NE RAC
- Thread starter hogg_65
- Start date
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
JakeH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,446
Lol, I don't think I have that kinda fire power, this would have to originate out of the Tech committee or the DWR itself. Maybe the legislators. I can only give a thumbs up or down from there.
treedagain
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,793
Looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing to me. Stunning clear motives when the smoke screen clears? Nothing like being part of the problem after all?
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Yep.....100%
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
Well Think About It!
One Little PISSCUTTER Of A Change Does Nothing!
Are We Gonna Try & Fix The Suffering Deer Herd?
Or Not?
Taking JUST The SmokePole Scopes Does ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing!
Maybe They Can Take The SmokePole Scopes & Study It For 10 Years!
This Herd Ain't Got 10 F'N Years Left At STATUS-QUO!
One Little PISSCUTTER Of A Change Does Nothing!
Are We Gonna Try & Fix The Suffering Deer Herd?
Or Not?
Taking JUST The SmokePole Scopes Does ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing!
Maybe They Can Take The SmokePole Scopes & Study It For 10 Years!
This Herd Ain't Got 10 F'N Years Left At STATUS-QUO!
treedagain
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,793
What have YOU done to fix/help/preserve..... anything other posting on MM?
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
treedagain
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,793
Had to be a holiday Inn express to count.He stayed at a Holiday inn once
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
You Wanna Compare Dedicated Hours & What Was Done During Them Hours?
How Bout The Hours Me & My Son Donated Way Past The Minimum Hours Required?
Before You Start JACKIN Your F'N Jaw You Might Wanna Think Before You SPEW!
How Bout The Hours Me & My Son Donated Way Past The Minimum Hours Required?
Before You Start JACKIN Your F'N Jaw You Might Wanna Think Before You SPEW!
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
If I Had Hossy's Money I Coulda Just Handed The DWR A Few New E-Saws!
But What We've Done Ain't Been Quite That Easy!
But What We've Done Ain't Been Quite That Easy!
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
We aren't trying to fix the herd numbers with this proposal......
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Thank you for that service, now get more Basonites involved, even if it's going out to the Skin Walker ranch and doing a rain dance!
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
Mine were gas
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
For Sure PUNK!
We Didn't Get Much Rain This Summer/Fall!
And THANK YOU For What You Do As Well!
We Didn't Get Much Rain This Summer/Fall!
And THANK YOU For What You Do As Well!
Thank you for that service, now get more Basonites involved, even if it's going out to the Skin Walker ranch and doing a rain dance!
Thanks for helping out. Would you do it without the dedicated hunter incentive? Have you? Did your work help the herd? Is the work you’ve done the direction that we all need to go to save the herd?
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
Well lif!
It's What The DWR Wanted Done!
We Cut Alot PJ Tree's Down!
When I Was A Kid Railing/Chaining Was The Thing & 40 Years Later They Claimed It Did More Damage Than Good!
In A Way I Didn't Like Cutting Them Tree's Down!
In A Way I Figured We Were Removing Cover For The Deer!
I Like To Be In The Field Working & Trying To Help!
Not Delivering Proclamations When They Used To Let Guys Claim DH Hours To Do Stuff Like That!
We Planted Trees Out South Too!
I Spent Quite A Bit Of Time On Anthro Helping With Water/Guzzler Projects!
Water Is Important!
The Sad Part About That Is They've Destroyed The Elk Herd Out There,So I Look At It As WASTED Time,Money & Effort,What A Shame!(Ya,I Know What I Just Said Isn't Deer Related!)
Yes We've Done Misc Things That Were Not DH Related!
As Much As I'd Like To Save The Herd,It'll Take Way More Than What 2 Guys Can Do!
It's Gonna Require Alot Of CHANGES To Save The Deer Herd!
I've Seen It Falling For 50+ Years!
It's What The DWR Wanted Done!
We Cut Alot PJ Tree's Down!
When I Was A Kid Railing/Chaining Was The Thing & 40 Years Later They Claimed It Did More Damage Than Good!
In A Way I Didn't Like Cutting Them Tree's Down!
In A Way I Figured We Were Removing Cover For The Deer!
I Like To Be In The Field Working & Trying To Help!
Not Delivering Proclamations When They Used To Let Guys Claim DH Hours To Do Stuff Like That!
We Planted Trees Out South Too!
I Spent Quite A Bit Of Time On Anthro Helping With Water/Guzzler Projects!
Water Is Important!
The Sad Part About That Is They've Destroyed The Elk Herd Out There,So I Look At It As WASTED Time,Money & Effort,What A Shame!(Ya,I Know What I Just Said Isn't Deer Related!)
Yes We've Done Misc Things That Were Not DH Related!
As Much As I'd Like To Save The Herd,It'll Take Way More Than What 2 Guys Can Do!
It's Gonna Require Alot Of CHANGES To Save The Deer Herd!
I've Seen It Falling For 50+ Years!
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Well, I remember we had to cut a juniper down on the Dutton to get Stinkys bull out of it!
That’s awesome. Great to hear. I like to give you **** because you have a lot of strong opinions, but I never really hear your solutions. I appreciate your passion, and it would be great to get more hunters involved in general. I think the best opinions are formed from hands on experience, not sitting from a far.
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
But Then Again!
As You Already Know!
What I Think Doesn't Mean SQUAT!
As You Already Know!
What I Think Doesn't Mean SQUAT!
Mulies should be the current focus considering the diminishing herd. Keep speaking up. Some people are just late to the party. Keep shouting and they’ll find the party.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
One simple 15 second peek into the MZ forum on this site and saw this.
And so many of you even question where muzzleloader technology is headed......my mind is blown....
Jake, you are fighting FOR this, really?
And stop using the excuse that rifles easily do this, that's not the point.
And so many of you even question where muzzleloader technology is headed......my mind is blown....
Jake, you are fighting FOR this, really?
And stop using the excuse that rifles easily do this, that's not the point.
Last edited:
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
That mentally really concerns me.....If we don't kill all the bucks on the muzzy hunt, the rifle guys will anyway
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
Yup
twopointdn
Active Member
- Messages
- 505
605 ft-lbs at 600 yards… no thank you on anything but a coyote for me. The projectile still needs to perform by the time it gets to the animal. More reason for me to keep my stance that we need to go back to the 2015 muzzleloader regulations, please WB end this problem that was created. November 28th can’t come soon enough.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Yet the stance on that side is less wounded animals with a scope
I'll take my old school Knight with open sights and re-learn how to spot and stalk bucks like bowhunting and smoke em at 100 yards
Ballistic
Active Member
- Messages
- 258
Slam
The info that you copied and used is somewhat bad info. The poster probably doesn’t understand the difference between moa and mil.
An moa is 1.047” @100 yards so close enough that 4 clicks =1”
A MIL is 3.6”@100 yards and 10 clicks per mil is .36” per click.
The poster said the scope is .333” per click which is close to mil clicks.
Here’s the 600 yard wind drift using 3 mils
3 mils = 10.8 moa at 100 yards
10.8 x 6 = 64.8”
My personal experience tells me that the setup probably does drift 3 mils at 600 yards in a 5 mph wind.
With that being the case each 1 mph of wind pushes the round 12.96” at that distance. With a deer you have a 12” kill zone so you have a margin of error of 6” (on your wind hold -either side) of what your aiming at.
To make that shot a lethal shot your wind has to dialed or held within 1/2 mph.
And to complicate this even more - a head wind, tail wind , left wind , or right wind will also affect the up/down hit.
Add some angle and light changes and it gets worse.
The reality is the probability of a hit on a 12” target is going to be very low. Even on a dedicated shooting range with wind flags all the way to the target - very few good shooters can do this.
Your experienced hunter and shooter will struggle more as there aren’t any wind flags out hunting…………
I’m just trying with respectfulness to you (to post a correction that’s valid) so don’t take this personally please. Again - I’m a former long range and sponsored shooter and have been shooting muzzies for over 30 years.
The ballistic data does support the info as posted - but 3 mils is not 18” it’s 64.8”
And that’s a recipe for a wounded animal at 600 yards.
Silentstalker
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,234
I have not had time here lately to read the last few pages of posts but I wanted to answer your questions for myself.
1- I like using a scope because with my eye sight (near sighted) it’s tough for me to use iron sights. I would be fine with limiting scopes to a 3-9 type deal. 2x, 3x, scopes are not all that common.
2- The only justification I have heard by the committee is to “return the hunt to a primitive weapon”. The DWR questionnaire statistics do not show the majority of the public do not shoot beyond 200 yards or support a change. The sheer numbers of bucks harvested by muzzleloaders versus rifles is nearly 1 buck to 5.
My belief is that those in power believe this will help the deer herd in some way. That is not the case. Any bucks “saved” by this change will be killed on the rifle hunt.
This is clearly an assault on a single weapon type with no tangable - measurable reason.
Carry on.
JakeH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,446
You have never seen me advocate 500+ yard shots. Just cause something will shoot that far doesn't mean you should try and kill that far. Now factor in wind at those ranges, you better have your sh!t together and know what you are doing.
I've made my position clear, I quit commenting because there is nothing more to say, I ain't changing your minds, and you guys will just spin anything I say anyway.
Hell Im the problem with my two muzzleloader kills at 150 and 165 yards and my scoped gun.
Here are my points again, just so we are clear.
1. No biological need for the change. (From DWR)
2. Very unpopular to hunters, especially muzzleloader hunters. 65% wanted no change at all, while less than 20% thought scopes shouldbe taken, or a change made. This was asked two separate times in the dwr surveys in different ways and the conclusion was almost identical.(Based off dwr survey, and emails to the RAC and board) FYI I'm the sportsman representative so my position should reflect that to a degree.
3. Extremely polarizing and divisive issue, will only breed more of this type of crap.
4. Harvest rate impact from scopes was negligible. (DWR numbers not mine, you guys can choose not to believe them, but at least I'm going off actual numbers rather than opinions)
5. Currently Nothing stopping people from hunting how they want to hunt, if this passes a large portion of the muzzleloader hunters will be negatively affected.
6. I'm not for changing things just to change them, there is nothing showing that this change is needed, so why do it!
This is my last post on this guy's, so flame away, some of you have done a bang up job making this about me. Carry on.
The WB will vote on this next week. We will see what they do with it, all this bickering is useless at this point.
One last point, Slam I commend you for sticking to your word and trying to vote on a compromise, good job, had one actually came out of the TC I would have gladly voted for it and promoted it. But they went above and beyond that. I'm not voting for long range shooting, but I am against what you guys pushed out of the TC. I don't buy into it.
that is my opinion.
Last edited:
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
I agree and appreciate the more accurate explanation of the dope.
Having said that, my focus wasn't on the specifics in the middle, it was how this particular person is displaying the data as "simple schematics" out to 600 yards.
We can see these numerous posts right here on this very platform, yet the opposition are constantly trying to deny it.
Any new shooter can scroll through this very forum and find loads to maximize his weapon.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
There it is.
It's not that removing scopes won't help, it's that if we don't kill them all in the muzzy, the rifle guys will anyway.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
You have never seen me advocate 500+ yard shots. Just cause something will shoot that far doesn't mean you should try and kill that far. Now factor in wind at those ranges, you better have your sh!t together and know what you are doing.
View attachment 127408
I've made my position clear, I quit commenting because there is nothing more to say, I ain't changing your minds, and you guys will just spin anything I say anyway.
Hell Im the problem with my two muzzleloader kills at 150 and 165 yards and my scoped gun.
Here are my points again, just so we are clear.
1. No biological need for the change. (From DWR)
2. Very unpopular to hunters, especially muzzleloader hunters. 65% wanted no change at all, while less than 20% thought scopes shouldbe taken, or a change made. This was asked two separate times in the dwr surveys in different ways and the conclusion was almost identical.(Based off dwr survey, and emails to the RAC and board) FYI I'm the sportsman representative so my position should reflect that to a degree.
3. Extremely polarizing and divisive issue, will only breed more of this type of crap.
4. Harvest rate impact from scopes was negligible. (DWR numbers not mine, you guys can choose not to believe them, but at least I'm going off actual numbers rather than opinions)
5. Currently Nothing stopping people from hunting how they want to hunt, if this passes a large portion of the muzzleloader hunters will be negatively affected.
6. I'm not for changing things just to change them, there is nothing showing that this change is needed, so why do it!
This is my last post on this guy's, so flame away, some of you have done a bang up job making this about me. Carry on.
The WB will vote on this next week. We will see what they do with it, all this bickering is useless at this point.
One last point, Slam I commend you for sticking to your word and trying to vote on a compromise, good job, had one actually came out of the TC I would have gladly voted for it and promoted it. But they went above and beyond that. I'm not voting for long range shooting, but I am against what you guys pushed out of the TC. I don't buy into it.
You could post this in 2016 and it would be true as well.
A non needed change
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Jake, regardless of the TC's majority vote, the DNR already stated they would support a low power or 1x option as long as the WB liked it.You have never seen me advocate 500+ yard shots. Just cause something will shoot that far doesn't mean you should try and kill that far. Now factor in wind at those ranges, you better have your sh!t together and know what you are doing.
View attachment 127408
I've made my position clear, I quit commenting because there is nothing more to say, I ain't changing your minds, and you guys will just spin anything I say anyway.
Hell Im the problem with my two muzzleloader kills at 150 and 165 yards and my scoped gun.
Here are my points again, just so we are clear.
1. No biological need for the change. (From DWR)
2. Very unpopular to hunters, especially muzzleloader hunters. 65% wanted no change at all, while less than 20% thought scopes shouldbe taken, or a change made. This was asked two separate times in the dwr surveys in different ways and the conclusion was almost identical.(Based off dwr survey, and emails to the RAC and board) FYI I'm the sportsman representative so my position should reflect that to a degree.
3. Extremely polarizing and divisive issue, will only breed more of this type of crap.
4. Harvest rate impact from scopes was negligible. (DWR numbers not mine, you guys can choose not to believe them, but at least I'm going off actual numbers rather than opinions)
5. Currently Nothing stopping people from hunting how they want to hunt, if this passes a large portion of the muzzleloader hunters will be negatively affected.
6. I'm not for changing things just to change them, there is nothing showing that this change is needed, so why do it!
This is my last post on this guy's, so flame away, some of you have done a bang up job making this about me. Carry on.
The WB will vote on this next week. We will see what they do with it, all this bickering is useless at this point.
One last point, Slam I commend you for sticking to your word and trying to vote on a compromise, good job, had one actually came out of the TC I would have gladly voted for it and promoted it. But they went above and beyond that. I'm not voting for long range shooting, but I am against what you guys pushed out of the TC. I don't buy into it.
You haven't supported that at all, you've stuck with your "keep as is" stance.
(If you have, I missed it and owe you an apology.)
Why, especially since last year you openly stated on this forum that MZ's were out of control and needed the brakes applied to them.
Why did you state that without data then, but you need data now?
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
That still don't mean they can hit their @ss with both hands.
Lots of people touting these long range muzzleloaders, But no one shows proof. I'll say it again, show me a 5 shot group at 400yds that is less that 12". Video it and give us proof.
It won't happen cause 99.9% of muzzleloader hunters can't do it.
JakeH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,446
OK one more.
When you first come on here talking about what you guys was talking about on the TC I was against removing scopes, but said if a change is made a comprise would be acceptable, you started talking about 3x max power and I suggested maybe make it a max 4x option because there was already a lot of max 4x options on the market. I knew this because I had already researched low power scopes around that time. I can't say I explicitly supported it, but I said it was an acceptable compromise.
As for my past support for going back to the old rule (not a ban on scopes) I already said it was an opinion formed out of ignorance, when all this got brought up a couple years ago I didn't have the data I have now, and it was actually all that talk back then that got me and others looking into it, mostly the harvest numbers. I believed adding scopes had more of an impact then it did. Also about that time the discussions died off in here until you came back on telling us what the TC was up too, at that point my position had changed. I still didn't own a "long range" muzzleloader at that time. Here is one of, if not my first post concerning this issue at that time.
I would say I have been pretty damn consistent with my message since then.
And It's not that I "need" data now, it's that I HAVE data now. And on top of that I have the survey results as well, add to that the position I hold and I feel it would be disingenuous to go against the majority of hunters, especially the majority of the people most affected by the change when even the harvest data goes against the proposal.
JakeH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,446
This is true, but they did change it so here we are.
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,099
I know why they use straight wall cartridges back east and limiting effective range is what is being done with muzzies if they go percussion or flintlock only. Limiting effective range allows for lower success rates because you aren’t going to be whacking deer at 1,000 yards with a .350 legend no matter the population density. If a few relocated Californians do happen to go **** up on the Wasatch unit so be it.
I would also like to see iron sights only on rifles as well but your statement that there isn’t a human alive who can hit a deer at 400 yards in a hunting scenario is absolutely false. Apparently you’ve never used an adjustable tangent rear peep sight with a globe front site like you find on Sharps rifles. It is absolutely doable and repeatable so with that type of precision sight. That is unless the style of your hunting makes for the hunting conditions of busting bucks and only getting a fleeting running shot.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
I remember this same line of bs during the trail cam fights.
Doesn't do anything
Doesn't help
Taking away stuff
Other things are worse
Luckily, folks with a vote looked past today. They saw real time cams. Transmitting cams. Mobile cams. They saw the FUTURE.
Dudes in here see last deer hunt. They don't look at what's coming. They don't stop and think that today's new, expensive rare innovation, is tomorrow cheap, readily available standard.
The industry has no incentive to limit itself. No one sells more guns by not improving on the concept.
At some point, folks in charge saw crappy, terrible drones and didn't think"they don't make a difference", they recognized their would only be improvement and stopped them.
FLIR was only going to get cheaper, and better, so it got stopped.
Look at how much has changed, how much better, and available LR muzzys have gotten just since the scope argument began.
We have to get dudes out of 1996, and get them looking at 2026. The 24' guns are already made. The 25' are designed, 26' is in concept. We are a decade behind the curve now
Doesn't do anything
Doesn't help
Taking away stuff
Other things are worse
Luckily, folks with a vote looked past today. They saw real time cams. Transmitting cams. Mobile cams. They saw the FUTURE.
Dudes in here see last deer hunt. They don't look at what's coming. They don't stop and think that today's new, expensive rare innovation, is tomorrow cheap, readily available standard.
The industry has no incentive to limit itself. No one sells more guns by not improving on the concept.
At some point, folks in charge saw crappy, terrible drones and didn't think"they don't make a difference", they recognized their would only be improvement and stopped them.
FLIR was only going to get cheaper, and better, so it got stopped.
Look at how much has changed, how much better, and available LR muzzys have gotten just since the scope argument began.
We have to get dudes out of 1996, and get them looking at 2026. The 24' guns are already made. The 25' are designed, 26' is in concept. We are a decade behind the curve now
deadibob
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,099
They didn’t have chocolate chips that long ago.
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
It Isn't Hard To See Who Doesn't Want Anything Taken From Their Rifles!
I Guess They Think It's OK To Have Un-Limited TECHNOLOGY On Their Rifles!
Maybe We Should BAN Just Fords & Not Chevy's & Dodges To Use To Get Us To Our Hunting Spots?
I Guess They Think It's OK To Have Un-Limited TECHNOLOGY On Their Rifles!
Maybe We Should BAN Just Fords & Not Chevy's & Dodges To Use To Get Us To Our Hunting Spots?
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
But This Kinda BS With A Rifle Is OK?
A CHIP Shot At Almost A Mile Away,Right?
A CHIP Shot At Almost A Mile Away,Right?
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
Some Nice Rifle Shooting Here:
What Kind Of Energy Was Left At This Range?
How Many Animals Are Gonna Stand Around & Just Let You Keep Shooting?
If This Bull Woulda Took Off After The First Shot They Probably Would Have Never Found Him!
But Hey!
It's Just Them DAMNED SmokePoles!
The Title Says Killshot!
Or Is It Killshots?
What Kind Of Energy Was Left At This Range?
How Many Animals Are Gonna Stand Around & Just Let You Keep Shooting?
If This Bull Woulda Took Off After The First Shot They Probably Would Have Never Found Him!
But Hey!
It's Just Them DAMNED SmokePoles!
The Title Says Killshot!
Or Is It Killshots?
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
Go Ahead Boys!
SPIN IT!
Then SPIN It Again!
And Again!
SPIN IT!
Then SPIN It Again!
And Again!
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,607
But Then Again!
I Guess SOME Fords Ain't All That Bad,Right PUNK?
I Guess SOME Fords Ain't All That Bad,Right PUNK?
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Same applies to rifles, I agree.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Who is spinning it?
The scopes on muzzleloaders issue isn't about what centerfire rifles can do.....it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
This proposal is for muzzleloaders only.
Elkrunning-Scared
Active Member
- Messages
- 147
Your exactly right recipe for wounding animal even more the reason to remove scopes. Just saying
Last edited:
Elkrunning-Scared
Active Member
- Messages
- 147
Everyone has a say in this jake not just the Muzzy hunters.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Ok fair enough Jake, I do make my apologies on the low X options.
I am however stuck on the whole data that you seem to need to support the fact that your particular set up isn't, hasn't been, or will be more effective in taking bucks at ranges unfathomable a handful of years ago.
Help me understand how and why you aren't thinking towards the future with "Emerging Technology" which is exactly why this TC was created?
You should be able to realize that leaving a high power scope on "as is" only keeps the emerging technologies snowballing and we will start these meetings and threads all over again in a few years.
When LRC's technology is sold in Cal-Ranch for $399 we WILL be revisiting this, I guarantee you this with 100% certainty.
The Paramount and RUMZ are already growing in popularity, why? Long range killing, period.
The DNR made a monstrous mistake in accepting the new rule of scopes in the 2015 meetings, this is on them, absolutely.
They listened to the same lame a$$ arguments we are seeing here today of "wound loss", "poor eyesight" and "a muzzleloader doesn't have enough energy to be effective part 200 yards", yet here we are.
Do we really want to revisit this hot mess again?
If we do, I'll be the one standing in the back saying "I told you so
"This isn't about "equality".
This muzzleloader scope issue isn't about what an archer can do or even what a CF rifle can do.
It's about what a muzzleloader CAN DO and you know what it can do Jake because you own a much better one than I do.
Let's be honest as people holding governing seats.
As I've stated before, the TC isn't a one and done entity.
Let's get past this MZ mess, get it behind us however it falls and then open discussions on further restrictions on CFR's if there is enough support for it.
Our positions as seat holders on these committees isn't supposed to be about our own preference, it's about the bigger picture.
There are members on my committee that realize and openly admit what their MZ's are capable of and are voting to tame the tech knowing full well it will cost them a few kills down the road.
To me, that's where the real "growth" is, versus growth as in continuing this road of stretching our killing capability of this particular weapon to keep us successful.
In closing, I am still confident the WB will settle on the pre 2016 rules of 1x, but mostly for the reason to keep it a seperate and distinguished description from the HAMS.
If they choose the 4x, I will be shocked, honestly.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,723
Just an aside... I wish people would stop using Kinetic Energy (foot-pounds) to compare rounds.
There are so many things wrong with that method... primarily the fact that it squares the velocity and gives no deference to diameter. It also gives no weight (pun not intended) to expandability of the bullet.
Even the Taylor Knockout Formula (TKOF) is more representative of actual results.
KE, in my opinion, has given people a false sense of security in shooting animals outside of effective range of various cartridges. This can be applied to slow bullets like muzzleloader bullets, but also to fast bullets like 6.5CM.
There are so many things wrong with that method... primarily the fact that it squares the velocity and gives no deference to diameter. It also gives no weight (pun not intended) to expandability of the bullet.
Even the Taylor Knockout Formula (TKOF) is more representative of actual results.
KE, in my opinion, has given people a false sense of security in shooting animals outside of effective range of various cartridges. This can be applied to slow bullets like muzzleloader bullets, but also to fast bullets like 6.5CM.
Bigwiffy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,639
What was the logic behind starting at the least advanced weapon in the bow and arrow and moving up? What was the logic (if any) in why they didn't start with the rifle tech first? And don't tell me they took from rifle with the electronics out of scopes BS.Ok fair enough Jake, I do make my apologies on the low X options.
I am however stuck on the whole data that you seem to need to support the fact that your particular set up isn't, hasn't been, or will be more effective in taking bucks at ranges unfathomable a handful of years ago.
Help me understand how and why you aren't thinking towards the future with "Emerging Technology" which is exactly why this TC was created?
You should be able to realize that leaving a high power scope on "as is" only keeps the emerging technologies snowballing and we will start these meetings and threads all over again in a few years.
When LRC's technology is sold in Cal-Ranch for $399 we WILL be revisiting this, I guarantee you this with 100% certainty.
The Paramount and RUMZ are already growing in popularity, why? Long range killing, period.
The DNR made a monstrous mistake in accepting the new rule of scopes in the 2015 meetings, this is on them, absolutely.
They listened to the same lame a$$ arguments we are seeing here today of "wound loss", "poor eyesight" and "a muzzleloader doesn't have enough energy to be effective part 200 yards", yet here we are.
Do we really want to revisit this hot mess again?
If we do, I'll be the one standing in the back saying "I told you so
This isn't about "equality".
This muzzleloader scope issue isn't about what an archer can do or even what a CF rifle can do.
It's about what a muzzleloader CAN DO and you know what it can do Jake because you own a much better one than I do.
Let's be honest as people holding governing seats.
As I've stated before, the TC isn't a one and done entity.
Let's get past this MZ mess, get it behind us however it falls and then open discussions on further restrictions on CFR's if there is enough support for it.
Our positions as seat holders on these committees isn't supposed to be about our own preference, it's about the bigger picture.
There are members on my committee that realize and openly admit what their MZ's are capable of and are voting to tame the tech knowing full well it will cost them a few kills down the road.
To me, that's where the real "growth" is, versus growth as in continuing this road of stretching our killing capability of this particular weapon to keep us successful.
In closing, I am still confident the WB will settle on the pre 2016 rules of 1x, but mostly for the reason to keep it a seperate and distinguished description from the HAMS.
If they choose the 4x, I will be shocked, honestly.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
Ok fair enough Jake, I do make my apologies on the low X options.
I am however stuck on the whole data that you seem to need to support the fact that your particular set up isn't, hasn't been, or will be more effective in taking bucks at ranges unfathomable a handful of years ago.
Help me understand how and why you aren't thinking towards the future with "Emerging Technology" which is exactly why this TC was created?
You should be able to realize that leaving a high power scope on "as is" only keeps the emerging technologies snowballing and we will start these meetings and threads all over again in a few years.
When LRC's technology is sold in Cal-Ranch for $399 we WILL be revisiting this, I guarantee you this with 100% certainty.
The Paramount and RUMZ are already growing in popularity, why? Long range killing, period.
The DNR made a monstrous mistake in accepting the new rule of scopes in the 2015 meetings, this is on them, absolutely.
They listened to the same lame a$$ arguments we are seeing here today of "wound loss", "poor eyesight" and "a muzzleloader doesn't have enough energy to be effective part 200 yards", yet here we are.
Do we really want to revisit this hot mess again?
If we do, I'll be the one standing in the back saying "I told you so
This isn't about "equality".
This muzzleloader scope issue isn't about what an archer can do or even what a CF rifle can do.
It's about what a muzzleloader CAN DO and you know what it can do Jake because you own a much better one than I do.
Let's be honest as people holding governing seats.
As I've stated before, the TC isn't a one and done entity.
Let's get past this MZ mess, get it behind us however it falls and then open discussions on further restrictions on CFR's if there is enough support for it.
Our positions as seat holders on these committees isn't supposed to be about our own preference, it's about the bigger picture.
There are members on my committee that realize and openly admit what their MZ's are capable of and are voting to tame the tech knowing full well it will cost them a few kills down the road.
To me, that's where the real "growth" is, versus growth as in continuing this road of stretching our killing capability of this particular weapon to keep us successful.
In closing, I am still confident the WB will settle on the pre 2016 rules of 1x, but mostly for the reason to keep it a seperate and distinguished description from the HAMS.
If they choose the 4x, I will be shocked, honestly.
4x pisses everyone off. Scopes stay on and dudes have to go by a scope to replace a scope.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
What were our muzzleloaders doing in the 1960's?But But But that's what rifles are designed to do Bess. They haven't improved "much" since the 60's just ask Slam.....
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Hasn't this already been beat to death?
I'll try again even though it won't help.
We used to have one deer hunt, period.
The two inferior weapon hunts were originally created to separate opportunities for those individuals who wanted their own special seasons knowing the low success they would have.
Since then, evolution has brought both weapons to where they currently are because we have allowed it.
What is your suggestion for rifles?
Cut powder charges in the 300 magnums that have been around for 60 years?
Don't tell me to "remove turrets" because every single scope down to a 1x has elevation adjustments.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
You are exactly right.
The problem is these emerging MZ markets are convincing people to purchase their superior products because of "reach".
However, as we continue allowing the MZ market to advance, we are seeing higher chamber pressure allowances for hotter charges which in turn equate to more down range energy.
Some states have limited the components used in hunting to combat the "reach".
Utah, along with some neighboring states chose to simplify it by removing the scope that renders these evolutionary components useless.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Hey Wiffy, maybe you'll be proud of me, I retired the Lapua.
I removed the scope and put it back in it's original box last year when i discovered my 6.5 PRC is just as effective for the ranges i am comfortable with.
You can send me that certificate of approval now
I removed the scope and put it back in it's original box last year when i discovered my 6.5 PRC is just as effective for the ranges i am comfortable with.
You can send me that certificate of approval now
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,792
Yep. This setup has no business shooting at anything past 300 yds.
Ballistic
Active Member
- Messages
- 258
SlamOk fair enough Jake, I do make my apologies on the low X options.
I am however stuck on the whole data that you seem to need to support the fact that your particular set up isn't, hasn't been, or will be more effective in taking bucks at ranges unfathomable a handful of years ago.
Help me understand how and why you aren't thinking towards the future with "Emerging Technology" which is exactly why this TC was created?
You should be able to realize that leaving a high power scope on "as is" only keeps the emerging technologies snowballing and we will start these meetings and threads all over again in a few years.
When LRC's technology is sold in Cal-Ranch for $399 we WILL be revisiting this, I guarantee you this with 100% certainty.
The Paramount and RUMZ are already growing in popularity, why? Long range killing, period.
The DNR made a monstrous mistake in accepting the new rule of scopes in the 2015 meetings, this is on them, absolutely.
They listened to the same lame a$$ arguments we are seeing here today of "wound loss", "poor eyesight" and "a muzzleloader doesn't have enough energy to be effective part 200 yards", yet here we are.
Do we really want to revisit this hot mess again?
If we do, I'll be the one standing in the back saying "I told you so
This isn't about "equality".
This muzzleloader scope issue isn't about what an archer can do or even what a CF rifle can do.
It's about what a muzzleloader CAN DO and you know what it can do Jake because you own a much better one than I do.
Let's be honest as people holding governing seats.
As I've stated before, the TC isn't a one and done entity.
Let's get past this MZ mess, get it behind us however it falls and then open discussions on further restrictions on CFR's if there is enough support for it.
Our positions as seat holders on these committees isn't supposed to be about our own preference, it's about the bigger picture.
There are members on my committee that realize and openly admit what their MZ's are capable of and are voting to tame the tech knowing full well it will cost them a few kills down the road.
To me, that's where the real "growth" is, versus growth as in continuing this road of stretching our killing capability of this particular weapon to keep us successful.
In closing, I am still confident the WB will settle on the pre 2016 rules of 1x, but mostly for the reason to keep it a seperate and distinguished description from the HAMS.
If they choose the 4x, I will be shocked, honestly.
If we were to use “our” recent posts about the posted drop/wind charts for discussion/example. We hopefully can agree the 600 yard shot isn’t easy as the wind affects have to be within 1/2 mph.
The future tech is here that will almost peg the effects of wind. Look at the revic rangefinder for example.
Future tech will plot cold bore shots and make shooting extreme ranges easy.
Im on board to eliminate this tech 100% or 100 yard bow shots/ longer range muzzy and rifle shots will be routine.
I just don’t believe the scope removal proposal will stop the long range attempts of the Kevin Normans. And I don’t believe that todays muzzleloader will shoot MOA at long range given its limitations on powders alone. The claims will continue.
That claim of moa accuracy by luke horracks of Arrowhead Muzzleloaders was called out by a group of shooters from Jeff Hankins muzzleloaders. The Arrowhead shooters never showed up - and they were all shooting smokeless powders. Lots of big talk out there for all 3 weapons.
But no one on this forum is up to the task to back up the claims - not even the holy of Holies - K.N.
Even though I now have zero respect for him - I’d still love to see this sponsored shooter hit a 12” steel plate at 1100 yards w a muzzy. I’ll pick the canyon and set up the steel and film it. No wind flags. I’ll give him 10 shots in 10 minutes and we will see if he can beat a centerfire rifle given the same. Mission Impossible.
Keep working on rangefinders like the revic -get rid of that wind tech. I’m on board with most of what the TC is doing - just not this.
4X scope or even 3 x 9 is hardly emerging technology. Could have made this so much easier by just picking one. And sure, you can shoot 400 yards with 4x, but not nearly as easy or as well. Low power magnification absolutely limits range.
The cartridge isn't the issue, it's the advancement in scopes. Nobody is long ranging it with 4x or probably even 3 x 9.
4X doesn't piss me off at all.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Of course it's not ET, those have been around for a hundred years.
As I have mentioned multiple times, as have the DNR at these RAC meetings, the scope isn't the tech, it's the the low hanging fruit that renders the ET useless by nature.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,792
I know why they use straight wall cartridges back east and limiting effective range is what is being done with muzzies if they go percussion or flintlock only. Limiting effective range allows for lower success rates because you aren’t going to be whacking deer at 1,000 yards with a .350 legend no matter the population density. If a few relocated Californians do happen to go **** up on the Wasatch unit so be it.
I would also like to see iron sights only on rifles as well but your statement that there isn’t a human alive who can hit a deer at 400 yards in a hunting scenario is absolutely false. Apparently you’ve never used an adjustable tangent rear peep sight with a globe front site like you find on Sharps rifles. It is absolutely doable and repeatable so with that type of precision sight. That is unless the style of your hunting makes for the hunting conditions of busting bucks and only getting a fleeting running shot.
Yeah, I've seen 'Quigley Down Under' too.
When a living human does shoot a deer at 400 yds open sight in a hunting scenario, I'll be eager to read about it. If it's already being done, please post it up since you know for a fact that my statement was absolutely false.
Until then, it ain't gonna happen....
Edit: and just so we're talking about the same target, the kill zone on a deer (about the size of a basketball) that is dark brown against an earth colored backdrop is pretty tough to see 4 football field lengths away in low light with your bare eyes.
Last edited:
I haven’t seen a single person complain about limiting, curbing or just flat out not allowing future technology. The complaint I see is taking away existing technology. I just don’t see the reason to go backwards because you’re afraid of the future. I’m all for the TC focusing on exactly what it was created for, “emerging technology“.
When is/was your starting date for new technologies?
JakeH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,446
Thanks I guess.
My set up, in my opinion is only good to 400 yards on a deer due to the energy that is left in the bullet, and that's only if conditions are great, you add any wind and it's damn near impossible to guarantee where I'm going to hit. People shooting farther then that are being unethical in my opinion.
Then you guys should have addressed "HIGH POWER SCOPES" you didn't, you took all scopes.
If you guys had addressed it properly the first time this wouldn't be nearly as bad of a mess as it is. You guys over stepped in my opinion and need to be handed an L for it.The DNR made a monstrous mistake in accepting the new rule of scopes in the 2015 meetings, this is on them, absolutely.
They listened to the same lame a$$ arguments we are seeing here today of "wound loss", "poor eyesight" and "a muzzleloader doesn't have enough energy to be effective part 200 yards", yet here we are.
Do we really want to revisit this hot mess again?
If we do, I'll be the one standing in the back saying "I told you so
We have a different opinion on what they CAN DO, just because you can go to the range and shoot past 300 yards does not in no way mean you should be hunting with it at those ranges. Sounds like you have some guys on the tech committee that really should have no business being on it. And the same could be said for rifle hunters as well.
Man I hate this statement with a passion, yes let's have more over reach from a bunch of people that screwed the pooch on muzzleloaders. No thanks. How bout you guys stick to your mission statement and get in front of EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES and stop with this BS of controlling what is already out there. You didn't have support for the muzzleloader recommendation, that didn't stop you from over stepping on that.
This isn't about my own preference Slam, I represent the sportsman, and the sportsman didn't agree with you guys on this proposal, they did a survey just for you guys on the committee and you guys chose to ignore them. You have a vocal minority here on MM that aagree with ou, but sportsman as a whole do not.
Man I sure hope they fix your mess, you guys really F'ed up this one. You guys fully over stepped when you went beyond the restrictions of the past. Even if you guys had voted to go back to the old rules I would have respected that a lot more then what you came out with.
You can look up the dedicated success if you want, it has it's own success rate % you are more than welcome to tackle that task of figuring out how many killed during muzzleloader.
Yes let's judge this off of our already very high success % of our LE hunts. The data is there feel free to dig through that if you want too.
General deer is the best metric to use because it is the most tags without the added variables that the LE hunts present.
who the hell is using a muzzleloader on a CWMU hunt? My guess is very few guys are.
You are right, and even with everyone included in the survey not just muzzleloader hunters therecwas still 60%+ opposition to remove scopes.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
Last edited:
Elkrunning-Scared
Active Member
- Messages
- 147
Just out of curiosity how many have responded?
Elkrunning-Scared
Active Member
- Messages
- 147
That is your angle come on.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
Not so, I think the 4 power scope is exactly the right compromise.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
Wait.....I created this?
Excuse me??
Which part did I create Jake, my rejection on the proposal as is vote?
Why are you defending your LRC muzzleloaders and downplaying their capabilities and purpose?
My friend didn't purchase one of them at a $15k price tag to shoot under 400 yards, stop with the BS please.
If that type of custom build isn't "Emerging Technology" in your mind then I am at a complete loss of words.
Elkrunning-Scared
Active Member
- Messages
- 147
But what you just posted. I would be totally fine with allowing scopes because there is know way in shooting past 100 yards even with a scope.
But you put a scope on an inline then I have a problem with it and you know exactly why.
Bigwiffy
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,639
For one uhhhhh maybe limit magnification/remove scopes from a rifle???.....uhhhh similar to what has been done or will be done on the other weapons. Might be a place to start just a thought. Suppressors might be a start, or ANYTHING might have been a place to start on a rifle. Limiting a bow first, then limiting a muzzy, and not doing anything on a rifle makes it a real tough buy in from a logical standpoint.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
Why not? The argument is that we need to go back to when the muzzleloader hunt was originally started. OK, but you aren't going to like it. spoiler alert: people were using scopes back then.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
They didn't have the balls to start with archery. They thought they could slip this by the muzzleloader guys without as much notice. Can you imagine if they came after the archer's release or slider sights? tell the archery community they have to go back to fingers and use a 3 pin fixed sight. That would create one helll of a ruckus. Or even worse, tell the PRC Fan boys they can't have anything higher than a 3x9 scope on their rifle. That would be fireworks.
No. they thought they were taking the easy way out.
Vanilla
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
Not buying it. I shot much better than a 12” group at 500 yards the first time I picked a borrowed Paramount up. (The work on the load, turret, and zeroing was already done.)
I didn’t video it, nor do I feel like I have to post a video here to convince you. Whether anyone believes it or not doesn’t change what actually happened. I’m not even that great of a shot, to be perfectly honest. I actually shot this muzzleloader better than I shoot my 7mm right off the bat, and I’ve been shooting that gun for many years. Shooting that muzzleloader helped me become a better shot with my rifle.
I’m not in favor of the proposed restriction, but I will continue to push for us to be real with the situation. Minimizing the capabilities to fit our arguments simply diminishes credibility, in my opinion.
Denying the technological advances and capabilities isn’t going to carry much weight in the discussion with those that will make the decision.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
I am being real.
I challenge you to go get that Paramount. Take it to the canyon of your choice. Set up a 500yd target and shoot a sub 12", 5 shot group. You can use a bipod, a backpack a tree, whatever you would use in a real world hunting situation. You're not going to shoot <12".
JakeH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 4,446
Your, as in the committee Slam, I've already commended you for your proposed compromise.
Lol my custom muzzleloader??? My muzzleloader is far from a custom rig. It is 100% factory other than the muzzle break that came from the same factory.
I'm not down playing squat, if your friends are buying $15k rigs and shooting beyond what they should be that's on them. The numbers you provided in that other post is pretty standard I would think, at 400 yards the energy left in the bullet is reaching the threshold of its effectiveness. Maybe the tech committee and the DWR should work on educating people on these numbers. Maybe start going after the manufacturer's for miss leading claims.
Also what is in his build that makes it an emerging technology? YOU seem to be an expert on that now.
Maybe these $15k rigs have something else that makes them better. You won't catch me paying that much for one, what's that saying "a fool and his money are soon parted" I think that applies here.
a $15K rig today is a $2K rig in 10 years. Technology keeps on getting better and cheaper.
If the WB refuses to curtail tech like something as little as Muzzy scopes then the Utah Legislature will likely have to reign in the tech. The general public ultimately controls the hunting through the legislature and if they had any idea of the tech we are currently allowed to kill Bambi with, laws would come down quick.
Go ask a non-hunter what they think about the ability to shoot hundreds of yards using computer range finders, fancy muzzleloaders, crazy compounds, LR sniper setups? I have and they want Bambi to have a chance, they want hunters to have to work for their game. A lot of laws are about 'feelings' and 'fairness' whether you like it or not.
It's gonna happen in time or we can police ourselves. The WB and RACs can vote themselves into obscurity or remain relevant and think beyond the love affair hunters have with their techy toys
If the WB refuses to curtail tech like something as little as Muzzy scopes then the Utah Legislature will likely have to reign in the tech. The general public ultimately controls the hunting through the legislature and if they had any idea of the tech we are currently allowed to kill Bambi with, laws would come down quick.
Go ask a non-hunter what they think about the ability to shoot hundreds of yards using computer range finders, fancy muzzleloaders, crazy compounds, LR sniper setups? I have and they want Bambi to have a chance, they want hunters to have to work for their game. A lot of laws are about 'feelings' and 'fairness' whether you like it or not.
It's gonna happen in time or we can police ourselves. The WB and RACs can vote themselves into obscurity or remain relevant and think beyond the love affair hunters have with their techy toys
Vanilla
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,459
Your challenge is changing as you continue to post. Why?
And why minimize the reality? Why not just be honest about what the tech can do?
Sure, not everyone is capable of keeping up with the technology on their instruments. That is me on my rifle. That gun, as a basic stock mass production rifle is far more capable than I am as a shooter. And I know not everyone is hauling a Paramaount around the mountain either. Lots of muzzleloaders in current use in Utah wouldn’t make those shots. But there is tech out there that does, and denying it won’t make the reality different. Why not acknowledge the truth and then argue why it shouldn’t matter for these proposed regulations?
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
The dedicated pool is about half of the muzzy pool. So yeah, a bunch of muzzy success will skyrocket overall muzzy success. We hunt the same deer during the same season
Kinda the point when you talk about data, then leave out 1/2 of the dudes carrying a smokepole in the data
Last edited:
Elkrunning-Scared
Active Member
- Messages
- 147
Right! Being honest hurts. They honestly know how technology has made them successful. I’ll be honest with you it has helped me.
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
I shoot a browning abolt
My son shoots a browning xbolt.
The xbolt destroys the abolt. The next browning model will destroy the xbolt.
Point being, the Paramount 2 will be better. The Paramount 3,4,5,6. Will each get better. And the model previous will get cheaper while making that gain.
What you or I can do today don't mean chit, because the companies are 2-3 years ahead of today
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
My original challenge was 400 yards. I'll stand by that it you are willing to give it a go. I still don't think you, or 99% of muzzleloader hunters, or myself can do it.
You're the one that said you could shoot <12" at 500 yards.
With muzzleloaders, once you get out past 250 to 300 yards, everything ballisticly goes to hell. This is especially true with 50 caliber muzzleloaders.
I have no beef with you. I just hear alot of people spouting off how easy it is to shoot LR with muzzleloaders. Yet not a single person has backed it up.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
I'll extend the same challenge to you. Let's see your <12" 5 shot group at 400 yards.
Put up or shut so they say.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
Not if there is a 4x scope limit.
That allows everyone equal opportunity to muzzleloader hunt. Including me that can't use open sights.
slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,799
First off, Archery was THE FIRST item on the agenda.
After hours and sessions and by a convincing TC member and former president of Hoyt Archery, it was determined that archery equipment is already naturally restricted by it's own right.
Therefore automatic electronic rangefinder devices like the Garmin sights were removed.
PRC's??
You may want to do a little research on ballistics before assuming a PRC is a long range sniper style cartridge.
Do you support the use of a common 270 win?
If so, then you shouldn't scoff at my 6.5 PRC.
7PRC are extremely close to the simple old school 7mm Rem Mag that's been out since 1962 and the 300PRC is ballistically comparable with a 1964 300 Winchester Magnum.
The PRC line up is for one reason.....short actions.
Last edited:
What power scope? How many shots?
If you back track the whole process and the results of the action end up with the killing of less mature bucks on the muzzy hunt only, the only OBVIOUS conclusion is that it was a hidden agenda to save more mature bucks for the ALW guys.If we don't kill all the bucks on the muzzy hunt, the rifle guys will anyway
Prove me wrong but you can’t.
And remember, I am pro muzzleloader hunts and my first weapon of choice.
That is why once I saw the ball was rolling on this and only going forward, I had the epiphany to go balls out on muzzy tech and cut it back so hard that only diehard Deer hunters (not Deer shooters) would want to go hunt with ‘no tech muzzy’ ( hint: think Idahos muzzy regs) and get the draw odds so low again I could draw my preferred GS muzzy tag every year.
Would my way of thinking save mature bucks?
Heck yes it would, but only for them to be cut down by ALW Deer shooters.
BUT, with muzzy tech being cut back so hard the majority of muzzy guys getting so pissed they would jump to ALW tags and I would get to hunt every year instead of every 3.
Last edited:
So apparently in the last week we’ve gone from modern muzzys shooting 500+ yards accurately, to modern muzzys can’t shoot 400 yards accurately. Which in turn makes a bunch of guys on this thread liars. A bunch of successful hunters over the last 5 years are liars. And the manufacturers of these guns liars. Interesting argument by some.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,895
First off. My comments were not directed at you. I should have specified that. I believe you have been fair and consistent throughout.
However, removing Garmin sights did absolutely nothing to hamstring archers to the extent removing sights would do to muzzleloaders. Especially those like me with old eyes.
Last edited:
hossblur
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 11,389
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.