Keith or O'connor

Talk anything related to Rifle hunting
NONYA
Monster
Monster
Posts: 1522
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:10 am
Location: Montana

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by NONYA » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:33 pm

.323,210 GR,KICKASS BC,Im in!Id have to rebbarel the 8mag with a HEAVY tube and see what it can do out around 2000 yards.... [-o<

User avatar
silvertip-co
2 point
2 point
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Pueblo, CO, USA
Contact:

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by silvertip-co » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:54 am

Having read Jack O'Connor for 50 of my 59 yrs( I still read and re-read his books) I would say .270. The 338-06 is probably a fine cartridge, but I know of no General Store that sells them. As much as I hate everything WalMart(ChinaMart) they do have the cheapest ammo and do have some available, unlike other stores. What good is a rifle with no ammo, and its hard to tell how the Fascist ObamaCrats will affect ammo supplies in future.
SVENSKA50@HOTMAIL.COM
NRA LIFE MEMBER

NONYA
Monster
Monster
Posts: 1522
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:10 am
Location: Montana

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by NONYA » Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:22 am

Its the hoarders and cutrate dealers that screwed up the ammo supply over the last year,not Obama.Everything is back to normal around here,dont know about the rest of the country.

wingmaster36
2 point
2 point
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:17 am

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by wingmaster36 » Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:55 am

O'Connor was and is the most accomplished outdoor writer of all time, but Keith could whoop him on his worst day. Jack was an admitted lightweight when it came to recoil and that is why his favorite round was actually the 7x57 Mauser prior to the 270. He latched on to the 270 because it was newer and more marketable and they kind of promoted each other. What was good for Jack was good for the 270 and vise a versa. Jack even admitted that the 30-06 was more versatile than the 270, but kept right on plugging the 270. To answer the question between the 270-338? I pick the 270 because over the years the 270 has been good to me, though I no longer have one. I have no empirical experience to speak of concerning the 338-06, but it does look good on paper as an elk round along with the 35 Whelen. If I lived in Grizz country I would however, reconsider my choice. I personally have settled in on a good shooting 7mm mag that I plan to use until it's shot out. I would love to go back in time and share a hunting camp with both of the gentlemen. Man, what the campfire cartridge arguments would be like?
"The things that are over my head are under God's feet." Adrian Rogers

User avatar
Springville Shooter
Monster
Monster
Posts: 1073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:49 pm
Location: Building America

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by Springville Shooter » Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:05 pm

Wingmaster, I too went the route of the 7mm. If your a handloader who is into the unique stuff, consider the 7 dakota when you shoot the barrell out of that rem. brass lasts forever and you can duplicate red hot 7mag loads with low pressure light/ accurate loads in the dakota. Just a thought, I love mine.-----shooter
"Only accurate rifles are interesting"-----Col. Townsend Whelen

wingmaster36
2 point
2 point
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:17 am

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by wingmaster36 » Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:48 pm

Springville Shooter,

Thanks for the suggestion as I was thinking along the same lines. The Dakota or maybe the 30-338 just to be different. The Dakota has some impressive stats for sure.
"The things that are over my head are under God's feet." Adrian Rogers

User avatar
Springville Shooter
Monster
Monster
Posts: 1073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:49 pm
Location: Building America

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by Springville Shooter » Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:09 pm

I like the 30-338 as well, excellent ballistics and inherent accuracy in a 2.5 inch case so you can load the bullets out near the lands. That's why I love the dakota cartridges and am suprised that they are not more popular. All the speed of the longer magnums in a 2.5 inch case with thick brass, straight walls and excellent shoulders/neck. How can you beat that?
"Only accurate rifles are interesting"-----Col. Townsend Whelen

User avatar
silvertip-co
2 point
2 point
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Pueblo, CO, USA
Contact:

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by silvertip-co » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:04 am

O'Connor was / is the greatest, no doubt about it.

Keith was a blovating bs'er.
SVENSKA50@HOTMAIL.COM
NRA LIFE MEMBER

TheGreatwhitehunter
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2117
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:00 am
Location: COLORADO

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by TheGreatwhitehunter » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:44 am

Jack O'connor :not-worthy
THE LORD IS MY ROCK

Image
Image
Image

ElmerFudd
Fawn
Fawn
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:10 am

Re: Keith or O'connor

Post by ElmerFudd » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:05 am

As long as you are shooting something reasonable, it really does not make much difference. That's why there is always room for argument in the question. The hunter skills and shooting skills are 99% more important than what you are shooting, assuming it is something reasonable. True, some setups are better for ultra long range shooting, but a bit of hunting skill more than makes up for the small percentage of those few ultra long range shots, and they may provide false confidence to most average shooters (of which more of us are than not, no matter what we like to think)..

BTW, both Jack & Elmer are fun reads. Jack obviously had better writing skills, but Elmer's stories were something else. Thge good old days, when it was more than score and how to...:)

Post Reply
cron