Elmer Keith--in context

[JohnKSa]

I've been reading a lot of Elmer Keith's work lately and something struck me. Something obvious, but something that I didn't see for a long time.

He did most of his writing 30 years ago.

Most of his denigration of "small-bore" high-velocity rounds was CLEARLY related to bullet failures.

In other words, he preferred large, heavy, sturdy bullets because they were much less likely to blow up (fail) than small, light, high-velocity bullets.

I think that if he had the chance to evaluate modern ammunition, he might have come to some very different conclusions...

 

[mete]

If you read "Sixguns" it will be obvious that regardless of bullet construction , he knew that big bore was more effective.As far as rifles he also knew that large bore was better .He stated that the most common shot that he had seen on elk was a quartering away shot.So that large an animal with that shot needed big bore and high SD.He recommended 35 Whelan, 338 Win. He recommendations were based on field experience not paper ballistics.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree that he made his judgements and recommendations based on his experience. But reading his articles makes it clear that a major (if not THE major) problem he encountered with smaller bore rifles had a lot more to do with bullet failure and poor bullet performance than it had to do with caliber.

He's constantly talking about this round blowing up or that round failing to expand, this round being deflected and broken up on a rib, etc. In that context, it's a no brainer that large, heavy bullets at medium velocity are the way to go. They're going to provide very dependable performance since there is virtually no reliance on bullet technology or performance with such calibers.

I think that this is what got him started down the track, but I also think that in the end, the "big heavy slow" mantra took on more of a religious tinge.

 

[DAVID NANCARROW]

Good points, John. Most of his complaints were due to bullets not being up to the job. As to the big/heavy/slow, they became sort of a truism mainly because they work. They worked then and they work now. Sure, they have their limitations, but small/light/fast does too.

All depends on what you shoot and will you place yourself where you can make a killing shot with what you have?

I miss the days of Keith and O'Connor going at it in the magazines. Sure was fun, regardless of which side you found yourself.

 

[Denny Hansen]

One of my favorite quotes of all time came from Elmer Keith when he said he used big bullets because, "they let in a lot of air, and let out a lot of blood."

Denny

 

[JohnKSa]

I intend to read more of his writing--all of it if I can find it all. It's a valuable source of information since he did a LOT of shooting--more than most folks will ever have a chance to do.

However, while his EXPERIENCE is invaluable, I think that in some cases, his conclusions are less valid than they were when he was shooting and writing. That may be heresy to some, but there have been a LOT of developments in bullet performance in the last 10 years, let alone the last 30.

I think this is where many people make their biggest mistakes when trying to learn about firearms. They read a person who is obviously experienced and knowledgeable but as readers, they fail to consider the context. Because the writer is obviously experienced, they take not only the experience as gospel, but also the conclusions. Just look at how much Taylor's musings from shooting elephant guns in the early part of the 20th century are bandied about as if they are totally applicable to shooting humans with handguns in the 21st century.

 

[BigG]

Elmer was definitely a proponent of bigger AND heavier is better. He without fail always chose the heaviest bullet for the caliber he was using. A 30/06 with a 225 grain, mind you, not a 220 grain Western Tool and Copper bullet.

He would not be impressed by modern paper tables. He was the most empirical of all the gun writers I know of. YMMV JMTC Etc.

 

[BigG]

Big Heavy SLOW -

I think this is a misunderstanding of Elmer Keith's approach. I don't ever remember him recommending slow. He liked something that threww a 300 grain slug about like a 270 threw a 130 grain slug.

340 Weatherby Magnum, 340/378 Weatherby wildcat, and 340/9.3X74R were three of his mainstays. He said they were excellent on mountain sheep, IIRC.

 

[JohnKSa]

BigG,

If you read his stuff, you'll actually see him saying that such and such caliber performs better when the velocity is held below such and such a limit, etc.

Slow may have been a bit of an overstatement, in that post, I made a more accurate characterization of his philosophy: " large, heavy bullets at medium velocity".

 

[SamD]

I don't have the books handy for reference but distinctly remember him saying something to the effect that if the velocity was over 2700 fps,
use a heavier bullet.

Makes pretty good sense. With a 2700 fps velocity, 300 yard hits are relatively easy and most people don't have much business shooting farther.

Sam

 

[JohnKSa]

SamD,

I can't remember the caliber offhand, but I recall him even recommending that a particular caliber/bullet combination be kept below 2400fps for best bullet performance. I can dig out the exact reference if it's of interest to anyone.

 

[Walter]

He did most of his writing 30 years ago.

30 years ago? More like 40 or 50 years ago. He died in 1984, over twenty years ago. But Elmer Keith was a character.

For a good read, try his book, HELL, I WAS THERE! .
Not too much raw data, just some good stories.

Walter

 

[JohnKSa]

Walter,

I'm thinking of asking my wife to get that one for my birthday. What I've been reading is Volume 1 & 2 of his articles. They're entitled "GUN NOTES" Elmer Keith. I'm about halfway through the second volume. Great reading.

 

[GUNSMOKE45441]

JohnKSa
You won't be dissapointed!!!

 

[mgdavis]

"Hell, I was There" is definitely worth the read. Elmer is a true been there, done that man. He did an amazing amount for the shooting world and showed true grit in a number of circumstances that would have destroyed lesser men.

 

[jrklaus]

If you can find it somewhere, you will enjoy Keith's Rifles for Large Game, the original of which was copyrighted in 1946. Very few of the originals exist; only 1000-2000 or so were printed, and half were destroyed in a flood/fire? at the warehouse almost immediately after being printed. I have seen facsimile reprints, however, available on-line. You'll really enjoy this one!

 

[JohnKSa]

Thanks, jr, I'll keep an eye out for a copy!

 

[BigG]

Here's some of Keith's books I've read and been able to post reviews on:

Gun Notes, Volume 1

Sixguns, by Keith

Shotguns, by Keith

I've read several more like Gun Notes, Vol 2, Hell I was There Rifles for Large Game, &c. Take a look at John Pondoro Taylor's African Rifles and Cartridges for good reading from a kindred soul to Elmer Keith. They were correspondents and mentioned each other in their books. Both liked Big, Heavy, and Powerful loads. JMTC YMMV

 

[RWK]

So, experts, what would Keith’s opinion be of a 10mm REVOLVER (for example, a Smith 610-3) stoked with 200 grain Gold Dots and having a muzzle velocity >1250 FPS? Would he categorize it with his beloved .41 magnum? I believe he would like it, but would also point out the .41 magnum has a good deal more upward potential.

 

[SamD]

Mr. Keith was not really in favor of the heavier loadings in the 41.
His emphasis was on the 210/1000 LSWC as a police load.
The 10mm fits that fairly well. Don't know what he would think of the moon clips but suspect he would approve.

He probably wouldn't even be too harsh about 10mm Autos.
His only real complaints I ever hear about the about the 45 were the rainbow trajectory and that it was hard to find the cases flung all over the place. He always appreciated a little more power.

Sam