Keith or O'connor

[belly-deep]

Well, let's examine each person a little bit.

O'Connor used guns that while they were light, were not insane choices. .270 for elk? If you are a good shot there is no problem! You even have power to spare! I know two old elk-killen mountain men that have both taken over 25 bulls with .243s. O'Connor wasn't suggesting something THAT light, but instead a gun that with good bullets is entirely capable of killing elk and elk-sized game.

Keith? Want to talk about a nutcase!?!? He may have been quite a charasmatic guy, and certainly more cowboy-western than O'Connor, but he was a loon. How can you put down lighter guns such as .270's in one sentence and then brag about how you shoot game at 400 yards with an open sighted .44 magnum? He was either a huge liar or was too dumb to see the hipocrisy in his own mantra.

[Springville Shooter]

Interesting points, I have heard some crazy stories about Kieth from my friends whose parents grew up when he was roaming around in Salmon ID.----shooter

[B-DUB]

Jack for sure.I grew up reading his stories, totally the reason I shoot a .270 named 'DEAD MEAT'

[skull krazy]

Elmers famous quote to Jack was " The .270 makes a great coyote gun."

And the Roy Weatherby came along and created the best of both worlds

[one hunting fool]

I'm of the oppinion that a well placed shot is better than any caliber..

[skull krazy]

I killed my buck in Colorado this year with a Sako TRG 42 & Nightforce scope chambered in .338 Lapua at 325 yards using a 250 grain Scenar bullets.
It blew an 8" EXIT hole out the backside and took heart and lungs with it like a vaccuum.

Overkill??
Dead is dead

[utfireman]

That hole in the deer was incredible.

[belly-deep]

I killed my buck in Colorado this year with a Sako TRG 42 & Nightforce scope chambered in .338 Lapua at 325 yards using a 250 grain Scenar bullets.
It blew an 8" EXIT hole out the backside and took heart and lungs with it like a vaccuum.

Overkill??
Dead is dead

I don't think anyone is debating that.

The argument is, at what point does that kind of a gun actually offer an advantage in killing something? Throw out the long range stuff, because that is not what the original argument hinged on.

The fact of the matter is, a good shot could have killed your buck with a .243. It wouldn't have blown a hole that size in it, but it would have killed it within 20 seconds or so. And as you put it, "Dead is dead".

[skull krazy]

I killed my buck in Colorado this year with a Sako TRG 42 & Nightforce scope chambered in .338 Lapua at 325 yards using a 250 grain Scenar bullets.
It blew an 8" EXIT hole out the backside and took heart and lungs with it like a vaccuum.

Overkill??
Dead is dead

I don't think anyone is debating that.

The argument is, at what point does that kind of a gun actually offer an advantage in killing something? Throw out the long range stuff, because that is not what the original argument hinged on.

The fact of the matter is, a good shot could have killed your buck with a .243. It wouldn't have blown a hole that size in it, but it would have killed it within 20 seconds or so. And as you put it, "Dead is dead".

I don't recall saying anything about long range
The thread is about the views of two hunting and shooting icons, Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner that constantly debated their ideas of what a good hunting caliber was.
I stated i liked Elmers point of views over Jack's, and along came Roy Weatherby to give both.
I'm quite positive a .243 would kill a deer at that range and further, but MY point was I like big guns even at close range (325 yds) as my buck was.
Who said anything about long range?

[belly-deep]

I was the one that brought up long range.

I knew that if I didn't kill it right out of the gate, somebody would read my statement "at what point does that kind of a gun actually offer an advantage in killing something" and bring up long range hunting. As I stated before, that was not part of the original argument between Keith and O'Connor, and so in this discussion it should remain off limits. I only brought up the long range subject so that some wannabe Carlos Hathcock wouldn't go off on some tangent as to the merits of their 50 cal "mule deer" rifle.