Author Topic: Elmer Keith on how to wreck a car slowly (Read 2170 times)

Questor · « **on:** October 11, 2004, 04:52:49 AM »

I was reading the book of Elmer Keith's Gun Notes and there's a column in there about the effects of big bore muzzle blast on automobiles. He advises against the technique of sighting in a big bore rifle by using the hood of a truck or roof of a car. Here are his examples of why not to do it (all were done with true big bores, 375 and up.)

1) Firing a double rifle on the hood of one car: the blast caved in the windshield.

2) Muzzle blast wrecks the paint on the hood of another car.

3) From the days of vinyl tops, blowing the vinyl off of a vinyl top with a strong blast.

4) Using a down sleeping bag as a blanket to protect the hood from blast resulted in a shredded sleeping bag and lots of little feathers floating around.

I can imagine that even the blast of a 223 could damage hood paint, but the big bores seem to be quite destructive in this regard.

Double D · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2004, 06:39:56 AM »

Yes, the muzzle blast of a.223 will mark the paint job on a white truck, buy a black one next time.

mr.frosty · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:46:02 PM »

ok guys i have a 45/70 you think it will finish removing the clear coat off
the hood? i know head and shoulders won't stop it's flaking.... :shock:

Questor · « **Reply #3 on:** November 01, 2004, 03:13:18 AM »

If you do it the way Keith advises not to, I think you'll succeed in removing the clear coat. Make sure the antenna is in the bullet path when you fire also, that'll get rid of that little eyesore. After you've finished with the 45-70, take your 357 Sig and cant it to the right so it ejects into the hood paint and do some rapid fire drills. The spent cases should do a nice job on the layers beneath the clearcoat.

mr.frosty · « **Reply #4 on:** November 01, 2004, 11:56:04 AM »

thanks i will give it a shot :lol: btw i dont have 357 sig but know someone
with a 50ae desert eagle

save a tree, eat a beaver....

Questor · « **Reply #5 on:** November 01, 2004, 12:31:45 PM »

The 50 AE will work too, so there's no need to fret about any inadequacies. While you're at it, be sure and fire the 50 AE in a small confined space while wearing cheap hearing protection. (I remember when those Desert Eagles were in vogue and I was shooting at an indoor range where they were popular. Good heavens they were loud. I don't miss them a bit. Neat guns, though.)

By the way, that 600 Nitro Express revolver that you posted a link for is a real hit around here. The only problem may be getting it in the country because it's more thant .50 cal. Thanks.

mparks · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2004, 07:16:09 AM »

Thats where that black spot on the Cherokee came from:) I if it was the .270, the slug gun, the 41, or the muzzleloader.

Long time ago my uncle had a brand new Ford 4x4. I guess the hood had a really pronounced peak down the center of the hood. He was sighting in a .22 and noticed two small holes in the peak. Hard way to vent the engine!

I sight in and do all accuracy testing over the hood with sand bags. Never had a problem other than a little powder residue that would probably wash off if I ever washed my Jeep.

mr.frosty · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2004, 03:02:08 PM »

aint too worried about washing my truck not unless i cant see out the windshield i think i will try my 300 next time i get to hunt whistle pigs

Steelbanger · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2004, 12:52:34 AM »

In Pennsylvania it's illegal to use your motor vehicle as a shooting rest so we don't see too much hood damage from muzzle blast.

Questor · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2004, 02:29:28 AM »

Most Pennsylvanians will actually trailer a replica of a car, and use an actual hood from a junked car to do their sighting in. It complies with the law, and still gives them a hood to shoot from.

Mr.Frosty: When you use the 300, be sure and use Hornady Vmax bullets for best results.

mr.frosty · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2004, 02:49:30 PM »

Quote from: Questor

Most Pennsylvanians will actually trailer a replica of a car, and use an actual hood from a junked car to do their sighting in. It complies with the law, and still gives them a hood to shoot from.

Mr.Frosty: When you use the 300, be sure and use Hornady Vmax bullets for best results.

thank for the info did you mean the v max for the flaking clearcoat or the whistle pigs??

Questor · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2004, 03:39:11 AM »

For the varmint shooting. I've used the .270 bullets and woooo-eeee! do they work well. This is definitely not a bullet to use when you're planning on having the critter mounted by a taxidermist.

mr.frosty · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2004, 11:27:49 AM »

I think I will just shoot the truck

handirifle · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2004, 05:42:50 PM »

you know with all the things Keith did wrong :eek: , sometimes I wonder why we trust his work :wink:

Questor · « **Reply #14 on:** November 29, 2004, 05:04:34 AM »

We remember him for the few things he did right, not for the many things he did wrong. The 44 mag and the 338 mag were really important innovations. And he had some important cast bullet designs that still endure as good.

I've read many of his old "gun notes" articles and it's mostly rubbish, but he did have a lot of worthwhile things to read about. I am particulary appreciative of how he would tell on his own stupid mistakes, and this in turn taught me a number of things not to do. I think Green's Law applies: 90 percent of everything is crap. (Certainly 90 percent of what I do is crap.)

I'm not particularly a fan of Keith, but he deserves due credit for his accomplishments. Many of today's writers are better writers, but none have contributed materially as much to shooting and hunting.

As for trusting him, his hand load data is obsolete and has been for decades. It needs to be disregarded in favor of modern data.

archdlx · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2004, 08:09:11 AM »

Questor...
I have just spent 5 minutes going over your post and another 5 min trying to figure out a way to tell you what I think about your post.

Can you explain what you mean by "rubbish"? Does he not follow your way of thinking? Just because what you do is "90 percent CRAP", what makes you think what Elmer did was 90% crap?
The only way to learn from mistakes is to make them. If he had not made the mistakes and wrote them down, would you be as SMART as you are now?
At least he had the intestinal fortitude to write about them.....do you?
What do you class as a better writer...someone who always shoots 1/4 MOA?....always shoots the best customs?....never says a bad word about anything they test?...maybe they use words that OLE ELMER wouldn't understand?
Maybe you are jealous, (as I am), because we, nor anyone else could fill his shoes.
Read "Hell, I was there!"...maybe you'll learn some more...
As for his loads...of course some of them are "obsolete"....some powders are not available....
Had Elmer been afforded the use of the powders we have today...who knows what MORE he would have accomplished?!

sorry for the rant...will probably regret not waiting longer to post or just "changing channels"

LeRoy

Questor · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2004, 09:45:52 AM »

Read is old gun notes articles and you'll see what I mean. You can buy them in book form, as I have. Rubbish in this case is poorly written work about topics that he obviously didn't put much thought or research into, and that appears to be about 90 percent of the body of his work as a gun writer. To put a finer point on it, this same work has no entertainment or information value. And don't be so snappy in assuming that I am in any way against Keith. His lasting contributions overshadow the contributions of any other gun writer who ever lived. His book Sixguns is probably the best gun book ever written.

Ramrod · « **Reply #17 on:** December 30, 2004, 05:34:53 PM »

Well, I would agree with Questor here, and go a little further. I think Keith was a self-inflated, overblown braggard, and only half the man Jack O'Connor was. And not even in the same league as a writer.

Buffalogun · « **Reply #18 on:** January 08, 2005, 03:07:35 PM »

Questor, Ramrod,

You guys are certainly entitled to your own opinions!!! I'm sure if you try you can find a little mud to throw at:

John M. Browning
Christian Sharps
Oliver Winchester
Eliphalet Remington
Paul Mauser

...and all the rest of our "gunfathers" who have contributed greatly to the technology you so much enjoy today!!! After all, no one is perfect except maybe .....

Buffalogun

Questor · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:51:19 AM »

Buffalogun:

Have you actually read my posts concerning Keith?

Buffalogun · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2005, 12:33:23 PM »

Questor,

Actually, I haven't read any of your posts about Keith. You see, I think others on this board are more knowledgable than you, about gun matters and hunting.
And, well, they are much better writers than you!

Buffalogun

Questor · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2005, 04:08:52 PM »

Granted, Buffalogun, there are better writers and more knowledgeable people here. But if you're going to accuse me of mudslinging, at least have the decency to base your accusation on a fact or two. And if you're going to criticize my writing, you should at least read some of it before doing so.

Buffalogun · « **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2005, 01:24:40 PM »

Questor,

In fairness to you, I read some of your posts on this thread. In particular, your seventh post on this thread.

I just don't understand how you can misspell a simple word such as "his", and do it in the very same post in which you criticize the writing abilities of someone else.

I just don't think it is a wise thing, to openly criticize others works!

Buffalogun