To me, the shoe is on the other foot. If people want scopes, let them show the data that in states like Colorado, who give a limited number of tags to muzzleloaders DURING THE ELK RUT, that it will not increase harvest. There may be no cold hard facts, but I think it is a pretty good assumption that if you add 50-100 yards to the effective shooting range for elk hunting in September, more elk will be killed.

I am not the only one who thinks so. Found this quote:

"Put a scope on top of any black-powder weapon and "it no longer becomes a primitive weapon," said Ron Anglin, the state's Wildlife Division administrator.

Anglin said Oregon's various muzzleloader hunts are designed based on success rates with primitive weaponry.


The rifle shown here is representative of the modern technology that much of today's muzzleloading hunters desire.
Add optics and success rates will increase, Anglin said. That means fewer available tags and, possibly, the withdrawal of some hunts, he explained.

"We've received requests for scopes in the past," Anglin said. "When we've explained it, people have backed off."

So, show me the data to support your contention that it won't increase harvest on comparable limited draw, rut hunts.

No concrete proof, but say starting next year, Colorado allowed scopes for the special muzzy elk season. And lets say you had a million dollars and were required to place a wager with it on one side of this question: "Will adding scopes increase or result in no change/decrease in harvest/success rates over a 5 year period?"

You gonna tell me that you would risk a million that it would stay the same/decrease? And as I showed earlier, it doesn't take much of an increase for them to lower tags a lot. Even a 2-3% increase in harvest could result in an 8-12% reduction in tags.

You notice I have not mentioned mule deer, but for elk hunting during the rut, I think it is a pretty safe bet that there would be SOME increase in harvest rates. I would make that bet in a heartbeat.

In places where game is plentiful like Texas (4 million whitetail) and other similar states who cares if you use scopes or not or if it increases harvest or not. Last year, 208,000 hunters hunted elk in Colorado. That is almost 1 hunter per elk. Comparing Colorado to a lot of other states is apples and oranges.

One more argument. If they replaced the muzzy September rut hunt for elk with centerfire rifles with scopes, would the success rate go up?

I think it is pretty obvious it would. Why?

Two reasons: Scopes and extended range.

My point exactly.

Ok, WOW TX. First off, yes, with a CENTERFIRE rifle you would have a greater kill. We are not talking about that nor arguing that point. Your range is 300+ yards with a CENTERFIRE. We are talking about Muzzleloaders. From what you wrote you didnt read my entire post. Your quote on primitive weapons. Fine then lets throw out the INLINES. This is the problem not scopes. INLINES is what making muzzleloaders shoot further and faster. You want primitive? Then get a sidelock with round ball ammo and limit it to a 1x power. Your range then would limit to under 100 yards and the scope is going to give no one the advantage as open sights. You cannot argue the primitive point only with scope or no scope level. As for comparing differents states that is BS comparing Elk huntiing. Montana has the third highest pop of elk in the US and a successe rate of less than 30 percent. And we can use what ever we want. Even the archery hunters can use their really fancy sights. This argument has tooo many holes in it. You want primitive then use primitive. Don't halfa$$ it. Go back to sidelocks, round balls, open sights and throw out inlines.

Will scopes increase kill rates? I think scopes will increase successful well placed hits. So from that aspect it will make shooting one easier. I know (and I am talking only from me) I shoot much better with a scope then with open sights. With open sights I often liked to limit my shots to 75 yards and under. With scopes, I would push that to 125 yards. Does that mean I am going to be more successful.. well it will allow me more shots, but I still have to find the animal first. Then I have to get into a reasonable range to shoot.

It will be interesting to watch Wisconsin's harvest numbers and percentages for Muzzle loader season next year. Now with the addition of scoped rifles.

If it's "primitive weapon" season, the only thing allowed should be a longbow & cedar shaft arrows. If it's "muzzle loader" season, you should be able to use the best muzzle loader equipment you can find. Ask any American Indians if they hunt with blowguns & slingshots - of coarse not ! Intelligent people use the best/most efficient tools they can find for any job, hunting included. If the harvest is considered too great for one year, don't worry. the govt. will come down hard & heavy the next year. We need to be bashing the anti's, not each other.

Ok, I give up, we will just have to agree to disagree.

However, I will also disagree with you on one more point. I shoot 2 inlines and 1 sidelock. To be honest, I would put my T/C renegade up against my Omega and Knight LRH as far as accuracy. I don't believe that an inline is inherently any more accurate than a sidelock. Once you pull that trigger and it goes bang, the renegade barrel has shot just as accurate for me as the other two. I use my inlines more because they are easier to use and clean, but I still enjoy my renegade and still take it elk hunting from time to time.

My contention is that scopes and sabots are what is making muzzleloaders more accurate and a longer range weapon, not inlines. But that is truly speculation and your opinion is as valid as mine.

Again, I have no inherent bias against scopes. If Colorado legalized them, would I use one? Absolutely! But I think I would be hunting there less. Again, speculation on my part, but I think I make some pretty good arguments.

I don't see anyone bashing any one else. We are opinionated people having a thought provoking discussion. I hold no person and no ones opinion in contempt. I enjoy these kinds of disscussions because they make you think. And yes, I have changed my mind a time or two........... Well, OK once. LOL

txhunter58

I totally agree... I can shoot my Renegades equally well as my inlines when they have equal sights - no doubt about it...

From a rest I would have no problem shooting 150 yards from either with open sights...

Will Kill rates go up if a scope is added to a MZ. The answer is definitely YES. How could you think any other way??

I will present an important FACT.

I sold firearms for a living for many years. Including MZ's.

I was around when you had to have only open sights to hunt the "primitive season". MZ sales were OK. But nothing spectacular.

Then along came Knight rifles. With an unbelievable new rifle called an "inline" Right around 1985 I do believe.

The new Knight rifle sold pretty good, but not spectacular. Why?? Because even though it was a new development in MZ's, you still had to shoot with open sights.

Then a few more states allowed scopes. WOW. Sales went through the roof. I was selling hundreds of scope mounts to every dealer for the older style Hawken type rifles. JB Holden became rich overnight with his IronSighter mount. And rifle sales went through the roof. Many customers would not hunt the MZ season because they had to hunt with open sights. When they were allowed to hunt with scopes the sales went through the roof, and there were four or five times more MZ hunters. Due only to the scope.

The bottom line is this. Most hunters can not shoot an open sighted rifle. That is a fact. That is why I prefer the state keeps scopes off the MZ's.

When they put scopes on MZ in CO the # of tags issued will drop drastically. Because the success rate will go sky high.

Putting a scoped rifle in the hands of a mediocre hunter in CO will mean a ton more dead elk. I guarantee that. My gosh. It would be like heaven . A 200 yard range MZ when the bulls are at their dumbest?? And you do not think kill rates will go up?? Ridiculous.

However kill ratios are not what are driving these DNR's. What is driving these DNR's is $$$$$$$$$$$$$MONEY.

Personally I wish they would go back to "primitive weapons" only, with NO scope. The seasons would become considerably more liberal. And there would definitely be more tags available.

If you can not see with open sights. Then I am sorry, but limit your shots or stay home. I am a handicapped hunter and wanted to hunt public land in CO. In a place where I could hunt from a 4-wheeler 15 years ago. Now I wanted to go back and hunt that public ground(in CO). But now I am not allowed to hunt there any more on my ATV. So how is that fair?? It is not. But it is the way it is. But the land is still public land that my tax dollars paid for!! Tom.

I do not agree with allowing scopes on muzzle loaders. I think that the powder and bullets are getting so advanced that 300 yard shots at animals are possible, and with great effectiveness. The problem is, actually seeing your target at 300 yards (scopes help), and holding for the correct elecation (again scopes help).

I have talked to people here in NV (scopes not legal), who have claimed 200+ yard shots at game with open sights.

IMO that is just way to far with a ML and open sights. At 100 yards, my front sight covers a milk jug. That is my max range.

As is with any weapon, people will always be pushing the envelope.

In my mind, the muzzle loader season is for HUNTING. Same with archery. If you want to kill a deer so you can brag to your buddies, hunt in rifle season with the other yahoos. If you want to prove to yourself you are a HUNTER, hunt the archery and ML seasons.

As much as I like improvements, I think the improvements are getting so much that in experienced people are getting over confident because of the fancy equipment, taking shots that should not be taken, and then not following up properly with a wounded animal and loosing them.

Later,

Marcial