Guys,
I suspect this thread will go on for several more pages, but while I'm savoring a bit of the dew of Scotland, tempered by a touch of Arizona spring water, I thought I'd address this ago-old dissertation from a general sense. After starting, but before completing my comments, I note that pal John B chimed in with his typical cut-to-the-chase commentary. All I can say is bravo, well put and very astute.
Discussing O'Connor vs. Keith is akin to the 270 vs. 280 debates, the Ford vs. Chevy debates, and so on. There will never be a resolution to the issue a hand. In O'Connor vs. Keith, it has been going on for half a century or more, and is likely to continue for at least that much longer or more. Ditto 270 vs. 280, and Ford vs. Chevy.
In O'Connor vs. Keith we have polar opposites going heat-to-head. Each side has its advocates, and its detractors. It will come as no surprise to those that have read anything I've written over the past 38 years, that I am basically an O'Connor advocate in this debate. I am so, not because of what I've read, but because of what I've experienced. My hunting experiences likely pales by comparison to either man, but I've had enough to convince me that anything less than .333 caliber and 250 grain bullets is only suitable as a "pest" cartridge, is simply horse feathers.
In fairness, I will concede that most of the criticisms of cartridges made during that era were in fact bullet failure criticisms, and were totally unrelated to the cartridge. It should be pretty simple to understand that when the bullet fails, it makes little difference in the outcome if it is coming from a 270 Winchester or a 333 OKH. A failure is a failure, and when it happens, the hunter is in for a pretty long day. Still, both O'Connor and Keith had to deal with the bullets of the time.
The two prevalent themes that seem to run through this thread are, 1) rich boy vs. poor boy, and, 2) egomaniac vs. good ole' boy. Let me attempt to dispel both. That O'Connor had a somewhat easier life than Keith is most likely true, depending on how one defines "easier." Even so, O'Connor was no estate laird. His grandfather was well to do, but O'Connor was by no means wealthy. When he retired from Outdoor Life, I believe I recall him writing that he was making $20K per year. I was making that or more as a career army officer at the same time, and I can assure you that wealth didn't enter my vocabulary. I suspect that O'Connor was a bit better off financially than Keith, but not greatly so.
When ego comes under discussion, believe me both had their egos. They just exhibited them in different ways. Both were driven men. Both were convinced that they were correct. Both stated their beliefs in print for all to read.Both were right, and both were wrong. One was seemingly aloof on occasion, and not particularly outwardly friendly with strangers; the other was outwardly a good ole' boy, but wore a hat the size of a circus tent. Anyone think that ego wasn't involved in hat selection?
Which of the two men was more honest in his writings? I Can't say for sure, but have my suspicions. There is nothing to be gained by voicing my suspicions here, other than to stir the pot, and I think that has been done enough already.
If we had an Outdoor Writer Hall of Fame, both men would certainly be enshrined therein. Since we don't have one, all I can say is that, to my knowledge, there are only two outdoor writers that have a museum devoted to them. Guess who?
Another good post and spot on...
