Brian Pearce scores again!

[Bret4207]

Latest issue of Handloader has a coupe articles by Brian that give me hope. He discusses boolit hardness, as in "what does "hardcast" mean" and covers Keith famous 600 yard revolver shot. Plus our own Mike V does a good article on WW2 handguns. Not bad at all!

I may forgive Scoville yet if this keeps up!

[Rocky Raab]

Yup, that "hard bullet" article was super. And spot on, too.

When Skeeter and Elmer talked about "Hard" bullets, they meant bullets cast to about BHN 10, as compared to the BHN 8 or so of "regular" bullets.

Today, our Tim Allen-afflicted society doesn't consider anything under BHN 20 as hard!

[Patrick L]

I called Wolfe today. I usually have my issue in my mailbox the first week of the month. Apparently mine was late getting printed.


AAARGH!!!!!

[AZ-Stew]

Yeah, but they're still advertising a S&W 1911 (9mm?) and possibly another gun or two. It's supposed to be "Handloader" magazine. I'd prefer that they keep the promotional articles out of it and stick with the technical aspects of handloading. That said, it's still a good mag. I was hoping to meet Venturino at the NRA convention, but he wasn't there.

Regards,

Stew

[EMC45]

A pretty good one. The only "gun" magazine I buy anymore. Liked the Keith article.

[Dutch4122]

I hope they keep Brian Pierce on staff at Rifle/Handloader. He and Mike Venturino are the only reason I still subscribe.

[happy7]

I generally like Mike Venturino, but there have been some articles lately that I am dissapointed with.

For one thing, I do not like the fact that he pretends that Lee does not even exist. Like the article he did on speed casting saying he liked to use three and four cavity molds, as opposed to one and two cavity. Never even mentioned Lee six cavity, which, considering the whole point of the article is inexcusable.

And then there was the article where he expounded on his favorite molds for each caliber. Not one mold in the bunch that was not currently in production, so clearly an advertisement piece.

And then his current article about reloading for military rifle in large batches, but he doesn't use a progressive press! Only uses progressive for pistol. Ok, if he was talking hunting or match loads in small quatities, no problem, but thousands of rifle rounds for military rifles?

[oldhickory]

Boy do I ever miss Finn Agarad, he was a fine writer and always had interesting things to say.

[Rocky Raab]

Wait a second guys. What are you saying? You want magazines to cover only those things that are no longer made?

If they did, you'd say "What good is that article? The stuff is unobtainable or premium priced. Where's the stuff we can buy?"

How many threads have you seen asking "Anybody used the new Acme flegbister yet?" People WANT reviews of new stuff. Yet when we read one, some of you complain that it's an advertisement. You cannot have it both ways.

[416Rodney]

An important point missed so far in this discussion is the 600 yd. shot was made with a "Keith Style" boolit. Not a RN or a WFN. I have a feeling that Brian is trying to make this fact known to us is his vey suttle manner.

[Heavy lead]

I agree this issue is the best I'd read in awhile.

[Guesser]

I am of the opinion that "HANDLOADER" is the best magazine published in the industry. I have every copy ever published and even at that I don't agree with or read every article. I pick up a copy of "RIFLE" from time to time if it has an article that grabs me, but I don't subscribe to it. I've decided that my subscriptions to other shooting rags will not be renewed, as they are getting less and less relevent with the advent of the Interweb; just like the "nolongermainstreammedia".
I have a lot of respect for Wolfe Publishing and the products they bring to the market place.

[happy7]

Guesser, you nailed it.

[runfiverun]

y'all should like this months rifle then it's all about leverguns.
first time in a year[s] there wasn't an article about a 1911/ar-15 in a gun mag.
i miss finn too.

[Potsy]

Don't know why they can't re-run some of Finn's old articles in Rifle.
I skipped last months Rifle because I saw three of Spomer's op-ed peices in it. His hunting articles are pretty good and he's pretty interesting on the vs. channel (more interesting than most of the others anyway) but I never cared for his gun writing.
The much maligned Dave Scovill has done some really good articles on Winchester Leverguns and one of the best articles I ever read on cast bullets was written by him about 10 years ago.
Pearce and Mike V. are the best two they have, even though Mike V. and I have different interests.
I really miss John Barsness and Ross Seyfried, but, people part ways. That's how it goes.

[44man]

I have questioned Keith's shot since I first heard about it. I also have his book. True he was a great shot but all of his shots were paced off.
Keith was a short man, how long were his paces?
I am near 6 foot tall and when I pace distance it is an effort to step out for a 36" pace. Through years of practice and actual measurements I trained myself to be less then a foot off at 100 yards and I will tell you it is not easy.
Terrain makes it impossible to be precise and hunting in the hills with swales and up and down paces where all steps are different and distance changes because it is no longer a straight line. Pacing over uneven ground can add a whole lot to distance.
Just try stepping off 36" paces going up hill.
I hate to rain on your parade but I can challenge 99% of you to pace off actual distance and you will fail, even on flat ground.
I am more inclined to believe his shot was closer to 400 yards.
I am still impressed with his shot but what I am really not impressed with was the guy with the .300 mag.

[StarMetal]

I have questioned Keith's shot since I first heard about it. I also have his book. True he was a great shot but all of his shots were paced off.
Keith was a short man, how long were his paces?
I am near 6 foot tall and when I pace distance it is an effort to step out for a 36" pace. Through years of practice and actual measurements I trained myself to be less then a foot off at 100 yards and I will tell you it is not easy.
Terrain makes it impossible to be precise and hunting in the hills with swales and up and down paces where all steps are different and distance changes because it is no longer a straight line. Pacing over uneven ground can add a whole lot to distance.
Just try stepping off 36" paces going up hill.
I hate to rain on your parade but I can challenge 99% of you to pace off actual distance and you will fail, even on flat ground.
I am more inclined to believe his shot was closer to 400 yards.
I am still impressed with his shot but what I am really not impressed with was the guy with the .300 mag.

I can't see how he paced it off. Wasn't it over some really rugged terrain? Weren't they on horseback?

