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.