Home Main Category Hunting

257 roberts fans

2

Replies

  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,745 Senior Member
    misdeme wrote: »
    My husband is a huge fan of the Browning 257 Roberts. Last year hubby battled cancer, meanwhile I was dealing with bill collectors. Sadly I lost his rifle to a pawn shop. I would love to buy this particular gun if possible. Please contact me at [email protected]

    I can't help you with buying the gun, but I can welcome you to the forum. I hope your husband's cancer is in remission.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    I didn't say it.... just agreed with it. FWIW.. I submit the following from one of my favorite books.

    Complete Guide to Cartridge Reloading by Phillip B. Sharpe, 1935 ed. ;

    This book is a true classic in every sense of the word. Sharpe was one of the leading firearms & cartridge authorities of the first half of the last century. He collaborated with Smith & Wesson and Winchester to help D.B. Wesson develop the .357 magnum. They chornographed his handholds for it and a photo is included in the book of Colonel Wesson testing the loads from a machine rest. Phil Sharpe was acquainted with other noted firearms authorities of the period and regularly collaborated with them.

    It is most interesting to read his cartridge descriptions and I've read all of my reloading manuals from cover to cover many times over. This book has been with me for more decades than I care to count, but I'd like to share some of his thoughts on the 257 Roberts. He says, in part…. "As loaded commercially, there are three available bullet weights, 87, 100, and 117. Commercial bullets are a poor shape of hollow point, but despite this awkward shape, deliver excellent accuracy and good ballistics. When I was discussing the bullet shape with Major Roberts, he told me that he had experimented with a great many types of spritzer bullets and was unable to get reasonable accuracy. Incidentally, he demands that his .257 loads shot 10 consecutive shots in a one-inch group at 100 yards , not occasionally, but most of the time, wind and weather being favorable. Major Roberts admits, however, that a spitzer bullet would be far more satisfactory if an accurate one could be designed, and several of the ammunition makers are now working on this angle."

    So you see, there was a scarcity of good bullets back then in .257 caliber! Sharpe not only knew Roberts, but collaborated with him. That's why it seems unusual to develop a cartridge for a bullet caliber that has a scarcity of good bullets available. The same can be said for .277 caliber as well. And it was Dr. Van Zwoll who said there is no reason for a 270 Winchester, not me. However, I do agree with his statement.

    FWIW, Sharpe says the 7mm Mauser was "very popular" and "at present no less than fifteen different nations use this cartridge as standard." He goes on to say that he is quite fond of it and uses it regularly for hunting. "Properly loaded, this cartridge leaves very little to be desired, as it permits of excellent killing power of small game, or big game, together with the accuracy necessary for target shooting."

    His thoughts on the 6.5 Mannlicher-Schoenauer are also noteworthy. "The 6.5mm MS is an extremely popular number in this country."

    Keep in mind that Sharpes comments are from a 1935 text. That's why VanZwoll and Aagaard seem to have opined what they did regarding O'connor's favorite cartridge.

    When I speak of popularity, I'm talking about here in the U.S. Not in the rest of the world. I'm talking about American Joe Public that drinks Miller or Bud Light, drives a Chevy or Ford Pickup, and hunts whitetail deer and wild hogs. He BBQs on weekends and watches American football and baseball. He prefers beer to wine and he wears a ball cap with some advertisement or his favorite college or pro team on it. He buys most of his firearms from his Favorite LGS which can be Wally World or Academy. In the hunting off season he's bass fishing or salt water fishing. He's not necessary a knuckle dragging Red Neck, but he can be. That's the group I'm referring to when I say the .270 is more popular and out sells the 7mms. For whatever reasons it outsells them. I didn't say it's better, it just has a reputation in the U.S. that the others don't have. They are coming along but they haven't reached that level yet.

    I think the main reason the 7mms are so popular in Europe and other parts of the world is the rifles it was originally chambered in, the 7mmx57 Mauser.

    Edited to Add: The main reason I even answered your post here though was because i didn't see what the .270 had to do with the original subject. Then I got drawn into it. The .270 is a different issue. The .257 Roberts isn't near as popular these days but it's regaining it slowly. I think the 6mms were sort of a novelty in their time and overtook the Roberts and the .250 Savage. But maybe the shooting public is reawakening to these smaller .25s. usefullness.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    When I speak of popularity, I'm talking about here in the U.S. Not in the rest of the world. I'm talking about American Joe Public that drinks Miller or Bud Light, drives a Chevy or Ford Pickup, and hunts whitetail deer and wild hogs. He BBQs on weekends and watches American football and baseball. He prefers beer to wine and he wears a ball cap with some advertisement or his favorite college or pro team on it. He buys most of his firearms from his Favorite LGS which can be Wally World or Academy. In the hunting off season he's bass fishing or salt water fishing. He's not necessary a knuckle dragging Red Neck, but he can be. That's the group I'm referring to when I say the .270 is more popular and out sells the 7mms. For whatever reasons it outsells them. I didn't say it's better, it just has a reputation in the U.S. that the others don't have. They are coming along but they haven't reached that level yet.

    I'm here in the U.S.A. and am an American. As you might surmise from my avatar, I'm actually a veteran of the U.S. Army, 1st Armored Division. I drink Miller Lite and drive a 66 Corvette Stingray and a 2003, 100th anniversary Harley Davidson motorcycle. I have shot more whitetail deer than most folks and have an 8 3/4# bass mounted and hanging on the wall.

    I watch college and pro football and am looking forward to the Super Bowl. My knuckles don't drag and my neck isn't red. So what's your point?

    If you read the post, you'd see that I was quoting Phil Sharpe from 1935. He was an American. He collaborated with Ned Roberts, another American who developed the cartridge that the thread was about. He talked about the 6.5 mm cartridges popularity in this country (America) and the scarcity of good bullets in 257 caliber. So all things considered, why bring it up a week after the original post?
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    My point is that I can't see that the 7mm anything was more popular than a .270 or anything back in the day. I know it was in Europe and even Africa. But here in the USA back in the day, cartridges like the 250 Savage, 30-30 Win., .270 Win., 300 Savage, and 30-06 were more popular than anything with MM written on the end. I know that's all changing, but old trends are slow to change. And that's not a slam on the 7x57 by anymeans. I think it's a great old cartridge too. I mean hell, ol' Karamojo Bell proved that for sure on elephants. I'm just saying that the truth is the .270 was an American cartridge born and bread and thus enjoyed emense popularity as it still does on our shores.

    Edited to Add: OK Here's what i came up with searching. Most polls rate the .270 as number 2 or 3 in popularity with the 30-06, 308, and 30-30 up there too. The .243 is also a favorite. But only a few rate any 7mm up as high or higher than the .270 Win. and that's usually the 7mm Rem. Mag. Which is also very popular. And that's today, not back in the day. But again that's in the U.S. I will be the first to agree that in other parts of the world, the 7mms rule. But that's because they have that double m on the end of their name, hence 7mm. Back in the 60s the only real popular 7mm was the Remington Magnum. And if you don't believe this, the now popular .280 Remington was way down the list from the .270. Not that the .270 was inferiour to it, but the factory ammo for it was fairly anemic due to the fact that Remington chambered their SAs and Pump guns for it. Pumps and Semi Autos lack the strong camming action to free a stuck case from a chamber. So pressures were kept low by design. Therefore the .280 in factory form made a poor showing compared to a .270. Nowadays more and more bolt guns are chambered in it and hand loading it makes it a very potent round. But old trends change slow and the .270 is still more popular. Below are some URLs where I found this information..

    http://www.mademan.com/mm/5-best-rifle-cartridges-deer-hunting.html
    http://www.chuckhawks.com/readers_choice_rifle_cartridges.htm
    http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasttopriflecar.htm
    http://ezinearticles.com/?Top-5-Whitetail-Deer-Calibers&id=5336621
    http://www.huntingnut.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2547
    http://www.chuckhawks.com/12_rifle_cartridges.htm
    http://www.chuckhawks.com/12_rifle_cartridges.htm
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I really wasn't slamming your statements, but trying to reason them out. I get it now about the .007 difference.

    Are you forgetting what you posted a week ago? You said you got it about the .007" inch difference between the respective calibers. Rather odd, don't you think? The 257 Roberts and 270 Win both were introduced in a bullet diameter that was rather uncommon for the day. And each of them is exactly .007" under a very popular bullet diameter that was well established and for which many quality projectiles (bullets) were available.

    I noticed it, Aagard noticed it, VanZwoll noticed it, and I thought you said that you "got it". Nobody said the 270 isn't popular NOW.
    I own one and reload for it. But there's no denying that these two bullet diameters are aberrations of their more popular, slightly larger diameter, and much more popular diameters.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    Are you forgetting what you posted a week ago? You said you got it about the .007" inch difference between the respective calibers. Rather odd, don't you think? The 257 Roberts and 270 Win both were introduced in a bullet diameter that was rather uncommon for the day. And each of them is exactly .007" under a very popular bullet diameter that was well established and for which many quality projectiles (bullets) were available.

    I noticed it, Aagard noticed it, VanZwoll noticed it, and I thought you said that you "got it". Nobody said the 270 isn't popular NOW.
    I own one and reload for it. But there's no denying that these two bullet diameters are aberrations of their more popular, slightly larger diameter, and much more popular diameters.

    Yes I got that, but I'm just saying that the .270 was and is still more popular with the general public. And it is. I didn't say it was better. \\

    And yes, you cited a writing by Phillip B. Sharpe that said that there was no purpose for a .270 seeing the 7mm was more popular. That's all I said. I have both a .270 and a .280 and like em both. Why, because I love variety I guess. Like I've said before, I want one of everything. But the only thing a .280 has over a .270 is there are more bullet weights available. Of course for what I use either one for, the .270 has what I need, a 130 grain bullet for deer and a 150 for anything larger. However, i do still wonder why the bullet manufactures don't make many heavier Hi BC bullets for it. But it really doesn't cramp my style a lot.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    ......However, i do still wonder why the bullet manufactures don't make many heavier Hi BC bullets for it. But it really doesn't cramp my style a lot.

    FWIW, when I started shooting 1000 yard bencherst in spring of 2008 with a Rem 700 Sendero in 7 Rem Mag (stock class), I met a shooter from Wisconsin named Al Forbes. He competed in "factory" class with a 260 Rem, model 700 but told me that he had a stainless Sendero SF-II identical to mine but in 25-06. I learned from the club website that Al actually held the club record for small group in the factory class with that rifle; something in the low 5" range as I recall. So he used a 25-06 for a season.

    Al told me that he switched to 260 partly because of lack of suitable projectiles for the .257" diameter. I never did ask him what bullet he used to compete with in his 25-06. He reasoned that more high quality match components were available for 26 caliber. BTW, Al Forbes set a new 6 match aggregate small group "light gun" record in 2009, which was just broken this past year. He used a 6-dasher to accomplish that feat.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    Maybe you're hitting on something here. The 30 Caliber or rather .308 Diameter projectile was the mainstay in our armed services from back in the 19th Century (30-40 Kraig) until the Mid 60s (7.62x51 Nato - .308 Winchester). And it was still and is still used in competition by American shooters. However in the rest of the world the 6.5 mms and the 7mms have been the main stay not only just in competition but also in military service for much of the world. I think this has a lot of bearing on why bullet manufactors concentrate on those three bullets and now also the .224s. This is understandable. And as for cartridges like the 7mm-08 and the 280 I think they are just riding the train so to speak, being as they share the same bullet diameter with more famous target rounds. And being as they share the same bullet diameter as some well known target rounds it would stand to reason that somebody will try them also. But a true 25 caliber and a .277 have nothing in common with any well known target cartridge, it's doubtful they will be tried for this. However, seeing that some bullet makers are venturing out and making better selections for everything nowadays, you never know what will happen. The .25-06 and its big brother the .270 may end up being used for long range shooting some day. I'm anxious to see what this new 170 grain .277 bullet will do for the .270's popularity in the long range shooting field. And also I don't know what the largest .25 cal bullet is. I know that about the biggest hunting bullet for it is the 120 grain. I would be interested to see if someone makes a 130 or 140 grain for it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    FWIW, when I started shooting 1000 yard bencherst in spring of 2008 with a Rem 700 Sendero in 7 Rem Mag (stock class), I met a shooter from Wisconsin named Al Forbes. He competed in "factory" class with a 260 Rem, model 700 but told me that he had a stainless Sendero SF-II identical to mine but in 25-06. I learned from the club website that Al actually held the club record for small group in the factory class with that rifle; something in the low 5" range as I recall. So he used a 25-06 for a season.

    Al told me that he switched to 260 partly because of lack of suitable projectiles for the .257" diameter. I never did ask him what bullet he used to compete with in his 25-06. He reasoned that more high quality match components were available for 26 caliber. BTW, Al Forbes set a new 6 match aggregate small group "light gun" record in 2009, which was just broken this past year. He used a 6-dasher to accomplish that feat.

    More than likely Forbes used a 120 grain bullet because i think that's the biggest .25 caliber bullet made, if I'm not mistaken. And I'm not even sure they make it in a match bullet. Could have been a hunting bullet.

    Another thing, put the .277 and .257s in with the .308 cartridges when you're comparing bullets to the 7mms. Because the 6.5s and the 7mms are to Europe and the metric world what the .308 inch (Including the 30-06, 30-30, and .300 Win Mag.) are to the U.S. However, that doesn't mean I don't like the 6.5s and 7mms. I like em all. One of my future builds is going to be a 6.5x55 on a Yugo action. I may at some point build either a 7mm08 or a 7x57 on one too. Like I've said, I want one of everything. I love em all.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Another thing, put the .277 and .257s in with the .308 cartridges when you're comparing bullets to the 7mms.

    Say What?????????

    The fact of the matter remains that when the rest of the world was mostly using 6.5mm, 7mm and 8mm cartridges, the U.S.A went 30 caliber with the Krag in 1892. That's a given. Then we had the 30-03 and 30-06, but the U.S.A. was going to be 30 caliber for it's military until the 1960's. That's all history, we covered that a few weeks ago. So with those four bullet calibers (diameters) being quite popular in the early 1920's, can you blame the gun community for its collective surprise at the introduction of the less common diameters? There were a few 25 caliber bullets available for the 25-35 and 25-20. But when Arthur Savage came out with the 250-3000 Savage in 1913 in his model 99, they took on a spitzer shape but he chose an 87 grain weight to make his advertised 3000 fps.

    The fact that prominent gunwriters expressed surprise at the introduction of .257" and .277" calibers in light of the fact that they were each a mere .007" from more popular calibers for which great hunting and target bullets were plentiful, seems to upset you! It's historical fact, not my opinion. Look it up.

    I've read in other sources that Winchester surprised the gun fraternity when it came out with a new cartridge for a bullet diameter that was totally new, the 270. Ned Roberts himself consulted with Sharpe about his hopes that some good bullets would come out in .257" for his little creation. Each was an example of a cartridge introduction that went "against the grain". It would be similar to a major gunmaker introducing a new cartridge today that fired .295" bullets. Yeah, lets make a 295 G&A!

    A bullet of .295" would be great! You could probably get up to 200+ grains. We'll load it in a 308 case and………etc., etc.,, etc. One major problem Heathcliff, nobody makes that diameter bullet so we really have our work cut out for us now. Instead of just necking the 308 up to 338, like Federal did and then using existing bullets, we have to start from scratch making bullets too! So we'll neck it down to .295 and try to get Nosler or Sierra or Hornady to gear up and give us a bullet in a new diameter. Yeah…..Good Luck!!!!

    Now, I've tried to pick a bullet diameter for which no bullets exist, to my knowledge, for purely illustrative purposes. That's what I've read that the gun world's reaction was to the introduction of the 270 Win.
    back in 1925 when the 7mm's had already been around for 32 years and were immensely popular worldwide. What creative thinker at Winchester came up with the brain fart that said, lets make a totally new diameter of .277" and it turned into the 270 Win.?

    Once again, I have nothing against the 270. I own one, reload for it and like it. But historical facts are historical facts. 257 and 277 calibers are "oddball" diameters on the world stage. Not bad, not useless, they just seemed odd to the gun press when they were respectively introduced.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    Say What?????????

    The fact of the matter remains that when the rest of the world was mostly using 6.5mm, 7mm and 8mm cartridges, the U.S.A went 30 caliber with the Krag in 1892. That's a given. Then we had the 30-03 and 30-06, but the U.S.A. was going to be 30 caliber for it's military until the 1960's. That's all history, we covered that a few weeks ago. So with those four bullet calibers (diameters) being quite popular in the early 1920's, can you blame the gun community for its collective surprise at the introduction of the less common diameters? There were a few 25 caliber bullets available for the 25-35 and 25-20. But when Arthur Savage came out with the 250-3000 Savage in 1913 in his model 99, they took on a spitzer shape but he chose an 87 grain weight to make his advertised 3000 fps.

    The fact that prominent gunwriters expressed surprise at the introduction of .257" and .277" calibers in light of the fact that they were each a mere .007" from more popular calibers for which great hunting and target bullets were plentiful, seems to upset you! It's historical fact, not my opinion. Look it up.

    I've read in other sources that Winchester surprised the gun fraternity when it came out with a new cartridge for a bullet diameter that was totally new, the 270. Ned Roberts himself consulted with Sharpe about his hopes that some good bullets would come out in .257" for his little creation. Each was an example of a cartridge introduction that went "against the grain". It would be similar to a major gunmaker introducing a new cartridge today that fired .295" bullets. Yeah, lets make a 295 G&A!



    A bullet of .295" would be great! You could probably get up to 200+ grains. We'll load it in a 308 case and………etc., etc.,, etc. One major problem Heathcliff, nobody makes that diameter bullet so we really have our work cut out for us now. Instead of just necking the 308 up to 338, like Federal did and then using existing bullets, we have to start from scratch making bullets too! So we'll neck it down to .295 and try to get Nosler or Sierra or Hornady to gear up and give us a bullet in a new diameter. Yeah…..Good Luck!!!!

    Now, I've tried to pick a bullet diameter for which no bullets exist, to my knowledge, for purely illustrative purposes. That's what I've read that the gun world's reaction was to the introduction of the 270 Win.
    back in 1925 when the 7mm's had already been around for 32 years and were immensely popular worldwide. What creative thinker at Winchester came up with the brain fart that said, lets make a totally new diameter of .277" and it turned into the 270 Win.?

    Once again, I have nothing against the 270. I own one, reload for it and like it. But historical facts are historical facts. 257 and 277 calibers are "oddball" diameters on the world stage. Not bad, not useless, they just seemed odd to the gun press when they were respectively introduced.

    I don't know where you get the idea that the 6.5 and 7mms were popular here in the U.S. back in the teens. Remember, about this time we had been engaged in the first World War, and that's when my ancestors of German descent stopped speaking German and using anything European. The 25s and 27- were a natural progression of that line of thinking. Americans wanted nothing to do with things European at that time, especially German. The 7 MM was a German round created by the Mauser family. The 6.5 was a Swedish and European round. Also, the part about the 30 calibers, Yes I called them all .308s because that was the grove diameter of the .30-06, 30-30, and 300 Savage, was viewed as an all American Bore size, same with the .257s and the .270. They might have been against the grain to the rest of the world, but they were all American here. They were designed by Americans, made by Americans, For Americans. Even today, some Americans boycot all things in meters. I have heard people right here on this forum blast the 6mm because they said Things European are in meters, things American are in inches. Even before the U.S. got involved in WWI there was a strong sentiment building against anything European. The .250 Savage came out in 1915 just when this anti European Sentiment was beginning to build. This shaped the way we thought for much of the 20th Century.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    Say What?????????

    The fact of the matter remains that when the rest of the world was mostly using 6.5mm, 7mm and 8mm cartridges, the U.S.A went 30 caliber with the Krag in 1892. That's a given. Then we had the 30-03 and 30-06, but the U.S.A. was going to be 30 caliber for it's military until the 1960's. That's all history, we covered that a few weeks ago. So with those four bullet calibers (diameters) being quite popular in the early 1920's, can you blame the gun community for its collective surprise at the introduction of the less common diameters? There were a few 25 caliber bullets available for the 25-35 and 25-20. But when Arthur Savage came out with the 250-3000 Savage in 1913 in his model 99, they took on a spitzer shape but he chose an 87 grain weight to make his advertised 3000 fps.

    The fact that prominent gunwriters expressed surprise at the introduction of .257" and .277" calibers in light of the fact that they were each a mere .007" from more popular calibers for which great hunting and target bullets were plentiful, seems to upset you! It's historical fact, not my opinion. Look it up.

    I've read in other sources that Winchester surprised the gun fraternity when it came out with a new cartridge for a bullet diameter that was totally new, the 270. Ned Roberts himself consulted with Sharpe about his hopes that some good bullets would come out in .257" for his little creation. Each was an example of a cartridge introduction that went "against the grain". It would be similar to a major gunmaker introducing a new cartridge today that fired .295" bullets. Yeah, lets make a 295 G&A!



    A bullet of .295" would be great! You could probably get up to 200+ grains. We'll load it in a 308 case and………etc., etc.,, etc. One major problem Heathcliff, nobody makes that diameter bullet so we really have our work cut out for us now. Instead of just necking the 308 up to 338, like Federal did and then using existing bullets, we have to start from scratch making bullets too! So we'll neck it down to .295 and try to get Nosler or Sierra or Hornady to gear up and give us a bullet in a new diameter. Yeah…..Good Luck!!!!

    Now, I've tried to pick a bullet diameter for which no bullets exist, to my knowledge, for purely illustrative purposes. That's what I've read that the gun world's reaction was to the introduction of the 270 Win.
    back in 1925 when the 7mm's had already been around for 32 years and were immensely popular worldwide. What creative thinker at Winchester came up with the brain fart that said, lets make a totally new diameter of .277" and it turned into the 270 Win.?

    Once again, I have nothing against the 270. I own one, reload for it and like it. But historical facts are historical facts. 257 and 277 calibers are "oddball" diameters on the world stage. Not bad, not useless, they just seemed odd to the gun press when they were respectively introduced.

    I don't know where you get the idea that the 6.5, 7, and 8mms were popular here in the U.S. back in the teens and 20s when the .250 Savage, .257 Roberts, and the .270 came out. Remember, in the early teens we were about to be engaged in the first World War, and that's when my ancestors of German descent stopped speaking German and using anything European. The 25s and 270 Win. were a natural progression of that line of thinking. Americans wanted nothing to do with things European at that time, especially German. A few professional writers and such may have been enthralled by the metrics, but not the American People and the market will usually follow the opinon of the masses not of a few professionals. The 7 MM and 8mm were German rounds created by the Mauser family. The 6.5 was a Swedish and European round. Also, the part about the 30 calibers, Yes I called them all .308s because that was the grove diameter of the .30-06, 30-30, and 300 Savage (I wasn't referring to the .308 Win which wouldn't come along for another 40-50 years), was viewed as an all American Bore size, same with the .257s and the .270. They might have been against the grain to the rest of the world, but they were all American here. They were designed by Americans, made by Americans, For Americans. Even today, some Americans boycot all things in meters. I have heard people right here on this forum blast the 6mm Remington in favor of the .243 Winchester because of its metric designation and because they said Things European are in meters, things American are in inches. Even before the U.S. got involved in WWI there was a strong sentiment building against anything European. The .250 Savage came out in 1915 just when this anti European Sentiment was beginning to build. This shaped the way we thought for much of the 20th Century.

    Also, the 250 came out in 1915, not 1913, right in the middle of WWI. Even though the U.S. was not yet involved in the conflict, the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe's war or other problems.
    Also Arthur Savage's company, Savage Arms, merely chambered the model 99 in the cartridge, he didn't invent it. That would be Charles Newton. And the cartridge was originally known as the .250 Newton.
    Also, you keep talking like the 6.5, 7, and 8 mms have some kind of magical power and that nothing else should have been designed because this size was superior for some reason and that all the bullet variety was made in those cartridges . At the time I would wager that none of them had a particularly wide variety or Monopoly on bullet styles and weights. Those evolved through the 20 Century.

    As for competition shooting, here in the US the only thing that the professional shooting public took seriously were 30 calibers, mainly the 30-06. So American bullet makers concentrated on that cartridge for match type bullets for much of the Century. The invasion of the metrics happened after WWII. And naturally, in Europe, competition bullets were made for these cartridges, while here mainly the 30 caliber was viewed as competitive, hence the 30 caliber had and has a large variety of competition bullet weights with Hi BC, while the .25s and the .270 were viewed and are stlil largely viewed as hunting cartridges.

