Are you a Keith or O'Conner advocate

So who has it right, Keith or O'Conner

  • O'Conner, because I've seen first hand that his theory works

    Votes: 26 13.0%

  • Keith, because I've seen first hand that his theory works

    Votes: 34 17.0%

  • Both, both theories have merit

    Votes: 95 47.5%

  • O'Conner, because I either read about it or some wise old gent told me it was so.

    Votes: 4 2.0%

  • Keith, because I read about it, or some wise old gent said it was so.

    Votes: 3 1.5%

  • Neither, it's all about shot placement anyways.

    Votes: 38 19.0%
  • Total voters
    200
OK, here is the next page. I hope you can read it, maybe you will have to zoom it in a bit.
Anyway, note what Jack O'Connor says about the first bullets, and see if you still think that early bullet design was so bad.
OC1.jpg
 
I used to use the Rem bronze tips in my 30-06 which was the first rifle I reloaded for they were great bullets I wish they were still making them.
 
]
Johnn Peterson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never actually commented on my skills..

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.
Click to expand...

Could be, though it is largely irrelevent. A person with lots of experience of poor choices compared to a person with less experince making good choices makes fo an interesting dialogue...



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
Click to expand...

Choose any way you want, but remeber that your choice is based on dated information, if you go with the cowboy hat...
 
Judging from my own bookshelf it's O'Connor that has stood the test of time. I've read Keith's stuff and always regarded him as an amusing blowhard; entertaining but not particularly informative. I've given away the books I've had by Keith. Fun to read but nothing worth keeping.

O'Connor's books however are still worth having. The rifle and shotgun books are ones I refer to occasionally. Even 50 years later there is good, relevant information in both of them.
 
Last edited:
Claybuster said:
Judging from my own bookshelf it's O'Connor that has stood the test of time. I've read Keith's stuff and always regarded him as an amusing blowhard; entertaining but not particularly informative. I've given away the books I've had by Keith. Fun to read but nothing worth keeping.

O'Connor's books however are still worth having. The rifle and shotgun books are ones I refer to occasionally. Even 50 years later there is good, relevant information in both of them.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, I think the lessons of at least one Keith book stand the test of time . . .

DSC_0001.jpg


DSC_0042.jpg
 
O'connor

I think in this case there are alot of variables, but they both carry merrit depending on what you are hunting. I believe Keith had a tendency to B.S. a little ( 600 yard shot on a mule deer with an .44 mag pistol with iron sights). I still love to read both I just enjoyed O'connor more.
 
Claybuster said:
Judging from my own bookshelf it's O'Connor that has stood the test of time. I've read Keith's stuff and always regarded him as an amusing blowhard; entertaining but not particularly informative. I've given away the books I've had by Keith. Fun to read but nothing worth keeping.

O'Connor's books however are still worth having. The rifle and shotgun books are ones I refer to occasionally. Even 50 years later there is good, relevant information in both of them.
Click to expand...

If you have any more of his books you want to give away, give me a shout. I'm missing a couple.

You may 'reguard' him as an amusing blowhard and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but anything I've read or heard of from those he was associated with or knew him well, their opinion was the exact opposite of your own.
 
john-brennan said:
I think in this case there are alot of variables, but they both carry merrit depending on what you are hunting.

Agreed. It's hard to argue with the experience and success of both individuals. We look at what they both had to say, what they experienced, couple that with our own experiences and base our preference, choice and judgement on that basis.

I believe Keith had a tendency to B.S. a little

That may be, but on a number similar type instances of long range shooting scenarios, there were people that witnessed and confirmed what he could do in those circumstances.

( 600 yard shot on a mule deer with an .44 mag pistol with iron sights).

A long story short, but years ago a shooting buddy and I attempted some long range shooting, 450 yds as near as we could determine, at a 45 gallon oil drum. We were using S&W model 29's with Keith/Lyman 250gr cast bullets and of course 22 grs of 2400;). To range in on it, we were holding the whole front sight including base above the rear sight if I recall correctly. Laying back resting our heads on a small stump and holding the gun two handed on our knees, it was suprising how close we could keep shots to the drum. Actually hit it a number of times. If I could do that:D, with his experience and ability, I'm sure he could put a few into a Mule Deer.

I still love to read both I just enjoyed O'connor more.
Click to expand...

I have about half of Keiths books and look forward to getting and reading more.
 
Keith had his handgun front sights modified for long range shooting.

He had several gold bar lines across the front sight at different heights.

Due to his extensive long range practicing he knew what line to use at a given distance.

Have any of those spewing against Keith ever done anything like this?

I'm thinking not...

Also I figure O'Connor was a bit of a pansy that couldn't handle more recoil than a 30-06... :p
 
To make those long range hits with iron sights, pistol or rifle, it is mandatory to use both your eyes. If one eye is closed, the sight completely obliturates the target, on a big hold over. With both eyes wide open, the target is plainly seen, "through" the front sight, or through the front of the barrel, if that much hold over is given. I learned this at a very young age.
I was still a teen ager when I held a 38 S&W, not a special, very high on an old cabin agood 300 yards away, and put the first shot through the door! Of course, it was luck, but at that time we practiced such shots at any opportunity.
Elmer Keith hitting deer at tremendous ranges with a big revlover was legendary. He was well known for this ability.
 
Camp Cook said:
Keith had his handgun front sights modified for long range shooting.

He had several gold bar lines across the front sight at different heights.Due to his extensive long range practicing he knew what line to use at a given distance.

Have any of those spewing against Keith ever done anything like this?

I'm thinking not...

Also I figure O'Connor was a bit of a pansy that couldn't handle more recoil than a 30-06... :p
Click to expand...

There was another sight modification he had for long range shooting, pictured on the bottem of the four guns on page 103 of Sixguns by Keith. It's a three leaf rear sight of his design on a Ruger Flat-Top. I'd like to get a closer look at that.
 
Yep the man new what he was talking about...

I value experience over "it worked once for me so it will work everytime" crowd.
 
Keith for dangerous game of the African variety. O'Connor or Keith, with a penchant for O'Connor, for everything else of the non-dangerous variety.
 
I've read about Keiths long range hand-gunning, an it intrigued me. At the time, I only had a .45 ACP, but I found using his techniques I was able to hit milk jugs at 100 yards fairly consistently.

I don't doubt that with some practice, a guy could kill something at 400 yards with a handgun.

Keiths writings about revolvers still work, bullet technology hasn't done much to change that.


Although, things are starting to appear more clearly here....if Keith was willing to take 400 yard shots at game with a handgun, I wonder what kind of shots he was prepared to take with a rifle? Maybe his idea of "less than ideal" wasn't the same as mine.:p
 
Gatehouse said:
I've read about Keiths long range hand-gunning, an it intrigued me. At the time, I only had a .45 ACP, but I found using his techniques I was able to hit milk jugs at 100 yards fairly consistently.

I don't doubt that with some practice, a guy could kill something at 400 yards with a handgun.

Keiths writings about revolvers still work, bullet technology hasn't done much to change that.


Although, things are starting to appear more clearly here....if Keith was willing to take 400 yard shots at game with a handgun, I wonder what kind of shots he was prepared to take with a rifle? Maybe his idea of "less than ideal" wasn't the same as mine.:p
Click to expand...

I certainly hope so!! I'm sure hunting a Bear with the formidable 223 would fall into his defination of "less than more". Definately a concept of "less than more" in the common sence department that your decission to do so exhibits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom