Sabots now legal in Idaho

[timcorcoran]

Hey Folks,

Idaho Dept of Fish and Game just released their new regulations for 2025, and this year they are allowing Sabots during the muzzleloader-only seasons.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/hunt/weapons/muzzleloader

I've been hunting elk with my Knight Ultra-Lite .50 caliber for the past few years. Last year I used Thor copper bullets and those worked great. I want to stick with copper.

What recommendations do you have for copper bullets with sabots?

@sabotloader and @ElDiablito I would especially appreciate hearing from you guys!

 

[Matt5266]

Wow didnt think I'd see this day....

 

[ElDiablito]

Barnes! Any of their monos between 300 and 400 gr in .451 (with a black MMP sabot) or .458 (with an orange MMP sabot). The 300 ish gr bullets will be safest depending on your twist.

Or…a 300+ gr Nosler Partition, Swift A Frame or Barnes Original for guys that want to consider non monos.

 

[gonhunting247]

I've used the barnes in my knight ultra-lite on 2 successful elk hunts in UT.
FWIW

 

[timcorcoran]

Barnes! Any of their monos between 300 and 400 gr in .451 (with a black MMP sabot) or .458 (with an orange MMP sabot). The 300 ish gr bullets will be safest depending on your twist.

Or…a 300+ gr Nosler Partition, Swift A Frame or Barnes Original for guys that want to consider non monos.

Thank you @ElDiablito , these are great recommendations. Sounds like Barnes is the way to go.

Another question: The new Idaho regs say that bullets:

"Must be within .010 inch of the bore diameter"

For .50 caliber muzzleloaders, bullets with sabots are usually around .050" smaller than the bore diameter. For example, the .451" or .458" that you mention above. After an extensive search, the largest diameter bullet I can find that comes with a sabot for a .50 cal is .475". That is still too small according to the new Idaho regulations.

Here are the new Idaho regulations again.

So I don't get it. Are there bullets out there within .010" of the bore diameter that I am not finding? If not, what good are sabots if the bullets have to be that large in diameter?

Another thought, it says on the regs that sabots will be allowed starting July 1, 2025. Is it possible that IDFG will allow smaller diameter bullets at that time?

 

[idelkslayer]

Thank you @ElDiablito , these are great recommendations. Sounds like Barnes is the way to go.

Another question: The new Idaho regs say that bullets:

"Must be within .010 inch of the bore diameter"

For .50 caliber muzzleloaders, bullets with sabots are usually around .050" smaller than the bore diameter. For example, the .451" or .458" that you mention above. After an extensive search, the largest diameter bullet I can find that comes with a sabot for a .50 cal is .475". That is still too small according to the new Idaho regulations.

Here are the new Idaho regulations again.

So I don't get it. Are there bullets out there within .010" of the bore diameter that I am not finding? If not, what good are sabots if the bullets have to be that large in diameter?

Another thought, it says on the regs that sabots will be allowed starting July 1, 2025. Is it possible that IDFG will allow smaller diameter bullets at that time?

They haven't had a chance to update those rules since the busybody Idaho State legislator that rammed this through the legislature got the bill passed to allow sabots. I would expect some kind of addendum by July that addresses this.

 

[canyonhunter47]

"Must be within .010 inch of the bore diameter"

[…]

So I don't get it. Are there bullets out there within .010" of the bore diameter that I am not finding? If not, what good are sabots if the bullets have to be that large in diameter?

Maybe it’s just trying to settle any ambiguity around powerbelts or other “not a sabot” bullets like this:


Btw, has anyone tried these Hornady bore drivers with an ELDX bullet? Curious how they do

 

[idelkslayer]

Maybe it’s just trying to settle any ambiguity around powerbelts or other “not a sabot” bullets like this:

View attachment 865145
Btw, has anyone tried these Hornady bore drivers with an ELDX bullet? Curious how they do

Those were allowed under the previous change a few years ago that allowed the use of projectiles with "accuracy tips and pressure bases". That language was added because the previous required was "All lead projectiles". It isn't all lead if it has a plastic tip. I think that is also when the all lead verbiage went away and was replaced with "metal or metal alloy".

