Anyone know what Dave Petzal is up to these days?

Nope

As of 4 Jan 2011, he's on the Field and Stream web site doing a video teaching folks how to shoot off their hands.

Video Tip: How to Shoot Off Hand

--Bob

I know he was going to do some deer hunting with Melvin Forbes a few weeks ago. Hopefully he didn't take one of those hot [bleep] Savage rifles he pimps on the boob tube.

Who really gives a damn about Dave Petzal?

I think if something happened to him(illness, death,etc), his readers would, for starters...

Well said Jim. I like his writings, quite a bit actually. His humanness and such is appreciated. His article from when he was going through a divoce came out when I was going through mine and those of us who love the out of doors and good rifles see things somewhat differently than many or even most. Our experiences as outdoorsmen colour our lives a great deal and Mr. Petzal seems to ge that, and write about it exceptionally well.

I usually see him at SHOT, either on Range Day or hanging around the Outdoor Streams Afield booth. I'll convey the board's interest in him if I do. (Probably have to write him a note if he's gotten any deafer...)

I haven't paid much attention to him. I met him at the International Varmint Shooters convention back in the 1980's and he was the keynote speaker. He talked about how we need to hide our game and signs of dead animals when we come back from the field.

Ever since then I haven't paid any attention to him. I guess I don't think I need to be a "closet" killer, half the fun of hunting is showing off your trophy...

I'm not a closet killer either, but I have often enjoyed the writings of David Petzal. Showing off has little appeal to me. I've never been ashamed of game I've taken, but I do try and be considerate of the non-hunting public.

Good balance there, TNrifleman.

Driving through town slowly with a big antlers or a large pig lying in state on the back of the vehicle is de rigeur where I come from. Twice is considered excessive.

I was a many-years subscriber to "Field & Stream." Back around 1990-1991 (or so ?), Petzal wrote an editorial advocating more gun control laws against owners of "evil black assault rifles," and "high capacity" magazines. According to Petzal, they had no place in the hunting field. Said we gun owners needed to compromise with the far left liberals by giving up some of our guns (and Rights) in order to keep a few others.

He was so profoundly naive and ignorant, he was unable to comprehend the fact that the far left liberals intend to eventually ban ALL guns, and their assault against "assault" rifles and "big" magazines was no more than one of their incremental "first steps."

I dropped my subscription and have had no respect for Mr. Petzal ever since.

I could not care where he is, or what he's doing.

L.W.

Petzal turned me off when he came out with his snide comments about certain Republicans in leadership.

He struck me as a Libtard.

Dave is definitely NOT a liberal--but he is lucky he made his black-rifle comments before the Internet became widespread. Otherwise he might have been an early Jim Zumbo!

Good to hear.

Well, I hope you did not buy any Ruger products since that time, in protest as well....

William B Ruger's thoughts on "black" rifles were just about Identical to Petzal's statements of that time. Only Bill Ruger went Petzal one further- he DID make a deal with anti gunners in congress to help define the terms of the "Assault weapons" ban on certain rifles -which his Mini-14 was excluded from. Ruger was also the source for the 10 shot magazine limits.

I have always enjoyed his writing style and have gained some good insights from him. I emailed him once about something that he had written and his reply was very courteous and well-written. I believe that his crusty exterior is pretty much a shtick and that I would like to know him.

As for teaching people to shoot off their hands, when I was young, a was told of a fellow in our town who had gotten into an argument with another fellow over whether a certain revolver would shoot through a certain (old) wooden fence post. To prove that it would, he held the (somewhat loose) fence post firmly with his left hand, placed the muzzle of the revolver rather close to the post with his right, and fired. The bullet penetrated not only the post, but also his left hand.

John, as you well know there are a lot of old gunwriters who haven't come out with their true feeling on "black rifles" - and after Zumbo aren't likely to

Cyanide is quicker and easier.

TT

He has his own TV show called the Gun Nuts on the Outdoor Channel and was recently praising Kenny Jarret's AR15 on it.

That's a beauty, BTW.....

You're "hope" was realized long ago. Haven't bought any Ruger products since Bill Ruger made his "deal with the Devil." Over the years I'd bought seven of his firearms before... but none after.

L.W.

This, from the guy that thought it WOULD penetrate??

Genius...

To those who would castigate a guy ( and extending it to all things him --his company for instances) for a stated opinion or position once held, it's good to know you've never taken the low road, always the high road, have aways been in the right, always had the wind to your back and never have had to change our mind.

I never a couple of years ago would have thought I'd own a black rifle; I was rather scornful of them. Then a young coworker introduced me to them and voil�, i have one. True, it's an ugly, black machine but what a machine it is!

I like DP's writing with his acerbic humor and wit and don't write-off guys that don't hold every position I do.

Ben Franklin's maxim about liberty and safety applies to Bill Ruger's sell-out to the leftists.

Schoolchildren across America should be learning this wise quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Well said! I had forgotten that quote.

I too took offense at what Ruger did, but as a small business owner I recognize that you do what you have to do to survive. Do those that hold Bill in offense own a Smith and Wesson? Everyone makes mistakes, it is just when you own a multimillion/billion dollar profitable company they make it to the news media a lot faster. He made a stand and was man enough to back it up. Not many would or can with that much riding on the outcome. For that I still respect him. Besides, I like his firearms too much to hold a grudge too long for a man that do so much good during his lifetime.

The proverb "Do not judge me until you walk a mile in my shoes AND make my payroll" applies here.

With respect to Smith and Wesson, the company is no longer owned by the holding company that sold out to the leftists (it may have changed hands twice since then).

Actions have consequences, and Bill Ruger took a position based on his risk calculations of whether he was risking more by alienating customers and potential customers by selling out to the leftists or taking a principled stand for the 2nd Amendment. Consumers have a right to vote with their dollars against business owners who actively seek to restrict their rights - that's one of the great aspects of a capitalist society.

Can somebody remind me what Bill Ruger did that was so horrible? I recall that he said he could live with a ban on hi-cap magazines. Was there anything else? And was that such a terrible statement that we can call it "selling out to leftists?"

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm,_Ruger
quote:-----------
In addition to the furor from the National Rifle Association caused by "The Ruger Letter", Ruger made additional comments during an interview with NBC network's Tom Brokaw that angered the NRA further, saying: "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun�" and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines�". It has long been Ruger's policy to limit sales of those items to Law Enforcement or Military purchasers.
------------------

I think honest men and women who live near our southern border might have a need for more than 10 rounds in a gun.

Razor back,

Yes Smith and Wesson is no longer owned by the previous holding company. Does not mean that they did not screw up just as bad. Similarly, Ruger is no longer owned by Bill Ruger Sr., as he is deceased. Why forgive one and not the other? Doesn't add up.

It amazes me how a firearms maker can also be anti 2nd amendment

The amount of ammo that my magazine holds is for me to decide, not Bill Ruger

And do not the benefits to American gunowners provided by Ruger and their products not amount to anything?

I don't require people to agree with me 100%.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see how those comments can be expanded into B.R. being "anti 2nd Amendment." He's talking about magazines, not guns. And his opinion about how many rounds a civilian needs are just that: his opinions.

On the same kind of overly critical thinking, does a company owner who says "real guns are blued steel and walnut" become anti 2nd Amendment? It is, after all, an opinion that would limit the kinds of guns his company made.

Excellent points as usual Rocky.

I am also sure that in his present condition, Bill Ruger could not care less about what anybody thinks about what he said while alive. It also seems pretty weird to boycott a company due to what somebody who has passed away once said.

Just because Ruger believed in the regulation of certain aspects of gun ownership did not make him "anti second amendment".

That quote above only makes him "anti high capacity magazines for civilian use"...

That may not fit YOUR world view, but it sure as hell did not make the man Anti- Second amendment.

Firearms owners expect people who own firearms companies to back freedom and the 2nd amendment. Standing before your customer base and telling them they are "simple" peons who can not be trusted with high capacity magazines shows the same arrogance the leftist politicians exhibit.

On another note, Cooper Firearms took a hit a couple of years ago because the CEO supported Obama. It means I vote with my dollars, and I won't be buying any Coopers, either. I am reminded every day these past two years that Obama got elected by a bunch of morons.

I certainly disagree, you are either pro 2nd or you are not, there ain't no 1/2 BS. Only 10 round capacity today, single shots tomorrow
Capacity limits is certainly anti 2nd amendment, no other way to slice it.

Dan Cooper was ousted from the Cooper company due to the Obama stuff, shortly after the news became public two years ago. Boycotting Cooper is about as smart as boycotting Ruger because Bill Ruger (who passed away 8-1/2 years ago) made some negative comments about high-capacity magazines on civilian firearms.

Spot on, my friend

Well then jwp, YOU are completely anti-2nd Amendment.

How? Your sig line denigrates one caliber versus another. Since you can't be even an echo of a shadow critical of ANYTHING about shooting and still be pro-gun, you are clearly anti-gun.

Don't blame me, those are YOUR arguments.

I am a bit reluctant to buy into the spin that Dan Cooper has no monetary interest in Cooper Firearms.

Your logic is totally flawed. Nothing about rating the merits of one defensive caliber against another is anti gun. No where do I suggest to limit number of firearms owned or magazine capacity

Rocky you are usually logical but that post was not

It's not "spin" , the same guy who owns Wilson barrels now owns ALL of Cooper Arms. Dan Cooper owns no part of it and has not been seen at the plant since November of 2008.

The Obama flap merely hastened a buyout that had been in the works for many months.

I'm merely extending your own comment that you can only be pro or anti and no half-way is allowed. If there's a logic fault, it isn't mine.

I don't have an active boycott against Ruger, but I don't go out of my way to buy Ruger products, either.

As far as I know, the company is still in the family, and I don't blame those who won't buy Ruger products based on principle.

Oh but there is fault in your logic. I believe that one has the right to own any caliber for whatever purpose they choose to use it for.

I have never and never will support limitations on number of firearms owned or magazine capacity, both of which are anti gun

Your stretching way too far

So the fact the Ruger has supplied millions of guns to the American public counts for nothing compared to a comment from their long dead founder?

I have not ever boycotted Ruger either, but I am very disappointed in Bill Rugers anti 2nd amendment stance

As for Cooper, NO WAY JOSE. Cooper backed an antio 2nd amendment administration and I will not even ever consider one

But you are against a gun maker, and that -by your own argument- is anti-gun because it limits MY choice.

Sorry, my friend. Your logic bites your own butt.

No Rocky you are off that you can't even see the front. I am not against a firearm maker, I am not against gun makers, but I am against the ones that take money from they gun buying public and then use the profits to back anti 2nd amendment administrations

You can't have that both ways, jwp. You can't be "not against gun makers" and then be "against gun makers who..." At least you can't if you also hold that a person can be pro or anti but not 1/2. Those were your words, and then you proceed to claim that you are in fact 1/2.

Well Rocky one has to draw a line and I have drawn mine. I do not want my money used by the anti 2nd amendment forces. If you do or can not see the difference then I guess that puts you on the side of the ANTI 2nd AMENDMNET CROWD.

I heard Bill Ruger would buy black rifles and tear them up in his basement.

Live today and for the future. Running down Ruger-the company-today is living in the past.

Jwp, there is no difference between your gun maker comments and Nancy Pelosi who said she is not against the rich, but she is against the rich who...

Bill Ruger also drew a line. He didn't want his products used for possibly illicit purposes. Who can find fault with that? As far as I know, he didn't send any of his company's money to anti-gun forces, and nobody else in the company has either.

That deserves a few trips around town, and the next town.

Poke the coals and stir them up why don't you.

I heard that he liked to take apart pre 64 Winchester mod 70's and replace components with MIM parts and legal proof triggers!!!

The reason no one has heard from Mr. Petzal is that he has been busy melting AR's into slag.

In Zumbo's backyard to boot.

I would think that any sane person would not want their product used for illicit purposes. I am sure that automakers do not wwant people useing the autos that they make to intentionaly run people down on the streets. Yet I do not see them openly supporting restrictions on the products

Your liberal logic is just plain silly

Bullschit.

Automakers DO support "restrictions" on automobiles.

WTF are vehicle registration,licensing and insurance laws laws?

Speed limits?

Vehicle Highway safety specifications ?

Minimum age limits for care ownership?

Automakers support ALL those "restrictions".

Does that make them Anti-Automobile? Anti driving?

You have proof of that or are you just pulling it out of you back side, but automobiles are not protected as a right by the 2nd amendment either

I sure do not see car companies fighting most any of the auto laws in this country.

And the 2nd amendment does NOT say ANYTHING about high capacity magazines either.

I guess any gun company who does not wish the repeal of the 1930s laws restricting Machine gun ownership are "anti-gun" your eyes as well?

jwp475 has it right. At some point you draw a line.

The citizens of this country will compromise away all of their traditional constitutional freedoms real soon...wait a minute, they already nearly have.

Some of the firearms companies and writers apparently have been out to lunch at Fuddsville. They seem to think the 2nd amendment has something to do with hunting arms, when in fact the original intent was aimed at martial arms.

Why do you think the left desires restrictions? It's just one step closer to confiscation. They can not control the populace if those "peons" are armed. Now be a good little citizen and turn in your guns and support Obama and George Soros and all the other schemers. That way we can all get along. Of course, I'm being facetious, but you get the picture.

Lest folks think it is just about firearms companies, think again. I don't shop at Target either, because of the stance they've taken against our servicemen and women and the salvation army, etc.

We should just get rid of the first amendment. Friggin� people sayin� and writin� whatever they damn well please is what causes the problem in the first place. A true American should have ONE opinion and ONE opinion only and it should match what the rest of us think. Anybody who don�t like it can leave and go to some commie liberal country where they don�t allow freedoms like we do.

Let's just drop this. We've gone far from the original post and have gotten to the point where some are rationalizing their own opinions because they are theirs, but castigating anyone else's opinion. They then resort to name calling, which marks the end of any rational discussion because it means the name-caller is losing but has no other arrows in his quiver.

Besides, I have other things to do - such as writing a gun article.

With his bare hands?......Whoa!




Casey

But Rocky, just think of it as practice........



Casey

RATIONALIZER !!

I hope you are doing another one for Handloader!

Very well said, I agree with both of you (you and jwp).

I sure do like that Dave Petzel guy.

Getting back to the OP, Petzal turned me off when he came out with his snide comments about a 222Rem being only for 100yd use.

He struck me as a dumbfounded [bleep].

Where and when did he say that? Just curious.