quote:

Originally posted by Buck3:

quote:

“Hey Buck, Is there anything keeping you from hunting the BP Season with the old BP Rifles that you like so well - in a Traditional style?â€

Nope.

quote:

“Now I am confused, your first question on the Thread was wanting information about the use of "Smokeless Powder" in a BP firearm. Now it seems like you are angry that some people actually have firearms that can SAFELY use it.â€

My argument is that saying that non-primitive weapons should be allowed in primitive weapons season, is like saying that guns should be allowed in a non-gun season. What’s the difference?

What is gained by the hunter when using a gun that is only %10 different than his regular hunting gun?

Buck,

10% like how?

'Primitive' is subjective-- no muzzleloader made today is primitive in the sense of manufacturing.

quote:

'Primitive' is subjective-- no muzzleloader made today is primitive in the sense of manufacturing.

That’s great! When you look at it like that we should be able to use our AR-15’s during bow season. It slings something round and pointy just like a bow. They even look alike, and all of them are made with modern machines.

Now we have moved way away from any common sense! I think some of you are talking just to hear yourself talk.

Buck,

In lots of states they can not kill enough deer to keep the population under control. In those areas they should do away with any restrictions on weapon types.

The only reason for weapon restrictions is to save deer. When you have to many deer there is no reason to save them.

If you do not have enough deer then restrictions make some sense. Or you control the take by limiting the number of tags and allow them to be taken by hunters choice.

quote:

I just don’t see the logic in the current primitive weapons season. My argument is that saying that non-primitive weapons should be allowed in primitive weapons season, is like saying that guns should be allowed in a non-gun season.

Hmmmm.......thought we already covered that piece of ground and you said I was right in the statement that you no longer have a "primitive" ML'ing season? You yourself used the word "was" when referring to your states primitive season. With the weapons your state allows I would even say it must be one of the MOST progressive ML'ing states in the country.

quote:

That’s great! When you look at it like that we should be able to use our AR-15’s during bow season. It slings something round and pointy just like a bow. They even look alike, and all of them are made with modern machines.

Thats not an answer to the statement made about how most current ML'ers are manufactured.Instead it seems intended to simply take attention from a very true and factual comment. We aren't talking about bows or AR-15's as near as I can tell.

You start a post asking about using smokeless powder in non-approved ML'ers and then use it as a venue to debate anyone not hunting with what YOU consider to be a "primitive" ML'er. This makes little sense since we are on a ML'er hunting site.......not a "primitive" ML'er site.Why don't you just hunt with the ML'er of your choice, be happy, and stop trying to influence how others are hunting.....in complete accordance with the law. In another 10 years or so this debate will be moot anyway, with the way Game Managers are embracing any way to further decrease deer herds while continuing to make more $$$ for their budgets. A minority no matter how vocal will not hold their own against time and $ as is this case. But then you also always have states that never intended for a primitive group of ML'ers to hold sway or influence the ML'er season at all, as is the case in mine.

quote:

What is gained by the hunter when using a gun that is only %10 different than his regular hunting gun?

Odd statement that don't really deserve response........where did you pull that number from?........No wait I don't think I want to know.....theres that darn grin again. Propellant doesn't change the type and style of gun.

woods

quote:

“Hmmmm.......thought we already covered that piece of ground and you said I was right in the statement that you no longer have a "primitive" ML'ing season?â€

It’s still called a primitive weapon season!

quote:

“Thats not an answer to the statement made about how most current ML'ers are manufactured.Instead it seems intended to simply take attention from a very true and factual comment. We aren't talking about bows or AR-15's as near as I can tell.â€

The point was that you can twist things around to justify anything, but I think you knew that.

quote:

“With the weapons your state allows I would even say it must be one of the MOST progressive ML'ing states in the country.â€

So! I thought that I was arguing against my states policies.

quote:

“ and stop trying to influence how others are hunting.....in complete accordance with the law.â€

I’m not. I just don’t agree with the newer rules.

My argument the whole time has been that primitive weapons should be used in primitive weapon season, but your whole argument has consisted of why non-primitive weapons should be allow during primitive weapon season, so I really don’t know what else to say.

I would say that the only thing we will agree on is your last statements. Give GOD The Glory

You are correct....we will agree to disagree.....we will never see things the same. Time alone will show the future and direction of ML'ing in years to come.

Yes I see we are in agreement on the important life effecting request in my sig. Good Hunting whatever you choose to carry.

woods

Idaho has the right idea

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/misc/muzzle_rules.cfm

Idaho says that the projectile must be within 0.010 of the bore diameter.

Don't most round ball shooters use either a 0.485 or 0.490 diameter ball in a 50 caliber rifle?

Most 50 calibers are 0.505 - 0.510 in diameter.
It would seem that most round ball shooters are out of luck!

edge.

quote:

Originally posted by edge:
Idaho says that the projectile must be within 0.010 of the bore diameter.

Don't most round ball shooters use either a 0.485 or 0.490 diameter ball in a 50 caliber rifle?

Most 50 calibers are 0.505 - 0.510 in diameter.
It would seem that most round ball shooters are out of luck!

edge.

Nope. Bore size is just the caliber (bore size) not the rifling groove depth. I shoot a bore size ball @ .020 patch. .320 in 32., .400 in 40, etc, As do most, in the competitive shoots I attend. I don't know anyone who shoots a ball that's more than .010 under bore size. Same with conicals. Usually bore size or even a little over for minnies, maxis, REAL's etc.
Read the "background information" on this page. It's a very rational treatise on the new rules. Which were favored by the majority of those responding to the request for input. It's a very logical approach, once you take the emotional aspects out of the debate. It's also based on facts & research, rather than biased opinions.

I suppose it depends on the caliber then.

A 22 caliber is the groove diameter, as is a .308, and a .458, even though the lands are are approximately 0.215, 0.300, and 0.450 respectively. Obviously the 0.308 is alternatively called a 30 caliber and the 0.458 a 45 caliber.

edge

Sorry, Brayhaven, but Idaho missed the mark... To allow a center-mounted pivoting hammer is to still allow some forms of in-lines. The only difference between my White and some of the others, is it uses a different shaped piece of metal to strike the percussion cap, with a different-shaped spring providing the energy.

Now: had they said "side-mounted pivoting hammer only", I would agree. But all it will take is someone to fit a different breach plug to some of the in-lines out there, and they are just as legal as they can be, the way the Idaho rules are written now.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
Sorry, Brayhaven, but Idaho missed the mark... To allow a center-mounted pivoting hammer is to still allow some forms of in-lines. The only difference between my White and some of the others, is it uses a different shaped piece of metal to strike the percussion cap, with a different-shaped spring providing the energy.

Now: had they said "side-mounted pivoting hammer only", I would agree. But all it will take is someone to fit a different breach plug to some of the in-lines out there, and they are just as legal as they can be, the way the Idaho rules are written now.

They Probably could have said "side", but the limiting factor here is "exposed ignition" using percussion caps or flint. They are just trying to put the challenge back into the sport, with the consent of the majority of hunters polled, and to increase the number of man days of recreation per animal harvested. Back east, they don't really have a problem with over-harvest so it probably won't be a factor there. Their rationale in the background info is worth reading whether you agree (are traditional ML hunter) or not (like in-line 209'ers, sabots etc).
A very objective viewpoint from what I can see.

You know that you have written this twice about the majority wanted this.

First, IMO, the margin was VERY narrow.
Second, if you are so happy about polls are you willing to have your gun rights subject to an unscientific poll, so close to the VT tragedy?

Most polls are skewed to the results wanted, I would love to see the results if in-line rifles were the intended result!!

edge.

I agree: 48-42-8 is not much of a majority!

Now that you mention it, a majority is 50% +1

How is 48% a majority

edge.

Wouldn't that be plurality?

Glad that big majority is out there in Idyhoe and not where I live. Seems common sense still rules back east Now pass that smokeless

woods

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
I agree: 48-42-8 is not much of a majority!

It was enough to beat AlGore & Hanoi John.

quote:

Originally posted by edge:
First, IMO, the margin was VERY narrow.
Second, if you are so happy about polls are you willing to have your gun rights subject to an unscientific poll, so close to the VT tragedy?


edge.

Er uh, don't know that the IDFG return to primitive rules in primitive hunts, had anything to do with the VT massacre. My "gun rights"?? You are sure grabbing at straws here. You "mattel inline" guys always get yer panties in a wad everytime anyone suggests that muzzle loaders should be traditional. Try to be more tolerant of others prefered ML'ers. End of discusssion AFIC. Go play with your "salvage"

You came back and stirred the pot on a thread that had been sitting quite a while on a ML'er site....not a black powder or primitive site. You got the response you wanted and was looking for..... I'm sure. Now go primitive hunt....no vehicle - GPS - modern clothes or boots - no modern day contrivances....just a real primitive experience. Make sure and wear leggings and a coonskin hat too As for me....I'll continue to shoot clean and smokeless Pass the smokeless!

woods

What always amazes me is when Traditional folks cry and moan, because they want THEIR advantage during a hunting season, but don't do their homework!

It was kind of funny that Idaho allowed conical bullets....because they were more efficient killers! What a double standard, just shows the real intent!

This was from a Sports Afield article from January 2002

COPYRIGHT 2002 Hearst Magazines, a Division of the Hearst Corporation

The classification of "modern in-line" muzzleloaders as "primitive weapons is an ongoing controversy. This is causing arguments among muzzleloader shooters and driving some state wildlife agencies to prohibit in-line muzzleloaders from primitive-weapons hunting because they seem "too modern." In-line muzzleloaders, however, predate the percussion cap. Several existing examples, dating from the mid-1700s, are virtually identical to modern in-lines except they feature flintlock ignition.

As early as the 1500s, wheel locks and flintlocks were encased inside compartments built in to some guns to protect the priming powder. By the mid-1700s, this had evolved into prototypical in-line lock systems using cylindrical bolts, coil springs, and a variety of cocking levers and triggers, operationally identical to modern in-line muzzleloaders. A few percussion in-lines were built in the early 1800s, but eventually the simple and inexpensive side-hammer percussion lock snuffed out the costly, antiquarian in-line muzzleloaders that now seem so far ahead of their time.

Ironically, weather-protected locks and positive straight-line ignition, major advantages of modern in-line muzzleloaders, are key issues in the current "too modern" controvert.


COPYRIGHT 2002 Hearst Magazines, a Division of the Hearst Corporation

Well good old Woodseye strikes again. I must say that I like the traditional side of this but I want more range then the Savage smookless ML, (and more fun) This is the ultimate in traditional black powder hunting with a big bore. Check this out, bye the way this is legal up here in Woodseye country!!!
http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

SEE, that is funny! Maybe I would trade in my Savage....if you make it a little more accurate.

edge.

Geeeeze, don't encourage him edge.....he already checked with the warden service to see if theres any laws against trying it. Just when I had him ready to try a savage he stumbles on this set-up

woods

Here's me and my sammy last hunting season!



I remember when that site was first posted, and had a couple of the forumites here believing it.

LOL just had the thought next year I need a pic similar to this, but with a deer draped over my cannon!

Too Funny! You gotta do a deer in that pic....the ultimate long range traditional......

woods

Hey Mark, Nice Muzzle Loader. Does it meet all the BP Season requirements?

I don't see a Scope on it.

quote:

I don't see a Scope on it

Oh no.....now ya done it! I wonder what brand will hold-up to the recoil

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey Mark, Nice Muzzle Loader. Does it meet all the BP Season requirements?

I don't see a Scope on it.

Hmm, checking with the regs they mention that only "rifles" can be used, guess I'll have to lobby to get that changed! (to be honest, it should be changed as the way it is written smoothbores are prohibited).

No mention of fuses, but matchlocks are permitted so guess I'll have to use a piece of cord on a stick.....

Now Woodseye you are not being fair!!! You know I would not use any thing over 3" for deer. Now Moose may be a different story, a 6" smooth bore or a 3" Ordinance rifle would be just the ticket for 500 yards or less. Maine is great we can do these things up here. Oh, one more point Woodseye,you recoil wimp, you do not have to put the thing against your shoulder. When are you going to try my double deer rifle?

Back to the original question, I only recommend smokeless for liberals.