I read posts that praise such-and-such a cartridge because it's not belted and therefore is said to feed better. Well, I've done all my hunting (big game) with three different belted cartridges during the last 10 years and never--not ever--had a feeding problem. What's wrong with having a belt?

My beef with belted cartridges isn't feeding or the belt itself. What I don't like is the overly large amount of clearance between the case and chamber shoulders with as supplied brass and typical factory chambers.

Nothing. Total transparency in my view.

I've never had a problem with belts. But I don't see any reason for them on a bottle neck cartridge.

What was the original purpose? Little shoulders on the H&H? Was that the first belted case?

The "bad feeding" issue is a typical nit-picky rifle loony myth. Anybody who claims it's a problem is just showing off their own prejudices and inexperience.

Yeah, some factory rifles for belted rounds have slightly oversize chambers. Back in the beginning of belted cases this was considered a virtue, because it allowed for a little dust or rust in the chambers of a .375 H&H, which often happened in the places British gentlemen hunted. Today, however, everything has to fit just so.

Personally, I've owned a pile of belted-magnum factory rifles and never found one with a chamber so huge that I couldn't reload fired cases easily. Sometimes a full-length die needs to be adjusted a little, to just bump the case shoulder, but have never experienced a real problem.

I am not smart enough to know.

The 9.3x62's claim-to-fame, is that it is not belted.

The .300WBY's claim-to-fame, is that it will accept the .300H&H and the .300Win, due to the belt.

Go figure.

Just a marketing gimmick like many others. However it does proclaim to the world that you are a rootin tootin long range shooting expert marksman sob. IMHO of course. Lol PH

I've only loaded for eight I can think of real quick, and I didn't have a reloading problem. Like other cartridges, I just shoulder bump them a bit. I just don't like how much the brass had to move on the first go.

The belt was added initially, to headspace on, and belted cartridges still supposed to be headspaced on the belt. I would presume with the extreme taper of the 300H&H, and less so the 375, it helped. The extreme taper on the 300 case to help it be extracted as didn't have to move much to come lose. Never heard the 300wby fame was that it would "accept" 300Win mag cases, but since it's formed , initially, from a 300 H&H, should accept that one.

.300WBY info from safariman.

They are added theoretical complexities for certain applications like full auto military use and for pure accuracy buffs - but they don't hurt a thing for hunters. Run a few rounds through an Echols rifle if you think they don't feed as well as any other case, or shoot a Borden, Miller or Jarrett and let me know how inaccurate they are.

someone beat me to the send button. I had it written but got a phone call.

I could be wrong on this. But I didn't think it was a marketing gimmick. If I understood it correctly, the belted case became more accepted with the H&H cartridges that had very slight shoulder angles. I think there were guys swaging belts on cases before that but not sure of that. But with the H&H, something was needed to resist the cartridge from being "pushed" too far into the chamber and resulting in excessive head space. So, they invented the belt to keep the cartridge rimless. All of the cartridges that were developed from the H&H cases just maintained the rim since it was the status-quo.

The 375 veloplex is the first commercial belted case I know of. It was developed around 1910 by H&H and was a miserable failure. Only marginally more powerful than the 9.5's already on the market. It begat the 375 H&H in 1912 one of the greatest cartridges ever.

I thought another of the theories behind the belt was so single and double rifles made for rimmed cartridges could be adapted with minor extractor modifications. Might be more gun loony legend though.

Nothing wrong with having a belt but it truly is unnecessary with the the majority of cartridges that have them. If you reload for one make sure to headspace on the shoulder and not the belt unless you are running one of the original H&H cartridges. I believe the original intent with the design was a single cartridge design that would work in both the companies bolt action and double rifles.

No prob at all w/ belted cartridges, however i do headspace off the neck on the next loading.

Gunner

Nothing other than some Brands of Brass of the same cartridge have different thickness of the belt and some chamber reamer are ground different sizes and head-spacing off the belt and full length re-sizing the case can cause premature case separation , so size your brass to head-space off the shoulder and eliminate this case separation. If you shoot only factory ammo you will never know this problem ever existed.

