Which =100-150fps advantage to the Remington.

Permit me to step into this fray. I agree with Nogalus Prairie. I am Jack O'Connor's elderly son and I can say with absolutely certainty that my father never was a shill for Winchester or any other gun company. While I am here, I have an update on the Jack O'Connor tribute rifles. Production started this month on the standard tribute but won't start on the customs until September, with a total run capped at around 950, or about 450 standards and 500 customs. -- Bradford O'Connor

I agree and disagree, if it wasn't for him the .243 and .270 would not have taken off like they did. The reason why, he was being paid by Winchester to write about them. The 6mm Rem and 280 paid the price for this even though many considered them both to be superior rounds, especially the 6mm.

Permit me to step into this fray. I agree with Nogalus Prairie. I am Jack O'Connor's elderly son and I can say with absolutely certainty that my father never was a shill for Winchester or any other gun company. While I am here, I have an update on the Jack O'Connor tribute rifles. Production started this month on the standard tribute but won't start on the customs until September, with a total run capped at around 950, or about 450 standards and 500 customs. -- Bradford O'Connor

Who knows what Keith really thought, but in his writings he seemed to say that small, fast calibers like a .270 or a .243 were merely popguns, suitable for cottontail rabbits; what you needed was something that would plow through the "boiler room." I can't remember which cartridges he pushed, but it seemed that he'd use elephant rifles on deer and still feel undergunned.

The bullet designs of the day prompted John Nosler to design the Partition bullet. Lower velocity and bigger bullets that Keith promoted worked, the old cup and core bullets work very well when heavy for caliber and mot pushed hard

Keith was not the most articulate writer, but we can thank him for the 44 Remington Magnum.

The story about the mule deer at 600 yds with a revolver was too tall for me to swallow (I have never been able to convince my BIL that story was BS. He thought, and still does that Keith was quite the guru)! Same with Col. Charles Askins' "Killer Bulls of the Rio Bravo" (a story about hunting brush cattle along the Rio Grande (Please!). I was a fan of some of their contemporaries, ie. Skeeter Skelton, Russell Annabel (sp?), and especially, Jack O'Conner.
O'Conner didn't convince me about the .270. The old gun that my uncle carried in the ranch truck did that when I killed my first head of game with it....okay, it was only a javelina, but I was hooked.

just out of curiosity, I plugged a 44Mag, 240gr factory load into a ballistic calculator.

Sighted in at 100yds, the bullet would be 54 FEET low at 600 yards. Time of flight is over 2 seconds. And remaining energy is about 220 ft-lbs.

Hellova shot!

While I can hardly hope to improve upon Bradford O'Connor's final word, let me add that it constantly amazes me how people who have not read Jack O'Connor are so ready to question or denounce him based on shared, uninformed opinion.
I believe I own every book on shooting and hunting O'Connor ever wrote and have read and re-read every one of them many, many, many times. I still use them for research and reference purposes when I am not reading them for the sheer pleasure of O'Connor's writing. I believe I have also read every column and story he wrote for Outdoor Life and Petersen's Hunting.
While the misinformation posted by some of the people on this site and all over the internet would take a lifetime to sort out, there are at least a few things that can be swatted down immediately.
O'Connor never pushed the .270 to the exclusion of everything else. He frequently stated that he believed the .30-06 was the best all-around caliber for hunting most N. American game and that if limited to one rifle to hunt the world it would be the .375 H&H Magnum. He wrote highly of, among other calibers, the 7X57, the .280, the .284, the 7mm magnum and similar mid-weight cartridges. He said the ideal brush rifle would be a fast-handling pump, lever or semi-auto chambererd in .33-.35 caliber utilizing a fairly heavy, moderate velocity bullet. He favored the .416 Rigby for the heaviest African game and played a big role in that cartridge's revival. He believed the .270 was close to ideal for open-country, western hunting of game from mule deer-sized game on down, and said that in the hands of a good and restrained shot it was perfectly adequate for elk. He believed the cartridge to be well-balanced and credited much of its original popularity on its original 130 grain bullet, which he called the first successful bullet designed to hold up under high velocities.
Far from favoring the .243 over the 6mm Remington, he repeatedly noted that the 6mm (then .244) was a better cartridge design, but that Remington had erred by giving its original rifle a 1-in-12 twist designed to stabilize a 90-gr. bullet (Remington had viewed the new chambering as more of a varmint than deer rifle).
O'Connor was neither a "big-bore" nor a "high-velocity" proponent. He was a proponent of using the most powerful gun you shoot well to place a well-constructed bullet in a vital area. Would anyone care to argue with that?
Far from being a "shill" for the shooting industry, he was well known for his inflexible honesty and for his refusal to bend his opionions to suit industry needs or desires. As a gun writer, he brought the same sense of journalistic ethics to his work as he cautioned other young writers to follow when he founded the journalism dept. at the University of Arizona.
Jack O'Connor was, in sum, an elegant and gifted writer whose opinions were based on a lifetime of hunting on every continent except Antarctica and Australia. Nor was he simply a "guided" hunter. His formative years were spent hunting totally unguided in Arizona, Texas and Mexico. He was a Weatherby award winner and was voted into the Hunting Hall of Fame. If you actually read what he wrote, as opposed to bandying about what some people CLAIM he wrote, you will find that his opinions, recommendations and shooting knowledge or as valuable and valid now as they were when he first put them to paper in the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1970s and the 1980s. You will not find many other gunwriters whose work remains of equal value over so long a span of time. In short, he was the dean of hunting writers for half a century, and in many ways remains so more than three decades after his death.