Well, this is a foolish post. You certainly aren't the first person to have this reaction to Elmer's legendary 600 yard shot tale and you probably won't be the last.
Elmer Keith
- Thread starter Coaltminer
- Start date
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Yeah, but it still took him three shots to do it.
I wonder what kind of sights were on the Sharps, especially the rear?
But anyway, yes, he made the shot.
Back in the middle sixties, I was in the Army National Guard in the Phoenix area. At that time, we offered our range once a year to civilians to sight in their rifles. I was a range officer for one of these shoots, and came early to see if I could connect with my Ruger Super Blackhawk at 200 yards. I finally sighted it in to hit the center of the black by holding the sights even with the top of the target carrier, and was confident that if one knew the proper holdover, it was a piece of cake.
One of the civilians was there later with a Winchester 94 .30-30, and he finally got to where he could get some shots on target at 200 yards prone.
Just on a whim, I bet him that I could beat his score with 3 shots at 200 yards with my Super B. He laughed and said "No way." We each fired 3 shots, and I did indeed beat him by firing from the Weaver stance, and he, prone.
No money changed hands, but I got some satisfaction from that little matchup! Shooting a handgun at a longer range and connecting can be done with the proper technique, cartridge, gun and holdover knowledge. I suspect Elmer had all of these factors down pat from experience.
John
One of the civilians was there later with a Winchester 94 .30-30, and he finally got to where he could get some shots on target at 200 yards prone.
Just on a whim, I bet him that I could beat his score with 3 shots at 200 yards with my Super B. He laughed and said "No way." We each fired 3 shots, and I did indeed beat him by firing from the Weaver stance, and he, prone.
No money changed hands, but I got some satisfaction from that little matchup! Shooting a handgun at a longer range and connecting can be done with the proper technique, cartridge, gun and holdover knowledge. I suspect Elmer had all of these factors down pat from experience.
John
Probably not coyote either.....
...but anything that attacked livestock was already dead i his book.
Another 'raised eyebrows' happening was that he was practically the law unto himself and got himself out of many a bind with the adage, "I'm going to go. The only way you are going to stop me is to kill me. But I'm going to kill all of you first." He said this to three officers of the law that wanted to take him to Mexico to try him for poaching. He said there was no way he was going to do that, besides he planned to guide a hunt the next week. There were several episodes where perps were told, You'd better come out, Elmer Keith is here and is going shoot you, and I know he'll do it."
Exaggerated or not I wouldn't survive the conditions he lived in for a week. And I can't even shoot that good by average standards, so I know he can shoot WAY farther and more accurately than I can. His wife was a toughie, too. She had to keep the house going and went with him on some of his expeditions.
I've only read a little of the exploits of many well known 'gun people', mostly big African game. But I'm willing to fill in the holes with some others but I hope their books are easier to find and less expensive.
...but anything that attacked livestock was already dead i his book.
Another 'raised eyebrows' happening was that he was practically the law unto himself and got himself out of many a bind with the adage, "I'm going to go. The only way you are going to stop me is to kill me. But I'm going to kill all of you first." He said this to three officers of the law that wanted to take him to Mexico to try him for poaching. He said there was no way he was going to do that, besides he planned to guide a hunt the next week. There were several episodes where perps were told, You'd better come out, Elmer Keith is here and is going shoot you, and I know he'll do it."
Exaggerated or not I wouldn't survive the conditions he lived in for a week. And I can't even shoot that good by average standards, so I know he can shoot WAY farther and more accurately than I can. His wife was a toughie, too. She had to keep the house going and went with him on some of his expeditions.
I've only read a little of the exploits of many well known 'gun people', mostly big African game. But I'm willing to fill in the holes with some others but I hope their books are easier to find and less expensive.
Long range shooting can be a lot of fun.
Back in the 1970s, I set up a silhouette target in a field and using Elmer's sitting position and resting my back against my truck tire, I was able to keep at least half of my shots on the target. I was using a 1911 and had to hold the hood of the barrel as my front sight. I paced it off and I was 235 paces away from the target.
Elmer shot much than I ever did, due to constant practice, and I'll bet he could have put all of his shots into a nice group, using the same handgun and ammo.
Back in the 1970s, I set up a silhouette target in a field and using Elmer's sitting position and resting my back against my truck tire, I was able to keep at least half of my shots on the target. I was using a 1911 and had to hold the hood of the barrel as my front sight. I paced it off and I was 235 paces away from the target.
Elmer shot much than I ever did, due to constant practice, and I'll bet he could have put all of his shots into a nice group, using the same handgun and ammo.
That he was, shooting at Camp Perry and leading the Idaho team in spotting and reading the wind. That was with a rifle but the principles are the same.
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,128
- Reaction score
- 1,519
I watched a college football game on Saturday. I saw more than one play that I would have never been able to do with years of training and being 45 years younger. Nope, not even close.
I am an engineer by education. I like math quite a bit and took a good bit in undergraduate and graduate school. Would I be able to develop trigonometry or calculus? Not in 10 life times.
World class shooter hitting a deer at 600 yards with a revolver he wore everyday? I say yes. It's called talent and lots of practice.
I am an engineer by education. I like math quite a bit and took a good bit in undergraduate and graduate school. Would I be able to develop trigonometry or calculus? Not in 10 life times.
World class shooter hitting a deer at 600 yards with a revolver he wore everyday? I say yes. It's called talent and lots of practice.
Call it what you want........He still center punched the Indian........In the old days people made some amazing shots with Sharps rifles. And all they had was iron sights.
Elmer hit that deer more than once at different ranges. It was wounded with a rifle and he had a broken foot or leg and couldn't maneuver for a perfect shot. I believe the 600 yd shot hit the deer in the lower jaw. This story is available on line and if you have never read the whole story, you should. I have read it more than once and I believe it happened pretty much as related. The deer wasn't lost and it was eaten.........
No,......varmints.....
Varmints, unlike critters, deserved to die just for the reason that they are varmints
Varmints, unlike critters, deserved to die just for the reason that they are varmints
Alpo
Member
>The deer wasn't lost and it was eaten.........<
There you go.
Someone up the thread theorized that, since the deer had been shot a couple times with a high-powered rifle, Elmer fired and the deer finally fell dead from the rifle wounds, and Elmer said, "Yeah, I got him".
This might make sense if they left it on the hill to rot, and never even went and looked at it.
But if you butcher a deer and find a 30 caliber rifle hole in the butt and a 44 pistol hole in the heart/lung, it's a pretty good bet the guy with the pistol killed it.
As to whether hitting at that distance is possible, I suggest reading Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting, by Ed McGivern. He was shooting at a measured six hundred yards, in front of witnesses and cameras, with a 357, and getting hits on a man-sized target.
Just because YOU can't do it don't mean it can't be done.
There you go.
Someone up the thread theorized that, since the deer had been shot a couple times with a high-powered rifle, Elmer fired and the deer finally fell dead from the rifle wounds, and Elmer said, "Yeah, I got him".
This might make sense if they left it on the hill to rot, and never even went and looked at it.
But if you butcher a deer and find a 30 caliber rifle hole in the butt and a 44 pistol hole in the heart/lung, it's a pretty good bet the guy with the pistol killed it.
As to whether hitting at that distance is possible, I suggest reading Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting, by Ed McGivern. He was shooting at a measured six hundred yards, in front of witnesses and cameras, with a 357, and getting hits on a man-sized target.
Just because YOU can't do it don't mean it can't be done.
If I remember correctly Elmer hit that deer with a 6-1/2" .44 Mag instead of the 4" he normally carried. He said he preferred the 4" for long distance shooting because you didn't have to hold up as much front sight. He said for distance shooting you put the front sight on the target and fire a shot and if you could see the bullet hit the ground, that's where you put the rear sight, then you were very close to being "sighted in" at that range.
Last edited:
Elmer was one of my favorite authors back when I devoured any and every gun or hunting article I could lay my hands on. Because I subscribed to Outdoor Life in the very early 60s I felt like I got to know their writers of the time. My all-time favorite was Jack O'Connor and if memory serves he and Elmer Keith didn't get on with one another well. Does anyone have any info on the relationship between these two giants?
I had EK and JO out hunting many years ago at a writers seminar/hunt. They got along pretty well. I think a lot of the contention was something like window dressing...what we call marketing these days. Kept us buying the magazines so we could see the next installment. I have stated this here before. They were both very good shooters...and they talked with each other just fine. The other writer in my group was Pete Brown...He wrote for Argosy I think..Can't really remember...I got CRS.
RobertJ.
Member
Excellent post!
THE PILGRIM
Member
Speaking as a Closet Outhouse Shooter,
Love - Love the tale of Elmer shooting the outhouse.
As I recall, it was on a dry salt flat - lake bed, and he had a spotter.
Love - Love the tale of Elmer shooting the outhouse.
As I recall, it was on a dry salt flat - lake bed, and he had a spotter.
In the early '80s I shot IHMSA metallic silhouettes. The farthest target is the ram and is at 200 meters, or about 220 yards.
One match I decided to do something a little different so I used my .45ACP Colt Gold Cup in the Production class. I don't recall my score but I believe I took down 3 out of 10 rams. To compensate for the bullet drop I was holding the top of the rear sight about even with the top of the slide, so the entire front sight was sticking up above the rear blade. The bullets took so long to get there that I felt like I could almost spot for myself!
Texas Star
US Veteran
Pete Brown was at, Sports Afield. Pete Kuhlhoff was at, Argosy.
Thanks for your account.
Texas Star
US Veteran
I never met Jack O'Connor, but we corresponded a fair amount over the years. I think I read all of his gun material. His novel topic didn't interest me.
Jack had a Master's degree and was a professor at AZ State Univ., if I have the college right. He belonged to a fraternity. He could be rather aloof at times, I've heard. Elmer was probably lucky if he finished high school. His spelling and grammar were awful and required extensive editing before seeing print.
Jack had a position at, Outdoor Life that was probably the plum gun writing job in the business. Only John Amber editing, Gun Digest may have had more prestige.
I think Elmer felt inferior to Jack, culturally. And he had a tremendous ego.
Col. Chas. Askins, Jr. hated Jack because Jack replaced his father at, Outdoor Life. When O'Connor died, Askins supposedly claimed that he had done something to his grave that I'm not sure I can mention here without violating some Rule. I don't know if he really said that or not. It'd have been difficult to do, as I think Jack's ashes were scattered from a plane, over a mountain range where he'd enjoyed hunting wild sheep.
O'Connor and Keith both shot a lot of animals. Jack felt that the .270 was effective on most animals below the really large African and Indian game. He did use a .375 on tigers and had a couple of .416's. But he thought the .270 and the .30-06 were fine for most hunting quarry.
I think Elmer preferred the .338 and similar calibers because he was more likely to take a chancy raking shot on departing animals. And he often HAD to kill elk, etc. to feed his family. If O'Connor had to pass on a chancy shot, he could. He had enough income to buy meat at a store.
I hope this explains some things about their famous feud.
BTW, I think that Jack is the ONLY gun writer to get national obituaries in newspapers. He founded the Journalism dept. at his college and that gave him more respectability than other gun scribes got. The mass media is elitist, agenda-driven, and pretty condescending toward outdoor writers.
Last edited:
Firesticks
Member
Real hunters and sportsmen don' take pot shots at game with a pistol to "finish it off". You mark the spot last seen. Leave it alone for a bit THEN SLOWLY work your way to where you last spotted it. With a bad or broken leg that critter is going to lay down and hide SOON. You will find him and it will provide a better shot than 600 yds with a pistol. Keith was old enough to know better but arrogant enough to do it anyways.
Similar threads
