Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Who would build O'Connor's rifle?

At the Boise gun show last week they had his two favorite rifles, #1 and # 2. He liked the first one so well he had another one built and it quickly became his favorite of the two. They were still all original and had the original scopes. Lots of hunting scars on them, they were well used. Man, did I drool over them. Jack O'connor is the reason I own and shoot a .270. They also had a brand new replica of #2, built recently by the Beisen shop. They built it as close to the original #2 as possible, Beisen's son and grand daughter did the work. It's being raffled off with benefits to go to the museum in Lewiston. One of the originals is owned by his son, Bradford and the other by the museum. If I were going to have an O'Connor replica built, the Beisen shop would do it.

BRoper.

Just for the sake of accuracy, the number 2 rifle is owned by Brad O'Connor and is on loan to the museum in Lewiston. The number 1 rifle is owned by Henry Kaufman, one of Jack and Eleanor's best friends during the last twenty or so years of their lives.. I was just in Lewiston about three weeks ago, and had the opportunity to photograph the two rifles together. Believe me, I did some drooling as well.

TT

Every now and then an Al Beisen rifle pops up for sale somewhere. Every one is claimed to be Jack O'Connor inspired. This one sits in a Denver gunshop with a hefty(!) price tag but does feel great in the hands.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/90455242...chester_Model_70_By_Al_Biesen_280rem.htm

Were Cactus Jack to order one today, it would be from the House of Biesen.

Gotta love it, $7600 and a 1-line description.

I do remember his first favorite 270 on a Mauser action was by "Ol' Scratch" Al Linden;IIRC he retired that rifle after 5 barrels went on it....then there was the Springfield 30/06 stocked by Minar....and the 375H&H by G&H that he gave to John Kingsley-Heath...

His 416 Rigby was not a Biesen rifle if I recall correctly....course Russ leonard did Eleanor's 7x57;and Len Brownell did her 30/06. So he used a lot of different makers at one point or another.

I don't really know who owns the rifles but the rep from the museum was there and he's the one that told me that his son owned one and the museum the other. And he did say the one his son owns is on loan to the museum. Not disputing anyone, just stating what I was told.

Well you have to take the worth of the money JC spent on his rifles and make and adjustment to something called inflation and My guess is that what he paid is close to some of the prices from the good smiths today. My guess JC would be making a bit more money today too. While some may think that putting 10,000 dollars or a tad more into one of Echols legends is a bit much, look at what we are paying for cars these days, and in ten years the car will be ready for the scrap yard and you will dam near get every penny back on the Echols rifle. My guess is that JC would have the same guys or there sons or daughters craft said rifle. Then again JC would be well over a 100 years old now, to have JC born in another era of time, would not make the writing of his what it was and became.

According to recent calulations, inflation has increased costs about 7 times since 1960. Back then a complete custom rifle (not just a stock job) could be had for $1000, or even less.

Just for the heck of it let's say Jack O'Connor paid full price for his custom rifles, and they were complete jobs, not just restocking. That would mean he'd pay $7000 or less today.

A complete Echols walnut-stocked rifle is at least $20,000 today. The prices from other top makers might not be quite so high, but they are well over $7000 for a complete rifle. The reason is that owning such custom rifles is now an "in thing" among very wealthy people, even more so than in O'Connor's day.

And, as I noted in a previous post on this thread, much more is demanded of such a rifle these days--not so much in terms of accuracy but details. O'Connor's Model 70's still had the factory floorplates, but no top maker puts together a rifle with a clunky old factory floorplates today. Instead they use custom bottom metal that costs at least $500, and that's before the gunsmith works it over for a day to get it just so.

O'Connor's rifle also often used the factory barrel. That would be a complete no-no today, and a top barrel job would add another $600 or so.

Add up all the other details, plus the increased cost of good walnut (which has also risen faster than inflation), AND the price of just pre-turning the walnut. The mere parts and pre-work for a top custom rifle can easily add up to $5000 before the real work starts.

Also, while O'Connor reported that he got 25% off from Biesen, he also got bigger discounts and even free work from others. This is part of being a big-name gun writer.

Finally, the gun writing business doesn't pay as well as it did in O'Connor's day. There were relatively few gun writers back then, with less competition. I doubt he would make any more money than he did then, and maybe not as much.

Yes, he was a good writer, and he had the very top job in the business, and there isn't any such thing today. And even when he was forced to retire from Outdoor Life he was getting paid only a little more than what my father was making as a college professor at about the same time--and college professors don't make a vast living.

Outdoor Life pasid for many of his hunts, but that is almost unknown today. O'Connor did made extra money from his books, sometimes quite a bit. But selling as many books as he did would be impossible today, partly because of increased competition, and partly because very few hunters and shooters read books. In fact the shooting/hunting book business kind of sucks.

So I doubt very much that Jack O'Connor would be commissioning a $20,000 rifle very often today.

There goes Mule Deer again... He apparently can't make a point by name calling, character assasination, setting up straw men, ad hominem attacks, so he has to stoop to the dastardly practice of using well researched facts, different points of view and correct english to make his point....

Royce,

Good point but why the sarcasm? We hope your day gets better.

Idaho guy
Didn't mean that to come across as sarcastic, and I apologize if it did-
The point that was floating across my mind was that during these two threads about O'Connor and many other threads, there is a lot heat and not much light, and that in this thread John not only made a good point, he made it very well. A lot of thought went into that post, and I was trying to contrast the difference between that post with a lot of thought and the posts that try to assert that someones person preferences in riflery should be every other persons personal preferences also.- So, again, if my post offended anyone. my apologies- it was meant as a long winded way of saying "good post!"

Fred

I think JOC would be happy to have a stock from Paul Dressel.

Royce,

Apology accepted! I get bored whenever the Jack O'Connor versus Elmer Keith article or dicussion is resurrected. I think it disrespectful to put whatever words the writer assumes that either of the late writers would say regarding things four decades after there both gone.

JB, thanks again for another incredible post...

Idahoguy
Thanks for speaking up, or I wouldmn't have realized how those quickly posted remarks of mine could be interpeted. I wanted to acknowledge the work Mule Deer had put in the post, and that obviously wasn't the effect.
I try to stay on the high road with my posts, even though I don't always suceed.

Fred

Jack got a LOT of perks in the form of some really high dollar hunts, guns, and whatever with some sho nuff billionaire playboys. The arms companies loved the guy and he ruled IMO..

They paid big bucks just to hunt with him, but he made his bones and those hunts were earned by years of hard work..Same for Elmer Keith, they starved before they made the big time and got the invitations and other perks..

Back then we lived in a free society where hard work put you on top of the heap and you reaped what you sewed..That is as it should be..Not so in today changing society wherein we tend to reward failure and look down on success..I see many posts on the internet condeming writers for taking advantage of free hunts, and those posters are nothing more than jealous, and for the most part too damn lazy to work..So much the shame.

The same applies to my business, if I do a good job of promoting a Safari company I will get free hunts and you can bet I took everyone offered, today I am about 30 invitations behind, and seldom even take them up on it. All this came from hard work..

You hear that gunwriters are bullet pimps, rifle pimps, and do write ups on guns only if they get a freeby in the deal..Not that simple, first they must have earned that reputation, and the vast majority of them that I know would not recommend a rifle, bullet or whatever unless they truly believed it was a good buy.

I will always remember the Western artist who was talking to a man about a beautiful painting. The guy said how in the hell can you justify $20,000 for a painting that it took you a week to paint. The old cowboy looked at the guy and said he wouldn't charge anyone $20,000 for a painting it took a week to paint, but he had no problem with the painting in question as it took him a lifetime to do it! That is how D'Arcy gets $20,000 per gun..He didn't get squat for the first 20 years.

O'Connor wrote in a style that shared his experiences so the reader felt a friendship and as a friend has ideas about his likes and dislikes and I don't see anything disrespectful about sharing what we feel a friend would like!

Ha! I resemble that remark. The water is sweet when the faucet finally turns on though....

I'll throw a monkey wrench in the works.......

Considering the comments on JOC's appreciation of a "deal", MD's comments on several rifles having factory barreled actions, etc.. ..factor in the tremendous change in the atmosphere that now requires a "light" rifle be VERY "light", much more so that in the ancient days of Mr. O'Connor .... My premise is that Mr. O'Connor may have thrown all of the other rifles out and gone with the new 84L ...270 of course...unless they make it in a .280