Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Comments re: Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor

The impression I got from reading both O'Connor and Keith was that Jack tried to make precision heart and lung area shots with precision, flat shooting rifles. Jack may have turned down 'raking' and shoulder shots with his .270, because he knew it's limitations. To me, that indicates good judgment.

As far as I remmember reading O'Connor never depended on what he killed for food, meaning that he was not worried about starving if he did not collect some meat. Therefore, he could afford to be choosy in the shots he took.

Elmer, from what I understand from his reading, especially in the early days, depended on game animals for much of his survival.

For this reason, it appears that he took many questionable shots that O'Connor would have turned down. Elmer might have wanted heavy, deep penetrating bullets, but a hit in the wrong place even with these bullets will never kill like a 130 grain .270 broadside through the heart and lungs. Gut shot is gut shot, regardless of what it is shot with, and I can't see a .338 heavy bullet 'raking' through the guts or through the left hind leg as being as effective as a .270 through the lungs.

From what I remember reading, it seems that Keith lost a lot of wounded elk, both that he shot and that hunters he guided shot, and my opinion the reason was because of bullet placement and not the caliber or bullet type.

There is a lot of difference in taking a broadside shot on a standing elk in a clearing than taking a shot, with any caliber, at an elk runing wide open through brush where you only get a glimpse of it every now and then. Taking shots under these conditions is going to result in a lot of wounded and lost animals. And, if it is wounded and lost, it is not going to be very filling during a long winter, nor are you going to be able to put the antlers on the wall.

I first started hunting Colorado in the early 60's. It was amazing the number of recently dead elk, and elk skeletons from years ago that we found in the woods.

Not being a doctor, I was unable to determine if these animals died from natural causes or because hunters took chancy shots and could not find the wounded animal. I would not be surprised if some of the skeletons were not the result of chancy shots with inadequate bullets and calibers.

I enjoyed reading both O'Connor and Keith about equal, but they wrote from a different perspective. I do remember reading a lot about Keith following up and loosing wounded animals, and I never enjoyed reading about that. I still think Keith would have been better off on passing up the raking shots and waiting until a better target came along.

It might have been that a raking shot was the only chance you had, even after 2 or 3 weeks of hard hunting, but wounded and lost is still lost.

JB,
My point was this. Certainly, a .270 will kill a brown bear, an elk, or most anything else if you have time to pick your shot. Many hunters are quite comfortable shooting elk with such a rifle since an elk is unlikely to attack you. When a dangerous animal is hunted and a hunter's own skin might be on the line, I notice the small bore high velocity advocates become strangely quiet. Jack O'Connor, very wisely, armed himself with a big bore when the quarry was dangerous game. Reading both Keith and O'Connor's work, I don't think they were that far apart. Their clash was mostly one of personality. I have found recommendations from O'Connor for the .375 and ones from Keith for the .270 depending on the game and circumstances. Do you and I really differ on this? I read an article by you on the .375 a while back and did not get the impression you would arm yourself with a .270 for a grizzly hunt. I believe you'd agree the bigger gun is the more certain stopper.

I think most of us want the same thing, but that desire doesn't require us to strictly esteem Elmer's words above Jack's, or Jack's above Elmer's.

The hunters I know personally all want quick clean kills, and their cartridges of choice (for deer and elk) range from .257 Weatherby to .300 Win Mag., w/ plenty of .270 Win., .308 Win., and .30-06 in between. What those guys do have in common is a consideration of bullet construction for the game being hunted.

At the end of the day, I'm just grateful we've been blessed with the writings of both Elmer and Jack, and a whole host of other fine gun/outdoor writers past and present. I've enjoyed reading them all, and I think my perspective on guns and hunting (and, sometimes life itself) has been enriched a little more by their varied works.

Agreed.

Just an aside -- whether technology is "old" or "new" depends a lot on the age of the person viewing it.

I had a young lady in the store the other day looking for an antique cookbook, something really retro. When I asked her what vintage she had in mind, she said "Oh, 1990 to 1995."

"Old" tech is something that is older than you are . . .

Spot on, +1......

Geography is likewise relative.

1964 � Stuck in the Baltimore-Washington cesspool, I begged my agent to find me a job out West. (He'd been pretty good at finding plums in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New England.)

He called me one day, all excited, to tell me that he'd found me a good job "out West!"

"Oh, where?"

"Akron, Ohio!"

(Shoulda known better'n to expect anything better from a fellow born, raised, and a life-long resident of Washington, DC!}

ken, that might explain why friends in Billings or Bozeman get irate when I refer to them as "easterners!"

That seems a good question I think. Any answer would almost seem to have to be the relationship of individual judgement applying the hunt and the shooting.

Hunt and shooting intertwine it would seem to success or failure of one too the other, or both. The individuals perception of a bad hunt, and good shooting, or a good hunt and bad shooting.

I bet most of us relating the hunt and shooting, had one of those moments, "I should have.........".

As the saying goes, "One man's success is another man's failure." That old saying can turn around.

Is it required that we rank the two men? That we disect each and determine their faults and gifts? Do we believe that in all cases when persons observe an event each will infer the identical conclusion? Do we hold beliefs that defy the evidence? Even Einstein insisted on retaining opinions that were not supportable, so perhaps we mortals should be more understanding of human shortcomings. For myself, each man gave me pleasure to read, and for that I am grateful. I am content to believe that each had his share of faults and was a worthy human being.

I think each one fully believed in what he was writing, and that it was accurate based on their experience. Maybe Keith never used a Nosler Partition, but I don't think he wrote anything negative about them, either. And O'Conner's lighter rifles were fully adequate the way he used them.

I really get turned off by writers who write about the worthless 30/06 one year, then next year they have an article about how great the 30/06 is.

Bruce

Very good thoughts expressed there. What I get very tired of is when people want to pretend that there are only gifts and ignore or deny the faults. I prefer to know all that there is to know about a person. Chances are good that the gifts will far outweight the faults and my estimation of the person will be the stronger for having had the chance to sort out the facts.

Long before we met and became friends, I noticed that one old-time gun writer would frequently publish one article, in one magazine, knocking, for example, bolt-action rifles or auto-loader handguns �

� and at the same time �

� in another magazine, another article about how great bolt-action rifles or auto-loader handguns were.

It seemed obvious to me that he was intentionally making readers mad.

Then one night at a Big Bash banquet, he sat next to me and laughingly detailed to all those who were present how much he enjoyed riling so many fans and foes of bolt-action rifles and auto-loader handguns.

For some reason or other, I felt no satisfaction in having my earlier perception so dramatically proved accurate.

And yes, of course he both blasted and boasted about the .30-06 and the .30-30 � as well as several other excellent cartridges that were popular with many, many readers.

An industry friend and I were discussing cartridge-design in his office at a prominent component factory when another industry friend came along and butted-in.

"Why would we ever need another cartridge?" he jeered.

"Heck, if need were our only criterion," I said, "we'd be gettin' along happily with just the twenty-two Long Rifle and the thirty aught six!"

He laughed and acknowledged my point.

As a writer, I know from first hand experience that my first hand experience changes with time.

I published some things in the 80's that I still agree with and others where I have alterend my opinion. It is like shooting 6 animals and forming an opinion and after shooting 60, you see something, perhaps a pattern, that was not as obvious with the first six.

All part of growing as an individual. How you handle that and present it to others is the mark of yourself.

JW

Happened on this thread on a search.

Thanks to all for all the great stories.

As a teenager I enjoyed reading articles by both. I certainly didn't have enough knowledge then to know which to believe.

After many decades of hunting but not coming anywhere even close to the number of animals they shot, I've seen examples that could "prove" either man was "right" in their approach to hunting guns.

They were who they were, knew what they believed, and it doesn't really matter what WE think of their opinions 'cause what we say about their writings of years ago isn't gonna change their minds, is it?

We were lucky to have their stories to read and their points of view are STILL being argued and I imagine will be for as many years as we can continue to hunt.

Just read the thread.. Good stuff.. Many stories I remember reading and hearing.. The photos were OUTSTANDING!!!!

I think navlav8r got the final word. We were lucky to have their stories to read.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. At least it keeps their names at the forefront. Many, if not most outdoor magazine readers these days, have never heard of either icon. Their contributions to our sport are far too great to idly let them fade into the twilight and shortly thereafter be forgotten.