Probably totally unrelated, but I am interested in information on these guns.

Are they worth owning, they are sure interesting.

There are several books devoted to Charles Newton and Newton rifles. I happen to own several Newton rifles and am a big fan of Newton cartridges, including those which appear under the Savage name, but were designed by Charles Newton.

Are you making reference to the Gibbs wildcats, if so, I had a 6.5 Gibbs, a 35 Gibbs and a 30 Gibbs, had a Hydralic fire forming die from Gibbs, worked with 30 wt. oil and a big hammer, it would splash oil all over the place and all over me, and didn't work hardly at all...The 6.5 and 30 gibbs were ok and just a more blown out 3006 case, had a very short neck so it beat the Ackley by a gentle tad...The 35 was a pre 64 mod. 70 fwt, and kicked the snot out of all who shot it...All in all, that blown out 30-06 in any caliber was a flat out failure IMO..Complicated to fireform and expensive and required two fireings in many cases to fireform properly, it was a pain in the kazoo but balistically it was not bad but not much better than the 6.5x06 or the 35 Whelen..

Oh hell, I meant Ross not Gibbs.

There is a feature in Rifle on Ross rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Are you making reference to the Gibbs wildcats, if so, I had a 6.5 Gibbs, a 35 Gibbs and a 30 Gibbs, had a Hydralic fire forming die from Gibbs, worked with 30 wt. oil and a big hammer, it would splash oil all over the place and all over me, and didn't work hardly at all...The 6.5 and 30 gibbs were ok and just a more blown out 3006 case, had a very short neck so it beat the Ackley by a gentle tad...The 35 was a pre 64 mod. 70 fwt, and kicked the snot out of all who shot it...All in all, that blown out 30-06 in any caliber was a flat out failure IMO..Complicated to fireform and expensive and required two fireings in many cases to fireform properly, it was a pain in the kazoo but balistically it was not bad but not much better than the 6.5x06 or the 35 Whelen..

no, Ray .. Newton .. and the rifles were built on ross actions -- which, while smooth, aren't hellastout

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There is a feature in Rifle on Ross rifles.

Just got it in the mail last night. I"ll get it read this week.

Thanks!

quote:

the rifles were built on ross actions -- which, while smooth, aren't hellastout

I beg to differ. The military version of the Ross could be assembled so that its bolt did not lock when shoved forward into battery position. This could result in a cartridge being fired with the only thing holding it forward being the inertia of the mass of the bolt. This, of course, could result in a tragic failure.

This deficiency was corrected in commercial Ross rifles and their straight-pull, rotating bolt action was as strong as any other design using multiple lugs, such as a Weatherby Mark V. I once owned a Ross which had been re-barreled to 7mm Rem Magnum. No problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

the rifles were built on ross actions -- which, while smooth, aren't hellastout

I beg to differ. The military version of the Ross could be assembled so that its bolt did not lock when shoved forward into battery position. This could result in a cartridge being fired with the only thing holding it forward being the inertia of the mass of the bolt. This, of course, could result in a tragic failure.

This deficiency was corrected in commercial Ross rifles and their straight-pull, rotating bolt action was as strong as any other design using multiple lugs, such as a Weatherby Mark V. I once owned a Ross which had been re-barreled to 7mm Rem Magnum. No problems.

I'll second Stonecreek on all counts here. Not sure how I missed this thread when it first arose, considering it concerns two of my favourite rifles!

Wyoming: The connection between Ross and Newton, besides being two unusual rifles ahead of their time and featuring some of the earliest real high-velocity cartridges, are that Newton patterned his interrupted-thread locking lugs after Ross, who copied them from artillery practice. Although I've been a long-time Ross enthusiast (Canadian, after all), I've only come to appreciate the awesome Newton in recent years.

The Ross was a failure as a battle rifle in France because it was built to target rifle tolerances, the open nature of it's receiver made it extremely susceptible to dirt and mud, and worst of all, its' tightly-toleranced chamber and weak primary extraction were wholly unsuited to the poorly-toleranced .303 ammo coming from some of the suppliers in England during WWI. After it was replaced in the trenches by the mighty (and looser-chambered) Lee-Enfield, it remained in demand as a sniper weapon and target rifle, both by us and the Russians. In fact, the Russians were still using the Ross action in international matches and the Olympics in the 50's.

As for the bolt issue, that design flaw was only on the final variant, the "Mk.III". The simple fix was designed by a man right here in my own neighbourhood, and consisted of simply drilling a hole in the specified location on the bolt body and installing a plain rivet, thus preventing the bolt from being assembled wrong way round. All Ross rifles still in government hands by WWII were so modified.

As for the old wives' tale about Ross being weak, I've known several in .300 Win Mag and 7mm Rem Mag, and there's even one in one of the .416's (not sure which). The Ross M-1910 "Mk.III" has been tested to 120,000 psi.

Jeffee,
He said Gibbs in one post!! He then corrected it, in another post..

I've not owned the Newton (still have a set of 30 Newton dies though, for when I come across one), but I have had a couple Ross rifles. Still have a 280 Sporter. Nice rifle, I can see why it was exciting news back in the day. - dan