Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Weight of Jack O'Connor's favorite .270

From what I have gathered from Jack's writings, as well as talking with Brad O'Connor, Jack was often consulted by the gun and gear companies in the development of new equipment, cartridges, etc.

One example is when Winchester wanted to make a lighter magnum cartridge on the then new 'short magnum' case (458, 338 WM, etc). They consulted Jack and he told them to build a 7mm version. Winchester balked and said that the 7mm Mauser had never sold very well. They then ignored Jack's advice and created the 264 Win Mag. Jack told them it would not sell very well.

Later, Remington did what Winchester did not and created the 7mm Rem Mag. It was a giant success.

PSE,

Your belief that pre-'64 Model 70's were superior to today's factory rifles because of the "hand craft quality" is not shared by quite a few gunsmiths. In fact, I know more than one who has expressed some relief that the generation who believed the pre-64 was the greatest bolt-action hunting rifle ever is disappearing. Most of them prefer the post-64 "classic" action for building custom rifles to the pre-'64.

Pre-'64's had some virtues, including very good cut-rifled barrels, but the action itself was often comparatively imprecise compared to later rifles, partly because of the extensive machining required, and heat-treating that tended to warp the action slightly. The trigger and safety were improvements (especially for hunters) over many previous rifles, especially after Winchester modified the safety slightly to work better with scopes, but in the opinion of many knowledgeable rifle loonies, the rest of the M70 action was inferior to the 98 Mauser in several important ways, and not just in handling escaping gas.

By the 1950's the stocks were comparatively crude and clunky, and the checkering pretty sloppy. The Featherweight version, introduced in 1952, was an improvement, but was bedded completely wrong for consistent accuracy. It was originally touted as having a free-floated barrel, but in fact the barrel bedding was neither floated or firm (as it was in the standard M70, with the forend screw). Consequently many of the early reviews of pre-'64 Featherweights indicated they didn't shoot very well at all, but due to the prejudices of the day this was blamed on the slim barrels, even when custom stocks (like O'Connor's) resulted in much better accuracy from Featherweight barrel, due to better bedding.

All of this was partly why Remington started making inroads into the pre-'64 Model 70 Market, with their less expensive yet generally more accurate 721/722 rifles, which in 1962 eventually became the long and short-action 700's. Yes, the 700 had impressed checkering, and other cost-saving features, which traditionalists hated--but the impressed checkering was at least as good as the relatively sloppy hand-checkering that had been the general rule on Model 70's for several years. And in general 700's shot better out of the box.

Today, of course, we have far more options, including controlled-feed Rugers that, in the opinion of many hunters, are better than pre-64 M70's in several ways.

I was being a bit silly and you must not have read much Whelen stuff.

Chairman Mao loathed form over function.

Mr. Barsness's comments on the pre-64 M70 actions are interesting, although not surprising: as he said, its rather common today to find negative comments about them. But there are fewer and fewer folks, including writers, who have spent LOTS of time using them (both the rifles and actions). A couple of writers who apparently have used them extensively and speak very highly of them are Brian Pearce and perhaps Wayne Van Zwoll. I continue to use them extensively (both complete rifles and actions for customs) because I believe them to be superior in reliability and durability. Hunting in rough conditions and target shooting are 2 very different things. However, I had a rather interesting conversation a few years ago with Middleton Tompkins, the hi-power target shooter. I believe he won 6 national high power titles with pre-64 actioned target rifles. In our conversation, I asked him about how many rounds he thought some of the actions on his rifles had fired: he kind of laughed and said, "oh, a lot: maybe 50,000!" I then asked how many part failures he had experienced and he said "just one" an extractor collar. And he could chosen to use post-64 M70 actions, Remington, Savage and others, but chose the pre-64.

Its one thing to talk about theory, or what current custom builders and owners use, or about the superior accuracy of todays bolt rifles, but you can't deny the history of performance in the field or range with old M70s. Yes, I'm old, and probably stubborn when it comes to this, but just had to add my 2 cents.

Mr. B: I like and have benefited greatly from your writings. Thanks for sharing these pictures and stories from the O'Connor center. I'd like to visit it some day.

ruffed grouse,

Thanks for your 2 cents!

I have, by the way, owned and hunted with quite a few pre-'64's, though am down to only one right now, a Featherweight that left the factory in 1953, when the Featherweight was still only chambered in .308 Winchester. Apparently it's my favorite all the pre-64's I've owned.

But I also own a few post-64's, mostly with the "classic" action, but not always. Right now the exception is a stainless-synthetic .223 WSSM, the model with the "controlled push-feed" action." The others are Featherweight in .300 WSM--and a Jack O'Connor Commemorative.

I remember reading a piece several years ago that winchester reps had a pre production post 64 that they brought by for mr O'conner to review, before actual production began.. The person writing the article said that you could hear the howl down the hallway of where he was employed( maybe outdoor life). The wood to metal had a large gap and evidently was put together in a hurry. He raked the reps over the coals about that but there were several things other than that he saw. They left hurriedly.
According to the way he wrote i believe that he would still want craftsmanship to be high quality. Nice wood with no gaps and no problems with things being out of alignment. His rifles show that he loved extras like engravements and fine bluing.
Wish he was head of qc at remington today. We would not see the abominations that are produced on the remington and marlin lines.

John:

Did you get a chance to weigh Eleanor’s rifles? I’m curious about them as well.

Thanks.

No, they were in a different display case that didn't get opened.

I have a 1936 model 70 and a 1977. I find nothing to complain about with either one but the pre war has a much nicer trigger. And I have adjusted the post 64 all I could.

I favor pre64’s.

All out of the box actions with no accuracy modifications I'm sure.......




And that be the story of the day right there, truth be told.


I am thinking about this thread and if Jack O'Connor were to come back to us today, he be lost in the shuffle of today's richer rifle tech,bullets, powders, and scopes.

I do like his simplicity and nostalgia though.



IF that is the golden age, then we are in the diamond age.

Thanks all for the great thread. There is just something timeless about a well used steel and wood rifle of that era. Today, you can produce a laser cut fleur-de-lis checkered rifle with painted bottom metal, they look nice and shiny in the rack, but lack the aging characteristics of real steel and good simple walnut IMO.

I lost count of the centerfire rifles that have come through my hands, well over 50. The 3 Pre-64's (all 30-06's) needed nothing, no bedding, tweaking, etc. All shot sub-MOA and fed/extracted as they should. Maybe I've been fortunate but I will never be without one.

As a lifelong JO’Cophile, the speculation of his preferences were he practicing his craft today is quite interesting. Great discussions at the Jack O’Connor center event to that exact point. The #2 .270 at just a shade under 8# was no surprise to me - and it felt about that weight. What surprised me was that his pet 30-06 weighed 9# (the Griffin and Howe side mount no doubt was responsible for 6-8 oz of that weight, but it sure felt lighter than that).

As Chet has pointed out, Jack was at the front of innovation and forward thinking in his day and would likely take a significant sampler of all of today’s wares (even black guns).

I strongly suspect he would find the tactical stuff ghastly, would loath long range shooting as unethical and the current crop of sniper type rifles would likely give him a case of the vapors, as he used to say. But he would try them, be knowledgeable about them. I think he would still lean into finely crafted guns, including wood and blued steel.

And as to the discussion on Model 70s, I also suspect he’d favor the Classics. I also think he’d be quite keen on the Ruger Model 77 Hawkeye. And I’d not be surprised if he had one of today’s top drawer makers make him up a full blown custom job on today’s Model 77. I’m really working at this, but I just can’t see Jack in his beloved sheep country with a rifle made of stainless steel and petroleum products.

Just think what old Jack could learn from Big Stick

I don’t think that Jack would be against long range hunting in general, I believe that once took an elk at long range.

Right around 600 yards, as near as could be determined long before laser rangefinders.

Undoubtedly.

This is a highly interesting thread that will become a Campfire classic! Quite by accident, I became a JOC follower. Working at a church paper sale in the mid-'60's, one of the adults let me take home a stack of Outdoor Life magazines. The glossy paper wasn't acceptable for recycling. I read and re-read the adventures in those magazines dreaming of exploits myself. It didn't look too promising - coming from a non-hunting family. Within those magazines, JOC had his monthly hunting column which was the highlight of those magazines. So the .270 was always going to be my first cartridge when I could control my destiny.

As a senior myself, I'm wondering if anyone knows what JOC's age was when he last hunted?