slamdunk
Moderator
- Messages
- 10,672
I know we are all getting burned out on this muzzleloader scope proposal, so this is my final attempt to help explain why the WB summoned a committee for current and emerging technology in the first place.
This thread is about muzzleloaders and that specific hunting season only.
When it was suggested by the RAC in approximately 2014 to allow variable scopes on muzzleloaders through increased public support, there was also heavy push back against it as it could change the dynamics of the hunt, and here we are.
When the data was presented in the second meeting showing only slight spikes in success rates for 2 years, then appearing to settle back to where it was in the 1x days, "Quality" quickly became the critical point over success rates.
let's all be honest here.
People aren't spending $1000 on rifle set ups because they are killing yearling bucks at 100 or even 200 yards, that can be easily done with open sights on an inline rifle.
How many of us old timers remember the backlash in 1985 when inlines hit the market?
I certainly do.
Again, here we are.
"Ethics and Fair Chase"
It's not all about what we currently have in today's world, it's about what will the muzzleloader season look like in 2030 if we don't draw a line on emerging technology.
"Emerging" being the key word.
During the muzzleloader hunt, a weapon and hunt that was originally intended for short to medium ranges.
Is 500 yards still within the realm of fair chase for this specific hunt type?
Is 300?
Look at these examples below and read their selling points to us as consumers.
"200 yards......that description was back in 2014 before we were allowed variables.
"3.5 million model 700's have been sold."
Why so many?
Gunwerks has a 500 yard rifle now that guys are using effectively at double that distance.
Yes it's out of 90% of our price ranges, but so was an 80" TV not long ago.
The more quality goes down, the faster technology develops gadgets for us to still be successful.
"Emerging".
The purpose of the WB's want for a technology committee isn't just about today, it's about our futures.
As I mentioned in another thread, we've already got nanotechnology glass that allows us to see through fog and smoke.
Are we still going to find 500 yard muzzleloader kills through fog ethical and fair chase?
Those terms are already controversial enough.
Hunters evolve, animals do not have that luxury.
Our sport is already under attack from anti-hunting groups, ridiculous technology definitely doesn't help our cause.
And no, the intent of this proposal isn't to flood the hills with thousands of other hunters, that's an absolute absurd conclusion.
How many muzzleloader hunters have we acquired since variable scopes were allowed?
A LOT!!
Why??
In closing.
What is the single most important tool on a muzzleloader that makes all the other components effective and will also keep technology emerging?
The optic.
Limit that one piece, and a muzzleloader remains a medium range weapon for a medium range weapon hunt.
This thread is about muzzleloaders and that specific hunting season only.
When it was suggested by the RAC in approximately 2014 to allow variable scopes on muzzleloaders through increased public support, there was also heavy push back against it as it could change the dynamics of the hunt, and here we are.
When the data was presented in the second meeting showing only slight spikes in success rates for 2 years, then appearing to settle back to where it was in the 1x days, "Quality" quickly became the critical point over success rates.
let's all be honest here.
People aren't spending $1000 on rifle set ups because they are killing yearling bucks at 100 or even 200 yards, that can be easily done with open sights on an inline rifle.
How many of us old timers remember the backlash in 1985 when inlines hit the market?
I certainly do.
Again, here we are.
"Ethics and Fair Chase"
It's not all about what we currently have in today's world, it's about what will the muzzleloader season look like in 2030 if we don't draw a line on emerging technology.
"Emerging" being the key word.
During the muzzleloader hunt, a weapon and hunt that was originally intended for short to medium ranges.
Is 500 yards still within the realm of fair chase for this specific hunt type?
Is 300?
Look at these examples below and read their selling points to us as consumers.
"200 yards......that description was back in 2014 before we were allowed variables.
"3.5 million model 700's have been sold."
Why so many?
Gunwerks has a 500 yard rifle now that guys are using effectively at double that distance.
Yes it's out of 90% of our price ranges, but so was an 80" TV not long ago.
The more quality goes down, the faster technology develops gadgets for us to still be successful.
"Emerging".
The purpose of the WB's want for a technology committee isn't just about today, it's about our futures.
As I mentioned in another thread, we've already got nanotechnology glass that allows us to see through fog and smoke.
Are we still going to find 500 yard muzzleloader kills through fog ethical and fair chase?
Those terms are already controversial enough.
Hunters evolve, animals do not have that luxury.
Our sport is already under attack from anti-hunting groups, ridiculous technology definitely doesn't help our cause.
And no, the intent of this proposal isn't to flood the hills with thousands of other hunters, that's an absolute absurd conclusion.
How many muzzleloader hunters have we acquired since variable scopes were allowed?
A LOT!!
Why??
In closing.
What is the single most important tool on a muzzleloader that makes all the other components effective and will also keep technology emerging?
The optic.
Limit that one piece, and a muzzleloader remains a medium range weapon for a medium range weapon hunt.
Last edited: