Post by: DBake on April 23, 2008, 10:24:22 AM
If I would change one it would be to allow the use of jacketed and copper bullets.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on April 23, 2008, 10:26:18 AM
Is that what you were looking for ;)
Post by: robodad on April 23, 2008, 10:36:27 AM
JK !!
If I could change one thing it would be that the nipple does not have to be exposed to the elements (still no 209's only #11 or musket caps)
Post by: DeKuma on April 23, 2008, 10:44:31 AM
How about an any bull statewide October 1-10 season.I agree, but I would like to use 209's as well.
JK !!
If I could change one thing it would be that the nipple does not have to be exposed to the elements (still no 209's only #11 or musket caps)
Post by: mossback91 on April 23, 2008, 11:07:18 AM
Post by: rougheye on April 23, 2008, 11:19:24 AM
Post by: groundhog on April 23, 2008, 12:00:49 PM
I like the idea of allowing jacketed bullets. Jacketed bullets are not any more accurate and they do not allow a hunter to shoot farther. The advantage is that they do more damage on impact. Allowing Jacketed bullets would result in more retrieved game and fewer wounded animals.
A solid chunk of lead doesn't do the damage that a modern broadhead or high power rifle does. I have been involved in a bunch of Muzzleloader kills and animals just don't bleed like they do when shot with a bow or rifle.
It is hard to know where to draw the line on this stuff....
Sometimes I think technology is getting out of hand..... I think the manufacturers better watch out or we could end up going back to Long bows and Flintlocks. Ya know, that might not be so bad........
Post by: boneaddict on April 23, 2008, 12:06:01 PM
Post by: CP on April 23, 2008, 12:32:45 PM
I think primitive should mean primitive.....I'll save my speech.
I agree.
Post by: Gobble on April 23, 2008, 12:42:57 PM
Post by: Sagedawg on April 23, 2008, 01:06:55 PM
Sage
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 23, 2008, 01:37:50 PM
Post by: Cougeyes on April 23, 2008, 07:52:53 PM
How about an any bull statewide October 1-10 season.
They did this once, dont think it was statewide but i know on the eastside around the Teanaway, Taneum, etc.... they did it. We switched to muzzeloader that year, I missed a big 6 and ended up getting a 4 point with another guy. That first day the butcher got 27 branched bulls brought into his shop. Not sure what to think about that season, it was only for one season. Dont know if they were trying to reduce the herd or what. It was a fun hunt though.
Post by: bobcat on April 23, 2008, 10:33:30 PM
I like the idea of allowing jacketed bullets. Jacketed bullets are not any more accurate and they do not allow a hunter to shoot farther. The advantage is that they do more damage on impact. Allowing Jacketed bullets would result in more retrieved game and fewer wounded animals.
I don't agree. I wouldn't say a jacketed bullet does more damage on impact. That would depend on the particular bullet, I suppose. But just because a bullet is jacketed doesn't make it more lethal. The advantage would be in the higher velocity they can be loaded up to. I non-jacketed bullet is really maxed out at around not much more than 1500 to 1600 feet per second. When you get beyond that you get excessive fouling and a loss of accuracy. With a jacketed bullet you can load your muzzleloader up to the max, which is 150 grains with some of them, and really get them screaming. This DOES allow a gun to shoot farther, and DOES make a gun more accurate at longer ranges.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think the WDFW has done a good job in balancing what is allowed and what isn't. If anything I think the restrictions should be even more. But I can live with the way it is now.
Post by: Ray on April 23, 2008, 10:44:36 PM
Quote
Sometimes I think technology is getting out of hand..... I think the manufacturers better watch out or we could end up going back to Long bows and Flintlocks. Ya know, that might not be so bad........
We're already there if you ask me. Longbows and flintlocks sound ok to me. Not against other types but they should be lumped in with general season in my book. That includes fancy 209s and compound bows.
Post by: wastickslinger on April 23, 2008, 11:18:08 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 23, 2008, 11:52:39 PM
When I use to muzzleload hunt, I didn't like being forced to use iron sites. I don't have the best eyes so using iron sites past 70 yards gets challenging. Kind of sounds crazy buy let us mount a scope on that primitive weapon... :bdid:
Post by: bobcat on April 24, 2008, 06:30:02 AM
Post by: Ray on April 24, 2008, 06:37:24 AM
You need a peep sight then, not a scope. You're kidding when you say scopes should be allowed, aren't you?
Sounds like it to me. In the army we shot out to 300 yards all the time when qualifying at human torso sized targets with No Scopes. I think that the scope is too much. It's physically possible for humans to identify large game to 300 yards without the aid of scope optics. Those that think it is too hard to see might just have to stalk closer or try another hunting method.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on April 24, 2008, 07:13:25 AM
In the last few years we have seen an influx of ML hunters in the late season and we are seeing more and more unethical behavior. Most that i have talked to have switched from rifle to ML and it was because the units were to crowded. But from my observations, and that is things i have seen they took a rifle mentality with them to the ML season. shots that are to long, 300 yards with a ML is to long, and statements of if i had a scope i would not have missed. Or kids chasing a herd of cows in the either sex units, shooting untill they see one drop. Not paying attention to blood trails. I would like them to add a unit or 2 to spread us out a little more.
Post by: groundhog on April 24, 2008, 08:26:22 AM
I didn't realize that jacketed bullets allow for hotter loads. I guess that is why my best load using lead bullets in my traditional is a 110 grains of FF. Any more and the accuracy goes down.
I can tell you that the bullets my dad uses in Illinois are way more devastating then the lead that I use. He uses jacketed/sabot-ed bullets that are designed for pistols. I don't recall the brand but I could find out if anyone is interested. The velocities are close to the same and the bullets retain weight but open up and really do some damage. All you have to do is look at the two bullets after the fact to see which one would do more damage.
I like the way things are although I would not complain if we went back to more primitive weapons.
Post by: Curly on April 24, 2008, 09:45:17 AM
I would like them to add a unit or 2 to spread us out a little more.
I agree with that statement. It gets way too crowded with everyone all bunched-up in a few units.
Post by: robodad on April 24, 2008, 09:52:22 AM
Post by: Ray on April 24, 2008, 10:05:40 AM
Post by: Sagedawg on April 24, 2008, 10:06:47 AM
'
Sage
Post by: Slenk on April 24, 2008, 04:49:24 PM
I think primitive should mean primitive.....I'll save my speech.
Quote from: Ray(huntwa)
link=topic=6613.msg73494#msg73494 date=1209015876
link=topic=6613.msg73494#msg73494 date=1209015876
Now we talking!QuoteSometimes I think technology is getting out of hand..... I think the manufacturers better watch out or we could end up going back to Long bows and Flintlocks. Ya know, that might not be so bad........
We're already there if you ask me. Longbows and flintlocks sound ok to me. Not against other types but they should be lumped in with general season in my book. That includes fancy 209s and compound bows.
Primitive seasons are primitive not modern tech.
Long Bows and Flintlocks .
Slenk
Post by: billythekidrock on April 24, 2008, 05:58:57 PM
Quote
That includes fancy 209s
Aren't they against the law already?
Post by: Curly on April 24, 2008, 06:31:14 PM
QuoteThat includes fancy 209s
Aren't they against the law already?
Yup.
I think the muzzleloader laws are ok the way they are now. I wouldn't mind if they made it sidelock only, but I know that won't happen.
The only other thing I think they should change (which I don't even really consider ML law) is the fact that they won't let you use a scoped muzzleloader, jacketed bullets, 209's, etc. during modern firearm season. I know we already beat that subject to death a while back, but I'm still shocked :o about the stupid law.
Post by: Ray on April 24, 2008, 06:57:36 PM
QuoteThat includes fancy 209s
Aren't they against the law already?
for ml .but should be ok for modern.
Post by: CP on April 25, 2008, 08:02:37 AM
QuoteThat includes fancy 209s
Aren't they against the law already?
Yup.
I think the muzzleloader laws are ok the way they are now. I wouldn't mind if they made it sidelock only, but I know that won't happen.
The only other thing I think they should change (which I don't even really consider ML law) is the fact that they won't let you use a scoped muzzleloader, jacketed bullets, 209's, etc. during modern firearm season. I know we already beat that subject to death a while back, but I'm still shocked :o about the stupid law.
Why would anyone want to? I can understand hunting with a traditional ML during modern firearms season but why a tricked out 209 abomination when you could use a scoped shotgun or modern rifle?
Post by: bobcat on April 25, 2008, 08:16:36 AM
Why would anyone want to? I can understand hunting with a traditional ML during modern firearms season but why a tricked out 209 abomination when you could used a scoped shotgun or modern rifle?
Someone could use a muzzleloader in a firearm restriction area during modern season. That would be the one instance I can think of where a guy might want to do so.
Post by: boneaddict on April 25, 2008, 08:22:09 AM
Post by: CP on April 25, 2008, 08:37:04 AM
I don’t see a problem with allowing a ‘limited” scope in ML season. 1X or even 2X. I always wanted one like this:
Post by: boneaddict on April 25, 2008, 08:41:35 AM
Post by: Sagedawg on April 25, 2008, 10:19:41 AM
Sage
Post by: deerslyr on April 27, 2008, 05:09:41 PM
Post by: Opportunist on May 03, 2008, 10:51:09 PM