Pushing For More Reasonable Hunting Regulations?

[Wildrangeringreen]

Here in Pennsylvania, the problem is that the rule makers don't know crap about the evolution of firearms, especially about muzzle loaders and neither do their advisors. They pass some ridiculous rules that make no sense and often ignore their own laws and regulations when advising the public. We have 2 special regulation (suburban) areas where rifles are illegal for deer. Yet some rifles are permitted as long as the bores are measured in shot gun gauge sizes, or the muzzle loaders. Muzzle loading rifles and smoothbores are legal for deer in these areas, but not muzzle loading pistols, even smooth bores. (Some folks have argued that a smooth bore flintlock pistol is a shotgun and the game commission still won't allow it, but has issued an advisory that when a 45 revolver is loaded with 410 shells it is a shotgun for purposes of the regulations.) The regulations for years clearly limited ignition of muzzle loaders to flint, percussion of primers. No wheel locks or match locks were permitted for deer. (Kit Ravenshear wrote articles about bagging PA whitetail with a matchlock, back when it was legal for "any muzzle loader" in the 1960's and early 1970's) About 1984, they rewrote the law and screwed things up royally. Then the Game Commission in it's ignorance really fouled things up. They passed a rule requiring open sights, yet in the booklet passed out with licenses, advised that any muzzle loader over 45 caliber was legal for deer and could have peep sights, but no scopes. Eventually the passed a regulation with great fan fare sayi8ng they were going to allow peep sights and they changed the "open sights" language. Three years later, they amended it back to requiring "open sights" but the advisory booklet said peep sights were legal. Muzzle loader for deer are also limited to 44 caliber and up and single barrel with single projectile ammunition. Then came the debate on whether a saboted 40 caliber pistol bullet fired out of a 45 caliber muzzle loader was legal. Muzzle loader Pistols must for deer must be 50 caliber and up, single barrel. Cap and Ball revolvers were legal for deer up to 1984 in the egular firearms season. The new rules said only muzzle loaders, shotguns and centerfire arms for deer. Previously, certain rim fire cartridges over 25 caliber were legal for deer. (a 41 Swiss Rim Fire about equals the ballistics of a 30-30) But a cap and ball revolver is not a shotgun or muzzle loader. It could only be used for deer if a centerfire. So for the years that I hunted with a cap and ball revolver, I carried a Remington cap tin that clearly indicated the No 11 percussion caps were "Center Fire" I was checked once by a Deputy Game Officer and he never questioned what kind of pistol it was. The Irony, is that in PA, ANY centerfire manually operated pistol or rifle is legal for deer. Even the 2 MM Kolibri cartridge with it's lowly 7 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

Some states limit firearms by ft/ibs energy. I heard that some go by minimum caliber (VA) I have heard of proposals to limit cartridges by case volume. Apparently an attempt to save such high power cartridges as the 220 Swift from the same fate as the 22 Hornet. Some have certain barrel lengths for muzzle loaders. At one time PA had a muzzle loader minimum 44 caliber propelled by at least 40 grains of powder and muzzle loaders for the special flint season had to be originals or replicas of pre 1800 firearms. But along came Thomson Center and others with their short barreled half stocks and the Commission dropped the pre1800 requirement like a hot rock. It also took a visit from Doc White to get in-lines approved for deer here. . However much I criticize my states Game Commission, we do have a three week flintlock only season starting the day after Christmas. for which I am truly grateful.

yah, it's kind of a mess lol, I do like the idea of PA's extra Flintlock season!

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

Actually while energy is computed in footlbs. the behavior of the lead round ball upon impact is quite different, as is its effect, than the modern projectile. While the ballistic coefficient is poor on a sphere, it's the action at impact that = the harvesting of the game.


LD

ok my guy, because a ball is the best projectile ever (some would even say it's magical/mythical), that's why it was replaced by bullets.... to make guns less lethal lol. like I said before... the illusions of performing arcane magic.

 

[ML48]

would you say something like what has been done in Africa and what was largely done in 16-1700's Germanic States would be a better option? What I mean is Private land owners in an area (like county by county) going together to decide the matter of hunting/conservation on their collective land, and hiring wardens to take care of it, and the state making it's own rules for the land it controls (state parks and such)? That's an interesting idea!

Wow....I hurt a politicians feelings..........KISS has always been a good idea.....not 3000 volumes of regulations....get it?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

ok my guy, because a ball is the best projectile ever (some would even say it's magical/mythical), that's why it was replaced by bullets.... to make guns less lethal lol.

No not at all, but nice try at reductio ad absurdum

Otherwise, if I'm wrong and you're right, then you MUST argue that we should all be using a modern projectile in a sabot from our traditional rifles, because those projectiles replaced the lead round ball...,

My argument is that you, like a great many of the uninformed, are arguing to apply modern thresholds and standards to the performance of traditional muzzleloaders, even after tacitly admitting that the bullets are different, as per your previous writing, but yet you seem to be under the misapprehension that while the projectiles are quite different in flight and impact, you can set an overall standard. THAT's the objection.

LD

 

[ML48]

ok my guy, because a ball is the best projectile ever (some would even say it's magical/mythical), that's why it was replaced by bullets.... to make guns less lethal lol. like I said before... the illusions of performing arcane magic.

And now we have to bring in a rocket scientist to tell us the difference between a round ball and an oval ball....is that like trying to figure out the difference between football and basketball

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

Wow....I hurt a politicians feelings..........KISS has always been a good idea.....not 3000 volumes of regulations....get it?

Oh I tend to agree, there is a segment of the population that prides itself in putting it's nose places it don't belong. IDK if you know of TX regs, but they seem pretty fair, the land owners control the hutning on their land, and the state controls hunting on theirs.

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

No not at all, but nice try at reductio ad absurdum

Otherwise, if I'm wrong and you're right, then you MUST argue that we should all be using a modern projectile in a sabot from our traditional rifles, because those projectiles replaced the lead round ball...,

My argument is that you, like a great many of the uninformed, are arguing to apply modern thresholds and standards to the performance of traditional muzzleloaders, even after tacitly admitting that the bullets are different, as per your previous writing, but yet you seem to be under the misapprehension that while the projectiles are quite different in flight and impact, you can set an overall standard. THAT's the objection.

LD

what is the difference between a .45 muzzle loader with a 400gr bullet and 70 grain of powder... and a rifle that loads from the back and uses the same components? I have no problem with using a round ball, I have a couple rifles that do (a .50 traditions flinter my parents gave me when I was 15, and a .62 that I built about 6-7 years ago). I can appreciate that they can get it done, within their limitations, but trying to claim they are magically different from any other guns is absurd. Pretending that everyone is using a ball in their rifle is just as absurd, considering how well bullet makers and mold makers are doing.

 

[ML48]

(any mentions of fixed ammo are just for comparison and frame of reference, so don't gig me for that)
Let's face it, the United States is a mess when it comes to regulation. That is no more apparent than when one looks into the hunting regulations of the various states. Most are highly restrictive on what they allow, yet often the regulations are very convoluted and/or contradictory. An Example of this would be my home state of Ohio, which for decades allowed .45-70 "pistols"... complete with bipod, scope, and 16" Barrel... yet no "rifles" were allowed lol (they do now, but only straight walled cartridges). Another, and more pertinent to this forum, is the requirement of Ohio and many other states to have a ML rifle that is ".38"(ohio), .40, or .45 as the minimum for common deer species. Most of these states also allow people to hunt with .380ACP pistols, or many don't even have a minimum for fixed ammo.

Hunting, like many other things in this land, have been turned into a "game" of sorts, where "players" have to tiptoe around rules (money helps) in order to get what they want, rather than just being pragmatic. Hunting isn't a game, it's stalking and killing living things, and shouldn't be treated as such.

As I build Trad-styled bullet rifles, I look into the regs for various states, out of curiosity if nothing else. I've noticed that most states have regs like this, and they all revolve around "bore size", rather than the capabilities of the arm/loading. Many places (Hungary and Austria, and Germany particularly) have rifle hunting regulations (including ML's in BP seasons) based around a minimum Projectile weight and energy for each game species. As long as your rifle meets that, you're good. That allows people to hunt with what they have, rather than forcing them to buy something special, that doesn't do anything what they already have won't do. This is especially important for ML's as they can be loaded up in wildly different ways. A .32 loaded with a ball and 7gr of powder is not remotely the same as if loaded up with a 225gr bullet and 80gr of powder (the max i recommend in MY .32's), yet they are the same caliber, they can even be the same rifle! Likewise, a 278gr .36 with 85gr charge is not even in the same ballpark as a 180gr .490 round ball. There is a reason bullet rifles were as popular as they were 1820-1880, especially amongst hunters and target shooters.

