For the Skeeter fans

[Malamute]

Not to diss Elmer’s contribution to handgunning, but a gun-writer contemporary of his once described in private that his manuscripts looked like “a chicken had walked across an ink pad and onto a sheet of paper.”

He must’ve kept editors busy.

I saw it mentioned someplace, perhaps a letter he wrote, that he added a bunch of commas, periods etc at the end and let the editor figure out where to put them.

That hasnt diminished my enjoyment of his writings since the editors got to intervene prior to my reading it.

I think its wise for all of us to keep in mind that those we admire for various reasons have their own human weaknesses and quirks, and keep in mind we dont have to be perfect to have valuable knowledge and experience to add to the topic at hand.

[awp_101]

AFAIK EK was a rancher and outdoorsman with the ability to convey his thoughts and results in writing rather than a professional writer.

I’ll also say I’m not a huge fan based on a single reading of Sixguns. I found his reviews interesting (like when Great Western got their act together) but the hunting and shooting stories came across as arrogant and bombastic.

I suspect part of the problem is a lack of context (why was he stopping his car to shoot partridges? Lunch? We’re they a nuisance animal around there? I have no idea). He was in a part of the world I’ve never visited and made his name in a time before my parents were born.

[Malamute]

AFAIK EK was a rancher and outdoorsman with the ability to convey his thoughts and results in writing rather than a professional writer.

I’ll also say I’m not a huge fan based on a single reading of Sixguns. I found his reviews interesting (like when Great Western got their act together) but the hunting and shooting stories came across as arrogant and bombastic.

I suspect part of the problem is a lack of context (why was he stopping his car to shoot partridges? Lunch? We’re they a nuisance animal around there? I have no idea). He was in a part of the world I’ve never visited and made his name in a time before my parents were born.

Over time Ive seen a number of comments about Keiths claims of longer range shooting from people that dont believe its possible, for whatever reason. Having tried it, and been somewhat successful at it, and knowing a fair number of other people that have achieved similar results, I can read much of his stuff and have little doubt as to the veracity of them. YMMV of course.

[awp_101]

To clarify, my issue isn’t the long range shooting. As much time as he spent shooting and experimenting, I have no doubt he could do it. Because it’s the written word with no idea of inflection, etc I may have read more into the stories than was there. Another problem might be after years of hearing how good his stories were, I wasn’t as blown away as I expected to be. I’ve had that happen with movie recommendations. The bang-to-hype ratio gets out of whack sometimes.

It’s been ~15 years since I read it and I’ve never read any of his other books. I should probably try again.

[awp_101]

And now for some patented P-F thread drift!

As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
-Arthur Carlson

[Malamute]

To clarify, my issue isn’t the long range shooting. As much time as he spent shooting and experimenting, I have no doubt he could do it. Because it’s the written word with no idea of inflection, etc I may have read more into the stories than was there. Another problem might be after years of hearing how good his stories were, I wasn’t as blown away as I expected to be. I’ve had that happen with movie recommendations. The bang-to-hype ratio gets out of whack sometimes.

It’s been ~15 years since I read it and I’ve never read any of his other books. I should probably try again.

I dont think Keiths writing is the sort of thing someone not truly interested in revolvers and traditional shooting and related period or historical things would just pick up and read for the sheer enjoyment of it. I sort of grew up reading his stuff in the magazines, I probably didnt think much about the quality of stories beyond just being interested in the subject matter on revolvers, shooting, and western history and characters. The books i also enjoyed when i was able to lay hands on them, I was deeply interested in learning some of the things he wrote about, various aspects of shooting, hunting, reloading, bullet casting, old guns, and wasnt addressed by any other writers I knew of. Skeeter is no doubt a more entertaining writer of stories. and has plenty of experience with pistol shooting as well. Its all good and worth reading.

I came into OConners book on rifles. I had some unreasoning prejudice from the old magazine writing drama of Keith vs OConner and the purse fight surrounding that, but when I read it found he had a lot of useful experience to relate, and his writing wasnt what id been told to expect. I offered it to a guy i knew, he flatly refused to read it based on his perception of OConner from the magazine article wars of ages ago. Ive learned to be more curious and not accept others prejudices without knowing why, or looking into it myself.

Ed McGiverns book has always been held up as an iconic shooting piece, but I find it a bit dry and him quite wordy (why say simply in one or two sentences when a long paragraph with no breaks can be used?), but the subject matter and his level of experience and expertise in shooting keeps me interested in it, and i can go back and re-read much of it later and get more out of it. He definitely knew of which he spoke for the most part, and Im an attentive listener on the subject.

[Jim Watson]

Elmer said that he only did 'Hell, I Was There' because they let him dictate it. I think a lot of it, he was just reading back out of 'Keith', the previous autobiography.

Never mind the guns, I thought his account of guiding Zane Grey and party was a hoot.

I had the reprint of 'The Bullet's Flight' by F.W. Mann and found it very dense, even in the edition with Harry Pope's marginal notes reproduced.

Henry Stebbins is kind of obscure and his venue of Pennsylvania and upstate New York not conducive to great adventure, but he is a pleasure to read.

[358156hp]

Not to diss Elmer’s contribution to handgunning, but a gun-writer contemporary of his once described in private that his manuscripts looked like “a chicken had walked across an ink pad and onto a sheet of paper.”

He must’ve kept editors busy.

I saw a letter, written by Keith without any punctuation at all. At least until the end of the letter where he had typed something like ...,,,'''"""

Plenty of punctuation, the reader was to apply them where he saw fit. To be honest, Elmer didn't even have what amounts to a Junior High education today. Things were different back then, and work was more important than any higher levels of schooling.

ETA: I should have read at least the next post before replying.

Oh well, what was I saying about education? (LOL)

[jtcarm]

And now for some patented P-F thread drift!

Lol, I have that shirt!

Wear it every Thanksgiving.

[willie]

Elmer was about 50 when I was born in 1948. By then he had already conducted most of the experimentation that he reported. Later he got a lot of publicity out of the 44 Magnum and a good bit less from the 41 Magnum. Appreciating Keith requires the reader to recognize his niche and then be aware that the man was addressing sportsmen and hobbyists from the 1930's through the 1960's. His articles appeared in the NRA magazine and Guns and Ammo. He developed a following of faithful fans. Clusterfrack and Tokarov and some others here could outshoot Keith with little effort. He had authority status during his time which has come and gone.