Do you think Elmer Keith is the father of modern handgun hunting?I found a pic of his 'ol smith&wesson and wanted to share with those who have never seen it before...they don't make 'em like Elmer Keith anymore!What all was he involved in inventing ..besides the 44/41 magnum?Correct me if i'am wrong?
44magnum
41magnum
458win.mag.
338win mag.
Keith style Bullets
Keith style Knife

I lived in Challis, Idaho and became close friends of one of Elmer's closest friends. He practically raised my buddy too. I have held and even fired his 44 magnum which I was told was one of the first three ever produced by Smith. The grips looked like walnut but had something like an eagle on them. Sadly, stolen by some moron, never seen again.

He had a big influence on the Lawrence holster, I can't remember which model number.

The Monte Carlo stock.

He collaborated on the OKH series of rifle calibers which led to commercialized versions.

But, from what I've read, Elmer was not a 'handgun hunter' per se. He hunted with rifles and used the handgun as a tool of opportunity, only if no rifle was available.

Also, the primer tube which extends considerably towards the front of the cartridge case, to ignite the powder much closer to the bullet, thus keeping the powder in the case as it burns, rather than in the barrel.

He was a huge advocate of large caliber, high bullet weight, medium velocity rifle cartridges.

Lawrence Leather was Elmers favorite holster. Think they were made in Portland. Or. I've had one for my Colt SA for over 50 years.Model 120. A few bumps & scratches but still in good shape.

Elmer wasn't a handgun hunter. Game, varmints and pests taken with his sixguns were targets of opportunity as he always had one along. When he went hunting it was with a long gun.

Dennis.

Elmer Keith was either full of it in many respects or he had ghost writers doing articles for him in his later years which I strong suspect.
I've seen different articles bearing his name that are in direct conflict with each other concerning different issues. One said "I did this in....and it worked fine." and the other said "I've heard that this ... but have never tried it." about the same thing.
He was a popular writer but I wouldn't by any means take all he said as gospel.

Elmer was a classic - they broke the mold when he was born. My only contact with him is that I have a Springfield '03 that bears his rework inspection mark.

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I've read virtually everything the man ever wrote and I don't recall anything like this. Can you give an example or two? I'm not saying they don't exist and maybe my admiration for the man has blinded me to his faults.

He was opinionated, that's for sure. One only has to read the letters he exchanged with Jack O'Connor and his publisher, whose name escapes me right now, to confirm that.

Specifically two articles come to mind about the Ruger #1. In one article he claimed to have shimmed the forearm screw with a rubber washer and reduced group size by 1/2". In the other article, he claims to "have heard" that a neoprene washer would reduce group size.
The articles were in the same magazine but different issues a couple of years apart.
In that same pile of gun magazines, I found another conflict in his writings concerning reloads.
In one article, a DuPont powder was fabulous, beat all others hands down. In another article, almost a decade apart, that same powder was not as good as a Hogdon powder in the same rifle caliber. He always wrote of things in years past and it seemed to me they were apt to change as the years went on.
Those magazines were not mine but belonged to a friend's father. He brought them to me to read while I was convalescing from a bowel resection.
I wish I could quote them directly by issue and date but I can't.
If I'm not mistaken, that editor you are talking about also had a hot rod magazine. Peterson Publishing?

Could be on the hot rod magazine. I read those letters in a book called "Gunnotes Part 1" which was a compilation of his "Gunnotes" columns in G&A magazine. My library never could get a copy of "Gunnotes Part 2" for me.

I'll take you at your word on the contradictions. I do remember him writing about the Ruger #1 and he was very pleased with it, as he liked single shot rifles anyway.

When I first started reading Keith, I thought he was a total windbag. But as the years piled up, I kept finding out that more and more of my experiences matched his. I could have saved myself a lot of trial and error had I just paid attention.

edit: Brain just clicked--was it Tom Satios(sp)?

