increase. But greatly seems like a stretch!

From 2013-2017 the average total number of elk killed in the district (multiple gmus) I hunt was 92. From 2018-2022 increased to an average of 135 elk. This is per the harvest data on the WDFW website. Admittedly, I take these with a grain of salt, because I believe they opened up more seasons for muzzy sometime in the middle of those years. I have personally seen a large increase in success in my party, people who I talk with and a lot more bulls riding through town in people's trucks.

This is in one of the most popular areas for elk in Western WA.

Lets assume this increase is apples to apples.....your telling me the ignition system is what increased success???  Man, that is a hard one to bite off on.  What other factors?  What is the success rate in those same date ranges (hunters / days hunted to kills %).  Did those percentages drop in other categories?  Elk herd numbers?  Permit given out?  etc. etc. etc.  A change from musket cap to 209 is very negligible when it come to overall scheme of things.....I just don't believe the "209" primer is the cause for those increases. 

That would imply that non 209 primer muzzy's had an almost 40% fail to fire / hang fire, causing less kills.  I have never had a musket fail to ignite.  The ignition source doesn't increase your range....though it could be argued that the powder (blackhorn 209) did increase velocities i.e. range.  A 209 primer with ff powder / equivalent really doesn't add much to the experience other than piece of mind for reliable ignition.

No, I would say that the increase in reliability of a muzzy increased the hunter numbers in the units. Which increases total harvest. Muzzy season has gotten extremely popular because it's easier than it used to be. Do you hunt western elk? Rain is a real issue with musket caps and open ignition. My first bull I killed was with my buddy's gun. Mine wouldn't fire with the musket cap

I now understand your argument.  My guess is the rifle or archery harvest has gone down which would likely equate to similar percentages of elk being killed across the board annually.....just hunters leaving one user group to go to another. 

I don't hunt westside, but he areas I have hunted elk can and have been equally as wet.  I grew up hunting and living on the westside so I am aware of the challenges.  The cow elk I killed 10 years ago or so with muzzy....we hunted the entire season is some of the wettest, coldest conditions I have ever seen and my musket cap still went off.  Maybe I got lucky.  I did have a balloon over the muzzle and I protected the nipple with a gloved hand while having the opening facing toward the grounds to keep water out.  I was aware and made efforts to make sure it was as dry as possible.  A 209 system can still fail if water gets to your powder, so it is also not failsafe.

Yeah I hear you, that very well could be. What I know and see is more hunter and less elk. I do feel very fortunate to be successful every other year. I just worry if we keep allowing more technology, we'll loose even more of what little we have left.

And for sure prevention goes a long ways for muzzy, regardless of the ignition type

[HntnFsh]

I think when 1x scopes were considered in the past no electronics were allowed including red dots so I doubt that will play into things.

[jrebel]

You're missing the part where 2, 3, and 4 moa guns if consistent are more than adequate to hit vital sized targets at 300 and 400 yards. Also scope magnification adds minimal accuracy benefits at those distances. I've done lots of 1x shooting and a 10" plate is a non issue at 300 yards.

Modern powders and bullets in modern inlines are incredibly accurate and consistent.  Here's an example. Clean bore shot followed up by 6 more (my last 6 rounds I had) @100 testing for accuracy.  No doubt 4 more shots would have filled out slightly more but it's an moa gun and load. MORE than adequate accuracy for killing stuff.


Also, you can use my name. You don't have to say "some people". My skin is thicker than that 

Actually, I received PM's with multiple videos from a couple folks.  But yes, you did send one and they were great to watch.  I disagree with the premise that a rifle is not 1 MOA capable....when it likely is, but the shooter is not.  That goes for me as well as I have gotten older.  I have rifles that I can shoot 7 rounds one day at 300 yards and hold sub 1" or .33 MOA.....and the next day, I run a 2" group at 300.  The rifle and ammo are capable and have proven time and time again....but me as a variable often screw it up. 

Back on topic.....and I will preface this by saying, "MOST PEOPLE" (my opinion) have no business shooting 300 yards with a 1x scope.  I would bet a lot of money, "MOST PEOPLE" couldn't hold 2 MOA groups.  I don't believe a 4 MOA is sufficient to accuracy to be shooting at animals past 200 yards.  12's...4 MOA at 300 yards is unacceptable...again, my opinion, take it for what it's worth (free)

[Karl Blanchard]

That goes to most folks accuracy in general and that's with high power rifles. Vast majority of hunters are 6+ moa field shooters. It's been proven time and time again with tools such as the craft drills. But one time they shot a 3 shot sub moa group and another time they hit a 10 moa rock face at 500 yards so they are basically good to a 1k   Point being, if people can see the target (optic allows that) they are gonna letting er fly.

[raydog]

That goes to most folks accuracy in general and that's with high power rifles. Vast majority of hunters are 6+ moa field shooters. It's been proven time and time again with tools such as the craft drills. But one time they shot a 3 shot sub moa group and another time they hit a 10 moa rock face at 500 yards so they are basically good to a 1k   Point being, if people can see the target (optic allows that) they are gonna letting er fly.

I feel personally attacked 

Only kidding. Biggest elk I have had was a 240 broadside. I didn't shoot because Im not confident in myself at those ranges. I've seen me shoot!

[HooknoseHunter]

Will 1x red dot shotgun/turkey scopes be legal or are they disqualified because they are “electronic”?  I also was unsuccessful at finding a normal looking 1x rifle scope that’s not discontinued when cruising the internet.

I agree with both sides of the scope/no-scope argument. I like the idea of “primitive” muzzle loaders but on the other hand a scope would lend nicely to the style of elk hunting I do. I’m not committed to either side at this point.

[duckmen1]

So if this new law does go into effect and with there being no 1x scopes on the market other than red dots or adjustable 1x scopes. Question would be could you lawfully take a 1x4 power scope and perminently fuse the scope to 1x to make it not adjustable to more than 1x and be legal. To give an option for buying a 1x scope on the market. Maybe by adding a JB weld to the adjustable objective or something. No care on scope warentee after doing such a thing.

[Rainier10]

I bought a 1x scope last time this was getting legs and then at the April meeting they struck it from the rules. Been sitting on it ever since.

[Cougartail]

"If" they allowed a 1x with an illuminated reticle I'd put my Primary Arms 1x cyclops on my muzzleloader. The scope is really small and light.

The etched reticle is a huge improvement over any iorn type sights. It sits on an AR-15 now and is my favorite optic for shots under 150 yards.

I may use it on my muzzy during a rifle season.

[goldenhtr]

Who cares! let's work with each other to fight the WDFW instead of fighting each other and letting the Anti's of the WDFW beat us down!!!!!!!
Divided we fall!

 

[JakeLand]

For me personally I’ll stay with open sights as I hunt on the Westside and most shots are up close and personal, if it becomes legal I’ll still stay open sights

[TCHunter25]

If a 1x scope is legal, I'll use one (if I can find one, that is) but I do not believe it will make much of a difference for myself personally.  I would imagine it would bump my max comfort range from about 110 yards to about 175(?) yards.  Thinking back to last deer season, there were zero additional opportunities that presented themselves in that 110-175 range.  So I still would have come home empty handed, just with a scope on my ML...