Last weekend we attended the big annual celebration at the Jack O'Connor Hunting Heritage & Education Center in Lewiston,Idaho. We've done several now, and the Center itself is a great place, with a bunch of Jack and Eleanor's trophies and many of their hunting guns. There's also a small gun show on Saturday that includes a bunch of REALLY nice hunting rifles and shotguns, which itself is well worth attending.

On Saturday evening there was a smaller get-together for the folks who run the place, plus invited guests. One of the nifty things that happened was Chet Fitzegerald (Campfire member Chetaf, and member of the board of the Center) managed to get one of the glass display cases opened. We could actually handle and weigh Jack O'Connor's favorite .270, a custom based on the pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester action, along with a few other guns. Chet brought a very accurate digital scale, and it turned out the rifle weighs a hair over 7 pounds, 15 ounces.

Several of us got to handle it, including Eileen, who said the rifle was a little heavier than she prefers--but balanced so well she'd definitely hunt with it!

Very interesting - thanks for sharing.

Wow, that would have been fun to paw the .270.
I saw you out there Saturday afternoon on the deck, but you were in pretty deep conversation, so I didn't bother you.
Paul sure had a bunch of nice 42's out there.

Now that is cool! Thanks for sharing.

wageslave,

You should have joined in! I'm there not just to see old friends, but BS with everybody....

MD, Cool stuff and thanks for posting it.

I went out there also and sat in on the writers discussion forum. I enjoyed it. The opinions of Terry Weiland would have absolutely snapped a bunch of campfire members!

Wage, We must have dang near rubbed elbows out there... I was out there at the same time and had the same thought as you, MD looked in deep conversation and I didn't want to bother either.

Bradford O'Connor looks to me like the spitting image of Jack. Even though I've only ever seen pictures of Jack.

Too cool. I grew up being a huge JOC fan.

Thanks for the info. I always felt a well balanced rifle points and handles so well it may fool you as to it's weight.

Thanks for the post, fun stuff for sure.

Cool post and hopefully Chet puts up a few more of the pics he snatched.

A darned 8lb 270.... ol Bob woulda laughed his butt off!

+1 on that.

DF

That’s with steel bases and scope tube? The stock looks sleek, seems like 7.5 # would be doable with some aluminum.


Was there a pool going on the result? If so who won?

Very cool stuff!

Looks like that fits Eileen rather well.

Well, I checked this Celebration off my Bucket List too. So impressed, I plan to go next year, if all works out.

What is the scope is on it?

A 4x Leupold Pioneer.

Thanks M D

Very Cool. Sure wish I could attend something like that.




YES indeed. My 70 Black Shadow 300 WM fits that bill exactly. After I got a good scale I was surprised it weighed MORE than it felt or
that I thot. IIRC a touch over 8 lbs scoped -- doesn't feel like it.

Jerry

I knew that there was a lot to like about Terry.

It's a good thing that we ALL don't like the SAME thing and have the SAME preferences.
What works for you may not work for me and vice versa.


Jerry

That's cool!

This is as close as I could get when I visited last summer. The guy that was working the desk would chat everyone's ear off!

Was it clear or cloudy?

Pretty darn clear.

Yeah, probably should have butted in,
but you never know with these upper class outdoor writers.....
and I already had your autograph numerous times in the books.

Sorry we didn't get to chat Lonny, I would have enjoyed that.

Next time we should plan it better.

Could you please decipher the reference to this statement "The opinions of Terry Weiland would have absolutely snapped a bunch of campfire members!"

I am curious as to what your are saying or referring to - I guess I am too darned old to understand "snapped", does that mean they had a good opinion or a poor opinion of him?

dover

So cool to get to examine that rifle. I've heard Bradford often takes it out "in public" for people to handle, still shoots it, and lets others shoot it. I applaud his attitude and generosity.

From what I've read that was JOC's "#2 .270." From reading, it started out as a Featherweight, but JOC immediately had it restocked and replaced the aluminum bottom metal with steel.
If the part about the bottom metal is true, apparently JOC was willing to take that weight penalty.

If I remember correctly, pictures I have seen show a trapdoor butt plate. I don't know if JOC kept much in there, but if not then one way or another, perhaps the butt was hollowed and lightened a bit similar to the two drilled holes in the factory Featherweights.

Since it has a hard butt plate, maybe JOC figured a bit of weight wasn't such a bad idea.

Good Stuff

Some of those old timers would be shocked at what we are using these days for rifles, components and scopes.

Maybe even JOC would turn in his version of a 270 for something lighter in stainless.

Great string. Near as I can tell, JOC never carried an extra 30# on his belly, so an extra pound, or 2, in a well built rifle might be irrelevant. Not the least of which, I bet that rifle is a delight to shoot, and would encourage you to shoot a lot.
My father hiked much of Northern Italy, then down to Greece with a Garand. That generation was a little tougher than we seem to be.

And the next generation will be even softer, mentally and physically.

GunDoc,

I dunno if Brad often takes the rifle out in public, and let's other people shoot it. He lived on the other side of Washington state from the O'Connor Center, and the rifle is generally locked up in the display case so visitors can look at it.

Here's a photo the buttplate. It's a little smaller than many steel buttplates of the era:

Thanks for the interesting post, John. It sounds like O'Connor's featherweight wasn't a featherweight by today's standards. I wonder what O'Connor would have thought about today's super light rifles, synthetic, stocks, and stainless metal.

Fish, I'm not being hateful.

There's a lot of difference in carrying 15-30 pounds on your BACK & LEGS than an xtra 2-3 pounds in your arms & shoulders.
The xtra weight on your gut/butt is carried by your legs---- not your arms.

I once was 50 pounds heavier than I am. I've experienced the difference. We carry a rifle much more than shoot it WHEN hunting.

Jerry

Staying with all steel and wood, that rifle is about as light as you can make a Pre-64 Model 70. The Biesens were very good at shaving weight. I handled that rifle several years ago when Buck Buckner had it at DSC. I had heard it showed signs of a lot of use, but for a sheep rifle I thought is looked pretty good and felt great!

Drover, In the writers discussion forum, several people from the gun outdoor/industry were asked questions by a moderator along the lines of 'What would Jack think about...."What would Jack use for...." "What would Jack think is wrong today with...." "What would Jack like about this..." Since none of the people on the forum were Jack, it would be tough to not put a dash of your own personal opinion into an answer.

Terry had some pretty strong opinions about long range hunting and the heavy use of technology for hunting today. I found him quite funny actually and not off base by any means, but no doubt on the campfire an absolute firestorm would have erupted. He didn't get booed off the stage by any means and you saw many nodding in agreement, even though myself, and I'm sure many others in the crowd, use some of the gadgets he didn't seem fond of. He had the crowd laughing at times.

The Holy Grail of rifles!

Absolutely,

Thanks to John for sharing this. I bought one of the Jack O 'Connor commeratives a couple of years ago myself. Holding the real thing would be about like having Excaliber by the hilt.

One of the cool things about this site is getting to interact with some of the heroes of my youth as well as some new ones. I actually got to spend an evening with Ken Howell when I was hunting in the west. I have bought a few things from John and talked to him on the phone.

One of my favorite writers was our own BobinNH. I don't know if he ever published a line,but I loved reading and interacting with him here.

Thanks again to John for sharing this with the rest of us.

Here's another of O'Connor's favorite rifles, a .30-06 on a Mauser action he called his "pet of pets," being aimed by Chet. It's in the same case as the .270 (and a 28-gauge side-by-side and a custom .458 Winchester), so we weighed it too. It went right around 9 pounds, and Jack used it for some sheep hunting, as well as a bunch of other stuff. In fact he took a 43+ Dall ram with it, which is also in the museum, so he did not strictly use light rifles even for mountain hunting.

Interesting thread, John. Thanks for posting it.

So it looks like with a Whelen sling, steel swivels, and five cartridges, the rifle probably weighs close to 8.5 pounds. Does that sound about right?

Got it, thanks for the clarification.
I would have been one of those folks who were nodding in agreement with him.

drover

Are either of Eleanor's rifles in the Museum? I remember a 7x57 that was her main rifle,and a 30-06 that she used for big/dangerous game.

7x57


Both 7x57 and 30-06

Interesting how close that front ring is to the turret.

Was that with of without the pink electrical tape on the muzzle ??
The devil made me say that? SORRY

Wow, that would have been a worthwhile visit. Too bad Jack wasn’t any smarter than shooting a 270 with a Leupold scope. I’m sure he would have learned a lot more about guns and stuff if he could have viewed the Campfire before he made so many mistakes...

Poconojack,

Yeah, that's ring placement is supposed to be a no-no these days, but O'Connor wrote that .30-06 was one of his most reliable rifles, always retaining over long periods.

Seems like it would depend on the design particulars of a given scope. Like optimum rear ring placement on 6x Leupolds being a bit different than other Leupold models

Those are some great looking rifles. Lots of character. In my opinion, synthetic stocks simply can’t have the character of walnut.

No telling what the torque on that ring is though. Wonder too, how forgiving a steel tube vs aluminum is when over-torqued moderately above recommended. When did scope manufacturers switch from steel to aluminum anyways?

I was typing faster than I was thinking. "Often" was a poor word choice. I remember reading and seeing pictures that the rifle was "out in public" for the unveiling of the JOC tribute rifles, perhaps at SHOT or the NRA annual meetings? I remember reading a thread or article where Bradford was going to take it hunting (antelope?) and was confirming zero. I've read a few other articles wherein people had the opportunity to shoot it.

You are right that it probably isn't "often." My point is that it happens at least occasionally, and I do applaud the concept.

On a similar note, it seems the caretakers of Duane Allman's Gibson Les Paul "Gold Top" sometimes allow it to be taken out in public and played. I applaud that as well.

I saw and handled the rifle at the RMEF Show, in Reno, last year, I believe.
It was an awesome experience.

I’d bet that nothing on any of Jack O’Connor’s guns was ever torqued.

Gringo Loco,

The big transition from steel to aluminum tubes took place in the 1950's in the USA, but in Europe it took considerably longer. I know some European scope companies were using steel tubes (at least as an option) into the 1990's, and maybe a little later.

Thank you sir.

That rifle is completely inadequate, I'm shocked any user would take game with it. Where is the 26 inch tube chambered in .300 ClavicleKiller, with at minimum 4x-20x 50mm? I mean, how would you make those frequent 600 yard shots?

prm

I understand. I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate Blued Steel and Gorgeous Walnut.......

However, over time people and 'character' change.

There was a time Model A s and T s and 32 Ford's were top of the line.

WHO wants one for a Daily driver today ? ?

Today I appreciate Synthetic stocks that are STABLE and S S . Taste Change.


Jerry

By Job, I think you're onto something there !!


Jerry

I need to head down there next summer. A bit of a drive from Sandpoint but it looks very worthwhile.

I would have loved to have gone to that.

I was taught to be a Jack O'Connor fan, by my father who had been inspired and admired the man for decades. I was a Jack O-Connor fan without having ever read anything the guy wrote when I think about it, but my father taught me about it - the superioty of the Mauser action, the pre-64 Winchester, the .270 cartridge and more, scopes, and stock design and high velocity over bullet weight, his love of hunting jackrabbits in the desert - also the importance of the right bullet type, which drive my father to reload cartridges when it wasn't common to do so, and to teach me how to do it.

It was only once the internet came along and it was easier to get books from overseas, or read old articles online, that I got to read the man, and I found my naive regard was not misplaced. The man's hunting life spanned the most interesting period of hunting history in many of the places he hunted, and he thought the hunting rifle worthy of true appreciation in its own right, like I did.

I was taught to be an Elvis fan as well, and when I went to the USA a few years ago I went to Graceland. I wish I could have gone to the JOC centre as well, but I didn't know about it at that time.

Enjoyed reading your post JB and the ensuing comments. Like many here I have read quite a few of Jack O'Connor's magazine articles and books and certainly his writing influenced my taste in rifles to some degree. Thinking back, also recall how we would refer to Jacks writings when sitting around the fire after a days hunt and talking about our "dream" rifles that we were planning to build. Hope I get an opportunity to visit the Hunting Heritage & Education Center in Lewiston, gotta add that one to my list.

Maybe a Kimber in 6.5 CM

Thanks for the pictures MD. I would just about pass out if I held one of Jack's or Eleanor's rifles or shotguns.

Maybe ? when pigs FLY









sorry, couldn't help myself.


Jerry

Still a great string, and civil.
I often handle older rifles and wish they could tell me about their history. The JOC 270 does a great job of this, and tying itself to a wonderful legacy. Seems to appeal to the imagination of many of us.
Good job Mr. Barsness.

Under 8lbs. was considered light in those days. The Europeans understood Mt. rifles and were not afraid to slim down barrels more than is customarily done here so some of their carbines are a full pound or even two lighter.

I will have to go to the Museum. I can't believe the number of times I was in range of it and didn't go, it would be like visiting the Taj Mahal or Machu Pichu for me.

He made me a Winchester Model 21 fan in the 1970's.

Sounds like a worthwhile trip to see and get to handle some of JOCs rifles.Did he at one time own a Full Stocked Winchester 7X57?

As I recall it was a full-stocked M70 .270. Believe he wrote up something on the difference in muzzle velocity in the shorter barrel, maybe in THE HUNTING RIFLE. (Now I'll have to try to find it....)

To be clear, I don't think everyday visitors get to handle the rifles. But that is just a guess, nothing more.

You absolutely correct. The display rifles are locked up in glass cases, but you can lean over the cases and look at them pretty closely!

I have leaned over the cases and it was a worthwhile excursion to the museum.

Thanks for sharing the special experience of your day (and Eileen's) with us folks. I'd have loved to have been there, and it would have been great to meet more of the campfire folks too.

Anyone passing through the area, don't miss out. I waited a couple of years after I had moved to within an hour or so drive to visit, and kick myself in the butt for not visiting it earlier and more frequently.

Geno

It caused me to remember the expression on his face from a JOC photo of him being presented a shiny Mark V from Roy Weatherby. He looked a bit disturbed.to touch it.

JOC may have liked a 270 Montana with a Leupold 4X or 6X.

Maybe.....but I do know Bradford wasn't terribly impressed with the looks of my 270 Montana with an SWFA 3-9 and suppressor.

Yep!

But Brad's career was as the general outdoor writer for a major newspaper, not as a gun/hunting writer. He likes what he likes.

Jack was a gun/hunting writer, and not just a journalist but a journalism professor. Back in his day the .270 Winchester was, to a certain extent, a really radical change from the conventions of the day. I have several shelves full of gun magazines and books going back to before 1900, and in many ways the .270 was the 6.5 Creedmoor of its day. The traditionalists preferred the .30-06 (and even bigger rounds) because the bullets of the day sometimes didn't stand up to .270 velocities.

O'Connor, on the other hand, recognized the virtues of the .270, and eventually through actual experience realized it's advantages over the .30-06 for certain purposes--along with the 7x57, often the choice of a "sub-.30" big game cartridge for .30-06 advocates, because its similar velocities worked similarly to the .30-06. He was also among the first gun writers to experience and write about the advantages of the Nosler Partition, and various other innovations, when other gun writers did not.

I suspect Jack O'Connor, being a journalist (who therefore felt it necessary to try a lot of stuff as part of his job) would today try the 6.5 Creedmoor, along with other new cartridges--and rifles, scopes and bullets.

Maybe this helps to explain why his last custom rifle was a push-feed chambered in .280 Rem. I’ve always wondered about that.

Good points, John.
When one looks at what was available in guns and cartridges when Jack was writing, he was using some of the more advanced technology available at the time. Many of the old fogies who didn't get in on WWII were likely still using big bore lever guns, so a scoped 270 bolt action was pretty darned different than what much of the hunting community was used to shooting.

First of all, let me say that I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.
I appreciate the input from those much closer not only to JOC but his family.
Also thanks to those who live close enuff OR who have made the trip to the museum.





M D, I can see the comparison and contrast of the 270 THEN and the C M now.

I certainly don't know * how far * JOC would have taken the C M but I feel sure he would have examined and experimented with it.


Now......whether he would have deviated from 'perfection', I don't know.



Jerry

John

: Did you think to do any dimensioning? Love to hear what the difference between comb and heal was. Circumference of crip, etc.

Youv'e got to remember that most of us will never even ger a chance to look, let alone measure.

From the looks of the scope position in the pics of people holding these rifles, it appears surprisingly the obsolete scopes had a long eye relief.

Low power, fixed magnification scopes with their larger field of view have always offered a longer eye relief.

Those scopes can work pretty well too. The straight tube scopes are relatively light (even with a steel tube) and are rugged. For big game hunting as it was done at the time, they were perfectly good as sighting equipment too. I have scopes like that on all of my own hunting rifles and have never passed on a shot where I would have taken it with a modern variable on the rifle. I have had my old Springfield, with an old K2.5, all steel and brass, out to the silohuette range a few times and can easily sight on the 300 meter pigs and get good hits.
One problem I have found with these scopes, in the field, is, when crawling through slide alder, branches can get caught between the objective and the barrel. The installation of a rear sight with a base (like a Remington 700 sight) in the right place, fixes this problem.
I have to admit that an eight pound rifle is starting to feel a little heavy. Whether it's due to damage to my hands and the resulting arthritus or just because I'm transitioning out of middle age, I'm starting to look at lighter rifles. To my real shame, I've even caught myself kind of admiring a friend's Kimber!
I grew up reading O'Connor's articles in Outdoor Life and always thought his rifles were what a rifle should look like so that's how I try to build mine. To me, balance is everything and weight, within reason, is secondary. GD

OMG!! An eight pound rifle with a fixed four power scope, and a Leupold at that!

The poor guy that owned it must have known nothing about rifles.

I bet the twist rate is not fast enough to stabilize 300 grain .277 bullets.

Amateur!!!

I think O'connor would be shooting a kimber in 6.5 Creedmore if he were alive today.

I have no doubt he would have tried the Creedmoor, that would have been necessary as an outdoor writer. To say how much he would have used it though, would only be speculation.

Had Jack O’Connor fallen in love with it in 1965 would still be a whole different paradigm than 2019. If Jack were alive today, that would be entirely different again, but neither is the case and speculation is our only resource.

I know that I would still ignore the Creedmoor regardless...

Interestingly, he did try one of the new hotshots of the day - his day, at least - the 7RM, but didn't find that it did anything that his .270 wouldn't do, so he didn't seem to be terribly impressed. As Shrap said, it's hard to speculate on what he might have said or done with the CM, but my gut feeling is that he probably would have come to the same conclusion.

Jack loved the 270...but I’ve always gotten the vibe from his writings that he secretly liked the 06 more...versatility sure but it’s also what he cut his teeth on.

He was a smart guy...he knew the 270 was what he could make his own.

His wife used a 7x57 and 06. Kind of telling imho.

I’ve read about everything he ever wrote (own most of it) and consider him the best of the best but speculation is just that in regards to what he’d like today. My guess is a pre-64 70 heavily customized with nice but not gaudy walnut chambered in 270, 7x57, 308 or 30-06. ( I throw 308 in for selfish reasons)

Practicality is way over rated

Rev. I agree. I don’t see JOC being impressed w/medium bullets @ medium velocity
over the 270 W. for himself.


Jerry

Quak,

Actually, O'Connor said in print that the .30-06 was a ore versatile big game cartridge than the .270, and that his absolute all-time favorite big game rifle was a custom Mauser .30-06.

I suspect that if he were alive today he just might prefer the 6.5 Creedmoor, partly because as hunters age they often prefer less recoil--and he'd now be 117.....

One thing you have to remember, old guys that like Jack O'Connor and the scopes and rifles he used do so because we are 'nostalgic' and traditionalists. Jack himself was an innovator and early adopter.

He bought his first 270 in a Model 54 the first year either were available. He used scopes when other people thought they were delicate toys that were 'unethical'. He was an early user of Partition bullets and hand loaded his own ammo when, as he himself said, handloaders were considered 'dangerous nuts' that were apt to blow themselves up.

When he wanted a new 270, he didn't track down some 70 year old action like we do. He went to Erb's Hardware, bought a current production rifle off the shelf, and had it restocked.

Since 117 year old guys tend to be pretty set in their ways, I suspect Jack would like the same stuff if he were still around. Hard to say what a 40 year old Jack would like if he were here today.

He may prefer a Barrett Fieldcraft with a Nightforce compact for all we know.

yes the age thing as we get older and recoil do play a part in it too, i always thought that was why Roy Weatherby liked the 257 Weatherby best as some us do too.

I'm glad to know more about you thru this thread. Thanks.

IMO you have made an honest appraisal and comparison based on the Past & Present.
Nearly 100 yrs ago, 1925 or so, NO ONE had the options available that we have today. Who says 'those' were the good ole days?

Not to mention I think you are right.

Jerry

Mule deer, thank you for the tour thru the joc center. I've enjoyed the attention that old school hunters did and the way they did them. I still like the 270 and a fixed power myself. I guess old guys get stuck in their ways. I know i have. I know modern technology is great. I think joc would have liked a 150 nosler and a good measure of reloader 26. The 150 is moving almost as fast as the 130 was years ago.

Don’t disagrees with you Mule Deer...but I always hate to speculate on what someone who’s no longer with us would think about something that didn’t exist. He did have exposure to the 6.5x55 though and he did say the only perfect rifle he owned was his 416. Alas I’m not a gun writer and apologize for my posts in this forum...but truly DO appreciate you taking the time. You have a very unique perspective and it’s generous of you to share it with us

Here are some additional photos from the O'Connor Center bash:

Mule Deer with the #2 270.



The 270 on my scale:



The 30-06 on the scale:

Great pictures Chet. Those sorta rifles are just too danged cool. Hard hunting rifles built right.

Thanks to all who have contributed to such an interesting thread. Especially to Mule Deer and ChetAF for the photos!

I'm just in awe of the wood grain and chequering on those rifles. They almost look too pristine to have been in the field much, even though I have no doubt they were.

JOC strikes me as a man who really looked after his rifles and treasured them. Thanks MD and Chet for sharing.

PSE,

I have a few custom rifles with really nice, hard wood, and have hunted with all of them. One thing I've noticed over the years is that sort of wood stands up to hunting far better than the typical softer factory walnut, partly because of the harder wood, and partly because the finish is at least partly oil-based, rather than one of the thick synthetic finishes used on a lot of factory wood, which tend to crack and chip, partly because they're applied to soft wood.

Decided to show an example, my CZ 550 9,3x62 stocked by Serengeti (now Kilimanjaro) Rifles in 2007. Have hunted with this rifle a LOT since then, and as you can see it still looks pretty good. (By the way, it weighs exactly eight pounds with a Leupold 4x in Talley rings.)

Very handsome looking rifle - just the thing for Africa.

Great looking rifle mule deer.

I know lightweight is all the rage today, but to me, an 8# rifle is about perfect. Make it a 270, and it is! But I would not complain about a 7.5# rifle either.

I have tried the lightweights and do not prefer them. But I am not a serious mountain hunter where every ounce counts.

Thank you JB and Chet for sharing. JOC is my favorite writer of all time, but JB, you come in second!

I would like to believe that if JOC was still roaming the high sheep pastures that he would be packing a pretty similar rifle to wihat he hunted had with during his lifetime. He was clearly into the aesthetics of a rifle: I remember reading him describing in detail the angles and curves of a proper stock and he clearly liked the beauty of, if I remember correctly, Bosnian walnut.

He struck me as an imminently practical rifleman. I suspect that he would eschew these modern large scopes and other extremes like bantam weights.

I agree that he seemed to be at the cutting edge, but maybe it was do more to the fact that with the model 70, he found a near perfect rifle. But for the clubby stock, which we all know, he had modified. When the GIs brought home the Mauser, like many others he customized them.

I’ve often heard that the side by side shotgun was perfected by the end of the 19th century. Maybe the bolt action hunting rifle had been perfected by mid-20th century.

Maybe the 50s and 60s will be become known as the golden age of the rifle.

Really ? ?

I don’t think so at all because of the myriad of options that are available for Rifles today
and I don’t read of guys going retro in customizing today’s Rifles.
If the options are not being used they would not be on the market.

AND consider all the Custom Rifles on the market today. How much do they
look like mid 20th Century Rifles ?

Jerry

Seriously ??

Where have you guys been this year ?

Jerry

Did Jack O'Connor develop the 270?

and 270 wcf fan.

or hunters (vs shooters).

I think there is something to be said for the time men took guns and bullets that had not been perfected and risked life and limb accosting rhinos, leapords, lions, bears and elephants. Lord knows, many lived life to the fullest and many died pursuing their dream of conquering such things.

And I'd bet it was -




2 clicks of the wrist!

Watching Winchester re-market the 351 self loader cartridge of 1907....

In this day and age, everyone chases accuracy and ultra light weight to the exclusion of everything else. Those rifles like JOCs are not just rifles - they're works of art. They were more than accurate enough for the intended purpose which was hunting game but they had an appeal like a finely crafted musical instrument. Even if one never hunted or cared to shoot, one would be delighted to own something like that and show it off to friends.

Modern rifles seem to lack that. They're accuracy machines for sure but they don't have the aesthetic appeal that came with early rifles IMHO.

He was certainly great at promoting some very good innovations, I never really knew what he innovated or created himself, or had a hand in the development in.

Dont leave out what ‘ChetAF’ said. JOC went to a LGS bought a Rifle and
had a STOCK MADE for it.

His Rifles didn’t come O E M, even then they were ‘customized’.

Jerry

JOC was a hunter. The concept of a hunter suggests skills that enabled the hunter to get within a sub-400 yard distance to the quarry. One doesn’t need a 1/2 inch shooter or a 18 power scope to be effective. In fact at these distances the JOC would work as well as any high tech rifle, excluding a situation of where there is constant rain.

Obviously I’ve never handled a JOC rifle, but I bet that it is well balanced and moves like a wand in your hands. I’ve been in plenty of hunting camps where I’ve hefted these unbalanced monstrosities that are considered the ultimate in hunting rifles. They would be great for 800 yard shots and I acknowledge that it takes a lot of skill to shoot these accurately, but as one writer noted, this is more about being a shooter rather than a hunter., which of course is fine, if thats what blows your hair back.

That's true - thank you for pointing that out, but I still think that the general craftsmanship for affordable rifles for the Joe Average hunter was better in the 50s and early 60s.

For example, affluent shooters and hunters will gladly pay premiums for pre 64 Winchesters based on the better quality that was available back then.

Unfortunately today, that kind of hand crafted quality is priced out of the market for the average wage earner.

It’s really a neat place. Less than 5 min from my home. Truly enjoy it. On the road work. Would have loved to have met you. Before I hit the road bass fishing was off the hook on the snacks. Great post.

No, he had not gained his full stature as a hunting and gun writer in 1925, But he was for the most part the main source of the .270 popular trends, and causing people to want a flatter shooting caliber. This was during a time when other mainstream writers were actually against the .270. He was a sort of Husband of the .270 exposing it's truths to the popular opposition. Causing us the public to want similar experiences.

I don't agree with you for multiple reasons BUT I'm dropping it.........

I don't want to mess up an otherwise very good thread.


Jerry

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?

As I recall, about 75.

Jack's background as a college English instructor could pose insurmountable communication issues.

Where are the Winchester 21's?

He was a tough ole guy for sure. I'm 74 and have drank icy water from the mountain creeks, but lately my conditioning only allows hunting plains or mid west areas.

I have very much enjoyed this thread. It has made me reflect on the nature of guns today. Many guns are made using CNC machinery to extremely tight tolerances. They are made with space age materials without concern for beauty. I think that the readership to Guns Digest and the Shooter's Digest have declined. Both tomes were filled with beautiful(even if they were in black and white pictures) custom rifles by the best makers. I remember actually working side jobs to get each year's copy of each. People aren't as captivated by fine wood and blued metal. I think that right now there are some Beretta Semi-auto shotguns that have fake fancy wood. You have to look at it close to notice that its not real wood.

Hunters are less connected with the tradition that harkens back to the Pennsylvania style flintlocks made by early craftsmen. A man used to be measured by the quality of his rifle. I don't think that this is the case anymore as most people get their food from Amazon.com or Walmart than from the land.

JOC had the magical ability to take you away from the land of mundane guns to a place where guns had an almost magical ability to have their own personas. JB does this a little with his pet Nulas or that Kilimanjaro stalking rifle.

There used to be more to going to deer camp or hunting camp in the old days. People were judged by the equipment that they used. Accuracy was important. It always has been important but function came first. Every small town had gunsmiths that could work on your rifle and tweak it for better performance. Some smiths were better than others. Today we see all kinds to rifles that have been butchered by back alley hobbyists that were named Bubba. Some smiths were extremely good and reached levels approaching perfection. JOC was writing to a more educated population. He could explain the nuances of an Alvin Linden or Al Biesen Model 70 fwt custom sporter in 270 Win. Jack was great on concentrating on little details. He worked on rifle marksmanship and probably went through the elements on his favorite rifles enough times to definitely qualify as a rifle looney. He practiced what he preached. Many times with gunwriters there are hunters and shooters and Jack like JB was both.

Jack sought a rifle that would appeal to him first but worked every time. Function was the number one priority. I think that this was because he had a problem rifle early in his career. The balance and ergonomics of the rifle was also ultimately very important for JOC. It had to be able to handle snap shots, seated shots and prone shots off of a pack or rest. Finally, I am sure that accuracy was important to him. However, you can have the most accurate rifle out there but if you can't shoot it and handle it well then what good is its accuracy potential.

When you grab a Pre-64 model 70 Winchester fwt, it has a balanced feel. You get a little of this with Rem 700s but its just not the same. There is something that makes the Pre-64 feel like it is ready to go. I don't think that JOC was entirely too worried about the weight of his rifles. It was a consideration but it was not the primary consideration. Jack was into new concepts. It is interesting that his prototype of the Eddie Bauer Skyline down jacket is still the puffy to beat.

He didn’t suffer FOOLS well at all.

Jerry

I think Big Stick would have given Jack the vapors......

Seriously though those two in the same sentence makes no sense. Maybe that was your point?

Jack loved the art aspect of his rifles..... Stick see's them as tools nothing more

After reading this thread I want a Dakota 76 in .270...
Bob

bwa ha ha ha ha that is funny!

BS doesn't have the class to clean JOC's toilet. Pretty sure he would be on ignore.
Have you seen the way BS converses with JB? He would be just as big a dips%^% with JOC.

He is simply a F'stick, to be placed on ignore and allowed to mire in his muck.

Some how i believe he would still like the 270 or maybe the 280. He and ackley were good friends ,though. He might have eventually wound up with a 280 ackley. I believe that this new generation of bullets, guns and scopes would keep him interested tho. He used the 7mm rem mag a good bit when it first came out and was not impressed. He said that the 7 mag was deadly on elk with the 150 grain core-lok. But he said that it didn't do any thing that his 270 couldn't do just as well. The 270 would be better in the field for him, because his rifle would hold more ammo than the 7 mag. He said also that it would have to be a pound or 2 heavier with a longer barrel also..he also said that recoil was higher too. I think the last gun that he was building was a 280 before he passed. I believe that with the 280 his thought was that it would shoot heavier bullets like his 30/06, without the drawbacks, of a magnum.
He also did not like variable power scopes, but i remember him talking about varmit hunting. He wished he had a higher power scope because he had several misses. He said with more power the better you see. I'm not so shure tho that he would like variable power scopes still..

I would also if I didn't have a Tikka......





BTW, it's a T 3 Lite SS 22 3/8" bll.

Jerry

NOT to argue:

I'm going from my FMD (fading memory disorder) so take that into account.

I 'remember' JOC saying that he HAD cut the barrel back 2" on the 7 mag and the velocity was more or less the same as the 270. ???

SINCE we're speculating about TODAY'S rifles, The "Diamond Standard" rifles TODAY don't have to be HEAVY. And M D is correct about
Senior hunters - and I'm one - liking/preferring LESS recoil. We have Decelerators and Limbsavers TODAY they didn't have in the 60-70s.
Therefore the recoil of the 7 mag can be negated.

ALL this in speculation, just discussion for FUN.


Jerry

I'm a sucker for Garands. Offer me an AR or a Garand and I'm stupid. I'll take the Garand every time. Now if they just made that AR in .30-06.....

Nobody has been able to or will ever convince this old tired head that a 5.56mm is as good as a formidable 30 caliber. They haven't even convinced me a 7.62 x 51 is as good. To me that's like saying a 7x57 will do everything a 7 mag will do. Nope, not buying it.

JOC was used to dealing with very opinionated folks.
I’d imagine at the end of the day he’d still be using number 2 now that I think about it.

If he were buying new it’d be a Ruger. Hawkeyes are really nice and he was fiends with Bill Ruger. His relationship with Winchester was pretty poisonous at the end. I wish they made the walnut Hawkeye in 7x57

As to the pre64s....

A 1950 .270 was my main, and for some years only hunting rifle, for about 30 years and it just plain worked in that role. After I wised up and scrubbed the bore really well, it was also very accurate. Still, if any of my FNs were fitted with an M70 safety and hinged floorplate (so far that's not happened) there's no doubt in my mind that it would be a better and safer rifle, and just as functional afield. So, after passing the M70 on to my son, I'm not looking for another one. The current Hawkeyes, I think, fill the role of an affordable and reliable CRF rifle pretty well, and if you shop around, current M70 Classics can be found at surprisingly good prices too. I've mostly moved on to lighter push-feeds that, surprise surprise, are also totally reliable and come in at about 2 or 3 pounds lighter than my old .270. My arms really appreciate that difference on my trip out of the woods when the day is done.

That 270 would be a great rifle,

For kids, women,

Or,

A man of small stature.

"Brad told me that No. 2 is still very much in use; he shoots it and lets other people shoot it. He says that's what it was made for, and he's absolutely right."

https://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2012/02/jacks-rifle/

He was lucky. My father somehow blundered into shooting Expert with the BAR during training and had to tote one of those all over Europe. He also "lucked" into a weapons platoon, which meant always staying on the line instead of getting relieved by reserves.

His second wife bought him a carbine, which I have, in the 80s, but he really wanted the Garand, but the price put him off.

The problem with variable scopes in JOC day was reliability, today's variable scopes do not suffer that problem. With that fact in mind I think Jack O'Conner would embrace variable scopes with todays reliability

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

I enjoyed the visit to the JOC center, only about 45 minutes away. Do they still have this get together. ??