Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Jack O'Conner/elk/270 win

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