I feel that the belted magnums are obsolete.

How about Ruger and Federal or Hornady getting together with a line of cartridges on a RUM or WSM case but to a standard length of 3.3" COL?

The Weatherby line is also designed wrong. Maybe they could make a move?

How about:

"HE MAG cases have .530 rim diameter, .545 base diameter, and a .515 shoulder diameter making these minimum-body taper cases the most efficient case design in production today. The only exception to these case dimensions is the .460, which has a .526 shoulder diameter with a 45� shoulder angle. Cases are commercially manufactured for Heavy Express, Inc. by MAST Technology, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada. Heavy Express Custom reloading dies are manufactured by Hornady Manufacturing Company, Grand Island, Nebraska."

http://www.heavyexpress.com

A note on parentage: Winchester originated the .50-110 blackpowder in the late 19th century, and used that rimmed case for the .348 Winchester in 1935 or so. Jim Busha followed several other experimenters and brought out the Heavy Express line as above. Winchester claims that the .300 Winchester Short Magnum is an original design not based on any other case. Yeah, right! Less charitible souls would say Big Red knocked off the .300 Heavy Express.

jim dodd

------------------
"if you are to busy to
hunt, you are too busy."

[This message has been edited by HunterJim (edited 04-23-2002).]

I also think we could really use a true 25 caliber, something using .250" projectiles. We know the .244" bullets just aren't enough for whitetails, but if we bumped them up just a tad, to the magic 25 cal, then we'd have the perfect rifle for those shy of recoil, yet after a bit more terminal performance then offered by the 24's.

The hell you say! Those "obsolete" (by virtue of what real-world deficiency?) belted magnums already fill in that gap you're talking about between the RUMs and the Short&Fat magnums. They are already fulfilling the need you presented with you initial post, and they'll be around long after most of the RUM/S&F cartridges are gone by the wayside.

It's funny, but the belted magnums have worked perfectly around the world for something like ninety years, and they only became "obsolete" after it was decided to sell cartridges without a belt. More smoke and mirrors to thrill the pilgrims with.......

AD

While the belt is not absolutely necessary, it can serve some useful purposes:

On a straight-sided (or weak-shouldered) round like .458 Winchester, the belt is an excellent substitute for a rim for headspacing. It feeds smoothly compared to a rim in magazine rifles, and provides a reasonably good headspacing stop.

On a bottleneck round (.300 Winchester) a competent handloader will set his die so that the case headspaces on the shoulder, but the belt is in place so that factory loads or first-firing handloads will headspace adequately even if the shoulder is short for the chamber.

The belt is also very handy when forming something like, say, a .300 Jarret from .300 H & H brass -- the case headspaces on the belt while the shoulder is blown out.

The belt is of no use in adding strength to the case or in conferring any other supposed benefits attributed to it down through the years, but it is still a useful design that gives you a "belt and suspenders" approach to headspacing and is far superior to a rim for magazine rifles.

I was just getting my typing fingers warmed up when I got down to the last post.

"And just WHAT is the question that would be answered by changing from .308 to .296???!!!!!"

Ooops, sorry. My fingers were already loaded and cocked, and when I tried to unload them, they just went off...

Rick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HiWall:
I think a .25/06 necked up to .308 would be pretty good.

---

Uhhh, don't we already have that and call it a 30/06?

As for this whole thread, I agree it's always fun to have new things going around. But in reality I don't think a great lot would be achieved that can't be done by existing cartridges and wildcats. A fellow has to get up MIGHTY early to think of anything really new. Dividing up our bore sizes wouldn't really do much but give us some new toys with new names.

All fun but not great lot of substance IMHO.

------------------
A well placed bullet is worth 1,000 ft/lbs of energy.

What do we need new cartridges for when we can create our own? Those cartridges not produced by gun manufacturers are the "wildcats" we create.

About the belt: Thanks, but I like it the way it is, even I the cartridges I use don't need it.

------------------

I have tried all the newbies and so far am not impressed with all the hype, lies and pure bunk that goes with them. I have a chronograph.. Guess this isn't my thread, thank goodness.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

The deficiency is that the case gets weakened at the first firing due to the fact that the chamber drawing holds headspace on the belt and not the shoulder. When a case fails this is where it goes. The belted magnums have a poor record of case life.

"It's funny, but the belted magnums have worked perfectly around the world for something like ninety years,"

Again they have not worked well at all due to the headspace problem.

The trend in cartridge design has been to concentrate the powder in a easy to ignite vessel.

"If you don't know how to make something then make it round. If you can't make it round then make it square"

------------------
If Elmer didn't say it, it probably ain't true.

Uggghhhhhhhhhhh!!

Ross
www.prairiegunworks.com

Right now we have guns that come out of the assembly line with firing mechanism problems, feeding problems, metallic shavings on the chamber and rifling, loose or improperly torqued action screws, bad bedding, and other problems.

Something else we have to think about is as follows: A gun manufacturer stays in business by "making money." Demand dictates what manufacturers will produce.

I think the .505 case would be a good place to start. Nice and enormously fat. Short, meaning 2.0" .264, .284, and .300 cals. Then 2.2" with .300, .35 and 9.62(gotta keep Ray happy) and .375. Then 2.5" in 9.62 and .375. Then for the well-heeled, the full-on, full length monster in .300, .35, 9.62, 375, and 416. Oh hell let's make on the .423 cal too.

Now that would fill up the reloading bench wouldn't it? I'm a marketing genius!!! Now if I can only talk Winchester into it.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Rusty Gunn (edited 04-24-2002).]

------------------
JJWEN

I personally know many other hunters of long experience who've done the same thing. One of them is a Weatherby Award winner (he's shot more legitimate big game than it's likely you or I have ever seen) who's a member of our own local SCI chapter and he's mostly used the .300 Weatherby cartridge for the last forty years with no problems whatsoever.

I'd rather trust in my own experience and the experience of those I know and respect rather than listen to every would-be Chicken Little with something to sell or with a theory to ride who decides to run through the streets telling me and everyone else that belted cases are problematic, when I haven't experienced any problems. It's funny, but all of these ugly problems only seem to be coming to the surface now. Twenty years ago, you didn't hear about any of them. Now I wonder why?

But then, since I haven't had any problems, maybe that means I've been doing something wrong after all and I just didn't know it..............!

AD

------------------
Thanks, Mark G

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:3

The belted magnum design is a problem waiting to happen. Each of us I am sure has had deep but narrow experiance. Since I owned a new Ruger #1 in 7mm Rem Mag since 1969 that had too long of a chamber I can assure you that the cases don't last as long as a normal 30/06 for instance.

The fact that your trophy room is full is irrelevant to belted cartridges but you are the man in that room.

Consider what we would have now for a "magnum" case if Holland and Holland had selected a case like the .404 Jeffrey or if Charles Newton had the business ablity and fortune of Roy Weatherby. We would be rid of a chamber drawing that ruins good cases for no good reason except for straight wall cases such as the 458 Win.

The Holland and Holland company has done more to mess up cartridge design than many. How about the .244 Holland and Holland! I don't think they have a clue what they are doing. Neither did Roy Weatherby.

I would never buy a new .300 magnum rifle now that the .300 WSM and .300 RUM are here.

Well, the way I see it, we're about at the end of new cartridges with any real usefulness.

The short-mags are neat... they fit into modern SA's and have proven inherantly accurate, etc. Yep, I picked up a 300 WSM. I like it and will keep it. The only reason I got it over the 300 Win Mag was because its barrel could functionally be shortened to 22"... A 300 Win Mag would be a bit silly at that length. If I wanted a 24" barrel. I'd go with the 300 Win Mag, belt or no... it still gives 50 to 150 fps more than the WSM. End of story.

As to belts... well, certainly every cartridge designed after the 300 H&H didn't need one, but the idea of "belt" and "magnum" became synonomous in the minds of rifle and ammo buyers (mainly because of Roy Weatherby), and the Co's were loathe to swim against the tide. That was a very wise and shrewd decision based on market realities.

So the little brass cylinders have a miniscule "ring" at the bottom... big-whoop. Headspace on the shoulder! Brass is cheap, and from what I've seen, the slightly narrower (and supposedly "obsolete") belted cartridges are a touch easier to get to feed reliably. That's important.

Recently I've been kicking around the idea of another medium bore... I love the mid-bores, and have primarily used the 338 Win Mag as my "medium" (as well as a 358 Win and 338-06). I've thought about waiting for the 338 WSM or whatever, but I'll tell you what, my experience with the 338 Win Mag has been so positive, so faultless, that I went and bought another stainless Winchester 70 in 338 Win Mag... useless belt and all. It's at Dave Gentry's shop as we speak getting its barrel chopped to 22".

THe 338 Ultra Mag isn't my cup of tea, and the 338 WSM, while cool, may be a long time coming, and will probably/possibly be manufactured with a diminished case capacity in its final version... not much more than the already availale 338-06.

The 338 Win Mag is a great example of a "perfect" cartridge from the 1950's... pushes 225's at 2,850 fps. Recoil is managable compared to the 338 Ultra-No-Belt-Wonder-Mag, 340 Wby or 330 Dakota, yet it has more juice than the 338 WSM (possibly) or 338-06... it's a nicely "balanced" cartridge with or without the belt.

Yeah, belted cartridges are obsolete... only in the minds of people who fantasize about "little brass cylinders." Me, I dream about days in the mountains and on the flats hunting!

Whatever floats your boat!

BA

[This message has been edited by Brad (edited 04-24-2002).]

So far, I've been stupidly "waiting" for twenty-five years for those problems (whatever they might be) to manifest themselves, but (so far anyway, knock on wood!) I STILL have no problems to report.

I guess I still must be doing something wrong. I think I'm going to ask one of those gun writer fellas (if I can someday!) as to why I haven't had any problems with belted cases when ever since those beltless Dakota cartridges came out they've been assurin' us that those belted shells were gonna cause us problems. Somethin' ain't right here........!

AD

The .300 Win Mag as an example has a chamber datum line of 2.2791 +.010" and it's cartridge is specified at 2.27" or .0091" less than the nominal length. So the belted chambers are sloppy on the plus side.

But it seems you already know that.

From your post:

Consider what we would have now for a "magnum" case if Holland and Holland had selected a case like the .404 Jeffrey..etc.

You could not really have the 375 H&H on a rimless case.

It is the belt that allows sloppy chambering and very tapered design. To have the same taper on a rimless but with reliable headspacing, we would need a much bigger case capacity since the case would have to be bigger in diameter at the head to achieve the same taper but with a sufficiently large shoulder.

If we were to use a fat and short case to get the taper but still have sufficient shoulder and thus dupliacte H&H case capacity, we would have the problem that when all else is equal a longer thinner case always must be bale to make the transition from the magazine to the chamber more easily.

Due to the large area, dirt, dust etc, will cause far more resistance on a shoulder than the small belt area. There is no way around this with the rimless case.

In short, a rimless could never achieve what the H&H 375 achieves.

Consider that the 375 was not a necked up neck down but an original. Actually, if you look closely at a 375, especially the 375 Flanged it is very similar to a scaled up 303 British.

In its area of use or general bore size, it has and still does dominate like no other caliber.

A question for you. If the 375 H&H was replaced with a similar capacity rimless case, what would be gained. We know what would be lost.

Mike

I don't have a .300 WM, but belt or not it is one of the most popular cartridges in Alaska, along the .30-06, and the .338WM. Whenever I drop a moose with my .338WM, for some reason the belt on the case never crosses my mind. And all those bear hunting guides who use .375's, .338's and other belted cartridges don't seem to mind.

[This message has been edited by Ray, Alaska (edited 04-25-2002).]

The fact that those three designers fathered a thousand times more guns used in far more severe situations than leaning against a tree while the dude drank Sundowners seems to be lost on some.

The design parameters for a military rifle/cartridge are totally different.

They have an accepted failure rate and a trade off system.

For example, the worlds miltary rifles are all automatic.

However, there would not be one perosn on these forums that would consider an auto as having the same reliability as a bolt action.

The military can have some built in failure rate and that failure rate may well mean that you as an individual soldier do not experience the failure and if you do, who cares....the marketing depatment or the sales department etc.

I would bet that a commercial airliner like a 747 has a much higher degree of safety features than any military aircraft. .

But again, can you explain to me what would be gained by duplicating the 375 H&H ballistics in a rimless case?

Mike