Elmer Keith was surely opinionated, but he did know a lot about guns. Just one example: A few years ago I was having some trouble with misfires in my K-38. In my copy of Gun Notes (Vol 1.) I read about the need for chambers to be clean or the fouling build-up provides a cushioning effect to the hammer blow. Since then, even if I don't clean the gun, I always scrub my chambers after shooting. No more problems.
Chris

One thing I have seen mentioned about Elmer is his service to our nation during World War II. He was supposedly a Government weapons inspector at the Ogden Arsenal and I have known collectors to look for A3-03's with the OG EK cartouche. Whether this is true or not I do not know. When you get to "legend" status things are often attributed that may not be true. If anyone else has heard this I would love to know if it's true

Elmer always said cartridges should drop into the cylinder and rattle around.

I wonder how many .22 LR misfires are due to this very thing.

I'm not saying he wasn't knowledgeable. But I think he took a lot of other people's findings and claimed them as his own.
I'm almost positive that he didn't write a lot of articles attributed to him but had ghost writers do it in his later years.
He lived long enough and was around firearms long enough and often enough, he had to have picked up a great deal of knowledge.

Just wondering if it is possible that his opinion changed because of additional testing or research. Also, some writers on this forum would be the same about S&W - best gun/workmanship ever in one period, most awful, internal lock, MIM, etc., in another period. Could be the same kind of issue going on. Just a thought, as I would tend toward giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The articles struck me as contradictory. It was clear as day "I did..." then "I've heard..." etc. on the same subject.
I was pretty much on the way to looking upon him as "the authority" on many things concerning firearms until those contradictions hit me between the eyes.

daa9mm,

Elmer Keith most likely FORGOT as much as many of us KNOW about firearms, reloading and hunting. The man was a pioneer in magnum handguns, and we owe him a large debt of gratitude.

Others knew him FAR better than I did. I had the pleasure to meet and chat with him a mere handful of times. That said....Always thought I was a good judge of character....served me well during thirty two years as a cop. My opinion on Mr. Keith was that he was the REAL DEAL.

FN in MT

"One thing I have seen mentioned about Elmer is his service to our nation during World War II. He was supposedly a Government weapons inspector at the Ogden Arsenal and I have known collectors to look for A3-03's with the OG EK cartouche. Whether this is true or not I do not know. When you get to "legend" status things are often attributed that may not be true. If anyone else has heard this I would love to know if it's true"

Elmer applied for a military commission, but as he was born in 1899, he was turned down.

He did work at Ogden and OG EK was his mark.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I remember many of the things he wrote and did not dismiss them out of hand. I'm sure he plowed a lot of new ground early in his life.
But the fact is that those articles and those contradictions are in print. Whether or not he wrote them late in his life or allowed a ghost writer to write them in his name might be the cause of those contradictions.
But his name is attached to them.

si..............

Elmer was raised in the shadows of men who tamed the west. He cut his teeth on old large caliber single shots and probably probed every one of those old gents for info. Elmer knew what worked well for him. He was always an advocate of large bullets and worked to find ways to increase velocity. In revolvers it was the 44 mag. In rifles he and several others worked to increase the velocity of larger bullets like the 333. As for Elmers writing one must remember his wife was a school teacher. It is entirely possible she assisted or wrote down what he said. As for his changing information on the Ruger forearm is using or hearing about a rubber washer prima facia evidence to hang all his work? It may only be the context of what he meant such as I used one to reduce the group size. Some times you might use it like I've heard this might work when proving a different point. The powder thing was how many years apart? A later powder or one he never used may have worked well when tried. I was raised in the shadow of Jack O'Connor and the 270 by my dad. Later in life I started reading Keith, I used guns, bullets and calibers he spoke about. He may not have had JOC's literary skills but I believe through experience and experimentation he knew what he spoke about. I still have 3 pre 64 Winchester model 70's in 270. Like JOC said they work great, but I have taken lots of deer with a 45-70 & a 338 Win Mag. They too work great just like Elmer said. I would offer one a thought, if you were taken prisoner by the Romans and were sent to become a gladiator would you want training by one who has been in the ring or by one who can write about it?

Elmer Keith was very much the real deal. I first got to know him thru a close friend and classmate of mine, Ralph Graham. Ralph had the hell shot out of him in Nam and could not live in the humid summers of Il. So, as a devoted fan of Elmers' , he moved his wife and family to Salmon Id. where he met and became a close friend of Elmer. I had , along with several other friends, the opportunity to both visit his home as well as spend a bit of time with him. He was along in years at the time but still sharp as a tack. Quite simply, I believe him and would take what he said as being learned from doing it.