Motivation for ML hunting restrictions

[Pilsner]

Because use bullet type and powder restrictions are impossible to enforce. No way to tell what is loaded in someone's gun. This was discussed in NM before the scope ban.

Everyone assumes that there will be more wounding with out scopes. I don't know if this will be true. Guiding elk hunters I've seen a ton of elk wounded with people shooting muzzleloader a like they are center fire rifles, taking shots they shouldn't or are not capable of. I think the wounding rate will stay the same or go down since people will be forced to take closer shots.

You are going to see all western states start banning technology devices. States are banning trail cameras, scopes on muzzleloaders, computers linked devices. There is only so much game and continually increase harvest rates with technology will have an effect on populations. So would you rather sit home with no tag or have a tag with a muzzleloader with no scope. I think I would rather go hunting than sit at home.

Can you show me a single example of hunter success rates going up as technology increased?
As in a statically valid, well sourced, example.
Not "my guide buddies say..." type BS.

 

[Pilsner]

I understand what you are saying, but their are options that will keep you in the game. Many of us older shooters have various issues with certain iron sights, but there are vernier sights with adjustable diopters that greatly improve your eye focus, and there are various lens inserts for vernier type sights that can be used. Also, there are varied lens attachments one can attach to their eye or shooting glasses.

I've seen many of these in use on the rifle/target ranges through the years, and back in the day, Champions CHoice and other shooting comp suppliers carried these.

View attachment 467923

I've found that most folks who bring up their personal handicap aren't interested in fixing their issues. They either wanna bitch about the unfairness of life and/or give their justification for why they should be allowed special privileges/access.
I say this a a disabled vet.
It's annoying AF.

 

[Plinker147]

Can you show me a single example of hunter success rates going up as technology increased?
As in a statically valid, well sourced, example.
Not "my guide buddies say..." type BS.

Yes, look at NM muzzleloader mature bull harvest rates over the last 10-15 years for GMU 13,15 and 17.

I will use myself as example. When I learned to shoot and build top end rifles coupled with Swarovski optics my harvest rates went from around 50% to near 100% on a big mature animal all on public land.

 

[73driver]

Yes, look at NM muzzleloader mature bull harvest rates over the last 10-15 years for GMU 13,15 and 17.

I will use myself as example. When I learned to shoot and build top end rifles coupled with Swarovski optics my harvest rates went from around 50% to near 100% on a big mature animal all on public land.

So much for a primitive weapon hunt.

 

[ENCORE]

So much for a primitive weapon hunt.

You can't hunt with a primitive weapon?

 

[Calvin45]

Same reason crossbows aren't allowed in real archery seasons? (In most places anyway).

I think it sucks, I have a nice in-line that I bought to use in AZ. Now in Montana they just started a ML season but it's super traditional. They're not selling more tags, this is an after the fact hunt on general tags.

I think traditional equipment, which MLs are, should remain range limited, that's part of the reason you can get the tag easier, it's supposed to be harder. If not, they should just get rid of the ML tags and make them rifle tags.

Agree

My dad's old 30-30 can't do what many muzzleloaders can do for long range hunting (though at close range it certainly has comparative firepower ). But he doesn't get to enjoy some special privileged easy season and these "primitive" or "traditional" hunters do. Seems like bull to me. If you want to hunt with something on par with a modern centerfire rifle just shoot a modern centerfire rifle and don't get any special treatment.

That's my opinion anyway, doesn't count for much

 

[Coldfinger]

Been talking about this with my cousin. Why there are so many restrictions on muzzleloaders for hunting and will more States follow Colorado and add more restrictions. Wondering if anyone has firsthand knowledge of what the law makers motivations are?
My cousin believes they want to lower success rates by limiting the weapons range and efficiency so they can sell more tags, basically greed.
I always assumed it was that people just have different ideas of what a muzzleloader is. Also hard for me to believe a wildlife organization wanting less efficient weapons. Wouldn't that lead to more lost game?
Can anyone explain the real reasons? And do you expect more restrictions to come? Like no scopes, no .45 calibers, ect?

It's to Divide sportsman against sportsman only! Just as they divide bow hunters against crossbow hunters! I don't care what anybody says my Muzzleloader loads 1 bullet at the muzzle same as a crossbow shots 1 arrow at a time. Stick together men and women stick together, United we stand divided we PERISH as do the traditions of America!!!!

 

[Coldfinger]

Agree

My dad's old 30-30 can't do what many muzzleloaders can do for long range hunting (though at close range it certainly has comparative firepower ). But he doesn't get to enjoy some special privileged easy season and these "primitive" or "traditional" hunters do. Seems like bull to me. If you want to hunt with something on par with a modern centerfire rifle just shoot a modern centerfire rifle and don't get any special treatment.

That's my opinion anyway, doesn't count for much

Your dads 30-30 is a fine cartridge that will harvest deer bear elk moose just fine within its limitations while most 30/30's have multiple rounds at disposal after first shot. Also loaded as a Cartridge! No matter how fancy the Muzzleloader it still loads powder then bullet then primer and still is a Muzzleloader. Why should I have to compete with lever action pump action bolt action break action or semi auto action when my ungodly accurate smokeless muzzleloader still loads as powder, bullet then primer???????????

 

[Calvin45]

Your dads 30-30 is a fine cartridge that will harvest deer bear elk moose just fine within its limitations while most 30/30's have multiple rounds at disposal after first shot. Also loaded as a Cartridge! No matter how fancy the Muzzleloader it still loads powder then bullet then primer and still is a Muzzleloader. Why should I have to compete with lever action pump action bolt action break action or semi auto action when my ungodly accurate smokeless muzzleloader still loads as powder, bullet then primer???????????

A fair point. Noted.

 

[chav0_12]

Your dads 30-30 is a fine cartridge that will harvest deer bear elk moose just fine within its limitations while most 30/30's have multiple rounds at disposal after first shot. Also loaded as a Cartridge! No matter how fancy the Muzzleloader it still loads powder then bullet then primer and still is a Muzzleloader. Why should I have to compete with lever action pump action bolt action break action or semi auto action when my ungodly accurate smokeless muzzleloader still loads as powder, bullet then primer???????????

I'd also ask why do you need a muzzleloader that's ungodly accurate and shoots smokeless powder? Why not, at most, a "traditional" inline with loose powder and 209s? Why not a flintlock or percussion muzzleloader? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the smokeless muzzleloaders, I think they're great. I'm only asking why should someone be able to shoot one during what is, at least in most western states, a limited entry and easier to draw than a rifle tag, tag? The whole point of most of those tags is to increase opportunity while not terribly increasing harvest rates. With increased range from ungodly accurate smokeless muzzleloaders those opportunities will decrease. So the question is do we want more or less opportunity? If it's more, then the ungodly accurate and range increased smokeless muzzleloaders aren't going to get us there.

This is the point I've been trying to make; If you want increased range and accuracy, hunt during a rifle season. If you want increased opportunity then hunt with less of a muzzleloader.

 

[CMP70306]

I'd also ask why do you need a muzzleloader that's ungodly accurate and shoots smokeless powder? Why not, at most, a "traditional" inline with loose powder and 209s? Why not a flintlock or percussion muzzleloader? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the smokeless muzzleloaders, I think they're great. I'm only asking why should someone be able to shoot one during what is, at least in most western states, a limited entry and easier to draw than a rifle tag, tag? The whole point of most of those tags is to increase opportunity while not terribly increasing harvest rates. With increased range from ungodly accurate smokeless muzzleloaders those opportunities will decrease. So the question is do we want more or less opportunity? If it's more, then the ungodly accurate and range increased smokeless muzzleloaders aren't going to get us there.

This is the point I've been trying to make; If you want increased range and accuracy, hunt during a rifle season. If you want increased opportunity then hunt with less of a muzzleloader.

I got one to better increase my chances in muzzleloader season when they restricted our rifle season. I used to hunt with a flintlock but when they removed doe from the first week of our rifle season I had to increase my effectiveness in muzzleloader season to make up for the opportunity loss during rifle.

I personally think the scope thing is bassackwards, powder and bullet limitations do far more to change the effective range than any type of optic. Just look at the bellow chart for a .50 cal maxiball, Inline with sabot, .45 cal with Blackhorn and high BC bullets and .45 cal Smokeless with High BC bullets. No matter which way you slice it the best scope in the world isn't making that .50 Cal with Maxiball any more effective past 200 yards but that Blackhorn rifle still shoots flat enough to use past 300 yards with iron sights.

 

[chav0_12]

I got one to better increase my chances in muzzleloader season when they restricted our rifle season. I used to hunt with a flintlock but when they removed doe from the first week of our rifle season I had to increase my effectiveness in muzzleloader season to make up for the opportunity loss during rifle.

I personally think the scope thing is bassackwards, powder and bullet limitations do far more to change the effective range than any type of optic. Just look at the bellow chart for a .50 cal maxiball, Inline with sabot, .45 cal with Blackhorn and high BC bullets and .45 cal Smokeless with High BC bullets. No matter which way you slice it the best scope in the world isn't making that .50 Cal with Maxiball any more effective past 200 yards but that Blackhorn rifle still shoots flat enough to use past 300 yards with iron sights.

View attachment 477562

Okay. I agree that bullets play a part in a weapon system's maximum effective range. I also agree that shooting a scoped rifle the shooter's effective range increases with the weapon system. Would you suggest that a hunter would be just as effective with scope-less smokeless muzzleloader as they would one with a scope? I'd believed not. If scopes are not needed to increase our effective range then what do we use them for? As I said, an optic doesn't increase a rifle's effective range but it increases the shooter's effective range with the rifle.

 

[AZShooter]

"If scopes are not needed to increase our effective range, then what do we use them for?"

A scope places the target and the reticle or dot at the same plane of focus.

I am one of those older guys with distance lens placed in my eyes after cataract surgery. Irons sights are out of focus. I strongly feel that a 1X power would not extend the shooting range, IMO defeating the argument against the use of scopes. Some of us who are were forced from New Mexico's muzzleloader elk hunts could continue to hunt NM if this were allowed.

 

[CMP70306]

Okay. I agree that bullets play a part in a weapon systems maximum effective range. I also agree that shooting a scoped rifle the shooters effective range increases with the weapon system. Would you suggest that a hunter would be just as effective with scope-less smokeless muzzleloader as they would one with a scope? I'd believed not. If scopes are not needed to increase our effective range then what do we use them for? As I said, an optic doesn't increase a rifles effective range but it increases the shooters effective range with the rifle.

A scope will obvious increase the range of a rifle all things being equal under most circumstances unless the effective range is short enough to negate that advantage. I would think that someone with an iron sighted smokeless muzzleloader would be able to outrange someone shooting a scoped caplock with full bore lead bullets. The limited velocity and high trajectory of the caplock, approximately 30" at 200 yard, is 8 more inches than what the smokeless drops at 400 yards.

As I said I'd rather see the effective range of the rifle limited rather than scopes removed. Scopes make the shooter more accurate at all ranges leading to better shot placement on game even close range in lower lighting conditions. If the rifle itself is incapable of providing sufficient energy to harvest game past 200 yards then the scope isn't helping to increase the effective range as much as make shots inside of that effective range more accurate.

Compare it to a 22 LR vs a .223 for varmint hunting, you can have identical rifles with identical long range scopes but the .223 will drastically out range the .22 LR by several hundred yards due to the advantages in accuracy, retained velocity and drop. Put that .223 in an iron sighted rifle and it can still be shot farther more accurately than the scoped .22 LR just like the smokeless compared with a caplock.