I am still in favor of Elmer. He was one outstanding shot. He contributed greatly to the shooting world. He has his opinions and stuck too them. He did most of his hunting on his own. He didn't have his hunts paid for by a magazine. I admired him greatly. Not to say I agree with all that he said. But he was an outstanding gun man. I doubt we ever see his like again.
I agree--up to a certain point--which is why I've owned all his books (have spent up to $300 on some older ones) and reread them a lot. But he did have some of his hunts paid for.,if not by magazines by outfitters who wanted him to publicize their operations--along with Guns & Ammo. His two African safaris were subsidized considerably, as were some other North American hunts later in his career. But he worked his ass off to get to that point, as have most gun/hunting writers.
He also experimented more with rifles (and shotguns and handguns) more than most hunting/gun writers of the day. He was the first I read who use a multiple-reticle scope both as an approximate rangefinder and long-range aiming point on big game.
