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

Not saying that. The Nosler Partition was (and is) one of the better ideas to improve traditional cup-and-core bullets. So were the bonded bullets (Bitterroot) and even better the Swift bonded partitions.

They were an improvement but I never thought that improvement allowed me to drop down to a 120 grain, .30 caliber bullet fired at warp speed to take on an elk. I still use the same bullet weights and calibers I always have.....just with better bullets.

To me, that's the main flaw with the idea of modern "solid" bullets. I tried the "X" bullets when they first came out and found them to be so erratic I couldn't trust them. Adding more letters to the name IS NOT an improvement on a failed design.

I'd feel better if the trend was to use "traditional" bullet weights at traditional velosity.....but that's not the case. Most want to use very light bullets at extreemly high speed and depend on "technology" to save the day.

It's the same thinking that led some to use the .22 HP on Tigers and the .257 Weatherby on Cape Buffalo in years past. It DID work.....most of the time.....but a little experience proved this idea flawed and foolish for general use.

That's the problem with "technology". Those with little experience get excited about the promised results and try things which should have never have been tried.

What about the big bores that failed, because of bullet failure?? Your arguement is flawed

SD is not the most important fator in penetration, bullet integrity and nose profile is

A Thread on AR in the Big Bore Form has conducted test were just by change=ing the nose profile allowed lighter bullets to penetrate the same and sometimes more than hevier ones

So would the .270 Winchester with a 130-grain Partition qualify as something that never should have been tried?

I can't tell you how many elk have been taken handily with that combination--and if it had been up to Elmer Keith nobody would have ever used it.

To argue against improvements is a bit baffling

Or that improvements haven't changed anything.

I have, however, heard from a number of people who tried Barnes X's many years ago and gave up on them. I did too, for a while, but then they fixed 'em. Just like John Nosler kept improving the Partition after his first batch would group into a pie-plate at 100 yards.

Evidently there were a lot of hunters who believed the new-fangled smokeless powder would never replace black, either. But a few radicals tried cartridges like the .30-30 and .30-06 and gee, they worked.

Spot on MD... +1......

JB: Yes, I think so.

Viewed in the overall context of rifle/cartridge/bullet development(as opposed to only looking at this in the context of the last 5 years it deserves the status of new technology because it was the first truly successful,commonly available design to overcome the bugaboos associated with high velocity.And these velocities are not spot news as we have been exceeding 3000 fps in BG cartridges sine the 270 Winchester came on the scene in 1925;and even todays fastest BG cartridges only exceed the 270 Winchester and the Weatherby cartridges(around since the 40's)by a factor of 5-10% or so....

This isn't to say that the Partition is not trumped in some particular way by other designs that have come on the scene since the Partition came into wide use.

But while we invent, and use,newer bullets that provide greater weight retention and frontal area to withstand high velocity impact,or higher BC and more certain results at extreme range(because their designs are better suited to particular purposes),one thing we all know for certain(whether we like to admit it or not)..

...if you fail to kill about any BG animal you choose to shoot with a Nosler Partition from any reasonable cartridge intended for the purpose,you had better take a hard look in the mirror for the real problem.It remains a safe bet for about anything,anywhere.

BobinNH, the Partition is at least 50 or 60 years old is it not. That's not exactly new in my book. There have been a lot of improvements since then. I admit the Partition is new compared to those before it, but today it is not new technology any longer IMHO

Ok again to add another log. Taylor goes into great detail about really bad bullet designs for big British carts. with good sectional density so bullet construction matters as does sectional density. Does Elgin Gates killing the 7 largest elephant with a 200 gr. Partion and a .300 Roy count as a bad idea. Probably not any worse than Bells thousands of elephants with .303, 7x57, .318 etc. Those were traditional small caliber bullets of traditional construction with proper placement.

So where I am going here is that Elmer froze his technical horizon before better bullets arrived. The current guys are pushing the envelope because newer/better bullet construction lets them do that and there may be advantages to that in reduced mid-range trajectory, reduced recoil, and maybe just because they can.

Choose your tools and go forth. Time for a Scotch at my house. Happy turkey all!!!!!

JWP I don't disagree but I am looking at the bullet from the standpoint of being the threshold of high velocity bullets;not as the best or most recent,but as the first step that ushered in many other succesful high velocity designs.


docbill; I am sucking on a Jack Daniels which is maybe the reason I decided to post on this subject......if i were not impaired, I would have brains enough to stay away......

Yes, that it did but at this point it is no langer new technology IMHO.

Bell used Full metal Jacket military ball ammo in his small bore rifles, not exactly what one would consider traditional construction, as most would define it.

I believe the point some are trying to make here is that there is no bullet you can put into a small bore that will make it the equal of a big bore. How many would like to face an angry brown bear with a .270 Winchester loaded with Nosler Partitions?
Smokeless powder technology may have killed off most of the old blackpowder loads. But cartridges such as the .270 and 30/06 do not kill better, or perhaps even as well, as the old blackpowder big bores. They just allow you to hit more easily at longer range while still providing respectable killing power. That is why such loads as the .45 Colt and 45/70 are still with us. They work very dependably without reliance on modern bullets.

Keith's Rifles for Large Game is my favorite Elmer Keith book.
I also like Peter Capstick, but Bob Hagel books are read over and over during the long cold winter months.
whelennut

I love the Jack vs. Elmer posts. The funny thing to me is the more I read and reread their material, the two were not all that different on caliber applications, especially in early work. What O'Connor & Keith really differed on was caliber recommendations. Let's take one of Keith's most hated, the .270 Winchester on Elk. In one of Elmer's early books he said the .270 killed game (even Elk!) like lightning with broadside shots, but was no good for raking shots or shoulder because you can't count on high velocity bullets to penetrate. Elmer even said that you couldn't count on anything except the big sharps which didn't expand to penetrate to the vitals on raking shots. Similarly, early on O'Connor said the .270 was fine for broadside shots on Elk that avoid the shoulder, but didn't think anything (at the time) except solids were good for raking shots on Elk. Sounds, the same doesn't it? From recommendation stanpoint, Elmer's take on this was use a big caliber because it gave you the best chance on raking shots whether you reach the vitals or not, O'Connor's take was nothing is good for raking shots on Elk so just wait for a better angle. Neither are wrong, just different philosophy.

Later in their careers as the feud got more heavy, it seemed to me Elmer went a little more extreme. In a lot of Elmer's later writings, it seems he relied on some spotty second hand info to justify big bores/condemn small bores vs personal experience (i.e. stories along the lines of 6 guys went on hunt, shot & lost 2-3 Elk each despite good hits with .270, .264 (though no evidence to show good hits), etc... and didn't get them, I sent them back with .338, .375, etc... and they all got Elk with one shot) that hurt his credibility with some. Please note, I am not in any way doubting Elmer's personal experience, merely it seemed to me he had some admirers who told him what he wanted to hear and he believed it. Elmer also said he didn't allow anybody to hunt with him in over 40 years with anything under .338 caliber and less than 250 grains (i.e. no personal experience with small bores in over 40 years misses a lot of development). O'Connor, however, adopted the Nosler partition for his .270s & 7x57s and pretty much removed the caveat to avoid the shoulders, though still had no use for raking shots. So for O'Connor, smaller bores got better, to Elmer he based his experience on what he saw at the beginning of his career and a lot of second hand info in later life and still had no use for them except for the occassional coyote.

Lou

I've been looking for a while for a quote from one of the gunwriters of the transition period to smokeless powder. He said the smokeless loads were easier to hit with, and killed better, than black powder loads. I think it was Whelen, but can't find it. It may have been a comparison like 32-40 to 30-40, not big bore.

Bruce

In Rifles for Large Game by Elmer Keith, The Gun Room Press.
Keith says that with a .270 with a twist that will stabilize the 160 gr Barnes it considered it a "mighty fine" load for caribou, sheep, and goats.

wrongtime,

The reason larger-bore rifles are usually used on brown bear (or other large animals) is not because they necessarily kill "better" but because of heavy bone--especially on a bear coming toward you. A heavier bullet has some advantage in getting through heavy bone and staying on course, though not as much as a lot of people like to believe.

But a modern high-velocity rifle like a .270 or .30-06 kills just as quickly as a medium-bore rifle. I know this because I've seen a lot of animals bigger than deer shot with a wide variety of cartridges. Among them have been a number killed with black powder cartridges and lead bullets. The reason is that a high-velocity expanding bullet makes a big wound in the vitals--on average, bigger than the hole from a moderate-velocity medium-bore or a big-bore black powder rifle. And messing up the vitals is what kills animals, not the size of the hole in the barrel.

Elmer Keith went to Africa in 1958 with a .333 and really poor 300-grain bullets. They worked so poorly that he eventually started shooting even Thomson gazelles with solids. From that experience he concluded that ALL African game is incredibly tough. He wouldn't have had any problem killing any of his plains game, however, with a .30-06 and 180-grain Nosler Partitions--and Partitions had been on the market for a decade by then. But he refused to understand new technology.

If you prefer to believe in the magic of bigger bullets, why go ahead. Elmer did, and chased a bunch of dinky antelope over large portions of Africa.

May have posted this before.

IRC, too much time past too be sure:

Believe it was JC, and perhaps during the heighth of the small bore/large bore episode. JC had used an example from a diary of a old-time market ivory hunter during the days of backpowder and round ball. Explaining the hunter's choice of firearms this ivory hunter used for elephant.

Not in exact words - The hunter preferred the 2 bore and 4 bore as backup. For close in 15 yds or so he chose the 2 bore, with his gunbearer directly behind and arms length w/4 bore as backup shot. He preferred close-in if possible because it made the brain shot more effective and sure.

The problem he mentioned with 2 bore as first shot was upon firing it usually spun him around, and knocking him to the ground. It also caused him to experience a severe headache which did not help the situation at the time. He lastly mentioned that whom ever arose first from the ground won the fight.

Yet today, we still have a problem, in making a choice of, "...........using enough gun.". And our choices are easier too make, or should be with today's good gunwriters. Have no idea if the tale of the diary was true or not, but it was printed to make one believe an excerpt from a hunter's diary

I am pretty sure I'm glad I was not that guy's gunbearer!

This sounds like a cell phone argument in my house. IPhone Vs a $0 cost Samsung freebee with a new account.

Are we confusing hunting with shooting?

Just watched Larry Weishun (sp?) stuff around with a sponsors monopod and loose a shot at a buck so large he didn't really need the guide to say, That's a really good buck Larry". No S---.

The concept of listening is a wonderful learning tool. There are guys on this forum I would love to listen to.

JW