I knew them both, O'Connor not nearly so well as Keith. Keith worked many years as a guide, and witnessed many less-than-satisfactory cases of smaller bullets failing in less-than-ideal conditions. When Keith shot something, or when his client did, Keith wanted the animal to die.

O'Connor was a more polished writer, and tended to describe the beauty of taking a game animal with the perfect shot angle using a finely-tuned cartrige of modest recoil.

Keith wanted the animal to die, even if the only shot angle available was less than ideal.

BTW I knew Keith for almost a decade and shot with him. I know of no case where he exaggerated or shaded the facts in any way. I DO know that sometimes his editor(s) changed (out of ignorance) some of the relevant details of his articles, and it drove him crazy.

Also as an aside, a young woman I introduced to Jack O'Connor later referred to him as "That vile old man!"

Even Charlie Askins didn't elicit that kind of reaction from the women I knew...

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist