Keith or O'connor

Back in the olden days of gun writers, two of the best took opposite stances on the best properties of a hunting rifle. Jack O'connor always touted the 270 win and other such cartridges that shot faster and flatter with smaller projectiles. His counterpart across the state of Idaho, a man named Elmer Keith took the position that the best hunting guns were those that launched big heavy bullets at much slower speeds such as the 338-06. It seems to me by the new cartridges that we see coming out on the market today that there are still loyal followers to both ways of thinking. What do you think? And for those of you older than myself, which of these two did you like the best? Always fun to get everyones point of view. -shooter
24,663
NONYA
they bragged up whatever they were selling,PR was still PR back then.
33
ABert
I am on the O'Conner side by default. My whole family was born and raised on .270s with the exception of lever rifles. Ol' Jack did prove that the .270 is a very capable round by taking every North American big game animal with it.

Though I do have a .30-06 :-$
33
NONYA
270 is a good round but there are much better rounds for elk,for example the 300 win mag,just for one.Fred Bear killed WAY more big game with an old hand made stick bow than oconner ever did with his 270.
33
killerbee
and there are WAY better rounds than the 300 win mag. example the 300 wby, and a few more.


but since the question was a simple " what do you tend to go with? the ligher, flatter style gun , or the heavier , harder hitting gun" ?




my answer- i try and get the best of both worlds. my 300 weatherby m loaded with 165 swift a-frame bullets is a Pretty flat shooting gun, but if i could ask my alaska youkon moose, he'd say that sucker hits pretty friekin hard :)

for elk i've always had at least a 30-06. but i did take my mom out for a cow tag once. she used her trusty little 243 rem. and shot a cow and watched her go down in 50 yrds. a whole in the lungs doesn't care what it was shot with.
33
sneekeepete
I have to agree with Killer on this topic. Since there are so many new rounds these days I try to get the best from both worlds.
33
Springville Shooter
You guys bring up a great point, and one that makes me believe that the 30 cal is simply the best all-around caliber there is. Take the 300win, wthrby, or even ultra. You can load 125-150gr bullets and shoot at varmint rifle speeds, then turn around and load a 200 or even 220 grain and head out on the plains of Africa. Then you can split the difference, load 165 or 180 and you have a cartridge that shoots flatter than Jacks 270 and hits harder that Elmers 338. This makes me wonder why we are still seeing cartridges like the .338-06 fed appearing on the market today. There must still be some fanfare for these "older style" cartridges. Me, I'm a split. I love my supermags, no doubt, but I still find myself packing the 25-06 or even 308 once in a while. One things for sure, talking about guns and cartridges is almost as fun as shooting them.( except at big mule deer bucks of course.)---shooter
33
Default Avatar
Who did I like best? Both had alot to offer. O'Connor was a brilliant man and writer. Keith was an illiterate cowboy with a gift. If you read about the two men they were both exceptional. I love the 44 magnum and the 338-06 as a result of Keith's writing. I wore out several 270 winchesters because I read Cactus Jack's articles constantly. I found neither man to be a liar. But they obviously loved to irritate each other. O'Connor is the only expert with a rifle I know that shot his own toe off though. I guess the 270 is enough gun to get that done. :))
Mark
33
NONYA
Kieth and my Great Grandfather caught and broke wild horses off our ranch just north of here in Helena for grub money WAY back in the day,my grandfather tells stories about them having pistol shooting contests off horseback at running jacks and coyotes.Elmer wrote about some of it in his book "Hell i was there".Most of what was written about these men was written by themselves,thery were the Tom Knaps of their day and they wernt afraid to self promote.Even when the .270 was new to the market there were better elk rounds avaliable,but Oconner was trying to sell the .270,having a big name like Oconner braggin up your new round sells rifles.I dont use a .30 cal on anything anymore,my .284 7mag and .323 8mag can dish out more than anyone really needs.
33
Springville Shooter
Nonya,
I have to say that my pet rifle is a 7mm as well. Used to be a 7mm rem mag, but after I shot out the second barrell, I rechambered it to 7 dakota. I also can be caught with a 25-06AI and I love my 338 RUM that shoots 225 Nosler ABs at 3200fps. Still I would have to say that I think the magnum 30's win the versatility contest. I like your 8mm caliber, but like my 25's I wish they would make more bullets for it. I have buddies that work at swift, maybe we should ask them for a 210gr scirocco bullet with a .500BC for the 8mm's. I finally got my 100 grainers for the 25. ----shooter
33
NONYA
.323,210 GR,KICKASS BC,Im in!Id have to rebbarel the 8mag with a HEAVY tube and see what it can do out around 2000 yards.... [-o<
33
silvertip-co
Having read Jack O'Connor for 50 of my 59 yrs( I still read and re-read his books) I would say .270. The 338-06 is probably a fine cartridge, but I know of no General Store that sells them. As much as I hate everything WalMart(ChinaMart) they do have the cheapest ammo and do have some available, unlike other stores. What good is a rifle with no ammo, and its hard to tell how the Fascist ObamaCrats will affect ammo supplies in future.
33
NONYA
Its the hoarders and cutrate dealers that screwed up the ammo supply over the last year,not Obama.Everything is back to normal around here,dont know about the rest of the country.
33
Default Avatar
O'Connor was and is the most accomplished outdoor writer of all time, but Keith could whoop him on his worst day. Jack was an admitted lightweight when it came to recoil and that is why his favorite round was actually the 7x57 Mauser prior to the 270. He latched on to the 270 because it was newer and more marketable and they kind of promoted each other. What was good for Jack was good for the 270 and vise a versa. Jack even admitted that the 30-06 was more versatile than the 270, but kept right on plugging the 270. To answer the question between the 270-338? I pick the 270 because over the years the 270 has been good to me, though I no longer have one. I have no empirical experience to speak of concerning the 338-06, but it does look good on paper as an elk round along with the 35 Whelen. If I lived in Grizz country I would however, reconsider my choice. I personally have settled in on a good shooting 7mm mag that I plan to use until it's shot out. I would love to go back in time and share a hunting camp with both of the gentlemen. Man, what the campfire cartridge arguments would be like?
33
Springville Shooter
Wingmaster, I too went the route of the 7mm. If your a handloader who is into the unique stuff, consider the 7 dakota when you shoot the barrell out of that rem. brass lasts forever and you can duplicate red hot 7mag loads with low pressure light/ accurate loads in the dakota. Just a thought, I love mine.-----shooter
33
Default Avatar
Springville Shooter,

Thanks for the suggestion as I was thinking along the same lines. The Dakota or maybe the 30-338 just to be different. The Dakota has some impressive stats for sure.
33
Springville Shooter
I like the 30-338 as well, excellent ballistics and inherent accuracy in a 2.5 inch case so you can load the bullets out near the lands. That's why I love the dakota cartridges and am suprised that they are not more popular. All the speed of the longer magnums in a 2.5 inch case with thick brass, straight walls and excellent shoulders/neck. How can you beat that?
33
silvertip-co
O'Connor was / is the greatest, no doubt about it.

Keith was a blovating bs'er.
33
TheGreatwhitehunter
Jack O'connor :not-worthy
33
Default Avatar
As long as you are shooting something reasonable, it really does not make much difference. That's why there is always room for argument in the question. The hunter skills and shooting skills are 99% more important than what you are shooting, assuming it is something reasonable. True, some setups are better for ultra long range shooting, but a bit of hunting skill more than makes up for the small percentage of those few ultra long range shots, and they may provide false confidence to most average shooters (of which more of us are than not, no matter what we like to think)..

BTW, both Jack & Elmer are fun reads. Jack obviously had better writing skills, but Elmer's stories were something else. Thge good old days, when it was more than score and how to...:)
33
belly-deep
Well, let's examine each person a little bit.

O'Connor used guns that while they were light, were not insane choices. .270 for elk? If you are a good shot there is no problem! You even have power to spare! I know two old elk-killen mountain men that have both taken over 25 bulls with .243s. O'Connor wasn't suggesting something THAT light, but instead a gun that with good bullets is entirely capable of killing elk and elk-sized game.

Keith? Want to talk about a nutcase!?!? He may have been quite a charasmatic guy, and certainly more cowboy-western than O'Connor, but he was a loon. How can you put down lighter guns such as .270's in one sentence and then brag about how you shoot game at 400 yards with an open sighted .44 magnum? He was either a huge liar or was too dumb to see the hipocrisy in his own mantra.
33
Springville Shooter
Interesting points, I have heard some crazy stories about Kieth from my friends whose parents grew up when he was roaming around in Salmon ID.----shooter
33
Default Avatar
Jack for sure.I grew up reading his stories, totally the reason I shoot a .270 named 'DEAD MEAT'
33
Default Avatar
Elmers famous quote to Jack was " The .270 makes a great coyote gun." =D>

And the Roy Weatherby came along and created the best of both worlds :thumb
33
one hunting fool
I'm of the oppinion that a well placed shot is better than any caliber..
33
Default Avatar
I killed my buck in Colorado this year with a Sako TRG 42 & Nightforce scope chambered in .338 Lapua at 325 yards using a 250 grain Scenar bullets.
It blew an 8" EXIT hole out the backside and took heart and lungs with it like a vaccuum.

Overkill??
Dead is dead =D>
33
Default Avatar
That hole in the deer was incredible.
33
belly-deep
"skull krazy" wrote:I killed my buck in Colorado this year with a Sako TRG 42 & Nightforce scope chambered in .338 Lapua at 325 yards using a 250 grain Scenar bullets.
It blew an 8" EXIT hole out the backside and took heart and lungs with it like a vaccuum.

Overkill??
Dead is dead =D>
 I don't think anyone is debating that.

The argument is, at what point does that kind of a gun actually offer an advantage in killing something? Throw out the long range stuff, because that is not what the original argument hinged on.

The fact of the matter is, a good shot could have killed your buck with a .243. It wouldn't have blown a hole that size in it, but it would have killed it within 20 seconds or so. And as you put it, "Dead is dead".
33
Default Avatar
"belly-deep" wrote:
skull krazy wrote:I killed my buck in Colorado this year with a Sako TRG 42 & Nightforce scope chambered in .338 Lapua at 325 yards using a 250 grain Scenar bullets.
It blew an 8" EXIT hole out the backside and took heart and lungs with it like a vaccuum.

Overkill??
Dead is dead =D>
 I don't think anyone is debating that.

The argument is, at what point does that kind of a gun actually offer an advantage in killing something? Throw out the long range stuff, because that is not what the original argument hinged on.

The fact of the matter is, a good shot could have killed your buck with a .243. It wouldn't have blown a hole that size in it, but it would have killed it within 20 seconds or so. And as you put it, "Dead is dead".
 I don't recall saying anything about long range (???)
The thread is about the views of two hunting and shooting icons, Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner that constantly debated their ideas of what a good hunting caliber was.
I stated i liked Elmers point of views over Jack's, and along came Roy Weatherby to give both.
I'm quite positive a .243 would kill a deer at that range and further, but MY point was I like big guns even at close range (325 yds) as my buck was.
Who said anything about long range? ](*,)
33
belly-deep
I was the one that brought up long range.

I knew that if I didn't kill it right out of the gate, somebody would read my statement "at what point does that kind of a gun actually offer an advantage in killing something" and bring up long range hunting. As I stated before, that was not part of the original argument between Keith and O'Connor, and so in this discussion it should remain off limits. I only brought up the long range subject so that some wannabe Carlos Hathcock wouldn't go off on some tangent as to the merits of their 50 cal "mule deer" rifle.
33
Default Avatar
Funny you mention Carlos...i just watched his shot on the history channel last night....VERY impressive but not duplicated as proved. :not-worthy
Sometimes we all just get "lucky" to some extent.
33
Springville Shooter
You guys have some great insight. I talked to an old guy at the sporting goods store in Salmon Id that swears Elmer Keith stiffed him on his paper delivery money. I also heard that he once had to buy a new stove that was exactly the same as his old one before his wife got home as he shot a hole in it and didn't want her to find out. Maybe true, maybe not. Love the points on this thread.-----shooter
33
Default Avatar
Thread hijack warning! Carlos Hathcock was born about 30 minutes from where I live and most native Arkansans don't even know who he is. You guy's impress me.
33
Springville Shooter
Yup. we know all about the famous Marine sniper, read the book. What was his nickname, white feather? Hero, patriot, you bet.------shooter
33
Default Avatar
i guess i am on the old fart side of things, i am not into super fast light bullets, in Michigan in the northern half of the state we can use rifles, and i always use a 30-06 with a 220 grain bullet, but here in most places you will never shoot over 200 yards. When i am out west Elk hunting i use a 300 win mag with 180 grain bullets, it is still pretty flat shooting and has good nock down power out to the 500 yard range, which is what i limit myself to out there.

Kevin
33
belly-deep
"buckykm1" wrote:i guess i am on the old fart side of things, i am not into super fast light bullets, in Michigan in the northern half of the state we can use rifles, and i always use a 30-06 with a 220 grain bullet, but here in most places you will never shoot over 200 yards. When i am out west Elk hunting i use a 300 win mag with 180 grain bullets, it is still pretty flat shooting and has good nock down power out to the 500 yard range, which is what i limit myself to out there.

Kevin
33
pram-z
I use a .270 on everything I hunt and have killed elk with a .243, so I think shot placement is more important than caliber in most cases. But opinions are like belly buttons, everybody's got one. There are pro and cons to everything.
33
southwind
Both! I subscribe to both. Both have poignant and valid arguments. Now, I will say my "go to" rifle right now is a .270WSM which in some way I think both of them would like at least a little.
33
belly-deep
"southwind" wrote:Both! I subscribe to both. Both have poignant and valid arguments. Now, I will say my "go to" rifle right now is a .270WSM which in some way I think both of them would like at least a little.
 You need to go back and read what those two actually wrote...Keith would have hated the .270 WSM with a passion. You're cleanly in O'Connor's camp.
33
southwind
Well, you may be right. Let me re-phrase that for you. Keith would have hated the 270 wsm less than he hated the 270 win.

I happen to have a rifle that Elmer Keith built.
33
Default Avatar
When I was youger, I was an O'Conner fan. But now I think I do think I have the best of all worlds. I have 3 rifles I use to shoot almost everything. My 300 mag is #1 and I use it for most hunitng, especially deer and elk. But I still love my 270 for antelope and smaller deer. And I use my 22-250 for coyotes and varmints. I still use a 22 rimfire for plinking and short-range fun and we like to shoot close praiire dogs with the 17 HMR. But I do have to say that as I've gotten older, bullet penetration has become much more important to me, so I'd have to say that I am in Elmer's camp now.
33