At the risk of becoming a punch line, I'd like to get opinions, with specificity, of his writing.

-I like his irreverent style.
-I find him factual in his presentations of his findings and he does not much deal in the myths, rumors, biases and predjudices toward brands or products.
-I like his range of topics.
-I like his irreverent style.

For years I read his stuff in F & S but I no longer subscribe. Now I read his blog on the F & S site.

I like his subtle wit - and his sometimes less than subtle version. I class him as one of the last of the old guard who is still in the business, and admire that.

I also like the fact that you can talk (hell, you can damn near bellow) behind his back, because he's deaf as a brick.

I met him briefly a few years ago after I had been reading his material and he was enjoyable to talk to even though he heard every third word I said.

Seems quite irascible.

He is the kind of irascible old coot that I relate to. I read the mag just for his articles.

I have one of his books and enjoy it. I also look at his articles and columns.

I like Petzal.....

It's hard not to like a fellow who once described Prairie Dogs as having the brain capacity of a of a "Gouda Cheeze"..

He also once said-

"There are two groups of people who hold me in High regard.

The first are the folks to whom I have lent money and forgotten about.

The second group are those to whom I have recommended the .270 Winchester as a good deer rifle."

Jim I do remember that!

Dave is one of the best gun WRITERS who has ever engaged in that dubious trade. Aside from being very literate (not all that common among gun writers) he has shot and hunted a lot, with both factory and custom rifles, so knows a lot of stuff.

Aside from writing skill, however, Dave also knows that gun writing isn't all about being technically correct. John Wootters (another fine WRITER) told me many years ago that gun writing was primarily about entertainment. Dave knows that, and through both innate ability and hard work is very entertaining.

One thing I would like to mention, even though it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, is that Dave is also one of those rare editors who can improve the copy of other writers--and in their own style.

I just wish he would write more books. But books are becoming secondary to blogs in the modern world.

I still have a copy of the first thing that I read by Dave Petzal "Just remember:the.222 is a 200-yard gun;beyond that you'll want something bigger".
It did not take much more of his writings to realize he is a dumbfounded dipschitt not worthy of my time to waste to read his trash.

I am really out of date. I though he died in the 90's.

I like him.

Yep, I can identify with a guy who is half deaf from shooting, grins while writing something politically incorrect-and clever, and provided eye candy for me on the Gun Vault website for about a year in the form of a custom, Mannlicher stocked 7x57 originally made for him. Oh yea, he is a lefty too.

I think he's still with us, as of 3-23-11, according to his blog.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

Maybe he's waiting for the next '90s to roll around to kick off.

That was Ken Howell, RIP.

I have a hard time believing he ever made such a statement. Certainly not in the context of using a .22 on Varmints.

You bring that supposed "quote "up every time his name is mentioned( at least 3 time now), yet you never show us the CONTEXT in which he made that statement or any proof he even made it.

I saw a similar statement he recently made about a 200 yard range limit using the .22 centerfires on Deer.

It's in Nosler Number 4 as the intro to the 222.

He's entitled to his opinion, but I found it a bit odd.

I don't think he had fired many tipped bullets when he wrote that....

I certainly agree about the tipped bullets thing with the .222.

The old saw about "200 Yard range" for a .222 is right out of the 1950s. I wonder when Nosler Manual number 4 was published?

As to his 200 yard range limit on deer with .22 centerfires, I did not agree with that one myself, but like you, I believe he is entitled to his opinion.

Well, the Number 4 write up used data for Ballistic Tips from 40-55 grains and those are the only .224 bullets Nosler made at the time.

He did say inside that range, there's still nothing better, but I've found a Hornet or a 221 burns a lot less powder when up close and have about the same effect with BT's, say 125 on in.

It don't really matter; I popped a pigeon in a cornfield past 200 yards with my first 222 and it poofed it nicely and continued to do so until I re-tubed it!

H,

Yep, these days with a good 40g BT type slug ,just a plain old Hornet is good for 200 yards.

With 40-50g BT slugs, the .222 is more like 300 yards in a good rifle

Jeeeez, that's a little harsh. Somebody that gave a chit what you think could get their feelers hurt.

Not true dumb azz, first time I have brought it up: Nosler #4 published Sept 1996
pull your head out and breathe

Frankly, I did not see the post where you brought it up.
And given your level of stupidity and arrogance, I really don't care.

One thing is for sure, 9 out of 10 intelligent folks would allow Dave Petzal to have an opinion rather than some jerk like yourself who merely snipes at him hiding behind an internet screen name.

GFY.

I appreciate his wit, and writing ability.....guess I'm a dumbfounded dipshitt!

Jeff

me too....

John B. put it well on page 1 of this thread-

Perhaps he is writing from the grave? With modern technology, many things are possible.

Petzal started out as a good, not great, writer back in the day of some tough competition. Then he contined to get better. I like him, and have developed a great respect for his opinion(s).

All dumbfounded dipshitts, raise yer hand! It don't matter which one. I gots both of 'em up. I've enjoyed everything I've read of Petzal's. May not agree with some of it but, surprisingly enough, some people don't agree with me once in a while.

The salient point is not when that Petzal line about the .222 was most recently published. The point is when he wrote it. Load manuals do re-print older material such as those cartridge intros, you know. The classic Speer piece "Why Ballisticians Get Gray Hair" has been used in at least three manuals over the years - and rightly so.

If Petzal wrote that opinion a decade or three ago, it may have been quite valid for the times. And some folks might agree with it even today, in point of fact. That's why they're called opinions.

And, if I recall correctly, we are allowed to possess those.

Good morning Chunk. Go [bleep] yourself. Insults make you feel better?

I just checked; the Nosler Volume 6 still contains a .222 intro piece by Petzal. In this newly written piece, Dave no longer makes the 200-yard claim. So he either no longer feels it is true - or he is no longer a dumbfounded dipschitt.

Unlike some posters.

I like the hell out of his writing. Easy to read, funny and makes alot of good sense.

I wouldn't listen to my advice on others, as I never heard of Jack O'Connor until after he was already dead either.


John

Some people just demand alot of attention. You're coming across as one of those.

I'm enough of a dumfounded dipschitt that I was killing stuff past 300 yards with my .222 back in the '60's. I'm way too dumfounded a dipschitt to call somebody else one based on one statement they may have made at one time. You could probably fill half a book with dumfounded dipschitt statements I've made over the years. I'll probably make a few more before I croak.

Petzal is okay, dead or alive. If some bozo yelled in his face that he was a dipschitt, probably a good thing that he likely wouldn't have heard most of it and might think it was just another fan come to pay homage?

I've spent most of my life oscillatin' from dumbfounded sheepdip, to infrequent bouts of near fookin' genius. Would've druther spent more time in the middle, but WTH? 'Tis what it is.

Good afternoon wee knee....go [bleep] yourself aswell

arrarently I am not allowed.....just the petzal dick lovers on this thread.

i enjoy reading petzal.

Oh, you are allowed your opinions as well.

It's just that most of guys here think as much about YOUR opinion of Petzal as you do of his Circa 1996 statement concerning the .222s range...

If you want to "play the victim", maybe you can get a spot on Oprah before she retires..

I kind of like his laid back southern type attitude

I've known Dave Petzal about thirty years now. It took me, with my southern hillbilly upbringing, awhile to get accustomed to his east-coast urban demeanor and dry wit. Once I overcame my original reservations, I learned that he was a heck of a guy, and witty as hell to boot. He is a brilliant writer and there is little that I've seen that he has written that I didn't agree with.

At one time, he was a consummate aficionado of fine custom rifles and owned several from the top makers in the country. He must have gone through a mid-life crisis, no doubt caused be eating too many jalapeno peppers, and sold many of his fine custom jobs, and replaced them with synthetic stocked tools. I thought that a bit odd, but obviously that's what he wanted to do. I also thought he got a bit carried away when he wrote something about driving a stake through Jack O'Connor's heart - apparently he and Jack didn't get along. I took some exception to that as well. But in general, I've found very little he's written to disagree with.

As JB stated, he's a very experienced real deal. It's true that he couldn't hear a mule snort if he was riding it, but then, neither can I or any other that is still living of our generation. We grew up shooting when it was the equivalent of wearing pink panties to wear hearing protection.

I hope we have many more years access to Petzal's wise counsel.

TT

As I understand it, Petzal got rid of his most of his Custom rifles because he had too many problems over the years with weird Point of impact changes with full contacted bedded wood stocks.

Never asked the reason. I sure hope he ain't dead though, as I'm supposed to be hunting nilgai with him in three weeks or so.

TT

Actually,I think he even published a gun column in Field and stream entitled "I've sold all my lovely wood" about the reason he went to synthetic stocks.

Personally, I think he thew the baby out with the bath water as to the wood stocks. A well cured wood blank properly sealed , pillar bedded and full free floated is going the hold pretty much the same POI consistency as a synthetic over time.

I hear in the last few years he has had a few new wood stocked rifles built, but certainly nothing like the Winston Churchill Stocked left hand Weatherby MkV he once owned.

Nor the David Miller left-hand Classic.

TT

I haven't read much of his writings but enjoyed watching his television show.

Oh, you're allowed, all right, just like anybody else here.

And just like anybody else here, you're subject to vehement and vociferous disagreement.

Gets mighty hot in this ol' kitchen at times. Wear your asbestos suit and bring your fan the next time you drop-in on us.

I was REALLY SORRY to read about your passing! LOL I HOPE your enjoying your second time around.

Apparently, you can't spell.

Jeff

I have never understood why someone with an opinion could not put it in a more polite manner, such as, 'that hasn't been my experience with...' or 'I tend to disagree...', instead of reverting to name calling or telling someone they are stupid.

If someone tries, they can have a different opinion without insulting someone and calling his writing trash.

well said

Yep.

But should be too obvious, too reasonable, and too civil to need mentioning.

(For anybody with a positive IQ, that is!)

Petzal is a very entertaining, intelligent and informed writer educating his audience with real experiences, infused with his opinion as needed.

The article "I've Sold All My Lovely Wood" was in the 1989 edition on Gun Digest.

sorry about that

I appreciate your opinion, mine just happen's to be 180 in the other direction

Because of one line written at a time when it wasn't as out of whack as maybe today? I'll venture that wisdom would dictate a thorough review of your opinion making methods.

Thanks for the responses. I like Petzal and appreciate his wry wit. I disagree with him occasionally, but it's usually not substantive and it's probably that he's right. The guy has shot a lot of guns for a lot of years and you can't take that away from him; throw in a fairly literate capacity and acerbic wit and you have an entertaining writer that is worth reading.

One of my favorite quotes from Petzal involved his comparison of the .300 mags to the .338 Winmag..

I don't have the book right here at hand, so this is probably not an exact quote, but it went something like this..

" I know that a rifle that shoots a 250 grain bullet at 2600 is going to kick more than one that shoots a 200 grain bullet at 2800, but not THAT much more... It's kind of like getting worked over by a good heavy weight, and then getting worked over by a good light heavy. They both hit REALLY hard, and if I am going to get kicked that hard I want a heavy bullet.

The effect of a heavy medium caliber bullet on game has to be seen to be appreciated. "

How to win friends and influence people...

He's got an article in the current "Garden and Gun" magazine. It's about an eccentric dog named "Julip" in the column titled "Good Dog."

I don't think he's always been East Coast, as his early experiences were in Tennessee, according to the article. Although he did live in NY, both in the city and upstate.

It was a good article.

I thought he wrote one of the most commonsense versions of a "Top 12 Rifle Cartridges" list I've ever read. He doesn't suffer from Magnumitis, but does not disdain them in any way. He seems to enjoy easy-shootin' cartridges like I do, and his writing is infused with a great sense of humour.

It�s a shame Bro. Petzal could not visit this thread in person to summarily deal with it. I think he would, with irreverence (my opinion) or irascibility (others� opinion), dismiss the naysayers with with a flick of his wit, as from today�s Q & A in his blog:


Q: Are you really a grouch, or do you have to act like one when you become a gun writer?
A: I really am one, and no, it�s not required. A number of my colleagues are extremely nice guys and as cheerful as you could want. The hell with them.

I enjoy Petzal the most when he's being a thorough curmudgeon. Wish he had more space when on a roll.

It seems to me most of the best ones have either started out as curmudgeons and stayed there or worked to achieved that status. I think it's from answering thousands upon thousands of dumb questions.

It is yet to be seen if JB winds up there, but he's showing promising signs and I can only hope for the best.

readers' questions
We got lots of 'em at Handloader and Rifle � but so few good enough to publish that I had to write a peck of 'em for every issue.

curmudgeons
Dealing with lots of people, especially at a distance, makes it ever easier to develop into a curmudgeon, ever harder to be a gentleman.

I respond to a passel of posts but delete many, many of those responses without posting 'em. Don't hanker to scorch any computers!

I think you agree with but I can't tell for sure.

Just nod your head in whichever direction seems appropriate.

Read high and low. You will not find a gun writer who brings more discipline, clarity and effect to his craft than Dave Petzal. There are many who write about guns and hunting. There are few gun writers. I don't know a better one than Petzal, and have sought. He's the only person besides JB who can by weight of name inspire me to lay coin on a magazine.

For some reason a piece he wrote in praise of using horses for hunting comes to mind. It may have been in that "10 Best" F and S issue. Come to think of it, JB was there also.

And his term as Editor of F and S produced some very fine work. Plus, he shoots lefty, a sure sign of annointing ... may he write much more.

As an aside-- love that magazine!
And I appreciate Dave Petzal's writing too.

Correction: it's not in "Good Dog," it's in "The Gun Shop" and it's about Griffin & Howe in Connecticut. Nor is he from TN, so far as I know. I had the wrong article in mind, should have checked.

He has an entertaining style, I guess.

I think some of the lists he comes up with are a joke though. Especially 50 Greatest Guns of All Time and the like.

Technically speaking, I don't feel he portrays that much of an understanding of the workings of some firearms he speaks of. Which seems to be a very common thing these days amongst gun writers.......

Here's a fine example of his writing and wit:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2011/03/difficult-questions-part-deux?cmpid=enews033011

Forgive me for being a bit of a hard...s here but I seem to remember a younger Dave Petzal who thought some resrictions on handguns and black rifles were not a bad thing as long as the politicians left our hunting rifle alone, am I wrong or did Dave have a rebirth? If I'm wrong I apologize in advance but some clarity is in order. Chris

Even our founding Fathers went back and forth on various important issues...especially over the course of their lifetimes.

Every free thinking American has that right- even Petzal.

I think you can safely say that he no longer believes that- if he ever did. He said in a recent blog that if EVERY gun law on the books were abolished tomorrow, nothing in society would really change in terms of crime etc.

And yet whenever a member of the Hunters Campfire Forum offers a dissenting opinion, they get blasted!

This is where
"everybody's obliged to know my opinion"
means
"nobody's entitled to disagree with me."

What the hell do you know anyway?

This is where
"everybody's obliged to know my opinion"
means
"nobody's entitled to disagree with me."

One common Internet "debating" belief is that snarling the same negative opinion several times will eventually bring the rest of the world to its senses.

When in fact the opposite is true.