Then there is the issue of corruption... not the blatant, Grant Administration type, but the subtle influx of cash and merchandise that flows into the halls of power from large companies to politicians and bureaucrats that are supposed to regulate hunting for the benefit of future generations and the animals/habitats themselves. In my lifetime, I have seen most states go from being adamant that the only ML worthy of being hunted with was a .50 (or .48 in some states back in the early 2000's) (not coincidently, the only caliber (other than a few .54's) offered by most large companies); to when TC and Traditions, CVA, ect wanted to release .45's, lowering the minimum to .44, to now that many of these companies are releasing .40's, lowering it to .38. Just this year, there are rumors of Knight and CVA "pushing the envelope" on small bore Muzzle Loading (it's already been done, so it's not revolutionary), and guess what: Georgia magically decided to lower their minimum Caliber for ML's to .30. The Press release for the passing of the bill was adorned in CVA merchandise around the representative's office. Oregon banned bullets for ML's (in ML season) that exceeded 2 calibers in length, which were often used traditionally in bullet-rifles (especially 1850's onward) (this helps powerbelt and other "premium" ML bullet makers, and drives sales of alternative powders for increased velocity).Some would say the relationship between regulations and what's available is a chicken and the egg situation, with the regulations dictating what is on the market; and while that is true to an extent, what I have seen in my lifetime has shown that the actors in the market have undue influence, through gun/hunting rag writers and Marketing/lobbying, on the regulatory process.

Most of the regulations on the books do very little to protect the animals from fools, (the guy hunting deer in Ohio with a .380 pistol doesn't even have to prove he is competent, at least in most European countries, you have to prove competency) and they don't make hunting more accessible to prospective hunters, as they require special equipment that many people aren't interested in for any reason other than to go out and hunt. I am proposing that we hunters need to start pushing for more responsible, pragmatic regulations in hunting. Ones that are not based on a knee-jerk reaction of a bureaucrat or politician, but on some logic and science. The goal of this tread is to provide the community with a place to discuss reasonable equipment regulations. Since I Posted it, I'll go first, I don't have first hand hunting knwolege of every animal in NA, but I have been around Ohio game a lot and have limited experience with Elk hunting (I think they're the most beautiful animals in NA), those more attuned to the intricacies of those beautiful animals, please come forward. I've seen most game animals in NA in the wild, but have no experience hunting them, so I can only make assumptions and supply rough ideas of what would work. Many of these are put together from my own experience and from gleaning through forums like this to find what people are using. I am using Ft/lbs at the muzzle, because simple $80 chronographs are more affordable to normal people, and more likely to be accepted for use by the states (I know different projectiles act differently at range, and energy isn't everything, but that just means your range changes based on what your shooting).

My suggested minimums for single projectile weapons (medium-large game, I think we can agree .22RF and .32/.36 RB rifles can handle small game) (keep in mind these would be the minimums, so the fools that have no sense can get a clue, and the state can punish those too dense to follow reasonable guidelines):

Common Deer (Blacktail, Whitetail, Mule)- 90gr minimum projectile, minimum of 550ft/lbs at the muzzle (.357 mag energy) (.390 round ball (.40 ML rifle), loaded to 1700fps)
Feral Hog- 130gr minimum projectile, minimum 500ft/lbs at the muzzle (.357 mag) (.440 RB (.45 rifle) loaded to 1500fps)
Elk- 175gr minimum projectile, minimum 870ft/lbs (.44 Mag) (.490 RB (.50 rifle) loaded to 1500fps)
Black Bear- 175gr minimum projectile, minimum 870ft/lbs (.44 Mag) (.490 RB (.50 rifle) loaded to 1500fps) (I wouldn't do it, but we're talking reasonable minimums here)
Brown Bear/Grizzly- 175gr Min projectile, min 1482ft/lbs (buff bore .44 mag +P) (.490 RB (.50 rifle) loaded to 2000fps)
Moose- 175gr Min projectile, min 1482ft/lbs (buff bore .44 mag +P) (.490 RB (.50 rifle) loaded to 2000fps)
American Bison- 220 gr projectile, 1623ft/lbs (Buff Bore .454 Cas) (.530 RB (.54 rifle), loaded to 1875fps)
Wolf- 90gr minimum projectile, minimum of 550ft/lbs at the muzzle (.357 mag energy) (.390 round ball (.40 ML rifle), loaded to 1700fps)
Puma- 175gr minimum projectile, minimum 870ft/lbs (.44 Mag) (.490 RB (.50 rifle) loaded to 1500fps)
Bobcat-60gr Minimum Projectile weight, minimum of 250 ft/lbs (.38spl) (.350 RB (.36 rifle) loaded to 1400 fps)
Coyote- 60gr Minimum Projectile weight, minimum of 250 ft/lbs (.38spl) (.350 RB (.36 rifle) loaded to 1400 fps)
Javelina- 90gr minimum projectile, minimum of 550ft/lbs at the muzzle (.357 mag energy) (.390 round ball (.40 ML rifle), loaded to 1700fps)

What do y'all think? please post you're ideas, and reasoning for them.

So, what you're saying, is that everyone needs to buy a chronograph and make sure their projectile meets this criteria.
Or do we all need to use the exact same powder to meet this criteria, as different powders create different velocity?

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

So, what you're saying, is that everyone needs to buy a chronograph and make sure their projectile meets this criteria.
Or do we all need to use the exact same powder to meet this criteria, as different powders create different velocity?

You probably could get away without, there's enough published data to give you a good idea of what you're running (it wouldn't be 100%, but as long as you aren't trying to be at the minimum of minimums, should be ok). It would be nice to have though, just to know for sure what your load/rifle is doing.

 

[ML48]

Yah, bud, chronographed, 110gr of powder sends a 172 gr ball zippin lol, and a .50 ball of pure lead weighs about 188gr (load without patch). Well, I think I'd like to take out my .32 rifle and smoke deer, since the .36 (.38 g-g) does so well. DNR in OH go on private land all the time, even if they don't/can't actually see anything, just to "make sure". Until they confirm there isn't an offense being committed, they can be there, as most hunting land isn't part of the curtilage (that's not just an OH thing).

Energy is computed the same way, it doesn't matter what the projectile shape is, or what the propellant is. Softer alloys deform more, harder ones less, that isn't news; and not everyone shooting a ML is using pure lead, just like modern cartridges don't always use pure lead. If you make a bullet that is 1 caliber long... guess what.... it performs the same way as a ball lol (albeit it is slightly heavier)... they suck compared to bullets for penetration and energy at any appreciable distance (especially considering their weight).

My .36 shoots a 278gr bullet to an average of 1728fps with a 90gr charge of 4F, it's a 32" barrel. The issue is that bore size does not equal performance (unless we're talking about round ball ammo, which most ML'ers out there aren't using); and if a guy can use a .380 auto to hunt deer (or a .32s&W in OK lol), then I should be able to take my .32 rifle (that has been chrony'd at 1800fps with a 200gr bullet and 80gr charge) out lol. The issue is that we are forced to use comically OP stuff, while everyone else gets to use what they want, more or less.

Holy crap, I sure am glad ya'll told me all of that....now I can be a scientist

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

Holy crap, I sure am glad ya'll told me all of that....now I can be a scientist

I knew I liked you lol, you have a sense of humor haha

 

[Loyalist Dave]

what is the difference between a .45 muzzle loader with a 400gr bullet and 70 grain of powder... and a rifle that loads from the back and uses the same components? I have no problem with using a round ball, I have a couple rifles that do (a .50 traditions flinter my parents gave me when I was 15, and a .62 that I built about 6-7 years ago). I can appreciate that they can get it done, within their limitations, but trying to claim they are magically different from any other guns is absurd. Pretending that everyone is using a ball in their rifle is just as absurd, considering how well bullet makers and mold makers are doing.

So you're the one using "magically". Again, what the round ball will do has been tested. Testing and research ended as the conical bullet and fixed ammunition came about. The results of what was found are backed up by the experience of traditional shooters who use the round ball. More than 150 years and so far they work today just as they did in the past.

There may be little to no difference, other than the fixed ammo will generate more velocity than the muzzleloader in your above scenario.
But as YOU pointed out, not everybody uses the same bullet.

Here's some empirical data:

For the .40 with a round ball to humanely harvest deer out to 100 yards, you need only 640 ft.lbs. That's a 90 grain projectile at about 1800 fps.
For the .50 with a round ball to humanely harvest deer out to 100 yards, you need only 875 ft.lbs. That's a 175 grain round ball at 1500 fps..., to coin-a phrase, Ya Bud..., I've seen it go through the deer, broadside, every time at 100 yards with such a load.
For the .54 with a round ball to humanely harvest a deer out to 100 yards, you need only about 840 ft.lbs. That's a 224 grain round ball at 1300 fps, and that too will go through a deer, broadside at 110 yards, also every time.
Granted, my sample is small one from over the last two decades...,

So I maintain, that your arbitrary standards, are simply way too high. The data that I've seen doesn't support it.