    I have no doubt that some writers and shooters felt the .25s and .277 were against the grain, but it's natural that some people will feel that way about many things. There were a few Americans that weren't isolationists. But it is a fact that the 25s and the .270 were immensly popular in the U.S. back in the first half of the 20th Century and the .270 is still very popular. And also there is a resurgence of the 25s popularity too. And what of the 6mms? When they first came out they were called by their Name in Inches. The .244 Remington didn't become the 6mm until later when Remington was trying to change its image to try to boost sales. Had they done more homework in its inception and tightened the barrel twist to at least 1-10, you would never have heard of a 6mm Remington and also just for the record the .243 Winchester may have been short lived because the .244 Remington I believe would have ruled that roost.

    Also, if the metrics were so popular how do you explain Roy Weatherby's bringing out the .270 and the .257 Wby mags? He did bring out a 7 mag also, but even his 6mm offering was called the .240. And going back to the 30 calibers. Why did our military come out with the 30-40 Krag instead of a 7 or 8 mm of its own? Because like I said, through much of the 20th Century, the American public boycotted most things European.

    Yes you can use Jack O'Connor as an excuse for the .270s popularity, but what about the .250 Savage and the .257 Roberts, each of which were edged out not by European cartridges but by America's own cartridges the .243 Win. and the .244 Remington, neither of which were originally called by their metric name.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I don't know where you get the idea that the 6.5 and 7mms were popular here in the U.S. back in the teens.

    I didn't say they were. I referred to the vast array of popular bullets available at the time of those diameter bullets.

    Our historical dates differ, on the 250 Savage, but they were still two oddball calibers as perceived by American Gunwriters. Newton designed the cartridge but Savage wanted to hit 3000 fps and brought the bullet weight down to 87 grains to achieve that. It was introduced that way in 1913 according to Dr. Wayne VanZwoll's book.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    The .250-3000 Savage is a rifle cartridge created by Charles Newton in 1915 and is also known as the .250 Savage. The name comes from its original manufacturer, Savage Arms and the fact that the original load achieved a 3000 ft/s (910 m/s) velocity with an 87 grain (5.6 g) bullet.[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.250-3000_Savage


    Using a 25 caliber (.257") 87 grain bullet, Newton designed the new cartridge to break the 3000fps barrier. Newton also had a catchy slogan which he was determined to use- the .250-3000. Arthur Savage, founder of the Savage Arms company, wasn't so sure about the idea and believed a 100 grain bullet would be more suitable for deer. Ultimately, Newton was unable to drive the 100 grain bullet at the 3000fps slogan he wished to market and managed to persuade Savage to adopt the 87 grain load. The design was settled and in 1915 the .250-3000 was introduced.

    http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledge+Base/.250-3000.250+Savage.html

    (250-3000)

    A new cartridge with a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps wouldn't cause today's hunters to look twice, but can you imagine what a ruckus it would kick up if the fastest commercially produced big game cartridge available was the Winchester 30-30? This was exactly the situation when Savage introduced the .250-3000 cartridge back in 1915. Charles Newton, who designed the cartridge, urged Savage to introduce it with a 100 grain bullet, but in order to to reach the desired velocity of 3000 fps, bullet weight was reduced to 87 grains. Later, a 100 grain factory load was made available, making the .250 a more suitable cartridge for shooting deer.

    http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/250s.html

    There's a few sites. Actually there are a couple of sites that said that Newton designed it in 1914 but Savage brought it out in 1915 in the model 99.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    The .250-3000 Savage is a rifle cartridge created by Charles Newton in 1915 and is also known as the .250 Savage. The name comes from its original manufacturer, Savage Arms and the fact that the original load achieved a 3000 ft/s (910 m/s) velocity with an 87 grain (5.6 g) bullet.[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.250-3000_Savage


    Using a 25 caliber (.257") 87 grain bullet, Newton designed the new cartridge to break the 3000fps barrier. Newton also had a catchy slogan which he was determined to use- the .250-3000. Arthur Savage, founder of the Savage Arms company, wasn't so sure about the idea and believed a 100 grain bullet would be more suitable for deer. Ultimately, Newton was unable to drive the 100 grain bullet at the 3000fps slogan he wished to market and managed to persuade Savage to adopt the 87 grain load. The design was settled and in 1915 the .250-3000 was introduced.

    http://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledge+Base/.250-3000.250+Savage.html

    (250-3000)

    A new cartridge with a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps wouldn't cause today's hunters to look twice, but can you imagine what a ruckus it would kick up if the fastest commercially produced big game cartridge available was the Winchester 30-30? This was exactly the situation when Savage introduced the .250-3000 cartridge back in 1915. Charles Newton, who designed the cartridge, urged Savage to introduce it with a 100 grain bullet, but in order to to reach the desired velocity of 3000 fps, bullet weight was reduced to 87 grains. Later, a 100 grain factory load was made available, making the .250 a more suitable cartridge for shooting deer.

    http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/250s.html

    There's a few sites. Actually there are a couple of sites that said that Newton designed it in 1914 but Savage brought it out in 1915 in the model 99.

    I am fully aware of its history. My many reloading manuals are all over the map on when it came out and the Phil Sharpe book from 1935 says 1914. Sharpe knew Newton personally, just as he knew Col. Roberts. Newton complained to Sharpe about Savage's decision to release the cartridge with too light a bullet "for marketing" reasons. You won't find that on Wikepedia. But who cares about the exact date?
    In Dr. Wayne VanZwoll's book, Deer Rifles & Cartridges, 2005, he offers the following:

    "Newton recommended a 100 grain bullet for his new .25, but Savage chose an 87 grain because it could be driven 3000 fps, an attention getting speed in those days. Called the 250-3000 when it debuted in 1913, this round became an immediate hit with deer hunters and is still loaded to this day"

    Here again, it's shown that Newton designed the cartridge and Savage altered the design slightly for marketing reasons. That's exactly what Sharpe said in his 1935 classic book. The following quote is from Sharpe's classic 1935 book that I've had for decades and read many, many times.

