Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer-Message for Elmer Keith

Which is why it needs super-tough bullets like TSX's to kill dink doe mule deer--and is incapable of killing buck mule deer, much less elk.

John,
all of what you say in your post is very true but I also agree with shrapnel about very few cartridges will live and die on their merits alone. How they are talked up by the industry and how much of that talking happens plays a big part in a rounds success, at least initially.

I think that most folks end up picking rifles and cartridges initially by mimicking their mentor's choices, be it their father, uncle or a bunch of old JOC books.

These are all true words�.

Mule Deer;
Good morning to you sir, I hope this finds you and Eileen doing well on this cool first September Sunday.

With respect to my cyber friend Kirk, my personal experience with cartridges and rifles is quite different in that I've purchased a fair few based upon what I've read about them in magazines, books and nowadays on the 'net.

My latest purchase of a RAR in .223 is a perfect example of that really, with folks here and authors such as you saying that the RAR shot so well. As well I've absolutely tried new bullets, optics and other gear based upon what I've read from authors I've come to respect and trust.

Although I've told this tale before and hopefully can be forgiven for repeating it, I intentionally avoided the .270 like the very plague because of a pair of JOC disciples that I fell in with when we moved to BC. They would mercilessly ride me because of our choice of hunting cartridges at the time - .30-30, .308, .30-06 and .308 Norma - though they did grudgingly accept the .308 Norma as "adequate" and "almost as good as a .270".

In the fullness of time I mellowed somewhat - though it was indeed one of Jack's followers who insisted I take a Parker Hale featherweight barrel in .270 as payment for some work I'd done at his place. As it so happened too, he had a barrel vice in his shop John and as soon as I agreed to take the barrel he insisted I bring the latest 98 action I was playing with over to "get that useless '06 barrel off of it and put on something that works!!"

Oh, he'd sold me the '06 barrel too of course.

Anyway though I do miss the days of the slightly longer magazine articles - so many seem shortened by editing these days to me - I still read the Wolfe stuff whenever I can find it and subscribe to your online publication as well as some other online reading.

I do also think it's a pity that besides maybe Sports Afield or Grays Sporting magazines there's no format that I've seen lately for some of the more general stories such as your "The 97" I believe it was or similar ones.

Perhaps I'm just unable to find those publications anymore - and certainly that's why I buy more books nowadays too.

Although my own experience does grow every year I still enjoy reading what other's are using/learning as well. For me it's part of who I've become and I hope writers keep writing for the next generation of hunters and shooters too.

As always John, all the best to you folks and good luck on your hunts this fall.

Dwayne

Hey, Dwayne. Always nice to see you.

To no one in particular:

Anyone who denigrates Elmer on a personal basis doesn't know what they are talking about, and that's a fact.

I own 3-.270's and am quite happy with them.

I rest my case.

Huntz, any firearm of any caliber is only as good as the man behind the trigger. When you say the 270 sucks do you mean when you are shooting it or are you talking about someone else that you know?

Shod

According to the sycophants, if you had stopped after your first sentence, you would have said all that needed to be said.

Dude270,

Actually, the .270 Winchester pretty much did make it on its merits. When it appeared in 1925 the hunting and shooting magazines weren�t nearly as advertising-driven as they are now, and TV and the Internet didn�t exist, so there wasn�t the instant mega-promotion of every new round. And even when the .270 was reviewed, most writers weren�t enthusiastic, because they were .30-06 men.

Also, Jack O�Connor didn�t become a major influence on hunting/shooting writing until at least 20 years after the .270 appeared, when he finally quit his teaching job and started writing full-time. His first book didn�t appear until 1939, and even then GAME IN THE DESERT didn�t sell many copies, partly because there weren�t many printed. He did have a column in OUTDOOR LIFE starting around 1940, but he didn�t start using the .270 until just a few years before, and didn�t use it on game larger than deer until the 1940�s.

Elmer Keith actually had more experience with the .270 on larger game before then. Evidently this was mostly second-hand, but he wasn�t anti-.270 when his first book, BIG GAME RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES, appeared in 1936: �The .270 Winchester is one of our more popular long range rifles and is a very good cartridge for all our lighter big game. It is a more powerful load than the .256 Newton. It is also an extremely accurate load, even at long range. When its use is restricted to game that really comes under its power, it is a fine cartridge indeed. Many hunters swear by it for elk and moose shooting, but I have noticed that they are nearly all experienced old hunters, who possess the skill and patience to properly place their shot or not shoot.�

The .270�s early success was due partly to being a Winchester chambering, available in the popular Model 54 and 70 rifles, and partly because it had an entire niche in American hunting cartridges all to itself. Before 1925 the nearest any American factory cartridge came was the .256 Newton Keith mentions, which died along with the Newton rifles. Other than a few wildcats and British or European rounds not chambered in American factory rifles, there essentially wasn�t any other cartridge shooting medium-weight spitzers at over 3000 fps. And that�s why it succeeded, not because of Jack O�Connor.

dammit John, there you go throwing up facts again, when you gonna learn

Well, it sucks cause I only get to shoot once and the animal is down.I think if you shoot a 270 you should be issued at least ten tags for what ever you are hunting!!

Except for MD and a very few others, the .270-J O'C connection being the sole reason for the .270's popularity is a result of writers copying other writers. If any writer admired the .270 more than O'Conner, it was John Jobson. Yet no on ever says he had a hand in its popularity.

I agree that the .270 is a fun success story and for lots of reasons. It was and is easy to shoot well because of it's light recoil. It kills all deer(moose are deer too)if you can shoot and about as well as anything that I'd care to fire from my shoulder. Before laser range finders were popular its flat trajectory made hitting at longer unknown ranges a little easier for most of us. Good press didn't hurt, I know that when I was sixteen(will be 72 soon)I read and reread Jack's stuff and absolutely had to have a Mod.70 .270. Also, Winchester got their 130gr. bullet's construction correct from the start, it was well suited to the then high velocity of the .270 and did a lot to cement the .270's reputation as a good killer.

John

Good post as usual. I never thought about the fact that the advertising blitz didn't exist when the 270 came out.

I have a copy of Keith's "Big Game Rifles and Cartidges" and have always especially liked Keith's words on the 270. I don't belive many other folks knew he felt that way though, I'm glad you posted his quote.

I have often wondered if Keith's opinions on suitable calibers would have changed had he lived to see the bullets available today.

I never intended to sound like the 270 didn't make it on it's own merits, It certainly filled a void at a time then it had no competition to speak of. As you can tell by my campfire handle, I think very highly of the 270. My comments were more geared toward many of the superfluous cartridges we have today and the industry's aggressive marketing of them.

Mule Deer, you very often hit upon the most salient points of a discussion, which I suppose is what makes you so good at your job!

I'm enjoying all of this back-and-forth about our shooting, hunting, and outdoor journalism forebears, on this thread and recent others. It is just as fun, and at times far more interesting, to consider where we've been and how we got here, than to consider where we are and what possibilities are.

I did not know Elmer as I was born in 1971. His writings by that time became more a remembrance of the old days then up to date on new tech......... Elmer was blessed to live in the rural west at the time when animal pops. where good and human infringement was minimal. I believe he would have been less successful in his endeavors nowadays.......... His writings make interesting reading, but not as informative as some once thought.
These are just my humble beliefs and not based on anything other then my own opinions. You can flame me for not thinking Elmer as a Demigod , but its just my opinion. JB and some others nowadays test the most modern stuff, present information, then at the end add their opinions. Elmer considered his opinion as facts and that was that!

I bought a 270 because I wanted a nice Model 70 Winchester and I found a real nice one made in 1949, it just happened to be chambered in 270. The caliber was inconsequential, the gun was a very nice and clean Model 70 from a good era of Winchester manufacturing.

My father had no use for the 270, but I got it anyway. You know I don't read, so you also know I haven't read anything by JOC to influence me. All that aside, what writers write about doesn't affect me as I don't read their writing, you also know that when I need advice, I call you so I won't have to wait for an appropriate article to be written that I won't read anyhow...

Dude270,

Actually, Elmer did live plenty long enough to experience the Nosler Partition, which despite what many believe is indeed a premium bullet. But even a decade after the Partition appeared in 1948, Keith decided to take a .333 OKH with bad 300-grain bullets to Africa on his first safari. They came apart so readily he eventually started shooting everything bigger than a Thomson gazelle (about 75-80 pounds, max) with solids. He detailed all this in his book SAFARI, which is where a lot of the BS about African plains game being so tough originated. A .30-06 with 180 Partitions would have worked MUCH better, but apparently Elmer never really "got" Partitions.