[micromike]

New to the forum layout. I commented on an old thread so I got moderated. I guess it was because it was a “zombie “ . I hope. I’m not intentionally breaking any rules. I’m building a .256 Newton as a full stock rifle (as opposed to carbine) so it has a 24” 1-9 tapered octagon barrel on a 50’s F.N. action and a 1909 bottom metal. I thought I would just throw this out there and see what comments/suggestions come back. The build is nearing completion so at this rate I should be sending to the bluers in a couple months. I have some (100) headstamped Jamison brass and a deluxe die set set from CH4D. I also have an assortment of .264” bullets varying in weight from 90-160g that I’ve accumulated over the last 30 years of reloading. The .256 Newton seems to capture my imagination more so than any of the other traditional hunting cartridges so let’s talk.

 

[MikeG]

Sounds like a fine hunting rifle, can't wait for pics or a range/hunting report.

 

[micromike]

Sounds like a fine hunting rifle, can't wait for pics or a range/hunting report.

Are there rules about pictures?

 

[MikeG]

You should be able to upload. On the old forum, had to have a certain minimum # of posts, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

 

[micromike]

 

[crooked creek]

I like it! The octagon barrel is a nice touch. Are you planning to have checkered, or are you leaving it smooth? That sweeping round knob grip and European type cheekpiece, integral Schnabel tip, and Neider buttplate seem to 'fit' the character.
About 35 years ago I bought a used Shilen SS match grade barrel that was chambered in 256 Newton and fitted for a Ruger No. 1. It came with a box of fired (original) Win. Newton stamped brass. I had my GS open it to a 25-06 and fit it to a 270 Win. No. 1 that I had. At the time, new 256 Newton brass was. shall I say, hard to come by! Your performance should be just slightly less than the 25-06, and an excellent efficient cartridge...good choice! Can't wait to see the finished product and welcome to the forum.

 

[Don Fischer]

I think you'll find a 1-9" twist won't stabilize a 160gr bullet. In my 6.5x06 I have a 1-9" and was told by Hornady it wouldn't stabilize their 140gr bullet but it shoot's fine. Asked at Sierra and was told it would stabilize their 140gr bullet but not their 142 gr bullet. Of course the 160gr bullet is quite a bit longer.

What are you going to make the case's from? My understanding is the 6.5x06 is darn near the same as the Newton. Just wondering what you'd make the case's from. love my 6.5x06. have killed three elk with it one shot each! Killed a number of deer! Oh, and one coyote!

 

[Darkker]

I think you'll find a 1-9" twist won't stabilize a 160gr bullet. In my 6.5x06 I have a 1-9" and was told by Hornady it wouldn't stabilize their 140gr bullet but it shoot's fine. Asked at Sierra and was told it would stabilize their 140gr bullet but not their 142 gr bullet. Of course the 160gr bullet is quite a bit longer.

🤔🤔🤔

The 160gr Hornady bullet is shorter than all of their 140gr bullets.....
The 160 will be just fine, and while in the marginal area for long match 140gr bullets; likely will also be fine.

JBM - Calculations - Stability

www.jbmballistics.com

Cheers

 

[Don Fischer]

That 160gr bullet must be a RN?

 

[micromike]

Thank you for your responses , I’ll try to address them all. I do plan on checkering once I feel I have sufficiently built up a base coat of oil. That shiny picture is wet so it may be a little misleading. I rub it till it squeaks and set it in this old chair in my shop. The air is hot and still there this time of year. So I am able to put a coat on about once a week. I have 100 Jamison .256 Newton cases. Thank you very much for the link to that JBM calculator I will have fun measuring my bullets and plugging in the numbers.

 

[micromike]

The original loads were 129g bullets loaded to @43745p.s.i. With modern powder this will get 2800 f.p.s. if you choose a slow powder. However if a limit of 63000 p.s.i. is imposed a velocity of 3000 f.p.s. is attainable with 140g projectiles. I probably won’t load to this but, I thought I would put this out there so you could compare apples to apples when comparing this to other cartridges.

 

[micromike]

Whoop, I hope everyone understands I meant 129g. @2800 f.p.s. That would be achievable w 43745 p.s.i. using modern powder.

 

[Darkker]

That 160gr bullet must be a RN?

I don't know of a 6.5mm 160gr that isn't a RN(excepting boutique bullets).

Thank you very much for the link to that JBM calculator I will have fun measuring my bullets and plugging in the numbers.

No need to. On the left of that page is a list of options, including a "lengths" page. Many of which also contain measurements from Brian Litz.

The original loads were 129g bullets loaded to @43745p.s.i. With modern powder this will get 2800 f.p.s. if you choose a slow powder. However if a limit of 63000 p.s.i. is imposed a velocity of 3000 f.p.s. is attainable with 140g projectiles. I probably won’t load to this but, I thought I would put this out there so you could compare apples to apples when comparing this to other cartridges.

Those are some oddly specific pressure numbers. Which makes me think of a few things.
1) They(original performance numbers) are actually CUP numbers from somewhere, which positively are NOT psi.
2) You are running some calculations with something like QL. That is a wonderful estimating tool, but don't take it's output as gospel.

Keep us updated on the progress!

Cheers

 

[micromike]

I don't know of a 6.5mm 160gr that isn't a RN(excepting boutique bullets).


No need to. On the left of that page is a list of options, including a "lengths" page. Many of which also contain measurements from Brian Litz.



Those are some oddly specific pressure numbers. Which makes me think of a few things.
1) They(original performance numbers) are actually CUP numbers from somewhere, which positively are NOT psi.
2) You are running some calculations with something like QL. That is a wonderful estimating tool, but don't take it's output as gospel.

Keep us updated on the progress!

Cheers

If you read the post that follows. 129g’s @2800 it makes more sense. I used quick load to come up with some loads that would generate those velocities. I believe the original intent was to duplicate the trajectory of the 30-“06 . When I duplicated those exterior ballistics that pressure was stated in p.s.i.’s . So I was quoting this to show how little pressure was required to do so. (Duplicate the original) if this Was desired using available modern powders. Hope this helps clear up your understanding of my statement. I get that nothing occurs in laboratory conditions and each barrel is a law to itself. But when we attempt to communicate we have to have some baselines.

 

[Jack]

Really nice build!
The 256 Newton always intrigued me, but I've never owned one.
You should (if you haven't already) get your hands on Ken Waters' book 'Pet Loads' - he does a nice write up of loading for the 256 Newton in an original Newton rifle.

 

[Darkker]

Was desired using available modern powders. Hope this helps clear up your understanding of my statement. I get that nothing occurs in laboratory conditions and each barrel is a law to itself. But when we attempt to communicate we have to have some baselines.

Yes, some baselines...
QL is an estimator, and it isn't the barrel variable that cause it to struggle. Hartmut gets nothing from a few manufacturers, so he's stuck bomb testing random lots, and hoping. Truly modern powders, like the progressives and hybrid powders. QL either still doesn't have, or has been dangerously mistaken at times. If you look to Hodgy for honest info about powder, you'll be believing in ghosts and flying monkeys in no time.😉

Use QL, by all means. But don't think it is what it isn't. If you want to know to the PSI, what's happening your rifle; buy a Pressure Trace and actually record it.

Cheers

 

[micromike]

Yes, some baselines...
QL is an estimator, and it isn't the barrel variable that cause it to struggle. Hartmut gets nothing from a few manufacturers, so he's stuck bomb testing random lots, and hoping. Truly modern powders, like the progressives and hybrid powders. QL either still doesn't have, or has been dangerously mistaken at times. If you look to Hodgy for honest info about powder, you'll be believing in ghosts and flying monkeys in no time.😉

Use QL, by all means. But don't think it is what it isn't. If you want to know to the PSI, what's happening your rifle; buy a Pressure Trace and actually record it.

Cheers

I think you’re over complicating this simple statement. Powders have improved in 110 years.

 

[micromike]

Really nice build!
The 256 Newton always intrigued me, but I've never owned one.
You should (if you haven't already) get your hands on Ken Waters' book 'Pet Loads' - he does a nice write up of loading for the 256 Newton in an original Newton rifle.

Yes, I believe this was also published in the May-June 1987 Handloader Number 127.

 

[Darkker]

I think you’re over complicating this simple statement. Powders have improved in 110 years.

Some powders are improved, a good many aren't.

Consider the relatively speaking, "Brand new" CFE223. When the reloading world learned about it, it was already over 20 years old. The bulk of it's copper fighting ingredients are from 1900 French technology, that you can read about in Hatcher's Notebook. Hodgdon claimed(until recently) that H335 was created for the 5.56Nato, which is untrue. That powder's patent date, is from the early 1930's. Even though the products already contained a decent amount of the tin copper fighters, few know that the 748/760 family have always contained them. But they weren't marketed as magical.
The reality of the reloading world is that we are a waste stream. A good much of the time, the actual powder in a bottle of(example only) IMR4064 is any number of different things and ages. When GD's plant in Quebec was getting demolished and completely rebuilt, the 1# bottles of 4064, was still from various lots of their old production. Whereas the 8# kegs were coming from Rhinemetal products out of Europe.
It isn't a coincidence that the waste suppliers don't list much if anything, about the product they sell. As of a few months ago, Western still had nominal specs for their powders, and SDS's from Eurenco. Their products have been sourced from GD for well over a year...

It certainly can be difficult to know what does or doesn't change, but if simply relying upon marketing wank and CS folks on the phone; one will be utterly lost in the weeds.

Cheers

 

[TRexF16]

Hi mircomike,
I'm just completing a .256 Newton build, also on a 1950 commercial FN action. I used a 23" #3 contour barrel (8" twist), and am just doing final shaping on the stock and then just need to apply the finish. Used a Dakota safety and Timney trigger. I've taken it to the range a few times as is, with a towel draped over the cheekpeice to keep it clean, and it looks like it'll be a shooter!


I found some .256 Newton QL runs on the Nosler site that got me in a little trouble with H4831sc, so be careful with them and work up. We should stay in touch with load collaboration. I am also using Jamison brass and have the CH4D dies. But I am going to make some brass from .270 win just to compare to the Jamison. I figured a nice easy way to do this using a 7x57 FL die (minus decapping rod) to push back the shoulder, then the Newton dies to take down the neck and set the final shoulder position. I shorten the .270 brass to the right length first before beginning any of the other steps. Afterward, I lightly neck turned the experimental .270 brass as the neck walls are understandably a bit thick towards the shoulder junction.

Cheers,
Rex