You are free to launch your .490 round balls at 2000 fps, for a whopping 1500+ ft.lbs. of energy, but I will object to your advocating that I or anyone else do the same.

Strange, too..., there was a fellow in the past, who advocated the same thing, very high "energy", but not to simplify hunting regulations..., his agenda was to eliminate the traditional round ball hunters....

LD

 

[ML48]

I knew I liked you lol, you have a sense of humor haha

Well you should like me. I'm a very likable guy

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

So you're the one using "magically". Again, what the round ball will do has been tested. Testing and research ended as the conical bullet and fixed ammunition came about. The results of what was found are backed up by the experience of traditional shooters who use the round ball. More than 150 years and so far they work today just as they did in the past.

There may be little to no difference, other than the fixed ammo will generate more velocity than the muzzleloader in your above scenario.
But as YOU pointed out, not everybody uses the same bullet.

Here's some empirical data:

For the .40 with a round ball to humanely harvest deer out to 100 yards, you need only 640 ft.lbs. That's a 90 grain projectile at about 1800 fps.
For the .50 with a round ball to humanely harvest deer out to 100 yards, you need only 875 ft.lbs. That's a 175 grain round ball at 1500 fps..., to coin-a phrase, Ya Bud, I've seen it go through the deer, broadside, every time at 100 yards with such a load.
For the .54 with a round ball to humanely harvest a deer out to 100 yards, you need only about 840 ft.lbs. That's a 224 grain round ball at 1300 fps, and that too will go through a deer, broadside at 110 yards, also every time.
Granted, my sample is small one from over the last two decades...,

So I maintain, that your arbitrary standards, are simply way too high. The data that I've seen doesn't support it.

You are free to launch your .490 round balls at 2000 fps, for a whopping 1500+ ft.lbs. of energy, but I will object to your advocating that I or anyone else do the same.

Strange, too..., there was a fellow in the past, who advocated the same thing, but not to simplify hunting regulations..., his agenda was to eliminate the traditional round ball hunters....

LD

simple solution is to go up in ball size if you don't like to shoot a .50 that fast lol. My experience, from taking deer with a 9x19 pistol, is you need less than 400 ft.lbs at the animal to kill it quick, but I've found when I suggest that, that it unnerves some people. Wait... I just reread your piece... I think you are agreeing with me, actually. I think you need to re-read my original statement, because I said you should only need 550ft/lbs AT THE ANIMAL to take deer (bow+pistol range isn't that far, and even a ball wont slow down that much in that time) (and that's comfortably, like I said, you can get away with less, how much that is is up for debate, I certainly am not saying those numbers are perfect). The whole thing is about changing regs to logical minimums that don't revolve around bore size, so that people aren't arbitrarily impeded, and yet the animals are taken efficiently (as in, we minimize how many go for days before dying).

 

[ML48]

simple solution is to go up in ball size if you don't like to shoot a .50 that fast lol. My experience, from taking deer with a 9x19 pistol, is you need less than 400 ft.lbs at the animal to kill it quick, but I've found when I suggest that, that it unnerves some people. Wait... I just reread your piece... I think you are agreeing with me, actually. I think you need to re-read my original statement, because I said you should only need 550ft/lbs AT THE ANIMAL to take deer (bow+pistol range isn't that far, and even a ball wont slow down that much in that time) (and that's comfortably, like I said, you can get away with less, how much that is is up for debate, I certainly am not saying those numbers are perfect). The whole thing is about changing regs to logical minimums that don't revolve around bore size, so that people aren't arbitrarily impeded, and yet the animals are taken efficiently (as in, we minimize how many go for days before dying).

Colorado several years ago uped cal. size to take elk from .50 cal. to .54 cal.
This is what I was talking about. Some ***** from Comiefornia running things at CPW. I've been taking elk and deer with a .50 cal. PRB for years and never had one go more than 20 yds and drop....most dropped where they were.
Again someone that doesn't know his a$$hole from his elbow, regulating hunting!

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

Colorado several years ago uped cal. size to take elk from .50 cal. to .54 cal.
This is what I was talking about. Some ***** from Comiefornia running things at CPW. I've been taking elk and deer with a .50 cal. PRB for years and never had one go more than 20 yds and drop....most dropped where they were.
Again someone that doesn't know his a$$hole from his elbow, regulating hunting!

It's a classic symptom of anti-hunters and/or fools trying to run hunting regulation, combined with the 1950's-present trend to "magnum-ize" everything. a .50 RB can/has been used to take most NA game, it's like the .30-30 and .30-40 and .303... way before those cartridges were even dreamt of lol. While I wouldn't feel good about it for bison, that's askin' a bit much, but a .54 can/did do it well enough. It's amazing though, animals don't go far with a good shot vs a bad shot with a uber-magnum.

 

[ML48]

It's a classic symptom of anti-hunters and/or fools trying to run hunting regulation, combined with the 1950's-present trend to "magnum-ize" everything. a .50 RB can/has been used to take most NA game, it's like the .30-30 and .30-40 and .303... way before those cartridges were even dreamt of lol. While I wouldn't feel good about it for bison, that's askin' a bit much, but a .54 can/did do it well enough. It's amazing though, animals don't go far with a good shot vs a bad shot with a uber-magnum.

I'll have to agree with you. If the person pulling the trigger isn't worth a damned, a 105 recoilless rifle wouldn't do the job.
The 45-70 is a damned good Bison rifle....I'd be hard pressed to use a .50 RB. Maybe a .50 with 348gr powerbelt, well placed.

 

[Sc0-]

Colorado several years ago uped cal. size to take elk from .50 cal. to .54 cal.
This is what I was talking about. Some ***** from Comiefornia running things at CPW. I've been taking elk and deer with a .50 cal. PRB for years and never had one go more than 20 yds and drop....most dropped where they were.
Again someone that doesn't know his a$$hole from his elbow, regulating hunting!

Or the person who comes up with these regulations runs or has a buddy who is a Guide and are trying to remove extra competition... Considering that .22lr is enough to kill a Deer but nobody uses one legally due to laws and regulations. Texas removed the caliber restriction for game animals years back so .218 Bee or .17 Hornet can be used but no rimfire rounds. (I heard of people losing game animals with .30-06 and 7mm mag hits before.) No muzzleloader restrictions but cap/ball revolvers aren't considered muzzle loaders . They do allow airgun hunting for game animals, .30+ caliber and minimum 215fpe requirement.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

So, what you're saying, is that everyone needs to buy a chronograph and make sure their projectile meets this criteria.
Or do we all need to use the exact same powder to meet this criteria, as different powders create different velocity?

There are various methods by which Game authorities are trying to make sure that the ballistics of deer hunting arms are sufficient to humanely kill. Each method proposed has problems.
1. ft/lbs of energy
2. minimum caliber
3 minimum cartridge volume
4. minimum charge
5. Minimum projectile weight
6. some combination of these.

PA originally had no minimum caliber or power requirements. It did not take long however for PA to prohibit weaker rim fire cartridges for deer by requiring rim fire to be over 25 caliber. Then for muzzle loader PA required a minimum 44 caliber round ball with 40 grains of powder. But any manually operated centerfire rifle or pistol is legal for deer, no matter how small. A move to require 24 caliber or higher for deer was just turned down here because of hunter uproar over it. There are numbers of hunters here who, very successfully, use a 22 Hornet for almost everything. Further such a move would have made the huge and still very powerful 220 swift illegal for deer.

PA specifically prohibits rim fire rifle and pistols for deer. My Wesson Rifle in 38 Extra long Ballard cartridge was both rim fire and centerfire because that cartridge was available in both. So was my rifle illegal because it was rimfire? or was it legal when loaded with a centerfire cartridge? And the guys who reloaded giant Spencer rim fire cartridges are just as SOL.

There were a few early muzzle loaders that had a rim fir cap ignition. IS the muzzle loader illegal as a rim fire. Or is such rim fire ignition the same as percussion?

When PA said only shotguns, muzzle loaders or centerfire for deer, what of the 1853 Sharps, or the Ferguson flintlock? Not muzzle loaders and not shotguns and not centerfire. They were relegated to the safe by ill considered regulations. (Pa has since corrected this by classifying these as muzzle loaders.)

 

[Jay Templin]

Here in Virginia, our latest crop of laws includes one that redefined the definition of “muzzleloading firearm.” Now, according to the intellectual giants in Richmond, if you load the propellant from the breech but the projectile from the muzzle, it’s still a “muzzleloader.” I have half a mind to take one of my all-brass 20 gauge shells, load it blank, and push a patched .60 down on top of it in my break-action unmentionable.
Jay