Since we're on the topic of Elmerisms, I found an old magazine the other day w/ an article from the old master. Here is a quote on why I take some of his work with a grain of salt:
"Next let us turn to African big game. In three safaris I have found the African game much tougher than American game, in spite of what some writers claim. THe first two oryx I shot in the lungs with 300-grain Kynoch soft-nose from my .333 O.K.H. both got clean away. I was so certain of my bullet placement that I opened the bolt slowly and pocketed my empty cartridge and watched them run and wring their tails, but they just kept on going. We trailed one until dark and lost him, and trailed the other bull some seven miles after a broadside hit in the lungs behind the shoulder. I finally killed one that was running all-out at 200 yards by aiming way ahead with the horisontal wire of my scope in line with the spine. -Elmer Keith in Guns for Big Game"
If he did actually hit them where he thought, maybe he should have been using a .270, so they would have dropped
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Experience is a great teacher, but it is subject to our prejudices, even for the best of us. Somebody once wrote, we tend to remember things that prove our points and forget those that contradict them. This is evident in a lot of Elmers writing (and just about every elk gun post). He killed way way more game than I ever will, but when something went wrong with a small caliber, it was always the fault of the small caliber no matter what. When something went wrong with a large caliber, it was "tough game" or poor shooting, but never the fault of the caliber. If a crtitter ran 300 yards after being hit with one of his .33 cals, it was normal, if it ran 300 yards after being hit with a .30-06, it was because the hunter used a pest rifle....
-Lou
