and then what will they do if they check?
violate the number one safety rule of reloading - "never attempt to identify powder visually"?
will they require you to shoot it to see if it "smokes" enough?
will they confiscate the powder and send it to a lab to determine what kind of powder it is? hmmm.. powder manufacturer's readily admit that powders vary from lot to lot, and the conservative reloader should work up from minimums each time they load from a new lot. furthermore, i know of no lab that keeps chemical "fingerprints" of powder to reference. so it would be a time consuming process to identify the make of the powder.
ok, well, maybe they should just check to see if the powder contains nitrocellulose. course, if they do that, they should probably check each of the black powder subs. think they'd be surprised when they find varying levels of nitro in them as well?
its nearly an unenforceable law. and its a supreme waste of time for a conservation officer who has much more important issues to deal with. i for one, will continue to use my TC Omega, shooting 777 during Michigan's muzzleloading season, becuase the law reads that smokeless is not legal during muzzleloading season. however, i use my savage during general firearms, loaded with 5744, which is perfectly legal, and confirmed by the DNR.
this is precisely the reason that house bill 4554 was introduced in michigan. and its precisely the reason that i testified before the hearing committee in support of the bill. i found it exceedingly depressing that the DNR sent 3 officers to oppose the bill, none of whom had any knowledge of muzzleloading. they opposed on a technical detail - primarily that they feel the decision is the DNR's to make, not the state house.
since the DNR also quoted safety as a factor, the committee questioned them as to why. the DNR reported that they'd "heard" from friends and family that smokeless powder muzzleloaders could shoot around 250 yards, vs. black powder subs that could shoot around 150 yards. no other ballistic information offered. fortunately, i was able to provide them with a wealth of information, including real world information from actual testing that i've done.
i don't fault the DNR so much.. they are required to do a lot, and are pulled in a lot of different directions. requiring their officers to be ballistic experts as well is unrealistic. unfortunately, in my opinion, i feel that they are erroneously supporting "traditional" methods by not supporting smokeless powder. scopes, sealed ignitions, and sabots define muzzleloading today. powder is a mere afterthought, offering only a reduction in recoil and a clean gun.
follow the law. its not worth the consequences.
but vigorously work with your game department and state legislature to change such an inane law.
