LWCG Ambush Vs Trophyline Mission : My review

[johnw91]

This has probably been talked about, but I figured I'd share my review in case there is anyone out there interested in purchasing either.

First up, the Trophyline mission. Pros : STURDY, I mean it is clear to me that they had the intent to make this thing beefy and indestructible. When you put it on the tree, at least for me (5 foot 10, 200 lbs). There is no give, no creaks, no flexing. If you cam it down right, you cant get the thing to kick out IMO. I also love that I can stand completely up on it, turn around, and shoot like I'm on a tree stand if need be. CONS: Heavy and bulky. You notice the weight when carrying it IMO. and putting it on the tree, at least in front of you, can be problematic because of the sheer size of it. My previous pack consisted of just putting the predator platform into my bag and then strapping two sticks to either side. Packing in the CAYS backpack is a but more cumbersome and if everything is not seated perfectly can be noisy.

LWCG Ambush. Pros: This thing is really light for it's size. I love the rubber coating they used, it truly is the perfect size/weight in between the predator and the mission. Cons: It does not cam well. If you push the post down hard like you would do on a predator or a mission, you cannot cam it over. You need to apply about half the normal pressure, then try to cam it. It will tear up a tree as well. The thing that makes it an absolute no for me is the flexing. I tried it on four different types/size trees. On every single one, it flexes BAD. There is noticable pops, creaks, etc. It is all coming from having too weak of a connection from the post to the platform. This area is super beefed up on the mission, whereas it is clearly lacking the necessary rigidity on the Ambush. That coupled with IMO too narrow of an angle on the teeth on the back of the platform is where the inherent flaws lie.

Overall, I will be using the mission for most of my lease hunting as I am not traveling huge distances to get to where I need to hunt. I will keep the predator for true run and gun hunting where I am walking long distances trying to find the right spot. The Predator Xl might be the answer, but I will probably wait until next year to order one of those.

I know there is probably nothing new here, but just figured I'd share my experience. Thanks!

 

[okccj]

@johnw91 , great write up. Your conclusions about the Mission and Ambush perfectly align with my experiences.

 

[deertrout]

Thanks for sharing. I'm considering a larger platform but still having a tough time wrapping my head around why I need a larger one than my predator.

I think you're right that the predator XL might be at that sweet spot where it gives you more room to move around but isn't so big you might as well use a treestand.

But for me personally, I keep going back to the fact that I really love my predator. Even with it being smaller, I can stand on it facing the tree or run my tether over my bow arm and stand facing away from the tree and be extremely comfortable. In fact, that's my preferred way to stand because I find I don't move around or rock as much.

The mission is still pretty new to the scene but its basically an assassin, whose design has stood the test of time for a bigger platform.

I know of at least two ambushes where the post has broke in the last month or so. Whether that issue is lot specific or not as LWCG claims still makes me nervous about trusting it. Pic attached for the one I saw yesterday.

These issues only reinforce the narrative that LWCG is rushing products to market without adequate product or manufacturing process design reviews. And being someone who has worked in the QA Assurance field for almost 20 years, that kind of thing raises huge red flags for me. I see something today where they are sharing how users can tell good from bad, which is a great move, but thats the kind of move that should have been made previously before the latest example. God forbid that guy whose platform broke this weekend wasn't strapped in at the time. His event was completely preventable if they had reached out to owners of platforms from the bad lot in a timely fashion after the first one broke and they identified the issue. In manufacturing QA, once you've identified a problem and assembled a team to solve it, containing all affected stock is the first step. The last thing you want is additional failures or a repeat issue. That they didn't do this means they lack basic manufacturing QA fundamentals.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk