Utah Wildlife Forum banner
21 - 40 of 138 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,414 Posts
This is a narrative that needs to stop. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY that has any clue thinks any of this is about “saving herds.” The wildlife board was very open about the trail cam discussion- it was not biological. It was all about hunters and what they want. It has nothing to do with herd health, and the decision makers have been clear about this. Trying to use a straw man on biology for this has got to stop. It’s nothing but a red herring, at very best.
So, what premise are hunters using then to restrict optics on muzzleloaders? Fair chase? The nostalgia of hunting with a more primitive setup? Or, because the common hunter believes it will help with saving herds by not making it so easy to pick off the best gene contributors?

There is a ton of logic in restricting scope types on muzzleloaders. The muzzleloader hunt was never intended to let people kill animals at 600, even 800 yards. You want to do that, jump into the rifle pool and go let it fly.

But again, this is social not biological.
It's not the scope that makes an 800 yard shot capable. It's the rifle (barrel), powder, and bullet that does. The margin of error does increase with less magnification, but a $2,000 4 - 16 x 50 scope on a muzzleloading rifle at 135 yards won't help if the rifle is subpar on quality and the load is just slapped together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,237 Posts
The margin of error does increase with less magnification, but a $2,000 4 - 16 x 50 scope on a muzzleloading rifle at 135 yards won't help if the rifle is subpar on quality and the load is just slapped together.

I agree with this statement.

I know of two individuals that have the Remington "Super Muzzleloaders" and brag about them, say they spent thousands on the rifle/scope set up. I asked how they like the recoil of 200 grains of powder. Each one of them said they shoot the same load they use in their "regular" rifles. I'm confused....Why would you spend that kind of money on a rifle and not use it to its potential?? It's like buying a corvette and only driving around the neighborhood. These are the ideates that will take a 400+ yard shot on a game animal.

It all boils down to KNOWING and USING your effective range of any weapon, and, being proficient. Practice can make perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
It's not the scope that makes an 800 yard shot capable. It's the rifle (barrel), powder, and bullet that does.
Honestly, I think it's all of the above. Scope included. I look at it this way, I was running an rear peep sight up until last year. I couldn't find a front bead that i could see, that would give my any reasonable accuracy past 100 yards. Everything's got a fiber obtic on it nowadays. That fiber optic takes up an entire paper plate at 100 yards. Any deviation on my part, and I miss it. With a scope... I think my zero was 150, and I was shooting out to 170-200 ish and hitting. Same load, same bullet. I wouldn't attempt that with the rear peep I had on previously, granted I know it has a lot to do with the front bead, but i'd say my range, ethically with just irons was inside 100 yards - not that I haven't attempted farther in the heat of the moment. :rolleyes:

edit:
Side note, I know the point of aim is supposed to be the top a fiber optic on a front sight post, however, it's effing impossible for me not to want to center it in the rear aperture, it draws my eye in that way every stinking time. On top of that middle age isn't doing my eyes any favors either, so the fiber optic helps in that regard, but at the same time, I hated having a round bead. The rest of the post just disappared, and all i'd see is the red dot my eye wanted to center in the rear sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I was definitely a killer with a muzzy back with the old sight rule. However, I’m not necessarily old but I know my eyes aren’t as good as they were when I was picking them off open sighted and with a 1x
Im no sniper either. We’re talking maybe 200 yards is what I get out of my 3x9 but I still really would hate to see them get rid of magnification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
Show me where the herds benefit from disallowing magnified optics and you will be much closer to gaining my support. I would want factual harvest comparisons over the span of several years.

I still think a lot of the changes to our rules and systems stem from hunter vs hunter arguments.

Reduce their opportunity so that MY opportunity increases. Reduce their success rates so that MY success rates may improve. Reduce their ability to use technology to be a more efficient hunter because it doesn't align with MY personal opinion.

