I have alway thought that belted cartridges were ugly as well as not as functional as regular rimmed cartridges.
Finding a rimmed cartridge that has the same bolt face as the belted cartridges and building them into a standard action would be a good idea. This would give a 30-06 length action the ability to chamber cartridges with the power of the longer mag actions rifles.
I have been reading my newest manuals and Remington and Winchester have cartridges in both the 308 length actions and the mag length actions. Only Ruger 375 is on the 30-06 length.
Does anyone else find this hard to understand?
It seems like a natural step in cartridge design.
There may have been substantial wildcatting on this idea, but no commercial development.
Taking the 375 Ruger down to 30 cal would be be a very good idea. 300 Weatherby or better ballistics out of an 06 rifle, wouldn't that sell well?
Leo

Necking the 375 Ruger down to .308 would make a great round. They called the same thing the 30 Newton 70 years ago.

Do you intend to use the bolt action as a single shot? Rimmed or flanged cartridges can be pesky in magazines.

Is this what you mean by "rimmed" case?

quote:

Originally posted by Ramsgate:
Do you intend to use the bolt action as a single shot? Rimmed or flanged cartridges can be pesky in magazines.

Not pesky and not a problem in bolt action repeater magazines designed (or modified) for them, i.e., with angled front and rear sides to the magazines.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Not pesky and not a problem in bolt action repeater magazines designed for them, i.e., with angled front and rear sides to the magazines.

by golly it's strange that people even bother with rimless cartridges ..

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Necking the 375 Ruger down to .308 would make a great round. They called the same thing the 30 Newton 70 95 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:



Is this what you mean by "rimmed" case?

Yes, and anyone here can tell you why they won't work in repeating rifles or machine guns

Unless you have actually been shot at by them and then you hear that they work all too well.

quote:

Originally posted by Ramsgate:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Not pesky and not a problem in bolt action repeater magazines designed for them, i.e., with angled front and rear sides to the magazines.

by golly it's strange that people even bother with rimless cartridges ..

I know you are great with your sarcasm, but maybe you don't know that the Germans made bolt action M98 sporting rifles for finishing up and sale by Rigby in .303 British 100 years ago? They were made with magazines specifically designed for that cartridge.

They worked just fine, too. Rimless cartridges are obviously better in magazines designed for rimless cartridges. But they are no better than rimmed cartridges if each has their own proper magazine.

Trust me on this one. That is historical fact, and I've owned a number of bolt actions with rimmed cartridge chamberings which worked flawlessly (and still do work that way).

Rimmed cartridges don't work well in magazines designed for rimless cartridges, but then rifle cartridges don't work great in shotguns either as a general rule. One just has to use the right parts for whatever they are going to shoot.

So, if you are a manufacturer who wants to be able to put all kinds of different chamberings in the same basic rifle action, then naturally you won't be making them commonly with M98-type rimmed magazines. There are so many more rimless cartridges out there that it is cheaper to make them for the rimless cartridges only, using rimless cartridge magazines.

But that is manufacturing economics, not better engineering.

quote:

I have alway thought that belted cartridges were ugly as well as not as functional as regular rimmed cartridges.
Finding a rimmed cartridge that has the same bolt face as the belted cartridges and building them into a standard action would be a good idea.

Ouch! Cannot agree and as a Brit that "cut his teeth" on Lee Enfield rifles in 303 British I know of what I write!

The Lee Enfield is probably the best designed bolt action high capacity magazine fed rifle for a rimmed cartridge. But even so rarely but every now and again it does have problems.

Operator induced by the "nut on the butt" inserting those rimmed 303 rounds in a sloppy manner...but nevertheless still problems!

Now the "bottom line" is that you can drop the Lee Enfield magazine and sort it out that way. But whilst it is the acme of bolt action design for a rimmed cartridge it still isn't as infallible as when using rimless cartridges.

If you want "slick" try a Lee Enfield No4 converted either by Enfield or Sterling to fire 7.62mm NATO and you'll see what I mean!

The best solution, as was then, is a rimless cartridge that has the same bolt face diameter as the belted cartridge and the body to the same full diameter as the belt.

In fact what, in medium calibres, the 280 Ross and the 280 Jeffery were when compared to Holland's 275 Belted Rimless Magnum!

And, of course, that German classic still with us today the 8x68.

These didn't work:



And these weren't the best battle rifle around for half-century or so and are not still in service somewhere in the world:



My .22 has also realised you're right and now considers itself a practicing single-shot.

The OP made reference to a .375 Ruger. I don't think the .375 Ruger is a rimmed case.

You can also neck the .375 Ruger down to 7mm.

It's called the 7 LRM, and makes one heck of a long range shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

I have alway thought that belted cartridges were ugly as well as not as functional as regular rimmed cartridges.
Finding a rimmed cartridge that has the same bolt face as the belted cartridges and building them into a standard action would be a good idea.

Ouch! Cannot agree and as a Brit that "cut his teeth" on Lee Enfield rifles in 303 British I know of what I write!

The Lee Enfield is probably the best designed bolt action high capacity magazine fed rifle for a rimmed cartridge. But even so rarely but every now and again it does have problems.

Operator induced by the "nut on the butt" inserting those rimmed 303 rounds in a sloppy manner...but nevertheless still problems!

With properly designed magazines for rimmed cartridges, it is impossible for the operator to insert them in a manner where the rims of the top cartridges can get "behind" the rims of the cartridges below and cause jams. That is the most common cause of jams in Lee-Enfields.

The forward slope of the properly mengineered rimmed cartridge magazine as it rises in height, will not allow a cartridge to be put into it that way (with the rim of the one above behind the rim of the one below).

Such magazines must angle at a correct slope to facilitate the feeding of cartridges of a particular rim diameter in order to work properly. That of course, means greatly varying rim diameters require different degrees of slope. That, in turn, increases the cost of manufacture somewhat if the same action is to be used for different sizes of cartridges. But there was a time when all magazines were engineered and made to fit specific cartridges. Only economics, not engineering problems, has driven that time into the shadows.

To that extent, great as the Lee Enfield was and is, it was not the best. It uses a magazine design typical for rimless cartridges for rimmed ones...a no/no if a person wants to be secure in preventing jams.

And as you said, the Lee-Enfields are often fitted with "sloppy" magazines. That in itself can be gotten around to some degree by using rimless cartridges, but only to a degree. It can also be prevented by using rimmed cartridges in well-made magazines intended for rimmed cartridges.

The picture of the Bren Gun (or ZG26 clone) reminded me. I guess the Russians had better throw away all those full auto rifles they have in 7.62x54R and which won't work in combat because they use a rimmed cartridge case. Even the mujahadin obviously wouldn't want them....

BTW, as I understand it their curved detachable magazines feed just terribly (all too terribly well, that is).

quote:

guess the Russians had better throw away all those full auto rifles they have in 7.62x54R

And the 17+ Million Mosin Nagants as well.

I was just reading the replies to my post and wondered where the rimmed case thing came from. I then reread my first post and realized I misspoke and said rimmed when what I meant was a regular rimless case the same rim and case size as the belted mag case, as in the 404 Jeffery case. Thats the parent case for the 375 Ruger, the short mags and the ultra mags.
My apologly for the confusion.
I was just wondering why the idea was only applied to the mag length and 308 length actions in many calibers and only one in an 06 lenght action.
The 375 Ruger necked from 7 mm up to 458 would make a good line of cartridges. awesome power across the board on a less expencive, lighter action. All good things.
Leo

quote:

The 375 Ruger necked from 7 mm up to 458 would make a good line of cartridges.

375 Ruger/7mm, 30 cal, 338, 375, 458.

Sure, I'll take a set!

Just put 26" barrels on mine.
except the 7mm, I'll want a 28" bbl on that one.

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:

quote:

The 375 Ruger necked from 7 mm up to 458 would make a good line of cartridges.

375 Ruger/7mm, 30 cal, 338, 375, 458.

Sure, I'll take a set!

Just put 26" barrels on mine.
except the 7mm, I'll want a 28" bbl on that one.

At least 3 of those existed at one time as part of the Newton series...the 7 m/m (.280 Newton), .30 (.30 Newton), and .338 (.33 Newton). He also had a .35 Newton which was factory loaded by Western Cartridge Company up until about WWII IIRC and used .358" diameter bullets.

Some folks have opined that Newton didn't get modern velocities from his cartridges because of the rapid burning rates of the common powders of those days avilable in the U.S., but that may not be so. He did, after all, also invent some progressive burning powders and held the U.S. patent for them.

Trying to answer the question of the short, fat 308 length case. The WSM cases and the Rem. SAUM, and the WSSM cases are all working with the idea.
Newton was just too far ahead of his time and he did not engage the popular gun rag story tellers of his time to promote his excellent case designs.
I think all of the hype over the pros and cons of belted or non belted cases is just a pile of BS- promoted/argued by the same story tellers. Any case design can cause feeding issues if the magazine design and the action are not in sync with the cartridge. Many of the feeding issue myths are generated by somebody building a rifle for a cartridge the action was not designed to feed. Such a rifle should not be sent out into the public until the issue has been corrected. Some action designs are very forgiving and any cartridge that even comes close to the original feeds well enough that the average shooter or in this case the "expert" with a jouralism degree doesn't notice. Sorry for the rant, and The question is valid, and there are people working on the cartridges you are asking about- aaaaaaaathey just have not found the right "story teller" to promote their design yet.

quote:

Originally posted by DuaneinND:
Trying to answer the question of the short, fat 308 length case. The WSM cases and the Rem. SAUM, and the WSSM cases are all working with the idea.
Newton was just too far ahead of his time and he did not engage the popular gun rag story tellers of his time to promote his excellent case designs.
I think all of the hype over the pros and cons of belted or non belted cases is just a pile of BS- promoted/argued by the same story tellers. Any case design can cause feeding issues if the magazine design and the action are not in sync with the cartridge. Many of the feeding issue myths are generated by somebody building a rifle for a cartridge the action was not designed to feed. Such a rifle should not be sent out into the public until the issue has been corrected. Some action designs are very forgiving and any cartridge that even comes close to the original feeds well enough that the average shooter or in this case the "expert" with a jouralism degree doesn't notice. Sorry for the rant, and The question is valid, and there are people working on the cartridges you are asking about- aaaaaaaathey just have not found the right "story teller" to promote their design yet.

A+ + + + +

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

How does one actually aim (use the sights) with this thing?? Are the sights offset from the center line and you keep your head (eye) to the left of the center line (for right handed operators)?? I suppose you still sight using your master (right - for RH shooters) eye??

- mike

Mikee,

Happy New Year!

Both the front & rear sights are off-set for R/H shooters (closely inspect the photo).

Lefties don't count!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mho:
How does one actually aim (use the sights) with this thing?? Are the sights offset from the center line and you keep your head (eye) to the left
/QUOTE]

You are correct. In spite of the fact that it weighs 20 lbs or so I thought it recoiled rather smartly. It probably didn't. I was very young and very skinny. I only fired it prone on the bipod but I saw it shot off a long monopod so that it could be shot at aircraft. We thought it was just about the coolest thing we had ever seen.

The Bren concept is quite interesting in that yes, the sights are offset. Such that a 25 Yards there was a special "zero target" that had an offset bullseye to the actual aiming mark!

No, true, really!

Of course the other "odd fact" is that the reason for the No32 telescopic sight having the windage knob on the "wrong side" is the Bren.

As actually the No32 was meant for the Bren Gun originally and not designed for the No4(T)...it was diverted to that use after the idea of a 'scoped LMG was dropped.

The zero of a Bren was done ALL, windage and elevation, set on the foresight mounted on the barrel.

To that it remains superior to the M60, and others, where I believe you have just one zero set on the gun that takes no account of individual barrel differences.

quote:

Originally posted:
[I suppose you still sight using your master (right - for RH shooters) eye??

Not being critical, just trying to give some more little tidbit of info for use by any who do not already know it. Not all right handed shooters have their right eye as their "master" eye.

For those who have a dominant ("master") left eye, that offset might pose very little problem.

Now, I suspect a left-handed shooter who has a dominant right eye would really find it a pain to shoot the Bren.

30/375 Ruger



300 win mag (~87 grs), 30/375 Ruger (~94 grs), 375 Ruger (~95 grs)

woods,
i may have to do a 338/375 .. it would be the same capacity as a 340

jefe

Would be a good 'un

Halfway between the 338 win mag and 338 RUM



and easier to form from the 375 Ruger brass than the 30/375. Oughta drive the 210 gr 338 bullets at 3000 fps +

Are you going to convert/rechamber a 338 win mag or do it with a new barrel? If you just rechamber an existing 338 win mag then it will save you waiting on a barrel and then refinishing of everything

I was kinda waiting a year to see if someone was going to build a gun in 30/375R and commercialize it. Would make a lot of sense, an unbelted 300 win mag! As would your 338/375R