Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders My muzzle loader got a bulge in its barrel today?

Bullsh**.

What I said was, we use bore-sized conicals because of state law. Here it is verbatim:



In plain English. You want me to draw a picture?

Holy fuuk. Can you read? I just said that.....

I think you better go night night.......

Once again, nobody said state law requires the use of Powerbelt bullets.

Go to bed, you have lost it.....

I have only studied Oregon and Idaho regulations. I never seen a Colorado regulation book, or pamphlet.

I also hunt the Minnesota December muzzelseason. The no excuses work wonders in the cold climate there.

Too funny. If you want to understand the CO muzzleloader regs. and the rationale behind them, find a copy of the 2003 Hunting Guide published by the (then) DOW. There's an article in there that goes over all this stuff.

I wrote it.

No, you have. Or, show me where I said CO law requires use of Powerbelt bullets. That's twice you've claimed I said that.

I didn't.

But I don't want to though. You just won't shut up about them...

Pretty sure you were talking about PB bullets here when you cited state law as to why you used them. Or were you talking about different bore sized plated conicals with skirts that are under sized?

LMAO. You really have lost it.....

I didn't think so. FOS as a Christmas turkey was too kind.

"2muchgums"

Wrong. I was talking about bore-sized bullets, as the quote above shows in plain English.

You can look it up.

Still waiting. Where?

It makes sense that you wrote it and don't know what it says. Just like you wrote stuff here in this thread and don't know what it says either

I'm going to bed. I suggest you put the glue tube down. Later....

Yeah in plain english it states undersized plated bullets with skirts. Not PB huh? Ok what then?

You just can't make this $hit up. It is like someone hit the stupid button. Later....

Dipshcitt:

My post, the one where you claim I said state law requires use of powerbelts, was a point-by-point rebuttal of the ignorant post of yours quoted above.

You asked why anyone would want a bore-sized projectile.

I answered, and told you it was because of state law. Nowhere did I say state law requires powerbelts.

You also made a couple of ignorant claims about powerbelts.

I answered, one by one.

See how that works?

I can still draw you a picture. Not sure it would help though.

Dipshitt: I never said you were arguing about what the regs are. It's apparent that you have no clue what the regs are.

I said you were arguing about the regs, and you were. There are a couple of pages of you arguing about how stupid the regs are.

You going to deny that 2muchgums?

I can read and comprehend what was written just fine. It is you that suffers an obvious handicap. Once again contradicting yourself. May I suggest entering a program?

And if you wrote the regs and dont know what they are, well that would make perfect sense given the proof you have provided us here.

And the regs are stupid by the way. Which also makes sense now. But at no point did I argue what they were, and you still haven't shown me where, because you can't. Nor do I care what they are, or of your obvious obsession with them. Or for your going way out of your way at our expense just so you could tell us that you wrote them. Bravo. Congratulations. They suck.

You have a "special" day. Don't sniff any more glue.......

Are you sure about that? I don't think so.



LOL, I never said I wrote the regs, dumbass. I said I wrote an article about them:





I also said I've spoken to the DOW people who were involved in the development of the regs, that should have been a clue for you.

You can't read worth a schitt.

When you're flapping your gums at Mach2, it's hard to absorb information, isn't it?


One last thing. I didn't "go out of my way" to say anything about the state regs, you're the one who brought the subject up with your ignorant question about why anyone would choose to shoot a bore-sized bullet. All I did was tell you that state law required bore-sized bullets, whereupon you launched into a few pages of ignorant BS about how stupid the regs were.


I told you I wrote the article so you'd know that I have more than a passing interest in the subject and actually put in the work to interview the people who developed the regs., plus the state muzzleloading association, plus the NMLRA to get their take.

In other words, I'm informed on the subject, unlike you.

Once again, I didn't say you argued what they were, I said you argued about how stupid they were:























You're as stupid as dog schitt.