Traditional ML Season Support Base.

[arcticap]

I would sign up for a juried all out traditional hunt ion a heart beat but I do not think the numbers are there to support it and the cost and logistics would be overwhelming, what I proposed was a starting point that keeps out the modern guns, sights and bullets and lets the individual take it back to whatever level he desires, preferably at a time the woods is not full of archers, 30-06'rs, in-liners, shotgunners or other distractions that might put a damoer on stalking and short range hunting, it is admittedly a tall order and ,may be impractcal or impossible in some states, in-lines may have to go in some states, some states may not even give it a second look, I was just fishing for what support that a hypothetical concept that truely can be defined as a traditional hunting season might muster.

I know that you & most people realize that every state is like an individual with a personality all of it's very own. After all, that's what led to the coining of the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" (One Composed of Many). In that spirit, what defines traditional to me is "smoothbore", plain & simple. I feel that the advent of rifling, especially as it exists today once it is modernly machined into the barrels of currently produced sidelocks, makes any rifled barrel M.L. appear virtually "modern". Suddenly over 100 yard accuracy is achievable with PRB's which makes sidelocks appear less "traditional" and more "modern" to me. Modern manufacturing is so much more advanced than in any of the actual "traditional" time periods (1850 or whatever), restricting the sights doesn't seem to matter nearly as much as the existence of the modern rifling in the barrel itself. Thus, adjustable open sights also would be fine with me, just not the rifling. :imo:

 

sorry arcticap
i dont get the rifling part .
would round bottom , single or double grove , partial length rifling pass ?
how does modern rifling besides depth and relief differ form the rifling in the 1800 are you referring to the amount of twist thus rate .
is it simple becouse its mechine drawn instead of hand drawn ?

i would be interested in here your point ::

 

[tg]

I to do not see any difference twixt the rifleing of today and yesterday, and for the sake of the discussion on this thread it is my fantasy so to speak and the definition of what is allowed is pre-established, if it does not suit someone then they would hunt in another season, I am looking at what kind of support base there would be for a primitive ( PRB, fixed sight, pre 1850 style gun season) not a discussion about what type of sights, projectiles or guns should be allowed ( I have done that)

 

sorry TG i was just wondering if maybe i had missed something as to a great diffrence in rifling other then the way it was made today other then the way it was made 150 years ago .
please carry on lol
arcticap and PM me if he likes
:hatsoff:

 

[Claude Mathis]

...for the sake of the discussion on this thread it is my fantasy so to speak and the definition of what is allowed is pre-established, if it does not suit someone then they would hunt in another season, I am looking at what kind of support base there would be for a primitive ( PRB, fixed sight, pre 1850 style gun season) not a discussion about what type of sights, projectiles or guns should be allowed...

First it was in-line vs. side-lock..
Then it was caplock vs. flintlock...
Now it's smoothbore vs. rifling...

It appears that we have lost the whole idea of this thread (and this particular topic for that matter). ::

 

First it was in-line vs. side-lock..
Then it was caplock vs. flintlock...
Now it's smoothbore vs. rifling...

It appears that we have lost the whole idea of this thread (and this particular topic for that matter). ::

You forgot rock vs. pointed stick. (VBG) How about any style of muzzleloader made before the cartridge gun is allowed, or is that too easy?

 

[WSmitty01]

OOMCURT, I have a TC Black Mountain magnum (looks the same as a renegade)shoots 11 cap or musket cap, 1 in 28 twist, will shoot 150 grains of powder, can put primitive sights on it and still shoot WAY past 150 yards accurately with sabots or a little less with conicals, so is this gun allowed in the "traditional flavor of the month"? Do I have to put a wooden stock on it? I can do that easily. Just want to know where you would put the few sidelocks that are built to shoot like an in-line?

 

[rabbit03]

Hey TG

I guess we all know how every one feels now about every thing else but your topic!!! Not sure who was responsible for derailing this thing and I am not going to go back and look either.

I will say for the record though that I would be in favor of your idea.

rabbit03 (who hunts with a stick) :crackup:

 

[arcticap]

why not make the season truly traditional? all i'm asking is why not go full bore. dress,hunt and play the part. it seems the current way has only allowed the non-traditional problems to fester. this would be the season i would fully support. if not, then whats the point?

It's not as black and white as some try to make it. It's not a sound argument to say that just because someone wants to use primitive weapons that all their gear has to be period correct. This isn't about reenacting, just hunting.

I think the idea is to define the weapons used in the "traditional season". Once that is done, we can choose to make the rest of our gear as traditional as we like. That part is up to the individual.

We need to stay clear about the difference in the traditional season (as defined by law) and reenacting/living history. They are not the same.

