Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Getting tired of this

Just out of curiosity, what was the bullet diameter andthe bore size?

well rick im sorry you feel that way but when it comes to wakeman you will find a challenge from me concerning him on every turn. see i know him . we have chatted more then couple times .
.

Personally I wouldn�t ever divide you from you choice . I once was just like you but one day I saw the real randy .

You will to

so i guess you and I , will for now just have to agree to disagree . i have no problem with that .
i my reason for being here isn�t to constantly badger wakeman even thought right now it may look that way
Be safe

Hot diddle, I love these Neverending Threads on subjects of small note! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I don't care what you use.

No inline will ever grace my locker. I'm a better hunter and shooter than that. I'm starting to think that even caplocks are too modern. More'n a few of you that would profit from a season behind a flinter in the forests. JMO.

Use what you want, I won't insult you for it.

Don't ask me to think the ballistics of inlines are like...wow-neat. They ain't.

A friend of mine catches pigs bare handed.
Thinks spear hunters are a bunch of wussies. He may be right or wrong, but he doesn't care what you do.


A bloomin' Luddite

Yeah, it'll be a "subject of small note" right up until they cancel the special ML seasons because bowhunters and centerfire hunters get fed up with all the "advancements" in muzzleloading to use an oxymoron.

And if you don't care what other people use, why the jab at in-lines?

"Use what you want, I won't insult you for it" and "No inline will ever grace my locker. I'm a better hunter and shooter than that" don't seem to add up.

Personally I think you could profit from a few seasons with a longbow. JMO.

Been there, done that. Quail.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Nothing Freudian about it, Dan.

I suppose you�re right in that 99.5% of the topics discussed on this forum could be considered �of little note� in the grand scheme of things. So it always cracks me up when someone who splits mouse hairs and waxes eloquent on his favorite subject(s) wades into a discussion and dismisses someone else�s favorite subjects as �of little note.�

A little presumptuous, don�t you think?

You may know where I�m headed with this, but just in case you don't, try this on for size:

"virtually all bullets leave the barrel with AT LEAST two precession cycles at play, fast and slow. The two of them together are called an epicyclic precession and if the pattern the bullet nose makes were put into two dimensions on a piece of paper it would look like a rosette pattern, or a larger radius circle with short radius loops about the circumference. The slow or large radius precession is proportional to gyroscopic stability factors and will not null during the course of the bullet's flight. The small loops/fast cycle precession results from the bullet being unbalanced on the longitudinal axis...being freed from rotating on the center axis while in the barrel and then adjusting to rotation on the center of gravity(longitudinal). The fast cycle precession WILL null in less than 200 yards, usually a fair bit less...figure 125-150 yards from what I've read, give or take, more or less. Precession yaw is measured in degrees, or small fractions thereof, having deliterious effect on BC and resulting in a deflection. The net effect of these gymnastics is that bullets fly in a path that resembles a helix though it is not the proper term to describe it..."


Sound familiar? You post stuff like that and then turn around and tell me that a discussion of muzzleloaders, modern equipment, and special seasons is "of little note??"

Now I will say that I�ve read some of your posts like the one above and I find them informative and interesting. But I could just as easily dismiss them as �of little note.� Like the one above and the thread a while back that discussed detailed chronograph testing of various bullets to derive BCs and see if they were a few decimal points different than published BCs. Interesting and informative, but to me �of little note� because if I wanted to, I could do like millions of other guys and stick to off-the-shelf rifles and factory ammo., shoot 2 inch groups, and get my deer or elk every year. Or I could continue to do as I do, handload, shoot sub-m.o.a., and never worry about the accuracy of published BCs or even own a chronograph. Much less the "precession cycles at play."

But all of this is beside the point, let me tell you why I think the subject of this particular thread is not �of little note.� I really do think that all of the modern ML equipment hitting the market will put the special early muzzleloader seasons at risk. And I love to hunt during those seasons; here in CO the early ML season is in mid-September and is my favorite time of the year to be in the mountains. Bull elk are bugling, the aspens are turning yellow, and mountain brook trout are in their full spawning colors. The nights are cold, but the days are still warm. If the state did away with the early ML season, I�d hunt with a bow, but I�d rather use a muzzleloader. I�d like to keep the special season just as it is.

Now if all the manufacturers, marketers, and promoters of this modern ML stuff would just leave it up to the individual states to set their own regulations and restrict equipment as they see fit, no problem. But when the purveyors of this stuff talk about how the states are discriminating against them and infringing on their rights to hunt with whatever equipment they choose, I throw the BS flag. They can already hunt with whatever equipment they choose, they just can�t do it during the special early seasons.

The special early seasons were instituted for hunters using equipment that puts them at a disadvantage compared to modern firearms. We should keep it that way, and if we have to do it through regulations, so be it. If I�m allowed to hunt before the centerfire rifle toters, and allowed to hunt during the elk rut, I should be willing to pay for that privilege by restricting my equipment. One can argue about the scope of the restrictions, but to say that everything should be allowed or it�s �discrimination� is just plain, old-fashioned B.S.

Personally, if I was to hunt during the early ML season and use a weapon that was effective at 200 yards with just a little practice, I�d feel guilty, and I�d know that I was violating the original intent of the special season.

And I�m not saying that I�m better or more ethical than other hunters; I also hunt with a long bow and a WSM. I just think that each has its own appropriate time, place, and season.

So, if you disagree with that and think that the special seasons are not an issue, then tell me why. But don�t tell me that my special seasons are of little note.

Smokie, you're preachin' to the choir buddy...and crackin' me up wit dat quote up thar. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

OK...I'll pull down my drawers a little and give any who want it a shot at my azz on the subject. I am sad to report that the quote above IS mine, and it is unfortunately totally correct, anal retentive, and made in an effort to help folks understand what their bullets do. Little details matter in that world. Do I care a great deal if anybody else cares? Not my job.

Ready, Aim, Fire!

First off, let me tell you all that this is an opinion, based in part of facts as I know them. It is an opinion I hold close to MY heart, not yours necessarily. Paraphrasing my sentiment on the post, I'm not going to show flagrant disrespect for one's choice of arms, so those feeling sensitive on the debate kick back and relax...a little...if you can. This debate is hysterical, the issues are less so.

A year or so back I retrieved some old magazines, dating from the early 60s, GD, OL, SA, those sorta things that mom and dad had saved over the decades...because I had. I did a few synopsis reports on several of them here in the Campfire. Askins, O'Conner, Keith and their geishas(yeah, that too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) Along the way I was reacquainted with aritcles long forgotten and reminded that the world of front stuffin' guns had never really died out. Dozens of articals on the subject, those boys competing with everyone else in the general season, and with themselves.

Well, this was before the time of modern in-line guns of course but they were fun then, fun now. Archery was undergoing a revival too under the tutelage of Fred Bear. Somewhere along the way somebody somewhere had the idea to create a 'special' season for these primitive weapons. In my world the bow was first, MLs second to that occurence. Bows were long or recurved, MLs use black and caps, or flint, and except for rare circumstance they shot round balls.

Human nature being what it is in a free market society it did not take a lot of time for the widget makers to crawl out from under a rock and start muckin' things up. Compound bows, in-line rifles...primitive??? Not in this life. Effective? Damn right. Too effective? I don't think so. Illustrating that too many seek salvation in the world of HI-TECH as a panacea to misunderstanding and/or lack of skill, oh yeah. But then Roy Weatherby did just the same, who would insult Roy?

What has occurred is this. In most if not all of the country modern gun shooters have been largely disenfranchised due to encroachment by these special seasons. Some may say and will, that everybody has the right to buy a bow, or in-line, or what ever it takes to make the hunt. Well yeah, but don't you see that what has happened is that the legislators have divided our house? Set us against ourselves? As scurrilous as Honest Abe was, even he knew that divided houses fall. There is NO Constitutional protection on the Right to hunt at the Federal level.

Right now, as I speak there are a whole raft of CF hunters out there that would be pleased to see all of the special seasons vanish as they are denied their opportunities at prime time hunting in many states due to the false perception of advantage bestowed on their weapon of choice. Here at the campfire we have have the moderns vs. the true primitive rifle shooters for another issue. One states that we are free to use whatever is legal, the other fears for the future due to concerns that the more advanced weaponry will make it all go away some day.

Here's the kicker...there's bureaucrats in the mix...they are the threat. Being a 'crat does not mean you have a love of the outdoors or hunting in this case. It means you have either a power fetish or have consigned yourself to mediocrity and are wont to do things that make your life more comfortable. Like when the volume gets too high, turning the box off. Whether they have the 'right' is debatable. They DO have the power.
That's the playing field as I see it, what y'all make of it is up to you. If you truly believe your postition is proper, befriend some infulencial politicians and defend yourself. Don't count too much on fact, politics ain't about facts, never was 'ceptin' in times of dire need.(Think WWII)

On a more personal note I eschew inlines for a multitude of reasons. They are my reasons, I don't care too much about what blows air up your skirt.

-They are ugly for the most part.
-Other than the fact that they load from the muzzle there is nothing leading me to believe they are "primitive". Those states that allow(ed) such seasons years back had no premonition that in-lines lay over the horizon.
-They are without soul, grace or substantial performance.
-They use optical sights, a feature I would allow by medical waiver but for no other reason. Dan'l Boone had no Luepy.
-They stink
-They shoot bullets that in the main are intended for CF pistols. Not primitive, and poor sons of an Irish whoore in regards to ballistic characteristics. I shant understand the logic of this, ever, never.....always. It hints that the average American male is susceptable to ADVERTISING, and may even prefer it to education and the odd stray lucid thought. Protest if you wish, but know deep in your heart there a conventional MLs out there that will eat the guts out of a modern in-line from a ballistic perspective, and there is no substitute for pure lead in the world of terminal performance.
-I don't like guns sold in shrink wrap, bubble packs, lingere'...
-I know how to keep powder and lock dry and do not need to suffer the dignities above to put meat on the table.

Inlines work, sure....but why not be a little different, maybe a little better. Do you really want to hand down your Knight InLine to your grandson?

There's a reason we call it HUNTING and not Killing. If you give it a little thought, learn a few skills, the second part will come easy enough. It's man that is the weapon, not the gun.

WOW outstanding and great post .
i would disagree with the encroachment of special season on the modern general season hunters though. well at least here in Idaho . both archery and muzzleloaders seasons are in time frames that were never set aside for the general big game season .
Some of the muzzleloading units also are open during the general season and even after the general season closes . However even those have either, always been designative short range weapons , were closed to hunting all together or had no legal season at all .
Again good post

I am from PA. and I believe we are the only state that still has a true flintlock season. It used to be open sights patch and roundball only but I do believe they allow mini's and sabots now. We also have an early ML season for doe that is any ML includeing scoped inlines. I have no problem with inlines untill someone with a scoped inline brags about how he killed a deer at 120 yards and laughs because I did not get one with my flintlock! Hey I would be happy he got one and I choose to use a flinter but don't even attempt to tell me the guy with a scoped inline has to have the same skill level that the guy with a flintlock does.

I think we as hunters all need to stick together and support those who hunt different than we do. We all need to judge the hunter by his or her merits and the first thing is to make a clean kill with whatever weapon you chose to hunt with.

thanks for the post Dan, it was a good one and I agree with most of it, but......

I don't think legislators have set us against each other at all. Here in CO, the hunting season is a huge source of income over most of the state and if hunting went away, the economy would really suffer. It's a cash cow, constituents know it, and legislators know it. So the legislators here in CO at least have no earthly reason to set one group of hunters against another or do anything to mess with the hunting industry. That would be a sure way to lose the next election.

I most often hear that particular argument ("they're setting us against each other") from the people who think they should be allowed to hunt with whatever weapon they choose, or the people who think they should be able to drive their ATVs anywhere and everywhere, or the people who defend "canned hunts," as in "we're playing right into the antis hands by being a house divided." I ain't buying it though, IMO its better to take a stand and police our own ranks than go along with every kind of hunting there is just to have a "united front."

Now I will admit to owning in-lines and sidelocks. And I'd agree that most in-lines are ugly, but not my T/C Encore with stainless steel, gold inlay (from the custom shop) and walnut, that is one fine-looking rifle and knowing my sons, they won't give it to the grandsons anyway so whether I'd want to leave it to the grandkids is a moot point.

As a matter of fact, in two weeks my 13 year-old will be using that frame with a .308 barrel for the late season elk hunt so he's already establishing his claim.

I think the rub comes in not with the in-line action itself but when people add all the other stuff you mentioned--optics, smokeless powder, saboted bullets, etc. I think we agree on that. All of those accessories are IMO in direct conflict with the original intent of "primitive" seasons because they're all intended to expand the effective range of the weapon. In that regard, they are a substitute for the skills needed to get close for a shot. By the way, I don't know if you've kept up with the latest sabot rounds but they've come a long way from the pistol bullets you referred to, but this only strengthens your (and my) argument.

Back to the regulations, if you look at how a state like Colorado has done it, IMO they have it just about right because they didn't get into the traditional vs. modern argument, but based their regs. on things that affect the effective range of the rifle. The state muzzleloader association lobbied for a ban on in-lines but they didn't get it because the DOW reasoned that in-lines don't really offer an advantage or increase the effective range. But the DOW banned scopes, sabots, pelleted powder, and smokeless powder because those things would increase the range.

And if everyone would just learn to live with those regs. this whole subject would go away.

Mileage may vary from state to state on the season's of course...down here the legislators enable angencies such as FWC to make RULES. Those are the 'crats I refer too. People been hunting in Florida and Georgia for a month or more now, with bows and MLs..other southern states are similar to a degree or two. Of the two, politicians and bureaucrats, I think the latte are the more dangerous. The former can be fired by the electorate, the latter are forever, building domains and fiefdoms, strutting, crowing.....Pols don't care when what season for what creature occurs, or how it's managed...down here.

Interesting, the differences from place to place. I did a little research into the area of the CO regs. a while back, and spoke to a few DOW people who had a hand in developing them. They are for the most part educated in wildlife management, and most are hunters and fishermen. Overall, I was very impressed with their professionalism. Now I'm not saying that money and politics don't play a part in the process, but I think out here there is much more influence from the professional game managers. I guess it's because hunting is so important here.

I can tell you that a few years ago when the big game license fees for non-residents were just about doubled to be in line with surrounding states politics didn't win out there. Most of the small business owners in areas where hunting is a big part of their business were dead set against the price hike, because they thought it would decrease the number of non-resident hunters. They are the constituency but the prices were raised anyway.

That is perzactley what I'm talkin' about. THEY are in charge, THEY make the rules. Perhaps not universal but many state legislatures create these little warrens and let the rats write the script w/o a lot of concern. Few politicians are going to fall on their swords over hunting issues. Dangerous situation in my eye. I mentioned in the last....displaced seasons, that bow and ML have been underway for a month or so? General gun started in Ga last Saturday IIRC, and about 2 weeks from now in Fl. It tends to rile some folks up a bit and I don't blame 'em actually.

Oh, Florida FWC are a bunch of steely eyed professionals too....yuk, yuk....lots of education but they leave common sense tarnished on the roadside. Flippin' moonbats...lemme know next time you see a warden down here with mud on his boots or truck....anybody... The comment about them dividing us...in my opinion it is not conscious activity on their part, just the result of moonbeams....

"All of those accessories are IMO in direct conflict with the original intent of "primitive" seasons because they're all intended to expand the effective range of the weapon. In that regard, they are a substitute for the skills needed to get close for a shot."

Having been around awhile, the legislative intent was to allow longer seasons, more hunter access and to create another tool to manage populations. One of the justifications for the black powder season was the shorter range of the weapons. I have to observe that the effective range of modern firearms has evolved over the past 100 years. As noted in another thread, I have no problem with common sense regulations. I also think hunting regulations should be driven my game management science, not personal opinions or political interest groups. Set the seasons based on harvest data. If muzzeloaders are killing too many animals, give hunters an option: shorten the season or tighten the regs.

From following the trials and tribulations of states where I hunt as a non-resident I know some game departments positively enjoy selling the same deer multiple times. What they actually do is sell a tag in a series of seasons, hoping that the animal won't be taken early (if at all).

They can adjust the number of tags down at any time, and still have multiple seasons.

jim

DD, maybe you misinterpreted what I said? When I said "they" are the constituency, by "they" I meant the small business owners who depend on non-residents for their business. What I meat was that although "they" (small business owner constituents) were against the price increase, it happened anyway despite the political pressure.

True story, last time I saw a DOW person in the field, I was fishing. The guy walked up, asked me how the fishing was, and didn't even check my license. He then proceeded to give me a good tip on what was working in that particular lake, and I caught more fish using his advice!!!! Now that's service.

I think you're splitting semantic hairs here; if the seasons are justified by the restricted range of the weapons, then using longer-range weapons certainly violates the original intent of the special seasons. And I'm very well aware of why the seasons were instituted in the first place, it's just as you've said above; I've said the same right here on this forum.

I know there is financial pressure on Fish & Game agencies to increase revenues, Jim. There is often opposition to raising fees (though most states have no qualms about putting the wood to nonresident hunters). Most of the people I know, however, got into the wildlife business because they care about wildlife. When push comes to shove, I think they care about maintaining healthy, stable populations and about using good science more than selling tags. Unfortunately, there are situations where hunters put political pressure on the regulation process... not in the best interest of the species but in self interest. Herd balance is a big issue. We still have a lot of hunters who want to kill bucks/bulls even when this may be detrimental in a given situation.

And smokepole, I am skeptical of "range." If memory serves, Union and Confederate sharpshooters demonstrated that muzzleloaders can be deadly at impressive ranges. As a fan of the genre, I'm sure you know the accuracy that has been squeezed out of a Whitworth full match rifle at amazing ranges (up to 1000 yards). One of the facts you don't mention is that muzzleloaders (unlike most centerfires) do not allow a quick second shot... another justification for the season. So, Smoke, it's not just about range.

The simple fact is that if you prohibit optics, you limit most hunters using ANY kind of rifle to under 120 yards. Frankly, I just don't know many hunters (as opposed to serious target shooters) who are "MOA" with open sights at distances.

Yup, I agree, there are always those anomalous guys who can shoot accurately at three or four or five times the range of the rest of us, be it with MLs or centerfires but I guess I'm talking about the average Joe because "Joe" is the guy the regulations should be tailored to..

Smokie, no, I understood your "they" as constituents....mine referred to 'crats...bad word selection on my part at that point in the time line, sorry 'bout that. I don't always know who the enemy is, but THEY always be azzholes.