The slickest feeding rifle I've owned was a Pre 64 Mod70 300H&H couldn't tell the differance working the bolt loaded or empty without looking (or shooting). --- Mel

The only real disadvantage i could find is they take up a little bit of magazine spcae - but not enough to fit another round in the magazine. I 'spose i think it looks a little bit silly, but i don't tend to choose cartridges on aesthetics.

The only thing that's "wrong" with belts is they're unnecessary on most cartridges. They're part of the historical landscape, and as a result many are loathe to let them go.

When I load for most belted mags I just headspace off the shoulder rather than the belt.

No big deal...

Not "feed better" � head-space better.

When Iver Henriksen and I were planning my .358 Norma Magnum (1960s), he asked me whose brass I wanted it head-spaced for. Then, from him, I learned that magnum belts weren't uniform (maker-to-maker) in length.

At home, I lined-up belted rounds from several makers on a glass plate and could see that what Iver had told me was true. By naked eye, I could see that some makers' belts were significantly wider (back-to-front) than others.

So I had 'im cut my chamber to accommodate the widest belts, and ever since have sized my magnum brass (with one exception) to head-space on the shoulder. My Henriksen custom .458 Winchester Magnum � now thumping a Campfire compadre's shoulder � was the only rifle that I've ever head-spaced on the belt.

Holland & Holland introduced the belt to provide a dependable head-space stop for their snake-shouldered Cordite wonder, the .300 H&H Magnum.

There is nothing either good or bad about belts. They were put on several British cartridges (i.e., 300 H&H and 375H&H) to control headspace in the era that the British used Cordite powder and long sloping shoulders that made headspace control difficult. With modern sharp shoulder cartridges, they are not really needed, but look cool.

Absolutely nothing wrong is my experience with belted cartridges and handloading them over a period (so far) of 30+ years.

In the 60's and 70's if it didn't have a belt it wasn't cool and you didn't have a magnum. The 270 Win the first belt less magnum

Yup.

I had a Tom Burgess Mauser that fed 300 Win Mag cases the same way....first couple of times rapid fire I swore the bolt failed to strip the second round....shoulda known better.

I think Mr Charles Newton and John Rigby might beg to differ with you on that assertion.

It was JOC who is credited for saying & I read it either in one of his books OR a mag article...

..."The 270 Win, Every Man's Beltless Magnum."

Jerry

Just what I was thinking of posting when I read the title and opened the thread

Obviously nothing.

Plus one.

I have seen this be an issue....

That's correct. I can't remember the year I got my first 7 RM but it was in the early 80s. I have and have had several belted mags.

I THANK some GUN WRITER, don't remember who, for teaching us to size off/on the shoulder INSTEAD of the belt. Consequently I've never had any problem with the belted mags.

My 30 + yr memory is rusty. I would think it was prolly JRS but I'm not sure. WHOEVER he was, he helped US greatly.

Secondly, I LIKE the looks of the belted mags. That's probably due to my age. From 2012 back to 1980 makes them classic TO ME.

I don't have anything against the Short Mags, beltless or not. I've been set up for reloading the belteds a LONG TIME and to change I would have to SPEND more money.
Jerry

Bingo.

Conversations about belts vs non belts are ....."much ado about nothing"..... Some English guy said that....

Jeff I would like to know in what rifle and caliber you've seen that problem.
Jerry

what's wrong with belts? 'cause Lee24 said so.........

I�m always very interested in discussions concerning issues with hand loading Belted Cartridges. I read everything I can find on it because I�m not yet at the point where I thinks I knows it all.

In my own experience, I find that FLs for belted rnds, often have very short shoulders, at least in 7mm Rem. Mag. But they stretch without problems, to fill the chamber, at least ONCE.

Also, at least some of the early chambers for Belted rounds, had oversize chambers, which could increase the potential for overstretching the case on firing.

In hand loading, that issue, of course, can USUALLY be overcome by the way you use a sizing die.

I say, �usually� because, I have in my possession a 300 Win Mag. Case fired in a friend�s rifle, a Post 64 Win. New Model 70. (That�s what they called them back then.) manufactured in (1964)

A 300 Win Mag. neck is spose to be .264, and the neck on this (Fired Case) is more like .211, .053 SHORTER, and the shoulder is Noticeably LONGER than another fired case from another, but UNKNOWN rifle.

