I am presently working my way through a book about the life of Jack O'Conner. I read last evening that he killed 21 bull elk in his 50 career. 17 of the 21 were killed with the 270 win. Did not say what load he used. However, his Grizzly load with the 270 was a 150 gr nosler partition. We have better bullets today than JOC had access to so I would go on the line to say the 270 is a fine elk cartridge. given the opportunity however, I would take my 30-06 with 180 gr partitions. thanks but no "lubricated" bullets for me.

'Bob-

O'Connor did good work with his .270. When he describes his shot placement, it is almost always through the ribs behind the shoulder, no matter what the game. Had he been less patient and precise, and tried punching more than ribs, he may have had a different track record.

C&B

It is often stated (surmised?) that one of the reasons Jack and Elmer disagreed so much about small and fast versus big and slow was the way they hunted and the terrain they hunted in.

Jack hunted back in the days when a decent hunter could find elk grazing out peacefully in open alpine meadows. He could wait for a broadside shot. He also loved sheep hunting, another open country pursuit. He was also one hell of a good shot.

Elmer more often than not prowled the thick timber. He needed a bullet that would punch through an elk from any angle since he would have a short time to make the shot. Also, Elmer grew up shooting big black powder guns and I�m guessing just took a liking to what those big slugs would do.

That REALLY oversimplifies things, but is one of the things I�ve heard repeated a lot.

One thing mentioned in the book is that JOC lost his first elk. He shot it with the 270 and found it three days later, spoiled. Shortly thereafter, JOC built a 35 whelen for elk but there is no record of him shooting an elk with it. Again, 17 of 21 elk were shot with the 270.

In one of Jack's writings he says he soon discovered that going to the 35 whelen over his 270 was a mistake. He used the 06 quite a bit.
Prowl around used book stores and sites like Alibris.com to find Jack's works. Well worth the reading and gives a lot better insite than someone elses interpetations of what he wrote.

I am just starting to get around to JOC, I am reading a biography and will eventually get to some of his original stuff. Just finished Uhuru by Ruark, pretty strong stuff!

Another writer long gone that wrote alot of good stuff was Les Bowman.

Re: Ranch13's post -- Bowman had lots of experience to share and I appreciated his writing. Both O'Connor and Keith were favorites of mine as well. Bob Hagel is maybe the one I always read and re-read to make sure that I got everything down right. I actually greatly appreciate the work of most gunwriters and Ken Howell and John Barsness are among the finest I've ever read for honesty and intellectual integrity. It's a treat for me to read good stuff.

Actually, O'Connor's first elk was lost while he was using a .30-06 (I have several of his books and articles) and he did buy a .35 whelen as a result. O'Connor did later lose an elk gut shot with a .270 after his automobile accident. The Elk bedded down on another ridge and O'Connor's hunting partner ran ahead of him shooting at the animal with a revolver causing it to get up and run away. It should be noted that J'OC never said a .270 or 06 were "ideal" elk rounds, but that they were plenty adequate and that the average elk hunter is better off with a gun he can shoot well than one that scares him.

-Lou

Some things never change . . . . ..

BMT

If he, O'Connor were alive today, I wonder if he would have liked the Accubond or Interbond bullets in say a .270 WSM M70 Classic?
Do you think he would have ever gotten around to hunting with an Ackley?
I can't imagine someone who liked flat shooters and mild recoil as much as he did, not liking a .280 AI with an Accubond bullet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Interesting! It's all conjecture on my part, StrayDog, but I expect he would have appreciated those rounds. Whether he would have found them significantly more useful, though, is even more speculative, given the closeness in caliber (as in the .280 AI).

I sometimes wonder if many of us don't hold to a certain combination (caliber, bullet weight, velocity and so on) regarding the game we hunt simply because it has done so well and we wonder where the limits actually are, given its past and very successful performance. Rifles and cartridges become friends, in a way...

In view of the fact that Ackley and Occonor were in their hayday at the same time, and JOC makes little mention of them I think speaks for itself.
He did use the 7mm rem and the 300 wby some, and the 338 win mag.

As Ranch13 stated, it's quite unlikely JO'C would have been unaware of Ackley's work. What's more likely, in my opinion, is that O'Connor thought the improvements less necessary or vital to the hunter than the student of ballistics.

257Bob - read all the Ruark you can get ahold of. I've found it best not to try and figure out what he might be saying but rather to just listen to what he is actually saying. He knew his topics, especially when it came to politics.

.257Bob--Try "Something of Value"...makes Uhuru look tame. one of the best books ever written about Mau-Mau, IMHO.

I think O'Connor's elk were just poorly educated and didn't realize they needed something above .30 to kill them. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Steve NO, read something of value, uhuru, the old man and the boy - part one and two, horn of the hunter, use enough gun, and recently, a collection of his short stories. have gone through most of hemingways stuff too. liked "for whom the bell tolls" most but also enjoyed green hills of africa and others.

JOC also really like the 300 Weatherby but that probably had something to do with the fact that he liked Roy Weatherby also.

I have read another outdoor writer who surmised that in JOC's day, just a generation ago, the elk acted differently. That is, elk were actually found out in meadows and open areas during daylight much more frequently than now because the forty or fifty years or so since have brought about an exponential increase in hunting pressure. His reasoning thus went that this was more favorable to cartridges like the .270 where an animal could be watched, taken in the open away from the timber when the angle was right and watched as it fell, hitting it again as was necessary.
I don't know if this has any merit or not. Maybe Ranch13 or others can shed some light on this.

George

I don't believe the elk act that much different. They do get a lot more pressure before the rifle season opens now. ATV's and hikers all summer, depending on which area there's 30-45 days of constant bombardment of camo clad folks carrying the latest greatest archery gear , and which ever set of cow calls/ bugles/grunt tubes and cover scents available. Followed immediately by about 10-15 days of deer hunters.
Elk have always been somewhat shy, and hole up with much pressure. Back in the good ol days archery season was the 15 days preceeding the 1st day of season, and elk and deer season run the same time.
We also were told to stay the hell out of the elk country before season opened,and don't leave camp before you could see to shoot.
Now much of the advice leans to preseason scouting, using the latest greatest led lights to find your way after you leave the comfort of your vehicle hours legal shooting light.
Elk don't got headlights and they tend to notice people do.

Jack used the Western 139 grain open point for most of his hunting. He regarded this bullet highly.
Mike.

Another of Ruark's books was "The Honey Badger". The explanation of the title is priceless. The novel's title is taken from Alec Barr's own searing comment: "There is a brave little animal called the honey badger in Africa. It may be the meanest animal in the world. It kills for malice and for sport, and it does not go for the jugular - it goes straight for the groin. It has a hell of a lot in common with the modern American woman." I believe the book is about one of Ruark's ex-wives.

Paul

I will order the honey badger today.

I must admit that I know little about JOC and I am just beginning to scratch the surface, but one theme has come to mind while I am reading this current biography, JOC was hunting the country and having a general good time while our country was at war. Our boys were fighting for their lives on the Normandy coast while JOC was in BC hunting sheep. I do not know the dynamics of the day and what his juxtaposition was but it strikes me as a bit odd for the day and age.

His age was most likely the first thing, the second would of been his college professorship. Just a couple of thoughts.

Be aware that the Honey Badger is not really about African hunting, it is more about Ruark's life in NY as an author and journalist, and about the women in his life, and his decline into alcohol (as I recall; it has been awhile since I read it). As such, it is kind of depressing. It is not truly an autobiography, but the main character is clearly patterned after RR and his life.

Paul

I was very active in hunting & reading about hunting during Jack O'Connor's and Elmer Keith's hey-days... and have books by both men.

From everything I've read by them and other gun-writers of the day, I got the feeling that Jack O'Connor was a "loner"... and not very "approachable" or well-liked by a good many of his comtemporaries.

In contrast, I got the feeling Elmer Keith was an "old shoe" type of guy who never knew a "stranger"... a man of vast experience who was sure of what he thought, but who was VERY approachable and reasonably well-liked by those who knew and associated with him.

Of course, that doesn't take away or add to either man's abilities... and I got the distinct feeling from everything I read by and about BOTH men that they were BOTH excellent marksmen.