    "This particular cartridge is also a development of the late Charles Newton. As designed by Mr. Newton in the early 1900's, however the bullet was to weigh 100 grains and be driven at a velocity of approximately 2800. As late as 1932, he told me that he considered it a grave mistake of the Savage firm to have brought this out with an 87-grain bullet and insisted that some day that the cartridge would be properly revised by ammunition manufacturers to use his original weight of 100 grains. Unfortunately, Mr. Newton did not live to see the development. He died early in 1933, I believe…"

    It is instructive to read the insights of someone who hung around in the same circles with so many of those early cartridge developers.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    I am fully aware of its history. My many reloading manuals are all over the map on when it came out and the Phil Sharpe book from 1935 says 1914. Sharpe knew Newton personally, just as he knew Col. Roberts. Newton complained to Sharpe about Savage's decision to release the cartridge with too light a bullet "for marketing" reasons. You won't find that on Wikepedia. But who cares about the exact date?
    In Dr. Wayne VanZwoll's book, Deer Rifles & Cartridges, 2005, he offers the following:

    "Newton recommended a 100 grain bullet for his new .25, but Savage chose an 87 grain because it could be driven 3000 fps, an attention getting speed in those days. Called the 250-3000 when it debuted in 1913, this round became an immediate hit with deer hunters and is still loaded to this day"

    Here again, it's shown that Newton designed the cartridge and Savage altered the design slightly for marketing reasons. That's exactly what Sharpe said in his 1935 classic book. The following quote is from Sharpe's classic 1935 book that I've had for decades and read many, many times.

    "This particular cartridge is also a development of the late Charles Newton. As designed by Mr. Newton in the early 1900's, however the bullet was to weigh 100 grains and be driven at a velocity of approximately 2800. As late as 1932, he told me that he considered it a grave mistake of the Savage firm to have brought this out with an 87-grain bullet and insisted that some day that the cartridge would be properly revised by ammunition manufacturers to use his original weight of 100 grains. Unfortunately, Mr. Newton did not live to see the development. He died early in 1933, I believe…"

    It is instructive to read the insights of someone who hung around in the same circles with so many of those early cartridge developers.

    Ahh, we finally have agreement. :applause::win: I agree that Newton built the thing around a 100 grain bullet for deer and the 87 grain for varmints and that the 87 grain bullets of the day weren't really up to the task of larger game. Nowadays there are 87 grain bullets in 25 cal. capable of taking larger game, but back then bullet technology was still in its adolescence. Newton advised against this but Savage wanted that marketing point. However, from what I've read, this hurt the .250 for awhile because it got a bit of a bad reputation and it wasn't until people realised this and started using the 100 grain bullet for deer that it regained it's prominence. The same happened with the .220 Swift. It was advertized as a deer rifle that killed like lightning. But many reports of failure hurt its reputation.

    Nowadays the .250 makes a great little deer rifle for kids and women and men that hate recoil. I have one and the recoil is negligable. And I can get 2800 FPS out of a 117 grain bullet. Not bad for a wimp gun.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Ahh, we finally have agreement. :applause::win: I agree that Newton built the thing around a 100 grain bullet for deer and the 87 grain for varmints and that the 87 grain bullets of the day weren't really up to the task of larger game. Nowadays there are 87 grain bullets in 25 cal. capable of taking larger game, but back then bullet technology was still in its adolescence. Newton advised against this but Savage wanted that marketing point. However, from what I've read, this hurt the .250 for awhile because it got a bit of a bad reputation and it wasn't until people realised this and started using the 100 grain bullet for deer that it regained it's prominence. The same happened with the .220 Swift. It was advertized as a deer rifle that killed like lightning. But many reports of failure hurt its reputation.

    Nowadays the .250 makes a great little deer rifle for kids and women and men that hate recoil. I have one and the recoil is negligable. And I can get 2800 FPS out of a 117 grain bullet. Not bad for a wimp gun.

    No...
    We are not in agreement since you and your sources are wrong about him designing it with the 87 grain bullet.
    He designed it with a 100 grain bullet to go 2800 fps. It was Arthur Savage who had the bullet weight cut down to a weight that would get 3000 fps. Marketing by Savage trumped Newtons design. Did you read the quote from Sharpe's book? Newton went to his grave never seeing the cartridge as he originally designed it.

    Get a copy of Sharpe's book, if you can find one. It's a classic. He was there and knew Newton, Niedner, Pope, Roberts, etc.., etc.

    Dr. VanZwoll's book is also in agreement and I'm sure an author with a Ph.D has done his homework before publication.

    My Speer reloading manual is also in agreement. "The 250 was introduced by Savage Arms in 1915, chambered in their model 99 rifle. Charles Newton, of Newton Rifle fame, designed the round for Savage. He felt that it should be loaded with a 100 grain bullet to make it suitable for deer-sized game. But Savage thought that the new cartridge should deliver 3000 fps muzzle velocity for advertising and marketing considerations. No other contemporary commercial cartridge was loaded to that high a velocity." Speer #10, 1979

    I could quote more sources, but your mind seems to be made up. During my 35+ years of teaching at the University level all I could do for some folks was to point them toward the water. I couldn't force them to drink and gave up trying to! Trusting your online sources and ignoring bona-fide reference books seems to be your chosen path.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    No...
    We are not in agreement since you and your sources are wrong about him designing it with the 87 grain bullet.
    He designed it with a 100 grain bullet to go 2800 fps. It was Arthur Savage who had the bullet weight cut down to a weight that would get 3000 fps. Marketing by Savage trumped Newtons design. Did you read the quote from Sharpe's book? Newton went to his grave never seeing the cartridge as he originally designed it.

    Get a copy of Sharpe's book, if you can find one. It's a classic. He was there and knew Newton, Niedner, Pope, Roberts, etc.., etc.

    Dr. VanZwoll's book is also in agreement and I'm sure an author with a Ph.D has done his homework before publication.

    My Speer reloading manual is also in agreement. "The 250 was introduced by Savage Arms in 1915, chambered in their model 99 rifle. Charles Newton, of Newton Rifle fame, designed the round for Savage. He felt that it should be loaded with a 100 grain bullet to make it suitable for deer-sized game. But Savage thought that the new cartridge should deliver 3000 fps muzzle velocity for advertising and marketing considerations. No other contemporary commercial cartridge was loaded to that high a velocity." Speer #10, 1979

    I could quote more sources, but your mind seems to be made up. During my 35+ years of teaching at the University level all I could do for some folks was to point them toward the water. I couldn't force them to drink and gave up trying to! Trusting your online sources and ignoring bona-fide reference books seems to be your chosen path.

    Shooter, re read what i Wrote! We are agreeeing! That's what I said, Newton designed it around the 100 grain bullet and invisioned it with an 87 only for varmints only. It was Savage that pushed the 87 grain for deer for marketing purposes. The idea of any bullet doing 3000 FPS was a plus for advertisment to boost popularity and sales. But it was a mistake on Savage's part. With a 100 grain bullet it was still a great whitetail gun and the kill rate on deer was much better than with the 87 grain.

    But I have read before that Newton did envision it as a part time Varmint rifle with lighter bullets. He just stressed the 100 grain for deer size game.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Shooter, re read what i Wrote! We are agreeeing! That's what I said, Newton designed it around the 100 grain bullet and invisioned it with an 87 only for varmints only. It was Savage that pushed the 87 grain for deer for marketing purposes. The idea of any bullet doing 3000 FPS was a plus for advertisment to boost popularity and sales. But it was a mistake on Savage's part. With a 100 grain bullet it was still a great whitetail gun and the kill rate on deer was much better than with the 87 grain.
    I re-read what you wrote and you're still not quite seeing the overall picture.

    Here again, it's shown that Newton designed the cartridge and Savage altered the design slightly for marketing reasons. That's exactly what Sharpe said in his 1935 classic book. The following quote is from Sharpe's classic 1935 book that I've had for decades and read many, many times.

    "This particular cartridge is also a development of the late Charles Newton. As designed by Mr. Newton in the early 1900's, however the bullet was to weigh 100 grains and be driven at a velocity of approximately 2800. As late as 1932, he told me that he considered it a grave mistake of the Savage firm to have brought this out with an 87-grain bullet and insisted that some day that the cartridge would be properly revised by ammunition manufacturers to use his original weight of 100 grains. Unfortunately, Mr. Newton did not live to see the development. He died early in 1933, I believe…"

    Newton did not design the cartridge to be a varmint/deer combination round! It was supposed to be a deer/antelope round with a 100 grain bullet. Period!

    Arthur Savage changed it for marketing reasons. Catchy title…. 250-3000. Sounds great. If the cartridge was introduced in 1915 and Newton died in 1933, that's 18 years that he lived and only saw his cartridge offered with the 87 gr. bullet. Does his quote about "hoping that some day the cartridge would be properly revised by ammunition companies" sound to you that he had anything to do with that bullet weight?

    One can only imagine what Newton thought during those last 18 years of his life about negative reports of the 87 gr. bullet on deer. He didn't live long enough to see it offered in his 100 gr. bullet weight. Savage brought it out later, probably reacting to negative press of his (Savage's) 87 gr. weight.

    It's not difficult to read between the lines here. If Arthur Savage intended for the 87gr. to be used for varmints and 100 gr. for deer, why did he wait so long to introduce the heavier bullet? It was a cartridge with only one bullet weight for nearly two decades. Does that sound like a dual purpose cartridge by original design, or a scramble to fix the changes they made in Newton's original design.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • tnxdshootertnxdshooter Member Posts: 55 Member
    Didn't Clint Eastwood use some kind of hunting/sniper rifle in the movie Joe Kid that was chambered in 257 roberts?
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,745 Senior Member
    I've read it all now.

    Only Snake would have an argument with someone about whether he is agreeing or disagreeing with someone.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    You act as though that's odd...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,745 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    JBC, I disagree with you.

    Well, all I can say is that for once, it's nice to know we're in agreement.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    shooter wrote: »
    I re-read what you wrote and you're still not quite seeing the overall picture.

    Here again, it's shown that Newton designed the cartridge and Savage altered the design slightly for marketing reasons. That's exactly what Sharpe said in his 1935 classic book. The following quote is from Sharpe's classic 1935 book that I've had for decades and read many, many times.

    "This particular cartridge is also a development of the late Charles Newton. As designed by Mr. Newton in the early 1900's, however the bullet was to weigh 100 grains and be driven at a velocity of approximately 2800. As late as 1932, he told me that he considered it a grave mistake of the Savage firm to have brought this out with an 87-grain bullet and insisted that some day that the cartridge would be properly revised by ammunition manufacturers to use his original weight of 100 grains. Unfortunately, Mr. Newton did not live to see the development. He died early in 1933, I believe…"

    Newton did not design the cartridge to be a varmint/deer combination round! It was supposed to be a deer/antelope round with a 100 grain bullet. Period!

    Arthur Savage changed it for marketing reasons. Catchy title…. 250-3000. Sounds great. If the cartridge was introduced in 1915 and Newton died in 1933, that's 18 years that he lived and only saw his cartridge offered with the 87 gr. bullet. Does his quote about "hoping that some day the cartridge would be properly revised by ammunition companies" sound to you that he had anything to do with that bullet weight?

    One can only imagine what Newton thought during those last 18 years of his life about negative reports of the 87 gr. bullet on deer. He didn't live long enough to see it offered in his 100 gr. bullet weight. Savage brought it out later, probably reacting to negative press of his (Savage's) 87 gr. weight.

    It's not difficult to read between the lines here. If Arthur Savage intended for the 87gr. to be used for varmints and 100 gr. for deer, why did he wait so long to introduce the heavier bullet? It was a cartridge with only one bullet weight for nearly two decades. Does that sound like a dual purpose cartridge by original design, or a scramble to fix the changes they made in Newton's original design.

    OK I will concede that point to you, only because I do not have any proof that he designed designed it as a dual purpose cartridge, although how many gunwriters have I read articles on that perceived it to be just that.

    But the main argument here is that taking it strictly as a deer rifle, Newton knew that 87 grain bullets of the day were not up to the task of taking deer size game. Also, the part about using an 87 grain bullet for varmints is mostly common sense. Newton had to know that people would use a rifle for several purposes if possible. That's just natural. If your not a complete gun fanatic like myself, then you might look at using one gun for several purposes instead of doing like myself and several others here and use it for an excuse to buy another rifle.

    But I tell you right now, I would have no qualms about using mine for deer with a good strong 87 grain bullet made today. But that's another argument. Besides, I shoot 117s in mine and love it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Ernie BishopErnie Bishop Senior Member Posts: 7,425 Senior Member
    We do love arguing for the sake of arguing.

    WORLD T,
    The "Bob" is a great whitetail cartridge!
    Ernie

    "The Un-Tactical"
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    OK I will concede that point to you, only because I do not have any proof that he designed designed it as a dual purpose cartridge, although how many gunwriters have I read articles on that perceived it to be just that.

