Q&A

David E. Petzal an­swers your ques­tions about guns, shoot­ing, hunt­ing, and life

Field and Stream - - CAMPFIRE -

Q:

No­body seems to un­der­stand my ex­cite­ment at fi­nally or­der­ing a Ran­dall Made cus­tom knife. How do I ex­plain it to them? —JON SERFAS, ST. LOUIS, MO.

A:

Tell them in short, sim­ple sen­tences that Ran­dalls are made en­tirely by hand, and that the de­mand for them is so great that the Ran­dall shop has a 60-month back­log of or­ders. No two Ran­dalls are pre­cisely alike, and their value in­creases over the years. The Ran­dall Bowie that I bought new in 1957 for $40 is now worth $2,400.

Q:

What would Jack O’Con­nor or Elmer Keith or War­ren Page have to say about AR-style ri­fles for hunt­ing? —RALPH JU­LIAN, PERU, N.Y.

A:

O’Con­nor would de­test them be­cause he re­garded ri­fles as an art form, and there’s never been a good-look­ing AR. Keith would de­clare them use­less be­cause they could not be cham­bered for a .33-cal­iber car­tridge con­tain­ing 80 grains of pow­der. Page would be in­trigued be­cause he was a for­ward-think­ing per­son, but when he saw that they were not, on av­er­age, as ac­cu­rate as bolt ac­tions, he’d lose in­ter­est.

Q:

How is it that the 6.5 Creed­moor is set­ting the world on fire when the .260 Rem. never re­ally caught on? Are peo­ple just crazy? —PE­TER EAGEN, HUNTSVILLE, ALA.

A:

I dis­agree about the .260 Rem­ing­ton. It’s a solid, if un­spec­tac­u­lar, suc­cess, and the wild­cat­ters love it. But it’s not as good as the Creed­moor, which is a work of ge­nius, and has a sex­ier name to boot. And yes, peo­ple are crazy.

Q:

I read about your three­shot, 200-yard, nick­el­size group from kneel­ing. Was it luck? —SCOTT SNY­DER, BILLINGS, MONT.

A:

It was luck. But it made an im­pres­sion be­cause I fol­lowed the Prime Di­rec­tive of Shoot­ing: If you do some­thing spec­tac­u­lar, act as if noth­ing out of the or­di­nary has hap­pened and you do this stuff ev­ery day.

Q:

Was An­nie Oak­ley re­ally so great a shot? Were ri­fles and ammo that good back then? —CODY FRANKLIN, CENTERFIELD, OHIO

A:

She was the real deal. Most of her stunts were per­formed at very short range, but even so, Ms. Oak­ley was a “pheenom.” And yes, some of the guns were that ac­cu­rate.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.