Is anyone out there still useing these two cartridges? I've always thought that they were great designs well ahead of their time. How obscure are they? Did I miss the wake? Roger

I'd agree that they were ahead of their time, which was probably aound 1960.
Now, with thw 6.5-06 and the 7mm Rem Mag, you'd have to have an eccentric and obscure reason to choose either one.
But if you like playing with rarities, you should get almost the same performance out of them vs the other two.

Dear Bart,
I shoot the 256 on a regular basis. I don`t know how to insert pictures or I would show some of last years shooting with the Newton. I used my old Rem 700 and have pretty well finished a Mod 70[pre-64] with some pretty wood. Never have enough 6.5s.
As to the 7-61? I have an old original that I haven`t shot in years. Can`t really say why but after the 6.5s what else is really needed in Oregon?

Aloha, Mark

AS a point of interest,the .256 Newton was introduced in 1913 and the 7x61 Sharpe and Hart
was introduced in 1953.

They both were well ahead of their time.When the 7mm Remington magnum was brought out in 1962 it eclipsed the 7x61 S&H.

WC

a) thanks for the message.
b) if by "out of the powder room" you mean shortening the case so as to preclude 3.34" with little bullets, then I have to disagree.
Personally would rather have it the other way.
You lose nothing by making more room that isn't used....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bwana-be:
[QB]a) thanks for the message.
b) "if by "out of the powder room" you mean shortening the case so as to preclude 3.34" with little bullets, then I have to disagree."
I guess I wasn't clear. I advocate using the full magazine length with heavy bullets seated only down to the junction of the shoulder and neck.Short necks and short magazines truely limit the ability of a cartidge to adequately handle the longer hevier bullets. By pushing the rear end of a long bullet into the POWDER ROOM potetial powder capacity and greater energy are sacraficed. 6.5s have historicly used the long 160 gr. rn bullet. The 7m/ms have the ability to use the 175 grainers.
What we need than is std. length magazines,and cartridges to fit; reasonable neck lengths(no shorties) and deep throats to handle the long bullets.

I just seated a 175 gr.psp down to where shoulder and neck meet into a 7m/mRem.Mag.The OAL is 3.550. That means almost 1/4" of bullet would have to be put into the POWDER ROOM to make it fit most Mauser length actions. The two cartridges that started this healthy exchange are well designed to preclude much of the POWDER ROOM theift.
The 8m/mx57 wasn't designed short to have a lot of extra mag. room. It was well designed to handle bullets of many weights if needed and yet it is less than2 1/4" in case length.
I hope I was a little clearer.

But here's the test:
Seat them both to 3.3" or whatever you like, and measure the useable powder room.
What are you losing with the Rem?
Now, do the same thing with a 100g, and measure the available space....
IOW, AEBE, the longer case has the edge, despite the sometimes incursion on "available space."

Bwana-be,
your thinking is clear and I understand where you're coming from. Recently one of our well known gun scribes went on hunt to Africa to test one of the new short fat magnums. What he did ,however, was make two of them up on std.length actions with long throats instead of the short actions they were designed for. His loads were heavy bullets seated out beyond the normal OAL.I'll cut this short, but that's the approach I would use if I were designing the gun and cartridge. That's what I did with my .358x .404. For me and maybe me alone short necks do just fine with light bullets.Nice discussion. Roger

Sems like I usually end up with one bulelt weight in a given chambering, with maybe a second to play with, or for "versatility."
But if I could convince myself I'd only be using a particular weight, before I designed the case, I would certainly bring the neck all the way to the base of the bullet.
I think that's where the Jeffery gets it's look from, for instance.
It had a standard loading, and didn't need to worry about "wasting powder space."
So, for me, I think the Rem Mag is meant for 160's at least. Seat that sucker to a max COL, and bring the neck down to the base. If you like, cut the mouth off, after about .29" or so.
You might just end up with something very much like the S&H. (Give it a fast twist w/o concern.)
But I do appreciate the ability to seat those teeny pills at somewhere near the lands.

bartsche

I got two friends who uses 7X61 supers for almost anything. The standard menu is 160 nosler partition and 150 grain ballistic tip. They use a reforming die from Buz Huntington to get the brass

I think the 7X61 and 7mm wby are much better designed than the 7mm Rem, because they got long neck that will hold the bullet well and prevent that too much room is taken by the bullet.

The 7mm mags are the perfect mountain calibers since they are easy too shoot and flat enough for sheeps, goats. etc. The 300 mags are not soo easy to shoot from a strange field position without getting beaten or marked by the scope

/ JOHAN