The impression I got from reading both O'Connor and Keith was that Jack tried to make precision heart and lung area shots with precision, flat shooting rifles. Jack may have turned down 'raking' and shoulder shots with his .270, because he knew it's limitations. To me, that indicates good judgment.
As far as I remmember reading O'Connor never depended on what he killed for food, meaning that he was not worried about starving if he did not collect some meat. Therefore, he could afford to be choosy in the shots he took.
Elmer, from what I understand from his reading, especially in the early days, depended on game animals for much of his survival.
For this reason, it appears that he took many questionable shots that O'Connor would have turned down. Elmer might have wanted heavy, deep penetrating bullets, but a hit in the wrong place even with these bullets will never kill like a 130 grain .270 broadside through the heart and lungs. Gut shot is gut shot, regardless of what it is shot with, and I can't see a .338 heavy bullet 'raking' through the guts or through the left hind leg as being as effective as a .270 through the lungs.
From what I remember reading, it seems that Keith lost a lot of wounded elk, both that he shot and that hunters he guided shot, and my opinion the reason was because of bullet placement and not the caliber or bullet type.
There is a lot of difference in taking a broadside shot on a standing elk in a clearing than taking a shot, with any caliber, at an elk runing wide open through brush where you only get a glimpse of it every now and then. Taking shots under these conditions is going to result in a lot of wounded and lost animals. And, if it is wounded and lost, it is not going to be very filling during a long winter, nor are you going to be able to put the antlers on the wall.
I first started hunting Colorado in the early 60's. It was amazing the number of recently dead elk, and elk skeletons from years ago that we found in the woods.
Not being a doctor, I was unable to determine if these animals died from natural causes or because hunters took chancy shots and could not find the wounded animal. I would not be surprised if some of the skeletons were not the result of chancy shots with inadequate bullets and calibers.
I enjoyed reading both O'Connor and Keith about equal, but they wrote from a different perspective. I do remember reading a lot about Keith following up and loosing wounded animals, and I never enjoyed reading about that. I still think Keith would have been better off on passing up the raking shots and waiting until a better target came along.
It might have been that a raking shot was the only chance you had, even after 2 or 3 weeks of hard hunting, but wounded and lost is still lost.
