O'Connor on the .30-06 and .270

First BG rifle I bought was a model 70 .270 Win.........then there's the mauser sporters.............Harold
 
O'Conner lives on

All these titles came off E-Bay from $5-$25. Often the shipping was more than the book.
OConner002.jpg


Jack told it like it was, with enough style and polish to keep the reader informed and entertained. Jack was a rifleman, a shooter. He passed all his knowledge and passion about guns and hunting unselfishly to his readers.
Very little other info on practical shooting, cartridges, guns or game hunting needed to be covered after reading Jack's work.
From the looks of some of the nimrods I've seen at the range, more shooters would do well to read and understand his knowledge of shooting. (point blank range, scope sighting, shooting slings etc.)
Jack had an eye for fine guns. His praise of the pre-64 model 70 (and other Winchesters) was clear.
Jack's take on the 06 was covered in the first post of this thread.
Jack claimed 36 species of big game with the .270, and was sure to say that there were better choices of cartridges for some of those. Point is though that he did it with the .270, multiple times, Hell he was there! The .270 story needs little more said.

Blowback
 
I think any serious shooter should read Jack's work, but also Kieth's. They were men of very different backgrounds, even eras.
Jack was more modern, Elmer, more old style.
I know both had valid reasons for their arguments. Both methods work.

WRT the 270 vs 30-06 issue, I think even Jack would have to admit that modern specialty bullets and advancements in powder technologies have blurred the lines between the two.
 
My Grandfather was an avid Jack O'Connor fan and advocate. If Jack said it, it was gospil and carved in stone. When he passed he left me one of his books "The Shotgun Book" along with his beloved ground hog rifle a Rem 5mm mag.

We often took opposing views. I was an Elmer Keith, Winchester fan. He an O'Connor, Remington fan. This accomplished nothing except great conversation and a close bond.

Over the years I developed an affinity for Win. M-70's and the 30-06 loaded with 165 Noslers, so I guess in the end I settled some where in the middle of the preachings of O'Connor and Keith, leaning more towards O'Connor. Many years back I was in Idaho and purposly went to Salmon to visit the area Keith spoke about in his books and possible visit him, sadly he had passed away. Visited the local gun shop, the one with all the signed dollar bills stapled to the walls and ceiling. Yes I contributed to the wall paper as Iam on the wall.

I was at Epps the other day and they had a couple of the M-70 75th aniversary rifles. The one with the nicest wood followed me home. If one of O'Connor's commemoratives would have been in stock it probably would have been following along as well. Then I would have had not only another 30-06 but a 270as well.

Blowback, that is a fine collection of O'Connors books.
 
John Y Cannuck said:
I think any serious shooter should read Jack's work, but also Kieth's. They were men of very different backgrounds, even eras.
Jack was more modern, Elmer, more old style.
I know both had valid reasons for their arguments. Both methods work.

WRT the 270 vs 30-06 issue, I think even Jack would have to admit that modern specialty bullets and advancements in powder technologies have blurred the lines between the two.
Click to expand...

Well stated:). While a devoted Keith fan, having a good number of his books and having had the good fortune to meet the man in the early to mid 70's,

Elmer2.jpg


I also have a deep reguard and appreciation for the works and opinions of Jack
O'Connor.;)May help explain why I have a 30-06 and a pair of 270's.

30-06Husqvarna.jpg


SakomodelAIIIHusqvarnamodel3000270Win.jpg


Sorry Elmer.
 
Last edited:
Jack was stellar and I am sure that today's bullets would also influence his opinions as he was also a student of bullet construction (his experience with the .375 Silvertips, etc) and other than the very inaccurate Nosler of his hay day cup and core ruled the roost.
That said, I think he would love the .270 130gr load even more, and he wouldn't suggest using anything above 180gr in the 30-06 either. I think he would still have 3 and 3 in the end.
 
rem338win said:
Jack was stellar and I am sure that today's bullets would also influence his opinions as he was also a student of bullet construction (his experience with the .375 Silvertips, etc) and other than the very inaccurate Nosler of his hay day cup and core ruled the roost.
That said, I think he would love the .270 130gr load even more, and he wouldn't suggest using anything above 180gr in the 30-06 either. I think he would still have 3 and 3 in the end.
Click to expand...

All that is not my version of it.
In 1975 Jack wrote an article on 50 years with the 270. I have the article, in fact I posted a copy of part of it on CGN some time ago. In the article he states that Wichester developed a 130 grain bullet to go with their new calibre in 1925. Remember, he wrote this in 1975, and he stated that the original 130 grain Winchester bullet was superior in the 270, to any 130 grain bullet he has ever used in the 270. He said it was that bullet that was responsible for the great reputation the 270 soondeveloped. He said it was costly to make and Winchester dropped it and started the Silver Tip.
After that Jack said he used Nosler partition, almost exclusively.
I never before heard of the early Nosler being inaccurate.
There were a lot of very good bullets around in the 1950s. Right after the war Fred Barnes again started up his bullet making, which had been closed during war time. The first bullets he made were drawn from copper pipe, the same as you could buy in a hardware store. This gave them a tremendously thick copper jacket. The core was then soldered/welded/whatever, to the jacket.
These bullets got a high reccommendation from Jack O'Connor, who of course wrote them up in outdoor life. My brother read Jacks article on them, then ordered a few hundred in 30 calibre, in each of 150 and 200 grains. I have shot moose with each weight in a 30-06. Even the 150 grain made one shot kills on moose, as they opened up, but stayed together and penetrated to the far side of a moose. What more is a bullet supposed to do?
The 200 grain bullets Barnes made were far better for large, tough animals with big bones.
I still have about five of the 200 grain variety.
There were many other good bullets around. There was a Germna made partition, but I forget the make.
Herters made a lot of low priced equipment, but they also had a bullet that was pricy for them, but second to none and had a great reputation in Alaska on their large moose an big grissly bears.
 
I like reading O'Conno and Keith, they were both great in thier own way.

Today, O'Connor woudl have said "Stick a TTSX in either cartridge and go hunting, you won't see a difference " :)

Of course, that wont' sell many magazines. ;)
 
kamlooky said:
You got enough to share...........:rolleyes:

But not one of those in your one photo though........:p
Click to expand...

Before too long, the model 3000 Husqvarna

Husqvarnamodel3000270Win.jpg


may be available for a 'new home' but ;) I want to 'play' with it more first:p. I've mentioned it in a previous post but until a short while ago, I've never had or used a 270. In an effort to correct that defeciency, long story short, now I have two.
 
Wow, that is a nice piece of work.
And an old Redfield on top to compliment the age of
the gal underneath.

Now don't go making a tramp out of her aye Johnn............ :D
 
Dogleg said:
Probably the RWS H-Hantle.
Click to expand...

I still have some old 7x57 173gr H-Mantel. I have also used it in the 8x68S - they are good bullets. They were discontinued, but RWS has recentlyreintroduced them.

On a different note, does anyone have or recall comments by O'Connor on the .270 Win with the 160gr Partition?
 
1899 said:
I still have some old 7x57 173gr H-Mantel. I have also used it in the 8x68S - they are good bullets. They were discontinued, but RWS has recentlyreintroduced them.

On a different note, does anyone have or recall comments by O'Connor on the .270 Win with the 160gr Partition?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Jack was of the opinion that the 130 in the .270 was ideal for the caliber, and in fact said there was little need to choose a heavier bullet even for moose. I recall reading correspondence between O'Conner and John Jobson of Sports Afield fame, who congratulated one another for spreading the word that the .270/130 was the equivalent to Thor's thunder bolt. When he (Jack) thought more was needed, such as for grizzlies or the heaviest African plains game, he recommended to the .30/06, at least in print.

With today's bullets, I doubt there is anything you could do with one that you couldn't do with the other. The 160 gr Partition and the 180 gr Woodleigh make the .270 a viable choice for any big game up to the size of buffalo, while a .30/06 loaded with a long slippery 130 gr TTSX will shoot as flat as the best traditional .270 load. Still, the comments of writers of the day must be kept in context with the technology of the day.

Everyone recalls the bad blood between Elmer and Jack, but Elmer's comments didn't hold the venom of those made by Col. Charles Askins Jr. He despised Jack for usurping his dad, Major Charles Askins, from the position of Gun Editor at Outdoor Life, even though in his memoirs he admitted it wasn't O'Conner's fault and his anger should have been directed publisher Brown. Still he couldn't get past that, and slammed Jack whenever his thoughts turned to suitable cartridges for this game or that. "If he had his way, he'd have us all using that pip squeak .270 for Kenai Grizzlies!" But he wasn't all that fond of Elmer either from what I can gather.
 
O'Connor seems to have had several "favourite" cartridges. The Keith / O'Connor spat certainly didn't hurt the reputation of either gentleman. Jack, Elmer, and the editors of their respective employers would have recognised early on that the controversy sold magazines and exploited it to some extent. Just like today, advertisers were willing to pay higher rates based on higher readership numbers and manipulation of public opinion by media for monetary gain is not solely a new phenomenom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom