I was looking through a 1961 Out door life and in the gun section was a article by Jack on the 7x57. Holding a custom 7x57 was a very pertty blond the caption stated that gal was Jacks Daugther.

In all the Books by Jack I have read this is the only ref I have seen about a daugther. Lots of info on his sons and wife.

Does any body have any more info just a curious mind wondering.

While we've got the O'Connor experts coming out of the woodwork. I'm going to throw out a similar question. In the Guns and Ammo, 1971 Annual, there is an article on O'connor doing an African hunt as well as numerous referrals to an individual named Truman R. Fowler. Guy seeems to be a real Mr. Money bags and I was wondering what his connection was to O'Connor. Google didn't get me anywhere.
Grizz

Jack had two sons and two daughters, I believe. One son, Jerry, had some mental issues and committed suicide. I think that his remaining 3 children are still alive.

There is a newly printed book that I can highly recommend: The Lost Classics of Jack O'Connor, by Jim Casada. Not only is it a collection of some of his old and entertaining stories, it gives a general overview of his personal life.

I believe Truman Fowler was one of the owners/hiers of one of the big alcholo makers (Jim Beam?). In any case, Fowler was a big bore guy and Elmer Keith follower and came onto the scene when he financed Elmer's Safari book and took some cracks at O'Connor (who responded in kind in one of his books). If you ever find any of Keith's "Gun Notes" books, there are many published letters between Fowler & O'Connor and Fowler & Keith. Fowler started out attacking O'Connor, but over time they seemed to have gained some liking for each other though didn't agree on big bore vs small bore stuff.

Lou

IIRC, Southern Comfort was the brand his wealth was derived from. He befriended Keith and financed a couple of safaris they made together as well as Keith's book Safari. He wrote several chapters for the book as well.

One of Jack's sons (Bradford)posts on one of the forums I frequent,either here or 24hcf,I dont remember which.

Jack was an outstanding outdoor writer. He kept his personal life private and it took a lot of digging to follow his trail.

A good bio and a quick read is here:
http://www.jack-oconnor.org/about/aboutJack.htm

Jacks oldest son Jerry, did a horrifying tour of duty in the Korean conflict. He came home with a debilitating case of PTSD, detached himself from family ties and was lost to them early in life.

The daughter in the picture is probably Cathy.
Photos of Cathy and Eleanor show a striking family resemblance of two very attractive young women.

i grew up reading outdoor life and jack o'connor. visited his edu center in lewiston, id 2008. there was one 7x57 on display, but i believe it was built for his wife. she killed all sorts of big game with the 7x57, yet her "big" rifle was a 30-06.

If I ever get up that way I will stop in for a visit for sure.
Okie

Truman Fowler was the honcho of Safari Press for many years IIRC.
Idaho natives considered Jack a man who was very good at getting free guided hunts written up in Outdoor Life in exchange. He was not considered to be in the same conversation with Elmer Keith in terms of someone who could pack and hitch a pack string and run it up a trail, or find big game here on his own.
Taken at face value from his writings, O'Connor was a great shot, and shot a lot of big game all over the world. Different standards for the two. I always preferred Keith. Still do.

Rich

That's very true.

Keith was a DIY type of guy. Ranch hand, guide, etc.. He would be much more likely to find game on his own than Jack.
However, I didn't care for his boastful in your face "your not a man if you can't take recoil" personality.

Jack paid for his trips by writing them up and making the outfitter known and often times famous - which of course made for good business.
That's a common practice with many of today's "TV" hunters.

At the height of his career, a lot of Jacks trips were on his publishers dime. Stories by Jack of hunting in far away places sold magazines$$

Be it O'Conner or Keith, there seems to be a lacking of those to take their place, but with the advent of the internet, how many folks these days actually can't wait to get their outdoor oriented magazines to read?? Perhaps it is just me, but I can't remember the last time I purchased an outdoor magazine and really don't plan on doing so in the future. Been decades now, but we still remember these two writers and their stories, whether fact or fiction.

I have looked up to Jack O Conner since I was old enough to read my first hunting magazine. He has inspired me and his writing kept the fire going until I was able to hunt some of the places I had dreamed about. I feel he was a down to earth,honest Joe that loved to hunt like the rest of us. He just got paid to do it!

Hawkeye47

Big fan of both Elmer & Jack and tough to mention one without the other. I often hear the old fable that Jack didn't hunt on his own. Actually, Jack did a lot of his own hunting in the South West & Mexico up until he started full time with Outdoor Life. Some of his best writing came from these experiences. So while it is true that Elmer was more at home on a pack trip in the rockies, Jack was as well where he cut his teeth in the arid desert country he grew up in. We may romantasize more about pack trips and the big game you hunt on these trips, but the country O'Connor cut his teeth in was not all that friendly or easy to hunt. It is true that Elmer guided much later in life, but this was his position in the outdoor writing world - he had to generate his own material. Elmer bounced around a bit from small gun rags until eventually settling in at the "new" Guns & Ammo. O'Connor was shooting editor of one of the big 3 and was on trips paid for by Outdoor Life, often in much more exotic locations. If Elmer had landed one of the big jobs (which he really wanted) he would have done a lot less guiding and a lot more hunting in far off destinations like O'Connor did. It just didn't work out that way. Despite all of the rancour, to me the 2 biggest difference between the men were that Elmer wanted to shoot large animals from any direction (hence his insistence on large, heavy bullets) and that Elmer was tinkerer/wildcatter. O'Connor preached waiting for your shot or pass it up and he was pretty happy with standard factory offerings, especially once they heeded his call and started making lighter rifles.

Lou

Savage_99,
You are correct about the American Rifleman, it is the only magazine that I now read and yes, the article on the "new" New Mod. 70 is a good one and would venture to say that the article will spurr on sales of the rifle.

Jack O, late in life, finally admitted he hated the notion of recoil; thus gravitated early to the smallest caliber that would kill game under good conditions. He also had a masters degree and could write a fancier story. He was also widely viewed as a horse's ass and a stuck up SOB.
I had not ever read that he hunted on his own here in Idaho even though he lived here forty years or so. I don't ever even reading what he did for a living here. Do any of you know?

Rich

I have seen hunts with him for Mule deer along the Snake river breaks that I believe were unguided. They may have been on private ground but I don't ever remember of him being guided on these hunts.

While he was living in Idaho I think he was a professional writer and thats all.

ddj

Just a couple of the many things I remember about Jack,

He went on and on about the horrendous recoil of the 7mm Rem Mag that I was pretty much scared shitless of it the first time I pulled the trigger! [he may have over-played the recoil thing]

Can pretty much sight-in a scoped rifle by sighting it POA at twenty-five yards. All things are painfully obvious once they are explained to you!

ISS
He was a retired college professor, presumably with a pension and the most successful outdoor writer of his era. As is generally the case with depression era folks he was pretty darn frugal as well.

I grew up reading O'Conner in Outdoor Life (and also reading the Herter's catalog). I have heard many people talk about him being a sorry SOB. Most never even met him, but base their view off things heard third hand. Whatever the case, he shaped many of our views on guns/hunting. I sometimes wonder if I went back and reread some of his writings, if I would find them as fascinating as they were in my youth. Probably best to just remember them. All I know is that todays writer's all seem to have gone to the same school-they all write the same, bland drivel. Bring back O'Conner, Keith, Aagard, Hill and Milek. To me, these guys, while totally different in style, all kept my attention, and wrote from the heart.

I always assumed most of the animus came from jealousy. He was quite a guy.

O'Connor was an educated man and Keith was a shit kicker. They each attracted like individuals. Both were bombastic know-it-alls. Both were damn imports here in Idaho but only Keith was critical of other imports coming out here hunting and not yet knowing what was what. One could write the other could hardly write his name.

I suspect they both laughed at their devoted followers arguing, while making the latest deposit to their bank accounts.

As a young starving college student in Idaho in the early 1970's I had the extreme pleasure to meet both O'Connor and Keith.

No email/internet back then, but through phone calls and letters I was able to arrange meeting with them in their own house so that they could autograph all of their books that I had bought.

Both were very pleasant and entertaining. I was allowed to handle most of their rifles and they answered all of my questions.

They had different styles, both had egos, and both extremely knowledable. Those two separate afternoons made life-long impressions on me.

I feel sorry for anyone who feels the need to criticise either one of them...they were/are both great to me

Truthfully, any successful writer will convey a strong sense of self, otherwise, it would just be words on a page. Both Keith and O'conner were influential on the direction of hunting throughout the 60's and 70's, they just took differing paths to get things done.

John

They were both damn good outdoor writers.

I seem to recall that Jack wrote in an artical that his last safari to Africa came about because a book he wrote sold well and with some careful spending Bradford could go. He did most of his hunting in the 1920's thru the 1950's. By the end on the 1960's age caught up with him and it dose all of us. He was the shooting editor of Outdoor Life, from 1939 to around 1971 or 2 when he handed it off to that other guy. Peterson's got him to be Editor of Peterson's Hunting in 1973 and well stayed there till his passing in 77. He wrote well, and being educated like he was help, but he had to have the shooting and hunting skills to back it up. As for Brother Elmer, the man had his own ideas of things to say the least. They needed each other in the war of words. It sold a lot of books and magazines. I would guess that they are both drinking a lot of Boubon over it where ever the soul goes for that endless hunting trip.

I often read Jack O'Connor's article in Outdoor LIfe. I also read at the samt time articles against his ideas in Field & Stream. It was enjoyable to read him fence off (in print) how superior the 270 Win. was against the 30-06 - and, by the way, the argument was whether the 270 wasn't better against the '06 on big bears. (I mean Alaskan bears and grizzes) He sold alot of magazines -and appallled a lot of guides who had to figure out how to let him shoot an angry bear with a very light cartridge that just doesn't hit that hard. (P.S. I love the 270 as something to shoot at a medium sized animal at long ranges - like a mountain goat or sheep - a trophy I never got the opportunity for - regretfully)

quote:

Originally posted by Gerrypeters375:
I often read Jack O'Connor's article in Outdoor LIfe. I also read at the samt time articles against his ideas in Field & Stream. It was enjoyable to read him fence off (in print) how superior the 270 Win. was against the 30-06 - and, by the way, the argument was whether the 270 wasn't better against the '06 on big bears. (I mean Alaskan bears and grizzes) He sold alot of magazines -and appallled a lot of guides who had to figure out how to let him shoot an angry bear with a very light cartridge that just doesn't hit that hard. (P.S. I love the 270 as something to shoot at a medium sized animal at long ranges - like a mountain goat or sheep - a trophy I never got the opportunity for - regretfully)

Actually, O'Connor only shot 1 grizzly with the .270. He shot 1 with the .300 Weatherby and the rest 10 odd some with the .30-06 which he considered his "lucky" Grizzly caliber. For Brown Bear, O'Connor used and recommended a .375 H&H Magnum. If you read O'Connor, he did not recommend a .270, or even .30-06 for big bear. He said they were ok for hunting them out in open country above timberline where you could get multiple shots. O'Connor was a sheep hunter and Grizzly were a side trophy to him to be taken if encountered while sheep hunting. O'Connor said the .270 or .30-06 were not what he would choose for a dedicated bear rifle, especially in the brush and proved this by taking a .375 on his dedicated bear hunts (i.e. Brown Bear).

Lou

Idaho Sharpdshooter:

Once more, I find myself in happy agreement with you,. I am old enough to well remember the "duels" between Jack O'Connor (of Outdoor Life) and Warren Page of Field & Stream)-Elmer Keith was a "big bullet" advocate -but also wanted people to fire no more bigger gun than they could handle -and properly aim. I guess it all comes back to what you can shoot comfortably -always rememberng that an elk,moose or buff is unlikely to be dropped by a 22. (I think we all work our way up from our first 22 to what is going to drop an animal with an aimed shot (without flinching from recoil) Just my thoughts.

Lou270:

All the things I learn in old age!Your mention of Jack O'Connor being a sheep hunter explained everything to me as to why he preferred the 270. When you mentioned that a grizzly might be something encountered (practically by accident)by O'Connor -everything fell into place for me . I just wish he had realized that his words were being read by very inexperienced people -including me, a teenager - but I did have the instinct to understand that the 30-06 (that I was thoroughly familiar with) had to be better on a truly big animal. Thanks for your post.(I never had to be sold on the 270. I loved its accuracy and flat shooting. (Ironically, as I give that testimonial, I never shot at an animal with the 270 and only on a target range) It's just that I had a feeling that a 130 gr. bullet was not going to drop anything on the planet that I lived in)

There was a thread going over on 24 hour campfire about Jack and Elmer. It got really interesting when Jack's son Bradford jumped in. We learned a lot about Jack from him that was not quite common knowledge.
Jack did make one intersting comment shortly after he reited. I believe it was Jim Carmichel who asked jack, "If tou were restricted to only one gun for all North American hunting, what would it be?" Without hesitation, Jack said, "The 30-06!" Considering his world wide experience, that pretty much says it all.
Paul B.

Gerrypeters375,

Yep - O'Connor hunted a different time. In several articles, he commented that Grizzly's were considered "pests" on his early pack trips (this was not his opinion, just pointing out not focus of hunt).

One thing we forget today is that O'Connor did a lot of his pack trip hunting in the late 40s and 50s. The .30-06 & .270 really were the American "big game" rifles of the day without a whole lot of competition. The weatherby's were just getting started, the .300 H&H was not much faster than 06 handloads and the .375s were not in light rifles that O'Connor liked for mountain hunting. O'Connor preferred the .270-130 for long range/medium game and .30-06/180 for larger game, but didn't seem to dwell on it much. Point being, Jack killed a good bit of larger game with the .270 & .30-06. Later, he hunted with the .300 WBY, 7mm Rem Mag, & .338 but didn't seem to think they killed much if any better than the .270 (or .30-06) and went back to using the .270, 7x57, & .30-06 for most hunting. When O'Connor hunted brown bear, Lion, Tiger, etc... that seemed to be the tripping point to him for large caliber and he jumped straight to the .375. Jack may have said in confidence to somebody that if he could only have one it would be a .30-06, but he said in print that if he could have 2 for the world it would be a .270 and a .375.

Lou

quote:

Originally posted by dawaba:
There is a newly printed book that I can highly recommend: The Lost Classics of Jack O'Connor, by Jim Casada.

Thanks for the tip, I'll get one of those coming.

On another note for those of you (like me) who have given up on magazines you might take a look at Sports Afield. My son brought over the last couple of issues and I was really surprised. Other than the NRA publications I haven't subscribed to anything in years but this magazine might change my mind. I try to find stuff that Barsness writes because he makes good sense and they're printing his stuff.

DJR

Lou270:

I really am appreciative for learning so much from you about Jack O'Connor and the classical argument of my youth about the 270 vs the 30-06 as argued between he and Warren Page of Field & Stream. I think I have indicatewd that I, a 30-06 shooter,alreday had the conviction that I did not want to face a grizzly with a 270 - much as I had loved it as a shooting rifle at targets. Here's what really bothers me about O"Connor from reading your posts -which I accept totally. He was a damned hypocrite! As an Irishman myself, I am ashamed of him! He adamantly maintained in print that the 270 would drop anything in North America and that he himself wouldn't dream of carrying any other caliber. (OK, he din't quite say that but he certainly suggested that to readers of Outdoor Life) Again, your posts have taught me facts that I didn't know yesterday - for better or worse!

Gerry,

You are correct that O'Connor adamantly maintained the .270 would drop anything in North America. He felt that the average hunter would do better shooting a .270 or .280 due to light recoil, flat trajectory and adequate power than using a magnum that would cause flinching. However, that does not mean he thought the .270 was "The Best" cartridge for everything or that it was better than the .30-06 for large game. Let us see what O'Connor himself had to say...

From "The Rifle Book":

"I do not think the .270 or the .30/06 is an ideal grizzly rifle for use in the timber, just as neither is an ideal moose rifle. The time might come when a man would want to stop a grizzly quicker than he could do it with either a 270 or .30/06. The same thing could also be true of elk under certain conditions.

For all game in open country and semi-open country the .270 is a fine and satisfactory caliber. Even for deer in timber the .270 is also satisfactory for the man who likes a bolt-action [....mine] On ther other hand, there is no reason why the man going to hunt Alaskan brown bear should take a .270 if he has a rifle of heavier caliber--nor is there any reason why the man on the spring grizzly hunt should take one." - Jack O'Connor P228-229

From "The Hunter's Shooting Guide":

"And when a man is hunting really heavy and potentially dangerous game I don't think any .270 load is as effective as a good 220-grain bullet in the .30-06, as these babies play for keeps and the bullet must drive into the vitals at all costs." - Jack O'Connor P69

Like I said before, Jack didn't just hunt with a .270. His favorite rifle was a .270 (custom pre-64 FW) and the rifle he took the most game with was a .270 (custom mauser). However he also had several favorite .30-06s which ranked up there with his .270s, used a 7x57 a lot at the beginning and end of his hunting, and .375 for dedicated "big" rifle for brown bear, lions, & tigers and such. He also used various 45 magnums in Africa and did stints (i.e. african & indian safaris, etc..) with examples of the .300 WBY, 7mm Remington, and .338 Win Mag when they first came out and did a some hunting with .257 Roberts, .35 Remington, early 7mm wildcat magnums, among others.

Lou

I have read everything O'Connor wrote and greatly respect his opinions. If I had a wish it would be to hear his scriblings on the .270 WSM using a 130 grain North Fork bullet (or your favorite premium bullet) at 3400 fps plus, and the 150 grain at 3260 fps plus. This with a 4.5 X 14 Ziess Conquest (or your favorite scope) mounted on the rifle and a range finder that would read to 800 yards for use in judging distance. Just wishing. Good shooting.

I made it a personal mission to read a lot of Jack O'Connor's stuff. He was knowledgeable and definitley an "era" writer. He wrote for the audience and for the type of reader in that day and time - much like Craig Boddington and others do today. I personally consider his writing very average, but the content is solid. The stuff he wrote later in life that is in Casada's book is not very good in my opinion - it was a of griping about other writers and critical of others. He should have stayed with descriptions of his hunts and his gun thoughts. You can almost feel the "I am old and am taking a shot at the people that I don't like" attitude in his last works.

His caliber choices and comments on rifles are valid. He likely would have "changed with the times" when new alternatives or more efficient bullets/powders/calibers/bolt action designs come out. I would not put him on a pedestal as there are many people out there today how know what he knew. There are more choices today and more evaluation of calibers and "stuff".

If I were to sum up his writings, I would say he said to -

1. Use a fit for purpose caliber.
2. Place the bullet in the vitals.
3. Get close to the target.
4. Trust your guide.
5. Go where the game is.
6. Use good optics and practice with what you hunt with.

All of this is true and great advice, but not rocket science.

O'Connor was a good guy, good writer, but by no means the "Holy Grail" of wisdom on hunting and rifles. He did a great job of making common sense readable and entertaining.

If you are a fan of Jack O'Connor, try to get a copy of the Robert Anderson book titled "Jack O'Connor". It was published by Safari Press in a limited numbered edition of 1000 books. These were all signed by the O'Connor children, the author and a major contributor of information, Buck Buckner. There is an excellent section discussing Jack's rifles and what happened to them. I grew up reading every word he wrote and have been trying to buy one of his guns for years. Been close a couple times and could have bought two when I couldn't afford them. A good friend of Jack's owns several and I keep trying to convince him to sell one.

Lou270:

I think you hit it on th head about O'Connor and "recoil". I was trained as a teenager on the '06. I loved it-because its recoil was simply a part of shooting the rifle -from constant practice - and I shot both my Remington 721 hunting rifle and also the US M1) (I also shot a military Springfield from WW1 -and thought it really "kicked"-or more accurately, jumped up at my cheek bone). Everyone wants to shoot a rifle that he can "drive nails with". I loved the 7x57 Mauser for accuracy and penetration. I never planned to use it on a lion, much less an elephant. (Yes, I have read the stories about how the 7mm Mauser has killed lions and elephants. I'm just not that good a shot!

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I made it a personal mission to read a lot of Jack O'Connor's stuff. He was knowledgeable and definitley an "era" writer...

The stuff he wrote later in life that is in Casada's book is not very good in my opinion - it was a of griping about other writers and critical of others. He should have stayed with descriptions of his hunts and his gun thoughts. You can almost feel the "I am old and am taking a shot at the people that I don't like" attitude in his last works...

If I were to sum up his writings, I would say he said to -

1. Use a fit for purpose caliber.
2. Place the bullet in the vitals.
3. Get close to the target.
4. Trust your guide.
5. Go where the game is.
6. Use good optics and practice with what you hunt with.

All of this is true and great advice, but not rocket science.

O'Connor was a good guy, good writer, but by no means the "Holy Grail" of wisdom on hunting and rifles. He did a great job of making common sense readable and entertaining.

dogcat,

I think you're pretty close with the bullet point list and your closing comment of O'Conner making common sense readable and enjoyable, but am at a loss as to your earlier comment that he was griping about other writers in the book edited by Cassada ("Lost Classics")???

I've read it - twice now, more or less - and with a few exceptions (that I otherwise wouldn't have thought twice about), I never got the impression he was taking pot-shots at others.

In my reading of him (the Cassada book; Big Game Hunts; Art of Hunting NA Big Game), I think I'd arrange your list like this:

1. Place the bullet in the vitals
2. Get close
3. Use a fit for purpose caliber
4 - 6 the same

Now, as you've probably guessed, I'm very much an O'Conner fan. I haven't read anything by Keith, and don't necessarily subscribe to his camp, but I certainly won't critique Keith either.

In the end, so much of writing/reading comes down to what style one prefers. In some ways, O'Connor reminds me of Hemmingway - dense, compact prose, without much fluff. Not sure why, but the two appeal to me.

Thanks for the interesting comments, and good discussion!

Best wishes,

friar