• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Accuracy now versus during Jack O'Connor's day.

Yeah, accuracy and precision have improved over time. I was shooting groups in the .4's in the late sixties and early seventies and was pleased about it. By the late seventies I was agging in the low .2's. The differences? Bullets, for sure. A change in scope type and power. Glass BR stock and glue in. 2 oz trigger. Oh, and there was little question the 6PPC shot better than a 244 Remington! I'm pretty sure all of us have refined our rifle building techniques over the years, which leads to greater consistency.
As far as hunting rifles are concerned, the big change has been the advent of the laser rangefinder, and the change in attitude, fostered by stupid TV programs, which made it preferable to shoot game at extreme ranges rather than spot and stalk. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it just is. WH
 
O'Connor was a master class hunter. As a young hunter I recall reading his numerous articles.

One in particular was on how to sight in a rifle. In fact, I think it was Weaver that included that article with their scopes.
The NRA used to publish a thin book Sighting In which was excellent. I can't find it now, loaned out two copies decades ago, never got them back. It explained trajectory above line of sight, and point-blank range, with excellent illustrations. No newbie shooter after reading it could fail to grasp how to sight in a rifle. Wish I could find a copy now.
-
 
Buck Buckner who was a friend of Jack, told me he shot more game with a 30-06 than the 270 Win.
Jack also hunted with a 7x57 Mauser a lot. His wife came along on most of his hunts, and that was the cartridge best suited for her. FWIW I grew up in Lewiston but never met O'Connor. I knew all of Vernon Speer's offspring, though.
-
 
Last edited:
They were hunters in those days, stalk to within 400 yrd or less and make a accurate killing shot. Not like so many wannabe snipers today, shooting out to 1500 yds trying to make a kill, I still wonder how many animals get away crippled, that they don't talk about or show on the new hunting shows on TV, before they actually recover one.
MOA was the norm in Jack's day and he did it well, with good old standard caliber/cartridges i.e. .277, 30 and even 7mm's.
Just to be clear, I am not being argumentative or taking offense. Just throwing my thoughts out there. I will say most people have no business taking shots passed 400 yards even with custom built highly accurate rifles. They think just because they have the tool they can do it but take no time in practicing or learning anything to be able to make consistent shots at long ranges. I am sure there are plenty of game wounded or crippled by long range hunters but I would venture to say it is no more than archery hunters who stick game poorly and watch them run off only to look for them for a while before they go decide to try again on another one. I visit several hunting forums and I read this all the time about how people made this great stalk and the shot felt good but didn't recover the animal. Somehow this is more ethical and doesn't get near the criticism when the result is the same. Just my .02.
 
The NRA used to publish a thin book Sighting In which was excellent. I can't find it now, loaned out two copies decades ago, never got them back. It explained trajectory above line of sight, and point-blank range, with excellent illustrations. No newbie shooter after reading it could fail to grasp how to sight in a rifle. Wish I could find a copy now.
-
Yea, that the same document I recall. It was written by O'Connor and quite simple to understand and very useful. That was my first introduction to the concept of minimum point-blank range. It had a long list of cartridges with data.
 
They were hunters in those days, stalk to within 400 yrd or less and make a accurate killing shot. Not like so many wannabe snipers today, shooting out to 1500 yds trying to make a kill, I still wonder how many animals get away crippled, that they don't talk about or show on the new hunting shows on TV, before they actually recover one.
MOA was the norm in Jack's day and he did it well, with good old standard caliber/cartridges i.e. .277, 30 and even 7mm's.
I couldn't agree with you more. Long range hunting (1500 yds ) is a play on words. No such thing as hunting at those distances. You are simply target shooting and using an animal as your target. JMO
 
Yea, that the same document I recall. It was written by O'Connor and quite simple to understand and very useful. That was my first introduction to the concept of minimum point-blank range. It had a long list of cartridges with data.
I don't recall my book Sighting In having been written by O'Connor, and pretty sure I'd have noticed that. But, I could be wrong.

