Why do you think smokeless powder was band during muzzle-loader season

[ScoutII]

Does anyone really know why our legislators put the ban on smokeless-powder use in muzzle-loaders during the muzzle-loader season?

Is it to keep the season traditional?

Is it to prevent use of a specific HIGH POWERED muzzle-loader?

Is it to prevent a company from developing a muzzle-loader that has the range of a high powered rifle?

Our government does not always tell us why, just tells how it is going to be.

My thoughts are that the legislators did not think about this one very much, and passed the rule because of pressure by a lobbyist, without knowing how it really affects the majority of weapons that use this powder.

I shoot the savage muzzle-loader that is capable of using smokeless powder. The performance specs when using nitro are not noticeably different than when using other powders. So why the ban? Now I have read about a muzzle-loader that brags about MARKED improvement in range and knock down power. This is accomplished according to them by using a jacketed bullet and a sizeable charge of nitro powder. Is this the reason the ban was passed, which means the legislators just couldn't think of a better way to ban this type of weapon?

My thought is that if we want to prevent the use of high powered muzzle-loaders, we should control the use of the projectile being used. Sabbots can only be pushed so hard or fast before accuracy diminishes. Same goes for ball and patch.

I know it is only human nature to try to get the most performance from a product, but to prevent a majority of people from using a product because someone has modified it is not right. Ban the modification or combination of modifications that makes the product dangerous or unsafe. Do not just blindly ban all the components simply because they have some similar use.

If you can be checked for the powder you are using, I believe it is just as easy to check which bullet you are using.

I have also read that black powder substitutes contain components used in nitro powder. How else can they claim to have better performance than black powder? Should these also be banned?

I think that this could be a good topic to discuss if we can keep it civil.

The main reason I bought the savage was because it used nitro powder that made weapon maintenance easy. Noncorrosive to be exact.

[fishontonka]

Just wanted to know when they passed this in leg..Just started muzzle loading this pass season.

[ScoutII]

I didn't find out about it until the 06 hunting rules came out.

[JohnMickish]

I think it's to keep it traditional since that was the intent of the muzzle loader season to begin with. Basically the same reason crossbows aren't alowed during bow season, it's an unfair advantage during a primitive hunt.

[ScoutII]

Do you realy think it is an unfair advantage? In 50 cal. we still use a saboted bullet. The velocities and knock down energy are really close to the same as other powders allowed. No matter what powder you use the sabot will only allow you to push it so hard or so fast no matter what is pushing it.

The sabot is plastic it will melt if it gets too hot causing a major accuracy problem. Shotgun and slug uses smokeless powder.

[Whoaru99]

Perhaps it would be interesting to hear from the DNR what the reason(s) is/are.

Have you asked anyone there?

[PerchJerker]

Until I hear a definitive answer to the contrary, I'm sticking with my theory that it was done for safety reasons ----- both in the ML that is designed to shoot smokeless powder, and to try to keep people from trying it in the 99% of MLs that aren't designed for smokeless powder. Same thing I posted in one of the other threads you have on this same topic.

[ScoutII]

PerchJerker: I do agree that it is being done for safety reasons. I think the legislators banned it because a manufacturer has produced a muzzle-loader that has velocities and energy levels similar to a hi-powered rifle and don't want to see that weapon being used in shotgun and slug areas. Now what I think is wrong is what component the legislators are using to ban that weapon. The powder (nitro)when used with a sabot or ball and patch won't give you the performance. But use it with 'their' jacketed bullet in a 45 cal. works with major performance increases. A weapon I don't believe would be safe to use in populated areas such as shotgun and slug areas. My point being the powder alone will not do this. It is the projectile that is giving that weapon its performance increases.

[PerchJerker]

You keep referring to nitro powder and saying it's the projectile that gives the performance, not the powder. But isn't that skewed logic --- what about the other smokeless powders, the ones that produce many times more pressure than blackpowder and blackpowder substitutes --- the smokeless powders that produce the same internal pressures and bullet velocities that you get with modern high performance rifles? What happens when someone drops a charge of that in a CVA or Traditions, or drops a double charge in your Savage, or doesn't properly seat the bullet against the powder? That's a bad accident waiting to happen in my opinion. Without knowing for sure, that's my guess as to why it is banned in muzzleloaders.

[JDM]

A friend of mine shoots the Savage and he spoke to the warden in his area and asked him how he planned to check the muzzleloader hunters to see if they were in compliance with the new law. He claims the CO said that there is NO way he can safely check for it once the gun has been loaded. Interesting.... This same friend uses this gun for regular firearms season and showed me his powder charge. I don' remember the specifics, but is was considerably less powder than what I use with 777 pellets.

I also think that some lobbyist for one of the black powder substitute manufacturers was able to push this law through. Does anyone else find it amusing that our state senators and reps like to pay so much attention to issues related to muzzleloaders, when they should have been giving their time and efforts towards issues like clean water and dedicated funding? Sorry to go off topic here, but I couldn't help it.

[ScoutII]

Individuals are allowed to reload or custom load rifle and shotgun rounds. Should this also have some sort of regulation as the problems you are stating could happen under these circumstances also. Improper seated bullet, overcharge of powder, ect.? I guess the point I am trying to make about the projectile is that the type of bullet will determine how much velocity or energy a rifle can produce more predictably than what type of powder is being used. As to dropping a double charge in a savage under a sabot you should only experience a flyer. Not too good for hitting the mark. Most companies recommend that you do not pour from a flask or bulk container when loading. It is a very good idea to premeasure your loads. And another point would be that whenever operating a piece of equipment you are unfamiliar with would be to READ the specs or information on how to properly use the equipment. Something that our in a hurry society sometimes thinks is unnessasry.

[ScoutII]

In September I inquired about the subject, but unless you get the right person on the phone you don't learn very much. I am still trying to contact the right person DNR, Senator, or State Representative.

[ScoutII]

JDM: those are good related points. I had also asked how DNR was going to enforce the new rule. Did not get any real answer.

[Whoaru99]

So the officer cannot force you to discharge the ML?

What about checking the person or the vehicle? I mean really, nobody goes to the field with only the load in the ML, do they?

[Whoaru99]

Quote:

---

Until I hear a definitive answer to the contrary, I'm sticking with my theory that it was done for safety reasons ----- both in the ML that is designed to shoot smokeless powder, and to try to keep people from trying it in the 99% of MLs that aren't designed for smokeless powder. Same thing I posted in one of the other threads you have on this same topic.

---

I really hope that's not it. That is essentially our legislation saying we are too stupid to figure it out.

I don't need government protecting me from stupidity any more that I need them protecting me from trans-fats by banning them.

Sure, I think government should make regulations about truth in labeling and perhaps informing me of risks, but I don't need them making those sort of choices for me.

[PerchJerker]

Not saying I know for sure, and not saying I agree with it --- I just remember the uproar that happened when a ML advertised to shoot smokeless powder hit the market, and the valid concerns about the safety of it, and suspect that's why it was made illegal.

On the other hand, if the Legislature won't make scopes legal (which do not affect the performance of the muzzleloader, they only affect your ability to aim it better) maybe they won't make smokeless powder legal either (which can affect the performance of a muzzleloader by shooting at the same velocities and ranges you can get with high-power rifles).

[john.wells]

I really feel that at the heart of the issue is the desire to keep muzzle loading as traditional as possible. The original intent of a black powder season was just for this reason-in fact, there were relaxed blaze requirements, specific areas where it was allowed, and yes-no scopes or modern powders. It has evolved to a different hunt, one of more of a management tool. There has been an incredible amount of people who have jumped on the wagon-armed with more sophisticated weapons than what were intended. I used to have no competition in the woods during this season, but now it is not much different than rifle season in some areas. I feel that if the DNR wants to use it as a management tool, then they should relax the laws; maybe have a different season for the true traditionalists. If they want to keep it a traditional black powder season, then they should outright ban in-lines, and stick to what it was intended for.

[ScoutII]

I don't think the officer should be able to make you discharge you firearm. They should and can check any reloads or powder charges you are carrying, to see if they comply. When I talked to a DNR officer in September he said I don't think it is nessary to have an individual discharge the firearm but, that they will check any loads you may be carrying.

[ScoutII]

Closing the barn door after the animals are out? I think banning in-lines would be a tough row to hoe. Smokeless powder has been around for a long time, it is not something new. Black powder substitutes on the other hand are a recent innovation, so if the intent is tradition then substitutes should also be band.

I would think that the bottom line with the muzzle-loader season is, the intent was to allow the use of Single Shot, Short Range firearms for hunting deer. Isn't that what a muzzle-loader is?