O'Conner vs Keith (Small & Fast vs Big & Slow) - Which is Best?

[JG26Irish_2]

Jack O'Conner was famous for advocating small fast bullets for hunting like the 270 Winchester as was Roy Weatherby. For these men hydrostatic shock was thought to kill by knocking the animal out allowing time for it to expire.

Elmer Keith on the other hand was known for advocating very large and heavy bullets such as the 44 magnum or the 400 Whelen, etc for hunting. 45-70 Springfield used so effectively to kill Buffalo (bison) in the US West is another. They depending upon very large, very heavy bullets that travelled at slower speeds but hit with lots of momentum. They did not expand much if at all but penetrated deep into the target, often all the way thru the animal, leaving a large wound to bleed out.

These are two diametrically opposed theories to success. Both can work but which is better for typical North American hunting or African Plains Game? You be the judge.

 

[Grumpy gumpy]

Wouldn’t it be down to where you are hunting and what you are hunting….thick scrub and short distance benefits from big and slow, open plain and long distance something fast seems better
Gumpy

 

[JG26Irish_2]

Two of my favorite Eastern Woods deer hunting rifles was a Winchester model 94 trapper in 44mag and a Mauser M98 custom in 270 Winchester. For about six straight years, I used the 44mag with 240g HP ammo and had nothing but "Bang-Flop", results. I never had a deer take a single step with it. But, after a spectacular failure that had nothing to do with the cartridge, I tried a friends 270 and killed a deer at 200y that I could never take with the 44. I bought the 270 and began a series of one shot kills that have never been broken for many years. Which is better? Both/Neither. In my opinion, the reason that the controversy continues is that they are both effective when applied correctly.

i.e. Would I use a 500NE with iron sights to shoot a Springbok at 400y? No. Would I attempt to take a bull elephant with a 243 at 30y? No. Now reverse the applications and the answers are Yes/Yes.

 

[RR 314]

C. Big & Fast

 

[BJH65]

Jack O'Conner was famous for advocating small fast bullets for hunting like the 270 Winchester as was Roy Weatherby. For these men hydrostatic shock was thought to kill by knocking the animal out allowing time for it to expire.

Elmer Keith on the other hand was known for advocating very large and heavy bullets such as the 44 magnum or the 400 Whelen, etc for hunting. 45-70 Springfield used so effectively to kill Buffalo (bison) in the US West is another. They depending upon very large, very heavy bullets that travelled at slower speeds but hit with lots of momentum. They did not expand much if at all but penetrated deep into the target, often all the way thru the animal, leaving a large wound to bleed out.

These are two diametrically opposed theories to success. Both can work but which is better for typical North American hunting or African Plains Game? You be the judge.

I’m not so sure I’d place Jack O’Connor (that’s spelled with an o not an e) next to Roy Weatherby in philosophy. O’Connor favored and used a 375 H&H for coastal brown bear, 416 Rigby and 450 Watts for African dangerous game. Yes, he used his beloved 270 for elk, moose and interior grizzly but he wasn’t necessarily stuck on high speed lightweight bullets for everything. While he favored the 270, he felt one should use the appropriate cartridge, including larger moderate velocity calibers for the given game one hunts and the given terrain, hence his use of other cartridges when appropriate.

 

[HankBuck]

Jack O'Conner was famous for advocating small fast bullets for hunting like the 270 Winchester as was Roy Weatherby. For these men hydrostatic shock was thought to kill by knocking the animal out allowing time for it to expire.

Elmer Keith on the other hand was known for advocating very large and heavy bullets such as the 44 magnum or the 400 Whelen, etc for hunting. 45-70 Springfield used so effectively to kill Buffalo (bison) in the US West is another. They depending upon very large, very heavy bullets that travelled at slower speeds but hit with lots of momentum. They did not expand much if at all but penetrated deep into the target, often all the way thru the animal, leaving a large wound to bleed out.

These are two diametrically opposed theories to success. Both can work but which is better for typical North American hunting or African Plains Game? You be the judge.

@JG26Irish_2 - I know Jack O’Connor promoted the .270 and was partly responsible for it gaining popularity but I don’t recall him ever using the term “hydrostatic shock”? Maybe he did, his position was that the .270 combined relatively light recoil, flat shooting, and good performance from bullets in the 130-140 gr for deer and 150 gr for Elk & Bear…but mostly he thought the .270 was an excellent deer round and a great sheep round. Elmer Keith took an opposite position - favored bigger calibers - and I always thought much of the reason for his position was to “differentiate” himself from Jack…Not sure he really had any choice if he wanted to get noticed. He certainly “belittled” the .270 to a ridiculous level and once wrote “the .270 is a ‘marginal’ coyote round’’….likely just to create a clear divid between him & Jack.

 

[Hunt anything]

Both have their place for me. I hunt 2 very different properties for whitetail. On our beach property I have never shot a deer beyond 80yds. There are a couple of sections of the road where you can see maybe 300yds but I use my .375 Ruger there, using 300gr DGX. I’ve killed around a dozen deer on this property and with the exception of the 80yd shot all have been less than 40yds. This place is extremely thick.

On the 80 acres we live on most is planted for wildlife. Never a shot under 100yds. I mostly watch the wildlife here . I’ve shot 7 deer in the 30 years we’ve owned it. The shots have been from 120yds to 300yds. I use my 7mm rem mag with 154gr hornadys.

So as y’all can see I utilize both. If you consider the .375 Ruger big and slow.

 

[Firebird]

Both were skilled hunters and thankfully filled out lives with their writings.

 

[Tam Dl]

Wouldn’t it be down to where you are hunting and what you are hunting….thick scrub and short distance benefits from big and slow, open plain and long distance something fast seems better
Gumpy

I have no idea where we stand at this point, but I was influenced by a competently done study decades ago that purported to have dispelled the big bullet for brush bucking theory. Basically the high velocity light bullets have much higher gyroscopic stability. Of course the bullet has be tough enough to survive contacts reasonably well. I think I mainly concluded that shooting through brush was better avoided.

 

[HankBuck]

I have no idea where we stand at this point, but I was influenced by a competently done study decades ago that purported to have dispelled the big bullet for brush bucking theory. Basically the high velocity light bullets have much higher gyroscopic stability. Of course the bullet has be tough enough to survive contacts reasonably well. I think I mainly concluded that shooting through brush was better avoided.

@Tam Dl - I’ve read the same —— NOTHING “bucks brush”, Not a .375 H&H, .45-70, not even a 12 ga slug — ALL will be deflected. The very light fast rounds (50 gr .22-250 etc…) may fragment upon contact with a twigs but No surprise there. Agree with you “Avoid shooting thru brush”

 

[Tam Dl]

Jack O'Conner was famous for advocating small fast bullets for hunting like the 270 Winchester as was Roy Weatherby. For these men hydrostatic shock was thought to kill by knocking the animal out allowing time for it to expire.

Elmer Keith on the other hand was known for advocating very large and heavy bullets such as the 44 magnum or the 400 Whelen, etc for hunting. 45-70 Springfield used so effectively to kill Buffalo (bison) in the US West is another. They depending upon very large, very heavy bullets that travelled at slower speeds but hit with lots of momentum. They did not expand much if at all but penetrated deep into the target, often all the way thru the animal, leaving a large wound to bleed out.

These are two diametrically opposed theories to success. Both can work but which is better for typical North American hunting or African Plains Game? You be the judge.

1) These guys didn't seem to get on, at least in print, and that more than science seems to have been an issue.

2) While J O is remembered as Mr 270. Apparently he shot more game with the 30-06. The O6s have a ton of energy for just about anything.

3) Bullet quality back then either meant that overall certain things were different then, than now. Or that certain anomalies existed. For instance the 9.3x62 had a better reputation than the 375 H&H, according to some, simply due to bullet quality. Today with the same quality of mono solid, or TSX, it would be more just the base ballistics that govern.

4) A guy who is living with a "big bore" 44 Mag fetish, and a preference for 338 and up, is living in a contradiction.

5) Apart for the fact that EK seemed to get wound up a little more. EK is more interesting. Still waiting for JO's "Hell I was there".

6) I think the real issue is EK had earned the right to his opinions on firearms many times over, but that was it. Anyone who questioned him, particularly if they couldn't have matched him was a tough pill to swallow. The problem was that Keith was a legendary shot with no fear of recoil. That actually takes him out of being a good model for most people. Brad Pitt might do well with the ladies, but that is precisely why his opinions on the subject are of no interest to me.

I enjoy reading both, but I don't see much point in tying up to either at this point.