Pglasgow

Hang on - did not mean to light a fire... but you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy 30-30 amunition with those velocities... lots of other places also. I did not make it up they are available...

The 30-30/250 comparison was meant to be a general comparison. It did not compare the hottest 30-30 load nor did it compare the hottest ML 250 load either... It was meant to be a GENERAL comparison. Not everyone shoots 150 grain ML load in fact I would say there are more people shooting the reduced loads than the 150 grain loads...

Next read the book - the .308 150 grain FP (flat point)as listed in the Speer catalog has a BC .268 Sec Density of .228 so what the heck is your complaint???

Furtherif I compare the hottest 30-30 to the hottest non-smokeless 50 cal 250 grain ML load it is not going to get any better. If you want to compare it the the Ultimate ML or the smakeless Savage that is different story - but even then, if I were hunting for necessity and the guns were equipped equally the 30-30 is going to be the better choice... especially with the newer loads that are available. If I were to choose a weapon for recreational hunting I am hooked on the ML - so I would choose to give up the advantages of the 30-30... and even then the 32 Winchester is superior to both of them...

Gosh!

Well is there any factory ammo which would be flatter and more wind resistant to 200 than the 160 grain Leverevolution? I don't know of any. I certainly don't think I can walk into Walmart and walkout with a box for $11 and change like I did my last box and like the vast majority hunting with 30-30 would. Even so, lets use it. See below.

I just can't see how the ML load is so inferior to it.

Besides, its not up to the weakest 30-30 to justify why it isn't allowed to play in ML season. Its up to the best Inline ML load to justify why it should be allowed to play in anything other than the rifle season.

So one of these new inline 3 pellet muzzleloaders can outshoot a cartridge rifle.. Better hope no DOW or game officer reads this or else all hells gonna break loose!

Pglasgow

Ya got me there - but this is 2007 so they will cost $12.39 that is what this box is marked, not that far off $11.

No one said it was inferior, my statement is shooting a ML is not much better than shooting a 30-30...

Your load comparison will not work here in Idaho - I was talking Idaho when I made the comparison, that is why I had to use the 250 SW/SST. Under the old rules in Idaho during ML season the bullet has to be a minimum .428 so your 10mm is not valid for Idaho. Next under the new rules the ML is further behind the 30-30 because you have to shoot a conical - it doesn't look like PB are even goingto be legal. That has not been totally detirmined yet, certainly a large group of people hope it is that way while another group hope that PB's are legal. For me it would not matter - I will shoot conicals all day vs. thePB. And of course under the new rules pellets are not legal either so the percieved advantage of the ML over the 30-30is really lagging now.

So for me I will stand with the statement the 30-30 equally equiped with a modern ML is a superior gun. It will provide you more advantageous than a single muzzleloader in a situation where the opportunity for food is dependent on the gun.Doesn't mean that I would hunt with a 30-30 if given the choice... I would still prefer using a ML for now.

This whole conversation started because of the mis-conception that hunting with an inline in Idaho made the inline equal to high powered centerfires... To many people believing TC, Knights, and others adds in TV and in the magazine.

Your statement:

I must admit I have not read all the posts in this thread, but I certainly have never suggested that a 30-30 should be allowed during ML season. Where did you get that one?

This whole thing started when you made the inflated statement that:

I disagree with that statement superior and posted a general table to say so. You chose to disagree on the BC of the bullet and the information in general.dmurphy317indicated that the 30-30 load I listed was light and he was correct.

You countered with:



And in this case I believe you were wrong on both statements and dmurphy317knew what he was talking about. I have not used or reloaded the 30-30 for 15 years, but obviously dmurphy317has. And I did walk into to the local Wal-Mart and purchase just exactly what you said would not be there...

Yes that's how the whole thing started.And I can'tseewhat way Ihavenot shown that that an inline so equipped isn't superior to the best 30-30 factory ammo that can be purchased.

As to B.C., I'll not argue whether Speer's B.C. is inflated, I'll simply give you that. For my part, I am familiar with flat nosed bullets of the same weight having VASTLY inferior BCwhich I think likely are likely to show up in the ammunition I have bought and definitely in that I havereloaded with. I gave you the link. Even so, its makes little difference. What particularlyparsed me was that you didn't usethe loadYOUpersonally hunt within the comparison. I would at least expect that. A person wanting to show how his load compared to a 30-30 would have done that.

As for whether Leverevolution ammo can be bought for $12. All I can say is congratulations. I can't buy for that price. My walmart doesn't have it and Cabela's wants almost $19 a box for it. Which makes sense, considering that it generally takes more than $12 to buy a box of 15 SST's.

I don't mind if you hunt with an inline. I don't care if you use sabots, 100 grains of 777 or 3 pyro-pellets. Whatever is legal is fine with me. I don't mind if you lobby your officials andto discuss alternatives as to what is legal.

It seems everytime weturn around there is new post on how ingenuine theState of Idahowas in the new regulations. It usually involves an exageration of frontier rifle technology, like in this thread.

When we aren't talking about inlines in Idahowe are writing about how a 209 ignited inline can be left outside in the elements all dayand be brought in each night and be found to "fire flawlessly" and "right where it should"at the end of week of this, or that one "wouldn't hesitate" to take a 200 yard shot, 3" groups at 200 yards, and dinging gongs at250. But when Idaho says, "that's more capability than we want you to have in ML season",some raise there arms in protest saying "it just ain't true." I don't see any semblance of sincere and honest dialogue in it.Instead its justmaligning of the game officials and the folks who belong to your state's muzzleloading association. It not just that I think this talk is wrong, friend, I know it its wrong.

Pglasgow

This is my opinion and only my opinion, but the whole situation was handled wrong from the get go. Idaho has been going along for at least seven years with the same ML rules and with thhose rules the two ML's were pretty much equalized as the restrictions put on the inlines made it that way. When Idaho decided to make the change it occurred without warning to the general HUNTING public. Example, I belong to a trap club full of hunters, there are 120 members in this trap club - four prople knew of the change.

Most of us do not have the time to attend the meetings, and I know that is our own fault, but I really think there was a very poor attempt to let the general public know what was going on. The members of the well organized traditional clubs did know what was going on and a lot of them spoke in the different meetings.

The real proof is when the state officials say that the referendum concerning the change was favored by a 46/44% margin. That hardly a mandate, further a very small minority of people even answered the referendum, mostly because it was not well advertised.

I have and had requested to be added to the state Fish & Game mailing list concerning impending changes. I have yet to recieve any information from them. Granted I could go to the state web site every day and check but when they supply a method to be electronically informed of impending information, you would expect that they might follow through. In this case very littlewas passed out to the general public.

It is really difficult for a person in Colorado to feel what is happening in Idaho, just as it is difficult for me to know what is happening in Colorado and evenif I did no - I really do not know where or how my feelings should have anything to do with the rules you establish in Colorado.

Phil to be honest with you I have never even heard of a State Muzzleloading Association... there several traditional clubs around the state and maybe they are band together, but to my knowledge the fish and Game has never implied to me that there might be a State Association that they recognize as State Association. I suppose I could form one and call it a State Association.

I think the mess that we might be in right now in the state is the result of hearing from a limited few. Further I am not convincinced thatall of the Trad clubs or even the all of the traditional folks requested these sweeping changes. But, when they did occurthe state was caught a little off guard by the amount of backlash that appeared. It is really hard for the State to take away what theyhave already given and supported for so long, then swap courses at the drop of a hat.

Just my two cents...

I can't for the life of me figure out why the discussion between CF and ML always use a 30-30 in the comparison. That is absolutely ridiculous. Come on, at least use an '06.

Aren't 30-30'sprimarily used as brush guns. They are used when a quick, fast pointing gun is required and typical shots would be 100 yards or less. They are for the most part NOT used in the open country in the west where >200 yard shots can be expected much more often than <100 yard shots.

You know, better yet, compare one of the new fancy magnum rifles that are out and available to ANY modern firearm hunter to ANY inline ML that was legal in Idaho BEFORE the rule change. This will be a comparison that actually means something.

The following is what I posted in another thread. Roundball didn't comment. I have yet to get a response from an anti-inline person. Phil, do you have any data you can use to justify the rule changes in Idaho? It appears that 138,100 modern rifle hunters share a season, so why can't 2,650 muzzleloaders?????

From cascadedad's other post.
roundball

Well, now that we are talking about Idaho.... I have asked the question a couple times in different threads, where is the datathat shows what impact the Idaho changes will have on Mule Deer harvest numbers. So far, unless I have missed something, no one has been able to produce it. If you can, I would certainly appreciate it.


These numbers have been referenced before. I don't know the accuracy, but I imagine they are at least close.
http://www.muledeernet.org/statusidaho.htm

From 2005,
Total Deer Hunters (Rifle) 138,100
Total Deer Hunters (ML) 2,650

Let's assume that half the MLers hunted with inline and half with traditional.

The traditionalistssay, "Well, the modern ML hunters can ALWAYS hunt the regular rifle season."

