jsl3170
I used Point Blank software (free Here)http://www.huntingnut.com/
and came up with 15.15 in. of drop at 300yrds. zeroed at 100 yrds.
Slenk

Thanks.

http://www.biggameinfo.com/index.aspx?page=%2fbalcalc.ascx

My gun was 23" and IMR 4320 was my powder of choice from 200-225s which is all I shot. No pics, sold gun in past, after bolt handle fell off (first shot after returning from an elk hunt of all things). NO more Rem bolts for a serious big game rifle for me.....YMMV.

Elmer would be a .338 kind of guy, as he was in the old days except it was a .333. I met him at an NRA convention years ago. He was a little guy, I am 5'9 and pretty much towered over him, I'd say he was 5'4 or 5'5, but he may have shrunk up some. Happens when you get old. I would have loved to visit his cabin.

Elmer Keith was the "shoot as heavy caliber you can handle" man.
He never liker the .380super..the .45ACP was still better.
He never liked the 30-06 for hunting...the 45/110 sharps still was better he felt.
He thought the law enforcement officers would be better of with his .41magnum than a .38 special.
Elmer might today have used premiun bullets, but he would still pickup the large bore.

The most important change in firearms technology since the days of Elmer Keith (and Jack O'Connor, Townsend Whelen, Ned Crossman, Jeff Cooper and many others from whom we all have learned so much - and may they all rest in peace) has been the radical improvement in bullet construction.

Solids and softs both these days are just so much better.

As a matter of plain fact, bullets these days are not only better, but they are an order of magnitude better than the slugs that Elmer had at his disposal.

Elmer was nothing if not smart, and he would recognize and appreciate that, IMHO.

I don't think Elmer would be educated enough to be a writer today, from what I understand his editors had a pretty tough job.

The editors have a rough job on many writers today.
Elmer had a far better education than many college students today. He could discuss anything with authority,and listened to all sides of a subject. Then he set the story straight. This behavior is foreign to many today, but is what a man did in the old days.
He would have had no use for the 17 cal crazies,and the Pointed stick crowd. Tree stands would have driven him crazy, as well as the "I left it stiffen up over night, and could not find it in the morning"crowd.

As for the rifle cartridges, if I ever have enough money to commission custom double, I’ll go for 338x74. IMHO Keith created the best balanced cartridge for non dangerous game in doubles; it’s hard hitting and relatively flat shooting, so even 300 yds on a bigger game should not be the problem.

See loads http://www.loaddata.com/member...cid=1560&MW=&PM=&PT=

http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd33874keith.jpg (Tried to post picture but something did not work, here is just a link)

I remember Elmer being very keen on the 338/378 KT and Nosler partitions and also the 378.

Bob Hagel was of like mind except it was the 340.

Big bullets going fast.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
The most important change in firearms technology since the days of Elmer Keith (and Jack O'Connor, Townsend Whelen, Ned Crossman, Jeff Cooper and many others from whom we all have learned so much - and may they all rest in peace) has been the radical improvement in bullet construction.

Solids and softs both these days are just so much better.

As a matter of plain fact, bullets these days are not only better, but they are an order of magnitude better than the slugs that Elmer had at his disposal.

Elmer was nothing if not smart, and he would recognize and appreciate that, IMHO.

I agree, and would like to add that the powders of today are so mutch better. The combination is amazing, and let us do the same with smaller cartridges than in Elmers days.

No doubt it would be the .338 RCM

quote:

Originally posted by D99:
I don't think Elmer would be educated enough to be a writer today, from what I understand his editors had a pretty tough job.

I spent quite a bit of time with P.O.Ackley, and he said it was next to impossible to read much of anything Keith wrote. He told me Keith had to put it all on tape or tell the story, and then someone else cleaned it up and wrote it. Keith had worked for him for a time, and Parker had quite a bit to say about Keith...

DM

BTW, JSL, I don't think I have any pics anywhere of my former 338/06. Rather plain, a SS 700 with Hart 23" miked .730 at muzzle, had ordered .050 over a Rem Mag contour, came in a tad more.....to do it over again, it would be .700 max at 22", likely Rem Mag contour. My 338 Win Mag was chopped from 24 to 22.5 and I liked it well on handling, recoil not.

The gun had the original stock, an ADL the early/mid 90s, hard plastic, unlike the later softer rubbery feeling stock. Filled with styrofoam peanuts and added a decelerator pad.

Gun was 8lbs on the nose w/o scope. Would lose a lb if doing again, the buyer fluted the bbl and said it was the most accurate rifle he ever owned. Hart did well. Every load I shot was 1/2" at 100 yds, and 1.25" with Speer/Noz/Hornady 225s, all 3 bullets, 3 shots at 200 yds.

WW brass, partial sized in then custom die set Redding, and IMR4320 was powder of choice.

Whether Elmer could "write" or not might be a question but his work with editors was certainly a success. All of his books are a must read if one really wants to open their mind and learn from the past and not only about shooting but just the past. Whether Elmer could "do" or not is not much in question. Elmer Keith was the real deal, grew up hard and tough and had huge knowledge of the things we all are interested in. I think today that Elmer would use the new powders, use the new bullets, shoot them very well and then tell you just exactly what he thought of the results. By the way, there is no deader elk than one hit with Elmers favorite 338 bullet, the 275 Semi Spitzer Speer now gone from the shelves from a 338 Win mag. Forget the Chronograph as the roughly 2550 fps will only leave you disappointed, just admire the big bull on the ground with two holes. One in and one out.

quote:

Originally posted by buckshot:
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.

Elmer did "rebore the 334 OKH" to 338 when he adopted the 338 Win. for everything in NA.

Elmer never had the awesome bullets we do now. If he did I think he would not need a 338 KT for everything and would not call the 270 Win "A damn adequate coyote rifle!".

Very cool FN.
I suppose Elmer would have just said, "Hell, I was there!"

In a Gun Notes column Elmer wrote for G&A back in the day he declared about the 220 Sierra Game king I think for the 30-06, which some reader had dared asked what he thought about it for deer and elk, something like the following paraphrase, "while I still recommend that a .338 bullet of 250 grains or more for big game, the 220 Sierra and the 30-06 should make a wonderfully flat shooting pest cartridge." I still laugh when I think of it.
I covet very little, as I was taught not to by parents who sure had reason to covet, but I have always coveted this; Once Elmer spent 30 days in the Wrangell mountains with just a tent, an Irish setter and his guns way back in the day. I have spent a lot of time in the mountains. I had an Irish setter for 17 years. I packed a quite a few guns along over the years into the mountains with that Irish setter but I always wished of being able to enjoy that aloneness in that place, in that time, in that way.
dmw

quote:

Originally posted by POP:
Elmer never had the awesome bullets we do now. If he did I think he would not need a 338 KT for everything and would not call the 270 Win "A damn adequate coyote rifle!".

Nahhh. Kinda like comparing a Big-Block V8 vs. a Turbocharged I4: even if they both covered the quarter mile in exactly the same time which would you choose?

Kieth would choose a V8. He liked big. Given the advancements with bullets and powder I suspect Kieth would simply have said:

"Well, give me a better constructed heavy bullet!"

250 gr. cup&core would simply give way to a 250 gr. Partition. That's all.

Ok guys tell me, do you think Elmer would have liked the 9.3x62?
I think he would have liked it.

Of the modern cartridges, my guess his favorite would be the 338-06 (like the famed 333OKH). Despite the advances in bullet construction and powder, I am sure he would still hold to the adage of not making a small bullet do a big bullets work.

John

oldun,

I am sure Elmer was well aware of the 9.3x62 as it was in use when he was...

Despite his knowledge and abilities, Old Elmer seems never to have concluded that the early failures of rounds like the 30/'06 were due to bad bullets-trying to use 30/40 Krag bullets at '06 velocities. At least, he never would admit that better bullets made the '06 a much more effective round than he would have people believe.

quote:

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

Except I think he once wrote the 270 was a fine coyote rifle.
No, EK was a big bore guy, he would onyl praise the 338 & up more today w/ better bullets. He may or may not condone lighter monometals, but there is reason to use lighter TTSX in rounds like the 338-06 & midrange 225gr in the 338winmag. His rifle of choice today, probably a 340wby w/ 250grTSX.
Nice pic Frank, barely recognized you w/ all that hair! FIW, Frank is pretty tall guy, EK just looks normal standing next to him.

quote:

Originally posted by Onty:
As for the rifle cartridges, if I ever have enough money to commission custom double, I’ll go for 338x74. IMHO Keith created the best balanced cartridge for non dangerous game in doubles; it’s hard hitting and relatively flat shooting, so even 300 yds on a bigger game should not be the problem.

See loads http://www.loaddata.com/member...cid=1560&MW=&PM=&PT=

http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd33874keith.jpg (Tried to post picture but something did not work, here is just a link)

Keith's writings inspired me to build y 338-06 & 338x74K. The 338-06 just flat works w/ bullets from 210grNP to any 250gr soft. I haven't taken any animlas w/ the 338x74K but it's na accurate round, something diff for the wildcater. mine is on a Ruger #1.

Elmer himself said that he started out as, and primarily remained, a meat hunter. He wanted a round that brought the animal down as quickly as possible and did not damage the valuable meat, hence his distaste for the high velocity small calibers. He repeated this many times over the years in his Gun Notes in G&A.

As for the '06, many forget that Elmer fired the '03 Springfield in team and individual matches @ Camp Perry. He was very familiar with the round and its capabilities. In fact, this led to his use of the military ammunition (which he could obtain at little or no cost) for hunting. He wrote many times of the failures of the full jacketed boattail .30 caliber rounds on game. Without expansion, the small caliber rounds simply went through and the game escaped. This is the reason he went BACK to the old single shot buffalo guns, which at that time he could pick up for a song, as everyone wanted the new high velocity stuff. Elmer later wrote of trying the new Remington Bronze point bullets in the '06, and to the best of my recollection found essentially no improvement, in his experience. He stayed with the big bores, which he found reliable under all conditions.

He tried the new developments, he just was not willing to risk going hungry when he had equipment which he KNEW would bring home the meat.

He also wrote that the 7mm Remington Magnum made a good coyote rifle!

Sometimes I think people develop their opinion of what someone said Keith wrote, rather than what he actually wrote. I am 48 years old, and started reading Keith in G&A when I was about 8 years old, continuing until his death. I still remember reading an article by someone else about Elmer's childhood and his near fatal injuries. Of all the gun writers, I always wanted to meet three: ELmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton and Bill Jordan.

Stryker60

Keith's book "Keith's Rifles for Large Game" came out in 1946. During the war years he was busy down at the U.S. Military arsenal in Utah testing and sighting rifles so he had little time to hunt. He related his experiences with rifles, calibers and bullets available in the period from about 1900 to 1940. He really disliked the 30-06 because he used military solid bullets or the soft nosed bullets available at the time. As stated above he found that the military bullets just punched on through with little expansion and the factory softs were all to soft for the velocity that the 06 could generate causing poor penetration by his standards. He actually preferred the 270 Win over the 30-06 for deer and antelope sized game because the bullets were much tougher in the 270 than in the 30-06. He states so in the above referenced book. He used cartridges like the 265 OKH, 285 OKH and the 300 H&H for deer, antelope and mountain sheep. Although he considered the 333 with 250 grain bullets the best caliber and bullet weight for the one rifle to do it all category and for the larger animals from elk on up including the big bears. When he went antelope, sheep or just deer hunting he would usually select a smaller caliber but he did prefer to use heaviest weight bullet available for that caliber. See pages 253-256 in above referenced book. He did not consider the 270 Win as suitable for elk especially in timber hunting. He was to later change his mind on this.

I had the privilege of hunting with him several times in the late 70's. These were one day mule deer meat hunts. Most of the time his wife Lorraine was along with her trusty Pre-64 Mod 70 Feather Weight in 358 Win. On one hunt we were talking about the 270 Win I was carrying. He stated that the 160 grain Nosler Partition loaded to around 2,800 fps now made the 270 Win useable for elk for a careful hunter. He liked the Nosler Partition. What he would of thought of the modern premium bullets such as the Barnes mono-metals I just couldn't guess. He had his own way of thinking of things and he would often surprise you with it. I do think he would have liked the Swift A-frames.

465h&H

465H&H I envy you Sir for being able to spend time with Mr. Keith.

He is the reason that I use a 375 H&H, a 35 Whelen and a 44 Rem Mag for all of my hunting.

It is a pity that his honesty of opinion would not meet with todays standards of selling products.