Charles Newton: The Forgotten History of the Wildcatter Who Created the .22 and .250 Savage

Today is the Birthday of Wildcatter Charles Newton. Newton achieved the ultimate goal of wildcatting when his self-created rounds were officially manufactured by Savage Arms. Learn how Newton went from attorney to creator of the .22 Savage and .250 Savage, and eventual founder of Newton Arms. Read Charles Newton: The Forgotten History of the Wildcatter Who Created the .22 and .250 Savage at Ammo.com

The .250 Savage is a very cool round. I have a little connection with it.

25-35 Win, .25PPC, .250-3000 Savage, .257 Roberts

Left to right: .250 Savage, .300 Savage, .308 Winchester and .30-’06 Springfield.

A friend who grew up shooting jack rabbits in the Mohave decided that he wanted a XP-100, left handed, for shooting jack rabbits from his truck. (The XP-100 is a single shot bolt-action pistol that's based on an old Remington short-action bolt gun, the Model 40X.)

He had previously determined that the .25 caliber was superior at bucking wind to the more common .22, so he went looking for which .25, and determined that any case larger than the Savage would not add much, given the XP's 14" barrel. So he got the .250 Savage version.

It was perhaps the most awkward gun I've ever shot, because of the left hand action and pistol grip. (I didn't try shooting it left handed that I recall).

Skip forward a decade and I'd moved the the Pacific Northwest where the Savage 99 was (apparently) the go-to gun for a lot of hunters in the 1950s and 1960s - I say this because by the 1990s there are a ton of well-used Savage 99's for sale at very cheap prices. Around that time one of the big gun annuals ran an article on the Savage 99 through the ages, and I find a great deal ($200) on an old one that had been well used. Mine is in .300 Savage, and an older vintage, before the action was lengthened slightly to accept .308 sized cartridges. It has the famous fixed rotating box magazine, and the built in cartridge counter.

The gun's stock cut down and had a bigger recoil pad added - possibly set up for a youth or woman to shoot. Swing swivels were added, and it was a pretty vicious job.

It's always been my plan to restore the gun and re-barrel it in .250 Savage (bolt face is the same), but like a lot of projects it's never made it out of the back of the gun safe and to the Smith, but it has made the run on an occasional camping trip.

I believe one reason the Savage 99 was so popular in this area is that the action is quite impervious to weather. The closed box design means there are so seams for water to leak in on the entire bottom of the gun, unlike your typical Winchester 700.

Commpared to other lever action guns the 99 was far ahead. The rotary mag allowed the use of spitzer rounds (pointed bullets) unlike the more common tube magazines in the more common Marlin and Winchester 94 lever-actions.

That design is why the Savage 99 always had it's own special cartridges. It just doesn't make sense to get a .99 and then load it with blunt nosed bullets like the .30-30 WCF.

Here is an old Savage 99, not mine, but similar. These were readily available in the Pacific Northwest in the 1990s, but are collectible now, so prices have risen.

The Savage 99 came in various configurations over the years, including take-downs, carbines, and ones with detachable magazines.

Here is a nice restored Model 99 in .22 Savage Hi Power. This is how I envisioned mine looking after I restored it. 25 years later it's still "old ugly" that gets dragged out camping for bear protection and the occasional plinking session.

The "99" in the name refers to the patent data: Oct. 3, 1899. It's the last of the 19th Century lever action designs, (banned in cowboy action shooting, as I recall).

In my opinion guns with very old designs like this, they are best appreciated using the stock iron sights. In 1899 they were not designed to mount scopes on.

My 99 has also been hacked to support a functional (but ugly) fancy aftermarket adjustable rear iron sight. (Like the top picture), circa 1955(?). My imaginary restoration project would involve removing that stuff, too

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.