Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters belted vs. non belted mags

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.