Elmer Keith's 600yd shot

[JohnKSa]

Keith did a lot with that 4" .44 Magnum.

As delivered, it had a 6.5" barrel.

So he could compensate for the drop of the 44 but not a 300 that was sighted 1" high instead of 3" high, really? Wow.
...
Still, why not take the 300?
...
JD, I believe he was offered the 300 before the shooting started.

The narrative makes it clear why he didn't take the .300.

Trying to do a conversion from one zero to another in your head and in the field is very complicated. I don't even know how something like that could be done, and math is one of my hobbies.

If you don't believe me, take your favorite rifle and alter the 100 yard zero by 2 inches and then predict what the holdover change for it will be at 500 yards (assuming you knew the holdover at 500 yards with the original zero). Obtain the results without a calculator, ballistics program and without pencil and paper and do it in less than 5 minutes.

On the other hand, having actually SHOT a weapon sighted the way it is currently sighted and at the range you're currently faced with is a simple proposition.

Considering that the other hunter had a powerful scoped rifle with him, it seems to me the ethical behavior would have been to use that to dispatch the deer, not to experiment with a ridiculously long handgun shot that would have only marginal killing power at that range.

Except that neither of them apparently knew the holdover for the rifle and range involved and as a result the rifle shooter apparently only scored two hits (one solid shot and one wounding hit) out of at least 7 shots--some of those shots taken at ranges shorter than 500 yards. Keith know the holdover for his weapon and scored hits (one good hit and one wounding shot) on 2 of his 4 shots, at least one of the hits being out around 600 yards.

All the equipment in the world won't help you if you don't know how to use it under the circumstances. Conversely, even a relatively poor tool for the job can save the day if you know how to use it in the situation at hand.

Very lucky shot if anything, the one thru the bucks nose, how would you know 100% what caused it...

You wouldn't know 100%, but if you shot and the deer reacted, you might have a clue that you had connected and the deer's behavior might give you a clue as to where you hit it. If you read the narrative, Keith, an experienced hunter, thought from the deer's behavior that he had hit an antler, causing the deer to jump and change directions. Not being as experienced, I'm guessing that the deer's behavior on taking the bullet strike suggested to him that the deer had taken a non-lethal but immediately registered hit somewhere on the head.

Can anyone give us the amount of elevation required for this and please don't say it doesn't matter.

According to Keith, the holdover, with the ammunition at hand and using a 6.5" .44 Mag revolver, required him to hold "all of the front sight up and a bit of the ramp" and just perch "the deer on top" of the sight in order to make the shot.

Wind drift would seem to me also to be a bigger problem than drop.

Wind drift is a total non-issue if someone spots one of your hits for you so you can make a correction. Same with range.

Given that Kriley spotted one of Keith's two misses, it's not difficult to understand how Keith made the correction(s) that resulted in two hits.

How do you pace a distance down and up thru a canyon?

The narrative does not say that the distance was paced. The ranch was Kriley's, so I presume that Kriley was able to verify the distance given it was his property.

There's also the fact that Keith, who knew where to hold that revolver for 500 yards, shot low on at least one of his misses suggesting that the range was more than 500 yards.

 

[Guv]

Wind is not a total non issue, it swirls, accelerates, slows down, come on. And I read the whole thing several times, I was asking not about his sight picture but the elevation in degrees a 44 pistol would have to be held. With all the shooting he had done he couldn't get around a 1" high sighted 300 instead of a 3" high sighted 300? But could deliver 2 out of 4 shots with a 44 mag.

 

[HiBC]

guv,Have you ever fired even 100 rds through a 1200 fps+ large bore handgun at 300+ yards?How can you be so certain it can't be done?

No one suggests Elmer could offhand and Kentucky windage shoot an 18 in group on target at 600 yds.That is not the debate.

The debate is whether Elmer could make an 8 ft circle a very dangerous place to be.If a deer was in that circle,he might get hit.

Its nothing more or less than that.

If you had experience,you would know it is possible.

Its a "Hell,I was There!" thing.

