Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Floyd-
Would you be willing to post the full serial number (or tell me by PM) and say if the rifle has a Monte Carlo or low comb stock so I can add it to the M70 survey?
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Chuck said
This list of Newton’s accomplishments is very useful, but Larry is exaggerating somewhat about the influence of Newton’s stock design, which originated in this country with immigrant German stockmakers, who were merely reproducing the style popular in the “old country.” It’s the stock design I like best, but modern attempts to replicate it generally fall flat, looking more clunky than elegant.
Tedk said
Buffalo Newton
Chuck said
I think the checkering is the normal factory checkering. Larry Wales, one of our WACA members, wrote several books on the Newton. There are a handful of engraved rifles in his book, and some with really special checkering. Here is a picture of the 7 lug bolt and a list of things Newton developed.
Sorry, but just got around to this. That is not normal factory checkering on my rifle. Standard factory checkering on Newton Rifles does not have the enhanced checkering coverage on the top of the wrist near the tang exhibited in pic #2.
If you can’t convince them, confuse them
Unless I’m missing something the checkering patterns on our guns is not the same
If you can’t convince them, confuse them
Tedk said
Unless I’m missing something the checkering patterns on our guns is not the same
Ted, they are not exactly alike. At first glance and by memory I thought they were. Mine is the basic checkering.
It is almost like these guns were made on order. This is a Larry Wales question. I’m not sure how these were marketed except for the catalogs. I went through the latest of Larry’s books and I could not find an example of any 1916 rifles without checkering. Most of the ones in the book with extra checkering are extremely different than basic. There are some examples of engraving but that is way beyond me.
Chuck,
I did speak with Mr. Wales back when I got the Newton and was ordering a copy of his book. I sent pics and it seemed like he was genuinely interested in the gun. He did mention the checkering on the Newton rifle that is in the NRA Museum and asked if the barrel on my gun was engraved. He also noted that the engraving appeared to have been with the gun for a while. It just seemed that since there are no factory records one will never know for sure.
Of interest is that Savage Arms Co. employees travelled ‘up the Canal’ from Utica to work with Charles Newton in Buffalo and the checkering patterns on our guns very closely resembles Savage factory checkering patterns of the period.
Perhaps Mr. Wales will see this thread and comment on the gun. I certainly like to think my Newton is a special rifle.
If you can’t convince them, confuse them
I’m not sure how these were marketed except for the catalogs.Chuck said
Many shooting pubs carried their ads. How would anyone know to request a catalog without having seen an ad first?
Tedk said
Chuck,I did speak with Mr. Wales back when I got the Newton and was ordering a copy of his book. I sent pics and it seemed like he was genuinely interested in the gun. He did mention the checkering on the Newton rifle that is in the NRA Museum and asked if the barrel on my gun was engraved. He also noted that the engraving appeared to have been with the gun for a while. It just seemed that since there are no factory records one will never know for sure.
Of interest is that Savage Arms Co. employees travelled ‘up the Canal’ from Utica to work with Charles Newton in Buffalo and the checkering patterns on our guns very closely resembles Savage factory checkering patterns of the period.
Perhaps Mr. Wales will see this thread and comment on the gun. I certainly like to think my Newton is a special rifle.
Larry is a good guy but he rarely gets on the Forum. He has a large 1892 collection. You already know that Newton and Savage worked together on some of the cartridges for Savage. Maybe they shared the same engraver? You can get Larry’s phone number on his website, newtonrifles.com. I will PM you his email address if you wish.
You should buy Bruce Jennings book. It is mostly copies of articles Newton wrote. 480 pages of info. You will be amazed at the arguing, in the press, between Newton, Whelen and Crossman. It was hard for some lever action lovers to admit the bolt action was superior. We all know what won out.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/116000052927
You can try to contact Jim Foral. He is the only other person that I have met that is a serious Newton collector. I was able to buy some Newton items from Bruce and Jim. Dave Sax came up with some items for me too.
Chuck said You will be amazed at the arguing, in the press, between Newton, Whelen and Crossman. It was hard for some lever action lovers to admit the bolt action was superior. We all know what won out.
One of the most fascinating things about the old shooting pubs, esp the weeklies like Forest & Stream & The Field, in which such arguments could be carried on in a highly timely fashion. When Wm Lyman began selling his first tang sight, he was attacked by several correspondents who derided his sight for one reason or another, but he responded vigorously to every one of them. Arms & the Man & the early Rifeman were bi-monthly, which also facilitated these debates. I would have thought, however, that Crossman & Whelen would have been Newton supporters, not detractors! Esp Crossman who was always a bolt gun enthusiast.
I’m pleased to see Newton’s efforts are not completely lost to history. From what I’ve seen of his cartridges, he was certainly before his time and unlucky to boot. I’ve read he was set up to manufacture his rifles and had contracted for barrels from Germany, shortly before the Archduke and his duchess got theirs from a Serbian assassin. Bad timing.
Jack O’Connor wrote that the boys at Winchester who designed the .270 WCF probably had once seen a 6.5 Newton cartridge.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
November 5, 2014
Offline
This is for Zeb… It’s WAY off the OP’s topic, but Zeb likes “history”… 
I don’t know whether JOC was right about the influence of the 6.5 Newton on Winchester’s plans, but as far as I know (mainly from Houze’s book), the 270 WCF was developed to “trump” (no politics intended) the 250-3000 Savage’s “press”. Winchester wanted to develop a cartridge that: 1) developed 3000 fps (to counter Savage’s advertising advantage); 2) Used a more practical 130-150 grain bullet (again for advertising purposes); 3) was based on the 30 GOV’T case (for obvious practical reasons); and, 4) worked with powders available in the nineteen-teens (also obvious reasons). The bullet diameter was secondary to any of the above concerns; they tried .280 (7 m/m), etc. in the process… They finished (according to Houze) the development of an “experimental” ’27 CAL’ cartridge in late 1918, that was formally commercialized as the 270 WCF with the intro of the M54 Winchester in 1925. Dan Shuey wrote a nice article about this in the Collector Magazine in Summer 2022…
But the FIRST “finished” rifle in 270 WCF (excluding tool room barrels/guns) was T.C. Johnson’s personal Model 51 “Imperial” rifle (Serial Number 1)… Built January 1919 and incorporating not only the “new” cartridge but a couple of Johnson’s other patents (rear sight and takedown mechanism).
Should be in a Museum…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Rear sight resembles 82 A standard on early 52s, except superior windage adj.
Museum-quality most certainly, but whoever owns gun now will provide better care for it than any museum. Stunning stock work!
clarence said
Chuck said You will be amazed at the arguing, in the press, between Newton, Whelen and Crossman. It was hard for some lever action lovers to admit the bolt action was superior. We all know what won out.
One of the most fascinating things about the old shooting pubs, esp the weeklies like Forest & Stream & The Field, in which such arguments could be carried on in a highly timely fashion. When Wm Lyman began selling his first tang sight, he was attacked by several correspondents who derided his sight for one reason or another, but he responded vigorously to every one of them. Arms & the Man & the early Rifeman were bi-monthly, which also facilitated these debates. I would have thought, however, that Crossman & Whelen would have been Newton supporters, not detractors! Esp Crossman who was always a bolt gun enthusiast.
Clarence is has been many years since I read all the articles in Jennings book. I need to go back through some of it to see what exactly they were arguing about. I should also make a note of which magazines their articles were in.
It’s funny that most shooters today have no idea who Newton was or that the 6.5 cartridge existed before 1900. The cartridge du jour is the 6.5 Creedmoor. The 256 Newton actually can out perform this cartridge in some ways. I first used 30-06 cases but soon found out it is easier to use 270 brass. The Metford/Pope segmental rifling does not like heavy 140 grain boat tail bullets. This rifling is best suited for 130 grain bullets. Over 30 years ago with the help of Sinclair Intl. I was able to stabilize 140 gr. bullets by using a flat base bullet. I don’t shoot my rifle too hot. I keep it under 2,900 fps. My Creedmoor with 147 grain bullets shoots around 2,730 fps with an accuracy load. The NRA Imperial Meeting was first held in Wimbledon, England in 1860. Try to explain to modern shooters that Creedmoor and Bisley are shooting ranges and have been around since the 1890’s.
It’s sad that so much History has been lost for the shooters.
Chuck said
It’s sad that so much History has been lost for the shooters.
Hasn’t been lost, not at all, merely ignored; in fact, easier now to find obscure info on-line. But to find it, they have to step back from mentally-corrosive American junk-culture: Facebook, Tic-Toc, etc.
A Kerr sling could be ordered with a Buffalo Newton rifle for an additional cost of $1.50
If you can’t convince them, confuse them
Louis Luttrell said
This is for Zeb… It’s WAY off the OP’s topic, but Zeb likes “history”…
Should be in a Museum…
Lou
Thanks, Lou. You’re right about my taste for history – I’m old enough to have seen the past repeat itself, uuhhh repeatedly. But as for the topic, our avocation really is a seamless (uncapitalized) web. Herb was in love with his subject – Winchester – and was inclined to take its part in issues significant only to gun nuts like us. 0’Connor was for many years the only post WWII writer of consequence who gave Newton his due, probably because he had saved up and bought a 6.5 Newton rifle before WWI and liked it. Because he also thought the .270 WCF was a step forward for Winchester, it’s unsurprising he would have made the comparison. (Herb was also adamant that Tom Bennett never made the trip to Ogden to buy the 1885 design because his diaries and correspondence didin’t mention it. Whereas, it’s well recorded to the contrary by several of the Brownings who met him on that occasion. Nizer’s Rule of Probability is helpful. )
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Zeb-
I’ve no doubt that Winchester’s R&D program did not operate in a vacuum, and a little “friendly” industrial espionage was the order of the day. I quick tour through MS20 (the WRACo document collection) in the McCracken Library digital archives shows that Winchester had a lot of blueprints and other technical documents on other manufacturers’ products. Why acquire that information unless they wanted to know what the competition was doing? 
The 256 Newton (almost a 6.5mm-06) had been around since 1913 and Winchester didn’t finalize the 270 WCF (.277″-06) until late 1918. Apparently they also played with a 280 design (.284″-06) but dropped it in favor of the .277″ (true 7mm-06). I do like the story that the reason they settled on .277″ was that it was the bullet diameter with which they could get 3000 fps out of a 30-06 case with a 130 gr bullet, thereby deflating the 250-3000 Savage’s advertising claim… “Friendly” competition? Hardly… 
Here’s an anecdotal observation from the M70 survey… Everyone knows that over the entire pre-64 M70 production span (1936-1963) the 270 WCF was second in popularity only to the 30-06. Roughly 36% for the 30-06 and 21% for the 270 WCF, while the 257 ROBERTS represented a mere 2.5% of sales. But what was the relative popularity of these cartridges in the pre-war period (1936-1942)?
The survey presently encompasses a little over 5% of pre-war M70 serial numbers. There were originally (9) chamberings offered. Representation in the survey to date is: 30-06 (45%); 22 Hornet (12%); 220 Swift (8.0%); 300 H&H Magnum (6.9%); 270 WCF (6.7%); 257 Roberts (6.3%); 375 H&H Magnum (6.1%); 7×57 (4.8%); and, 250-3000 Savage (3.8%). While I understand that an observational survey like this will tend to overrepresent the less common calibers, it seems apparent to me that the 270 WCF wasn’t all that big a marketing hit at the time. Who knew that in the pre-war guns 270 WCF was a “rare” chambering??? I wonder if the M54 survey has big enough numbers to compare the relative popularity of the 30-06 and 270 WCF at the time it was introduced?
So what happened to make the 270 WCF a “great” cartridge? I’d call it the post-war “The Jack O’Connor Effect”…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
2 Guest(s)
