Ken, I for one would certainly appreciate more first-hand stories about your contacts with Elmer and Jack. I really enjoyed your recent article about the bombing on Elmer's flight. I met Elmer's son Ted, and he said that Elmer and Jack never had much to do with each other. One was a cowboy turned gun writer and one was an English professor turned gun writer. They just didn't communicate or strike up a friendship. I'd like your opinion on that. I enjoyed both authors immensely and miss their writting. Any tid-bits you can add would certainly be appreciated. It would be especially fun if you could "ghost" write a debate between the two regarding the light and fast bullet effect vs. the big and slow bullet effect. I think this was an article that all of us were anxious to read that never was written. You're the man Ken. I can hardly wait for more.

Ken-
<br>
<br>Just in case you have a spare moment and have the urge to put pen to paper (fingers to keyboard) I sure would enjoy reading a war battle story, whether it be fact or fiction matters not. Maybe a recollection of something you participated in your days abroad? Your stories grab me from start to finish, not necessarily a good thing while I'm reading them at work, but I truly do enjoy them.

I really enjoyed the story about Elmer Kieth and the Unabomber, Thanks.
<br>
<br>erich

I missed it...where is the story?

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/index.html

Thanks Ken. Talked to Elmer once quite a few years back at one of the NRA Conventions and unlike many people in the public eye, Elmer was not a disappointment in person.......an American icon of a time that's past.

If you read Elmer as a young shooter with little knowledge or experience, you come away thinking "Here's a man with unmatched experience, knowledge, and skill with all kinds of hunting guns."
<br>
<br>If you read Elmer after you've learned enough to be a dangerous smart-ass, you sneer at his claims and opinions (and dismiss his knowledge as "just his opinion").
<br>
<br>If you got to know Elmer in person, and learned the background and details of his claims, knowledge, and opinions, you came away knowing "Here's a man with unmatched experience, knowledge, and skill with all kinds of hunting guns."
<br>
<br>I was lucky -- I both read and came to know Elmer as a friend when I was a young shooter with little knowledge or experience, and as I grew in experience, knowledge, and skill with guns, I always came away knowing "Here's a man with unmatched experience, knowledge, and skill with all kinds of hunting guns."
<br>
<br>Oh, yes -- I've heard and read just about every cheap put-down that little minds have thrown at Elmer, and I know them all to be without merit or foundation.
<br>

Ken,
<br>
<br>In my younger days [much smarter then], I read Elmer's story of shooting caribou at some fantastic distance with a handgun and considered it as BS. This tale appears again in his book, Hell I Was There!.
<br>
<br>My neighbor and friend is an old Alaskan Bush Pilot and he recently was telling me of his experiences flying Elmer Keith around and how he had been with Elmer during the caribou shooting. The facts were verified.
<br>
<br>

Someone, on some board, posted about Elmer's passing and what had become his way of keeping the old guy's exploits alive in his mind. It seems like whenever this person was out handgunnin' he'd always send at least one round wayyyy down range "for Elmer" as he was finishing up his day.
<br>
<br>I've kind of adopted the same habit myself and find it entertaining and somewhat educational. Granted, most of my shots out at 100 plus with a handgun and iron sights are pretty humorous in themselves. However, on occasion, I have actually hit something I was aiming at.
<br>
<br>2D

At our first meeting several years ago, one of our newer gun writers -- not particularly skilled with handguns -- loudly scorned Elmer's long-range handgunnery as so much BS. His position was that such shooting with a handgun was "impossible." He especially scoffed at Elmer's hit on a mule deer at 600 yards or so with his four-inch Model 29.
<br>
<br>I answered with three basic testimonies --
<br>(a) citing examples of my own and a close friend's long-range handgun shooting, using techniques we'd learned from Ed McGivern and Elmer Keith,
<br>(b) telling him the details of that particular shot, as Elmer had related the incident to me,
<br>and
<br>(c) explaining (with sketches) the special sight picture used for such long-range shooting with a square-notch rear and a Patridge front sight.
<br>
<br>"Why, that makes perfect good sense!" my new writer friend exclaimed.

I remember reading and seeing pictures that showed I believe a gold bar going across the front sight for the longer shots.

Elmer had those silver or gold wires peened into fine transverse slits in the backs of some of his early handguns' front sights -- handy but not necessary. I haven't gotten around to putting 'em into any of my front sights, and probably won't. Elmer didn't have 'em put into all his front sights.
<br>
<br>It's easy enough to put about 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, or all the height of the front blade -- or even the top or bottom of the front-sight ramp, when there's a ramp under the blade -- above the top of the rear notch, and perch the target as usual atop the front blade. I've also used the width of the Patridge blade as a "windage gauge" or to eyeball the lead on a running target.
<br>
<br>Hit a running wild cat in the head that way at a longer range than I'd expect you to believe (probably no more than 50% skill, no less than 50% sheer good luck. I'm not good enough to claim all the credit!). Cat was hauling britches, quartering away to the right. I led it so many blade widths and let fly (High Standard HDM .22 Long Rifle, with six-inch barrel and hollow-points). Best I expected to do was to scare 'im into running faster -- but he rolled and flopped around like the chickens that my folks used to grab by the head and whirl around like a ring of keys on a chain then dropped to let 'em fling blood all around the yard. That kind of flopping around -- by cats that I'd shot at shorter ranges -- had always indicated head hits. I didn't bother going 'way out there to confirm the hit with extraneous details -- cat was obviously DEAD, which was all I cared to know.

Well it is one of those things I regret, that I never seem to be in a position to ever get to meet some of these writers.
<br>I would have liked to have met Elmer, Skeeter skelton, Bill Jordan, Bob Milek, just to name a few. Oh and Jack O'Conner.
<br>But tis too late.

Ken Howell's comments on Elmer are very well written. I was reading these guy's live also and Elmer was pushing the big calibers "pumkin rollers" as he called them. But it was O'Connor's and Weatherby's high velocity that has won the market place. Sales of "pumkin rollers" are not nearly as high.
<br>
<br>Elmer is right on revolvers however and the .44 Magnum should be named after him.
<br>
<br>I admire Elmer Keith, a great American Rifleman.

I have two of those gold crossbars in a high front blade on my .45 auto, put there by Pachmayr after reading Keith on the subject, done forty years ago. Click adjustable rear sight, don't remember the make.
<br>
<br> As Ken Howell says, it is really not necessary, but it looks very elegant, and when you hit the five gallon can at 100 yards using the gold bar you feel very satisfied with yourself and the universe.
<br>
<br>Never mind the misses.

It never once entered my mind,that Elmer fabricated yarns. He struck me as a most honest gent,who simply laid the cards on the table. That he penned material,which he certainly HAD to know,many would meet with disfavor,only added to the feeling that the exploits were genuine.
<br>
<br>I miss his meat and taters delivery and the confidence in himself and his experiences,to relate things how the were. That is sadly missing today,in my opinion.
<br>
<br>His,was a great loss..................

While I don�t have a dog in the Keith/O�Connor fight, I thought I would share a few quotes from the end of a letter that Jack wrote back to my Father, in response to several questions he asked about the advantages of a .300 Mag vs the .30-06 and bullet weight choices (172gr vs 180gr) for them when hunting Elk.
<br>
<br>The letter is dated February 2, 1952, signed by Jack and typed on Outdoor Life letterhead, from the "Arms and Ammunition department".
<br>
<br>(begin quote)
<br>.
<br>.
<br>I doubt if one in 20 can stand the recoil of a .300 Magnum. Believe me, the placement of the shot is so much more important than the bullet with which the animal is hit that there is no comparison. I speak from a hunting experience that extends almost 40 years and from Central Mexico to Alaska. On a trip once I killed nine head of big game including a moose and a grizzly and I fired exactly 11 shots from a poor little, broken-down .270 with the 130-gr. bullet.
<br>
<br>Darned if I know which would hold together best, the 172gr. Western Tool & Copper cavity point or the 180gr. Silvertip for the .30/06 but I am inclined to believe that the Western Tool & Cooper Works bullet would do it.
<br>
<br>I have recently been chronographing some loads for the standard .300 Magnum. I believe the best one I have found is 71grs. of this powder known as "No. 4350 data Powder" and which is actually No. 4831. With the 180-gr. bullet 71grs. of No. 4831 gives a velocity of about 3125.
<br>
<br>My best wishes,
<br>Jack O�Connor
<br>
<br>(end quote)
<br>
<br>Looks like the advocator of small/light, was secretly into testing Big-n-Fast also !!
<br>
<br>...... Silver Bullet
<br>
<br>By the way, QuickLoad predicts 3,107 fps with 71grs of IMR-4350 (at max pressures), pushing a 180 gr Winchester Silvertip in a 26" barrelled .300 Win mag. Not bad for 50+ years ago .....
<br>
<br>

A friend of mine who knew O'Connor pretty well asked him what his favorite cartridges were.
<br>
<br>"The .30-06, the .270, the .375, and the .416. Now you're going to ask me 'In what order?' In that order."
<br>
<br>When O'Connor hunted the biggest American game, he preferred the .375 H&H. For the big African critters, he preferred the .416 Rigby. The .270 was his sheep rifle, and he used it also on other game that he encountered while hunting sheep.
<br>
<br>Elmer also used rifles chambered for small-caliber cartridges with light, fast bullets, for smaller game and varmints. And he wanted any big animal that he shot to drop at the hit or very shortly thereafter. He didn't maintain that the lighter cartridges wouldn't kill -- just that they didn't kill as promptly as he demanded. He deplored the tendency of so many hunters to be satisfied with any cartridge that killed animals marginally enough to let 'em suffer lingering deaths.

I think I recall reading something by Elmer where he said he preferred hunting his animals "before" he shot them, not "after". Sounds reasonable to me.

Ken, what were Elmer and Jack like, personally. I heard that Jack was quite a drinker and kind of kept to himself around gun nuts because so many people wanted to turn a civil discussion into an argument. Also, that Jack wouldn't let an outfitter tell him how they were going to hunt or where etc. A very demanding sort of hunter because his experience was often as extensive as the outfitters. I have heard that Elmer, on the other hand, liked to sit around and visit and argue with the best of them. A ,physically, small man who may have worn the big hat to make up for his physical stature but one that knew his guns like few others. What is your take on the two personalities, Ken? Is there any truth to what I have heard ?

One of the first books I had is the 5th edition of the Gun Digest dated 1950. In it are opposing articles by Roy Weatherby and Elmer Keith. Weatherbys is called "Killing Power" and here is the pull quote "In Africa we learned that if we used smaller caliber high velocity bullets, the animal had to be close enough so that the bullet would not lose enough velocity to keep it from disintegrating inside the animals body.....
<br>But if you can get that small caliber to disintegrate inside the animal it will kill anything on the face of the earth"'
<br>
<br>
<br>Elmers rebutal piece is called "Pumpkin Rolling" and the pull quote is "Dangerous game is not really dangerous until it's in close proximity to the hunter, and when that is the case he doesn't need high velocity but rather a big caliber with a heavy bullet that will penetrate well and also deliver a knockdown wallop"
<br>
<br>Weatherby has a dozen cartridges named after him and Keith has none. It's not fair.

i was just wondering whether any unfortunate hunters following roy's advice (i.e., small, high velocity calibres) met their demise in africa hunting the big-5.
<br>
<br>this would, of course, pre-date weatherby's introduction in the late 50s/early 60s of his big-bore cartridges.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you got to know Elmer in person, and learned the background and details of his claims, knowledge, and opinions, you came away knowing "Here's a man with unmatched experience, knowledge, and skill with all kinds of hunting guns."<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>
<br>I don't remember the writer, but I remember someone saying in effect "There are individuals that are better then Elmer Keith with a shotgun, rifle or pistol. No one however can use all three like he can."

More from the priest of hyper velocity, Roy Weatherby.
<br>
<br>"I have taken the tiny 48 gr 22 caliber bullet, pushed it along at 5,000 fps, and made holes the size of a hen's egg through one-half inch of the hardest amour steel plate. Now, it is hard for me to believe that this bullet is going to break up on the surface of an animal's hide and not go in deep enough to do damage. I have shot hundreds of head of game and I have never had this experiance. I have seen hundreds of head of game shot and have never seen a bullet that disintegrated on an animal's hide."

Is there any truth in the rumor of Jack O'Conner shooting off one of his toes? If there is there has to be a story in there somewhere.

dempsey,
<br>
<br>i posted the below note on the rifle section of shooters.com.
<br>
<br>according to the publisher's excerpt on the book (which i am about to purchase), uncle jack did indeed shoot off one of his toes. perhaps others who have already read the book could fill in the details.
<br>
<br>cheers,
<br>
<br>te
<br>
<br>SHOOTERS.COM POST
<br>
<br>speaking of 'uncle jack', safari press has a new book out entitled 'jack o'conner, the legendary life of america's greatest gunwriter' (safari press 2002).
<br>
<br>the limited edition is sold out, but trade copies can be purchased directly from the publisher (www.safaripress.com), or at web-tailers such as amazon.com or barnes & noble.com
<br>
<br>cheers and good reading.
<br>
<br>te
<br>

Thomas
<br> Your post must have been where I read that. Hopefully someone will fill in the blanks. Who wrote the book?

dempsey,
<br>
<br>robert m. anderson...a reputed hunter and writer...although i am not familiar with any other books by this author.
<br>
<br>te

I noted from those days that Roy Weatherby started introducing his ammunition loaded with Nosler Partition bullets.
<br> And I do recall a comment by Elmer Keith that the .300 Magnum(s) with the NP bullet was passably adequate for elk.
<br> Both of these inicated to me these two men were open to new ideas that worked.
<br> I well remember the back and forth betwwen Jack and Elmer.
<br> Frankly, I learned alot from both. I miss them. E

Ole Roy Weatherby killed a cape buffalo with his pet 257 Magnum,and lived to tell about it.Wally Taber shot the complete Big 5 and also a very nice Bengal tiger with his 257 Magnum.
<br>
<br>Roy was a smart bussiness man who came up with some pretty snazzy cartridges.He thought highly of Elmer,and Elmer thought highly of Roy,espicaly after Roy standardized Elmer's 334 OKH (340 Weatherby).Elmer owned several Weatherbys and shot many more,and had nothing but praise for them and their cartridges,espically the 340 and 378.
<br>
<br>As for Elmer and Jack-I like em both,but I'll take Elmer any day of the week.After about the third reading,Jack starts getting old.I've read Hell I Was There at least 10 times through,and it just gets more entertaining every time.
<br>
<br>My favorite story about Elmer is from a good friend of mine's father.He was passing through Salmon,Idaho,and decided to try to talk with Elmer.He pulled into a gas station and asked the grease monkey if he knew where Elmer lived.He said yes and gave him directions.
<br>
<br>So,he goes up to Elmer's front door and knocks.Elmer opens the door and my friend says "Howdy,I'm Tom."Elmer just grinned,shook his hand and said "Well,I'm Elmer.Wanna cup of coffee?"They sat in Elmer's front room for several hours,looking over an assortment of Elmer's collection.He said the best part of the visit was when he asked if Elmer had some sort of ultra-rare variation of one of the Colt SAA's.Elmer just grinned and reached under his easy chair and pulled one out,just like that.
<br>
<br>WB.

Bandit - Who's Wally Taber?
<br>
<br>Thanks, sse

Wally Taber was a world famous hunter in the 50's and early '60s.He made a lot of films of his hunts,that were quite popular in theaters.Most of them have made it to video-you should be able to find them on sale on the net quite easily.
<br>
<br>Wally killed the complete Big 5 with a 257 Weatherby.He also did the same thing with a crossbow.
<br>
<br>WB.

I have really enjoyed this thread and in particular the quotes from Ken Howell and others.

Interesting article on Keith and O'Conner in Gray's Sporting Journal.
<br>
<br>"O�Connor vs. Keith: And the Winner Is..."
<br>
<br>In any argument there are two questions: Who was right? And who won?
<br>
<br>by Terry Wieland
<br>
<br>
<br>"THE HUNTING world�s longest-running controversy is the battle between velocity and bullet weight. On one side was Jack O�Connor, revered shooting editor of Outdoor Life and godfather of the .270 Winchester. On the other was Elmer Keith�big-game guide, writer and loud proponent of big bores and heavy bullets.
<br>
<br>The arguments went like this:
<br>
<br>O�Connor: �If you can place your bullet right, the 130-grain .270 is all you need on most North American big game.�
<br>
<br>Keith: �Small bullets at high velocities wound more animals than they kill. For clean kills, you need a heavy bullet that will penetrate.�
<br>
<br>It�s impossible to pinpoint exactly when the dispute began, but it dates at least from 1930, when Elmer Keith wrote an article for The American Rifleman. In it, he tells of a sheep hunt in the Rockies in which a hunter, Colonel Harry Snyder, shoots a bighorn ram with a 7x64 and the cartridge fails miserably.
<br>
<br>At that time, the .270 Winchester was only five years old and there were few comparable cartridges around. One of the few was the 7x64, shooting a 139-grain bullet at 3,000 feet per second. Keith�s statements about the inadequacy of the cartridge sparked a response from O�Connor, who knew Snyder personally and asked him about the story. Snyder not only denied it but said Keith was not present when the sheep in question was killed. What�s more, he added, it was a clean, one-shot kill.
<br>
<br>O�Connor and Keith swung into print, other writers chose sides, and soon there was a full-blown controversy over whether light bullets at high velocity were adequate for larger game. The manufacturers got involved, with Roy Weatherby the most vocal proponent of high velocity.
<br>
<br>Most significantly, the debate flared around a thousand campfires. Friendships broke up over it, but it sold literally millions of magazines. Even after Keith and O�Connor died (in 1984 and 1978 respectively), the controversy didn�t end. And hasn�t ended yet.
<br>
<br>A few years ago, on a trip to Zimbabwe, I sat down over a few beers with an expatriate American making his living as a professional hunter. After a couple, he fixed me sternly and demanded, �So who was right? O�Connor or Keith?� Sensing this was a test, I thought for a moment, then said, �They both were.� Ed leapt to his feet, stuck out his hand and shouted, �Right on!�
<br>
<br>If you look at the arguments dispassionately, you quickly realize that there is really no disagreement at all�especially if you read what Keith and O�Connor actually wrote themselves rather than the writings of their legions of imitators, admirers and enemies.
<br>
<br>In later years, Jack O�Connor was always careful to add the proviso, �If you place your shot correctly ...� He even went so far, in a couple of articles, to expound at length on the importance of placing the first shot. And, as he pointed out, a poorly placed bullet is a poorly placed bullet, regardless of caliber.
<br>
<br>For Keith�s part, most of his examples weren�t of a 130-grain bullet that hit the heart or lungs and failed to kill (although he produced such examples in his wilder moments), but bullets that hit bone and expanded too quickly or were too far back, allowing a gut-shot animal to escape.
<br>
<br>On the essential point, the adversaries agree: Place the bullet correctly, and a light, fast bullet will do the job. Place the bullet badly and it won�t.
<br>
<br>Both Jack O�Connor and Elmer Keith were big-game hunters of vast experience. O�Connor, as well, was a tremendous rifle shot, especially in such practical hunting aspects as hitting a running animal at 200 yards. He grew up in Arizona in the years before the First World War, and honed his skills on running jackrabbits and coyotes. His wife, Eleanor, was also an accomplished hunter and marksman, and he often cited her as an example of what a small-bore rifle could do (Eleanor favored the 7x57) in skilled hands.
<br>
<br>All of which proves exactly nothing. Examples abound that support both sides of the argument. In my own experience, severely limited compared to either O�Connor or Keith, I have had spectacular one-shot kills on big animals with a small, fast bullet. I have also had spectacular failures. Last year, I made a six-shot kill on a greater kudu (an African antelope about the size of an elk) with a .450 Ackley, a bona fide elephant rifle, which supports the argument that the first shot must be placed correctly regardless of caliber.
<br>
<br>Unfortunately, bad bullet placement can be due to any number of things: poor shooting, a gust of wind, an animal taking a step just as you pull the trigger. And so Bob Hagel, another guide-turned-gun-writer, came up with this rule: �A hunter should not choose the caliber, cartridge and bullet that will kill an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong.�
<br>
<br>Dick Dietz, longtime public-relations guru for Remington Arms, once opined that as a man gets older he prefers �his meat rarer, his whiskey straighter, and his bullets bigger.� This isn�t because, as a man ages, he grows to enjoy getting pounded by recoil. It�s because, as we become more experienced and witness many of the things that can go wrong hunting big game, we come to realize that one way to minimize problems is to use a bigger caliber and heavier bullets. As Robert Ruark said, �Use enough gun.�
<br>
<br>The argument may not be settled, but a few facts have been amply demonstrated.
<br>
<br>
<br>1. Animals are killed by tissue destruction, not by so-called �hydrostatic shock.�
<br>
<br>2. Tissue destruction is accomplished by bullet penetration.
<br>
<br>3. Failure to penetrate is the major complaint about light bullets at high velocity, especially if they hit bone.
<br>
<br>4. A heavy bullet penetrates better than a light bullet, but even a heavy bullet needs to be well-constructed.
<br>
<br>
<br>One point O�Connor made repeatedly was that a hard-recoiling
<br>
<br>ifle that causes flinching and bad shooting is more likely to result in a wounded animal than a light-recoiling .270 shot accurately and well. Obviously, if you can�t handle a .375 H&H you should go to something lighter with which you are comfortable. Just because most of us are more comfortable shooting a .22-250 than a .375 H&H, however, doesn�t mean we should hunt grizzly bears with it.
<br>
<br>As you can see, once you go into these arguments in a little detail, so many qualifications pile up it becomes hard to see the original point�which is what made for so many great campfire debates over the years and sold so many millions of magazines.
<br>
<br>To answer the original questions: Who was right? They both were. Who won? Neither one. Will it ever be settled for good? No. Not as long as one campfire is left burning.
<br>
<br>
<br>In The Last Book�Confessions of a Gun Editor, Jack O�Connor looked back on his long-running battle with �the big-bore boys,� and suggested there was more to Elmer Keith�s position than met the eye. The �big- bore versus high-velocity� battle was more than just an argument over ballistics and killing power.
<br>
<br>In the late 1930s, O�Connor succeeded Captain Charles Askins as shooting editor of Outdoor Life. Askins, father of the influential gun writer Colonel Charles Askins, wasn�t ready to retire, and Askins the Younger held it against O�Connor until the day he died. He lost no opportunity to slam O�Connor in print, and naturally he took Elmer Keith�s side in the argument.
<br>
<br>Ironically, Jack O�Connor and Elmer Keith never met face to face until many years after the battle had begun, when they attended a writers� seminar hosted by Winchester. There, according to O�Connor, Keith told him that he should have been given the Outdoor Life job instead of O�Connor, and because of it he had been �sucking hind tit� ever since. According to O�Connor, he was then instrumental in Keith moving from Guns to Guns & Ammo, a higher-paying pulpit from which he preached his big-bore gospel for years after.
<br>
<br>By that time, of course, the argument could not be allowed to end. Too many reputations hung on it, and it was selling too many magazines."
<br>
<br>

He left out the part where O'Connor turned a loaded shotgun on Elmer,and then proceeded to crank the shells out of it with a smirk on his face with it still pointed at Elmer.Pretty unbeliveable,but he did it in front of a few witnesses,one of which was Tom Siatos if I remember correctly.
<br>
<br>WB.

If that's true...it's inexcusable behavior. And even if Jack is right on the bullet debate, he then loses on all other counts in my book. Is it really true? A guy with this much gun experience?

Tenderfoot,
<br>It wasn't bad gun saftey-he did it on purpose.
<br>
<br>Keith and witnesses went to Winchester,and in the remaining years,Jack was never invited to any more seminars held by Winchester.At least this is how Elmer told it in a letter to his good friend Truman Fowler,who was also friends with O'Connor.
<br>
<br>WB.

I am not sure Fowler and O'Conner were actually friends. Seems to me reading the letters that O'Conner was amused by and tolerated Fowler's big bore fanatacism but they were never really on the same level that friends share.

O'Conner is pretty well known as a advocate of the .270.
<br>
<br>But what caliber did Keith advocate or like best? Specifically, what did he think of the .30-06?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> Leo

Elmer had some bad luck with the '06 and early bullets. His response was to go up to the 333 and 338 caliber.
<br>
<br>He developed three wildcats,
<br>
<br>I think the order is the 333 OKH which is pretty much a 338-06. Next he tried the 375H&H necked down and came up with the 334 OKH (340 Weatherby) Lastly, I think was the 333 Belted OKH which was legalized by Winchester as the 338 Win Mag. After the 338 size bullets became available, he switched over to it and never looked back.
<br>
<br>He routinely hunted pronghorn with his 338s and considered anything smaller a varmint gun.
<br>
<br>FWIW, his favorite bullet weight for pretty well any of the 338s was the 275 grain bullets from Speer or Barnes.
<br>
<br>Joe

Tenderfoot good post! Thanks.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>From what I know of Elmer, talking with men who
<br>hunted with him. He was a true blue man with not
<br>an ounce of ill will in him toward anybody.
<br>The only thing that I know of him coming close to wrong
<br>doing is when (as a friend of mine who witnessed it) Elmer pulled his 29 and shot a Redtail while it was
<br>flying a good 40 yards above them.
<br>
<br>If I remember right Elmer liked the 458 for elk and the
<br>338 for antelope.
<br>
<br>Also, Why would anybody think that the Outdoor life
<br>position is so hot?
<br>

Jmac,
<br>
<br> I thought I read somewhere that Keith thought the .270 was a 'darn good varmit' caliber or some such thing. I thought he was just being sarcastic and such. Take it, he was serious.
<br>
<br>
<br>Think I saw someone here mention that Keith was physically small in stature. Funny how he like the big bores. Seems like the smaller guys like the magnums while the guys the size of defensive linemen like the small bores
<br>
<br>
<br> Leo

SU35,
<br>
<br>I don't like these stories so I am not going to read you.
<br>
<br>Don

SU35,
<br>Ackley also filed the sears off of a couple of Elmer's shotguns.The final straw was when he put an extra long fireing pin in an Enfield,which made it go off when Elmer closed the bolt.After that,Elmer went to him and told him if one more thing happened,he'd kill him and not think twice.And it never did.This is all written up in Hell I Was There,though he didn't give Ackley's name.
<br>
<br>As to Elmer's stature-he was 5'6 I belive,and wore a size 5 1/2 cowboy boot.At his fattest he weighted something like 160 pounds,when he was an old man.In his prime he probibly weighted 120 or so.If he was a foot taller he would have given John Wayne a run for his money!

