Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Jack O'Conner/elk/270 win

257BOB, Jack O'Connor was born in 1902, died in 1978. By the time we were in WW II, he would have been at least 40 years old. Other than career military men, 40 year old men were not involved in our military, with but a few exceptions.

Life in the United States did NOT come to a standstill, during WW II. There wee radical changes, of course, but life went on, and O'Connor, whose vocation was teaching and writing hunting articles, continued with his writing. I don't konw, but I'd bet that some of his usual hunting adventures of those 3 3/4 years we were in the war, were somewhat curtailed, but not completely stopped.

BTW, if anyone wants to read some interesting tidbits about O'Connor, by someone who knew him, look in your 1992 "The Gun Digest," and read the article, "Cults," by John Barsness.

FWIW. L.W.

That Gun Digest would just have to be one I don't have... Drats!

Be a sport, Leanwolf, give me some clues... okay? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

If I'm not mistaken O'Conner had a son who had a very rough time in Korea.

Jeff

Brad!!!!
If you think that durned ol' 270 is such a "do-it-all" gun, let's see how good ya do jump shooting ducks on the East Gallatin River this fall!!! HEHE...
Now, if you want to just limit it to big game...
And, the spelling is "o'Connor", not "O'Conner"

There...

Royce

I have some of the early stuff O'conner wrote. His 270 load was 62 grs. of H-4831. The 139 gr. open popint bullet he liked was for the 7x57.

I have read a couple of books by Jack and a couple of other
written by other authors that have mentioned him. If I remember correctly, Jack and Roy Weatherby quarreled
often, and in his book "Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns"
he mentions that the .358 Winchester would be an excellent
deer/woods gun. He also spoke highly of the .250-3000.

"In spite of the wide acceptance of the .270 it still remains a controversial cartridge. People either love it or hate it. Those who like it use it on everything from jackrabbits to moose. Those who hate it claim it won't knock of a robust white-footed meadow mouse." Jack O'Connor, 1978, Handloader's Digest 8th ed., p. 30

Based on the various .270 threads here, it doesn't seem like things have changed much over the intervening 25 years. Boy, I would love to have had Jack on this site--I'll bet he wouldn't mince words.

I've read a lot on O'conner while growing up. Used to read his stories in Outdoor Life way back in the 50's and 60's. Also, have read some of his books. He used different guns, but seems he'd shot just about everything including moose, elk, grizzly, etc. with his .270 using mostly 130 gr. silver tip. Seemed to be his pet gun and load. Like they say, 'it isn't what you shoot them with, it is where you shoot them.'

Royce, I haven't shot a bird in nearly two decades and don't intend to break my streak... grins.

Brad

I think we both understand that if we were meant to shoot and eat stuff that flies, it would be made outta elk meat!
And speaking of 270s, I thought I had shot the throat out in mine, but Swede looked at it, and he said it should be just fine, all I have to do is find some 300 grain 270 bullets.
Well, just to be on the safe side, I had it rebarrelled and it shoots great.
Have a great weekend, Brad.

Royce

I grew up reading Jack in Outdoor Life too. Although he was definitely a fan of the 270, his main message was pack something relatively effective for the intended game, but don't forget about the effect of recoil on your ability to shoot precisely during the hunt. Well placed shots outweighed shoulder cannon power in his (and my) estimation. He used to shoot elephants with the 416 Rigby, but his wife would go after them with the 30-06 cause that was her effective accuracy vs recoil threshold. Jack thought both choices of caliber were just fine.

Don't forget either that although he was not that terribly fond of lying in swamps in wait of ducks and geese, he could swing a scatter gun at upland game with the best in the west. Even put a couple of words to paper on the subject that were regarded as some of the best work of the period if I recall. We could all benefit from a good read of the incredible body of knowledge left behind by good old Jack.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Good seeing you at Bozo International the other pm...

JOC also cherished the 30-06. He wrote that he could not pick a favorite between the two calibers. I love reading his work. It should be noted that he was a lung shot shooter and chose his gear to that effect. When forced to shoot at "the hind end" he liked to put a bullet "at the root of the tail". He expected this round to paralyze the animal's hindquarters at least. He supplied the finisher post haste.

It occurs to me that Jack and John B were/are quite similar in their beliefs about cartridges and velocities. Neither man was (or is) a stranger to magnums or big bores. Yet both prefer(ed) cartridges of more modest power for the most part. Yes Jack used the 416 in Africa and the 375 on Brown bears but his favorite cartridges (in his day) are quite similar to the favored cartrdges of Mr. J.B.

I'b be not at all surprised if 10-20 years from now, J.B. is sort of sharing a podium with Jack (and a select few others) as one of the very greatest gun writers of our time.

Common sense seems to have a timeless appeal.

JimF

I'm old enough at this point to see a whole "scenario" repeating itself concerning the controversy that certain gun-writers believe in "this or that".

Jack O'Connor was reknown for his writing... and often criticized as being a "one-caliber-man"... namely the .270 Winchester. Yet, we're seen, in this thread, how O'Connor actually also "liked" and used other calibers

Jack O'Connor's literary opponent, Elmer Keith, was equally reknown for his writing, but in direct contrast to O'Connor, Keith was criticized as being a "big, slow bullet/large caliber man"... and, to a great extend, he was, especially compared to Jack O'Connor.

In the not too distance past, I've seen posts in this and other Forums criticizing Col. Craig Boddington for having a "magnumitis" mentality. This criticism was posted within a few days of the day I read an article written by Col. Boddington in which he praised the .30/06!!! Go figure, eh?

I've also seen other gun-writers (some of whom post here in this Forum) criticized for various other "literary ailments". Yet, these very "ailments", if they really exist other than in certain reader's minds, are the 'stuff' of what makes reading these writers so interesting and informative.

I hope all of us will take time to pause... and take an "inventory" of why we LIKE to read what we read and why we so enjoy the writings of these contemporary gun-writers as much as we enjoyed, in the past, the gun-writers of the past when they were then expounding on their favorite subjects.

I find I have as much enjoyment reading the efforts of several [color:"red"] CURRENT[/color] gun-writers as I did many years ago reading the efforts of O'Connor & Keith. I firmly believe that, at some point in the future, these contemporary gun-writers may very well be as famous (or "infamous", as some reader's think) as are/were Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith in "their day".

Like they say... "What goes around, comes around". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Strength & Honor...

Ron T

Regarding O'Connor's view of the .270 and .280, Jim Carmichael wrote (in OL probably ten years ago now) that when he told O'Connor that he was building himself a custom rifle, Jack advised him to make it a .280 rather than .270 as it was a much superior cartridge. He also advised Carmichael not to get himself as closely identified with one cartridge as he (JOC) had.

Well said... I agree!

"Regarding O'Connor's view of the .270 and .280, Jim Carmichael wrote (in OL probably ten years ago now) that when he told O'Connor that he was building himself a custom rifle, Jack advised him to make it a .280 rather than .270 as it was a much superior cartridge".

???I have nothing against the 280 rem but I am curious why JOC would say it was a "much superior cartridge". Similar to the 270 but not equal with factory fodder as it was loaded to lower pressures as it was designed for the rem autoloader. as far as handloading goes, you can load 160 gr bullets but if you need that much killing power, why not go to a fast 30 cal?

I have a 7mm rem mag but do not really see where it is necessary. if I figure my 270 is not enough, I just go to a 30 cal, either the 30-06 or 300 wsm. 7mm seems to be in no-mans land to MY way of thinking. Now I am not really looking for a debate her on 270 vs 7mm but I am curious as to why JOC favored the 280 rem over the 270 win.

Speaking of great writers, I wonder if anyone can tell me if Bob Hagel is still burning gunpowder?
I feel that he picked up where Elmer Keith left off. Mr Hagel seemed to feel that a good 7MM Magnum would do for just about everything you needed to do in North America using Nosler bullets of course. He convinced me to get one and I have to say after chronographing it and comparing it to heavy handloads in the 30-06 I can't imagine what good it is. It kicks harder and doesn't really offer much of a gain. I would just as soon have a 35 Whelen for moose and bears anyhow.
GWN

I have a book by Mr. Hagel. I don't remember the exact title but it's something like "Guns and Loads for North American Game. It's pretty good, but some of the loads listed scare the he!! out of me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />