There was a recent ruling on a lawsuit brought by a muzzleloading organization concerning the use of scopes. The ruling was that people with poor eyesight (not defined by the ruling) must be allowed to use magnifying scopes on their muzzleloaders. This will affect 16 states which currently do not allow scopes or allow only non-magnifying scopes. If states do not conform, they will loose out on the federal P&R funding. Utah, last month passed a resolution allowing anyone with 20-40 or worse to be able to use a magnifying scope on their muzzleloader.

My opinion on this is simple: This ruling is a bunch of BS and just another example of our country turning everything into an entitlement program. As the population ages, they will demand changes which will benefit their person, while leaving behind the future. The Federal Gov't should not be telling the States how to regulate simple social issues.

This change, coupled with the new technology, will mean more dead deer in my neck of the woods. It might not be a big deal in other states, but many Western States will have 400+ yard kills. Ok---- I am off my soap box.

It's about time! I'm all for it. I personally don't need a scope to hunt in areas that don't allow it, but I have descent vision. if you hunt with anyone who has poor vision, you understand the positive attributes of this new law.

Just this year I had a CO guide tell me one of his hunters missed a big bull because his vision was too poor for the open sights. After missing that bull, he wounded the 2nd Bull and felt so bad about it he went home and didn't finish the hunt. Folks with poor vision should have the added advantage of optics IMO.

This is the exact same to me as crossbows. I'm 100% for the use of Xbows for the handicapped.

Reloader

What will happen is states that don't allow scopes will probably cut way back on the tags or stop having ML hunts. Ron

Being "visually challenged" as I am, this is wonderful news. As for states cutting back or canceling the ML seasons...I would hope that didn't happen. Those 400yd ML kills would be a rarity, given the ballistics of most MLs in use by hunters. Even using my Savage with smokeless powder, even a 300yd shot would really be stretching it.

Is there any documentation of this lawsuit or the ruling?

Seems to me, you should be required to have "good eyesight " to hunt and that means glasses, if required. We have eye tests for drivers, after all. Sounds like a lame excuse to me.
Grizz

I don't have a problem with someone whose eyesight cannot be corrected to 20-20, documented, being allowed to use a scope on their muzzle loader. And I hate scopes on muzzle loaders. As a gunsmith, that's the one thing I won't do for anyone.
But I'd rather see that than have deer wounded by poor eyesight. I've had to go to fiber optic front bead on my hunting flinter as I've gotten older . It's like the crossbow laws. I have bad shoulders and had to quit bowhunting until I found out I could get a CB permit which has allowed me back in the woods during archery season. Though I dearly miss my bow and even had a 25# longbow made up so I could still compete in 3D primitive matches.

Ron stated my fear. I was involved with the Primitive Weapons Committee here in Utah when the regs were written. The seasons were set up to accommodate primitive weapon hunters who desired a better opportunity to pursue game with bows and muzzleloaders, usually at a lower success rate. 15 years later, the new improvement to muzzleloaders make them much more like rifles. Bows may be next to allow scoped use. Magnify scopes on bows. We already have many bow shooting animals at over 100 yards without scopes.

These new developements are reverse discrimination. If I don't have semi poor eye-sight in Utah I am at a disadvantage on the muzzleloader hunt. A 14x scope will have many people out here shooting easily over 400 yards. Most of the reasons stated in previous posts have to do with the "Entitlement" mentality. There are certain, specific cases where a magnifying scope should be allowed, but this is an across the board change which will have a poor effect on Western muzzleloader hunting.

I know that the traditional rule we have here was sparked by the F&G. They were concerned about the success rate on an, any muzzleloader hunt approaching or even exceeding that of the regular rifle hunt. They said at the time that they had to reduce success. Their choices were either less opportunity or restrictions on the guns, bullets, and powder. I for one love to hunt with my muzzleloader. I don’t want to see reductions in tag numbers or even worse no hunt at all. If hunters with poor eyesight are allowed to hunt with a scope why can’t a person with one arm use a centerfire rifle in a muzzleloader hunt? Why can’t a person with a disability drive into a no-road wilderness area? Why can’t a person with a disability of the arms hunt a bow hunt with a rifle?
When you think about it, it is a traditional hunt. In the past older men that were too old to hunt (because or eyesight or physical limitations) didn’t go the young men hunted. People that were physically limited didn’t go into wilderness areas. No where in the Selway is there a handicap parking area, and there should never be. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but that is the way I feel. Some day I will be in those shoes. I will be the one that has to wait at the truck as my son makes a hunt. When that day comes, I will be thankful for the hunts I had and the memories. I will not follow him on a 4 wheeler, carrying a electronic sighting system with a heat seeking bullet. I will be happy to just do what I can, when I can. Ron

Idaho Ron

Agree, Agree, Agree. If they have to kill something and call it hunting, a blind man would have a reasonably challenging "hunt" on any of our damn elk farms here in Idaho.

Idaho County

I need to get me one of them "400 yard" MLers.



Reloader

My vision corrects to 20-20 but that is not the final answer. Due to being 70 years old my vision does not allow using iron sights as they will not focus on the sights and the animal at the same time. I use a scope as Arizona allows it but I have never shot at an animal over 100 yards with my muzzleloader. The last hunt I had I passed up elk at 140 yards as I did not feel the rifle I was using was dead on at that distance. I also would like to get one of those 400 yard muzzleloders. I can see 200 if you practice a very lot but 400 come on!!!!!

It wasn't TOO many years ago that a law wasn't needed to let "ol Blind Joe" hunt with a muzzleloader and a scope, everybody knew him, including the Game Warden, knew he couldn't see for shit and if he had the gumpsion to try let him. We have too many laws, to many minorities, to many whiners, and way too much political correctness. Just my .02

I first saw some of this "elitist" thought you see above arise in the carter administration with the introduction of no road areas. If you were not able to hike in you couldn't go. What if you were a disabled Vet? Too bad? It is one of the things I dislike jimmy carter for. That similar thought pattern is behind the rules of many states regarding their ML seasons. But you know it just doesn't matter now regarding the issue of better sights on MLs. Better to have a a ML season using white powder fed, single shot sabot guns wearing range finding Leupys loaded from the muzzle as one option, than nothing, which is the wilderness equivalent for many. Flint and round ball still works for me.

quote:

Originally posted by MLKeith:
My vision corrects to 20-20 but that is not the final answer. Due to being 70 years old my vision does not allow using iron sights as they will not focus on the sights and the animal at the same time. I use a scope as Arizona allows it but I have never shot at an animal over 100 yards with my muzzleloader. The last hunt I had I passed up elk at 140 yards as I did not feel the rifle I was using was dead on at that distance. I also would like to get one of those 400 yard muzzleloders. I can see 200 if you practice a very lot but 400 come on!!!!!

I am in the same boat, but I corrected it a different way - same as was done in the "olde days".

Here is Hawken I had built for me 35 years ago.


You, no doubt, noticed a strange hump on the tang. That is the Lyman Base for a peep sight.



Since this rifle already had fixed open sights that haven't been moved in those 35 years, I just drop the Lyman into the base and can then see the old sights.


Here in Wyoming, scopes are legal, but I used this setup to take my Deer 3 years ago @108 yds.

Fact is that these seasons (Out West) were not set up for every use of technology. 20-40 vision is not blindness. It is inconvenience.

I had a hunter shoot a bull elk this year at 312 yards with a 1x scope on his muzzleloader. I had 6 deer come in which were taken in the 280-320 yard range. All taken in Utah using 1x scopes on muzzleloaders. Now if people do not think that a 14x type scope won't allow guys to shoot out past 400 yards then oh well.

IdahoRon and OldGuy, very good posts.

First of all, let me state that I've been hunting with muzzleloaders for at least the past 35 years. As equipment has evolved, so have I and now I own a modern inline. I hate to see this elitist BS from the Traditional Muzzleloading fraternity. It is self serving and only hinders the sport. It is what the anti hunters love to see. Shortly after I turned 40, my eyesight began to go downhill. Sure, it may be correctable to 20/20, but that isn't the whole story. The problem lies with focus up close, as in iron sights. The eyes will not focus on the sights at all, they are just a blur. My only cure is a scope. The fact of the matter is that even the new modern inlines are limited in range to 200 yards or less. Some will claim 250, but that shot would be few and far between. The new muzzleloaders have increased the amount of people interested in shooting and that is a good thing. You can take the best gun in the world and give it to a bad hunter and he still won't be successful. Equipment isn't the final answer to hunting success. I was all for this law, but the fact of the matter is that I read that it was defeated. I would like to know where the poster who started this thread got his information.

As far as some of the other comments above as in aids for handicapped hunters, some of you guys need to grow up !!! Maybe someday you too might need aid and given the choice of giving up hunting or taking advantage of a special regulation so that you might continue to hunt, what would you do ???

If this is true (which I doubt), the states with the limitations should just overturn the no scope rules. What's fair for one should be fair for all.

Funny to call someone elitist and self-serving when that is the exact point of this ruling. It is SELFISH to have the entitlement attitude that we should be allowed to do whatever we want.

I was just stating facts which will have an effect on muzzleloader hunting in my neck of the woods and 15 other states. The hunt in Utah was set up as a primitive opportunity in the 80s. We have chosen to disallow many types of technology. Now we were told by the Federal Gov't that our muzzleloader season hasn't been "fair" and we must change. That is the point of the post. Utah already allowed non-magnifying scopes to help with some vision problems, but now the magnifying scope will surely give an advantage.

I still have a hard time understanding how some people do not believe there are 300+ yard shots being made with muzzleloaders. That right there is almost comical.

I wonder how some will feel when arhcers can put a rangefinder/scope combo on their bow? Guys out our way are already making 120+ yard shots with their bows. A scope would easily help them push 150..... Of course no one will believe that a bow can shoot over 60 yards......

Very well spoken bowhuntrrl, I agree with you 100%.

Dave

ONE MORE TIME... Is there any documentation of this lawsuit or the ruling?

I think you guys are getting heated over something that DOES NOT EXIST.

And I agree COMPLETELY with bowhuntrrl.

I agree with you UC.....you are more than likely correct in your observation.

Dave

So at 42 years old I need to grow up. Why don't you pay to have your eyes fixed with glasses or LASIK and stop crying. after you can see have some one show you how to shoot with a peep.
Giving breaks to people that "claim" handicaps is a crock. Rules are rules, live by them or quit. How many times have we seen people cheat the state, or government on disability? It happens all the time. Why not cheat a little more for hunting?
A guy that really can't walk can hunt from a truck here in Idaho. Fine, I understand that, and that is ok. Should he be able to drive into a wilderness area? Should he be able to drive a 4x4 4 wheeler any where he wants? There has to be a limit to the entitlement mentality. Because you WAN’T to do something doesn’t mean you should GET to do it
Last spring I was down in my back for 3 months. Hell I was worried I would not be able to go hunting at all. NO I didn't run out and find a doctor to issue a handicap permit so I could ride a 4 wheeler, but I bet I could have. I went to the doctor and got treated and did physical therapy.
Instead of overturning the no scope rule. The states like Idaho will drop the season ML only season. If they do, you can still use your inline with a scope, smokeless powder, and a sabot in the open hunt. Good luck. Ron

I have had a lot of fun on this site with this stuff. I am a primitive hunter only and in rifle season I only use revolvers. I bow hunt first and any shot over 30 yd's with any bow is tough. No way to hit deer farther consistantly, larger animals yes, but not deer and I don't care what you put on the bow.
Most shots will still be 50 yd's or under with any gun. Old eyes need help and I have gone to red dots on my revolvers. they do not let me shoot longer distances, neither would a scope.
I kill deer easier then all of the rifle or inline shooters here because I am a better shot and hunter. We can't get too excited about it.
To say I can shoot deer at 400 yd's with a scoped revolver, bow or inline is a bunch of crap. I shoot to 500 meters with my revolvers and to 200 meters with my Hawken but no way I would try deer that far. 100 yd's is max. I like deer at 10 yd's or a little more with the bow. Nothing changes but the ability to see better.
Yes I get down on inline shooters for fun but they are actually more handicapped then sidelock shooters. I don't like them because of more problems and they don't shoot much farther. Putting a high power scope on one won't change anything. It doesn't make a bullet or arrow shoot farther or flatter. Ballistics doesn't change with a scope.
I have to side with the inline shooters and say it won't change anything.
Remember that a good hunter and shot with a flintlock can kill more animals then any guy with a modern rifle if he doesn't know what he is doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:
I need to get me one of them "400 yard" MLers.



Reloader

You bet!! I'll have to get me one too!!

MC-
What kind of ML were those guys using that made those 300yd shots? What were they using for powder and projectiles? I am truly curious about this because I shoot all types of MLs and even with my Savage and hot smokeless powder loads, I get incredible amounts of drop and wind drift at anything over 200yds. Not saying it can't be done, but doping the drop and wind drift for typical black powder loadings would be more than a challenge! Same for the 100+yd bow shots.

Same guy that posts this "new ruling" that will effect everyone also posts about 300yd ML'ers and 100yd bow shooters......gets more plausible all the time Boy that must be some Ml'er shots making those incredible distances with 1x scopes......wow. I sure believe everything he posts.... Wheres that documentation or link to these "rulings"??????

Dave

Some have taken my post as an elitist, but that was not the intention. Muzzleloader hunting is a passion of mine and I FEAR that in MY state the season MAY be discontinued due to the advances made in TECHNOLOGY. IF the hunting public as a whole (which is heavily weighted towards rifle) sees the use of technology then some muzzleloader hunts in MY state may be discontinued. IF I see this as a problem in MY state, then it COULD be a problem in yours.

Some of you fellas don't understand the situation many Western States face. Our Mule Deer herds are not growing, like whitetails. The pie is shrinking and the eaters are growing. To OFFSET the problem, lower success PRIMITIVE weapons hunts were instituted. NOW the primitive weapons are becoming so advanced with TECHNOLOGY that the success rates are climbing. This EATS at a larger portion of the pie. Utah's muzzleloader success rate is as high as the rifle success rate. The "Primitive" aspect is gone. This ruling means that many more people will become successful, eating the pie.

Whitetail states are a hole different story. Growing populations, plenty of opportunity, rut hunts. I could careless what they do, as long as it does not negatively impact the herds. This ruling will negatively impact the deer herd in Utah (And I would guess Colorado and Idaho too).

www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board_minutes/09-06-07.pdf

This is NOT a link to the formal decision, but it is a link to a statement made by the Director of the UDWR. Scroll down to the top of page 7. The FWS came down with this ruling and threatened to suspend P&R funds if the accomodations are not met. I don't have a link to the exact ruling.

I could care less if some guy in Maine doesn't believe my posts. I put him in the same boat as many Easterners I have met (not all, but some) who do not believe a centerfire rifle can reach out 400 yards. Some people just don't think outside of their little box.

John, I know one deer taken at (I believe they said) 295 yards was with a 45 cal pushing a powerbelt. (195 gr?) I am not sure of the type of powder. It should not have been with smokeless as that is illegal in Utah. I do not know the other kills, but the numbers told to me were exact, (not he was about 300 yards).

Here is a link to a 97 yard bow shot for the unbelievers:
www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID12/8304.html

quote:

John, I know one deer taken at (I believe they said) 295 yards was with a 45 cal pushing a powerbelt. (195 gr?) I am not sure of the type of powder. It should not have been with smokeless as that is illegal in Utah. I do not know the other kills, but the numbers told to me were exact, (not he was about 300 yards).

quote:

John, I know one deer taken at (I believe they said) 295 yards was with a 45 cal pushing a powerbelt. (195 gr?) I am not sure of the type of powder. It should not have been with smokeless as that is illegal in Utah. I do not know the other kills, but the numbers told to me were exact, (not he was about 300 yards).

I was born at night, but not lastnight.

MC,
Thanks for the info. Since you didn't actually witness any of those shots, aren't you at least a bit skeptical? I'm not calling anyone a liar, but those yardages are just so far out of the normal realm of black powder ranges that I am very skeptical of their validity...especially using a 0 power scope.

Here was some proof about 300 yard shots.
http://www.mzldrproducts.com/trophies

here is one that says documented kills at 500 yards.
http://www.ultimatefirearms.com/

or better yet how about a 500 yard elk kill
http://www.ultimatefirearms.com/pdfs/article_precisionshooting.pdf

Maybe you can reread this thread.
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3821043/m/157106793

Sounds like someone found the easter bunny. Ron
Ron

I am a little confused by the stated logic, for vs. against scope sights on muzzle loaders for those with poor eye sight.

I must declare an interest here. Although I do not own/ shoot a M.L., they are illegal for hunting here in the UK, along with bows and cross bows, I do have poor eye sight.

My eye sight is corrected using contact lenses and a spare pair of glasses (to rest my eyes from the contact lenses). My eyesight is worse than the stated ocular piece focus adjustment range of +/- 2 to 3 diameters on most modern 'scope sights like Schmidt & Bender etc.

What is the problem with using 'unity', i.e. 1x or non magnifying telescopic sights?

Afterall, the M.L. hunter is 'allowed' to wear spectacles / glasses in the field. Most backwoods people in the early nineteenth century, and before, would not have had access to, let alone afford spectacles.

For the purists, if optics are not allowed, take away their glasses as well. That should make country road travelling 'more interesting'.

I add this silly remark to show, what, I think is the error in the philosophy.

Pirates and sea captains had telescopes way back in the late sixteenth century, so a total ban on optics would not be historically justified.

Additionally, I read telecopic sights were fitted / tried out on muzzle loaders well before the American Civil War.

I have a vague memory, but cannot remember the source to quote, that telescopic sights were used on muzzle loading rifles around the time of the French Revolutionary Wars - the foundation of the French Republic / guillotine etc and Napoleonic Wars follwing soon after.

It would not surprise me to learn that some enterprising, experimentally inclined individual in Germany, Austria, where the good optical glass came from back then, Switzerland or Italy had fitted optical lenses to a M.L. rifle earlier.

Two last points.

I believe that ISU / Olympic style iron sight target shooting competitions, where aperture sights alone are used, allow the use of correcting lense 'inserts' within the aperture sight 'iris' / aperture for those with poor eye sight. You are certainly alowed to wear perscription spectacles.

The purpose of optical sights is to enable the shooter to see more clearly. The shooter still has to 'shoot' well - breathing control, trigger control, distance and wind judgement / correction etc.

From a hunting perspective, the achievemnet is to 'outsmart' an animal in it's own environment, an animal with much keener senses than a human, and get close enough to be able to have a 'killing' shot at all. With a M.L., the achievement is that much greater because the effective range is much shorter than a modern centre fire rifle.

Since sportsmanship, and the Law demand the minimising of suffering, I would have thought that an aid which allows a hunter to place the shot they are about to fire more accurately, thereby reducing suffering to a minimum, would be acceptable.

If anyone is worried about long shots, all that need be done is to limit the scope power to 2X or 4X for inlines.
Seems to me that most sabot bullets are light pistol bullets. They might start a little faster then from a revolver but will shed velocity and energy fast. I don't see them being lethal too far. Anyone that tries to use them too far is unethical. A heavy ball or boolit will carry energy a long way but trajectory is horrible.
I feel better if hunters limit distance with each type of gun. I don't hear of anyone trying to kill deer at 400 or more yd's with a 30-30. Darn sure as good as an inline!

quote:

I could care less if some guy in Maine doesn't believe my posts. I put him in the same boat as many Easterners I have met (not all, but some) who do not believe a centerfire rifle can reach out 400 yards. Some people just don't think outside of their little box.

MY post concerning your statement......

quote:

posts about 300yd ML'ers and 100yd bow shooters......gets more plausible all the time

I didn't question a CF rifle reaching well beyond 400yds....I questioned your statements concerning ML'er rifles being used at 300-400yds for killing. And I still do.......Read my only post addressing your statement and find where I mentioned CF's......Gheeeze. I'll wait till someone posts a link to this ruling before saying anymore.....

Focus

Of course the obvious solution is that muzzleloading is not a good choice for that hunter and he should only do modern rifle, or nothing at all if his eyesight is that bad.

Maybe they should allow scopes and combine muzzleloading and modern rifle seasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Reloader:
It's about time! I'm all for it. I personally don't need a scope to hunt in areas that don't allow it, but I have descent vision. if you hunt with anyone who has poor vision, you understand the positive attributes of this new law.

Just this year I had a CO guide tell me one of his hunters missed a big bull because his vision was too poor for the open sights. After missing that bull, he wounded the 2nd Bull and felt so bad about it he went home and didn't finish the hunt. Folks with poor vision should have the added advantage of optics IMO.

This is the exact same to me as crossbows. I'm 100% for the use of Xbows for the handicapped.

Reloader

Many of us have hunted ethically for 56 or more years. Do you propose to make us quit because our vision has gotten worse? Do you propose the same for wounded veterans or handicapped folks. That is the worst thing I have ever heard. It is close to the democrat policy of taking away guns that I have ever read here. I await the time your vision fails and someone tells you that you can't hunt anymore with the gun of choice. I can't believe I read that here.

John, no I do not have reason to be skeptical. 2 guys bring in a deer and one says he ranged it and his buddy shot it. I know the ranges sound extreme to some, but I have witnessed enough guys shooting out to 300 yards with their muzzleloaders that I know what is happening. Most miss, but you put a magnifying scope on top of that gun and many more will be making those shots. 100+ yard bow kills, 300 yard muzzleloader kills, and 800 yard rifle kills. Technology at work.

quote:

Originally posted by MC:
If I don't have semi poor eye-sight in Utah I am at a disadvantage on the muzzleloader hunt. .

Depends on what (or whom) you are competing with. Is it the animal or the other hunter??
If it's between you & the animal, it shouldn't matter to you what the other guy uses. That's between him & his quarry, IMO. I'm a die hard traditional hunter. I use a flinter, even in modern season because I like the element of skill it puts into my hunt. I like the challenge of getting close, along with the uncertainty. But, I could care less what the other guy uses.

MC, where did you get this information about a ruling and the class-action lawsuit? I think it is vapor.

quote:

Originally posted by Underclocked:
MC, where did you get this information about a ruling and the class-action lawsuit? I think it is vapor.

Probably the same place as the 100 yard bow kill reports

Looks like some people don't read the posts.

I don't expect all guys from back east to understand something they have never done or seen. Just keep thinking inside your little boxes.