I was looking for a long range video while surfing the net, and the Google search came up with this:
Shooting Long Range: The Generational Theory | Field & Stream
In general I don't agree with Petzal on a whole lot. But he does write and promote gun ownership and use.
But, I'm feeling more than a little offended by his stance that "real men" used bayonets and those who go beyond the wire and live in a whole lot more dangerous twelve inch world than he portrays, are just sneaky. That somehow, the "guts" title we see in them {corrected: "snipers" } isn't justified. First, he's never even used a bayonet, as second, his reference to combat is WWII movies (He should've seen "Saving Private Ryan")
Next, it's just as much our responsibility to hand down hunting ethics as it is for a kid to learn them. When I was a kid, good steel scopes were just becoming the norm. Open sights were still widely used on a lot of old lever guns. Does that make us bad for taking to new technology? I mean a scope in a long shot situation is going to be a lot better than an open buckhorn, so why use it?
He points out how tough it is to scan 180 degrees from a stand. When I moved to Minnesota and saw a lot of tree stands, I was amazed at the number of alcohol bottles I found in vacated deer stands. And the number of soused hunters getting in their vehicles and headed to the bar I saw. I've done my share of drinking in deer camp but not when I'm out hunting with a weapon. These weren't youngsters either. So maybe the ethics question goes both ways.
In short, I'd like for you to read the article and voice your opinion in the comments. Mine was a negative. But, understand that I'm not fond of Petzal and his "I'm right every time" philosophy of writing.
Shooting Long Range: The Generational Theory | Field & Stream
In general I don't agree with Petzal on a whole lot. But he does write and promote gun ownership and use.
But, I'm feeling more than a little offended by his stance that "real men" used bayonets and those who go beyond the wire and live in a whole lot more dangerous twelve inch world than he portrays, are just sneaky. That somehow, the "guts" title we see in them {corrected: "snipers" } isn't justified. First, he's never even used a bayonet, as second, his reference to combat is WWII movies (He should've seen "Saving Private Ryan")
Next, it's just as much our responsibility to hand down hunting ethics as it is for a kid to learn them. When I was a kid, good steel scopes were just becoming the norm. Open sights were still widely used on a lot of old lever guns. Does that make us bad for taking to new technology? I mean a scope in a long shot situation is going to be a lot better than an open buckhorn, so why use it?
He points out how tough it is to scan 180 degrees from a stand. When I moved to Minnesota and saw a lot of tree stands, I was amazed at the number of alcohol bottles I found in vacated deer stands. And the number of soused hunters getting in their vehicles and headed to the bar I saw. I've done my share of drinking in deer camp but not when I'm out hunting with a weapon. These weren't youngsters either. So maybe the ethics question goes both ways.
In short, I'd like for you to read the article and voice your opinion in the comments. Mine was a negative. But, understand that I'm not fond of Petzal and his "I'm right every time" philosophy of writing.
Last edited:
