So as not to hi jack another thread about JOC, I believe Jack's interests went more to finely crafted rifles than nit picking about ballistics.
My question is, who are some of the craftsmen in today's rifle building world that are capable of building his bolt action 270 and mounting his four power scope to his satisfaction?

Fred

Jerry Fisher

The same shop that built most of them to begin with..Al and Roger Biesen's shop in Spokane, Washington.

Their stock styling still the same. They have made several fancy engraved O'Commor rifle "replica rifles" for the O'Connor museum fundraising.

They could build an unengraved model that looked nearly ientical to Jack's old rifles.

The question is could you afford the $4,000+ dollars required to duplicate them..

That's interesting- Could think of worse ways to spend $4000 on a rifle. (This is from a guy that has been buying Tikkas lately...)

Fred

Lets see...

8 pieces of Finnish Tupperware that goes bang in exchange for one pre 64 Featherweight Winchester in 270 stocked in English walnut by a Beisen just as J.C. would have done it....

Hmmm..

Since I can only shoot one rifle at a time, if I had the extra $4,000 laying around, I would go with the Biesen..

Or maybbe TWO pieces of Finnish Tupperware and lots of hunting trips!

man there ar so manu good rifle makers now but i would contact roger bieson hid ada al built the riffle you want to reproduce and al is still kicking but as i understand it he had had a stroke and not working now. Roger supplies a lot of quality partsto the builder in the guild and there are a heck of a lot of really good smith working today in the guild but the best of the best have got out of the guild because they have all the business they can cover now but jerry fischer would sure be a good choice or duane weibe also

D'Arcy Echols

I agree with Huntr - D'Arcy Echols. Quality and classic craftsmanship.

+1 on Biesen's shop.

No doubt there are a number of top shelf builders that are qualified, but in this case there is only one that should do it. It just would not be the same without the Biesen style.

Remember- Jack had several custom rifles from different builders- I think he's take advantage of the best talent out there and have a few rifles, at least, from what he would think are the best builders. I am betting he's have at least one from Echols and his Biesen rifles. And a few more from some of the newere talent. I am just wondering besides Echols and Biesen, who else is in that class today.

fred

Steven Dodd Highes, if you are patient.

At $4000 a pop, it wouldn't be old Jack that I'd be satisfying. Would be me as at this point in time, it really wouldn't take to much to satisfy old Jack

Jack pretty much had his guns built by Jerry Fisher and Al Biesen, thats where he got the best deal..Jack had his own ideas about what a stock should look like, and although I would take issure with some of his ideas they were all good and they worked for him..He was an outstanding rifle shot. He hunted on my families ranch when he was a professor at Sul Ross U in Alpine, Texas. I guess he was instramental in my love of guns and hunting. His rifles were the first custom rifles I shot and also the first bolt actions I had shot. One of them was a Tom Shellhammer and the other was a Fisher I think.He humored me with lots of mail and gun discussions in my youth..He was pretty much my hero growing up, but he got in trouble with the Baptists on an article he wrote in the paper and they ran him out of town and back to his beloved Idaho much to my concern. I started going to the Methodist church after that as I recall.

What kind of trouble?

As I recall, it was because one of the characters in his first novel called another one an SOB.

wpsuth,

I know Steve Hughes very well and can't ever recalling him stocking a bolt-action centerfire, though he may have done a .22 or two. Steve made a conscious decision when starting out NOT to do bolt actions, and it would surprise me very much if he's changed his mind.

From my understanding of Jack O'Connor (and I have read most of his printed works but many of his private letters that have been published since his death) he would probably come down with a case of "the vapors" if he knew that some stockmakers were charging well over $10,000 for a walnut stock. He got a discount from most of the stock makers he used, and in those days even the top ones weren't charging anything like they are today, even considering inflation.

In fact I suspect he would be astonished at how things have changed since his day. Now you can't even make a commercial 98 or pre-64 into a custom rifle without putting several hundred bucks worth of custom bottom metal on it, plus hand-made 2-screw sling-swivel studs, a new bolt handle and other useless doodads.

O'Connor grew up when times were tough and despite liking really nice guns he always looked for a bargain, one reason he was among the first gun writers to buy top Spanish shotguns, rather than paying through the nose for English guns.

Its been my understanding that JO was a frugal man. There's lots a capable stockmen out there able to turn out a Beison duplicate that would meet his approval without heading straight to the top of the $$$$$$$ heap.

Might be fun to be able to buy a JO replica at a fair price but the 270 fwt thats been in my safe for over 50 years may get jealous.

Ray,

You may be correct, but in all my reading of Jack O'Connor material, plus all the conversations I've had with a number of people that knew him very well, including many conversations with "Buck" Buckner, O'Connor's unofficial biographer and the owner of many of Jack's former rifles and much of his personal records, I've never come across any reference to him owning a rifle made by either Jerry Fisher or Tom Shelhamer. His biography, written by Bob Anderson, contains a section on Jack's favorite guns written by "Buck" Buckner. There is no mention of a rifle by either Fisher or Shelhamer. While it is not a complete listing, it does contain info on most of his favorites. No doubt Jack owned a lot of rifles in his life, but I doubt that he would not have mentioned rifles made by prominent makers like Fisher and Shelhamer. Most of his rifles were made by Al Biesen, by far. O'Connor has written numerous times that Biesen gave him a 25% discount, the same as he gave gunshops that ordered Biesen work.

Tom

Simillion and D'Arcy and on a more cost effective route Chic


Dober

JB,

I loved that letter that Jack O'connor wrote about Elmer getting a severe case of the vapors if he knew what Eleanor had shot with her 7mm Mauser. Classic!!


ddj

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

JB,
Like the point of factory barrels in J O'C's rifles.

I think today's shooters have it pretty good. It is no longer rare to find a factory rifle that will put 3 shots into a nice neat 1/2 inch triangle.

There is more emphasis on bedding and barrel floating. The triggers have improved. Scopes are infinitely better than J O'C's day and the bullets are more concentric with yaw virtually eliminated from bi-metal projectiles. Even the powder is the best selection in history.

We are too critical and have it better than our forebears.

Jack only just missed out by a few short years, on the reintroduction of the Model Fetherweights. He may have got a customer shop version to upgrade the wood, but I quite like the rifles of today and have no interest in custom rifles.

Rather spend the dough on hunting, which is very limited in a regulated society.

JW

Winston Elrod for Model 70 ftw. in 270. Everything would be slimmed and stretched the way that he liked.

Todd Johnson for the model 98 mausers like he liked just as well as the Model 70s. The 98s would be American classic style as well but a bit heavier than the winchesters. They still would be elegant.

Both smiths are extremely good and probably not as well recognized by many people out there. Jack was great at finding talent.

Sincerely,
Thomas

There is a guy in Cornelius N.C. that built one for him years ago. His last name is Stuckbauer and he is still building really nice guns!

Fred Wells built rifles for Jack O Conner, he is missed also.

Mule Deer,

Excellent post as usual, but as I'm sure you know, many things were a lot different back when O'Connor was in his prime. For example, the custom 7x57 that he commissioned (pics in the O'Connor sheep rifle thread) that later became his wife's favorite was made from a Czech CZ-24, because back then it was still cost effective to modify a surplus military Mauser.

Although custom bottom metal was not for sale from Brownells back then, he often had it customized. For example, the bottom metal on that Mauser was modified, with the stock floorplate being hinged and a quick release button being built into the trigger guard. IIRC, he also had a quick release button built into the trigger guard (similar to the design on the Oberndorf Mausers and modern custom bottom metal) on a number of his M70s and FN Mausers as well, different from the stock floorplate releases.


He also did have custom barrels in some of his guns, I believe a number were made by Sukalle, and some of the stock barrels he used on his M70s were "turned down" to lighten them, so they were "customized" if not custom.

I suspect that, like many handmade things, the cost to do the same thing today compared to then significantly exceeds inflation.

StrayDog,

First, let me apologize I offended you.

Back in 1975 as a lad on 18 I was in Navy basic training. This being prior to military political correctness. We we're taught that to ASSUME would make an ASS of U and ME. So I am careful about what a writer who died 35 plus years ago might think of todays new rifles and new cartridges.

I don't know what Jack O'Connor would have to say about the Browning A Bolt II rifle or the 270 WSM cartridge. Ray Atkinson knew Jack as a mentor and family friend. The rest of us are assuming or guessing.

So I am going to agree to disagree with your reasoning. But that's just my own opinion...

a/k/a MK Benenson. Minor correction to BobinNH's post, the .375 that JOC gave to John Kingsley Heath was not a G&H, it was a standard grade prewar M70. I know because I bought it at auction in the UK when JKH sold it, and imported it to the US. It did have a G&H installed scope base which had been cut down to just over the stock line and a Redfield Jr. mount put on top. The quality of finish on the rifle was superb, even though it was a standard grade. I took it to Alaska for griz but did not get a shot, and sold it to an O'Connor fan.

I actually wonder if in this day and age O'Connor would be happy to buy a Cooper Custom Classic in .270 and just go hunting. Custom rifle are getting quite expensive and for a fairly reasonable price Cooper makes an excellent quality rifle that is beautiful and accurate.

Jlin222,

Yep, it was probably standard procedure in those days to just modify the bottom metal that came with an action. I have even seen very nice custom rifles on military 98's from the 1960's that didn't even have the floorplate hinged--though it was welded up here and there (especially the holes for the extra locking screws) and the trigger guard streamlined.

In fact one of the reasons (among several) that the 1903 Springfield was consideed before WWII a superior action to military 98's for custom conversion was the more graceful bottom metal--one reason many of Jack O'Connor's early custom sporters were on 1903 actions. In my collection of sporting rifles is a 1903 sporter made by Frank Pachmayr in the 1930's, and the bottom metal is straight out of the Springfield Armory.

As far as who would build Jack's rifles today, and the style he liked, I think they would be in the classic style he preferred, and also in one of the classic cartridges.

We have a saying, "Class never goes out of style," and a rifle built today to Jack's specs. and by one of his favorite rifle smiths would have just as much class today as it had back when he was actively writing and hunting.

It would cost more, but it would still be a work of art and a thing of beauty.

To repeat what I said earlier, I think O'Connor would do just as he used to do, that is, use various rifles in different calibers to hunt with, many made by the best craftsmen. I should have said "rifles" in my heading, not the singular "rifle".
I think he'd try some of the new stuff and hold onto the classic stuff.
An example of his ecclectic taste in rifles is when he related the story of driving somewhere along the Montana/Idaho border and seeing a wolf. As I remember, he shot the wolf with a slide action Remington in 25/20. It's been many years sin ce I read that story, so forgive me and correct me if I made mistakes in repeating it.

Fred

idahoguy101,

There is a difference between assuming and/or guessing and basing an opinion on some knowledge of the subject--and I don't mean knowing Jack O'Connor personally.

The opinions I have stated here are based not just on reading most of what Jack O'Connor wrote (I have a collection of O'Connor books that takes up about 18" of space on one of my bookshelves, and miscellaneous other writings by and about him) but a bunch of other books and magazines from the same era.

You do not have to know a writer personally to make some reasonable deductions about what he would think of, say, synthetic stocks or the .280 Ackley Improved. His opinions are there, in print. Perhaps they are not specifically about some of the things available today, but they don't have to be.

To me, the most astonishing thing on this thread is how many people apparently think that most rifle history began in the year 2000--and hence there wasn't any cartridge flatter shooting than the .270 Winchester when O'Connor was hunting.

The other strange assumption is that because O'Connor liked a flat-shooting round such as the .270, he would automatically prefer one that was even flatter-shooting. This must arise from the common notion that more is always better.

But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, if O'Connor had wanted to do most of his hunting with a faster, flatter .270 or 7mm round, he would have done so, since the .270 Weatherby and 7mm Remington Magnum were both popular and available, especially the Remington.

I also kind of doubt that he would have been satisfied with a factory rifle like the Kimber 84 or Cooper. After all, the original Winchester Model 70 Featherweight was very much a result of O'Connor's writings, but he wasn't satisfied to hunt with a Featherweight unless it had been restocked and otherwise remodeled.

These are not just assumptions, such as assuming that O'Connor would have loved the .270 WSM because it is "better" than the .270 Winchester. They are reasonable deductions gleaned from reading most of his writing, often over and over again.

Idahoguy,
I can agree to disagree. I went through basic training a full decade earlier, so I have had longer to unwind, we've already served and the rigidity of some of the black and white rules can now fade into gray areas so we can have a little fun.
O'Connor wrote in a style of teaching how and why he favored certain equipment, and after some of us absorbed so much of it, it is fun to speculate about the hows and whys he taught would apply today. I truly believe he would be proud of his students for remembering a portion of what he taught rather than being offended.

StrayDog & Mule Deer,

I am not a O'Connor scholar, and, of course, never met the gentleman.

With an eighteen inch file on Jack O'Connor I nominate JB to right another O'Connor biography. I'll defer to you, JB, on the subject. prefer leaving what I call the "assuming and/or guessing" to better folks than I. Agreeing to disagree is fine with me. As I said, "it's just my opinion"...

I appreciate the 24hourcampfire for it's general civility. I've been exposed to many ideas I'd never considered before just from reading here.

smilidon...I defer to you and your first hand experience.... I thought it was a standard grade 375 remodeled by G&H.

I,too,am continuously astonished by this..

...among the more popular and often-discussed cartridges mentioned on here,there is not a single one that is truly "new",and most have origins dating back to the 40's,50's,and 60's.....some substantially earlier.The WSM's are one example;the Rem Ultra Mag's are another....and the genesis of the 375 Ruger is older than dinosaur excrement.

Being well read,and at the height of his career,I seriously doubt O'Connor was unaware of the wildcat experiments of Roy Gradle and PO Ackley; the OKH series,and the 30 Newton....and guys have been necking down and blowing out 404 Jeffrey brass for decades....to say nothing of such bread and butter stuff like the 257,270,and 7mm Weatherby which have been around since the 40's or so..

..O'Connor himself had a 275H&H; it along with the 276 Dubiel drove 175-180 gr bullets at over 2900 fps(sound familiar?)

Let's not forget the 460 G&A based on a 404 Jeffery case designed to give 2400 FPS witha 500 grain bullet and it was done in the 60's

The Howell line of Wildcat cartridges also based on the 404 case goes back a bit as well

Also Roy Weatherby's cartridges goes back I believe to the 50's

Yup....

jwp,

Actually, Roy Weatherby developed his first cartridges in the early 1940's. The very first was an "improved" version of the .220 Swift called the .220 Rocket, if I recall correctly.

But the first Weatherby round as we know them (double radius shoulder on a belted case) was the .270 Weatherby, which Roy developed in 1943. When he started the actual Weatherby company in 1945, the .257, .270, 7mm, .300 and .375 Weatherby Magnums were the line-up. They are old enough for Social Security now, but the .257 and .270 are still the fastest commercial cartridges in their bore diameters.

After thinking about all this a little more, I am actually not too surprised that so many younger shooters think that the last decade or two was when all "super-fast" rounds were developed. After all, not many shooters actually study the history of rifles, even just American hunting rifles. The vast majority of shooters probably don't even own a book of any sort on hunting or shooting.

Instead most get their information from their shooting buddies. A smaller number do read magazines and log onto the Internet, but many shooting magazines are only there to promote new stuff. There are exceptions, of course, but the largest-circulation shooting magazines usually treat older rifles (anything made before, say, synthetic stocks became common) as historical curiosities rather than useable firearms, implying that anybody who'd actually hunt with a pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester is doing so out of nostalgia rather than practicality.

The Internet, of course, is the source of instantaneous information, so tends to concentrate on right now. It also tends to be full of some of the most outrageous misinformation on the planet, due to the fact that most people are full of misinformation. But that is counteracted by lively dialogue and occasional bits of real, up-to-the-minute info. And of course books and magazines often contain misinformation.

But the fact remains that with modern electronic communications to supplement the good-old-boy BS leagues, most shooters are pretty much unaware of the evolution of shooting beyond, at most, 25 years ago. And even that would be stretching things for many....

JB: Good perspective....guess you are right...I'm guilty of assuming people have access to older sources of information...or even care....

..then again, if the Internet is ones' only source of info,well...."Houston,we have a problem".....

"The vast majority don't own a book of any sort on hunting..."
That reminds my of an old saying I read somewhere that went something like this "Those that don't read are no better off than those that can't read".

Fred

You ever see the photo of Roy Weatherby handing JOC a Mark V rifle while he is sitting in what appears to be a home living room? The expression on JOC's face is almost as if he discovered a dead fish in his lap. I don't think it is any secret he loathed the California styling of the weatherby with it's white line spacers, glossy finish and radical lines. So, I think he would not have wanted to promote a Weatherby chambering.

Also, JOC didn't use recoil pads on his sporters. I have fired 30-06 and 270 rifles with steel butt plates and can say it is a pretty stiff wallop. Which is the reason why today with good looking functional pads like Decelerator and LimbSaver he may have came around to accepting pads and faster calibers that would be more friendly to shoot.

These are the thoughts as to why I am among those thinking he would have at least tried a WSM. If he tried them he might like the velocity without having to stuff 62/H4831 into a Win case to get enough speed for his 22" barrels, and I don't think he would object to the lighter weight of a shorter action.

aka MKBenenson. To supplement JB's remarks on special custom bottom metal, the earliest I can think of was in the 1920s when Bob Owen of Sauquoit, NY (hope I spelled that right) imported complete 1903 Springfield magazine assemblies from Heym in Germany. These had hinged floorplates and trigger guard bow releases like Oberndorf Mauser sporters, from which they were no doubt copied. An Owen Springfield Sporter is still the Holy Grail for custom rifle collectors. Then in his 1950s book on gunsmithing, Roy Dunlap described using the standard 1903 magazine box to slimline Mausers. Also in the 1950s or pehaps 60s, Griffin & Howe in New York made a neat Oberndorf style separate trigger guard with bow release for Winchester 70. I will have one in my parts box. I remember seeing an early Remington 721, gorgeously customed by G&H, that had a hinged floorplate and guard bow release instead of the factory stamping. They may have been altered Arisaka parts, I did not have the $$$ to buy the rifle and so did not examine it closely, and it was many years ago. Then in the 1960s Holland & Holland made lightweight hinged assemblies for Mausers and I saw one at the Syracuse NY gun show two years ago on a 1917 Enfield. These were finely made. Later on several firms offered dural and pot metal setups for Mauser and Springfield, of very variable quality. About the worst was one from Michaels, with embossed "engraving", the best I have seen are marked "Finland"
and I think came from Flaig's in Pennsylvania. These last are almost good enough to use on a top end custom. As JB noted,
all along custom gunsmiths have been altering magazine assemblies and today there are several makers furnishing custom bottom metal for many of the commercial and military bolt actions. If O'Connor was building a rifle today, he would have many more choices to make than he did in his own era.

Even reading hunting and shooting magazines is relatively rare. Supposedly there are about 15 million hunting licenses sold in the U.S. each year. I once added together the paid circulations of all the major hunting and shooting magazines I could think of and it came out to about 5 million. Most hunters don't suscribe to more than one or two magazines, so my guess is that maybe 1.5 to 2 million hunters actually read any sort of magazine regularly.

Of course, it's kind of leap to assume that just because they subscribe to a magazine they actually read it.

That is true and really funny.....laffin over here!

Why do you(anyone) suppose Dave Scovill never read O'Conner and why would he admit to that?

Which Chic do you speak of?

A sad but true statement. All of my rifle looniness was, and still is, fueled by reading, and I can afford to read about a lot more about hunting than I'll ever actually do.