New Remington 700 Ultimate Muzzleloader

I think it's a nice muzzleloader, but the biggest single problem I have with it is it's not smokeless. Second issue I have is (for me) it is over-priced. But it's a nice muzzleloader.

Oh, don't need a "fouling" shot with smokeless muzzleloaders. :)
I really like the BH209 powder, as it is the next best thing to smokeless, but believe can still purchase most smokeless powders for about half the cost (per shot) of BH209?

Perhaps there are places where smokeless muzzleloaders may be illegal? If so, that would be the more ideal market for this one. But doubt many get sold below the Mason-Dixon Line.
 
Consumers had the chance to buy a smokeless muzzleloader for 12 consecutive years, built like a real rifle, the Savage 10ML series. It did well, 45,000 or so sold, but not well enough. The market for a regular production smokeless muzzleloader isn't there. Sure, it was what "everybody claimed they wanted," but the only vote that counts is what gets sold.

No one cares about cost per shot. The most popular muzzleloading propellant today is T7 pellets, at $120 - $140 per pound. It never has stopped folks from buying them.
 
RandyWakeman said:
The market for a regular production smokeless muzzleloader isn't there. Sure, it was what "everybody claimed they wanted," but the only vote that counts is what gets sold.

No one cares about cost per shot. The most popular muzzleloading propellant today is T7 pellets, at $120 - $140 per pound. It never has stopped folks from buying them.
Click to expand...
I certainly can't argue with those facts.
Most of us will typically pay more for convenience, and no doubt, it's "easier" to use T7 pellets than measure powder.

But regarding the smokeless "market", could the lack of sales be highly correlated with the lack of "marketing"? What I'm saying is that few sellers of muzzleloaders have even been offering a "smokeless" muzzleloader (I assume because of liability concerns), nor have most of the manufacturers even produced one.

To a large degree, people buy what they're offered, and relatively few have been "offered" the kind of convenient opportunity to purchase a smokeless muzzleloader vs. non-smokeless muzzleloaders being so widely offered and advertised.

My thoughts are if you placed a Savage smokeless on the shelf right beside this new Remington, more people would walk out the door with the Savage smokeless (which by the way, costs considerably less both to purchase and to shoot).

In the meantime, the creation of BH209 has brought the performance of "non-smokeless" muzzleloaders closer to the "smokeless", and I'm sure BH209 has reduced the demand for smokeless muzzleloaders.

That said, I believe this new Remington 700 Ultimate Muzzleloader is a fine gun.
 
Speaking of "market", what I'd like to see are more quality "featherweight" .45 caliber muzzleloaders for those oh so many hunting times when I DON'T NEED a longer-range gun. Much of my hunting is done where 50 yards is beyond visibility, and there is no need to wag around a heavy long long-range ML.

Offer a quality .45 caliber "featherweight" muzzleloader (preferably hammerless) and you will create a new market.

Not that a .45 cal can't be an excellent long-range gun, but by going to .45 bore there is more opportunity to lighten the weight of the gun.
 
"Smokeless" is merely a matter of classification: Pyrodex, T7, and Blackhorn are all classified as 'smokeless' propellants. All of them are more modern than classic IMR propellants, now over a century old. By no means can a pellet be rationally called powder.

Retailers have no particular liability, real or imagined, for they act as a conduit from manufacturers. All firearms manufacturers have liability insurance, it goes with the territory.

The "Super 45s" have been tried three times already and have fallen flat every time. The only reason they aren't made today is lack of demand.

Those looking for lighter, faster handling options do have them, though: as in the LHR Redemption, 20 inch barrel, @ a bit over 6 lbs. Heavy bullets and heavy charges = heavy recoil, particularly in a lightweight gun, but that's the trade-off.
 
Thanks for bringing that up, Randy.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/341852 ... ding-rifle

That's pretty close to what I'm talking about, as a good "tree-stand thicket" gun.

Maybe they'll start offering it in .45 cal, which could shave off even a little more weight (which includes less weight with the additional pre-measured loads/bullets we carry afield).
 
They may do that for you right now, if you ask them.

The issue, in times past, with T/C and Knight .45s is that they weren't any lighter at all . . . they were heavier.

In the case of my Encore .45 and Omega .45s, they used the same barrel profile, just with a smaller hole. No weight savings at all, actually heavier guns.

In the case of my Knight Disc Extremes, in .45 / .50 and .52, the lightest gun was actually the .52. Same barrel contour for all three rifles.
 
I know you said Hammerless Wes but have you looked at the CVA Apex???

Some of the guys over on .dougs Message board have done some very successful smokeless conventions on those. And from what I have seen so far will run circles around the Remington.

FWIW I don't see the need to do a expensive smokeless conversion when BH209 will do the same thing.
 
PillsburyDoughboy said:
FWIW I don't see the need to do a expensive smokeless conversion when BH209 will do the same thing.
Click to expand...
Smokeless conversions are pretty inexpensive compared to the price of some new regular muzzleloaders.

And while BH209 is a good choice for guys with regular muzzleloaders, it isn't up to par with smokeless powder. We're still bigger, faster and stronger. :grin:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top