PO Ackley tried to kill/maim Elmer Kieth?
<br>
<br>All this seems a bit bizarre...
<br>
<br>But, hell, I wasn't there....

I wasn't "There," either -- at the Ogden Arsenal -- but I was "there" -- in Elmer's home in Salmon, Idaho -- when he told me more than once the details of what you've read in his book (and above). At home, in our private conversations, he didn't omit any names when he told of the threats and attempts to kill him. I wonder whether he put them in his manuscript and the editor deleted them. In our private conversations, Elmer spoke of these events as calmly and matter-of-factly as he described the behavior of jackrabbits he'd shot with solid bullets -- no rancor, no name-calling, no characterization, no criticism, no opining, just "this happened -- that occurred -- So-and-So did such-and-such -- the wind from the north was chilly that day" -- etc. He was obviously NOT putting-on a pity party or running somebody down -- he was simply relating facts of his past, as they applied to some greater topic of the moment. The details of the rag-packed shotgun barrel, for example, related to something like sensitivity to the balance and '"trim" of a shotgun, or stopping and checking when something doesn't feel right. The identity of the would-be assassin was purely incidental -- much the same as he might identify the make of the scope in describing a specific shot he'd made, in a chat about bullet placement on a barren-land caribou. He usually cited his guides by name, never as just "the guide." His private remarks about more-somber events like assassination attempts were similar. I never heard Elmer say, for example, So-and-So tried to kill me." That was the natural conclusion to draw from the details that he did describe, but Elmer just gave the details and left the obvious conclusions up to me.

From what I've read about Elmer Keith I find it hard to believe that someone could point a loaded rifle/shotgun/pistol at him and get away with it......from all accounts he seldom went anywhere unarmed and I would expect he would produce one of his big-bore revolvers with suprising speed if need be. A "hard" man who grew up in hard times....I don't believe he would have accepted an insult like that from anyone.

WB,
<br>
<br>It is hard for me to believe that O'Connor purposely pointed a loaded shotgun at Keith in front of their peer group and that, having done so, his only punishment was to be uninvited to the Winchester seminars. Do you know what year this event is reported to have taken place? I have seen pictures of O'Connor and Keith as older men at Remington seminars, along with their peers, so why wouldn't the "boys" rally around Elmer and ostracize Jack?
<br>
<br>Also, I thought that they both lived in Salmon, ID, which can't be that big a town, certainly not big enough for both of them.
<br>
<br>I have no direct knowledge of these events, but, if they are true, they would put a totally different spin on the personality of JO than I would have believed possible.
<br>
<br>Please enlighten me!
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

I just don't understand why someone would want ot kill him? Because they argued about ballistics?
<br>
<br>Intentionally sabotaging a gun is pretty serious just because you like big/small bores....
<br>
<br>Was PO Ackley a few sandwiches short of a picnic?
<br>
<br>

Ken, you can obviously see that we need some more first hand knowledge on the topics being raised. Perhaps you can enlighten us. By the way, readers, Elmer lived in Salmon and Jack lived in Lewiston. Both in Idaho. I talked with Elmer's son and he simply said they didn't have anything in common except their hunting and didn't communicate. No wild stories such as those related here.

Elmer was indeed FAST (with handgun, rifle, and shotgun), but he never fired hastily or blindly. FAST isn't the same as HASTY.
<br>
<br>He was a deputy in Salmon. One day, he entered the jailer's office just as some jail escapees burst into the office through the door from the cell block and pointed a gun at the jailer. Elmer had that four-inch forty-four out and pointed in a flash, "with five eighths of an ounce left on the double-action pull," but didn't fire. Instead, he said just "Drop it," and the jerk's gun all of a sudden got as if it were white-hot in his hand.
<br>
<br>Elmer was proud of the fact that he'd never shot anybody --- but he made it equally clear that he stood ready to shoot anybody whom he knew he had to shoot, to save himself or someone else. He knew that the escaping inmate wasn't that close to the verge of shooting, and he knew that J O'C was just being a smart ass with that loaded shotgun.
<br>
<br>I wasn't along on the Georgia bird shoot with Elmer, but a friend who was there told me that while they were walking to the area where they were going to shoot, a covey of birds flushed from virtually under their feet. My friend -- a superb shotgunner and bird-hunter in his own right -- said that while everyone else was too startled to do more than jump and gasp, Elmer dropped two birds.
<br>
<br>I know of several other pranks that certain renowned and revered writer colleagues pulled on Elmer, to discredit and embarrass him, but I'm not going to relate them here. The other writers are dead and gone, and I have no desire to discredit them. (I know who did these things, and I no longer have much respect for them, either -- but crowds of their other readers do.) If someone else brings-up these other episodes, I'll confirm or correct that version, but I won't volunteer 'em as long as they're still off the board. They're better left untold (as long as they remain untold).

Well Dr. Howell, that is all one can ask.
<br>You are a class act and I for one can appreciate your stand on this issue, I of course would like to hear a lot more of our famous writers, especially these two.
<br>But fully understand one not wanting to comment on those that have passed on, like they say it is not right to speak ill of the dead for they can not defend themselves.
<br>Did you know much of Bob Milek, he is another one that I would have liked to have met, along with yourself of course, but I never seem to get the chance, living where I live.
<br>Bill

I wish that Bob Milek were still alive -- you'd love the little guy.I'll mourn his early death until I die.
<br>
<br>Bob, like Elmer, didn't let being short bother him. The last time I saw him (at a SHOT Show), he was looking at an exhibitor's quilted two-rifle case. It was just a tad over four feet long and a few inches over a foot wide. Bob had it laid open, on the exhibitor's counter as I walked up.
<br>
<br>"What's that?" I asked. "A Bob Milek sleeping bag?"
<br>
<br>Bob laughed. Just then, Dave Hetzler (Guns & Ammo) walked by.
<br>
<br>"Did you hear what Ken said?" Bob asked. Dave said he hadn't, so Bob repeated my remark and laughed with delight. His laugh was always close to the surface, and he enjoyed any opportunity to let it loose. Whenever we were together, he loved to recall the time, as he said it, when he "found an editor useful."
<br>
<br>On the 1978 Grand National mixed-bag hunt, Bob and I were members of Bill Jordan's team. Bob had never hunted gray squirrels before. I had. I spotted one looking at us from inside the stub of a hollow limb. Bob shot it, thinking it'd kick forward and tumble out. Instead, the squirrel just died there with its head hanging out the end of the limb stub.
<br>
<br>The lowest hand-hold on that big tree was pretty high up. I leaned my gun against another tree, leaned my back against the squirrel's tree, and laced my fingers together to give Bob a boost. He still couldn't reach anything he could grasp to begin climbing.
<br>
<br>"Stand on my shoulders," I said. He did -- but still couldn't reach high enough.
<br>
<br>"Stand on my head," I said. Bob reminded me that his boots had Vibram "waffle-stomper" soles. "Go ahead," I said. "Stand on my head. Just don't DANCE on my ol' bald noggin."
<br>
<br>Bob stood on my head, reached something he could grab, pulled himself up, and climbed up high enough to retrieve his squirrel. But first, he asked our partner Hal Swiggett to take a photo of us, with Bob standing on my head.

Oh man! you gotta post that one.

No doubt about it. Bob Milek was a class act. I grew up reading his stories, and can still remember the day when I read in Petersen's Hunting that he had passed away.
<br>
<br>2nd

Thank you for that story, yes post that type of photo if you get time.
<br>I enjoyed reading him and thought it was neat when I found out he liked the 25/06 just like me.
<br>I have always thought it would be nice to hear at least how the families were doing now, as you always read about there children and wives in a lot of stories and then when they are gone, you never here anymore.
<br>Bill

I probably never would have believed the 44 magnum long shots either. However, a friend of mine and a buddy of his had access to an area where they could set up a range of up to 1200 yards for several years. It was up against a large hill and most of the fields were watermelon fields and mostly East Texas sand.
<br>
<br>One of their experiments was shooting 44 magnum pistols at 6 gallon and 10 gallon oil barrels. Mostly at 400 yards. With a rest they could hit the 10 gallon 6 of 6 times, and the 6 gallon 4 of 6 times. Their conclusion was that you are in more danger at 400 yards from a 44 magnum pistol than from an AR15 or AK47 (they extensively tested both and said they both didn't do too much to the barrels at 400 yards). They both are avid 45/70 users now as they did extensive shooting with 45/70's out to 1200 yards. Both big bullet converts.

TWIMC,
<br>
<br>I read the O'Conner book yesterday. It was OK, but I doubt that I'll wear the dust jacket to tatters reading and rereading it.
<br>
<br>I was surprised to learn how O'Conner manipulated the system, through his use of "museum specimen licenses", to shoot desert sheep. There are those who feel that the end justifies the means, but I am not one of those men. I can't imagine Keith doing something so self-serving.
<br>
<br>Although it may not be fair to compare two (2) of the true giants of American firearms literature, when I balance O'Conner and Keith, I think that Elmer would have been a more interesting and congenial dinner partner. Heck, I could ask him whatever happened to his .256 Newton #129!
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

People were trying to assasinate Elmer Keith? I don't believe that but I do know that Ken Howell has been on a character assasination binge here over the legend of Parker Ackley.

"People were trying to assasinate Elmer Keith?" True
<br>
<br>"Ken Howell has been on a character assasination binge here over the legend of Parker Ackley." Calumny

Ken,
<br>
<br>Did you know, or have you used, the word "calumny" before, or did you need to consult your thesaurus?
<br>
<br>I learn so much new stuff here!
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

I've known what calumny is (and have used the word) for several decades. And I use my several thesauri rarely (and then only to remind me of a word that I KNOW but have trouble getting past the tip of my tongue -- NEVER to "learn" a new word).
<br>
<br>Did you look-up "calumny" in your dictionary? The unabridged American Heritage Dictionary, CD version, offers this (some of the symbols don't come across the cybergap unscathed, but enough does):
<br>
<br>cal�um�ny (k�l��m-n�) n., pl. cal�um�nies. 1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation. 2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander. [Middle English calumnie, from Old French calomnie, from Latin calumnia, from calv�, to deceive.]
<br>

I admit it, I had to look it up!
<br>
<br>Now that I know what it means: well said!

Ken,
<br>
<br>I had never heard, or seen that word, used before, that I recall, so I did need to toggle over to MS-WORD and use the thesaurus to look for a synonym that I understood the meaning of.
<br>
<br>Since you have been an editor, I'd expect a professional wordsmith to have a wider vocabulary than a broken down old fellow like me who doesn't hold a BA in English or an MS in Journalism.
<br>
<br>That said, it appears that Don doesn't believe the stories about P.O. Ackley trying to harm Elmer Keith. Its difficult for me to believe the stories either, both about Ackley and JO'C, but I wasn't there and I didn't hear it from EK's lips, so I'll think about it for awhile. If a corroberating witness to the events stepped forward and told the same basic, "Hell, I Was There!", story, it would be less of a stretch for me.
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

I am just disapointed.

What a great read. Excellent stories.

True or not they make for great reading.

I'm really surprised that O'Conner wasn't ostracized for pointing a loaded firearm at a person. As soon as it was empty I would have beat him severely.

Tom

Calumny? Didn't he play football for the Sooners on those great teams in the early fifties? Went by Gene Dan, I think.

O'Connor is the one who got me interested in hunting big game. I picked up a copy of Outdoor Life in the school library when I was in the 7th grade. (It was a much better magazine than now.) O'Connor had an article about the big bore vs. small bore controversy. He wrote something like, "If the proponents of either side ever take over the country, I'll be among the first to be executed." I never thought he was a "small bore no matter what" guy.

Keith impressed me as sort of a bombastic and active popinjay type(in a good sense). I seem to remember that when he was very old he had a stroke, and was paralyzed and in a hospital for many many months. I remember thinking how awful that would be, especially for one so active as Keith.

Someone mentioned that O'Connor was a very good shot. So far as I know, Keith was just about the only gun writer who ever shot in the national matches at Camp Perry. He was a good shot. George Nonte shot there too, but he was not a very good shot.

Someone really ought to write a book about Keith, O'Connor, Weatherby, and how our views of rifles and cartridges got that way.

I also remember the 1960-1961 Weatherby catalog, where Roy tells about the .257 Magnum and the Cape Buffalo, and recommends that anyone going for Alaska Brown Bear should use an 87 grain bullet at 3900 fps.

Give me a .300 Weatherby Mk V stocked with rosewood tip and white line spacers, some 180 grain Nosler Partitions, a time machine to take me back to 1958, and a lot of money and I'll do all the dangerous game in Africa, India, and North America to boot. And never worry about global warming, the price of gasoline, credit swap derivatives, or cholesterol. Those people were all giants.

Ken;
Thanks for your time and insight. The one man I know who knew Elmer used to play penny-ante poker with him. More of an excuse for both to talk. I got to call the guy and go see him. Has the best stories. The best gunwriter stories, most would not beleive.

