And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

This years ML season in MN prohibits the use of "Nitro or Smokelesss" powder ML firearms during the regular ML season.

As it should be...sounds like the citizens and wildlife department in Minn. have their heads screwed on straight...kudos to intelligent people making intelligent decisions.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Centerfire powders have no business inML seasonsanyways. Glad to read that. The same exists here in Michigan. Hopefully someday all 50 states agree.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Way to go Minnesota!

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

If that's the case you can get rid of every gunpowder known to man.

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/pellets/metallic.php
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/granular/t7cartridge.php

Further down is the cartridge data.
http://www.americanpioneerpowder.com/loading.html'

Under the muzzleloader loads is the cartridge data.
http://www.magkor.com/bdata.html

And of course Blackpowder has been centerfire powder for over a hundred years. Blackpowder cartridge rifles ring a bell?
At the bottom:
http://www.goexpowder.com/load-chart.html

Basically every gunpowder ever made is suitable for use in centerfires. Maybe not all of the different cartridgesbut then there is no smokeless gunpowder suitable for everything either. I'm glad our legislators haven't drafted laws like that. No muzzleloader anywhere would be able to hunt legally.

Nice of them to limit their laws to blackpowder only. Pyrodex, Triple Seven, American pioneer, Black Mag, and every other replacement powderare smokeless powders, just not nitrocellulose based. And if the wording of the lawmentions"smokeless powder" as being illegal then technically they all are illegal also. That's pretty typical of legislators not knowing what they are doing. There's a law somewhere that say's "modern smokeless powder", Delaware I think, yet the BP subs I mentioned above are all "modern smokeless powders". The oldest one is pyrodex and that was invented in the 70's or 80's. Many nitrocellulose powders are older than that.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Let me first point out, the elimination of smokeless powder does not effect me in the least. I do not own nor intend to purchase a rifle capable of shooting smokeless powder. Also, it is my understanding that many of the "smokeless powder rifles" will shoot substitute powders equally as well and in some cases even better then most other muzzleloaders. I also support the right of each State to manage their hunting seasons through laws and regulation as they best see fit to benefit the sport and the overall experience.

With that said, I still find this new modificationunacceptable and even somewhat disturbing. Now granted I am basing this on the assumption that at one time smokeless powder was permitted in Minnesota during the muzzleloader season. If it were not, then this is a mute point and I apologize for the rant.

The disturbing part is that if prior use of smokeless powder was permitted, I really cringe to see the State of Minnesota "change their mind" if you will, and then ban the powder. What you are looking at is the State changing a past practice that once effected a hunters' experiencesin their State. When you see one side start changing past practices, it opens a whole Pandora's Box for future changes if the State so wishes.

We just had a posting by Roundball about some of the Toby Bridges opinions and views. I believe one of the opinions of Mr. Bridges was he suggestedan outlaw to use of round ball as a hunting projectile because of the ballistics and energy the projectile displays at set distances. The almost immediate outrage at this suggestion was apparent, of which I also was in agreement too. While Mr. Bridges supported his opinion with ballistics, most poster seemed to be willing to ignore the facts and base their stance on past practice and field resultsof the roundball. We saw a call to arms by some that muzzleloader hunters, traditional and inlines shootersas a whole, need to group together to see that these kind of changes can not be made.

Now we see the issue of smokeless powder being banned. While this does not effect, lets say for sake of argument with out statistical facts 95% of the muzzleloading population, I see posters more then willing to change this aspect of the law or past practice. Why, because they do not feel it is right and they don't like smokeless powder in their playing field, just as many traditional shooters hate the idea of inlines in general in their playing field. I guess the call to arms and the grouping of all to act as a voice for muzzleloaders is only important when it meets our personal agenda with some.

To end this rant, I support all of you and your passion of muzzleloaders. Your opinions are important as are your views. Again, while I do not have a need for smokeless powder, I would support any hunter that used smokeless powder in a muzzleloader, abiding by all other rules of that State. Especially where this use of smokeless powder was once considered a legal alternative. Now had smokeless powder been brought up as an alternative and was voted down by the State, fine.. not a problem or even an issue. State's rights and all. But I personally feel if you support one aspect of muzzleloading, then you support them all.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Although I'm not crazy about smokeless powder myself(I think the smoke makes the sport more fun/challenging) I'll go with cayugad on this one and say if it loads from the muzzle, it's a muzzleloader and all kinds of this sport should be respected.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Really unneccessary and not worthwhile to post all that stuff.

YOU KNOW exactly what I mean - when you read my reply. I don't need a twist of wordings here to identify the differences betweensmokeless powder and blackpowdersmokeless powder.

You wasted your valuable time posting all that. Rifles like the Savage ML-10 cross the line of this fine sport. That's why Wildlife/DNR agencies are finally opening up their eyes. Those Savages should only be allowed in centerfire zones. Keep them out of shotgun zones during regualr firearms seasons too.

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.

As folks are getting hurt and/or killed, stategaming boardsare counter-acting to the results. They remain legal in states - UNTIL MORE PEOPLE GET HURT OR DIE. I spent over an hour discussing this subject with a range officer at my nearest gun range. So if goofy Mr. Gander or Cascadedadwants to know where I get my info -- that's where.

Thankfully, Michigan never allowed the Savages right from the beginning of their inception.

I'm done here!
This is a very heated topic & I'm not in the mood to argue about this. If you want a Savage -- buy it! I couldcare-less.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

So that's why theywere most recently legalized in Illinois and Virginia?

And yes I knew what you meant but I put it that way to prove a point. Legislators do stuff like that all the time. Making smokeless powders illegal makes all the subs illegal unless the further specify which smokeless powders. It's like the assault weapons ban they keep trying to push on us in Illinois. Not only would guns like the AK-47 be banned with that, 50 cal and larger muzzleloaders, shotguns guns 28 ga. and bigger, and every militaryweaponsupplier in state would have to leave Illinois to continue manufacturing the weapons for our military.

The point is that laws may be intended to mean one thing but litterally mean another. The second amendment is a good example. Depending on who you talk to it can mean 2 things. One that it is an individual right, another that it is a collective right.

That's why groups that try to legislate issues can have it backfire. Minnesota's new law depending on how it's written can eliminate all powders but blackpowder. It may not be intended that way, but a good prosecutor can make it stick. It also gives CO's another way toticket an otherwiselaw abiding hunter if they want to write tickets.

CO: "What powder you using?"
Hunter: "Triple seven."
CO: "Well I gotta write you a ticket. Triple seven is a smokeless powder according to the DOT which classifies these things."
Hunter: "But it's not smokeless powder!"
CO: "Yeah it is. The law bans smokeless powder and triple seven is classified as such by the DOT".


Edit because of your edit:

Please post the references for the injuries withinformation that they were caused bySmokeless muzzleloaders. This is the first I've heardof this.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

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.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

I thinkMinnesota is like allstates...they had implemented special traditionally oriented muzzleloading seasons like all the states did,using languagebased upon muzzleloading as it existed backin the50's/60's.

Language written in the spirit of what the ML seasons were intended to be...the use ofweapons that were regarded as primitive,as being generally in the form ofthose used back during the early American traditional muzzleloading era...of those that were obviously representative of the typical muzzleloader in wide spread use back then.

I think all states got caught by surpriseas the modern, non-traditional inline craze exploded whichgot around the originallanguagebecause when the original languagewas written, high performance modern inlines were not yet invented so naturallyno thought was given to more explicitly defining whatthe muzzleloading seasons and regs should be...it was obvious to everyone at the time.

Many stateshave since changed/expanded their regs with language that allows in"BP substitute powder" obviously focusing onequivalent performing substitutes like Pyrodex....but states are a little further along now in their thinking and the notion of also allowingmodern high performance smokeless powders in these seasonsseems to be simply too much of a slap in the face to wildlife departments and traditionally minded hunters...sosome of the states are now saying...and rightly so..."time out, this is gone too far".

AndI doubtany states have anything already on the booksregarding smokeless powder that they'd have to go back and change...they're simplystepping up to their responsibilities and declaring smokelessbanned before it gets too far along.

Personally...I repeat personally...I'd like to see every state restore muzzleloading seasons to their original intent and purpose...traditional muzzleloading...for thosehunters who choose to pick up the challenge andlearn to master sidelocks, real blackpowder, patched balls, open sights, etc.

