I had the honor of meeting Elmer just once. No, we were not close friends, but in that one meeting I got the impression that here was a "real" man that shot straight and pulled no punches. Didn't have the chance, but I believe I would have truely enjoyed spending an evening talking, shooting and sharing a campfire with the man.
Never met O'Connor but from his writing and what others have said......I believe I would have enjoyed a visit with Jack MUCH less. He always seemed full of himself and had a superior air that would have rubbed the wrong way.
There is no doubt that Jack was a fine writer. Much better, technically, than Elmer and possibly one of the best wordsmiths who ever wrote on guns and shooting.
From what I understand, Elmer's writing was a "challenge" to any editor who had to prepare it for publication. As some have said, he wrote like he talked.......and that wasn't always so "pretty". However, the content in that writing was impressive to say the least.
As far as the famous fight over big-vs-small bore.....I think it had a lot to do with the way each of them learned to hunt.
Elmer grew up in tough times and often talked about "getting my winter's meat". He was not exagerating as he hunted in a time and place where "waiting" for a better shot might result in an empty freezer that year. His shots weren't always "perfect" as mirrored in his talk about bullet performance on "raking" shots that had to pass through muscle, bone and paunch. Elmer also hunted, primarilly, much larger game that O'Conner. Although both men took a variety of game, Elmer was first and formost an elk hunter while O'Connor was more of a deer-sheep guy.The size of the game definitely influenced what each thought of as a "proper" rifle.
Most of Elmer's hunting (particularly in the early years) was alone on public land and wilderness. He was often the guide who was responsible for making things right when a client screwed up. When not guiding he was basically "sustinence" hunting for his meat. All had an influence on what rifle he chose. Perfect broadside shots were not always presented, but the option to "pass up" a shot and wait had consiquences that might include going hungry that winter.
O'Connor was more of a "gentleman hunter" who was most often the one being guided and many times was on a private game reserve (particularly after he had the Outdoor Life silver spoon in his mouth and mostly went on paid vacations to hunt). If Jack "passed up" a shot to wait for a perfect opportunity, the worst he faced was wondering what kind of wine the prince would serve that night at dinner. When the only shot you will take is a broadside lung shot (which Jack often wrote was the "proper" way to take game.....and rightly so when possible) of course you can get by with less rifle.
A big part of why each advocated different rifles was the effect of recoil. Jack made no secret of the fact he DID NOT like to be kicked. Not that he COULDN't handle bigger guns.....but he certainly didn't enjoy it. If one reads Jacks writing without trying to prove a point you will find that he admitted that bigger guns were better overall than his beloved .270.....but he felt that if the bullet "was properly placed" his .270 was all that was needed (sort of a silly argument in my mind as a .22 LR if "properly placed" will also work, but it's not what I'd want to hunt Brown Bear with). The real reason Jack championed whe .270 was that he seldom took anything but "perfect" shots and got kicked less.
Elmer, on the other hand, was one of those rare individuals who was almost immune to recoil. He chose rifles based on the fact that he could make a kill from ANY angle presented and do it on the largest of game he might encounter......not on how hard it kicked. He did use all types of rifles in his life and admitted that the lighter guns (7x57, .270, ect.) were deadly if placed right......he just didn't want to be limited if things weren't "perfect". He did "hate" the small bores or think they would "bounce off" big game.....he just chose a better weapon for general use (and he DID hate inexperienced hunters who chose small bore rifles without the experience and judgement to use them properly).
Who was right.....probably both were. Small bores WILL work IF PROPERLY PLACED and big bores will kill better and more reliably particularly if the shot isn't "perfect".
It is a shame that there was a personal clash between the men.
Elmer seemed to resent the better educated, more privaleged, "pretty boy" who was catered to because of his position at Outdoor Life.
O'Connor, with his typical arrogance and superior airs, seemed to resent Elmer's ability and experience and seemed to feel he was an ignorant cowboy who shouldn't be allowed to rub shoulders with "real" writers who were educated and sophisticated.
I've read about everything both wrote and I guess we all pull different things out of this. Speculating on which one we would "enjoy" most is engaging in day dreaming I think.That Elmer seemed to have lived a hard, pioneer type existence may have been true enough....but in photos of him as a young man we see some pretty fine firearms made by Hoffman, DuBiel, and other custom makers.....he certainly looks content enough to me
I'm sure those rifles did not come cheaply.....assuming of course that he paid for them.
That each spent a considerable amount of their younger years sort of "broke" is apparent in their writings, and I can't hold it against JOC that he went and got himself an education,became a college professor, etc.But the notion that he had lace panties because he did so is, I think,mostly "bull".
Also "bull" is the notion that JOC hunted game preserves and got his experience there, etc.He spent a large amount of time hunting desert sheep and deer in Mexico and the Southwest, on his own;elk in Arizona the same way.That he did an enormous amount of hunting is pretty apparent from his writings, as he not only wrote stories of his own hunts,but did excellent articles and books describing the country he hunted, the game habits, etc.
Elmer did very much the same things and this demonstrates that both had a boatload of experience in the country,and with the game they with which they were both familiar.
As to the country and game being responsible for their prefered choice of rifles and cartridges,well.....I dunno. Both used high velocity small bores including a variety of wildcat 7mm's,30 caliber magnums, medium bores from the 35 Whelen up through things like the 40's and 458's and 470' etc.
They were certainly both aware of the differences between these cartridges,and Elmer was a big fan of the 7mm Dubiel,and 285 OKH for much deer and antelope hunting;and JOC used the 338 here and in Africa,along with the 450 Watts,and 416 Rigby.And JOC hunted elk in Idaho many times with 270's and 7 mags.
I think their readers made more of the differences in their caliber choices than any real difference in the thought processes of the respective men themselves.If you read everything they wrote,we see that Elmer had good things to say about the 270 until we got to elk sized stuff;and O'Connor wrote more than once that 270 or 30/06 bullets were frequently stopped by elk shoulders but that 375 bullets frequently sailed right on through.In any even, I see a lot of overlap if you read objectively instead of picking and choosing through their writings.
I really can't look at the argument about bullet placement being at all "silly",as anyone who has done much hunting knows that sloppy placement,even with big bullets, does a lousy job of killing game.I know this because I have seen elk, black bear and deer hit poorly from 300's and 338 caliber bullets that were most certainly NOT "killed better" because they were hit with poorly with a big bore.This is urban myth that somehow lives on today; it is BS.I also note, if we read "safari", that Elmer spent a lot of time chasing wounded African game that was sloppily hit on the run with 333 caliber bullets...and JOC had a spot of trouble because IIRC he or Eleanor hit a kudu a bit far back with a 7x57.Proper placement is the essence of killing ability in BG hunting;we should know this today.
In the end there was a lot to learn from both and they set the tone for gun writing and BG hunting for over half a Century; but I suspect their fans were more talented in creating this vast gulf of differences between them than actually existed when it came to certain topics we deem important.
I never met either one,but I'm certain that I would have enjoyed meeting both of them.
