Anyone shooting the Newtons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

.40 Newton

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
12
Location
Norway
Hi

I am from Norway, and I am new to this forum, this is my first post.

I have always had a great admiration for Chas Newton and his cartridges. I have searched for info and components a long time, but here in Norway and the rest of Europe for that matter, there is very little to be found.

But finally, I will soon have a rifle finished chambered for the .30 Newton.

I wondered if anyone here had any field experience with the .30 Newton or any of the other rounds.

I plan to use formed 8x68S cases for my .30 Newton, original cases are impossible to find here. So I am looking for original brass if anyone has some. I have put out an ad in the classifieds.

When I have the .30 Newton finished, I plan to build a .40 Newton, I have ordered a reamer from PTG. Here I plan to use .375 Ruger brass, but it would be nice to try some .35 Newton brass too.

Also I have read about a .270 Newton, not made by Newton, but by Speer. Does anyone have some info on this round?
 
Well, it's to bad that you have not heard of Chas Newton and his cartridges.

The man was a ballistic genious, in my view one of the most gifted ever in America.

But for some reason not many people know about him.
 
I can't even find a reference on Google to Chas Newton.

Long magnums?

Do you have any ballistics you can give us?

What's the .30 Newton like? .300 Win Mag? .300 Weatherby? .308 Warbird?

And welcome to THR!
 
Thanks everyone.

First, there are many incorrect data reagarding the Newtons when it comes to perfomance.

The .30 Newton will outperform a .300 Wby.

I have a friend which has an original .30 Newton rifle from 1916 with a 24" barrel. He has a load with a 180 grs bullet, 77,3 grs R22, 3339 fps, original Western brass, 63000 psi.

Thanks for the link to Ammoguide. However the .522 casehead dimension is wrong. That is the minimum, orignial Newton chamberings give casehead dimensions from .525 and upwards, thus giving the possibility to use .375 Ruger brass to form cases.

The Newtons can best be compared to the "modern" short mags, the case is 64 mm long. However these rounds were created nearly a hundred years ago. I really can't understand why an American gunmanufacturer haven't picked up on the Newtons. They are far to good to be forgotten.
 
Mike,

Thanks for the link, interesting to read.

Is this based on old data and powder, at least for the Newtons. And how is the case capacity measured, is it the whole case or up the bullet?

An original Newton case will hold 89,2 grs of water without a bullet.

Also I would say that the muzzle velocity of the Newtons are somewhat low.

I have a friend who shoots the .256 Newton, and he gets 3000-3200 fps with a 129 grs bullet.

I also think it would be possible to get higher velocities with the .35.
 
Last edited:
As you have probably gathered Chas Newton and his rifles and cartridges are not well known, even in the US. Trying to shoot a Newton in Europe takes true dedication!

I helped a customer sell a 256 Buffalo Newton last year. I was tempted to buy it, but it was a bit to expensive.

Newton was WAY ahead of his time, a true firearms innovator. Too bad his business skills weren't as good.
 
Sounds like the O.P. is a better source on Newtons than most of the stuff readily availble to us.

Since nobody makes real Newton brass any more - Buffalo Arms says Jamison does, but Jamison does not list it on their own site - I would have my reamers ground to suit the parent brass available instead of to strict historical Newton dimensions.

If I were to have a Springfield sporter built, I would likely have it in .256 Newton.
 
Hmm, all I found on the Wikipedia was .256 Newton and it said the guys name was Charles Newton. But on Wikipedia not everything is correct.

Good luck with your project. It is always fun to get involved with not-so-popular rounds.
 
I hope this will help cut through the static. Mr. Lonnie Hummel of Hornady went through the Newton-Ruger connection with me, over the phone, per a wildcat 8mm I'm doing. Charles Newton in 1912, I believe, did the 30 Newton. He had Germans build his rifles and load ammo. His idea was to have an undersized cartridge expand and fill a larger chamber to regulate the pressures transferred to the steel barrel. Now, much later, Herr Schuler got some ammo from RWS and did a proper German chamber with it as the 8 x 68 Schuler. No unnecessary expansion. When Hornady and Ruger got together, they found Newton's patents are still valid, and held by his descendants. So Ruger did a cartridge that actually fits the orig. Newton chamber diameter, with no expansion, ala the smaller diameter Schuler. This difference is the exact dimension of the H&H case's belt. Who would of guessed?? I think you can see that if you have the dies, the big Ruger Basic case will do a Newton case, but without the 1912 Chas' expansion factor. With the powders we have today, this is a dead on arrival issue, anyways.
FYI, my wildcat is being chambered right now, and while it has the exact same volume as the 8 x 338WM, and it apes the Schuler, but neither Schulers nor PMMs, 8 x 338's, will chamber. Using only 150gr. Hornady's, the 8 x 338 is probably better. With 200+, or the longer, lighter, solid brass Barnes's, I believe my cat will walk away from it. This fall will tell, when I can get the first of the three such rifles out in the field. All three test rifles are Mil Mauser 98's., with the orig. stepped barrels. Note that if you get the big round Ruger 416 Basic Cases, you will have to run them through a case forming regimen, of maybe four to six steps, but getting different calibers of Newtons with those same steps. The desperation way is to shoot the belted H & H cases, lightly loaded, four or five times until the belt is ironed out, but you still need reloading dies that reload a fired case from the Newton chamber. The belted Newton, or 30-338, 8x 338, 40x 338, gets around a lot of bother IMO. The 375 Ruger and the 416 Ruger won't quite fit, per those pesky patents, but now you should see that they are really just born out of the wrong side of the same old bed. Hope this helps. Carpooler
 
I always thought the .30 Newton round was interesting, definitely ahead of it's time. I never understood why something like it didn't take off instead of the belted magnums.

I have an original Western .30 NEWT. round sitting on my desk right now, and have another one or two in a box somewhere. I didn't think they were very uncommon.
 
natman: You are right, Newton was way ahead of his time. And it has taken me about six years to get the .30 Newton built. I have searched long for correct info and measurements.

carpooler: Interesting post. I have some questions. Where did you get the info about the undersized cartridge? I don't know if you have read the Bruce Jennings book: Charles Newton-The father of high velocity? Jennings was a Newton collector and shooter most parts of his life, and is reckoned to be the greatest expert on Newton. And his book is by far the best source for correct information regarding Chas Newton and his cartridges. And he does not write about any undersized cartridges expanding and filling up a larger chamber. I don't think this is correct. Jennings write that the various chamber dimensions shown in gun literature are taken from measurements of undersized Western brass. The Western brass measures .523-.524 at the casehead. Rem-UMC cases measures .526-.527 as well as NA.Co cases. The Speer brass is .526-.528. So I have my doubts whether this info is correct, this is the first time I have heard about and I have collected Newton info for a long time. I have also been in contact with most of the Newton experts which are alive today. Another thing, Newton never had the Germans load his ammo.

Also I question the patents being valid and being held by his descendants. I guess this were the patents for his cartridges or was it the Newton name?

Newton did not patent his cartridges, nor his name being used. He had seven patents:

1913: A powder and propellant for use in a firearm
1914: A bullet, or projectile, with a steel wedge or nail in the point
1916: Projectile or partitioned bullet (Look at the year...)
1916: Newton loading tool
1917: Double-set trigger for the Model 1916 rifle
1920: Projectile or partitioned bullet
1924: Double-set trigger for the Model 1924 rifle

So I don't know what the guy at Hornady are talking about. But I have my thoughts.
 
An original Newton case will hold 89,2 grs of water without a bullet.
Click to expand...

That makes it identical to the .300 Win Mag case, which holds 89 grs. Other big cases from competing cartridge families hold slightly more or less. It's not magic, people. Performance is all about powder capacity. Everything else, with minor exceptions, is just fodder for campfire argument. (.270 Win vs. .30-06, anyone?)

Newton was obviously a ballistic genius and decades ahead of his time. And, you have to admire the beauty and flawless execution of the rifles he created. But, unless your motives are entirely historical, or you are lucky enough to own an original rifle, IMHO, and with respect, going through all the gyrations to recreate Newton's obsolete proprietary ammunition is pointless.
 
i've missed out on several newtons in the last few years. a day late & a dollar short most of the time. about 2 years ago i found one in cabelas gun library & a guy was filling out the paperwork at the exact same time i called them to say i'll take it. i've missed a couple of them on gunbroker too.
i am going to use his takedown system on a custom mauser sometime in the future.
 
As to the oversize chambers, I once saw a reprint of an old article by F.W. Mann which criticized Newton for roomy chambers and bores to hold down pressure from his large volume cases.
 
Well, this is why I asked if anyone had any experience shooting the Newtons...

There are a lot of rumours and heresay, but real knowledge comes through experience.

Sloppy chambers, no. This is due to measurements of undersized brass, Western brass. Western produced brass for the the big Newtons between the wars, and most of the measurements that are used in gun literature are taken from this brass. Just like the casehead dimensions shown at Ammoguide. .522 is the minimum, not the dimension that was used in the Newton chamberings. Even the Western brass will do good when it is fired and sized to the the chamber. Jennings writes about this in his book. He only had problem with the Western brass. The NA.Co brass produced by Newton himselfe, with .526-.527 casehead gave no prolems likewise with the Rem-UMC and Speer brass. So there ary no sloppy chambers, just sloppy dimensions in the brass being produced.

And yes, the .30 Newton has the the same capacity as the .300 Win Mag, but is has a better and more efficient case design.
 
Last edited:
It's not magic, people. Performance is all about powder capacity. Everything else, with minor exceptions, is just fodder for campfire argument
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The above statement infers one can simply fill up a large case with slow powder and go for it.

The determining factor is the maximum working pressure for a given cartridge. The .45-70 and the .450 Marlin have the same bullet diameter and almost exactly the same powder capacity, but the .450 Marlin far outperforms the .45-70...
http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it=38|205
...it pushes its bullet 250 fps faster and yields nearly 600 ft-lbs more energy at the muzzle. Identical in bore size, nearly identical powder capacity but not even close in performance.

Look at the .38 Special and the .357 Magnum. The .357 is only .135" longer case and has less than 3 gr. more powder capacity (which is seldom used - the difference is in powder selection) but the 2 rounds are in different universes in terms of performance...
http://ammoguide.com/?tool=bcompare&it=48|37

It's not the powder capacity that matters, but what you fill it with.
 
Last edited:
It is no particular trouble to load the .45-70 to .450 Marlin ballistics. Marlin just wanted something new to sell and to avoid the legal liability of dealing with reloads and small ammo companies like Buffalo Bore and Garrett.

The difference between .38 Special and .357 Magnum is almost entirely based on the greater strength of guns built for the Magnum.

Perhaps the prior post should have read "it is all about powder capacity in guns of comparable action strength."
 
Aha, someone who actually owns and shoots an "Adolph Express" (named for Fred Adolph, not the other one LOL).

I have not heard a Newton Cartridge mentioned for 20 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

4
  • Locked
Adolph Express cases, .30 Adolph.
Replies
5
Views
1K
waidmann
waidmann
I
  • Locked
30 Newton Inquiry
Replies
6
Views
611
idcurrie
I
N
  • Locked
M1 Carbine experts required
Replies
12
Views
1K
telewinz
T
P
  • Locked
Force plate acceleration measurement
Replies
12
Views
799
PercyShelley
P
N
  • Locked
Got my P-3AT - With thanks to Alamo
Replies
5
Views
518
clubsoda22
C
Back
Top