Idaho Decides traditional only

[Rebel]

I e-mailed it to Oregons F&W service.

 

[Mad Professor]

:hmm: I read it as within .010" of bore diameter. Wouldn't that be .490" for a .50 caliber and .440" for a .45 caliber?

Yes, that was my interpretation too

As written the regs. read within 10/1000th of BORE DIAMETER, not within 0.010 inches of bore diameter (at least on their website). Again, a FRACTION of the bore diameter , NOT 0.10 in. within bore dia. Thus how much under this is varies with caliber of the gun being used. To calculate "legal" size" multiply bore dia. by 0.99 (E.g. 990/1000ths), that will be minimum "legal" projectile size. I believe the "intent" was to eliminate saboted bullets but I think they goofed!

As I've pointed out this could be a point of contention with a grumpy Warden and I'm not sure if it was an oversight by the boards considerations. Those concerned should write so this can be resolved/clarified.

IMHO a .530 vs a .535 out of a 54 is splitting hairs as is a .490 vs a .495 out a 50 cal. As are other patch/ball combinations within other calibers. Anyone know how thin those "plastic things" are? I think that's what the laws intent was written to eliminate, if some are close to patch thickness that may be the root of the problem (have never tried those plastic things so don't know?)

Anyway, thats how I read/interpet the current statement from the Idaho website. Maybe Paul V could chime in with a legal opinion?

(thanks in advance Paul!)

Best regards,

Mad Professor

P.S. It says 10/1000 of bore diameter ( a fraction of the bore diameter), not within 10/1000 INCHES of bore diameter.

 

[rebel727]

Emailed it to Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife.....For all the good it'll do.

 

[Gordon Horn]

:hmm: I read it as within .010" of bore diameter. Wouldn't that be .490" for a .50 caliber and .440" for a .45 caliber?

Yes, that was my interpretation too

Mine too. As I read it, the projectile cannot be 'smaller than' .010 under bore size, thus eliminating sabots and pistol bullets that are several calibers smaller than the original bore size.

 

[Mad Professor]

Again, sorry for any second hand information. BUT 0.01 {In percentage) than bore size is what I see the law reading. If the actual language difffers and/or I'm wrong (it happens...) please forgive me.......

I have seen Wardens checking 30-30 rounds here for bear season. Regs here says CF rifle with 1800 ft/lbs of ME, if you have 170 vs. 150 gr bullets will land you in court...........better to be safe than sorry :shake:

P.S. REAL EXPERIENCE, I was out with a 30-06 but friend was glad he had "legal" 30-30 rounds,,,,he could have fibbed to the Warden as I didn't see a scale/bullet puller.....

 

[AeroncaTAL]

Using the term "10/1,000" in the regulation is ambiguous. However, IMHO, if they intended the ball size to be a percentage of the bore it would have been clearer to use 1/100th or 1 percent of the bore diameter. Because they specifically used 10/1000, I would interpret the regulation to mean .010 inches.
Scott

 

[Jumpshot]

I think its pretty clear that what they are doing is making sure no one tries to use a bullet in a sabot by saying "If ya gotta .50, ya cant use less than a .490 in it." They just didnt choose the best wording and they will probably fix it when they get enough inquiries about it.

 

[Greenmtnboy]

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
Co is next boys I can feel it
:hatsoff:

 

[pchwcf50110]

Awesome! Now if more states would do this things would get less crowded.
:thumbsup:

IMO this has always been the real reason of the trad. vs inline debate.

 

[Mad Professor]

Using the term "10/1,000" in the regulation is ambiguous. However, IMHO, if they intended the ball size to be a percentage of the bore it would have been clearer to use 1/100th or 1 percent of the bore diameter. Because they specifically used 10/1000, I would interpret the regulation to mean .010 inches.
Scott

I got a reply today to the thank you and the query I sent about the "10/1000", sort of; ".490 is legal in 50 cal and .530 is legal in 54 cal". No mention/explaination of what 10/1000 is, be it a fraction of bore size or within a fraction of an inch of bore size, I can only assume the latter now.

 

[Jumpshot]

See my post above.

 

[Mad Professor]

I understand, still have they considered 62 cal shooters who use
.600 balls? Thats 20/1000ths of an INCH, is this legal, a grey area, or illegal??? At this point, I think they mean 0.01 INCHES within bore diameter? I will respond to them trying to get a definitive answer.

My feelings are within .02 INCHES of bore diameter would cover most bore/ball/patch combinations but eliminate undersize saboted projectiles. Some input on this would be welcome as I'm sure there are other opinions.

P.S. My Physics Prof. would give you no credit for numerical anwsers WITHOUT THE PROPER UNITS. E.g. 100 could mean 100 inches, 100 millimetters, 100 gallons, 100 buffalos, etc..........that is 10/1000 of ? essentially conveys nothing meaningful.........could be 10/1000 miles ( or kilometers) from Idaho! :haha:

 

[Jumpshot]

If they were physics professors, they wouldnt be working for IFG. :grin:

 

[barebackjack]

I was just on another forum site that caters to my home states sportman (ND).

You would not believe the negative backlash Idahos decision has created here.
The in-liners are complaining about taking away their "single-shot high powered rifle" season as I now call our muzzleloader season.

In my opinion, only 49 states to go.

 

[bigbore442001]

I was just thinking out loud. I know that this eliminates 90% of the inlines made today but I see from Kahnke Gun Works, he has an inline action with a pivoting hammer. I have a pistol with a number of barrels made by him but he also makes a[url] rifle.In[/url] addition, Markesbury makes the same type as well.

What this may do is prompt some people to get a muzzleloader that fits the letter to the law, but is not a traditional Hawken or Plains rifle.

Someone could have a 32" .50 caliber rifle made up to shoot 150 grains of H777 with a very tight fitting conical at the right twist to maximize accuracy. Although scopes aren't legal, one could have some very fine front and rear peep sights.

I envision something like that coming down the road. Manufacturers will look for ways to fulfil the law but the power will be right up there as it always was.

 

[tg]

"I envision something like that coming down the road. Manufacturers will look for ways to fulfil the law but the power will be right up there as it always was"

exactly and untill traditional once again means no modern design conicals or modern style sigths then nothing will really change, untill the traditional ML season means PRB and period/primitive type conical and period/primitive type adjustable sights ( pre-cartridge gun period) then there will be no incentive or way to get through the backdoor.

 

[Slamfire]

You sre responsible to comply with the LAW, not the wordin' in the Commision's press release, the word of some employee. If the law specifies inches then 0.010" would be legal. That needs to be checked, as that's the way any Judge will read it.
I also note that Idaho has a DECLINING deer herd, you'll have a hard time convincin' a State with an INCREASING deer herd to adopt a similar regulation. :v

 

[pchwcf50110]

I have been following this ID thing close on several websites. it is totally fascinating how emotional both sides are. if I lived in ID and only had an inline i would just use this as an excuse to buy a new toy.

 

[Mad Professor]

Hi Slamfire,

Has the actual law verbatim been posted somewhere? If so I'd like to read it. All I've seen is the press release on the website and the nebulous response I got to my email concerning that. I understand what 0.10 " is and what 10/1000 bore diameter is. Either way it seems a .600 ball in a 62 cal gun is outside whats acceptable in either case. What I'm wondering is this an oversight or the true intent of said LAW?

Best regards,

Mad Professor

 

[bigbore442001]

I doubt that the intent of the law was to have some over zealous game warden pulling balls out of people's guns and measuring if the patch on a round ball is too thick. I see it as a way to make sure that a plastic sabot is not uses.

I read it as any all lead conical and a patched ball will be considered to be the legal ammunition in the Gem State.

As far as pushing for something like an all traditional design, I don't think they will go that far. The state of Idaho still needs money from resident and non resident hunters wishing to pursue their game. Also, would this increase the mule deer population in that state? I get the impression that mule deer are declining all over the West. I read where mule deer aren't as adaptable as a whitetail. A whitetail can live in back yards and small woodlots. In fact, one of my favorite places is within 200 feet of a group of homes( I have the required permission to shoot within 500 feet of those occupied dwellings) . Could it be all the people on the West coast moving into and buying "racnhettes"? Also, let us not ignore the wolf issue in Idaho. Idaho got stuck with a Bill Clinton boondoggle with those imported Canadian wolves into Yellowstone and parts of the Gem State. Those animals can't live on mice and ground squirrels. I am willing to bet that a lot of mule deer ended up as wolf chow.

Also, getting back to the money end. I was at Thompson Center's Fox Ridge Custom shot looking at all of their outdoor wares. I chatted with one of the people whom I met before. He informed me that modern in-lines sell outsell traditional muzzleloaders ten to one. He also commented that once you get a traditional muzzleloader, most customers will keep it for life. With a modern one, many hunters want to trade up, so to speak. Money still talks and unless it adversely affects a game herd, I don't think a number of states will do what Idaho did.

I will predict that some of the Pacific NW states may follow but I don't expect places like New England, the Middle Atlantic States, the Southeast, Texas or the Great Lakes area to adopt such measures.