Joe

[870TC]

I like what Pierce and Venturino write most of the time. Guess I don't argee with anyone all the time :) I have had quite different results with ultra hard bullets they sometimes use, and all the 92/6/2 I have used has been as advertised at around 15-16 BHN not the 18-20 BHN mentioned in the last issue.

[waksupi]

Elmer was really stretching his barrel on that shot.
When we still had the Hooterville BPCR matches, we would shoot at the 900 yard target with revolvers during breaks. We could generally hit them enough to keep it interesting. We did have the advantage of mountains rising in the background, so could pick out a particular tree WAY up the mountain to aim at.

[Guesser]

Keith was a devout "big bore" fan. He clearly stated that you should use a bullet big enough to kick up mud, dust, snow, leaves, grass or anything else so you would have a correction point from which to base your next shot. Its not the same shooting at a paper target, at long distance you can't see if you are high, low, L or R or where ever. I strongly suggest that shooting across a canyon in the Salmon River country of Central Idaho is a whole new world compared to lower level hills, knobs, and prairie such as I hunt and shoot in now.
I have heard several of my grandfathers hunting companions tell of the Mountain Goat that he shot with a 30-40 Krag carbine using Remington-UMC 220 gr, ammunition in 1937 in that same Salmon River area using a ranging shot and then a one shot kill to the neck at a concensused 550-600 yds using the military sights.
He started hunting with that rifle in 1919 and used it on everything including moose, elk and Mountain goats and sheep.
It can be done if you know your gun and ammo!!!!

[44man]

Elmer was really stretching his barrel on that shot.
When we still had the Hooterville BPCR matches, we would shoot at the 900 yard target with revolvers during breaks. We could generally hit them enough to keep it interesting. We did have the advantage of mountains rising in the background, so could pick out a particular tree WAY up the mountain to aim at.
Now you have it! You need to aim way over the target, not just raise the front sight in the rear sight unless you include most of the barrel.
Take my 45-70 at 1630 fps. It drops 16" at 200 sighted an inch high at 50. At 500 I estimate I have to aim 26' high. At 500 meters it is near 30 feet.
The .44 sighted at 50 drops around 40" at 200. I can't even figure 600 yard drop. Just how much barrel would you need sticking up to set a deer on top of the sight and hit it? I think you would need to look at the frame in front of the rear sight to get the barrel high enough.
Can anyone here figure drop of a 240 gr boolit at 600 if sighted for 50?

[Bret4207]

Read the Pearce article 44man. Brian covers the bases on this- the right model 44, the right factory ammo, he even takes Elmers short arms into consideration. There were numerous people who vouched for Elmer and I believe he did it.

Why should we question his veracity and yet accept anyone elses? There are plenty of people here making pretty wild claims but we accept their stories. Why wouldn't we accept Elmers story of a "make or break" shot when Judges and other reputable people vouched for him?

[Rocky Raab]

I am not a fan of Saint Elmer by any means, but considering the amount that he shot and PRACTICED at very long ranges with his guns, I have no doubt that he made that one. (actually, THOSE.)

As Pearce so subtly implied, just because you and I can't run 100 yards in ten seconds doesn't mean it can't be done!

[Plain Base]

Well said Rocky. Ross Seyfried once made mention of Elmer's feats at long range in an old G&A article. He idolized Elmer, and as a boy, bought an M29 which he practiced with enough to send it back for rebuilds at S&W. As I recall, his quote went something like, "while I never got as good as Elmer at long range shooting, I did get good enough to appreciate what Elmer was capable of." I think it was also Ross who said that while long range hits with a handgun involve some luck, the more he practiced, the luckier he seemed to get. Elmer spent most of his life shooting handguns, and often at longer ranges. Combined with good eyesight, that kind of life-long practice would almost have to make the man a very good shot. Nothing super-human, just a matter of practice and experience.

Regarding Elmer's short stature and shorter stride, I'd still wager that he could accurately guess the range, even if he couldn't pace it off due to a short inseam or impossible terrain. Guys like him who spend their whole lives outdoors in varied terrain can get pretty good at guessing. I'd sooner believe that he accurately guessed 600yds than that he actually paced it off at all.

I'm going to have to buy the current issue of Handloader now.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I live about 20 miles east of the Pierce Ranch. Brian is a pretty laid back guy, his sister told me a while back that before they moved here from Arizona she used to drive Brian out in the desert so he could go shooting. He must have some articles in the mix, he fell off a mountain in Alaska this spring and dinged himself up. His sister's youngest daughter (of eight, like Brian & his wife) is my trainer. He is a heck of a shot, pistol or rifle.

Rich

[danski26]

I found the S&W 1911 article out of place also in Handloader magazine. The New Savage 14 and 114 seemed out of place also even though it glossed over loading for the 250 and 300 savage.

Brian and Mike are the class act of Handloader Magazine.

As far as Elmer's 600 yard shot.....i saw a few questionable methods in Brians test but overall I thought it was an above average recreation.

44man, you have made some extraordinary claims with your revolvers. I am surprised to see you as a nay sayer.

[StarMetal]

44man,

I haven't done 600 yard shooting with my 4 5/8 inch barrel Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt, but I sure have done 300-400 yard plinking at coffee cans. I got to were I could hit a 1 pound coffee can at that distance (no not all the time or on the first shot). I would take a ranging shot and eventually zero in on the can. Guess what, that bullet has more drop then the 44 man, but I really didn't have to aim that much above the can. It's hard to explain. I remember at the range I easily had enough rear sight adjustment to shoot my 200 meter (not yards) target with that same revolver. Remember Elmer had those gold horizontal bars across his front sight for how much front sight to hold up above the rear sight for long distance.

I read an article from one of the people that was in that hunting party when Elmer shot the animal. I believe it was wounded by a rifle shooter and Elmer wanted it down before it got to an inaccessible place. He said it was as far as Elmer said it was and I believe he hit it more then once didn't he?

Mike Venturio wrote one time about shooting 55 gal barrel at 400 to 600 yards and that he had gotten pretty good at it.

