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

Elmer ,you were right.The 270 sucks!!!!Huntz

Since Mule Deer and I are about the same age, I hope he never gets the chance to deliver that message while I'm alive.

But Jack was so sure it was the ultimate go to cartridge.....am I disappointed......

This is not news.

And Obama is a white boy in the Klan!

Elmer was right...it is a damned adequate coyote rifle.

Not exactly , Jack admitted that the 30-06 was a better all around cartridge than the 270.


Mike

Now I'm really agast!!! a 30-06!!! I'm going back to my 7x57.....

Elmer was an azz.

Elmer forgot more about guns than most people ever know....

There was a lot about guns that Elmer refused to learn.

Elmer was stuck back in the 1800s with his big bore rifles.

....but then I guess he needed big bore guns & his 17 gallon hat to make up for his size 6 boots.


Mike

6mm, You have obviously never been to Ovando or the Salmon River country. Muddy

22, your right.. Elmer was one of a kind.. when you look at his achievements in the shooting world his peers cannot hold a candle to him...

If it weren't for Elmer, we wouldn't have the 357 & .44 Mag.

Like taking 600 yard shots w/ a revolver at moving elk, and generally pissing on others in the same profession.

EK contributed tons, was legendary in his experience, but that doesnt change that he was basically a small, angry little douchbag.

You dip, it wasn't a long shot on an elk, but a deer.. I can tell you, you may run your mouth now, but you would never tell Keith that to his face.. I think you are describing yourself...

A deer. Ah crap, that changes everything.

And you can put the projection card away. Its no news flash that he was angry and bitter about his burns and size.

You like him. I get it. You arent alone. No shame.

I seriously doubt that any of the other writers that Elmer may have pissed off ever challenged him to a gunfight He was a badass shot with a handgun !

Every time someone mentions EK a lot of folks get all stirred up about him. I suggest you read this thread, especially the 7th post on the first page from someone who actually knew him:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/4631332/1

So what made you so angry that you feel the need to call someone you never met names?

This is funny, especially on a forum with so many fast twist 22 caliber supporters...

comes down to it, doesnt much matter if you listened to Kieth or O'Conner and followed either ones advice you would kill a pile of critters.....no single answer to killing an animal....

I'm reading "Hell, I was There!" now - it's a very interesting read indeed. If there were more than one of him anywhere, I'd surely like to read his books as well.

I have no dog in the EK argument, and will only say I disagree with him on the adequate coyote statement.

The quote above kind of reminds me of another on this forum.

Huntz,

You might be interested in an article that will be appearing in HANDLOADER in 6-8 weeks.

I had an article published back in the 80's called "Who won the cartridge debate" and concluded there was no debate towards the end because both and all were using high velocity rounds, the only difference being the bullets weights being used with same results on same game being achieved.

I've often wondered if it was the disparate personalities of Keith and O'Connor that fueled the debate as much as the cartridges they eschewed. It seems obvious that since both men were extremely accomplished hunters with their desired equipment, arguing that one's choice was somehow 'better', or more capable, or more appropriate than that of the other is absurd.

Yeah, I see it more as two separate camps of personality devotees. It looks like that part of outdoor writing is long gone, as there are so many gun writers now, and very few reach the status that would allow for such devotion/division.

Anyone ever consider that magazine editors pushed the debate to keep or gain readership, and that O'Connor and Keith actually got along?

There was a 3rd entity called Weatherby. Maybe this blended the two because Keith finished his career with truncated Weatherby cases and velicites in the .270 range after all.

I am re-reading JO'C's "The Hunting Rifle" at present and he was extremely comfortable with his opinions and status as he saw it, within the writing community. I am ok with that but also enjoy much of Keith's work.

I don't think most would agree with everything said but as long as you get something out of it even if it is something that strengthens your own opinion, that's ok too.

I certainly didn't know either Keith or O'Connor. I have read several books that each man wrote and greatly admire them both.

I think JOC theories about rifles with stood the test of time more than Keiths.

Who even cares? I have never bought a rifle and shot any game or targets with that gun because of what I read in some magazine or book. The sad thing is that no cartridge will live or die by it's merits alone, most likely it's survival is due to perception of printed media more than actual validation in the field...

^^^^^This exactly.

Mostly true. Totally true in making them commercialized.


I wish it was written more on how EK and Lyman went back and
forth on bullet mould designs. He did know his stuff. All from real world knowledge gained. He did not even have a dial up connection to the interweb.


Oh, and his published loads were HOT,HOT, HOT!

Wow!

Here we are, long after both are gone, re-hashing their old arguments. Now, that's success from any author's standpoint. to be remembered and quoted long after you've left this Earth.

So, they were both at the top of their games, legacies ongoing.

And, although from the same era, they were so different, representing very contrasting backgrounds. JOC was a polished college professor, Elmer was a cowboy/guide. Both advanced the science and art of shooting, both had/have serious followers of their various schools of thought.

I saw Elmer at the 1970 NRA Convention in New Orleans where I was attending school. He was short with his big hat. He was very cordial to those around him. I was at the Ruger booth, Mr. Vogel, Bill Ruger's son-in-law was there. Elmer walked up and was looking at the newly released Security Six. Elmer pointed it, looked at it and gave Mr. Vogel the OK to produce it. "Wrap it up", he said... Mr. Vogel smiled and was most gracious to Elmer. Whether or not Ruger needed Elmer's stamp of approval to produce the Security Six, they got it...

JOC was also there and seemed more aloof than Elmer, but cordial as well. He just had an air about him that permeated his space. To me, they were both "rock stars" at that NRA Convention, just handled themselves a bit differently. I can't see JOC telling Mr. Vogel to "wrap up" a new rifle project. I don't think he would have been that forward or presumptious. But, he could be presumptious, just a bit smoother at it than Elmer, IMO.

DF

That's right. What the heck does it matter what anybody has written about anything, or indeed any sort of human experience other than our own?

That's why so many people personally invented the same two cartridges called the .270 Winchester and .338 Winchester Magnums, in their home workshops, on machines they made from scratch without any previous knowledge of machinery, metals, or chemistry. And then built riflescopes to put on top of their personally-built .270's and .338's (that just happen to use cartridges practically identical to millions of other .270's and .338's) without any knowledge of glass-making, much less optical priciples.

Well, maybe that's a little extreme. But did you just decide to buy a .270 Winchester out of the blue one day? (Yes, I know you own at least one.) Without ever hearing about the cartridge before? Or had you previously heard about the .270, somewhere, somehow? Maybe it was in a free Winchester ammo catalog you picked up at the store. You just ran down the list of ballistic numbers and thought, hey, that .270 might work!

I keep running into people (some of them even in the gun writing business) who apparently think they learned everything they needed to know about hunting and shooting from personal trial and error. And many of them get angry when somebody else even mentions the possibility that some gun writer, or ammunition designer, or even any human, anywhere had any influence on their decisions.

Yes, gun rags and writers play a part in what we choose to use, even if we never open one of the magazines, along with 1000 other sources of information. That's because human knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next through words and numbers. Otherwise we'd be living in trees and caves and hoping somebody would invent fire so we wouldn't have to eat raw food.

So you agree that a 270 is an adequate coyote round?

Nope, rockchucks are its limit. Those darn thin-jacketed 130's blow up on coyote shoulders.

Well stated, John, and so true.

As famously penned by John Donne in "No Man is an Island", we're all dependant on our fellow inhabitants of this Earth and those who have gone before.

DF

I can't believe that everyone is skirting the 'elephant in the room'.

No one has yet even mentioned how gay the .270 is...

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.

Kirk,

So what made you want a Model 70?

This is an interesting coincidence. Just a few minutes ago I got back from a road trip through Idaho and Western Montana. On Friday afternoon I stopped in Salmon to pay my respects to Mr. Keith. Don't know if we'd be without any rifle chamberings if it weren't for him but he surely led the charge for the .44 Magnum.



He rests in a very nice locale. I believe that is part of the Bitterroot Mountains behind his grave there. My camera does not do justice to how rugged and pretty they are. Very tall and steep country all around that part of Idaho.




BTW, Mule Deer, I stopped into Capitol Sporting Goods in Helena while I was in the neighborhood but you weren't there. I have to say you live in some mighty pretty country as well.

He must like rifles that are too heavy and overly expensive.


Actually a vintage 70 in 270 is pretty high on the "COOL" meter.

My uncle had one that I couldn't get from my aunt when he died...

John
I have always found it odd that Keith didn't embrace the partition as well. Had he used them I think his stands on what was effective on larger game and the minimum caliber or cartridge for "raking shots" may have at least softened if not changed.

Kirk,

By a not-so-odd coincidence, my own first pre-'64 M70 was a .270....

So I take it you are saying the 270 sucks for YOU! Thank you for the clarification.

Shod

Yeah, Elmer new what he was talking about. He said he saw a jack rabbit shot with a .270, it scratched itself and ran off. He told more stories than most people ever heard. I've shot quite a few jack rabbits with a .270 myself, I know what it will do to a jackrabbit.

If I opened a gun mag, and found an article relegating the 270 only to varmints and vermin, I would NOT lavish praise, nor idolize the author. Quite the opposite.

Keith knew what he knew, but his word was far from scripture. I read various things he wrote and were written about him and I think: "What the hell does a headstamp have to do with accuracy? What about bullets? No really, what about bullets? How is a 4" 44 somehow a better game getter than a 270? Do you really believe that?"

You have to take several things into consideration when reading any article. The primary being what's being hunted and where. A 4" 44 is a better game getter than a 270 if you are hunting in the brush at short ranges. I wouldn't even think about using a 270 for whitetails in some of the places I hunt for them.

There is less variation and better quality control these days, but years ago things were different. I can see why someone who had bad luck with a certain headstamp or bullet might prefer one manufacturer over another.

I hunt in Ontario for the most part. I have also hunted in Europe, BC, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec. For large game, mostly moose, deer and black bears. Personally, I saw no merit using a 270 for what I was hunting (and the ranges at which I hunted), but others might have found it to their liking. I had a 30-06 before I had a 270, and I feel it is better because there are more bullets available.

Neither Keith's nor O'Connor's opinion was the final word. They were the thoughts expressed by two men who used different tools to accomplish what amounts to the same thing.

I knew neither man. My opinion of their articles and books is, technically, O'Connor was a better writer. Unfortunately, history has made Mr. O'Connor out to be someone who held the 270 in higher esteem than most other cartridges. Many people think (thought) that was virtually the only cartridge he used. They should try reading more of his books and articles. He has written to the contrary, but many remember what they want.

Mr. Keith has been on more trips and taken more game that I ever will. He approached things differently I think, than O'Connor. My personal opinion, based on having taken most of my large game at shorter distances than either of these gentlemen is, I like fat and slow, but I hunt mostly in moderate to heavy cover. That said, I am not suggesting that Elmer Keith as right. He just did things differently.

Both men are now part of history and their legacy is, O'Connor loved the 270 above all else. Keith loved the 44 handgun. Neither is an accurate assessment. In my opinion, each took a different road to get to the same place. I believe both were smart enough to choose the right cartridge and gun, but inaccuracies creep into the conversation when two or more humans get together. People tend to "interpret" history to fit their argument.

To everyone I say, read the works of both men. Respect them both. Be thankful that, regardless of your opinions, we were fortunate to have their thoughts recorded for all time.

Edited to add: Jim, that sure is a pretty final resting place. It makes me want to go there for the view as much as visit the Keith grave.

Good comments, Steve. My post was not meant to denigrate Keith, but rather to point out the he, like O'Connor, was not a visionary, nor did either man have some grand understanding things beyond their own experiences. Thus the value of their contributions is found in the chronicling of each's experiences, rather than seeing their writings as the last word in anything.

I quoted from your post, but my short commentary was for the whole thread.

I genuinely wish I could have spent some time with both men. There was much to be learned from those two.

I'm sure I would have enjoyed shooting, hunting, or shooting the shinola with either, and likely could have related to both men. I spent a lot of time in Keith's stomping grounds as a youngster, and shot my first Muley in the Salmon River canyon.

Keith and O'Connor could not have been more different in their writing. I enjoy reading both. Others can fight over which one was smarter, truth in various rumors, etc. I could care less.

I was darn near raised by O'Connor and Keith....the barber in our little farming town gave me his Outdoor Lifes when they were a mere one month old and his new copy arrived, and my Uncle Bill gave me a subscription to Guns and Ammo when I was 14. I thoroughly enjoyed both writers; they were larger than life to a young boy.
One of my recent purchases was the two volume Gun Notes books, reprints of Keith's articles for G & A. Included in them are letters written by O'Connor and Keith to Truman Fowler, mostly about cartridge size, as well a very few letters direct from O'Connor to Keith and Keith to O'Connor. Though if certainly appears to me that they did indeed have a strong rivalry and were not secret drinking buddies, an interesting exchange occurred in the mid 70s. Apparently Keith had a serious health scare and O'Connor wrote to him. I'm paraphrasing, as I'm at work and don't have my copies of the letters available. O'Connor wrote something like "Hell, Elmer, you like bigger guns than I do, but that's neither here nor there. You've led a life few have, and should write it down." Keith replied "Maybe you're right...I should do that before it gets too late." Again, I'm paraphrasing from memory.
My take on it was that in their later years, the rivalry might have subsided a bit, and that deep down there was always some respect, well hidden, even if they were not good friends. I'd like to think so, anyway.

And a question. I see from the photograph of the headstone that Elmer Keith's wife's name was Lorene. I remember it in print from Keith's writings as Lorraine. Wonder what the story is behind that?

Probably the editor saw "Lorene" and chalked it up to yet another Elmer Kieth mis-spelling, and changed it to what he assumed was the correct spelling. I've heard, rightly or wrongly, that Elmer didn't have a superior command of English and required quite a bit of editing to get his tales into print.

Keith not only didn't have the formal command of English that O'Connor did, but had considerable trouble typing. I know one of the guys who edited Keith's manuscripts at G&A, and he says one of the frequent typing mistakes was an i appearing instead of the o in the word "shot."

I wrote both Keith and O'Connor about different things when in my 20's, and still have their answers. Elmer's is full of typos, and O'Connor's is not. O'Connor, however, eventually had a secretary to type his letters when he was at OL, but by the time I wrote him he was at Petersen's Hunting. Don't know if he still had a secretary.

I never met either man but have gotten to know O'Connor's son Bradford over the past couple of years, and if Jack was as fun to be around then he would have been a blast. Keith apparently was a lot of fun to hang with.

300_savage & gnoahhh-

I suspect the error in the name of Elmer Keith's wife rests with the maker of the grave marker. It's spelled "Lorraine" consistently in Keith's autobiographical writing, so it likely wasn't a one-time editorial correction of "Lorene".

Google can find several persons named "Lorene Keith", but none of them were attached in any way to Elmer.

The blurb about Lorraine Keith from findagrave.com shows her name as Lorraine, and apparently quotes from a newspaper notice of her funeral. Below is part of that notice, just in case it vanishes into the electronic mists.
--Bob

Forget where I read this, and don't know if it's true. But the story is that a new editor, frustrated with Keith, sent him a memo that he needed to use more commas when he wrote. Keith's next manuscript had, and the very end, about three lines of commas, with the note that here they are, put them where you want them.

Thanks, BullShooter.

That's funny, don't care who you are.

Indeed!

That sounds just like the Elmer Keith I imagine.

I hope that's true. For me, that's something I would expect him to write, but did he?

It's a great story...

Do as in Hollywood, when myth veers from fact, print the myth...

DF

I'm always a bit amused by these threads between the JOC and EK fans. People act like yeah we would have been big buddies if only I had lived close to them etc. I knew neither and just have my opinion formed by what I have read about them but I sense that both could be somewhat of a curmudgeon and didn't suffer fools readily despite if they happened to say hi to you and shake your hand at a safari club convention booth where they were paid to glad hand the clientele. I may be all wrong but I would only guess that's like stating that Kim Kardasian or Jennifer Aniston wants to have your offspring.

It's nice to think about them in that way and that's OK.

But, I think you may be onto something...

They had close friends mentioned in their writings, but seemingly not a lot of them...

DF

Elmer was the same wherever he was. I doubt he ever felt the need to "glad hand" anyone. He was naturally friendly to anyone else that was friendly.

I doubt very much that either Elmer or Jack were ever paid to stand in a booth and glad-hand anybody. Partly I doubt this because SCI was started in 1973, toward the end of their careers, when both were pretty tired of traveling just for the sake of traveling.

In fact I don't know of anybody who's been paid to stand in an SCI booth and meet people. Some do have booths of their own, where they selling stuff so are understandably nice to most people, or are in somebody else's booth because that other somebody is selling something--like, say, Craig Boddington being in the Safari Press booth because they're selling his latest book. But being paid to stand in one booth at any convention? Nah.

whether true or not, just picturing that situation in the mind--that's a great story.


i always enjoyed his writings--some good stuff.


at the old Powderhorn sporting goods store here--among some of the guys--there used to be "an old joke" about Elmer--that he had put an ad in the back of one of the magazines;

five used typewriters for sale--all in good condition, except for the letter "i", which is completely worn out on all of them...

Petersen (G&A) did expect him to attend the NRA conventions in their booth until he was too ill to do it. The last time I saw him was at one of those conventions and I thought it wasn't right to expect him to be there. He wasn't too happy about it but he was there and did the best he could. They did let him sit on a stool, but he didn't have much to say and sat towards the back. He was a shadow of his former self. This was in 1979, IIRC.

My old gunwriter friend, Bob, used to hang with guys like Elmer Keith back in the day. I'll be over to Bob's house and he'll launch into a story about how he and Bill Ruger and Elmer tried to go to dinner at a Japanese restaurant, and Elmer had a gun in his boot and this was Chicago and . . . anyhow the gun ended up in Bob's wife's purse and a good time was had by all-- that kind of stuff.

The one Elmer Keith story of Bob's that stood out was how one day Elmer handed Bob a rough draft of something he wrote. Bob said Elmer had been drinking a lot and he wanted to know Bob's first impressions. Bob could not make heads-or-tails of it and passed it back to Elmer commenting as much.

"I was afraid of that. " replied Elmer. "That was my take on it too."

Bob concluded the story by saying Elmer required a lot of editing towards the end of his career.

All the good warm and fuzzy "bubba" feelings we as readers and fans may feel for those two, hanging out with one of them or being on a prolonged hunt may not have worked out exactly how we imagined it.

Just saying...

DF

I was reminded in reading this thread of my Eulogy for Big Stick back in 2007. Big Stick had been banned, and I came back from a weekend at camp and missed all the hoo-haw and thought Big Stick was dead. I started writing a eulogy for him.

Eulogy for Big Stick

I liked it so much, that I used parts of it in my eulogy for my own father when he died.

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, here's the important part:

DF,
Spot on!

Romantic notions usually do not stand up to real life experiences.

I will say that I became enamored with the 270 in part because of JOC's writings. But the article that really hooked my was written by a DIY hunter that went to Canada and successfully hunted all sorts of critters with his 270, including grizzly.
Then all of my positive hunting experiences added to it.

I think Dirty Harry had more of a 44 influence on me than EK. But thanks to him, we have it.

CRS, +1, and good call on the 44. It was pop culture that made it exciting and interesting for me, especially through characters like Dirty Harry. Elmer Keith was just a name back then. My dad had a few: big, and bigger Rugers.

And back then, JOC was just another name, and though I had read a few things he'd written, I didn't connect him to the 270 until much later, after several 270's had been part of the family hunting for some years.

Shaman, as always, your writing entertains and edifies. I like the longer version over just the eulogy. The markings of many men decorate, or mar, the surface of my world. Several are here on the fire, which is why I am still here.

Thank you, kindly.

I don't mean to denigrate Jack, Elmer, or even my buddy Bob. However, those sticks gave out their heat a long time ago.

Timeless? You want timeless? Try Phillip Tome, Meshack Browning, or (my favorite)Friedrich Gerst�cker. Nobody in their day was worried about 270 vs 30-06. Browning liked to put a ball into a buck, just to get a blood trail and then track it. He preferred leaping on the animal and finishing it off by plunging a knife into the beast's chest and feeling the life leave. Tome's big claim was being able to capture elk alive and bring them back to town to show off. Gerst�cker walked most of the way from New York to Arkansas, just for the hunting. Look them up on Amazon. I think Tome's autobiography is free online. Teddy Roosevelt is a pansy by comparison.

Me? By the time Adolf Hitler was my age, he'd been dead 6 months. However, Hitler never knew the pleasure of standing over a buck with his son clapping his hands with glee. I've lived twice as long as Alexander the Great and then some, but I dare say old 'Lex never had the chance to sit back with a scotch under a full moon with a fat 8 pointer hanging up and listen to Cabar Feidh (The Stag�s Head) played just for him by the Cincinnati Caledonians Pipe and Drum, piped in over a cell phone.

Some day it hits you, maybe you're not trying to kill Harrison Ford in a rainstorm, but one day the truth sinks in:

[video:youtube]JdUq2opPY-Q[/video]