David Petzal's comments about the 25-06

[SuperstitionCoues]

Please follow the link.  It is an expansion of Mr. Petzal's cartridge guide in the July issue of Field and Stream:


http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/08/a-few-kind-word.html

[Davemuzz]

I read Petzal's article in the July issue about the "best" or "favorite" cartridges. I think somewhere at the beginning of it, he stated he wanted to "clear up any further confusion" on which cartridge was the "right" one for hunting whatever it was one was going to hunt.

Actually, I sent an email to Mr. Petzal and commented to him that I thought his article did nothing more than add "fuel to the confusion" of which cartridge was "the best". Funny...he didn't answer me...imagine that!

Essentially my statements to him were it wasn't the cartridge that should be looked at first...but the bullet type. First, the hunter should know the game he is going to hunt, and what type of bullet would work "best" on that animal. Would a ballistic tip (fast expanding) work best, or a controlled expanding (ie: Nosler Partition) be the better choice. Once the bullet selection is made, then the next "step" per-se is how far is the shot expected to occur? If the shot is going to be 100 to 200 yards, then perhaps a .308 or a 30-06 will accomplish the task. If it's farther, then a magnum may be the ticket.

But to simply say "if your going to hunt caribou, then take a 22 magnum".... (yeah..silly) then that statement goes just as far as his article did in "clearing up" the confusion.

MHO

Dave

[oleman]

 Being some what older than most rifle nuts I have to ask " Jack O'Conner Where Art Thou ". I have to admire Mr. Petzal's guts to even try to write such an article, but it was doomed from the start. Also most everthing I read now is nothing more than a commercial for whom ever is paying. Thank the heaven above for forums such as this where sharing information is key. By the way I have given up on the outdoor magazines.

    Ole Man
    Baker, La.

[Lone Star]

What few posters here seem to realize is that with the plethora of "gun" magazines in circulation today, eidtors are under a lot of pressure to sell issues - this is to keep the advertising revenue coming in.  To sell magazines in today's tabloid environment, you have to have controversy on the cover.  This is not the magazine's fault per se, but the American public's fault - they have proven that they will buy almost any magazine if it has titilating articles.    That is why Petzal wrote what he wrote - and why similar articles are more smoke than substance.  Most were never intended  to be very informative.  They are meant to sell magazines - period.   The VAST  majority of readers are not informed shooters/hunters, but simple "average Joes" - they are the target audience.   Don't expect anything of substance, and don't bother writing to the authors.  That just encourages them to continue to write this drivel.

BTW, O'Connor was no stranger to controversial writing.  In his case though it was usually personal, as in the in-print feuds he had with Page and Keith.  I imagine that didn't hurt sales back then either.....but the quality of what was written by all three was an order of magnitude better than what most of today's writers spew.


.

[SuperstitionCoues]

What few posters here seem to realize is that with the plethora of "gun" magazines in circulation today, eidtors are under a lot of pressure to sell issues - this is to keep the advertising revenue coming in.  To sell magazines in today's tabloid environment, you have to have controversy on the cover.  This is not the magazine's fault per se, but the American public's fault - they have proven that they will buy almost any magazine if it has titilating articles.    That is why Petzal wrote what he wrote - and why similar articles are more smoke than substance.  Most were never intended  to be very informative.  They are meant to sell magazines - period.   The VAST  majority of readers are not informed shooters/hunters, but simple "average Joes" - they are the target audience.   Don't expect anything of substance, and don't bother writing to the authors.  That just encourages them to continue to write this drivel.

BTW, O'Connor was no stranger to controversial writing.  In his case though it was usually personal, as in the in-print feuds he had with Page and Keith.  I imagine that didn't hurt sales back then either.....but the quality of what was written by all three was an order of magnitude better than most of today's writers spew.


.

Agreed.  I am appalled by the simply poor grammer used by the scribes today.  Their grammatical and editorial skills are abhorrent.  Granted, my typical reading material of the Journal of Wildlife Management and the Journal of Range Management (along with an admitted love of American history) may have unconsciously raised the bar of my expectations much higher than the gun scribes of today (especially G&A, jeez, get rid of the slang!!!) are capable of reaching.  I do love my monthly Field and Stream though, regardless.  There is something about it that takes me back a couple of decades - and makes me wish for the quality that was in that publication 20 years ago, too.

[gwindrider1]

Petzal !