330 yards with a ML

[Arcola]

Wonder what field of view is on that thing?

.>

 

[BrentD]

What’s the length limit? Didn’t see that posted above.

I've never bothered to pay attention, but there is one. It's around a .357 or .357 max I think. With specific cartridges beyond that being allowed by name (e.g., .45-70).

 

[YoungGun]

Magnified scopes have never been illegal in Iowa as long as I have lived here and that dates back to 1992.

I stand corrected! For some reason, all through middle school and high school until I left, I was under the impression that magnified optics were a non-starter for muzzleloaders, as was my dad. It never presented any issues, as the shots we took didn't need a scope.

To each their own, but I'd be hard-pressed, even with the most accurate of Muzzleloaders and a scope, to take a shot as described. The time of flight being what it is, along with not being able to see the results of your own shot would leave me worried about maiming said deer and possibly losing it.

 

[Bullshot]

I've never bothered to pay attention, but there is one. It's around a .357 or .357 max I think. With specific cartridges beyond that being allowed by name (e.g., .45-70).

Hey BrentD, I’m not really trying to yank yer chain but you tagged on my comment, said the rule makes perfect sense to you, referenced a length limit that wasn't listed in the post chain, now say you don’t pay attention to it and quote some length range (.357) that is shorter than a .22 short.

As our President would say…. C’mon man!

 

[BrentD]

Hey BrentD, I’m not really trying to yank yer chain but you tagged on my comment, said the rule makes perfect sense to you, referenced a length limit that wasn't listed in the post chain, now say you don’t pay attention to it and quote some length range (.357) that is shorter than a .22 short.

As our President would say…. C’mon man!

Look it up. I did once. I'll not bother again. But if you think the rules don't make much sense you could try thinking harder. Meanwhile, don't show up with your .45-3.25 Express or even your Sharps .45-100. They won't make the cut.

Meanwhile, I'll take my .54 Hawken to the timber tomorrow.

 

[mtmuley]

Meanwhile, I'll take my .54 Hawken to the timber tomorrow.

When Montana allows me to use a muzzleloader that can kill at 330 yards, I'm in. Why restrict my opportunity? Especially in December. mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

When Montana allows me to use a muzzleloader that can kill at 330 yards, I'm in. Why restrict my opportunity? Especially in December. mtmuley

If you can't answer that question, I'll not even bother to try, but it sure seems pretty obvious to me. I have two traditional muzzleloaders that will reach 330. So, what? Doesn't mean I should hunt with them.

 

[mtmuley]

If you can't answer that question, I'll not even bother to try, but it sure seems pretty obvious to me. I have two traditional muzzleloaders that will reach 330. So, what? Doesn't mean I should hunt with them.

Brent. Sarcasm. mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

Brent. Sarcasm. mtmuley

back at ya.

 

[mtmuley]

back at ya.

I won't even use the really short range guns in our season. mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

I won't even use the really short range guns in our season. mtmuley

You win.

 

[mtmuley]

You win.

No win. I have never used that particular platform. And, I refuse to hunt our new "opportunity" season anyway. mtmuley

 

[BrentD]

No win. I have never used that particular platform. And, I refuse to hunt our new "opportunity" season anyway. mtmuley

"platform?"

No one ever has to hunt anything, with anything, ever. Personally, I like the muzzleloader season here more than any other. Just wish they had rules that anticipated the technologies that would ultimately degrade it as much they have.

There is an unwillingness among hunters to address the ever-advancing technology issue. Its one of those pink elephants that just can't be acknowledged much less wrestled with.

 

[mtmuley]

"platform?"

No one ever has to hunt anything, with anything, ever. Personally, I like the muzzleloader season here more than any other. Just wish they had rules that anticipated the technologies that would ultimately degrade it as much they have.

There is an unwillingness among hunters to address the ever-advancing technology issue. Its one of those pink elephants that just can't be acknowledged much less wrestled with.

Not platform. That particular firearm. OK Brent? Have a good weekend. mtmuley

 

[Bullshot]

Sorry BrentD. I yield. I don’t speak Iowan apparently, where adding 35 Whelen and other non-straight walled cartridges makes sense given the IOWA Dept of Natural Resources explanation of the law:
(https://www.iowadnr.gov/About-DNR/D...tol-cartridges-for-use-in-rifles-to-hunt-deer)

“The law was enacted to allow for a lower recoil option for older and younger hunters, but is available to all hunters in those four seasons.”

“The law allows for straight wall ammunition that was previously approved for pistol hunting to be used in rifles.”

RIFLES: Rifles firing straight wall or other centerfire ammunition propelling an expanding-type bullet with a maximum diameter of no less than .350 of an inch and no larger than .500 of an inch and with a published or calculated muzzle energy of 500 foot pounds or higher is legal for hunting deer during the youth and disabled hunting season and first and second shotgun seasons.
The following is a partial list of allowable cartridges that has generated the most questions on legality. Cartridges meeting the criteria defined above are legal whether listed here or not.

.35 Whelen
.350 Legend
.358 Winchester
.375 Winchester
.40 S&W
.44 Magnum
.444 Marlin
.45 Long Colt
.45 Raptor
.450 Bushmaster
.450 Marlin
.45-70 Govt
.460 S&W
.500 S&W

So as long as I am willing to agree that .35 Whelen is the equivalent of a low-recoil straight-wall pistol cartridge, as explained by Iowa DNR, we good? Rest easy knowing I am as dumb as you think I am, and proudly so. Good luck out there with your smokepole and remember to pour the bullets and ram the powder from the front (or something like that).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry BrentD. I yield. I don’t speak Iowan apparently, where adding 35 Whelen and other non-straight walled cartridges makes sense given the IOWA Dept of Natural Resources explanation of the law:
(https://www.iowadnr.gov/About-DNR/D...tol-cartridges-for-use-in-rifles-to-hunt-deer)

“The law was enacted to allow for a lower recoil option for older and younger hunters, but is available to all hunters in those four seasons.”

“The law allows for straight wall ammunition that was previously approved for pistol hunting to be used in rifles.”

RIFLES: Rifles firing straight wall or other centerfire ammunition propelling an expanding-type bullet with a maximum diameter of no less than .350 of an inch and no larger than .500 of an inch and with a published or calculated muzzle energy of 500 foot pounds or higher is legal for hunting deer during the youth and disabled hunting season and first and second shotgun seasons.
The following is a partial list of allowable cartridges that has generated the most questions on legality. Cartridges meeting the criteria defined above are legal whether listed here or not.

.35 Whelen
.350 Legend
.358 Winchester
.375 Winchester
.40 S&W
.44 Magnum
.444 Marlin
.45 Long Colt
.45 Raptor
.450 Bushmaster
.450 Marlin
.45-70 Govt
.460 S&W
.500 S&W

So as long as I am willing to agree that .35 Whelen is the equivalent of a low-recoil straight-wall pistol cartridge, as explained by Iowa DNR, we good? Rest easy knowing I am as dumb as you think I am, and proudly so. Good luck out there with your smokepole and remember to pour the bullets and ram the powder from the front (or something like that).

I’m petitioning the Iowa DNR to add 6.5 Sherman to the list, it has a weird-ish name so it must be legit.

 

[Trial153]

1000 yard rifles, 300 yard Muzzleloader, 100 yard bows = conservation

 

[MarvB]

1000 yard rifles, 300 yard Muzzleloader, 100 yard bows = capitalism

FIFY

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

No! That is not what any DNR thought would happen with ML season. Sure, there were telescopic scopes and advanced tech 157 years ago (Whitworth rifle “Couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” - last words, Gen. Sedgewick). And various agencies have articulated regs to avoid that (PA flintlock season is a great example). No sir, a ML precise at 330yd? What then is the difference between that and a Ruger No. 1 with the same scope? Say some jerk opposed ML season in 1980 because what if in the future they make ML going 3,500fps with a sabot and a range-finding drop-compensating scope? That would have been ridiculous to even think at the time, but that’s where we are today.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Utah used to have a rule of 1x scope max. I liked that rule. But I found I preferred a Peep sight to the 1x scope at the range and hunting. The cross hair on my 1x Burris was large enough at 100 yards that I would cover the entire 6" circle. With the front bead on the rifle and a tang mounted peep sight, I could use a 6 o'clock hold and get shots touching in the bull with regularity. I opened up quite a lot at 200 yards, but 150 was still really good. Longest shot on game was a slightly quartering away shot at 161 yards. Felt entirely comfortable, prone over a boulder, and the nice muley buck dropped at the shot.

Today, I can use a magnifying scope. At 100 yards, with my 3-9x40 Burris Fullfield II, I can shoot about as accurate as I did with the peep sight. At 150, it is easier to see the target, but groups similarly, maybe slightly smaller. At 200 yards, I am more accurate than with that peep sight. Same gun, same loads. Just one time was using a peep sight, the other I was using a magnifying scope.

I guess my point is, with the right gun, sights and hold, you can shoot accurately way out there with a ML. I can't shoot traditional open sights. My eyes won't focus on the rear sight, front sight, and on the target, but a peep sight is very doable for me. Made a world of difference for me and my marksmanship. I have seen folks shoot a lot like "Quigley Down Under" did with that old rifle of his. I can't, but I know folks do. My son shoots tiny little groups with regularity with his modified military weapon. He has multiple 40/40 scores on his military marksmanship tests in the Army. They are doing that shooting with open sights. He is even better with a scope of some sort. It is pretty impressive actually. The weapon didn't change, just the ability to see the target improved.

So...if my ability to focus the bead on the target with a peep sight is considered fine in the eyes of the traditional shooter, who is to say that using a 1x scope is significantly more efficient? And does the Variable power scope really make the rifle that much more effective? Or is it merely the ability to see further or more accurately?

I like traditional hunts. I think that they have their place as well, but just because I have a in line rifle, high powered scope, and saboted slug, doesn't mean I can shoot at 335 yards effectively. But also, it doesn't mean that someone who is using an open sighted, percussion capped, lead conical can't regularly shoot at those distances either. I just know that I can't.

FH

Ok if you feel that way I can take your word on it.. But if someone were to say that "in line rifles, high powered scopes, and saboted slugs" don't increase the average guys efficiency and/or effective range that would seem disingenuous to me.
Most of the primitive season I have participated in (elk, mule deer, antelope) were designed to maximize opertunity while minimizing harvest. If harvest goes up opertunity will eventually go down.
"in line rifle, high powered scope, and saboted slug" make my harvest rate go up I know that

This isn't likely true everywhere like say for white tail in areas where short range weapons are safer due to houses, roads and population.