NM Scopeless Muzzleloader Rule

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
530
Reaction score
616
New Mexico has proposed a change to the definition of muzzleloaders to be without a scope. The comment period is open, and I'd love it if you'd comment. The web addresses are [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]. Please feel free to comment.

Below is what I sent in to NM Game & Fish:

The success rate for muzzleloaders has gone up consistently with the new technologies coming out with better rifles, powders, and ignition systems, and you want to lower that success rate. I am o.k. with that although is seems inconsistent with the increase in elk population.

Your proposed solution is to not allow scopes on muzzleloaders. This is going to make it very hard for older hunters with declining eyesight to hunt with muzzleloaders. I tried open sights on my javelina gun, and I wasn’t accurate much past 50 yards. Peep sights help, but won’t solve the problem, and peep sights aren’t effective in low light situations.

There are many other ways to decrease muzzleloader harvest that don’t punish older hunters. Baby boomers are the biggest population group, and this change will weed us out of hunting earlier than necessary. I am 68, and don't know how much longer I can hunt. I know I can't shoot open sights, so this year may be my last year. I hunt with a muzzleloader because I can draw a tag.

Scope technology hasn’t changed, rifle design, powders, and ignition systems have. High velocity and high B.C. bullets are what allow hunters to kill at long range with muzzleloaders. Options 2-8 below would all lower hunting ranges, and reduce the kill rate. Any of these options are preferable to what you have proposed.
  1. Fewer tags. Not my first choice.
  2. Outlaw in-line muzzleloaders.
  3. Outlaw 209, Rifle, and Pistol primers. Require musket caps or #10 or #11 caps.
  4. Outlaw Blackhorn 209 and 777 powder.
  5. Require bullets to be 350 gr. or more (this would reduce loss of wounded elk)
  6. Require lead only bullets.
  7. Require full bore bullets.
  8. Outlaw bullets more than 1.25 times bore diameter.
  9. Require flat point bullets.




I also recommend that the youth hunts should include anyone who is still a student at a NM college, and should be longer to accomodate not being able to take off from school.
 
10. Allow exceptions for those with Dr verified poor eyesight, and limit magnification, like Idaho does.

Not sure what you mean by "bullets with more than 1.25 times bore diameter."
 
At 64, and having some age related vision issues, but having never shot a muzzleloader with a scope, I still don’t have a problem if they eliminate magnified scopes. Just keep 1X scopes for those of us with vision problems.

You confirmed what the wildlife dept wants to hear: that removing magnified reduces effective range. That is exactly what they are trying to do. Shorter shot distances mean less elk killed.

I think we have a shot at 1X scopes. That is what I asked for.
 
Thanks txhunter58. I don't hunt in the thick woods, so shots tend to be around 200 yards. I guess I'll have to buy a peep sight and try it. The 1.25 bullet dia. should have said bullets no longer than 1.25 bore dia.
I quit hunting with muzzleloaders back in the 70's (the last time NM did this). The deer where I hunt tend to have small antlers, and a scope makes it clear which one has the antlers. The silly part is that both deer and elk populations are increasing in most areas. I believe they are interested in selling more tags, and the lower the harvest, the more they can sell. Like Fauci, they claim it is all based on the science.
 
Idaho considers scopes on muzzleloaders to be a reasonable accommodation for those with vision problems certified by a doctor. This allowed for a 1X scope to be used. Due to the dearth of 1X scopes the rule has been modified to allow up to 4X. Asking the NM game department to allow 1X may not be all that beneficial.
 
" Shorter shot distances mean less elk killed."

I think shorter shot distances mean MORE elk killed, and less wounded by hunters taking longer shots than they should. Having said that, not allowing scopes is just plain dumb. The better one can see, the better one can shoot.
 

So you think more elk will be shot at and killed if shots are limited to 100 yards with open sights vs 300 yards with a scope??. Not talking about tagged and hauled to the truck. Shot opportunities and dead elk.

Becaue it’s harder to get within 100 yards of an elk vs 300. Therefore less shot opportunities. That is their goal. Harvest reduced while maintaining same or more tags.
 
Let’s put it like this: if they have a 20% reduction in harvest without scopes, and therefore increase tags/ opportunity by 20%, would that affect your opinion?

I guarantee you if Colorado started allowing magnified scopes, they would have to cut back on tag numbers significantly.
 
Last edited:
Thanks txhunter58. I don't hunt in the thick woods, so shots tend to be around 200 yards. I guess I'll have to buy a peep sight and try it. The 1.25 bullet dia. should have said bullets no longer than 1.25 bore dia.
I quit hunting with muzzleloaders back in the 70's (the last time NM did this). The deer where I hunt tend to have small antlers, and a scope makes it clear which one has the antlers. The silly part is that both deer and elk populations are increasing in most areas. I believe they are interested in selling more tags, and the lower the harvest, the more they can sell. Like Fauci, they claim it is all based on the science.

Order a “twilight peep”. They have bigger appetures but not as big as a ghost ring. I have been pretty accurate with them out to 150 yards

I also use 1X reading glasses to see the front sight clearly. Otherwise there are two of them. 🤪

Lastly, when using a peep and front post, I use the smallest fiberoptic front sight I can find and use the “6 O’clock hold”. That means instead of covering up the bullseye, you put the center of the target on TOP of the front sight. That helped me go from 4” to 2” groups at 100 yards.

But I like the idea of 1X scopes. Should be able to shoot out to about 200 yards and still stay in focus for our aging eyes. Seems like a good compromise.
 
Last edited:
So you think more elk will be shot at and killed if shots are limited to 100 yards with open sights vs 300 yards with a scope??. Not talking about tagged and hauled to the truck. Shot opportunities and dead elk.

Becaue it’s harder to get within 100 yards of an elk vs 300. Therefore less shot opportunities. That is their goal. Harvest reduced while maintaining same or more tags.
Wow!!!! So you are sayin ALL bow hunters are shootin elk over 100 yards but you cant cause you cant have a scope on a NO longer Primitive muzzle loader???? Try a bow and you wont cry about no scope!!! SMH !
 
The issue of more wounded game was brought up. NM Game & Fish didn't seem to think it was a problem. Thanks to those of you who comment to Game & Fish. I retired from the Forest Service, and I found out that many (if not most) government employees do what is easiest for them. What is easiest is to ignore the public comments (unless they are overwhelming) and go ahead with their proposal. It is easy for a G&F officer to spot a scope on a rifle from a long distance. It is much more difficult to determine any other method of reducing the harvest. My buddy was convinced enough that he has already ordered a peep sight to try. It is a globe sight that has crosshairs. We'll practice a bit with it this year to be ready for next year.
 
Have these people considered more wounded animals, and therefore more suffering for the animals and also the loss of a food resource to scavengers?

I really suspect there will be less shots overall and wounded game should be a wash. Will there be wounded game without scopes? Undoubtedly. But I think as many will be wounded from people with a scope trying to push the limit. It’s just that they will wound them at longer distances. Add to the that bullets from a muzzleloader have a LOT less energy at 300 than 150 yards….

So to say there will be more wounded game if you take a way scopes is a stretch.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top