Traditional Muzzleloader Shooters timid?

[ElDiablito]

That stuff^^ is only a function of what went into making that individual gun, has nothing to do with whether its a sidelock vs inline. Unless you define traditional as “only capable of a specific chamber pressure with a lock time greater than xx milliseconds and with a twist rate less than xx” then that stuff is only correlated, not caused by, being a “traditional” ml. Define it based on correlated features and make widespread restrictions, and watch “traditional” ml tech catch up in a hurry.

 

[EdP]

That stuff^^ is only a function of what went into making that individual gun, has nothing to do with whether its a sidelock vs inline. Unless you define traditional as “only capable of a specific chamber pressure with a lock time greater than xx milliseconds and with a twist rate less than xx” then that stuff is only correlated, not caused by, being a “traditional” ml. Define it based on correlated features and make widespread restrictions, and watch “traditional” ml tech catch up in a hurry.

True that it is what went into a particular gun, but "traditional" usually means traditional in design features. Modern steels and mfg methods may be used but the design features result in inherent limits on capability. Rate of twist, type of ignition, primitive style sights, etc all impact what a rifle is capable of. Sure, a scope can be mounted on a flintlock, but once enhanced with modern technological design features it is no longer a traditional ML.

In-lines have changed ML hunting just as the compound and crossbow changed archery hunting. I use what I enjoy using and see nothing to be gained by criticizing other hunters for what they choose to use.

 

[EdP]

All states balance hunter opportunity with harvest. We should argue about what it means and what it takes to offer enough opportunity to hunt, for long enough each season, by enough people, while keeping harvest at an appropriate and sustainable level. Imo any other way to look at this issue is petty bickering.

Spot on!

 

[ElDiablito]

Seems like a good place to throw this into the discussion…..

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

True that it is what went into a particular gun, but "traditional" usually means traditional in design features. Modern steels and mfg methods may be used but the design features result in inherent limits on capability. Rate of twist, type of ignition, primitive style sights, etc all impact what a rifle is capable of. Sure, a scope can be mounted on a flintlock, but once enhanced with modern technological design features it is no longer a traditional ML.

In-lines have changed ML hunting just as the compound and crossbow changed archery hunting. I use what I enjoy using and see nothing to be gained by criticizing other hunters for what they choose to use.

What prevents a person from ordering a faster twist barrel for a "traditional" muzzle loader build?

Inline are readily available with primative sights and multiple states require them to be that way. If anyone has an issue with scopes that has nothing to do with inlines and everything to do with state regulations.

 

[Macintosh]

True that it is what went into a particular gun, but "traditional" usually means traditional in design features. Modern steels and mfg methods may be used but the design features result in inherent limits on capability. Rate of twist, type of ignition, primitive style sights, etc all impact what a rifle is capable of. Sure, a scope can be mounted on a flintlock, but once enhanced with modern technological design features it is no longer a traditional ML.

In-lines have changed ML hunting just as the compound and crossbow changed archery hunting. I use what I enjoy using and see nothing to be gained by criticizing other hunters for what they choose to use.

I think we’re saying the same thing. Im not making a value judgement one way or another though. My point is that if you legally define a “restricted” muzzleloader by saying its a lock on the side with an external hammer, fully visible percussion cap, and open/peep sights, and you restrict lots of people to use those things…then you start an arms race to maximize what can be done with those restrictions. You start making “turbo-hawkens” with micro-adjsutable dialing peep sights, modern steel that can burn blackhorn or even smokeless powder, with relatively fast-twist barrels, you get new bullets that maximise what can be done with a full-bore ml, you get new percussion caps that are waterproof and hotter, you get actions designed to meet the “sidelock” definition with a faster lock time, etc. My point is that making widespread traditional seasons doesnt mean that technological development stops where it is today…it CREATES demand which literally fuels updates to that technology.

 

[cnelk]

Several years ago, Colorado restricted MLs to sidelocks/flintlocks - no inlines.

That didnt last very long

 

[flathead#2]

Sidelocks all day.

 

[RockAndSage]

I think we’re saying the same thing. Im not making a value judgement one way or another though. My point is that if you legally define a “restricted” muzzleloader by saying its a lock on the side with an external hammer, fully visible percussion cap, and open/peep sights, and you restrict lots of people to use those things…then you start an arms race to maximize what can be done with those restrictions. You start making “turbo-hawkens” with micro-adjsutable dialing peep sights, modern steel that can burn blackhorn or even smokeless powder, with relatively fast-twist barrels, you get new bullets that maximise what can be done with a full-bore ml, you get new percussion caps that are waterproof and hotter, you get actions designed to meet the “sidelock” definition with a faster lock time, etc. My point is that making widespread traditional seasons doesnt mean that technological development stops where it is today…it CREATES demand which literally fuels updates to that technology.

A turbo-Hawken sounds kinda cool, actually...

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I think we’re saying the same thing. Im not making a value judgement one way or another though. My point is that if you legally define a “restricted” muzzleloader by saying its a lock on the side with an external hammer, fully visible percussion cap, and open/peep sights, and you restrict lots of people to use those things…then you start an arms race to maximize what can be done with those restrictions. You start making “turbo-hawkens” with micro-adjsutable dialing peep sights, modern steel that can burn blackhorn or even smokeless powder, with relatively fast-twist barrels, you get new bullets that maximise what can be done with a full-bore ml, you get new percussion caps that are waterproof and hotter, you get actions designed to meet the “sidelock” definition with a faster lock time, etc. My point is that making widespread traditional seasons doesnt mean that technological development stops where it is today…it CREATES demand which literally fuels updates to that technology.