The above measurements were taken with a Caliper, the best I can tell.

I can�t say, this case couldn�t be reloaded in that rifle, but I sure wouldn�t wanna try it. The 300 Win Mag. has a very short neck anyway.

I expect, it would be very unusual to encounter a chamber this large for a Belted chamber, but I HAVE HEARD of a similar situation with a .264 Win, Model 70 rifle, which IIRC, was a Pre-64 Mdl 70.

I have a SLIGHTLY, oversize chamber in my Rem. 700, 7mm Rem Mag, also of early manufacture, and using a Neck Sizing die works better than a FL die.

From what I�ve learned, and heard, I�ve concluded that there DO, exist out there, some issues in Hand loading Belted Cartridges, and they are mostly due to oversize chambers, and possibly, sizing dies.

That said, I LIKE Belted cases, because of the positive head spacing, just like using a Rim,and they aren't Short and Fat.

I wouldn�t, and haven�t/don�t reject a rifle cartridge that I like just cause it hadda belt.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Smitty of the North

I like belts myself. They help me keep my pants up so I'm not mistaken for one of the bro's......doh!!!

I treat cases from my magnum rifles as if they had no belt and size them to BARELY get a "touch fit" when chambered.

The old .300 H&H doesn't have much of a shoulder to begin with and the belt may make sense. Belted ctgs will work in a double gun a lot better than rimless. Once a belted case is fired and reloaded, headspace should be on the shoulder like any other case.

Sometimes it's hard to fully size a belted case down to the belt, resulting in tight bolt closing. Larry Willis (Innovative Technologies) makes a collet body sizer that sizes down to the belt. Makes the trip through the FL sizer a lot easier, allowing more precise control of shoulder set back. Larry also makes a tool to measure shoulder set back using a fired case as a reference.

DF

I read somewhere that Roy Weatherby came up with his cartridges based on a belted format for marketing. He said the belt served no real purpose but it was good for sales. I think it was in one of the Speer reloading manuals. I wouldn't choose a cartridge based on if it had a belt or didn't. If feeding was the issue, I don't know any autos or machine guns that fire belted cartridges. I think they might if having one mattered.

I also remember when they were coming up with the .300WSM, it was talked about because here's a magnum without a belt. I've got a .300 Win Mag and a .300 WSM. Both shoot equally well and I don't think the belt really matters much.

Belted magnum rounds are notorious for developing a bulge or swelling just forward of the belt. Normal sizing dies will not remove the bulge and one manufacturer developed a die that involved slipping a collet over the case and then sizing it. Beltless cases don't have this problem. In most instances belts are a solutuion to a problem that does not exist.

Kind of like an appendix, useless but rarely causes a problem.

Nothing wrong with belts.Check this out!!!
http://youtu.be/7h0s_62jXuk

The older I get, the more I need 'em...

I can run empties through my 257 Roy without missing a beat, one slick feeding SOB.

X3 on the Pre-64 Model 70 in 300H&H as the smoothest feeding rifle I have ever owned. The 300 H&H is one of the few magnums that actually needs and headspaces off the belt. The case will stretch on firing just ahead of the belt. I use a LEE neck size die and use the cases fired in my rifle. Much longer case life than full lenght resizing. Most of the modern magnums cases headspace on the shoulder and the belt really has no purpose.

OK, we've solved the issue of belts. Now,let's discuss suspenders; do you wear them?

This thread made me do a little hands-on research. Think I'm gonna do my monthly column on the belted-case controversy....

I have always thought the H&H cases should have belts, and i'll be very interested to see what the verdict is. I always thought the design of the 375 H&H just looked right for a dangerous game cartridge - essentially a cone with a belt to space off.

A recent factory M700 in 300 WM. Shoots great off the shoulder but like [bleep] (comparatively) off the belt. Basically requires a forming step to shoot good.

My .338 has "beltitis" too but to a lesser degree. I'd hunt it with new brass, reluctantly. But my 300 WM? No way.

Okay, thanks for the answer.

Until 08 I had not shot very much factory ammo in any belted mag. I always got new brass and handloaded. In 08 I got my M70 300 WM. Since I did not plan to shoot it much at first, I bought a couple of boxes of blue box Feds 180 grs. I thot I'd check it out and have brass to use later.

Well it shot that Factory new brass ammo so well, I went back and bought more of the same lot #. Long story short, I pulled the bullets and inserted Hornady 180s. I've killed at least 10 deer with that rifle and ammo w/o so much as a hitch. I haven't yet shot all of that.

Yes, that is 1 rifle and factory (new) brass, but with all the others I started w/new brass to handload. I guess I've been lucky. I haven't counted the # of belted mags I have/had but it's quite a few. Again, no problems. Brand rifles, Ruger, Remington, Winchester.

THANKS for your response.
Jerry

So would AI'ing a belted magnum be the "belt and suspenders" approach to cartridge case design?

Jerry,

It's a sloppy chamber in other ways. It had a burr at the mouth when new, and splits necks at 3-5 reloads even if I anneal. So, I'm not blaming the belt per se. But it's not helping matters, that's for sure.

Once the brass is formed my reloads shoot great. I set my die to headspace off the shoulder.

Belts were not made to keep handloaders happy....they were there to provide a positive stop to withstand the blow of a heavy firing pin for reliable ignition under dirty,tropical, or other adverse conditions.Reloading is fun and games....hunting is serious business.

Like Mule Deer points out,somewhat loose dimensions in the chamber area,the case headspaced on the belt,meant cartridges would chamber if things got a little gunky.And the rifle would go "BANG" when it had to,important for rifles afield for months at a time.

There are reasons why Mausers have a bit of slop or play in the action,and rifles chambered for belted cartridges have a bit of play in the action...it is there to make sure the rifle functions under adverse conditions, where actions and chambers with uber tight tolerances will be shut down by sand,or Wyoming gumbo.

This was important to hunters...not so much to folks who's only measure of a rifle's worth,are three shot groups.

Bob,

If manufacturers reduce the usual shoulder clearance for belted cartridges to an amount typical of factory 270 Win. or 30-06 cartridges in their standard chambers, will Wyoming hunters report a sudden rash of failures to function for 7mm Rem. and 300 Win. magnums?

m

The SAAMI spec for shoulder clearance for most belted brass and chambers is exactly the same as for the .270 and .30-06--.007". There's an exception, however, for Weatherby cartridges, probably due to the radiused shoulder--.008".

About belt, the first cartridge that was belted was the "400-375 H&H belted" of 1905. The belt was way longer than the one we use today, even longer than the one of 450Marlin.

Was there to assure good headspacing and also even if totaly by passed today but specialist to improve the resistance of the head of the cardridges used with the cordite powders, very sensitive to heat.

Then came the case we know, it was the 275H&H in 1911 followed by the 375 in 1912 then years later by the 300H&H. As writen by all the specialists the belt was here to produce good headspace to the sloppy long case of these calibers.
Even if today we don't need them belt are never an issue in a well made rifle.
Dom

I've looked at the drawings too, and if the +/- are taken into account the "worst case" for 300 Winchester mag allows for twice the clearance as the same for 308 Winchester.

I did a bit of digging and got out some 300 Win. new brass, new cartridges, fired brass and push feed M70. It's been a while since I loaded for this one, the new brass/cartridges were in DuPont marked boxes.

The SAAMI drawing shows 2.2700"-.0070" from head to .420" diameter datum line. Using my Stoney Point rig I measured the new brass between 2.258" and 2.260", and the new cartridges between 2.260" and 2.261". So all of them are two to five thousandths under minimum.

I carefully FL sized a piece of fired brass just enough so the bolt closed smoothly on it. It measures 2.280", and SAAMI for this dimension is 2.2791"+.0100", so the chamber is on the short end of the spec which is good.

So even with a shortish chamber, in this instance the as-supplied brass and cartridges average about .020" clearance, which was my original gripe.

It would be nice if was actually held to .007" in regular practice, Wyoming notwithstanding.



Sorry about the delay, I was interrupted several times trying to get the measurements.

I'm not real certain about the origin of the belt or the reasoning behind it. After all, it pre-dates yours truly by guite a few years. I do know that it is not really a problem except when one is attempting to minimize head clearance. In this situation, it is the variation in dimensions which is the problem; not the belt itself. One might run into the same difficulty if trying to fit rimless cases precisely to a chamber. The only difference here would be that there is a bit more "give" when headspacing on the shoulder. The same sort of difficulty certainly exists when working with rimmed cartridges. The nominal minimum headspace measurement for a rimmed cartridge chamber is .063". The typical rimmed case will measure about .058 in rim thickness so headspace is at .005"
The nominal minmum for a belted case is .220" and the typical case is more likely to measure around .215 or so.
While I have seen some feeding issues with rifles chambered for belted cartridges, these issues were not necessarily related to the existence of a belt on the case.
In order to maximize case life with repeated reloading, one must set the sizer to allow the shoulder to just touch. The same is true with rimless cases or rimmed cases so it's not a big deal. On the other hand, belted or rimmed cases work better for very light loads since the belt (or rim) keeps the case from shortening up so badly.
In the end, having a belt does no harm and under some circumstances, may even be of some benefit. Many of today's shooters, especially those addicted to the internet, need a focus for their need to obsess and a belt on a case seems to help fulfill that need. GD

MM: No, I doubt it....but if you've seen a bolt gun shut down by sand and grit,or frozen in snow and icewe might think about it.Or when some uber light weight firing pin doesn't cut the mustard and light a fire in extreme cold...we might not lik that...

Back when belts were developed,and given the powders of the day,the taper of the cartridges,etc., etc, all this little stuff helped to make a trouble free bog game rifle (not deer).Brits designed the 375H&H and the 300H&H to hunt anywhere British sportsmen went....which was a big piece of the globe, and not just central Wyoming.The rifle had to work everywhere.....some of this still holds true today.Different mind set from us.

And think about what they hunted,compared to what we get to hunt, mostly.A drop in the bucket comparatively....To some of those guys, a "hunt" lasted 2-3 years.The Brits designed and built stuff to work good for dangerous animals that would stomp you if things [bleep] up..

Our needs are not so demanding..We hunt one week when it's minus 10,and think it's a big deal.Or walk the rifle from the truck to a deer stand twice a year.....the reason we think of some cheap bolt guns as "good",and handloads generating 70,000 psi as "safe" and useful.

264 win mag Model 70 push feed post 64

Bob,

The other factor is that very few people handloaded smokeless-powder cartridges when the .375 was first developed, partly because it was considered somewhat dangerous to do so, and partly because the .375 was developed when the British still mostly used Cordite. Thus they didn't really care if the case stretched "too much," especially when most of the British who hunted where the .375 was designed for didn't worry much about the price of factory ammo.

As a side note, I just got done measuring the belt-to-head length on some brass I had on hand, with a digital Mitutotu caliper. I grabbed enough brass so that I ended up with at least three cases from Federal, Norma, Remington and Winchester, ending up with a total of 14 cases.

I measured each case in three places around the head, averaging the three measurements. The "shortest" belt on any of the cases measured .215", and was on a .375 H&H Remington ase. The longest belt was also on a .264 Winchester Remington case, .220", and a 7mm RM Remington case measured .219." (My guess is that Remington doesn't sell too much .264 ammo or brass, so their .264 dies don't get replaced all that often.)

Every case from the three other brands measured .216-.217," which contradicts the common notion that belt height is all over the place. Altogether the 14 cases averaged .217", so with the exception of the one .375 H&H Remington case, all measured within .002" of .217."

I've measured a bunch of new rimless brass to the datum line and it varies a lot more than that, though as Greydog pointed out, the shoulder of a rimless case has some give, certainly much more than a belt.

For the heck of it I measured some of my 300 H&H brass, All Winchester, some of it very old Super X from the 50's. Very consistant, .215 to .216 fired and non fired.

Well we have 5 pages or so of responses telling us nothing is wrong with belted cases and how they provide a positive headspace reference but in the same breath we are cautioned not to headspace on the belt because it(and the chamber) varies so much over time and manufacturer. Therein lies the answer to the op's question. I can see the need for belts on the .300, .375 H&H, and the .458 Win if the chamber is cut to headspace on the belt which it should be imo. But the belts on all the other stuff is just marketing hype. PH

JB: Good info.....I guess the manufacturers have done a pretty good job keeping tolerances within spec......I have never had a belted case cause a problem of any sort....I will bet few others have either.

My guess is that any "problems" have been the same sort encountered when setting up a full-length die for rimless rounds.

A lot of people like to moan about minutiae, I'd guess because they think it makes them seem really educated!

With the only belted cartridge I've had, I didn't have any feeding issues. The issue I DID have was after several firings, the area just ahead of the belt would finally expand enough to make chambering difficult. If I screwed the die down enough to fix that, I was bumping the shoulder more than I like. Tried a Willis collet die and that worked ok but in the end, the best solution I arrived at was having the top of a full length die cut off below the shoulder. With that I was able to effectively size the area adjacent the belt and still have it headspace on the shoulder.

Not a big deal, but one I've never experienced on a beltless cartridge...

John

This thread is interesting. I want to form some brass for my 308 Norma, will variations in belts be an issue, what case should I start with? Have always used Norma factory brass but my supply is getting low and the price is getting higher for new

I frequently form brass from 300 Win mag. I have also used 375 H&H brass but one has to take it down in steps or the case will buckle at the shoulder due to a lack of support from the die. 300 Win Mag is my first choice. Since the formed brass can be sized to headspace on the shoulder the first time around, belt dimensions are meaningless. In truth, 60 rounds of 308 Norma brass is a lifetime supply as long as pressures are kept to reasonable levels. Using Norma brass (soft) I can load 180's to 3060 fps with no loosening of primer pockets and apparently, unlimited case life. That's fast enough for me. GD

In a sloppy factory chamber the belt can be a bummer. Or so I've seen. Or think I've seen.

Obviously the root cause there is the sloppy chamber- but a belt is a real compounder in that case.

Or so it seems to me. Not trying to appear edumcaterered here, Lord knows.

crossotter,

Read my previous posts. "Variations" in belts are not an issue.

The problem with belts is all the pointless whining and clueless postulation that accompanies them.

+1

Comment in General:Belted cases have been working and killing game since (when?)1912 in thousands of rifles,including animals that will stomp you to pudding...

Isn't it a little late for discussions about whether they work well or not?

I laugh at the American notion that we know what we're doing with rifles for dangerous game,and belted cartridges for same.....mostly because, with one exception, we ain't got no dangerous game !

Second guessing the Brits on such matters is even more humorous..

OUT LOUD

That's not only funny it's A C C U R A T E.
Jerry

I think the best point was JB's that the modern American hunter puts too much stock in group size, and of course Bob's comment RE: dangerous game is spot-on.

With that conceded up front, at least with virgin brass, and in a rifle intended for precision work, I've seen the much-mocked accuracy issue from the belt.

I don't get why it's an issue that's simultaneously given lip service as a potential problem for accuracy, while being so soundly and resoundingly mocked as an issue.

Many of us buy magnum rifles for a little extra reach and accuracy is obviously key. It's not the end of the world to have to form virgin brass before it's usable, but, it's not a GOOD thing.

Anyway maybe if I owned dozens of the things I'd have seen a bigger sample and concluded it was a red herring, as some here have done. My sample of two says otherwise so that's my story <g>.

But then I'm a [bleep] idiot.

Jeff -

You may have just gotten 'lucky' with those two.

I OTOH have NOT had good luck w/Chevy trucks. I'll spare the details but I promise the last one I had was FALLING APART on the road. Obviously millions of people love Chevy and get good service. (Let's NOT hijack this thread)

Wait...I'm counting, this is at least my 4th 300, plus multiple 7s, 338,and I worked w/a friends 375 HH. I experienced NOT ONE problem related to the belt.

I have a friend who HAD a Rem 700 BDL 30-06 that had a problem from the factory. Wound up being a BURR in the chamber. Simple solution..no other problem.

STUFF HAPPENS because HUMANS manufacture.
Jerry

hmmm. i diddn't realize England has dangerous game...

John-

I hope the following is not considered "moaning about minutia". Here's some history relevant to the belted mags.

The first SAAMI specification of chamber headspace for the belted mags was 0.220 minimum, 0.223 maximum inches. The 300 H&H data sheet was approved June 24, 1937; that for the 375 H&H, June 28, 1937.

Those maximum & minimum measurements held at least until 1958, as shown in my vintage 1957 notebook of SAAMI spec sheets. The 338 Win Mag, introduced 1958, is shown on an unapproved draft sheet.

Current on-line SAAMI spec sheets show a minimum headspace of 0.220, and a maximum of 0.227 on their chamber drawings for the 300 and 375 H&H, as well as the other belted mags. SAAMI drawings in the 1981 NRA book Handloading by Wm. Davis show the same.

So, sometime between 1958 and 1981, SAAMI increased chamber headspace tolerance by 0.004. The no-go gauges got longer.

For cases and cartridges, the 1937 SAAMI sheets show face-to-belt-front-end dimension for cartridges as 0.220 maximum; minimum is not specified. However, the draft 1958(?) sheet for the 338 WM does show a minimum of 0.214. In the current SAAMI drawings, face-to-belt-front-end measurements of all the belted cartridges, including the 338 WM, are 0.220 max, min 0.212.

As Ken Howell and others note above, the allowable 0.008 tolerance can produce factory new cartridges and cases with natable differences in belt length. If a min cartridge is fired in a max chamber, a secondary belt 0.015 in length can form, creating reloading problems.

Having a chamber with a headspace greater than minimum is probably a good idea in a hunting rifle. Trying to cram a cartridge with a 0.220 maximum belt into a minimum 0.220 chamber might be disconcerting to a hunter in front of an angry elephant. Such considerations might have been behind SAAMI's decision, made sometime between 1957 and 1981, to increase chamber headspace tolerance.

--Bob

Thanks JB. I did read your post,(but not a lot of the other BS) Speer manual shows some variations of belt height from Norma and other brass like win and H&H that I was considering using. That was my concern.

toad - per the Brits and dangerous game. It's my understanding that THEY had the money to travel and hunt D G before Americans. Or should I say that, more of them had money first.

e.g. why were/are so many PHs of Euro descent?

Maybe England's control of parts of Africa in history has something to do with it?

I know we have older, errr more qualified personnel to give a more detailed answer, but I think that's part of the answer to your ??

B S (bullshooter) - Thanks, Very Interesting & Informative.

These days I been doing all my hunting with a 7mm RM out of an R-93 Blaser. I have not noticed any feeding or extraction problems or any accuracy problems either. My barrel likes 150 gr bullets so I shoot 150 gr bullets. I killed 5 deer with it this year, I have plenty of venison. I fired 5 shots, plus the two to check zero. I have no real complaints other than hunting season is over unless I want to do the spring string and a sharp stick for another 10 days. I will pass on that. Those 7 cartridges cost me a whopping $9.80 cents, I paid more for my hunting license this year, and never mind my property taxes on the property I hunt on. So what if a case lasts for just three or four shots. Brass is plenty cheap if you buy it quantity. My rifle is a hunting rifle, If I just want to punch holes in paper, then well I shoot a 22 RF for that purpose. I like what JB had to say about all of this.

Original question:

The belt protrudes out and MAY cause feeding issues.

The belt has a square geometry which creates a stress riser that can create a stress concentration and MAY result in poor case life.

The belt is unnecessary in general but may do nothing.

RE: stress riser...no. cases will NOT fail at the belt, but ahead of the belt where the case walls start to thin

Kinda.

The pressure is evenly distributed. At the point at the front of the belt the thickness goes from thick to thin which creates a stress riser because it is square. Usually not an issue anyway.

Best post on this thread!

Big time true story!

I've always wondered at the idea of people getting wound about belts on rounds. Big freakin deal, load up and go. 2 many people talk talk talk and don't shoot shoot shoot and hunt hunt hunt.

End of rant...

Dober

Toad: The sun never set on the British Empire... Their boys hunted everywhere.

There's a reason all those PH's in Africa......and a lot of Indian Majaraja's,had British accents.

Hey Bob - Funny how great disturbed minds think alike.
Jerry