I believe I read somewhere a while back that some states do not allow muzzleloaders that use smokeless powder. Can anyone tell me if smokeless is OK to use during the muzzleloader season in:
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona. Thanks.

You need to check the State F&W regulations for each season. Most or all will have the regs up on a website somewhere.

That stuff changes so much due to politics or whatever, you almost have to check the day before you leave on trip. Some states do NOT allow smokeless, while the rifle is still legal if using BP for propellant, and some states do not (or used too) allow BP substitutes. All states can be different from other states as to sight, projectiles, caliber, etc.

Not sure about the states you mentioned. I think most smokeless powder muzzleloaders will also function fine with black powder, so not sure if the "guns" would necessarily be illegal(?). I pulled the hunting regs out for WI and it states the ML's must use black powder or black powder substitutes. So I'm thinking a Savage ML using T7 would be just fine........................

If it was my call, smokeless would be illegal in every state for primitive weapons season. We're getting way too far away from the group of hunters and rifles that this season was designed around. If you want to go smokeless, buy a SUCKS and hunt in firearms season!

In the state of Colorado, the use of smokeless powder in muzzleloading season is illegal. Black powder and black powder substitutes are legal.

Gopher - Your response didn't answer my question but since you have such strong opinions -- I also hunt with flintlock, in-line, bow, shotgun and rifle. I also have trapped for 40 years. I know a thing or two about traditions and doing things "the hard way".

Thanks for your two cents but I personally have no problem with someone using smokeless powder. If I travel to a western state for a big game hunt, my flintlock will be home and an in-line will be with me. If scopes are legal it will bear one of those too and I'll also carry my rangefinder and most likely bring a GPS - Daniel Boone would be envious. Merry Christmas to you and your round balls.

It's not illegal in Iowa.

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas = YES.

Colorado, Utah, Arizona = NO.

Well golly gee Slammer, that's very observant of you! And by the way-me and my balls did have a very nice Christmas-thank you very much for your warm wishes!

Smokeless powder has always been 100% legal in Wisconsin.

It is considered a black powder substitute, which is precisely what it has been for the last 110 years.

Can't help but put my 2 cents in here. I have been hunting at least 55 years. With muzzleloading I started out with a flintlock then graduated to a caplock & when in-lines came out began using them. I am currently building a 54 cal. flinter. What I am bacically saying is use what ever you want that is legal & let others use what ever they want & stay out of their hunting style. We would all be much better off in the hunting community if we could just live & let live. Great holidays to all.

No, a black powder substitute is pyrodex or Trip Sev, or similar, which is intended for use in a muzzleloader. Smokeless powder is intended for use in a centerfire cartridge or shell. If you try and use smokeless powder in a muzzleloader you risk serious injury.

Regards, sse

Here we go again with the education process & knocking the way others choose to hunt. Ever heard of Savage muzzleloaders?

"It is considered a black powder substitute, which is precisely what it has been for the last 110 years."



Yes its a shame.

The Savage novelty is just that and in my mind doesn't qualify smokleless powder as a black powder substitute. Sorry, that's a stretch. Maybe you should have directed your response to Wakeman, not me.

Regards, sse

careful SSE or you will get a message about quoting wakman . Seems everything he prints even in open public forum, he feels is copywriter.
Im sure however you can straiten him out on that LOL
So I will quote you so as not to get called a liar and a thief again for quoting what he says on this or any other topic ..
oh incase you didnt i have saved a copy of this page , with his post <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


LMAO I can believe he said that . I�m however glade he did


Smokeless has never been an equivalent of black powder in any shape or form . This is why we have different proof markings to designate the powder capabilities of different weapons .
This is also one of the reasons early Damascus cartridge guns had such a problem with barrel failure
Smokeless is not an equivalent unless you want to state that equivalent is in pressures and then only if you pass laws classifying specific powder, charge and max loads for each
While its true that its also a propellant not an explosive such as black powder , the similarities between smokeless and Black powder equivalents stop there .

Maybe Wisconsin is different but most states have a written description within their full regulations that will describe what they feel is an equivalent and what they base that equivalent on .

Most times that equivalent is by measure not pressures as folks like walkman want others to believe .
You load a smokeless gun by the same process as you do equivalents, using the same devices as Black powder and I would bet you would have a tony bridges wall hanger very quickly .
Leave the smokeless powder where it belongs , in weapons designed specifically for smokeless powder be that a black powder cartridge weapon or muzzleloader

An equivalent LMAO ohm that�s rich.
i wonder how long it will take for that statment to spread across the WWW <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Define smokeless powder! Are we talking pyrodex or the equlivelant? Or true smokeless powder?

powders comonly used and avalable for the production of amunition for modern centerfire weapons
or
Any powder that is not of an equal base to black powder, when the based of measure is volume .

Powders which when based by Equivalent volume produce pressures equal to those of the same equal volume of black powder ,when based on measure of volume, using standard �accepted � Black powder Measuring devices .
.
In order for the powder to be an equivalent it must past the equal measure.

IE 50 grain volume of given power would produce near the same pressures as an equal volume of BP .
This is why the modern replacements such as pyro and T7 have squeezed through . While they don�t produce exactly the same pressures they are to some I guess close enough .

Now if you where to take 50 grains of say red dot , you would find the pressures no where near the same.

Doesn't anyone understand how shotguns work?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />




The new thumbholes are looking great.

i think most everyone knows how shotguns work wakman , that doesn�t mean you load a 12 gage with 70 grains of even low base smokeless

Here is the result of low base smokeless powder in a weapon designed for BP .

mmmm i wonder if this guy thinks low base is a equivalent ? The fella stated it was safe , had shot low base for years in this weapon with no problem . Guess he finally had a problem .to bad too as before the guy had a brain freeze that fox was worth probably ohhh ? maybe 6 of your plywood ML10



Here is another one for ya


Wait ??? , did i say shotgun ???? LMAO oh and before you go into the bla bla about an obstruction or something you might want to learn alittle from the folks over at double gun journal. Some of the most respected an knowledgeable firearms folks world wide . who have been working with BP and use of low base smokeless in " shotguns way before you deposited your first sabot ,, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Maybe your not familiar with them ? They are the ones who put out the very high end 1/4rly read each years on high end firearms MMMm . Ahh but you probably not interested as I don�t recall ever seeing savage in their writings ? I could be wrong though so you better take a look .
Oh I also forgot their information carries copy writes , but they unlike some stand behind their words and dont mind if you quote them .
DOUBLE GUN JOURNAL


nice stock but lines like that belong in the barrel not in the wood



did you guys remember to leave the lever so you could better open the breech with your thumb ?
LMAO maybe next time LOL

capchee - Not a flame, but equivalent and substitute are NOT the same thing.

The difference being you can substitute whiskey for tea, or vice/versa. But either one is sure not the equivalent of the other.

When it comes to employing either equivalent and/or substitute to something defining power as to pressure, it is even more important.

A substitute that is the equivalent of X amount of BP in power, may or may not be the same WEIGHT and/or VOLUME of X amount BP.

Again not a flame, we need to make sure those new to ML's, understand the difference so they remain safe.

Yep, there are probably always going to be some who don't follow safe practices. We probably can't help that kind at all.

remseven

The simplest thing is to simply say don�t use smokeless powder regardless of what grade ,in any weapon not designed for it .
Smokeless is not a substitute, a replacement or a equivalent for black powder . to say other wise is to asking for someone to get hurt from a miss understanding. This IMO make the person stating such claims liable , especially if that person is a so called published expert and should know better .

So folks if you want to use smokeless then use it , no skin of my nose but use it weapons specifically designed for such powders , be those powders low base or other .
This way if you find yourself in a bad way there is no one to blame but yourself or those who marketed and sold you a bill of goods

If your state has laws that forbid the use of smokeless in muzzlelading seasons or states that only black powder and its modern substautes are legal . in most casses this excludes smokless as a substaute.

Some will be schills, others won't <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
No go here in OR during MZ season, OK during general rifle season. And no real axe to grind or ox to gore, but paid spokesmen pizz me off <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

edited--

There is good reason why Barnes Bullets tests their product with smokeless, why Western Powder company tests their smokeless powders in Savage 10ML-II factory barrels, why muzzleloading legend Doc White has hunted with smokeless, why MMP sabots test their product with smokeless, why the Savage 10ML has the best track record of any muzzleloader ever made, and why many other companies (Ultra Light Arms) have long gone the smokeless route.

Yet, the ignorance of smokeless is expressed by those who have never, ever owned a Savage . . . though they have been in production for over 7 years by now.

The pleading for non-corrosive, clean propellants that can't rot your barrel or destroy your vision has been prolific. The choice is anyone's to make-- and, I like choices.

