Posters like Cayugad are ignoring the safety reasons when giving Savage ML-10 approval ratings. Why do you think Minnesota banned them Cayugad? Here's one of a few reasons! Because they seriously injured & killed people eating dinner in their kitchens of farmhouses too close to hunting areas where regular muzzleloaders and/or shotguns are allowed.
I'm ignoring nothing and shame on you for the insinuation. I could be just as safe a hunter, and you or anyone else should be as well,with a Savage shooting smokeless powder or a smoothbore and a roundball. If I felt or had any doubtfor one second that my shot was not safe, for any reason (like a farm house in the background)or posed a danger to someone, then it is my responsibility, no my obligation,to not take the shot. Not the responsibility of the State to change their minds on current law, and further regulate me.
Triple Se7en we agree on a lot of aspects of this sport but on this one, we are definitely on opposite ends of the fence. Now (as you stated)because some muzzleloading hunters did not use common sense andshot up some farm houses, you have to pick on one facet of the muzzleloading sport and declare it illegal? Is there absolute evidence that the smokeless powder rifles pose a larger threat to the population then other rifles? While I am sure they are flatter shooting then most rifles, that to me means you need to take more thought before you fire. You need to punish the hunter who ignored all safety rules, their common sense andtraining and committed the act.
Would a Thompson Center Omega shooting 150 grains of pellets with a 250 grain Shockwave not posed the same threat?How about a Knight Disc rifle with 150 grains and a copperBarnes? A .45 caliberKnight Disc Elite with 150 grains and some light weight projectile might push some impressive speeds. All of these mentioned are as dangerous in the hands of the
stupid. Just as is a Savage or any other smokeless powder rifle, even a .22 caliber rifle for that matter. But you seem to agree thatits all right that the State wants to punish one aspect of a sport for the stupidity of a couple hunters... I disagree big time!!! The State would be better off to encourage Hunter Safety class requirement (which I think they do actually have) and more severe punishments to those hunters that do stupid things.
So what's next for Minnesota? Maybe they could ban or restrict the amount of powder a hunter can shoot out of their rifles? Maybe if we slow down the projectiles, the people will be safer. So what limit should we put on them? Or lets restrict the projectiles we can use? Limit the BC and demand only poor flight bullets can be used. Wouldn't that increase the public safety?
What I was trying to point out in my post is, you start changing things in one aspect and more changes just get that much more easy to make. The trouble is the more changes you allow made, the more toes you step on. The trouble is a lot of people do not get all that concerned until it is their toes being crunched.
Every hunter out there has the responsibility to hunt in a safe manner and know the boundaries and limitations of their rifle. While I am not trying to down play the seriousness of injury to any family and my condolences to them for their loss and hardship, I just refuse to point the finger at one small part, eliminate it, and then proclaim all is safe now.