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

Some very interesting assumptions in this thread.

Fluting only on the shooting hand side of the comb?

I guess so.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/jack-oconnors-perfect-model-70/

I'd have to agree.


Jerry

hmmm, I can nominate one !!



Jerry

His last big game hunt was in 1977; Chet was right, he was 75. That hunt was for antelope and whitetails in Eastern Montana, and he hunted with son Bradford, guided by Jack Acheson.

Bradford also told me, “And I am pretty sure he popped a few pheasants with Hank Kaufman the fall before he died.” That would have been the same fall, 1977.

Beg to differ. Its a helluva round and will do what you need it to do.

The story of the Last Hunt for Jack O'Connor in the Fall of 1977 for antelope and whitetails was published in the March, 1988 issue of Outdoor Life. Also, reprinted on page 19 of Jack Atcheson's book Hunting Adventures Worldwide.
Here is my pic with the O'Connor #2 270 with Bradford and 2 really nice Dall rams!
http://www.classicsportingarms.com/bradford-oconnor-and-the-jack-oconnor-heritage-center/

At that age I expect he enjoyed that hunt more than huffing through the mountains of Alberta above timberline, I know I would. I remember even as a young man he enjoyed hunting antelope in Arizona, and E. Montana is some pretty country.

Great thread, I planned on visiting the center someday.
Jack was a sheep hunter and sheep hunters are hit by a different hammer, they see everything through a big rams eyes( I have the same affliction)
The .270 wcf was the most ideal chambering for North American wild sheep in those days and is one of the best these days. Sheep rifle's are light
and compact and should be capable on bull elk if needed. Long shots are not risked , ordinarily. It is reprehensible to not making a killing shot when the big old bugger finally stands up to take a leak or something.
A 4x scope is still suffice because the ram is assessed with a spotting scope. Mine is a 2x7.
Hard to know what Jack would use these days, he didn't use any of the 6.5's in the old days.
The rifle would be water/ weather resistant, have a 22" tube and capabilities of a .270, .280 or a 30/06, imo.Back to the future.Cheers

I just re-read this old thread that was linked from another. I don't know if MD will see this, but I believe he has one of the O'Connor commemoratives, and am wondering what it weighs (with whatever scope he has on it now) compared to the No 2 that he weighed at the beginning of this thread.

John,

Question on the two JOC rifles. The 270 and the 30-06. What are their stock dimensions? Meaning comb drop, and any cast of any type? Or just at the heal or toe?

Also, on the Mauser 30-06. What is the safety? Is it some type of custom Mauser flag safety replacement, or just a Beuhler flag type replacement?

Thanks guys for all of the pictures.

Great old thread. I grew up reading JOC and my first store-bought big game rifle (in 1973) was a tang ruger m77 in 270win. These days I have a m70 super grade (2009 FN built) also in 270win. Superbly accurate but weighs 9lbs scoped (leupold vx2 3-9x40) and loaded.

Oh Wow!
I just got home from a sage grouse hunt and ran across this thread...Very cool!!

Many years ago the O'Connor display was at our local sportsmans show and I was working with the fellows that had control of it. They asked me (a huge O'Connor fan) if I'd like to check out his .270....damned right I would!



It's certainly a beautiful rifle. It's length of pull is a bit long for me, but otherwise it felt absolutely superb in the hand. I could definitely hunt it. I was surprised to see how exotic the grip cap and the butt plate were. I imagined that Jack, was a bit more conservative than that.

Jack, and the 6.5 Creedmoor.... I think he would have seen it as a "better Bob (257)" and used it enthusiastically.

Mike,

My O'Connor Commemorative has a 6x33 Leupold Compact in Talley Lightweights, and weighs 8 pounds on the nose.

Swarf,

I have no idea about the stock dimensions on the O'Connor .270 and .30-06, as we did not measure them. But they're pretty much straight classic type stocks, and I would imagine the O'Connor Commemorative's stock would have similar dimensions, since his son Brad had some input on the rifle. If I have time will try to post photos of all three.

My two favorite authors when I first started reading gun magazines back in the 60's were Elmer Kieth and Jack O"Connor. Back then it seems articles were written differently and had cooler pictures. My first store bought rifle was a 270, I would have gotten a model 70 pushfeed but in 1972 they were fugly and cost more than the Remington 700 BDL I did buy. I shot the barrel out on that 700 in four years on jackrabbits, coyotes with more than a few Mule deer and a couple Elk. Funny how back then I never even considered that you could shoot a barrel out. I can say the articles written by those two made my early life a better place. Virtually every round fired through that 700 was a case full of H4831 and a 130 grain Speer.

JB and Chet, thanks for the pictures and info, what a fun thread. When it comes to BG rifle weight mine are all within a few oz. of 8 lbs. maybe not light by today's standards but I always felt that was about right for most cartridges, glad to hear I'm in good company!

Jack O'conner came from a time when Outdoor writers had to "walk the walk to write the talk"....in the last several decades all one needs is to write the walk.

I asked the late Art Carter the editor of sporting Classics magazine about a writer that wrote fluently about Turkey hunting his answer was "he's a good writer".

Jack O'conner could walk the walk.

One thing I find interesting about those rifles (the 30/06 Mauser and 270 Winchester) is the stock design and execution on two rifles which were probably made about 25 years apart, and the comparison to custom, or factory, stocks of today.
On the 30/06, you'll notice the contours are rounded and the stock lacks the crisp lines and detail one sees on today's modern classic. The 270 is starting to show a little more definition, like that at the ejection port. I think both of those rifles are stock by Biesen but not certain. Anyway, the rounded edges and molded appearance look different than the sharp edges and severely straight lines which are common today. There are some practical reason to make them that way too. Rounded edges are not as susceptible to damage and the finish doesn't wear through. A rounded bottom on the stock makes the rifle more comfortable to carry in your hand.
American rifles of that era had fairly long forearms. The forearm was usually about 1/2 the length of the barrel ahead of the receiver or even a little longer. A nice length for shooting prone with a sling. Today, most are a little shorter
I like these stocks and, when I make one, for myself, I like to make them a bit like these but with a little less forearm.
On the 270 and gunwriters: The first 270 to leave the factory was a model 54 which was sent to the gun writer at Outdoor Life at the time, Ashley Haines, in Salmon Arm B.C. I saw this rifle when the great-nephew, who had inherited it, brought it in to see about getting a scope mounted on it. I declined the job. I wish I could find a copy of Haines' article about the new rifle. GD