Final Muzzleloader Scope Committee Recommendation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Partial Quote:

Not an easy subject Lumpy and it’s doing one thing really well right now -dividing us.

And thanks for your posts !

?
Ballistic,

Lumpy has it correct. I hunted the first year of the Muzzleloader Deer Hunt in Southern Utah. Utah's was because of a few Eastern States were having Flintlock and other special hunts. It was proposed as a Primitive Hunt to use weapons that the early Americans used before most had repeating rifles. Nothing more, nothing less. Time periods and specific rifles did not even need to be discussed. I was at the BG meeting when the 1X scope was discussed. Who said it, when was it said? I don't know. Tell what I do know is there was a skinny BGB member who said he was getting older and couldn't see open sights. That pretty much ended that conversation and it was voted in. Get your foot in the door, move on and vote the high power scopes in. Isn't that the way it works.
The only thing I can see Lumpy is trying to do is correct a wrong by making it right. NO, he is trying to correct several wrongs regarding the muzzleloader hunt to make them either right, or at least close to the original intent of the muzzleloading hunt. If you want to hunt long range improved by a high power scope, hunt the any weapon.
Do I think the WL Board will do the right thing and go as New Mexico or Oregon? I doubt it! I would like to see them with some good restrictions regarding the gun and accessories though.
 
Lumpy
Thanks for your info which I believe to be mostly correct.
The hard part about the history and timelines are finding the when changes occurred ?
When did the regs allow the use of a 1x scope for example ? I honestly can’t remember when that was allowed -can
you?


Jerry Mason from Brigham City, I believe, was the Wildlife Board member that proposed a 1 power scope and was the major push for the added technology. This article says he was on the Board in 1995. But that doesn’t mean that was the year he got it approved, but without way more rooting through archives it’s the best I can/will do. ?) This article was written 10 years after Knight brought the MK-85 to market, and the article has nothing to do with the 1power scope, it just gives a date Mason was on the Board. Jerry was a hunter/ killer extraordinaire. He was not part of the Utah Muzzleloader Association but he love to hunt and the online muzzleloader caught his fancy. I know he wanted to kill record book animals and I believe at one time he held the record for the largest Yukon/Alaskan moose killed with muzzleloader. At the time he was aUtah Wildlife Board he was well up in years and he said he couldn’t focus three objects at one time anymore, ie: back sight, front sight and the target. He said the 1 power scope would allow him to focus on the cross hair and the target. In as much as 1 power reduces the size of the target, Jerry said it was no more advantage than an open sight. He explained the issue to the other members of the Board and they approved the his motion. (In as much as inlines were already every where, I don’t recall anyone objecting to the motion.


Powder substitutes is another
Ignitions yet another.
We know the dates of when variable power was allowed -2016.

I don’t but it was quite early when pyradex showed up. You could research Pyradex’s, history I suppose.

According to Google it came out in 1975
Hodgdon's Pyrodex was the first widely available substitute for black powder on the market. Pyrodex is less sensitive to ignition than black powder and uses the same shipping and storage guidelines as smokeless powder. Pyrodex is more energetic per unit of massthan black powder, but it is less denseand can be substituted at a 1:1 ratio by volume for black powder in many applications.[1] Pyrodex is similar in composition to black powder but incorporates several other compounds. His composition, according to the US Patent 4,128,443 filed by the inventor Dan Pawlak in 1975 is as follows (in % by weight)[2][3]

The argument that dates on tech do not matter is incorrect in my opinion. Why ?
The tech committee has been tasked by the WB to curb tech. The tech committee has stated that muzzy tech has surpassed archery and rifle tech - and that’s incorrect.


Personality I think that is an entirely subjective opinion, it could be argued endlessly. Let’s just agree that all three categories have added many technologies to their instrument of weaponry in the last 50 years. Truthfully since humans started using tools to kill……. but excellerated in the last 100 years, more so in the last 50. The natural order of things are the more advanced they get the faster they add new and better science to the knowledge base, hence a deep, broader base of knowledge allows the new inventor to move faster than the pervious inventor. Having said the I believe the WB was asking this Committee to curb technology that was “commonly be used by Utah muzzleloaders when the Utah muzzleloader season was first authorized” not to consider the either evolution of the muzzleloading concept. If that makes sense.

The whitworth muzzy of the 1850,s and todays best that money can buy muzzies - that tech is actually pretty close.
Is todays muzzy better than the 1977 hawken - absolutely. But the tech was there in 1977 and I guarantee there were a select few that used it. It’s human nature to get better - have an edge. There’s a reason the November rut hunt ended for muzzies -correct ?


Again, the whitworth could well have been there by 1850, that isn’t the point. Whitworth technology was not commonly used, but their could well have been a few in Utah who were using that technology but it certainly wasn’t common here nor commonly used by the modern 1970’s mountain man enthusiasts in Utah in 1977. That was the point I was attempting to make in my previous post. Just because a technology excisted only has relevance in this discussion, if it was part of the 1977 original argument made to the WB for a season.

Yes, that could well be but… the majority of the people that pushed for an Utah muzzleloader season knew little or nothing of the whitworth or other types of muzzleloading rifles. Now Eastern States were into muzzleloading decades before we were in Utah. For decades befor the 1970’s Revolutionary and Civil War re-enactments and muzzleloader enthusiasts in the eastern States were buying and building muzzleloaders of all shapes and sizes from places like Dixie Gun Works and other mail order companies…….. that’s not what was going on in Utah. And Utah’s original season was not based on the eastern muzzleloader history.

What year did folks try to improve ? Each and every year or maybe I’m wrong.

Every year, IMO. Humans always want better……. It’s a healthy part of our DNA, as long as it doesn’t destroy what we want to hold on to. Thankful as human we have some ability band insight to do that, when we want too.

Can you explain the timeline from 1977 - 2023 (46 years) and why after all these years did addressing tech matter much more for the muzzy?
Much More than rifles and archery ?

I can’t, I think we’ve exceeded the capacity to ensure abundant/surplus wildlife and improved killing tools is part of the problem.


We need to either control harvest capability or allow a limited number hunters to kill with any anything they want from a spear to a F-15 but…… do not both.

That’s the hard pill to swallow on the subject of going back. To what date ?
1977/1985/2014-16/2023…
1808 -1st inline ? Whitworth 1854 ?
1977 hawken -open sights ?


It isn’t a hard pull for me, but it apparently is for some folks, but as much as I’d like to see the muzzleloader regulations go back to our original 1977 intent, I would also like to see archery and rifle go back to the 1970’s as well. Hell, if it were up me, I’d start closing units on a rotation bases, and keep doing as far into the future as I can see. So, I think our management is so completely screwed up I honestly don’t really care one way or the other anymore. I tried for 40 years to keep our herds viable, to no avail, so what you folks do from here on is just fine with me, it’s your turn at the helm, I’m just trying to keep the history as accurate as I’ve lived it.

The tech committee's claims of 1100 yard chip shots/ 700 yard muzzy kills/ and single shot rifles is simply not what the average hunter can do with todays muzzy. But it’s the sell that matters right ?

I again, at least not the folks that I know.

The tech committee did not specify a date of when they were trying to go back to other than possibly pre 2016 or maybe a 4X scope recommendation.

So is the timeline of technology and when it was “allowed” important on this issue -removing scopes based off the tech of a muzzy? Was there a restriction in 1977 that said you couldn’t use a whit-worth rifle in place?


No, because you typically don’t regulate what you aren’t knowledgeable about. We weren’t aware of those kinds of muzzleloaders. You can argue we should have but we didn’t and that just the truth if it.

Lastly - Will todays hunter in 2023 be happy about the removal of scopes -to find out this was coming from a timeline from 1977 ? Heck that’s 2 generations ago.

Probably not. I understand why.

You could also argue that if the dates from tech don’t matter on technology then the dates of what it was “originally intended for” shouldn’t be allowed either. Why - it’s been 46 years. I think it all matters. Bring the whole history to the table.

I think it’s an argument to support your wants………(we all look for reasons support our position, I get it, I understand why you’re making the argument, I just don’t believe it’s relevant, based on the reasons we wanted a muzzleloader season originally …… in Utah, that is.