PS: and there's not a rationalhuman being on the planet who can in good faith declare that those seasonswere established and intended for anything different than what I just outlined.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Thats right, now they have to really do it right and ban use of 777, pyrodex, and any other alternative to good ole blackpowder. then they might have thier head on close to being right.:D

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

I sent an email to Minnesota's DNR asking for specifics.

It depends on when they were established. I used to know a guy in Maine who always maintained that Maine's season wasn't established as a traditional season. I've heard Illinois was the same way but I don't know for sure. It really doesn't matter to me as I don't bother with the muzzleloader season.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Nowhere in my post did I memtion people being hurt or killed in Minnesota specifically. I simply alluded to people being hurt and/or killed in this country over astray gunshots during hunting seasons. The DNR ranger I spoke to said "odds are" when restictions like thesetake place, someone - perhaps plural, gets hurt and/or injured - thus resulting in a smaller, shorterdownrange bullet/firearm restriction. If I mislead anyone here to beilieve that I know what's going on in some other state 1500 miles away from Michigan, well you have a screw loose even thinking I ight have that sort of information. I don't have any insider scoop in the state I live in. Thinking I know what's happening in Minnesota is kind of funny. I never thought any poster here would even consider something like that. Kinda' surprises me how little common sense some folks have -- especially ML board administrators.

What do you think I have available at my fingertips Wolfhound?.... a synopsis on every gun injury or death in America? Are you insane or just stupid? I gave you one of plural reasons why this Minnesota restriction "probably" took place. By 'probably'... I mean "odds-are". According to this Ranger, shots fired is the #1 reason a restriction gets put in place after an extended time with no restrictions. I never said it was the the only or persuadingreason for the change in Minnesota.


Frankly... I don't care why they (Minnesota)changed their laws.... just happy about that they did.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Roundball - (not to single you out)

While I agree that many States were blind sided by the advancement muzzleloaders and powders have made in the last twenty years, it still does not negate the fact that once you start removing and changinglaws which allowed hunters certain rights, such as Minnesota did, removing more of them become much easier in the future.

Further, relating to safety issues, any hunter entering the field to participate in a muzzleloading season needs to know their rifles and their personallimitations, whether it is a .50 caliber flintlock or a Savage ML-10 with smokeless powder. It is the responsibility of every hunter to conduct themselves at all times in a manner safe to themselves, other hunters, and the general public. Would you shoot your flintlock at a deer on the crest of a hill knowing full well that a farm house is in a somewhat direct path behind your point of aim? Of course not. Common sense tells you, if you missed that ball could well be a dangerous projectile further behind your intended target. Iffor sake of discussion took that shot, missed and struck the farm house. Who should we blame, the flintlock or the person who pulled the trigger without regard to their backstop? Of course, the shooter IMO. Just as I would not shoot across an open field with my Black Diamond XR loaded with 150 grains of powder and a Shockwave or a Savage ML-10, knowing there was a farm house behind the deer.

I know that many traditional muzzleloading enthusiasts like to point out that many States enacted muzzleloading season back before inline development arrived on the scene. We know this as fact.No arguement.Traditionalists are also quick to point out,the idea that this special season was for the pursuit of deer in a manner or spiritmuch like our forefathers would have encountered and with similar weapons. Again, no arguement. After all inlines were not even an issue at this time. Kind of hard to argue your position when you did not even exhist. I also applaud such States as Pennsylvania and others I am sure, which is their foresight enacted both a primitive and modern muzzleloader season.

While many traditionalists feel muzzleloader hunters should take the time and effort to learn the skills of their forefathers, master black powder, sidelocks, roundball, etc.. many people lack the time or the willingness to do so. Does this make them a bad person? Not really. Some arejust a busy person with out the time to master all the aspect of the traditional rifle sport. In other cases, many insurance companies do not allow the storage of black powder in the premise without special safety precautions in the home. Also some do not believe that the ballistics of the traditional rifle are humane to hunt with.

Inline rifles filled that nitch. They allowed people to enter the sport, in many cases for much less money. It allowed them to shoot something other then black powder that they could store in their homes. It offered them ballistics that they felt much more comfortable with in the pursuit of game animals. It offered them a cleaner alternative to black powder. It opened up the sport to much more then the person with the flintlock or sidelock rifle. Lets not also forget, inlines pumped billions of tax dollars into sporting programs and deparment of natural resources. It brought more people into a sport that was loosing more and more people each year to other interests. The addition of more people brought a stronger lobby for us to voice our opinions so governmental agencies can see things our way instead of the way of anti hunting organizations.

The problem is, inlines are here to stay. Just as synthetic and smokeless powders. Many States do not have the hunting time or resources to make sperate seasons based on rifle design. So in some cases the two kinds of rifles were grouped together. Some States to equal the playing field set restrictions like no optics, limited optics, limited projectles, ignition systems, even powders. Which I have no problem with. This allows everyone a chance to participate in the muzzleloader season. What I do have a problem with is when something is allowed in a State like Minnesota and then taken away. Again, smokeless powder does not effect me in any manner and I have no stock in Savage. But I will support my muzzleloading sport in any manner I personally feel important, just as I would expect you to do. I respect all people's views and opinions whether I agree with them or not.

Further, I have stated my views and like others on the board feel no more need to express myself anymore on this matter.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

That's not what you said.

Your range officer needs to check what he's saying. That's like the guys at Ultimate Firearms telling people that Savages were blowing up everywhere. They changed their tunes after talking to the CEO of Savage.

That's the thing about rumors, they grow bigger every telling. Shame on you for repeating it without verifing it first. And shame on you forposting it like it was fact. That just hands the anti's ammunition to use against us all. Hunting is the safest sport, safer than football, basketball, etc.

The next case where someone with a smokeless muzzleloader kills someone accidently will be the first one I hear about. It may have happened already but I've never heard about it. I canremember allthe stories about ML's that I've heard taking a life. Most of the time it's death by stupidity, like using a lighter at the breech while looking in the muzzle, or a tragic accident like someone snapping a cap on a child only to find the gun was loaded. You want a cause, try stamping out stupidity. It's more abundant than hydrogen.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

And I take no direct focus on you either Cayugad...just discussing a couple of points...and the one above is an excellent point.

That's why those hunters you're referring toare already blessed to have a regular firearms deer season available where they don't have to expend any extra energy or time to learn/prepare for anythingnew...they can just grab the same scoped high performance .30-06 rifle they used last year and go hunting, put it back in the rack when they're done...usually don't even have to clean it thanksto non-corrosive smokeless powder...millions of hunters live that scenarioevery year.

So it begs the question...why indeed then do these hunters you refer to...who don't have the time or willingness to learntraditional ways (your words, not mine) insist on hunting in the traditional seasons with as modern a looking / operating, big scoped high performance rifle that money can buy?

They're obviously not doing it in the traditional way, sothere can only be one answer:

"To take advantage of a specialdeer season to increase their odds of killing a deer...and again, doing so without putting forthany effort to learn and master anything.....just to sit there for an extra amount of time (time that they didn't have in the first place to learn traditional mind you)with a long range scopeand long range flat shooting modern high performance rifle that simply happens to load from the front so itgets themaround the old previously established language for traditional seasons".

From a selfish point of view, no matter what somebody elses uses isn't going to interfere one iota with my particular good fortune of havinggood deer densities,a good place to hunt them undisturbedwith myFlintlock & PRBs, and good odds of filling all sixtags every year.

But there are right and wrong aspectsofissues in all societies, and IMO, this is one of those issues, that's all I'm saying...

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

If my screen name here was Wolfhound and I clicked-on to read Triple Se7en's first reply, the first thing that would of came to my mind was that this is the internet & poster Triple Se7en must of missed either the word 'probably' or the words "odds-are" in his post.

After-all, there is no way- from the time poster Rounball started this thread to the time Triple Se7en replied, that he could of actually found the 1 or 2 Michigan DNRofficers/executives that know anything about Minnesota'snew restriction-- out of 5,000 to 10,000 DNR officers in the entire state.

Again, if I were Wolfhound, having my own ML messageboard that I own, would certainly know that poster Triple Se7en doesn't even have the proper Superman costumebetween poster Rounball's original thread opening and Triple Se7en's reply to actuallyknowwhat exactly the Savage restrictions are -let-alone this new Minnesota restriction isa "direct-most certain" result of a Savage deathin Minnesota.

