The gun is a benchrest thing I got from Dad, he traded a 30-30 for it in '63 and has never even shot the thing!!! I dont have a scope on it yet but I still would like to get started on some loads. Mauser 98 action, Douglas bull barrell, Faegan stock. How does this cartridge differ from a 6.5-06? Or a 264 Win Mag? 6.5x55 Swede? I have some cases that are necked down 30-06 cases and the dies. There doesn't seem to be alot of .264 cal guns made. I dont know much about it so I could be way off base. Anyhow, thanks for the responses.

[ 01-14-2003, 02:45: Message edited by: redrider ]

The .256 Newton basically falls between the .25-06 and the .270 Winchester. For a cartridge intorduced in 1913, it has done remarkably well...

You can get a little over 3000 FPS with 120 and 130 grain bullets, and over 2900 FPS with 140's.

Would you happen to have any recipes??? Where might I look for some load info??? Besides here!!!

I have an article by ken Waters, I think, from "Pet loads" about the newton. I�ll look it up and get back to you. Tron

100 gr. bullets 4831 57.0 gr @ 3159 fps
MAX 63.0 gr @ 3499 fps
IMR 4350 53.0 gr @ 3340 fps
MAX 55.0 gr @ 3495 fps

120 gr. bullet 4831 55.0 gr @ 2918 fps
MAX 59.0 gr @ 3272 fps
IMR 4350 52.0 gr @ 3180 fps
MAX 55.0 gr @ 3230 fps

140 gr. bullet 4831 52.5 gr @ 2803 fps
MAX 57.0 gr @ 3055 fps
IMR 4350 52.0 gr @ 2920 fps
MAX 54.0 gr @ 3015 fps
Info out of old Pacific Manual 2nd Edition

I use 100 gr sierra's HPBT over 53.0 grs of IMR 4350 - My rifle is a enfield 1917 by Rem with a 26" bull barrel.

Thanks alot for the recipes. I will keep you updated with range reports. Just about the same load for my 06. (56g. of 4350 w/165g) Can't wait to get it on the bench. Thanks again. Happy shooting.

Red, Did you shoot your 256 yet? I was curious about the degree of the shoulder angle. I've read they vary, some have up to 23 degree angle. The 06's are 17 degrees. My 256 Newton has a 19 degree angle.

Hey Evad, I didn't realize that you actually had a Newton. Cool!!! Is it a "real" Newton rifle co. , or is just chambered for one like mine? Have you ever shot at anything other than paper with it? Those bullets are the longest freakin things I have ever seen. I bet they could penetrate through a rhino. I don't have any dough for a scope so I got the Newton blues bad bad bad. Thanks for checking though, maybe I'll win the lotto.

Mine is an Enfield 1917 by Remmington, it has a bull barrel. My grandfather built it in the 30's. He died in 54 before my time. My father never shot it. I got it out and shot it for the 1st time in 4/01. My son shot a groundhog with it last year at 303 yds and I shot a couple close to that distance. It had a 3x9x40 scope then. I put a 6x24x40 mil-dot on it last week, it's been to cold to shot it.

That sounds pretty sweet. But I still have one question for you, or anyone else on the board for that matter. How does this cartridge differ from a 6.5-06?? It must be close to the 256 Newton, 30-06 necked down to 6.5. I think you can form the cases from 25-06, 270 and 30-06 if I remember correctly.

HI: I do not have a .256 Newton, but my little brother does have one ... a Thomas Sprague custom job (Mashburn Arms) in absolutely mint condition. I am the handloader in the family, he is not, so Duffy came to me to build some loads. You just don't go out and buy brass for this one. I used .270 Winchester and ran those through an RCBS .256 Newton die. I had to trim about .25 inch off the case neck. I fireformed with full loads, but that is where a HUGE word of caution comes into play. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT, USE LOADING DATA FROM OLD LOADING MANUALS. An old Speer manual calls for a max of 57 grains of IMR4831 with the 140 grain 6.5mm bullet. I dropped to 52 grains and we were still blowing primers and getting flow marks all over the place. The primer pockets were so enlarged that the cases were useless, so after all that work of case forming and trimming, I had to get more cases and start all over again. This time, I dropped to 45 grains of H4831 short grain powder and the primer blowing went away. After fireforming about 250 cases, I used 50 of them to find a decent load. I increased powder charge until I got a sticky bolt, which came right at 50 grains of powder. At 48.2 grains of H4831 the groups tightened up and at 48.6 grains they opened up again. Just for the heck of I I measured the distance to the lands with the Hornady 140 gr. spire point boattail bullet, put the bullet .01 inch off the lands, loaded up 15 like this and went to the range. With the chronograph in front of me, and shooting off the tailgate of my S-10 pickup truck with sandbag rests, I got five-shot groups of .70 inch, .75 inch and 1-inch. I even pulled the second shot on that one-inch group, otherwise, I think it would be in the .7 inch range too. The load chronoed out to an average of 2,750 fps.It isn't smoking by any means, but my brother likes it well and used the combo to take a nice buck on the King Ranch in Texas a couple of months ago. When I showed Duffy what the load was doing, worked out a ballistics reading for him from the SST Rifle Room forum, he liked what he saw. I loaded up 200 rounds for him. I still have the .256 Newton dies too. Anyway, hope some of this rambling helped. Tom Purdom

I have a Newton Arms Co. original chambered for the .256 Newton cartridge. For brass, I use .30-'06, but they have to have the necks turned, and .270 Winchester. No neck turning on the .270, but a lot of trimming involved. The Newton has folding open sights and double-set triggers. I'm not sure if I'll ever put a scope on it as it would be a near sin to drill a hole in it. (My opinion, of course!)

In the American Rifle by Major Townsend Whelen (1920)lists obsolete powders by here goes anyway...

Weight of bullet 123gr
Muzzle Velocity 3,103fps (test with 30" barrel!)
Muzzle Energy 2,632 foot pounds
Du Pont No 10 or No 15 46 grains
Du Pont No. 20 42 grains

24" barrel test:
Weight of bullet 129gr
Du Pont No. 10 48gr
Muzzle Velocity 2,863 fps
Pressure 54,260 psi

Hmmm, I wonder why old loads were so off? The powder formulas for those powders still used today shouldn't have been changed much. Possibly new brass is thicker than that made when the load data was written? That would explain the higher pressures.