Not an easy subject Lumpy and it’s doing one thing really well right now -dividing us.

We’ve been divide on wildlife issues since I came here in 1975. Constant conflict between hunters in Utah.

And thanks for your posts !

You’re welcome, thank you. I understand where you’re coming from and respect your opinions. Bottom line I wish folks were much more focused on growing the numbers of big game than what we are killing them with.
 
Get the green mountain aftermarket 33” barrel with the 1-20 twist in 45 cal. It will be like the 1854 whitworth. Max range was reported at 1500 yards with them.

Yup
Create another committee to ban them as well……….
Does it use #11 or musket cap?
 
Lumpy
Thanks for your info which I believe to be mostly correct.
The hard part about the history and timelines are finding the when changes occurred ?
When did the regs allow the use of a 1x scope for example ? I honestly can’t remember when that was allowed -can
you?


Jerry Mason from Brigham City, I believe, was the Wildlife Board member that proposed a 1 power scope and was the major push for the added technology. This article says he was on the Board in 1995. But that doesn’t mean that was the year he got it approved, but without way more rooting through archives it’s the best I can/will do. ?) This article was written 10 years after Knight brought the MK-85 to market, and the article has nothing to do with the 1power scope, it just gives a date Mason was on the Board. Jerry was a hunter/ killer extraordinaire. He was not part of the Utah Muzzleloader Association but he love to hunt and the online muzzleloader caught his fancy. I know he wanted to kill record book animals and I believe at one time he held the record for the largest Yukon/Alaskan moose killed with muzzleloader. At the time he was aUtah Wildlife Board he was well up in years and he said he couldn’t focus three objects at one time anymore, ie: back sight, front sight and the target. He said the 1 power scope would allow him to focus on the cross hair and the target. In as much as 1 power reduces the size of the target, Jerry said it was no more advantage than an open sight. He explained the issue to the other members of the Board and they approved the his motion. (In as much as inlines were already every where, I don’t recall anyone objecting to the motion.


Powder substitutes is another
Ignitions yet another.
We know the dates of when variable power was allowed -2016.

I don’t but it was quite early when pyradex showed up. You could research Pyradex’s, history I suppose.

According to Google it came out in 1975
Hodgdon's Pyrodex was the first widely available substitute for black powder on the market. Pyrodex is less sensitive to ignition than black powder and uses the same shipping and storage guidelines as smokeless powder. Pyrodex is more energetic per unit of massthan black powder, but it is less denseand can be substituted at a 1:1 ratio by volume for black powder in many applications.[1] Pyrodex is similar in composition to black powder but incorporates several other compounds. His composition, according to the US Patent 4,128,443 filed by the inventor Dan Pawlak in 1975 is as follows (in % by weight)[2][3]

The argument that dates on tech do not matter is incorrect in my opinion. Why ?
The tech committee has been tasked by the WB to curb tech. The tech committee has stated that muzzy tech has surpassed archery and rifle tech - and that’s incorrect.


Personality I think that is an entirely subjective opinion, it could be argued endlessly. Let’s just agree that all three categories have added many technologies to their instrument of weaponry in the last 50 years. Truthfully since humans started using tools to kill……. but excellerated in the last 100 years, more so in the last 50. The natural order of things are the more advanced they get the faster they add new and better science to the knowledge base, hence a deep, broader base of knowledge allows the new inventor to move faster than the pervious inventor. Having said the I believe the WB was asking this Committee to curb technology that was “commonly be used by Utah muzzleloaders when the Utah muzzleloader season was first authorized” not to consider the evolution of the entire muzzleloading concept. If that makes sense.

The whitworth muzzy of the 1850,s and todays best that money can buy muzzies - that tech is actually pretty close.
Is todays muzzy better than the 1977 hawken - absolutely. But the tech was there in 1977 and I guarantee there were a select few that used it. It’s human nature to get better - have an edge. There’s a reason the November rut hunt ended for muzzies -correct ?


Again, the whitworth could well have been there by 1850, that isn’t the point. Whitworth technology was not commonly used, but there could have been a few in Utah who were using that technology but it certainly wasn’t common here nor commonly used by the modern 1970’s mountain man enthusiasts in Utah in 1977. That was the point I was attempting to make in my previous post. Just because a technology excisted doesn’t has relevance in this discussion, because it was part of the 1977 original argument made to the WB for a season.

Again, the majority of the people that pushed for an Utah muzzleloader season knew little or nothing of the whitworth or other types of muzzleloading rifles. Now Eastern States were into muzzleloading decades before we were in Utah. For decades befor the 1970’s Revolutionary and Civil War re-enactments and muzzleloader enthusiasts in the eastern States were buying and building muzzleloaders of all shapes and sizes from places like Dixie Gun Works and other mail order companies…….. that’s not what was going on in Utah. And Utah’s original season was not based on the eastern muzzleloader history.

What year did folks try to improve ? Each and every year or maybe I’m wrong.

Every year, IMO. Humans always want better……. It’s a healthy part of our DNA, as long as it doesn’t destroy what we want to hold on to. Thankfully as human we have some ability to use insight and attempt to avoid letting technology advancement destroy things we value more than the advancement. Rare but it happens. Not everyone owns an airplane.

Can you explain the timeline from 1977 - 2023 (46 years) and why after all these years did addressing tech matter much more for the muzzy?
Much More than rifles and archery ?


I can’t, I think we’ve exceeded the capacity to ensure abundant/surplus wildlife and improved killing tools is part of the problem.

We need to either control harvest capability or allow an only a limited number hunters to kill with any anything they want from a spear to a F-15 but…… do not both.

That’s the hard pill to swallow on the subject of going back. To what date ?
1977/1985/2014-16/2023…
1808 -1st inline ? Whitworth 1854 ?
1977 hawken -open sights ?


It isn’t a hard pill for me, but it apparently is for some folks, but as much as I’d like to see the muzzleloader regulations go back to our original 1977 intent, I would also like to see archery and rifle go back to the 1970’s as well. Hell, if it were up me, I’d start closing units on a rotation bases, and keep doing as far into the future as I can see. So, I think our management is so completely screwed up I honestly don’t really care one way or the other anymore. I tried for 40 years to keep our herds viable, to no avail, so what you folks do from here on is just fine with me, it’s your turn at the helm, I’m just trying to keep the history as accurate as I’ve lived it.

The tech committee's claims of 1100 yard chip shots/ 700 yard muzzy kills/ and single shot rifles is simply not what the average hunter can do with todays muzzy. But it’s the sell that matters right ?

I agree, at least not the folks that I know.

The tech committee did not specify a date of when they were trying to go back to other than possibly pre 2016 or maybe a 4X scope recommendation.

So is the timeline of technology and when it was “allowed” important on this issue -removing scopes based off the tech of a muzzy? Was there a restriction in 1977 that said you couldn’t use a whit-worth rifle in place?


No, because you typically don’t regulate what you aren’t knowledgeable about. We weren’t aware of those kinds of muzzleloaders. You can argue we should have but we didn’t and that just the truth if it.

Lastly - Will todays hunter in 2023 be happy about the removal of scopes -to find out this was coming from a timeline from 1977 ? Heck that’s 2 generations ago.

Probably not. I understand why.

You could also argue that if the dates from tech don’t matter on technology then the dates of what it was “originally intended for” shouldn’t be allowed either. Why - it’s been 46 years. I think it all matters. Bring the whole history to the table.

I think it’s an argument to support your wants………(we all look for reasons support our position, I get it, I understand why you’re making the argument, I just don’t believe it’s relevant, based on the reasons we wanted a muzzleloader season originally …… in Utah, that is.

Not an easy subject Lumpy and it’s doing one thing really well right now -dividing us.

We’ve been divide on wildlife issues since I came here in 1975. Constant conflict between hunters in Utah.

And thanks for your posts !

Your welcome, I understand where your coming from and respect your opinions.
 
Slam, did the Tech Committee even discuss how simple this fix could be by just copying and pasting in the Idaho muzzy regs in to our guidebook?
 
