Elmer Keith's 600yd shot

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just want to thank a few of y’all for the smiles and giggles.
This debate comes up every year or so and it is always fun to follow.

There are three groups of Elmer Keith folks the first is those of hard facts and rules of nature and then there are the folks that have some hands on knowledge of shooting big bore pistol rounds at distance and then there is the last group; they follow the legend and hard facts and rules of nature are secondary too the story and hands on experience is limited.

Now I have been shooting 44mag my entire adult life and I am over half a century old (god that sounds old)
Back when I could see 250 yards I could hold a plate sized group with a 44 mag and no bench rest. With a rest the plate went down to 6 inches.
I can’t tell you how much elevation was used or how much windage I applied. I have no idea. What I did know was looking through the sights if I wanted my bullet to hit a certain spot and aimed at a spot above it and left or right a ways and the bullet hit the target.

Knowing my own skill and ability with a 44 mag and Elmer being who he was and doing what he did I have little reason to doubt the story

Was there luck involved – heck yah there was luck involved. At that range I don’t care what you are shooting there is a little luck involved. Does the math work out – well sort of depending on who’s doing the figuring.

Back before the interweb I have seen noses broke and teeth lost at the deer camp over this debate and always there were three groups of people in the debate.
Just an observation and once again thanks for the chuckles! ;)
 
He concluded (from my memory) that the holdover would have had to be something like 30 some feet.
Click to expand...
That's probably in the ballpark. Miculek mentioned that he estimated the holdover at about 25 feet for his 430 yard shot with a 9mm pistol.
 
I seem to remember a documentary of some guy putting 8 out of 10 shots onto a 600 yard MR1 target (6' x 6') at 600 yards from an open-sighted .45ACP a few years ago.

Doesn't seem too far-fetched to believe that someone who shot as much as Elmer Keith could do the same thing with a .44 Mag.

Karl began the day of firing with fewer than 10 shots to establish his target hold (since he was using fixed, open sights), and in that “dope shooting” he shot one round in the X ring and two in the 10-ring, both at 12 o’clock. Then he shot for World Record, shooting 8 of 10 shots on target at 600 yards with the .45 ACP handgun, shooting with fixed, open sights, and recording a score of 38 points out of a possible 100 on the NRA MR-1 600 Yard High Power Rifle Competition Target.
Click to expand...

Article is here:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...lippard-1911-a2a3-upgraded-pistols-allegedly/
 
yards from an open-sighted .45ACP a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Scroll up the page a bit, that may be what you're talking about. 600 yards with a .45acp 1911. Remember that the .45acp standard load is a 230 grain bullet at roughly 830fps. .44mag will have much better trajectory, as it tends to use heavier bullets of a smaller diameter (better ballistic coefficient) and muzzle velocity tends to be higher in the .44
if .45 could do it, a .44 could do it more easily IMO.
 
Right - sort of why I posted the above videos of people making very long range shots with more inferior calibers.

The one advantage Lippard seems to have over everyone else, however, is that he built his gun for long range shooting. It isn't a generic production gun.
 
I read the account of that 600 yd. shot many years ago and would be willing to bet good money that He made it pretty much as He described. It's no secret that I'm a fan of Elmer Keith, the man's a legend for a reason.
We're all shooters and some among us are extremely skilled, but the fact remains, there was only one Elmer Keith.
 
Last edited:
anyone could make that shot with enough rounds down range so to say its impossible is just laughable. This being one of the best shots with a deep knowledge of his gun and the round being used its much more than just believable.
 
Recommend locating "Fast and Fancy Revolver shooting"by

Ed McGivern.

He documented on the 20-30' long range pistol shooting.

First did maximum .38Spl., to 200yds.

When the .357Mag came out, he increased the max range to 600yds.

I practice 100yds with my sidearms, to known where to sight on the front sight, normally using the base of the front sight.
 
Quote:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he wanted to take the shot with a handgun either. He probably felt like he had to at least try to put the animal down. I can't help but think he would have been happy if the guy with the rifle had done it.
 
Good thing the 300 mag hunter finally connected because that deer was in for a long lingering death.
 
???
I don't get it.Are you just here to trash Elmer?

The guy with the .300 obviously was shooting beyond his own personal effective range.

And,for all we know,the deer was hit,ran around for a while,and died of any of the wounds.

But there apparently was evidence of a 44 passing broadside through the lungs.That is a kill shot.Maybe not dramatic at low velocity,but it is hard to run over those mountains with a bilateral pneumothorax.Then lets consider hemorrhage...you got your pulmonary,aorta,etc.

Elmer did not make a poke and hope stunt shot.He was trying to put down a wounded animal.No dishonor there.

FWIW,back in those days,we,I include myself,were mostly not so good with our tools yet.We got a 7mm or 300 mag to "shoot flat".

We did not have good range estimation techniques,like the mil-dot principle,or laser rangefinders.

A lot of us sighted in "at 100 yds" instead of 2 or 3 in high at 100,to be on at 2 to 300.

We did not have it in our head a 300 mag would be about 3 ft low at 500,or 5 ft low at 600.

It was "poke and hope" at long range with a 300 magnum,cuz,by golly,they shot flat!What the heck is a ballistic coefficient?

Now we know better.With the right app,a smartphone is a ballistic calculator,with a scope like a Leupold M-1 longrange,a 308 shoots flat enough if you have knobs.A Kestrel will help wind estimation.

But what Elmer did was akin to what John Elway or Peyton Manning might do,hitting a running receiver in the hands at 60 yds plus,or a field goal kicker.

Not about thinking.

May the Force be with you.
 
Last edited:
I was taught to place my shot in a vital area, not possible (on a regular basis) with an open sight handgun at such long distances. You are just aiming at the animal, no particular spot. Animals deserve a little more respect than a piece of cardboard.
 
How long ago was this?

50 years? Sixty?
I've read some of Keith's works and he shot a lot of things I wouldn't consider to be sporting or neccessary. Then again, he wasn't always hunting and thinking about conservation. A lot of thinks he did as a rancher. Ranchers are not always touchy feely with things like 'live and let live'. They tend to exterminate things that might affect their bottom line.

I guess I'm saying that we might want to be careful about putting value judgements on something that happened in another era to someone who wasn't the hunter/conservationalist that we might want him to be.
 
How is it bad to try such a shot at a deer already wounded by the other man?

It was getting away and would die a slow death if it was not killed. So what was to be lost in trying?
 
You speak of common sense and reasoning that a few others can't come to fathom, Wyosmith.

And since the OP seems to have more than enough information to answer the question at hand, I'm closing this one before we're being accused of allowing the horse being beaten a slow death without putting it out of its misery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top