Bingo.

 

[Wrench]

I don't feel hadicapped with a side lock....

 

[Wrench]

And to prove it wasnt a fluke....

 

[RockAndSage]

There's an angle in here that I haven't seen brought up yet, and it relates to the nature and spirit of "fair chase" - at a couple of levels.

Why are archery hunts the earliest of the year? Because it gives archers an easier hunt for what is a very difficult challenge - esp with mule deer, they're a lot easier to find and hunt when they're in velvet, often bachelored up in a group still, and often out in the open. Nobody has been hunting them yet, either, so archery guys get first crack at their animals, when they're easiest to hunt for several reasons, and able to get within archery ranges.

It's also why you don't have rifle seasons when deer are in velvet - it's a bit of an unfair advantage at that point. Same with why most Western states have little to no season opportunities for rut hunts with rifles - unfair advantage, less "fair chase".

Why were MZ hunts first set up to be immediately after Archery - and not at the same time, or before? Same reasons, related to fair chase in some ways, for both the animals and hunters using a different class of weapons. MZ is hard enough, but significantly less difficult than Archery. But if you allow MZ hunting during Archery season, it would molest the experience and the hunts of a lot of archers - and give unfair advantage to the MZ hunters.

And both of these types of hunts just get ruined in most states if you throw in rifle hunters. It's the same reason why almost nobody is out hunting with a bow or a muzzleloader during the rifle/any-legal-weapon seasons. Because rifle hunters (of which I am one) make an entirely unequal playing field for guys out with bows or muzzleloaders.

Personally, I use a traditional muzzleloader, but genuinely don't give two $h*ts what kind of muzzleloaders other guys use. There does seem to be a fair-chase tipping point in there somewhere, however, for both the game animals at a particular time of year, and for other MZ hunters, when your modern muzzleloaders just become a different class of weapon - where a 600yd-capable, sub-MOA, optic-equipped smokeless muzzleloader just completely exceeds the fair-chase experience of other hunters in the field at that time, and the animal behavior that MZ seasons were originally selected for. I don't think it's right to ban them, but it also doesn't seem any more right for them to be used during MZ season than it would be to use muzzleloaders in Archery season.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

There's an angle in here that I haven't seen brought up yet, and it relates to the nature and spirit of "fair chase" - at a couple of levels.

I think you're conflating fair chase with efficacy and opportunity in regards to season structures.

If the stats say X animals can be harvested from a herd to remain healthy you issue far less tags if only rifle tags esp. at high success times of the year are issued. If there are other weapons/times of year that have notably lower success rates then you can issue more tags giving more folks opportunity.

 

[RockAndSage]

And to prove it wasnt a fluke....

That's great shooting, and a very cool setup.

 

[mtnbound]

I use both Side Hammer and Inline ML's. At one point, Idaho only allowed Side Hammers, so that's what I used; when they allowed Inlines, I gave those a try. The Side Hammer feels more primitive, so I find I prefer it, but both seem to be just as accurate with open sights. I have a love-hate relationship with MLs as I love the stalk of having to get close to the animal, but I hate the F!@@#$g thing when it fails to go bang. The last bull I shot, I said to myself if this thing doesn't go bang, I'm done with ML's. Well, I guess I'm not done with MLs.

 

[RockAndSage]

I think you're conflating fair chase with efficacy and opportunity in regards to season structures.

If the stats say X animals can be harvested from a herd to remain healthy you issue far less tags if only rifle tags esp. at high success times of the year are issued. If there are other weapons/times of year that have notably lower success rates then you can issue more tags giving more folks opportunity.

I am - not limiting "fair chase" to just hunting ethics. It is conflated in how I look at the issue of the really advanced modern muzzleloaders. And if it wasn't clear, I have no problem with people using them if they're legally permitted. The greater question for me is whether they constitute a different class of weapon. It's not something I care too much about, but I wasn't seeing this angle to it all being brought up.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I am - not limiting "fair chase" to just hunting ethics. It is conflated in how I look at the issue of the really advanced modern muzzleloaders. And if it wasn't clear, I have no problem with people using them if they're legally permitted. The greater question for me is whether they constitute a different class of weapon. It's not something I care too much about, but I wasn't seeing this angle to it all being brought up.

I wasn't talking ethics, I was just talking that I think seasons are setup more on efficacy than "fair chase" is all.

I think scoped muzzle loaders shooting smokeless powder (basically single shot center fire rifles) are a different class, but many states don't allow them as a muzzleloader so its not really a real problem. Once things are down to open sights the reality is it comes down to a given hunters eye sight than anything else imho, if you have crisp eyes and can see a target a long way away through a peep sight then it doesn't really matter if the ignition system is inline or on the side. As demonstrated by folks in this very thread with their hawkins shooting hundreds of yards.

 

[HighUintas]

I really don't care what type of ML or rifle or bow someone else chooses to hunt with.

My biggest gripe is when a state has a designated ML season and it allows a weapon that is basically a single shot long range rifle that can kill passed 600. There's very little difference between the ML and a CF at that point and they don't need 2 different seasons.

I agree with @Macintosh that those features are just what make those particular guns. If enough western states were limited to sidelocks and open sights, you'd see a bunch of new tech that meets the regs giving people that edge back. I was just stating what the current difference/benefits are of an inline vs something like a TC Hawken.

 

[HighUintas]

Further .... Even if a state doesn't allow something doesn't mean people aren't doing it. Utah doesn't allow smokeless in muzzleloaders. But I know plenty of people here use it. I sold some h4198 to a guy who planned to use it in his muzzy that season, in Utah.