Elmer Keith--in context

I do know this. If you load up some Elmer Keith formulas for your .357 and go shoot them you will learn an appreciation for what he had in mind!

I created some 180 grain jacketed hollow point .357 rounds using his numbers for 2400 powder.

They will make a 45 ounce n frame jump!
 
They don't make 367 loads like that no more.
What with all these K frames and J frames and Taurii a fellow could grt in trouble shooting real 357's :D

Sam
 
I think y'all ought to let a sleeping dog lie.

Elmer was correct at the time, with what he had to work with. That has not changed. Revisionism is rampant enough. Take his insight, comments, and writings for what they were; cutting edge for the time, and pretty accurate today.
 
Elmer was the most empirical of the gun scribes. He would be cutting edge today, were he still alive and working. What he described years ago was the best he could do at the time with what he had to work with.
 
Didn't mean the thread to be negative towards Mr. Keith. I wouldn't be reading his writings if I didn't respect his knowledge. I was just pointing out a pertinent observation that I think is often missed or glossed over.
 
And, there were two schools of thought back in the old days. Elmer--bigger is better. Jack---the .270 will do it all. Of course, looking at some of their writings, one gets the feeling they did not care for each other much.
 
Superhornet: that is no mistake. Elmer Keith thought Jack O'Connor was the biggest horse's *** this side of hades - and said so many times. Read Gun Notes. Charley Askins held a similar opinion of Jack O'Connor, IIRC. Said he shot most of his game looking over the sights of a Smith Corona, or similar. :D
 
No, he meant the typewriter. Claimed Jack's hunting trips were largely imaginary or to put it in literary terms - fictional. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top