Are you a Keith or O'Conner advocate

[Gatehouse]

So you taking one of those small bullets/cartridges on your grizzly hunt or are you taking a cartridge combo that reflects Elmer's thinking?

I'm taking my 375 Ruger using either 235gr TSX or 300gr Accubonds. Haven't decided which one. I'm not sure if Elmer would approve of a 235gr .375 bullet or not.

If I didn't have the New King, I'd reach for my 300WSM with 168gr TSX or 7RM with 160gr X bullets. Both of them will handily kill a grizzly.

A couple of friends of mine have a number of very large grizzlys, both would score quite well if they wanted to enter them. All of them were killed with .270 and .300WM...

 

[Camp Cook]

I'm taking my 375 Ruger using either 235gr TSX or 300gr Accubonds. Haven't decided which one. I'm not sure if Elmer would approve of a 235gr .375 bullet or not.

If I didn't have the New King, I'd reach for my 300WSM with 168gr TSX or 7RM with 160gr X bullets. Both of them will handily kill a grizzly.

A couple of friends of mine have a number of very large grizzlys, both would score quite well if they wanted to enter them. All of them were killed with .270 and .300WM...

I'm thinking that he would agree with using a 235gr TSX it is still a .375" bullet he showed this when he got involved in the 338/378KT...

No one is arguing that the smaller calibers won't work but when everything is equal other than the diameter of the bullet the larger diameter bullet will do the job more efficiently.

 

[Gatehouse]

No one is arguing that the smaller calibers won't work but when everything is equal other than the diameter of the bullet the larger diameter bullet will do the job more efficiently.

First, that wasn't Keiths argument. He dismissed smaller bores entirely.

Second, your theory looks good on paper, but when you shoot a moose or deer or bear with a 7mm or .308 bore diameter bullet and the animal drops dead on the spot, how much more "efficient" do you need your cartridge to be?

There is certainly some comfort in using larger cartridges with larger and/or dangerous animals, but any man with a 270/30-06/7mmRM class cartridge and good bullets is well armed to hunt anything in North America, which is something that Keith would never agree to.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

First, that wasn't Keiths argument. He dismissed smaller bores entirely.
Second, your theory looks good on paper, but when you shoot a moose or deer or bear with a 7mm or .308 bore diameter bullet and the animal drops dead on the spot, how much more "efficient" do you need your cartridge to be?

There is certainly some comfort in using larger cartridges with larger and/or dangerous animals, but any man with a 270/30-06/7mmRM class cartridge and good bullets is well armed to hunt anything in North America, which is something that Keith would never agree to.

Almost, but he didn't dismiss smaller bores entirely. He did have some favorable comments on smaller calibers, but when used with usually the heaviest bullet weight available. Why? Because with these heavier bullets, in addition better bone breaking and penetration, there was also a better chance of not only entrance but also exit holes for more rapid bleeding, which again would improve tracking of wounded game.

From reading a lot of his stuff and his comments during our visit with him, one thing he abhorred in the field, more than anything, is game that had been shot and not recovered. Granted, the bullet technology of that day is nowhere near what we have today. The 'good bullets' of that time hardly compare with the 'good bullets' of today.Why he was against some of the 'smaller' cartridges of the day is because of the failure rate he saw with those cartridges at the sometimes less than ideal shot conditions in the field. To compensate for those shortcomings or what he classed as deficiencies, his choice was for caliber and bullet weight that would help ensure total penetration, should conditions of the shot be less than perfect.

With hinde sight it's easy make judgements on the exploits of a past era, based on the technology of today.

 

[Gatehouse]

Almost, but he didn't dismiss smaller bores entirely. He did have some favorable comments on smaller calibers, but when used with usually the heaviest bullet weight available. Why? Because with these heavier bullets, in addition better bone breaking and penetration, there was also a better chance of not only entrance but also exit holes for more rapid bleeding, which again would improve tracking of wounded game.

From reading a lot of his stuff and his comments during our visit with him, one thing he abhorred in the field, more than anything, is game that had been shot and not recovered. Granted, the bullet technology of that day is nowhere near what we have today. The 'good bullets' of that time hardly compare with the 'good bullets' of today.Why he was against some of the 'smaller' cartridges of the day is because of the failure rate he saw with those cartridges at the sometimes less than ideal shot conditions in the field. To compensate for those shortcomings or what he classed as deficiencies, his choice was for caliber and bullet weight that would help ensure total penetration, should conditions of the shot be less than perfect.

With hinde sight it's easy make judgements on the exploits of a past era, based on the technology of today.

I understand why he made his arguments. In my first post on this thread I mentioned bullet technology.

In addition to bullets, I think the other factor was shot placement. I have a tough time believing that all those animals that were shot and ran off had holes in both lungs...

I guess I'll repeat it one more time- His 'theories' about what constitutes a poor choice in cartridges and bore diameters are out of date. And, considering how long the Nosler partition has been around, they have been out of date for quite awhile.....

 

[Johnn Peterson]

I understand why he made his arguments. In my first post on this thread I mentioned bullet technology.

In addition to bullets, I think the other factor was shot placement. I have a tough time believing that all those animals that were shot and ran off had holes in both lungs...
I guess I'll repeat it one more time- His 'theories' about what constitutes a poor choice in cartridges and bore diameters are out of date. And, considering how long the Nosler partition has been around, they have been out of date for quite awhile.....

I don't recall anyone mentioned that. That may be the 'perfect' shot to take, especially where archery is the tool of choice. How often do you get that opportunity of perfection? And, I'll repeat one more time, I do recall saying, from the success, or lack thereof, he'd seen in his time, where the 'less than perfect' shot was taken by individuals with smaller caliber firearms was the primary reason for his judgements. So, with that in mind, it should be relatively easy to see why he made the caliber and bullet weight choices he did. So that on those occasions where the 'less than perfect' shot is taken, he found success in putting the game down increased considerably.

 

[Gatehouse]

I don't recall anyone mentioned that. That may be the 'perfect' shot to take, especially where archery is the tool of choice. How often do you get that opportunity of perfection? And, I'll repeat one more time, I do recall saying, from the success, or lack thereof, he'd seen in his time, where the 'less than perfect' shot was taken by individuals with smaller caliber firearms was the primary reason for his judgements. So, with that in mind, it should be relatively easy to see why he made the caliber and bullet weight choices he did. So that on those occasions where the 'less than perfect' shot is taken, he found success in putting the game down increased considerably.

So what you are saying is that he blamed the cartridges, when really it was poor shot placement. I guess if you are going to take marginal shots on game, a little extra horsepower can be nice. Or just wait for a better opportunity, that is always an option, too, especially for someone that abhorred losing game.

Was nobody killing moose, deer, elk or bears with 30-30's 30-40's .303's 30-06's, .270's, 7x57's etc back then?

 

[Johnn Peterson]

So what you are saying is that he blamed the cartridges, when really it was poor shot placement. I guess if you are going to take marginal shots on game, a little extra horsepower can be nice. Or just wait for a better opportunity, that is always an option, too, especially for someone that abhorred losing game.

Was nobody killing moose, deer, elk or bears with 30-30's 30-40's .303's 30-06's, .270's, 7x57's etc back then?

No, that's what you've said. I've said there may well be times when the shot that presents itself is less than perfect. That chance for a once in a lifetime shot may not be the perfect two lung hit that we'd all like. There may well be occasions when the game may be a quartering away shot, or worse. In those cases, that larger caliber heavier bullet stands a greater chance of success. That marginal shot may be the only one you get. Yes!! Agreed!! 'tis better to have too much 'horsepower' rather than too little.

Many many of the instances Keith makes mention of are shots he's seen or been told of in his years of hunting and guiding, that individuals have taken. It's in these cases where the game has gotten away, as a result of a poor hit with less than a 'perfect' shot opportinity, with a bullet and caliber lacking in its ability to complete the task in those conditions. I don't know of any tales or stories where Keith himself lost game that he'd hit using a caliber and bullet he considered adequate. What seems to have moulded his opinion is questionable results by others with "smaller & lighter stuff", under those less than ideal circumstances.

In quite a few cases it isn't only the caliber bullet choice he deems as inadequate but also the abilities and ethics of the shooter in these circumstances.

And yes, people have been killing Moose, Deer and Bears with some of the calibers you've mentioned, and even smaller ones. My Dad, on his farm in AB years ago, shot three Mule Deer that I was told of, using what became my first rifle, a Cooey senior 22LR. A lady in the B.C. interior was a successful Grizzly hunter on note and her firearm of choice was a 22 Savage High Power. Yes, it can be done, but is it the thing to do?? I think not. Not to my way of thinking.

In addition, there may be instances where you opt to take that less than ideal shot and there may be occasions where you have to take the shot. If I'm going to error, along the lines of Keith and I'd rather be a little over gunned than under gunned.

 

[Gatehouse]

No, that's what you've said.

You said it too, you just didn't want to say it as clearly as I did.

I've said there may well be times when the shot that presents itself is less than perfect. That chance for a once in a lifetime shot may not be the perfect two lung hit that we'd all like. There may well be occasions when the game may be a quartering away shot, or worse. In those cases, that larger caliber heavier bullet stands a greater chance of success. That marginal shot may be the only one you get. Yes!! Agreed!! 'tis better to have too much 'horsepower' rather than too little.

Right above, you say it again.

What is wrong with not taking the shot if it is questionable? The cartridges he condemned were perfectly capable of cleanly taking game as long as you worked within thier parameters. Just as his favorite cartridges he needed to work within thier parameters, too.

Many many of the instances Keith makes mention of are shots he's seen or been told of in his years of hunting and guiding, that individuals have taken. It's in these cases where the game has gotten away, as a result of a poor hit with less than a 'perfect' shot opportinity, with a bullet and caliber lacking in its ability to complete the task in those conditions. I don't know of any tales or stories where Keith himself lost game that he'd hit using a caliber and bullet he considered adequate. What seems to have moulded his opinion is questionable results by others with "smaller & lighter stuff", under those less than ideal circumstances.

Poor shot placement is the culprit then. Not the cartridge.

In quite a few cases it isn't only the caliber bullet choice he deems as inadequate but also the abilities and ethics of the shooter in these circumstances.

He should have left it at blaming the shooter...Or the bullets if they came apart.

And yes, people have been killing Moose, Deer and Bears with some of the calibers you've mentioned, and even smaller ones. My Dad, on his farm in AB years ago, shot three Mule Deer that I was told of, using what became my first rifle, a Cooey senior 22LR. A lady in the B.C. interior was a successful Grizzly hunter on note and her firearm of choice was a 22 Savage High Power. Yes, it can be done, but is it the thing to do?? I think not. Not to my way of thinking.

That is a ridiculous comparison. It has no bearing on the topic at all.

A .22 is not a 30-06. Using any of the cartridges I mentioned is not a "It can be done, but it's not recommended" situation. All of those cartridges are perfectly capable big game cartridges.

In addition, there may be instances where you opt to take that less than ideal shot and there may be occasions where you have to take the shot.

If it's less than ideal for the rifle/cartridge combo you have, you shouldn't take the shot. This is pretty simple ethics.

If I'm going to error, along the lines of Keith and I'd rather be a little over gunned than under gunned.

Nothing wrong with being "over gunned" at all. Nothing wrong with the cartridges Keith chose to use at all. Where both of you go wrong is by suggesting that perfectly good big game cartridges are inadequate to hunt with- Which was proven over and over again by the amount of meat piled up by hunters worldwide using cartridges Keith considered inadequate.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

1/You said it too, you just didn't want to say it as clearly as I did.



Right above, you say it again.

2/What is wrong with not taking the shot if it is questionable? The cartridges he condemned were perfectly capable of cleanly taking game as long as you worked within thier parameters. Just as his favorite cartridges he needed to work within thier parameters, too.




3/Poor shot placement is the culprit then. Not the cartridge.



He should have left it at blaming the shooter...Or the bullets if they came apart.



4/That is a ridiculous comparison. It has no bearing on the topic at all.

A .22 is not a 30-06. Using any of the cartridges I mentioned is not a "It can be done, but it's not recommended" situation. All of those cartridges are perfectly capable big game cartridges.




5/If it's less than ideal for the rifle/cartridge combo you have, you shouldn't take the shot. This is pretty simple ethics.



6/Nothing wrong with being "over gunned" at all. Nothing wrong with the cartridges Keith chose to use at all. Where both of you go wrong is by suggesting that perfectly good big game cartridges are inadequate to hunt with- Which was proven over and over again by the amount of meat piled up by hunters worldwide using cartridges Keith considered inadequate.

1/ God, now you've got a degree in psychology from the 'University of Jel'
2/ Nothing, and nothing was ever said or implied along those lines. The point in question was basically the difference in preference of caliber and bullet size between two 'pros from the past'. The emphesis from the Elmer theory was on the end result if the option was to take a less than ideal shot.
3/ Agreed, and while you may be the greatest shot ever, every shot taken by the rest of us 'may' not have your degree of perfection. For me, if that shot I take doesn't happen to be perfect, then I'm hoping the caliber and bullet size I've chosen will help minimize my degree of error.
4/ Well, than pray tell, according to the "word of Gate" VS the expertise of others, where do you draw the line? What's good for Jack, may not meet with the agreement of Elmer and what is acceptable for tools and Johnn opting to take the shot, may not meet with the approval of "Gate".
5/ There we argee, to a point but again, who's expertise, experience and abilities to we chose, Jack, Elmer, Johnn or Gate? Same as question 4/. The question now is how many 'Joe Average' hunters in the field exercise that common sence of judgement or 'pretty simple degree of ethics?
6/ Where we both go wrong, thank you, but I guess that's according to "Gate". I'd be honoured to be considered in the same class of expertise and abilities of "The Man". Never said, either of us, that some of the smaller cartridges were inadequate to hunt with, and again, just that under some of the less than perfect conditions, there are better choices to get the job done.

 

[Gatehouse]

2/ Nothing, and nothing was ever said or implied along those lines. The point in question was basically the difference in preference of caliber and bullet size between two 'pros from the past'. The emphesis from the Elmer theory was on the end result if the option was to take a less than ideal shot.

A "less than ideal shot" *IS* poor placement. If your rifle/cartridge/you aren't up to taking the animal cleanly, DON"T SHOOT!

3/ Agreed, and while you may be the greatest shot ever, every shot taken by the rest of us 'may' not have your degree of perfection. For me, if that shot I take doesn't happen to be perfect, then I'm hoping the caliber and bullet size I've chosen will help minimize my degree of error.

I'd prefer to just take shots that I know that my rifle/cartridge and myself are capable of cleanly killing.

4/ Well, than pray tell, according to the "word of Gate" VS the expertise of others, where do you draw the line? What's good for Jack, may not meet with the agreement of Elmer and what is acceptable for tools and Johnn opting to take the shot, may not meet with the approval of "Gate".

I draw the line alot lower than Elmer did, when he denounced the .270/30-06 etc as not good for killing elk.

5/ There we argee, to a point but again, who's expertise, experience and abilities to we chose, Jack, Elmer, Johnn or Gate? Same as question

It's really up to the individual. People have different skill levels.

4/. The question now is how many 'Joe Average' hunters in the field exercise that common sence of judgement or 'pretty simple degree of ethics?

Clearly the guys that think "Ill use a cannon to make up for my lack of marksmanship and judgment" arent' using common sense. I don't know about the rest of the hunters..

6/ Where we both go wrong, thank you, but I guess that's according to "Gate". I'd be honoured to be considered in the same class of expertise and abilities of "The Man". Never said, either of us, that some of the smaller cartridges were inadequate to hunt with, and again, just that under some of the less than perfect conditions, there are better choices to get the job done.

If you, your rifle or cartridge arent' up to getting the job done cleanly, don't shoot, and if you DO shoot you should blame yourself, not the cartridge.

 

[Camp Cook]

This is getting good...

Myself I don't give a rats what either thought I use what I consider appropriate cartridge/bullet combo's that I feel will get the job done without worrying about if everything isn't perfect that it might get the job done...

That is why I own and use rifle/cartridge combo's from .224" - .458" depending on the animals I'm targeting or distances I may shoot is what I take with me...

 

[Gatehouse]

This is getting good...

Myself I don't give a rats what either thought I use what I consider appropriate cartridge/bullet combo's that I feel will get the job done without worrying about if everything isn't perfect that it might get the job done...

That is why I own and use rifle/cartridge combo's from .224" - .458" depending on the animals I'm targeting or distances I may shoot is what I take with me...

For the most part, that's what I do too...

However, when I hunted black bears last year with my .223, I was conscientious of shot placement. I passed up many bears that I didn't have perfect shot placement before finally shooting one.

If I had taken the "less than ideal" shots, and wounded and lost the bear, I would have had nobody to blame but myself.

 

[mikeyb]

Depends both on the quarry and terrain for me.

If I'm in a stand hunting deer over a large field or tracking caribou across vast tundra, I'll reach for my laser-cannon .257 Weatherby.

If I plan to push brush and expect shots to come at much closer range on average, I'll go with a light, easy-carrying 7mm-08 or even a lever .30-30 or semi .308 in the real thick stuff for fast follow ups in less than ideal situations.

Hunting black bears over bait where ranges are measured in feet instead of yards, I'd grab something which will make a big hole without making a big mess (think .45/70).

Hunting elk or moose in mixed terrain is .300 Mag territory with 180's. In dense brush or grizzly country, I'd switch up for a .338 with 250's or aforementioned .45/70 with modern loads.

 

[Seabass]

I'm a fan of Elmer Keith, I like his writing and blunt staight forwardness, but O'Connor is also class. I wish I had more article of thiers to read but the folks at ebay will make a poor man out of me for their books.. I'll splurge one day.. "Hell, I was there!!"

When it comes to O'Connor vs Keith, modern bullets really changed things around. There is more technology in the past 10-20 years than all the past years before. But to keep up with the "debate".. If a .270 with Noslers or Barnes tsx is good, than a .375 with Noslers or Barnes must be better right??

I think both these guys are having a good chuckle right now!!

Have a good one

Cheers

Seabass

 

[Johnn Peterson]

A "less than ideal shot" *IS* poor placement. If your rifle/cartridge/you aren't up to taking the animal cleanly, DON"T SHOOT!




I'd prefer to just take shots that I know that my rifle/cartridge and myself are capable of cleanly killing.




I draw the line alot lower than Elmer did, when he denounced the .270/30-06 etc as not good for killing elk.



It's really up to the individual. People have different skill levels.



Clearly the guys that think "Ill use a cannon to make up for my lack of marksmanship and judgment" arent' using common sense. I don't know about the rest of the hunters..



If you, your rifle or cartridge arent' up to getting the job done cleanly, don't shoot, and if you DO shoot you should blame yourself, not the cartridge.

I think for the most part, your self professed level of skills and abilities are the exception rather than the rule when compared to most others. I don't profess to the perfection of your skills, ability, on a regular basis in the field in actual hunting conditions and your years of accumulated experience may well surpass my own. In this particular instance, if I have any queries on basic concepts of caliber and bullet selection, I have two choices. I can either listen to the many years of experience of a man who was one of the leaders in the field and wore a big cowboy hat, or, go by your take on things with all your comparable length of experience, and wearing the apparel of your choice. I gotta' say, the guy with the big cowboy hat is going to win, hands down every time.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

I'm a fan of Elmer Keith, I like his writing and blunt staight forwardness, but O'Connor is also class. I wish I had more article of thiers to read but the folks at ebay will make a poor man out of me for their books.. I'll splurge one day.. "Hell, I was there!!"

When it comes to O'Connor vs Keith, modern bullets really changed things around. There is more technology in the past 10-20 years than all the past years before. But to keep up with the "debate".. If a .270 with Noslers or Barnes tsx is good, than a .375 with Noslers or Barnes must be better right??

I think both these guys are having a good chuckle right now!!

Have a good one

Cheers

Seabass

Well put and I don't totally discount Jack. If I did I wouldn't have an '06 and two 7x57's.

 

[H4831]

In the thick of this thread, I went to some old books to see what I could find on the two gentlemen and guess what? In a 1960 issue of Outdoor Life, there was an article by Jack O'Connor, entitled, "35 years of the 270."
I couldn't resist phoographing the opening page. If something real contriversial comes up later in it, I will show it.

 

[H4831]

I just couldn't resist posting the next page, either. This is for those many writers on these threads that continually point out how inferior were the older bullets.
Note carefully what Jack O'Connor says about the first Winchester bullets designed for their new 270.

 

[H4831]

SORRY, SORRY, too late at night. please disregard the double post.