# Should ND Muzzle Loaders Be Allowed Scopes Of More Than 1X?



## NDTerminator

*Should ND Muzzle Loaders Be Allowed Scopes Of More Than 1X?*​
Yes2151.22%No2048.78%


----------



## NDTerminator

Because post-Lasik I can't see the rear sights clearly, I recently retired my Hawkens and bought a T/C Triumph on which I put a ND legal 1X scope.

Even though the sight picture is clear with the 1X scope, because the target appears much farther away than it actually is, the sight picture is nowhere near as good as it is with iron sights and the naked eye. The effect with a 1X scope is much like looking through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.

As those who use a 1X scope on their ML know, it actually reduces the effective range compared to iron sights. Having used 2.5X scopes on other firearms, IMO that power actually equates to what I can see with the naked eye out to 100 yards or so.

So I'm curious what the opinion of ND ML hunters is on the use of scopes of higher than 1X is, and if there would be support to ask NDGF to up it to say, 4X or 5X (common top ends for ML/shotgun scopes but considerably less than commonly found on deer rifles in ND)).

I'm not looking to start a big urinating contest, just want to see how the rest of the ND ML community feels. So being, guys who actually hunt ND with muzzle loaders, please...


----------



## DuaneinND

If they raised the limit to 2.5x as you have suggested it would allow me with my "trifocal" eyes to hun with a muzzle loader. 
Maybe an option for the change would be proof of "poor eyesight" bifocals, trifocals, etc.


----------



## Plainsman

DuaneinND said:


> If they raised the limit to 2.5x as you have suggested it would allow me with my "trifocal" eyes to hun with a muzzle loader.
> Maybe an option for the change would be proof of "poor eyesight" bifocals, trifocals, etc.


I have trifocal lenses also, and I can not focus through the top (area you sight through when hunting) and even see the front sight. Unless I shoot a barrel about 80 inches long.

I wouldn't even complain if 1X scopes were really 1X. Like NDTerminator I think they are more like .75X or smaller. With both eyes open on my TC scope I know the picture in the scope is much smaller than with my naked eye. At 100 yards they look like they are 200 yards.


----------



## jdpete75

No, why even have a "muzzleloader" season at all? Todays muzzleloader are little more than single shot 30-30s and the muzzy season has become the late season trophy hunt. I even saw one that uses electricity to fire. IMO the NDGF not only needs to get rid of modern scopes they need to make us use exposed breach percusion cap/flintlock only. I have a TC omega that I bought a few years ago just to prove my point that modern muz is not much of a handicap to a yahoo friend of mine. I used it during the regular rifle season, in the same way I would have normally hunted and bing bang boom I got 2 does and a pretty good buck. Todays bullets, barrels and powders are VERY good (too good). If you wish to hunt with a modern scoped up muzzy you can do it during the rifle season


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Merry Christmas and Happy New year to all!!!!!!!

Now with the pleasantry out of the way, both NDT and jdpete75 have valid points! I am also a eye challenged shooter. I cannot focus to shoot open sights. For that reason I am glad we can use at least a 1x scope. I would like a more powerful scope, but see the pitfalls it will bring if we go that route.

I think the current rules keep a balance in place that will allow us to continue to use current in-line guns and still meet the intent of the season and that was one of challenge.

Having hunted with both traditional and in line both are very effective and deadly out to normal vision ranges with open sights or with the 1x scope.
You have people who practice a lot that can shoot beyond 125 yards with both styles of weapons and open sights, but they are few.

The current law allows for a compromise that seems to be working!


----------



## NDTerminator

Pete, the ML season nor in-line vs sidelock are the question I'm asking in this thread. I said I didn't want to start a urinating contest. If it turns into one I'll ask the Mod to kill the thread.

So stiplulated that 1X scopes are legal on any legal ML used during ML season, should NDGF legalize the use of a higher end scope?

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, it is legal to use a higher end scope on a ML if it's used to hunt a firearms tag during firearms season...


----------



## Csquared

Hey guys, I know this may be inflamatory here in this context but I'd like to bring up a talking point on this subject.

Don't you feel obligated to use anything at your disposal to eliminate as much margin for error as possible when you're trying to humanely harvest one of the most magnificent animals on earth?

It is with mixed emotions when I read articles about primitive archers for the same reason. Just yesterday I watched Tred Barta and he missed two caribou completely, which means he missed the kill zone by FEET! So what are the odds of the NEXT shot being perfect instead of off by only ONE foot...and leaving a caribou running around Newfoundland with a piece of cedar sticking out of his butt?

That's another subject, but I just feel very strongly that we owe it to the deer to do the best we can without feeding our ego's.

I'm sincerely sorry if that's offended anyone, but I guess I just don't buy into the logic that a scope's main purpose is to increase effective range. The challenge is still getting the animal within range.....the shot should be no question, whether it's a magnum rifle or a recurve bow. I know that if I get a deer within 30 yards with my bow, and am able to get drawn on him, he's mine if I want him. Where I'm going to hit him should never be in question. If it is....perhaps I shouldn't be shooting at him?

See my point?


----------



## Plainsman

The modern inline does nothing but make the ignition more positive. If you like hang fires wet your powder a little.  The point about projectiles is valid. They increase range because they increase velocity and have a higher ballistic coefficient which translates into flatter trajectory and more down range energy. It is the projectile, not the ignition system that makes todays muzzleloaders appear more affective. 
In my opinion, if you load from the muzzle and not an open breach you have a muzzleloader. If you have iron sights or 1X scope your still in the same ballgame. I just wish 1X was really 1X and not less.

The efficiency has to end somewhere, or our primitive weapons seasons will end. Currently I would like a flintlock. I enjoy hunting more with round balls than sabots, but I had to try the sabots for a couple of years. I have to try something new as often as possible to keep things interesting.

My preference for deer hunting: cap lock and round ball, cap lock and sabot, cap lock and Minnie ball, traditional muzzleloader, inline muzzleloader, and in center fire, long range 300 magnum, short range 44 lever action, medium range single shot 45/70, and archery with a compound, or recurve, or longbow. Spear if they would let me. I like them all, so I can't get angry with anyone's hunting style, if I have forgotten any let me know I would like to try it next year.


----------



## Hunterda

If you have trouble seeing your sights, get a red-dot or a bushnell halo sight.


----------



## NDTerminator

Again Hunter, that's not what I'm asking, but if you are a ML hunter and have an opinion on the question I would like to hear it.

If anything, red dots and halos are another step up in tech from a scope, and it still puts a sight out at a distance where those of us with problems seeing the rear sight have problems. Plus, who wants to rely on a battery operated sight during late season?

Squared, I watched that episode too, only because it was on before Dangerous Game (I don't have much use for Barta). Barta's not the guy to watch a good example of a Trad bowhunter, and that show was a particularly lousy exhibition even by his standards.. Heck, I wouldn't have taken those shots with my compound, let alone one of my recurves...


----------



## Plainsman

NDTerminator

I guess I never gave you a straight answer. I would have no problem with higher magnification, but others might. Therefore I vote to stay away from it simply because it may endanger our sport. One X is good enough for me, but I think the 2X scopes are closer to real one power. Maybe a manufacture needs to get with the program.


----------



## NDTerminator

Thanks, that's what I gathered from your first post...

BTW, I concur with you. I would be quite content if a 1X scope actually was 1X/zero magnification, rather than that reducing the target trick they do.

I'm not thinking in terms of seeing if we ML hunters can bump off a deer as far with our front stuffers as we can with the average 270 or 7MM Mag used during Firearms Season. What I desire is to be able to ethically and confidently take a shot at a deer at 100-125 yards, which I think most all will agree is within the capabilities of a good in-line or sidelock.

On a side note, over at modernmuzzleloading.com I asked how many states allow more than 1X scopes. It's turning out that ND (and MN where 1X scope can only be used by exemption) are in lonely company...

A Mass. resident advised that anything goes for them as to type of ML, optics, loads, etc, except that break action ML's like the Triumph or Omega are illegal! That's one I don't get...


----------



## huntin1

I wouldn't mind seeing the 1X restriction increased to maybe 4x or even 5x, I would really prefer using a variable 1x to 4x over the 1x Nikon that I have. There is a much wider selection of scopes in the 1x to 4x variable range. When I looked for a decent scope for my T/C Thunderhawk I think I found 4, 1 was from Nightforce but at $1500 was a bit beyond my price range, I settled for a Nikon Buckmaster 1x20. It's a good scope, but I still would prefer a variable.

huntin1


----------



## Savage260

If we can use in lines and pre measured pellets, 209 primer, and all the other advantages I guess why not use the best scopes too? Those who want to keep it primitive can, and the rest will at least have the option.


----------



## Ref

I am against the high powered scopes on ML. The new Nikon scope tells you which circle to use all the way out to 250 yards with the exact powder and grain of bullet to use. It's no more than a hi-powered single shot. I always thought the ML season was supposed to be a different way to harvest a deer using different skills and tactics. I like the Minnesota and ND laws the way they are. If the animal is too far for you to harvest with a clean kill....don't shoot. That's the same philosophy that I use with my bow.


----------



## Hunter_58346

What kind of bow do you shoot??


----------



## Ref

I don't think that my point needs to be clarified.


----------



## boondocks

I like the law the way it is. The whole point of it is to keep things primitive and add a new challenge to the sport. If they would allow high powered scopes on muzzies all the season would be is a late season rifle hunt.

I agree with Csquared on the human kill thing, but all a scope is gonna do is extend your effective range. So if its only 50yds with open sights you just don't shoot past 50 yds. Pretty simple.


----------



## boondocks

Csquared said:


> It is with mixed emotions when I read articles about primitive archers for the same reason. Just yesterday I watched Tred Barta and he missed two caribou completely, which means he missed the kill zone by FEET! So what are the odds of the NEXT shot being perfect instead of off by only ONE foot...and leaving a caribou running around Newfoundland with a piece of cedar sticking out of his butt?
> ?


Ole Tred Barta shouldn't be taking shots he can't make. Nobody should be. And you know if he missed a few he probably wounded a few also. Of course they ain't gonna put that on TV. A caribou running around with an arrow hanging out of his hiny probably isn't to good for ratings. Not suprising how on TV they only show clean misses and clean kills.


----------



## NDTerminator

Point taken, Boondocks, but it's pretty much aximotic that any good quality sidelock or in-line with open adjustable sights and a competent shooter is fully capable of ethical 100-125 yard shots on deer.

If you have never used or looked through a 1X scope, I challenge you to try it. Through a 1X, at 100 yards a deer appears to be 200 or more yards away and the animal is nearly covered by the crosshairs, making an ethical shot at that range virtually impossible. I don't think I'm alone when I say the max ethical range for deer using a 1X scope is 50 tops.

The other day I pulled the breech plug and laid the crosshairs on one of my horses at 100 yards. I decided that with an animal that size, a 100 yard shot was doable, but just so. That particular horse is 15 hands tall/900 lbs, about the size of an adult cow moose!

So should those like myself who have to use a 1X scope or not hunt during ML season, be penalized because we have to do so?

Likewise, should those like Duane who posted above who would like to ML hunt but can't because he cannot ethically use either open sights or a 1X scope, be kept out of the sport because of this restriction?


----------



## boondocks

I would support the idea of a 2x scope for muzzloaders. IMO 3x would be to much and not necessary.

I'd also support favoring those that can't see all that well due to eye problems. Theres no reason they shouldn't be able to hunt like the rest.


----------



## Ref

How about leaving the law as it is and for those that need a higher power scope because of health reasons get a clearance from the G & F. Isn't that the way the handicapped hunters get permits to hunt from a vehicle now?


----------



## boondocks

Ref said:


> How about leaving the law as it is and for those that need a higher power scope because of health reasons get a clearance from the G & F. Isn't that the way the handicapped hunters get permits to hunt from a vehicle now?


Agree 100%!


----------



## NDTerminator

I would agree, except that it's the 1X scope that is the problem, not shooters. If a 1X scope actually was zero power and afforded the same field and depth of view as the naked eye, there would be no debate.
It penalizes *all *who want to use a scope, not just those with nearsightedness problems.

As was said earlier, to afford a scope user the same FOV as the naked eye requires a 2X-2.5X scope. I would have no problem with this, but as a practical matter there are few fixed power scopes of this magnification to choose from. The majority of ML/shotgun scopes are variables, which is why I advocate a max of 4X-5X. I imagine it has to do with popularity and production costs...

I suspect when the restriction to a 1X scope was decided upon, few if any responsible for the regulation had ever shot one...


----------



## wirehairman

NDTerminator said:


> On a side note, over at modernmuzzleloading.com I asked how many states allow more than 1X scopes. It's turning out that ND (and MN where 1X scope can only be used by exemption) are in lonely company...
> 
> A Mass. resident advised that anything goes for them as to type of ML, optics, loads, etc, except that break action ML's like the Triumph or Omega are illegal! That's one I don't get...


I figured you could add Montana to that list, but found there actually is no restriction on using a scope with a muzzleloader. However, the regs for weapons restriction areas do read:

_Muzzleloader: There is no special season for muzzleloaders. A muzzleloader:
• must not be capable of being loaded from the breech of the barrel;
• may not be loaded with any prepared paper or metallic cartridges;
• must be charged with black powder, pyrodex, or an equivalent;
• must be ignited by a percussion, flintlock, matchlock, or wheelock mechanism;
• must be a minimum of .45 caliber;
• may have no more than two barrels; and
• must only use lead, not sabots._

I guess the scope question is a moot point with in-lines and sabots being against the regs.


----------



## NDTerminator

Bet there are a lot of guys who pull out the old wheel lock or match lock come deer season... . What better way to add challenge to the hunt than that 1-3 second delay between firing and ingnition. Guess tracking wounded game adds to the experience too... :eyeroll:

Wonder why they don't specify you guys must wear fringed buckskins and load from a horn (but no powder measure as that's too much of an advantage/modern)! 

If there's no stand alone ML season, I can't imagine why there should be any restrictions on the type of ML and loads used with them. I bet you guys have some organization(s) lobbying against modern stuff.

I swear, I had no idea how screwy ML regs were across the country...


----------



## wirehairman

Here is a link to a story about a guy I know in Minnesota that took his deer this year with a homemade matchlock, http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/TraditionalHPML3.html. I doubt Lenn experiences a 1 to 3 second delay with his gun.

As for your comment about tracking wounded game, I personally shot 4 deer this season with my .50 Lyman GPR using a patched round ball, real black powder, and open sights. Every shot was a complete pass through, and tracking each of them the whopping 30 yards they ran was real tough.