Once at my best friends farm and sitting on his porch shooting the bull I shot at crow in plowed field that wasn't disked yet and the clods were dry, with 4 inch 22 Colt Diamond Back. I didn't hit the crow but after a few cylinders full I could hit the clod as you could see the dust come off them. My friend did, with more effort, a Charter Arms snubnose in 38 special. I remember his words "you know Joe, if we told anyone this they would say we were full of poop". And guess what, I sure wasn't aiming that much over. Don't forget what looks like you're aiming just an inch over at 400 is really many many feet out at the target. That's how far those clods of dirt were.

One more thing. Guns & Ammo had an article about Ed McGivens long time ago. They said that if you placed him and another man 600 yards apart and he has his 357 mag revolver and the other man a scoped 308 rifle that they would put their money on Ed hitting that man first. Notice, they didn't say the rifleman couldn't hit Ed, they said who hit who first.

Joe

[badgeredd]

Now you have it! You need to aim way over the target, not just raise the front sight in the rear sight unless you include most of the barrel.
Take my 45-70 at 1630 fps. It drops 16" at 200 sighted an inch high at 50. At 500 I estimate I have to aim 26' high. At 500 meters it is near 30 feet.
The .44 sighted at 50 drops around 40" at 200. I can't even figure 600 yard drop. Just how much barrel would you need sticking up to set a deer on top of the sight and hit it? I think you would need to look at the frame in front of the rear sight to get the barrel high enough.
Can anyone here figure drop of a 240 gr boolit at 600 if sighted for 50?

44man,

I may have a program that'll be fairly close. I need muzzle velocity and guestimated balistic coefficient. I try to get you a number if you have that info. Of course, I won't figure in any wind drift.:p

Edd

[StarMetal]

44man,

I may have a program that'll be fairly close. I need muzzle velocity and guestimated balistic coefficient. I try to get you a number if you have that info. Of course, I won't figure in any wind drift.:p

Edd

You don't need the program, the bullet drops quite a bit. What 44man isn't getting is that the amount of distance you aim over appears minute to your eyes, but in reality out at that distance is much greater. Analogy: You see a jet way high in the sky. You track your figure 1 inch in front of it. How far is the actual distance between the plane and where your finger is pointing? See what I mean. While I'm on that plane it appears to be going very very slow too huh?

Joe

[Bret4207]

Rocky says it best- just 'cuz we can't do it doesn't mean someone else can't. Cripes, I hit a coyote, running, at more than 100 yards in front of witnesses with a Glock 9mm with the NY trigger and crappy issue plastic sights. I know it was over 100 yards because I was behind the bench and the coyote was behind the targets! If I can do that then I'm more than ready to believe someone who's passion was shooting at long range could do the 600 yard shot.

[Potsy]

I can't remember if I read it in "Gun Notes" or "Hell, I was there"; but didn't Keith talk about shooting at a sheet of plywood with Harold Croft at something like 800 yards back in the 20's with a .44 special?
I can hit a stop sign sized gong offhand at 100 pretty much every time with my Bisley or my Kimber. The weird thing is, when we move it out to 300, I don't have a prayer. I'm gonna have to try it at 200 and then work my way out. Probably not to 800. Or 600.

[rhead]

Keith was a short man, how long were his paces?


I have no way of knowing how long his paces were but I would be willing to wager that Elmer Keith did know how long his paces were. It is fairly easy to find your own length of stride for flat, open land, heavy brush, uphill, downhill, and how to make adjustments for obstacles that have to be detoured. Almost nobody has a stride that is exactly 36 inches. You only have to know how long your stride is.People who pace off distances on a regular basis learn how to pace off distances and hoe to do the math. Maybe they could mark the position of the dead elk and then take sighting from two different points and calculate the distance.
I could not make the shot either but the world is full of people that can do things that I can't do. I have no reason NOT to believe him. I did not see him miss.

[Rocky Raab]

I'll have to check, but nowhere I can remember did Keith claim that 600 yards exactly equaled 600 of his paces. What he DID say was that the shot was 600 yards and he paced it off. Those are NOT the same.

I have made a handgun shot on deer of 375 yards - which took me 425 paces to cover. So my claim is "a 375-yard shot, which I paced off."

It doesn't matter if Keith's paces were Brobdingnagian or Lilliputian; he made enough of them to know (from his experience) that that number of paces was about 600 yards.

[Junior1942]

Circa 1980 when the land around here was open range, a buddy and I put an 18" diameter gong on a pipeline. Farthest shot possible was a measured 450 yards from the top of a small rise. I could hit that gong from the 450 yard mark with my SBH and its factory iron sights. I don't remember how often I could hit it, but I do remember I could hit it.

What I remember well was before hunting season and local guys blasting away at that gong and never touching it. I, my brother, and my buddy could hit it every shot with our scoped rifles. It POed a bunch of guys when they couldn't hit it even once in a box of 20 shells. Of course we had accurate rifles and we knew the exact holdover and windage allowance.

[44man]

I do not question what his abilities were or question his shooting nor will I ever question what some of you do either. After all, it was because of Elmer that I was shooting my .44 from 100 to 400 yards back in 1956.
I know it can be done and I shoot 500 meters (547 yards) all the time but I use a red dot and can't use an elevated front sight because I can't see the dang things anymore.
I only question how he measured the distances over rugged ground.
I have made some goofy shots too. Flat ground though. We once spotted a chuck running at the end of a field and I swung way ahead, raised the .44 flat top and shot. We found a pile of hair but no blood. I paced it at 501 yards.
All I want to know is how do you pace distance up and down hills and get anywhere near a good figure?
To Brians credit, he did use a rangefinder that Elmer did not have.
The reason for this is I have had too many friends say they shot such and such at 120 yards but when I pace it I get 60 or 70 yards. I do not trust other peoples steps and even if you account for your actual pace distance, it still does not apply going up and down rough country when going up or down a steep hill can reduce steps to less then a foot. After a lifetime of pacing exact distances, I can't do it.
If you shoot from one high hill to another, then pace 400 feet to the bottom and back up the other side, just how far was your actual shot distance? Don't tell me it was 800 feet! :Fire:
I will always have doubts about some of Elmer's shots and even some of your shots when the country is rugged or you take short steps.
For an average size man, a normal pace will be 30" over flat ground so you lose 6" every step. Over 600 yards that is a loss of 102 yards. Now take a short man with a 25" pace and you lose almost 186 yards. Now go up and down steep slopes, around trees, brush and rocks where your pace is vastly reduced or you add more going around obstacles and what do you have.
Distance shot is like the huge fish that got away and some of you might tell fish stories. Unless you shoot a certified range or make actual measurements with a rangefinder or stretched tape or take actual 36" paces, how can I believe the distance you claim?
Now get real with me, how many of you pace off distance and add steps to account for short paces? :violin:How many of you would pace 600 yards and pace another 102 steps to make it right? :bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[runfiverun]

pacing was an accepted form of measurement in those days the russian model 91 rifles sights are set in paces not yds or meters. drochams [sp?] is what they were called.
a 400 yd shot on a deers vitals sized rock with my 44 lever is a full post and the rock covered with the bead with my 50 yd setting for the boolit to hit on top of the post.
i use the 429421 boolit.
all i have to do is look at the wind and figure it in, a second shot is a sure hit [figuring the wind] if not the first [in calm air]
also he was shooting up hill which shortened the distance,so the 600 up could have been truly 300 straight.
the thing was wounded he shot at it and hit it, others seen it and he of course bragged it up some [who wouldn't]
it didn't hurt his writing career any or his guiding business any either i bet.
i remember a story of ed toperwein hitting a crow on the fly at like 1200 yds with a win 270 during a shooting exhibition,it was in font of a crowd and he is believed.

[BruceB]

Like everyone so far, I am NOT anything approaching Elmer as a pistol shooter.

However, I've had the fairly-frequent opportunity to shoot .44 Magnums (and other calibers) at extreme range over water, where impacts are very easy to see. These ranges stretched to 1200 yards or so on occasion.

No, we did NOT pick an object high above the intended mark. For one thing, there were no such objects available. Elmer himself had gold bars inlaid at various elevations across his front sights, and used these to adjust the amount of front sight he held above the top of the rear sight. I did the poor-man's version of this technique, and used a gold paintstick to apply the "bars". It worked, and LONG range hits were not all that difficult.

Based on my personal experience, which is far less than that possessed by Mr. Keith, I've always believed that the 600-yard shot was well within his capabilities.

Incidentally, our long-range-over-water shooting was done in TRUE WILDERNESS, on fly-in trips to places with zero chance of accidentally perforating anyone.

As officer trainees in the Canadian Army, we were required to "calibrate our pace", which amounted to seeing how many NORMAL walking paces it took to cover 100 feet....first on level ground, and then over different terrains so that we could apply needed correction factors to arrive at a reasonable estimate. A "pace" is the amount of ground covered from left-foot to left-foot, and in my case is almost precisely five feet on the level. I use it to this day, almost fifty years later, and it still works.

[44man]

44man,

I haven't done 600 yard shooting with my 4 5/8 inch barrel Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt, but I sure have done 300-400 yard plinking at coffee cans. I got to were I could hit a 1 pound coffee can at that distance (no not all the time or on the first shot). I would take a ranging shot and eventually zero in on the can. Guess what, that bullet has more drop then the 44 man, but I really didn't have to aim that much above the can. It's hard to explain. I remember at the range I easily had enough rear sight adjustment to shoot my 200 meter (not yards) target with that same revolver. Remember Elmer had those gold horizontal bars across his front sight for how much front sight to hold up above the rear sight for long distance.

I read an article from one of the people that was in that hunting party when Elmer shot the animal. I believe it was wounded by a rifle shooter and Elmer wanted it down before it got to an inaccessible place. He said it was as far as Elmer said it was and I believe he hit it more then once didn't he?

Mike Venturio wrote one time about shooting 55 gal barrel at 400 to 600 yards and that he had gotten pretty good at it.

Once at my best friends farm and sitting on his porch shooting the bull I shot at crow in plowed field that wasn't disked yet and the clods were dry, with 4 inch 22 Colt Diamond Back. I didn't hit the crow but after a few cylinders full I could hit the clod as you could see the dust come off them. My friend did, with more effort, a Charter Arms snubnose in 38 special. I remember his words "you know Joe, if we told anyone this they would say we were full of poop". And guess what, I sure wasn't aiming that much over. Don't forget what looks like you're aiming just an inch over at 400 is really many many feet out at the target. That's how far those clods of dirt were.

One more thing. Guns & Ammo had an article about Ed McGivens long time ago. They said that if you placed him and another man 600 yards apart and he has his 357 mag revolver and the other man a scoped 308 rifle that they would put their money on Ed hitting that man first. Notice, they didn't say the rifleman couldn't hit Ed, they said who hit who first.

Joe
Should I be impressed? We shot to 500 meters with revolvers on a farm with actual distance measurements and I kept 12 out of 12 shots in a five gallon can of water at 400 meters shooting Creedmore with my SRH. Oh, sorry, it was scoped!
But I kept all shots on the ram at 500 meters with my single shot pistols and open sights. Both 7R and 7BR. A 55 gallon drum is more of an off hand target! :kidding:
Yes, back in the day, I had silver bars across my front sight too.
As far as Ed, nobody ever shot like he did and nobody ever will. But I consider Elmer no better then some of us here, a good shot.
Some of you can't get it out of your heads that if you shoot 3" to 4" groups at 50 yards that hitting a target at 600 yards is a fluke.
Now Joe, tell me how far a .22 drops at 200 yards with a 25 yard setting? How far does it drop at 400 yards?

[44man]

44man,

I may have a program that'll be fairly close. I need muzzle velocity and guestimated balistic coefficient. I try to get you a number if you have that info. Of course, I won't figure in any wind drift.:p

Edd
OK, let's go with the 429421 boolit and guess at a BC of about .155.
Make the muzzle velocity 1400 fps.

[44man]

Like everyone so far, I am NOT anything approaching Elmer as a pistol shooter.

However, I've had the fairly-frequent opportunity to shoot .44 Magnums (and other calibers) at extreme range over water, where impacts are very easy to see. These ranges stretched to 1200 yards or so on occasion.

No, we did NOT pick an object high above the intended mark. For one thing, there were no such objects available. Elmer himself had gold bars inlaid at various elevations across his front sights, and used these to adjust the amount of front sight he held above the top of the rear sight. I did the poor-man's version of this technique, and used a gold paintstick to apply the "bars". It worked, and LONG range hits were not all that difficult.

Based on my personal experience, which is far less than that possessed by Mr. Keith, I've always believed that the 600-yard shot was well within his capabilities.

Incidentally, our long-range-over-water shooting was done in TRUE WILDERNESS, on fly-in trips to places with zero chance of accidentally perforating anyone.

As officer trainees in the Canadian Army, we were required to "calibrate our pace", which amounted to seeing how many NORMAL walking paces it took to cover 100 feet....first on level ground, and then over different terrains so that we could apply needed correction factors to arrive at a reasonable estimate. A "pace" is the amount of ground covered from left-foot to left-foot, and in my case is almost precisely five feet on the level. I use it to this day, almost fifty years later, and it still works.
How do you measure distance over water? You need an object and a range finder. If you were shooting over 1200 yards with a .44 by just raising the front sight in the rear site and not aiming WAAAAY over, what would I call you?

[anachronism]

So is it agreed that it is impossible to hit a deer at 500 yards with an iron-sighted 44 magnum? I've read enough by Elmer, and more importantly about Elmer, by people who knew him, to lead me to the conclusion that if he said he did it, I believe him. This man came from a time when if a mans word is no good, the man is no good either. This is in stark contrast to the values of today where the first liar doesn't stand a chance.

Step away from the computer & go shooting.

[Bret4207]

If you're smart you won't call anyone anything lest the same be done in return.

[StarMetal]

Should I be impressed? We shot to 500 meters with revolvers on a farm with actual distance measurements and I kept 12 out of 12 shots in a five gallon can of water at 400 meters shooting Creedmore with my SRH. Oh, sorry, it was scoped!
But I kept all shots on the ram at 500 meters with my single shot pistols and open sights. Both 7R and 7BR. A 55 gallon drum is more of an off hand target! :kidding:
Yes, back in the day, I had silver bars across my front sight too.
As far as Ed, nobody ever shot like he did and nobody ever will. But I consider Elmer no better then some of us here, a good shot.
Some of you can't get it out of your heads that if you shoot 3" to 4" groups at 50 yards that hitting a target at 600 yards is a fluke.
Now Joe, tell me how far a .22 drops at 200 yards with a 25 yard setting? How far does it drop at 400 yards?

Jim,

Guess you didn't get the analogies on distance. Everyone is aiming lots over the target on long range shots, it just doesn't require that much raising of the barrel because the ratio.

Joe

[Bad Water Bill]

I wish they would reprint some of Harvey Donaldson,s stories that were in the magazine till his death. He sounded like he was just across the campfire from you.

[Ugluk]

I must admit I'm more disturbed by the lack of ethics displayed in the thread than impressed by the remarkable shooting..
Glock potshots at 100 yds? At a living creature? No, would not ever unless it was wounded already. Or a small moving target like a chuck at 500yds? Hell no.

Just does not sit well with me. One shot one kill, and no plinking on living things.

Perhaps this is a difference in culture I was not previously aware of.

[44man]

Jim,

Guess you didn't get the analogies on distance. Everyone is aiming lots over the target on long range shots, it just doesn't require that much raising of the barrel because the ratio.

Joe
Oh, I do know. And the .44 is very bad as far as elevation because of the extreme drop. Sure I know .005" can change POI 10" at 200 yards. To raise the front sight in the rear at 600 yards means more then bars across the front sight, it means a lot more held up. The farther out you shoot, the quicker the drop. When you run out of front sight, you need to start raising something.
Even you forget the sudden increase in drop as distance gets longer. If you shoot 200 yards and go to 400, it is way more then twice the hold over and at 600 it is a hell of a lot more the three times the hold over. Have you overcome gravity? At some point the boolit is heading almost straight down to earth, not a smooth curve where each distance is an even amount from the shorter distance.
Are you trying to tell me an inch drop from 50 to 100 is still an inch from 100 to 150 and still an inch from 150 to 200, etc? How about 50 to 600? Is it an inch for each 50 yards?
Some of you sound like a guy at work that went pronghorn hunting. He said he shot a goat at 500 yards. I know his sight settings because he did it here, 1" high at 100 yards. When asked where he held, he said dead on!!!! MY GOD, WHAT A FLAT SHOOTING RIFLE.
Joe, you forget what ratio is. As distance gets longer. the ratio changes, it does not stay the same.

[Cap'n Morgan]

OK, let's go with the 429421 boolit and guess at a BC of about .155.
Make the muzzle velocity 1400 fps.

At 600 yards the bullet will drop almost exactly 50'. Which means you must aim at a point fifty feet over the target.

If we calculate the angle between line-of-sight and line-of-bore we get 1.59 degrees I'll spare you the math, but what it means is that the factor between the distance and the drop is 0.0277. Once we have this factor we merely multiply it with the distance between front- and rear sight to calculate how much you should raise the front sight.

Let's say the distance is 8" for a for a gun with a 6" barrel, and do the math: 8 x .0277 = 0.2216 - This is how much "extra" front sight you'll need to connect at 600 yards. (a tad less, actually, as you already compensated a little by sighting the gun at 50 yards)

[BruceB]

How do you measure distance over water? You need an object and a range finder. If you were shooting over 1200 yards with a .44 by just raising the front sight in the rear site and not aiming WAAAAY over, what would I call you?

"How do you measure distance over water?"

Actually, it's fairly simple....to those who understand the word "MAP". Very detailed maps are available outside of commercial every-day sources, and we used them...usually mineral-claim maps.

I do not need a range finder OR an aiming point above the intended impact. The "object" is the target. At 1200 yards we were well past using any part of the front sight, and it was a question of how much barrel or topstrap was held above the rear sight. Results were still good enough to impress me. I was certainly POINTING (line of bore) waaaay over, but the front sight was still on-target.

What would you call me? I dunno...maybe "mortar"? If you were implying that I'm a liar, I suggest you re-think that.

[44man]

So is it agreed that it is impossible to hit a deer at 500 yards with an iron-sighted 44 magnum? I've read enough by Elmer, and more importantly about Elmer, by people who knew him, to lead me to the conclusion that if he said he did it, I believe him. This man came from a time when if a mans word is no good, the man is no good either. This is in stark contrast to the values of today where the first liar doesn't stand a chance.

Step away from the computer & go shooting.
Do you mean that all of us lie today? Do you say I have lost values? Do you say that as good as I shoot, that I will ever shoot at a deer past 100 yards with a revolver? I hate to tell you but ethics means if an animal needs shot at over 100 yards, it needs a rifle to do the job.
No way in hell I will shoot at any big game animal past 100 with a revolver but a varmint is different. They are so small it is either a hit or a miss, not a wounded animal.
Elmer had ethics, he did not shoot until his client screwed up but to tell the truth, he should have carried a rifle.

[StarMetal]

The thing is that 50 foot distance over the target only appears, at 600 yards away, of raising your barrel a fraction of an inch. If you were looking through a pane of glass and put a dot with a marker pen where the target is and then another dot where 50 feet above that target is, how far apart would the two dots on that glass be?

Another way at looking at it. If you have a 30-40 Krag with a 30 inch barrel and another with a 16 inch barrel and you raised the rear sight on both of them 1/16 of an inch, which one would move the bullet impact the most?

Jim, take an old Mauser, Springfield, Mosin, or any other rifle and move the ladder sight up to 600 yards and see how little you're actually raising the barrel.

Joe

[Rocky Raab]

Well, the thread has deteriorated to near-name-calling and a series of "yeah buts" countered with "except whens" and "only ifs."

I'm dropping out before it gets to the "my Mom can beat up your Mom" stage.

[44man]

"How do you measure distance over water?"

Actually, it's fairly simple....to those who understand the word "MAP". Very detailed maps are available outside of commercial every-day sources, and we used them...usually mineral-claim maps.

I do not need a range finder OR an aiming point above the intended impact. The "object" is the target. At 1200 yards we were well past using any part of the front sight, and it was a question of how much barrel or topstrap was held above the rear sight. Results were still good enough to impress me. I was certainly POINTING (line of bore) waaaay over, but the front sight was still on-target.

What would you call me? I dunno...maybe "mortar"? If you were implying that I'm a liar, I suggest you re-think that.
Not a thought to calling you a liar, just a genius but you explained how you held and is just what i believed you had to do.
Maps I can believe. I know a person can NOT tell distance over water with his eyes so anyone that claims to do so will be a liar.

[StarMetal]

Well, the thread has deteriorated to near-name-calling and a series of "yeah buts" countered with "except whens" and "only ifs."

I'm dropping out before it gets to the "my Mom can beat up your Mom" stage.


Notice...not me...I've been very polite and frugal at trying to express my thoughts.

Joe

[44man]

The thing is that 50 foot distance over the target only appears, at 600 yards away, of raising your barrel a fraction of an inch. If you were looking through a pane of glass and put a dot with a marker pen where the target is and then another dot where 50 feet above that target is, how far apart would the two dots on that glass be?

Another way at looking at it. If you have a 30-40 Krag with a 30 inch barrel and another with a 16 inch barrel and you raised the rear sight on both of them 1/16 of an inch, which one would move the bullet impact the most?

Jim, take an old Mauser, Springfield, Mosin, or any other rifle and move the ladder sight up to 600 yards and see how little you're actually raising the barrel.

Joe
Of course you are correct but all of the discussions so far has been about actual distance of Elmer's shots and how he measured them. We all shoot distances that make most rifle shooters blush.
All of you are steering off course a little.
Every barrel length will be different too.
All I want is the truth to the distance Elmer shot. Personally, I don't believe it because he had no way in hell to measure it within 200 yards. The country he hunted makes that iffy.
Any of you that think the old timers told nothing but the truth, I have news for you. They were worse then we are today. Bragging and embellishing every single story until a person was elevated above a God was common.
If I post tomorrow about a shot I made on a 90# deer with my revolver at 750 yards (paced of course) and the mayor of Charlestown witnessed it, I am sure all of you would believe me! [smilie=s:
Project a 4" group at 50 yards to 600 yards (some can't get that at 25 yards) and tell me you can hit a 1# coffee can so far that you can't see it without a 36 power spotting scope but can hit it with open sights, yeah, sure! I shoot dimes at 800 yards too with my .22.
Joe has not told me yet how far a .22 pistol drops at 200 yards or 400 yards.

[StarMetal]

Of course you are correct but all of the discussions so far has been about actual distance of Elmer's shots and how he measured them. We all shoot distances that make most rifle shooters blush.
All of you are steering off course a little.
Every barrel length will be different too.
All I want is the truth to the distance Elmer shot. Personally, I don't believe it because he had no way in hell to measure it within 200 yards. The country he hunted makes that iffy.
Any of you that think the old timers told nothing but the truth, I have news for you. They were worse then we are today. Bragging and embellishing every single story until a person was elevated above a God was common.
If I post tomorrow about a shot I made on a 90# deer with my revolver at 750 yards (paced of course) and the mayor of Charlestown witnessed it, I am sure all of you would believe me! [smilie=s:
Project a 4" group at 50 yards to 600 yards (some can't get that at 25 yards) and tell me you can hit a 1# coffee can so far that you can't see it without a 36 power spotting scope but can hit it with open sights, yeah, sure! I shoot dimes at 800 yards too with my .22.
Joe has not told me yet how far a .22 pistol drops at 200 yards or 400 yards.

Jim, Okay..reading you know. Not looking up the actual figures that 22 bullet drops pretty darn far. Once when hunting groundhogs in PA with my Browning 22 leveraction, scoped, I decided on the way back to house to set this big flat shell rock on a fence post to shoot at from my back yard. This was out in the country and the fence post was in a pasture with no cows...all safe to shoot and there was a bank behind it. If I remember the rifle was sighted for 50-75 yards. I got to the back yard and sat against a tree. The distance was about 450 yards. To boot there was a pretty good wind west to east directly across my line of fire. First just for ranging I aimed directly at the rock. I could see my shots because the pasture was dry. I forget how many feet above that rock I aimed to get the elevation, but the wind was blowing the bullet off more then the drop? Eventually I got it all right and peg the rock. I remember I wasn't pointing my rifle sky high to make the shot, but you can bet the distance above it was a good number of feet. I told this other story to Larry Gibson by pm. When I lived in OK I use to shoot down at this river. This was in the middle of nowhere so safe to shoot. I had my Brazilian 98 with the Lee 150 Loverin loaded to about 18-1900 fps. I was up on the bank along side the river which was about a 25 yard bank up at a steep angle. The river made a turn and you could see really really far parallel with that river. Now mind you nothing but praire land beyond and no housing or industry. I wanted to see how far out that river my bullet would hit holding the rifle level so the sighting was above the water. I fired and had enough time to put the rifle down and still see the bullet hit the water. Let me tell you it was really really really far down that river. Yards? Haven't a clue. I was impressed how it shot really. I sure didn't have to hold the muzzle skyward.

I'm outta this thread now that you I pretty much agree on some things. I don't know how far Elmer's shot really was, but it was deliberate and he hit the animal and put it down.

Joe

[Heavy lead]

Joe has not told me yet how far a .22 pistol drops at 200 yards or 400 yards.

That totally depends on how hard you can throw it.
Maybe StarMetal has a hell of an arm.:bigsmyl2:

[1874Sharps]

Ugluk,

I appreciate your sense of hunting ethics and must say that hunters I know would agree with you on self-imposed humane range limitations. I am sure these limits will vary a bit from hunter to hunter depending on type of equipment, skill and confidence level, etc., but nobody I know would want to take potshots at game. I remember reading about an instance years ago when Elmer Keith shot a big game animal (I cannot now remember if it was a deer or elk) at around 500 yards with his six shooter. However, the animal had already been wounded and he was trying to put it down and was not advocating hunting with a six shooter at that kind of range. Hope this is helpful (and civil and respectful!) for all.

[AZ-Stew]

I remember reading about an instance years ago when Elmer Keith shot a big game animal (I cannot now remember if it was a deer or elk) at around 500 yards with his six shooter.

And finally the loop on this thread has closed.

Regards,

Stew

[anachronism]

Clarification: I did not call anyone a liar. I made a general statement on the lack of values today. If I felt anyone needed to be called out, I would have done so by name. In Elmers day, if your word was no good, you were no good. This made life much more difficult because you couldn't get a loan, or even rent a house because you weren't trustworthy. This followed you for life. Elmer made a controversial shot in front of witnesses, this topic has been beat to death, many times over the years. Brian Pearce just proved once again that it was possible, still a man that's been dead for many years is being called a liar.

[44man]

Clarification: I did not call anyone a liar. I made a general statement on the lack of values today. If I felt anyone needed to be called out, I would have done so by name. In Elmers day, if your word was no good, you were no good. This made life much more difficult because you couldn't get a loan, or even rent a house because you weren't trustworthy. This followed you for life. Elmer made a controversial shot in front of witnesses, this topic has been beat to death, many times over the years. Brian Pearce just proved once again that it was possible, still a man that's been dead for many years is being called a liar.
You just don't get it, I am not calling the great man a liar, I just would like to know how the distances were determined. It could very well be true that he was precise but I have no way of knowing that. I never call anyone a liar, only, just maybe they could be mistaken.
Stop thinking honest people have changed. If I give my word be assured I will do all in my power to back it up. I trust many here even though I don't know them, in fact I don't know anyone here I would NOT trust. Things have not changed at all and there were as many unscrupulous people back then as there is now in relation to the population.
I forgive all mistakes but not out and out lies. I want the same consideration and so do all of you.

[Bret4207]

Well, the thread has deteriorated to near-name-calling and a series of "yeah buts" countered with "except whens" and "only ifs."

I'm dropping out before it gets to the "my Mom can beat up your Mom" stage.

I'd stay but my hip boots are out for repair.

BTW- My sincerest apologies for even starting this thread, especially to Bruce B, a man whose word I would take any time, anywhere.

[1874Sharps]

You know, I have found the vast majority of the shooting community to be a very honest sort. My wife and I have sold a couple of hundred bullet molds at auction on a site that will not be named. A number of times the buyer said that he/she would like to send a money order for payment. Our policy has been to send out the mold before receiving the MO (just based on the word of the customer) so that our customer will get the mold faster. We did this more than a dozen or two times and were never disappointed -- not once. Honesty is not confined to the shooting community, to be sure, but in my life experience there seem to be alot of honest folks among us shooters.

[Firebricker]

After reading this thread I went back and read the article Elmer Keith wrote about this in
Handloader #3 Sept-Oct 1966. In this article he does'nt say anything about how the range was determined. He says "Paul said he was sure it was not his shot and I could not believe I had hit him moving at well over 600 yards." I just thought you guys would find it interesting. A couple of other interesting quotes "I have been called a liar over this episode more times than anything I have ever written, but here are the facts: "
And "The reason so many people label long sixgun shooting as a lie or a myth is pure ignorance of the subject. " FB

[44man]

Hey Joe, I can tell you how much a .22 pistol round drops at 200 yards with a 25 yard setting--53".

[pmeisel]

As officer trainees in the Canadian Army, we were required to "calibrate our pace", which amounted to seeing how many NORMAL walking paces it took to cover 100 feet....first on level ground, and then over different terrains so that we could apply needed correction factors to arrive at a reasonable estimate. A "pace" is the amount of ground covered from left-foot to left-foot, and in my case is almost precisely five feet on the level. I use it to this day, almost fifty years later, and it still works.

I remember wondering why my 6'2" dad took strides that were the same length as his 5'7" friend, when I was about 6, until the magic of 30" strides for military marching was explained to me....

[Tom Myers]

Can anyone here figure drop of a 240 gr boolit at 600 if sighted for 50?

44man,

I used the values of a Keith bullet with a muzzle velocity of 11 fps from a 6.5 " Colt with fixed sights and entered them into the Precision Ballistics Calculator. As you can see, the calculated bullet drop from level fire at 600 yards is 780.6 inches and the amount that the front sight would need to be raised above a 50 yard zero would only be 0.278 inches.

Hope this Helps,
Respectfully,
Tom Myers

http://www.tmtpages.com/LinkSkyImages/forum_images/High%20Trajectory/44Cal-600yardTraj.gif

http://www.tmtpages.com/LinkSkyImages/forum_images/High%20Trajectory/44Cal-600yard.gif

[44man]

44man,

I used the values of a Keith bullet with a muzzle velocity of 11 fps from a 6.5 " Colt with fixed sights and entered them into the Precision Ballistics Calculator. As you can see, the calculated bullet drop from level fire at 600 yards is 780.6 inches and the amount that the front sight would need to be raised above a 50 yard zero would only be 0.278 inches.

Hope this Helps,
Respectfully,
Tom Myers

http://www.tmtpages.com/LinkSkyImages/forum_images/High%20Trajectory/44Cal-600yardTraj.gif

http://www.tmtpages.com/LinkSkyImages/forum_images/High%20Trajectory/44Cal-600yard.gif
OK, that is great and helps a lot. With the height of a S&W sight I can now see with a little ramp showing he did indeed shoot that far. It answers a lot of my questions.
I shot open sights pretty far but never that far. Places where boolit impact could be seen where just not there, being grass and weeds when chuck hunting. Easy to shoot up 100 shots without seeing anything hit so I never tried it. Now that I belong to a club with distance, I need the red dot because I can't see the dumb sights for crap.
So Elmer did know his distances and how to figure them over all kinds of ground.
Thank you for clearing things up for me.

[runfiverun]

that sight setting would make sense as it is very close to my 400 sight rise for the longer bbl on my lever gun.
once i quit trying to count the rear sight clicks and used the front sight raise and hold
shots at longer distances became easier.

[Thumbcocker]

Elmer was on high power rifle teams and shot at Camp Perry. Would this have had any impact on his ability to estimate range?

[44man]

Elmer was on high power rifle teams and shot at Camp Perry. Would this have had any impact on his ability to estimate range?
Yes, I think so. Working with range is the same as shooting in that you need to work with it every day. He must have had a lot of practice because even with close distances for archery, if you don't shoot all the time, you lose the ability to guess close enough to hit anything.
Back before lasers, if the guide said the deer is 400 yards, it would be uncanny, so how do you explain it?
Back in the day I would pace to every chuck hole whether I got a shot or not. I would remember every field, every hole and how far everything was. You can't do that in the wide open spaces. You can't do it in the mountains, over water or the desert. Humans are REALLY poor at guessing distance. Even a change of where you are screws things up. 20 yards on the ground looks a whole lot different from a tree stand.
Yeah I have done things like when a deer stepped out and I looked at it, said to myself he looks like 45 yards and planted an arrow right behind his shoulder, but I can't tell the times I shot over or under. Even the light you are in can mess things up. The darker it gets the harder it is.

[500MAGdaddy]

I agree with 44Man that the pacing method of ranging is especially crude when you consider difficult terrain. Keith's measurement may have been more of an educated ( and very well educated at that) guess. I would say that it was one helluva long way off though and one more hellacious shot! Then again, hell, even a blind hog will get an acorn now and then.

[pmeisel]

Working with range is the same as shooting in that you need to work with it every day.

Most serious golfers I know are excellent at estimating by eyeball ranges under 150 yards.. because of the practice they get at it.

[Bullshop]

This thread has had my interest but seemed like a ticking bomb I wanted to avoid.
Not to boast myself up and espound on my long range achievements with handgun just suffice to say I too have learned how.
I see everyone mentioning raising the front sight for a long range shot but in my view that is exactly wrong. The way I shoot long range the front sight never changes for any shot at any range, It always stays at 6:00. To gain range the rear sight is lowered allowing the front sight to be seen above level of the rear but the front always stays the same in relation to the target, clearly visible at 6:00. The shorter the barrel the less range/sight/angle of bore correction needed.
I had the pleasure/misery of working for Elmers partner Erv Malnorich. Erv showed me one of two tool room N frame pre 29's sent to him by Elmer, sent to Elmer by S&W for testing. This was pre 1955. The guns have no markings what so ever, just smooth on both sides. It was at this time Erv was known as the best elk guide available. He had an elaberate outfitting place in what is now the Bitterroot Selway wilderness. After the wilderness act the Gov paid him $ .50 an acre and burned down everything he built.
Erv did a lot of the elk shooting in Elmers early writings about how the 44 performed on elk. Like I said they had been partners in a packing/freighting business in the Shoup area on the Salmon going over the divide between Idaho and Mt.
Erv was a hard man to get along with but I respected what they had done so much I stuck with him and learned a few things. He told me he will be burried with that 44 so I quit trying.
Blessings
BIC/BS

[35remington]

"I see everyone mentioning raising the front sight for a long range shot but in my view that is exactly wrong. The way I shoot long range the front sight never changes for any shot at any range, It always stays at 6:00."

Bullshop, that's the way everyone else does it too. The "raising the front sight" is in reference to the sight picture in relation to the rear sight. The front sight is raised relative to the rear sight, but the front sight's relationship to the target stays the same as before, whether you use the six o'clock hold or the "centering the blade in the middle of the target" hold.

[MT Gianni]

I agree with 44Man that the pacing method of ranging is especially crude when you consider difficult terrain. Keith's measurement may have been more of an educated ( and very well educated at that) guess. I would say that it was one helluva long way off though and one more hellacious shot! Then again, hell, even a blind hog will get an acorn now and then.

Keith says he hit the deer with 2 out of 4 shots AIRC, though it wasn't until it was skinned that they verified the 2nd hit.

Dan, the system you describe is the same as described above. The front sight stays at 6:00 on the target, it is elevated in it's position to the rear sight so that it isn't level with it. There is a lot of ramp showing over the rear sight but the front sight blade stays @ 6:00 on the target.

[onceabull]

Dan: you are certainly not the only one to be tested by association with Erv.Malnarich..(with this spelling one can google up a lot of fine info.re:this "gentlemen" and his renowned school for outfitters & guides.) Did you work for him on the guide side,or at the School, Dan ? good to see you on here again...Onceabull

[Down South]

I'm about half way through mine. The "Hardcast" article was good.