lol!lol lol lol

I think it is interesting that Utah states in their regs that any powder with nitrocellulose is not legal, and it has been reported that there is nitrocellulose in BH 209, but I have an email from them stating that BH 209 IS legal in Utah.

I also agree it's silly!
MD, how do you consider 105gr's of Pyro RS (PUNY)? I shoot 110gr's of Pyro RS and it's not even close to Puny. How was your Brother In Law's Shot Un-Doable? I shot a few Deer out to 175 and further and never thought My Powder Charge was Puny or Un-Doable.
(BP)

As I understand it.... Utah OK'ed it because it met the sub definition - which Western worked very hard to get done. And I should add I think it is a sub, but a lot of folks do not agree that a powder with Nitro should be considered a sub.

The real thing that bothers me is that what is the real difference you can achieve with BH that you can not also already get from T7 or Swiss BP - other than so many feel it is easier to use. Is the additional 150/200 fps that big a deal.

So with that I am not sure why NM or us think it will change anything other than keeping a modern ingrediant (nitro) out of ML hunting.

So what level is the line drawn? What is the real difference you can achieve with an inline that you can't with a flintlock? Is 75 or a 100 yards that big a deal? shouldn't getting closer to game/good woodsman skills be more important. See where this can go? When some states banned scopes, because the "purists" raised cain, the same type of arguments ensued. I wouldn't stop ML hunting if my state banned some powders, in-lines, certain projectiles, and telescopic sights, but as I get older the chance of wounding and not recovering game goes up. So then I have to quit if I'm going to hold true to my ethics/values. Is that the answer we want?

For me I agree that I would need a scope and a decent rest to shoot those kind of ranges but I am surprised to hear you say that. Here is a quote from you a little while back when we were talking about longer ranges; "i feel comfortable off hand out to 150, open sights mind you. Off my sling stix, maybe 200..."

In Minnesota, muzzleloading season is open sights only. I agree that that is the biggest factor in making muzzleloading more "primitive". Our legislature is pressured by the bowhunters and the trads to keep this restriction in place. In some ways, I wouldn't mind it if they made a more restrictive muzzleloader season here. It would give me the nudge I need to get more proficient with my sidelock and it would thin down the number of hunters during that season. I can always use any inline I want during regular rifle season with a scope and with any powder of my choosing. I must admit that I am not a BH209 shooter, if I was I might be bothered more by this restriction.
Just some random thoughts.
Art

theres no way in heck i could shoot a deer at 200 yards with open sights. Ive had the chance to do it before but decided to knock it off to 148 and that was doable. They are just to tiny in those sights at 175-200 yards.

Flintlock for me off a good rest is 100 yards max, ive turned down shots my first year flintlocking due to me not feeling comfortable with the shot. Good thing too because i took a nice 4x4 at 40 yards.

but for me personally, 175-200 yards open sights on a deer is just to far and the target way to small to see.