Scopes on MLers......again

[barebackjack]

Well, the topic of allowing the use of magnified scopes is rearing its ugly head again in my state. Talk is there will be a battle to get it through the legislation in 2008. Currently my state, ND, allows the use of 1X scope on muzzleloaders.

Im currently in an argument about it, and could use some input from the knowledgable members of this forum.

Gentlemen A wrote:
Because post-Lasik I can't see the rear sights clearly, I recently retired my Hawkens and bought a T/C Triumph on which I put a ND legal 1X scope.

Even though the sight picture is clear with the 1X scope, because the target appears much farther away than it actually is, the sight picture is nowhere near as good as it is with iron sights and the naked eye. The effect with a 1X scope is much like looking through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.

As those who use a 1X scope on their ML know, it actually reduces the effective range compared to iron sights. Having used 2.5X scopes on other firearms, IMO that power actually equates to what I can see with the naked eye out to 100 yards or so.

So I'm curious what the opinion of ND ML hunters is on the use of scopes of higher than 1X is, and if there would be support to ask NDGF to up it to say, 4X or 5X (common top ends for ML/shotgun scopes but considerably less than commonly found on deer rifles in ND)).

I'm not looking to start a big urinating contest, just want to see how the rest of the ND ML community feels. So being, guys who actually hunt ND with muzzle loaders, please...

Gentleman B wrote:
The modern inline does nothing but make the ignition more positive. If you like hang fires wet your powder a little. The point about projectiles is valid. They increase range because they increase velocity and have a higher ballistic coefficient which translates into flatter trajectory and more down range energy. It is the projectile, not the ignition system that makes todays muzzleloaders appear more affective.
In my opinion, if you load from the muzzle and not an open breach you have a muzzleloader. If you have iron sights or 1X scope your still in the same ballgame. I just wish 1X was really 1X and not less.

Gentleman A wrote:
Bet there are a lot of guys who pull out the old wheel lock or match lock come deer season... . What better way to add challenge to the hunt than that 1-3 second delay between firing and ingnition. Guess tracking wounded game adds to the experience too...

Wonder why they don't specify you guys must wear fringed buckskins and load from a horn (but no powder measure as that's too much of an advantage/modern)!

If there's no stand alone ML season, I can't imagine why there should be any restrictions on the type of ML and loads used with them. I bet you guys have some organization(s) lobbying against modern stuff.

I swear, I had no idea how screwy ML regs were across the country...

I wrote:
No.

The purpose of this season is to offer a challenge with a more primitive weapon, and modern in-lines (even with iron sights) are anything but primitive.

I have to argue what Plainsmen said about modern in-lines not being any more "sure-fire" than a flint or percussion gun. They are FAR more reliable. Everything is enclosed. You can practicaly dunk them in the water, and shoot them. The 209 "cap" isnt even exposed anymore.
Try a flintlock in even a light drizzle without proper precautions against moisture, and than tell me its just as reliable as an in-line. I say WAGH!

Why stop at scopes guys? Lets just wrap all that powder primer and bullet in brass, wouldnt that be neat?

It sucks that some of you have poor eyes, im sure I will be joining you in 10-20 years. But have you ever thought of moving the rear sight forward. Ive seen photos of original flints and percussion guns which have had the rear sight dovetails re-cut numerous times and moved farther down the barrel as the shooter aged.

For any that think traditional is ineffective, well, your country was formed with a flint and ball. 200+ years and still going strong.

Im firmly opposed to powered scopes, and would like to see the 1X go away in the MLer season, use it during rifle season if you want. I wouldnt mind in-lines going away, but realize this will never happen. I realize that in-lines are extremely popular and most of you use them, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

And from a eyesight standpoint, if you ever get a chance to check out the big MLer shoots in Friendship, youll see alot of 50+ year old gentlemen (most with corrective lenses) shooting EXTREMELY well with traditional iron sighted front stuffers.

