Coaltminer
Member
He made a 600 yd shot with a 44 mag..I don't doubt it, but who in hell is he to try such a shot? Damned poor sportsmanship
Elmer Keith
- Thread starter Coaltminer
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
doublesharp
Member
It ain't bragging if you can do it - Dizzy Dean
Ivan the Butcher
Member
You might look into the full story of his putting out of misery the wounded deer someone else left to suffer!
Ivan
Ivan
Obviously, you don't know WHY he made the shot. Elmer was guiding a hunter and the hunter wounded the mule deer. It was running away on three legs. Elmer was trying to make the killing shot before the animal escaped to die a long, lingering death. He made 2 hits out of 4 shots.
Last edited:
ParadiseRoad
Member
...it was a different time...
...Elmer Keith shot eagles too...
...Elmer Keith shot eagles too...
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
When I first read Sixguns back in 1969, I was fascinated by the tales and the information. I lost track of how many times I read it. The handloading data was invaluable to me.
I took everything Elmer Keith said as gospel, including the 600-yard shot. I don't do that now.
But in the end, what does it matter in the 21st Century? The man is long gone, but his stories are still good for a chuckle. To believe them or not is the reader's choice.
Keith may have fallen a bit out of favor in this high tech handgun era we live in now, who knows. Like him or not, he remains an icon. He may have told some stretchers, but his contributions to the world of revolver shooting and handgun load development will forever stand as benchmarks for those of us who still love revolvers.
I took everything Elmer Keith said as gospel, including the 600-yard shot. I don't do that now.
But in the end, what does it matter in the 21st Century? The man is long gone, but his stories are still good for a chuckle. To believe them or not is the reader's choice.
Keith may have fallen a bit out of favor in this high tech handgun era we live in now, who knows. Like him or not, he remains an icon. He may have told some stretchers, but his contributions to the world of revolver shooting and handgun load development will forever stand as benchmarks for those of us who still love revolvers.
Bakebfr480
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,469
- Reaction score
- 1,209
The first animal Elmer killed with the 44 magnum was a Golden Eagle!
As far as I am aware, no one has ever been able to prove that ol' EK ever told a lie (at least in print). So, I think he has earned the right to be believed, until someone can provide proof of any lie he told.
THE PILGRIM
Member
When my old Buddy up in CO told me that he saw Elmer shoot an Eagle,
I believed him.
My Buddy was a Old China Hand, he was in the last Army Regiment we had in China before War Two.
Prior to the war, They were transferred down to the Philippines.
He rotated back Stateside before the war started.
I believed him.
My Buddy was a Old China Hand, he was in the last Army Regiment we had in China before War Two.
Prior to the war, They were transferred down to the Philippines.
He rotated back Stateside before the war started.
remshooter
Member
also remember ,there were no lazer range finders back then ,you just eyeballed it ,and guessed how far away it was ,with no real way of checking ,unless you pace it off after the fact , cant remember if Elmer paced it off ,been lontime since read that book
5-Shot
Member
I used to live in the high desert, where Elmer did most of his hunting. Out in the high dry air visibility was substantially better than it is here the east. In addition, the soil is light, dry and not covered with grass so spotting bullet strikes is pretty easy. I shot a 44 often at 300 yards and seeing the misses was pretty easy. In many of Elmer’s stories he walked his shots on, often with the aid of a “spotter”. I’m pretty much a believer.
Ed
Alpo
Member
I don't see what's so terrible about killing an eagle. Yes, today, killing a raptor is not only a "terrible thing to do", but it's illegal.
Back in the day, however, birds of prey were considered targets of opportunity, because they killed livestock.
Advertisement in a 1955 issue of Boys Life.
Back in the day, however, birds of prey were considered targets of opportunity, because they killed livestock.
Advertisement in a 1955 issue of Boys Life.
I think Bob Mundin
proved it was possible
Did he do I like to think so
proved it was possible
Did he do I like to think so
THE PILGRIM
Member
Once I took a shot that I shouldn’t have.
I parked at the bottom and climbed up to the top of a N-S Ridge.
I glassed the backside, and then N-S of the Ridge.
Then I glassed down to check my truck.
Oh my! There he was, standing in the road looking at me.
It was a big Muley and he was about 1,000 yds or more away.
I was shooting a 270 and there nobody there to spot for me.
I had a clear downhill view with a big rock to rest my rifle.
I missed!
I parked at the bottom and climbed up to the top of a N-S Ridge.
I glassed the backside, and then N-S of the Ridge.
Then I glassed down to check my truck.
Oh my! There he was, standing in the road looking at me.
It was a big Muley and he was about 1,000 yds or more away.
I was shooting a 270 and there nobody there to spot for me.
I had a clear downhill view with a big rock to rest my rifle.
I missed!
And it was a different time.....
To Keith, golden eagles where terrible predators that killed livestock as well as coyotes, etc. He passed up many a shot where the animal that was legal, but didn't want to take a younger specimen when the old ones were the biggest.
The measure of a hunter is not what he shoots, but the shots he passes up.
There are many things that raise my eyebrows in his book, but besides being in the first part of the century, it was not only out west near the mountains, but civilization was a trading post in a tiny town 15 miles away.
And he ate what he killed. When he was making like $35 a week his family lived on what he shot or caught fishing. And his big game was also devoured by his crew and the locals. They had a system for divvying up meat.
To Keith, golden eagles where terrible predators that killed livestock as well as coyotes, etc. He passed up many a shot where the animal that was legal, but didn't want to take a younger specimen when the old ones were the biggest.
The measure of a hunter is not what he shoots, but the shots he passes up.
There are many things that raise my eyebrows in his book, but besides being in the first part of the century, it was not only out west near the mountains, but civilization was a trading post in a tiny town 15 miles away.
And he ate what he killed. When he was making like $35 a week his family lived on what he shot or caught fishing. And his big game was also devoured by his crew and the locals. They had a system for divvying up meat.
RobertJ.
Member
Elmer may have "raised a few eyebrows" with his writing, but he was far from the only gun scribe to do so. Anyone ever read any of Col. Charles Askins work? Talk about politically incorrect! But, it was a different time.
Did Elmer ever lie about his exploits? I seriously doubt it. Did he ever exaggerate? Perhaps, I don't know. But he still had more experience shooting than most of us will ever hope to have, and I will take what he wrote at face value.
Did Elmer ever lie about his exploits? I seriously doubt it. Did he ever exaggerate? Perhaps, I don't know. But he still had more experience shooting than most of us will ever hope to have, and I will take what he wrote at face value.
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
I can't swear to it, but I'm fairly confident Keith didn't eat eagle meat.
"It was a big Muley..."
Careful now.
From what I've read, all of Elmer's fellow gunwriters said you could take everything he said as the truth, even a 600 yard shot at a limping mule deer. Elmer wrote several times that he took those shots because he didn't want the deer to escape. If you have read enough of his writings, he practiced long range handgun shooting, not long range hunting.
Careful now.
From what I've read, all of Elmer's fellow gunwriters said you could take everything he said as the truth, even a 600 yard shot at a limping mule deer. Elmer wrote several times that he took those shots because he didn't want the deer to escape. If you have read enough of his writings, he practiced long range handgun shooting, not long range hunting.
The NRA magazine, the Rifleman, that first carried the news of the new .357 registered magnum revolver, back in the mid 1930s — I don’t recall the exact date — has as its cover story the shooting of bald eagles as vermin in Alaska for a bounty of $1 apiece. (For each pair of talons, I believe it was.)
I had a copy of the magazine for a while, but gave it away to the wife of a collector who wanted to give it to her husband as a birthday present.
I had a copy of the magazine for a while, but gave it away to the wife of a collector who wanted to give it to her husband as a birthday present.
I read many a Keith book and I really don't get too caught up in what is politically correct in his writings. They are what they are. I have magazines that refer to hunting waterfowl in the spring on their northward migrations and they lament how you can't kill a limit of 20 mallards. Times change. Personally this is what makes the reading interesting. Read some of TR's African adventures, and his lust for 100lb plus ivory. Again, times change. I enjoy reading these accounts. I have read market hunter stories etc. and find them fascinating from a historical perspective not an envious position. EK was a man who pushed the envelope of shooting science and we are all lucky he did.
Similar threads
