Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
#12
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
Deer & Deer Hunting is my favorite Rick, when I happen to buy one. I gave up on the bow mags years ago. Only time I pick one up is to see what new items are on the market, usally at the store while my wife shops.[8D]
#13
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
Deer and Deer Hunting is a great magazine, but i dont even bother with the product reviews. Yeah, I look at them and maybe sometimes it'll be something that i would consider buying. But every single one of those products they feature you can go back and find in the magazine somewhere in an ad. another thing that i hate is when guys on the hunting videos say like, " Man, i couldnt have shot this deer without my Nikon scope and this T/C Encore. that deer woulda got away had i not had that exact set up from our sponser." It's a load ofa BS.
slayer
slayer
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,413
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
Although most bows are on fairly equal ground these days, the reviews are worthless. Companies pay for these reviews, therefore they are nothing but paid advertisements. In my opinion this is close to fraud that the magazines are participating in. It should be illegal unless there is a note attached saying it was a "paid review". Pay no attention to any review. They are all complete garbage.
#15
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
Not all reviews are worthless. Norb Mullany's reports in Bowhunting World are very useful and informative... as long as you rely more on his charts and graphs rather than what the editors force him to write in his summary. I've seen several times where you could tell he was really stretching, trying to find ANYTHING good to say about a particular bow.
In fact, Mullany's reports are the only reason I take Bowhunting World. Take them out and the mag would be - BORING.
Yeah, it do get a little deep sometimes, Jeff. But I like the fact that most of the stories in TBM are from 'real people' and not professional writers.
Same is true of 'Primitive Archer' magazine. You don't have to worry about wading thru much anti-compound stuff in that one. It's all about selfbows and making/hunting with your own gear. They hardly even acknowledge glass-n-plywood recurves and longbows exist, much less compounds.
In fact, Mullany's reports are the only reason I take Bowhunting World. Take them out and the mag would be - BORING.
Most entertaining mag is Traditional Bowhunter. But I got tired of the anti-compound propaganda BS spewing from from TJ Conrads mouth every month...
Same is true of 'Primitive Archer' magazine. You don't have to worry about wading thru much anti-compound stuff in that one. It's all about selfbows and making/hunting with your own gear. They hardly even acknowledge glass-n-plywood recurves and longbows exist, much less compounds.
#16
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
Orion ! I've noticed the same thing with thier review's on different bow's it's kind of funny as far as I'm concerned ,but overall I really like thier mag .I also get BowMasters and Bow and Arrow which are good mag's for finding new gear and a few good tips on setting your bow up ,form issue's are also good .
nubo
nubo
#17
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 136
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
It would be nice if there was a neutral 3rd party that would do testing and ratings based only on performance. Of course this group would need funding from someone (probably by the manufacturers) and then you would end up having biased opinions again.
#20
RE: Petersen's Bowhunting - Bow Reviews - Why Bother?
ORIGINAL: TheRick
It would be nice if there was a neutral 3rd party that would do testing and ratings based only on performance. Of course this group would need funding from someone (probably by the manufacturers) and then you would end up having biased opinions again.
It would be nice if there was a neutral 3rd party that would do testing and ratings based only on performance. Of course this group would need funding from someone (probably by the manufacturers) and then you would end up having biased opinions again.
Of course $ became an issue almost immediately.