Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What was the Jack O'connor load?

Oh gawd......."I heard", "He said"..... "someone who knows someone,who said someone told him that someone who knew someone somewhere,said that someone calibrated JOC's scale,and he was really shooting 60 gr not 62 gr.....or was it 64?....which is why the load was compressed.....and they heard he was too dumb to set the scale correctly or know it was off...."


This is hearsay piled on hearsay....I suppose, then, that Jack's loads for the 300 Weatherby, 257 Roberts, 416 Rigby, 7x57,30/06, 22-250, 6mm Remington, etc, were all off by 2 grains also?

Hilarious!

That's funny Bob. I do know one thing. I left the damn 270 fwt at home today. It's been making my 30-06 look bad at the range. I took the 338 Alaskan and 7mm rem mag along with my pre 64 30-06 fwt. No wonder JOC loved the 270 win ....

My Ruger boat paddle 270 will flatten primers, leave ejector marks, and stiffen the bolt with anything more than 58 grains of H4831. TTSX, BT, Accubonds, or Partitions. Best groups with Magpro and mag primers. Laoded some TTSX with Norma 204 yesterday, looks promising, need to chronograph.

That's a Ruger. JOC used the good stuff... ...It starts with a W and ends with a "pre 64"...

calikook: Get a Winchester.

Actually, a pal had one 270 like that...we sent it out and had the bore slugged. I'll spare you the details...

Not getting rid of the Ruger for any other brand, wouldn't trade it for a Winchester.

Maybe if I had a loose chamber and oversized bore I could pour more powder in it.

It seems to always come up short on max loads. Also cleans easy, stays sighted where I left it, and shoots 3/4 groups with most any combo. Some better, some worse.

I was pulling your leg.

When we have seen that happen it's usually a shorter than average throat (unlikely),or an undersized barrel (more likely I bet).


I have seen what you experienced very infrequently. That 270 I mentioned miked on the tight side (.276 IIRC). It was a McGowen barrel,and Harry measured it when my pal encountered what you have seen.

Other than that I can't recall a 270 that showed any signs of pressures with 60 gr H4831 with any of the bullets you mentioned.

Be interested in the velocities you are getting.

I had a batch of apparently soft Remington nickel plated .270 brass that showed pressure signs with Jack's load, while all the other brass I ever used over 40 years did not.

Loads with that brass would show ejector marks and the bolt was quite difficult to open. I pulled the bullets and weighed the powder charges and there was nothing out of order.

Here is Bradford O'Conners response to the myth, rumor, story or legend of the un-calibrated scale. Doesn't prove anything except I didn't make this up.

"Whether Dad's scales were off a bit, I cannot say. However. I have found that his load of 62 grains of 4831 way too hot with a 130 gr bullet in my .270.
Of course, the 4831 I use now is not exactly the same animal he used."

From the Firing line forum I believe.

WW II surplus 4831 was slower than the stuff we use today....even if just by a bit. JOC's favorite pair of 270's #1 and #2 were both pre 64 M70 Winchester factory tubes. IME pre 64 barrels seem to take somewhat heavier charges than many 270,s.In fact they behave very much like Krieger barrels. They had 4 lands and it is not unusual for pre 64 barrels to be slightly over sized in groove diameter.I know that, for example, my M70's always took slightly heavier charges and produced a bit more velocity than a friends Rem 700's, for example. He noticed the same things after shooting/loading together for many years.

In any event,a combination of factors can pile up in little ways to make a load perfectly OK in one rifle,a bit over the top in another.

I am pretty sure that if JOC noticed that his loads were a bit hot, he was astute enough to back them off to a safe level. He made the point of mentioning in his writings that he used that load all over the world without any trouble, including in such hot places as the Kalahari, the Sahara Desert,and India.

I recall a chat a couple years ago with Bradford O'Connor, Jack's son, and he mentioned that Jack's old #2 .270 showed too much pressure with the 62 grain load was too hot (Brad used the rifle to kill an antelope a few years ago) . I believe he used 60 grains of the newer powder.

"He made the point of mentioning in his writings that he used that load all over the world without any trouble, including in such hot places as the Kalahari, the Sahara Desert,and India."

One of the articles I have of JOC's says after mentioning the above that he used 62gr in Western cases and that required tapping the case as powder is put in. In Remington cases he considered 60gr max. He also says pressure tests by Winchester for that 62gr load showed less than 50K psi where as tests done by Remington for the same load gave a little over that.

Yeah....I didn't talk to Brad.I read what his father wrote.I also have shot a bunch of 270's (I only have three right now and all are pre 64 M70 FW's). Like any rifle /cartridge combo, max loads will vary for any number of reasons.


"....It drives many aficianados mad to see the same bullet weight and the same powder charge listed as giving different velocities in different loading manuals. No mystery-velocities vary with with different lots of the same powder, with the case and primer used,with the barrel length, the rifling twist,and with individual rifles.My son,for example,has a beautiful Burgess-Milliron Mauser which gives the same velocity with 60 grains of H4831 as I get in my pet rifle with 62......"; and

".....I have used 62 grains of old H4831 and various 130 grain bullets in some of the hottest places in the world-in the Sahara Desert, in the Kalahari desert (both in Africa),and on the burning plains of India north of New Delhi. Never have I had any trouble with pressure....";

and under "Jack's Favorite Loads"......"130 gr bullet of controlled expanding type with 60-62 grains of old H4831.......I have used more Nosler bullets in front of 62 grains of H4831 in W-W cases than anything else...."

Above quotes are by JOC himself in the 8th Edition of the Handloader's Digest, "Handloading for the 270" by Jack O'Connor.


I am continually fascinated by revisionist history, proffered 35 something years posthumously...entertaining, which is the only credit I would give it

Not sure where the revisionist history bit comes in, I'm just adding some modern context here. The newer H4831 being somewhat faster than the old, simply gave too much pressure in Jack's rifle with the newer stuff and was apparently fine with the older powder.

My own .270 experience began in 1974, and a boatload of .270s since, but that's hardly relevant either.

I seem to remember reading something about the �off scale� but didn�t give it much credence either, mostly because I used the 62.0/130 load in more than one of my .270�s with the mil-surp H4831. The first rifle was also my first .270, a Remington 700 ADL purchased in 1974, shortly before Hodgdon ran out of the old powder, and with the old-style Nosler Partition (with the �relief groove� around the position of the partition) the load got very good accuracy at about 3060 fps from the 22� barrel. Brass was Winchester and primers CCI 200.

In the late 80�s an older hunting/fishing writer I knew decided to give up big game hunting and gave me a few more pounds of the original H4831. By that time I had another Remington 700 .270, which also shot extremely well, and tried 62.0 grains with the 130-grain Hornady Spire Point, which develops less pressure than the Partition. Brass was Federal and the primer again the 200, and velocity was around 3025. The new-style, extruded 130 Partition with the same powder charge, case and primer got right around 3100 fps and grouped three shots under an inch.

One of the .270�s I have right now is a commemorative O�Connor Featherweight M70 from the batch of 2000 Winchester made a couple years ago. With 61.0 grains of H4831SC in Winchester case with WLR primers it shoots the 130 Hornady Spire Point into less than 3/4� at around 3050 fps. I am sure it would work fine with 62 grains, which would bring the muzzle velocity up to around 3100, but with 61 the Hornadys land in exactly the same place as 150 Partitions with 58.5 grains of H4831SC.

Am sure there are .270's that won't handle the load, but many will.

John I hate to admit it (not really but I have actually stuffed 62 of the "new" H4831 in WW cases with 130 gr Sierra's....just to see what happens, which was nothing but called off the experiment because I am a happy guy with anything from 3050-3100 fps with the 130's.

I have 50 rounds loaded for this year downstairs.....61 gr of the new stuff with those old 130 screw machine Partitions.They shoot good!


GF1 I may have misread your post which I took to mean that the load of 62 gr of the old (not the new) H4831 was too hot. I can see how some rifles would not like 62 gr of the new stuff, depending on the bullet.

The two most recent Hornady manuals list 62.0 grains of H4831 as maximum with 130-grain bullets. Since they were published in 2010 and 2012, the powder would have to be the most recent H4831. I should also note that Hodgdon says there�s no difference in results whether loading the �long-cut� version (which they still sell, when they have any powder to sell) or H4831SC. I have both on hand and can confirm that.

Lotsa crunch in that load, for sure....

Yeah, 62 grains of the long-granule powder is pretty crunchy! No problems with short-cut, though, at least in Winchester cases.

Actually, there's no problem with 64.0 grains of H1000 with the 130 Hornady either--another short-cut powder.

Figured as much, not going to get any hate PM's from me!
Not short throated, but can hit the lands with some at mag length(3.4ish+). I don't have a chrony, but have access to two, if I get around to it this winter I will load some more and get back to you. I have quite a few bullets that I can't hunt with anymore! (damn condors)