# Idaho commission muzzles some hunting rifles



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

but yes I do know the ballistics of round balls, minies and others. However, as much as Iam a ballistics hound like you.......I dont let all the paper work show me what will work and what wont. I know, as you do, through shooting MANY deer through hunting and helping with culls [ADCs done professionally] what works and doesnt. Its also amazes me you havent started in with quoting 69 calibers and up that will kill deer much more humanely than 45s [God forbid I used a small caliber].
Lets face it, if it came to TRADITIONAL M/Ls the sport would lose a lot of hunters because they cant stuff 6 pellets down the tube for 300 Mag power! They cant put 3x9 scpes on them, Sure BT bullets fly better? so? Round balls and others kill just the same through tissue damage. Big deal. I like em all,they all work. Nothing to get so &^$%*ing worked up over! Arm chair Ballisticians that we are, we can argue forever. Dead is dead.....the same as our never ending 243 vs 30-30 conversations.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Huntsman27 said:


> Round balls and others kill just the same through tissue damage.


no, huntsman, that's not the case.. round balls, because of their shape, shed velocity extremely fast, and therefore energy.

round balls, because of their shape, will not penetrate as far either - their form prohibits it. poor sectional density.

you know all this... why the debate?

can round balls shoot through deer? sure. you can shoot any type or shape of projectile through anything given the right circumstances.

only on michigan sportsman could we argue over such a self-evident fact - whether round balls are as effective as modern bullets..


----------



## deerslayer#1 (Nov 8, 2004)

Why is there a muzzle loader season, and how did it come about.....? I'm thinking for the traditional standpoint of hunting. With that said, some states don't allow scopes, and some do. Some dont allow inline equipment, and some do.( thats what I base my understanding on) Now, some of these firearms shoot way too far, and are way too accurate at extended ranges for the intended season. I think that the law should be changed, (if it was intended for the traditional aspect)?? I see most of these muzzle loaders as just a single shot rifle, basically about the same accuracy as a 30-30. Some on this site have even said they shoot out at ranges exceeding what most would shoot with high powere rifles. (400-500 yards) These states that have ammended the requirements in my eyes, are correct. I also believe this state is all about the money, so I wouldn't be too alarmed about a change. I see no reason to shoot a 300 grain bullet, when a 120 grain will do just fine if this state just wants the deer shot up.


----------



## No Deer (Nov 24, 2005)

deerslayer#1 said:


> I see most of these muzzle loaders as just a single shot rifle, basically about the same accuracy as a 30-30. Some on this site have even said they shoot out at ranges exceeding what most would shoot with high powere rifles. .


 
You are right, inline = caseless amunition centerfire rifle.


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

rzdrmh said:


> no, huntsman, that's not the case.. round balls, because of their shape, shed velocity extremely fast, and therefore energy.
> 
> round balls, because of their shape, will not penetrate as far either - their form prohibits it. poor sectional density.
> 
> ...


As you and I both know, yes, a round ball has the flight characteristics of a school bus! However, a 490 roundball is somewhere about 176-180grs if Iam not mistaken........the same weight as our venerable 30-06. 
Though launched at a lower velocity, it certainly retains enough energy to kill deer/bear. Even 45s will kill bear as a traditionalist friend [Expert] that has killed many bear with his hand built 45 rifle and round ball loads can attest. But a round ball doesnt need to exit to kill an animal. I think this is typically where we agree to disagree......I dont need my bullets to exit as long as they strike the vitals, you on the other hand, like large holes and blood for tracking.
I understand what your saying about projectiles, round balls do not expand unless striking bone [using soft lead] as a jacketed [say XTP] will as its made to expand over a wide velocity. Also, the hunter must know his range and ammo/load. The same as someone using sabots and pellets must know the same. 
As I have said I like both types, I have an Optima 45, and would like a Hawken too. Certainly any deer taken with either rifle is equally exciting. I dont think Id be more excited or thrilled using one over the other.


----------



## Rusher (Jan 6, 2006)

Holly Crap!, we can see who rules this forum, I was just going to agree with the others but I'm afraid:lol:


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

I didn't know my original question would generate so much discussion. Here is an update to the first post.

IDAHO FISH AND GAME HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=3668


----------



## sneakboxer (Oct 28, 2006)

David Vig of Careywood, for example, was thrilled with the $1,000 muzzleloader hunting rifle his wife gave him for Christmas. But before he had a chance to try it out, the commission outlawed his and other muzzleloaders with in-line ignition systems for use in Idaho's special muzzleloader hunting seasons.