 

[Guv]

Enough personal attacks here, you have no idea what I have done or what I do.

 

[JohnKSa]

Wind is not a total non issue, it swirls, accelerates, slows down, come on.

Yes, if wind conditions are changing very rapidly it would complicate things. One hopes that they wouldn't have even taken the initial shot at that range if the wind conditions were that unpredictable. Nothing in the narrative suggests that the wind conditions were problematic.

With all the shooting he had done he couldn't get around a 1" high sighted 300 instead of a 3" high sighted 300? But could deliver 2 out of 4 shots with a 44 mag.

If you can explain to me how a hunter could predict the difference a 2" change in the 100 yard zero will make at 500 yards using nothing but mental calculations and provide some sort of reasonable rationale that Keith should have had that skill, you might have a point.

As for the latter, I don't think there's any need to explain why a shooter can make hits at a given distance with a weapon that they've previously shot at that distance.

 

[44 AMP]

he couldn't get around a 1" high sighted 300 instead of a 3" high sighted 300? But could deliver 2 out of 4 shots with a 44 mag.

I think you are overthinking this. He didn't want to take a shot with a rifle he had no idea where it would hit. I think what was meant by him not wanting to shoot a rifle sighted 1" high instead of 3" high was that he wouldn't have any idea where the rifle would hit, since the rifle had been sighted in by someone else, in a way he wasn't used to. His handgun, on the other hand, he did know where it hit at about that range.

The way two different people shoot can amount to a lot, especially at longer range. Often the difference is small, but sometimes its not. One friend of mine and I were a consistent 1/2" apart. Each of our rifles was dead on for each of us, but if I shot his, I was 1/2" off. And when he shot mine also 1/2" off, the other way. Range 100yds.

When I shot my father's pistols, I had to hold off to get center hits. He didn't.

I used to call this "the way different people look through the sights", but after a long technical explanation from a fellow TFL member about light rays and ocular openings, and other things, and how it was impossible for people to be different...well, now I just say, "people shoot differently".

In simplest terms, forget how long the range was, the question is use the handgun that I know where it hits, or the rifle that I don't?

As to the angle one needs on the handgun to make that long shot, I have no idea, up is about the best I can say, as I am looking at the sights, and not the angle of the barrel.

Take a similar gun, and hold the sights so all the blade and about half the ramp are level with the rear sight. Then look at the barrel, and figure out the angle, if you need to know.

 

[JohnKSa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WNI4HdYKzo

Keith was using a prone/rested position for his shooting and a handgun very similar to the one in the video.

In addition to the shot in the video, Munden later tried another 600 yard shot, again using a S&W .44Mag revolver. The shot was recorded by the show "Impossible Shots".

This time Munden was shooting at a steel pepper-popper OFFHAND and still with iron sights. On the first shot, he apparently kicked up gravel close enough to the target to pop the balloon taped to it. He made the hit on his 5th shot. A pepper popper target is a little under 4 feet tall and 12-13 inches wide at the widest point.

I don't have a link to the show video because I can't find it online. I have the show on my DVR and just watched it to verify the particulars. Here's a link to the show website that has a description of the show in question (600 yards of Bob).

In the show footage, the wind can be seen flapping the shirts of Munden and the show host.

http://www.shootingusa.com/IMPOSSIBLE_SHOTS/impossible_shots.html

The link below is a shot made by a different shooter at shorter range--only 430 yards--but the shooter nails the target on the first shot with a semi-auto, 9mm pistol. This is the kind of "luck" that a lifetime of shooting can bring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK0EdI_RluY&feature=share&list=UUhk5eyAGuO3J4rV-CiMNkNQ&index=21

 

[HiBC]

Enough personal attacks here, you have no idea what I have done or what I do.

No personal attack made.I simply asked if you had long range handgun experience.

Seems like someone is making a personal attack on Elmer.I had the honor of being a guest at his home.

Head noise is fine,but I would like to know what experience your skepticism is based on.I inquired to verify my suspicion that perhaps you just do not have a reality to base it on.I'm choosing my words carefully to remain respectful.

Several here,including myself,have some long range handgun experience.
I'm making no brag about any shot I have made,I'm saying I have real world experience that the shot is believable.

 

[rclark]

Some people still don't believe we landed on the moon either.... Yet we did. I personally didn't see it with my eyes ... but believe it...

If Keith said he did it ... he did it. Not sure why all the fuss. Haven't personally seen McGivern do his pistol magic either... but I believe he did what he said he did... Or Billy Dixon at Adobe Wells ... Now I got to see Munden do his thing and yep he did it.

I personally haven't shot anything over 300 yards with my .44Spec or .45 Colt. But I've hit the gong out there at that distance once I get the range (have no idea where it hits... but you hear the delayed 'ding' coming back). This was a .44Spec and .45 Colt 'normal' velocites too.

I think we've all made a few shots (given our different skill levels) that we thought we'd never make. I've been surpised several times. Luck? Maybe .. but skill/practice does help make it happen more often!

 

[Guv]

Watched the videos, thanks for everyone's patience. No doubt, it looks possible and I'm sure it was done now. 44AMP, I probably was "overthinking" this. Thanks again for stayin with me.

 

[Japle]

A lot of metallic silhouette pistol shooters, almost all of whom have only a fraction of Keith’s experience, can shoot consistent 4-6” groups at 200 meters with open sight handguns. I recall an International match, IIRC it was in Kansas, where the shootoff target was turkeys – requiring 15” groups to reliably hit them - at 385 meters. The scramble to find Sierra reloading manuals with drop tables was fun to watch. It was pretty windy that day, but some of the shooting was impressive.
At another International match in Indiana, the shootoff target was snuff cans at 150 meters. Try focusing on your front sight and seeing something that size at that range! Several of the shooters ran a few 5X5 strings before missing.

If you shoot handguns a lot at long range, which Keith certainly did, you’ll make some amazing shots.

 

[Wyosmith]

Guys, when I was a younger man and had the eyes to see with, (and the money to buy ammo with) I was a very good shot, and I was better overall with hand guns than I was with a rifle. And as many would tell you from my days in the Marines, I was no slouch with a rifle.

I had the honor to shoot along side of some VERY good shots. Lee Baker, Skip Talbot, Bob Stutzman, Thell Reed, Jeff Cooper, and one time I got to see Bob Munden in action.

The mistake Keith made is telling people.

I am 100% sure the story happened exactly as he said it did, but when you are good enough to make an occasion “impossible shot” which a good shot will do occasionally because of the fact that he is shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds a year, few will believe it.

So it’s best to let others tell the stories and keep quiet yourself.

Those that can’t, don’t or won't will often say no one could have possibly done that. They can’t be convinced, and so it’s best to not waist any time with them.

Let those that want to get that good rub shoulders with those that are, and let the knowledge pass down to those that deserve it.

I was not there. Neither was anyone on either side of this argument that is posting here.

But I have “been there” when several other impossible shots have been made. Probably about ½ of them were seen by others. I let them tell the stories.

Yes, it’s just good luck when you hit something that small at that range, but if we have a shooter that can put all his shots into a 6 foot circle at X range and we have a 14 inch target in that 6 foot circle all the shots will be somewhere in that 6 foot area. If one or two happen to hit the 14” target its good luck. But such a combination of skill and luck produces such hits now and then. When it does, don’t tell anyone. If it was seen by others let them tell the story.

In my life time I have shot the throats out of two 270 Winchester barrels, one 308, one 375H&H, four 45 ACPs and one 44 magnum. I have also contributed to the substantial erosion and wear of a few dozen other guns. I used to buy lead by the multiples of tons and powder by the pallet load, as well as bullets and primers by the shipping cartons.
I have done a lot of shooting. I have made a lot of misses in my life.
And a lot of hits.
Some of my misses were so amateurish as to be embarrassing. Some of my hits were so shocking that even I could hardly believe I’d done them.