 

[ElDiablito]

They haven't had a chance to update those rules since the busybody Idaho State legislator that rammed this through the legislature got the bill passed to allow sabots. I would expect some kind of addendum by July that addresses this.

Agreed. There would be no sabot/bullet choice in which the bullet would be .01 under bore.

 

[timcorcoran]

OK. So I reached out to IDFG and got a response. Here is what I sent them:

Dear Idaho Fish & Game,

I’m seeking clarification on the updated 2025 muzzleloader regulations. The new rules state that sabots will be allowed as of July 1, 2025, but bullets must be within .010" of bore diameter. For a .50 caliber muzzleloader, this would require a projectile of at least 0.490".

After an extensive search, the largest diameter .50 caliber bullet I can find that comes with a sabot is .475". More typical are bullets approximately .450" in diameter (.451", .458", etc.).

Are there any legal saboted bullets meeting this diameter requirement? If not, what is the point of allowing sabots?

Alternatively, are you planning on allowing smaller diameter bullets after July 1, 2025?

Thank you for your time and clarification.

Best regards,

Tim Corcoran
Muzzleloader Hunter
Sandpoint, Idaho

and here is there response:

Mr. Corcoran – Thank you for reaching out. As this wasn’t the Department’s legislation that allowed sabots for muzzleloader hunts, we’re needing to catch our rules up with new statute. As such, our rules still read the way you’ve listed below, however, we are currently going through rulemaking that would address the change to be effective next July 1 (2026). We will be striking the section referencing the .010 bore diameter. Until then, it is the opinion of our deputies attorney general that statute trumps rule and so currently, anything that would otherwise be prohibitive in rule around sabots is void.

I hope this satisfies your questions.

Regards,
Amber Worthington

So, apparently we really can use sabots this year! I'm excited for that.

What do you all think? Are sabots in Idaho's Muzzleloader-only season a good thing, or no? I'd love to hear your reasoning.

 

[timcorcoran]

Barnes! Any of their monos between 300 and 400 gr in .451 (with a black MMP sabot) or .458 (with an orange MMP sabot). The 300 ish gr bullets will be safest depending on your twist.

Or…a 300+ gr Nosler Partition, Swift A Frame or Barnes Original for guys that want to consider non monos.

@ElDiablito :

I can't find any Barnes bullets with sabots over 300 grains in .50 cal. I did find this one:

https://muzzle-loaders.com/collections/bullets/products/barnes-expander-mz-fb-bullets

Is that what you're referring to?

Can you send me a link to other 100% copper bullets with sabots that would be good for elk?

Thanks!

 

[ElDiablito]

@ElDiablito :

I can't find any Barnes bullets with sabots over 300 grains in .50 cal. I did find this one:

https://muzzle-loaders.com/collections/bullets/products/barnes-expander-mz-fb-bullets

Is that what you're referring to?

Can you send me a link to other 100% copper bullets with sabots that would be good for elk?

Thanks!

Those would work. Here are all the “muzzy” bullets that Barnes makes currently. I’d try a 290 or 300gr, assuming you’re shooting a 1:28 twist. Which rifle are you wanting to shoot them in?

Muzzleloading - Barnes Bullets

barnesbullets.com

 

[timcorcoran]

Those would work. Here are all the “muzzy” bullets that Barnes makes currently. I’d try a 290 or 300gr, assuming you’re shooting a 1:28 twist. Which rifle are you wanting to shoot them in?

Muzzleloading - Barnes Bullets

barnesbullets.com

I use a Knight Ultra Lite .50 caliber with a 1:28 twist. So 300 gr bullet?

 

[ElDiablito]

I go 300 gr min on elk. They aren’t whitetails.

300 gr monos may shoot in a 28 twist. Try it and see.

 

[idelkslayer]

What do you all think? Are sabots in Idaho's Muzzleloader-only season a good thing, or no? I'd love to hear your reasoning.