Here's the book you're probably thinking of:
-
1711567910599.png
-
 
My dad took outdoor life when I was a kid, always loved Jacks stories. My first centerfire was a .270 win. like Jack. Had a guy tell me about shooting a deer over 1000 yds. with a 6.5 creedmoor . That bullet is getting close to subsonic out there. He killed it though. I think Id try a 300 win. mag or something similar for that range. Doug
 
I don't recall my book Sighting In having been written by O'Connor, and pretty sure I'd have noticed that. But, I could be wrong.

Here's the book you're probably thinking of:
-
View attachment 1540901
-
What I remember was a document consisting of a folded sheet of paper that was included with Weaver scopes along with the Weaver owner's manual. This document was authored by Jack O'Connor, and it listed several cartridges with ballistics data.

I think the thrust of the article was that he was promoting a 1 1/2" high zero at hundred yards for most cartridges would satisfy the needs for big game hunting with a point-blank hold. But again, I am trying to recall this from memory over 50 years ago and I can't even remember what I ate for breakfast.

It could have been Redfield scopes instead of Weaver, I can't remember for sure. It was long time ago, but it had to be one or the other because these were the only scope I owned back in those days.
 
I just read Elmer Kieth's "hell, I was there". What repeatedly struck me was his strong insistence on a heavy bullet that would shoot through a lot of meat and bone and put down a critter (fill in the blank). I read carefully his descriptions of hunting shots and concluded that he did a lot of shooting at whatever part presented itself. Hit em in the butt? Sure, if it went through the heart and on out! Hit em in the shoulder and bust up a side? Sure, put a couple more in him!
This differs from much of the "shooting" on game done today with high power glass, high efficiency bullets, and rangefinders.
I guess what I am saying is the tech of that day allowed for certain approaches, while the tech of today allows for other methods.
Most of what Elmer wrote about still apple's today. No glass, no but stocks, no closed breach, all pertain to Elmer's methods today.

I compete with big glass, custom actions and barrels, as well as highly tuned actions and specific stocks. 100 to 1000 yards, and seek pinpoint accuracy.

But I don't use long guns for hunting, I prefer the same degree of difficulty, and prefer a hand gun. 1 hunt inside 300 yards, as that is what I consider sporting, and respect the sport enough to get myself that close. Inside 50 yards is my preference.

One has to realize, that to be a responsible hunter means, killing and not wounding! It is also done in uncontrolled conditions. In this case, performance means high percentage shots means 6" kill zones, slightly larger or smaller for some game. In this case, that added wieght and diameter are wellcomemed over same hole accuracy for marginal hits.

One example is winded, working your way up a steep climb, with unexpected game within range busting you, you have one shot to make it count. Those big heavy bullets are very welcome!

Now even for small game like squirrel, I would never use a light bullet hyper velocity load over a standard velocity heavy for rimfire hp.

Elmer was a hunter, and had little use of shooting paper from a bench. Plus his preference was to do it with a handgun, and preferred not to use a rifle, with exotic glass. But he did have a habit of taking pot shots I refrained from! But most rifle shooters are willing to take far to risky of shots, to allow them not to do the work necessary of getting close enough to get high percentage shots, much like Elmer.
 
What I remember was a document consisting of a folded sheet of paper that was included with Weaver scopes along with the Weaver owner's manual. This document was authored by Jack O'Connor, and it listed several cartridges with ballistics data.
Here's the book Sighting-In, published for decades by the NRA. Readily available for ~$10 on EvilBay. I'm going to snag one myself. It's excellent, especially for newbies but many old hands will learn something if only they'd admit it.
-
1711834349507.png
-
 
Last edited:
For the vast majority of weekend "hunters", shots on game animals over 300 yards is just shooting...and usually badly. It's also always amazing how often a 100-yard shot morphs to 500 in the final telling.
 
Last edited:
Game animals are 50% to 70% smaller now than they were back then. That’s why our guns now have to be so much more accurate when shooting a deer.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,954
Messages
2,187,266
Members
78,614
Latest member
dlljr416
Back
Top