    But the main argument here is that taking it strictly as a deer rifle, Newton knew that 87 grain bullets of the day were not up to the task of taking deer size game. Also, the part about using an 87 grain bullet for varmints is mostly common sense. Newton had to know that people would use a rifle for several purposes if possible. That's just natural. If your not a complete gun fanatic like myself, then you might look at using one gun for several purposes instead of doing like myself and several others here and use it for an excuse to buy another rifle.

    But I tell you right now, I would have no qualms about using mine for deer with a good strong 87 grain bullet made today. But that's another argument. Besides, I shoot 117s in mine and love it.

    Here we go again. I never said Arthur Savage wanted to use the cartride for a dual purpose rifle. I said i thought that's what Newton wanted. But I conceded to you that I might be wrong on that. But the real argument about this is we don't have an argument. I agree with you that Newton didn't want the rifle to be used for deer size game with a bullet smaller than 100 grains. Will you agree with me on that much? I agree 100 %.

    Do you or have you ever owned a .250 Savage? I have and do. I researched it pretty well a long time before I had one built. Like I said, I myself can't tell you whether Newton envisioned the cartridge as a dual purpose deer-varmint cartridge or not. So I'm conceding that point to you only because I don't know. But that wasn't what we were talking about in the first place. We were mainly talking about using it on deer size animals and Newton realized that an 87 grain bullet was not what he designed it for and I know the reason behind that was because he didn't think the 87 grain bullets available at that time were suitable for deer size game. Now that's what I have read and I believe. Maybe he didn't want anyone to make an 87 grain bullet because he didn't want people to misuse it on deer so he discouraged the thought of using it as a dual purpose round. I don't know. It's no big deal anyway, because the round later became known as a great little dual purpose cartridge. They even later made bullets of 60 grain for it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    I have never seen anyone argue with himself on a forum! Congratulations on being a first. :win:
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    Yeah Yeah Yeah!!! After trying to tell you countless times that I did agree with you and every time you coming back and bringing up that Newton didn't envision it as a dual purpose cartridge and all your side issues, I was punch drunk and quoted my own reply. But one more time I'll rephraze what I meant. I don't give a pink Jackass whether either Newton or Savage either one envisioned the .250 Savage as a dual purpose cartridge. It turned out that way and naturally so. All I will say at this point is that Newton believed that the lighter bullets of his day were not up to the task of reliably taking deer size game and according to many writers he was later proven correct. That's why he wanted the ammo manufacturers to make 100 grain bullets for it. Savage wanted to make a marketing statement in that it would be the first cartridge to have a MV of 3000 FPS and he hoped that would be a big selling point. Whatever else you believe I'll leave it to you. But what I've stated here is what history has shown.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootershooter Senior Member Posts: 1,186 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Yeah Yeah Yeah!!! After trying to tell you countless times that I did agree with you and every time you coming back and bringing up that Newton didn't envision it as a dual purpose cartridge and all your side issues, I was punch drunk and quoted my own reply. But one more time I'll rephraze what I meant. I don't give a pink Jackass whether either Newton or Savage either one envisioned the .250 Savage as a dual purpose cartridge. It turned out that way and naturally so. All I will say at this point is that Newton believed that the lighter bullets of his day were not up to the task of reliably taking deer size game and according to many writers he was later proven correct. That's why he wanted the ammo manufacturers to make 100 grain bullets for it. Savage wanted to make a marketing statement in that it would be the first cartridge to have a MV of 3000 FPS and he hoped that would be a big selling point. Whatever else you believe I'll leave it to you. But what I've stated here is what history has shown.

    Wrong again!
    Your post # 53

    You wrote, "Using a 25 caliber (.257") 87 grain bullet, Newton designed the new cartridge to break the 3000fps barrier. Newton also had a catchy slogan which he was determined to use- the .250-3000. Arthur Savage, founder of the Savage Arms company, wasn't so sure about the idea and believed a 100 grain bullet would be more suitable for deer. Ultimately, Newton was unable to drive the 100 grain bullet at the 3000fps slogan he wished to market and managed to persuade Savage to adopt the 87 grain load. The design was settled and in 1915 the .250-3000 was introduced."

    ---Wow. This is so full of b.s., I don't know where to start. Newton didn't give a rat's backside about the 3000 fps barrier. He designed it as a deer/antelope cartridge with 100 grain bullet at 2800 fps. Newton didn't have a catchy slogan, Savage did. Savage didn't think the 87 gr. bullet was unsuitable for deer, he's the one who changed the weight for marketing purposes. It took him nearly two decades to correct his mistake! To suggest that Newton twisted Savage's arm to introduce it in the lighter weight is ludicrous! Did you read the quote from Sharpe's book? Newton complained to Phil Sharpe that Savage reduced the bullet weight and said he hoped some day that Savage would correct that mistake.



    Your post # 55


    You wrote, "I agree that Newton built the thing around a 100 grain bullet for deer and the 87 grain for varmints and that the 87 grain bullets of the day weren't really up to the task of larger game."

    --Once again, my historical records indicate that not only did he have nothing to do with the lighter bullet, but he rather hated the fact that Savage changed his original design for marketing reasons.


    Your post # 57

    You wrote, "Shooter, re read what i Wrote! We are agreeing! That's what I said, Newton designed it around the 100 grain bullet and invisioned (sic) it with an 87 only for varmints only. It was Savage that pushed the 87 grain for deer for marketing purposes."

    ---Newton had nothing to do with the lighter bullet and felt "that some day the cartridge would be properly revised by the ammunition manufacturers".



    In these three posts, you continued to get the facts wrong! Don't blame the messenger because you don't like the message. If someone posts incorrect information on a forum, why can't someone with the correct facts attempt to remedy the error?

    I've only excerpted from 3 of your most recent posts. There are others.
    As a certain Sniper fella told you on the "butt shot hog hunt" thread that dragged on for 69 posts, just give it up. Move on.
    There's no such thing as having too much ammo, unless you're on fire or trying to swim!
  • Peter2ndPeter2nd New Member Posts: 1 New Member
    I am also thinking of buying a 257 Roberts or a 25-06, has anyone fire both of these cartridges? The 25-06 seems to have more options with bullet grains over here but I have always heard the 257 is deadly accurate.
    Sako has the 25-06 and Browning the 257, two good rifles. Which way to lean?
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement