• Update – 12:30 PM EST
    Attachments are now working, and all members can once again upload files.
    We are currently testing URL redirects and other miscellaneous features across the site.
    Thank you for your continued patience and support during this migration.

    Prefer a darker look? You can switch between light and dark modes in your account settings:
    smith-wessonforum.com/account/preferences

What the h... are .357 Magnum jokes?

E

ElmerKeith

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
210
Reaction score
141
Location
Teutoburger Wald/Germany
ElmerKeith said:
After reading this article

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...05718-does-anybody-know-story-early-629s.html

and the linked excerpt of HL 241 with the article by Biran Pearce about handloading the M 29 I was very amused about Mr. Pearce stating:



Who were these 44 Associates and does anyone know on or more of these mentioned jokes?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know of the 44 Associates. Have read quite a lot about them. Really interesting.

I suggest you acquire the book(s), and read about them yourself.
 
In reference to the .44 associates, .357 jokes were about the (in their view) superiority of the heavily loaded .44 special to the .357.
 
Penmon said:
Twogunnes, what books are you referring to?
Generally its better to give a short answer to a polite question as opposed to a smug one.
Click to expand...


I agree with Bettis, you use the name Elmer Keith and....

Start reading the books he co-wrote. But, I will suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

Then read of Jack O'Conner's books. For more salt.
 
I always wondered why some thought so little of the .357 Magnum, yet Elmer even though he was more into the .44 did like the .357 Magnum, just not as much as the hot .44 Specials and the .44 Magnum. In his early reviews of the .357 Magnum in a 1935 edition of the American Rifleman he killed over 100 jackrabbits and wrote some glowing reviews. The .44 Associates were quite an interesting group from what I have read, but from what I have seen I have never anything where they wrote bad ink on the .357. Anyway, the .357 is certainly no slouch when properly motivated with the right bullets.
 
The .357 seemed to be Elmers "rabbit" caliber. If you read his books, you'll find that he was a big bore man at heart, first with the 45 Colt, then the 44 Spl, followed of course by the 44 magnum. Kind of interesting, considering his first "new" gun was a 32-20 Colt SAA. FWIW, Elmer did play a part in the development of the 357 magnum too, although he seemed to think more highly of the 38-44 over the .357. Probably because his 173 grain 358429 bullet was designed for the 38 Spl, and was too long for the early 357 mags. Phil Sharpe shortened the 358429 for use in the 357 magnum. The end result weighed 158 grains IIRC, which has been a standard bullet weight since the beginning. BTW, there is a lot of information on the 44 Associates, I'd suggest you use your browser to track it down, it's worthwhile reading. You'll see a lot of famous names on their membership rolls.
 
Elmer taunted a few people with the big bore stuff. Talked about using a 220 grain 30.06 as a varmint round..said he teach even the smallest framed women to shoot a 4" .44 mag. Sold a lot of print with the all the hype...
 
Not really a joke but a funny moment anyway. I use 2 spring clamps to hold targets to my target holder. My wife was blasting .357 magnums through her 4" 66-3 and accidently (she says) shot one of the spring clamps and it went flying. Don't know why but it just seemed hilarious. Of course I took it as a challenge and shot the other one with my 442. When we retrieved the clamps, the one she shot had a hole all the way through and mine was just dented. After a little time with a hammer and an anvil I got the clamps working again.
 
Writers often "recycle" (a kinder phrase than "copy" or "plagarize") other writer's writings. Methinks I recognize other's work sometimes in print:

"Through this whole mess, my appetites were honed by a dedicated group of individualists who called themselves "The .44 Associates." At the time, I thought these afficianados of the .44 Special rather smug. They already had their guns and interchanged loading information and jokes about .357 shooters in a regular newsletter."

This was written by Skeeter Skelton and published in August, 1966, in an article he wrote titled "The .44 Special: A Reappraisal".

Brian Pearce wasn't born yet, I bet.

Writing about guns and wearing a cowboy hat sure don't make you into Skeeter Skelton, that's for sure.
 
Twogunnes said:
I agree with Bettis, you use the name Elmer Keith and....

Start reading the books he co-wrote. But, I will suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

Then read of Jack O'Conner's books. For more salt.
Click to expand...

Jack O'Connor pushed the .270 and will be remembered for that. Beyond that, his name should not be mentioned along with that of Elmer Keith.

Aside from Mr. O'Connor's odd personality as compared to Keith's jovial and friendly manner, Keith had a broad base of experience and knowledge across the disciplines of shotgunning, rifles and hunting and, of course, handguns and handgun hunting. Keith's experience was far more broad than O'Connor. Keith certainly had a less polished writing style, but what he lacked in form was easily made up in substance. Thus, while O'Connor should have his due for his conservation efforts and his promotion of the .270 rifle cartridge, there is just no doubt that he and Keith did not play in the same ball park.

About the most they had in common was that they both wrote articles for gun magazines. Keith was an experimenter who came up with new ideas for ammo and guns, and he got companies to bring his ideas to the general public.

Thus, while O'Connor is remembered as Mr. Outdoor Life and for his conservation efforts and his sheep hunting and promotion of the .270, Keith is remembered for his involvement with the .357 Magnum, the .44 Magnum and the .41 Magnum revolvers and cartridges and for a host of other things related to hunting, shooting, safaris and the like. Keith pushed rifle calibers in the .338 range and could never really understand why the .270 should be used instead of a .30-06.

It really doesn't make good sense, does it? They are both long actions, but the "ought-six" takes a wider range of bullet weights and can do more, all in a rifle of equal weight and identical features. Thus, why would you really want a less versatile rifle?

Oh well, it doesn't really matter. The evidence is right in front of us. O'Connor barely gets mentioned in articles these days, while there is still a "larger than life" fascination with Elmer.
 
In O'Connor's last book, titled I think "The Last Book", he (I am speaking from memory) said that Elmer contacted him and begged for an opportunity to be introduced into the "top" gun writing world. Jack O'Connor said he did indeed "open some doors" for Keith. Then O'Connor reported that Keith snubbed him forever after.

O'Connor also took a swipe at the style of "dress" that many of his gun writing "associates" took upon themselves "back in the day". He mentioned one who wore "big cowboy hats", and a few others. Then he commented on how when he arrived at gala events with these "dressed up" gun writers he (O'Connor) was dressed like an out of work trombone player.

O'Connor was as experienced a big game hunter as Keith but the was definitely not an experimenter and wildcatter like Keith. He used the .270 because he said it would kill as well as a .30-06 and if anything heavier than the .270 was needed he went to a .375 H&H. He also stated he didn't necessarily "push" the .270 caliber as a "signature" cartridge as many later game writers would do (Charles Askins and the 8MM's he pushed, or Elmer and his .338's) instead he shot it because he liked it and he stayed with it because for him it was effective.

I always suspected that Jack O'Connor was not reticent to speak his mind in a probably sometimes visceral manner, at least privately. He was probably a direct and blunt man and not many people like thorns with their roses.

Indeed Jack O'Connor does not have the recognition as does Elmer Keith. Both of them are probably happy though as they have their wives beside them wherever they are now. Not many folks today have wives like Jack and Elmer had.
 
One article I remember O'Conner writing was about handguns. He said he had little experience with them, but he said he liked a 6-1/2 inch .44 Special 1950 Target a great deal.

Small world.
 
Penmon said:
Twogunnes, what books are you referring to?
Generally its better to give a short answer to a polite question as opposed to a smug one.
Click to expand...

I just Googled ".44 Associates" -- 229,000 hits in .24 seconds.

I love teaching, and I think many of the other forum members do, too. But the student needs to put just a bit of effort into the process in order to learn anything worthwhile, and there's not a thing out of line in a teacher saying "Here's a clue. Go look it up yourself and report what you find." Unfortunately, many people these days seem to have never been taught how to learn.
 
In defense of the OP, if he is to do his own research on his Forum namesake, he may have to find German translations of the material in question or must be more fluent in English than my German will ever be :).
 
Twogunnes said:
I agree with Bettis, you use the name Elmer Keith and....

Start reading the books he co-wrote. But, I will suggest you take it with a grain of salt.

Then read of Jack O'Conner's books. For more salt.
Click to expand...

Living in Germany the availability to me of books written by Elmer Keith as a co-writer is not as good as it is in his homecountry.
I have and read Sixguns and "Hell I was there" and also Phil Sharpe's book about reloading. As well as Taffin's book of the .44.

But the exact expression "44 Associates" was absolutely new to me. The reason may be the fact that although beeing quite familiar with the English language I wasn't raised with the inventors of the 44. Will say that sometimes it is quite difficult to follow and understand the conversation even if written.

O.K. I could have used google to try to find out but as far as I know this forum isn't the "Anna-Amalia-Library" as it is not the "NYC-Library" and so it will live from answers and questions even if the questions are asked by someone being so in-polite using as a nickname the name of the Pope of the 44.

I chose this name because I was especially impressed about this little big man managing his life which was not alway easy to him - sometimes it was very cruel to him. I didn't chose his name just for his invention of some ammo while letting a Colt 45 going kaboom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top