I've heard an answer that I believe makes perfect sense, I'd like to hear what you all have heard.

It was for headspacing of tapered non-rimmed cases. Then it got associated with "magnum" and was then used on many cases that didn't need it and we were stuck with it.

Think of a rim pulled up!

the "normal" round, before turnbolt guns, was rimmed..

then there was headspace on the shoulder..

the 300 hh doesn't have enough "stop" to headspace on the shoulder....


they pulled the rim UP... made it a belt...

and the 300 HH is a darn sight easier to get to feed than the similar sized 404 jeffe assuming you are starting with a mauser

today it's a question of choice, not need
jeffe

.

Headspace.

I have been told, that when MASS producing rifles, it is lest costly for the manufacturer to do so with belted calibers than it is to do with beltless rimless calibers like a 30-06.
If true, even if it is only "pennies or quarters" saved per rifle, it could be a benefit to such manufacturer.
Is this true?

Regardless for the reasons and everyone here made their case justifiably, try checking most factory rifles with a GO/NO-GO gauge. I think you'll find that proper headspace is a sometimes thing with most rifles closing on a NO-GO gauge. When headspacing a "belted magnum" case, I use the GO gauge as a NO-GO and chamber it so that the bolt handle will only close part way on the gauge. I've never had any factory case fail to chamber with any "feel" doing it that way.

It was probably easier to get a belted cartridge to function in a double than a none belted cartridge...

..

Alf, your explanation makes more sense than anything I have ever heard and yours is backed up with evidence. Nuff said.

I've read it's because a cartridge such as the straight-walled 458 Win mag needs it to control headspace. How else would you headspace a straight-walled rimless round?
The mouth, ala 45ACP? Not hardly.

.

quote:

Why Was The Belt Put On The Case In The First Place, Less Costly Mass Production?

Actually this is Top Secret so don’t let it out. The Anti’s put them out there just to get all of us to fight over it!

quote:

Originally posted by Jay Johnson:

quote:

Why Was The Belt Put On The Case In The First Place, Less Costly Mass Production?

Actually this is Top Secret so don’t let it out. The Anti’s put them out there just to get all of us to fight over it!

Alf's answer is absolutely correct. It not only had nothing to do with headspacing the .300 H&H, it was patented/produced at least a half-dozen years before the Super-Thirty (.300 H&H) came into existance.

It also had nothing to do with double rifles, which were already functioning just fine with rimmed cases. Matter of fact, most would agree that doubles function BETTER with rimmed cases than with belted ones (more absolutely certain extraction with the extractor in front of the flange of a rimmed cartridge reather than in the groove of a belted case).

It was primarily as ALF says, with maybe the slight addition that in a magazine repeater, you get the easier fit of the extractor combined with the easy magazine stacking of a rimless round, AND easy headspacing almost as good as a flanged round as well. That at least was the logic given in various desriptive sporting articles of the day and in the years immediately afterward.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The first commercial belted case was in fact by the Spencer company who in 1868 the belt stopped the case from being driven into the chamber.

If this was the first "belt" it sounds like a headspace type of thing to me. Don't know where "double flange" came into the arguement, but the 1st flange was the headspace and the 2nd. (rim) for extraction only.
Have I got that right??

Because they knew there was a nut down the line that would build big straight cases, that liked belts to headspace with....Ed the nut.

.

quote:

Originally posted by hubel458:
Because they knew there was a nut down the line that would build big straight cases, that liked belts to headspace with....Ed the nut.

hey, I resemble that!!



Alf,
while the first patent is for extracting (i'll give you that).. let's talk about turnbolt rifles rather than a double/breakopen... as the extractor doesn't interact with the belt

.... for headspace on the 300 HH... and then all the rest... of course, otherwise, one wouldn't use the belt's height TO headspace

jeffe

But guys, does anyone know the answer to this question;
is it cheaper for a MASS PRODUCER of bolt action rifles to do so in belted cartridge chamberings, like 300 win mag, compared to doing so in non belted rimless designs like 30-06?

quote:

Originally posted by BigFiveJack:
But guys, does anyone know the answer to this question;
is it cheaper for a MASS PRODUCER of bolt action rifles to do so in belted cartridge chamberings, like 300 win mag, compared to doing so in non belted rimless designs like 30-06?

directly? not a cent...

whoever, having bespoke cases, and/or casehead big enough to go langer reduces costs by not having bespoke actions and/or feeding issues.

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by BigFiveJack:
But guys, does anyone know the answer to this question;
is it cheaper for a MASS PRODUCER of bolt action rifles to do so in belted cartridge chamberings, like 300 win mag, compared to doing so in non belted rimless designs like 30-06?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I would pose the question: why should it be cheaper to chamber for a belted as opposed to for a rimless cartridge?? Mass producers of rifles normally have 2 ways of implementing specific chambers: either chambers are cut with a reamer, or chambers are formed as part of the hammer forging of the barrel. In either case, there is nothing obvious telling me a belted chamber should be cheaper to produce than a rimless chamber. But maybe I'm not aware of all the details??

- mike

quote:

All we have to go by are the original descriptions of the patents and why the patents were granted. So if Accles claims his patent has to do with extraction and protection of breech integrity and it is so noted verbatum who am I to argue?

Hmmm... I may not be understanding things quite correctly here. It sounds to me like Accles solved an extraction problem (actually a weak-breech problem caused by the single flange extraction requirements) by creating a second flang upon which to headspace. So the second flang (belt) fufilled the headspacing needs(instead of the first flange), just not the headspacing purpose we are accustomed to hearing about, namely that of "not enough shoulder." Yes? No?

Moving to the bolt rifle with rimless cases... does the belt serve a legitimate headspacing purpose for the 300 H&H or not? The extraction-based motivation for the belt would not apply to a rimless case.

quote:

I have been told, that when MASS producing rifles, it is lest costly for the manufacturer to do so with belted calibers than it is to do with beltless rimless calibers like a 30-06.
If true, even if it is only "pennies or quarters" saved per rifle, it could be a benefit to such manufacturer.
Is this true?

First, I think we need to be thinking in mid-late 1800's time and methods, not modern production methods.

Second, I think the comparisons need to be made are from rimmed and belted cases, not rimless ones, as they were uncommon (non-existant) when the events in question were starting. Also, the real need for them materialized with the stacked magazine rifles that were becoming common in the late 1800's.

While the belted case might have been invented earlier, the events which made it popular are the ones I see as important. In that regard, it was (and probably still is) easier to make a magazine rifle work with a belted case than a rimmed one.

My conclusion, FWIW, is that the belted case was easier to make function during the early days of stacked magazine rifles. So yes, the answer is that it was a production driven decision...and we all know how momentum gets built up once an idea is accepted! We still have it today, though it serves no real good purpose.

The need for the belt on 99% of cartridges produced is not necessary, due to the fact that they can easily be headspaced at the shoulder.

From what I've heard over the years, the belt came into wide usage at H&H on their 375. They wanted a cartridge that could function in a bolt-action rifle, as well as a double and with the use of smokeless powder producing knockdown results that would compete with the larger bore blackpowder rifles with rimmed cases that were in use.
In a double, without a belt, or rimmed case, it don't work. But in a bolt, the rim hampers the feeding. They basically killed 2 birds with one stone.

From what I can see, I'd say they fixed the headspace and extraction problems with the belt on some cartridges for some rifles.

The 300 Winchester Magnum is a good example of a waste to have a belt on. Serves no purpose in 99% of rifles it's chambered in and can easily be headspaced at the shoulder.

JMO.

I'm not sure that everything above is historically accurate.

400/375 is 1905
375 H&H is 1912 (375 flanged also I think)
300 H&H 1925 (by necking down the .375)

So, the .375 H&H introduces the belt on a rifle caliber (not a shotgun) to solve a headspace problem on a high pressure cartridge, the .375 H&H flanged is introduced at the same time as (or just after) the belted 375 for double gun owners who wanted a rimmed cartridge with near equivalent performance, and the 300 H&H is introduced 13 years later by necking down the .375 for use on the same action and bolt face as the .375.

.

Alf, no argument from me, but have we answered the initial question? It would seem from the evidence that the first mass produced cartridge with a belt was the .375 H&H Magnum, and, the belt was Holland's solution to the headspace problem on a high (relatively for the time) pressure cartridge. In other words, it was not a production cost decision.

Just because they all wanted to mess with our minds

It reduced production costs in one aspect,
compared to rimmed, in that a chamfer cut
didn't have to be made on end of the barrel,
With belt, extractor was back away from barrel end.Ed.

Jack: cheaper and easier to headspace many different cartridges with only one H&H-belted gauge, and another one for the big-Weatherby-belted derivatives, otherwise no benefits to cost or quality.

Alf: Your research is much appreciated.

Let's get away from the idea, suggested by Triggrguard, that the .375 H&H belt might have been designed with double rifles in mind. NOT. The .375 Flanged was, and is, for double rifle. The belted .375 H&H is not a good double rifle cartridge despite having been used in many during the dry years when .375 Flanged ammo was not availabe. Pressures are high, extractors can't get a good grip. I had extraction trouble with a Westley Richards detachable lock rifle in .375 H&H, surely at the top of the double rifle prestige and quality pyramid. Look at the tiny teeth that engage the extraction groove in most .375 H&H doubles and you will see why it can give trouble. Even the W/R, which had an extractor that engaged a quarter of the extraction groove, could not hack it every shot.

quote:

Originally posted by vigillinus:
Let's get away from the idea, suggested by Triggrguard, that the .375 H&H belt might have been designed with double rifles in mind. NOT. The .375 Flanged was, and is, for double rifle. The belted .375 H&H is not a good double rifle cartridge despite having been used in many during the dry years when .375 Flanged ammo was not availabe. Pressures are high, extractors can't get a good grip. I had extraction trouble with a Westley Richards detachable lock rifle in .375 H&H, surely at the top of the double rifle prestige and quality pyramid. Look at the tiny teeth that engage the extraction groove in most .375 H&H doubles and you will see why it can give trouble. Even the W/R, which had an extractor that engaged a quarter of the extraction groove, could not hack it every shot.

When exactly were the "dry years" for 375 Flanged ammo???

What I've stated above was merely what has been explained to me on more than several occasions by people who owned double rifles and were quite versed in the cartridges in question.

It sure seems to be a plausible theory based on what I've seen thus far, but like I also stated......You can keep your belts, as most are worthless. Very few cartridges actually would ever need them in the rifles that they are chambered in 99% of the time.

"Belted Magnum" is nothing more than a good sales gimmick.....much like "Short Magnum" is now, but with even less merit, as it adds nothing to the performance of the cartridge.