We repeaterdly hear several things about belted cases:

1. That they were originally used to assure adequate headspacing.

2. That they are an "American" thing,resulting from fad rather than logic

3.They are un-needed, and even a detriment, in good case design today.

How do the facts match those premises?

The first belted sporting rifle cartridge of record actually produced was the 400/.375 H&H Belted NE (1905). It had a very abrupt shoulder,but the shoulder was only .065" long,so MAYBE a belt was needed to hold headspace. That likely depends in part on the type(s) and leverage of the action(s) in which chambered.

The second belted cartridge by any major manufacturer was apparently the .275 H&H Magnum (a 7m/m!), which was introduced somewhere between 1908 and 1911 depending on whom one believes. It had a 32-degree shoulder and definirtely did NOT need the belt for headspacing, but it had one anyway.

The third belted cartridge of record was the .375 H&H Magnum, introduced in 1912. It has a 15-degree shoulder. That really is adequate for headspacing in many folks eyes(the .30-06 Springfield shoulder is 17-1/2 degrees).

Fourth and 5th were the .26 BSA Rimless Belted NE (a 6.5) and .the 33 BSA Rimless Belted (using .338 diameter bullets), both introduced in 1920/21, and having 21-degree shoulders. Neither "needed" belts to provide good headspacing in properly chambered rifles.

Sixth in history was the .244 Magnum Rimless (H&H .240 Apex) of the early 1920's, which had a 21-degree, 48-minute shoulder and also required no belt for headspacing. But it had one.

Seventh was the .300 H&H Belted Rimless Magnum which, according to Cartridges of the World, didn't come along until 1925! It DID need the belt for secure headspacing, having a shoulder of only 8-degrees, 30- minutes. But the belt had long been around on carrtridge cases by then, so it wasn't originated by or for the .300 H&H (.30 Super).


All 7 of these cartridges long existed before ANY commercially produced American-designed belted cases. Only two of them, the 1st & the 7th, needed the belt for headspacing. So why did the other 5 have a belt?

Maybe it had something to do with perceived strength? Maybe it visually suggested great ballistic power,and thereby increased sales?

Maybe it was felt it allowed deeper extracting grooves and was an advantage for that reason?

I doubt we will ever know for sure, but I am fairly well convinced it was NOT solely for assuring headspace dimensions and that it was not an American "fetish".

What do you guys think?



(I hope this is readable. I lost almost all the vision in my right eye Sunday evening (retinopathy) and am having a heck of a time typing legibly.)

canuck

I think the answer lies in "H&H", as in Holland & Holland.

As we know, the Brits liked their big bore India and Africa rifles and cartridges, most, if not all of which were flanged. When H&H envisioned their bolt rifles they realized that there would be resistance to any cartridge that didn't have a rim. But rimmed cartridges do not feed well in a magazine rifle so, voila, a belt. It feeds well, headspaces where need be, and satisfies the love affair with flanged cartridges.

The sales people must have been right because it worked.

JMHO

Ray

There's no doubt that the belt was a British innovation. I believe the belt was added as a sort of compromise, so that a given case could be used in a bolt action without the problems attendant with the use of a rimmed cartridge (such as the .303 has), in a bolt action; and, the same case could be used in doubles and combination guns in which the belt played the role normally assigned to the rim. So in other words, a belted case was suitable for both bolt-actions and break-action guns as well. In some instances, the belt did not satisfactorily replace a rim. But if the extractors are set up correctly, they will work O.K. with a belted or even a rimless case.

PS - Belted cases did not originate with the H&H in 1905. There are patents going back to the 1890s and possibly earlier. Somebody can do the research, but I believe the belted case idea was considered during the development of the Gatling.

Ray

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
PS - Belted cases did not originate with the H&H in 1905. There are patents going back to the 1890s and possibly earlier. Somebody can do the research, but I believe the belted case idea was considered during the development of the Gatling.

Ray

Ray-

I am surw you are correct on both these statements.

I went back and amended my post to deal only with actually produced sporting cartridges.

Best wishes,

AC

For many years the wonderful "Belt" has provided an Extra margin of Safety in at least two popular rifle designs, the Mousers and the M70s. Due to the way the Bolt is poorly designed on them the "Belt" helps keep them from Blinding a lot of Reloaders who believe it is OK to load way too Hot.

The Design Engineers at the old New Haven M70 plant were apparently well aware of this design problem and strengthened the WSM Cases Internally where the "Belt" would normally be located. Thus allowing the WSM Cases to be almost as Safe as a "Belted" Case.

It is also an outstanding place to measure CHE. Most cases similar to the 30-06 style actually have the Rim sticking out far enough that a regular pair of 0.0001" capable Micrometers will hit the Rim and prevent being able to measure CHE. Then a rather expensive set of Thin Blade Mics must be used, or the Rims have to be cut back(no fun at all).

The really interesting thing about "Belts" is there is nothing at all wrong with them and a lot to be gained by having them, especially for people convinced that the Mousers and M70s are worth having.

They feed well, you can Headspace on the Shoulder just like a standard cartridge and they allow you to get Heavier Bullets going at a fine Velocity. The old crying and whining about not being able to hold as many cartridges as a standard cartridge is true, but if you shoot accurately then 5 cartridges really aren't needed.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills - with the excellent Belted Cases.

I just like the way they look. A 7MM Remington mag case is way cooler looking than some short fat 300 WSM case. The belt has class, look at the Weatherby line. Having loaded belted cases for years with no problems whatever I consider the belt akin to a classy racing stripe.

Excellent and informative discussion so far fellas. This may be fodder for a seperate thread, but I'd be interested in hearing why the continental Europeans did not seem to embrace the belted cartridge concept as enthusiastically as the Brits and Americans. Other European nations (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands), through their own colonization efforts, engaged in dangerous game hunting in Africa but seemed to prefer, overwhelmingly, non-belted cases. Nationalism perhaps? Of course, there were exceptions - 7x73 Vom Hofe, the two Norma's, and the 335 Halger.

HotCore-

As I am certain you know, I have long been a fan of belted cases, have used them for around 50 years, and my post was no criticism of them.

Still, the Brits introduced them mainly in Mauser-actioned rifles. So, THEY at least probably did not see them as a solution to gas leaks in cone-breeched rifle actions, Si?

I wonder why they DID stick with the belts in the magnum designs? I'll bet they had a good technical reason or reasons. Maybe it has been lost through the deaths of the designers?

quote:

Originally posted by rickt300:
I just like the way they look. A 7MM Remington mag case is way cooler looking than some short fat 300 WSM case. The belt has class, look at the Weatherby line. Having loaded belted cases for years with no problems whatever I consider the belt akin to a classy racing stripe.

LMAO - I think the exact opposite, but it goes to show what role aesthetics plays in cartridge selection

/

/

Okay, ALF, I can buy that as a very useful piece of additional information.

It still leaves me with the question of why so many of the smokeless cartridges introduced for sporters by the Brits retained the belt when none was required?

I also note that despite the belted case perhaps being invented in the U.S., it apparently was not a long-term commercial success and did not become a fad here until more than half a dozen different chamberings were offered world-wide by the Brits.

I have to ask if the Brit liking for the belt may have been for better (more easily made to operate reliably) funcrion in double rifles? I know most of the rifles in the belted Brit cartridges were made up on Mausers. Still, if one wanted to sell both magazine rifles and doubles in the same chamberings, might that be reason enough to go to the belt as someone suggested much earlier?

If course, I have no idea how many .26 and .33 BSAs were ever made in double format.....the only ones I've owned were made by BSA on P-14 actions apparently left over from WW-I. It's pretty obvious neither of those two needed the belts for headspacing.....


(Interesting comparison, the Roper and the .458 Winchester, eh?)

/

It's interesting that most of the belted H&H cartridges were, and continue to be made in a flanged version. Apparantly the Brits never ended their love affair with the rimmed cartridge.

ALF, wasn't the Roper cartridge actually a percussion primed cartridge rather than a conventional primer? And weren't some of them 2-piece whereby the base was unscrewed from the body, the "case" filled with powder, and then screwed back together?

Ray

Another reason for Belts and rims is that back in the old days they liked to make the body of the case very undersize to account for dirty or dinged up ammo. This is very evident with the 303 british round.

O well I belived that it was done to avoid that cases with a very little shoulder or without shoulder can be pushed too much (fall) in the chamber creating head space problems.

I cannot think to a .458 Win or a .458Lott without belt. They do not have shoulders and the alternative solution should be a rim creation.

In cases with a well defined shoulder the belt has no sense, if I can use an Italian acronym it is an UNCAS thing (UNCAS or "Ufficio Nazionale Complicazione Affari Semplici" = "National Office To Complicate Simple Things").

But the belt always had a commercial success, with some nuts like "it makes the case more strong and it permits higher pressures". I can think to many beltless cartridges with very high pressures (220 Swift, 8x68 Shuler, only to summon an American and a European).

However the belt cases don't hurt, and for this simple reason if anyone loves belted cases let him love belted cases.

