I've read a lot of Elmer Keith and I believe, based on my reading that he said what he meant and meant what he said--just as O'Connor did.  Keith wouldn't have written something without wholeheartedly believing it was true.  yes, when both men were alive, it was fairly well known that they didn't see eye to eye regarding rifles, with O'Connor being known for preferring light and fast and Keith preferring heavy and slow.  Some of this was probably exaggerated by the gunzines of the day, but anyone who has read much by either men (their books) knows that this was where their interest lay.  I suspect that perhaps this magazine writer made his presumption about what O'Connor may have thought vis 'a vis the ".270 on elk" based on that reputation.  But I'm just guessing--maybe he has no idea about O'Connor and Keith's opinions and reputations.

In the last paragraph he wrote:

Arguments among gun writers about the efficacy of THE .270 Winchester have been going on almost since the cartridge was introduced. It’s highly unlikely that this is going to change any time soon. Make a visit to the gun store or take a trip to a hunting camp and I can guarantee that the topic of the .270’s ability to get the job done will come up at one time or another. Failing that, all you’ve got to do is make one quick Internet search to see that the debate is alive and well.

Oddly enough, in my talks with riflemen these days I don't hear much anymore about "the .270's ability to getthe job done."  I believe it will, of course, but these days, riflemen, especially the younger ones, seem obsessed with the 6.5CM, 6.5PRC, 7mmPRC, and other johnny-come-latelies.  It's to the point that I am very thankful for the men here who know and appreciate the classic rifle cartridges like the .270 Winchester and the .30-06.

Thanks for posting, Harvey.