Does it use #11 or musket cap?
Yes
In todays innovative world.
A .020 tungsten bushing with a stepped powder chamber (combined with a 4ffg booster powder) and large doses of 777 black powder - and a really long heavy made for smokeless pressures barrel.

What do you get ?
2500 fps with heavy conicals.

I know a machinest in Idaho that’s sick to no end of the moccasin agenda that’s been forced on them by a very focal “era” group.

He’s running his own custom ml700 that has exposed ignition -with a custom cupped hammer for the number 11 ignition.
There’s still some blowback- but it’s direction is controlled.
50 cal legal muzzy for idaho. If the purists knew it existed……….
 
Yes
In todays innovative world.
A .020 tungsten bushing with a stepped powder chamber (combined with a 4ffg booster powder) and large doses of 777 black powder - and a really long heavy made for smokeless pressures barrel.

What do you get ?
2500 fps with heavy conicals.

I know a machinest in Idaho that’s sick to no end of the moccasin agenda that’s been forced on them by a very focal “era” group.

He’s running his own custom ml700 that has exposed ignition -with a custom cupped hammer for the number 11 ignition.
There’s still some blowback- but it’s direction is controlled.
50 cal legal muzzy for idaho. If the purists knew it existed……….

Imagine if that dude spent the time he did trying to circumvent the reg, just walking around on the mtn hunting. I'm sure he takes great pride in constantly being checked by G&F for his gun so he can educate them, and then complain about being targeted.

There will always be "that guy". They are in every industry, every field. We call them Tards in this state, and they are the reason for yearly tweaks to regs, and pages added to proclamations yearly.
 
There Is No Doubt!

When The Regulations Change!

So Will The Gun Manufacturers!

I Can See/Hear It Now:

The New Utah Paramount!

The Remington DRAT!


The opposite.

I remember watching hunting shows and seeing muzzleloaders like we have today, being used, generally by whitetail hunters, thinking "a scope?"

Few years later and suddenly it's package deals, gun with scope. Pretty big market to open up.
 
You've Never heard Of The Paramount PRO Colorado I Take It?

What Do You Think They Built That Gun For?


The opposite.

I remember watching hunting shows and seeing muzzleloaders like we have today, being used, generally by whitetail hunters, thinking "a scope?"

Few years later and suddenly it's package deals, gun with scope. Pretty big market to open up.
 
Lumpy
Great article. Everyone should take a few minutes and read it.
I’m going to copy and paste a few paragraphs from it.

NEW BOARD HAS STEEP ROAD AHEAD​

By Deseret News
Aug 10, 1995, 12:00am MDT

“But if this new committee is to truly succeed, it must forget people and look toward the wildlife. Manage for healthy, happy herds“

In response where are we now with general big game hunting but more specifically muzzleloader optics removal ?

It’s not about saving animals as slam has said over and over again. Is it about people - sure looks that way…

Again lumpy
Thanks for sharing the article. It’s pretty hard trying to locate info and dates. Time flies and 50 years go by.
 
Ballistic,

Lumpy has it correct. I hunted the first year of the Muzzleloader Deer Hunt in Southern Utah. Utah's was because of a few Eastern States were having Flintlock and other special hunts. It was proposed as a Primitive Hunt to use weapons that the early Americans used before most had repeating rifles. Nothing more, nothing less. Time periods and specific rifles did not even need to be discussed. I was at the BG meeting when the 1X scope was discussed. Who said it, when was it said? I don't know. Tell what I do know is there was a skinny BGB member who said he was getting older and couldn't see open sights. That pretty much ended that conversation and it was voted in. Get your foot in the door, move on and vote the high power scopes in. Isn't that the way it works.
The only thing I can see Lumpy is trying to do is correct a wrong by making it right. NO, he is trying to correct several wrongs regarding the muzzleloader hunt to make them either right, or at least close to the original intent of the muzzleloading hunt. If you want to hunt long range improved by a high power scope, hunt the any weapon.
Do I think the WL Board will do the right thing and go as New Mexico or Oregon? I doubt it! I would like to see them with some good restrictions regarding the gun and accessories though.
Maybe I don’t want to hunt with a centerfire rifle because it’s too easy.
And since I’ve had magnified optics for 7 years I’ve liked the challenge presented with my muzzleloader. It’s definitely not a single shot rifle.
My challenge is still there for anyone that wants to test it. My single shot rifle vs any black powder muzzleloader. We can start at 1100 yards. You miss -your out !
 
Ballistic,
For me that is not the point! For me the point is to put the muzzleloader hunt back to the original intent which was a PRIMITIVE HUNT. Do I believe we will ever get there again - - NO, but we can correct some things to head in that direction. One being no scopes. I know the argument that there were scopes in the 1800's, but more like a hollow tube and we didn't have Black Horn as well as the many other modern things either. A couple of the other states around us saw the light. Why can't we.

And Lumpy, my gad, by the time I got thru reading I couldn't remember the purpose of what we are talking about. If the object was to wear you down, you succeeded. My brain cells are dead anyway. I never was good at "Jeopardy" and to me trivia of this whole subject makes my tired ache. Lets just get it back to the original intent of a primitive hunt.
 
Maybe I don’t want to hunt with a centerfire rifle because it’s too easy.
And since I’ve had magnified optics for 7 years I’ve liked the challenge presented with my muzzleloader. It’s definitely not a single shot rifle.
My challenge is still there for anyone that wants to test it. My single shot rifle vs any black powder muzzleloader. We can start at 1100 yards. You miss -your out !

Since you like the challenges, you'll enjoy open sights, makes it even more challenging.

Your not really helping your cause with the 1100 yard challenge.
 
Ballistic,
For me that is not the point! For me the point is to put the muzzleloader hunt back to the original intent which was a PRIMITIVE HUNT. Do I believe we will ever get there again - - NO, but we can correct some things to head in that direction. One being no scopes. I know the argument that there were scopes in the 1800's, but more like a hollow tube and we didn't have Black Horn as well as the many other modern things either. A couple of the other states around us saw the light. Why can't we.

And Lumpy, my gad, by the time I got thru reading I couldn't remember the purpose of what we are talking about. If the object was to wear you down, you succeeded. My brain cells are dead anyway. I never was good at "Jeopardy" and to me trivia of this whole subject makes my tired ache. Lets just get it back to the original intent of a primitive hunt.
The length and the detail is for some kind of a historic record, based on my involvement. The details and the reasons behind them may have some value for future readers. I try not to just make comments without trying to give the reader a mental image of the time and place.

We all have our reasons for participating in these discussions.

My advice is don’t bother reading my posts if they’re boring and are irrelevant to your interest. I don’t do well coming up with one-liners like a lot of MM members do. I’m not a clever guy. ?
 
My advice is don’t bother reading my posts if they’re boring and are irrelevant to your interest. I don’t do well coming up with one-liners like a lot of MM members do. I’m not a clever guy. ?
So, you were on the Tech committee. :devilish:
 
I challenged the Tech Committee (slam) to bring their muzzleloader and shoot at 300 yards and there was crickets.

Why? How about you bring your scoped muzzy, then unscope it, let's check results.

But if I bring my 30 30, I'm guessing that's not what u want?
 
Why? How about you bring your scoped muzzy, then unscope it, let's check results.

But if I bring my 30 30, I'm guessing that's not what u want?
I've said all along if I have to go to open sights that it will effect me. My eyes don't work like they used to. The whole point of this discussion is how effective muzzleloaders are WITH scopes. We all know that they are less effective without them.
My argument is that the vast majority of muzzleloader hunters are not shooting critters at 700 yards. Really, not past 200.
I've muzzleloader hunted for 35 years. I've killed 20+ spike elk and probably 10 deer in that time. Only 1 deer and 1 elk were past 200 yards. The furthest being a ranged 214 yards.
I really believe that going to open sights will cause people to quit muzzleloader hunting, which would be a shame. I also believe that the wounding loss with increase significantly. The ability to make clean kills should be of great importance. If that means going to 4x or 1x scopes, then that is what should happen.
 
Last edited:
Muzzleloaders must be more effective with scopes or there wouldn't be 4+ pages of comments. I imagine there are a few guys complaining about losing their scopes and other guys excited. There is an Any Weapon Hunt for anyone wanting to use tech that is disallowed for the weapon's season.

I sat in on some Tech Committees at the UDWR back in the early 2000s- (I can't remember the exact year). It was from those meetings that the 1x scope came into being legal. It was very controversial at the time.
 
Muzzleloaders must be more effective with scopes or there wouldn't be 4+ pages of comments. I imagine there are a few guys complaining about losing their scopes and other guys excited. There is an Any Weapon Hunt for anyone wanting to use tech that is disallowed for the weapon's season.

I sat in on some Tech Committees at the UDWR back in the early 2000s- (I can't remember the exact year). It was from those meetings that the 1x scope came into being legal. It was very controversial at the time.
Take scopes off rifles and let’s see what happens ?
 
Since you like the challenges, you'll enjoy open sights, makes it even more challenging.

Your not really helping your cause with the 1100 yard challenge.
Hoss
The reason the 1100 yard challenge has been brought up.
The tech committee member (per slams post) said 1100 yards was easy.

If it’s so damn easy - I want to see it done. Cold bore on a 12” plate (deer vitals)

Just calling folks out on the BS propaganda for a BS sale.

Are you saying it wasn’t said ?
 
Hoss
The reason the 1100 yard challenge has been brought up.
The tech committee member (per slams post) said 1100 yards was easy.

If it’s so damn easy - I want to see it done. Cold bore on a 12” plate (deer vitals)

Just calling folks out on the BS propaganda for a BS sale.

Are you saying it wasn’t said ?
Tell you right now, give me the best rifle money can buy and I'm probably not hitting that at 1100 yards. I am proficient with rifles, but an average shot, like most are. Takes a true shooter to be dialed in to shoot that far. It's just the truth
 
Take scopes off rifles and let’s see what happens ?
Let's do it. I bet Lumpy would show up and the 3 of us can lobby for the change. My dad was a long range shooter decades ago- custom guns with Titus barrels, high powered scopes- he was capable, When I served on the Mule Deer Committee a decade ago I asked him (he was in his 70s) how we could sustain hunting opportunity while protecting the resource. His answer- "Take scopes off guns". Hopefully, coming to a unit near you in the near future.

It seems you are a proficient shooter and I will look forward to your 1500 yard open sight shots with the tech you keep referencing from the 1800s.... This change could benefit you.

As for the 1100 yard claim- well now that is a great tactic our politicians use- claim the extremes and ignore the real world. Looks like someone on the Tech Committee used that number and now the opposition wants to just focus on that number. Real world is there are many hunters shooting to 600 yards with their muzzleloaders and many more shooting past 300. All simply because we threw scopes on MLs in 2016. Remove the scopes and we go back to most guys shooting to 200 while a few will be out to 400. Gets people within the detection range of the quarry.

Fight away though. Founder enjoys the page views.
 
Hoss
The reason the 1100 yard challenge has been brought up.
The tech committee member (per slams post) said 1100 yards was easy.

If it’s so damn easy - I want to see it done. Cold bore on a 12” plate (deer vitals)

Just calling folks out on the BS propaganda for a BS sale.

Are you saying it wasn’t said ?


I'll take your word for it.

But again, so??

If they hit a plate at 1099, is that a big deal? 899? 699?

Can you promise that 10 years from now, tech won't make them capable of that? Cuz I can guarantee, via scopes, that will happen



We ain't arguing about what happened in 1995, 2005, 2015. We are looking at what's coming, how quickly, and what it means.

And as you said.

You'll always buy the best. Your not alone
 
I've said all along if I have to go to open sights that it will effect me. My eyes don't work like they used to. The whole point of this discussion is how effective muzzleloaders are WITH scopes. We all know that they are less effective without them.
My argument is that the vast majority of muzzleloader hunters are not shooting critters at 700 yards. Really, not past 200.
I've muzzleloader hunted for 35 years. I've killed 20+ spike elk and probably 10 deer in that time. Only 1 deer and 1 elk were past 200 yards. The furthest being a ranged 214 yards.
I really believe that going to open sights will cause people to quit muzzleloader hunting, which would be a shame. I also believe that the wounding loss with increase significantly. The ability to make clean kills should be of great importance. If that means going to 4x or 1x scopes, then that is what should happen.


Without data on either side, I'd argue more are wounded because guys with big scopes misjudge their capabilities because they can see it.

I keep reading red dots are ok. And a cor gets you a 1x

So those eye issues are covered.
 
I really believe that going to open sights will cause people to quit muzzleloader hunting, which would be a shame. I also believe that the wounding loss with increase significantly. The ability to make clean kills should be of great importance. If that means going to 4x or 1x scopes, then that is what should happen.

You know they allow guys to put razor blades on the end of sticks and using their muscle power placed in a contraption with strings and limbs they launch these razor tipped sticks at large game animals with the idea that they are going to cleanly kill these animals. It's been going on for years. And here you say that you are super worried about pulling magnified scopes off of modern muzzleloaders and that's going to balloon up wounding rates? Judas Priest

The increased wounding argument is by far the worst of all the arguments regarding the push to decrease tech. The only logical conclusion to your argument is that we must use the very top end of tech, otherwise wounding rates will be far too high. If that were the case then razor blades on sticks would have been outlawed years ago.
 
@Airborne we will just have to disagree.

It's not about the sharp stick. It's about the ability to get that sharp stick to the vitals of a critter. If we take archery and make them shoot a fixed 1 pin sight, it will assuredly increase poor hits. why? because people have gotten used to shooting 100yds with that sharp stick. They are still going to "send it". You can't argue that. The same is true for open sights vs a cross hair. It's all about the ability to shoot accurately.

Make no mistake, I'm absolutely against long range hunting. I hate that people are shooting at the distances they are. That includes archery, Muzzy's and rifles. I just don't think that going to open sights is the answer for muzzleloaders when they can do other things to get the same result.
 
But When he Said Take Scopes!

He Meant Off All Guns!



Let's do it. I bet Lumpy would show up and the 3 of us can lobby for the change. My dad was a long range shooter decades ago- custom guns with Titus barrels, high powered scopes- he was capable, When I served on the Mule Deer Committee a decade ago I asked him (he was in his 70s) how we could sustain hunting opportunity while protecting the resource. His answer- "Take scopes off guns". Hopefully, coming to a unit near you in the near future.

It seems you are a proficient shooter and I will look forward to your 1500 yard open sight shots with the tech you keep referencing from the 1800s.... This change could benefit you.

As for the 1100 yard claim- well now that is a great tactic our politicians use- claim the extremes and ignore the real world. Looks like someone on the Tech Committee used that number and now the opposition wants to just focus on that number. Real world is there are many hunters shooting to 600 yards with their muzzleloaders and many more shooting past 300. All simply because we threw scopes on MLs in 2016. Remove the scopes and we go back to most guys shooting to 200 while a few will be out to 400. Gets people within the detection range of the quarry.

Fight away though. Founder enjoys the page views.
 
@elkantlers

I can argue that! Taking steps back in tech does not automatically mean people are going to push the envelope because they were used to a more efficient weapon system before. You would have to supply some data to back your assertion and I doubt you have any. I think responsible hunters shoot within the limits of their abilities and weapon systems. Irresponsible hunters are going to push the limits regardless of weapon system so it's a moot point to even bring them into the argument. I believe the majority of hunters are responsible.
 
It seems you are a proficient shooter and I will look forward to your 1500 yard open sight shots with the tech you keep referencing from the 1800s.... This change could benefit you.
The 1854 whitworth with a scope (super long tube) of that era had an effective range of 800 yards and a max range of 1500 yards. It did however shoot a 23” group at 800 yards open sights-pretty amazing !

Honestly
I’m not that great of a shot anymore. I just want someone to show up and showcase the 1100 yard shot that’s easy. I’d be happy to loose the challenge. I’ve been shooting muzzies for over 35 years and I’ve pushed the limits of what they can do. That 1100 yard shot - highly unlikely. A 700 yard shot -same thing. 300 yards for the average rifle hunter is pushing it. So when I hear all the propaganda by the tech commitee (with no factual data to back it up) other than that’s what you “see”on the shelves at stores right now -single shot rifle muzzies.

As far as open sights go
Gunwerks has a dial up peep with claims of 500 plus yards right now for their 500 yard muzzy.
Real world - you are probably correct with long distance lobbing. Will open sights stop it …………I highly doubt it.



Real world is there are many hunters shooting to 600 yards with their muzzleloaders and many more shooting past 300.

Fight away though. Founder enjoys the page views.
 
How do they justify the extra expense incurred by all the guys that sold their old open sight guns, and bought newer, scope only guns in the last 7 years? I'm sure they don't care, but plenty of people will.
No one will care…it will give them more excuses to buy another gun. Those scopes can be used on other guns. It isn’t the WB’s job to be concerned about someone’s past investments.
 
There’s another way to look at this if they go back to way it was they’ll probably increase deer tags. That means it will be easier to get a tag. Gotta think positive here ??
 
There’s another way to look at this if they go back to way it was they’ll probably increase deer tags. That means it will be easier to get a tag. Gotta think positive here ??
I think there was a average increase in muzzy hunters of around 2-3000 hunters applying per year when scopes were approved. So since 2016 how many tags have been cut?
 
No one will care…it will give them more excuses to buy another gun. Those scopes can be used on other guns. It isn’t the WB’s job to be concerned about someone’s past investments.
Obviously from all the posts -the No One cares isn’t correct.
As far as the WB is concerned -you are probably right about them not caring about “someone’s” investments. That someone is the general average hunter.
They are very concerned about the special interest $$$ groups (CWMU/gov tags/guides/etc..)
 
An interesting side bar to these changes the impact people’s pervious expenditures when it come to things the bureaucrats approve/allowed such as heavy investments in trail cameras, thermal devices, inline muzzleloaders, expensive muzzleloader scopes, long range supporting range finders……… and the WB seems to be changing the rules without regard to hunters who have spent many thousands on those items. No one has sued no one has done anything other than complain and what’s new with complainers and the DWR and WB. Not much.

Now to my point……. The DWR and the WB have always used the Life Time License (LTL) holder’s investment to argue they are bound to that hunter investment and by doing so they use the argue to keep from making changes that need to be made. So……. how about it? On one hand the bureaucrats don’t seem to worry in the least about investments made by hunters……. unless….. it works in there favor, as the LTL does.

My guess is if and when the system wants to change the rules on the LTL hunters, they will do it in a New York minute and do it without the least concern about LTL hunters who will complain about it.

Bureaucrats learn what the public will tolerate, and what they won’t and then respond accordingly. Complaining doesn’t move the needle a how he!! of a lot.
 
Obviously from all the posts -the No One cares isn’t correct.
As far as the WB is concerned -you are probably right about them not caring about “someone’s” investments. That someone is the general average hunter.
They are very concerned about the special interest $$$ groups (CWMU/gov tags/guides/etc..)

True, but look at who has LR sponsorship, so they would be going against that
 
The last time I muzzleloader hunted Utah, a 1x scope was all that was allowed. I still have it, though I now have a fixed 4x scope on my muzzleloader. I personally would have no problem going back to a 1x scope.
My only concern with states requiring open sights only is if they are extremely stringent about allowing optics waivers for vision problems. I can see just fine out past about 5 feet, but my up close vision has gone to crap since I am past 40 years old. I have a very hard time seeing a front sight well at all, and I have to use a lens in my peep sight on my bow, otherwise the pins are extremely fuzzy.
I would be happy to be allowed to use a red dot or 1x scope with a waiver, but would be extremely handicapped if I were not allowed to do so. I think a lot of guys are in the same boat.
 
Why is this a "who votes for what"? Why is there a committee? Is it to soften blows against the Wildlife Board? For public opinion? Satisfy the hunters who have spent money on new guns and apparel? Or is it about the diminishing Mule Deer Herds?

I worked with a person who said, "Change is good, even if it is bad". I don't believe that, unless the wheels turn too slow and the past slope has been down hill and it getting steeper closer to the bottom.

In my simple pea brain, it's just about the Wildlife Board putting any selfishness in their hind pocket and vote their conscience for the survival of the deer herds. One step at a time if need be. Don't make the Legislators do it.
 
Last edited:
Why is this a "who votes for what"? Why is there a committee? Is it to soften blows against the Wildlife Board? For public opinion? Satisfy the hunters who have spent money on new guns and apparel? Or is it about the diminishing Mule Deer Herds?

I worked with a person who said, "Change is good, even if it is bad". I don't believe that, unless the wheels turn too slow and the past slope has been down hill and it getting steeper closer to the bottom.

In my simple pea brain, it's just about the Wildlife Board putting any selfishness in their hind pocket and vote their conscience for the survival of the deer herds. One step at a time if need be. Don't make the Legislators do it.

So when scopes got added was it to help the herds?
 
Ya!

Just Like The Advancement Of TECHNOLOGY With Archery Equipment Helped The Herds!

Ya!

Just Like The Advancement Of TECHNOLOGY With Rifle Equipment Helped The Herds!

At The Very Best With Eliminating Scopes On SmokePoles All You Are Doing POSSIBLY Is MAYBE Saving A Few Bucks For The Following Hunts And They'll Be Dead No Matter Which Weapon Kills Them!

It's Past Time To Do Something In This State To Improve Deer Numbers!

You Don't Have To Be A Biologist To Figure This Out!

But Hey!

They Can Take The MUZZ Scopes!

We Can Study That For 5 Years To See What Happens!

It Fixes Nothing!


So when scopes got added was it to help the herds?
 
Ya!

Just Like The Advancement Of TECHNOLOGY With Archery Equipment Helped The Herds!

Ya!

Just Like The Advancement Of TECHNOLOGY With Rifle Equipment Helped The Herds!

At The Very Best With Eliminating Scopes On SmokePoles All You Are Doing POSSIBLY Is MAYBE Saving A Few Bucks For The Following Hunts And They'll Be Dead No Matter Which Weapon Kills Them!

It's Past Time To Do Something In This State To Improve Deer Numbers!

You Don't Have To Be A Biologist To Figure This Out!

But Hey!

They Can Take The MUZZ Scopes!

We Can Study That For 5 Years To See What Happens!

It Fixes Nothing!


What did adding them fix?
 
We Can Talk About Many Things That Hasn't Helped Our Herds!

I Guess You Could Argue?

But Hossy You Wouldn't Ever Do That Now Would You?:D

What'd All The GADGETRY That Went Un-Limited For Archery Equipment Help?

What'd All The GADGETRY & Advancements With Long Rangers Help?

Again!

I'm Not Against GIVING Up Some TECH as Long As It's An Even TAKE Amongst All 3 Weapon Types!

We Are All Guilty of Some Type Of TECH/GADGETRY That Puts Advantages in Our Favor!

When & What Are We Gonna Do To Improve Deer Numbers?

Nobody Seems To Give a RATS ASS About Improving Herd Numbers!



What did adding them fix?
 
This ain't 3rd grade. Even and fair?

Archery success rates are still low.

I'm with you on LR.

But that's harder to do.

So this is a good thing to follow bait and cams.

We can take a bite, or eat the whole thing. But doing nothing ain't an option.
 
We Can Talk About Many Things That Hasn't Helped Our Herds!

I Guess You Could Argue?

But Hossy You Wouldn't Ever Do That Now Would You?:D

What'd All The GADGETRY That Went Un-Limited For Archery Equipment Help?

What'd All The GADGETRY & Advancements With Long Rangers Help?

Again!

I'm Not Against GIVING Up Some TECH as Long As It's An Even TAKE Amongst All 3 Weapon Types!

We Are All Guilty of Some Type Of TECH/GADGETRY That Puts Advantages in Our Favor!

When & What Are We Gonna Do To Improve Deer Numbers?

Nobody Seems To Give a RATS ASS About Improving Herd Numbers!


I have 3 trucks and mama drives a V8.

I'm doing my part to warm the earth so we don't have winter kill.
 
We Can Talk About Many Things That Hasn't Helped Our Herds!

I Guess You Could Argue?

But Hossy You Wouldn't Ever Do That Now Would You?:D

What'd All The GADGETRY That Went Un-Limited For Archery Equipment Help?

What'd All The GADGETRY & Advancements With Long Rangers Help?

Again!

I'm Not Against GIVING Up Some TECH as Long As It's An Even TAKE Amongst All 3 Weapon Types!

We Are All Guilty of Some Type Of TECH/GADGETRY That Puts Advantages in Our Favor!

When & What Are We Gonna Do To Improve Deer Numbers?

Nobody Seems To Give a RATS ASS About Improving Herd Numbers!
Well…….. I used to Give a RAT ASS.

They called me a useful moron, a whiner, a lier, an idiot, a trophy hunter, an anti-hunter, worse that PETA.

I warned them in 83, again in 93, repeatedly in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005…….took a brake and got talked in to warning them again in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Said to he!! with in it in 2013.

Should have spent those 40 years golfing and fly fishing Montana. We all would have been happier.
 
Maybe the WB is up to something amazing

Unlimited moccasin tags (2nd season deer muzzy) just like 2nd season rifle elk is now. And wait 3 years before you look at results.

OMG ! That will improve deer numbers.

They could force wearing orange as rifle hunts will overlap. Or just force muzzleloader hunters to wear orange as the tech committee has labeled them as single shot rifles………
 
I Never Once Mentioned 'FAIR' in that Post!

Some Of The MM PUSSIES Can't Handle Anything 'FAIR'!

So Hossy?

You really Think This MUZZ Scope TAKE Is Gonna Help?

Maybe Help The Rifle Hunters Slightly!

Please SPLAIN The Big Help You Think That's Gonna Happen?

It Ain't Gonna Help Increase Deer Numbers!

But Somebody Might Be Proud To Say:

Look What WE Did!

We Slightly Lowered The Success Rate Of The SmokePolers!





This ain't 3rd grade. Even and fair?

Archery success rates are still low.

I'm with you on LR.

But that's harder to do.

So this is a good thing to follow bait and cams.

We can take a bite, or eat the whole thing. But doing nothing ain't an option.
 
I can't believe this thread is still going strong with over 350 post..too bad we can't get this much concern worked up for the real problems our mule deer herds are facing.. In my way of thinking this stupid deal about scopes ain't going to do anything to help our deer herds or their numbers in any way or form
 
I can't believe this thread is still going strong with over 350 post..too bad we can't get this much concern worked up for the real problems our mule deer herds are facing.. In my way of thinking this stupid deal about scopes ain't going to do anything to help our deer herds or their numbers in any way or form
I agree 100%

I'm still amazed at how many still think this is about saving deer herds ?‍♂️
 
Not herds, just bucks for a later hunt.
That has always been the case according to the success rate data, nothing changes there for the following rifle hunt.
That was indeed the initial reactionary dispute and claim against the removal of variable power scopes.

There are numerous posts in this thread about the scope issue being about addressing the dwindling herd.

If the WB removes scopes altogether, I personally believe you'll see a success decline if they leave the tag allotments the same.
I also believe we'll see a change in who sticks with this hunt and who switches.
 
Last edited:
I'm Not Saying It Has Anything To Do With Dwindling Herds!

What I'm Saying Is We Need To Do Something About The Dwindling Herds!

Amazes How Many Years The ANYTHING GOES Has Went On In This State!

Gonna Take More Than SmokePole Scope Removal To Help Fix It!

And Yes I Understand We've Gotta Do Something With The Escalating Of TECHNOLOGY & GADGETRY!
 
I'm Not Saying It Has Anything To Do With Dwindling Herds!

What I'm Saying Is We Need To Do Something About The Dwindling Herds!

Amazes How Many Years The ANYTHING GOES Has Went On In This State!

Gonna Take More Than SmokePole Scope Removal To Help Fix It!

And Yes I Understand We've Gotta Do Something With The Escalating Of TECHNOLOGY & GADGETRY!
There are numerous things being done to help our herds rebound and or even save what we have left.
It takes years for projects to show a measurable impact, especially habitat rehabilitation.
If the moisture isn't there to nourish it, it burns up and is all for nothing.
We can't force it to rain, unfortunately.
Habitat needs rain to feed it, guzzlers need rain to fill them.

What we can do is more highway crossings and high fences to lower vehicle collisions, assist farmers and ranchers with wintering game and avoid depredation hunts of killing does and fawns.
Get more aggressive with predator control, especially when numbers are low like they are.
More aggressive poaching fines.
Make penalties for the senseless killing of does just as high or higher as the fines for killing "trophy" sized bucks.

It's not just a Utah problem, it's all the western mule deer herds that are hurting, that's why it cannot be blamed on one management entity.

On the bright side, the winter range (what's left) habitat is healthy this year due to all the moisture and our game will have food this winter unlike last year.

Pray for rain ?
 

Take a minute and read the mission statement of the tech commitee. (Link above)

Here’s a list of who they represent copied

  • Utah Regional Advisory Councils
    • Central Region
    • Northern Region
    • Southern Region
    • Southeastern Region
    • Northeastern Region
  • Utah Wildlife Board
  • Archery industry
  • Rifle industry
  • Hunting guides
  • Sportsmans groups
  • Public-at-large
  • CWMU owners and operators
  • University researchers
  • Hunters
Missing - muzzleloader hunters and industry.
It stands to reason why scopes on muzzleloaders are on the chopping block.

Scopes that were allowed (1x) since the mid 90,s and variables since 2016.
Not new technology which is part of the mission statement.

Copied :

In 2021, the Utah Wildlife Board tasked the DWR with establishing a Technology Committee to determine which new technologies and weapons should be allowed for hunting in Utah. The Technology Committee examines how technology relates to fair chase, ethics and other criteria, and helps form recommendations for the Wildlife Board to consider how technology can be implemented into hunting regulations.

Thanks for going back in time to an undetermined date on muzzleloaders tech committee.
You should pat yourselves (and your listed special interest groups) on your backs.

And remember - it’s not about saving animals…………
 
Had a little free time. This is all off of the Annual report.

just because muzzy didn't increase that much in harvest after 2016 neither did the other weapons. I find it very interesting that youth stays right around 40% or more on success from 2012-2021.

Archery hunters with a whole month to hunt, look at the success rate for 10 years.

2012
Muzzy 15,238 permits with 32.0% success
Rifle 39,135 permits with 36.5% success
Youth 10,775 permits with 46.6% success
Archery 15,446 permits with 19.1% success

2013
Muzzy 15,649 permits with 30.7% success
Rifle 38,145 permits with 37.5% success
Youth 10,580 permits with 47.1% success
Archery 16,689 permits with 18.4% success

2014

Muzzy 15,825 permits with 31.1% success
Rifle 37,798 permits with 37.5% success
youth 10,362 permits with 48.4% success
Archery 16,459 permits with 20.8% success

2015

Muzzy 16,149 permits with 34.5% success
Rifle 38,307 permits with 42.5% success
Youth 10,597 permits with 52.9% success
Archery 17,026 permits with 23.9% success

2016
Muzzy 16,941 permits with 39.3% success
Rifle 39,357 permits with 43.7% success
Youth 10,732 permits with 53.7% success
Archery 17,841 permits with 21.5% success

2017
Muzzy 16,279 permits with 33.5% success
Rifle 38,140 permits with 37.9% success
Youth 10,417 permits with 49.4% success
Archery 16,851 permits with 19.9% success

2018
Muzzy 16,734 permits with 37.5% success
Rifle 35,742 permits with 39.4% success
Youth 9,567 permits with 51.2% success
Archery 17,493 permits with 22.0% success

2019
Muzzy 16,342 permits with 27.0% success
Rifle 34,399 permits with 29.3% success
Youth 9,494 Permits with 41.4% success
Archery 17,000 permits with 16.5% success

2020

Muzzy 14,772 permits with 30.1% success
Rifle 30,602 permits with 28.6% success
youth 8,207 permits with 41.3% success
Archery 15,550 permits with 18.8% success

2021

Muzzy 13,352 permits with 33.9% success
Rifle 28,275 permits with 39.3% success
Youth 7,659 permits with 47.7% success
Archery 14,262 permits with 17.7% success
 
I think when the new Deer proposal comes around we have options to start fixing quality and it will also give everyone a tag and they will know exactly when they will be getting another tag.

My proposal is simple we give every resident a permit starting next year. We run it for 3 or 4 years if you harvest a deer within that 3 or 4 years you get put on a 3 or 4 year waiting period. (The reason why is on average it takes 3 to 5 years to draw a tag anyways in most units) You have to pick your weapon and stick with that weapon for the 3 to 4 years.
This will give everyone a tags gets ride of the points system and I truly think you will find people being more selective on what they will shoot.
 
Simple guy, very basic skills.

If you cannot understand the future of where an MZ is headed, you're already too far gone.

Screenshot_20230925_053142_Facebook.jpg
 
Last edited:
Your not saying heart sized accuracy at 500yrds plus on a muzzy affects herds are you?

I'm sure Ballistic has some obscure muzzy with a muzzle break from 1765, so what's the problem?
 
Simple guy, very basic skills.

If you cannot understand the future of where an MZ is headed, you're already too far gone.

View attachment 120630
Here is my set up. It’s easily a 500 yard gun. Any further than that and I believe it loses the velocity to be an affective killer. I am also all for restrictions. Dial and shoot smoke poles are not what a muzzleloader type hunt was intended to be. IMO . If restrictions pass, this $2K set up will be on the market. Haha
IMG_6305.jpeg
 
Would You Have Said That Though Prior To Your H.M. Trophy?




Here is my set up. It’s easily a 500 yard gun. Any further than that and I believe it loses the velocity to be an affective killer. I am also all for restrictions. Dial and shoot smoke poles are not what a muzzleloader type hunt was intended to be. IMO . If restrictions pass, this $2K set up will be on the market. Haha
View attachment 120647
 
look at the scope on it. Also look at what it did in high winds.

Did you watch the entire video and understand what it took to make the “hit” ?
Even the sponsored shooter barely hit the plate. How big is that plate ?
I’m guessing 24” tall and 18” wide. Out side of a deers vitals and a wound on an elk.

Here’s the wind math as he said he held 3.5 mils.
1 mil=3.6 inches at 100 yards.
How about 94.5” of wind hold.
Bullets Bc is .360 so how about the energy ?
Under 1000 lbs

Rifle energy with a 225 grain bullet at long range - not even in the same ball park.

The author of the video even stated that you shouldn’t be shooting this setup at longer ranges without tons and tons of practice.

But go ahead -it’s a single shot rifle.
The average hunter can duplicate this - not a chance.
 
1695677618164.jpeg


This peep fits on any picatinny style rail and is a great muzzleloader sight.

Any person that wants to bend the rules could swap this with a scope in less than 30 seconds in the field. I would be willing to bet there are a bunch of these sold next year to Utah hunters.

When you have guides openly bending rules (sheep in wrong unit, helicopters, trail cameras, etc) the average hunter is not really going to be to hard pressed to cheat. This was a stupid rule IMO that will be damned near impossible to enforce!

Sorry if this is a double post…my first post disappeared.
 
Here is my set up. It’s easily a 500 yard gun. Any further than that and I believe it loses the velocity to be an affective killer. I am also all for restrictions. Dial and shoot smoke poles are not what a muzzleloader type hunt was intended to be. IMO . If restrictions pass, this $2K set up will be on the market. Haha
View attachment 120647
Since it’s easily a 500 yard gun -you should use it on your rifle hunt -instead of your rifle.

Originally intended to be is a hard sell. It’s been 46 years since its origins. Everything has changed
 
Would You Have Said That Though Prior To Your H.M. Trophy?
The muzzy hunt dates and 1/2 the hunters was the draw to us putting for that season. Having one of the most effective weapons on the market was just a bonus. haha. I took my first buck with a Hawkins .50 cap and round ball.
 
Your not saying heart sized accuracy at 500yrds plus on a muzzy affects herds are you?

I'm sure Ballistic has some obscure muzzy with a muzzle break from 1765, so what's the problem?
Hossy
I don’t think you can hit the heart on an animal at close ranges - even with your magnum.
But it would be awesome to see you show up with a decked out muzzy to prove you can.

“It’s not about saving animals”

Please read slams comments on this -he’s said it at least a dozen times.
 
Since it’s easily a 500 yard gun -you should use it on your rifle hunt -instead of your rifle.

Originally intended to be is a hard sell. It’s been 46 years since its origins. Everything has changed
Why use a 500 yard muzzy when you can use a 1000 yard rifle. Hahaha. I didnt say I am a long ranger with either weapon when it comes to hunting, but I do enjoy stretching them out on the range. There has been a lot of good debate on restrictions. Bottom line, we need more deer. However and if that can happen, i am all for it. Seeing what I have in the last few years on premium LE units. Technology IS having an affect on the Top end Bucks and bulls. I am all for the proposals to help a few of those top end animals survive the hunts too.
 
Here is my set up. It’s easily a 500 yard gun. Any further than that and I believe it loses the velocity to be an affective killer. I am also all for restrictions. Dial and shoot smoke poles are not what a muzzleloader type hunt was intended to be. IMO . If restrictions pass, this $2K set up will be on the market. Haha
View attachment 120647
I shoot an Encore and CVA kit Mountain Rifle on my Deer hunts.
Dumb question time:
Where is the ramrod for quick follow-up shot?
 
Hey PUNK?

Can You Re-Fresh Us Of How Many Committee Members There Are?

Here's What Shoulda Been Done:

There Shoulda Been A Vote!

Let's Say 65% of All Archery Hunters,65% Of All SmokePolers & 65% Of All LongRangers Shoulda Been Included In The Vote!

You Can Only Vote Once!

O Leave All Weaponry As Is/Un-Limited TECH/GADGETRY!
BAD IDEA!

O Restrict All Weaponry With An Equal TAKE From All 3 Weapon
Types!
BETTER IDEA!

O Restrict A Small Group From Making Big Decisions for
99.9999% Of Other Hunters!
OH I'M IN BIG TROUBLE NOW!:D
 
@elkassassin
You're never in trouble....

I believe there are 12 committee members and two directors that have active votes, so 14 in all......off the top of my head.
Dax, Covy, Justin and Blair (various DNR titles) are usually present but not always.

The committee isn't constructed amongst weapon interests, although it does seem to be a fairly even field.
 
Hossy
I don’t think you can hit the heart on an animal at close ranges - even with your magnum.
But it would be awesome to see you show up with a decked out muzzy to prove you can.

“It’s not about saving animals”

Please read slams comments on this -he’s said it at least a dozen times.
Hossy
I don’t think you can hit the heart on an animal at close ranges - even with your magnum.
But it would be awesome to see you show up with a decked out muzzy to prove you can.

“It’s not about saving animals”

Please read slams comments on this -he’s said it at least a dozen times.

Yup. I need a 20x, dial up terrets, and wind doping to do it.

My Accura with the package Konus scope would shut you up, but I doubt it.

But, I'll "not hit a heart" with open sites either.

Either way I won't whine like a 12 year old girl.
 
Did you watch the entire video and understand what it took to make the “hit” ?
Even the sponsored shooter barely hit the plate. How big is that plate ?
I’m guessing 24” tall and 18” wide. Out side of a deers vitals and a wound on an elk.
Yes I did watch it. So did thousands of other hunters.
Everyone will think they can do it,practice or not. You don’t have to be a sharp shooter to buy and set it up to wound animals. You can take multiple shot at that range with a muzzleloader before that animal take off especially at that distance.
That goes for any weapon. You and I both know how muzzleloader have progressed over the last ten years.
This is exactly what they are trying to stop all this nonsense.
Here’s the wind math as he said he held 3.5 mils.
1 mil=3.6 inches at 100 yards.
How about 94.5” of wind hold.
Bullets Bc is .360 so how about the energy ?
Under 1000 lbs
What you just said right here! You honestly think most hunters use this. I know for a fact the muzzy hunters in my area don’t they just sling lead. Some get lucky and some just miss or wound the animal.
But what I have truly seen over the years ever since they allowed scopes,is the early morning shots and the later evening shots. I’m talking before shooting hours and after shooting hour.
Before they allowed scopes they didn’t do it hardly at all. You know why because they couldn’t see low light is not your friend at all without glass.
glass is everything just like in that video.
The author of the video even stated that you shouldn’t be shooting this setup at longer ranges without tons and tons of practice.
like I said people don’t care they will still do it you take the glass away and that cuts the distance way down.
You guys can sit here and argue all you want archery needs to be left alone it’s not the problem here and the harvest success show it.
 
Last edited:
Did you watch the entire video and understand what it took to make the “hit” ?
Even the sponsored shooter barely hit the plate. How big is that plate ?
I’m guessing 24” tall and 18” wide. Out side of a deers vitals and a wound on an elk.

Here’s the wind math as he said he held 3.5 mils.
1 mil=3.6 inches at 100 yards.
How about 94.5” of wind hold.
Bullets Bc is .360 so how about the energy ?
Under 1000 lbs

Rifle energy with a 225 grain bullet at long range - not even in the same ball park.

The author of the video even stated that you shouldn’t be shooting this setup at longer ranges without tons and tons of practice.

But go ahead -it’s a single shot rifle.
The average hunter can duplicate this - not a chance.
You really need to get over it!
 
Hey PUNK?

Can You Re-Fresh Us Of How Many Committee Members There Are?

Here's What Shoulda Been Done:

There Shoulda Been A Vote!

Let's Say 65% of All Archery Hunters,65% Of All SmokePolers & 65% Of All LongRangers Shoulda Been Included In The Vote!

You Can Only Vote Once!

O Leave All Weaponry As Is/Un-Limited TECH/GADGETRY!
BAD IDEA!

O Restrict All Weaponry With An Equal TAKE From All 3 Weapon
Types!
BETTER IDEA!

O Restrict A Small Group From Making Big Decisions for
99.9999% Of Other Hunters!
OH I'M IN BIG TROUBLE NOW!:D
You really make things difficult to still get the same decision from the Big Game Board.
 
Average GS Deer Success 1010-2015
Archery 18.3%
Muzzleloader 28.2%
Rifle 35.0%
Average GS Deer Success 2016-2022
Archery 19.0%
Muzzleloader 33.1%
Rifle 37.3%
Difference Over Time
Archery 0.8%
Muzzleloader 4.9%
Rifle 2.3%


All weapon types have had increases across the board since 2010 but the data very clearly shows the old smoke pole has had the highest.

4.9 % may not sound like a lot to many, but with the emerging technologies already out there and more to come that us consumers can't even fathom yet, muzzy hunts will equal or even surpass the rifle success rates if we don't tame it.
That is when you lose tags and lose opportunity.

The muzzleloader hunts were implemented to provide a seperate hunting opportunity for that type of weapon decades ago when the success rates were less than half of what they are now.

Continue our current path and we'll soon be at 40+ percent and loss of tags and hunting opportunities.
 
Average GS Deer Success 1010-2015
Archery 18.3%
Muzzleloader 28.2%
Rifle 35.0%
Average GS Deer Success 2016-2022
Archery 19.0%
Muzzleloader 33.1%
Rifle 37.3%
Difference Over Time
Archery 0.8%
Muzzleloader 4.9%
Rifle 2.3%


All weapon types have had increases across the board since 2010 but the data very clearly shows the old smoke pole has had the highest.

4.9 % may not sound like a lot to many, but with the emerging technologies already out there and more to come that us consumers can't even fathom yet, muzzy hunts will equal or even surpass the rifle success rates if we don't tame it.
That is when you lose tags and lose opportunity.

The muzzleloader hunts were implemented to provide a seperate hunting opportunity for that type of weapon decades ago when the success rates were less than half of what they are now.

Continue our current path and we'll soon be at 40+ percent and loss of tags and hunting opportunities.
Ok
So depending on your bipolar mood ?

On Monday “it’s not about saving animals”

On Tuesday “muzzleloader success rate has went up 4.9% and rifles up 2.3% and decades ago success rates were half of that for muzzies.

Repeat the above.

If you really think muzzleloader success will surpass rifle success-theirs something wrong with you. Another contradiction of yours as you’ve said the centerfire will always be the superior weapon.
Has that changed as well since Monday ?

Where’s your data to back up the success rates with numbers slam ? Are you going to use data when 275,000 hunters were hunting. How about why the November muzzy rut hunt was cancelled ? Were those numbers too low as well ?

It’s not just curbing future emerging tech -but going back decades on muzzies only……

But after all
Your commiteee is representing the rifle and archery industry. (Not the muzzleloader industry).
Part of your mission statement.
 
@Ballistic

This data I shared was presented to us last night from the DNR in a meeting.
It's an obvious comparison of how the muzzleloader has evolved since 2016 in comparison to the other 3 during the same time frame.
What is so difficult for you to understand there??

They also reiterated that although the success rates aren't the driving factor in the decision to make the recommendations, it is a bullet point.
Got it??

THIS IS ABOUT TAMING THE AGGRESSIVELY
EVOLVING MUZZLELOADER JUST AS EVERY STATE AROUND US HAS DONE.


Representing archery and rifle???
I've told you before, but I'll say it again.
This is NOT the end of the technology committee, we are not finished even though changes we already made immediately to archery and rifle scopes months ago and were made law.

You have no clue what other things are being discussed in these meetings, so don't pretend that you do.
 
Last edited:
Where’s your data to back up the success rates with numbers slam ? Are you going to use data when 275,000 hunters were hunting. How about why the November muzzy rut hunt was cancelled ? Were those numbers too low as well ?
I cant find anything on 275,000 hunters but I can find in 1988 there was 248,685 hunters afield. They harvested 68,503 so roughly 28% successful.
How about why the November muzzy rut hunt was cancelled ? Were those numbers too low as well ?

I know exactly why this hunt was cancelled. Do you know why this hunt was terminated?
If you really think muzzleloader success will surpass rifle success-theirs something wrong with you. Another contradiction of yours as you’ve said the centerfire will always be the superior weapon.

You have got to be kidding me Look at the numbers in 2020 Muzzy was on top. What's your angle now it shouldn't ever pass rifle you are correct.
 
Yes I did watch it. So did thousands of other hunters.
Everyone will think they can do it,practice or not. You don’t have to be a sharp shooter to buy and set it up to wound animals. You can take multiple shot at that range with a muzzleloader before that animal take off especially at that distance.
That goes for any weapon. You and I both know how muzzleloader have progressed over the last ten years.
This is exactly what they are trying to stop all this nonsense.

What you just said right here! You honestly think most hunters use this. I know for a fact the muzzy hunters in my area don’t they just sling lead. Some get lucky and some just miss or wound the animal.
But what I have truly seen over the years ever since they allowed scopes,is the early morning shots and the later evening shots. I’m talking before shooting hours and after shooting hour.
Before they allowed scopes they didn’t do it hardly at all. You know why because they couldn’t see low light is not your friend at all without glass.
glass is everything just like in that video.

like I said people don’t care they will still do it you take the glass away and that cuts the distance way down.
You guys can sit here and argue all you want archery needs to be left alone it’s not the problem here and the harvest success show it.
So you’re saying that archery and rifles haven’t advanced and should be left alone ? Just the muzzleloader ?
 
I cant find anything on 275,000 hunters but I can find in 1988 there was 248,685 hunters afield. They harvested 68,503 so roughly 28% successful.


I know exactly why this hunt was cancelled. Do you know why this hunt was terminated?


You have got to be kidding me Look at the numbers in 2020 Muzzy was on top. What's your angle now it shouldn't ever pass rifle you are correct.
Uuuuuuuum…………

2020

Muzzy 14,772 permits with 30.1% success
Rifle 30,602 permits with 28.6% success

Let’s do some math
Muzzies killed 4446 deer
Rifles killed 8752 deer

Muzzies killed more ?


I cant find anything on 275,000 hunters but I can find in 1988 there was 248,685 hunters afield. They harvested 68,503 so roughly 28% successful.
More math.
68,503 harvests in 1988

If we used 97,000 hunters in 2020 that would be a 70% success rate.

For 2023 there are 64,725 general deer permits.
Will harvest success % be higher this year -if not for the harsh winter -likely ?

You and I can use the numbers to our liking all day and for decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom