Jack O Connor's pet 270 load?

[270bradford]

To tell the truth, I never knew the brand. What I remember about it is that it was mounted on a box, roughly 12 inches wide and four inches tall and had two drawers. I did a fair amount of reloading in the 40s and 50s, always under the extreme watchful eye of my father. When I left the nest in 1953 to fetch a bride, serve in Korea and later finish college, I had a five-decade hiatus in reloading which I just took up again a couple of years ago. This explains why I came to this board as an almost total newbie.

[oldscot3]

I don't mean to change the topic, but I feel compelled to make an observation about the "caliber loyalists" that love a 280 but hate the 270. 270 caliber bullets fall aproximately halfway (only 3 thou off) between 264 (6.5mm) and 284 (7mm) bullets. What makes those two calibers that bracket the 270 universally loved, while the 270 garners a love/hate following?

I believe the answer might be those 130 gr. bullets themselves, or more precisely, how 130gr. bullets propelled at relatively high velocity perform on game. Many will report devastating kills that destroy too much meat or make a big mess of the field dressing process. These guys probably shot their deer at closer ranges, say under 200 yards, than a high velocity 130 gr. load is ideal for.

My two cents... unless your shooting long range, like for pronghorn or mountain goat, slow it down. That's the beauty of handloading, tailoring your weapon and ammunition for your specific hunting situation. Find a nicely accurately load that leaves the muzzle around 2700 to 2800 fps and I'll bet you'll have yourself a fine deer load that works very well. Save the 3000 fps loads for when you know you must have 3 to 400 yard ammunition.

[hooligan1]

What decent reason would someone hate .270 win caliber bullets?

[oldscot3]

That's my point exactly, however, further back in this thread there were some suggesting the 280 was superior somehow.

If you look at some of the cartridges that use .264" bullets and .284" bullets, that enjoy such a stellar reputation as "gamegetters" such as 6.5x55 Swedish and the 7mm Mauser, they are usually loaded to lower pressure and lower velocity than what we expect from a 270 Winchester.

It seems logical to me then, if you take a bullet diameter that falls between them, and load it to similar velocities, you should expect the same sort of results, so long as other factors such as bullet design, weight and construction are similar.

My conclusion is, they're all good. It really doesn't take a lot to kill a whitetail, if the shot placement is good. Any failures that might occur can be laid off on a lot of things but certainly not just because a bullet measures
.277". The idea that necking the same case up 7 thousandths and putting
.284 bullets in it somehow transfers it to a superior cartridge seems silly to me. Maybe they were just joking.

[wncchester]

4831 wasn't a cannister powder in O'Conner's prime. He used several powders, including IMR-4350.

Hodgdon got started with surplus military production powders, not cannister burn rate controlled; some of it wasn't even close (H-380). Any attempts to use data from those days, which lasted well into the late 60s, as if they were cannister grade would be foolish. Used with a measure of common sense and knowledge, it worked fine.

Many of today's self assured hot-shot reloaders seem to know to "start low,..etc" but it appears many then go on to book max with little understanding of what starting low is about; they may as well have started at book max to begin with. And it seems all some guys can comprehend about pressure signs is "flat primers" which is perhaps the least meaningful pressure sign we can look for so I'm somewhat surprised we have as few KABOOMS as we do. It appears that some old load data has been "dummed down" so today's crop won't blow themselves outta the gene pool.

I have an elderly friend who knew both Jack O'Conner and Warren Page. He says Jack was a wealthy snob college professor who could write well but had no time for "little people" and his hunting skills required hiring guides. Page was a personable rich guy who loved guns, hunting and hunters but he didn't tolerate pompous fools. He and Jack were friendly aquaintances but not close friends. My friend hunted in Alaska and Africa with Page, he did not hunt with Jack.

[oldscot3]

wncchester - Your remarks about O'Conner are pretty shabby things to post on a public forum, considering the man is deceased and your information is second hand. It doesn't speak well about your character in my opinion.

[Rifletom]

Roger that oldscot3. I couldn't agree more. Thank you.

[wncchester]

"wncchester - Your remarks about O'Conner are pretty shabby things to post on a public forum,.."

Not in my mind, facts are facts. Your remarks are quite touchy-feely, are you always so PC?

Jack was an elitist professor with a strong sense of personal entitlement but that doen't detract a thing from what he wrote. Jack is one of my favorite writers of his period and I have several of his books in my liberary but I don't think he would have enjoyed my company, nor would Warren Page,they were out of my league. Elmer Keith would have tho, he recognised himself as just another working stiff. Elmer and some other outdoor writers of the 50s-60s didn't care much for the patricians because of their attitudes. But I value what I've learned from all of them, it matters not how sweet any of them may have been and passing does nothing to change that.

[William T. Watts]

Countless times I've read articles about the virtues of the 270Win round in various articles in Outdoor life written by Jack O'Connor. I eventual purchased a Winchester Model 70 in a 270, to bad I couldn't afford one of the pre 64's so I had to settle for one of the early push feed rifles. I never got around to acquiring a pre 64 rifle but have managed to purchase several of the classic model 70's that I like an awful lot. The 270 has been one of my favorite calibers for more than 40 years, hats off to your father, I hated it when his last article was printed! For what its worth I never loaded a 130 grn bullet heavier than 58 grns of H4831, the best loading for my rifle was 57.5grns and I still use it today. William

[edward5759]

I don't care !
as a young man of 15, I read jacks stories, and could think of my self at that time hunting the canyons and deserts of Arizona.
My mother did buy me one of the Pre 64 Winchesters. I still have it. It gave me the ability to deal with her death a year later when I was 16 years old.
I had no brothers or sisters but I would share the stories with any one that would want to hear them.
I would later in life receive a PhD. in Engineering Science with a study in projectile momentum.
Jack O'Conner was a great writer that gave me the inspiration to endeavor on.

Edward5759

[Rifletom]

270bradford; don't let one or two folks run you off; this is usually a pretty decent forum, good people here. Did you get my PM?

[Colorado Redneck]

A friend of mine is a 270 nut, and he has read quite a bit of stuff by O'Conner. My friend said that Jack wrote: "Scoop up a case full of 4831 and use a 130 gr bullet over it." My friend and his dad shot loads like that, and they were hot and accurate. When they fired a round, there was a little smoke ring around the muzzle. I think they used 130 gr Nosler BT.

This is all hearsay, and NOBODY SHOULD USE THAT LOAD.!

[Dave Anderson]

"He says Jack was a wealthy snob college professor who could write well but had no time for "little people" and his hunting skills required hiring guides."

Your "elderly friend" managed to get one fact right. O'Connor could write well. Everything else is babbling nonsense.

Far from being wealthy, O'Connor grew up in virtual poverty and was never more than comfortably middle class. Find a copy of his autobiographical book "Horse and Buggy West". When O'Connor was six his parents were divorced and his father left. His mother raised Jack and his sister alone. Jack worked at various jobs after school and on holidays, most of them hard work, almost from the time his father left.

He joined the army in 1917 at age 15 but was discharged after his true age was discovered. He then joined the navy and served for a couple of years, then worked to earn money to pay for first a Bachelor's degree, then a Master's.

He worked at university half-time in public relations, half time as an instructor in English. His salary in 1931 was $2,500. Along with all other state employees he got a 10% pay cut in each of the next two years. By the time he moved to Idaho right after WW II he had quit the university and was working solely for Outdoor Life.

His salary at the time he retired in 1972 was $22,500, not bad for the time but certainly not enough to make one remotely "wealthy". Whatever extra income and savings he had came from book royalties, which are only earned if readers like and buy your books.

As for ignoring the "little people", no outdoor writer before or since got the kind of fan mail O'Connor received. After the war and for some years he got some 3,500 letters per month. With the help of three secretaries at the OL offices, and with basic form letters for frequently asked questions, he made a point of answering virtually every letter.

The really laughable part is "his hunting skills required hunting guides". O'Connor never hunted with a guide until he was in his 40s, and then mainly because the law required it, and because an outfitter was needed to get him into wild country by packtrain. Up till then he always hunted alone, with his wife and sons, occasionally with a friend. He knew more about sheep hunting than all but the best guides. Of one guide he wrote something like, "he was a very pleasant guy and I paid him $75 a day to teach him how to hunt sheep".

Writing of his many hunts in Sonora he wrote, "Those Sonora hunts were very cheap. They had to be or I could not have afforded to go." On one hunt where they took mule deer and quail he wrote "We were away from Tucson for ten days and spent $75." Even in later years he often hunted alone or with friends in the west and northwestern states.

While we're at it, his guided hunts were paid for either by himself from book royalties or by his employer, Outdoor Life. The reason they sent him on hunts was so he would write about them and help sell magazines. They did it to make money, not to make O'Connor happy.

Finally, I challenge anyone to show me where O'Connor wrote "the .280 is a better cartridge than the .270". Not "I heard" or "so and so said O'Connor said it to him". I mean tell me the book or magazine article where O'Connor wrote it. I have virtually all of them and I've never seen it. Nor have I ever read of him taking a .280 on a hunt or shooting a single head of game with one.

Sorry for rattling on here but it irks me to see O'Connor being misrepresented like this.

P.S. Since this is the handloading forum I guess I should have said something about handloading. O'Connor's pet load for his matched pair of .270s stocked by Al Biesen was 62.0 gr. of the original WW II surplus Hodgdon H-4831 in Western cases with any good 130 gr. bullet (O'Connor's preference was for the Nosler Partition). This load should not be used with currently manufactured H-4831, IMR-4831 or any other 4831. Velocity was from 3,100 to 3,140 in a 22" barrel.

I bought a lot of the original H-4831 in the early '70s, used this load in three different .270s and got about the same velocities. So if Connor's scale was off, mine must be off the same amount. Actually it isn't, I still have it, have checked it with test weights and found it to be accurate.

The 4064 load mentioned by someone was one O'Connor used and recommended in his earlier years, until he started using H-4831 sometime in the 1950s.

[PunchinPaper]

I like this combo out of my Rem700 270.
135gr Sierra MK & W760.

[hooligan1]

Go Dave Anderson!! And go .270 win!!!

[Cascade1911]

My first and favorite rifle was/ is a .270. Jack O Conner is why it is my first. Maybe there are better rifle cartridges out there but it has never let me down....

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

I realize this is not what the O.P. ask, but I have felt for years that a better bullet weight for the 270Win is the 140gr.

A friend who hunted fairly extensively, was taking a moose hunt with his 270.

It started going through his thought process that maybe he was a bit under gunned. However, when came time to trip the critter, it went as expected.

As per filling up a case with the old 4831 and then stuffing a bullet on top, been there and done that, but with a 243win. Just wasn't possible to get enough powder into the case to get dangerious pressures.

Bought some of that powder at the old Lolo's in Lewiston, Idaho, a place in which Jack O'Conner was a well know person to walk through the door.

Jack's home wasn't that far from Lolo's and Speer & CCI not that much farther.

Not sure our groups were very good, but there weren't any pressure problems.

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[William T. Watts]

If both the .270 and .280 are loaded to equal pressure levels I tend to lean toward the .280, the .270 round is loaded to a higher pressure for bolt guns and the .280 was loaded down for the Remington 740/742 series of auto rifles. I have both calibers, I like both, I've hunted with both, personally I can't pick between the calibers because they are virtually identical. I've probably read most of the articles that Jack O'Connor wrote, he wrote a lot about the virtues of the .270, anything written about the .270 could have been written about the .280. The way I have it figured the .270 was the first high velocity medium bore caliber that was available in a good bolt action rifle that was affordable and the rest is history! William

[Paul B.]

I like the .270 but I don't cotton to the 130 gr. bullet. My preference is for one of the 150 gr. bullets, usuallt the Sierra Game-King. The 150's don't mangle up as much good eating meat. I have most of Jack's book including THE LAST BOOK. it's a shame he passed away before that one was finished. from the little that he did right, that book would have been a zinger for sure.
Interesting thing too. When interviewed by Jim Carmichel right after retirings, Jim asked him, "If you were restricted to one gun to hunt North America, which would you choose?" Jack unhesitatingly said, "The 30-06!" I think that in a way, that kind of says it all.
Paul B.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Yep, I said "140gr" and should have said 150gr!

OOOOOPS!

As per the "06" I would agree, and when the subject comes up I try to indicate that as good as the 270 is, for a one gun person, the 30/06 does have a greater range of usefullness.

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Unclenick]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

Originally Posted by 270Bradford

Whether Dad's scales were off a bit, I cannot say. However. I have found that his load of 62 grains of 4831 way too hot with a 130 gr bullet in my .270.
Of course, the 4831 I use now is not exactly the same animal he used.

I think Dave Anderson addressed the old surplus 4831 pretty well. I'll try to put some numbers to it. The powder your dad was using would have been surplus non-canister grade powder stored in variable conditions. It could not be counted on to match today's IMR4831 powder. It is, however, probably not as far from modern H4831. Because Hodgdon sold repackaged surplus 4831 for years, it makes sense Hodgdon would choose their canister grade ADI powder that carries the H4831 label today to come closer to it.

I did a quick run in QuickLOAD, for which lots of actual powder were measured to determine their characteristics. Under a 130 grain Hornady Spire point, I got the following results for a 22" tube:

62 gr. IMR4831: 82,191 psi, 3,308 fps

62 gr. H4831: 66,193 psi, 3,124 fps

Quite a difference. The former approaches the minimum .270 proof load (87 KPSI), and the latter is just barely over the MAP limit. The first load won't destroy the gun, but in the old 1965 U of M study, they found firing rounds in that pressure range gave them a gun whose headspace had grown to FIELD reject gauge length by the time they'd completed a set of tests. In other worlds, lug setback (Springfield '03 rifle) can be significant if you fire many of those.

The computer software is virtual reality, of course, and operates on assumptions about case capacity and chamber size that probably will lower the numbers in real guns, but because the powder characteristics were measured it still gives you a sense the difference in the two 4831's is substantial, and they are not at all interchangeable. This is unlike the IMR vs. H 4198's, which are quite close.

The difference between the two 4831's is verified by Hodgdon's own load recommendations. With the same bullet seated to 3.23" COL, using a Winchester case and Winchester LR primer, their maximum load for H4831 is 60 grains, agreeing pretty well with QuickLOAD, and their maximum load for IMR4831 is just 55.8 grains. Not the same powders.

As to 270Bradford's question, because of gun-to-gun variability, you want to be careful about load recommendations. All bullets of the same weight won't have the same characteristics; all cases are different; primers can be quite different in resulting pressure. If you use H4831 to be closer to what your dad used, then I would follow that Hodgdon recipe, starting with their recommended 56 grains and working up toward 60 grains in steps no more than 1 grain (1/5 of the span) while watching for pressure signs. If you already have modern IMR4831, then the start load becomes 51 grains, working up toward 55.8 grains.

If you want a single, fixed recipe, that is how Alliant publishes their loads, but these are for their powders. Note that they list two 130 grain bullets because the greater depth to which the boattail sticks down into the case, which raises pressure. So, to emphasize, load data is for specific cases, primers, and bullets and COL's. One load at a given bullet weight is not necessarily good with all bullets the same weight, not when you change shape and especially not when you change construction such as going to a solid from a conventional cup and core design.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Good info, thanks Unclenick!

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[hooligan1]

Unclenick really,,, REALLY I could listen to you for days!!!! Thanks for replying to this Forum!!!

[edward5759]

Still have 6-8 pounds of the brown bag powder.
It's no longer in the brown bag though. it sits next to my Herter primers.

[Dave Anderson]

It occurs to me many of the younger shooters reading this forum might be a bit puzzled about the discussion of H-4831 origins and variations. Following WW II enormous quantities of military equipment were sold as surplus, often at very low prices. Among the items sold were smokeless powders.

Hodgdon bought up a huge amount of the powder which became known as H-4831. A decade or more ago at a small press event during the SHOT Show I talked with one of the Hodgdons (Bruce? I'm ashamed to say I don't recall). I do recall he said when they bought the powder it came in big copper chests.

People read of H-4831 being sold in paper sacks and quite logically think this is how Hodgdon sold it. This isn't correct. Hodgdon wanted consistency so they could provide load data which would be useable for the entire quantity. They didn't want to sell one batch, then open another batch of chests and find the burning characteristics were somewhat different.

The powder was dumped from the copper chests and then blended and tested for pressure, velocity, and consistency. Over the 20+ years it was sold loading data and performance remained consistent. Once blended and tested the powder was packaged in various size containers, from the familiar one-pound size, to kegs. Incidentally by this time the postwar housing boom was on and copper was in great demand for wiring and plumbing. Hodgdon sold the copper chests for enough to cover their entire initial purchase price, which was why they could sell H-4831 at such a modest price.

Dealers got a price break on larger quantities so many of them bought kegs and then weighed out and sold it by the pound to their customers, often in paper sacks, for as little as 50 cents/pound. By the time I began buying powder around 1970 this practice wasn't common, the H-4831 I bought was in regular Hodgdon one-pound boxes. I still have some, with price tags of $2.95 and $3.15.

In the early 1970s the original supply finally ran out. As the powder had become so popular Hodgdon had been looking for a replacement. The new powder came in virtually identical one-pound packages but with the words "Newly Manufactured" in bold letters. It was very similar in characteristics but apparently just a bit faster burning as manuals reported getting the same velocities with slightly smaller powder charges.

There is still a lot of original H-4831 stored by reloaders. I have some which has been kept cool, dry, and in the dark, and still seems to perform as usual. I know other reloaders who say their supply no longer gives as much velocity, though I don't know under what conditions it was stored. Smokeless powders generally "fail safe", that is, they produce less rather than more pressure as they deteriorate.

Although I tried the "O'Connor load" just to see how it worked, in practice I found it more trouble than it was worth. Original H-4831 had long kernels, didn't meter well through powder measures and took up a lot of case space. To get full charges in .270 cases took a drop tube and/or a lot of case tapping to settle the powder. I saved the original H-4831 for 150-gr. loads in my .270s (with smaller powder charges) and used other powders such as H-4350, IMR-4350, IMR-4064, and a few others with 130 gr. and lighter bullets.

More recently Hodgdon began marketing H-4831SC (short cut) with smaller powder kernels that metered more consistently. I know some of us old-timers get nostalgic about the original H-4831 but personally I think the current H-4831SC is the best yet. It meters consistently, settles in the case without the need of drop tubes or case tapping, and provides the same velocity with smaller powder charges.

As Uhclenick demonstrated earlier IMR-4831 is a different powder entirely with different burning characteristics and cannot be used with load data for H-4831. If you haven't read Unclenicks post above you should, and if you have it's worth reading again. Very sound advice.