I have no problem with in-line users, but the modern muzzleloaders are definitely not for me. I got into muzzleloading because of the heritage associated with it and the challenge. If I wanted to shoot deer with a single shot 30-30, I would go buy a 30-30. Besides, my Hawkens with a slow twist and the proper load/ball/patch combo are more accurate out to 100 yards than any modern muzzleloaders I've seen.

Anytime you're in the Billings area, give me a call, and we'll go shoot my traditional muzzleloaders. I would love the opportunity to dispell some of the common misconceptions about them and to spend some time with a fellow muzzleloader. :beer:


----------



## barebackjack

No.

The purpose of this season is to offer a challenge with a more primitive weapon, and modern in-lines (even with iron sights) are anything but primitive.

I have to argue what Plainsmen said about modern in-lines not being any more "sure-fire" than a flint or percussion gun. They are FAR more reliable. Everything is enclosed. You can practicaly dunk them in the water, and shoot them. The 209 "cap" isnt even exposed anymore.
Try a flintlock in even a light drizzle without proper precautions against moisture, and than tell me its just as reliable as an in-line. I say WAGH!

Why stop at scopes guys? Lets just wrap all that powder primer and bullet in brass, wouldnt that be neat?

It sucks that some of you have poor eyes, im sure I will be joining you in 10-20 years. But have you ever thought of moving the rear sight forward. Ive seen photos of original flints and percussion guns which have had the rear sight dovetails re-cut numerous times and moved farther down the barrel as the shooter aged.

For any that think traditional is ineffective, well, your country was formed with a flint and ball. 200+ years and still going strong.

Im firmly opposed to powered scopes, and would like to see the 1X go away in the MLer season, use it during rifle season if you want. I wouldnt mind in-lines going away, but realize this will never happen. I realize that in-lines are extremely popular and most of you use them, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.


----------



## barebackjack

And from a eyesight standpoint, if you ever get a chance to check out the big MLer shoots in Friendship, youll see alot of 50+ year old gentlemen (most with corrective lenses) shooting EXTREMELY well with traditional iron sighted front stuffers.


----------



## wirehairman

NDTerminator said:


> If there's no stand alone ML season, I can't imagine why there should be any restrictions on the type of ML and loads used with them.


I was thinking about your post and thought I should clarify some things. A person can use any type of ML, and optics, during the Montana general season. The restrictions I posted only apply to the handful of ML only areas throughout the state.


----------



## ND decoy

Question for you guys. What about talking to the game and fish about having two seasons for ML? A traditional one and a modern one.

I don't have a soft spot for the traditional guns. I respect those guys that want to hunt that way. Hey if a guy want to throw a bunch of buck skins on and go hunting more power to him and they shouldn't have to put on the orange if they don't want to. I'll stick with the under armour.

I've only drawn one tag for a muzzle loader, so maybe I'll change my mind in the future.


----------



## NDTerminator

barebackjack said:


> And from a eyesight standpoint, if you ever get a chance to check out the big MLer shoots in Friendship, youll see alot of 50+ year old gentlemen (most with corrective lenses) shooting EXTREMELY well with traditional iron sighted front stuffers.


If you recall from my first post, I explained that post-Lasik surgery, for me corrective lenses *are not an option*. That's the way it is.

Also as was pointed out, if a person has to use trifocals,(as I did prior to Lasik), they simple don't work with open sights.

And I might add, ML shoots aren't the same as shooting at game. The responsibility that goes with taking game cleanly demands much more of us than a target shoot, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, I didn't mean to offend anyone when I was joking about the match and wheels locks. If that sort of thing hits your switch, god bless ya and have a ball...


----------



## NDTerminator

barebackjack said:


> it sucks that some of you have poor eyes, im sure I will be joining you in 10-20 years. But have you ever thought of moving the rear sight forward.


Yeah, I'm sure it would work well putting that rear about 2" behind the front.

Thanks for that helpful suggestion... :eyeroll:


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> it sucks that some of you have poor eyes, im sure I will be joining you in 10-20 years. But have you ever thought of moving the rear sight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure it would work well putting that rear about 2" behind the front.
> 
> Thanks for that helpful suggestion... :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

NDTerminator. Your ignorance on this subject speaks volumes. I build muzzleloaders, and can tell you from experience, that moving a rear sight a mere 2-3 inches forward can often improve a persons sight picture ten fold. As per your comments about wheel-locks and matchlocks, spoken by a man who has no experience with any of these. 
There are many myths and untruths about traditional muzzleloaders which I feel keep many from trying them. Ive had people just as NDTerminator who think flintlocks go off several seconds after you pull the trigger, not true, mine are as fast as my percussion guns, at least to where youll never notice a difference. Ive had people think their more dangerous, "dont those things blow up and just 'go off' without warning"?.. :eyeroll: .......no more than your .270.

And im sorry, but after witnessing some AMAZING shooting with traditional muzzleloaders (even by centerfire standards) by alot of gentlemen with corrective lenses, I just have a hard time swallowing the "eyesight" argument. Maybe a little more time can be spent to find a "cure" for the problem, (ie, rangetime, playing with sight position, etc) instead of the easy way out using a scope, but thats what muzzleloading has become, an "easy way" out.
Which brings me back to my original statement,.....lets just wrap all that there powder, bullet, and primer in brass, thatd be real easy.


----------



## barebackjack

ND decoy said:


> Question for you guys. What about talking to the game and fish about having two seasons for ML? A traditional one and a modern one.
> 
> quote]
> 
> I would support this in a heartbeat,.....but it will never happen. The rifle hunters will scream bloody murder (especially if the season was before their precious rifle season), and the game and fish, who will most likely not want to spend the time and money of organizing another season, will say there are already enough seasons in which a person can legally use a traditional MLer.
> 
> Better yet, how bout the MLer season be traditional only, and in-lines be used only in the regular rifle season........than we'll see how many really enjoy muzzleloading for muzzleloading, and how many are out for just another crack at the big boy. I bet its not many.


----------



## bmxfire37

id love to move my sight forward but i cant. what about us who cant move it?

i see his argument...my dad cant see poo without his glasses. this statement made on a 30/30... points all the same...

he uses a scope of 4X32

with this scope after about 50 yards its more or less crosshairs to me.
atleast this particular scope


----------



## Savage260

I am not sure why this is drawing such a debate. During the rifle season a person shooting any type of ML is legal. So why not open the ML season to any type of ML too? If you want to pretend you are Dan'l Boone or Davey C, go right ahead, but let those of us who enjoy hunting and being out of doors enjoy it the way we want to also. I think a ML is a ML and the season is for ML. If people shoot so accuratly with the patch and ball in a "traditional" ML, what is the problem with shooting that accurately with an in line??? If you can shoot that accurately with open sights, what is the problem with shooting accurately with scopes??? I shoot a .25-06 in the rifle season, but don't worry when another guy shoots his smoke pole with open sights, or someone shoots a pistol. This isn't a team effort. Take care of your own, and don't worry about what anyone else does. Allowing high power scopes isn't going to ruin your hunt, or seriously reduce the deer population will it?


----------



## barebackjack

To each his own is not the real argument laite, and I completely understand that argument.

The argument here is "definition of the season". When this season was created some 20 odd years ago, the modern "muzzleloading" technology was not there, but how do you forsee technological advances?

The purpose of this season was to offer a chance to go out and use a more "primitive" weapon than a centerfire rifle in a stand alone season. And with modern advances in "muzzleloading" technology, that gap between a "primitive muzzleloader" and a centerfire rifle grows smaller and smaller. This argument is more about drawing a line somewhere to keep some technologies from slipping through and making this "just another open season". And im my personal opinion, scopes are the line. Keep your synthetic stainless weatherproof in-line, your 209 enclosed weatherproof primers, your jacketed sabots, and your pre-formed 777 pellets, but leave scopes out of it. I mean come on, they have a electronicaly fired MLer now, I suppose you guys will want that too, woo hoo!, no more fumbling with primers :eyeroll: .

Its merely about a line that needs to be drawn.

How many would support cross-bows in archery season? Same difference.


----------



## wirehairman

barebackjack said:


> How many would support cross-bows in archery season? Same difference.


Perfect comparison.


----------



## NDTerminator

If you're as young as I suspect (judging by your statements) I would guess I shot ML before you were born, Jack. I also rather suspect my formal training and experience with precision shooting far outweighs anything you've done.

Still, it's sure nice to know you know more about my eyesight than I do. It's a real comfort that you know what's best for me, with my being ignorant and all...

All the years I shot my Hawkens I never gave a thought or care if the other guy shot a modern ML. The way I see it, it takes all kinds to rock the world, and who am I to tell another how and with what to hunt?
I had no idea of the animosity toward moderns shooters by many in the Trad community until I retired the Hawkens recently and got an in-line.

Guys like Jack, who rather rather than discuss rationally but choose to insult and tell the rest how & with what they should hunt, typify this type.

Even a casual look around and it seems to me that modern shooters outnumber trad guys substantially in ND. If the trad community can't accept the reality that modern is here to stay a maybe it's time for a ND Modern Muzzleloader Organization so the majority's voice gets heard?

Congrats Jack, you just pushed me all the way into the pro modern camp...

As I said, this was an attempt to gauge the support for better scopes during ML season, not an excuse for another urinating match. I'm asking the mod to lock this thread...


----------



## barebackjack

Like I said before, this is not really a question of "to each his own", in which case hunt with whatever, however, you like.

This is a question of interpretation of the season and the purpose of the season. Some obviously see it as just another "open season" and some see it as a stand alone season for the use of a more primitive weapon. MUCH LIKE THE STAND ALONE ARCHERY SEASON. If the latter is in fact the true intent of the season, than a line has to be drawn somewhere to limit the amount of technology that will be legal, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. If the former is true, we should just change the name to the late gun season.

NDTerminator, im pretty sure I know who you are, and you are correct, you are older than me and have much experience in the shooting sports. But dont pass judgement on young people so quickly because they are younger than you. When one makes snide comments towards a suggestion, and uses fancy sarcastic eyeroll emoticons, it tends to put one on the defensive. Plus your comments towards primitive weapons just plain ****** me off.



NDTerminator said:


> Bet there are a lot of guys who pull out the old wheel lock or match lock come deer season... . What better way to add challenge to the hunt than that 1-3 second delay between firing and ingnition. Guess tracking wounded game adds to the experience too... :eyeroll:


That is my definition of an ignorant statement.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

NDT while we disagree on the need to change the rule, I fully understand you situation. Having had some focus issues affect my shooting during the 06 season with my shotgun age has a way of getting to a person in ways that until you experience them first hand you cannot understand.

I would agree the posters are young, few aches after a long day hunting, a hangover lasts a few hours instead of days etc... It is apparent with the cross bow comment. I torn up my shoulder and received a cross bow permit. While it does increase the range it presented a whole new set of challenges in learning to shoot it effectively. Same as with a bow, be it a recurve or compound.

Many states also have changed the rules to allow people over a certain age to use cross bows during bow season with no medical requirement as well. With todays compound bows and sighting systems the field has narrowed in advantage.

I have used a ML during rifle season with a straight 4x scope. I have used the traditional ML as well. Moved to a scoped unit because of vision issues that came with age.

To me the fix is simple and something that we need to ask the G&F to look at. Since I can get a cross bow permit due to physical limitations, I think that a permit to use a 2.5 to 4x scope on a ML should be allowed if you have a doctors report stating your limits. Then guys like NDT and myself would be allowed to continue hunting in an ethical manner of putting our shot on target.

Same as they do for cross bows and for waiving vehicle restrictions as well. I don't think this question has been put to them in this manner. I know that many of the guys who hunt with a ML do so without a scope because they can see better than with them. I cannot and would not go afield without at least the 1x because of focus. Even at 50 yards my ability to shoot iron sites of any type does not allow for a consistent placement of a round within the vitals of a deer.

So boys, if a person who cannot walk can get a permit for shooting from a vehicle, a person who cannot draw and hold a compound bow can get a cross bow permit, I would think people like NDT and myself and others would be granted the same consideration. Heavens knows the state would not want to be sued for violation of the Americans with Disability Act!


----------



## gun-slinger

i think it boils down to this...what is the reason why you can or cant use them?

in ohio you cant use a rifle at all on public land thats larger than a .22

u can only use a rifle larger than a .22 on lands public and privet for vermin and boar.

ohio ML rules say any ML rifle of .38 or larger

or any ML shotgun .410 caliber or 28-10 guage

thats it. leave it up to the person to decide if he wants to go on a hunt...or a look out


----------



## wirehairman

Ron Gilmore said:


> To me the fix is simple and something that we need to ask the G&F to look at. Since I can get a cross bow permit due to physical limitations, I think that a permit to use a 2.5 to 4x scope on a ML should be allowed if you have a doctors report stating your limits. Then guys like NDT and myself would be allowed to continue hunting in an ethical manner of putting our shot on target.


This sounds like a great compromise that would preserve the intent of a ML only season (or area in Montana) while still allowing everyone to enjoy the opportunity.


----------



## barebackjack

There are extenuating circumstances to every situation. I have no problems with someone who is physicaly unable to draw a bow using a cross-bow, or someone who cant walk using a vehicle........but the comparison was made not in the "special circumstances", it was made in the "opening the flood gates" circumstance. 
Should ANYBODY be able to use a vehicle, cross-bow, special muzzleloaders scopes?

Someone getting a waiver to hunt with a truly scoped MLer (or any of the other waivers for that matter) because of honest sight issues wouldnt bother me at all. But to just allow every Tom Dick and Harry to use every available bit of modern technology in a season intended for the use of primitive weapons I do not agree with.

And with everything, im sure this would get abused just as the vehicle waiver gets abused. But theres no way around that.


----------



## Savage260

I completely understand the views on how far is too far, and all of that. The thing I don't understand is "traditional" MLs are far more advanced than earlier forms of firearms, and those early firearms are far more advanced than throwing a spear. So where is the line drawn not only in progression, but regression also? Is "traditional" truely tradition. I would have to say that man has many many more years of hunting without any type of firearm than he does using a projectile that uses a propellant other than his arm. Kinda seems like splitting hairs, right?


----------



## barebackjack

laite319 said:


> I completely understand the views on how far is too far, and all of that. The thing I don't understand is "traditional" MLs are far more advanced than earlier forms of firearms, and those early firearms are far more advanced than throwing a spear. So where is the line drawn not only in progression, but regression also? Is "traditional" truely tradition. I would have to say that man has many many more years of hunting without any type of firearm than he does using a projectile that uses a propellant other than his arm. Kinda seems like splitting hairs, right?


If you want to regress even beyond "traditional" muzzleloaders, and make things HARDER, and more challenging, perhaps a atlatl or something, than I truly tip my hat to you. Thats the attitude id like to hear more of, make it more challenging, not easier.

It just seems alot of people these days are very willing to sacrifice hunting ability for some new gadget that makes it easier.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So traditional ML? How far back does one have to go to determine that? Recently I watched a piece on the History Channel. They had replicas of the first muzzle loaders. Hand held, straight tubes with a hole in the top to light with a oil soaked cord.

They then followed the progression of improvements until cartridges where introduced and this new invention made ML second choice for people in choosing a weapon.

So laite319 asked the question and I think it deserves a fair answer by those opposed to in-lines! Should we not go back to those first weapons to meet the so called traditional critera?

That has always been my issue with those who want to ban or limit in-lines. Do we only allow flash pans and not caps? Do we only allow round balls? How about no pelleted powder or speed loader setups? So just where do you want to draw the line on advancements? How about nothing earlier than 1700's in design? What is traditional really mean!

Keep in mind that much of the advancement in ML has come about for those who felt slug guns where inadequate for deer hunting especially in states that restrict hunting of deer to ML or slug guns and do not allow rifles at all!

I have hunted with flint locks, nipple and caps, and with in lines both with caps and primers. Shot game with each weapon and have even hunted waterfowl with a black powder shotgun.


----------



## Plainsman

> I have hunted with flint locks, nipple and caps, and with in lines both with caps and primers. Shot game with each weapon and have even hunted waterfowl with a black powder shotgun.


Same here Ron, and let me add that if a person knows enough about muzzleloaders then they realize that the in-line isn't new. The first in-lines were built in the mid 1830's. They were abandoned because they were not as easy to repair if you were off to the mountains and broke something. Even back then they were looking for more direct ignition where the flame didn't have to follow a drum or snail. Some turned to an under hammer with direct fire to the powder charge.

My preference is everything you can hunt with. With high power I like long range, and that's why I perhaps like close range with primitive weapons. I like the experience of many types of hunting. All black powder, compound, but at my age the recurve and longbow are getting tough. I tried talking the state game and fish into letting me use a spear one year, but they would not hear of it.


----------



## huntin1

barebackjack said:


> If you want to regress even beyond "traditional" muzzleloaders, and make things HARDER, and more challenging, perhaps a atlatl or something, than I truly tip my hat to you. Thats the attitude id like to hear more of, make it more challenging, not easier.
> 
> It just seems alot of people these days are very willing to sacrifice hunting ability for some new gadget that makes it easier.


New gadget eh? What do you consider new? Got any idea what this is?










OK I'll tell you, it's a replica of a telescopic sight made by Morgan James of Utica, N.Y. in *1848.* It is I believe 3 or 4 power. Is this a new gadget or should it be allowed on traditional rifles since it was invented in the same time frame?

And who besides you said anything about sacrificing hunting ability? The range on the muzzleloader is still limited. You still have to get relatively close. It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what is challenging. That is up to each individual. Heck I know people who have a hard time getting a deer in the regular deer season with a high powered rifle, to them deer hunting period is challenging.

And if you want to bring crossbows into it, they were invented way before the modern recurve and hundreds of years before the compound, so they are hardly a new gadget.

Instead of badmouthing that which you appear to know nothing about, maybe we would all be better served if you would just promote the sport of *hunting.*

And yes, I have both. A modern in-line with a 1X scope and a Hawken replica that I built myself.

huntin1


----------



## boondocks

NDTerminator said:


> If you're as young as I suspect (judging by your statements) I would guess I shot ML before you were born, Jack. I also rather suspect my formal training and experience with precision shooting far outweighs anything you've done.
> 
> Still, it's sure nice to know you know more about my eyesight than I do. It's a real comfort that you know what's best for me, with my being ignorant and all...
> 
> All the years I shot my Hawkens I never gave a thought or care if the other guy shot a modern ML. The way I see it, it takes all kinds to rock the world, and who am I to tell another how and with what to hunt?
> I had no idea of the animosity toward moderns shooters by many in the Trad community until I retired the Hawkens recently and got an in-line.
> 
> Guys like Jack, who rather rather than discuss rationally but choose to insult and tell the rest how & with what they should hunt, typify this type.
> 
> Even a casual look around and it seems to me that modern shooters outnumber trad guys substantially in ND. If the trad community can't accept the reality that modern is here to stay a maybe it's time for a ND Modern Muzzleloader Organization so the majority's voice gets heard?
> 
> Congrats Jack, you just pushed me all the way into the pro modern camp...
> 
> As I said, this was an attempt to gauge the support for better scopes during ML season, not an excuse for another urinating match. I'm asking the mod to lock this thread...


For being so young, I think barebackjack is making a heck of a good argument for his case.


----------



## Savage260

Boondocks, sounds like the saying "the true test of how intelligent a man is depends on how much he agrees with you" is that the case? Is there a reason you don't want to allow higher power scopes? And if so, how far back in time would you decide the "primitive" season should allow for weapons? Not a challenge, just curious on your POV.


----------



## boondocks

laite319 said:


> Boondocks, sounds like the saying "the true test of how intelligent a man is depends on how much he agrees with you" is that the case? Is there a reason you don't want to allow higher power scopes? And if so, how far back in time would you decide the "primitive" season should allow for weapons? Not a challenge, just curious on your POV.


For your first question it sounds like thats the case for NDT. Barebackjack simply disagreed with him and made some good points and NDT seemed to really take it personally, accusing him of insults and not carrying on a rational conversation. To me it looks like NDT is the one that turned it into a pissing match. On top of that he wants the thread locked because it ain't going his way.

I am against high powered scopes on muzzleloaders simple because it adds a challenge to the hunt. If high powered scopes were allowed what would be the purpose of a season seperate from rifle season? I happen to like the seperate ML season without all the huligans in the woods making deer drive and road hunting. Thats another thing if scopes were allowed you would see more of both.

I do shoot an inline ML. But would have no problem with them going completely primitive. The more I think about it the more I'd like to see it.

Just for the record, I did state earlier that I would have no problem with the G&F giving permits to use a highER(not exceeding 3 or 4 IMO) power scope to people who have serious eyesight issues.

Thats my POV.


----------



## Ref

booddocks,

Great POV. I agree 100%.


----------



## KEN W

I don't hunt with a ML but to me.....if you allow high powered scopes,I will ask our GNF to discontinue a ML season.They are no different than a single shot rifle then.It is just another way to get a second buck tag when so many can't get a first one.Put those couple thousand tags in the regular lottery to boost the odds for EVERYONE not just a few who want another buck tag.Is it really right for someone to have 2,I'm not counting bow tags,when a lot of people can't get 1???

I agree with Ron......if you need a special gun,scope, or situation for ML then get a handicap license just like the regular rifle season.No different the way I see it.


----------



## barebackjack

First off, I would love to see the the season go "traditional", this will NEVER happen, in-lines are here to stay, like it or not. I have no love of in-lines, but dont give a lick if someone else wants to hunt with one. IMO, hunting with a modern in-line WITH iron sights only takes the reliability factor from inclement weather out of MLing. But, put a big honking scope on her, and you have a single-shot .30-30......WHATS THE POINT OF AN EXTRA SEASON THAN?

Ron, to answer your question, I think its simplest to term "traditional" as weapons and accutrements that were present before the advent of cartridge guns. This puts it at a time frame of just before the end of the civil war, or mid 1860's.

Huntin1, you are correct, there were scopes towards the end of this "traditional" period. And if a gentlemen wanted to go afield with a "HISTORICAL" accutrement from that period I would have no problem with that. You have to remember, the optics in that piece are most likely of extremely low quality, theres no nitrogen in it, so guess what, its going to fog and condense moisture, and it has a field of view much less than our modern pieces. But go ahead. Hmmm, that sounds like it could be......CHALLENGING! It sure aint your bushnell or leupold.

Ken W, I agree with you 100%, our "muzzleloading season" (im going to start using that term very loosely) has become much less about muzzleloading and more about just getting one more buck tag.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

BBJ, you gave a definition, but one problem that I see is the fact that todays powders and replica guns are of a quality not available at the time you refer to. I take your example of the optic options as proof of your own reliance upon modern day technology. Wonder how many traditional shooters would want to do that!

Here is another tidbit to think about! You point to the development of the cartridge, but the biggest change in firearms really came with the advent of smokeless powder. To be traditional to me would be to allow any weapon of the era prior to smokeless powder coming of age.

Now would not my definition of "traditional" be a lot more accurate and realistic than yours?

I remember a couple of states that back in the early 70's ran black powder seasons. This allowed any weapon design solely for the use of black powder to be used.
Now that would be traditional!!!!!!!!! Just think, scopes would be limited to fixed power and you could even limit the size of the tube for that matter to those available at the time.

You want to fix the PM over the ML season and the equipment used, simply restrict a buck tag to only one per year period. Then as is the case in many states you could use a compound bow ,recurve or cross bow, rifle or ML tricked out or flintlock style. Bows could be use during any season, and ML could be used in the rifle season as well.

Thus everyone could then decide to what degree of challenge they want to pursue the game with. Doe tags are already treated this way, why not buck tags. If we did this the jealously issue would no longer be a hang up!


----------



## barebackjack

Ron, I dont understand your statement of "replica" powders and weapons not being available today.

You can still buy real black powder, made with the same ingredients just as it was 200 years ago. You can buy a percussion or flintlock rifle made with the same materials as they were 200 years ago. And if your refering to manufacturing processes, well than, you are definatly splitting hairs.

As to what technology, cartridges or smokeless powder, had a more significant impact on weapons, its really a moot point, I dont think anyone can argue that the advent of cartridge weapons didnt have a HUGE impact on where weapon technology was going. Both were huge steps, and cartridge guns came first, and in a way, led to the development of smokeless powder.

This is an interesting topic, but nonetheless off topic as well.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

My point really was about the improved powders available for ML today. Non sulfur powders that are a lot less corrosive. Speed loaders for any type of ML etc...

I look at this issue and reflect back to when electronics came about in fishing. The hysteria that came about when technology took a huge leap. I knew maybe 3 or 4 people growing up that had the old green box flashers. Then paper graphs came about and now underwater cameras are a common thing to see. Then consider GPS units as well. I find a spot on a lake and can return over and over with ease.

We continue to have improved technology and most will embrace it or accept its use. Fishing or hunting it makes very little difference. 30+ years ago I made a chisel from scrap around the farm to punch holes in the ice to fish. A lot of guys made augers from starter motors and old grain auger flights. Now fast forward to what we use today. Maybe we need a traditional ice fishing season as well. Chisels and line with hooks made from bone. After all it is the challenge.

So back on topic, as I said I am OK with the 1x optic rule, I would like as NDT and others point out an option to see as I use to be able to with open sights. But enough about traditional weapons and such. I would bet that until this thread, you did not know that in-lines where made prior to the civil war as well as scopes. Thus all the things being used today are what our ancestors had available in a similar form except for variable power scopes.

I grew up reading about Bowie,Bridger,Boone and a host of other men who forged a living with a Hawken. But they also embraced modern technology with steel traps and wire snares. So shoot your flint lock or cap/nipple, and enjoy it. But understand by your own definition, scopes and in-lines also where used back then as well.


----------



## huntin1

barebackjack said:


> Huntin1, you are correct, there were scopes towards the end of this "traditional" period. And if a gentlemen wanted to go afield with a "HISTORICAL" accutrement from that period I would have no problem with that. You have to remember, the optics in that piece are most likely of extremely low quality, theres no nitrogen in it, so guess what, its going to fog and condense moisture, and it has a field of view much less than our modern pieces. But go ahead. Hmmm, that sounds like it could be......CHALLENGING! It sure aint your bushnell or leupold.


Actually, the replica scope pictured is nitrogen filled and has fully coated optics. I've not looked through one so I can't vouch for their clarity, I have heard though that they are quite clear, and there is no problem with fogging. The optics in the original were likely very low quality, but accourding to history were considerably better than the open sights. I think it is safe to say that the replica rifles are made with better materials today than the originals were as well.

Your use of the words "historical" and "traditional" speak volumes of the elitist atitude so prevelant today. Like "traditional" bowhunters who think that only longbows and recurves should be allowed in the archery season. But I digress.

I have owned and hunted with a 30-30 as well, there is no way that an in-line muzzleloader, even with a scope, will have the range and accuracy of a 30-30. And I daresay that anyone familiar with a lever action rifle could empty the magazine before an in-line could be loaded for a second shot. You compare apples to oranges. Typical tactic used by traditional elitists.

Again, I say it would be far better to promote *hunting* than badmouth someone for their choice in equipment.

huntin1


----------



## 722.222

I have post 40 eyes and have been playing with idea of receiver/peep sights on my muzzleloader. I have heard this helps. Has any one tried it? I would use a scope if not. I believe it is only fair to the game I shoot to do it the quickest way possible.
Ray


----------



## Ricka

I live in Ohio and we can use what ever we like. I have a CVA with a 3-9 Nikon works really well we have shot deer out to 200 yards.Using a 180 grain bullet. And 100 grains of powder. :sniper:


----------



## jdpete75

huntin1 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huntin1, you are correct, there were scopes towards the end of this "traditional" period. And if a gentlemen wanted to go afield with a "HISTORICAL" accutrement from that period I would have no problem with that. You have to remember, the optics in that piece are most likely of extremely low quality, theres no nitrogen in it, so guess what, its going to fog and condense moisture, and it has a field of view much less than our modern pieces. But go ahead. Hmmm, that sounds like it could be......CHALLENGING! It sure aint your bushnell or leupold.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the replica scope pictured is nitrogen filled and has fully coated optics. I've not looked through one so I can't vouch for their clarity, I have heard though that they are quite clear, and there is no problem with fogging. The optics in the original were likely very low quality, but accourding to history were considerably better than the open sights. I think it is safe to say that the replica rifles are made with better materials today than the originals were as well.
> 
> Your use of the words "historical" and "traditional" speak volumes of the elitist atitude so prevelant today. Like "traditional" bowhunters who think that only longbows and recurves should be allowed in the archery season. But I digress.
> 
> I have owned and hunted with a 30-30 as well, there is no way that an in-line muzzleloader, even with a scope, will have the range and accuracy of a 30-30. And I daresay that anyone familiar with a lever action rifle could empty the magazine before an in-line could be loaded for a second shot. You compare apples to oranges. Typical tactic used by traditional elitists.
> 
> Again, I say it would be far better to promote *hunting* than badmouth someone for their choice in equipment.
> 
> huntin1
Click to expand...

http://www.remington.com/products/ammun ... ata=R30301

http://www.bpbullets.com/bullet%20drop% ... rison.html

It would seem that a modern ML is BETTER than a 30-30.

How long is that scope you bought up anyway and how much does it weigh?

So because Barebackjack has a difering opinion than yours he has an elitist attitude? :roll: Sounds more like your arguement is weak and you are resorting to namecalling to stifle him.


----------



## Plainsman

First of all there is no muzzleloader that can use a projectile that comes near the ballistic coefficient of a modern rifle including the old 30-30. Secondly no black powder load will achieve the velocities of a smokeless powder. These two variables put the two firearms into completely incomparable realms.

The length of a scope may impress some people, but it certainly doesn't make them outperform a shorter scope. No, I don't think you were implying that, but I didn't want anyone else with less experience to think it might.

I didn't read bareback jacks comments, and I don't think I will so that I don't bias my next comment. I can not speak of the pre compound bow years, but since they have become popular I have noticed a holier than thou (elitist ) attitude from a segment of the traditional archers. I have also noticed this since I started shooting muzzleloaders back in 1971. Back then it was between the flintlock and cap lock shooters. Today it is between those who imagine themselves as traditionalists and the inline shooters. Most are not versed enough in the development of firearms to realize the inline has been around 172 years. A friend of mine has an old inline that his father built in the 1940's. He shoots it still, but I wouldn't call him a non traditionalist. You see he is fortunate enough to own and shoot the shotgun that belonged to the cook at Theodore Roosevelt's Maltese Cross Ranch. He has the letter that the cook sent to England when he ordered it. In 1975 I could have purchased it for $300, but I was to darn broke to take advantage of a fantastic deal.


----------



## huntin1

jdpete75 said:


> http://www.remington.com/products/ammun ... ata=R30301
> 
> http://www.bpbullets.com/bullet%20drop% ... rison.html
> 
> It would seem that a modern ML is BETTER than a 30-30.
> 
> How long is that scope you bought up anyway and how much does it weigh?
> 
> So because Barebackjack has a difering opinion than yours he has an elitist attitude? :roll: Sounds more like your arguement is weak and you are resorting to namecalling to stifle him.


Lets go back and look at some of the statements,



barebackjack said:


> Better yet, how bout the MLer season be traditional only, and in-lines be used only in the regular rifle season........than we'll see how many really enjoy muzzleloading for muzzleloading, and how many are out for just another crack at the big boy. I bet its not many.





barebackjack said:


> Like I said before, this is not really a question of "to each his own", in which case hunt with whatever, however, you like.
> 
> This is a question of interpretation of the season and the purpose of the season. Some obviously see it as just another "open season" and some see it as a stand alone season for the use of a more primitive weapon. MUCH LIKE THE STAND ALONE ARCHERY SEASON. If the latter is in fact the true intent of the season, than a line has to be drawn somewhere to limit the amount of technology that will be legal, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. If the former is true, we should just change the name to the late gun season.





barebackjack said:


> Its merely about a line that needs to be drawn.


Pretty much the same attitude that was prevalant back when compounds were made legal in the archery season. The traditionalists huffed and puffed about how those modern contraptions would ruin archery hunting forever. Didn't happen then and I hardly think that putting a scope on a muzzleloader is going to ruin muzzleloader hunting now.

The statements made clearly indicate a "traditionalist" or elitist attitude. If you can't see it that's your problem. As far as name calling, I really don't think pointing out an attitude based on statements made is name calling, but if that's how you want to look at it, so be it.

My arguement is and always will be: let's promote *hunting* period, instead of badmouthing people who don't hunt the same way you do.

And if you think that's a weak arguement........................no comment, I don't want to be accused of more name calling.

huntin1


----------



## Csquared

Guys, watching this reminds me of a very important point that I believe is being lost in all this excitement and passion......

We're on the same team!!!!!!!!!!

I become VERY alert when I hear things like "especially if the season was before their precious rifle season", etc., etc.

First of all, this logic that modern advancements have no place in a ML season is ridiculous. Where would you draw THAT line? Modern made guns, regardless of their type, are more "effective" than ones built 100 years ago....right? Straighter and more uniform barrels, tighter machining tolerances, etc. So is that an "unfair" infringement of modern day advances? So should you only be allowed to hunt with a gun built prior to the turn of the 20th century?

Of course not.

This really could not be any simpler...if it loads from the "safe" end, it's not a muzzleloader.

In my home state we can NOT hunt with a rifle. In fact, we can't even be in possession of a loaded centerfire rifle during our firearm deer season. But the only restrictions on our ML rifles are that they be a minimum of 45 caliber and have a barrel of at least 16". Now since we can't use a rifle, and based on the logic I see here that putting a scope on your ML "turns it into a rifle", you would then logically assume that hunters here were flocking to the gun store and trading in their shotguns.......but it simply isn't happening guys!

I saw in a movie once that all a bad guy had to do was "snap" a scope onto the rifle he smuggled up to the top of a building, and then he could OBVIOUSLY kill anyone we wanted simply by putting those crosshairs on 'em.

But that's Hollywood, guys....and we've come to expect that there.....BUT NOT HERE!!!!!!

This is America....the land of the free.....free to do as we see fit. And we have a God-given right to hunt. That right is NOT, I repeat NOT granted to us by the state as the "state" would have us believe. But there is a need for the state to limit our access to the resource. So, decide how many deer can be safely harvested from the herd, use the magic formula of success ratios to determine how many tags can be sold to arrive at that harvest number, divide those permits between the rifle, ML and archery seasons......and then stay out of the way! Let us hunt!

If a particular person needs to feed his ego by killing a deer with his cub scout knife (like Barta with a pig)......do it! I don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on him. I personally have enough respect for the animal that I feel a deep responsibility to harvest it as cleanly as possible, and although I freely admit that many here may be able to do that without a scope, I can't harvest a deer as cleanly without one as I can with one.....so I hunt only with scoped guns. And I would get VERY agitated if someone were to tell me I couldn't do that!

A 24X scope mounted on a ML is STILL a muzzleloader...and with the SAME effective range. Only difference is you can aim it more precisely.....and that's always a GOOD thing! No one here REALLY believes that banning scopes prevents people from trying to kill deer at the extreme limits of the round.....do you?

So why not at least let them SEE where they're aiming?

But back to my point...how can we as gun owners collectively combat those who would disarm us, and then in the next breath beat each other up over how we like to aim our favorite deer gun?

The state's job is to decide how many deer can be taken from the herd. We should be united in fighting their desire to control EVERY aspect of that harvest.

So although I'm sure we all enjoy a healthy debate...or we wouldn't be here...right?......let's not lose sight of the fact we're on the same team, and should be fighting for as much freedom of choice as is humanly possible while enjoying our God-given rights!

And as far as mention of crossbows? I agree.....it is a valid comparison...and I say there... "let em use 'em!" I FIRMLY believe there is no real benefit to their use and wouldn't even think twice if someone hunted my property the entire bow season with one if that's what they wanted to use. I'd still have the chance to kill as many deer or more. A neighbor hunts with one. I can hear him shoot from MY property, and he's missed more deer in 2 years with it than I have in the last 20 years with my compound.

......and he has a scope on it!


----------



## barebackjack

huntin1 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huntin1, you are correct, there were scopes towards the end of this "traditional" period. And if a gentlemen wanted to go afield with a "HISTORICAL" accutrement from that period I would have no problem with that. You have to remember, the optics in that piece are most likely of extremely low quality, theres no nitrogen in it, so guess what, its going to fog and condense moisture, and it has a field of view much less than our modern pieces. But go ahead. Hmmm, that sounds like it could be......CHALLENGING! It sure aint your bushnell or leupold.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the replica scope pictured is nitrogen filled and has fully coated optics. I've not looked through one so I can't vouch for their clarity, I have heard though that they are quite clear, and there is no problem with fogging. The optics in the original were likely very low quality, but accourding to history were considerably better than the open sights. I think it is safe to say that the replica rifles are made with better materials today than the originals were as well.
> 
> huntin1
Click to expand...

As long as were pulling information out of our a**es.......

Henry Louis Le Chatelier, the man that discovered the eqiulibrium effects of inert gases (such as Nitrogen) wasnt born until 1850. Two years after your so called nitrogen filled scope. Which backs up my assumption that it was not nitrogen filled.
What I was pointing at, and which obviously wasnt grasped, was that even though there may have been scopes in this period, they were of nowhere near the quality, and had not the bells and whistles of the scopes, that if allowed, would be placed on muzzleloaders today.

So what everyone is saying here, is that we should use every bit of modern technology that is available to us?
So, why isnt the device that allows a person to lock their bow at the half or full draw position legal?
Why arent lighted sight pins legal?
Why isnt the electronically fired in-line legal?
Why arent poisoned tipped broadheads, or explosive broadheads legal?
Why arent laser sights legal?
Why cant I use electrofishing in lew of a rod and reel, I mean, heck, the technology is there after all?


----------



## barebackjack

Huntin1, ill take your reference to me as an "elitist" as a compliment, given the definition of "elite" and such. 

Im merely stating that there needs to be a definition of just why this season exists. Does it exist to offer a chance to use a more primitive weapon, or does it just exist?

I happen to believe its there to offer a chance for people to use a primitive weapon, and by allowing scopes, we are negating the "primitive" standpoint.


----------



## huntin1

barebackjack said:


> huntin1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huntin1, you are correct, there were scopes towards the end of this "traditional" period. And if a gentlemen wanted to go afield with a "HISTORICAL" accutrement from that period I would have no problem with that. You have to remember, the optics in that piece are most likely of extremely low quality, theres no nitrogen in it, so guess what, its going to fog and condense moisture, and it has a field of view much less than our modern pieces. But go ahead. Hmmm, that sounds like it could be......CHALLENGING! It sure aint your bushnell or leupold.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the *replica* scope pictured is nitrogen filled and has fully coated optics. I've not looked through one so I can't vouch for their clarity, I have heard though that they are quite clear, and there is no problem with fogging. The optics in the original were likely very low quality, but accourding to history were considerably better than the open sights. I think it is safe to say that the replica rifles are made with better materials today than the originals were as well.
> 
> huntin1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as were pulling information out of our a**es.......
> 
> Henry Louis Le Chatelier, the man that discovered the eqiulibrium effects of inert gases (such as Nitrogen) wasnt born until 1850. Two years after your so called nitrogen filled scope. Which backs up my assumption that it was not nitrogen filled.
> What I was pointing at, and which obviously wasnt grasped, was that even though there may have been scopes in this period, they were of nowhere near the quality, and had not the bells and whistles of the scopes, that if allowed, would be placed on muzzleloaders today.
> 
> So what everyone is saying here, is that we should use every bit of modern technology that is available to us?
> So, why isnt the device that allows a person to lock their bow at the half or full draw position legal?
> Why arent lighted sight pins legal?
> Why isnt the electronically fired in-line legal?
> Why arent poisoned tipped broadheads, or explosive broadheads legal?
> Why arent laser sights legal?
> Why cant I use electrofishing in lew of a rod and reel, I mean, heck, the technology is there after all?
Click to expand...

I never once said the scope made in 1848 was nitrogen filled, I specifically said the REPLICA scope was. Who is pulling sh^t out of their a%^es?

You obviously ain't going to get it and this is going no where.

huntin1


----------



## barebackjack

huntin1 said:


> You obviously ain't going to get it and this is going no where.
> 
> huntin1


I was just thinking the same myself.


----------



## huntin1

So lets agree to disagree and let it go.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Hunter_58346

Maybe its time for a Modern Muzzleloaders Association of ND. The Trads have it, the bow hunters have it,,,,might just work.


----------



## jimbob357

It's not the instrument that makes a musician good, it's the musicians skill, practice and ability that make him good.

Same thing goes for ML, archery, handgunning, shotguning or anything else.

The man or woman that practices and knows their skills/limitations with their chosen equipment are far better off then someone who THINKS that buying modern technology will make them proficient. 
IMO, there is too much hype and advertisement about 200 yard Muzzleloaders, and too many people that don't practice or get framiliar with their equipment. The once a year hunter... weather it be with shotgun, bow, rifle or muzzleloader.

I am all in favor of making it easier to make an ethical shot on game.
A 1X scope is a good compromise, but I'm not against people having a Doctors slip allowing the people that need it to use a 4X or even a 3-9X on a ML.

NDTerminator, the only way to get it changed is to petition the legislature to do it.


----------



## wirehairman

Ricka said:


> I live in Ohio and we can use what ever we like. I have a CVA with a 3-9 Nikon works really well we have shot deer out to 200 yards.Using a 180 grain bullet. And 100 grains of powder. :sniper:


 

I won't argue that my replica Hawkens are built of better materials and by better manufacturing processes than the originals. However, 100 yards is my maximum effective range with open sights, real black powder, and a patched round ball despite the fact that I shoot A LOT during the off season and consider myself a fairly good shot. The combination of a modern ML and a higher power scope has doubled the effective range of my guns for Ricka. To me, that is a distinct advantage over traditional ML's.

Of course, there are no special ML seasons in Montana, so I hunt with my traditional ML's during the general season. This year, I managed to do better than a lot of road-hunting slobs I know that own pretty fancy centerfires. I'm fairly certain I can do as well as someone with a modern ML and a scope, so it is no skin off my back.

My problem is with those same slob hunters I described. The picture these outdoor shows paint of modern ML's with pelletized powder, sabotted bullets, and scopes makes a lot of slobs think they can run down to the hardware store, pick one up, and get another crack at the big buck just like that. Many of them never spend the time at the range to learn how to shoot a ML, have no clue about the limitations of a ML, and really have no business hunting with one. Allowing higher power scopes (without a medical clearance) will just open the flood gates, IMHO.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, csquared, huntin1, jimbob, and others, you have some very good points. Jimbob it's a very good analogy comparing a musician, and there is one other point I would like to make. The inline and other improvements have attracted many more people to the sport. Politically this is good because there is strength in numbers. It's nice to be nearly alone in the field, but it's not so nice to be alone in front of the legislature defending your sport.


----------