Divide and conquer my friends.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,284 Posts
It's not the scope that makes an 800 yard shot capable. It's the rifle (barrel), powder, and bullet that does. The margin of error does increase with less magnification, but a $2,000 4 - 16 x 50 scope on a muzzleloading rifle at 135 yards won't help if the rifle is subpar on quality and the load is just slapped together.
I’m very aware of the needs in equipment besides the scope, but let’s see you take the rifle (barrel), powder and bullet and kill an animal at 800 yards with open sights. Yes, hypothetically it can be done. Hypothetically. You get the point.


So, what premise are hunters using then to restrict optics on muzzleloaders? Fair chase? The nostalgia of hunting with a more primitive setup? Or, because the common hunter believes it will help with saving herds by not making it so easy to pick off the best gene contributors?
It’s not about saving the herds. You quoted my post with me saying this very thing very clearly and then asked about saving the herds again. It has NOTHING to do with biology. Nothing we’re talking about is going to impact the health of the herds. For the record, I’m NOT one of the people pushing for this change. I’m also honest enough to admit there is logic behind the push, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it, because there is logic behind it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,284 Posts
Seems we have this discussion every 10 years or so... about the time enough new members that dont know how many times we've rehashed this, reach critical mass and it suddenly becomes "an issue" to discuss.

-DallanC
The difference this redistricting cycle is muzzleloaders have 20x scopes on them this time, and if this discussion is on the census/redistricting cycle then last time we had it, they didn’t. Another difference is the discussion has moved from online forums to wildlife board meetings.

For better or for worse, I think this change happens. This new “technology committee” will see this as the lowest hanging fruit.

I wish the system (WB, DWR, etc) put as much time and effort into the biological efforts and decisions as they did the social. We’d probably have less social debates as a result.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,500 Posts
I have always believed that the muzzle loader hunt was set up for us to get back to hunting the way that our grand fathers did it, in a more primitive way than using more modern firearms.

It is now to the point that the muzzle loader hunt is just a single shot rifle hunt with the new designs of the muzzle loaders that are coming out. Now they even have muzzle loaders that are shooting smokeless powders. Even the CVA Accura muzzle loader that I won in a raffle doesn't even have a front sight. It is designed for scope use only and it came with a 3-9 scope. Now that scope really helped on the deer that I shot with it a couple of years ago. That buck was standing at a grand old distance of 75 yards.

As for ranges I have shot deer and elk anywhere from 30 yards out to 120 yards with muzzle loaders. I didn't have a scope on one until I got that Accura a couple of years ago. All the other deer and elk fell to a rifle with open sights and when I couldn't focus the sights that I had on the muzzle loader I switched them out to peep sights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I have always believed that the muzzle loader hunt was set up for us to get back to hunting the way that our grand fathers did it, in a more primitive way than using more modern firearms.

It is now to the point that the muzzle loader hunt is just a single shot rifle hunt with the new designs of the muzzle loaders that are coming out. Now they even have muzzle loaders that are shooting smokeless powders. Even the CVA Accura muzzle loader that I won in a raffle doesn't even have a front sight. It is designed for scope use only and it came with a 3-9 scope. Now that scope really helped on the deer that I shot with it a couple of years ago. That buck was standing at a grand old distance of 75 yards.

As for ranges I have shot deer and elk anywhere from 30 yards out to 120 yards with muzzle loaders. I didn't have a scope on one until I got that Accura a couple of years ago. All the other deer and elk fell to a rifle with open sights and when I couldn't focus the sights that I had on the muzzle loader I switched them out to peep sights.
I bought a T/C Pro Hunter FX a few years back . It came with a Nikon 3X9 scope. I like it, but I only would shoot it out to 150 yards. I hope they don't change the regs, but if they do I hope they would still allow 1x fixed scopes. With my knees and eyes I don't have too many big game hunts left😄. I'll be left with ducks and doves!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
I hear the argument that guys are killing with muzzys out at 800 yards all the time. Honestly, how many guys out there 1) posses the rifle and equipment to make it possible 2) posses the knowledge on how to do it and 3) posses the ability to make such a shot? 1 in 250+? Like I’ve always said, 90% of the utards out there struggle hard to kill a deer with the first shot out of a centerfire rifle at 300 yards. I’d bet 98% of them can’t do it with a muzzleloader at the same distance. And the odds go down from there as range increases. Yea, it’s possible. But not everyone out there is doing it. Utah hunters love to fantasize about worst case scenario’s and this isn’t any different. The reality is that what is being worried about and discussed, isn’t really taking place as often as guys hope. There are guns out there very capable of shots that far, but the affordability of said gun for guys complaining that a $50 elk tag is too much, is next to 0. Very few guys have these guns. And even then, there’s a percentage of them that don’t even know how to use these guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I hear the argument that guys are killing with muzzys out at 800 yards all the time. Honestly, how many guys out there 1) posses the rifle and equipment to make it possible 2) posses the knowledge on how to do it and 3) posses the ability to make such a shot? 1 in 250+? Like I’ve always said, 90% of the utards out there struggle hard to kill a deer with the first shot out of a centerfire rifle at 300 yards. I’d bet 98% of them can’t do it with a muzzleloader at the same distance. And the odds go down from there as range increases. Yea, it’s possible. But not everyone out there is doing it. Utah hunters love to fantasize about worst case scenario’s and this isn’t any different. The reality is that what is being worried about and discussed, isn’t really taking place as often as guys hope. There are guns out there very capable of shots that far, but the affordability of said gun for guys complaining that a $50 elk tag is too much, is next to 0. Very few guys have these guns. And even then, there’s a percentage of them that don’t even know how to use these guns.
Well said!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,388 Posts
Weapon restrictions on big game are ok by me if they decrease harvest so we issue more tags and increase opportunity.

I doubt taking scopes away is going to do this as we have the before and after scope harvest data and it’s about the same.

if we’re gonna move the needle let’s copy Idaho’s primitive muzzy rules. I can see this decreasing harvest to allow for more opportunity.

Niller is correct that this is totally social hunter issue and nothing to do with herd health. Hunter control and rules are easy. Growing more deer is tough and no one has that workable magic solution, otherwise every state in the west would be doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,555 Posts
Take scopes away? Might as well make us wear moccasins, full leathers and a racoon hat on our heads too. If they make it primitive, they better go the whole way with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,565 Posts
Take scopes away? Might as well make us wear moccasins, full leathers and a racoon hat on our heads too. If they make it primitive, they better go the whole way with it.
Lets go the full Montey. I've argued for 2 decades now the single greatest innovation to Muzzle loading rifles is the high tensil strength Coil Spring. Before that, actions used flat springs... they always had issues of alignment, breakage, weakening strength etc etc making the guns unreliable. I'm sure modern metallurgy would solve that compared to old cast iron and steel types. But draw the line there, require Flat springs in actions.

My vote though would be a limit of 2x power or less scopes, full bore projectiles and exposed primer ignitions.

-DallanC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Utah muzzy regs were never defined as “primitive”. Adopting such regs would require everyone to go buy new rifles. That’s not going to happen. The old rules will be what we would go back to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Utah muzzy regs were never defined as “primitive”. Adopting such regs would require everyone to go buy new rifles. That’s not going to happen. The old rules will be what we would go back to.
I think you are right. Do you think they would add a separate "primitive " season just to satisfy folks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,565 Posts
Utah muzzy regs were never defined as “primitive”. Adopting such regs would require everyone to go buy new rifles. That’s not going to happen. The old rules will be what we would go back to.
Yep, from day 1 it was an alternate rifle type. In fact it never even had its own tag in the beginning... it was a $10 extension to your existing rifle tag... you would use your rifle tag, and it would give you 1 extra week to the rifle season hunt, using a muzzleloader. I still have my old "tags" from back then.

-DallanC
 
21 - 40 of 138 Posts
Top