OK, so now the statistics are..............

Total Deer Hunters (Rifle & Modern ML) 139,425
Total Deer Hunters (Traditional ML only)1,325

I think it is safe to say,"Somebody wants the woods to themselves."

This is what gives me heartburn about the whole situation. Why can't you share the woods with me? Maybe you can further discriminate against some of the traditional hunters if they don't wear a loin-cloth. That will likely cut out another 6-800.

.504 Bullet Weight 460 grains Pyrodex P Grains 80

-----Velocity------
Muzzle - 1264 Ft/Sec
100 YD - 1120 Ft/Sec
200 YD - 1024 Ft/Sec

---Energy Ft-lbs---
Muzzle -- 1613
100 yds - 1267
200 yds - 1065

----Trajectory----
50yds ~ +2.7
100yds 0.0
200yds ~-29.0
250yds ~-57.0


30-30 Win. 170 grain Nosler Partition

-----Velocity------
Muzzle 2200 ft/sec
100 yds 1894 ft/sec
200 yds 1619 ft/sec

---Energy Ft-lbs---
Muzzle ---1827
100 yds --1354
200 yds ---990

----Trajectory----
50yds 0.3
100yds 0.0
200yds -8.4
300yds -30.0

Not really so Sabotloader. Fact is, I empathized with you and I have a sense about your how you felt. I even wondered if this kind of movement could affect your income. I brushed that off and decided it had every thing to do with the performance you expect in you ML rifle. Even so, regarding performance, you would have had a very effective load for the GMB'd hawken. I go to the field with less and must get closer than you in spite of my inline. It does change hunting strategy and I figured it would provide you a rewarding change from the hum-drum point and shoot to 175 yards you have comeso accustomed to. I suspect that the recent change, in your neck of the woods, of the ML season to SRW is comforting to you, and I am happy for you. If you recall, I predicted it would happen in so many words.

Mike, maybe you guys don't actually have a generalized state one. Colorado does and it is an assemblage of a bunch of great folks. I am not a member, but lately, I have felt a conviction that I should be and that I should support it with time and effort because they do so many great things to the benefit of muzzleloading and hunting.

I thank you for that comment. I think the state is the one responsible.

As I commented before, I don't think Muledeernet.com's numbers can be relied upon. Using them makes you look a little like a conspiracy theorist. The state's publicly made claim of over 20,000 hunter participation in ML season is so far off from your numbers that I just have to ignore them.

What you don't realize, cascadedad, is that the citizens of Idaho were going to lose something anyway. In Colorado, we lost 9 days of prime hunting season (rut) to make allowances for inline hunters. If Colorado decided to make the ML hunt a PRB/flinter season, I would have to say, I might just support it if they gave us back the days. I figure there would be enough inliners go back to rifle season that I could depend on a draw for bull each year, which now I can't. But alas, inliners so love their inlines that they just bargained away by anarchist threats halfour season. I suppose you would call that a victory.

As for the woods to themselves? Simply hogwash. Take your traditional rifle hunting and participate, they want you there, if YOU want to be there. Lack of participation is the fault of the person who won't participate. I for one don't want the woods to be devoid of other hunters. I have often benefitted from their presence.

Finally, U. C., obviously there are lots of ways to load an Inline inferior to a 30-30. I do that myself. I merely made a contextual statement, which context was SO specific, that one could draw no conclusion other than I meant that such loads were minority. Again, its not up to the 30-30 to show it can play in ML season. The comparison isn't really centerfires and inline muzzleloaders. The comparison is really a frontier rifle loaded with PRB (states original intent)and whether the inline muzzleloader is sufficiently primitive to play in a primitive hunt.

Pglasgow

I take a little bit of exception to this statement in that I must remind youthis shot was taken during the regular rifle season with an Omega, closed breech, 209 ignition, and 3x9 Elite - all of which are not legal in Idaho during the ML season. Now with that said if I had been afield that day with a Hawken and solid rest, and with the required open sights, #11 ignition and the same bullet a 260 grain saboted Nosler (all which were legal in Idaho at that time). I would have taken the same shot and the results would have been the same. The only difference between the two shots, with the Omega I did not have nor did I need that solid rest, with the Hawken the rest is the only way I would have taken that shot. Today under Idaho's new rules - I could still make that shot with the same Hawken, same set-up - but the bullet would be a 460 grain .504 Bull Shop - but again the solid rest and the standing (poseing (sp)) deer would be the requirements for me to make that shot. Oh, and really good light... eyes tain't what they use to be.