Without the work and the writings of Jack O'Connor I doubt that there would be a 270 short mag. Elmers work may have led those after him to feel a need for handgun calibers even bigger and more powerfull than the 44 mag. If they were around today I wonder what there thoughts would be on the "new" cartriges. Would Mr. O'Connor hunt the world with a short mag. or would Mr. Keith be seen with a 454 Casul hanging from his hip?

Elmer would probably be tickled with the 338 RUM.

MM

I've often thought that Elmer might be favorably impressed with the 416 RM, might even call it a real nice antelope round! I think both of them would try the new toys, and keep the ones that really worked. What do you suppose the opinions would be on the bullet styles we take for granted today? I think Jack might be talking about a new lease on life for the 270, and Elmer would be arguing heavier bullets, but it would be fun that's for sure.

Elmer tested one of the first 454s and couldn't stand it.Said it was too loud,kicked too hard and wasn't nearly as accurate as his 44.He also stated that the 44 killed game cleanly anyway.

Brian.

I think J.O. would remain "The King Of The Dinks" and Elmer a man amongst men.

Certainly some more discrepency would evolve,but the heart of the matter would remain with little deviation...............

Luckily they lived in another time. I believe Keith would feel less at home in this environment. O'C would adapt. He might have gotten us to the Short Mags sooner.

Heck, guys like Jack & Elmer started a bunch of this stuff to begin with.
I'm sure they'd be right in the thick of it.

I haven't stood on the other side of the fence and argued about anything on this list untill now.
Big Stick, Just what do you mean by "The King Of The Dinks" ?
I have many of J.O.'s books and he was a funny old turd. I don't remember reading anything of his that I thought was a absolute lie.
Now Elmer Kieth, anyone that says they shot a deer at what was it 600 yards with a 44 mag? give me a break. He called the 270 win a barely adequate coyote rifle. Elmer kieth was full of $hit and I don't beleave a word he ever wrote. Jack was knowledgeable about the topics he wrote and funny as hell.
Elmer trashed the 270 win because he knew that Jack was a better writer, and a better hunter.
Ron

Holy Crap!.....Somebody said Elmer is full of $hit!!! Oh, wait, he called Elmer Kieth full of $hit, not Elmer Keith! Wheew, I thought those were fighting words. I've never heard of Elmer Kieth. Elmer Keith, on the other hand, is my hero.

It really doesn't matter to me what either one of them might think.......

AD

O'conner would still be too hung up on his 270 to consider anything else. IMHO.

A lot of people believe that all Jack shot was a 270. In fact he shot a 7x57 and he shot a 30-06 a lot, it was his back up rifle on almost every trip.
Like I said before in my opinion, he was a very good writer, and hunter. The 270 is NOT who he was. It was a gun that he liked to use.
Ron

P.S. sorry I spelled ELMER KEITH wrong. But he is still full of $hit!

[ 12-24-2002, 08:19: Message edited by: Idaho Ron ]

Dear Idaho Ron,
I am afraid sir that you have it backwards.You see,YOU are the one that is full of shit,not Mr.Keith.

If you would actualy take the time to READ some of Elmer's writings,you wouldn't make dumbshit posts like you have here.

The buck Elmer shot at 600 yards with his 44 had already been crippled by his hunting partner.The buck was getting away,and Elmer turned to his partner and asked "Mind if I get in on this??".Since the buck was already crippled and making an escape,there was nothing to loose.Elmer simply lobbed his bullets until he hit the buck.

Now please tell me,how does this equate to Elmer being full of shit??He made an effort to put a buck out of it's misery and accomplished it.

Brian.

PS-I have a feeling you also post here as RMK and at 24hourcampfire as "Ihateelmerkeith".

Now having in my library many works of both men, I sometimes find it like comparing a running back to a right tackle. They both had their separate opinions about shooting, hunting as well as calibers and what should be used etc.

I can't put either of them on a pedestal without placing the other there also. To do so would be a sacrilege to the sport of hunting and shooting.
They both did and said what they thought was correct, and I respect them both for their opinions and so should we as readers of their works.

I am a man who likes to hunt with a large caliber and big bullet for most big game animals. Now some call that over kill, but I like to refer to it as good common sense, when hunting in the bushveld of Africa. I do give thanks to Elmer for that lesson well learned!

I don't wish to spend all day looking for an animal that is hit well by a bullet from a 270, but just refusses to go down afterwards, leaving a big tracking job to take place. Time is of the essence in such a safari hunt. There are always more animals to hunt and bring down and time is a very expensive commodity in the bush.

I mostly hunt my whitetail deer with a .270 or 25-06 while hunting in the US and on the farm in Missouri. However, I have been known to lay my hands on the triple 4 Marlin and lay chase to a big buck now and then using a 325 grain cast bullet by Beartooth.

I choose to admire both men for their works and accomplishments and not set them against one another in my mind. I appreciate both of them for what they were, tops in their fields and still legends today and for years to come no doubt. I will barrow a little from each of them and put it to use in such a way that serves me best during the remainder of my hunting years. Passing on to others what I have learned through their teachings, from both of these great gunmen, who I am sure are smiling down on all of us who hunt and shoot these days.

[ 12-24-2002, 23:04: Message edited by: Chigger ]

I didn't grow up reading either one's writing.

Having read a few samples of each, I think O'Connor extolled the .270 because it worked well on deer & sheep (his main quarry), and was something he could promote and have his name associated with. We know he used the .30-06 and was wise enough to use a .416 when hunting Africa.

Keith was a 'rougher' sort, far less erudite but just as intelligent, who liked what worked well. His penchant for big bores seems to be a function of the failures of high-speed, small-bore bullets and his love of noise, blast, and recoil.

Both had something to say, and some of it was actually worth listening to, unlike the rampant shilling and 'armchair hunting' that goes on in todays gun/hunting rags.

George

Ah yes, the Jack O'Connor, Elmer Keith battle of the bores. Somewhere around the house, I have an old GUN & AMMO or maybe SHOOTING TIMES, I believe it is, but it could be another gun rag, with an article written by a Ben Tinker called, "Of tukeys, Tinkers and Rams" or something oa that nature. it was writtin sometime in the 1960's and I never throw gum magazines out so If given enough incentive, I could dig it up. Anyway, in the 1920s ans 30s, this mr. Tinker was a game warden working for the Mexican government in the Province of Sonora, where jack O'Connor did a lot of his early hunting. Seems Mr. Tinker arrested a "prominent outdoor writer" for poaching a couple of does, and fined him accordingly. What amazed Mr. Tinker was the fact that when this "prominent" witer wrote up his mexican hunt, these two does became "magnificent bucks." Now it certainly would not surprise me if that prominent outdoor writer turned out to be the one and only Jack O'Connor.
As to Elmer Keith's 600 yard shot? He did state that there was a witness to the feat, and that at the time of the writing, said witness was still alive.
Now I'm not taking any sides in all this as to where Elmer or Jack was a liar. Who cares really? One, they're both dead, more's the pity, and two we were all entertained by their writings. I've heard that Jack could be one caustic son of a bitch. Seems like one of the gun writers had hired a guide that had just finished a hunt with Jack. He asked what it was like to hunt with him, and the guide took a few minutes to think up an answer. The answer? "Well, he was a hell of a good shot." he said nothing more. I don't doubt that Elmer could be fun and games as well.
It is too bad Jack died before he could finish his last book entitled BTW "THE LAST BOOK". He brings out a lot of interesting stuff about the gun writing trade. I've got several of both men's books, and whether I've agrred with what they said or not, they have given me hours of reading pleasure. Maybe we just ought to leave it at that.
Paul B.

Dear Brian M,
Never did I bring YOU or what I think of YOU into this subject. But since you feel big enough to personally attack me, I will do the same for you. YOU SIR are as full of $hit as your so called hero. YOU go back and read it. I have already read enough about Elmer to say I don't like his writing. It has been a long time since I read the story But I seem to remember that he said he shot the deer like 3 out of 4 shots or something like that.
YOU have also proved you are as big a "DUMBSHIT" as you called me. I am not anyone called RMK, I don't know RMK. I have NEVER POSTED to 24hourcampfire Hell I have never even been there that I know of.
So BRIAN since you like to call names feel free to go at it again. But I got to tell you if you are venting on me because you think I am RMK or someone else YOU ARE WRONG! If you are venting because you have a difference of opinion, GREAT. You deserve your opinion as much as I deserve mine. But don't try to suppress mine by trying to trash me personally.
PS, Elmer's writing bored me to tears. I don't like his style. Jack was funny and I could relate to that way he wrote.
BTW, GeorgeS, Jack used a 375 on almost every African hunt I have read. Not saying that he never used a 416, and I am not calling you wrong. But I know he had a great deal of admiration for his 375 in africa.
Idaho Ron!

Brian M, I went back and looked up some RMK posts. I can understand why you were quick to jump on me. I can assure you I AM NOT RMK. I have always been the kind to put who I am in my profile. I don't lurk and attack people personally. I am who I am!
I don't care for for Elmer but I am NOT RMK
Ron

Idaho Ron,
Don't start backtrackin you sumbitch.

You imply in your post that Elmer promoted and bosted his 600 yard kill,even though you later admit to knowing the situation.This makes you a shit stirer,pure and simply.

I'm shocked that you didn't bring up the old Elmer story about him killing five running jackrabbits at 100 yards with a 44 Magnum,in front of several witnesses.Let's hear you expell how that is a load of shit too.

Elmer was the first to say "the truth is stranger than fiction".

What genuinly pisses me off about folks like you,is that you want to kick Elmer without having any knowledge of his writings.Kicking the dead isn't nice,dontchaknow???

On behalf of Elmer and myself,please FOD.

Brian.

Allen, when I read this thread's title I was going to post exactly what you did until I saw your response. I really could care less what either of them "would think." They were "men of their time." Not Paul the apostle... just "regular guys" that killed stuff. They wrote down their observation's. Those observation's got printed (for whatever reason) and those printed observations became the "scriptures" of rifle-loonies in the big bore/small bore camps.

My own thinking is buy a cartridge/rifle YOU like and go out and use it... chances are with today's fantasitic bullets to feed it and optics to go on top it just might work... then form your own friggin idea's

Brad

Brian, I have read elmers book "hell I was there" I didn't like it. I don't beleave most of it. If you like it fine I am happy for you. I don't want to try to change your mind, and you won't change mine.
I refuse to fight any longer. Go ahead call me more names if it makes you feel better about your self.
It is apparent that it is easy for you to get foul mouthed at someone over the internet. You have accused RMK of being the person that you ARE. On the eve of the birth of Christ I wish you good luck with your life, and good by.

Ron

Nope,you ain't RMK for certain.RMK doesn't give up that easy.

It's fine with me if you don't like Elmer.Just don't call him a liar,because he wasn't.Too many other notable people who knew him,speak of him highly.Ross Seyfried said Elmer was the best shot he's ever known-and that's coming from a fine shot.

Ask Ray Atkinson about Elmer,or go over to 24hrcampfire and ask Ken Howell.Ken knew Elmer extremely well.He'll tell you that Elmer was a man of his word.And if you can't take Dr.Howell's word for it,then you can't take anyone's.

Brian.

[ 12-25-2002, 10:14: Message edited by: Brian M ]

Well, i think jack would do what he did best. Sit in camp and write about what his outfitters shot with his .270

Elmer on the other hand probably would have tried some of this new fangeled shit but would have stuck with his .333OKH or maybe the new 338win. fer elk an such!

HI,

I am with BIG STICK, also his is a good man THanks,Kev

I admired both mens' writing very much. It's interesting that their names alone can still spark heated arguments I'd be curious if Elmer would lighten up on the smaller calibers these days in light of the vast improvement in bullet technology. Elmer always said he was looking for a "dollar size hole" all the way through the animal and his problem with high velocity (not just the .270, all high velocity i.e. .300/7mm mags, etc) was that it destroyed too much meat and caused bullet blow up (lack of penetration). Seems barnes-x, fail safes, troph bonded, etc would solve this problem today and give ol' Elmer his dollar size hole.

In any case, these men often said the same thing, though it got lost over the years in their legends...Jack said he would avoid shoulder shots on large animals with the .270/06 because the bullets were likely to blow up and that if you wanted to take this type of shot, you should use a heavier round/bullet (again, modern bullets solve this problem somewhat). Also, I've never seen Elmer say the .270 or '06 was not adequate for broadside or near broad side shots on big game, only his "steep raking shots" and that long, heavy bullets were more reliable for questionable shots. People today simply say Jack was a .270 man and Elmer was a big bore man, but it was much more grey than that, at least, from their print.

One thing to note about both men is that they would describe in detail the shots as they took them whether good or bad (or fantastic). Some of the things they did, such as Elmer "walking" bullets onto a Caribou at over 400 yards with a proto-type .41 mag revolver or O'Connor shooting an Elk at over 600 yards with a .270 would never make print in today's PC gun rags. I think both men may have exagerrated a time or two (haven't we all), but I doubt that they flat out lied about anything to prove their points (such as die hard Elmer fans say about Jack and vice-versa).

Merry Christmas

-Lou

Both O'Connor and Keith were the most popular writers of their day. I still have the orginal gun books that I had when I was a kid and even then the hot topic was high velocity vrs pumpkin rollers as Keith called them.

We would expect that each man would stay with their orginal position. Both had valid points of view and expressed them so well.

It really has not been that long since either man passed on. We had Partition bullets then and chronographs.

I cared a lot what each man had to say and hung on every word. These guys were the best of the best that I knew of. There were other writers too and in retrospect I now see the value in thier opinions.

The vast majority of shooters and hunters however just shot the 30/06 as it was the path of least resistance.

My only regrets about each of these hero's of mine is that some now seem to disparage O'Connor for some alleged behavior that I wish would not be mentioned again. It serves little purpose today.

And in Keith's case I think he deserves more recognition for being the cutting edge for the existance of big bore handgun hunting, the .44 Magnum (which should be named after Keith), the .338 Winchester Magnum and the introduction of the .338 Weatherby for that matter and the popularity of the 45/70 type cowboy guns.

The premier writers included Whelan, Ackley, Annabell and Page. But there was a lot of communication from Weatherby with all of the celebrity endorsments he lined up. Back then high velocity ruled. Today I hope it's better bullets.

Finally the emphasis on marksmanship and sportsmanship seems to have taken a back seat and now it's gagets and letting it fly.

I still remember a story by an Alan Tedman who expressed a thought so well. Tedman wrote that he could not take that shot! He could not bear to wound a "mowich" that he called the whitetails that were just out of range.

Idaho Ron: �I don't like his style.�

It�s a folksy, down-home style that is certainly different from Mr. O�Connor�s, and clearly illustrates the differences between the two. Mr. Keith was a rancher/cowboy who didn�t graduate from high school. I think his writing is easier to listen to when spoken out loud than it is to read. In contrast Mr. O�Connor had a Masters degree and was a journalist, published novelist, and college professor before becoming a full-time writer for Outdoor Life. His writing style is certainly more polished.

Concerning the use of the .416 Rigby GeorgeS is correct. Mr. O�Connor did use the .375 a lot but he also owned a couple of .416�s through the years that he used in Africa as well. He settled on the .416 Rigby as his �heavy� in later years and used one to take his only elephant, as well as cape buffalo and possibly lion. He also hunted in Botswana with a .450/.400 Jeffery in 1966.

LE270:
Mr. O�Connor�s .450 Watts was actually built by a Mr. Anderson of Yakima WA on a Mauser Model 98 with Holland and Holland bottom metal. He used it on his first safari in 1953 in Tanganyika to take cape buffalo and rhino.

GeorgeS:
�His penchant for big bores seems to be a function of the failures of high-speed, �

I think you�re right. Mr. Keith wrote that he �gave up� on the .30-06 because of bullet failure. His bullets at that time (early 1920�s?) were military ball with the jackets filed in front to make them into softpoints, so it�s no wonder he had problems. He used his big Sharps single shots and Winchester Model 1886�s with much more success, as the bullets available to him worked well at the more sedate velocity of the big black powder cartridges.

[ 12-26-2002, 20:22: Message edited by: the-moleman ]

Dear Guys,

I hesitate to get into the O'Connor/Keith controversy again as both sides are pretty galvanized in their thinking and the "he did this and he did that" comments grow in stature by leaps and bounds with each post.

But, what the hell. It seems to me that if one is to compare the two men, it would be best to divide up the comparisons into each man's personality, each man as a hunter, and each man as a writer. There are probably other divisions as well. Just comparing them on the basis of the .270 vs the big bore is, I think, inadequate.

Personality wise, Elmer would win the contest hands down. He was personable, friendly, outgoing, easy to talk to, and an all around nice man. O'Connor, on the other hand, was irascible, ornery, snobbish and difficult to get to know.

Dave Petzel probably described O'Connor best when he wrote in a review of the new O'Connor book in the October issue of Field & Stream: "The man who was shooting editor of Outdoor Life magazine from 1937 to 1972 may indeed have been, as this book's title says, the best gun writer ever, and the most contradictory. He was a bully and a snob, contemptuous of people in general and very probably of most of his readers. But if he liked you, he could be a loyal and generous friend. Although his lifetime bag of big game was huge, he did not relish killing, sometimes regretted doing it, and said so in print. He was a brilliant and prolific writer whose gifts stayed with him until the end of his life, and he was a man of indomitable common sense and honesty. Whe he came to Outdoor Life, O'Connor was already a successful novelist and a college professor. Within a few years, his wonderful prose was the magazine's main attraction, and his influence was huge. O'Connor could make words dance. He could put magic into what he wrote about and explain the mysteries of shooting so that even the dullest could understand."

As a hunter, Elmer had considerably more experience on elephant, elk and perhaps deer, than did O'Connor. O'Connor, on the other hand, probably had more experience on everything else. Either one had more game experience than any of us are ever likely to amass. It suffices to say that both men had plenty of hunting experience. The fact that they arrived at a conclusion at opposite ends of the spectrum is difficult to understand - or is it? Actually, with few exceptions, they didn't really stand that far apart in their advice if one reads their words carefully. Even old Elmer once wrote that the .270 killed like dynamite if the shot was properly placed, or words to that effect! So did O'Connor. Elmer and Truman Fowler said that the .338-378 KT was an ideal elk rifle. O'Connor agreed, "if you hit 'em right." Over on 24 Hour Campfire, is a discussion called Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor. There is a post in it that reprints an article from Gray's Sporting Journal written by Terry Wieland called O'Connor vs. Keith: And the Winner Is...... It covers the subject pretty well. Truth be said, the argument between the two men had far more to do with their jealousies and egos than it did the performance of a given cartridge in the field.

Finally, as writers, no doubt that O'Connor was by far the better writer technically, as well he should have been. I personally happen to think that he was the better writer in every aspect as well, but that is an opinion and not a fact. Elmer was a damn fine story teller and I enjoyed and still enjoy reading both men's writings.

Anyone is entitled to believe what they will, but to call either man a liar when he is no longer around to defend himself is rash and unwarranted. It does no good and only leads to peeing contests.

It is unarguable that our chosen sport is far better off thanks to each man's contributions to it over many years. The fact that we are even having this discussion is proof of that statement.

Happy New Year,

Tom

Tom, that was a great post and full of good insights.

I've always been more of an O'Connor fan than a Keith fan. Most of what I've tried in the field that O'Connor recommended worked about like he said it would. Quite frankly, I don't care if he was personable or not. His written work is the only contact I've ever had with him, an it'll survive all of us.

Keith got on my "skeptical" list when I was a young man who (luckily) had seen more than a few elk shot, plus shot a few of my own by the time I was out of college. I'll never forget one of Elmer's elk hunting stories. He spun a yard about bumping into four pilgrims, all armed with .270s (!), who were on the way out of the mountains after a very bitter and unsuccessful elk hunt. It seems all of them had shot an wounded big bulls with those pipsqueek .270s, and none were recovered. In his wisdom, Elmer recommended they obtain Model 70s in .375 H&H....

As it turns out, Elmer bumped into this same quartet a year later coming out of the mountains, and each had a "fine fat elk, taken with a single shot" each! How neat, tidy, and utterly predicatable........

That story told me what I needed to know about Keith.

Elmer's African hunting book is another humdinger. All I can say is, Keith had a hell of a lot more trouble getting the same animals on the ground than I ever have, and I don't think his testimony in that particular tomb did his big-bore platform a whole lot of good. African hunting is just one more area where O'Connor's written testimony jibes a whole lot better with my own personal experience than does Keith's.........

AD

Keith's "Safari" was quite a book. The printing and all related costs were payed for by his admirer and friend, Truman Fowler. In the business that's known as a vanity publication. If memory serves, Keith only hunted Africa twice. His first hunt was in the 50's with John Lawrence, and his second trip was with Fowler for elephant. He spent about ten days with Peterson and Siatos first, then met Fowler for the balance.
The best African hunter of that era in gunwriting was Warren Page. He killed more elephants and buffalo than Elmer could even dream about and was the only writer to collect the entire spiral horn collection until Boddington completed it a couple of years ago. He never wrote about many of his exploits and that's a shame because he was a true world wide hunter. Page also spent considerable time in Alaska and northen Canada hunting bears, moose and elk, etc. and his level of NA experience rivals either of the others mentioned. I preferred his writing to either of the others but there just wasn't as much of it.

I always felt that O'Connor was a hunter who happened to like shooting an guns. Keith was more of a gun and caliber lover who happened to like hunting.

O'Connor's choice of the 270 was a natural outcome.

On the other hand I think Elmer had the big interest in bigger bores and then tried to justify their use on game. In other words, rather than just saying he liked usiing and was more interested in bigger calibres, he tried to put forward that they were necessary.

Mike

Lloyd,

O'Connor is the only gun writer whose hunting stories I have read. Hunting stories bore me and probably because I am gun/calibre enthusiast who happens to live in a country with lots of targets.

In other words the only part of a hunting story that interests me is calibre/gun/bullet/load etc

But I guess the fact that I did read many of O'Connor's hunting stories goes towards proving that he was a very good writer.

Mike

Allen,
Elmer had a hard time putting down all the plains game,as he got a bad batch of Knoch (sp?)300 grainers for his 333 OKH,which were blowing up on him.I notice you conveinently forgot to mention that.

I don't doubt Elmer's story about the elk hunters.You also left out that they came to his house both times,and that both times they'd been hunting with a friend of Elmer's,and he had told them to talk to Elmer.After they killed their elk,they brought him a fifth of Jack Daniels.

Elmer always liked to say "The truth is always stranger than fiction".

Brian.

Brian, I've got some ocean front property for you in Arizona in case you're interested, by the way..........

AD

Back in the 60's, I had an uncle who was an almost next-door neighbor to O'Connor at one time. This was before his gun writing fame and I believe he was some sort of college professor. My uncle was a gun nut(owned about 300 guns) and a musio professor. I wish I could remember what school it was at. He knew him well and said he was an absolute rude a**hole. Before anyone starts correcting me on dates and times, my uncle was telling me this in the 60's, when I was young, I don't know when he knew Mr OConnor. He did however enjoy O'Connor's writing and gave me a signed copy of The Rifle Book which I still have. The posters here are correct when they say O'Connor loved the 270, but when he was in Africa after large game, his standard piece was 375 H&H, with another I believe Biesen custom in 416 Rigby for elephant, buffalo, etc., so his choice of calibers isn't as different from Elmer's as many would have us believe. Jack was a strict believer in bullet placement, while Elmer said a 270 was a good varmint rifle. Anyone who doen't believe Elmer's sixgunning stories need to take a trip to Cody and visit John Linebaugh. Both people were legends and used their supposed differences to promote their writing. I think if they were hunting together, there would be more similarities than people think. I never met O'Connor, but I visited with Elmer at an NRA convention many years ago and he was full of personality, but I never realized he was such a little guy. I'm 5'9" and 165 lb and I towered over him- he couldn't be over 5'4". I found out he was born in Hardin, Mo just down the road, so that explained a lot, his stubborn opiniated attitude is common in this state!

Moleman and LE270 - The .450 Watts was made for his 1953 Safari to Kenya and Tanganyika (Tanzania)with Kerr and Downey. Tom Burgess did the metalwork on a 98 Mauser, including fitting the H&H bottom metal. Harvy Anderson fitted the .450 barrel and the rifle was stocked by Alvin Olsin. O'Connor used it on a cape buffalo, his only black rhino and a zebra. I first read about the rifle in a story called "Buffaloes Shoot Back." It was printed in Outdoor Life in 1954 and reprinted in one of his books called modestly, "Jack O'Connor's Big Game Hunts.

His buffalo scared the beejesus out of him when his first shot hit the bull in the spine which stunned, but did not kill him. Later analysis after the fun was over showed the bullets he used broke up on the bull's spine. O'Connor made his ammo by running .375 H&H brass through a .450 Watts die and loading 82 grains of No. 4895 powder and the 480 grain .45 caliber bullet made in England for the .450 NE. That load gave him 2175 fps and 5050 ft. lbs. of energy. His mistake was that he loaded softs instead of solids. That mistake provided hims with about all the excitement one can stand in a single afternoon.

Tom