No, I don't think it is a good idea. Muzzleloaders are meant to be short range weapons and muzzleloader seasons are structured based on low success rates. Any increase in effectiveness has the potential to increase success rates and could lead to reduced tag allocations. Sabots can increase the effective range of muzzleloaders and increase success rates. That's why hunters want that advantage. At a time when Idaho is experimenting with more general season muzzleloader mule deer seasons I think it is a bad time to be increasing muzzleloader effectiveness.

I reject the arguments around more effective or more humane killing by using sabots. The same debate comes up whenever there is an archery vs rifle vs long range discussion. In those debates it is generally acknowledged that hunters can make bad shots with every weapon and both sides argue that more wounding occurs with the other weapon.

For now Idaho still requires open sights (until another state senator gets a bee in his bonnet and pushes to allow scopes, it will probably be the same idiot) and that will limit the impact of allowing sabots. If we can hold line on any further technological advances, I can live with sabots, but I still don't like it.

 

[ElDiablito]

I predict that ID allowing sabots will NOT significantly increase success rates or demand for permits. IF they move to allow scopes in the future, that WILL increase both success and demand.

Utah, is experimenting in some areas with rolling back bow/muzzy/rifle tech to limit harvest rates and allow for more permits/satisfaction. We will see how it works.

 

[NE Herd Bull]

Barnes Expander MZ
Recovered 2024


I have a small collection of these that I have recovered from various critters.
Not many of them took more than a couple steps...if at all
Big Fan

 

[idelkslayer]

I’m pro anything that makes the muzzleloader shoot more accurately. Regardless of percussion/flintlock vs inlines w/ 209s, powder loose vs pellet, patch and ball vs sabot, and irons vs scope.

In my experience with shooting muzzleloaders over the last 20 years. Starting with irons, balls and loose powder to now scope, Barnes coppers and pellets. My groups have gone from pie plates at 50yds to 1.5” at 100yds. Granted I struggle to see iron sights.

Efficient and ethical kills are what I believe most of us on here want so I may case it’s really not hard to guess which muzzleloader I’m grabbing and hunting with.

In my case sabots and scope are more effective and humane because they get me better groups and dead game not wounded or missed game.

I also don’t believe that allowing sabots and/or scopes for muzzleloaders will affect the harvest numbers so much that it’s noticeable.

Based on the theory that a muzzleloader that is easier to shoot and shoot more accurately may or may not cause more to hunt the season. Looking back through the licenses purchased over the last 10 years does not support that tho. Licenses purchased has stayed about the same and the harvest success has been 15-17%. With scopes being allowed 5-6years ago. I’ll point out these numbers are whitetail harvests in my state. Which I’ve been made aware aren’t elk… I guess I never knew that….

Honestly, and this is me reading between the lines of your argument, you are worried that you might have more competition in the field. Nothing to do with effectiveness or humaneness. I’ve seen this same argument for years and the between the lines is always the same.

Hunt with your old technology that’s fine but don’t fight to limit mine.

@timcorcoran Sorry for hijacking thread for this rant.

I think the intent of the seasons are being lost with the addition of too much technology, and to me definitions matter, intent matters. I am concerned about the impact on seasons and tag allocations if effectiveness increases. I almost never see other hunters when I am out during muzzleloader seasons so competition in the field is the least of my worries.

I bolded a few key words and phrases in your post. "easier" "more effective" etc. You're making my case. to paraphrase, you said "I struggle with open sights and full diameter projectiles, but I sure can whack some deer with a scope and sabots." I'll take your word for it that in your state the number of muzzleloader hunters and the average success rate has remained stable despite the inclusion of scopes in your seasons. I don't know which whitetail state you live in so I'll try not to make too many assumptions.

I would ask, what is the average shot distance in your patch of the whitetail world? The difference between a scope and open sights may be less obvious at ranges of 100 yards or less. Out west we're talking about hunters taking 200-300 yard shots on mule deer and elk (some even further). There are very few hunters that can do that without a scope. There are few who could do that even with an open sight centerfire rifle. And yet those ranges are considered chip shots with a scope. Scoped muzzleloaders will most certainly result in more deer and elk being killed, I'll save my energy for that fight when it comes.

At a certain level of technology we will have eliminated any practical difference between centerfire and muzzleloaders. One could argue that it's still slower to reload but that only matters after a shot has already been fired and I've seen some people so clumsy with cycling a bolt action rifle that I'm confident I could reload my muzzleloader faster. Why have a muzzleloader season at all if there is no practical difference?

As I said, I can live with sabots if we can halt the technological creep there. I doubt there will be much if any measurable change in success rates but it is the slippery slope progressing that bothers me. I wrote my representatives when I saw this legislation. If scopes were proposed I'd be knocking on their doors.

 

[Jebel]

I think the intent of the seasons are being lost with the addition of too much technology, and to me definitions matter, intent matters. I am concerned about the impact on seasons and tag allocations if effectiveness increases. I almost never see other hunters when I am out during muzzleloader seasons so competition in the field is the least of my worries.

I bolded a few key words and phrases in your post. "easier" "more effective" etc. You're making my case. to paraphrase, you said "I struggle with open sights and full diameter projectiles, but I sure can whack some deer with a scope and sabots." I'll take your word for it that in your state the number of muzzleloader hunters and the average success rate has remained stable despite the inclusion of scopes in your seasons. I don't know which whitetail state you live in so I'll try not to make too many assumptions.

I would ask, what is the average shot distance in your patch of the whitetail world? The difference between a scope and open sights may be less obvious at ranges of 100 yards or less. Out west we're talking about hunters taking 200-300 yard shots on mule deer and elk (some even further). There are very few hunters that can do that without a scope. There are few who could do that even with an open sight centerfire rifle. And yet those ranges are considered chip shots with a scope. Scoped muzzleloaders will most certainly result in more deer and elk being killed, I'll save my energy for that fight when it comes.

At a certain level of technology we will have eliminated any practical difference between centerfire and muzzleloaders. One could argue that it's still slower to reload but that only matters after a shot has already been fired and I've seen some people so clumsy with cycling a bolt action rifle that I'm confident I could reload my muzzleloader faster. Why have a muzzleloader season at all if there is no practical difference?

As I said, I can live with sabots if we can halt the technological creep there. I doubt there will be much if any measurable change in success rates but it is the slippery slope progressing that bothers me. I wrote my representatives when I saw this legislation. If scopes were proposed I'd be knocking on their doors.

Idejslayer,
I’m curious if your argument against scopes is limited only to magnifying scopes, or it would include non-magnifying scopes like the 1x rule Washington has adopted. And if it does include non-magnifying scopes, why?
Thx

 

[idelkslayer]

Idejslayer,
I’m curious if your argument against scopes is limited only to magnifying scopes, or it would include non-magnifying scopes like the 1x rule Washington has adopted. And if it does include non-magnifying scopes, why?
Thx

I would argue against non-magnifying scopes as well. Even without magnification there is an advantage to a scope. Quality optics facilitate faster target acquisition, visual clarity, light gathering, etc. Savvy shooters will choose reticles with ballistic reticles or use the duplex subtensions to help gauge holdover for longer shots.

I'm not big on allowances for people with disabilities either, as in allowing those with vison problems to use a non-magnifying scope. It makes me sound like a big jerk but I just feel like it leaves too much room to be abused. Life isn't fair and sometimes we are limited by our physical abilities by no fault of our own. That said, I'm not actively trying to eliminate those exceptions either. I also know the day will come when my eyes can't line up iron sights and my legs don't climb the mountains like they used to. I hope I'm humble enough not to demand special exceptions for optics and ATVs that might diminish the experience of others just so I can keep going.

Yes accuracy is important for ethical hunting but we should be humble enough to find our own effective range and limit our shots to range that we can be accurate with our equipment. That is one of the cool things about the Cold Bow/Bore challenges. It causes shooters to confront the limits of their effectiveness.

My apologies to the OP @timcorcoran , I may have single-handedly sidetracked your thread. I really do appreciate your effort to communicate with IDFG and come back with their answer, good stuff.