Yes, Jack O'Connor liked the .270 Winchester... and why not? He shot a lot of game with it and it performed well for him. But like others here have posted, he put that .277" bullet right where it would do the most good the vast majority of the time. When a hunter can do that, almost ANY "adequate" caliber will bring down even very large game.

Elmer Keith, on the other hand, was a "master handgunner" who also shot rifles. There's no doubt about it... he liked BIG, HEAVY bullets! I have a letter from him in which he stated that a good deer load was a .338 Win. Mag. using "a 270 grain Speer soft point bullet and of 75 grains of 4831"!

Would I take a .270 on a grizzly hunt? Would I hunt deer with a .338 Win. Mag. using a 270 grain bullet? My answer to both questions is a resounding "NO!"... but that doesn't mean that either "scenerio" wouldn't be successful, it's just that in my judgement, neither scenario is my "cup-of-tea".

This "O'Connor/Keith" controversy will undoubtly go on as long as these two famous gun-writers are remembered. And, for all of our benefits, let's hope it's "FOREVER". So let's all "kick back" and just ENJOY it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

I read a funny story about Jack. Seems he was standing in the aisle of a airplane with a drink in his hand shooting the breeze and a stewardess needed to get by. He sucked in his gut to give her room and since he had no butt his trousers dropped to the floor. I wouldn't have known where to put the drink while I hauled the drawers back up!
Mike.

I don't know the dynamics of the era either, but Jack would have been 40 or 41 at the time of general mobilization in 1942. I have no idea what percentage of men of that age were accepted as new recruits. (IIRC) Jack did serve in the Army briefly around the end of WW I. I've no idea if he fought or not. At age 16 or 17 I'd guess probably not.

JimF

It is little known that Jack actually worked for the OSS (Office of Strategic Services, forerunner to the CIA) during the WWII era and was sent on a years long mission into the Canadian and Northern American Rockies to infiltrate the Canadian Nazi Sheep Bund. Part of his covert mission was to assassinate several highly placed and senior members of this sinister organization.

They also serve who only sit and glass.

THAT...............was good!!!

JimF

I don't have my books at hand, but I believe O'Connor was in the Navy either during WWI and/or shortly thereafter. There is a chapter from one of his short stories in his last book which drew from his naval experience. He also mentioned his naval service in another book or two.

O'Connor was a bit old for WWII. Seems like I remember him writing that Outdoor Life sent him to BC as they thought the story would appeal to those away from home and fighting overseas. I would strongly recommend getting ahold of his last book which was published shortly after his death. I have a copy at home and believe it is titled "The Last Book" appropriately enough. This contains a lot of great stuff including a lot of "no holds barred" O'Connor where he didn't sugarcoat his views on anything.

I still love to read both O'Connor's and Keith's writings. I have always regretted never meeting either one of them. I always pictured Keith as a very outgoing friendly type, and O'Connor more of a better educated loner short.

I am not sure what we are debating here, JOC or the 270/elk connection??!!
The premise that elk were more tame in that era seems mighty iffy in my mind. One, the elk numbers aren't NEAR what they are today. Two, my mother has told me countless stories of her family (and many others) where they got low on meat and they went and shot big game virtually to survive, and it didn't matter what time of year. She even told me of a story about the local game warden waving over their family car just to have a chat (he and my grandad were great friends) while her and her sister sat on top of a deer covered by an old blanket. She said he kept glancing in the back, and as they left he simply looked back, smiled, nodded and winked. I am telling you, they were poor!
So, I can't imagine that elk just lazed around until hunting season back then!!

Don't forget, JOC also had 2 338's built!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

JMHO

Huntr

Hunters have been claiming that "modern" game was wilder and hence needed more powerful, flatter-shooting rifles ever since the first rifle was built. Teddy Roosevelt made the same claim about mule deer when he was ranching in North Dakota in the 1880's. His solution was a .45-75 rather than that antiquated .44-40.

I suspect we all like to think it's tougher "today" than "yesterday."

MD

Excellent point! I always wonder why Mule Deer don't stop anymore before going over the ridge or Elk don't stand out in the open anymore like they used to in Grandpa's day. Actually, I guess it's great-Grandpa's day at this point since I have books dating back to the 50s that make the same point... All of the other critters we hunt seem to behave the same as back then, though there are more or less of them depending on your poison.

On another note, this thread has perfect timing. I haven't had the opportuntiy to shoot much other than paper lately. Not hunting has me a little depressed and the thread gave the perfect opportunity to go back and reread some old J'OC work. I've started on "The Best Of Jack O'Connor's". After re-reading some of the articles, I have no doubt why Jack is the legend he is today. Reading one of Jack's articles is the next best thing to being there.

-Lou

I don't think its much tougher elk hunting than it used to be, its just that now instead of watching the big meadows for them to be grazing out in them or just on the timbers edge, its more like the 3rd day of the season used to be on opening day. They hang a bit further back in the timber, using the heavier cover more, and drinking less at the big ponds and more in the little seeps that are more secluded. Still ripe territory for most any centefire cartridge if you know how to shoot.

JimID, LMAO!!!

Regarding the 270, I'm absolutely confident I could sucessfully hunt for the rest of my life with one and kill anything cleanly (including grzzlies) in NA.

Amen Brad. The prevailing view of JOC and the .270 is somewhat of a misnomer. He wasn't a caliber "crank" like many writers and shooters today. Most hunters of that era didn't look at rifles like golfers do clubs, having to have a different caliber for every day of the week. JOC preached bullet placement and construction as being more critical than caliber within reason. He shot more game with a .270 not because he necessarily considered it head and shoulders better than other cartridges but becuase he had a couple really nice rifles chambered in it and he knew that with a properly placed shot it just worked. Nothing has really changed about that from what I can see.

Jeff

One of the things most people that haven't read JOC's stuff miss is when he talks about his first grizzly with the 270, he flat out says it wasn't the gun he had in mind to shoot the grizz with, but it was the one he had in hand when the shot presented itself.

JOC spent a lot of time with the 7x57, 270, 30-06 and a bit with the 300 weatherby, excluding the bigger stuff he used in Africa. He may have used the 06 and 7x57 combined as much as he used the 270.

Mr. O'Conners views and opinions are pretty much as valid today as they were in his day. When you consider all the hunting he did in North America prior to WWII which I consider pre magnum craze, the .270 and .30-06 were the "magnums" of that era. In reading his earlier stuff you will note that he mentions that many bullets were not properly constructed for the then new high velocity calibers. They tended to be either to tough or to fragile. After WWII or what I consider the dawn of the magnum craze, more understanding was reached in reguards to bullets that would perform properly at high velocity, and JOC mentions quite a few that performed admirably for him. He freely admits being very fond of the .270 and his writings also stress that with proper bullet selection and shot placement that it is well suited to large North American game animals. He also mentions being very fond of the then new "short" magnums i.e. the .264, .338, .458 win. mags. and the 7mm rem mag. He writes that these are some great big game cartridges, but also stress that they still do not make up for proper bullet selection or shot placement. I do not know if this helps to answer your question but what I have gathered from reading Jack O' Conner is that proper bullets and shot placement are more criticle than caliber. And for the most part I agree, but I have my own opinions also.
Good luck and good hunting, Rob

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="" />

.257Bob,
remember, that quote of JOC may be is Carmichaels slightly slanted version of what JOC really said. Carmichael is an outspoken 7mm buff so to say.

In "The Hunting Rifle" JOC states on pp79: Quote:The 2 cases have almost identical powder capacity, the same shoulder slope, use the same powders. What one will do, the other will do.End quote.

The .280 in theory at least, is a tad more versatile then the .270, since you can load it with 175 grain on the shelf bullets and the .270 "only"with 160 grainers. Moose/Elk do not know the difference whether you shot it with 175 or 160 grain Nosler partitions so to say. 150 Nosler partitions are plenty for either species anyway.

shrike, I can not find anything to debate with your last comment. I guess I like the 270 'cause it's made in the USA, what I mean by that is that it is a true 7mm, not the 7mm as measured in europe by measuring from lan to lan, not the actual bullet diameter. the 7mm is 7mm + the groove depth. this is starting to not make sense to me either

I remember that comment of Carmichel's. As I recall it, JOC's comment was "It's a better caliber," rather than "much superior." Minor difference in language, perhaps, but more in keeping with his oft repeated statements regarding how minor the differences in the chamberings were.