Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Modern O'Connor Sheep Rifle

Ingwe,
A lot of writers used to hang their hat on a cartridge or two and their reputations were built on the expertise they brought to the table. It also permitted the magazines to fill the gaps with other writers and therby protect their stable as a writer dropped off, they could carry on with a single replacement.

Milek had the .25/06 and .30/06 (Zumbo was in there with the '06)
Seifried was the .340 and older classic arms
Hagel was the 7mm Mashburn and .340 Weatherby
Elmer was anything .33 caliber and also anything heavy.
Boddington was the .375 H&H and so J O'C was the .270. His wife Eleanor was actually the 7x57 name in writing even if only, as a secondary comment from time to time. It was enough.

The writers who used a lot of cartridges were actually quite rare until the last generation when a Remchester is put in your hands, you go kill one animal and the expertise was there to write authoritively.

It does take a lot on time to learn a lot, you all know that, so, getting back to the topic, I believe J O'C would simply continue to use a modern Model 70 Featherweight in .270 and continue to have it custom stocked. It was "his" ticket and probably the main reason no other writer touches that cartridge.

Although specializing in a cartridge was recommended to me once, I tend to get bored easilty and like to move on. Probably the main reason I sold far too many great rifles. The ones I have now that have been there a long time have earned an association that is difficult to sever.


JW

"Eleanor's 7x57 was custom-built for her on a 98 Mauser action, and had a shorter stock to fit."

That would make more sense. For some reason I thought I remembered that he had used her 7X57. Maybe he tested it or something, but I remember reading something he wrote about it.

Was it built by Al Bieson?

I guess that is what happens when you get old. You forget things like that, and something else, too, but I don't remember what the other things you forget are.

You are right on about the Monte Carlo vs. Straight stocks. I thought I would never find a stock that would fit or felt comfortable until I tried a Weatherby style stock.

In comparible calibers, recoil seems less with the Monte Carlo style, or at least the recoil I feel.

I think O'Connor would still be using a wood/blued .270 that weighed around 7-8lbs ready to go. I believe he would acknowledge the superiority of stainless/synthetic, but prefer the classic look & feel for his own use. I don't see him getting caught up with any of the new short or long magnums. I also agree with Mule Deer that he would like the Ballistic Tip. He often said the original pointed expanding was the "ideal" .270 bullet and described it as having a very thick base and sharp point for perfect ballistic shape (sound familiar).

Lou

I think we would stone him.

Jack O'Connor often emphasized the aesthetical so it is for this reasion I say he'd still be shooting a finely stocked classic. And, likely a .270Win. Because he was pretty smart guy, I'll bet he'd give the Nos.BT's a try as well. What I don't know is if he'd give up his branch water and whisky for a fine cabernet sauvignon.

What he used is still the best design from the American stock makers or gun builders...I can assure you and I knew him personally he would NOT change a thing..He was a real curmudgeon..:)

I don't know. I can see him giving the nod to something like the .280AI. With modern powder (read R-17), and a lightweight mono-metal(or a NBT) bullet, the .280 Improved is the best of the best for his practical hunting ranges. No doubt Jack would have appreciated the lack of recoil, and the virtual lack of bullet drop to 300 yards. Performance wise, the .284 cal bullet at 3400+fps trumps most anything with in a .473 case.
I can see him with a post-64 action 24" premium barrel, Mickey edge, you name it premium 3x9x40mm, Talley LWTs, old army surplus sling, trigger set at 2 1/2#. Total weight about 7 1/2#s.
Just because even an old icon would recognize the benefits of modernization.

IIRC that last M70 7x57 was a factory rifle that was substantially remodeled by Al Biesen for JOC;he turned down the factory barrel,slicked up the action and stocked it.

Elanor's 7x57 was originally built for JOC on a Mauser action with stock by Russ Leonard....I wanna say the metal was by Tom Burgess......Eleanor liked it so they cut the stock to a shorter LOP,and she used it from there on out.

He mentions the Improved 280 in passing as something Fred Huntington had made up; it appears that neither he, nor Huntington, considered it worthwhile,based on what he wrote in an article about the 280 Rem.

Like JB points out,the 257 Weatherby ain't spot news;been around since the 40's and he had plenty of time to use it if he wanted to....he didn't.He did have good things to say about the 7mm and 300 Weatherby cartridges though,as JB points out.He seemed to have had an aversion to new ,hotrock cartridges...he liked the traditional stuff...


I get the impression some on here think the 280AI and the 257 Weatherby,and things like them are "new"; they aren't...they are older than dinosaur shidt....

I suspect he woulda said good things about a Kimber Montana or their wood stocked rifles....would he let go of his custom M70's or Mausers for one? I doubt it...suspect Ray is right

I PM'd Lee24 about this. He said that O'Conner told him that if he had it to over,he would choose a .50 Barrett, without a recoil reducer, as his go-to sheep rifle.

So, there ya' go. You can close the thread now.

Eleanor's famous 7x57 was built by Tom Burgess and Russell Leonard on a VZ24 Model 98 Mauser, fitted with a Leupold 3x scope.

Jack's last 7x57 was the last pre-64 Model 70 to come out of the factory in that caliber; Al Biesen shortened and turned down the barrel, tweaked the metal and restocked it. It was this rifle with which he hunted a bit into the early '70s, at least according to Anderson's biography on him.

PINEYWOODS,

With all due respect to your opinion, I can't see Jack O'Connor starting to use a .280 AI. Why not? Well, first of all, he was rational enough about cartridges that he say exactly zero difference in the performance of the .270 and .280. Unlike many modern hunters, who nit-pick over tiny differences in bore diameter, trajectory, kinetic energy, etc. etc., and then proclaim something The Best because of these theoretical advantages, he judged big game cartridges by how well they killed things, plus practical trajectory.

I am sort of the same way. I have killed a bunch of animals with the .270 and .280, plus some with the .280 AI. These is exactly zip difference in any of them as far as performance on game out to any range, given roughly equivalent bullets.

I know this is contrary to the religion of many rifle loonies, but that's the way it is.

I'm pretty certain he would never read Dave Scovill

Or that Hoots fellow....



Ingwe

I just remember a Scovill article something along the lines of "I never read Jack O'Connor'

+1 One of my main hunting buddies has a 280 AI and compared to my 140 gr .270 win handloads theres little to no difference on game. My .270 kills hogs and deer just as dead at any practical range and if i ran out of handloads i could buy ammo at a hardware storew in BFE.

Well, he was known to have admitted the superiority of the '06 over the 270 at one point, so he was headed in the right direction there .

I'm sure JOC would have agreed whole heartedly with Hoots, and kept his 270 on the PD field where it belonged .

This from a man who writes a news letter called rifle loony news? Heresy!

Problem with your comments above is that you didn't include the 6.5-280 AI, which would make all the difference !

I remember that one too Scott...


BIG mistake......

Ingwe

Yeah.......right.......


Ingwe