But what I have learned from almost 50 years of shooting is to admit openly to the misses and only talk about the “impossible hits” to others that have the same kind of experiences. Never boast. If you can’t do it on demand, you can’t say you can do it. You can say you did it once if you did, but say it only to others that really understand.

Leave the non-believes to their non-belief. It’s only themselves that are hurt by it. If such a shot "cannot be done" they will never try to get that good, and they will be 100% successful in their self-limitations.

 

[mrt949]

I.H M.S.A . SHOOTERS Will make you a believer .

 

[JohnKSa]

Neither was anyone on either side of this argument that is posting here.

Just in case it's not clear, I'm not trying to prove that he made the shot--there's no way to prove it. I'm just pointing out that it is definitely within the realm of what is possible for a good shooter and that there are no inconsistencies/obvious holes in Keith's story.

My opinion, for whatever it's worth is that the story happened as he told it. You can tell from his writing that Keith put a lot of stock in his reputation and I don't think he'd risk telling a story that someone could prove was a lie.

The mistake Keith made is telling people.

Yup. Without witnesses AND video to document the shot, it's just going to cause everyone heartburn.

 

[bamaranger]

where

Man, I wish I could find my copy of "Hell I was there!" I thought I loaned it to a pal who had a house fire. But Bamawife says that the book was around our place well after my buddies bad luck......so I don't know.

The price to replace it is near unbelievable.....I'm gonna keep looking.

 

[salvadore]

I got a copy from my library a couple of years ago even tho I had read it when it came out. I think Sixguns is the more entertaining book, but the story about him as a mama son honcho in Ogden is worth the price.

My neighbor says he was a nice person and most of the gun writers talk about him respectfully except for one who said "Just because you wear a big hat doesn't mean you know what you're talking about."

Back in the early eighties during one of the jack rabbit population explosions (They use to happen every 10 or so years, but we haven't had one since they died off in 82, or 83) I was making unbelievable kills on running jacks out to 100+yds with my SP-1, so I'm guessing if you do a lot of long range handgunning you get good.

 

[Lavan]

I used to read every gun magazine in the world.

It was either Guns & Ammo or Guns where Charles Askins took on Elmer's feat.
Had pictures of the elevation needed.

He ended up putting the aiming point at the top of a long pole and that wasn't enough so he attached an even longer pole with a target to the top of the first pole.

He concluded (from my memory) that the holdover would have had to be something like 30 some feet.

I don't believe he disputed the feat but just left it to the reader to make up their minds.

This was way before the Internet and I sure can't google anything on the article.

I....may..... have that issue ( I saved some old classic magazines that had interesting articles) and if I run across it, (ain't goin lookin) I can scan some of the pix from the article.

 

[44 AMP]

He concluded (from my memory) that the holdover would have had to be something like 30 some feet.

I don't believe he disputed the feat but just left it to the reader to make up their minds.

While I don't remember seeing that article, I am certainly not going to dispute Askins. But this is what a good gunwriter can do, set up the reader to make up their own minds.

30 feet of holdeover seems like a lot, and it is, BUT, its not germane to the shooting. The reason it doesn't matter is because that's not how we aim a handgun for long range shooting.

One doesn't (or at least I don't) hold above the target. One puts the target on top of the front sight, and raises the sight blade (and maybe ramp/barrel) above the rear sight with your target still on top of the blade.

You CAN aim 30 feet above your target, and maybe hit it, but you can't do that and see your target at the same time. Better is to see your target, hold up enough front sight, and shoot. You still only maybe hit, but I think your odds are better this way.

 

[Lavan]

I agree with that.

However to make an illustrated article for a magazine, I think using the elevated aiming point would be easier to document and illustrate.

But you are right in how to elevate the blade to shoot across the county.

 

[Hawg]

One doesn't (or at least I don't) hold above the target. One puts the target on top of the front sight, and raises the sight blade (and maybe ramp/barrel) above the rear sight with your target still on top of the blade.

Exactly! The barrel becomes part of the sighting system. The target is always in view.