Wow, we as hunters need not to spread this discontent to the non/anti hunters.(they don't need any more ammo) A patched ball is lethal. I have seen many a deer killed with one WELL PLACED SHOT. I 222 rem in the right hands is just as quick to kill as a 338win mag. The person pulling the trigger or triggers, needs to limit the shot to his skill, the efficitive range and the circumstances surounding the shot. We owe it to the animal. A unethical hunter is bad for us all. weather it is a 500yd shot from a unskilled marksman with the biggest fastest centerfire or a 50 ball and patch at 150 yds. If it is beyond your skill don't make the shot. 

As for the guy in the org post he can still use that $1000 in-line in the regular season can't he.
Thats my .02


----------



## deerslayer#1 (Nov 8, 2004)

sneakboxer said:


> David Vig of Careywood, for example, was thrilled with the $1,000 muzzleloader hunting rifle his wife gave him for Christmas. But before he had a chance to try it out, the commission outlawed his and other muzzleloaders with in-line ignition systems for use in Idaho's special muzzleloader hunting seasons.
> 
> Wow, we as hunters need not to spread this discontent to the non/anti hunters.(they don't need any more ammo) A patched ball is lethal. I have seen many a deer killed with one WELL PLACED SHOT. I 222 rem in the right hands is just as quick to kill as a 338win mag. The person pulling the trigger or triggers, needs to limit the shot to his skill, the efficitive range and the circumstances surounding the shot. We owe it to the animal. A unethical hunter is bad for us all. weather it is a 500yd shot from a unskilled marksman with the biggest fastest centerfire or a 50 ball and patch at 150 yds. If it is beyond your skill don't make the shot.
> 
> ...


He can come to michigan and use it:coolgleam :coolgleam


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

No Deer said:


> You are right, inline = caseless amunition centerfire rifle.


this subject has been discussed time and time again here. if you're unwilling to do a little fundamental research, then there's little to debate.

with rare exception, the best inline performance will get you no more than 1/2 the range of the average 30-06 load.

which caseless centerfire rifle were you referring to? any supporting information, or are you just perpetuating a myth?

maybe you meant caseless ammunition in terms of "rate of fire".. oh wait, even my break-action NEF Handi rifles fire at a FAR greater rate than any inline muzzleloader.

maybe you meant interior ballistics.. no, wait, SAAMI specs dictate centerfire rifles generate no more than 55,000 psi, while, according to Lyman, the average inline muzzleloader generates 20-30,000 psi.

it must be accuracy.. inlines are simply far too accurate.. they are so accurate that knight muzzleloaders, for example, claim 2.5" groups at 100 yards. Thompson Center makes no accuracy guarantee. (centerfire mfg's like weatherby, tikka, etc., guarantee less than 1.5 moa.) then again, spend a day at the range and you'll find that the average muzzleloader is very content to see 3-5" groups at 100 yards. anyone here that has a muzzleloader that shoots under 2" @ 100 is either very lucky or very dilligent about practicing and consistency. with metallic cartridges, i simply have to worry about the bullet maker creating a consistent load.

yeah, an inline is just like a caseless centerfire rifle. kind of like how a chevy is just like a cadillac.

yet, even with all the handicaps of an inline muzzleloader, it still has more killing ability than a patched round ball. yeah, a well placed shot at relatively short distances will kill a deer regularly. of course, a well placed shot at relatively short distances will kill regularly with ANY gun. anyone can look at the data and see the difference in energy and velocity of the average inline load and the average patched ball load. 

so - use an inline or a traditional. but you'd better know the differences. some like traditionals - up close and personal, with all the mechanical and ballistic challenges.. i spend months bowhunting, for my "up close and personal" fix.. when i pick up a gun, i want full advantage of its killing power. and i don't want something with a lock time measured in seconds. or an ignition system susceptible to a drop of rain. and so on. if that's what you like, fine. but don't force it on others. especially in this day and age when social considerations exist that were never present during the "traditional" era.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

No Deer said:


> You are right, inline = caseless amunition centerfire rifle.



What a dumb statement. 

It's funny but I don't get what all the fuss is about. I have watched guys with traditional Hawken caplocks shoot groups as tight as 4" at 200 yards with their weapons. And yes, that was without the help of optics or fast twist barrels. Thats about what I can expect out of my Encore on an average day. Guess maybe those that are truely proficient with their traditonal weapons shouldn't be allowed to hunt in the muzzleloader season as well since they are just so much better than the majority of tradtional muzzleloader users out there.
It's funny to see so many threatened by stainless steel, synthetic stocks and the ability to handle a whopping 30 more grains of powder. Those are really the only differences. Some want people to believe that traditional gear takes hours upon hours to master, and only those wish special skills can master them. Give me a break. And it certainly doesn't turn one into a superior hunter either has many here seem to allude to. The majority of your arguments are purely emotional. And thats fine, just keep that it mind and accept it for what it is.
Now, I love traditional muzzleloaders and hope someday to include a few very nice guns to my collection. I love the lines, the feel and the history they evoke....just like many others. I feel theirs room for both style of weapons. And honestly, for any but the psuedo traditionalist (cause it's cool ya know), Inlines did not start with Tony knights "new" rifle. Study up on the history a little and you might be surprised to learn just how long inline ignition has been around.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

It boils down to traditional vs practicality. Traditionalists consistantly try to justify their technique in the same way fly fishermen do vs spinning reel fishermen. Both are effective, but the modern technology in the hands of a capable sportsman, are more effective. I understand dead=dead. Even a moron can understand that. If that was all there was, there would be no reason for a centerfire rifle. The roundball would still rule the shooting range. If that were the case, why not go back to smooth bores? Or matchlocks? Or muskets? It's as simple as this, a muzzleloader is a gun that loads it's powder and projectile from the muzzle. It's as simple as that. Any more than that, you're just adding your opinion, which is impossible to measure on the shooting range.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Hooray for Idaho..

Let me put it this way:

If I want to "shoot" deer I take my CVA 50 caliber in line.

If I want to "hunt" deer I take my TC 54 caliber sidelock w/iron sights w/round ball.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

wally-eye said:


> Hooray for Idaho..
> 
> Let me put it this way:
> 
> ...



What makes you think you can't do it either way? Is it ethics? Would you pass an iffy shot with the T/C and take an iffy shot with the CVA? Why even bother with the CVA when you could fabricate a cheap steel bumper for your truck and just drive country roads at night? Wouldn't even need to bother with a license fee then. Save the long drag as well..... 

The weapon doesn't make the hunter, the individual carrying the weapon makes the hunter. (and there's good and bad with all styles of weapon)


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

The point is I would not take a iffy shot with any weapon I shoot. I have shot "over" 50 deer in my life and the "longest" deer harvested was at 95 yards the rest were 50 yards or less. The vast majority of deer shot were under 40 yards, hell Ray Charles could have shot any of those deer. 

Have taken 6 deer with ML's. 2 with the sidelock and all were "less" than 30 yards. I would "not" even think about trying a shot at a deer that was over 75 yards with the sidelock even though I'm sure I could make the shot.

Its all about what hunting should be about. ML season should be about sidelocks and iron sights period. The ML season with in-lines is just shooting deer period with no respect to the true sport of muzzleloading.

And the entire arguement is not about what shot I would take or not take but the pure aspects of what the sport should be.............


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

what exactly are you trying to say? i don't follow your conclusion. you've shot deer mostly inside of 50 yards. you take ethical shots. and we should conclude that because of those reasons, we ought to use a sidelock with open sights?

does anyone else find this to be a coherent argument?

tell me, just for amusement, why did you arbitrarily pick the traditional sidelock as the zenith of muzzleloading? stated differently - what rationale did you use to determine that your firearm of choice should constitute the very definition of muzzleloading? any criteria at all, except "that's what wally wants"? if you'd read anything by Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, you know that he'd consider it bad form not to use optics when one could afford it. i like that better. when is it my turn to establish firearm requirements and criteria? 

here's what i see in simple terms..

mandatory traditional muzzleloaders = less terminal effectiveness = short shots = higher wounding rates = corrosive, volatile, ineffecient explosives 

of course, i suspect many traditionalists like this equation better:

mandatory traditional muzzleloaders = less hunter participation = less pressure on game = greater game sightings by traditionalists.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

It seems like everytime someone posts about this issue it turns personal. Its not about me but the sport. 

Yes I feel that ML season should be about round balls and iron sights. The same as bow hunters feel that crossbows should not be allowed in bow season. The same as flies only stretches of trout streams.

Why do traditional bow hunters want a stick bow season. To keep the sport pure.

Its not about me but the true aspect of the sport.............so keep it on the sport not WHY I feel the way I do.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

wally-eye said:


> Why do traditional bow hunters want a stick bow season. To keep the sport pure.
> 
> .



Pure??!! Now thats just funny. How does traditional weaponry equal Pure?? I"m not making this personal, but I'm guessing your T/C 54 is made with modern steel with modern tooling...tighter tolerances etc, etc. So how pure does it really make it? Or is better to just look the part? What's your definition of pure? Where do you draw the line? A purist in my eyes wouldn't be caught dead with TC's Bore Butter or patches and balls purchased in a bubble pack at the local mart-mart (the list could go on and on!). I'm sorry, but to think that someone can spend $400 on a nice caplock, use loose powder and roundballs and immediately think they are a purist is purely laughable. A joke really. I'm not saying for a minute this is you or others on here that I know, but you know the types I'm talking about, they exist! 


Michigan has never had a traditional season, they have always had a muzzleloader season though.

But, to assume that because someone uses an inline that they don't respect tradition is a very, very poor assumption made with little if anything factual to back that up. But then again, this argument against inlines is purely emotional because the facts on the issue are simply not enough to make the case.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Sure a lot more pure than stuffing in three 50 grain pellets then a sabotted bullet into your inline sporting a 3X9 scope and then shooting at a deer 200 yards away. Try that with your open sighted sidelock.

Keep rationalizing your side cus I'm through with this issue.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

wally-eye said:


> Sure a lot more pure than stuffing in three 50 grain pellets then a sabotted bullet into your inline sporting a 3X9 scope and then shooting at a deer 200 yards away. Try that with your open sighted sidelock.
> 
> Keep rationalizing your side cus I'm through with this issue.


I know guys that can do it, and can do it succesfully enough to harvest animals at that distance. They are pretty good at what they do. Unlike to many, they know not to judge a book by its cover....meaning just because the gun looks like a traditional gun, they understand it's true potential. And yes, they do it without scope, regular black powder and bullets they mold themselves. Try telling those guys they are not as effective as the guys shooting inlines and they'll just smile at you and nod, knowing full well the truth. 

wall-eye, I'm not critizing you personally, I respect you preference for that type of gear....I like it as well. I'm just arguing against the argument itself. I just feel that it's far more emotional than factual.


----------



## deerslayer#1 (Nov 8, 2004)

Its just like anyhting else........the industry has out performed what the law intended. Some states recognize it, some ignore it..


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> mandatory traditional muzzleloaders = less hunter participation = less pressure on game = greater game sightings by traditionalists.


Within the context of the original subject of this thread (Idaho muzzleloader hunts and weapons restrictions) the equation works out to:

restrictions on muzzleloader technology -> less game taken per hunter -> state issues larger number of tags = a larger number of people get to participate in the muzzleloader hunts.

Within the context of the michigan muzzleloader season, I haven't noticed anyone proposing legislation to add additional restrictions on what passes for a muzzleloader weapon here. I, for one, support all forms of helping new hunters get started in the hunting traditions (youth season, use of inlines during the muzzleloader season, etc). 

You asked earlier what, aside from history, was the attraction in the use of a flintlock rifle for hunting. For me, use of a flintlock is all about technique over technology. In order to be consistently successful with it you need to understand and maintain your firearm like never before. That holds a lot more of my interest than trying to buy consistent success, or convenience, in the form of technology. 

As side benefit, I have found that the other flintlock users you run into from time to time tend to be a lot more interesting characters than those who fall into the "209 primers, sabots and a couple of pellets" crowd.

-na


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

first of all, anyone that stuffs 150 grains and a sabot down the barrel without a lot of practice won't hit anything. try it. its not easy.

secondly, you made it personal by interjecting your opinion of what the sport should be! you're trying to define the sport!

being effective with a any gun at any range is possible. i'm sure swamp knows guys that can make a 200 yard shot with a patch and ball. that's neither here nor there imo. my only stake in this debate is that round balls do not kill as effectively as modern bullets. that is, place them side by side, of the same weight, fire them at the same velocity, and the modern bullet will fly further, flatter, and penetrate deeper. and by more than just a little. anyone that says otherwise is wrong. and that's why i won't hunt with them. of course, any bullet will kill, that's a given. and at short distances, round balls have no problem killing. but when it comes to killing, i stack the odds in my favor. and i WILL NOT distinguish myself as a traditionalist or a non-traditionalist by the shape of my bullet, or the location of my ignition!

really - if i take my omega, expose the primer to the elements, use black powder, and load a .500" ball, now I'm a traditionalist? PLEASE! i'm the same, just using a less efficient weapon!

the same principles are involved whether it be an inline or a sidelock. load from the front. prime. shoot. making an aspect of that process more efficient doesn't diminish the whole. your comparison to crossbows is irrelevant, because crossbows change the process (no draw and hold) while inlines don't change the process.

maybe i'm a quasi-traditionalist.. during general firearms season, i shoot smokeless powder out of my savage 10ml II muzzleloader!! GASP.. but, given that nitrocellulose powder was created over 100 years ago, i guess i'm closer to traditional than those hi-tech Triple Seven shooters - i mean, how long has 777 been around - 10 years tops? does that count for something??


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> You asked earlier what, aside from history, was the attraction in the use of a flintlock rifle for hunting. For me, use of a flintlock is all about technique over technology. In order to be consistently successful with it you need to understand and maintain your firearm like never before. That holds a lot more of my interest than trying to buy consistent success, or convenience, in the form of technology.
> 
> As side benefit, I have found that the other flintlock users you run into from time to time tend to be a lot more interesting characters than those who fall into the "209 primers, sabots and a couple of pellets" crowd.
> 
> -na


you apparently never shoot inlines. the same principles apply. i'm confident i spend as much time with my inlines as any flintlock user. the circle of friends that i maintain are fanatic about their muzzleloaders - far more than the "209 primer, sabots and a couple of pellets" crowd. i've got no more inclination for that crowd than you do. however, i've come to understand that people passionate about their firearms are always in the minority, regardless of the model.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> you apparently never shoot inlines. the same principles apply. i'm confident i spend as much time with my inlines as any flintlock user.


I don't shoot inlines as a matter of choice. Many of the people I hunt with do. I cast conicals for them and have shot their rifles in helping them find a load that works. They may be functional, but as far as I'm concerned they 'got no soul'.

Flintlocks is about more than an interest in firearms. It's about that *and* a willingness to work within the constraints of an older technology; an interest in exploring the techniques required to overcome those constraints.

Someday, sooner or later, you will end up in that frame of mind, too.

-na


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

yes, nick, and when i do want to pick up a "period" weapon with different constraints, it'll be in the form of a stick bow.

cause i know that stick bow will make the wound i'm looking for. course, i'm not the typical compound bowhunter either, shooting fixed 2 blade broadheads on rainbow-trajectory 550 grain arrows. but oh what an effect when it impacts..

no, not so with round balls. i've said before, and i'll say it again.. round balls cannot achieve the terminal effectiveness that i'm seeking. they kill, but not like i want to kill. big 2x bore diameter holes, all the way through a deer, no matter what angle its shot at. and it needs to be able to do that out to 150 yards. and it needs to be MOA or better. and NEVER EVER misfire.

you got your reasons, i've got mine. some of mine include the vast agricultural area that i hunt. opportunities are few and far between. i invest huge amounts of time in scouting, habitat, shooting, and hunting. i will not voluntarily introduce inefficiency.  the firearm industry corrected those problems a century ago. i'm content with the wisdom of our forefathers.

i voluntarily challenge myself all the time. i try to get close to animals. i try to learn new methods of hunting. but when i point a weapon at an animal, i want it deader-than-hell, as you so eloquently stated it.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

It's kinda funny when someone arbitrarily decides to change a law. So Idaho has decided to ban inline muzzleloaders, a design the predates the caplock by more than 100 years. OK, whatever. Who do you think will file the 1st lawsuit?


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Actually, Toby Bridges...a muzzleloader writer and "expert" has a group that has filed suit against the states that don't allow optics during their muzzleloading seasons. I guess they are claiming descrimination, age or something, but I know it has to do with eyesight and how optics are invaluable to those without ideal eyesight, ie older hunters. Not sure of the details or where it's at currently, but I know it is or was in the works recently. Will be an interesting case to watch as it really could cause some waves, some good, some not so good.


----------



## No Deer (Nov 24, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> Actually, Toby Bridges...a muzzleloader writer and "expert" has a group that has filed suit against the states that don't allow optics during their muzzleloading seasons. I guess they are claiming descrimination, age or something, but I know it has to do with eyesight and how optics are invaluable to those without ideal eyesight, ie older hunters. Not sure of the details or where it's at currently, but I know it is or was in the works recently. Will be an interesting case to watch as it really could cause some waves, some good, some not so good.


Actually he filed a complaint, not a lawsuit. Idaho was one of the states he targeted in his complaint. I have read it was taken into consideration when they were formulating their decision on what muzzleloader season was going to be.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I might have bad info then. I read that he had filed the complaint and was seeking a lawsuit but that could be incorrect as well. I should have used seeking instead of filed in the previous post. I tried to find the article I read last night but I don't remember which publication had it.


----------

