Muzzleloading scopes: yes or no
 

Originally Posted by rhans53
txhunter, I don't think I agree with your reasoning. Scopes only allow better shot placement IMHO. They don't increase the range of the rifle, they don't increase power, but for most folks a they do give a better sight picture. there are way to many folks out there that take shots they shoudn't and probably wound more animals that will ever be known about and scope or no scope doesn't matter to these folks I feel a scope gives more focus during the shot, now if you miss you miss but at least your just not throwing lead. I'm not trying to start a major debate here and I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, just giving my 2 cents on it.

Rhans53: For places like Texas and Wisconsin, where game is plentiful and tags are not so hard to draw, I think scopes are a good thing.

However, to me you almost prove my point in your statement. Scopes DON't really extend the EFFECTIVE range at all. BUT they do make people take longer shots and DO increase the range the average hunter can be accurate at.

Currently with an open sight muzzy, I feel very comfortable out to 120 yards and if conditions are perfect, I would attempt 150 yards.

However, with a 9 power scope, that accurate distance is easily extended out to 200-250 yards. Certainly doesn't make a muzzy a 400 yard gun, but it does definately extend the accurate range of pretty much any shooter with a muzzy but 50-100 yards.

So with a scope, people would be trying longer shots. And I would maybe harvest an elk that came in to 160-180 yards that I would have passed on with open sights. I can't tell you the number of times I have "almost" got a shot on an elk, but he was just outside my comfort zone.

Also, had a friend 2 years ago that was down in a canyon that had a bull at 50 yards. Time said it was legal shooting time, but in a canyon and in timber, he could not see the sights on the open sights. With a scope, that elk would have been dead.

Now, both of those things are GOOD if you want to increase harvest, but the regs in Colorado are written to give quite a few tags and not increase the harvest. If harvest goes up in the muzzy season, they respond by lowering the number of tags issued

Think of another example. If bows made a leap of technology that made them a consistent 100 yard weapon, do you think they would sell bow tags over the counter? No, because they would harvest too many, and that would cut down on the rifle hunters take.

And I have no idea if this is true or not, but I really believe that if they allow scopes, more people will apply. For some, they just don't want to learn open sights and deal with shorter distances.

Both of those things: decrease in tags and increase in numbers applying, lowers my chance of drawing a tag, which is already bad enough (every 4 years for a bull tag). So, I am happy to keep the no scopes and have a better chance of going more often, even with the limitation.

That said, I would be in favor of allowing a 1X scope. As age affects my eyes, a clear sight picture would be a good thing, but wouldn't really extend the accruacy range for most hunters.

Some people feel that allowing scopes will cause an increase in wounding rate and some people argue that it will decrease wounding, but I don't really believe either. I suspect there will be about as many elk wounded and not recovered from scoped rifles shot out to 250 yards as there are now wounded at 150.

scopes have been legal here in kentucky for alot of years, i use them myself and beleive they help cut down on making a bad shot. most all the hunters i know are like me and know that 2-250yds is the limit for a muzzleloader no matter what optic sits on top. but since these newer guns will reach out to 250yds, its better to have a scope on them so to make a better shot. and not wound game by trying to make that shot with open sights, if scopes were not legal i would limit my shots to 100yds or less cause my eyes are not what they used to be and my hands are not as steddy. and i don't beleive anyone can shoot open sights at 250yds and get consistant groups good enough to say they don't need a scope at that range. i beleive scopes should be legal on muzzleloaders, but the hunter should also know that it don't make a muzzleloader a 400yd gun cause it don't. hunters should stay within the 250yd range and hunter and game both will be better for it. thanks

Its an interesting perspective there txhunter58. As you might be aware, Wisconsin finally made legal the use of magnification on scopes. I was never really for this or against it. Where I hunt it made little difference.

Now in the southern end of the State if I were hunting the corn fields of the farms down there, a scope would be a real advantage. And this is only because the shots are much longer. Scopes are also a great advantage to the hunter with poor eye sight. I do believe scopes, if used properly are a great thing. But the key word is IF. And we all know there are a lot of hunters that do not care IF they use them properly.

Examples: Hunter with good shooting skills, and knowledge of the limitations of his rifle. Also the willingness to practice. With open sights, shoots out to 125 yards and no further. With a scope he might PRACTICE and well take shots to 175 maybe even further. I see posts all of the time of forum members shooting 200 yards.

If the muzzleloaders are not scoped, they are pretty equal as far as effective range. The inline shooting sabots might have an edge, but again, you can not kill what you can not hit.

Now lets look at the other side of the coin... I too see the threat of the inexperienced hunter causing some problems here. Lets say he's new to the sport. He sees a chance for an extra week at deer camp with his buddies, away from the wife, and maybe score a deer. He takes off running to a store, purchasing a... lets say, Accura with a 3-9x40 scope. He tried a powerbelt in it with 100 grains of powder. At 100 yards he is dead on. He shoots say a 3 inch group and says that's good enough. Now he hunts the cornfields and hay fields and sees deer all day at 185, 200 yds, etc. How many of them do you think he will take a shot at? Probably all of them. How many will he wound? Well he might get lucky and kill the first one, or he might punch holes in a bunch of them, but never recover them.

I think our DNR allowed scopes for a couple reasons...

1. sagging sales of license... Our DNR allowed the deer herds to be shot off in many areas. And local hunters stopped buying license in some areas. Believe me, it was noticed. I personally am not going to hunt my area this year. And might not deer hunt at all do to low herd numbers. In some areas it is that bad. I talked to several locals that never saw a deer the entire deer season. Before all the doe tags were given away for several years, it was common to see 20 or more a day. Now the DNR have been called on the carpet by the State Legislature for their herd management practices. I think this is an appeasement to the hunters.

2. CWD.. the DNR believes the only way to eradicate this disease is kill all the deer in the state and let the herd start fresh. Their philosophy is flawed, their practices have not works for years now, CWD spread instead of went into check. In some areas, hunters refuse to hunt deer because of their fear of the disease. The DNR's excuse.. hunters did not kill enough deer. So the solution ... kill more deer. They need more hunters in the woods. So if we allow scopes, maybe the hunters that would not brave the cold with the open sight muzzleloader, now will.

3. Pressure from hunter groups. I know there was a gathering of people that wanted scopes for muzzleloaders. I never was one of them, and they had some valid points. Poor eye sights. Less wounded deer (we will see about that). Will I use a scoped muzzleloader... sure. Why not. I am not going to change my hunting style, but I will be sure of some real accurate shots.

Many years ago, when I hunted with muzzleloader... it was me and my buddy George out wandering the woods. We seldom even saw another hunter. We spent a lot of time tracking deer in the snow, or trying to ambush them at bedding areas. Even did a little baiting from time to time, but most of all just enjoyed being out in the fresh air in the winter.

Today, Muzzle loading is big business. Stores, Restaurants, Gas stations, Sporting Good Stores, Motels, Guides, you name it.. all there to take a piece of the pie. The more hunters in an area the more money flows in an area. So I really feel this scope issue was a money maker, license sales gimmick, local economy stimulation, and herd management scam to put more bodies in the woods.

[QUOTE=boomer92266;3676228) if scopes were not legal i would limit my shots to 100yds or less cause my eyes are not what they used to be and my hands are not as steddy. and i don't beleive anyone can shoot open sights at 250yds and get consistant groups good enough to say they don't need a scope at that range. [/QUOTE]

Again, you make my point for me. If you believe what you are saying, then you must believe that more elk would be killed with scopes than without.

In states like Colorado, they give only a very limited number of tags. If success rates go up and more elk are killed in muzzy season, the tag numbers given out will go down. So my chance of being drawn goes from 4 years to 5-6 years.

That is what I don't want.

Went out today for one last tune up before leaving for Colorado on Thursday. First shot off a bench, then took the last 10 shots off shooting sticks. All were kill shots, but I didn't take a shot over 120 yards. With a 9 power, I am sure I would be practicing at least out to 200.

it is no doubt scopes help with longer shots, there are hunters out there tho that if they think their guns will shoot 250 they will try a shot at 250 scope or not. a scope helps to make a more humane kill, now without them a person should limit there shots but some will try with these new inlines whether they have a scope or not and that means wounded and possible lost game.

A rifle scope is like a crutch. A scope is basically an accessory that enhances the ability of a shooter. Pretty simple really. Different quality levels of a scope will yield different results. Definitely not a necessary part for function of the firearm, but definitely an enhancement. A scope in no way enhances the ability of the firearm-it only enhances the ability of the shooter.

I can remember when primitive season was just that, primitive season. Then it became Muzzle Loader season. That is what allowed scopes in the woods during what was "primitive season" at one time. But they could no longer call it "primitive season", because scopes were now allowed. And we all know there were no scopes on primitive weapons. Tom.

And you believe the same yahoos will not be trying shots to 350 yards with a scope?

I and the people I hunt with know their limits and don't exceed them. We respect the game too much.

You are not still not addressing the issue I raise: Will allowing scopes increase the harvest. I think from your posts you too believe that it would.

That is the issue I raise: scopes will increase the harvest and DECREASE the number of tags issued.

If you will give me a guarantee that scopes won't lower the tags issued, then I will switch sides in this argument. But you know as well as I that increased harvest will result in reduced tag numbers.

txhunter58

I can only speak for Idaho and the conditions I hunt in around here....

I am not sure that is a valid point here because I would bet most (90%) of the shots here are under a hundred yards. The scope probably for most would provide a better chance on getting a good shot on the animal. I think it would be more humane, because I am telling yopu the average hunter armed with open sights is going to take the shot @ a 100 if it is offered and where the point of impact might be could be a real toss-up. I am not so sure that scopes would decrease the tags in the normal mountain hunting situations.

Aah nope - no guarantee here at all.

I guess i really do not understand the need for a separate ML season anyway - unless it is done by the DNR or Fish and Game as contol method. I hunt all year with a modern scoped inline and feel no real disadvantage to hunting during the regular rifle season. There are times that I wish I had my Win Mag - but I plan on not having it and hunt accordingly.

What I really wish is the state would require all ML hunting. Then have special hunts or draws for centerfire hunts. I know if we were to do that the population of animals would increase, well maybe not we have protected wolves here. But that will not happen as it would cost F&G to much money.

a scope certainly increases the range of a muzzleloader. I see guys here talking about taking 300 yard shots with their omega's. With open sights its a lot more limited.

Scopes are good for better placed shots AND for people that have poor vision. I wear glasses and cannot shot ethicly with open sights. My eye sight is that poor, even with glasses. No matter what I have not found open sights that I can see clearly. They can easily have the regs state that you can only have a max 4 power scope. I don't know many people that can shoot over 150yards with a 4 power and be accurate any ways.

I never considered putting a scope on my gun till my eyes could no longer focus on the iron sights. I don't think there should be a cut-off time from muzzleloading due to aging eyes. A scope brought muzzleloading into to being ethical and fun again for hunting.

Last year Colorado issued about 3500 so called "statewide" bull tags. Since nonresidents get 35%, that means that they issued 1225 nonresident tags. I didn't pull a tag this year with 3 years into the drawing. I should be able to pull a tag next fall but if they reduce the tags any, that could me longer than a 4 year wait! I feel pretty sure that more bulls would be killed with scopes. I have no real proof, but I bet someone could look up stats in a state that has changed to allowing scopes and see how it affected that harvest. I just know personally, there have been quite a few times I could have shot at an elk with a scope, but I came home without firing a shot.

I really like the special muzzy season because I can chase elk in September with golden aspens and bugling bulls, so I don't want that to change either.

It isn't all "sour grapes" though. I did get a cow tag as a second choice the last two years and came home with a cow. I have another cow tag in my pocket for this year! I love it cow or bull, but just wish I could hunt for the "big-un" more often. I have yet to kill a really big bull and at my age, every year counts!

Maybe I will draw a Utah tag next year and put a scope on my muzzy!!!

it is no guarantee when useing a scope that harvests will go up, you still have to be able get one in your crosshairs. i whitetail hunt here in kentucky, in 3years i've had an inline with scope i have taken 1 deer with my muzzle loader. i do very good with my 308, but even with a scope to get an animal in range is still tough. no one can say for sure about if useing a scope will make harvests go up, one year it might, one year it might not, it depends on the luck of the hunter. but useing a scope will i believe cut down on wounded game. thanks

But have you been able to hunt them in the rut, as we can with the elk muzzleloader season? Many times, we can call an elk in during this season only to have him hang up at 150-200 yards.

As I already stated, I would be for allowing a 1X scope as that will allow people with bad eyesight to do better, but wouldn't affect the accuracy range much.

Well to out law scopes would eliminate all of us older people who have to ware trifocals or quad focal, is that what you want. We work for a long time to get scopes and two things won the fight one was when we proved scopes go all the way back to the flint lock era the other was discrimination lawsuits that were dropped because their was no need for them once they allowed scopes.

"Well to out law scopes would eliminate all of us older people who have to ware trifocals or quad focal, is that what you want."

No, I have said I am in favor of your change. I am talking specifically Colorado seasons. And as far as Trifocals, etc, I am basically there myself. Cept I wear no line progressives. Maybe there can be a provision for those who prove need, just like crossbows, but I still say: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I don't want to have to wait 5 years or more to draw a Colorado bull tag!

And let me say this one more time: I am not against 1x scopes. Should solve the problem of poor vision without producing the changes I am afraid will happen. I just don't want to increase the distance people are proficient with muzzleloaders from 100-150 yards to 200-250 yards IN COLORADO.

they have seasons for the disabled.

but i agree tx with your post on cayugads post. Colorado allows scopes, the harvest rate will go up and i to am afraid that once that happens, the tags will take even longer to get in the same crappy units where i mostly go home empty handed.

Add a new season for scoped muzzle loaders IMO. I am going 2nd or 3rd rifle and using my muzzleloader.

I shot a deer last year at 82 yards with my Knight Revolution and open sights. I hit it hard as it bucked and ran but it didn't leave a good blood trail. It quit bleeding about 100 yards into the woods, I shot it in a field, and I lost it. I have since scoped my gun and have it about zeroed in now. Next time I will be sure to get a heart/lung shot.

I hate to admit I can't use open sights, but I have shot a scoped rifle for so long that I just can't ethically use open sights.

Unless someone can state hard cold facts. There is no reason to ASSUME that it will increase the harvest rate. When I've been out in the field I sometimes heard WWII only to see the deer running unhurt and the person yelling in disgust and low in behold he has a scope on the gun. Also other things to think about. I know Montana is like this and it wouldn't suprise me if all states are like this because of FWP. MONEY, it all boiles down to money. Even if the harvest rate increased they are use to the MONEY and they are not going to cut tags and limit their income. The only way that would bite us in the back is if they limit the tags and then increase the price for the remaining. However in Montana, State Congress has to pass that. So I find that highly unlikely. Montana use to not allow illuminated optics. Like red dot scopes, etc. Well they finally changed it. Your scope can be illuminated, just not shoot out a laser or night vision. GUESS WHAT? We havn't had a increase of harvest nor increase of poaching! If we really wanted to fix the States Muzzleloader Seasons and stop some of the fighting, we need to get rid of the INLINES. Now don't get me wrong I love my inline. But all of these INLINES have ballistics equal/close to 45-70 or greater. Which is like shooting a center fire rifle. Make all Muzzleloader Seasons SIDELOCKS ONLY! Then as for scopes make them no greater than 4x. The inlines are nice and people can use them during reg season. But make Muzzleloader season SIDELOCKS ONLY! Now I'm sure I'm going to upset some people but this is how I feel.

That certainly is not the case here.Our statistics say that ; There are less hunters and more deer every year. We have been able to use any kind of sight we want for the last 5 or 6 years; during muzzleloader season the requirement is 40 caliber + we are even allowed to use muzzleloading pistols. Our limit is 3 deer in my section but some have more we are only allowed bucks with 3 or more points and in some situations it is 2 bucks and one doe in others it is 2 or 3 does and a buck or two. AR is very common sense about most laws it is the only state out of the 4 I have lived in that is that way and it has the most deer of the 4.

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

I see one point here that I can not agree with. I use iron sights open iron buck-horns modified by me for use at the mountain man and Hawken matches at friendship.
I have taken deer [2] and a bear at 180 yds with my home built 54 caliber with PRB and I believe that any one willing to put enough work into it can be ready to shoot that far. My need for a scope is because it is the only way I can hunt if I can not see the sights clearly I will not shoot. The average age is getting older every day and those of us who need a focal point that will work with our glasses in order to hunt will fight to get it. The statistics show less wounded deer getting away this is not quite the same thing as a higher kill per hunter only a cleaner kill.

Lee

Are you saying it helps to be Proficient with the use of your rifle?

To some degree - I kinda agree with txhunter in the thought above. I really believe it is much easier to become proficent with a scope that puts the animal in your lap than it does using open sights.

But I also do not think it matters what type of sight you are using - you still have to find the target.

+ I still think if you want to use an advanced scoped ML - just hunt in the regular rifle season - if your state will allow that.

I say that becuase Idaho's ML season is at the end of the year and 7 days long... The bow hunters have tied up the 'Rut' to the point they control it... Sure helps to be organized and have the ability to lobby.

Yes, I think if you are talking a muzzy season outside the rut, scopes would be fine. Proabably wouldn't make much difference

Montana, of course, doesn't have a seperate muzzy season. From what I have heard, they have tried to get one in the rut, but the bowhunters have too much clout. So if they ever came up with a muzzy season outside the rut, I think scopes would be OK there as well.

FYI, I have a group of friends that always go to the first elk rifle season in Colorado (draw only). For that season, any weapon is legal. They all use open sight 45-70 cartridge rifles and generally run about 75% success.

Yeah, your right about that. The bowhunters have tooo much pull. I wish I could find out who they have lobby'n for them. Also Montana got rid of most late hunts so the great idea in having a ML hunt after anyone else is not going to happen. I wish we could have one or the other. Montana has alot of Mountian Men events every summer. So I know there are enough to allow a ML hunt. Also i'm sure alot more people would try a muzzleloader if that meant they could hunter longer or rut. I just don't see it ever happening. I think if I want to hunt a muzzleloader season, i'm going to have to put in out of state. Like North Dakota or Idaho

Or Colorado (wolves haven't gotten there yet!)

Dont even get me started on those damn wolves. We were suppose to have our 2nd year of season on them. But the tree huggers sued and of course they won. So I guess Montana is going to let the wolves eat everything.