Scopes on Muzzleloaders

[PerchJerker]

muzzleloders have a special season only because of the semi primitive function of their operation, allowing them to be scoped is just one step further away from their primitive roots thus eliminating the distinction that allows them a special season in the first place.

So why are modern shotgun primers allowed in muzzleloaders, why are vastly superior modern propellants like pyrodex allowed instead of blackpowder only, why are modern jacketed sabot bullets with polymer tips and copper cores allowed, and why is the in-line muzzleloader allowed? Shouldn't all or some of those things be banned from the special muzzleloader season too? All of those things improve the performance of the gun itself, a scope only improves the aiming ability of the shooter.

As for the semi-primitive nature of muzzleloaders, scopes weren't used on earlier generations of muzzleloaders for 1 reason and 1 reason only ---- there is no good way to mount a scope to a flintlock or sidelock gun. It has to do with the priming and firing mechanisms on those guns (a scope would be in their way). Scopes were around LONG before in-line muzzleloaders hit the scene, but it is the in-line firing mechanism which allows for scopes to be mounted on muzzleloaders.

Whether you're for scopes, against scopes, or neutral on scopes, I still haven't heard any rationale that makes sense for why all the other modern advances are allowed but scopes remain the exception.

[96trigger]

If the DNR is worried about the deer population in some areas, why not use any means necessary to help control it? Where the deer population is too high, allow scopes to help curb the population. Where it is too low, no scopes. I don't have a scope on any of my guns, so it doesn't bother me one way or the other, but, if I could, I would definitely put one on my muzzleloader. Not because I take long shots, but because I think it helps make that one shot all the more accurate, helping ensure a quick and humane kill. That said, I have very seldom needed a second shot on any of the deer I shoot with my shotgun, and that is scopeless.

[fishmon]

I agree with you, the fact of the matter comes down to politics, when the average Joe hears muzzleloader he hears primitive. The more subtle changes such as powder and jacketed sabots (where as they probably make more of an actual difference than scopes) mean nothing. But when the average Joe hears the word scope he thinks of a more modern, more acurate, weapon, as with everything in politics reality often accounts for far less than perception.

[subzero]

I keep seeing a reference to muzzleloaders as a primitive weapon, when I read the handbook I didn't see anything that refered to a muzzleloader being primitive or any reference to primitive hunt. I would vote yes for the fact that a scope on any firearms shooting a single projectile with enhance the ability for a clean kill. I know there are poeple that will disagree with that statement but I look and the bow hunters and don't see many if any traditional bows with no sights. Anything that will aid in a quick and human kill I agree with.

[Gordie]

I keep seeing a reference to muzzleloaders as a primitive weapon, when I read the handbook I didn't see anything that refered to a muzzleloader being primitive or any reference to primitive hunt. I would vote yes for the fact that a scope on any firearms shooting a single projectile with enhance the ability for a clean kill. I know there are poeple that will disagree with that statement but I look and the bow hunters and don't see many if any traditional bows with no sights. Anything that will aid in a quick and human kill I agree with.

not bash what you are saying but who says that a scope provides a cleaner kill than iron sights. I'm not a betting man but just as many guys with scopes wound deer as with iron sights and I bet that the number is higher due to the fact that there are more scopes on guns than without now a days

[vister]

I see more legs getting shot off of deer if we can use scopes. Not many people use magnum charges now...150 grains of powder. With the aid of scopes, people would be putting high power scopes on them, but remember, muzzies can shoot farther than a slug, but not that far! I could see people shooting way beyond the effectiveness of the modern smoker, and come up short, hence wounding more deer. Don't tear me appart limb by limb, its just a possibility, I think!

every centerfire rifle can outshoot a smokepole. nowadays, we are pushing the envelope with rifles. scopes you can turn a dial on to move the crosshairs so they are where they need to be on 600 yard plus shots. scopes on smokers would have some of us trying to shoot beyond 200 yards, which I FEEL is too far!

[candiru]

There are 3x9 scopes out there now built for muzzleloaders. They have a bullet drop compensating reticle calibrated out to 250 yds.(check your outdoors catalogs) Even with all the other improvements a muzzleloader is still only a 100yd gun with open sights. Put a scope on and it is 200 yds plus. You also get more shooting time with a scope, particullarly on dark days. If you want to read about something more extreme do an internet search on "Bad Bull Muzzleloaders"

[vister]

my point exactly! if you can hop up a muzzy to shoot like that, then why not just use my Ruger No.1, 7mm single shot. I'm in a rifle zone where I hunt, so a scoped slug gun would be less effective than a scoped muzzleloader to me.

Bottom line, legalize scopes for muzzleloaders, i'll still use open sights!

I think its great with all of todays modern equipment and technology, we are restricted to open sights on muzzleloaders. does anybody know WHY we have to use open sights. I'll bet its for a reason none of us know.

[lakevet]

Our group would still prefer open sights. Several practical reasons.

1) No fogging up when you breath on them at cold temps

2) More durable

3) Easier to place accurate shot at close range, while still accurate out to medium ranges. Accurate out to longer range with lots of practice.

(I shot my elk at 20 feet away last year open sights one shot behind ear, saw elk wounded at close range by others because "all they saw was hair in the scope")

and one personal reason (most important to us)

4)The younger generation experiences how their ancestors hunted.

The military sniper who has the world record for the most confirmed kills is a guy who did it under sub zero conditions, using a bolt action OPEN SIGHTED rifle, often at long range. He declined a scope for the first 3 above mentioned reasons. He had a 4th reason of no reflection/flash from the lens that would give away his location. His name is Simo Hayha. When asked how he became such a good shot he said "PRACTICE". My dad, who coached biathalon for the Army in Alaska, says the same thing. Most people just don't make the commitment to practice enough.

Lou, correct me if I am wrong but didn't the muzzy season originally start as a result of a group of hunters who wanted a "primitive" or "traditional" experience. One reason it was granted was because they willing gave up some technical advantages such as scopes.

One downside (for a small number of individuals who would profit) of "no scope" is that a multimillion dollar market for scope sales is untapped. While I am not anti-business and wouldn't prevent them from trying to open a market, that is a significant financial carrot for some to try to get the rules changed and to try to get (advertise,tv shows etc) the average hunter to feel deprived for not being able to use a scope.

lakevet

[slabchaser]

So there is going to be an huge influx of people who are going to start muzzy hunting because they can use a scope. Give me a break. Yes, some people will start hunting but the majority of the guys are still going to rifle hunt. They still only get one shot and they still only get to hunt at the end of the rest of the firearm seasons. If we want a primative season we should make a rock season and a stick season. August to September is rock season and September has a stick season for only two weeks because they can be sharpened and are more modern. Good news though you can put a scope on your rock!

[96trigger]

I think that saying the having a scope will make people wound more deer is a little bit of a stretch. It will always be up the hunter, scope or scopeless, to determine what shot they can and cannot make. Mr. Vister, I shoot them in the neck wiht an arrow, you of all people should know that. The same people that take poor shots with scopes will take poor shots with open sights. Not picking on you, just pointing that out. I don't have any ill will towards your bow shot, you were confident in it, and made it, congratulations, but many on here would have passed. It is very hard to make that blanket statement. When the target is closer, you have a better, and bigger view of the kill zone. How can that be a bad thing? We all should know the range of our guns, bows, etc..., scoped or not.

and once again, I only have a .22 with a scope, all other guns are scopeless

[vister]

I can agree with you on my statement. i guess i just meant that some people would have scopes cranked up, not knowing the deer was 300 yards away, and end up shooting way low. I think like that, and others dislike two shots i've taken with a bow. yes, scopes would make 75 yard shots bread and butter.

we can give each other tips and techniques to make each other better shots, but we can't tell each other what shots to take!

[96trigger]

Thanks, I think you have been taking some unwarranted heat on your buck. Lots of people take neck shots, usually not with a bow, but they are the ones that always say that its either a clean miss, or a dead deer. I'm just not gutsy enough to take it. I like to watch the deer fall 30 yards or less from where I shot it. I always shoot for the vitals, it gives me a larger kill zone and I know that a bullet in the boilerroom will put them down quickly. I don't like watching them run off.

I like the idea of scopes on Muzzleloaders. I would put one on mine even though it would be the only deer gun that I have with a scope. Not because I think it would give me an advantage for long shots. Because of the bluffs, all of my shots are well within open sight range. I just think that we are not using primitive weapons. So why not make that one shot all the more accurate. In SOME places we need to harvest more deer, why not give the hunter every advantage possible. (I am being totally hypocritical on this because I would not favor crossbows during archery) Again, I want to say that this is only for areas that are in Intensive harvest zones. I am in managed this year so even if they made that stipulation, I would still be scopeless. Would anyone disagree with scopes in an IH zone?

[lcornice]

Lou, correct me if I am wrong but didn't the muzzy season originally start as a result of a group of hunters who wanted a "primitive" or "traditional" experience. One reason it was granted was because they willing gave up some technical advantages such as scopes.

lakevet

We've had a muzzleloader season since I think 1976. I've asked around the office and that's the standard rumor that floats around among muzzleloader hunters. BUT, I think the reality is MZ hunters only wanted their own season. At the time, the only technology available were flint/percussion guns. Inlines weren't even invented. Yes, I know they date back to the mid 19th century, I mean commercially available. Although I wasn't around, I have a hard time believing muzzleloader hunters were arguing against technology that didn't exist. My hunch is they wanted their own season and the differences in technology didn't come up. Revisionist historians may prove me wrong but I bet I'm close.

[slabchaser]

couldnt they run two seasons. One primative season and one season where you can use scopes

[lakevet]

With regard to having a season for scopes, we already have that. You can scope your muzzy already, just have to hunt regular firearms season. You just have to accept higher hunter numbers in the woods and possibly a shorter season as the tradeoff. You can use the technology, but the hunt you experience may be different. That is the tradeoff. More technology and greater chance of success means it will attract more hunters, which may or may not lessen your enjoyment of the hunt.

Lou, thanks for your reply. Appreciate all your work and the balancing act you have to do with all the interested parties. I am basing my comment from conversations with hunters who were lobbying against changes in muzzy regulations back about 10 years ago. One person I know well was one of the original group who worked with the DNR to start a muzzy season in Minnesota. They were a group who wanted to "recreate" hunting like it was when muzzleloaders were the height of technology. They were into historical reenactments like the white oak event in deer river minnesota. This experience included low hunter density numbers and "traditional" weapons. So the DNR agreed to a late season in limited areas of the state, primarily I believe, state parks. This was to limit impact on deer population until the DNR got a handle on the impact the hunt would have. When the DNR understood the limited impact this new season had, they then opened it to statewide. That was when we got into it, as we could hunt the traditional family hunting area. In fact prior to 2000 your harvest stats didn't even include a success rate for muzzleloaders, as it was a non issue with regards to managing the deer herd. When regs changed (around 2003) to allow one to hunt firearms and muzzy instead of either/or, muzzy hunter numbers doubled immediately. It had been stable around 7,000 to 11,000 muzzy hunters before then. Last year it was 64,000. Now, in part due to increased potential harvest by muzzy hunters, their opportunity to take a doe is limited in parts of the state. Muzzleloaders are limited to bucks only and drawings for antlerless permits in SW MN. I believe using muzzy hunters to help with managing the deer herd was a factor in the change to get more hunters into it.

Please don't take this as a negative post. Just trying to point out that that muzzy season is continuing to evolve at an increasingly rapid rate (Esp the last 5 yrs) into something much different from what it originally was. Wanting scopes is just a small piece of the puzzle. Another is the influx (50,000+) of hunters who have different expectations and goals than the earlier 10,000 hunters who are now the minority. Would like to see the opportunity for those who want to hunt a muzzy season like we had prior to 2003. Unless a separate "traditional" season is created, or we go back to having to choose muzzy vs regular firearms season, its not going to happen. Still love muzzy season way more than firearms seasons.

Also everyone should thank those original muzzy hunters and the DNR for creating a muzzy season in Minnesota. Thanks again Lou.

lakevet

[lcornice]

Not negative at all, it's a good post and pretty darn accurate. My guess is you talked to a guy with the initials D.B. It was actually the all-season license (circa 2001) that started the proliferation of muzzleloader hunters but it did make a big jump in 2003 when we changed how antlerless deer are managed. Certainly getting rid of the AS license and letting people buy ala carte that we started to pick up more MZ hunters, which I personally think is a good thing. For those of you who know me, you know I'm an AVID muzzleloader hunter (using all types). Although there's more people out there now, we hunt public land and rarely run into anyone else. Some of my own areas have gone lottery this year so I'm off to find new locations, just like everyone else.

What I do find interesting is all this talk about scopes on muzzleloaders and nobody ever talks about the giant advances in archery technology. I can barely recognize today's bows as archery equipment. Should there be a longbow/recurve season too? We have far more archers out there than muzzleloader hunters! No, it's not in the works. I was drawing a comparison.

[koonie]

Archery has come a long way. Only thing is, technology hasn't changed effective range.

[lakevet]

I think archery long ago passed the tipping point where the stick bow hunters were greatly outnumbered by compound guys. Thus there is no significant pressure from a large enough percentage of hunters to effect a change. The stick bow guys gave up long ago trying to get changes against the preferences of overwhelming numbers of compound users. Also archery hunters can spread out from sept thru dec and find a niche. Less competition because deer are more available in more areas vs late season yarding deer on limited food sources during a 16 day muzzy season.

Muzzleloading, in my opinion, is in the process of passing that tipping point right now. Maybe passed it already by 50,000+.

Lou, thanks for the reply. DB fits one of the guys I know of. If I had one request, please keep muzzy season as the late season. If nothing else, we can depend on Minnesota winter weather to give us some occasions in the woods when hunter density is very low in our area. (Too cold and miserable, deer not moving, first ice with good fishing, snowmobiling, holiday parties) We really like having the kids experience that type of hunt. They get hooked on it and get a taste of what their forefathers experienced when they started deer hunting in Minnesota in the 1880's on the same lands we hunt today. We greatly value that time together.

Thanks again.

lakevet

[lcornice]

As a stickbow hunter I'm amused by the technology. FWIW, there are no plans to move the MZ season.

[koonie]

What kind of stickbow lcornice? Curious minds want to know what the big dog bites with.

I'm gonna ask my co-worker if he'll consider making me a bow. Also. I've known the maker of RAM bows since I was a young buck. Might have to try and find one of his bows.

[lcornice]

I have a SouthPaw Bow Works 62" 57# @27" I picked it up used several years ago in Rochester. Prior to that I used a 45# recurve my uncle made back in the 50's. I've had a couple of compounds over the years but I learned to shoot instinctive at a young age and prefer it that way.