Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Elmer Keith's 600-yd muley

The buffalo shooters were good.

Columbus was lost...

I used to shoot silhouette, rifle and pistol, with a couple of guys who perennially placed in the top five nationally in IMSA long range and hunter pistol silhouette. There is no doubt in my mind that those guys could have hit a wounded deer at five or six hundred yards, once or twice out of six tries, with an iron-sighted handgun.

From what those who knew him have said -- Keith was likely their better. And, like all great coaches, he knew how to make the necessary adjustments halfway through the game.

DN

Muledeer
I shot IMSA for many years. In one shoot I was spotting for a friend who was a phenomenal shot with any handgun and a serving RCMP at the time. He was firing the offhand match with the Ruger 44 mag SA Silhoutte pistol. When his turn to shoot 200 metre rams came up he fired and hit the Ram in the top of the horn. Not sure if he had been lucky on that one I told him to fire away. Next shot same place so I told him to fire away. Well you probably guessed it.. 5 for 5 all hit within a 2-3" group at 200 metres offhand I never seen the beat of it! Incredible shooting. I would not doubt that anyone who has shot a lot of IMSA at a hi level and knew his range/holds could make that shot.

Keith also had a penchant for shooting red-tail hawks out of the air as well with that same 44 mag.

I don't know about that, but he wasn't too fond of golden eagles.

MM
Not sure what you're saying, but he likely parked the deer on top of the blade.

Yes, with the rear sight considerably low......but what I was saying is that at that range, the body of the deer would've been much narrower than that blade as seen from behind the gun.

Very difficult to get good aming perspective.

Helluva a feat........I've done some pistol shooting at 200 yards and 600 is hard to imagine.

MM

Some still live there. Bear

My experience is much like yours. While I don't think long range hand-gunning is the best way to hunt big game by any means, it is possible to consistently make good hits at long range with a good revolver.

It�s difficult until you spend some time shooting handguns at long range. Most of my shooting is at 100 yards with a K22, and I like to shoot at clay pigeons against a dirt bank. You learn that your eye can subdivide the front sight once you attain the proper focus; and in long range shooting, it�s all about focus. When I aim a handgun at a long range target, I�m able to imagine a fine line right down the center of the front blade, and that�s where I place my targets.

From time to time, I do a little trick shot for my kids and their friends. I stick a knife between two balloons at 10 yards, then shoot the knife blade, split the bullet and pop both balloons. Even at that much closer distance, you have to have a super fine focus on an imaginary line down the center of the front sight.

I suppose it is as possible as hitting a pie plate with a base ball with the first throw from 200 feet. It could be done, couldn't it?

Wow........even at 10 yards, that's still impressive. Never heard of that trick before.

I've done plenty of competitive pistol shooting and that takes more than just focus.

Pistol shooting and the resultant need to focus and the significant trigger time required if you shoot matches, also makes one a much better rifle shooter IMO.

MM

Kevin makes a good point, till you've done it, it seems impossible. I"ll relate similar to a rifle, I don't shoot handguns all that well, still trying to learn to shoot groups at 100 with my 329PD that are tight... though the sights suck for that...

Anyway I started years back in highpower rifle. My first goal was to keep all shots on paper. Then all in the black. Then when I quit I was striving to keep them all in the 10 or x ring.

The aiming black at 600 is 36 inches wide. I mill my post to cover 36 inches. Just the way I do it. When I was tuned up I could call my shots to within 2-3 inches of where they would hit and could consistently dump the rounds in a 6 inch group at 600, assuming the wind didn't get me or I didn't make a bad shot(which always happened somewhere in the 22 shots at least a few times)
Until you shoot a lot and learn to ignore your first thoughts(IE I can't be done) you may not believe, but dump 10K or more rounds downrange a year for numerous years, you'll learn your eye and brain and trigger finger function much better than you think they can...
We once had a taliban match.... Silhouette, exposed on a walk, from 300 yards, sitting with iron sights, I think as they ran that target up from the pits(on a stick) and rotated so I could see it and started it moving erratically down the line, I hit the back end of it once or twice and the coach called the hits, after that I fired close to 30 rounds iron sights as it moved, and never missed, AND as they rotated it sideways to withdraw it, shot the 3/4 inch square wood stick in half....

The knife trick, I'm not taking anything from Kevin, but its way more workable than you think... years back read an article about shooting playing cards in half with a pistol at 10 paces... found out with 38 wads, it really wasn't impressive at all to do it.

It's a common mistake to apply our personal limitations to others.

I have no doubt Elmer Keith did it.

I've fiddled with the 44Mag at distance, enought to believe EK without any doubt.

One evening a while back there was this shooting demonstration on the tv by Gary Reeder (I think?). Anyway, he was popping balloons at 600 yards with a S&W 44Mag revolver. He made it look pretty easy. A miss or two, but mostly hits.

Personally, I've done just enough shooting at range with the 44 to have an idea of what can be done. I once dusted a porkypine that my bud couldn't hit with his 338 @ 245 yds with my M29 on the first shot, I'd hate to try to repeat that one...<g>!

I would not doubt that EK hit the muley, I would not doubt that he thought it was 600 yds. Now I would have some doubt about the distance until it was zapped by a LRF. Point being, it could of been 600 yds, but I've yet to ever find a person who could consistently guestimate ranges and as good as old Elmer was I have little doubt he'd of done anything but fall into this category.

So, I feel that he could of had no doubt in his mind felt that it was 600, but in the LRF world it most likely was not, but it could of been further as well!

Just my thoughts,

Dober

And the key thing is that EK wasn't trying it out of ego, or stuntsmanship. He was trying to help his partner get a wounded animal down, with what he had on hand.

i think it happened exactly that way. there is too much specific detail to consider otherwise, and there was a sense of regret over the whole thing because of the suffering of the deer. it still is one of my favorite hunting/shooting yarns ...

That was really my point; you just said it better than I did.

I'm sure Elmer did it exactly as described, and was right to do so. The deer was wounded, so even extreme measures to finish it were indicated.

When I first read this account in "Hell, I Was There!" I had no doubt about Keith's ability to do it. By the time the 600-yard shot was made, he'd been practicing long-range handgunning for decades. And for Keith, practice was a part of his daily routine. He had his .44 Magnum's front sight inlaid with gold wires to give him sighting reference at extreme ranges. A few years ago I put his advice on how to shoot at long ranges to the test, and was amazed at how accurately one can shoot by following his method. The farthest I've tried is 400 yards, which is about the limit of my aging eyes. Wish I'd read Keith when I was in my 20's!

Have done a lot of plinking with the .44 Mag.

Using irons, and to 300 yds. usually results on a hit on a 8X10 bull, from a rest of some kind. If a miss, usually trigger control the problem.

Past 300 yds., unknown range, difficult to get first hit for me. Usually takes a spotter shot to figure holdover with the irons. Don't have the gold bars as did EK. Mostly because would never attempt that shot with pistol/revolver, other than out of desperation shot of some kind or need.

No doubt whatsoever, my pistol/revolver ability is way sub-par to Elmer's. Just too many eyewitness accounts that demonstrate EK's ability.

One of my favorite (probably more so, than the deer) is his shooting the flying fish out of the air while on a fishing trip. Again, with eye witnesses. Never hear much about that one for some reason.

Plinking is about fun, training, and practice. Shooting at game, is about getting them on the ground, DEAD!

Edit: Deceased person now, but thought would add this.

We had a local, who might have been on Elmer's par with revolvers. This guy was so far and away from anyone else I ever knew, he was way above the league of 98%. I have personally witnessed him make one shot hits on targets of most any kind you can imagine, at distances you would have to see to believe. So no point in entering any yardages here. I always attribted it to superb hand, eye, and brain coordination.

One example: Was shooting a .44 Mag. at a can about 300 yds. with some new factory ammo. Over and above with 2 cylinders full. Jim says what is the problem. I tell him, he takes the empty revolver, balances it in his two-hand hold, dry fires it a couple of times, then loads it up.

First shot nails the can slightly high. I went and picked it up when he left, to make sure a hit and not a bounce.

Don't ask me how he did it, and he couldn't explain it either.
I do know he could see things with the naked eye, no one else could, and in detail. He also went through about 3 Smith and Wessons a year, till they beame loose. He shot revolver so much, he didn't bother with repairs, he bought new ones.

Being one who believes magic is in the eye of the beholder, I know there is a reason for his ability, so have to accord it to his experience, exceptional practice, and eyesight.

We have several things going on here:

First, there's what one of my editors actually calls the "Elmer Keith syndrome": readers doubting that something can be done because THEY can't do it, when somebody like Elmer Keith can.

Another is the Internet syndrome. This actually existed before the Internet but has become more publicly commonplace now: commenting on something without actually reading the original account. Probably 9 out of 10 shooters I've heard comment on the 600-yard mule deer had never actually read Elmer's story.

I hsve done enough long-range handgun shooting (most without a scope) to have no doubts about Elmer's story. In fact I have killed a pile of prairie dogs out to 150 yards with iron sights on handguns ranging from .22 Long Rifle to .45 Colt, and rung gongs and plunked rocks at much longer ranges. It takes practice but is far from impossible.

There is also the little matter of misunderstanding how iron sights and targets fit togeher, usually by people who have not shot a lot with iron sights, whether on rifles or handguns. I have hunted big game a lot with irons, and have taken animals out to 350+ yards quite easily, partly because a .270 shoots just as flat with irons as it does with a scope.

But many people make the comment that, say, the typical gold bead on a hunting rifle must "cover up" an animal way out there. In a way it does, but so what? If I know, for instance, that a .270 bullet will land in the middle of the bead at 350 yards, it is pretty easy to put the bead right on an animal's chest and squeeze the trigger. Just because there isn't 14x of magnfication and a fine crosshair to indicate the precise hair doesn't mean the bullet won't land in the animal's lungs. Another factor is that many people shoot irons with both eyes open. So see the animal, with the bead superimposed on it.

Similarly, a tiny little animal can easily be placed right on the mid-point of a wide post. Just because a reticle isn't involved doesn't mean the bullet won't land where it's directed.