Gentlemen A wrote: (In response to me)
Yeah, I'm sure it would work well putting that rear about 2" behind the front.

Thanks for that helpful suggestion..(with sarcastic smiley face)

I wrote:
NDTerminator. Your ignorance on this subject speaks volumes. I build muzzleloaders, and can tell you from experience, that moving a rear sight a mere 2-3 inches forward can often improve a persons sight picture ten fold. As per your comments about wheel-locks and matchlocks, spoken by a man who has no experience with any of these.
There are many myths and untruths about traditional muzzleloaders which I feel keep many from trying them. Ive had people just as NDTerminator who think flintlocks go off several seconds after you pull the trigger, not true, mine are as fast as my percussion guns, at least to where youll never notice a difference. Ive had people think their more dangerous, "dont those things blow up and just 'go off' without warning"?.. .......no more than your .270.

And im sorry, but after witnessing some AMAZING shooting with traditional muzzleloaders (even by centerfire standards) by alot of gentlemen with corrective lenses, I just have a hard time swallowing the "eyesight" argument. Maybe a little more time can be spent to find a "cure" for the problem, (ie, rangetime, playing with sight position, etc) instead of the easy way out using a scope, but thats what muzzleloading has become, an "easy way" out.
Which brings me back to my original statement,.....lets just wrap all that there powder, bullet, and primer in brass, thatd be real easy.

 

[barebackjack]

Sorry that was a bit long-winded, but this topic really gets my undies in a bunch.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Gentlemen A wrote:
Because post-Lasik I can't see the rear sights clearly,...

He has my sympathies, but that's life.

Someday, he might not be able to walk. Shall we tie a deer to tree so he can shoot it from his truck?

When I reach the point where I can't hunt with open sites, my muzzleloading hunting days are over. Too bad for me, but that's life.

 

[rabjr]

Someday, he might not be able to walk. Shall we tie a deer to tree so he can shoot it from his truck?

Absolutely not! I don't do that or ask to do that and neither should anyone else. :v

 

[barebackjack]

The problem is, I know this gentleman personaly. I believe he is using the eyesight issue as an excuse to make things easier. He uses the excuse of being able to humanly harvest an animal better with scopes as a guise for laziness and not wanting to put the time and effort into becoming a better shot considering his circumstance, or getting close to his targets. He is your "typical ND muzzleloader hunter".

 

[Claude Mathis]

The problem is, I know this gentleman personaly. I believe he is using the eyesight issue as an excuse to make things easier. He uses the excuse of being able to humanly harvest an animal better with scopes as a guise for laziness and not wanting to put the time and effort into becoming a better shot considering his circumstance, or getting close to his targets. He is your "typical ND muzzleloader hunter".

Tell him, just becasue he's a lousy fisherman, he still can't use dynamite. :haha:

 

[barebackjack]

And I quote....

"So traditional ML? How far back does one have to go to determine that? Recently I watched a piece on the History Channel. They had replicas of the first muzzle loaders. Hand held, straight tubes with a hole in the top to light with a oil soaked cord.

They then followed the progression of improvements until cartridges where introduced and this new invention made ML second choice for people in choosing a weapon.

So laite319 asked the question and I think it deserves a fair answer by those opposed to in-lines! Should we not go back to those first weapons to meet the so called traditional critera?

That has always been my issue with those who want to ban or limit in-lines. Do we only allow flash pans and not caps? Do we only allow round balls? How about no pelleted powder or speed loader setups? So just where do you want to draw the line on advancements? How about nothing earlier than 1700's in design? What is traditional really mean!"


How does one go about answering that question? I know how I want to answer, but that is my "narrow-minded" opinion.

 

[roundball]

The problem is, I know this gentleman personaly. I believe he is using the eyesight issue as an excuse to make things easier. He uses the excuse of being able to humanly harvest an animal better with scopes as a guise for laziness and not wanting to put the time and effort into becoming a better shot considering his circumstance, or getting close to his targets. He is your "typical ND muzzleloader hunter".

Sounds like a close cousin to the "writer" we know who tried to bring civil rights lawsuits against the states to force them to allow scopes in ML seasons... :shake:

 

[chuck-ia]

My oppinion for muzzleloader season, patched round ball. flinch

 

[tg]

"How does one go about answering that question?"

I have found that the simplest answere is to state that traditional ML's and gear are typicaly of the type in use before the developement of the cartridge gun, there were ML's used after that and were in use and still are in some areas as an only type of gun, but for ML hunting and recreation the guide line is usually some time befor the end of the civil war and the guns and components need to be similar if form and function to the originals a Minnie ball does not = a Ballet a primitive adjustable sight does not = a modern version, a scoped fro the civil war does not = a modern one and a re-tooled mdl 700 does not = an original Lancaster rifle it is quite simple unless someone is hard bent on useing modern tech as an edge in the hunting end of the sport via definitions that are unfortunately very broad, if none of this sinks in and lights up the bulb then the simple fact of the matter is is if one has to ask the question then they will never understand the answeres.the whole point is a step back in technology, not to take an old concept and add modern technology to it.

 

[James Rorar]

In my opinion I think we hit this subject from the wrong angle. Instead of trying to ban equipment from current ML seasons, I think we should be asking for new or additional primative ML seasons. By this I mean round ball, side lock, loose powder, no scope season. Tradional guys would be better off because they would have more ML days to hunt. Those who have eye problems could still hunt during the non-tradional ML season. We would not alinate the modern ML guys because we would not be trying to take something away from them. The state would benifit because more deer may be taken (here in Ohio we add extra days to shotgun so more deer are harvested). Manufactures would benifit because a whole new market for traditional guns would open up, and they could get behind the idea without hurting their modern ML image/or sales. Most of my friends who hunt with modern ML would go out and buy a traditonal ML if such a season was put in place just to get exta hunting days.
Just my thoughts on the subject
James

 

[Jumpshot]

We would not alinate the modern ML guys because we would not be trying to take something away from them.

Not to sound like I'm taking a jab at you, Jim, just an observation... but I think that perception is part of the problem. I don't think the traditionalists are trying to take anything away from the modern ML guys. It's the other way around. It's the modern ML guys that have taken something away from the traditionalists.

 

[James Rorar]

No jab felt. In my state it is now legal to use scopes and modern ML. A change in the law taking away such equipment here would not be looked at as a positive move. However if we were to add a new traditional season, most every hunter I know would be very excited. I would think that a whole new group of traditional ML would be created. Maybe some who have never been exposed to our side of ML would get the bug.

 

[Jumpshot]

A change in the law taking away such equipment here would not be looked at as a positive move.

Yeah, I understand. But that's exactly my point. They wouldn't see it as a positive move, but it would be correcting a previous negative one that allowed such equipment in the first place.

An additional season might be good if they could manage it. I just don't see why the traditionalists should be further accomodated when they were already accomodated decades ago. Some other people came along years later, started circumventing the rules by using new technology, and now feel they're being discriminated against when the traditionalists object to it and the F&G department limits what they can use. Everything about this is ass-backwards.

Make a new season for the traditionalists who were already hunting their own season in the first place? How about if we leave those guys alone and accomodate the new guys and their new technology by creating a separate season for them?

Does that sound like I'm splitting hairs and being nit-picky? You could look at it that way. But let's remember who was in the woods first, already hunting their own season, and who came along later with new technology to take advantage of that season. The way I see it, it's not the traditionalists that need to be moved to another season.

Like I said before, it's not the traditionalists who are taking something away from the modern ML guys. They just want back what was taken from them. The modern ML guys are the ones that need to be accomodated if they want their own season. Until then, they should be in the general firearm season.

I've debated this point with countless people (on forums and in person) to no avail. I guess I'm the only one that sees it...

 

[Jumpshot]

By the way... I'm not arguing with you, Jim, just making a point.

 

[tg]

". I guess I'm the only one that sees it...'

I suspect the majority og hunters see it but few of the modern ML hunters will acknowledge it..it is not common for one to admit that the equipment they use to hunt with was developed and allowed via loopholes and a lacking of the proper definition in the beginning.

 

[James Rorar]

Jumpshot I dont feel that you are arguing with me. I have enjoyed learning from this forum and its many points of view. Creating a new ML season for the modern guys and keeping the current ML season for traditional ML hunters would also (in my opinion) work. I made the switch to sidelock after having been exposed to it. I admit that my one GM barrel for my renegade does wear a long eye relief scope on it for when I hunt the edge of my field. Those shots are longer, and I use this gun during shot gun season. During ML season I use my RB barrel with open sights and keep my shot distance appropriate to my ability with the open sites (bad eyes),and the round ball. Once I was exposed to the more traditionl hunting, and learned how to use the equipment (mostly from advice on this forum) I was a convert. Having a traditional ML only season (be it the current, or newly created one) would lead to more at least part-time traditionl hunters. This in my opinion could only be good.

 

[barebackjack]

I recently posted a poll on another forum site, on the support of a traditional only MLer season. The results are less than in favor, roughly 60% oppose it.

The problem being, there will have to be a re-allocation of tags (buck) of which there is a limited number each year. These will have to come from the regular gun season, and the already existant MLer season. This fact is NOT popular.

The excuse of "I just want to be in the woods" is heard alot, but is untrue, if it were true, theyd be out there killing does but they want another buck.
The excuse of "dont you think we owe it to the animal to use the best equipment to ensure a human harvest".....from people who have little hunting experience, plain lazy, or have no experience with traditional muzzleloaders.

I agree 100%, THEY (the modern guys) hijacked these seasons from the traditional guys. I spoke of this to a gentlemen who countered with the fact that in-lines were first designed in the 1830's and "hardly new technology". But the fact remains, those 1830 vintage in-lines, are a FAR cry from the modern weatherproof/scoped inlines with sabot and pellet of today.

Im all for "to each his own" and doing your own thing while I do mine, if you want or like inlines, fine, and im all for sportsmen and shooters sticking together in these times, but I take offense and get defensive on this topic as it was THEM that took OUR season, and when some modern shooter calls me a whiney, "elitist".

Although, given the root of elite, I should maybe take that as a compliment. :grin:

What I really asked for, was for someone to define why our MLer season exists. Does it exist to offer a chance to go into a more quiet woods outside of regular season with a more primitive weapon? Or does it just exist? If the former is true, than scopes should not be allowed. If the latter is true, we might as well open the floodgates and rename the season "the late trophy season" as thats what it has become. Its a joke.

IMHO opinion, ive squared with the fact that inlines are here to stay, like it or not. And IMO, a inline WITH IRON SIGHTS, really only takes the reliability aspect out of MLing, especially in inclement weather. And lets face it, most guys with iron sights keep shots under 100 yards regardless of wether its a traditional or inline. BUT, you put a scope on it, and you are making a big jump, adding 100+ yards of range. The limiting factor of a modern inline with a modern load is the sight. And they are mad that they have the balistics to do the job at 200 yards, just not the sight capabilities, and now they want those.

Im willing to compromise, keep your inlines, your sabots, your pellets, your 209 primers, but no scopes. And no electronic firing mechanisms or smokeless powders.

 

[Jumpshot]

The electronic CVA rifle was recently banned in the Florida ML season...
[url] http://www.tbo.com/sports/MGBC2CRAB7F.html[/url]
[url] http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/news/2007/10/discussion-to-3.html[/url]

 

[Snakebite]

The effect with a 1X scope is much like looking through the wrong end of a pair of binoculars.

Sounds to me like he needs to turn the scope around! I've never looked thru a 1x scope, but that just doesn't sound right. What would the point be of using one. I know there's no magnification with a 1x, but I wouldn't think you'd get the sensation of looking the wrong way in a pair of binos. Could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time.