Only let me love beltless cases, women, sigars, spirits, good foods, cars, hunt, travel and many other things and activities.

Stefano

Amo tutte quelle cose inoltre.

Ray

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Malinverni:
an Italian acronym it is an UNCAS thing (UNCAS or "Ufficio Nazionale Complicazione Affari Semplici" = "National Office To Complicate Simple Things").

I used to be an Alfa-Romeo technician. They knew that office well. When the US started requiring dual braking circuits Alfa had a lot of single circuit master cylinders on the shelf. As there was no room for 2 master cylinders and brake vacuum boosters all on the firewall and they wanted to use up the old parts, they put the boosters on the firewall in a normal place and put 2 single circuit type master cylinders connected by a bell crank/push rod arrangement under the floor of the cars...

quote:

Originally posted by pinotguy:
Excellent and informative discussion so far fellas. This may be fodder for a seperate thread, but I'd be interested in hearing why the continental Europeans did not seem to embrace the belted cartridge concept as enthusiastically as the Brits and Americans. Other European nations (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands), through their own colonization efforts, engaged in dangerous game hunting in Africa but seemed to prefer, overwhelmingly, non-belted cases. Nationalism perhaps? Of course, there were exceptions - 7x73 Vom Hofe, the two Norma's, and most of the Halger series

I don't think the Halger series were belted-at least not the .240 Halger Magnum (an earlier version of the 6X57mm, aka 6mm Remington!!) and the .280 Halger, which was a direct steal of the .280 Ross!

(Mausers are NOT cone-breeched, as the Model 70 is. The Mauser has a flat-faced breech, and the cartridge rim & extraactor cut protrude slightly from that face. But not much!)

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
It's interesting that most of the belted H&H cartridges were, and continue to be made in a flanged version. Apparantly the Brits never ended their love affair with the rimmed cartridge.

ALF, wasn't the Roper cartridge actually a percussion primed cartridge rather than a conventional primer? And weren't some of them 2-piece whereby the base was unscrewed from the body, the "case" filled with powder, and then screwed back together?

Ray

The fact that many belted British rounds have identical rimmed counterparts is in the same category as the Germans producing rimmed counterparts for Mauser type cartridges so the same or similar design could be used in combination guns, when this was not necessary either. The Germans had a number of extractor/ejector systems for combo guns that are perfectly satisfactory for using rimless cartridges. I have a Heym M55/77 O/U with such a setup in .30/'06, and over the years it has proven MORE RELIABLE than the extractor in a Remington Model 700 .30/'06 I once owned......

El

What language is your byline "Bitte, trinks. . ."? I tried to translate it on babelfish and all I get is greek.

Ray

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
El

What language is your byline "Bitte, trinks. . ."? I tried to translate it on babelfish and all I get is greek.

Ray

Sorta like Dutch but not.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:
El

What language is your byline "Bitte, trinks. . ."? I tried to translate it on babelfish and all I get is greek.

Ray

Can't tell you what language it is but I've heard it before... It translates roughly to:

Don't drink the water, the cows have shit in it.

Ken....

quote:

Can't tell you what language it is but I've heard it before...

It's German.

A perhaps more precise question would be 'Why do belted cases STILL exist". the answer to this is probably that the AMERICAN shooting public like the term "magnum" and want to own the biggest, baddest, flatshooting out to 1000 yards etc etc. Having said all that, my question is:
Given the type of shoulder that a 375 H&H magnum and 300 H&H magnums have, would these function reliably without a belt, or would you have to redesign the case and create a sharper shoulder, rather like the short magnums?
Peter.

there's nothing wrong with a belt, or right. it is all in the user's perception.

as for me, I just don't care, one way or the other. The belts work, shoulders work, rims work (talk about something who's time has passed) heck, even case mouths work, to headspace off... even case taper can work....

they feed great.. there are few guns that feed as well as a 300hh or 375 hh

can the same thing be done with cases without belts? sure, and they are all based off the 404 jeffe, to a greater or lessor extent....

and it only took 70 years for people to "care"

I mean, seriously, do we all think the RUM cases are the greatest idea in the world? O

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Having said all that, my question is:
Given the type of shoulder that a 375 H&H magnum and 300 H&H magnums have, would these function reliably without a belt, or would you have to redesign the case and create a sharper shoulder, rather like the short magnums?
Peter.

Modern shoulder angles have much more to do with efficient powder burning and short actions than anything to do with headspacing.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
A perhaps more precise question would be 'Why do belted cases STILL exist". the answer to this is probably that the AMERICAN shooting public like the term "magnum" and want to own the biggest, baddest, flatshooting out to 1000 yards etc etc. Having said all that, my question is: Given the type of shoulder that a 375 H&H magnum and 300 H&H magnums have, would these function reliably without a belt, or would you have to redesign the case and create a sharper shoulder, rather like the short magnums?
Peter.

Belted cartridges exist becasue the belt doesn't hurt anything and cartridge designers and wildcatters simply went with the most easily available parent case with sufficient capacity, the 300 H&H case.

Belted cartridges are great for wildcatting and forming cases becuase you don't have to worry about headspacing on the shoulder

quote:

Why Belted Cases Exist?

Because they tried suspenders - braces to you Brits and Anglophiles - but the damned things just flopped around and caused feeding problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
The second belted cartridg eby any major manufacturer was apparently the .275 H & H Magnum, which was in troduced somewhere between 1908 and 1911 depending on whom one believes.

It's mentioned in Holland's 1910 catalogue.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:
I believe the belt was added as a sort of compromise, so that a given case could be used in a bolt action without the use of a rimmed cartridge in a bolt action; and, the same case could be used in doubles and combinations guns in which the belt played the role normally assigned to the rim

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I have to ask if the Brit liking for the belt may have been for better (more easily made to operate reliably) funcrion in double rifles? I know most of the rifles in the belted Brit cartridges were made up on Mausers. Still, if one wanted to sell both magazine rifles and doubles in the same chamberings, might that be reason enough to go to the belt as someone suggested much earlier?

Absolutely not to both. The development of the belt had nothing whatsoever to do with double rifles. At the time that the belted rimless cartridges were being originated by Holland's, there was no intention of using them in double rifles at all, and that didn't change for many decades. When it did change, it wasn't because they thought it was a good idea. It happened because the flanged versions of their "paired" cartridges became so difficult or impossible to obtain that they had no choice.

At the time that the .400/.375 was introduced in 1905, Holland had already had their own flanged .375 Nitro cartridge for six years, but wanted a rimless for the emerging, lower cost magazine sporting rifle market. When the new .375 Magnums were introduced in 1912, Holland's intentions were again crystal clear. There were again both belted rimless for the magazine rifles and the lower pressure flanged for double rifles. Same in 1925 for the Super 30s (.300 Magnums). The break action guns were never intended to be used with the high pressure belted rimless shell, and Holland's went to a lot of trouble to provide the lower pressure, flanged counterparts for them. It was also the same with the endless list of smokeless, high velocity smallbore "paired" cartridges appearing on the Continent at the time, (7X57 & 7X57R, 7X64 & 7X65R, 8X57 & 8X57R, etc.) with the rimmed version always loaded to lower pressure for double rifles and combination guns. The CIP pressure standards for these cartridges remain that way to this day.

While it may seem strange today, the early British rimless magazine sporting rifles often suffered from headspace problems. This was due to an appalling lack of cooperation between the gunmakers and cartridge manufacturers with respect to dimensional standards, and the variance in bore and chamber dimensions in British guns from this period are legendary. The cartridges were no different. This resulted in many chronic problems that ultimately led to the well-known standardization conference for the British gun trade convened by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce in 1913. The result of this conference was a standards poster that was printed up and distributed to the gun trade! This was a standard feature in British shops for decades, and you still occasionally see them.

In the context of that time in the British trade (since cartridge dimensions weren't uniform enough to insure proper headspacing with rimless cartridges), the reason for the belt was as simple as H. W. Holland's Patent No. 27,913 of December, 1904 said it was - "To prevent cartridges from being pushed too far into the chamber,". He simply wanted his rimless magazine rifles to be as reliable as he could make them, and there was nothing more to it than that.

Yes, the belt really was originally used to insure correct headspacing. Yes, it became something of a mindless "fad" in America. Given today's designs and better manufacturing adherence to standards, no, they're not needed.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Good thread.
There are some pretty awesome posts here, with history I never know.

Don

The H&H cartridges have unique features that can enhance feeding in a bolt gun. The long slender taper of the neck, relatively low pressures (as compared to modern cartridges), and the belt. All three lead to better feeding and extraction.

The belt enabled positive head-spacing while allowing for a slightly longer shoulder dimension in the chamber, this would allow chambering and firing a rifle that has a dirty chamber, deformed brass, or expanded brass (been out in the sun too long).

Most modern belted ammunition is such not because of design, but cost. The majority of magnums are derivatives of the 375 H&H case, as such, there is less cost in setting up to produce brass. The advent of the 375 ruger and the WSMs seem to indicate that mfgs are willing to tool up a bit more to come up with a marketing advantage.

John

Well, I learned a lot tonight...