"What has happened to the muzzleloading industry?"... I thought this article was interesting. What do you think?
http://www.namlhunt.com/mlindustry.html
http://www.namlhunt.com/mlindustry.html
Interesting Muzzleloader Article
- Thread starter CoHiCntry
- Start date
Drhorsepower
Veteran member
Ridgerunner
Active Member
- Feb 21, 2011
- 308
- 0
BKC
Very Active Member
The history of the in-line muzzleloader introduction was very controversal. I can remember the law suits that almost happenened to get pressure on states to accept the in-lines. As soon as some states accepted them, other states went along and the market went thru the roof for in-lines. The one thing I don't understand is the argument to use a scoped muzzleloader. I think if you want to use a scope on your firearm then shoot a rifle. I understand vision impaired hunters arguments but I don't agree with states handing out special permits. Just my take.
I don't use a scope on a muzzleloader either and would never want too. Opinions on this vary and it's a personal decision/ choice (If it's legal). It doesn't bother me if someone else wants to though.
BKC
Very Active Member
Drhorsepower
Veteran member
BKC
Very Active Member
no. I think the object of a muzzleloader is to hunt with some link to the past but scopes take away from that. I know in-lines are not weapons that we associate with the past but they are here and they still qualify as a muzzle loader. I guess it is much like what a compound bow is to traditional archery?
Drhorsepower
Veteran member
I look at muzzleloaders limiting factor across the board is distance. One can only see so far with open sights. I don't think sabots, 209 primers nor any powder can make you shoot better better beyond. Though I've never tried a 1x scope but I don't think it would give one an advantage above 200 yards. It might give the guy with bad eyesight a better shot out to 150 though and let's face it, a lot of the muzzleloader hunters are in the older generation. I think that will help them out and might boost interest in muzzleloaders if they could shoot a little farther. I'm with Toby, anything that can help you accurately kill an animal within range is a good humane thing. What I don't want to see is every state make that range on par with rifles. I like the variety we have now
Good read, and interesting perspective, not all of which I agree with. I have to agree with the ML "industry" not having as much of an identity as archery. I think it's due to a lot of things. For one, much of ML industry time is spent trying to make things as much like a modern rifle as possible (closed ignition, modular loading/pellets, sabots, primer ignition). In effect you are trying to expand your customer base by blurring the line between ML and modern rifle. While I think that is probably the best approach to gain the most customers, it will never be the clear black and white distinction like there is between firearms and archery. ML and "gun hunting" are just too similar or one in the same. Similarly, once the guns became so much like modern rifles, the manufacturers from all the big rifle companies started flooding the market but really have little interest in the longevity and stability of that market since it makes up such a small percentage of their business. Remember the old "bolt action ML" made by Ruger, Remington and Savage. I'm sure those companies were not hit too hard when their models didn't take off.
Lastly, I think the resistance from the game commissions stems from the general flow of muzzleloading toward being more like modern rifles. I used to sell guns and that's how we sold most of them - by saying they "extend your season, but are so easy to use and are really very accurate". I agree in part. How many more days of what is essentially "firearms season" can the animals endure if everyone is in the woods with a gun that will fire reliably in any weather, are easy to use, and is accurate to 200yds (with an optical sight). In states like MN and WI, firearms hunters are taking in the 100s of 1000s of deer in a season while archers take in the 10s. We have a 9 day firearms season, but a 16 day ML season. Now we run ours after general gun season so the deer are fewer and a bit spookier. I imagine that if we ran scoped ML and the season was before general gun, it would attract a TON more hunters and also kill a lot more deer. I'm not sure that'd be sustainable.
I have to agree though with the notion that if we have a tool that makes the weapon more efficient and humane we "should" use it, but to what end. I think the idea of keeping scopes off, or open ignition, or loose powder is to limit harvest opportunity and participation some. Imagine all the times you have a bow in your hand and you could have killed an animal, but you couldn't because it was too far, or a twig, too dark etc. Keeping some of these ML restrictions keep those harvest opportunities down.
We in MN can't have 16 day season that 600,000 hunters are willing to participate in where you can consistently kill big game out to 200 yds with optical sights. If we did, something would have to go to a draw, either ML or gun season. I applaud the ML "industry" for trying to innovate, but its a double edged sword - what will bring more customers (easy of use/accuracy) will also cause game commissions to limit opportunity.
I would like to see expansion of opportunity for "primitive" ML hunts. The guys that are willing to learn the skills to use the tools and become proficient with flintlocks and round balls could be rewarded with the same benefits archers see. Long seasons and liberal tags. To have those though, effective harvest opportunity have to be limited. Shooting open sights on setups who's effective range is 75 yds or so with the primitive stuff for most. Then maybe move the season before general gun, or move back general gun and have the primitive season during the rut.
Scopes on ML - I will use them where I can, but here in MN I hope we don't get them. I like the idea that to get those extra 16 days of hunting, I am basically limited to shots under 100yds.
Lastly, I think the resistance from the game commissions stems from the general flow of muzzleloading toward being more like modern rifles. I used to sell guns and that's how we sold most of them - by saying they "extend your season, but are so easy to use and are really very accurate". I agree in part. How many more days of what is essentially "firearms season" can the animals endure if everyone is in the woods with a gun that will fire reliably in any weather, are easy to use, and is accurate to 200yds (with an optical sight). In states like MN and WI, firearms hunters are taking in the 100s of 1000s of deer in a season while archers take in the 10s. We have a 9 day firearms season, but a 16 day ML season. Now we run ours after general gun season so the deer are fewer and a bit spookier. I imagine that if we ran scoped ML and the season was before general gun, it would attract a TON more hunters and also kill a lot more deer. I'm not sure that'd be sustainable.
I have to agree though with the notion that if we have a tool that makes the weapon more efficient and humane we "should" use it, but to what end. I think the idea of keeping scopes off, or open ignition, or loose powder is to limit harvest opportunity and participation some. Imagine all the times you have a bow in your hand and you could have killed an animal, but you couldn't because it was too far, or a twig, too dark etc. Keeping some of these ML restrictions keep those harvest opportunities down.
We in MN can't have 16 day season that 600,000 hunters are willing to participate in where you can consistently kill big game out to 200 yds with optical sights. If we did, something would have to go to a draw, either ML or gun season. I applaud the ML "industry" for trying to innovate, but its a double edged sword - what will bring more customers (easy of use/accuracy) will also cause game commissions to limit opportunity.
I would like to see expansion of opportunity for "primitive" ML hunts. The guys that are willing to learn the skills to use the tools and become proficient with flintlocks and round balls could be rewarded with the same benefits archers see. Long seasons and liberal tags. To have those though, effective harvest opportunity have to be limited. Shooting open sights on setups who's effective range is 75 yds or so with the primitive stuff for most. Then maybe move the season before general gun, or move back general gun and have the primitive season during the rut.
Scopes on ML - I will use them where I can, but here in MN I hope we don't get them. I like the idea that to get those extra 16 days of hunting, I am basically limited to shots under 100yds.
There's life in the ML industry...it's called customs that will shoot farther than most people can. There's been debates on LR shooting, but is it just as "unethical" to knowingly go into a hunt with a handicap? I mean in states where they don't want the success rates to be high for that particular season, the logical thing to do would be to cut tags so it's a non-issue.
I agree, it's a conundrum in a way. What do you do with bow hunting then. That is the biggest handicap in terms of shot distance and selection. To me open sights or primitive ML accomplish those same limitations. Should only the guys that shoot Xs at 50 yes be allowed to bow hunt? I guess I see the logic by the game commissions in that when the performance of ML approach or surpass that of modern rifles, they should be treated as such, and not gain you the advantages of longer seasons, higher limits and more easily available tags.
Surprisingly, there's a cpl draw hunts here that are archery only where you have to make the drive to the site shortly after being drawn to qualify with your bow. Very few traditional guys end up qualifying. On our places archery season and ML season doesn't exist, I want the numbers shot and I don't want it drug out so the deer can go bck to their regularly scheduled program.
Ridgerunner
Active Member
- Feb 21, 2011
- 308
- 0
Modern muzzleloaders do extend the range but it is similar to the compound bow, before the modern compound bow traditional archers had a much shorter range, I hear guys bragging about 70 plus yard shots on animals with a now days. A traditional guy might get to 30 if they are lucky.