It is like when the veterinarian James Herriot first brought out the book"All creatures Great And Small". Most thought it was fiction, REALLY tall tales, except for other veterinarians..........

Again, many thanks.

What a great thread. Had it not been revived I probably would have never seen it. Thanks Ken for your insight.

As a guy who loves the science and practicality sides of anything, I have a deep respect for both Keith and O'Connor. Accordingly, I have a .44 and a .270 and I use them about equally here in WI.

Either one could kill you equally dead, one like a hard swung bowling ball and one like a well placed golf ball off the tee.

I could see the loaded shotgun thing happening, I love O'Connor and understand Keiths views on big bores. My best gun loony friend is a big bore fanatic who doesnt leave home with anything short of a 44 magnum and I love small, fast, flat shooting rounds. The two of us are great friends but have many intellectually driven heated debates and the symbology of unloading a shotgun and pointing it at someone is pretty clear. An action that is merely careless or well thought out but completely left to the others perspective.

Someone posted that they never get tired of reading Keith...I am just the opposite. I read Hell I Was There, and only under the threat of death will I read it again.

I truly hated his writing and I love to read. Besides rifle hunting, bowhunting is a favorite pastime and I always wished that O'Connor had been a bowhunter, as I enjoy his writing about gun hunting so much.

In everything I've read by O'Connor, I never read that he shot deer with a .270, because he liked them to run off and suffer, as I read in a previous post.

Like always, everyone that has posted, likes either Keith or O'Connor because one or the other supports their own
prejudices, but O'Connor was simply a much better writer, whether you agreed with his conclusions or not. And he never seemed to constantly brag about himself in every story and article.

I found this a while ago on another site. The guys goes by CJ and claims to have known both O'Connor & Keith:

That does not mean that they were best buddies or that they always agreed with each other. If one had more animosity than the other it was probably Elmer for Jack dearly loved to pull his chain. And, was good at it. And, Elmer knew it. Especially when they were both attending group get together for writers at someplace like Nilo (Olin spelled backwards) Farms for a Winchester (Olin owned Winchester at that time) get together.

One year Elmer came home from one of those trips, where they did some bird hunting, as a group, and claimed: "That damn O'Connor tried to kill me." I couldn't respond but from the look on my face he followed that comment up with: "Blew my damned hat clear off my head".

Well, next time I saw Jack, about a month later, I asked him if he had tried to shoot Elmer at the Nilo Farms get together. He laughed. Deep. Long. And, loud. Finally, Jack said: "Elmer tell you that?" He knew I also visited Elmer on a regular basis and often times used me, without me knowing it, to help pull Elmer's chain. Jack was a very smart man and loved to have fun with his pals.

Anyway, it turns out, Jack was walking up on a roadway, he had been in a serious auto accident and didn't get around as well as he once did, and Elmer was walking below him in the tall brush of a ditch. A rooster flushed wild and Jack shot and killed it. The sound of the shot startled Elmer for he hadn't seen or heard the rooster flush. As he ducked, pure old time habit kicking in, his hat (he wore a huge special made Stetson) came off. That got Jack, who was above him, to laughing. That, in turn, got Elmer mad.

Jack asked me if Elmer had told me what he, Elmer, had said to him, Jack, next. He read my expression and continued, leaning forward in his living room chair, imitating Elmer's voice: "You do that again and I'll kill you." Well, Jack damn near fell out of his chair laughing at that memory. He told me that he had the same reaction when Elmer said those words to him out there at the farm and that even Elmer, he could see, was starting to smile as he picked up his hat, placed it just so on his head and walked away from him.

Here is another one from Fred Well's:
�Jack O�Connor and I never went hunting together, but I built a lot of guns for him and he and I spent a lot of time just like you and I sitting here jawing. I built him a .458 to take to Africa and he said, �Don�t you tell anybody you built me a big old .458.� Jack was quite a guy, great big booming voice and very opinionated. This was in the �50s, when Jack was both a journalist and a professor at Tucson.

�I first met Elmer Keith in Missoula, Montana in 1938. He did love the big bores, but I built him a little 35-caliber rifle he liked more than he told anybody. Elmer was always entertaining.

�I remember at one big gun show, Jack O�Connor and I were standing there when Elmer Keith came down the aisle. Jack looked up and said, �Here comes Mr. Bullshit.� He stepped out there and he hollered, �Draw!� Elmer came up and said, �You big sonofabitch, you�re gonna get somebody shot doing that someday.�

�Of course, Keith�s reputation was built on throwing cannons and O�Connor�s on stretching the .270, but their feud was really a put-up job for the press.

Lou

I am generally not somebody who likes to rep up my post count but I sure like the fact that I can drop no 500 on this one.

I just re-read the Rifle book by Cactus Jack. It sure is a great read. He really provides his rationale for the 270 Win. It was related to loads, pressure and an interest in shot effect on animals. He actually liked many different larger caliber guns like the 450 Watts. He actually also shoots a 470 Nitro double and notes the great ability of the 465 no. 2.

He also really likes the 375 HH and makes an argument for it as a one rifle one world gun.

I gauge that Jack seriously felt that moderation and shooting skill needed to be developed by the general public and he conveyed this in his writing. Elmer was more of an innovator. He noted what he liked and passed it on to Remington and Winchester. Jack would take a product and send it off to somebody to fix it up so it was set just for him.

Elmer was very much influenced by his first major trip to Alaska where many bears were wounded with 06 guns with poor bullets. He kind of argued for the 33 caliber version of 06. Not really much for different in the total of things.

The article that Elmer wrote about the Big Five is one of the best that I have read on Africa. You kind of get a feeling that Elmer is loading all of his chips on this trip and spend quite some time making it memorable.

This stuff sure is fun.

Sincerely,
Thomas

Wow,this thread has been brought back from the dead.Reading a post I made 8 years ago is surreal,considering I had totally forgotten that PO Ackley was the donk who was trying to put the kybosh on Elmer at the armory back in the day.

Brian.

<br>Also, Why would anybody think that the Outdoor life
<br>position is so hot?
<br> [/quote]

In the 1960's and later OD was in every barbershop, kids got subscriptions to it at Christmas, adults same.

Outdoor Life shooting columns provided a LOT of shooting and especially actual reloading & shooting information that you could not get elsewhere.

Warren Page held a similar position at Field and Stream, Pete Brown at Sports Afield.

A lot of the shooting classics had not been written.

Guys wanting to know specifics on sighting in, varmint rifle selection, H4831
application, etc learned it from the monthly columns.

At least to me, OD held the lead position and shooting editor was a very prestigious position to have. A lot of people read and hung onto your every word.

Townsend Whelen also was pretty good both as a competitive marksman at Perry and as a writer. There exists a frequently published photo of Phil Sharpe talking with Harry Pope at Perry, but I don't know whether Phil shot in the matches there.

Jim Carmichel has shot very well at the Camp Perry matches. Neal Knox shot there also, although I don't think he did as well as Carmichel. David Tubb, who has done better at Perry than most anybody, has written a couple of books, and writes regularly for RifleShooter magazine. There are several persons who write for Precision Shooting who also regularly shoot at Perry.

--Bob

In the 1960's and later OD was in every barbershop, kids got subscriptions to it at Christmas, adults same.

Outdoor Life shooting columns provided a LOT of shooting and especially actual reloading & shooting information that you could not get elsewhere.

Warren Page held a similar position at Field and Stream, Pete Brown at Sports Afield.

A lot of the shooting classics had not been written.

Guys wanting to know specifics on sighting in, varmint rifle selection, H4831
application, etc learned it from the monthly columns.

At least to me, OD held the lead position and shooting editor was a very prestigious position to have. A lot of people read and hung onto your every word.

[/quote]

This is a good point. In the 1950's, there were really no gun magazines. I remember my first "Guns" magazine in 1956. Outdoor Life (Jack O'Connor), Field and Stream (Warren Page) and, Sports Afield (Pete???) were the principal sources of firearms information and stories.

I certainly didn't know either man, but from the age of 9 read their respective columns/articles and learned much of what I know, or think I know, from them.

I have copies of Gunnotes Volume I and II. In the back of each are letters, mostly from Jack O'Connor to/from Truman Fowler and Elmer Keith to/from Truman Fowler. A lot of rancor is exhibited in these letters between O'Connor and Keith. But only one letter is actually FROM O'Connor to Keith, and only one from Keith to O'Connor.

In O'Connor's letter to Keith, written in I believe around 1970 or 1971, O'Connor says something to the effect of "You like bigger guns than I do, but that's neither here nor there. You ought to write your life story, Elmer. You've led an interesting life and one that will never be lived by anyone again." Keith replied that O'Connor wasn't the first one to suggest that and he just might do so.

In another letter to Truman Fowler, O'Connor writes that "Keith ought to be able to help you get published; he wields enormous influence and was important in the development of the pre-64 M70, the .44 magnum, and the .338 Win." He then said that he didn't truly dislike Elmer and was rather disappointed that Elmer hated him so much.

I think that their feud may have lost some of it's vitriol as the men grew older. Then again, both may have recognized the value in their printed sparring. I wonder how many times one or the other used the battle to help get an article flowing!

I miss them both, have many of their books, and consider each influential in teaching me about firearms.

Some more observations. Keith used guns regularly while working as a younger man. As a rancher he had the opportunity to use his guns as tools...and experience like that is rare, both back then and today. O'Connor hit the field a lot, but his use of guns was always as a sportsman, and not as an outdoor person in his everyday working life. O'Connor however, was the better wordsmith by far. He used words like an artist uses a paintbrush. Keith's style, though interesting to me, did lack the finesse of O'Connor. He told a story like he was talking to you, and it worked well for him. But that's the difference between a a man who spent his formative years as a cowboy in Montana and one who spend them in college earning an English degree, albeit hunting whenever possible.

djs; Sports Afield arms editor was Pete Brown.

R.E. Jack shooting off his toe incident from the book "Jack O'Connor" by Robert Anderson. ..."in the summer of 1938. Eleanor was pregnant with the O'Connors' third child. She and Jack had driven into the desert outside of Tuscon for an afternoon of jack rabbit hunting. O'Connor did much of his running jack rabbit shooting with deer-rifle calibers. On this day, in the process of coaling up his favorite 270, the rifle discharged accidentally, striking him in the left foot and neatly blowing off the second largest toe. Jack went down like a poleaxed steer, screaming in pain. By the time he could get his boot off, blood was everywhere. Eleanor, although early in her pregnancy, was not feeling all that well, and the panic, blood, and withering Arizona heat didn't help matters. When Jack pulled his bloody foot out of the boot, the toe remained in there. At this sight, O'Connor, not surprisingly, passed out. As some of us have found out to our chagrin, even a small man, when unconscious, weighs in the neiborhood of five thousand pounds. It must have been a herculean task for the trim Eleanor, in her somewhat delicate condition, to load the dead weight, bloody Jack into the car for the harried drive back into Tuscon".

I had the honor of meeting Elmer just once. No, we were not close friends, but in that one meeting I got the impression that here was a "real" man that shot straight and pulled no punches. Didn't have the chance, but I believe I would have truely enjoyed spending an evening talking, shooting and sharing a campfire with the man.

Never met O'Connor but from his writing and what others have said......I believe I would have enjoyed a visit with Jack MUCH less. He always seemed full of himself and had a superior air that would have rubbed the wrong way.

There is no doubt that Jack was a fine writer. Much better, technically, than Elmer and possibly one of the best wordsmiths who ever wrote on guns and shooting.

From what I understand, Elmer's writing was a "challenge" to any editor who had to prepare it for publication. As some have said, he wrote like he talked.......and that wasn't always so "pretty". However, the content in that writing was impressive to say the least.

As far as the famous fight over big-vs-small bore.....I think it had a lot to do with the way each of them learned to hunt.

Elmer grew up in tough times and often talked about "getting my winter's meat". He was not exagerating as he hunted in a time and place where "waiting" for a better shot might result in an empty freezer that year. His shots weren't always "perfect" as mirrored in his talk about bullet performance on "raking" shots that had to pass through muscle, bone and paunch. Elmer also hunted, primarilly, much larger game that O'Conner. Although both men took a variety of game, Elmer was first and formost an elk hunter while O'Connor was more of a deer-sheep guy.The size of the game definitely influenced what each thought of as a "proper" rifle.

Most of Elmer's hunting (particularly in the early years) was alone on public land and wilderness. He was often the guide who was responsible for making things right when a client screwed up. When not guiding he was basically "sustinence" hunting for his meat. All had an influence on what rifle he chose. Perfect broadside shots were not always presented, but the option to "pass up" a shot and wait had consiquences that might include going hungry that winter.

O'Connor was more of a "gentleman hunter" who was most often the one being guided and many times was on a private game reserve (particularly after he had the Outdoor Life silver spoon in his mouth and mostly went on paid vacations to hunt). If Jack "passed up" a shot to wait for a perfect opportunity, the worst he faced was wondering what kind of wine the prince would serve that night at dinner. When the only shot you will take is a broadside lung shot (which Jack often wrote was the "proper" way to take game.....and rightly so when possible) of course you can get by with less rifle.

A big part of why each advocated different rifles was the effect of recoil. Jack made no secret of the fact he DID NOT like to be kicked. Not that he COULDN't handle bigger guns.....but he certainly didn't enjoy it. If one reads Jacks writing without trying to prove a point you will find that he admitted that bigger guns were better overall than his beloved .270.....but he felt that if the bullet "was properly placed" his .270 was all that was needed (sort of a silly argument in my mind as a .22 LR if "properly placed" will also work, but it's not what I'd want to hunt Brown Bear with). The real reason Jack championed whe .270 was that he seldom took anything but "perfect" shots and got kicked less.

Elmer, on the other hand, was one of those rare individuals who was almost immune to recoil. He chose rifles based on the fact that he could make a kill from ANY angle presented and do it on the largest of game he might encounter......not on how hard it kicked. He did use all types of rifles in his life and admitted that the lighter guns (7x57, .270, ect.) were deadly if placed right......he just didn't want to be limited if things weren't "perfect". He did "hate" the small bores or think they would "bounce off" big game.....he just chose a better weapon for general use (and he DID hate inexperienced hunters who chose small bore rifles without the experience and judgement to use them properly).

Who was right.....probably both were. Small bores WILL work IF PROPERLY PLACED and big bores will kill better and more reliably particularly if the shot isn't "perfect".

It is a shame that there was a personal clash between the men.

Elmer seemed to resent the better educated, more privaleged, "pretty boy" who was catered to because of his position at Outdoor Life.

O'Connor, with his typical arrogance and superior airs, seemed to resent Elmer's ability and experience and seemed to feel he was an ignorant cowboy who shouldn't be allowed to rub shoulders with "real" writers who were educated and sophisticated.

If I had to choose which of the two would spend a week at camp with me, Elmer would win hands down. However, he'd have to pitch his tent on the other side of the camp. I bet he snored as much as I do. He'd have to bring his own whiskey, too.

Not that it matters, but I don't think that O'Connor ever suffered hardships and pain comparable to Elmer's � burned almost to death, broken hand, nose, and back, etc � not to mention hard work and meager income. He certainly enjoyed a lot more privilege and income than ever flowed Elmer's way.

I've read about everything both wrote and I guess we all pull different things out of this. Speculating on which one we would "enjoy" most is engaging in day dreaming I think.That Elmer seemed to have lived a hard, pioneer type existence may have been true enough....but in photos of him as a young man we see some pretty fine firearms made by Hoffman, DuBiel, and other custom makers.....he certainly looks content enough to me I'm sure those rifles did not come cheaply.....assuming of course that he paid for them.

That each spent a considerable amount of their younger years sort of "broke" is apparent in their writings, and I can't hold it against JOC that he went and got himself an education,became a college professor, etc.But the notion that he had lace panties because he did so is, I think,mostly "bull".

Also "bull" is the notion that JOC hunted game preserves and got his experience there, etc.He spent a large amount of time hunting desert sheep and deer in Mexico and the Southwest, on his own;elk in Arizona the same way.That he did an enormous amount of hunting is pretty apparent from his writings, as he not only wrote stories of his own hunts,but did excellent articles and books describing the country he hunted, the game habits, etc.

Elmer did very much the same things and this demonstrates that both had a boatload of experience in the country,and with the game they with which they were both familiar.

As to the country and game being responsible for their prefered choice of rifles and cartridges,well.....I dunno. Both used high velocity small bores including a variety of wildcat 7mm's,30 caliber magnums, medium bores from the 35 Whelen up through things like the 40's and 458's and 470' etc.

They were certainly both aware of the differences between these cartridges,and Elmer was a big fan of the 7mm Dubiel,and 285 OKH for much deer and antelope hunting;and JOC used the 338 here and in Africa,along with the 450 Watts,and 416 Rigby.And JOC hunted elk in Idaho many times with 270's and 7 mags.

I think their readers made more of the differences in their caliber choices than any real difference in the thought processes of the respective men themselves.If you read everything they wrote,we see that Elmer had good things to say about the 270 until we got to elk sized stuff;and O'Connor wrote more than once that 270 or 30/06 bullets were frequently stopped by elk shoulders but that 375 bullets frequently sailed right on through.In any even, I see a lot of overlap if you read objectively instead of picking and choosing through their writings.

I really can't look at the argument about bullet placement being at all "silly",as anyone who has done much hunting knows that sloppy placement,even with big bullets, does a lousy job of killing game.I know this because I have seen elk, black bear and deer hit poorly from 300's and 338 caliber bullets that were most certainly NOT "killed better" because they were hit with poorly with a big bore.This is urban myth that somehow lives on today; it is BS.I also note, if we read "safari", that Elmer spent a lot of time chasing wounded African game that was sloppily hit on the run with 333 caliber bullets...and JOC had a spot of trouble because IIRC he or Eleanor hit a kudu a bit far back with a 7x57.Proper placement is the essence of killing ability in BG hunting;we should know this today.


In the end there was a lot to learn from both and they set the tone for gun writing and BG hunting for over half a Century; but I suspect their fans were more talented in creating this vast gulf of differences between them than actually existed when it came to certain topics we deem important.

I never met either one,but I'm certain that I would have enjoyed meeting both of them.

Personnaly I think the two probably liked one another, what fun is taking a stand on an issue if noboby opposes you? Same as we do daily on this very forum the two of them made a pastime ( and a living in their case) out of telling others why the way they think is correct.

There is an O�Connor article in an old Gun Digest, probably from the 70�s, titled something like �it�s where you hit�em, not what you hit�em with�.

The veracity of that statement is seen daily here in reports by countless people who take deer with .223�s, elk with .243�s and so on. My signature indicates a certain agreement with that statement as well.

If you're hunting more for meat than for trophy, you don't want your game full of adrenalin. The worst game meat that I ever tried to eat had finally succumbed to a couple of my friends' inadequate rifles. Good placement resulted in death that wasn't sudden enough.

Heads on the wall don't suffer from an excess of adrenalin in the meat. "Dead in a few minutes" is as good as "dead now" when the skillet isn't a foremost consideration.

I've eaten old critters that were easy to chew and gentle on the taste buds because they never felt what had hit 'em.

Like Elmer, I'd like for my game to be dead before my bullet comes out the other side � an effect that isn't likely to occur but still worth trying for. I've always liked my friend Jack McPhee's description of a caribou that "dropped like an arm load of wet fish nets." I killed a goat that went down like that � NOT with a .22 Long Rifle or .25-20!

Then there's the humaneness of an instantaneous kill. I don't owe it to any critter to kill it, but I owe it to any critter that I kill to kill it as nearly painlessly as I can.

WOW the timing on this thread is perfect as I just last night finished reading my first O'Connor works (Lost Classics). I've really enjoyed reading this thread and getting insight from some of you who knew these guys. O'Connor was good at telling a story and I enjoyed reading the book, it was really an insight into bygone days. I realize that Jack was a very prolific writer and this book was a very limited example but a few thoughts came to mind after reading his works;

- cats, buffalo, elephant, plains game and more in Africa, North American Sheep, bear, elk, deer, cats, caribou, tigers in India, sheep in Iran, etc....what a life!! You can argue that he was privileged or not all I know is I would love to experience any of these hunts!!

- he seemed very interested in being in the record books, inches of horn and placement of animals in the all time records seemed very important to him

- With all the discussion of him preaching perfect shot placement he wasn't shy about recounting bad shots (leg hits, hind qtrs, gut shots), not sure if it was due to him seemingly having a willingness to shoot at running animals (at short and LONG range) or not but have to give him credit for relaying the story as it happened, seems today all I read about and see on TV are one shot perfect hits at ever increasing distances.

- I enjoyed how he included detailed equipment, load and bullet info into his stories

Few Questions:
-Did Jack ever develop any liking for the 257? He was very down on it when mentioned in this collection?
-What became of all the pictures and movies he took? His guns and mounts?


Elmer Keith was also just a little before my time, and I've never read him, can someone recommend a good place to start?

Couldn't agree more. Heck, I let lobsters in cheap chablis before I throw them in. No flapping tails in boiling water any more.

Most of the O'Connor public legacy AFAIK was divided between the University of Idaho - Moscow and Washington State University - Pullman - I think because his children went there. University of Idaho had some full body skeletons museum mount and such on a top floor as I recall while WSU got the library and literary estate and some heads I think. But I could be completely wrong.

Some of the otherwise fungible (except for the associaton) guns, again as I recall O'Connor had a collection for show of, presumably gifts when new variations came out with a #7 serial but it may have been something else and I could be wrong made the auction and gun show circuit shortly after his death - maybe bought out as a lot and broken up? Don't know. Duplicates of a well documented sheep rifle have been offered on the instant collectible market as I recall.

Bradford has stayed active in the shooting community - last I knew was quite a few years ago now at a big double gun shoot in Eastern Oregon that was IIRC correctly written up in the Wolfe publications - and is I think more universally liked than his father. Jack was reputed to have a sharp abrasive and interesting vocabulary for a given time and place tongue for such things as local school board style activity in Lewiston. Both Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith can be proud of their repective sons and that too says something I think.

As for where to start with Elmer Keith I'd say start with the Winchester Press edition of his autobiography - Keith. I think it benefitted from editing. A friend of mine who had the greatest respect for Keith - and although a generation or maybe two younger knew people who lived and sometimes worked with Elmer in Salmon - read Hell I was There over a bad weekend in the hospital and found the book ultimately a downer. As noted Elmer lived a very hard life.

No question in my mind that Elmer Keith always and forever told the truth precisely as he saw it including all the things some folks don't believe - I'm quite sure that had there been a camera and recorder on the scene the movie would be very close to what Keith reported.

I've sometimes thought the conclusions reached included finding major differences when a lab test after n tries would have found no significant differences. My point is not to knock a man for reporting differences he really did see but rather to say that Elmer never fudged what some people might call dry labbed an observation to meet expectations. It has been reported that Elmer once in a while had an opinion in excess of his expertise as frex on the place of glass bedding and synthetics when stocking rifles - maybe so maybe not - but in taking lessons from the writings it pays to remember the time and place written and how times and hardware and land access and game management have changed.

After that the books can I think be divided into hunting stories and hardware stories and read whatever strikes your fancy - start with whatever is on hand at your local library or easy to get. Petersen printed and reprinted a lot in full letter size format and there is a good deal of mix and match with some obscurity about when a paragraph was first written so again draw conclusions with that in mind. Remember it's another age and the difference between Major Askins and Colonel Askins and all the rest. A great new discovery awaits.

duxndogs:Which "257"?... .....He was a very big fan of the 257 Roberts,which was used extensively by his wife and sons(and himself) for varmints,deer, antelope, etc.

Somewhere here, I have a letter signed by him when he was with Outdoor Life and I wrote to him asking for loads for the Roberts. His recommendation was 39 gr 4064 with the 100 gr bullet...

I suspect he preferred the Roberts to the Weatherby 257....

"As for where to start with Elmer Keith I'd say start with the Winchester Press edition of his autobiography - Keith. I think it benefitted from editing. A friend of mine who had the greatest respect for Keith - and although a generation or maybe two younger knew people who lived and sometimes worked with Elmer in Salmon - read Hell I was There over a bad weekend in the hospital and found the book ultimately a downer. As noted Elmer lived a very hard life."

Very true. I have both the books mentioned and while the Winchester Press version is good reading, from what I understand Elmer hated it. It seems Elmer had a somewhat distinctive manner of talking and the Winchester Press version removed that distinction.
In Hell, I Was There, his manner of speech was left intact and gives a much better picture of the man. Either book is a good read but my preference is for Hell, I Was There.
There use to be a hunting and fishing channel on Comcast and on one of the commercials, they showed a group rafting down some river., then people camping I suppose for the night anf here is this short stocky little fellow chopping wood like mad. Yup, it was Elmer, big old hat and sixgun doin' the chores. What a thrill that would be to find a copy of that old silent movie on a DVD somewhere. If anyone knows of it, let me know cuz I'd sure as hell buy a copy.
Paul B.

When I first knew Elmer, he was known as "the dean of American hunting guides" (and was so identified in one of the earliest Gun Digest articles).

He was also well known for taking rafting groups down the Salmon River (the "River of No Return").

I was lucky enough to spend time in both of their homes.

In 1971 I was 21. I met Mr O'Connor by calling directory assistance, getting his number, and driving about 5 hours. He said he would give me an hour. When I arrived in Lewison he met me at the front door and took me out back to his study. He was tall, gruff, and polite but not too eager. He had a deep booming voice. After we visited about 30 minutes, he knew I had read everything he had written and had committed it to memory. I addition I asked questions rather than argued. We ended up visiting for nearly four hours. He took me thru his home and took me upstairs. He had a desk there where he did most of his writing. He also had one very old dictation machine. He seemed to enjoy the visit nearly as much as I did. He did tell me that he never knew what was going to show up at his front door and that he really disliked those who felt it necessary to debate (argue) with him. We corresponded until his death.

I met Mr Keith because I had a summer job that took me in and out of Salmon. Everyone in town knew where he lived. I think I called first. He asked that I stop by right after dinner. We sat on the front porch and his wife brought out two very big bowls of vanilla ice cream. I saw him at least two more times and the pattern was always the same. His wife was a school teacher whereas Mr Keith had little formal education. She rewrote all of his articles for Guns & Ammo. He always had his 4" 44 Smith on his hip. There was a hole in his favorite leather chair where the handgun had rubbed.

Both were very kind and generous. O'Connor had a very quick wit. Our conversation covered a wide range of things. He was much more technically aware than I thought. He told me that he wrote to educate the novice rather than discuss fine points. He mentioned that his writing covered a four year cycle of topics. Keith was very concrete. Talking with him was just like reading his writings. He said the same things.

I did handle O'Connor's 6mm Rem, both 270's, a mauser 30/06, a 375 and a Rigby. I didn't ask to look at Keith's sidearm. It was more like an extension of him...too personal for such a request.

The middle paragraph of this post gives some insight into Larry's "goals" as for as writing is concerned . Had he stuck to guns and hunting topics things would not have gotten so upside down . In fact , it was his disdain for JO - which surfaced in another thread - that got him crossways with some on here .

Exactly the tenet Berger Bullets adheres to now.

This is not a knock on either man. Both of them made their living by writing. Controversy sells magazines and pays salaries. Therefore, I take with a grain of salt both their positions on "large versus fast". Ditto on Mr. Weatherby; he was in the business of selling rifles. For me, when I disregard the extreme positions of each I find a better understanding and respect for them all.

One other thing. Most of the controversy of that era can be summed up in one word: bullets. We have much better bullets today and that makes both arguments mostly moot.

With that said, I don't hunt deer with a .243Win or elk with a .270Win. There is a much larger selection of rifles and cartridges today (and money to buy them) that allows me to better match the cartridge to the game. A quick and sure death for the game animal is much more important to me than bragging rights.

JMHO.

That is not exactly accurate as a Berger VLD penetrates several inches before is explodes VS a normal explosive bullet that starts expanding immediately. In other words, on a chest shot the Berger's penetrate the chest cavity, then explode. Which of course knocks the crap out of animals.

Elmer's house, this Sunday morning

"Hell,I Was There" is pretty much all you need.I own pretty much everything the man ever put in print,short of some of the really rare titles,and it's by far the best thing he ever put out IMHO.I've probably read it cover to cover 20 times,at least.

This thread actually makes me want to read it again,in fact.The story about traveling to Alaska by boat and hunting for grizzly bear is without a doubt my favorite hunting story ever,bar none.

Brian.

�Hell, I Was There� is his autobiography. �Gun Notes� Volumes I and II are compendiums of his articles. Some of the info in them is sort of dated as it talks about rifles and firearms no longer made but a lot of it is timeless. Plus, they are the best way to give you a first hand look at what all the hubbub about Elmer was about. �Sixguns� by Keith is another classic that is useful to this day.

E.g., had the new Bisley Blackhawk .44 Special out at the range last weekend and from the offhand position was popping the ringer set out at 230 yards. I learned how to shoot handguns at long range specifically from reading Elmer�s articles on that subject.

Just posted another Elmer note on the "tragedy with a Model 70" thread.

About the PO Ackley incident, without digging "Hell I was There" out of the packing cases, wasn't Elmer in his position as an inspector at the arsenal rejecting barrels, and that action on his part lead to the sabotage?

I think Hell I Was There would make one Hell of a movie.

Elmer was right about handguns because they haven't evolved much since 1880. Rifles, however, are another matter.

O

I was one who grew up with Outdoor Life and read Jack O all the time. My dad and I would sit in the living room watching
the Saturday hunting shows of the time....and dreaming about our "big safari" that we would someday take. My dad always enjoyed reading anything by Jack and would always pass it along to me. No wonder that both of us loved the .270 Win. I still have several in the cabinet and use them quite often. I don't think that Jack was so "into himself".....I believe he was a
"rifleman's rifle" shooter and that is what he called the Model 70 Win. at that time. He, being the journalist that he was, usually just reported the facts, and expounded on his hunting trips (I don't care that he got the royal treatment and paid vacations to do his job)I think everything I read by him was pretty objective and he added a lot of detail to the loads, equipment and other items he enjoyed about his research and his safaris. I don't have a dog in the "caliber wars" fight as all my hunting is done in the "lower 48", especially here in my home state of Az...and my trusty old .270's do their job just fine on anything I will likely encounter in my lifetime. Count me as a big fan of Jack O'Connor and I miss reading his literature.

Excellent thread!
My 73 year old hunting partner spent several of his youth years in Salmon back in the 40's and 50's. He knew the Keith family and Sheriff Baker's family very well. His father went on a few pack trips with Elmer.
They eventually moved to Lewiston and he bacame freinds with O'Connor and Mr. Speer.
I have spoken with Ted Keith and a few of the folks who know Elmer well back in Salmon, including the fellow that was his gunsmith after Ed Schaller quit doing his work.
Great stuff for sure!
Photo #1 from left: Lorraine, Elmer, D. Martindale & W. Williamson - Just before a hunt in the mid 1940's
Photo #2 from left: Lorraine, my friend, my friends mom, Ted Keith and Elmer - 1940's
Photo #3 is my freind on one of Elmer's horses....the same horse is seen in a photo towards the back of Elmer's Big Game book.

THREEDFLYER: Excellent and thanks for the contribution to a great thread!

WOW!! THANKS!!!

I grew up reading everything Jack O'Connor wrote, I loved the 270 caliber & took many elk with it using 130 gr Hornady bullets. There's no doubt he was a very gifted writer & the articles about sheep hunting would make anyone feel like they were right there with him.
One time he penned an article about sheep hunting in old Mexico & made the statement that there were 2 ways to go about it, first was, you took your chances like everyone else & patiently waited for your number to be called...or something along those lines.
The other way was to "know" the right people in Mexico & they could make anything happen, that was O'Connor's method & he kind of rubbed it in everyone's face, from then on I never cared for him.
Although I never met Jack O'Connor I did meet Elmer Keith several times & he was much bigger than 5' 6", he was more like 10' 14"!! I liked everything about him & for sure he was the real deal. His shooting was witnessed by many people over several decades, you notice that even later in life he didn't wear glasses, that really helps.
It was Ross Seyfried who said Elmer Keith was the best shot he ever knew with the rifle, shotgun & sixgun combined.
I really enjoyed going out back to his "writing" & trophy room behind the house, it was an old converted garage & many of the animals at the Elmer Keith museum in Boise were in that old building. A couple of times when I was there I had my wife with me & she would visit with Lorraine in the house while I went out back with Elmer, it was a special time.
On one trip I was delivering a Ruger #1 in 45/70 to Jed Wilson, a lawman in Salmon, he had told Elmer I was coming & Elmer met me at the door, 4" model 29 on his hip & a stogie (cigar) in his hand, the women visited & I would buy another book, Elmer would sign it & we would go out back for some real visiting, it was great, he was always polite & I never heard him swear, some people have said he swore a lot, I don't believe it.
I'll tell you one thing he hated more than anything on earth...Golden Eagles!
This is one of the books Elmer signed for me back in the mid 70's.








These next photos were lost for over 20 years, one of my son's found them this summer. I had always thought I took this photo of Elmer holding the 45/70 I sold to Jed Wilson, after seeing the photo's he's holding one of his own #1's, I think it was in 458 Winchester.


You can just make out the 4" model 29 on his hip, its in a Hank Sloan holster, either made by Lawrence or by Milt Sparks.


If the wood paneling in Elmer's trophy room looks familiar to some of you its because the paneling was removed & placed in the Elmer Keith museum in Calelas in Boise.

[img]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/029_29-2.jpg[/img]
I've been asked many times why I didn't get a photo of me & Elmer together... I can't answer that, I thought I did have one but have never found it if I did, back in the 70's was way before digital & taking a self portrait was more difficult, plus I might have been embarassed to ask!

Dick

That photo is gold.

Thanks for sharing,
Brian.

Thanks , all of you for this GREAT thread.

Wonderful writings about our icons and friends !

GTC

Very nice, and thank you for the info!

This has been a great thread. It may be the longest running threads in CF history. I have always had a great admiration for Keith and O'Connor. It was a time in our history that most of us never experienced, and we will never see again.
Tim

I have read many comments that indicate Elmer was a really nice guy but I have often wondered if he had a sense of humor.
In his stories and articles he always seems as serious as a heart attack.

It's a blast finding treasures such as these photos.......
I sent them to Ted Keith and he says they are the best photos of his house that he has from that time period.
Tom

All I can say is, "Wow!!!". Those are some incredible photos and stories. I love hearing about what some of my gunwriting heroes as a kid were really like by people who had met them and knew them- and those who I just admired because they owned, used, loved, and got to write about guns, but whose work I didn't see on a regular basis.

Also wanted to add a thought I just had about these what-were-the-gunwriters-really-like threads. In spite of the fact that I've learned at least a few were jerks, at least a couple were theives, etc.; I've not been nearly as devasted as I was when I started learning that my Hollywood heroes (mostly as a kid, but even years later) were and are almost universally scumbags.

I never Met Keith personally but I knew O,Connor quite well. Jack once told me that Elmer Keith had more hot air in him than a balloon. I never bothered to read Keith's stories after reading the first.It was clear to me that his stories were mostly fake. I mean come on, a small black bear is 17 hit times with a 270 and runs into the next county where he's finally finished off with 2 shots from a 450 Westley Richards? Elmer Keith's writings are sort of like WWF wrestling. Jack's writings were the real thing and Jack was the real thing. In one of Jack's conversation's with a friend he said and I quote, ( Who will ever replace me?) Answer, NO ONE.

I never Met Keith personally but I knew O,Connor quite well. Jack once told me that Elmer Keith had more hot air in him than a balloon. I never bothered to read Keith's stories after reading the first.It was clear to me that his stories were mostly fake. I mean come on, a small black bear is 17 hit times with a 270 and runs into the next county where he's finally finished off with 2 shots from a 450 Westley Richards? Elmer Keith's writings are sort of like WWF wrestling. Jack's writings were the real thing and Jack was the real thing. In one of Jack's conversation's with a friend he said and I quote, ( Who will ever replace me?) Answer, NO ONE.

INCOMING!!!!

Oddly enough it was clear to me that his stories were precisely as Mr. Keith saw them - and he had good eyes.

Although of a younger generation (though today over 65 and retired myself) and I never more than met Mr. Keith I have enough connection with folks in Salmon to have heard stories I believe to be true that are repeated simply because the story portrays Mr. Keith as very human particularly in a law enforcement role.

But equally whatever faults and flaws the man had - and I do believe it improved his character no end to become a grand old man - let me go on record as saying that I have never heard anybody, even in the midst of mentioning a personal disagreement, suggest that anything at all about Mr. Keith was fake.

I think Jack O'Connor was equally inclined to be as accurate as he could be knowing that his audience included folks of all sorts and the only knock on Mr. O'Connor that I might sustain was that like say some Hollywood stars Mr. O'Connor maybe believed that being a world class expert in one thing meant his opinion on say the schools should be given extra weight and used langauge to emphasize that point beyond all reason.

Finally in lessons learned from these and other gun writers I must say that the emphasis on equipment over skills in their writings teaches the wrong lesson.

Mr. Barsness tells of another fine fine writer with a touch of the poet who with 10 gauge really could kill geese at 75 yards reliably. If I ever so much as contemplate taking a 75 yard shot at geese with a 10 gauge and red dot sight I hope my family recognizes that I'm ripe for commitment.

I'll do much better hunting Idaho generally with something like Bob Hagel's .340 Weatherby than with a .270 Winchester but climbing with say a NULA in .270 Winchester. I've seen times I could have killed an elk for the books with the .22 rimfire magnum in a High Standard derringer we used for casual slaughter and such but (family property familiar terrain from above put one in the skull between ear and eye) but writing it up - I passed on the shot because like Vance Bourjailly I took no pleasure in harvesting family members but the sheds are in the room next to me and would be a trophy - would prove nothing about adequate elk cartridges - and as the saying goes: don't tell Elmer but in some of the lower terrain - in the pines in the pines where the sun never shines - Elmer was absolutely right.

Unless Jack O. was hauling you around on a leash, you have no idea if he was the "Real Thing".
As far as a replacement, Carmichael, his replacement, has more firearm knowlege in his little finger.

I'm sure Carmichael is very knowlegable but he also has zero personality, and I'm speaking from experience.
To compare Carmichael to O,Connor is like comparing A fresh T bone steak to last week's haddock dinner

I've found that the only ones who criticize Jack O,Connor never met him. Quite frankly when I hear someone say that O,Connor didn't know anything I cannot help but feel that I'm listening to a total idiot.If there was ever a down to earth guy who called the shots where they landed it was Jack.I knew Jack for many years and visited him on many times, I also ended up buying 5 rifles from him including Eleanor's 30/06. The Jack O.Connor I knew was a straightforward guy who had little tolerance for BS.I began reading O,Connor as a teenager and grew up with him. His writings intrigued me from the very beginning. Even now I never read any other writers articles but instead read Jack's old stories over and over although by now I know every word.

Surely you jest!
Let's not forget Carmichael retired from OL, O'Connor was tossed out like last weeks haddock dinner.
And yes, I do enjoy reading O'Conner, But the list of better writers with vastly more experience is long.

Please enlighten me on who these writers are? Vastly more experience hunting what game? I'll give Boddington the nod on African game, but no writer I know of today has even half of JOC's experience on wild sheep or most other western big game. One's opinion of how well a guy writes is just that, and for some I'm sure neither of these two top the list.

I think most here are in agreement that O'Connor was a very gifted writer, that isn't my disagreement here. He was one of the top sheep hunters of all time.
You met O'Connor but never met Elmer Keith, have you ever heard of anyone who seen him shoot that said he couldn't! He shot in competition for decades. Ross Seyfried was a handgun world champion & he made the statement that Keith was the best he had ever seen with all 3 guns, rifle, shotgun & sixgun, if you've ever read anything about Ross Seyfried you'll know he does not BS, ever!
My biggest gripe with O'Connor was that he was very much into himself, your statement that he mentioned to someone else...who is going to replace me....now that speaks volumes!!

Dick

We heard you the first itme

Les Bowman had "far" more experience on western game hunting and harvasting of said game. If you don't believe me, O'Conner admited as much in "The Hunting Rifle". Of course he really had no choice.

Sir you are a fortunate man to have known the O'Connors and to have some of their rifles. I loved that man's writings from the age of about 8 and at 62 I still read his books over and over. I think that Mr. O'Connor may have had little tolerance for some people or things but that never took away my admiration for him. The only writer I think that compares today is our own John Barsness and I enjoy all of his writings very much. I gave up on Rifle magazine when John left. Thanks...

I never had the good fortune to meet Elmer Keith, but I did have occasion to write him. When I came to Alaska in 1950, he responded to my questions without impatience or condescension. No one wrote like Keith, but I found his letters to be helpful, interesting, and much like having a chat with a friend. This was always the case. In his last letter, shortly before his illness, he stated that he was 82 years young. Others may fault him, but for me, he will always be one I admired.

In one of Jack's conversation's with a friend he said and I quote, ( Who will ever replace me?) Answer, NO ONE.

That threw me for a loop.

Were you a friend to J.C.?

comparing Jack O,Connor to the writers today is like comparing today's film starts to those of yesteryear. To me the current gun writers seem like a Brad Pitt while O,connor is more like a Henry Fonda or a Gregory Peck.The older film starts had more class just as the older cars were more classic than the all look-a likes today. I do not disagree that some of the current writers are perhaps more knowledgeable than Old Jack was, but I have yet to read an article by any of them that held my interest the way Jack,s writings did and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Another example is chess. Today Boris Spassky is ranked 104 in the world. mention the name Spassky to 100 people on the street and 90 of them will respond, " oh yes, the chess champion" Mention the name Kasparov or Kramnik and you would probably get the same response from 2 or 3 even though they are the two highest rated players on the globe. So yes, when O,connor said, who will they get to replace me he wasn't being arrogant, he was right on target. I just wish I could relive those wonderful trips from Toronto to his home in Lewiston Idaho. Every day I got closer my anticipation of another meeting with him grew. On my last visit he offered to sell me his 270-70 for $ 1.500.00. I didn't have the scratch on me and told him that I would probably get it on the next trip. Anyway, my friend Henry Kaufman ended up getting it and I have been kicking myself in the butt ever since.
Alex Schimek.

Yes, I knew him quite well

Like most of the other old farts here I too grew up reading both of those guys and as a kid took most of what they said to heart. They both brought something to the party.

In my adult years I developed a fondness for the written word and my "heroes" became those who could express their thoughts in an elegant manner. Re-reading the old tales by both Kieth and O'Connor left me with the distinct feeling that someone was sprucing up Elmer's writing in order to make it readable. I have since been led to believe that was indeed the case. While both spun a good tale, and disseminated equally useful information, I now lean toward O'Connor for nostalgic reading simply for his command of the English language. I feel that all other things being equal that is the deciding factor when analyzing a person who makes a living with the pen.

Speaking of Les Bowman, Google him and a page pops up aurthered by his granddaughter that tells about how he and his wife were pioneering aviators, ran flight schools during WWII, and did other amazing things besides run a ranch and guide hunters. A really great read!

I find that most new chums are hungry for technical knoweldge with fact based opinion attached to it. When they ask a question, they really want to learn and know what you think, or they wouldn't ask the question.

I never heard of Jo'C until a year after his death when Guns & Ammo put out a special publication and yet I enjoyed it.

Elmer was featuerd in G&A mags for some years before his death and I read that with interest but being an Aussie where we put absolutely no-one on a pedestal, (cultural advantage sometimes) it was easy to see that Elmer had the same failings as most old time writers in that they condemned cartridges because of bullet failure.

Reading his work was akin to reading sports car magazines because he used high performance cartridges which was always interesting.

Personnally, my opinion is that JB, whom I have never met and never heard of until I came ont the fire, is the best writer since Hagel and has a knack for splicing opinion with findings when he writes, so that even someone like myself with 48 years firearms experience can still learn and is happy to do so.

We have the best of times now, because we can both reflect on what was, and enjoy what is here now. That is a tremendous library of knowledge.

JW

Did he show you all the record book critters he killed ? Must have been a lot since he got to go to all those good hunting places on somebody else's dime .

Do you think Elmer hunted in Africa on his own dime? Or make some of those trips to Alaska and Canada? ALL of the old time writers got free hunts, paid for by employers or wealthy friends/adoring fans or by the outfitters themselves...still happens today. Do you believe that Craig Boddington, who has made at least 100 safaris to Africa, as well as trips all over the globe, has managed to pay for all of this on his own?

Your point assuming you have one??

Different professions carry with them different benefits....we don't bemoan the airline pilot who flies for free;nor the hunting outfitter from British Columbia who swaps a grizzly hunt with his contemporary in Wyoming or Montana for a Rocky Mountain bighorn hunt.......

Yet some small minds cannot resist the temptation to take a backhanded slap at a gun writer of substantial prominence who, in the course of his employment and profession(which he earned by being skilled at his craft)had the opportunity to avail himself of a free hunt.Forgotten is the fact that a likewise benefit incurred to the outfitter, in publicity,.... to the magazine for which the writer wrote, providing entertainment to untold thousands and fueling dreams of similar hunts,and of course to the writer as well.I see nothing reprehensible in all of this,and the writer is not in any way diminished in my mind.

I suspect this attitude prevails among those unable to do such hunts for any variety of reasons,jealous of the benefits flowing to others as a result of their lifes work.

To depracate a great writer, who helped popularize our sport,educated and entertained untold thousands(millions?) over two or three generations,and who,even three decades after his death, is still the subject of great conversation, is carping and sniping at the highest level,and the work of morons.

Spot on BobinNH, you hit it out of the park!!!!!!

I couldn't care less except to ask them how I could do the same thing.

...isn't that what bears do in the woods?????

gmoats: Deprecate .....that better?

Think I have nothing better to do than do spell check for Campfire posts? Humblest apologies. I'll call you for editing before my next post.........geeeezzz.

Lighten up Bob, it was meant to be humorous--it's almost Thanksgiving, be thankful for JOC and EK or something--no need to be defensive over a play on words--Happy Thanksgiving.
Greg

Greg have a great Thanksgiving...and if you are hunting I hope you are successful.

Kevin Jay,

Don't know where you get your information that O'Connor "was tossed out like last weeks haddock dinner." Probably the same place as "the list of better writers with vastly more experience."

To set the record straight, I'll give it to you straight from O'Connor's pen. "In 1972 I was 70 years old. The Popular Science Publishing Company had been bought by Times-Mirror. When the fine print of the contract was thoroughly gone over it was found that those of us on the staff who were over 65 would have to retire by June 1 if they were to receive pensions warranted by their age. If they stayed on the staff after that and then retired they would lose considerable money--in my case around $175 a month. Bill Rae and I made a deal. I'd retire but my name would be on the masthead as hunting editor. I would write six to eight stories and articles a year for a good fee and on subjects of my own choosing, including guns and shooting.

A year after I retired as gun (shooting) editor Bill Rae himself reached 65 and decided to put himself out to pasture. As his successor he chose a young man who had been managing editor under him. This guy seemed amiable enough but he was not a hunter, not a fisherman, and not a writer. He had never struck me as a person of great force. I told Bill I didn't think he would do. He did not agree with me.

The first thing he did was to write me and tell me that since Outdoor Life had a new shooting editor he didn't want me to do any gun or shooting stuff for the front of the book. This was contrary to a signed agreement I had but I said nothing. Next he wrote me that he wanted to be able to put his finger on me at any time. I was to call him and get his permission if I left my desk. Again I said nothing. Then I sent in the first piece I had written since his take-over. I got it back with four pages of instructions about how it should be rewritten.

At any rate when I had read the editor's letter I realized that if I stayed with Outdoor Life it would be like being nibbled to death by rabbits. I made a telephone call and told the editor I was leaving. (As an aside, Al Biesen was present during O'Connor's call to Outdoor Life and told me about it) I made another call to George Martin soon to be publisher of the newly-hatched magazine, Hunting--I was added to the staff and this was one of the most fortunate moves I have ever made!" O'Connor related all this in the Outdoor Magazines chapter of his The Last Book. It can be found on pages 27 and 28.

TT

curdog4570

O'Connor never made it a secret that his hunts were paid for by his employer, Outdoor Life Magazine. Obviously, considering the material generated from these hunts that appeared in the magazine, his employer felt well justified in the return on their investment. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have done it don't you think?

TT

tsquare
Ok, I will happily admitt the fish thing was, how shall we say, a bit over the top. How about we say, to quote a well known writer, "forcibly retired"

As far as better writers go, that is my opinion. Agree or not, it is still mine.

As far as hunters with more experience, I already named one, I'll give you another, Warren Page. Over 500 head of game with the various 7mm's, although the 375 Weatherby was his favorite. Read "One Man's Wilderness, very enjoyable.

I own "The Hunting Rifle" and "The complete book of Rifles and Shotguns", have read both several times over the years and enjoyed both.

ALL of you missed the point of my post . My point is the same one Big Stick made several years ago :

HE SHOT DINKS !!

The question about his "record book trophies " was tongue in cheek since it's a well known fact that ;

HE SHOT DINKS !!

Kevin Jay,

I have no disagreement with your preference in writers. As you say, that is your opinion. My semi-objection was to the "more experienced" comment than to your choice of writers. By the way, I do have and have read "One Man's Wilderness," by Warren Page. I did enjoy it.

If you, by the term "forcibly retired," are referring to his age forcing retirement, then I will agree with you. However, the tone I got in your comment was that he was fired. I don't believe that is factually accurate.

TT

The hear say becomes fact to you, right?

I have enjoyed almost all of the writers mentioned in this thread....and was fortunate enough to meet a few (did not know them well, but did meet them).

To me the difference between O'Connor and Keith (as well as several of the others mentioned) was the attitude O'Conner seemed to reek of....that of a spoiled rich boy who thought he was "above" anyone else who didn't have his privaleged lifestyle (paid-for hunts, education and trophies "earned" by money and position.

O'Connor was likely the best wordsmith who ever wrote for the "outdoors" press......very few will question that. His years as a professor and technical ability as a writer were unmatched. Hell, the man could have written an article about shooting rats in the backyard and made it entertaining.

What he lacked was the humility and honesty.....and experience in real-life situations....that others had. When you read the works of Elmer Keith, Bob Hagle or Warren Page, you come away with the feeling that these men could be dropped cold into any enviroment, anywhere....and succeed with just their own ability as a hunter.

With O'Connor, I always got the impression that he'd succeed too.....due to the latest Prince or Potentate's private hunting grounds, or due to the skill of the high-priced guide who held his hand. Maybe not fair, but that's the impression he gave......and lorded the ability to make such hunts over the heads of anyone else.

With Keith or Hagel (both of whom I did meet) I always came away believing any opinion they expressed was due to "personal" experience. Maybe not always as "accurate" as things DID change during their lifetimes, but totally "honest".

With O'Connor, it was more a feeling that if "everything is perfect".... which in his mind it would be if one had the advantages of hunting the places and situations he did, and anyone who didn't have those advantages was somehow "less of a hunter" than Jack....such-and-such would work.

To me, if one followed the advice of Keith, Hagel and Page, you would seldom be far from wrong. With O'Connor.....not so much.

However, I would never, EVER, say Jack wasn't a great writer because he was.....just a little lacking as a "hunter" and "earned" opinion. Some may disagree with that final statement, but have no doubt that O'Connor was a GREAT writer....but writer doesn't nessisarily translate into great HUNTER.

And Keith shot Rowland Ward and Boone & Crockett specimens?

TT

Actually I would call it "Read Say".

You say that like its a BAD thing.....

And of course you take it as fact, right? Without any other facts and discoubt O'Conner's version. Amazing

9'8" lion-Zambia 1969
40 1/2' Sable Zambia 1969
310 bull elk idaho 1966
9 foot lion-Caprivi Strip 1962
3 rams over 40" in the course of "how many" grand slams?
60" Kudu
9'9" Tiger India 1955
44 1/2" Sable 1953
9'7" Lion-Tanganyika 1953
43.5" Cape buffalo-Tanganyika 1953
176 7/8 BC Dall Sheep Yukon 1950
178 BC Bighorn ram listed in 3 editions of Boone and Crockett-Alberta 1953
167 2/8 stone sheep and a 175 6/8 Stone sheep, both taken in BC,1946.Listed as #10 and #19 in the 1952 B&C Record Books.
359 1/8 B&C Mountain Caribou Yukon 1945.
38 1/2" Dall- Yukon 1945
340 B&C elk Wyoming 1954

Ad nauseum, ad infinitum....we won't talk about the Mule Deer over 30",Whitetails, Coues Deer, Desert Sheep, etc

Dinks?He shot dinks?....we didn't miss your point.Those sound like dinks to you? Listed above?

