Elmer Keith wanna-be?

[idaho]

I like reading Elmer Keith's writings as much as the next guy....but what's the deal with people (seemingly more and more all the time) in gun magazines and even chronically here on the forum always saying "we" and "us" and "our", etc. instead of "I", "me" and "mine"? We all fondly have a soft spot in our hearts for the old crusty bronc rider...but what gives with the copy-cat act? It bugs the heck out of more than just me.

 

[Ruger4Life]

I've read a lot of Jeff Cooper's writings, and he also used the second person plural instead of the 1st person. Guess people like to imitate the legends when they write.

 

[Snake45]

It's called "the editorial we" and it wasn't just Keith who did it, nor gunwriters. It was once a very common writing style, not seen all that much any more, though.

 

[JLarsson]

Though we have seldom employed the technique ourselves, we find ourselves compelled to point out that such references are actually in the first person plural, not in the second person.

That said, we hardly consider ourselves to be grammar Nazis, and are writing this just for fun.

 

[CraigC]

It's called "the editorial we" and it wasn't just Keith who did it, nor gunwriters. It was once a very common writing style, not seen all that much any more, though.

Exactly.....so lighten up a bit. :roll:

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Cooper actually used the first person, plural . . . "we", as well as the appropriate personal pronouns (us, our, ours). But of course the good Colonel was an accomplished wordsmith, which cannot really be said of ol' Elmer who required considerable editing . . . much to his chagrin.

I read and appreciate both of them, however. For most of us it kinda seems affected to me. JMHO, of course.

 

[nvbirdman]

Maybe we already get more than enough "I" and "me" from Obama.

 

[TEXASFIVEGUN]

I do like the way the old gentalmen wrote and we as a culture do use "I" and "ME" way too much. But when I say "we" in my posts it's generally because the things I have learned, figured out, and do are a combined effort from my family and friends. I just do not usuley give indivual credit as we all work togather.

 

[Lee Martin]

My dad told me something once that I found quite telling. Learn from your predecessors, then take that knowledge and do your own thing. In the process of "DIY", improve upon the past whenever possible.

Case in point: my dad spent many years building powder measures with Homer L. Culver (you benchrest guys will know who I'm talking about). He always admired Homer, but never put him on a pedestal. Learned what he could from him and respected what he accomplished in benchrest (and like Keith being a pioneer with handguns, Homer was involved with benchrest from the start back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's). Eventually, Homer inspired my dad to build his own benchrest actions, which he did starting in the early 1980s. And without trying to brag, but his actions and machinist ability now far eclipse Homer's.

Then in the 1980s we read about John Linebaugh's work. That got us thinking and really moved us to build our own cylinders

So my point here is simple. The past shouldn't be an end-all or a final chapter....it should be a spring board for further advancement.

Just my two-cents.

 

[dlhredfoxx]

One of the highest compliments one can be paid is to be emulated by others. Although I agree with another poster that Elmer certainly did not create that writing style, he was and still is known for it, as others are. I'm sure Elmer doesn't mind that his legacy lives on through others.

 

[Snake45]

I'm sure Elmer doesn't mind that his legacy lives on through others.

To me, Elmer's legacy "lives on" most in the writings of John Taffin and Brian Pearce. I find all three to be enormously experienced and knowledgable, but a bit pompous and self-centered at times. :wink:

 

[Lee Martin]

One more thing, and this is certainly no knock on writers.

I always like delineating between those that simply write and those that make tangible advancements. The latter includes things such as:

- New cartridges and/or existing cartridge development (Keith and heavy 44 Special, Linebaugh with the 475's and 500's, Dick Casull with the 454, JD Jones with his Contender based wildcats, Jack Hunington and the 500 JRH, etc).

- New bullets (the Keith profile, LBT's WFN & LFN, JD Jones' SSK, etc)

- New gun designs (Dick Casull and 5-shot 45's, Keith and Croft with the #5, Elgin Gates advancing stretch-frame revolvers)

- Hunting (Ross Seyfried and taking dangerous game with a revolver, Al Goerg on long-range handgun hunting, etc).

While not necessarily a bad thing, many gun writers recap ideas or notions which have been worked over many times before.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

"While not necessarily a bad thing, gun writers tend to recap ideas or notions whcih have been worked over many times before."

There's a lot of that going on right now . . . some of it from the "senior" writers, and some from newer ones trying to make their bones.

I saw the same article from one writer in three different magazines within the last couple of months.

It appears there's very little actually "new" in the gun bidness. We see endless articles on the latest/greatest development of AR-clones, 1911-clones, plastic-fantastic-pistols, and TACTICAL everything. And many of these guys are really not very good writers, at that.

JMHO, of course.

 

[surveyor47]

WHAT BUGS ME is not their reference to "we", but rather their advocacy of loads greatly exceeding published loading data. I have yet to see a single reference indicating that loads advocated by some people have been tested by ANY ballistic laboratory. How does the writer test his loads; by shooting them of course. If the gun does not blow up, he deems the load "safe".

According to ballisticians at Hodgon, old Elmer was supplied with revolvers by S&W to support his experiments and many went back to S&W in pieces. Elmer was being supported in his experiments. He wasnt just some cowboy with an unlimited gun budget. He was judging pressure by the measure of the day, probably based upon primer flattening and measured case expansion; just as Ken Waters did in developing Pet Loads. I gaurantee you that Elmer used ballistic laboratories to the extent that he had them available to him. Elmer was not stupid or suicidal. The 44 Magnum did not come about by accident.

Another thing to bear in mind is that a number of guns designed in the 1950s such as the K-frame S&Ws did not withstand the evolution of ammunition in the 1960s,70s & 80s. They were designed for lead bullets, not jacketed bullets, whcih greatly increase pressure and stresses. Note that S&W has recently dropped support of K-fames, citing barrel failures and greatly out of date manufacturing techniques. The evolution of ammunition and manufacturing technique has rendered the K-frame 357 obsolete, essentially a +P38 Special. People see the word 357 Magnum on the barrel and assume that the gun can shoot any 357 ammo ever manufactured.

How does this reflect on Ruger? Ruger Redhawks stand up much better to 44 Magnum than S&W 29s, due to the fact that they were designed for the round from the bottom up, not adapted to handle it. We can thank Elmer and S&W. Elmer destroyed them and S&W figured out how to make them strong enough to withstand his loads in a cycle that lasted years. The S&W 29 was an evolution- and its evolution has continued in the years since, adapting to new ammunition.

 

[Lee Martin]

There's a lot of that going on right now . . . some of it from the "senior" writers

Yep....I couldn't agree more.

 

[5of7]

My impression was, when reading Keith and Cooper (and others), that they were/are referring to themselves and their associates.

Hell, I have done it myself when I relate my--and my brother's experiences in load development via handloading and choreographing the results.

I can promise you that I am not trying to emulate Keith or anyone else. 8)

 

[Snake45]

My impression was, when reading Keith and Cooper (and others), that they were/are referring to themselves and their associates.

I'm quite sure this was the case much of the time, though probably not all. :wink:

 

[COR]

Maybe we just need to look at ourselves as a TEAM and forget all the little stuff that divides us...The whole tone of this started off negative but I am certainly motivated by the fact that many here understand not sweating the small stuff and have a cup half full.

I saw someone mention publishing heavy load data...My dad (God rest his soul) taught me personal responsibility. Nuf said.

My dog is named Elmer Keith...He only knows about "we", cuz WE do everything together.

 

[surveyor47]

Has it occured to anyone that Elmer Keith said "we" because he actually was part of S&W s team?

 

[Snake45]

Has it occured to anyone that Elmer Keith said "we" because he actually was part of S&W s team?

No, but I'm aware he was a member of something called ".44 Associates."