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

Exactly--which is why most (but not all) more expensive 1" variables hold up better. But it's also why the variables most hunters buy, retailing for under $500 (often well under), aren't as tough as moderate-priced fixed scopes.

It's also the reason there are so many really tough 30mm-tubed variables. They can be reinforced in the right places, including the magnification-change tube, without the necessity of making everything thinner to fit inside a smaller space.

It's also far easier to make a low-magnification 1" variable tougher, the reason several people have cited the 1-4x and 1.5-5x Leupolds as being very reliable. Lighter parts aren't as subject to jarring during recoil.

nice post.

I like his wit myself. Dave Petal has one major problem today and that is he grew old.The young Bucks want someone they can relate to, someone interested in the current black rifle craze, who thinks Bergers and shooting at 600 yard plus is where it is at. He doesn't seem all that enthused about Bic rifles. He always was more of a gun writer vs an outdoor/hunting writer and he likes the good stuff. They want someone hip to the new, someone they see with a bagged Elk on their back. Most don't care much about what he did in the past. It's all about now. It's mostly always been that way.

Addition: just turned off the tv. The add was for some scope and the final view was an Elk going down at 900 followed by the prerequisite high five. When is the last time you even saw a commercial for a fixed?

Honestly my fixed power bias comes from my youth. Dad always bought Bushnell Sportviews as many PA hunters did. Of course, like a normal PA hunter they got mounted on pump .30-06's flinging 180 RN. He always kept a 3-9x on top of his carbine but he had a 4x on the rifle he gave to me. His variables seemed to crap out on a pretty regular basis (once while bear hunting his crosshairs went from + to an x) and my fixed power always kept zero even though I was clumsy and would bump it around. He got a Bushnell Trophy 3-9 and that solved his string of scope failures and I grew up and got Leupolds. Fixed power Leupolds that is. Even though I'm no longer clumsy.

Battue, you are right, Petzal is a little long in the tooth to capture the younger, long range crowd. But, in the 1989 Gun Digest, I believe, He wrote an article called "I Sold All My Lovely Wood." Like all us old-timers, he was once younger and cutting edge for his time. The article talked about how, to buy synthetic stocked rifles, he sold some favorites with walnut. He felt it was a worthwhile tradeoff to get the stability of synthetic in his hunting rifles.

And that particular article REALLY made some people angry....

I still have wood (ahemm...stocks that is... ) but I also sold some of the really nicer looking stocked rifles and got into SYNTHETIC (not plastic) stocked rifles.

I like & have enjoyed the stability & accuracy of synthetic but there are a few Walnut stocked rifles that I really wish I had kept.

Water under the bridge and down the river, what can you do ?

Jerry

The other side of the Petzal article is he had some custom walnut stocked-rifles made after it appeared.

I'll bet it did!

That has always been my favorite DP article.

Has it ever been adequately explored - this side condition of loonism - that likeing one thing means total dissent for its counter?

Rifle vs. bows
Synthtic vs. wood
Variables vs. fixed
Any rifle chambering vs. 270
Long range vs. sneekers

Long rangers run away from any animal, hearts in their throat, until they screem: "He won't get me up here, but I will get him. " Bang.

Thats why they are always lanky and fit as Nikes.

"We Sneekers need all our belly fat to slowly snail towards our quarry and ambush him by invading his personal space. Thats why we have short barrels.

Not to give us away by accidental muzzle tip before we get really close. Broohahah."

What happend to the well equipped box full of good tool for all tasks and the ability to select and competently wield them?

I like DP s writing.

The 89 Gun digest brings back fond memories. I bought it as a 15 yo lad and read it cover to cover. My favorite articles were "Of Power and Placement" (forget the author) and "Some Truth About The Western Plains" by JB. I read those articles until I could nearly recite them!

Fixed it for ya.





"Sneekers", huh? I always wondered if there was a name for me.

And yes, I have a wide variety of tools in the toolbox. It's just that the vast majority of them wear fixed 4x scopes...

FC

I have been meditating the content of your post and I can honestly say that I am a Duke's Mixture of those things.

I have bow hunted and the only thing I that bothers me is, there are too many bow hunters who are NOT qualified to know when/not to shoot OR when game is in/out of range.

I have BOTH walnut & synthetic. Since MD's & my last post I've remembered the MAIN reason I got into synthetic is WEIGHT.

I feel there are MORE advantages to variables than fixed but other than that it doesn't matter.

I have had a 223 and now have 6mm Rem-----8mm RM but the 270 is the only 1 that I have multiples.

Lastly, I enjoy "in your face killing" and "Ma Bell" reach out and touch them.



It's beginning to register that Mr. Petzal influenced me more than I thot. as in pleasant surprise.


Jerry

He cracks me up. He catches as many sandy vaginas on the 'Fire as Trump does.

It's NEVER not funny.

I agree with this assessment. Not everyone cares about, or can afford copper bullets, Leupold scopes or Sako rifles. Some can, but don't bother. They enjoy the hunt, but are loathe to worry about small details. They love the whole experience - the campfire, the camaraderie, the outdoors (forest or fields) and even the trip there and back. What they don't care about is what you mentioned - MOA, twist rates, bullet drift, etc. Many would label this 'minutiae'.

I don't own many Leupolds at the present time because they are overpriced for my needs. Yes, you read that correctly. I would be inclined to buy one if they were cheaper, and if I owned fewer rifles. None of my rifles ever gets a work out like someone who shoots competitive benchrest. Bushnells and Nikons abound in my lockers. My scopes are all guaranteed for more years than I'll be hanging around, and Leupold's warranty is no better. While reputation is important, warranties are useless when a scope goes south in the middle of nowhere.

Petzal has a lock on his audience. F&S know this, or he wouldn't be there anymore. Eventually he'll quit, retire or get fired, but that's par for the course in that business. What he does, he does very well.



Getting old sucks, and this might be a reason why Jim Zumbo found himself in hot water. We are all products of our age, and it takes work to be able to bridge the generations. He goofed.

----

Stocks

For me, wooden stocks are silly. They can be pretty to look at, but when I'm getting rained on or handling a rifle roughly, wood will give out before synthetic. My choice. Others will disagree. It doesn't make my reasons wrong, just different. We do not share the same values or requirements.

Scopes

To me, variables make more sense for varmint hunters and long range shooters - especially when there some heat coming off the ground, or the target appears at varying distances. But that doesn't mean they all use variables. Even those made by Leupold. It doesn't make their reasons wrong, just different. They do not share the same values or requirements.

The world is a large place. Hunting is different when you travel more than a few miles or chase different species. It's all good. Live and let live.

Good post, Steve. I imagine that while they make things more difficult for the rest of us, those who are blessed with knowing the one and only true and right way of doing things must lead a very secure and satisfactory life, never having to consider any other options/possibilities. (We used to have one of these persons in our fishing group. "You're not going to (do that like that, whatever it might have been) are you?")

Know-it-alls aside, I suspect that questioning someone's choice of equipment or technique is often a self examination.

Did I do the right thing? Did I buy the right scope/rifle/bullet/boots?

We constantly examine ourselves when something new or different comes along. It's never ending. To commit for life to a certain brand or technique isn't smart. Technology evolves. Knowledge increases. That means we're likely to change equipment, brands or procedures throughout our lives.

One scope I cannot break, on anything, is an old Leupold M7 (that's right, seven)-3X.

It must be the original "Takes a licking, and keeps on ticking!"

Ted

I don't understand threads like this. What I mean by that is why post the original thread? People are entitled to there opinions and that is all they are? I don't care for the .308 cartridge, the 25-06, the 17 HMR and a number of Craig Boddington's opinions.

I enjoy Petzal but don't take his word as gospel, or Mule Deer's word either. No disrespect to John because he is much more knowledgeable than me and seems to be a very gracious person. Maybe Petzal hasn't done as much hunting as some writers but I bet he's done more than the vast majority of people that read this website. Ingwe doesn't like the .270, I do, and I get a huge kick reading his posts.

I sell firearms and optics and go above and beyond to be objective with customers. But I know that there are subjective thoughts that unconsciously affect my views. We are all that way when it comes to hunting. I would rather tote a heavier rifle because of recoil amelioratation. That is definitely a minority view. The advantages of short action rifles mean nothing to me. I cannot give a valid reason why I don't like the .308 cartridge but I do. I like the 7x57 but the 7mm-08 does nothing for me. Preferences in firearms are so much subjective than objective - than many many people are willing to admit.

cdb,

What you are talking about is indeed an opinion. And everyone is entitled to theirs.

The two Petzal comments were in response to reader questions and were thus advice. Advice is very different than an opinion, and if the person is not qualified to give it, they should not. (Although if that truly were the case, the 'fire would be much less active.)

Now I'm not saying I think Petzal is unqualified to be writing. I'm not saying that by a long shot. As I initially wrote, I enjoy reading his columns. However, after reading those two pieces, I started to wonder if he was stretching things just a wee bit and posted my thoughts up to see what everyone else said, guessing that a few probably know Petzal personally and could offer up their thoughts as well.