This past weekend I went on a business trip and ran into a guy who shared a common interest in hunting and reloading. We started talking abut rifles and found out that we both shared an admiration for Jack O'Connor that started in our early youth reading about his exploits in Outdoor Life. We were both able to recite, in chorus, his reloading data for the beloved 270 that Jack used as 62.0 grains of H4831 in a Western/Winchester case with a 130 grain bullet that we both think started out as Speer and then later moved on to the Nosler Partition. Does this ring true to the other O'Connor fans out there?

I worked that load up in a friend of mines 22"bbl .270 M700 back in the late 70s and he used it until he passed on 3yrs ago. I still have a bit of powder left from that original lot. Don't know how a new lot would work but I'd be starting from well below that 62gr load. By the way,the 5sht average for that load was 3112fps.

til later

I used up a lot of the old surplus 4831 which is not the same as today's H4831. I would just fill the case to the top and seat a 130 grain bullet on top of it. I quit using my cases whan the neck split or I had 4 bright shiny spots on the case heads. I'm a bit wiser now.

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
We were both able to recite, in chorus, his reloading data for the beloved 270 that Jack used as 62.0 grains of H4831 in a Western/Winchester case with a 130 grain bullet that we both think started out as Speer and then later moved on to the Nosler Partition. Does this ring true to the other O'Connor fans out there?

That has been my favorite load in my Pre-'64 FW for over 40 years now, though I have used Hornady bullets most of that time. (I still am using the remainder of my original supply of 150 lbs of 4831 from the '50s, plus another 40 lbs found in a bought-out gunshop from that era.)

Still, that is not the load that I remember Jack boosting most often in the 50's & '60s, so I suspect he may have had more than one "favorite" depending on which of his rifles he was shooting. I distinctly recall reading of both 57.5 grains and 58.5 grains as his favorites more often than 62 grains. He did use a lot of Speer bullets but, then, he lived in Lewiston, Idaho after he left Arizona...same town Speer was and is in. In fact, he used to hang around Lolo Sporting Goods a fair bit...the same place that sells (or at least used to sell) Speer seconds.

I also recall him using ABC (Arizona Bullet Company) and a variety of other makes of bullets. Just before the war, all through the war, and for several years after the war, everybody used pretty much what they could get, which often wasn't much.

He thought a lot of 130 gr. silvertips too.

I think O'connor's recipe was 60, not 62, grains of original surplus 4831 with a 130 grain bullet. He referenced both Speer and Noslers as I recall. He also hunted elk as frequently with 130s as 150s in a .270, observing that lung shot elk tended to go down quicker with the lighter bullet.

I still use original surplus 4831 in my .270 -- however it tops out at 58.5 grains with a 130 grain bullet, yielding 3200 fps from a 24 inch barrel. I've seen .270s that digest 60 grains just fine, but I've never seen one that was comfortable with 62 grains. Besides, 62 grains runs over the mouth of the case if you are using unfired brass, and is heavily compressed even with fireformed brass. But as Rickt300 points out, if you don't mind shiney spots on your case heads, then more than 60 grains might work just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I think O'connor's recipe was 60, not 62, grains of original surplus 4831 with a 130 grain bullet.

That is what I thought as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek: Besides, 62 grains runs over the mouth of the case if you are using unfired brass, and is heavily compressed even with fireformed brass.

I wondered about this. I just loaded 59.0, 59.5, and 60.0 grain test loads 2 nights ago with a 130 Solid base. From a visual inspection, I didn't think 62 grains would fit either.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stonecreek: Besides, 62 grains runs over the mouth of the case if you are using unfired brass, and is heavily compressed even with fireformed brass.

Not so with ALL makes of brass. In my Winchester brass, 62.0 grains leaves about 1/4" of space empty at the top of the neck...and this is in NEW brass (NOS - New Old Stock).

That's plenty of space to start the bullet in and does not compress the powder too much when seating Hornady 130 gr. spire points to the cannelure. Works fine in my pre-'64 FW and chrono averages 3,187 fps. Feeling that W-W primers are likely to be best in their brass, that's the primers I use, too.

As for accuracy, the last time I benchrested it, it was shooting 1-1/2" groups at 300 yards, with a 1959-60 vintage BalVar-8 scope in Stith Master Mounts.

I run 59gr. of the old H4831 on a 140gr. bullet and it is all I can get into the case. Fairly warm load but shoots good in my rifle.

In Jack O'Conners mag article "The .270 Everymans Beltless Magnum" he says for 15yrs or so he used 62gr no.435Q Data Powder(that's what H4831 was originally called)with the 130gr Nosler bullet in Western cases,but he goes on to say that with Remington cases he considered 60grs max. He says in a 22"bbl velocity was about 3140fps.

til later

quote:

Works fine in my pre-'64 FW and chrono averages 3,187 fps.

