Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters David E. Petzal

How many rounds to do shoot a year? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?

I wonder how much hunting Petzal actually does anymore? He lives and works in the NYC area and seem to remember my brother in law, who worked with him, mention he had some sort of physical problems. Bad back maybe? He also said he liked to take naps under his desk at work,lol, and that he was quit the charachter.

If my math and memories are correct, Dave turned 74 last October. Don't know how much he's hunting these days, but I hunted with him quite a bit from the late 70's to the around 2000, both in Montana and other places here and there.

In one of Jack O'Connors last books he went off on new gun writers he thought gave bad advice. The two in particular he went after were Norman Strung and Dave Petzal. I happened to like Norman Strungs work; however, every time Petzal gives an opinion I think about Jack's comments.

I remember reading that part of the book. Both Dave and Norm were pretty young when O'Connor had his little encounter with them--in fact they were exactly the same age, since they were born on the same day in 1941. Norm was a very good hunter, and had been outfitting for a while, but not much of a gun guy, and had some bad experiences on elk with poor .270 bullets, which set O'Connor off. Petzal was indeed a little shy on elk experience then, and years later did kill a good bull with a .270, using good bullets.

What was interesting to me was O'Connor's rather snotty put-down of Strung as a "part-time school teacher." The "school teaching" Strung did for a while was very similar to what O'Connor did for a while at the same age: an assistant professor of English at a state university.

I always found it funny that Petzal and Boddington wrote for years that the .270 was not a decent elk cartridge. Then both tried it, and I believe were pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, I always found that interesting too!

I am trying to get caught up since my first post in this thread.

Originally posted by Mule Deer


I easily concede that you have been doing more shooting & hunting than I have in the past 8-10 yrs. That equates to MORE rifles and scopes used/abused. <grin>.

However from 1980-2005 I 'think' I would have given you a run for your money. During those years - guns/loading/shooting/graphing/hunting was or were my only hobby or past time.

As we talked in another thread I was a "churner". During those years I have NO IDEA of how many rounds I shot/yr nor exactly how many diff. rifles,cartridges, & scopes I used, sold, or traded.

AS you mentioned, some of your scopes had deliberately induced failures. I ONLY had 1.

----The following is from P 2 of this thread.----

" BUT-BUT I did WEAR 1 out. I put it on every hard kicking rifle that came along and used it for grouping & graphing. I STILL have it's carcass out of 'respect'. It EARNED its keep."
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The rest of my scopes have had years of normal loading,shooting, & hunting use. So I do UNDERSTAND the MORE scopes and the MORE shooting qualifies YOU as a better judge of scope quality and dependability.

At the same time I've had 'lower priced'=cheap to some,scopes on 7 Mags, 300 Mags, and 1 8mm RM and have graphed/grouped/hunted those same scopes for some years w/o any failures at all.

I really hope this makes sense to you, it does in my twisted mind.< grin>.


Basically I guess I am trying to say that to the "average" hunter/shooter the variables are dependable.

Also there are BAD APPLES in Fords,Chevys,Dodges. So one could get ahold of a bad scope occasionally.


W H E W W- that was a lot of typing, editing, & retyping. I really HOPE M D read this.

Jerry

I get kick out of his dry wit.

Okay smokey I went back and re-read the quoted post and I agree w/you.

Also



I agree w/338Rules about MORE 338 bullets. I really am NOT up on all the new bullets EVEN in 8mm & 338 but I do know there are. I've seen a few pics of bullets that are new and look very good for the 8mm/325 WSM.

At the same time we don't need 6-8 different good bullets for BG hunting in EACH caliber.

Jerry

mathman, I really wish I had an exact answer for you, because I would really like to know myself <and not tell my wife>.

From 1980--2005 I am safe to say more than 1000 per year and maybe more. I can tell you a couple of stories about where I lived in 2 diff places and shot behind my house. I was privileged to have good backstops for testing, graphing, etc. w/o having to leave the house.

I am sincerely trying to be honest in my answer. I also know that with as much shooting as I have done w/variable scopes, I would have EXPECTED to have some failures.

Jerry

It seems to me that the importance of shooting a lot of rounds when evaluating the durability of scopes would depend considerably on what cartridges are being used. I shoot thousands of rounds every year from rifles but the vast majority are rim fire and .223. These are not going to tax scopes very much. On the other hand, if someone is shooting a lot of rounds of .300 WM and up then that experience should be more of a test of scope durability. Obviously big magnums would have the most potential impact on scopes but few people shoot them in great volume.

I've had good luck with variable scopes, mostly Leupold's, over the last 30 years but I don't generally shoot hard recoiling cartridges in volume, even though I sometimes hunt with them.

I know this is getting a little off the main topic but since it keeps coming up, I will comment too. Anyone who thinks that a variable powered scope is a durable as a fixed power of the same brand and quality is kidding himself. There are real moving parts, there are little parts, anything that is subject to movement, especially under recoil, is at a much higher risk of moving more or to somewhere other than where it should. Some of the stuff, like the turrets coming off and VXIII/VX3 doesn't make any difference.

Are they reliable? Absolutely. Is a 4.5-14 VX3 as reliable (not breaking internally over time) as a M8-3x, not even close.

I won't disagree, but I do know I put more than a couple of hundred rounds of 375's loaded to the hilt down a 7 lbs total KS 700 wearing a Leupold VX3 4.5x14x40.

As hard as I tried to send that scope back to Leupold I could not kill it. For that fact, I have not sent one back yet that was on a heavy hitter including 338's and 300's.


I had no problem sending 3 Minox's back.

I have broken three Leupolds on my 8# 340 Wby. Not sure what to put on it now. It flat destroys scopes. Most durable variable I have ever used was a 2-7 Burris Fullfield I. I put over 3000 rounds of 300 Wby past it, carried it over 100 days in scabbards on mules and horses and countless tumbles and scrapes. It held zero until the day that I upgraded to a more powerful, brighter scope.

I think readers like Petzal because he shoots from the hip. His advice isn't bad for most folks...he's missing the point of the 325 WSM, but then, so did nearly everyone else, as did the market in general that has discounted this round.

The 325 was designed by Winchester to be an alternative choice that was the equivalent of the 338 Mag in a shorter, lighter package with less recoil, and it does exactly that.

Also, missing the point is that the BC of the 8mm AB is 10% higher than the same weight bullet in .338 diameter, and that bullet easily stays supersonic to 100 yards and maintains 1500 fp of energy, (which some consider minimum for Elk), to around 600 yards...that's a reasonably capable round to my eyes.

Certainly the 8mm only has a handful of good bullets available, but you only need one, really, and the lessened recoil is a MAJOR bonus for some shooters. Granted, it's not a lot, but can make a difference.

The 325 could have been one of the more popular in the WSM line-up instead of a dead chambering if it had been a 338. It would also have been inferior to the 338 WM, but more popular.

As to those rugged variables, I don't know where guys buy them, but let me know so I can buy those instead of some of the ones I have had.

And then he says this in his comments in the latest Nosler Load Guide #8.

"The 338 Winchester Magnum is an excellent long-range round:"

This is why I don't pay any attention to him.

If he's guiding hunters to the 338, then that is probably very good advice and will be a lot better outcome for those who needed that guidance...for a lot of very good reasons, just not the reasons he mentioned.

Probably? like in maybe?


And one of those good reasons being?


Like the 338 WM is a noted go to long range cartridge?

I have used Leopould variables exclusively for over 30 years on magnum and non magnum calibers and have never had one fail after being carried hundreds of miles on horseback, bounced around in riverboats, pick ups , quads etc.