I find it very interesting to read old Elmer. I wonder what his opinion today would be about the ideal NA caliber/bullet weight in light of the advancements made over the last bunch of years with bullets and powders?

WELL, WELL, WELL. Like a dummy, I should have surfed the site a little more and would have seen a similar thread here and there. Sorry, fellas. Nonetheless, Elmer was convinced of his position so I am curious to imagine what he would think today.

Elmer, like the rest of the guys who have been around for some time, would have concluded that the .30-06 really does what you need done...

I think he would still find the 338 is a top "do it all"!

Ed

at a point, Elmer thought the 333 OKH w/250s was the NA ticket. I'll have to go back to my material and see.

Elemer Keith never had anything good to say about the 06......To such an extent that I doubt that would change. Even today.

I also think he would stick with the 338 win mag. And he also loved the 35 whelen.

"In a factory made load and rifle, the Model 70 Winchester, caliber 375 H&H is the best all-around rifle now made in the this country.

-Elmer Keith

He also had great things to say about doubles. I think he was a big bore guy.

I certainly agree with his belief that a 250 gr .338 is good medicine for just about everything NA. It was reading his material that convinced me to have a 338-06 built.

I seriously doubt that Elmer's overall opinion would change. He liked big, heavy bullets at moderate velocity that guaranteed penetration and exit wounds for bleed out.

Whether a Whelen, .338 Fed, or .375, he'd approve of them nicely.

It's also worth noting that Elmer didn't hunt groundhogs. He hunted many areas that held dangerous North American Game. Elk in Bear country. His rifles did double duty and he wanted to be prepared for anything that came his way. A .270 on a large Brownie isn't very convincing close-quarters medicine.

Kieth subscribed to big and bold. Boddington preferred light and fast. The simple truth is that if you fire a bullet with enough penetration to take out the lungs and heart, any animal will go down eventually.

Both work well. But if I'm in an area with remotely any form of dangerous game, I'm going big. In North America that would be my .350 RMag stuffed with 250gr. Speers at 2500fps.

I think Kieth would well approve.

Not even sure he'd approve of the .338 Federal. He liked the .338 plenty but he especially liked them in the 250 grain variety. And that's not something the Fed can provide.

I think he would have loved the .375 Ruger.

Elmer was big on the 275 and 300 grain bullets in his 333 cartridges and the 338s

338-06 & 35 Whelan for certain. His comment on the 375 H&H says it all about what he thinks is the best all around. Not sure he would be all that crazy about short action stuff.

He would think you guys that want to use light bullets in the 338's ect. were nut cases... It isn't the bore that he liked, it's the penetration from longer heavier bullets that he liked.

DM

Elmer would say--"a pound of powder and a pound of lead and get the hell out of the way", cause whatever is in front of me is dead.

what I am wondering is whether Elmer would agree to claims made that some bullets (monos, Barnes TSXs) allow hunters to use less bullet weight while achieving great penetration.

so, as mmaggi pointed out, he was a fan of both the Whelen and the 338-06 would he advise using say, 225s in the 338-06 or would he still advise 250s+?

while we're at it many of the rounds we discuss were designed for hunting applications only. the 30 06 as we all know was a military round which was found to be effective on most classes of game for general use with appropriate bullets. had the 30 06 never been developed I wonder what the world standard medium bore would be today?

There were advancements from the old cup and core bullets in Elmers day (Nosler Partition). It never made Elmer change his mind on what was needed.

I don't think he would have changed his position at all.

ddj

I doubt he'd post his thoughts in a medium bore forum

I'm with the guys that think he'd just look down his nose at all of the WSM'S, WIZZUMS, RIMS & RUMS.
He was a LARGER medium bore (read .333 & up) kinda guy. He'd still think ya wouldn't be safe from them thar dangerous woodchucks with a .30-06. Just my thoughts and I read him all the time & have a number of his books.
Bear in Fairbanks

He would have bought 6 270 rifles and used nothing else again....ever.

Many people think Elmer prefered large bores, heavy and slow bullets. Wrong. He had little use for "slow" and worked quite hard to get those big, heavy bullets to fly fast.

Witness; the .44 Mag handgun cartridge.

A lot of people have worked very hard to make Elmer sound and seem foolish. It has done more to damage THEM than him, at least in the eyes of many who actually know what he said and preached.

My hats off to a fine old dude who had been there ... and came back.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
He would have bought 6 270 rifles and used nothing else again....ever.

