Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Comments re: Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor

Amazing how any thread on the Campfire turns into a pissing match anymore. But I'd still like to make a few comments:

1) Jack O'Connor got his job at OUTDOOR LIFE because he'd been publishing good stories on hunting and shooting for many years. He'd also been hunting on his own for many years, though on a couple of occasions he hired guides--with his own money. OL never paid for ANY of his trips until he was in his 40's. Even then there was usually some other financing, often O'Connor's own bank account, or some help from an outfitter or airline or whatever. In his later years, after he and OL parted, he financed many of his own hunts entirely.

He EARNED those OL hunts by proving his worth to the magazine, not because he graduated from college and somebody all of a sudden handed him a dream job.

2) Elmer Keith also earned his own experience, and also started going on free hunts later in life. Elmer, however, was neither the writer O'Connor was, nor did his writing relate to the common man as much. This may seem strange, because personally Elmer was much more friendly and open than O'Connor. But the two main reasons Elmer didn't get a job like O'Connor's were that he didn't write nearly as well, and that he would have been advising Eastern whitetail hunters to use a wildcat .33.

Plus, even though Elmer was a major force in the design of some commercial cartridges, in some ways he never really progressed beyond pre-WWII technology. For instance, He never really understood Nosler Partitions, and O'Connor did.

In short, despite their personalities, O'Connor's writing appealed more to the common man, either because he understood the average guy didn't shoot enough to handle a hard-kicking rifle, or because the average guy liked to go along when O'Connor hunted the Canadian or African wilderness.

Also, Elmer shot a LOT of dinks in his life, just as O'Connor did. Both were married with kids during the Depression, and both supplemented the family table with meat animals. Personally, I liked that, especially about Elmer. Neither man claimed to be a pure trophy hunter, which has somehow come to mean "superior" these days. But both shot a lot of big trophies.

As for experience, there is always somebody else who has more experience (which these days apparently means "animals killed") than somebody else. O'Connor had a lot more experience than Elmer in both Africa and the northern part of North America, as well as the southwestern U.S. and Mexico. Elmer had a lot more experience on elk, mostly due to his personal hunting and outfitting career--but again, he made up his mind on elk cartridges long before the Nosler Partition.

In fact Elmer made up his mind on African calibers before ever shooting a single one, and would have had an entirely different opinion if he'd used Nosler Partitions--which had been in existence for a decade when he made his first safari. Instead he used really bad bullets in a .333 OKH, and came to conclusion that even impala are really hard to kill.

So experience isn't just numbers of animals killed, but what is learned. Warren Page killed a pile of animals, but many were killed on cull shoots in New Zealand and other places. There's a lot to be learned from that, but shooting dozens of cull deer with the same bullet doesn't proven much, at least beyond the first couple of dozen deer killed with the same cartridge and bullet.

It's also possible to learn from other people's experiences. If that wasn't so, then human technology would have to start all over again every day. O'Connor freely admitted that Les Bowman had more experience in North America than he did--and learned from it. (The fact that Bowman's experience and opinions pretty much agreed with O'Connor's didn't hurt.)

Both Keith and O'Connor had a LOT to contribute to the general knowledge of hunting and rifles, which is why they're both still read today. But to claim one was "more right" than the other, or that one was a liar and then other wasn't, is about as fruitless as arguing about writing styles. Personally, I liked the writing of both, the reason I have most of the books both wrote.

One thing that keeps cropping up in "Ask The Gunwriters" is the occasional dip-brain who resents gun/hunting writers getting to hunt more than average people, with somebody else paying. Well, I don't know anybody who has made their living in this business who hasn't paid for that "benefit" with a lot of hard work, including both O'Connor and Keith. If somebody doesn't like that little bit of reality, tough. Try it yourself if you think it's easy.

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?

OH! Don't have that one....Thanks!

I guess,when Les Bowman said a 7 Mag is good for elk, a guy should listen....

If you can find it, it is a good read. Many articles from writers of the day.

Bowman has an article called "Western Rifles" in it. In his years of guiding, his clients took around 400 Black Bear. He claims more one shot kills with cartridges of the 243 class, than any other, including the big magnums. Something to be said for bullet placement!

GUN TALK is a good collection, but not common. Aside from my copy I've only seen a couple of others, though no doubt a web-search would turn up a few.

Aside from Les Bowman ("Western Rifles") and Jack O'Connor ("Some Notes on Big Game Cartridges") there are chapters by Charles Askins, Jim Carmichel, Warren Page ("One Man's African Rifles") and Ken Waters. There's also one by my old editor at FIELD & STREAM, Pete Barrett, on shotguns. Pete knew a hell of a lot about sporting arms (he went on as many safaris as O'Connor, back when a typical safari was a month) but unfortunately didn't get to write about them much.

� re: Mule Deer's comments about the difference modern bullets make, here's a comment from a recent article by Ross Seyfried in support:

"When in doubt . . . get a .270 Winchester!

Now the guy in the front row is gasping, �Yes, but what about Elmer Keith, and I want to hunt elk.� First, like my dislike for my super-power cartridges, I can make a pretty honest case for my .270. I grew up, not a student of Jack O�Connor, but as a pure disciple of Elmer Keith. I not only read everything he wrote, but had the great good fortune to know him well and to become his friend. At the time his opinion was perfectly founded and honest, �only big bores and bullet weight can make a rifle that will kill well.�

The equation at the time was valid, for him. But there were two parts of it that the old master did not factor in. First, he possessed almost super-human skill with any firearm. He could shoot his .577 like it was a .22. He thought we were all like him. The humble gentleman thought of himself as normal, but he was not. His advice would not apply to the majority of us who are intimidated by the flash and recoil of the bigger magnums of today. The second part is that he did not have the great advantage of the �super-bullets,� we have today. Bullet design and construction are far more important than size, and today�s bullet technology has stretched the results of what the smaller, less powerful cartridges can produce."

What I have noticed of all the good gunwriters and experienced people in the field is,shootability of the rifle first(emphasizing placement),and horsepower a distant second.Seems the more experience they have, the less time spent doting on energy figures quotients and tables attempting to quantify killing power.

� What I have noticed of all the good gunwriters and experienced people in the field is, shootability of the rifle first (emphasizing placement), and horsepower a distant second. Seems the more experience they have, the less time spent doting on energy figures quotients and tables attempting to quantify killing power. �

So is the Nosler Partition new technology?