BHN, Bullet Fit, SWC's, LBT's, Elmer Keith [Archive]

44MAG#1

01-14-2010, 11:48 AM

With all the threads about bullet fit, BHN, SWC's WFN's LFN's etc. I wonder if Elmer Keith was very concerned about it.
Reading his writings he considered 1-16 tin and lead alloys as hard. In his book Sixguns he said he used 1-16 alloy bullets to work up the original Keith 44 Mag load. This same alloy was the one sent to Whites Labs for pressure testing.
It seems that with all the writings I've seen nowadays that without brick hard bullets fit to the chamber throats and with a LBT style bullet ones loads are not accurate.
Could it be that Keith was not the man with a sixgun that we all have read about and that maybe he was just an average shot with a handgun?
I don't know anything about him myself but after reading all that is written today I am beginning to wonder about him and his ability.
Has anyone ever seen him shoot in person? I know he is deceased but maybe someone that was young in the '50's could possibly have been witness to his ability.
It sure would make me feel better about him.

sixshot

01-14-2010, 12:53 PM

Even though Elmer Keith has been dead since 1984 his name is still mentioned in almost every handgun article being written today. Well known writers like John Taffin, Brian Pearce, Dave Scovill, Ross Seyfried & many others still refer to Elmer "the Prophet" in their articles & speak highly of him & all that he did for all of us who love sixguns.
When it comes to Elmer Keith there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, either you liked him or you didn't, thats usually the case with anyone that gives their opinion very often. He helped to design sixguns, holsters, rifles, bullets, sights, bullet moulds, handgun stocks & many other gun related items. Many in the firearms industry ask for his imput for years on various products or issues that would make their product better.
Although I met Elmer several times I never got the chance to see him shoot but have talked with several who did, I've heard people say that he wasn't as good a shooter as advertised but I've never heard that from anyone who saw the man shoot, some called him a liar.....mostly because they couldn't do what he was doing 50-60 years ago, thats sad!
Ross Seyfried is a former world champion handgun shooter & in my eyes is the greatest all around gun man on the planet, who could possibly know more about sixguns, rifles, double rifles, drillings, shotguns, all the old blackpowder cartridges, & the british cordite guns that Seyfried, perhaps no one. Ross shot with Elmer Keith many times & once stated in Guns & Ammo magazine that the greatest all around gunman he ever knew was........Elmer Keith, that statement was using rifle, handgun & shotgun, thats a pretty good endorsement!
Elmer shot many times at Camp Perry, how many of the disbelievers ever shot at Camp Perry or anywhere else except for their own indoor 50 ft. range & yet can call another man a liar, again, its really sad to hear people take someone down like that under any circumstances.

Just my opinion, Dick

44man

01-14-2010, 01:17 PM

That's a good observation. Elmer was a good shot FOR HIS DAY with a revolver and even the best exhibition shooters were shooting close range. Elmer extended the ranges to places no one thought possible but my question was how did anyone know how far he actually shot over the country he hunted? How was distance measured? Paced off by Elmer up and down hills and mountains?
I do not doubt that he did shoot far at places with known ranges and he brought the revolver to what we have today and I respect what he did but we are much more advanced today.
My feeling is the modern revolver and boolits would shoot circles around what he used and if he was here today, he would be amazed, fall right in and shoot like crazy.
I don't like the Keith boolit, it is old stuff. I don't think Elmer ever got near real accuracy. But for what he used, he was a good shot, I doubt he could do much better then a foot group at 100 yards (Maybe worse.) and all the long range shots were by God shots.
Now if you want to have fun, get an old Colt, the same boolits and powder Elmer had and go shoot 500 yards. Well heck, use a Ransom Rest while you are at it. Then we can compare if you have any hits on the targets to show.

45 2.1

01-14-2010, 01:28 PM

I don't think Elmer ever got near real accuracy. But for what he used, he was a good shot, I doubt he could do much better then a foot group at 100 yards (Maybe worse.) and all the long range shots were by God shots.
Now if you want to have fun, get an old Colt, the same boolits and powder Elmer had and go shoot 500 yards. Well heck, use a Ransom Rest while you are at it. Then we can compare if you have any hits on the targets to show.

You really need to look at some of the old gun-zine articles. Keith had mostly custom made guns from some of the best smiths in the country. I've seen his #5 single action. His son Ted was sitting by the case it was displayed in along with several other guns and targets of his. Don't think your the only one who knows something and can shoot that way....................

9.3X62AL

01-14-2010, 01:34 PM

It's not my place to call into question ANY of Elmer Keith's accomplishments. That they were many and varied, no question as to that. I like and use his boolit designs. 25 years have passed since we lost Mr. Keith, and I think he would strongly approve of the accuracy advances that have occurred in that time period. My point--without Mr. Keith's contributions, I sincerely doubt that handgun accuracy technology would be anywhere near its place today.

Wally

01-14-2010, 01:34 PM

You'd be amazed what you could do with a decent revolver, over a long strectch of flat land that is dry and a bit dusty. Set up a suitable target at 100 yards or more and patiently shoot at it carefully, watching for the bullet impacts. In no time one can hit the target consistently.

I recall shooting my Ruger .30 M-1 Carbine using the Lyman 130 grain RN bullet and 6.0 grains of Unique at a 20 ounce can on a freshly disked sandy field at 250 yards. After a no of cylinderfuls darn if that can didn't have holes in it! This is with iron sights. I am not a crackshot by any stretch. If I can do it, so can most others, many doing even better than I.

anachronism

01-14-2010, 01:59 PM

Disregard anything Elmer said about himself (which wasn't that much), and read what others said about him & his abilities. The man grew up in a world most people now days can only speculate about, and many do so, perniciously. Remember this, just because YOU cannot do something doesn't mean that it cannot be done, or that it has never been done. Even self-appointed legends.

Bucks Owin

01-14-2010, 02:48 PM

I don't think Elmer let any story suffer in the telling, and I have serious doubts about some of his long range claims. He still seems to be a "mentor" for a lot of handgunners and I've no doubt that his bullet design was a great step forward from those of his day. Remember, he was shooting in his heyday with black powder! But time marches on and he, unfortunately, couldn't. We now have better bullets and powders than he had, and if he'd had them, he would have taken advantage of that I'm sure. The bruhaha he inadvertently caused over his quip in "sixguns" regarding "a weak .45 Colt case" irks me and anyway, he should have known better than to stuff an oversized heavy bullet over a casefull of black in a old (likely corroded) folded head case. Eventually it caught up with him! Had he had the guns and components we have these days, I think it's possible he may have stuck with the .45 Colt with it's bigger bullet instead of veering off to the .44 Spl. Wouldn't THAT have the .429"ers of today in an uproar! :bigsmyl2: JMO, Dennis

ole 5 hole group

01-14-2010, 03:13 PM

Sixshot - I’m with you all the way on this one. I’ve read where Elmer’s Creed was: Just do it – Be damn sure you can prove it and then you can write about it – in my day we said - talk the talk and then walk the walk. I never had the pleasure of meeting this great man but without him we wouldn’t be on the firearm fast track we are now enjoying. Most shooters who have heard his name have never taken the time to read his books or articles and that’s their loss. 45 2.1 stated it correctly – Some of Elmer’s revolvers were top notch and Elmer put in the trigger time necessary to shoot all firearms very well and the best firearms extremely well. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that once Elmer ran a cylinder or two through a well made revolver and got the feel of it – he could do with it, as the best shooters today could shoot it. He was truly a “can do” man among men.

fecmech

01-14-2010, 03:21 PM

"I doubt he could do much better then a foot group at 100 yards (Maybe worse.) and all the long range shots were by God shots. "

I don't think EK would have been satisfied at all with 6"-1' groups at 100 yds. I shot silhouette back in the 70's with a stock Ruger SBH and the Lyman 429421 "Keith" style bullet. I did not set the world on fire with my shooting but did manage to shoot high 20's and low 30's with that combo regularly. I had a Ransom Rest at the time and with ACWW the gun would do 2.5"@ 50 yds and 3-3.5" with a 40/1 lead tin hollowpoint that I used for chuck hunting. The "Keith" is probably not todays best for long range accuracy but I wouldn't do a "chicken dance" 400 yds away from someone shooting at me with one!

awaveritt

01-14-2010, 03:48 PM

Today's technology does not diminish the accomplishments of those who excelled at their endeavors before us. Graphite fly rods cast farther, golf clubs and tennis rackets enhance human performance in those sports. Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry would probably not know where to begin in coaching today's NFL teams. But for their moment in time they were at the top of their games and the game is better off for it. Brave and smart astronauts of the 1960's space program probably would not know their way around a modern NASA laboratory but without their accomplishments, we would not have much to build on.

Advancements in metallurgy, powders, engineering, chronographs, state-of- the-art pressure testing equipment, bullet design - all these things would have no doubt amazed Elmer. But like a kid in the candy store, I suspect he would have loved sorting it all out!

Lloyd Smale

01-14-2010, 04:56 PM

thats a good point. elmer didnt have all the fancy molds or alloys or the computers we all have to learn.. He got his info the hard way he went out and shot. What little he did pick up from others he did by writing letters. something most of us dont even know how to do anymore. Im sure if he was alive today he wouldnt be running around bashing others for there opinions. Keep in mind too that back when he was doing this people didnt have the disposable incomes they have now and im sure he didnt have 20 cases of primers and many kegs of powder stashed. even if they did have mone back then they didnt have a gander mountain or cabellas to run to to buy the stuff. they didnt have internet messages every time something went on sale or was available. So no doubt some of us shoot more rounds per year then he did. Personaly i think what he did with what he had was amazing. Lots of people claim to know more then him but i dont see there books on the shelves to buy. talk is cheap. I know one mold maker that claimed to know more and it about got him run out of bussiness. Lots of people who talk the talk but never seem to walk the walk.

Bass Ackward

01-14-2010, 05:01 PM

One more point that needs to be made. A target shot is not always a reality shooter and visa verse.

Personally, I don't set any records for target with a handgun, but can hold my own with single focus targets whether that be stationary or on the move / fly. With a rifle, I am just the opposite.

Our neighbor and his wife, the Johnsons, were several time state champions with 22LRs. Word was that he was very respectable at Camp Perry in his day too. And seemed that he was born with a shotgun in his hand. Man never got a deer in his life.

So what is the proof of a great shot? Some people just can't concentrate for long monotonous strings at paper. And in the day that Elmer grew up, how much was actually wasted on paper?

targetshootr

01-14-2010, 05:24 PM

I use air cooled ww because of what Keith wrote about them. If l remember correctly, he said a bhn of 11 was good to 1200 fps, which covers anything l'll ever need.

He also said, after sighting in one of his 4" 29s at 100 yards, that the 5" group he shot with it was about as well as he'd expect to do with a gun like that. I think I would too.

44MAG#1

01-14-2010, 05:37 PM

Before anyone misunderstands Elmer Keith is my hero.
I really became a member of this site to ask the question about Custom Gunsmiths to get some feedback concerning my long wait to get just a small job done. On that I realize that one is at the mercy of the gunsmith and I had just better be in for the long haul even if it takes several more months to get the gun back for just a simple job. Quoted time 1 month and I still haven't gotten it back.
Now with all the questions changeling has asked about shooting etc. and the other posts concerning loading, bullets, alloys, lubing etc. I realize I have been probably doing it all wrong for years.
I can shoot pretty well with the way I have been doing it but am now wondering if anything I do is right.
Is there any such thing as to much information? Maybe information overload?
My brain is spinning as I type
Anyway everyone have a good day. And be careful
considering the weather and snow we are having.

awaveritt

01-14-2010, 05:58 PM

Before anyone misunderstands Elmer Keith is my hero.

I for one, am not offended by your question. It's easy to get branded a heretic in today's culture if you dare to ask penetrating questions. I appreciate your honesty and the willingness (courage?) to tread on what some feel is hallowed ground. I've always felt the truth will most often reside between extreme opposite viewpoints.

Piedmont

01-14-2010, 06:18 PM

I would put up many thousands of dollars in a bet that Elmer in his prime could out shoot every member of this board.

44man

01-14-2010, 06:23 PM

You really need to look at some of the old gun-zine articles. Keith had mostly custom made guns from some of the best smiths in the country. I've seen his #5 single action. His son Ted was sitting by the case it was displayed in along with several other guns and targets of his. Don't think your the only one who knows something and can shoot that way....................
Why did you say that? I never mentioned ME in any way, shape or form. I was only referring to the components he had to use. I said he was a great shot but you have to admit most of what he shot was not up to snuff.
Yes he inflated many things in his writings but I never held that against him. Back then HE WAS THE MAN and I think he would do much better today. I read everything he put on paper and have his books and he is the primary reason I have worked so hard and shot so far. Were you shooting a .44 from 200 to 500 yards back in 1956? Were you shooting tiny groups with a .357 at 100 yards with a .357 in the early 50's? Elmer was an inspiration and I will always respect and love him.
We have come a long way with boolits, alloys, powders and yes, the guns too. Elmer would be hopping with glee today.
Why do you put that tag on me when you know I am right? I lived through it and did the same things Elmer did with loading boolits only to find there was better but I admit it took a long time. I was happy back then and thought I was at the peak of accuracy with a revolver. I can't show you what I did back then, only what I have done after many, many years of work.
I am 72 years old, been there done that, why do you denigrate me? I have never once said anything about you and have respected your words and will continue to do so.
Please stop personal attacks. As Lloyd says, I have walked the mile!

cbrick

01-14-2010, 06:39 PM

Elmer's favorite powder was no doubt 2400 and not to admonish 2400 at all, look at the powder selections that were available to Elmer at the time. I have often wondered what would be Elmer's powder of choice today?

It's a real shame that Elmer can't be with us today, with the firearms and component selection available today I'd be willing to bet that Ol Elmer could still show all of us a thing or two.

Rick

BOOM BOOM

01-14-2010, 08:59 PM

HI,
1ST LET ME SAY I RESPECT THE SHOOTERS HERE.
I believe Elmer did what he said he did.
I never met or saw him shoot. But I have met Clair Reese & shot with him. I asked him if he had met Elmer and if the 500yr. story was true. Clair said, YES HE KNEW ELMER PERSONALLY. If Elmer said he did it , you could believe it.
We have shooters on this board who are probibly the same class of shooter as he was. I am sadly not one of them. But I am not dead yet. So I will keep trying to do better & BOY IT WILL BE FUN !:Fire::Fire::Fire:
I miss his writing.

Whitworth

01-14-2010, 09:25 PM

I would put up many thousands of dollars in a bet that Elmer in his prime could out shoot every member of this board.

Ooh, I would take you up on that challenge if it were possible! Then I could say that I've been beaten by Elmer Keith and there is no shame in that! ;)

exile

01-14-2010, 10:05 PM

I do not have the experience of those on this board, I have never taken a head of game, not shot in competition, what I do is shoot cans at my father-in-laws farm for fun, so maybe I don't have the right to speak, but,..

It seems to me that without Elmer Keith we would not have much that we have today, the .44 magnum, the .338 Winchester magnum, the .41 magnum, maybe even the .357, I'm not sure (was that Phil Sharpe ?). All I know is that Elmer Keith laid the groundwork for practically everything that goes on here, so why denigrate him? Who cares whether he could hit something at long range with a handgun? In my opinion that is not his major contribution to the shooting world, in fact, if you ask me it is not even relevant.

He worked as a firearms inspector during WwII, shot at Camp Perry, developed his own cartridges and loads with none of the resources we have now, and did all of this with little money, little support and all this after being burned so badly in a fire that most people would have given up on life itself, much less accomplish what he did.

If I could meet with five people today, my choices would be:

1. My maternal grandfather

2. Dietrich Boenhoeffer

3. Ronald Reagan

4. Elmer Keith

5. Chuck Colson

How quickly the sons forget the instruction of their fathers.

Having said that, let me say that I do not mean to offend anyone with my comments and that I have noticed with this cold weather we are having everyone seems to be attacking each other more often on this board. What a shame. We need to stick together or we will all hang seperately. Our enemies are strong and getting stronger every day. I hope we all have strength for what may lay ahead. The knowledge gained here is so important not only to shooters but to freedom itself. Hope the weather gets better so we can all get out and shoot more and argue less.

Just my thoughts, if they are not worth anything, feel free to disregard them.

In exile,

exile

Bret4207

01-15-2010, 08:29 AM

Apparently some folks here don't read their history. What we consider a vibrant target shooting community these days pales in comparison to the 1880-1925 era. It was a national passtime across the country. Turkeys were regularly shot at 300 yards in competition- with handguns held offhand! Elmer was just one of a large group that decided to write about it. The obstacles he overcame both personally and equipment-wise just make me admire him more. The man wasn't perfect but the claims of him "juicing" his stories more rightly belong to the Jack O'Connor/Craig Boddington/Layne Simpson crowd.

MT Gianni

01-15-2010, 12:57 PM

I'm in Brets camp. When you read one of Elmers stories you knew whether he was skunked, what he shot and where he hit it. It was not always the perfect behind the shoulder out the opposite front shoulder shot. Living very near the country he grew up in and having hunted some of the Bitterroot/Selway he frequented gives me a ton of respect for him.

Uncle R.

01-15-2010, 10:12 PM

Elmer was just one of a large group that decided to write about it. The obstacles he overcame both personally and equipment-wise just make me admire him more. The man wasn't perfect but the claims of him "juicing" his stories more rightly belong to the Jack O'Connor/Craig Boddington/Layne Simpson crowd.

Jack O'Connor "juiced" his stories?
Jack O'Connor?
Awww Bret - You're crushing my spirit here...
:sad:
When I was a youngster - from maybe 10 years old and into my teens - I had my very own subscription to Outdoor Life. I paid for it with money earned delivering newspapers, mowing lawns and shoveling snow. I dang-near memorized that magazine every month when it came. Jack O'Connor was my hero and I suppose I would not have been surprised to read that he walked on water. Of course I was young with the lack of worldly judgment that accompanies youth - so I probably wouldn't have recognized the signs of "embellishment" even if they were there.
With all respect for you Bret I guess you may be just a few years older than me, and may have seen more of O'Connor's writing from an adult perspective. So I'll ask you - Jack O'Connor "juiced" his stories?
Do you really think so?
Uncle R.

Piedmont

01-16-2010, 03:18 AM

It is pretty much common knowledge that Capstick embellished, made up, borrowed, however you want to put it, in his books and articles. I just loved his stuff but when I found out the above it just ruined it for me. Can't stand liars.

Elmer is widely regarded by those who knew him as someone who if he said something you could take it to the bank.

Heavy lead

01-16-2010, 04:55 AM

Perspective, that's what it's all about. Some people think FDR is the best president we've ever had, others think he was the devil himself.
Let it rest, they are all men, not gods, I enjoy reading all of them, but am a bigger fan of Elmer, if he embellished who cares, I've been known to do it a time or two also, like we all have. All legends grow in everyone's mind, it's human nature.

Bret4207

01-16-2010, 08:58 AM

Jack O'Connor "juiced" his stories?
Jack O'Connor?
Awww Bret - You're crushing my spirit here...
:sad:
When I was a youngster - from maybe 10 years old and into my teens - I had my very own subscription to Outdoor Life. I paid for it with money earned delivering newspapers, mowing lawns and shoveling snow. I dang-near memorized that magazine every month when it came. Jack O'Connor was my hero and I suppose I would not have been surprised to read that he walked on water. Of course I was young with the lack of worldly judgment that accompanies youth - so I probably wouldn't have recognized the signs of "embellishment" even if they were there.
With all respect for you Bret I guess you may be just a few years older than me, and may have seen more of O'Connor's writing from an adult perspective. So I'll ask you - Jack O'Connor "juiced" his stories?
Do you really think so?
Uncle R.

According to those who knew him, and I knew a couple that did, and some who came out after his death, yeah, Uncle Jack wasn't above "adding a little zest" to his story. I regret putting him in the same class with Boddington/Simpson and I take it back. He was better than them. O'Connor just irks me because by all accounts he was a real prick, especially to Elmer. I admire O'Connors knowledge and technical expertise as I do Warren Pages and Phil Shapres. But according to people I trust that were there to witness the events O'Connor could be a real mean sob when he had a couple belts in him and he had a large history in that area. He was no where near as bad as Charles Askins Jr, a veritable psychopath from what I can tell, but he wasn't a very nice guy in the areas that count and was a great one for accusing Elmer of stretching things while doing the same thing himself. Maybe it was the day, maybe it was competitive spirit, but I question the need for it. We see the same thing here among our membership. Some people just have a mean streak or low self esteem or whatever psychobabble fits this week and tend to gut people when they could have just disagreed politely. I've found myself doing this and it's not a trait I embrace at all. I think it shows a lack of character and I fight it regularly.

In the end it really doesn't matter. It's akin to those that try and write revisionist history and "dig up the dirt" on such notables as Thomas Jefferson. These days anyone will tell you it's FACT he father children with one of his slaves, yet DNA testing shows no clear link and anecdotal evidence suggest one of his brothers
was known for certain "indiscretions" at the time. What of it? Who really cares? Men are just men and all are prone to failure.

So I'll just keep reading the old tomes and glean what I can from them. Elmer, CS Landis, Phil Sharpe, JR Mattern, Col Whelen, Skeeter and Lucian Cary will remain my favorites. O'Connor, Brown, Page, Crossman, etc will remain respected, but they tend to fall just short of favorite status. To each their own.

Bucks Owin

01-16-2010, 11:18 AM

Thumbcocker

01-16-2010, 11:23 AM

From what I have read Elmer had one large advantage over a lot of shooters. He shot regularly. He talked about shooting a sixgun some every day. Lots of people still dream of being in a position ot do that. He wrote about his father buying him pigs of lead and five pound kegs of black powder. Thats a lot of shooting. You shoot you get where you can hit stuff. I do recall him writing about getting some 6 inch 100 yard groups with a .45 Colt SAA.

My take on Mr. Keith is that he had a definate idea of what a sixgun should do and worked toward that goal as far as cartridge, boolit and velocity. I did read one review of a single shot monster pistol that he wrote. At the end of the article he made a comment to he effect that he preferred a gun that he coud get into action in 2/5 of a second and have multipe shots but that he was only one man. I have always wondered what he would think of the newre bigger cartridges. He might think that they are great advances but then again he might feel that he already had what he needed in terms of power, portability, and accuracy. I didn't know the man so I can't say but it is fun to speculate.

anachronism

01-16-2010, 11:44 AM

I remember Elmer writing about a new 45-70 revolver he shot once. Once seemed to be enough, he seemed to regard the 45-70 in a revolver as being overdone, and, as hard as he tried, couldn't be totally positive about the concept. The company foundered. Elmer had his preferences...

O'conner was interesting to read, with his polished style. I'm not a fan of the "needle gun" (270 Winchester), but there's no denying that many people have found happiness with one. Elmers dislike of the 270 came from early bullet failures, caused by construction that now days would be considered crude. He also considered the 30-06 inadequate for elk, once again because of the bullet construction of his day. Foe elmer, elk rifles started at 33 caliber, and bigger was better as long as they shot reasonably flat. The 35 Whelen, .375 Whelen & 400 Whelens were favored during his days as a hunting guide, and the 333 OKH was a staple for him.

jbc

01-16-2010, 12:02 PM

We see the same thing here among our membership. Some people just have a mean streak or low self esteem or whatever psychobabble fits this week and tend to gut people when they could have just disagreed politely. I've found myself doing this and it's not a trait I embrace at all. I think it shows a lack of character and I fight it regularly.

.

Bret - I'm glad you brought this up as I have problems with this also. I find myself just fuming sitting here behind the keyboard when I smell some of the obvious B.S. that gets shoveled by some here but I am trying to do better about just ignoring it and getting on with my day as it is in all of our best interest to get along and quit all the bickering. This is a great place to learn and discuss with like minded people but some of the squabbling lately has been a bit out of hand.

Back on topic - as you can see from my signature line I do respect Elmer's accomplishments and believe he was a great pioneer in handgun shooting. I also believe that if he was still with us that he would be embracing all the new technology we have avalible and loving every minute of it!

Bucks Owin

01-16-2010, 12:06 PM

Elmers dislike of the 270 came from early bullet failures, caused by construction that now days would be considered crude. He also considered the 30-06 inadequate for elk, once again because of the bullet construction of his day. Not sure when John Nosler introduced his partition bullet, but I remember my dad using them a looooong time ago. They looked different "back in the day", kinda bronze colored with a recessed band around the partition. They performed very predictably, usually shedding the front portion and the rear part would be found under the hide on the "far side". I think it's the Nosler bullet as much as the caliber itself that helped make the .270's good reputation as a killer of large animals like moose and elk and equally sized african plains game....FWIW, Dennis

Bucks Owin

01-16-2010, 12:17 PM

O'Connor just irks me because by all accounts he was a real prick, especially to Elmer. I admire O'Connors knowledge and technical expertise as I do Warren Pages and Phil Shapres. But according to people I trust that were there to witness the events O'Connor could be a real mean sob when he had a couple belts in him and he had a large history in that area.
O'Connor had a history of not suffering fools, that's for sure. And I've read accounts (maybe here?) from a couple guys who knew E.K. up in Salmon ID who claim he was a bit of a blowhard and a moocher of adult beverages. Who does one believe? Take you choice!....Dennis

Bret4207

01-16-2010, 12:45 PM

As I said, none of it really matters.

9.3X62AL

01-16-2010, 01:56 PM

One statement made by Mr. Keith that kinda resonates for me was this--concerning his 44 caliber boolit #429421, he was quoted as having said "1200 FPS is all you need".

Whether fired from my Redhawk or a 4" Model 29, the 240 grain bullet at 1200 FPS is not a wrist-wrenching monster. The recoil is stout, but not uncomfortable. Run that boolit to 1350-1400 FPS, though, and THAT is a whole 'nother story! Such loads aren't likely a good steady diet for older M-29s anyway, and though manageable in the Redhawk--the 1200 FPS loads are a LOT more enjoyable to send downrange.

I think it would be difficult to say today how Mr. Keith would view a lot of what we take for granted currently.

MtGun44

01-16-2010, 02:17 PM

I know that on more than a few occasions when I have been struggling with some
issue related to .357 or .45 or .44 revolvers, that if I go back a read CAREFULLY what
Elmer wrote on the subject, I always find something that I had overlooked the first time I
was reading it, maybe for fun rather than as a textbook, and the key piece of info
was there and suddenly - I had success.

Say what you want, that man knew and passed on a heck of a lot of really solid info
on handguns, reloading and boolits.

I also tend to agree that the issue he had with small bores was much related to the
unreliable bullet designs of the day.

Who here hasn't been favorably impressed with how a .45 70 kills? Elmer was a huge
fan, I believe he said he kept 4 or 5 Win Extra Light 1886 .45-70s around for hunting.

I have done a few things and seen more with guns that if you wrote them down, everyone
would say "What I liar" - but I either did it or saw it, so who cares and I don't spend
much time trying to impress someone about some incredible shooting. This is why I
really do think that Elmer may have been a bit of a strong personality, too strong for
some to take to, I believe he did the stuff he said he did. And remember, he did talk about
doing some boneheaded stuff and some things that didn't work out, just like we all
have done. He mostly spent time on what DID work, so we could benefit from it.

I forget where the quote comes from but it goes something like "I may have seen farther
than others, but if so, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Meaning that
he learned from the pioneers, like Elmer.

Bill

anachronism

01-16-2010, 05:47 PM

Bret - I'm glad you brought this up as I have problems with this also. I find myself just fuming sitting here behind the keyboard when I smell some of the obvious B.S. that gets shoveled by some here but I am trying to do better about just ignoring it and getting on with my day as it is in all of our best interest to get along and quit all the bickering. This is a great place to learn and discuss with like minded people but some of the squabbling lately has been a bit out of hand.

I have a couple of people on "ignore" for this very reason. As far as I'm concerned, they totally devalue any contribution they might have to offer by being impossible to tolerate. I understand that people get grumpy sometimes, it's normal, and it passes. There's one especially mean-spirited one that left me only 2 choices, "ignore" or battle. Since I don't want to be like him, I chose the ignore feature.

My apologies for straying off topic, but in the grand scheme of things, this really is related.

Somebody help me off this here stump...

Old Grump

01-16-2010, 06:50 PM

Old dinosaur myself and I have to admit if there were any men I would love to have walked their path it was Kieth and Cooper. One of the bigger thrills in my life when I was still a puppy, (nearly 30), I was shooting at the High power regional match at what was then known as the Black Canyon Range. I don't know if they were shooting also or just there for the socializing but an awful lot of people seemed to know both of them. He and Cooper were yelling at each other with adult beverages in their hands and cigars in their mouth's so I don't think they were shooting. Cracked up my team captain, a Navy Lt CMDR who said those two should be married. I could talk to generals and admirals back in those days but I flat could not approach those two. I'm afraid I would have swallowed my tongue and sounded like a blithering idiot.

All I know is that progress be damned, the Kieth bullet is still my favorite for my revolvers and in my Ruger Blackhawk is good for old milk buckets on the 200 yard berm shooting off hand. No idea what kind of groups I'm getting at that range but 6" is good enough and 4" is an exceptional day for me at 100 yards. I don't use them for hunting anyway, they are my self defense bullets, (not a fan of hollow points), and like Kieth, people get tired of me saying bigger is better and I will trade velocity for a large slow moving chunk of lead because I know of no deer or man who can duck a bullet. What can I say, I'm a dinosaur.

Thumbcocker

01-16-2010, 08:03 PM

What really gets my haed spinnig is thinking about people who are "out there" now living with their one sixgun day in and day out and what they might be able to do but have never written it down or got noticed.

45 2.1

01-17-2010, 12:21 PM

Why did you say that? I never mentioned ME in any way, shape or form. What part of the post #3 below in Bold Blue is not you since you said I? I was only referring to the components he had to use. Not really what that post said, regardless of what you say now...is it. I said he was a great shot but you have to admit most of what he shot was not up to snuff. According to who?.........You take a 4" N frame 44 Mag like he carried and do it now (no excusses for age as he was doing that when he was your age).
Yes he inflated many things in his writings what might that be, I believe he would be insulted at what you had to say. but I never held that against him. Back then HE WAS THE MAN and I think he would do much better today. I read everything he put on paper and have his books and he is the primary reason I have worked so hard and shot so far. Were you shooting a .44 from 200 to 500 yards back in 1956? Since that was the year of introduction, I doubt few people were doing that. Were you shooting tiny groups with a .357 at 100 yards with a .357 in the early 50's? Elmer was an inspiration and I will always respect and love him.
We have come a long way with boolits, alloys, powders and yes, the guns too. Elmer would be hopping with glee today. Elmer said all we needed was 1200 fps in the 44 Mag.....now why would he change a lifetimes experience for something bigger and meaner? We had the 45 Colt in a very strong gun then also....and he didn't go back.
Why do you put that tag on me when you know I am right? You should really look at your post again. I lived through it and did the same things Elmer did with loading boolits only to find there was better but I admit it took a long time. I was happy back then and thought I was at the peak of accuracy with a revolver. I can't show you what I did back then, only what I have done after many, many years of work. So have we all....don't think you're the only one.
I am 72 years old, been there done that, why do you denigrate me? Where? Point that out. I have never once said anything about you and have respected your words and will continue to do so.
Please stop personal attacks. Where? Point it out again. As Lloyd says, I have walked the mile! Hey, a lot of people here have...not just you.

From Post #3 by 44man:
That's a good observation. Elmer was a good shot FOR HIS DAY with a revolver and even the best exhibition shooters were shooting close range. Elmer extended the ranges to places no one thought possible but my question was how did anyone know how far he actually shot over the country he hunted? How was distance measured? Paced off by Elmer up and down hills and mountains?
I do not doubt that he did shoot far at places with known ranges and he brought the revolver to what we have today and I respect what he did but we are much more advanced today.
My feeling is the modern revolver and boolits would shoot circles around what he used and if he was here today, he would be amazed, fall right in and shoot like crazy.
I don't like the Keith boolit, it is old stuff. I don't think Elmer ever got near real accuracy. But for what he used, he was a good shot, I doubt he could do much better then a foot group at 100 yards (Maybe worse.) and all the long range shots were by God shots.
Now if you want to have fun, get an old Colt, the same boolits and powder Elmer had and go shoot 500 yards. Well heck, use a Ransom Rest while you are at it. Then we can compare if you have any hits on the targets to show.

44man

01-17-2010, 05:28 PM

From Post #3 by 44man:
That's a good observation. Elmer was a good shot FOR HIS DAY with a revolver and even the best exhibition shooters were shooting close range. Elmer extended the ranges to places no one thought possible but my question was how did anyone know how far he actually shot over the country he hunted? How was distance measured? Paced off by Elmer up and down hills and mountains?
I do not doubt that he did shoot far at places with known ranges and he brought the revolver to what we have today and I respect what he did but we are much more advanced today.
My feeling is the modern revolver and boolits would shoot circles around what he used and if he was here today, he would be amazed, fall right in and shoot like crazy.
I don't like the Keith boolit, it is old stuff. I don't think Elmer ever got near real accuracy. But for what he used, he was a good shot, I doubt he could do much better then a foot group at 100 yards (Maybe worse.) and all the long range shots were by God shots.
Now if you want to have fun, get an old Colt, the same boolits and powder Elmer had and go shoot 500 yards. Well heck, use a Ransom Rest while you are at it. Then we can compare if you have any hits on the targets to show.
I think you should go back and read my post again. I never said anything bad about Elmer. He was who I followed and I stated that he would be happy with advancements made in guns, boolits (That are better then his design.) and powders.
To not question things he said about distance, etc shows too much faith that you are unwilling to show anyone else. Why? because it was printed in magazines?
Why do you question when I say "I"? It is just my opinion. Should I say "YOU."
I do NOT like the Keith boolit, that is a fact. It does not shoot that good.
The ball is in your court, get your hands on one of his guns, shoot his loads at 700 yards. I sure want to see what you get.
Yes I bought my first .44 in 1956 and because I read Elmer, I WAS shooting to 400 yards, do you call me a liar? Are you telling me I have not bettered the accuracy now? Are you saying Elmer, as good as he was, could not shoot better today?
I don't know what you are getting at? You confuse the heck out of me.
I have done nothing but praise Elmer and told how he was my inspiration yet you try to run me down by my saying he could do better today, is what I say WRONG or have we gone backwards and what he shot is better?
Have you ever paced long range and then used accurate measurements to confirm it? I have, I spent all of my varmint hunting years measuring and pacing until I was only a foot off or less at each 100 yards. Tape measures and strings used to confirm. Nothing was left to chance or a guess. Come here and tell me how far that tree is across the field behind my house and I will tell you how much you fail. When I say I shot a deer at 100 yards with my revolver, I actually paced it off with 3' paces, not little steps.
Rough terrain makes it IMPOSSIBLE to measure distance without instruments or a range finder. But you believe what was printed.
You sound like the guy that shot a pronghorn at full speed and when asked how far he lead it, he said "I DIDN'T" I held right on.
You denigrate actual experience and years of work to prove WHAT?
Are you telling everyone that nobody on earth can make a revolver shoot as good or better then Elmer? Are you saying Elmer would shoot better with the old stuff?
It appears you are saying "I" more then I am.

Lloyd Smale

01-17-2010, 07:06 PM

"I" its a funny word. some people think that when i say I like something or do something that im saying they like or should do the same thing. I like Elmer and I think he was a hell of a shot and he was from what ive read and heard even a better judge of distance then he was a shot. How would he compare to some people these days we will never know and would be just assuming and you know what the say about the word assume. One thing to keep in mind is that guns bullets powders primers EVERYTHING we use today is better then what it was when he was doing it. Does that make us better probably not it just makes us more fortunate. This argument has been around since ive been hangunning. I guess i have to wonder why the hell someone would even bring it up. Its about like saying that George Washington was the best president we ever had. Would he stand up to todays scrutinization. I doubt it but im not going to bad mouth anyone that cant defend himself. Id be willing to bet some on here shoot more rounds per month then Elmer could afford to shoot in a year but bottom line is that he was a fine shot and without his kind back then wed still be shooting 38 specials and handgun hunting probably wouldnt exist. So for that i thank God for putting him on earth. Also my dogs name is elmer keith and if you knew him youd know that the name elmer fits him to a tee so without Elmer id have had to call him spot or browie or some fricking stupid name like that. 44man has a right to his opinion just like anyone else. I get kind of tired of people reading a post and picking out two words in the post and twisting them around to make someone into a jerk. We arent a bunch of college educated journalist here and sometime even I dont allways use the right words to say what i mean. We are all freinds here and some need to lighten up a bit.

45 2.1

01-17-2010, 07:22 PM

44man

01-17-2010, 11:06 PM

You do whatever you want Jim. Your really worked up and need to calm down before something busts. My point was, "Do you believe that you are the only one doing what you do". Many folks have duplicated what Keith did and more, probably more than you think possible.
Not worked up at all, just don't pick parts of a post unless you know what the whole post said.
And no, I am not that good a shot and there are better here. Not the point, the point is some of what I recommend might make someones gun shoot better. If not, it was still worth a try.
I am not angry with you but you do tend to show the wrong side now and then.

Slow Elk 45/70

01-18-2010, 12:51 AM

I'm sorry some of you folks want to defame old Elmer, he did a lot for our getting us where we are today......I'm sure he could not make the grade with some of you folks, but he did a lot of up front work for some of the guns/loads we use today....why try to defame this man ???? can you do better???? A little Humility will go a long way with some of of us. He spent years of his life working on what he thought would work...if not you wouldn't have a 44 mag.... I'm sure some of you fellows need a platform to yelp from....so go make it better. IMHO

Slow Elk 45/70

01-18-2010, 01:09 AM

Why do do some of you pups have such a hard on for Elmer.... are you so smart, how much time have you devoted to developing a new load, and worked with the Mfg, to make it happen?????? Are You perfect?????
get a grip.... bad mouth your Mama, IMHO some of you boys need to work on casting and shooting, not yapping about a MAN that did a lot for this casting sport before you were born.......None of us are prrfect.....I haven't been nailed to a cross yet , it is easy to use hind site, it is usually 20/20. Please excuse me, I'm just an old man that has been doing this for over 40 years......Have a nice day and don't bad mouth your elders, We understand that we are not as smart as you.

anachronism

01-18-2010, 10:24 AM

For his time, Elmer was so far advanced it must have been breathtaking. He taught others everything he knew, giving them the foundation to build upon. This is how progress works, and the opposite of Congress :)

I can see how some could question his accomplishments now, in the days of the keyboard commando, but as I said earlier, look at what others wrote about him if his word is no good to you. If he had been a phoney, he would have been caught & totally discredited 70 or 80 years ago.

44man

01-18-2010, 12:37 PM

See, it goes on! Nobody defamed Elmer here. My comments were based on what he had to use back then and he would be very happy if he was still with us today.
Others made comments that did not defame him either but do hold some truths.
Let me ask a question; back in 1874, Billy Dickson made a shot of 1,538 yards to kill a man during the war. Since the distance could not be paced off and there was no such thing as a range finder, Just how did they come up with the exact figure? Oh, I see, a man paced it into the enemy camp! :groner: Do I believe it, well yes, kind of, but explain the accurate measurements.
Let's see if you believe me. Years and years ago I had a 270 Remington pump. We went to a gravel pit to shoot. A flock of ducks came off the pond and kept circling us, way up high. It was very windy with 30-40 mph gusts and when the ducks caught the wind they had to be going 60-70 mph or more. My friend shot at them with his .22 with each pass.
I said, I'll show you how to do that. I swung on a duck, pulled way out in front so far it was way out of the scope and shot. The duck was a good 400 yards by then. I blew it in half and it took an hour to get there and find it. I either could have been fined or became famous with the shot. Good thing it was that long ago! :-)
Do I believe Elmer made the shot at that distance, well, yes kind of but how was distance measured across canyons?
It was a fantastic shot but took a few shots before the animal was hit---so what? What if the actual distance was 500 yards? 550? 650? Does that take anything away from his great shot?
Do any of you ever question things? Yes you do, when I say something! [smilie=b: However you never question anything in a gun rag or book and have never shot far enough to experience what it takes. Many of you are trapped in an indoor range or a large city. Too many think 7 to 25 yards is far for a handgun.
My invitation is always open to every shooter here. My club has out to 800 yards, come shoot. We have a half size steel buffalo at 500 yards on a farm and we can extend the distance to near 1000 yards. Come shoot.
Come and see how much .0005" difference in a sight picture can plow dirt way, far from the target. Bring open sights so you have to hold most of the barrel below the front sight.
When will you understand just how hard it is to hit at long range with a .44 that can drop 35 to over 40" at 200 yards. How much drop at 600 yards???????
Add that to your group of maybe 200" at 600 yards since 3" to 4" is super at 50 yards.

Bucks Owin

01-18-2010, 12:55 PM

+1 44man! And I'll just add that a 600 yd shot with a handgun on a deer is easy with a keyboard. ;) With an open sighted sixgun, it's more like an act of God IMO!!! Yet we've all done some amazing shots with one, it's the repeat performance that comes mighty hard :groner:....Dennis

felix

01-18-2010, 01:00 PM

The key line in this entire thread boils down to this one: Come and see how much .0005" difference in a sight picture can plow dirt way, far from the target. That is why professional pool players call their shots before their shots. When that is not done, then you have to consider the lucky shot as PURE LUCK. Plain ol' statistical theory is used for the purpose of making FUTURES a reality before hand, assuming the future CANNOT be fixed. ... felix

anachronism

01-18-2010, 01:09 PM

felix

01-18-2010, 01:49 PM

That depends on Who defined the odds. Some insurance/banking company will fund you with what you need based upon THEIR statistical arithmetical results. Personal endeavors require only your Will to succeed to actually succeed continually. About this gun thread in particular, or another one sorta' like it, I think Jim, the 44man, stated this quite clearly. ... felix

44man

01-18-2010, 01:56 PM

So the general consensus is that nothing is possible. That nothing was ever actually invented or developed by anyone? What dismal creatures we've become.

Question: if you attempt something very difficult, and against all the odds accomplish the goal you had set prior to the project at hand. Is it an accident that you accomplished what you set out to do, even if you may not be able to repeat the performance every time you try it?
As Felix said very nicely, LUCK is there for all to see.
Take the consistent group needed to hit an elk at 600 yards, lets call it 10" for a sure kill. Might be actually less. Add range estimation and holdover with open sights.
I have shot many LUCK groups at long range but nobody here can claim 10" groups at 600 yards. Some of my revolvers might be capable of beating that but it still leaves the nut behind the grip.
To be able to repeat, shot after shot, day after day does not look like a good bet and I will save my money.
Go out and measure off 600 yards, put up a target and then stand there with your revolver and take a good look just how far it is. Now shoot your revolver that can barely make 2" at 25 yards at it.
We have to come down to earth and face facts once in a while.
But don't you know they shot turkeys in the head at 100 yards, off hand with revolvers! Funniest thing I ever heard. A lot of fun to try and a boon to ammo makers. A lot of laughing turkeys too. But maybe a turkey had bad luck that day!

Bucks Owin

01-18-2010, 02:14 PM

Here's ONLY 140 yards on a very good/lucky day with a solid sandbag rest! (With 10" of sight radius) http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/BucksOwin/12db6a09-1.jpg

ole 5 hole group

01-18-2010, 02:39 PM

But don't you know they shot turkeys in the head at 100 yards, off hand with revolvers! Funniest thing I ever heard. A lot of fun to try and a boon to ammo makers. A lot of laughing turkeys too. But maybe a turkey had bad luck that day!

Don't know about 100 yards - but as a kid I attended a couple at 50 yards and there where several turkeys in crates and when they stuck their heads up a guy would take a quick off hand shot at it - took all morning, as only one guy shot at a time but every turkey there had a bad day. Seemed it was about even as to who hit the turkeys - half went to the better shots in the area and half went to guys who usually couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a handful of flax at 2 feet. It was fun for all - except us "kids" who didn't shoot because our fathers couldn't afford the extra $.50 entry fee.

Buck, if your 1st (lucky) shot hits the prairie dog you got braggin' rights - one thing about subsonic bullits zigging by prairie dogs is they usually give you several sighters to get it right - but let one hit low and throw a little dirt in their face - they may take off.

Lloyd Smale

01-18-2010, 04:14 PM

9.3X62AL

01-18-2010, 04:28 PM

I've not done any handgun shooting past 200 yards for lack of a site to do it at. I have let drive at 200 meters with revolvers, and once I got the sight alignment figured out......could give the dinger plate a hard time. 600 yards = rifle time for me, and only at varmints--iron--or paper.

Bret4207

01-18-2010, 04:42 PM

But don't you know they shot turkeys in the head at 100 yards, off hand with revolvers! Funniest thing I ever heard. A lot of fun to try and a boon to ammo makers. A lot of laughing turkeys too. But maybe a turkey had bad luck that day!

Actually 44man if IIRC the article in Gun Digest said 300 yards, but it could have been 200 yards, offhand with revolvers. I believe they took body shots. That should have been a simple thing for a man who got 1/2" groups with an open sighted Smith 50 years ago in his youth, back when he "had eyes".

Bret4207

01-18-2010, 04:50 PM

elmer told the story not to claim he was capable of killing deer at those ranges but to shot that under perfect circumstances a six gun was capable of hitting targets way out there. He knew as well as anyone there was a bit of luck involved. He was a humble man and would never have made a claim like he could do it every time. Ive shot enough long range handgun to know that it was more then doable. After a few shots to get your distance you can give a rock a real hard time at 600 yards with a good sixgun.

Brian Pearce just duplicated the 600 yards shot in Handloader a couple issues back.

How come everyone questions Elmer but the Billy Dixon shot is gospel? Witnesses. Both were luck as much as anything, and Dixon only hit the indian once. Elmer hit the deer a couple times out of 6 right? So who was the better shot.

targetshootr

01-18-2010, 05:04 PM

Let's say Elmer put four shots into an 6 ft circle at 600 yards. At 300yd=3 ft cir, 150=1.5 ft, 75= 9 inches. So-so shooting for him when you think about it.

Thumbcocker

01-18-2010, 07:23 PM

IIRC Mr. Dixon's shot was later measured by a surveyor. Of course the surveyor had to measure to where the witnesses said the Indian was. In any even it was a fur piece.

Bent Ramrod

01-18-2010, 08:17 PM

Elmer Keith worked with survey crews and hunted all over his home country on foot and horseback, both for game and for strayed livestock. I would think that he would know what 600 or 700 yards looked like, at least in his mountainous home country out West. He admitted in some of his early writings that he was not a target pistol shot, but he said he could "get meat" with one whenever he needed to. According to his son, he had eyes like a hawk, even into his old age, which would make him a hard man to beat with Patridge sights.

He was not a mouldmaker and did not have the money to pay for all the iterations of designs that would ultimately result in the LBTs, WFNs, etc, that we have today. He did, though, know what was needed in fitting the boolit to the cylinder throats and ensuring that it got on its way as undeformed as possible.

He saw the handgun as the weapon of defense and opportunity, which precluded hanging a scope on it, or excess weight, or even an overly-long barrel. Once these refinements came out, and people started taking advantage of them, then maybe the flaws in his boolit design might show up, but the handgun is now more like a rifle than what he conceptualized that it was. It would be too unhandy to pack for the advantages it might offer. It might offer more hits at long range, but Elmer seemed to get enough hits to satisfy him. And he admitted long range hits were luck, but said that the more you practiced the luckier you got.

I think somebody finally reprinted "The Long Shooters" by William Brent Altsheler, which is the chronicle of the 300-yd revolver competitions they had in Kentucky. Open sights only, no peeps; one handed offhand, standard .38's and .44's, no mention of loading for accuracy or anything else, and yet some of the contestants could hit those turkeys pretty handily now and again. One tally was six turkeys in 40 shots, with light, pull, hold and coordination each being 25% of the success factor.

No doubt the experts of today, with two-hand holds, scopes, line-bored revolvers and all the improvements in ammunition components could beat a one-in-six to one-in-seven success rate, just as the athletes of the present day could no doubt clobber most of the professional players of the 1920's,and the autos of today could outrun most of those of that time. But it makes no sense to say that since nobody had the stuff we have today, that nobody could do as well as some of them said they did. The average has certainly gone up, but there always was and will be those favored few that could hold their own in any time period. I think Keith was one of these.

Bucks Owin

01-19-2010, 12:07 PM

Let's say Elmer put four shots into an 6 ft circle at 600 yards. At 300yd=3 ft cir, 150=1.5 ft, 75= 9 inches. So-so shooting for him when you think about it. At 600 yds, you better have the range figured out to within a matter of feet as you're talking "mortar fire" trajectory at that range!. Sure it's "possible" but....:roll: Try it sometime! (And bring a case of ammo...) A lot of us have trouble even seeing the speck of a deer at 600 yds. The "sight picture" would be ridiculous. Did Brian say how many YARDS high he had to hold in duplicating EK's shot? How did he estimate THAT precisely? I'll bet most shooters, unless they are avid varmit shooters, have no idea how far 3/8th of a mile is over open ground. I say Elmer was a fine pistolero, knew "somewhat" where to hold and had some "divine intervention" if the tale is gospel.....JMO, Dennis

44man

01-19-2010, 02:05 PM

At 600 yds, you better have the range figured out to within a matter of feet as you're talking "mortar fire" trajectory at that range!. Sure it's "possible" but....:roll: Try it sometime! (And bring a case of ammo...) A lot of us have trouble even seeing the speck of a deer at 600 yds. The "sight picture" would be ridiculous. Did Brian say how many YARDS high he had to hold in duplicating EK's shot? How did he estimate THAT precisely? I'll bet most shooters, unless they are avid varmit shooters, have no idea how far 3/8th of a mile is over open ground. I say Elmer was a fine pistolero, knew "somewhat" where to hold and had some "divine intervention" if the tale is gospel.....JMO, Dennis
I agree but Elmer had a lot of practice. He did know what he was doing.
There is a lot more to it then I thought. I have shot smaller groups at long range then I have at close range too many times to know what goes on with boolit flight. Why were my center hits on 200 meter rams as good as on 50 meter chickens?
Why did Elmer do as good at long range as he did closer? Why does anyone do that?
I have only looked at close group sizes and tried to figure dispersion at long range but it does not work. I sat and thought about it and it does not make sense based on my long range shooting.
Do I believe Elmer did what he said---Yes of course but I still believe he could cut it down with what we know now.
The boolit flight is the big mystery.

targetshootr

01-19-2010, 04:54 PM

sixshot

01-19-2010, 07:05 PM

Most times when shooting long range (lets say beyond 300 yds) you can see your own hits on the ground with big handgun slugs. It can be a fairly simple matter to "walk" the shots on target if you see dirt fly, even easier if you have a spotter like targetshootr mentions.
Someone posted that we have better guns, equipment, etc, nowdays, thats not necessarily true, many of those early S&W 44's were some of the finest fitted sixguns ever made, with much hand fitting being done. Thats not to say those guns were stronger, because they weren't, but as far as accuracy is concerned they would measure up to almost anything being produced today if bullet fit was correct.....kind of important!
The biggest difference is bullets, the LBT syle slugs, especially in the heavier weights are better, thats not an opinion, thats a fact.......so, if you take one of those older, hand fitted S&W's with LBT slugs & stick a good shooter behind the sights, guess what, they will do some amazing things at distance! I've taken a lot of game with the Keith bullet but very few animals beyond 100 yds, game shooting should be up close & personal with a sixgun. The longrange stuff is for fun.
When Elmer Keith talked about his shooting he wasn't boasting, he was "explaining" what worked for him, and along the way he was trying to help other shooters become better with their sixguns & help them understand that shooting long range was nothing more than putting good ammo in a good sixgun & then shooting the dang thing, you don't become a sixgun shot by talking about it on the computer, you go out & put in the time to become accomplished in this game we play.
I killed my first 6 elk with 7 shots using a custom 270 using 130 gr Hornady bullets, at that time I was a Jack O'Connor fan, that later fizzled but I don't go on line bad mouthing Jack O'Connor, Elmer Keith, Lane Simpson, Les Bowman or Woody the Woodpecker, it serves no purpose. What does serve a purpose is sharing experiences, agreeing or disagreeing & doing it with some common sense, there's no place for mud slinging on any of the forums, just my opinion.

This is a photo I took of Elmer Keith sometime in the early 70's, we were out back of the house in his trophy room, he's holding his engraved 375 Ruger #1, I was delivering a Ruger #1 to Jed Smith, a lawman in Salmon, Idaho & stopped in for a visit. He's wearing a 4" S&W 44 magnum.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/027_27-2.jpg

This is my best handgun bull elk, taken in the early 70's with a 6 1/2" S&W 44, using the Keith bullet but 21 grs of 2400, you can see my 44 in the Lawerence shoulder rig, shot was about 40 yds, steep uphill shot.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/022_22-1.jpg

Dick

Bucks Owin

01-19-2010, 07:36 PM

Elmer had someone to call his first shots which kicked up dirt and then he adjusted the amount of front blade he held over the rear sight. His son found the fourth slug when he cleaned the carcass. He was using a 6 1/2" early or pre -29. Front blade? At 600 yds? That's what I meant by a ridiculous sight picture. At that range, you'd be figuring out how much barrel to hold up. Half a barrel? 3/8's of the barrel? How do you go about figuring a very accurate estimate of how far you are holding over, nearly 3/8th of a mile away? Someone hold up a surveyor's stake? The more I think about the likelihood of dropping 4 of 6 shots on a deer at that range, with open sights, the more I'm inclined to think it's bullfeathers. Somebody here can surely do the math of how much drop is involved at 600 yds....30 feet? 50 feet? More? Less?...[smilie=6: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/BucksOwin/JO-and-Wyo-Elk-1944.jpg http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/BucksOwin/Jo-and-stone-sheep-1971BR.jpg

44MAG#1

01-19-2010, 08:13 PM

250 Keith - .185 BC -1300 fps -50 yard zero drop at 600 yards 605 inches- remaining vel. 726 fps.
Front sight height .295- sight radius 8.625- blade substends 738 inches at that range.
More than enough to cover the bullet drop.
Now due to the fact that velocity could be more or less, BC could have varied some due to a slightly different nose flat, etc, hold at 6 o'clock on deer the amount of front sight held up may vary slightly.
Don't doubt it. Many shoot at 600 to 700 yards at the Linebaugh seminar.
Lloyd Smale had been to them I believe.

dubber123

01-19-2010, 08:24 PM

exile

01-19-2010, 08:30 PM

What a great picture of E.mer Keith. A good reminder that not everything he did was with a handgun. Appreciate your letting us see that.

exile

targetshootr

01-19-2010, 08:34 PM

Bucks Owin

01-19-2010, 08:34 PM

Thanks for the math. So, assuming E.K. had that load and barrel length (?) all he had to do was hold EXACTLY FIFTY FEET, FIVE INCHES over that buck's ribcage (4 times out of 6!) and bring home the venison! Hate me if you must guys, but my opinion of Mr Keith and some of his tales, parallels Jack O'Connor's I'm afraid......Dennis

targetshootr

01-19-2010, 08:52 PM

44MAG#1

01-19-2010, 09:01 PM

Bucks.
You are entitled to your opinion. So I guess Bob Munden didn't hit a 14 by 21 steel plate at 600 yards on TV either.
I guess Munden didn't hit an egg at 100 yards on TV with custom kimber 45 ACP offhand either.
I guess he didn't hit a 14 by 21 steel plate offhand at 300 yards on TV with the same Kimber 45 ACP either.
I guess Ed Mcgivern and his cronies didn't hit targets at 400, 500 and 600 yards with 357 mags either.
I guess if some things are beyond our capabilities that means they can't be done.
I really didn't mean for this to be a marathon tread trying to abuse Elmer Keith or I would not have posted it. I meant what I said tongue in cheek.
Also it was 2 out of 4 for 50 percent not 4 out of 6 for 67 percent.

Lloyd Smale

01-19-2010, 09:05 PM

anachronism

01-19-2010, 09:41 PM

So it does show you that what elmer was doing was very doable.

No it's not Lloyd. Some guy on the internet said it's impossible, and he seemed to know what he was talking about. :)

dubber123

01-19-2010, 09:48 PM

out of the box ruger bisley accusport with the only addition a bowen rear and clements front sight. Load was a 300 ballistic cast lfn at 1200 fps. Range was 7 or 800 yards i forget now exactly. At that range you had enough blade but barely. deal was it was a steal cutout of a 2/3s scale bufalo so it was about the size of a calf or small cow. Points were give for a hit-10 and a near miss-5 which was a ten foot circle around the buffalo. I won the 44 class and all the winners of each class put 4 out of 5 hits on the buffalo. You got 5 shots to range and 5 for effect. My score was a 45. I dont consider myself the greatest long range shooter as ive met guys that put me to shame. So it does show you that what elmer was doing was very doable.

See, Lloyd, I pay attention to at least some of what you say... ;-) So this was 1-200 yards farther than the Keith shot, right? Must be all them fellas watching you shoot agreed to lie for you and say you did it right... :kidding: I'm pretty sure Linebaugh puts on a shoot every year. Might be a good trip for some of us... For those that have never tried it, you don't aim OVER your target, you get the height on your front sight, and put your target ON the front sight. Keith also had Gold reference bars on many of his revolvers to help make this a more precision operation.

Mk42gunner

01-19-2010, 10:02 PM

Couple of things about Elmer Keith's 600 yard shot:

1. He was shooting at a deer that had already been wounded by his friend with a rifle. Not trying to kill a deer at 600 yards with a revolver.

2. He was shooting a factory jacketed load, Remigton as I remember the story.

Do I think the shot was possible? Yes. Ethical? In this case, yes. If he had been trying to kill an unwounded deer? No.

With enough practice, you can get pretty good at guessing how much front sight to hold up out of the rear sight notch for the first ranging shot.

44 Man said:

Many of you are trapped in an indoor range or a large city. Too many think 7 to 25 yards is far for a handgun.

This is true to an extent. To practice long range handgun shots, you need wide open spaces. I used to shoot in the desert when I was in California and Nevada; dry dusty conditions make it easy to see even .22 LR bullet inpacts at a quarter of a mile, or 7.62 from an M-14 at 1200 yards.

True story, funny (or sad), but true; that relates to people thinking "You can't shoot that far."

I think we will all agree that the M-14 rifle is capable of hits well beyond 200yards. I went to SAMI (rangemaster) schol between my first and second ships. When the time came to run range quals on the Downes, the 1000 inch range on NAS North Island was booked up, so I called the range at NAS Miramar (600 yard range). Our watchstander qual course was shot at 100 yards at an E sihouette, and passing was something like 23 hits out of 30 shots.

Just about everybody there said "That is too far too shoot, we never shot that far at North Island."

Funny thing about perception, do something the same way long enough and it becomes the only way to do it.

Robert

44man

01-19-2010, 10:49 PM

Front blade? At 600 yds? That's what I meant by a ridiculous sight picture. At that range, you'd be figuring out how much barrel to hold up. Half a barrel? 3/8's of the barrel? How do you go about figuring a very accurate estimate of how far you are holding over, nearly 3/8th of a mile away? Someone hold up a surveyor's stake? The more I think about the likelihood of dropping 4 of 6 shots on a deer at that range, with open sights, the more I'm inclined to think it's bullfeathers. Somebody here can surely do the math of how much drop is involved at 600 yds....30 feet? 50 feet? More? Less?...[smilie=6: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/BucksOwin/JO-and-Wyo-Elk-1944.jpg http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a356/BucksOwin/Jo-and-stone-sheep-1971BR.jpg
I never figured it but the .44 loads I shoot drop 35 to 40" at 200 with a 50 yard setting of 1" high. I remember using more front sight with Elmer's loads and the model 29.
Now my 45-70 drops, as close as I can figure, about 26 feet at 500 yards with the same weight boolit. It only drops 16" at 200.
I was still able to shoot awful far with the .44 back then. The new boolits seem to shoot flatter and more accurate at long range.
What makes it different today for me is I use a red dot and can't elevate just the barrel, I have to aim at something much higher then the target.
But I remember shooting long ago having to hold the whole ramp or part of the barrel over the rear sight.
If I got on at one range and the distance was changed, I had to walk shots in again. Even if the sight picture was learned, out in the field there was no way to tell how far a target was unless you knew the ground ahead of time. Most of the fields I shot had grass and weeds so there was no way to see boolit impact. Land in northern Ohio is flat.
It was all guess work but if you can see hits, you can hit targets.
I really think that with the right boolit you can hit things to 800 yards but unless you have a hill behind the target you will never do it unless there is bare dirt and you have a good spotter. You just have to see the hits.

Lloyd Smale

01-20-2010, 07:11 AM

dubber many of my sixguns are set up with gold bars on the blade but if i remember right at that range with that load i was using just about all the front sight. 44man if you ever shot in whyoming youd be amazed at how easy bullet hits are to see in there dusty desert like ground. This was on a slope so that hits could be seen easily but earlier we were shooting on a flat at about 400 yards and it was easy to see your own hits. Aint like that here in northern michigan. Only sand is on the beach and i dont think i could shoot anywhere other then a pole line and have a bullet travel more then 400 yards without hitting a tree!!!!! Your right though It would be about imposslible if you couldnt see your hits. I dont know anyone who could judge range good enough to make a first shot hit at 700 yards with a six gun. Another thing you have to keep in mind when doing this is it takes a special load. For the most part lfns rule at these ranges. theres a few keiths that can run out there but if i was going out to do it intentionaly my gun would be loaded with a heavy for caliber lfn. Another thing is velocity. this is not a place for 900 fps loads. even with a good bullet a 12-1400 fps load will allways do better. Its not a matter of the trajectory as that can be conpensated for its a matter of bullet stability. It sounds like an impossible feet but youd be surprised how easy it is to take a guy that has never done it and get him hitting way out there with a sixgun. It even blows the minds of my freinds when they stop by my range when im shooting a .22 revolver and hitting rocks at 200 yards with it. Most of them probably couldnt do it with a 22 rifle. This is where the kieth doubters come from. Alot of people dont shoot much and dont shoot well and cant understand that someone else can and also theres people that have never seen long distance handgun shooting and if all you ever did was cap off a cylinder of 38 specials out of your buddys gun and missed everthing you shot at you would believe keiths story either. If all i ever did was drive my car around this little town and had never heard of nascar and someone told me that its possible to drive a car 200 mph let alone drive it inches away from someone else id call them a lier. Personaly i dont think theres even a question that elmer did what he did. Why would a guy that has done all the cool things hes done even have to make up a silly story like that.

Bret4207

01-20-2010, 09:11 AM

Lets also remember that each persons sight picture differs, often greatly. And I will again point out Brian Pearce just last year duplicated the shot using the exact same factory loads and same era 44 Smith and had no problem hitting the target.

Those who say it's bullfeathers need to rethink their premise.

44man

01-20-2010, 12:10 PM

Some of you always take me wrong and don't realize how much I followed Elmer and respected him. I also had bars on my front sight.
I have still always questioned his range estimation when hunting rough country--- nothing wrong with that is there? All of my life shooting close ranges with archery has shown it is just not possible to judge range good even at close distances.
Then years of varmint hunting and pacing every field and shot was the only way I knew each distance.
Now if Elmer had his country surveyed every where he expected to shoot, I could see it.
Could he have been off 100 yards on occasion? Of course and yet it does not dim his shooting in any way. If you can see hits and walk shots into the target, there is no need to know how far it is anyway.
I am happy if you say "it was way out there" and not tell me it was 700 yards on the money unless you are on a marked range.
I am sure I could line up everyone here in my back yard to guess how far each tree is across the field and the only ones to get it right would be with a lucky guess. Most could not tell me my archery target is 50 yards if I put you on the brick. The brick is not marked!
Seems to me there is a reason that range finders were developed.
Even my laser range finder is not worth much past 400 yards. When we put a target out in a field to 1000 yards, we have to do it in stages with range finders because they are not the expensive ones.
So if none of you can do it, don't elevate Elmer's abilities, he was a man just like you and me. His eyes were not 6' apart.
This does not take away my feelings that he was a great man. If he had a shot surveyed later, OK, but I don't seem to have a surveyor in my back pocket and it would cost a fortune to have one come out. I have two feet that do not measure good up and down mountains. I also do not carry 700 yards of string to stretch from hill to hill. And remember, string sags.
I think a little common sense should prevail. Stop quoting people that seen him shoot on marked ranges or places he knew the distance and if he didn't really know how far it was, how could another person actually know the exact distance? Well, they said "I seen him do it."
Am I wrong? Pick it apart all you want to.

ddixie884

01-20-2010, 12:33 PM

Just because I can;t do it, doesn't mean Elmer Keith didn't. I can't fly a jet fighter plane, either. How many years, and how many rnds had he fired. As far as range is concerned, I figure Elmer Keith had a pretty good eye for ranges as he was a rifle shooter, too. When I was younger I shot a good bit with a 4in M29-2, and was quite surprised with how easy it was to hit an 18" gong at 100 yards after a little practice. that didn't take much site at all, and 200 yds didn't take a whole lot more. Was it 2 shots out of 6 or did he reload, and didn't he shoot from 2 different positions. Also these were early factory loads that were hotter than Keith's handloads. Didn't this get started because Keith had a broken leg , and he asked the witness to take his 300 rifle,and shoot it, and the deer got wounded. Wasn't this all an attempt to not let wounded game get away, and die a bad death.

44man

01-20-2010, 01:18 PM

Why do you attribute super human powers to him?

45 2.1

01-20-2010, 01:39 PM

Why do you attribute super human powers to him?

What would that be Jim..flying or seeing thru walls? Keith shot a lot.......at different targets and distances. You shoot a lot and have good eyes along with coordination...you get good...really good in most cases. He was taken to task mant times and showed the detractor what he did. They became adherents. I shoot quart oil cans When I can see them good, otherwise I put out a gallon jug when I can't) at 250 yds for giggles, with short barrels and iron sights........41 mag, 44 special, 45 colt. Even easy to hit with a lowly 38 special RN. Nothing special until a rifle shooter can't match it. Just why are you running the old man down with one post and praising him with another. Whats the point?

44man

01-20-2010, 02:02 PM

What would that be Jim..flying or seeing thru walls? Keith shot a lot.......at different targets and distances. You shoot a lot and have good eyes along with coordination...you get good...really good in most cases. He was taken to task mant times and showed the detractor what he did. They became adherents. I shoot quart oil cans When I can see them good, otherwise I put out a gallon jug when I can't) at 250 yds for giggles, with short barrels and iron sights........41 mag, 44 special, 45 colt. Even easy to hit with a lowly 38 special RN. Nothing special until a rifle shooter can't match it. Just why are you running the old man down with one post and praising him with another. Whats the point?
I don't run him down, I only question his range estimation out in the field. How is that running him down?
If I went to the WV mountains and shot a deer on the opposite mountain, posted here that I shot a deer at 637 yards, what would you say?????
Can you even get realistic here.

dubber123

01-20-2010, 02:15 PM

Can we let this die? This is the DUMBEST pizzin' contest I have ever heard. Ugh.

45 2.1

01-20-2010, 02:28 PM

I don't run him down, I only question his range estimation out in the field. How is that running him down? Lets see, Keith worked for surveyors, lived there, guided there and shot there. Also another post said his son related he had hawk eye vision into late life. Seems like the requisites for real good range estimation. Surveyors are funny folks, they like their help to be knowledgeable about line and distance, plus surveyors can measure distance useing a stadia besides other ways of angle subtension. The distance to a object of known size can be estimated fairly closely useing several methods.
If I went to the WV mountains You mean somewhere where you don't live and work I assume. and shot a deer on the opposite mountain, posted here that I shot a deer at 637 yards, what would you say????? Presently I would say you had a range finder or laser EDM capabilities since you don't believe people can do things like that.
Can you even get realistic here. Some people couldn't tell you the range, but can tell you where to hold the sights for a known object (which a deer would be to Keith). Like the man said, you practise enough and Luck seems to happen.

bisleyfan41

01-20-2010, 02:36 PM

game shooting should be up close & personal with a sixgun. The longrange stuff is for fun.

The most accurate (and obviously neglected) point of this entire 5 page thread. Why any of this is relevant other than for "informational purposes" is beyond me. A sixgun, especially an iron sighted one, is meant for relatively short range business. And that is part of the thrill; getting so close to the game you can see the whites of their eyes.

If you all think you'll ever get one tiny little ounce of humility out of 44man, give up. He's gotta be the man who's better than all the rest.

Lloyd Smale

01-20-2010, 02:39 PM

Amen to that pal!
Can we let this die? This is the DUMBEST pizzin' contest I have ever heard. Ugh.

cptinjeff

01-20-2010, 02:57 PM

Ok, 2 cents from a humble Nube,

I have read 4 of Elmer's books.

I know that judging distance has always sort of been a "side hobby" or "other learned skill" with my shooting. I've spent many a day at the range pacing off the 25, 50, 75, and 100yd line and all ranges in between. I not only have developed the perfect three foot "gate", I've gotten real good at judging distance mostly within a hundred yards. This took years of practice and doing it almost every day. Every time I walk to a target I pace it off. Every time I walk a power line I pace it off between poles. Every time I walk in the neighborhood I pick a mail box and say "64" and then pace it off. Then pick another and pace it off again. It is amazing how accurate you can get with years of practice. I can tell how far a milk jug is down to 2 or 3 yards out to 80 yards at least. I have several friends/hunting buddies that have purchased range finders over the years and are amazed when I look at an object...give them the range and it match's their range finder almost exactly.

All that being said, It only works for me on reasonably flat ground (not the case with the mule deer shot), and I’m not nearly as accurate judging distance on game. As an example, I have killed 9 whitetail with my iron sighted handguns and 4 times that many pigs. Not a lot by some standards but enough to prove my point (although I’m not sure of what my point is). I can shoot well enough standing off hand to kill out to about 90 yards. I’ve given myself a hunting range limit of 75, and prefer 50 yards with my sixguns. Even with that I have killed deer at 91, 103, and 120 yards. I “thought” all of those were at my 75 yard limit when I pulled the trigger…so much for my built in range finder. I overcome this by judging distances in advance where practical (if I’m stand hunting) or judging an object close to the animal and going from there.

Have I ever shot targets at 600 yards …nope. I’ve tried out to 250 and I stink. I’m in awe of those that can and it is a goal of mine. Only now…unlike most of my life, I live in the city and am limited to a 100yd range. Even if I got good at shooting longer distance would I extend my range limit past 75 yards? Nope. Us eastern hunters don’t have much excuse for not getting closer if the range is long.
My thoughts…..I have proven to myself that you can get very good at judging range on level ground and at less than 100 yards. I believe with enough practice you could extend this range. I have always questioned the 600 hundred yard shots just because of walking off the distance on very difficult terrain seems a little unrealistic. Do I believe he did what he said? YES. It might have been 550 or 650 yards but awesome any way you look at it. I don’t think knowing the distance in advance is all that important at that range. You would still need the “ranging shots” in any event. A final point is I believe that in Elmer’s day shooting was more of a national pass time. Most folks had guns and shot them better than we do today. People shot for competition and sustenance. What I mean is today if you’re a great shot you belong in a carnival. In his day if you were a great shot you were highly respected. Of course, I wasn’t there!! ……a sorry “hell, I was there” pun
:groner:

ole 5 hole group

01-20-2010, 03:04 PM

Well Jim, I guess it’s how you define realistic. I’ve known several ole timers and many farm boys who could guessamate ranges pretty darn good on the prairie. In the foothills, they weren’t as close but still a lot better than the rest of us. There were many, many very good shooters 50/60 years ago, as there are now. Quality trigger time is what’s needed. When a person is one with his revolver – he can do some pretty amazing things compared to someone who just “plinks away”. There are some among us who have firearm talents that an above average shooter will just never be able to match. They are like the kids in school who had an IQ of 200 – they didn’t even have to study much to get an A (100% score) while the rest of us could study hard, prepare a great crib sheet and still only get a 97% score. Without the crib sheet it was more like 85%. There’s both big game and upland bird hunters out there being able to both spot game at unbelievable yardages and they also “know” where that animal/bird will be on any given day – providing of course the game is in fact in the area. This is both experience and a gut sense that this individual had since he was a kid. As time went on he just got better and better, while the rest of us got a little better over time but couldn’t keep up. We talk about them around campfires and over a beer or two. They are just “special” people and are to be admired for what they can/could do. Now some of them can be just plain asshol*s outside of their “expertise” but that doesn’t take anything away from their talents. There’s a lot of different shooting disciplines out there for both the revolver & pistol and those at the top have earned their position – Elmer earned his position in the shooting world and I for one, have a great deal of respect for the man.

44man

01-20-2010, 10:52 PM

Elmer earned his position in the shooting world and I for one, have a great deal of respect for the man.
So do I so I am letting this die.

Slow Elk 45/70

01-20-2010, 11:44 PM

One more OLD guy that grew up with Elmer's teachings...I still shoot 2400 and his boolits in my 44s/357s and have tried most of the rest , but these are hard to beat. If you want to bad mouth someone , pick on one that is still alive, and quit backtracking after you make your statments when you get some backlash.

Frank

01-21-2010, 01:26 AM

Good idea. Maybe a live person here can show us how good Elmer's combination shoots. There must be someone here who has the same type of revolver, boolit and load. Why don't you put it all together and let's see how it really stacks up. How well does a Keith boolit with BH of 10-11 really do? How about a test, targets 50 yds & 100 yds?

Piedmont

01-21-2010, 03:18 AM

Frank, Brian Pearce just did that for you in Handloader magazine a couple issues back. With those Keith bullets some say won't shoot, too. Brian did it at 600 yards though.

Bret4207

01-21-2010, 09:29 AM

Frank, Brian Pearce just did that for you in Handloader magazine a couple issues back. With those Keith bullets some say won't shoot, too. Brian did it at 600 yards though.

Thanks, I've mentioned that twice now, maybe the third time they'll catch on that IT'S BEEN DONE!

Bass Ackward

01-21-2010, 10:48 AM

It seems that this attitude all stems from hard vs soft and bullet design as to any one's credibility.

And what this thread seems to point out that is more people are believing hard does more. And that LFNs are some new discovery. Prior to Elmer's work creating semi wadcutters, all designs were basically olgivals. So we are going back in time to old technology more than discovering anything new.

I have better luck starting people off with hard these days because every one's in a hurry. Hard tends to be more idiot proof when the guy can be smart enough to fit it up properly.

With hard, you don't have to learn as much about pressure to hardness or lube quality or quantity. You don't have to have a tester as often. You don't have to have GCs. This as a result means that hard bullets lessen problems for heat, speed shooting, poor finished (though dimensionally correct) barrels or numbers of round between cleanings. And harder bullets break the gun in faster that can't be trivialized in this whole process. They as a result will launch better if you do more things wrong as a reloader and shooter.

And the biggest factor with shooting cast is by far the launch.

But with that having been said, it is a mistake to believe soft can't be made to perform. Or to stereotype that one bullet design class is superior to another. When barrel steels were soft, antimony would ruin a gun fast. So guys HAD TO learn how to use lead / tin. That takes more time and effort. That's why GCs came along in the first place for people that didn't have or wanted more pressure to hardness flexibility.

So the old timers knew this and still had to work around it. If you want to shoot what are considered to be light per caliber bullets, then semis are the way to go. If you are going to push bullet weight limits, then heavier designs work better with olgivals. WE have a guy here, I believe is Frank505 that tests stability to 1000 yards and is a believer in "some" semi wadcutter designs.

To defend Elmer, he published stuff all his life and he learned as he went. problem is that is was public record. I am sure that if you go back and read all the posts here from anyone that you will find contradictions in his posting. We learn, we grow, we change opinion. Elmer was simply scrutinized during a period where information flow came pretty much two ways, word of mouth or in print. But if you read history, Troopers used the 45 Colt at 400 yards to ward off Indians. That was 900 fps. You learn to use what you have to do what you need to do.

Today we can learn MUCH FASTER and have the potential to eliminate constants, or rules, or laws or old wives tales what have you. Because they had fewer guns, they accepted more things as fact once they got something working. They took lifetimes to learn what you get in 6 months if you even experiment minimally. But it takes time and dedication to one or very few guns. And just like GCs for softer mixes, hard bullets are moving to the forefront for some. Just not all. And if you want to learn to shoot long range just remeber, windage and elevation. Windage and elevation.

No rules or laws to cast.

runfiverun

01-21-2010, 12:53 PM

either two handed standing or supported sitting.
brian is a field shooter not a bench type of guy.
john [bass] is correct in his post ,when i get a gun i just want to shoot i don't mess with it much. and just go a bit harder and g/c right off the bat,use a slow powder and fill the case and go tweak the load some.
my 357 max i just did that tried 10 rounds of a load shot them on 4" steel plates at 50 yds.
zero misses went home added one more grain tried 6 more at 60 yds,called it good and loaded all 100 rds up.
will i tweak the load more?? maybe,but i am happy with a 250 gr boolit that does this well right out of the gate.
i have other things to mess with at the moment and some have been going on for most of two years now.

Frank

01-21-2010, 01:13 PM

I'm interested in an independent test. Too much obvious bias possible in an article. Besides, the article didn't do the test I was looking for. 50 yd & 100 yd targets shot with a Keith bullet of alloy 1-16, his combination, compared side by side to today's combination. That would answer the original question. There's alot of talent here and certainly alot of guns. Let's see for ourselves.

jwp475

01-21-2010, 02:36 PM

Ross Seyfried once told me that Elmer Kieth was "the real deal" . Ross also stated that Elmer said "when you are realy good you are always close and then you get lucky".

I think that is a very correct staement about long range handguning with an open sighted revolver

anachronism

01-21-2010, 03:30 PM

Elmer shot from prone. I believe Pearce shot off a bench.

HamGunner

01-21-2010, 03:50 PM

It seems that some are trying to show that the Keith bullet is not as accurate as other designs. One thing that I have not read anyone mention in this post is that Elmer's bullet design was not meant for long range shooting, but for it's killing ability. So to compare it to other designs at long range is senseless. I have read the account many times of his 600 yd. Elk hits, but forget exactly what bullet he was using. Whether he was using his own bullet or it's long range accuracy is not important as that is not the point of the story.

It has been proven by many that long range handgun shooting is not luck for those that practice. That Elmer lived, worked, shot for recreation, and hunted all over that rough country using both rifle and handgun only gives more credit to the ability for one to learn ranging from experience and practice. Perhaps his big badly battered nose helped with his ranging abilities.:-?

I grew up on a farm in S. Missouri where the land is very rolling and hilly and I learned to judge ranges based on that country and could hit crows fairly often at even 350 to 400 yards with various rifles without a range finder. The first time I went out to S. Dakota to hunt prairie dogs, I was dumbfounded by the vastness of the open land and the flatness. The first dogs that my buddy and I shot at were in a small dog town. We estimated the distance to be 1/4 mile. Our shots landed about half way there. It turned out to be more like 650 yards. I was not accustomed to range estimation in such terrain. But, one can learn with practice.

As for long range revolver shooting, well I never doubted Elmer's stories myself, even before I had become somewhat proficient in shooting my old Ruger .44. Although I did not shoot handguns all that much at long ranges, I can say that it is not that hard to walk a round in whether a handgun or rifle. I did do a bit of shooting from hillside to hillside both rifle and handgun, and I can recall one instance where I out-shot two of my buddies who were shooting 700 Rem. rifles against my .44 Ruger. 6 1/2".

A flat limestone rock about 10 ft. diameter had been pushed out of the ground and onto the pond bank by a bulldozer that had made a pond on a hillside about 300 yards across a bottom field and about another 200 yards farther on and up on the freshly cleared hillside. My buddies emptied their rifles at the rock and could easily see the impacts and never did come all that close as the wind was blowing variably at least 15 MPH. My Ruger was without a transfer bar safety so I only carried five rounds and the first round hit the top of the pond bank. The next four hit the rock. I was using Elmer's 429421 bullet and his 2400 load, probably minus about one grain as my Ruger preferred 21.0gr. and standard LP primers. The big slow bullet took a while to get there and I could have holstered the revolver and gotten up my binoculars before it hit, but that was not necessary as the limestone rock produced a great puff of white dust with each impact.

I was shooting at a non-moving rock somewhat larger than an Elk. But then, I had not been shooting for nearly as many years as Elmer. For Elmer to accomplish his feat at his estimated 600 yards was not by luck, but by practiced skill. Even if his estimated yardage was only 550 yards or maybe 650 yards makes little difference. But personally, I doubt that Elmer was off by much with his estimation of the yardage. Extremely accurate or not, the big SWC bullets will shoot well as apparently did the bullet that he was using, no matter what design it was.

Edit:For anyone to dispute a handguns ability at such long range means that they have not been there and done that and it only shows their inexperience. Even at 100 yds. the SWC shot well. I used to be able to see well enough to knock 4 out of 5 soda cans off of a horizontal 2x4 without hitting the board. I was using a 16.0gr. charge of 2400, 429421 bullet, and .44 S&W Special brass. That load shot high at 25 yds. but was dead on at 100 yds. I did not shoot much on paper except for working up loads and sighting in at 25 yds. so I don't know just how tight a group that load shot at 100yds. But it was good enough.

BruceB

01-21-2010, 05:46 PM

A couple decades back, in a land far from here, I carried and used my .44 revolvers a lot. Much of the shooting was long range across water, mostly for the pure hellery of it. It posed NO danger to anyone, because this was in the truest wilderness left on Earth.

I make no pretense of being anywhere even close to Elmer's ability, but HamGunner is right in saying that those who disbelieve are those who haven't done it a fair bit.

I was guarding some fishermen against grizzlies one day, carrying a (genuine) M-14 rifle. A nice gent from South Africa asked if I could hit "that rock over there" while we were on a lunch stop. The rock was maybe 6", poking out of the water at 150 yards. I bounced a Partition off it from the iron-sighted M-14. Then I said, "Here's something a bit more challenging". At 550 yards across the water (measured LATER on a detailed map) were some other rocks sticking up, the middle of which was maybe two feet high and the same wide. I said, "Watch the middle rock" and drew my 4" S&W Mountain Revolver. The first round threw water on that rock which meant it was maybe a foot short of hitting it. FIRST shot. That gun has Elmer-style gold bars on the front sight, and they work extremely well. This was with my standard carry load, a 429244 ahead of 22 grains of 2400. The shot was made two-handed from standing position.

Others then had to try it, naturally, and it was no great trick to have them surprising themselves with the reaching ability of a 4" .44 Magnum.

Elmer's famous shot was actually made on a WOUNDED deer, shot by a client, and he was trying to stop its escape. He certainly would not have fired on an unwounded animal at that range. I firmly believe that he made that shot, just as he stated.

Franklin Zeman

04-23-2010, 01:18 PM

Back in the 50's and 60's there weren't many pistol shooters going after game. That came along gradually. Reading many articles in that time period, one of the common threads, by friends, was that Elmer Keith had burned more powder, by far, then anyone else. He was in charge of one of the Military Arsenals during the war. That was NOT a position given to blow hards. Elmer was in favor of large diameter heavy game bullets. He was thought to see a 30-06 as a nice varmint cartridge, whatever that meant. He was HIGHLY respected by ALL of his fellow shooting enthusiasts. That is my recollection on this subject. One of our best, if not the best pioneer of shooting, especially with pistols. He didn't get the .44 Mag birthed, by major gun and ammo folks of the day, by being someone with no credibility!!

MtGun44

04-23-2010, 02:15 PM

I have witnessed and DONE enough totally amazing shots with guns over the last
40+ yrs of shooting that I never doubt any shot that is related by a CREDIBLE person.

I know of guys who make silly claims and are nothing but blowhards. I also know a bunch
of really good shots who have done a lot of handgun and rifle shooting. When they
tell me about an amazing shot or group, I am amazed and I believe them.

Lots of folks have little or no experience and therefore doubt what can be done. Once you
try stuff you can be amazed. Like how easy it is to hit an 18" steel gong at 200 yds with
a 1911 and std 200 SWC loads STANDING. Like always getting 5 hits out of a mag once
you get the sight blade holdup right. Seen lots of my 'good shot' friends do it on demand.

LOTS of other, much harder stuff, too.

Don't be to sure of what 'can't be done'.

FN in MT

04-27-2010, 09:20 PM

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h274/montanaguy375/01-18-2007-12-45-33-453_edited-1.jpg

This was taken at the "Cabin" behind his house in Salmon, 1979? or maybe summer of 1980. Visited him once at his home, met him several times at Montana gun shows. We also corresponded regarding Sharps rifles for a couple of years.

I had an old .45-90 sharps. Could NOT make that thing stay on a five gallon bucket at 100 yds to save my life. Wrote a single letter to Keith and a few weeks later I get a reply. In ONE gigantic, follow on sentence....he gave me orders on what mould to use, what lube, powder charge, etc. As well as a quick tutorial on paper patching and some patches.

Guess what...I did as instructed and had a 2-3 inch shooter @ 100 yds when I did it all right.

I haven't read all of the posts, but would add that I felt he was the "Real Deal" as well. My instincts that gave me a high regard for Mr. Keith also served me well for thirty two years as a cop.

I regard myself as very fortunate to have met him and even more fortunate that he took the time to give me several doses of great advice.

FN in MT