Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters The 10 Most Overrated Cartridges

When it comes to hunting rifles there are three writers whose articles I read:
Petzal
Van Zwoll
Barsness

For hunting riflescopes it is Barsness way out in front with Petzal and Van Zwoll a distant second and third.

I love Petzal and what I like most about him is his intelligence, wit and curmudgeonly personality.

Petzal is an idiot

I find it a bit odd that so many adult men find the author so dreamy.


Sure hope any new hunter or shooter that might have been considering one of these cartridges doesn't get ahold of one of these articles and because it's published by F&S believes it to be the end all be all. Seems to me articles like this might do more damage than they do good.

I hope you don’t put much weight on anything printed in Field and Stream

Just another turd article from him !

Ende der Durchsage

Field and Stream has fallen victim to the innanet and globalist ownership as has most print media. They ushered good writers out the door or into retirement as contractors vice paid staff a while back. Petzal is a solid authority on rifles and does have a curmudgeonly slant to his musings. I guess if you don’t understand his style you might not care for his writings. Petzal has forgotten more about rifles and shooting that most of the circus here will ever know. If you don’t like Petzal, you might love Richard Mann….

Sounds like a hell of a business model. Have your "expert" write an article that makes him sound like a fool, then tell your readers they just aren't smart enough to understand how wise he is. In a few years, they can all sit around talking about that one time they got a lot of hits on their quarterly, online-only magazine.

dassa,

Contoversy has been part of publishing business models since the invention of the printing press. It's also part of the core of 24hourcampfire.com. Luckily, Rick doesn't have to pay members to write controversial posts, because they do it for free.

Yes, F&S is no longer a print magazine. I was not surprised when that occurred, because apparently none of the several successive companies that have owned it since the 1980s recognized the trend toward specialty magazines (and eventually websites), which would dominate the market. This would essentially kill outdoor magazines that tried to cover "everything"--hunting, target shooting, fishing, camping, boating, etc.

Field & Stream and Outdoor Life are prime examples--but one of the companies that owned Field & Stream also aided the demise of both magazines by purchasing Outdoor Life--a direct competitor. Don't remember exactly when that occurred, but do know that in the 1990s the offices of both magazines were across a hallway from each other, in a huge downtown New York City office building. Exactly how this was supposed to work to either magazine's advantage was something of a mystery. I would guess it had something to do with advertising sales, since back then Madison Avenue was still the core of the ad world.

During this period the ownership also failed to recognize that the days of producing such magazines from the middle of a huge city where people who really like to hunt, fish, shoot, etc. would refuse to work was also a losing proposition--especially after modern electronic communication made it easy to edit magazines from any place the Internet worked. Several of the specialty magazines that were killing F&S and OL already allowed their editors to live wherever they wanted to, so tended to be able to hire editors who knew more about shooting, hunting, fishing, etc.

I started writing for F&S in the late 1970s, and became a staff writer in the late 80s, when the magazine was at its peak, selling something like 2 million 150-200 page magazines a month. By the early 2000s the downhill slide was underway, due to competition from specialty magazines, plus the Internet. I resigned, even though F&S was still publishing paper magazines every month, because specialty magazines were growing--and offering just as much pay.

A good example is the third general outdoor magazine that existed back then, Sports Afield. Like F&S and OL, it was also starting to lose money in the 1990s, but was then owned by the Hearst Corporation, which tended to refuse to admit one of its publications was failing. Hearst kept pumping money into SA, until even they realized it was a victim of specialty publications. (Somewhere in there Hearst also turned SA into a backpacking, mountain biking, etc magazine, which resulted in it losing even more money.

They sold it to Bob Petersen, the guy who started Guns & Ammo, one of the first specialty shooting magazines, and also Petersen's Hunting, which became one of the leading specialty hunting magazines. Bob gave up on it within a year or two, selling it to the present owner, who turned it into a specialty big game magazine, the reason SA still appears in regular print editions.

But even specialty publications regularly run articles intended to stir up controversy, which is easy to do among people who hunt and shoot, because so many have strong convictions (and emotions) about their favorite firearms and cartridges. And controversy tends to provide publicity--as it did here, and quite easily.This instance, however, probably won't help F&S,much, because the magazine still clings to trying to cover hunting and fishing--the primary reason it started down the long road to becoming a quarterly on-line magazine, and sharing some writers with Outdoor Life. But this thread did result in a lot more "hits" for the Campfire, which helps Rock Bin.

hilarious column ...

MD,
As one of your readers, I find that I agree with you more than you agree with me. Don’t you agree?

Agree!

Though as I pointed out to another well-know gun writer--who's somewhat younger than I am, and also named John---if you write on a wide variety of subjects, most readers will find several where they agree with you--and think you really know your stuff!

He says the 7mm Rem Mag is overrated. That tells me he hasn't spent a lot of time afield with one. Since its inception in 1962 it has been one of the top cartridges in the sales of rifles, ammo, components etc... in the world. There has to be a reason for it. Is it the best overall round? Nope. That honor goes to the 375 H&H. But the 7mm Rem Mag is a very, very good round.

Yo proved Petzal's point, if the sales figures are high it's overrated

In assessing whether I should agree or disagree with a writer, or whether he really knows his stuff, his conclusions are not as important to me as how he got to them. Credibility is everything; lose credibility and you’re through. And, that goes for far more than writing.

1. If the 7 RM didn't perform well on a wide variety of game & varying circumstances... it would NOT continue to sell as well.
Sales numbers tell the story how hunters feel about it.

2. I've had more 300 WMs & 7 RMs than any other magnum rifles. Had a Ruger 77 OG in 338 WM for a SHORT time.
That stock with that cartridge was BRUTAL. My 8mm RM is easier to shoot than that OG 77.

In the last 5 yrs I have come to realize that for Deer (all), Elk, Moose, & Bear the 7mm RM is my pick for ONE rifle for
Big Game. 458 Win Mag (Mr. Phil) says the 30-06 is entirely adequate for "Brown Bear".....so the 7 RM is more.
I'm now 71 and will NOT hunt the big bears--- Deer, Elk & Moose are well covered by the 7 RM.
It deserves its respect.


Jerry

The 7 mag is over rated
The 6.8 MSM is the schidt and better

I don't enter a battle of wits against the UNarmed.

Jerry

This thread's entertainment value is perpetual.

What are the readership/blogger numbers for Field and Stream?????? Is it higher than the campfire???

I agree with most of the cartridges listed! I have a soft spot for the 7 Rem mag! But it really doesn't do anything special! Funny how people are sure their favorite, is the cats meow! To bad mouth a writer because he got your goat,well that just makes me grin all over!