Looking at loading manuals from the 50's and early 60's, it seems that the pre-64 Winchesters in many calibers would digest more powder than other rifles of the same chambering. I know that this is true with the .264 Winchester, where charges were listed at four to five grains more than my Sako would allow. The pre-64's may have had generous chambers, longer throats, or "looser" barrels; whatever, they seem to have been able to take heavier charges of powder. Ahhh, for the good old days!

that has seamed to be a bit hot for me, when 55.0 is max for IMR4350 with 130s

As I recall, "the O'Conner load" was 60 grs. of H-4831 and a 130 gr. bullet. Yup! It was Partitions or Speers. At my advanced state of age, the memory may be a bit off tho. Shot my 1st caribou with that powder charge & a 130 Partition at a range that no one should try. I was just lucky and have vowed to never do it again.
Bear in Fairbanks

The only thing I would add to the conversation is that H4831SC is the powder now, for the .270Win.

Jack says in his mag article that he wrote that load up(60grs) but was never given credit for it and went on and started using 62grs. Must be one of those cases where credit is given after your gone! Slips my mind right now but when did he pass on?

til later

EP

January 26, 1978.

Tom

quote:

The only thing I would add to the conversation is that H4831SC is the powder now, for the .270Win.

Not for me! It too often "hangs up" or "bridges" in my RCBS Uniflow that I have had to stop using it and go back to H4831 which doesn't. Some say that the SC version is not graphite lubricated unlike the long grain version.

I use 62gr of H4831 for my 130gr bullet. Never had any problem.

My first 270 was a Remington 721 and I tried out the at reload as soon as I was able to do some reloading. After all Jack wouldn't recommend it if it didn't hit like a lightening bolt, would He????

I remember that he used that load on some mountain grizzlys if I remember correctly.

I found out that the recipe had to be followed carefully and only in a Winchester case could I get 62.0 grains of the beloved H4831 into the case. The Remington cases seem to max out at around 58.5 to 59.0 grains.

I used that same combo in the three other 270's that followed and still load that combo for one of my sons who now uses the 270. My daughter-in-law used that load to take a nice Montana 5x5 bull elk a couple of years ago and was impressed with the terminal performance.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

The only thing I would add to the conversation is that H4831SC is the powder now, for the .270Win.

Not for me! It too often "hangs up" or "bridges" in my RCBS Uniflow that I have had to stop using it and go back to H4831 which doesn't. Some say that the SC version is not graphite lubricated unlike the long grain version.

I do not use a powder dispenser, I ladle every single kernel with a silver babys spoon.

I had never thought there could be issues with H4831SC because of something like that.

My favorite load in my Pre-64 Model 70 is 57.5 grains IMR 4350. Using old Winchester brass & primers. The bullets are the old style(pre-72) Nosler 130 grains. My 270 chronographed them at 3257 FPS and grouped 3/4" (3 shot) at 200 yds.
Jack O'connor was a terrific writer and pushed the 270 Win. Correct me if I am wrong but I understand he shot more game with his 30-06 than his 270 win.

I have several pounds of "surplus" 4831. I used up my original stash years ago, but then an old gentleman who quit reloading and hunting because of his health gave me an a buddy 20# which we split.

I still use it in my pre-64 M-70 with a 24" barrel. I settled on 58.0 grains because of pressure signs. It gives me 3050 fps and groups under 1" - thats good enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Demonical:
The only thing I would add to the conversation is that H4831SC is the powder now, for the .270Win.

This is a very hard point to argue. I guess the runner up would be the IMR version? I have 20 pounds of the H4831SC for a reason.

quote:

Originally posted by aktoklat:
My favorite load in my Pre-64 Model 70 is 57.5 grains IMR 4350. Using old Winchester brass & primers. The bullets are the old style(pre-72) Nosler 130 grains. My 270 chronographed them at 3257 FPS and grouped 3/4" (3 shot) at 200 yds.
Jack O'connor was a terrific writer and pushed the 270 Win. Correct me if I am wrong but I understand he shot more game with his 30-06 than his 270 win.

That's some smokin' load at 3257 fps. Sounds interesting to say the least.

Jack did shoot a lot of game with the 30-06 and would guess that it might have been more with the 06 than the 270.

Whenever Bighorn sheep is mentioned the name O'Connor seems to follow, with 270 coming after that to the point that it might just seem Unamerican to shoot a sheep with any other caliber.

Sounds familiar. And I believe he used 59-60 grains with the 150 grain bullets. But I have heard that some people have had difficulty getting that much H4831 into a .270 case. I guess it takes a long drop tube. In addition, he was using OLD, ORIGINAL HODGDON MILSURP 4831, not the current stuff. I wonder if the H4831 SC now available would be easier to get into the case....

In my .270's, I started out using O'Connor's loads. But later I switched to IMR 4350 (55.5 and 53.5 garins respectively for the 130 & 150 gr bullets.) In my rifles, I got better accuracy with the 4350 loads.

I seem to recall that Jack loaded 58 gr of 4831 for 150 gr bullets and 60 gr of 4831 for 130 gr bullets. Said once that he had gone as far as 62 gr of Surplus 4831 with 130 gr bullets but backed off to 60 gr. Stout loads never the less for the time and place. I shot pretty much the same loads out of my 270's with both 150 and 130 gr Speer's and Nosler Partitions. Remember when Jack was loading Nosler Partitions, they were still being made on a screw machine. The ones we have now have more bearing surface and well that could give more pressure than you would want with those loads, backing of a grain or two will not hurt anything other that the over thinkers. When I was young, I bought a 50 lb can of Surplus 4831 for something like 54 cents a lb. I got 39 years of shooting 270's and 7mm Remington Mags out of it, I am down to just about a one pound left. Over all it was some of the best money I ever spent in shooting, thou my mom at the time thought I was nuts to spend a months worth of lawn mowing money on it. Heck I still have some 7mm Remington Mag loads, 175 gr Nosler Semi Spitzers that I made up for Kenya in 1971. They still shoot where I sighed that old 700 too. Now I shoot better bullets and Reloader 22 for the most part. Still wish I could buy powder for 54 cents a lb and Noslers for 3.25 for fifty. but then again I make 2 times the money an hour than I did mowing lawns for a whole month back then. I still think it was better then, had few needs or wants. I spend to much on computers these days than anything else.

I've posted it before but I only shoot 150 gr. Partitions in my Pre-64, Mod. 70 and have turned to 57 gr. of Rldr-22. Get very consistant accuracy and a vel. of about 2930 fps. I'll stick with it.
Bear in Fairbanks

I have just about all of Jack's books and several back issues of magazines with .270 articles. Jack's favorite .270 loads were 62 gr surplus H-4831 with 130 gr bullets and 58.5 with 150s. He almost exclusively used Nosler Partions in the .270 for the latter part of his hunting career. Early on, he used 49 gr of IMR-4064 with 130s. O'Connor did originally use 60 gr of H-4831 when it first became available, but worked up to 62 gr and used this load almost exclusively with his .270s from then on. It is true that the original surplus H-4831 is a bit slower than current versions of H-4831/H-4831sc which is why max loads are often a couple of grains lower these days. The only manual that lists 62 gr with H-4831 these days in Hornady. I think Swift lists 61gr with 130s as well. All others are 60 and below.

Lou

This thread was like deja vu for me. As I write this I have my load notebook in front of me so it's not from memory alone.

In late August of 1979 I obtained a minty pre-64 Model 70 and decided to duplicate Jack's load (as he was my boyhood hero). In my research he had indicated he used a load of 61 grains of H4831, WW brass, and the Nosler 130 Partition.

First thing I discovered is I couldn't get 61 grains into the lot of (new) WW brass I had. With a drop tube I was able to get 60 grains. I was using CCI mag LR primers probably 'cuz I didn't know any better back then.

On a warm, sunny late summer Wyoming day I went out to the range to sight the rifle in and try out the new loads. I was blissfully blasting away, trying to wait a minute between shots as I got the scope on target and then fired for group. On shot # 12 I noticed a puff of smoke coming out of the little hole on the front ring of the receiver. "Hmmmm....I never noticed that before". As I extracted the round I looked and there was no primer. I then examined the 11 other empties in the box and they told the story. First couple cases showed flat primers but with each subsequent shot there were increasing signs of high pressure. In my ingnorant/youthful bliss I wasn't paying attention. By shot #8 there was a blackened ring appearing around the primer. Cases #9-12 were useless as the primer pockets were expanded to the point they couldn't hold a primer short of super glue. Life lesson # 5,734 for me: Heat = higher pressure.

I backed off to 59 grains with standard primers and also paid attention to heat of the gun and the cartrides too. Found that a subsequent Husqvarna .270 prefered 55 grains of 4350.

Have also figured out that if I have to tweek that extra 100fps out of a cartridge, might as well use a bigger cartridge.

Jack used the old army surplus 4831 sometimes called 4350 DATA powder, that was available for some years after WW2...I have a 150 lb. stainless steel canister of it, that is enclosed in a big wood crate..I paid $75 for it many years ago..I am down to about 30 lbs of that powder.

It is not the same as IMR-4831 or H4831..I can use 62 or 63 grs of it and get 100 or better more velocity with less pressure than with the two modern 4831 powders. It works well indeed in my 270, 30-06 and 300 H&H..It is the only powder I will use until its gone..

But there are plenty of good powders out there for these calibers..IMR and H 4831 will give you all the velocity you will ever need, but you will have to use 3 to 4 grains less powder than I do with my stuff.

You cannot get 62 grs. of IMR-4831 or H4831 in a 30-06 or .270 case without haveing the bullets push out overnight, and most chamber fitted rounds won't take that much to start with...Maybe the new short core powders in 4831 will, I don't know..

quote:

Originally posted by Tsquare2:
EP

January 26, 1978.

Tom

Now you are a fan. Thanks.