Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer-Message for Elmer Keith

Kirk,

So what made you want a Model 70?

This is an interesting coincidence. Just a few minutes ago I got back from a road trip through Idaho and Western Montana. On Friday afternoon I stopped in Salmon to pay my respects to Mr. Keith. Don't know if we'd be without any rifle chamberings if it weren't for him but he surely led the charge for the .44 Magnum.



He rests in a very nice locale. I believe that is part of the Bitterroot Mountains behind his grave there. My camera does not do justice to how rugged and pretty they are. Very tall and steep country all around that part of Idaho.




BTW, Mule Deer, I stopped into Capitol Sporting Goods in Helena while I was in the neighborhood but you weren't there. I have to say you live in some mighty pretty country as well.

He must like rifles that are too heavy and overly expensive.


Actually a vintage 70 in 270 is pretty high on the "COOL" meter.

My uncle had one that I couldn't get from my aunt when he died...

John
I have always found it odd that Keith didn't embrace the partition as well. Had he used them I think his stands on what was effective on larger game and the minimum caliber or cartridge for "raking shots" may have at least softened if not changed.

Kirk,

By a not-so-odd coincidence, my own first pre-'64 M70 was a .270....

So I take it you are saying the 270 sucks for YOU! Thank you for the clarification.

Shod

Yeah, Elmer new what he was talking about. He said he saw a jack rabbit shot with a .270, it scratched itself and ran off. He told more stories than most people ever heard. I've shot quite a few jack rabbits with a .270 myself, I know what it will do to a jackrabbit.

If I opened a gun mag, and found an article relegating the 270 only to varmints and vermin, I would NOT lavish praise, nor idolize the author. Quite the opposite.

Keith knew what he knew, but his word was far from scripture. I read various things he wrote and were written about him and I think: "What the hell does a headstamp have to do with accuracy? What about bullets? No really, what about bullets? How is a 4" 44 somehow a better game getter than a 270? Do you really believe that?"

You have to take several things into consideration when reading any article. The primary being what's being hunted and where. A 4" 44 is a better game getter than a 270 if you are hunting in the brush at short ranges. I wouldn't even think about using a 270 for whitetails in some of the places I hunt for them.

There is less variation and better quality control these days, but years ago things were different. I can see why someone who had bad luck with a certain headstamp or bullet might prefer one manufacturer over another.

I hunt in Ontario for the most part. I have also hunted in Europe, BC, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec. For large game, mostly moose, deer and black bears. Personally, I saw no merit using a 270 for what I was hunting (and the ranges at which I hunted), but others might have found it to their liking. I had a 30-06 before I had a 270, and I feel it is better because there are more bullets available.

Neither Keith's nor O'Connor's opinion was the final word. They were the thoughts expressed by two men who used different tools to accomplish what amounts to the same thing.

I knew neither man. My opinion of their articles and books is, technically, O'Connor was a better writer. Unfortunately, history has made Mr. O'Connor out to be someone who held the 270 in higher esteem than most other cartridges. Many people think (thought) that was virtually the only cartridge he used. They should try reading more of his books and articles. He has written to the contrary, but many remember what they want.

Mr. Keith has been on more trips and taken more game that I ever will. He approached things differently I think, than O'Connor. My personal opinion, based on having taken most of my large game at shorter distances than either of these gentlemen is, I like fat and slow, but I hunt mostly in moderate to heavy cover. That said, I am not suggesting that Elmer Keith as right. He just did things differently.

Both men are now part of history and their legacy is, O'Connor loved the 270 above all else. Keith loved the 44 handgun. Neither is an accurate assessment. In my opinion, each took a different road to get to the same place. I believe both were smart enough to choose the right cartridge and gun, but inaccuracies creep into the conversation when two or more humans get together. People tend to "interpret" history to fit their argument.

To everyone I say, read the works of both men. Respect them both. Be thankful that, regardless of your opinions, we were fortunate to have their thoughts recorded for all time.

Edited to add: Jim, that sure is a pretty final resting place. It makes me want to go there for the view as much as visit the Keith grave.

Good comments, Steve. My post was not meant to denigrate Keith, but rather to point out the he, like O'Connor, was not a visionary, nor did either man have some grand understanding things beyond their own experiences. Thus the value of their contributions is found in the chronicling of each's experiences, rather than seeing their writings as the last word in anything.

I quoted from your post, but my short commentary was for the whole thread.

I genuinely wish I could have spent some time with both men. There was much to be learned from those two.

I'm sure I would have enjoyed shooting, hunting, or shooting the shinola with either, and likely could have related to both men. I spent a lot of time in Keith's stomping grounds as a youngster, and shot my first Muley in the Salmon River canyon.

Keith and O'Connor could not have been more different in their writing. I enjoy reading both. Others can fight over which one was smarter, truth in various rumors, etc. I could care less.

I was darn near raised by O'Connor and Keith....the barber in our little farming town gave me his Outdoor Lifes when they were a mere one month old and his new copy arrived, and my Uncle Bill gave me a subscription to Guns and Ammo when I was 14. I thoroughly enjoyed both writers; they were larger than life to a young boy.
One of my recent purchases was the two volume Gun Notes books, reprints of Keith's articles for G & A. Included in them are letters written by O'Connor and Keith to Truman Fowler, mostly about cartridge size, as well a very few letters direct from O'Connor to Keith and Keith to O'Connor. Though if certainly appears to me that they did indeed have a strong rivalry and were not secret drinking buddies, an interesting exchange occurred in the mid 70s. Apparently Keith had a serious health scare and O'Connor wrote to him. I'm paraphrasing, as I'm at work and don't have my copies of the letters available. O'Connor wrote something like "Hell, Elmer, you like bigger guns than I do, but that's neither here nor there. You've led a life few have, and should write it down." Keith replied "Maybe you're right...I should do that before it gets too late." Again, I'm paraphrasing from memory.
My take on it was that in their later years, the rivalry might have subsided a bit, and that deep down there was always some respect, well hidden, even if they were not good friends. I'd like to think so, anyway.

And a question. I see from the photograph of the headstone that Elmer Keith's wife's name was Lorene. I remember it in print from Keith's writings as Lorraine. Wonder what the story is behind that?

Probably the editor saw "Lorene" and chalked it up to yet another Elmer Kieth mis-spelling, and changed it to what he assumed was the correct spelling. I've heard, rightly or wrongly, that Elmer didn't have a superior command of English and required quite a bit of editing to get his tales into print.

Keith not only didn't have the formal command of English that O'Connor did, but had considerable trouble typing. I know one of the guys who edited Keith's manuscripts at G&A, and he says one of the frequent typing mistakes was an i appearing instead of the o in the word "shot."

I wrote both Keith and O'Connor about different things when in my 20's, and still have their answers. Elmer's is full of typos, and O'Connor's is not. O'Connor, however, eventually had a secretary to type his letters when he was at OL, but by the time I wrote him he was at Petersen's Hunting. Don't know if he still had a secretary.

I never met either man but have gotten to know O'Connor's son Bradford over the past couple of years, and if Jack was as fun to be around then he would have been a blast. Keith apparently was a lot of fun to hang with.

300_savage & gnoahhh-

I suspect the error in the name of Elmer Keith's wife rests with the maker of the grave marker. It's spelled "Lorraine" consistently in Keith's autobiographical writing, so it likely wasn't a one-time editorial correction of "Lorene".

Google can find several persons named "Lorene Keith", but none of them were attached in any way to Elmer.

The blurb about Lorraine Keith from findagrave.com shows her name as Lorraine, and apparently quotes from a newspaper notice of her funeral. Below is part of that notice, just in case it vanishes into the electronic mists.
--Bob

Forget where I read this, and don't know if it's true. But the story is that a new editor, frustrated with Keith, sent him a memo that he needed to use more commas when he wrote. Keith's next manuscript had, and the very end, about three lines of commas, with the note that here they are, put them where you want them.