Shooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Doing some research on history of cartridges and would like to know which came first. I believe the 300 Savage was first, then the 250-3000 or more commonly known as the 250 Savage.

What was the 300 Savage derived from ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,269 Posts
The 300 Savage definitely came first and was not derived from any other cartridge. It was an original development meant to compete for a role with the US military.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,748 Posts
Sorry guys. Your all wrong.

The 250-3000 [250 savage] was developed 5 years sooner than the 300 savage.

Also, contrary to popular historical belief, Mr. Newton didn't invent it. He was pitching a 25 cal cartridge to savage based on the 30-40 Krag.

Harvey Donaldson live in Rome, N.Y. and was friends with the chief ballistic engineer John Pierce at Savage located in Utica, N.Y. When Donaldson asked Pierce about Newton's bastard cartridge Pierce told him nothing was going to happen with it because the size of the rim precluded it from fitting in the 99 action. That is when Harvey Donaldson suggested using a cartridge with a smaller rim, like the 30-06.

That is the story of the 250 savage. Newton stole credit where he deserved none and people continue to spread the lies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
I had just gotten a 1927 Vintage 99 take down rifle in 250-3000. Bought a box of Remington 100 gr. cartridges just to get the rifle shooting. What a disaster. Who exactly came up with the 14 inch twist? Who ever did that needs credit. It's strange that Newton would have been working on the 256 in the same time frame as the 250-3000 and come up with something on a Krag case. The incorrect information, credit to Newton, on the origins 250 Savage is included in Sharpe's " Complete guide to Handloading." I wonder what Newton what thinking after designing the 22 Savage Hi-Power that a Krag case would fit into a 99. On this time line would not have Newton been already able to market the 256. He would have been setting up his own factory during this time-unless mistaken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
300 Savage: Sharpe dropped the ball again. He credited Savage Arms with developing the 300 to give approximate level of performance of the 30-06. Sharpe indicates the round was a sporting rifle cartridge not a military cartridge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,215 Posts
I guess it depends on who's history of the development you read and which you believe. Since its only of curiosity to me, I'll read them all and try to figure it out later.

The 1-14 twist came from using stubby 87 grain bullets so as to hit the magical 3000 fps....as I understand it. :) Who knew all it took was a keyboard and internet connection to hit 4000!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
I think that it is important to point the similarity of 256 Newton to the 250 Savage. Of course, the Newton is a larger cartridge but similar shoulder angle etc. It's perfectly apparent that Newton stole the 256 from the 250-3000. Somebody needs to straighten out this piracy ASAP! Any claims that Newton held out for a 100gr. bullet are also false. The claim that the 87 gr. bullet was selected to make 3000 fps is also a fabrication. What was the payoff for all this mendacity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,666 Posts
i think the 250-3000 savage payoff was that an 87gr bullet could do 3000fps. i think (always thinkin!!!:eek:) back in the day, 3000fps was a benchmark for manufacturers to produce big game cartridges.

i don't know much about a 250 savage, so i'm like jbelk, maybe i'll read it later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,943 Posts
Did the 250 Savage actually hit 3000 fps back in the day or was it an advertising ploy? As I understand chronographs weren't availabe to masses like they are now. Could see how they could round off, for example, 2955 fps and call it 3000. Who would know?

The ol' skeptical me showing here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,215 Posts
Here's where my information came from. My very first reloading manual. A Speer #1 (1954) given to me by a neighbor in about 1958.

AND for the .256 Newton from the same manual.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,215 Posts
opus-- Thanks for that! When I saw the rifle, I recognized the stock design.
Henry Pohl was a student of mine at CST.
Gary Goudy is a good friend and served as directors, officers, and potentates at the ACGG. He succeeded me as President, in fact.

WHO is the author of the article??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
Yes, very good reading. Thanks Opus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
History Foggy:

History Foggy: The lack of information on many firearm developments was caused by a lack of documentation. :confused:This could be due to none being made or factory fires etc. This lack history makes for controversy among the interested. Personally, what does have horsepower is the number of creditable sources from the 1930's that credit Newton with the 250-3000. All spoofs aside there is a similarity between the 256 and the 250 Savage. Newton had already done the High-Power for Savage. The introduction of the High-Power and the 250 was only the difference between 1912 and 1915. One could make a case for Newton having been working on similar cartridges in different calibers one of which was the 250-3000 for Savage. The 256 Newton was introduced shortly before the 250 Savage. Incidentally, Newton ,in his latter years, served as an expert witness in law suits. :)

Was it true the Newton wanted a 100gr. bullet? Wonder who the brain surgeons were who came up with the 3000 fps, 1/14 twist and 87 gr. bullet. Hint Hint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
opus-- Thanks for that! When I saw the rifle, I recognized the stock design.
Henry Pohl was a student of mine at CST.
Gary Goudy is a good friend and served as directors, officers, and potentates at the ACGG. He succeeded me as President, in fact.

WHO is the author of the article??
I will see if I can dig up a hard copy of that article and see the author is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
Was I reading too much into that article to suspect that Donaldson claimed development because he had provided ideas, insight, and some data, but that it was Newton who actually brought it to its final stage as the true cartridge we know today?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
Was I reading too much into that article to suspect that Donaldson claimed development because he had provided ideas, insight, and some data, but that it was Newton who actually brought it to its final stage as the true cartridge we know today?
A good observation IMHO. I suppose Harvey does deserve some credit for the idea if what he said was true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,650 Posts
Hard to sort out info....

Thanks opus for the article from Handloader. I kinda remember that a number of folks were working on 25 caliber cartridges at that time. Niedner and Mann were working on a cartridge. Don't we know Niedner's cartridge as the 25-06? There is always examples of parallel development where two or more experimenters are working on the same thing separately. The situation comes across as a growing pool of data. In the article it was hard to tell who did what to whom. I'd see it as Newton was influenced by work of several experimenters. He did not work in a vacuum. I still think the comment about the Krag based 25 caliber round flunks the smell test.

Jack, do you think Speer, in the day, may have loaded heavy? :eek: Thanks for the information. Thanks opus.
 
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Top