I'm simply trying to help to easily legally define a weapon for a "traditional" season. This just happens to be the original weapon intended for the original Mass. primitive season years ago. Some people want to define it by the sights & lock style. I would prefer to define the weapon by whether or not it has rifling, which in my opinion was the last great advancement in muzzle loading performance, from primitive to modern. Mass. never allowed any rifling since the performance is so much more enhanced. Even this forum has a smoothbore section for a reason. It's not hard to recognize the "old" vs. "new". It's simply my opinion about the definition of a traditional weapon. There is no
absolutely right or wrong way for a state to define it, it's only a matter of preference of how a state or individual lawmaker would want to see a traditional season defined. To me, it's hard to say that a custom made Getz barrel represents traditional performance while at the same time saying that it's still important to have non adjustable open sights. A smoothbore is easy to define and there would be no qualms about what would be legal or not in the field. A smoothbore is certainly more primitive than any rifled bore by a wide margin.
Since every state is unique, I don't think it is reasonable to expect every state to enact the same legal definition of what is traditional or primitive. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm simply trying to state my personal preference regarding my state and what I think is acceptable here. In this shotgun state, the addition of rifling to shotgun barrels has produced rifle like performance from what used to be a smoothbore weapon. It would be hard to persuade lawmakers here that an 1850 rifled weapon doesn't have similiar performance to a rifled barrel shotgun. Thus, it may be hard to justify an additional traditional season legally defined that way. :m2c:

 

[Mulebrain]

...for the sake of the discussion on this thread it is my fantasy so to speak and the definition of what is allowed is pre-established, if it does not suit someone then they would hunt in another season, I am looking at what kind of support base there would be for a primitive ( PRB, fixed sight, pre 1850 style gun season) not a discussion about what type of sights, projectiles or guns should be allowed...

First it was in-line vs. side-lock..
Then it was caplock vs. flintlock...
Now it's smoothbore vs. rifling...

It appears that we have lost the whole idea of this thread (and this particular topic for that matter). ::

I agree! Why on earth do other things get dragged into this?
Why is it so dang difficult for some to get the point?

THE POINT IS THIS:

WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE PRIMITIVE HUNTING SEASON AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY INDENTED, AND HOW THEY STARTED OFF IN 1968.

THIS INCLUDED EVERYTHING UP TO THE CAPLOCK. NOT WHAT TYPE OF LONG JOHN'S, OR WHAT GARB YOU WORE!

IT IS STRICTLY ABOUT THE WEAPONS THAT WERE WIDELY AVAILABLE IN 1968 WHEN THE SEASON STARTED!

SEE THAT WASN'T SOOOOOOOO HARD ::

Now I understand why PMS= (preventative maintenance service) information in the government is written at the 3rd grade level :crackup:

 

[oomcurt]

Well....lets put it this way..no sabots..if your rifle has the standard nipple configuration as pre inline sidelocks fine. Wooden stock definately. I think you said the defining thing in your last sentance though. "Shoots like an inline." That tears it, imho. No way. I have no problem with conicals is so far as I would use them for moose or bear. No need to use them for deer...but that is just my opinion. Heck, if someone wanted to use a 4 bore for deer fine..a wee bit of overkill..but that is his business.

As long as I am stating things re this topic/thread...years back all I used was a 30-30 Win. Now never ever did I have a shot that was over 100 yards, most were at 50 or thereabouts. That said...and this is during the regular hunting season. One could hear distant rifle shots quite regularly. Even close shots from another person at times in our party. Funny thing, that never bothered me. In fact at times it even helped in getting my deer. You push deer hard enough and you have to almost kick them up. They will just hunker down and stay put. At least those in the area I hunted. Maybe the real problem today is the number of hunters..or the lack of common sense in some of them.

 

[Mulebrain]

Here is the Colorado Commissions Consideration. Now wonder if this happened??

COMMISSION CONSIDERS CHANGES TO MUZZLE-LOADING REGULATIONS


DENVER -- A proposal to revamp regulations that apply to the state's muzzle-loading hunting season will be put to a vote of the Colorado Wildlife Commission in January.
If approved, the new regulations will change the official title of the autumn black powder hunt to "Primitive Muzzle Loading Season Only," and restrict the types of firearms hunters can use. The restrictions would make some muzzle-loading rifles that were legal during previous hunts illegal for the 1998 muzzle loading hunting season. Pending their approval in mid-January, the new rules will take effect Mar. 1 and be in force when the 1998 big game hunting season opens.
The regulation changes were proposed by the Colorado State Muzzle Loading Association in response to concerns about increasing advancements in the performance and technology of muzzle-loading rifles.
Specifically, said Division Human Dimensions Manager John Smeltzer, the proposal targets in-line muzzle-loading rifles, which are currently legal. In-line muzzle loaders have an ignition system with the firing pin directly in line with the explosive charge of black powder in the rifle's barrel. More classical sidelock muzzle loaders have an exposed ignition system -- usually located on the side of the rifle -- with a longer, less direct route to the explosive charge.
Current regulations allow the use of both types of rifle during black powder season, said Smeltzer, as long as they conform to other Division of Wildlife specifications. Under these definitions, firearms used during the season have to:

 

[roundball]

The short version...Colorado 2005 Muzzleloading Manner of Take:

a. During the muzzle-loading firearms seasons for deer, elk, pronghorn, bear, and moose only lawful muzzle-loaders and smoothbore muskets may be used by muzzle-loading license holders.

b. During the muzzle-loading firearm seasons for deer, elk, pronghorn, bear, and moose the following additional restrictions apply:

1. Propellent/Powders: The use of pelletized powder systems and smokeless powder are prohibited.

2. Projectiles: Sabots are prohibited. For the purposes of this regulation cloth patches are not sabots.

3. Loading: Firearms must load from the muzzle. Firearms which can be loaded from the breech are prohibited.

4. Sights: Any muzzle-loading rifle or smoothbore musket with any sighting device other than open or

 

[Tahquamenon]

Actually Mule Brain, you hi-jacked TG's thread with your point.

You may wish to review the entire thread, particularily TG's initial and subsequent posts and then determine if your post is relevant. Up to you, I think you are off in the weeds as far as this thread goes.

Also, upper caps is yelling online which is really not required even if you are not hi-jacking threads.

In regard to your Colorado reference. This is what is needed in all states.

I think these issues should be put to a vote in each state for the entire hunting license buying community to weigh in on.

I think the results of such a rule change would be most interesting if everyone that participates in ML season hunting in each state casts their vote.

:m2c:

 

[arcticap]

Maybe there just needs to be a clear distinction made between the 2 different strategies:

1. Working to ban non-traditional muzzle loaders and/or components by redefining current regulations

or

2. Working to establish new traditional (or primitive) muzzle loader seasons and special hunts without trying to change any current regulations.

There are major differences with who the opposition would be with either strategy and whether or not the effort would stand much of a chance of being successful, with #2 being less of an uphill battle I would think.

 

[Hoyt]

1. Working to ban non-traditional muzzle loaders and/or components by redefining current regulations

That ain't almost goin to happen..way too much industry tied up with modern inlines.

 

[roundball]

Some states are already doing it...'banning' certain modern items from the ML seasons (not banning them from existance)

 

[Mulebrain]

Actually Mule Brain, you hi-jacked TG's thread with your point.

You may wish to review the entire thread, particularily TG's initial and subsequent posts and then determine if your post is relevant. Up to you, I think you are off in the weeds as far as this thread goes.

Also, upper caps is yelling online which is really not required even if you are not hi-jacking threads.

In regard to your Colorado reference. This is what is needed in all states.

I think these issues should be put to a vote in each state for the entire hunting license buying community to weigh in on.

I think the results of such a rule change would be most interesting if everyone that participates in ML season hunting in each state casts their vote.

:m2c:

:hmm: Really? I didn't get a PM or a complaint from TG.

Just trying to keep this thread on track, since so many are out to derail the locomotive :crackup:

I am firmly aware about upper case on the web, but it may be nescessary for some to be able to read!

 

[Tahquamenon]

Mule Brain, I'm not arguing with you but just because TG did not PM you does not mean you did not hi-jack the thread. :shocking:

On-track? I have followed this thread very closely.

This thread (was) discussion topic regarding support and thoughts for a new (additional) ML season with specific traditional and primitive criterion.

This thread was not "restoring ML seasons to whatever was originally intended or to equipment that was available in 1968." (which by the way if 1968 or earlier was your equipment rule, then all current production sidelocks would not be allowed because they were not available in 1968)

Perhaps you should start a new thread with topic such as "How much support for re-regulating all existing ML seasons to XYZ (whatever) primitive traditional requirements to include only ML weaponry available in 1968"?

 

[Claude Mathis]

Getting back on topic should be simple enough. Here's how it started.

Is there a strong enough support base at this time to maintain a traditional ML seasson in any/some states, and I am refering to a non watered down definition of traditional, pre-cartridge era guns ignitions, sights and projectiles which would requires modifications on many production level guns, and for the sake of discussion let us have a cut off date of 1850.

To me, this means adding or altering the existing laws. :imo:

But remember, the question is, "is there enough support". Not what should the regulations be, beyond what is stated in the original question.

Or, did I misunderstand the question, TG? ::