After forging them into a nice double.

I think Elmer would love the emergence of new, heavier calibers and affordable, quality double rifles.

Elmer would still be shooting the .338 and whatever 270-300 gr bullet he could find whether it was stout or not. Noslers were around for 30 years of his career and he never seemed to get bullet construction. Elmer would hate anything with a plastic tip and probably consider the mono bullets a gimick.
Of the new rounds Elmer would think the 325 WSM and .338 Federal as reasonable ladies rifles, but all other WSMs useless. He would still think the .270 is a reasonable medium range coyote gun, but prefer a super 7 of some sort for longer ranges.
Lou

quote:

A lot of people have worked very hard to make Elmer sound and seem foolish.

Elmer was a market hunter for the railroaders when a young man, I think he cottoned up fast to dropping game right where he hit it... keeps the tracking to a minimum. Work is work.

.

I don't think Elmer Keith ever made it all the
way in to the "modern" era of smokeless
powder, better technology bullets, and higher
velocity.

Jack O'Connor did.

Of course, a big meplat with plenty of momentum
behind it will penetrate and kill aka 333 OKH for deer, 375 for everthing else, etc

But that's what modern bullets do as well. A
Barnes Triple Shock has a big 'ol meplat on it
about an inch after it enters an elk. Then
it slices it's way in like a broad-head,
penetrating like all get out.

Jack would have loved the TSX. I miss Jack.
Elmer too. He was a rowdy, hunting SOB and
told the truth as he saw it, just like O'Connor.

dxr

.

quote:

Originally posted by Lou270:
Elmer would still be shooting the .338 and whatever 270-300 gr bullet he could find whether it was stout or not. Noslers were around for 30 years of his career and he never seemed to get bullet construction. Elmer would hate anything with a plastic tip and probably consider the mono bullets a gimick.
Of the new rounds Elmer would think the 325 WSM and .338 Federal as reasonable ladies rifles, but all other WSMs useless. He would still think the .270 is a reasonable medium range coyote gun, but prefer a super 7 of some sort for longer ranges.
Lou

I imagine Elmer would have rebored the old .333 to .338 and given it to his wife. Furthermore, I believe he would have liked Remington's .338 Ultra, but would have chosen the Lapua instead.

quote:

Originally posted by trouthunterdj:
There were advancements from the old cup and core bullets in Elmers day (Nosler Partition). It never made Elmer change his mind on what was needed.

I don't think he would have changed his position at all.

ddj

If it hadn't been for a simple observation about having wharehouses full of surplus 30-06 ammo from WW1 (the observation made by Then Chief of Staff of the US Army Douglas MacArthur)

The M1 Garand would have probably been chambered for either the 270winchester cartridge
or a very similar 7mm (.284) bore cartridge and thus we would have fought WW2 and Korea with that cartridge....

Which would have made Jack O'Connor very happy.

AD

333 OKH

The man had something like 10 double rifles, I doubt that it would be anything different today.

quote:

Originally posted by Oregon45:
I think Elmer would love the emergence of new, heavier calibers and affordable, quality double rifles.

There is something to be said for a bullet that leaves a big hole, through and through.

Blood loss, when enough blood is lost, everything dies.

Good drainage will accelerate the process.

Elmer had a very low opinion of the .30/'06, based, I believe, on the fact that the early hunting loadings for it used .30/40 Krag bullets which weren't up to the increased impact velocities of the '06. Better bullets cured this problem. I think Elmer knew this, but was just too stubborn to admit it.

Nonetheless, the old guy was very knowledgeable, and his opinion of many things is still worth considering! IMO, especially regarding handguns. But if one is discussing African calibers, Keith's opinions are still shared by many PH's.

He would love how the 338 caliber has grown also the 416 caliber.He would like the better bullets,guns and scopes.He was way ahead of his time.I have all of his books and everything he wrote from 1973 on.He loved the 338 and thought it was tyhe best rifle for all North american Game.I have used it 25 years and my old 30-06 sits in the closet .I just shot a newer 30-06 I had in a weatherby vanguard and the 338 win mag was a Ruger stainless with a laminated stock.The 338 was more accurate 2 to one and actually kicked less.Most 30-06s I have shot have a light barrel.I trust the 338 win mag way more on grizzleys and things that bite than any 30-06 made.

He liked the 318 Westley Richards, and it is basicly the same as the 339 Federal. For penetration, it is excellent with a 250 grain bullet. May be a little stiff for whitetails, but will do the job with 185s. He liked the 333 OKH, and the 334 OKH so why would he not like the 338 Federal? Just my 2 cents worth.
I am sighting in my 338 for Whitetails this week. I do not feel inadiquetly armed.

I had the distinct pleasure to have corresponded with Mr. Keith, as well as visited him at his home and chatted with him at several gun shows here in MT. I feel he would have embraced some of the changes but would have scoffed at others.

I think it would take a LOT of convincing to allow him to change his view on "heavy for caliber/moderate velocity" on bullets. I think once You find something that works one tends to stick with it. As I creep up on sixty I find that I'm very much "Dyed in the Wool" over certain subjects.

Then again we once chatted about the VAST improvements in 10 and 12 gauge waterfowl loads with better shot,improved wads with shot protector cups,plastic hulls compared to the older paperr shells. He easily made the move to 3" 12 ga when he noted they killed as well as his older less efficient 10 ga loads.

I DO think he would be surprised as well as amused by the changes in hunting apparel and gear; head to toe camo, scent blocking technology,trail cams, automatic feeders, range finders, GPS,use of ATV's to access/hunt areas,advances in bullet technology,the BIG magnum's like the .378 Wby based .30/.378 and .338/.378, the Ultra Mags, etc.

Occasionally when I read some fifty post thread about bullet choices, retained weight on slugs taken from DEAD animals, or the merits of Accubonds vs Ballistic tips vs Partitions vs Barnes tsx vs Swifts vs Trophy Bondeds..... I think he would have responded to worry less about the minutiae and more about actually SHOOTING your rifle so as to be able to PROPERLY place a slug in the heart/lung area.

And BTW....built a .338-06 severral years ago and used nothing but 250 gr slugs to take a mess of game. ALL clean one shot kills. Makes me think that Elmer KNEW what he was talking about as his ideas WORK even today.

FN in MT

In the realm of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon I think Frank speaks from a position of authority having known the man himself.

I'm far from his best friend or Biographer. I'm simply theorizing on the short amount of time I spent with the man. I'm NOT setting myself up as anything other than a guy who happily got to spend some time with a Legend.

BTW...the several double rifles earlier mentioned...I got to heft each and every one of them!! Pretty cool stuff.

FN in MT

I remember reading in Guns & Ammo (and how that magazine has gone downhill in quality and content since Keith) his verdict on the 8mm Remington Magnum. Something like "Just what the heck use is it for.." or similar.

I think that he would be amazed with the use of plastic for shotshells and greatly impressed with the reliability and quality of modern optics.

I've posted this before, but heres a much younger FN in MT at Keiths "cabin" outside his home in Salmon. Date was September of 1979. He had all sorts fo AMAZING trophies in the Cabin as well as a gun leaning in every corner.

Got a heck of a tour of his gun collection that day.



FN in MT

Cool, way cool.

Looks like a small statured man, no wonder he liked the big stuff, 338s, 44s etc etc. Nice pic thanks for sharing FN.

Seriously, I also built a 338/06 around 95/96 and it was a VERY nice round, could not ask for more, accuracy and shootability and I always liked that it held more rounds than a 338 Win Mag. Anyone wanting factory ammo would be hard pressed to do better than the Win Mag in NA no doubt.

His praise of the OKH and all the info ie. Finn Aaggard is why I built a 338/06 and I think it was one round that TRULY missed the boat. A-Square and Weatherby did not have the success it should have had, and too bad a larger company i.e. Winchester never Saami'd it instead and put more rifles/loads out there.

A 23" stainless Model 70 CRF in magnum contour bbl would really get my interest.....but I'd settle for a Sock-O!

Yes the 338 Federal is a nice round w/in 300 yds, but it's father is THE round that should own the place that the '06 does, for deer and larger sized game.

200s @2900 mv
215 2790 mv
225 2670
250s 2500

What's not to like in a round that does not stomp the shooter!

Many of us would enjoy some photos of those great 338-06s!

Also, does anyone have any ballistics software? I am looking at some load date published in the Wayne Van Zwoll book, Modern Porting Rifle Cartridges. He lists the following: 225 grain bullet using 56.0 grains of IMR 4320 powder achieving 2690 fps.

Not sure what sort of bullet or barrel length. However, can one approximate the drop at 300 yards with a 100 yard zero?

Thanks.