Curdog, you sound like a horses ass......to anyone who knows what they are talking about

Bob - you want to bring facts into the discussion? That's not fair!

I wonder if he has to work at being a "Horses Ass" or does it just come Naturally???

5sdad: oopps!Sorry! I forgot......

No facts....just delusion.

All I can say is that your easily amazed.

All that I can say is you are easily swayed, facts be dammed rumor carries the day

Kevin can you tell me what page that is on in the Hunting Rifle?Or at least which article? I can't seem to recall.....thanks for the help.

Will see what I can do.

As far as who paid (pays) for writers trips, I can remember reading what O'Co wrote about one of his first safaries, in the early 50's, I think.

He stated that the permit for an extra game animal, I don't remember what it was, but the price was about $50.00 and he did not have it to spare.

I think at the start, Outdoor Life split expenses with Jack. I don't know what percentage.

If I am not mistaken, Guns & Ammo paid for all, or at least most of the expenses on Elmer's African trips.

I don't recall mentioning Mr. Keith .

All you O'Conner admirers on this thread sound just like him .

Bye --- I'm goin' huntin'.

Don't let the door hit you

I misspoke. Jack wrote an article called "Some notes on Big-Game Cartridges when he was 70 years old. If I may:

"There are people with enough experience, knowledge,and objectivity so that I will believe them. One of these was the late Colonel Townsend Whelen. His stuff always made sense to me and checked with my own experience. Another guy I always take seriously is Les Bowman, who has had a more extensive and more varied North American hunting experience than anyone I know of, including myself".

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.

John, very well done. If I may add one small thing - you mentioned that today experience seems to equal animals killed. You forgot to mention "and photographed". Best, John

Well, yeah, especially digitally....

How's the fall going?

Well said, JB.

John - had a great Canadian fishing trip. Haven't spent as much time sitting in trees with a bow as I probably should have. Managed to shoot right over the back of a decent 8-point due to an error in distance judging. Loving every minute of it. Best, John

Sounds good to me!

I haven't shot at anything with headgear yet. Mostly have been spending a lot of time hunting with family and friends, which seems a lot more important than antlers and horns anymore....

John,

I strongly agree with your comment about nearly every thread turning into a pissing contest and think that it gets really old, really quick, while not contributing to the community as a whole. It has gotten so bad that I may start putting a disclaimer on all of my comments, something like "YMMV and since my experience is mine alone, your experience is likely to be different.".

Jeff

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?

Well said, Tom.

And as Tiny Tim said, God bless us one and all!

+1, excellent post

Another good post and spot on...

Kevin: Thanks.That must be from "The Last Book".Speaks well for Bowman.

Your welcome. From a book called "GUN TALK", Winchester Press, 1973, Edited by Dave Moreton.

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.

Pretty much says it all.....I have read a good deal of Bowman's stuff.Savvy guy.

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.

Even guys like Hagel, who was drawn somewhat more to the medium magnums,was always careful to emphasize that recoil beyond your ability to handle it was not conducive to good shooting.Interestingthat his favorite was the 7mmMashburn, though.

Overall this seems to be the message that guys like Page, Bowman, O'Connor, Jobson, etc passed on and we see it today as well with writers like JB and others.......except once in awhile we are told you need a 300 magnum for mule deer....but that can be forgiven as a trifling distraction.

I sure would like to have that 5 1/2 pound Beretta Barrett owned!

Oh, yeah!

Pete also had a real nice collection of nifty fly-fishing tackle.

Happy Thanksgiving!

And 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."

Also, my friend Elmer wanted the critter to be dead, dead, dead about the same time as the bullet stopped inside the critter or came out through the hide on the other side � the ultimate bang-flop. He'd had to track (and had lost) far too many clients' wounded critters through the dog-hair tangle that's so common in good Idaho and Montana elk country. He wanted 'em to go down, as our mutual friend Jack McPhee said, "like an armload of wet fish nets."

Dead later, no matter how soon later, wasn't quite good enough.

Interesting turn of phrase with "ALL the good gunwriters..." (emphasis mine)in connection with what follows it.

Right on!

Proven principles and techniques first and most prominently, the newest technology and ballistics opinions runner-ups far behind!

Not to piss anyone off, but I've also found that the more experience a person has, the less they trust "technology".

Yes it's true that bullets are much better and more "deadly" than in years past and certain rifle calibers CAN be used for a given purpose that would have been unreliable with the bullets from 20 or 30 years (or more) ago.

For this to "work" things have to be just right. IF a super-bullet is used, IF it hits with just the right amount of velosity, IF it performs just as designed, IF it is fired from just the right angle and IF everything else is exactly as it should be.....then great amounts of "killing" can be done with very small calibers.

The flaw is that "with experience", I've found most learn to eliminate as many IF's as possible from a shooting situation. Sure the newer bullets WILL work (most of the time) with rifles that would have been rediculous in years past (such as the .24 and 25 calibers for very large animals....or even in some cases .22 caliber rifles for some big game), they all depend on "technology" and "gimic" bullets performing "exactly" as advertised.

That does work most of the time, but with experience one learns that a "reasonable" size cartridge firing a heavy-for-caliber bullet at a "reasonable" velosity works ALL the time even if conditions are NOT perfect.....and it doesn't require a gimic bullet to do so.

Most of the recent bullet inovations are NOT to make proper cartridges perform better so much as an to attempt to make "improper" cartridges do things they were never intended to do.

Maybe I'm from a different generation, but the truely experienced hunters I know don't depend on "miracles" from technology, but relie on what has....and will continue to....work with "normal" rifles and bullets.

I have no doubt that solid bullets made from Kryptonite (or whatever) CAN work, but I'm not ready to trust my hunt on that chance.

So is the Nosler Partition new technology?

The best combination by far is proven principles and techniques along with careful application of proven technology.

"Instead of" is a fools' game. "Both � and" is far more sensible.

Newer than the old cup-and-core technology that preceded it, yes.

Ok to throw some more stuff on the fire, Warren Page ALWAYS said use heavy for caliber bullets (sectional density) and he used Nosler Partions as far back as I have read articles (mid-50's). So what do have we here, the same thing that made and makes the 160 gr. 6.5 x54 Manlicher and other old such rounds Moose killers; penetration as a function of sectional density. And the Nosler Partetion is the original American super bullet; 60 yrs. old or so.

Elmer didn't grow up with them but they existed withen his professional using and working life. Sectioal density has been around forever and Elmer did know something about it; the 275-300 gr. .338 bullets he loved.

All these guys spoke the same language; it's just we the readers that hear it differently.

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

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.

JB,
My point was this. Certainly, a .270 will kill a brown bear, an elk, or most anything else if you have time to pick your shot. Many hunters are quite comfortable shooting elk with such a rifle since an elk is unlikely to attack you. When a dangerous animal is hunted and a hunter's own skin might be on the line, I notice the small bore high velocity advocates become strangely quiet. Jack O'Connor, very wisely, armed himself with a big bore when the quarry was dangerous game. Reading both Keith and O'Connor's work, I don't think they were that far apart. Their clash was mostly one of personality. I have found recommendations from O'Connor for the .375 and ones from Keith for the .270 depending on the game and circumstances. Do you and I really differ on this? I read an article by you on the .375 a while back and did not get the impression you would arm yourself with a .270 for a grizzly hunt. I believe you'd agree the bigger gun is the more certain stopper.

I think most of us want the same thing, but that desire doesn't require us to strictly esteem Elmer's words above Jack's, or Jack's above Elmer's.

The hunters I know personally all want quick clean kills, and their cartridges of choice (for deer and elk) range from .257 Weatherby to .300 Win Mag., w/ plenty of .270 Win., .308 Win., and .30-06 in between. What those guys do have in common is a consideration of bullet construction for the game being hunted.

At the end of the day, I'm just grateful we've been blessed with the writings of both Elmer and Jack, and a whole host of other fine gun/outdoor writers past and present. I've enjoyed reading them all, and I think my perspective on guns and hunting (and, sometimes life itself) has been enriched a little more by their varied works.

Agreed.

Just an aside -- whether technology is "old" or "new" depends a lot on the age of the person viewing it.

I had a young lady in the store the other day looking for an antique cookbook, something really retro. When I asked her what vintage she had in mind, she said "Oh, 1990 to 1995."

"Old" tech is something that is older than you are . . .

Spot on, +1......

Geography is likewise relative.

1964 � Stuck in the Baltimore-Washington cesspool, I begged my agent to find me a job out West. (He'd been pretty good at finding plums in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and New England.)

He called me one day, all excited, to tell me that he'd found me a good job "out West!"

"Oh, where?"

"Akron, Ohio!"

(Shoulda known better'n to expect anything better from a fellow born, raised, and a life-long resident of Washington, DC!}

ken, that might explain why friends in Billings or Bozeman get irate when I refer to them as "easterners!"

That seems a good question I think. Any answer would almost seem to have to be the relationship of individual judgement applying the hunt and the shooting.

Hunt and shooting intertwine it would seem to success or failure of one too the other, or both. The individuals perception of a bad hunt, and good shooting, or a good hunt and bad shooting.

I bet most of us relating the hunt and shooting, had one of those moments, "I should have.........".

As the saying goes, "One man's success is another man's failure." That old saying can turn around.

Is it required that we rank the two men? That we disect each and determine their faults and gifts? Do we believe that in all cases when persons observe an event each will infer the identical conclusion? Do we hold beliefs that defy the evidence? Even Einstein insisted on retaining opinions that were not supportable, so perhaps we mortals should be more understanding of human shortcomings. For myself, each man gave me pleasure to read, and for that I am grateful. I am content to believe that each had his share of faults and was a worthy human being.

I think each one fully believed in what he was writing, and that it was accurate based on their experience. Maybe Keith never used a Nosler Partition, but I don't think he wrote anything negative about them, either. And O'Conner's lighter rifles were fully adequate the way he used them.

I really get turned off by writers who write about the worthless 30/06 one year, then next year they have an article about how great the 30/06 is.

Bruce

Very good thoughts expressed there. What I get very tired of is when people want to pretend that there are only gifts and ignore or deny the faults. I prefer to know all that there is to know about a person. Chances are good that the gifts will far outweight the faults and my estimation of the person will be the stronger for having had the chance to sort out the facts.

Long before we met and became friends, I noticed that one old-time gun writer would frequently publish one article, in one magazine, knocking, for example, bolt-action rifles or auto-loader handguns �

� and at the same time �

� in another magazine, another article about how great bolt-action rifles or auto-loader handguns were.

It seemed obvious to me that he was intentionally making readers mad.

Then one night at a Big Bash banquet, he sat next to me and laughingly detailed to all those who were present how much he enjoyed riling so many fans and foes of bolt-action rifles and auto-loader handguns.

For some reason or other, I felt no satisfaction in having my earlier perception so dramatically proved accurate.

And yes, of course he both blasted and boasted about the .30-06 and the .30-30 � as well as several other excellent cartridges that were popular with many, many readers.

An industry friend and I were discussing cartridge-design in his office at a prominent component factory when another industry friend came along and butted-in.

"Why would we ever need another cartridge?" he jeered.

"Heck, if need were our only criterion," I said, "we'd be gettin' along happily with just the twenty-two Long Rifle and the thirty aught six!"

He laughed and acknowledged my point.

As a writer, I know from first hand experience that my first hand experience changes with time.

I published some things in the 80's that I still agree with and others where I have alterend my opinion. It is like shooting 6 animals and forming an opinion and after shooting 60, you see something, perhaps a pattern, that was not as obvious with the first six.

All part of growing as an individual. How you handle that and present it to others is the mark of yourself.

JW

Happened on this thread on a search.

Thanks to all for all the great stories.

As a teenager I enjoyed reading articles by both. I certainly didn't have enough knowledge then to know which to believe.

After many decades of hunting but not coming anywhere even close to the number of animals they shot, I've seen examples that could "prove" either man was "right" in their approach to hunting guns.

They were who they were, knew what they believed, and it doesn't really matter what WE think of their opinions 'cause what we say about their writings of years ago isn't gonna change their minds, is it?

We were lucky to have their stories to read and their points of view are STILL being argued and I imagine will be for as many years as we can continue to hunt.

Just read the thread.. Good stuff.. Many stories I remember reading and hearing.. The photos were OUTSTANDING!!!!

I think navlav8r got the final word. We were lucky to have their stories to read.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. At least it keeps their names at the forefront. Many, if not most outdoor magazine readers these days, have never heard of either icon. Their contributions to our sport are far too great to idly let them fade into the twilight and shortly thereafter be forgotten.

I pick about four or five different students per year. These students are atrisk young men and women who have families that won't crucify me for doing something different from other students. I let those students read editions of Keith and O'Connor. I don't have Safari or Horse and Buggy days but I let the students read most of both writers with some Alaska selections.

It is amazing to see their growth in reading and writing by the end of the semester. I figure that I am contributing to Keith's and O'Connor's respective legacies.

Sincerely,
Thomas

It was fun to read through that again after Five Years!