The notion that what one person prefers is the only way, the only right way, or the only "correct way" is Archie Bunker at his finest moment.

Few aspire to the level of bigotry displayed by Archie, but that was of course . . . a comedy.

One of the most absurd, self serving statements I've ever heard.

Thinking, rational adults understand the point of the phrase "or a blackpowder substitute" to mean those powders expressly manufactured as a direct substitute for blackpowder.

Rational adults also understand it does not mean or include "modern smokeless powder"...that attempted play on words is just another instance in a long line of attempts by the cheaters to try and play in the real muzzleloading world but using all modern technology advantages to do so.

Honest people don't write trivia for dollars.

Honest, true muzzleloading enthusiasts accept, learn, and master the challenges of real muzzleloading using the type of muzzleloading equipment and powder typical of the early American traditional muzzleloading era...and they don't try to hide behind some ludicrous statement that modern smokeless powder is a BP substitute...they are real people...they are honest men and women.

oHHHH no wakman don�t try and flip the subject to smokeless guns .
your a slippery fish of that there is no doubt .
you specifically stated and im going to quote you



most states have defined what is a sub and what is not . some don�t even allow T7 as a sub .
yet in this topic that�s titled "Is smokeless powder illegal in some states? "
you have left off informing this fella that smokeless is illegal in many states not just some . there are reasons for those rules . you may not agree with them , well i should say you don�t get a subsidy for agreeing with them . But who really cares its not for you to say .
However when you come out with the statement of , again im going to quote you


Knowing full well many, if not most states that have defined their muzzleloading season have statements say Black powder or synthetic substitute. Then come out and state that smokeless is an substitute for Black powder ,,,
that�s a good one really . again you have made half truths and i wonder just how liable you are for that statement

Tell us wakman ,,, why don�t you list the states that allow smokeless for muzzleloading and those that do not .

I would hope that you would try and pull a flim flam and your list would be up to date for this next season . How about also informing these fellas about the states that are eather in the process of removing smokeless from muzzleloading allowance or are considering it at commission level

That would be a good post from you but I doubt you can or will do it as there is no paycheck involved

If your state allows "Black Powder Substitutes", then by all means use smokeless if your MLer is designed for it.

Smokeless is the original BP substitute. It's older than any BP sub on the market.

If you think 777, BM3, AP, etc is acceptable but, Smokless is not, you are sorely misinformed. None are the same as original Black Powder, they are all substitutes and all have differing chemical compositions than original BP.

This debate is ridiculous at times. The thing that just takes the cake is the idiot hypocrits that think that is it perfectly ethical to load their rigged out Encore w/ 150 grains of 777 under a sabot but, at the same time they condemn the Smokeless crowd about their unethical smokless MLers and how they are "cheating". Give me a break!!!! THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME!!!!!!!!! Each load from the Muzzle, have the same ignition system, fire only one time, use the same bullets, etc etc etc. There's no difference.

If you want truely primitive we need to use the original MLers period. All of the new inlines are completely different than the primitive weapons of old.

Reloader7RM

Thank you...and they do not belong in the muzzleloading seasons as they were originally established for traditionally styled muzzleloaders.

Your clear thinking is appreciated.

WHAT A DAMN WASTE OF TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do like the looks of that thumbhole! I would prefer a lightweight synthetic, though.

I sure do like my Savage and will continue to enjoy it. If I hunt a state where it's not legal, I'll take one that is. I respect everyone's opinion on the issue, although it seems like a stretch to call it that. Each to their own.

The use of smokeless powder's during Minnesota's "Muzzleloader" season is illegal.
Mike

A huge AMEN to that!!!!!!!! What makes any of us think our way is right and other ways are wrong. If it's legal then it's ok.

Jim

no reloader they are not one in the same . the pressure curves are completely different .
the difference between smokeless and other accepted substitutes is that their curves match that of BP very closely.
remseven
Actually has a point in that really anything can be called a substitute . However one has to accept the consequences of that substitution. IE alcohol is a good example.
One could substitute corn liquor for say wine or for that mater pure alcohol .
All will get you drunk , only one will give a very good chance of killing you .

Again the point is that smokeless is not an accepted substitute for Black powder in any shape or form .
While its true that early smokeless replaced black powder as a prefures propelant , it was found very quickly that substituting it on an equal base to BP caused problems .