Poster Wolfhound must think Triple Se7en has magical powers -- able to drive 200 miles roundtrip - have a one hour conversation while there(or) have the 1 or 2 Michigan DNR executive's personal phone number.... then actually think these 1 or 2 officers will tell Poster Triple Se7en exactly what happened there in Minnesota.

This is friggin hilarious! Grown-up men/administrators going thru messageboard motions - like that of a two year-old. An actual messageboard administrator that didn't have the common sense to reply by saying...
"Lets wait for poster Triple Se7en to come back online. I bet he accidently left out a word or two in his post". Instead, this board administrator replies with what's listed in his above post..... not even considering a typo might be involved.

Incredible! As a result, I will only reply to posts here at Hunting.netvia the personal message system from now on. I'll let all the two year-olds like cascadedad, Wolfhound and Frontier Gander teachthe ones that need ML helphere publically. I'll then correct their teaching mistakes thru the private messaging system here-only.

See Ya folks!

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Darn it roundball.. I said I was done, but in answer to your specific thought (which I admit has a lot of truth to it) If I may, let me break it down in parts;


[hr]


Lets first point out just the use of the inline makes it a non traditional hunt by definition of a traditional season. Whether they use scopes, sabots, or smokeless powder is a matter of regulation. And again we will agree that all the things you mention such as the big scopes and high performance projectiles, are not permitted in all states. Wisconsin is a non magnification and non smokeless powder state for example.

As for the best, that money can buy.. if spending money was the issue, we'd all be hunting with traditional rifles which by enlarge are much more expensive on average then some of the Spanish made rifles out there on the market in the inline racks that draw people into the sport. How many posts do you read where someone is asking advise wanting to enter the sport and they have a couple hundred dollars. Few traditional rifles could be suggested for that budget and still have the person shooting quickly.

Many I feel are using an inline which is more user friendly many claim. I personally do not agree with that, but then traditional rifles are not a mystery to me. I also think once they actually get into the experimentation of sabots and conicals, they scratch their heads at the simple patch and ball combination being so effective.

As for the ballistics aspect, yes I am sure many embrace the inline for that reason. There are some that just do not trust the power of the roundball. Of course if they evertook the time to experiment with the roundball they might well change their opinion on that. Still they hunt with what they feel more comfortable with.

So they look for cost, ease of learning, ease of cleaning (could be a time element), ignition specifics (again, traditional rifles are no less dependable) and better ballistics. I am sure when they took that direction the fact it is not traditional is not really a factor to them. Also I think it will lead some to the traditional side sooner or later.

Of course they want to take advantage of a special season (if muzzleloading season is a real advantage). Who does not want more time in the woods. When I was working full time, we had people that flooded the modern deer season with vacation draws based on seniority,leaving the rest of us to fill in the gap working all season. I never cared because I always took the muzzleloading season off. I liked the idea I could hunt with less people to worry about in the woods, fill my freezer at the same time, and I never minded that I was not allowed to use a scope or had access to the long range ballistics. If I could not see it, I could not shoot it. Even if I could use a scope, it would have given me more time to be in the woods, fill my freezer and enjoy the outdoors. I guess anyone would desire additional time in the woods. They just want to use a rifle different from yours. Not sharing your values do not make them wrong, just different.

I will not argue that a scoped inline rifle does not have some real effective range to them.Too many posts of 200 yard shots are written. But again, that takes practice and working up a load. What would happen if a person scoped say a Lyman Great Plain Hunter and shot conicals. What would be the effective range of that rifle? Where scopes are legal, are not scopes an option for the traditional shooter as well? Could they not mount a scope on a traditional rifle?I have never done it, but have thought about it a lot.

I was talking to a group of traditional hunters here in my neck of the woods. We got on the topic of inlines. Their disgust at the inlines were based on a lot of things. They did not like the idea that the inlines could shoot further then their traditional rifles. I pointed out that was not really true. That because of the no scope rule, they had no more advantage then a Hawkins. Also, if they scoped a traditional, it might surprise them how far they could shoot accurately. It all boiled down to practice time. It was also mentioned, they did not like the inline hunters taking over their season andhunting areas. I then asked them, if these inline people all used traditional rifles, then would everyonebe happy with them being in the woods? They said of course not. They would be upset. They liked the woods all to themselves. To me that was not a dislike of inlines, that was just a true selfish nature of them coming through in reality. They did not like the competition. They wanted the woods all to themselves. So to me it was not the inline that they disliked but the opportunity it gave others to join in the sport at their special time of the year.

I personally never saw hunting as a competition. I saw it as a time when I could be in the woods and just enjoy more time outside. Maybe that's why inlines, scope, pellets, sabotsand smokeless powder just don't upset me. I do not care what anyone hunts with as long as they hunt responsible. But this is getting off topic and a discussion about the virtues of inline VS traditional rifles never solved anything. It could lead to hard feelings and I even saw it split up a different forum once. So I end all of this here!!

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Cayugad...you and I have had good communications for a couple years now and this is no different...but remember, I made a simple post about Minnesota having established some regs that would not allow modern smokeless powder to be used in their traditional ML season...andyour reponse really went pretty wide, bringingthe full gamet of muzzleloading related things into discussion and I responded.....so "darn", I'm good with it for tonightif you are...:D

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

I agree... :D

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

I don't own one anymore. It passed to big6x6.

You totally missed the point. You are spreading rumors. Like I said I emailed Minnesota's DNR, I'll get their sidewhich is more than you did.And when I get their response I will post it in this thread. The least you could have done was emailed the state DNRand got the facts.

Oh and by the way, Minesota allows centerfire rifles for deer hunting.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/regulations/hunting/legalcartridges.html

Seems odd to limit muzzleloading powders due tothe factors you mentioned.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Doesn't matter - he is just trying to dodge the fact you called him on posting unsubstantiated rumor as fact - and now he won't/can't defend it.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Which Which I find is typical if his posts... there was one I actually agreed with a couple days back... I was shocked!

I was also shocked that the ML Internet Guru didn't know that Patrick no longer owned or administrated a ML site anymore.

I find all of this rather funny... big discussion last year over original intent of ML seasons showed in a lot of instances that the law read ML not primitive. Again the laws of unintended consequences... it was found that a lot of seasons were not set up by "buckskinners" but by ML enthusisasts. Not by the leather loin cloth crowd... which is dying out. Those states that were have specific language like primitive. Read recently that the NMLRA is losing membership... steadily decreasing yearly.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Fact is no one can say for a certainty why an ML season in a particular state was set up unless you actual talk with or were one of the ones who set it up. To say you "know" why it was granted is an assumption bordering on a lie...

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Regardless of what the initial "intent" was with a particular states muzzleloader season, inlines introduce many, many folks to muzzleloading. Including me. It was not until I learned the very basics did I get a sidelock. I do not feel that the Savage smokeless muzzie is any threat to me or blackpowder shooting in general. Just lurk around any of the smokeless boards on the net and you will see that gun has it's own challenges and problems to contend with. The only problem I see with allowing smokeless (nitrocellulose) powder in muzzleloading is the occasional yahoo who thinks it's o.k. to take 300yd sniper shots because he has the all-powerful savage. From what I can tell from the board, they're in the minority. I think most people get the savage simply because they don't need (want) to clean their gun after each shooting session.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Jeez, I'm famous. I end up being named in almost every post of Trip's.

It's just amazing how many people he calls stupid. Pretty much what 12 year olds do. Any time someone disagrees, they say, "Your stupid!"

Hey Cayugad, maybe you will get added to the list now with myself, Mr. Gander and Roundball. It would be an honor to have you join us.

Just a tip for everyone. Trip edits almost every single post for one reason or another, so don't respond to one of his posts until it has been edited. Amazing for a man with his intelligence and insight that he can't proof read his posts prior to hitting the OK button.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Well, maybe not almost every posts, but quite a few.

I do find most of what he writes most humorous and entertaining.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Ithought the point of todays "blackpowder" was to replace the unsteady, highly explosive "Real" blackpowder? Plus its easier for stores to carry. Ever see what it takes tosell real blackpowder? Ive only found one place in colorado that sells it. As for the smokeless Muzzleloader. I dont think it has a place in muzzleloading. Thats like taking your TC out with a new single shot barrel during muzzleloading season, It offers the power of a modern rifle but with the more powerful powder to get that bullet out there. And i agree with one post i read... A hunter with a flintlock or sidelock wants to get as close as he or she can to shoot, while a guy with an inline wants to back away as far as he feels comfortable and take the shot. I agree 100% with that. ive carried both of those rifles in the field and thats exactly what i did. Flintlock kicks all inlines butts though. In my opinion. Nothing like seeing that big flash of powder go off in the morning light :D.. Best experience ive ever had...

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

When all this is said and done we should consider that we really do not need to be fighting each other on these rather puny issues when there are large well funded groups out there that are trying to take all our guns whether traditional or not. I think if you want to shoot "traditional" (however you describe it) great. If you want to shoot "modern" great. I have both and I mainly hunt with a scoped Omega as my state allows it and the elk appreciate quick kills even though I usually limit to 120 yards which a good .58 round ball will accomplish in the hands of a very good shooter. My eyes will not focus iron sights and I am glad Arizona allows scopes. I leave mine on 1.5 most of the time. It only goes to 5. Lets all get some more time behind the sights andless picking on each other.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Cayagad
I agree with everything you said, There is one minor correction tho,
I also live in WI. and we are allowed to use smokeless powder.
Redclub

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Thats right, niether does this high tech, fancy very consistent burning 777 powders by hodgdon. I mean whats primative about that.:D

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

is Swiss okay? ;)

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Very good point bigcountry. As I have said before, to me there is no right or wrong on this stuff. If 10 of us sat down to individually make up the rules, we would end up with 10 different sets of rules/laws.

And......like doegirl, I was introduced to ML through inlines. I don't have a traditional BP gun, but will be looking to get one this next year. It will be great to pass that part of our history down to my kids and I really doubt it would have happened without the evil inline.

UC, I have a couple pounds of Swiss on order, maybe the muzzleloader gods will approve when I throw away Triple Seven and shoot some real BP.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

No, absolutely not, Swiss is way too consistent. Its has to be goex, maybe elephant. :D

But I prefer only goex. Seriously, I like the stuff,

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Redclub -I have always been under the impression that smokeless powder was illegal, and still is. So I opened my rules and regulations and it reads;

"Muzzleloaders are legal to use during the 10-day muzzleloader hunt with black powder or black powder substitutes."

This definition still did not solve my problem. While I am not doubting your statement, I really wanted a definite answer. I did not consider that a definite answer. I am only going by past experiences and talking to warden friends of mine. So I called the head office in Spooner Wisconsin. I then spoke to the head warden there.

I asked him, "I was under the impression that smokeless powder was illegal in Wisconsin during the muzzleloader season. Another Wisconsin resident is under the impression that smokeless powder is considered a legal powder during muzzleloader season. So who is right?"

He then stammered a little and said, well lets see how the law reads. So to speed this up, I read him the above quoted statement from their website reference the muzzleloader regulations. I then asked him, which answer is it. His response was; "I don't know."

We then discussed the different available powders out there on the market today. He wanted to know what kind of smokeless powder I was talking about. All I could answer was, smokeless, the same kind you would find in a center fire rifle as far as I know. He then said he really could not answer my question. I then told him I would hate to go hunting in the woods with an answer like that. He laughed and said so would he, and that he would find out the correct answer and let me know.

So the answer is; he will call me back. :D:D:D

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Cayagad there was a letter in the wis outdoor news Nov.issue a couple of years ago. Also it was on the DNR webpage. RW also had a letter stating this from the DNR. According to the DNR smokeless is a blackpowder substitute.
Redclub

Got a super 91 in 410 today.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

Well it is new to me... not that it makes any difference since I do not shoot it. So far no telephone call back from the DNR but I believe you...

Congratulations on the Super 91 in .410 caliber. It should be a great long range shooter.

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

It was a legislative issue the DNR had nothing to do with. I doubt my state senator or representative could help me find out why.;) Although the manner in which it was done points to active citizens talking to their representative. I doubt any legislator, unless they are a hunter, would even know of the issue.Could be hunters or anti-hunters pushing for it but there's no way to tell.

[/blockquote]

RE: And another state has done it right.....Minnesota
 

roundball

How about these rules.... IDAHO