Your choice for Muzzleloader regulations.

[DGH]

Use what you like and don't worry so much about what the other guy does. Go and have fun while we still can. There is enough contention in this country already without having it in the sport we love. We already have plenty of restrictions, choose your season and muzzleloader has the worst dates and only one weekend in the hunt.Just let it go and keep the rules in Utah where there at.

 

[Novashooter]

As long as it’s loaded thru the muzzle, who cares? That by definition is a muzzleloader.

That's about how I feel. People that know me may be surprised, but I have absolutely nothing against modern designs. I own a few modern 209 primer muzzleloaders. What's different for me than other people is that I genuinely love muzzleloaders, and the history of firearms. Since I also love hunting, it is only natural that I hunt with muzzleloaders. It shouldn't be a huge surprise that firearms built in the 1700's and early 1800's, the prime years of muzzleloaders were built to be used. Their designs are the most fun to me to shoot and hunt with, that's what they were built to do.

Some people have this idea that scopes, inline ignition muzzleloaders, and bullets are modern 20th century or newer ideas, and they aren't true. Inline designs are rare, but they existed. Rifle scopes existed even in the 18th century, although they didn't really get use until the 19th century. They just were not used much for hunters. Bullets, meaning elongated projectiles, especially are not a modern idea. They weren't used very much since they didn't offer that much advantage to the average person. They weighed more, they didn't kill any better, and I suspect accuracy was not that great. Rifles built back then were hand made and even the barrels were made using machines more akin to jigs than lathes. Barrel dimensions varied rifle to rifle. Bullet molds, almost always a basic round ball, were sold with each individual rifle so they could fit properly. Different parts of the world did things differently. Here in the new USA we embraced cloth patch around a round ball as the gold standard for accuracy. Generally linen was the standard cloth then. This patch cleaned the bore slightly when loading, and provided a good fit for the ball for accuracy. A patch is by definition, a sabot for a round ball. There's nothing that says a sabot is plastic. Wood and leather are other materials used traditionally for sabots.

So to get to the point, my opinion on what laws should be for todays muzzleloading hunting season really comes down to the intention of the season more than being historically correct. In my opinion the muzzleloader season should allow a hunter some advantages over the standard firearms season to give them a fair chance at a good animal with a supposedly more difficult firearm to use. The most distinct examples I can think of in my area is the MN and SD muzzleloader seasons. In MN their muzzleloader season is extremely short, only a couple weeks, and it starts right after their regular firearms season. By every metric, the MN muzzleloader season is much harder than the regular firearms season. It's become nothing more than an extra couple weeks firearms hunters use to fill the freezer, it isn't an honest muzzleloader season.

By comparison SD muzzleloader season has a HUGE advantage right off the bat. Most firearms tags here are only valid in a single county. The muzzleloader tag is valid state wide. On top of that the season is a full month long. It is after the firearms season, but it is long enough most deer can settle down a little. This is an honest muzzleloader season.

I don't like weird restrictions myself. States like Idaho made restrictions with good intentions, but all people did was skirt the law with design changes. I'm ok with the ban on 209 primers, but at the same time they don't really give anyone an advantage. Whether its ignited by percussion cap, musket cap, 209 primer, or other, if it goes bang, it goes bang. At least they allow double barrels. SXS's are traditional dating way back. Some states don't allow them, which is outright stupid. Idaho only allows loose powder. I only shoot loose powder, but that's because it's better. Pellets and sticks are what they are. They aren't as accurate, and they cost way more. I wouldn't support this regulation. What I would support is that everything must be loaded from the muzzle. This seems so obvious to me, but apparently not to others. While cartridge guns did exist way back, this isn't the historical season, this is the MUZZLELOADER season. Everything in your barrel, powder, wads, projectile, etc. must be loaded from the muzzle end, no exceptions. This is one of the few areas I draw a hard line. Those Federal fire sticks are the dumbest thing I've ever seen. That's a straight up cartridge you load in the rear. It's not even subtle, it's a middle finger to everyone who likes muzzleloaders. I see no difference between that and allowing BPCR's. Having a separate "traditional" season with those is for another discussion.

Back to picking on Idaho, but applies to most western states is the open ignition regulations. Idaho says your "cap", meaning any ignition type, is clearly exposed and visible with the hammer cocked. This is one of those regulations with good intentions with terrible outcomes. Now there's all kinds of "western legal" abominations out there that exist for no reason but to skirt regulations. I have no problem with people using these rifles, but I also think the regulation is stupid. If you are using a modern inline rifle, what difference does it make if you can see the primer? It's the same rifle, except one has a cutout or hole.

One other quick Idaho example is the "projectile must be within .010" of bore diameter". Presumably to allow patched round ball, but not allow plastic sabots. In one of my 54 caliber rifles, .540" bore, I shoot a thick patch and .520" ball. So that's not legal in Idaho? Another regulation with good intention, but poor execution.

Lastly is the scope issue. I think most view scopes as a huge advantage, and in certain instances they could be. They are also a part of muzzleloader history. I think most of us know when people are pushing it too far. If you are out there with a $1500 rifle that looks like a Remington 700 and 4-12x Leupold scope on it, you are probably in the wrong season. I also don't see anything wrong with people who want to use scopes, to use scopes. Especially as people get older, a 2x scope can be a godsend for those with less than ideal eyes.

If I were to write regulations for my state big game muzzleloader season, it might look like the following.

December 1-31
minimum caliber 40
handguns, minimum caliber 44 (I'm fine with cap and ball revolvers)
must be loaded from the muzzle only
open or aperture sights permitted
fixed power scope permitted (seems a good compromise, and more historically correct)

That's about all I'd have. Some like to choose things for others. I trust fellow hunters will make the right choices and not shoot a 40 caliber PRB at an elk.

 

[CMP70306]

That's about how I feel. People that know me may be surprised, but I have absolutely nothing against modern designs. I own a few modern 209 primer muzzleloaders. What's different for me than other people is that I genuinely love muzzleloaders, and the history of firearms. Since I also love hunting, it is only natural that I hunt with muzzleloaders. It shouldn't be a huge surprise that firearms built in the 1700's and early 1800's, the prime years of muzzleloaders were built to be used. Their designs are the most fun to me to shoot and hunt with, that's what they were built to do.

Some people have this idea that scopes, inline ignition muzzleloaders, and bullets are modern 20th century or newer ideas, and they aren't true. Inline designs are rare, but they existed. Rifle scopes existed even in the 18th century, although they didn't really get use until the 19th century. They just were not used much for hunters. Bullets, meaning elongated projectiles, especially are not a modern idea. They weren't used very much since they didn't offer that much advantage to the average person. They weighed more, they didn't kill any better, and I suspect accuracy was not that great. Rifles built back then were hand made and even the barrels were made using machines more akin to jigs than lathes. Barrel dimensions varied rifle to rifle. Bullet molds, almost always a basic round ball, were sold with each individual rifle so they could fit properly. Different parts of the world did things differently. Here in the new USA we embraced cloth patch around a round ball as the gold standard for accuracy. Generally linen was the standard cloth then. This patch cleaned the bore slightly when loading, and provided a good fit for the ball for accuracy. A patch is by definition, a sabot for a round ball. There's nothing that says a sabot is plastic. Wood and leather are other materials used traditionally for sabots.

So to get to the point, my opinion on what laws should be for todays muzzleloading hunting season really comes down to the intention of the season more than being historically correct. In my opinion the muzzleloader season should allow a hunter some advantages over the standard firearms season to give them a fair chance at a good animal with a supposedly more difficult firearm to use. The most distinct examples I can think of in my area is the MN and SD muzzleloader seasons. In MN their muzzleloader season is extremely short, only a couple weeks, and it starts right after their regular firearms season. By every metric, the MN muzzleloader season is much harder than the regular firearms season. It's become nothing more than an extra couple weeks firearms hunters use to fill the freezer, it isn't an honest muzzleloader season.

By comparison SD muzzleloader season has a HUGE advantage right off the bat. Most firearms tags here are only valid in a single county. The muzzleloader tag is valid state wide. On top of that the season is a full month long. It is after the firearms season, but it is long enough most deer can settle down a little. This is an honest muzzleloader season.

I don't like weird restrictions myself. States like Idaho made restrictions with good intentions, but all people did was skirt the law with design changes. I'm ok with the ban on 209 primers, but at the same time they don't really give anyone an advantage. Whether its ignited by percussion cap, musket cap, 209 primer, or other, if it goes bang, it goes bang. At least they allow double barrels. SXS's are traditional dating way back. Some states don't allow them, which is outright stupid. Idaho only allows loose powder. I only shoot loose powder, but that's because it's better. Pellets and sticks are what they are. They aren't as accurate, and they cost way more. I wouldn't support this regulation. What I would support is that everything must be loaded from the muzzle. This seems so obvious to me, but apparently not to others. While cartridge guns did exist way back, this isn't the historical season, this is the MUZZLELOADER season. Everything in your barrel, powder, wads, projectile, etc. must be loaded from the muzzle end, no exceptions. This is one of the few areas I draw a hard line. Those Federal fire sticks are the dumbest thing I've ever seen. That's a straight up cartridge you load in the rear. It's not even subtle, it's a middle finger to everyone who likes muzzleloaders. I see no difference between that and allowing BPCR's. Having a separate "traditional" season with those is for another discussion.

Back to picking on Idaho, but applies to most western states is the open ignition regulations. Idaho says your "cap", meaning any ignition type, is clearly exposed and visible with the hammer cocked. This is one of those regulations with good intentions with terrible outcomes. Now there's all kinds of "western legal" abominations out there that exist for no reason but to skirt regulations. I have no problem with people using these rifles, but I also think the regulation is stupid. If you are using a modern inline rifle, what difference does it make if you can see the primer? It's the same rifle, except one has a cutout or hole.

One other quick Idaho example is the "projectile must be within .010" of bore diameter". Presumably to allow patched round ball, but not allow plastic sabots. In one of my 54 caliber rifles, .540" bore, I shoot a thick patch and .520" ball. So that's not legal in Idaho? Another regulation with good intention, but poor execution.

Lastly is the scope issue. I think most view scopes as a huge advantage, and in certain instances they could be. They are also a part of muzzleloader history. I think most of us know when people are pushing it too far. If you are out there with a $1500 rifle that looks like a Remington 700 and 4-12x Leupold scope on it, you are probably in the wrong season. I also don't see anything wrong with people who want to use scopes, to use scopes. Especially as people get older, a 2x scope can be a godsend for those with less than ideal eyes.

If I were to write regulations for my state big game muzzleloader season, it might look like the following.

December 1-31
minimum caliber 40
handguns, minimum caliber 44 (I'm fine with cap and ball revolvers)
must be loaded from the muzzle only
open or aperture sights permitted
fixed power scope permitted (seems a good compromise, and more historically correct)

That's about all I'd have. Some like to choose things for others. I trust fellow hunters will make the right choices and not shoot a 40 caliber PRB at an elk.

So out of curiosity what is your take on breech loading percussion rifles from the mid 1800’s like the 1859 and 1863 Sharps? Here in PA they weren’t legal until recently but the Firestick was banned as the powder and primer were considered one unit even if the bullet is loaded from the muzzle.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

my preference is for flintlocks only, since i've got a 25 year head start on most folks in figuring out how to make them actually fire reliably. they're a royal pain in the butt, and a true short range, primitive, historic weapon.

 

[Novashooter]

my preference is for flintlocks only, since i've got a 25 year head start on most folks in figuring out how to make them actually fire reliably. they're a royal pain in the butt, and a true short range, primitive, historic weapon.

There's no way you actually have 25 years experience, I'm guessing this is satire. The truth is flintlocks are not that hard to learn, they are just expensive to get one that isn't poor quality. For that reason alone I would never support a flintlock only season. Accuracy wise, the accuracy is the barrel, not the ignition. The American Longrifle is renowned for it's accuracy, especially for offhand shooting. It's not uncommon for a good one with a Green Mountain, Rice, Kibler, etc. barrel to shoot a patched round ball in 2" groups at 100 yards off a bench average. That does take some load development, but 3"-4" at 100 yards is something anyone can do with very little effort in a couple of range trips.

Beyond that, they aren't that much a pain to deal with. You can learn to knap if you want to get the most out of your flints. Otherwise you just use flints and replace as needed. A good lock should be able to get 20+ shots from a flint with no work. Knapping isn't that hard, and can extend your flints to 100+ shots, but it really depends on the flint. There's no magic to putting prime in a pan.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

25 years. Anyone can hit at the range with one, get back to me when you're killing deer on demand in a sleeping snow storm.

 

[Novashooter]

So out of curiosity what is your take on breech loading percussion rifles from the mid 1800’s like the 1859 and 1863 Sharps? Here in PA they weren’t legal until recently but the Firestick was banned as the powder and primer were considered one unit even if the bullet is loaded from the muzzle.

I don't have much of an opinion, I've never shot them. As far as regulations go, I feel the same way as the Firestick, or even an older design like the Ferguson rifle. They are blackpowder cartridge rifles, they are the same as a later 45-70 brass cartridge Sharps, or a Remington rolling block. Really cool rifles. Not muzzleloaders. Have no business in the muzzleloading season.

 

[Novashooter]

25 years. Anyone can hit at the range with one, get back to me when you're killing deer on demand in a sleeping snow storm.

And a sleeping snow storm would be what?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

An autocorrect from sleeting.

 

[Novashooter]

Ok, well it may be some time before I'm allowed to have an opinion then. Didn't draw the muzzleloader tag this year.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Come hunt pa otc flintlock season.

 

[Novashooter]

Come hunt pa otc flintlock season.

This is nothing against you, but the only way I'd ever step foot in Pennsylvania, or NY, RI, CT, basically any new england state except maybe Maine, is if someone pays me a good chunk of money to be there.

 

[69Switchbacks]

Irons only! With the sights today it’s not hard to reach out to 200 with irons which is plenty long enough.

 

[Novashooter]

Irons only! With the sights today it’s not hard to reach out to 200 with irons which is plenty long enough.

Not for good eyes. Even the best target aperture sights can be tough to an older person, or simply bad eyes, especially astigmatism. I don't think a scope gives anyone an unfair advantage, unless it's coupled with a rifle which gives them an unfair advantage. This is one reason I like the idea of fixed power scopes only. Even on a really long range specific rifle, if you put say a 6x or 8x scope on it, you would really be hindering yourself for those under 75 yard shots, if not making them outright impossible. On the flip side, A 2x or even a 4x scope is not going to be giving anyone much of an advantage over a person with good eyes and target aperture sights. The biggest advantage is being able to use a scope during low light, when target sights are basically useless.

 

[69Switchbacks]

Not for good eyes. Even the best target aperture sights can be tough to an older person, or simply bad eyes, especially astigmatism. I don't think a scope gives anyone an unfair advantage, unless it's coupled with a rifle which gives them an unfair advantage. This is one reason I like the idea of fixed power scopes only. Even on a really long range specific rifle, if you put say a 6x or 8x scope on it, you would really be hindering yourself for those under 75 yard shots, if not making them outright impossible. On the flip side, A 2x or even a 4x scope is not going to be giving anyone much of an advantage over a person with good eyes and target aperture sights. The biggest advantage is being able to use a scope during low light, when target sights are basically useless.

I understand where you’re coming from, but that basically makes a muzzy able to shoot at rifle distances with the right setup. The whole reason for a muzzy season is to experience the hardships of using a primitive-ish type weapon before guys with high-powered scopes hit the mountain.

 

[Sturgeon]

I’ve shot three does with three different muzzleloaders. First had red dot and percussion caps, the other two were 209 with a scope. I carried a Thompson Center Hawken for many years that was never sure if it would go off when I wanted to. I really don’t care what you use as long as you load it through the muzzle. It’s pretty rare for us to run into other people hunting during muzzleloader season in WI so having it more restrictive doesn’t matter.

 

[Novashooter]

I agree, but at the same time you just said good peep/aperture sights are adequate to 200 yards. Adding a scope to a CVA Wolf does not make it a 300 yard rifle. There's lots of internet jabber, and 3 shot "groups" about 300 yard muzzleloaders, but for 99% of people the accuracy and ballistics just aren't there for actual real world hunting. Most people never even shoot enough to get a good 200 yard load. Something like a Knight Peregrine could do it, so they do exist. Rifles like that obviously exist to game the system. How do you stop something like that? I don't know. I would hate to take it out on the normal guy who can't see well, just to keep the rich guy from taking 300 yard shots. I would be open to making it 2x or 3x maximum power, but that's not something I'd actively support.