From a friends collection. Springfield action. Marlin stock & Barrel..Neat old custom

Very nice! Early American customs are definitely my favorites.

Beautiful rifle. The stock, front sight, and rear peep sight are nearly identical to a 256 Newton that I have.

Please note the low numbered receiver on your Springfield, however, and treat it accordingly.

Barstooler

How do you know that it is a Marlin stock?

Jeff

Nice!

quote:

Originally posted by 260remguy:
How do you know that it is a Marlin stock?

Jeff

Michael Petrov

What does that mean?

Who is Michael Petrov?

Jeff

Also note the low serial number. Michael Petrov is very knowledgable on the early 20th century customs, some might even say an expert.

Probably because there is this little white bullseye inletted into the stock down by the sling swivel.

When this thread first started I send a link to one of the Newton people but it looks like he chose not to post.

Newton sold a "KIT GUN", a barrel and stock that could be used on a 1903 Springfield action. The barrels and stocks were made by Marlin. The barrels are marked with

NEWTON ARMS CO. INC.
0-0-0 BUFFALO, N.Y. 0-0-0

The caliber was .256 Newton

Introduced in 1914.

I cannot see enough detail on the stock to comment.

I suggest that anyone interested in these kit guns read,

"The 256 Newton Sporting Springfield " by Jim Foral 1998 Guns Illustrated.

Thanks!

Jim Foral lives less than an hour from me, in Lincoln, NE.

I currently have 7 first model Newtons, 3 in 30-06 and 4 in 256 Newton, but I've never seen a Springfield kit gun and would have been surprised that Marlin made any bolt action CF rifle stocks prior to those made for the CF bolt action rifles that they cataloged in the 1950s. Shows that you can learn something new every day if you keep your eyes and ears open.

Jeff

If this was a Newton/Springfield, I think it should have a Marlin made barrel marked
0-0-0 Newton Arms Co. 0-0-0 which would indicate a square cut rifled barrel made by Marlin. The caliber should be .256 Newton. The barrel on this rifle is from a First Model 1916 Newton rifle and in 30-06. The Patent Pending mark may indicate a later made Newton Arms Co. barrel. The Newton barrels fit Springfield receivers so it would be relatively easy to create a custom rifle using both.
Lawrence Wales www.newtonrifles.com

Probably the #1 authority in the U.S. today is Lawrence Wales. He had an incredible Newton collection this year sponsored by the Dallas Arms Collectors Assn. at the NRA Conference in Pittsburgh. In his book "The Newton Rifle" Mr. Wales says, "With poor prospects of importing rifles from Germany, because of the war, Newton negotiated with Marlin Firearms Co. in December 1914, to manufacture barrels in .256 Newton and rifle stocks, both for the Springfield action. Springfields were readily available. If the purchaser was NRA-affilitated, the rifles could be bought for $10 plus packing and transportation and a refinished actin was only $4.50" Larry goes on to say that this was done through mid-1916, etc. His book is a work of art and is probably the premier book on the Newton Rifle.

WOW! I had no idea Larry Wales, himself would respond. A prince of a guy and knows his stuff on Newton Rifles. Thank you, Mr. Wells for shedding light on the rifle.

I had once a Newton-Springfield similar, but with the correct Marlin made and marked 256 Newton barrel. When Newton first manufactured the Original Newton ( Model 1916) rifle, some of the kit stocks were left over and still sold until gone. It is not a stretch to believe that a parabolic rifled barrel got screwed into a Springfield receiver and was shipped out of the Buffalo plant. It is believed that Marlin only made 256 Newton barrels, and if a customer wanted a 30-1906 barrel with the kit stock, he could have supplied his own Springfield barrel.
The customer supplied his own sights; the rear sight on the gun pictured is a First Model Newton barrel sight.

More pictures

It looks like the stock originally had a bigger barrel and that the barrel channel was sleeved for the Newton barrel. Is that correct?