I did a search for this and came up wiht nothing.

so, how much truth is there to it? are non belted rounds more inherantly accurate? or mosly a sales pitch for short mags and RUMS?

Since there is no way to measure or define accurracy that would be agreed on, there is little point in asking the question.

I was thinkin maybe one of the gun writers did an article about this, about the time the RUM's came on the market.

In hunting rifles? I don't think anyone can make a serious case for one being more accurate than the other.Think I saw a thread on here recently about a new 1000 yard record being set with a 300 Weatherby.If hard core target shooters are using belted cases, you can bet anyone saying beltless cases are more accurate in a hunting rifle is full of (&*^$#^&.

I am not a gun writer, but the belt is really a non-issue. Often contrary to what I have read in gun magazines, here is what I have experienced:

- A belt doesn't make a case more or less accurate. That idea came from the days when reloaders would always completley full length sized their cases. Given a belted case will headspace on the belt when unfired or fully resized, and given the shoulders of belted cases often run .012" to .025" short, FL resizing "undoes" every accuracy advantage gained by fire forming. Such FL resizing could also lead to very short case life. The way to address the "accuracy issue" is bump the shoulder a couple thousands when resizing and headspace off the shoulder.

- The lack of a belt doesn't make a case feed better. The smoothest feeding chambering I have ever seen is a 375 H&H. The M-70 Classic I had would feed empty 375 H&H cases. Quite the opposite, I have had a couple 270 WSMs and one 338 RUM that didn't feed well at all. Fat beltless cases, especially short fat cases, can be very finicky about feeding. The only issue with the belt and feeding is when you load the magazine you have to make sure the belts all line up.

- A belt is a good idea on cases with minimal shoulders.....like the 300 H&H, 375 H&H, 458 Win, 458 Lott, 470 Capstick, maybe the 416 Rem. These cases all have belts, and here the belt does a very valuable thing--it ensures positive headspace.

If I were making a new cartridge today, and I have had one in mind for years, it wouldn't have a belt.

Well stated Blaine. Belt or no belt; it doesn't make any practical difference.

Well said Blaine. That has been ME also.

Less filling.....

As I see it one advantage the beltless cases have is more case capacity with the same room in the magazine that the belt would normally take up.

I don't agree at all!

The belt adds nothing positive to a design that starts with an adquate shoulder to headspace on. Belted cases stretch at the web and weaken then. They can be FL sized however to just fit the chamber but they start out with the wrong design.

You beat me to the punch Savage, this, in my mind is the fault with a belted bottle neck case. Less brass life.
I have found one rifle in my case that is the exception to the rule. My Vanguard, 257 WBY, must have an absolute perfect chamber for the Norma brass; my primers will loosen, and still no belt movement.

Later..

True, but wasn't the question "ACCURACY"?

No difference, in response to the question.

I shot target with belted mag cartridges at 1,000 yards(usually a .30-.338 Keele), and I used Wilson case gauges to set my reloading dies to prevent moving the shoulder back.

I have both belted and non-belted cartridges now, and I don't see any difference in accuracy between the two in hunting rifles if the "reloading nut" is properly tightened.

jim

I think Blaine said it all. IMO it makes the cartridge look cooler too.

Belt bashing goes back a long ways. It never held water then and doesn't today..

There is no defineable difference in a belted or non belted case except in the mind of some folks who really should consider a full time job, and those "experts" that are so et up with tech that they jump on every tiny issue that comes their way..

As to case life between he two, that can be the case but only if the reloader is lacking in his knowledge of reloading..If one sizes belted cases to a crush fit in his chamber, like he does a non belted case then there is absolutly on difference in case life other than the usual differences of hot loads, high pressue calibers and those other varibles that make a difference in case life of both belted and non belted...

The bottom line is brass is brass and the addition of a belt means nothing.

A few years ago, a friend wanted a 98 Mauser rebarreled to a cartridge with a belted case, 7mm Rem, IIRC.

He was going send it to Douglas, but Douglas told him that they would not guarentee the accuracy in a barrel with a belted case.

I don't know if this would mean 10 inch groups or .5" groups, but he settled on a non-belted case for this reason.

I have no idea why someone at Douglas would say this, or when or if their policy changed, but I have seen several (and owned a few) that shot extremely well, usually into less that 1", and usually much smaller than that with belted cases.

This thread is for information only. I did not hear the conversation, but the person who told me this is very gun and accuracy knowledgable, so I don't think he would make it up.

AMEN MR. atkinson

If the unbeletd cases were the same diameter as the belt on a belted case that would be true. For years I have wanted 30 and 338 Cal chamberings, without a belt, that started with a .532 rim and head size, then tapered to .500 or so. Add a 25-30 degree shoulder, and then make it so you have a one caliber length neck neck that results in a case length of 2.75."

This would allow:


- Smooth feeding
- Long, high BC bullets to be seated out to 3.5" COL
- Allow those bullets to have plenty of neck grip
- Allow the loaded rounds to fit a 3.6" M-70 magazine AND touch the lands with .100" available for throat erosion.

Such chambers ought to shoot with a tad more velocity than the 300 and 340 Wby.

I've got a .300 WM that's really a good shooter. I don't know if a belt is a liability, but in that gun with that load it's a stellar performer.

I don't think I'd let a belt stand between me and buying a rifle. There are dozens of other factors besides a belted cartridge, it's hard to single one out to prop a preference upon.

I have yet to see a big game animal hit in the wrong place because it was shot with a belted round, or seen a bullet bounce off a big game animal because the belted case had slightly less powder capacity.

I've also never seen a belted round hang up on the belt during the trip from magazine to chamber. Since most non-belted magnums are bigger around than belted cases, I've yet to be able to fit more of them in the magazine. (The exception would be the oldest non-belted magnum, the 9.3x62, which usually fits 5 down in bolt-action magazines.)

The belt may be "superfluous" on most modern rounds, but it ain't going away, no matter how many people complain about it.

The problem with belted cases is more a function of the brass manufacturer than the case design. A belted magnum headspaces on the belt, IOW the forward movement when the case is hit by the firing pin is stopped when the front of the belt hits the cutout in the chamber. However, on new cases, case manufacturers typically put twice as much (or more) of a gap between the case shoulder and the chamber shoulder as they do unbelted cases. This shoulder clearance on a belted case is defined as "head clearance".

The additional head clearance on belted cases are what leads to a greater chance for thinning at the web and case head separations. For instance I took the following measurements with a Hornady Headspace Gauge which measures to the datum line



BELTED CASES
338 win mag Mato - new case 2.097", fully fire formed case 2.124" - head clearance .027"

300 win mag Mato - new case 2.253", fully fire formed case 2.2725" - head clearance .0195"

264 win mag pre-64 Winchester - new case 2.109", fully fire formed case 2.1385" - head clearance .0295"

6.5 rem mag custom rebarrel - new case 1.768", fully fire formed case 1.785" - head clearance .017"

The headspace as measured on the belt on the first 3 rifles was between .003" and .007" and on the custom rebarrel was 0.000" but the brass still has to expand to hit the shoulder and expand the head clearance amount before you can headspace on the shoulder.

UNBELTED CASE
338RUM custom rebarrel - new case 2.374", fully fire formed case 2.3785" - headspace .0045"

30-06 Steyr - new case 2.040", fully fire formed case 2.0515" - headspace .0115"

22-250 Remington - new case 1.577", fully fire formed case 1.5875" - headspace .0105"

So the case manufacturers put a lot more head clearance on the belted magnum cases to begin with and that causes most of the problems. Once you have fire formed the case and headspace on the shoulder all the problems go away. Problem is the initial expansion has already caused some problems with thinning at the pressure ring where the powder column ends and the case head begins


As you can see the belt has no effect on the powder capacity and removal of it would not increase or decrease the case capacity at all.

Your measurements are in line with what I have found. However, I have not had an issue with reduced brass life in a belted case vs a non-belted case. They all last me half a dozen firings before they lose neck tension and need annealing, belt or not. I don't usually take the time to anneal, so I typically replace all my cases every six firings.

I did try necking up and pushing back 300 Win mag brass for a 338 Win mag, but I kept getting "seams" in the shoulder. However, the idea was to soak up some of that .018 to .025" of shoudler growth. Turns out it wasn't worth the effort.

How did we get from the original question to "brass life", which wasn't mentioned by the OP?

For longer brass life for the 338 Win Mag I use 358 Norma Mag brass. The shoulder is .040" LONGER than 338 Win Mag. When you size and originally form the case you can do so setting the shoulder back only the usual .001" just enough to chamber. The brass then lasts as long as any unbelted brass as you have eliminated that initial stretch you get when you form domestic belted brass.

Incidentally, I've run into shoulders that have needed to stretch as much as .035" intially. Those are candidates for immediate head separation at first firing. Only way I've found to make those work is with a full case of an ultra slow canon powder and a bullet; the COW method of case forming without a bullet doesn't work as it still produces stretch just forward of the belt.

Some Norma Mag brass formed this way has gotten as many as 28 reloads for me. I anneal every 4 reloads. They tend to thin at the neck and reduce bullet "grip" because of this after a few trims but there is little evidence of stretch forward of the belt in sectioned cases.

The base to datum line measurement on an unfired unbelted case compared to fired measurement is important (probably only thing important) if thinning of the brass directly ahead of the case web is the concern. On a belted magnum, it's not so simple. The difference between fired and unfired is caused by the case head moving rearward towards the bolt face and this is dependant on how much clearance there was between said case head and bolt face when the belt stopped the case from moving forward when the firing pin struck it. The other half of the equation is the datum line to barrel shoulder clearance under the same circumstances. The first half is harmful the second half isn't, so how much of those large measurements are due to the first half of this equation is my question. Military testing has shown new properly made cases to not separate on the first firing til .060 to .070 headspace. If .035 difference is all due to the first half of the equation and the shell is resized back to factory specs, one would have to look out after 2-3 loadings. I suspect the second half is a good part of this equation.
dan

I think your question, IMHO anyway, summed up what is often the fisherman's plight, which is, was this manufactored to catch the fish or the fisherman?

I'm not saying there are not theoretical arguments for the beltless cartridges but I've not seen them play out in many years of shooting and hunting with both types. A different kettle of fish certainly (pun intended), but the beltless cases are often very straight and/or short which can often be a very real disadvantage by themselves.

In fact, I've almost come to think of the 375 H&H as the "perfect" cartridge and though I've never had or shot one, the 300 H&H it's sidekick perfecto. Both cartridges cases are a pole apart from today's beltless, straight, wide, short cases.

Well, if the .300 WM was invented today, it probably wouldn't have a belt. What does this mean? A cheaper-to-make round.

I suppose there are theoretical arguments against the belted round, but these theories frequently ignore facts. And the fact is the .300 WM is an excellent round, as are other belted rounds no doubt (can't say as I've never owned any others.)

They are what they are.

Can you explain more fully.

What "difference between fired and unfired" are you referring to? Do you mean the HEADSPACE of the belted case?

Didn't mean to hi-jack the thread, Bobski. My answer to the OP's question would be that extreme accuracy can be had with or without a belt. However if they made a caliber with the same case capacity and configuration of the 300 win mag without a belt, put me in line to buy one. The belt is unnecessary, takes up mag room and encourages the brass manufactures to manufacture brass with too much head clearance. That being said, I would rather have the 300 win mag with a belt than not have one at all and the belt does not create any problem itself.

If anyone has Handloader #140 available, Gil Sengel (a writer who never seems to get the credit that he should)has an article entitled "A Handloader Looks at The Belted Magnum Case" in that issue. He points out that the time-honored practice of headspacing the cases on the shoulder creates a problem when case dimensions are near minimum and chamber dimensions are near maximum and hot loads are fired. (Which is probably going to be the case - after all, this is a magnum and folks are looking for magnum performance, right?) Those who understand all of this much better than I do would get a great deal more from reading the article than I can summarize. In his closing paragraph, he does say, "All this indicates that the belted case can be more of a liability than an asset to handloaders. Put another way, the 7mm Remington and .300 Winchester magnums need belted cases just as badly as a bullfrog needs a spare tire and running lights!"

But the .700 Rem Mag and the .300 WM HAVE belted cases.

So while his point may be interesting, it is also irrelvant.

Several years ago, when the short fats (.300 WSM) and long fat (.300 RUM) were developed, there was so much publicity that I thought belted cartridges and rimless cartridges like the .30-06 would soon be things of the past.

My favorite cartridges have long been the various Weatherby cartridges, although I did sell my .300 Wth. and buy a .300 RUM.

I wrote to Weatherby, advising them that belted brass would soon be obsolete, and suggesting they design a line of Beltless Weatherby Magnums. I suggested the .300 RUM case as a starting point, with a case the same length of the 7 MM, .270, and .257 Weatherbys. For the larger calibers, .30 and up, I suggested a case similiar to the full length .300 RUM.

The difference I suggested was that the shoulder be distinctive radious shape on Weatherby cartridges, instead of the present shape.

Surprise, Surprise, one day I received a telephone call from a Weatherby vice president, thanking me for the suggtestion.

We talked a few minutes, then he said that the radioused shoulder on Weatherby cartridges would not work if the case was rimless. He went on to explain that a rimless case of this design would not headspace on the radioused shoulder.

But, he did thank me for thinking of Weatherby, and said that they would welcome any suggestions I came up with.

While I had him on the phone, I suggested that the .460 Weatherby was too heavy and had too much recoil for most people (including me). I suggested a smaller case, with the capability of moving a 500 grain bullet about 2300 to 2400 FPS.

This would be for people who hunt DG, but do not want the recoil and weight of the .460. It could be built on the same action as the .300 and .340, at a considerable saving of weight.

He said they had been thinking along those lines, also. Imigine my surprise when the Mark V was introduced in .458 Lott.

The Lott case is not the design I suggested, but it works just as well, maybe better. I suggested the .300, 340, and .375 case size and shape be necked up to .458.

But, getting back to the original post, apparantly the radioused shoulder will not work on a beltless case, so if you want a Weatherby cartridge, you will have to put up with the belt.

I have, since 1963, when I got my first Weatherby, and it doesn't keep me awake at night fretting about it. I would rather have a belted Weatherby than no Weatherby at all.

Anybody that sees any inherent disadvantages to belted case versus a non-belted is as clueless as the day is long. A totally transparent non-issue. jorge

thanks for the reply's, some good points made.

1234, i too am a wby fan, and think they should re-do the line up, what i had in mind is a little different than you tho, i'd think the 300wby, taken all the way down to 257, keep the venturi shoulder, thats what make them Weatherby's.

Rosco1:

A .257 on the .300 WBY case would be a screamer, that's for sure.

Someone makes one similiar, except they used the 8 MM Rem. Mag. Case, and from what I've read, they claim fantastic things for it.

Years ago, a 7mm on the .300 case was moderately popular. A woman, I think her name was Devito, set a world record at the original 1000 yard bench rest matches with one.

Imigine a .257, a .270, and a 7 mm on the .300 case. Enough to make your eyes roll back into your head and your mouth water, but my dream cartridge would be a 7mm on the .300 RUM case shortened 1/2 inch, or the .300 WSM case lengthened 1/2 inch.

I can't understand why Winchester did't design the cases like that to begin with.

ya the line up would be like the 257,270 and 7mm stw's, but with wby flavor. i know the 7x300 wby is a popular wildcat already.

I think Roy would want it that way! but i'm sure the cost of the new ones, and keeping ammo available for the old ones will keep it from becoming a reality.

1234567 - thanks for the interesting information from Weatherby. Does that mean that following the time-honored practice of sizing belted cartidges so they headspace on the shoulder does not work with the Weatherby cartidges or does it mean that to do so alters the shoulder in some way that makes it no longer a Weatherby cartridge? I can be rather slow on the up-take, so if I am missing something here I apologize. Thanks for your patience. Best, John

Since the question is in regards to pure accuracy, rather than function or brass life, I guess we should ask how may bench rest shooters use belted cases and how many use beltless ones?

Ken Brucklacher Sets 1000-Yard Score Record: 100-8X
Filed under: Gunsmithing, News � Tags: 1000 Yard, Norma, Record, Score, Sierra � Editor @ 11 am

Ken Brucklacher, current President of the Original Pensylvania 1000-yard Benchrest Club (Williamsport), joined the immortals this Sunday, May 3rd. Shooting a .300 Weatherby Mag with 240gr Sierra MatchKings, Ken set a new 10-shot Heavy Gun World Record score of 100-8X. The group size was pretty amazing too. A measured 3.137″, Ken�s ten shots also set a new group record at the Williamsport range, besting the previous mark set 13 years ago by John Voneida (3.151″ and 100 score). Brucklacher�s group is just 0.089″ larger than the 3.048″ all-time, 1000-yard small group shot last month by Joel Pendergraft.

Conditions were good when Ken set the record. It was cool, with overcast skies, and the winds were calm with �the flags still hanging down�. Ken said he �took his time, made sure he was on for every shot.� He pretty much held �on the center of the white patch� in the 1000-yard target. The result was spectacular, as you can see below

I seriously doubt that anyone has any sound data to make such a statement that one is more accurate!

I will say that given the choice between a belted case and a non belted case of the same performance level I'd prefer the nonbelted case for reloading purposes as I can control the non belted case better.....is this a big deal?......nope not at all.....

However if Ruger necked down the .375 Ruger to .30 caliber and shortened the case about 1/8" I'd be ordering a chambering reamer the next day.

5sDad:

The original discussion was about the Weatherby shoulder and a beltless case. The person I talked to said a rimless, beltless case would not headspace on the radioused shoulder. It might have been that the blow from the firing pin would drive the case shoulder into the chamber shoulder, deforming it.

The radioused shoulder doesn't appear to have a datum line, so my guess is that it wouldn't headspace would not be uniform without the belt.

I don't think the shoulder would be altered, but I'm guessing that the practice of sizing belted cartridges to headspace on the shoulder would not work on Weatherby shoulders.

It has been a few years since I reloaded for my Weatherby's, but IIRC, the neck radious of my FL sizing die seems to be slightly different from the radious of the chamber, so FL sizing does alter the neck shape slightly, but not enough so that it would no longer be a Weatherby cartridge.

However, I don't see that it would make any difference if you used a neck sizing die with a large enough body so that neither the neck shape or body taper were changed, such as one of the button dies, and only sized to the depth the bullet seats.

Of course, it goes without saying that you would have to restrict the cases to one particular rifle, but I have always done that anyway.

I haven't reloaded since I came on this forum, and I didn't even know about headspacing a belted cartridge on the shoulder before I read about it here. I do remember that all the Weatherby cartridges I have reloaded would not chamber easily when partial sized in the FL die, but that could have been because of a little difference between the chamber and die shape.

The theory behind belted cases not being as accurate a rimless cases is based on the fact that a FL sized case, or a new case is a few thousands smaller than the chamber, causing the cartridge to lie on the bottom of the chamber and the bullet not lining up perfectly with the bore.

That may or may not be true. I don't know, but when people set 1000 yard records and win 1000 yard matches at Camp Perry with belted cases, then it would seem that that theory flies out the window.

Besides, neck sizing with a button die, as mentioned above, would eliminate the cartridge laying on the bottom of the chamber and not being centered.

Many years ago, I was fortunate enough to shoot at matches where shooters from the Army Markmanship Unit were present. I talked to them a good bit, and they were always willing to give advice to a poor civilian. I can remember them talking about the 1000 yard cartridges used in the Wimbleton and Leech cup matches, which were the .30-338, and they mentioned that some rifles were chambered for this cartridge, but the belt was turned off. The chamber was not cut for the belt, either.

I never saw one altered this way, but I don't doubt they did it if they said they did. This cartridge would have been something like the .30 Newton.

One of my fondest memories of those times was being teamed with a person who had won the Wimbleton twice and the Leech once, once the Wimbleton and Leech in the same year, the only person up until that time to do it.

Thanks for the reply and information - very interesting. Best, John

The Weatherby radiused shoulder in effect acts very much like the 40-degree shoulder of so-called Ackley Improved cartridges. Unless the handloader makes the mistake of pushing the shoulder back during resizing, the Weatherby rounds usually show very fine accuracy and case life.

The big problem for a long time with the Weatherby rounds was the so-called "free-bore," which is nothing more than an extra-long throat. But even free-bored chambers shoot very well if the throat is just over bullet diameter. I own a couple of Weatherby Vanguards in .257 and .300 Weatherby that with the right load group substabtially better than most factory rifles out to at least 500 yards, as far as I've ever put them on paper.

Oh, and the cases are belted.

I just wish I would have said this�.

The belted case was designed for a specific function and that is hunting dangerous game, by headspacing on the belt it allows a good deal of taper on the case, thus "extraction" is always a function as long as there is a thread of brass holding a seperated brass to gether, and my personal experience bares this out....Not so with non belted cases it seems.

IMO it is erronous to belive the belted case functions better(chambering a case) than the non belted cases..however that has become an accepted fact by many because on the surface it makes since a tapered case feeds slicker than one that is not. I would be hard pressed to make this claim as most properly set up rifles feed both equally well as far as I can tell.

If one resizes a belted case to a crush fit or close to a crush fit, the same as one would a non belted case then case life is about the same. This function will stop head seperations until brass has fatigued in both types of cases.

As to "accuracy", I will suggest that for "hunting purposes" one is as good as the other, and I will also say the belted case has been around for a long long time and has proved itself in the hunting fields of the world as much as the great 30-06 has proven itself in the hunting world.

The discussions of belted vs. non belted has about as much realivance to me as the 270 vs. the 30-06 has, had, or will ever have...

I love my 300 H&H, my 416 Rem, my 338 Win. and my 375 H&H, all belted, but I also think the new Ruger non belted case in 338, 300, 375 and 416 Ruger happen to be one of the best designed cases to come along in decades, and somewhere in this sceanario I have to squeeeeze in my cute little 9.3x62, I couldn't leave her out of my goodies list...:)

I see plenty of room for both, and both will always be with us at least in my lifetime they will. I would not have wanted to be without both cases.

Fired vs Unfired was for shoulder datum line to base of case (where you read the caliber) measurements.
dan