That early smokeless, is also very different then even today�s low base .
So again DO NOT !! Use smokeless in any weapon not specifically designed for that powder . Also only use the recommended smokeless powder for that weapon . Despite what some here want you to believe , they are not all the same .

As to Wisconsin�s regulations , they state


a call to the Wisconsin�s yields a statement from the enforcement department that smokeless is not considered a BP substitute.
The officer however did not have the complete written definition in front of him , only the basic public over view .
He stated he would have the definition for me tomorrow so when i talk with them in the AM i will post their wording

Every year, written answers to "State By State Muzzleloading Questions" are provided to Black Powder Hunting and published in their fall issue.

Wisconsin has a large number of 10ML-II smokeless muzzleloading hunters. In writing, they have stated that nitro-cellulose-based smokeless powder is legal.

It always has been legal in Wisconsin; you will find no regulation that ever prohibited it. They e-mailed me the same information. Smokeless powder use is not regulated, not prohibited, and never has been for muzzleloading in the State of Wisconsin.

Nitro-celluose based Smokeless muzzleloading is legal in:

AL, AK, AR, CA, CT, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MD, MONE, NH, NY, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI, and WY . . . this is just a partial list. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Bingo. Too often we seem to forget that DNR's work for us, not the other way around.

A ridiculous statement, easily disproved by a look at 1900 fps factory 20 ga. rifled slug loads that operate with a pressure ceiling of 12,000 PSI.

Pyrodex loads can crack 30,000 PSI: see Lyman.

To add to your post, smokeless powder is explicitly prohibited in South Dakota, for better or worse. For the better I think, but that's just me.

no wakman its not , your confusing pressures with pressure curves.
One thing about you , even in your books you write is you cant tell folks the whole truth ? is it because you don�t know it ? or is it because you never ask when you were culling information�s from experienced folks ?
why don�t you tell folks they need to check their regs ? some of the states you list only allow smokeless to be used in muzzleloaders during a given season and not in others . some only in given areas and not state wide .
Idaho doesn�t allow smokeless in muzzleloading BUT
Idaho and in fact I would bet most all the states allow smokeless to be used in muzzleloading weapons , but only in the general any weapons season .
im surprised you didn�t come back with every state , that what i would have expected from you

Again as to Wisconsin we will see hopefully this morning . When I here I will post it .
Opinions like yours is why many of the states are going to defining only what�s legal instead of general statements . Myself I wouldn�t take yours or any others word based on your reasoning .
One had sure better call and check the regs for themselves before they ever venture out .
I would seriously doubt you would back up your opinions by paying for the ticket.

oh and one last thing you better go back and check those states on your list
i think you will find some states are changing their rules.

Minnesota legislature this last fall , removed smokeless powder from use in muzzleloader or muzzleloading weapons , state wide <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> so you better double check

I have no dog in this fight but who really cares. You can use a damn throwing stick for all I care ifs its legal. As I posted earlier I began with flintlocks but why should anyone care what others shoot? This is just like the debate among archers vs. longbows, compounds, & crossbows that all throw an arrow. As a life member of SCI & the NRA if we spent just a portion of this time supporting hunting & shooting rather than debating bs our sport would be the better for it. I do much for the sport how about you? Just my 2 cents worth. Have a great holiday.

but whut about lectronic ignition?

You are confusing illiteracy with an attempt to use language.

Attacks on literacy don't speak to the merit of the argument....

no it doesn�t but he does that to show how knowledgably he thinks he is

wakeman may know how to write but IMO he doesn�t know about half the information he writes about .

let him be, it proves even More IMO what he really is about <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

A very long time ago, a question was asked to start this thread, and it was answered without attitude.

That should prove sufficient for any reasonable person.

now see LMAO would that have been easier and less painful then going on about smokeless being a substitute

Ok spoke today with Tom Vanhern Wisconsin DNR.
He said currently Wisconsin does not define what is and is not a substitute for BP.
He said legally anything that can be placed down the muzzle is legal.
I ask if there was any plans on the books for changing this and clarifying their law .

His reply was that a submission would need to be made to the WDNR before their April meeting . That Wisconsin�s laws change every year . however they are actually approximately 2 years behind as that�s how long it takes for the process to work .
Recommendations for changes to the DNR are passed to the legislator . from there they go to public vote and if passed sent back to the DNR for implementation .
As of right now he has heard of no such changes or clarifications for this next year .

so folks there you have it