Are you a Keith or O'Conner advocate
- Thread starter Lefty Dick
- Start date
I hunt deer with either a 22/250, 257Roberts, 270Win or a 375Magnum.
Better, premium bullets have made the smaller cals more dependable for larger game. I could be very happy here in Canada with a .277", .284" or .308" as my largest bore size.
.
Better, premium bullets have made the smaller cals more dependable for larger game. I could be very happy here in Canada with a .277", .284" or .308" as my largest bore size.
.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
If I had to 'pick one' so to speak, I'd have to go with Keith. The main reason for that choice is comment he had made stating that in many cases, the one chance at a shot you get on game may be less than perfect. For that reason, his choice was for a big heavy bullet that had the ability to penetrate end to end if need be. In doing so, one benefit was the bone breaking capabilities the full length of the wound channel. A second would be the resulting blood flow from both the entrance and the exit which also enhances tracking if necessary.
Some of the more recent developments in bullet technology seem to enhance the essence of his theories and field results, that being penetration. Reading his books and articles with some of the shortcomings of smaller lighter calibers and bullets he had seen, you can see the reason behind his choices.
There is a teriffic amount of experience he had in all aspects of all firearms, hunting with, shooting, reloading and development aspects.
Last but not least in the early 70's, a shooting buddy and I went to Salmon Idaho and spent a day with him. A few years later we saw him again at a gun show in Kalispell Montana. An interesting man to say the least and meeting him is definately a highlight of my years of shooting. I still have a picture I took of him standing by my truck in Salmon Idaho. A treasure.
Some of the more recent developments in bullet technology seem to enhance the essence of his theories and field results, that being penetration. Reading his books and articles with some of the shortcomings of smaller lighter calibers and bullets he had seen, you can see the reason behind his choices.
There is a teriffic amount of experience he had in all aspects of all firearms, hunting with, shooting, reloading and development aspects.
Last but not least in the early 70's, a shooting buddy and I went to Salmon Idaho and spent a day with him. A few years later we saw him again at a gun show in Kalispell Montana. An interesting man to say the least and meeting him is definately a highlight of my years of shooting. I still have a picture I took of him standing by my truck in Salmon Idaho. A treasure.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I tend to prefer heavy for caliber bullets no matter what I'm shooting. That being said, the whole Keith vs O'Connor things is old and worn out. Keith was a hell of a shot and had some fine ideas, but he was typcast as bad as an action movie star and had to dance to his master's tune (or he was way out of touch as evidenced by the more extreme opinions he espoused - ie the 470 on caribou). O'Connor was more of a hunter, in my opinion, and a better writer. Keith was more of a caricature.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
I see O'Conner as the world class hunter. He had, or at least developed, the resources to travel the world and amass far greater experience on a broader range of game than many others who were equally opinionated. I see Elmer as the frontiersman, and despite having travelled to Africa, O'Conner was more worldly. Elmer grew up with a sixgun in hand, and a rifle usually within easy reach. I don't expect O'Conner did near as much shooting, and he mostly stuck with cartridges smaller than the .30/06. I'm not sure he was as gun knowledgeable as my childhood hero Warren Page, and neither was he as gunny as Elmer. My perception is that O'Conner lived to hunt rather than for the tools of the trade, despite the fact that he appreciated a good rifle. If Elmer said something worked he had personally seen it work, and if he thought poorly of it, he had personally seen it fail.
Both men were influenced at an early age by the rifles that ended up defining them. O'Conner was perhaps overly impressed by what is arguably a nice deer rife cartridge, although it appears that he had a high regard for the .30/06, while Elmer was equally impressed by medium and large bores. A .338 on pronghorn seems a little excessive, but it worked, and I have shot game of similar size with a .375. He seldom had much good to say about rifles of .30 caliber or smaller on big game, but if I recall, he considered his .222 Sako the most accurate rifle in his vast collection. The views of both men are valid to a point, and both views are flawed to a point. Neither liked to have those flaws pointed out, which may account for the animosity between them. Despite that, both were likable in print and a pleasure to read. Having said that, the editors at G&A said Elmer's stuff was written so poorly it was difficult to tweak into readable language. O'Conner wrote very well.
Who am I more like? I fall somewhere in between I suppose. I think powerful rifles can be more versatile than high velocity small bores, but if I had to choose a single cartridge for the rest of my shooting life it would be a .30/06. But I like heavy bullets, with enough velocity to flatten trajectory, produce large wound cavities, and preferably exit a game animal. When I carry a handgun for protection, I want a normal sized gun in a big caliber that fires a heavy bullet, but not so much recoil as to prevent a fast follow up shot. Elmer thought poorly of the '06 and O'Conner wasn't much of a handgun man.
Both men were influenced at an early age by the rifles that ended up defining them. O'Conner was perhaps overly impressed by what is arguably a nice deer rife cartridge, although it appears that he had a high regard for the .30/06, while Elmer was equally impressed by medium and large bores. A .338 on pronghorn seems a little excessive, but it worked, and I have shot game of similar size with a .375. He seldom had much good to say about rifles of .30 caliber or smaller on big game, but if I recall, he considered his .222 Sako the most accurate rifle in his vast collection. The views of both men are valid to a point, and both views are flawed to a point. Neither liked to have those flaws pointed out, which may account for the animosity between them. Despite that, both were likable in print and a pleasure to read. Having said that, the editors at G&A said Elmer's stuff was written so poorly it was difficult to tweak into readable language. O'Conner wrote very well.
Who am I more like? I fall somewhere in between I suppose. I think powerful rifles can be more versatile than high velocity small bores, but if I had to choose a single cartridge for the rest of my shooting life it would be a .30/06. But I like heavy bullets, with enough velocity to flatten trajectory, produce large wound cavities, and preferably exit a game animal. When I carry a handgun for protection, I want a normal sized gun in a big caliber that fires a heavy bullet, but not so much recoil as to prevent a fast follow up shot. Elmer thought poorly of the '06 and O'Conner wasn't much of a handgun man.
Last edited:
- Location
- Yellowknife, NWT
I'm more of an O'Connor fan (note the spelling!!!!!) because he actually did embrace both theories. He thought shot placement was by far the most important factor, but felt that the average hunter was best equipped with a relatively light-recoiling, flat-shooting rifle. He didn't have any problem with people who wanted to use big-bullet guns like the .45-70; he just didn't see it as the most practical choice for the average hunter.
Keith was much more myopic in his view; he figured bigger, heavier bullets were required and proponents of lighter rounds were a bit suspect at best.
I believe in hunting technique and shot placement matched to the game. If someone tells me they want to hunt moose with a .257 Roberts, I don't automatically assume they're going to sit a cutline and shoot at 600 yards like so many modern "hunters" do; I assume he plans to shoot a moose within the effective range of his rifle, whatever that may be.
Keith was much more myopic in his view; he figured bigger, heavier bullets were required and proponents of lighter rounds were a bit suspect at best.
I believe in hunting technique and shot placement matched to the game. If someone tells me they want to hunt moose with a .257 Roberts, I don't automatically assume they're going to sit a cutline and shoot at 600 yards like so many modern "hunters" do; I assume he plans to shoot a moose within the effective range of his rifle, whatever that may be.
The reason Keith denounced smaller caliber cartridges probably had more to do with bullets of the era than the cartridge itself. If he had access to a Nosler partition or a TSX, he probably would have thought the .270 was a giant killer.
with moden bullets i like both approches. i could be carrying my 280 with 120 tsx or 338 06 with a 225 bonded. both work although i tend to favor heavier bullets but i'm happy with anything from 6.5 to 375. its boringto stick with one calibre/rifle.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Well put Boomer, very well put.
I don't believe Keith would be impressed by the gimicky bullets of today, he had trouble with jacketed bullets not expanding in his 30/06(sound familiar TSX fans?), and went back, at one point to his .44 cal. Sharps. Elmer was not the kind of guy that jumped on the latest bullet bandwagon, and he said it best " i would gladly exchange velocity for diameter or bullet weight, preferably both". Amen.
The reason Keith denounced smaller caliber cartridges probably had more to do with bullets of the era than the cartridge itself. If he had access to a Nosler partition or a TSX, he probably would have thought the .270 was a giant killer.
I picked "Both, both theories have merit", as IMHO History shows they both work.
Personally I prefer lighter and faster myself as I don't like packing around bulky ammo, and I like flatter trajectories, but that is just me.
Also one needs to keep in mind the technological limits folks were dealing with back in the day of the larger and slower cartridges...pressure limits, powder types available, and on what they could build etc.
The reason Keith denounced smaller caliber cartridges probably had more to do with bullets of the era than the cartridge itself. If he had access to a Nosler partition or a TSX, he probably would have thought the .270 was a giant killer.
Likely Elmer used the Partition quite a bit, as he would have been only 50 when John Nosler invented it...
Yes, you would think so...I never spoke to him of course
And I don't recall reading him talk about small caliber (like 277 or 308) partitions, but I sure haven't read all of his writing. I do recall reading about him using them in a .375.Regardless, Elmer's "theories" are pretty dated when it comes to hunting rifle cartridges. Who honestly can say here that a man with a 7mm Remington Magnum and good 160grain bullets won't be able to slay all of North Americas game animals without too much trouble?
If you asked Elmer, he would tell you that a 7RM is only good for rodents and coyote, which is completely ridiculous.
The rifle hunting community has overwhelmingly gone the "small and fast" route over the "big slow and heavy" route.
With handguns, I think the big slow and heavy route is the best still. As they are short range and weak weapons, flattening trajectory isn't really required. (short range weapons for those of us that can't hit a mule deer at 400 yards with a .44 Magnum, that is)
Jack is man......
I'm in the same camp with Boomer and Big Ugly Man. I read Jack's book in about 1971, got myself a Model 70 in .270 and really have never looked back since.
But, I live out west where the antelope and mulies are far away and the shots are long..(usually). Jack's theory of flat trajectories with quick light bullets plain just works.
While he hunted all over the world, he spent a lot of his time in hunting in AZ open country where he put his theories to the test.
His book is still a great read today, and contains much timeless advice and info.
I don't agree with his thoughts on using steel cleaning rods, but when he wrote the book, nice coated Dewey rods had not been thought of yet......
I'm in the same camp with Boomer and Big Ugly Man. I read Jack's book in about 1971, got myself a Model 70 in .270 and really have never looked back since.
But, I live out west where the antelope and mulies are far away and the shots are long..(usually). Jack's theory of flat trajectories with quick light bullets plain just works.
While he hunted all over the world, he spent a lot of his time in hunting in AZ open country where he put his theories to the test.
His book is still a great read today, and contains much timeless advice and info.
I don't agree with his thoughts on using steel cleaning rods, but when he wrote the book, nice coated Dewey rods had not been thought of yet......
Last edited:
