7 lrm Thoughts

[WildRose]

Show me where I said something incorrect? You didn't read one of my statements correctly and tried to make a sarcastic reply that was wrong. My original statement about Hornady setting things straight was a joke but my info was still correct.

If you had said h&h were trying to get a cartridge that fed smoothly and headspaced correctly then I would have let it go because that would be true. But, if all they were trying to do was get a cartridge to extract properly h&h would have been better off to stay with a rimmed case.

Rimmed cases don't feed or extract well from box magazines.

 

[gregsjt]

Rimmed cases don't feed or extract well from box magazines.

I know... I was trying to convey the fact that the belt doesn't do anything for extraction. The belt was added so that the H&H cases would feed smoothly from a box magazine (like a normal rimless case) and still be able to headspace correctly.

 

[WildRose]

I know... I was trying to convey the fact that the belt doesn't do anything for extraction. The belt was added so that the H&H cases would feed smoothly from a box magazine (like a normal rimless case) and still be able to headspace correctly.

Actually it does. Headspacing off of the belt is an aid in extraction as you're less likely to get excess expansion in the neck area.

 

[gregsjt]

Come on... you're just trying to save face for your buddy. Having a belt might slightly help with extraction but if it does, it was an ancillary benefit. Extraction had nothing to do with the need for a belt in the first place. Feeding and headspacing were the primary goals. Holland and Holland wanted a case that could feed reliably from a box, i.e. rimless, but because of the body taper and shallow shoulder angle, headspacing was a problem, hence the need for a belt.

If the belt was so useful for all three aspects, feeding, headspacing and extraction, why doesn't every dangerous game cartridge have a belt? The Rigby cases don't have belts, the Jeffery cases don't have belts. Come to think of it, if a belt helps so much with extraction, why don't machine gun cartridges have belts? Seems to me extraction is important in a machine gun.

I'm always open to learning something new, so if you can point me to a specific reference I'd love to do some more reading on the subject.

 

[WildRose]

Come on... you're just trying to save face for your buddy. Having a belt might slightly help with extraction but if it does, it was an ancillary benefit. Extraction had nothing to do with the need for a belt in the first place. Feeding and headspacing were the primary goals. Holland and Holland wanted a case that could feed reliably from a box, i.e. rimless, but because of the body taper and shallow shoulder angle, headspacing was a problem, hence the need for a belt.

If the belt was so useful for all three aspects, feeding, headspacing and extraction, why doesn't every dangerous game cartridge have a belt? The Rigby cases don't have belts, the Jeffery cases don't have belts. Come to think of it, if a belt helps so much with extraction, why don't machine gun cartridges have belts? Seems to me extraction is important in a machine gun.

I'm always open to learning something new, so if you can point me to a specific reference I'd love to do some more reading on the subject.

I'm not trying to save anything, I'm simply stating a fact. If everyone did everything the same way they'd have far fewer marketing points to sell their wares.

In that era nearly all the African Magnums were being produced in double guns or single break open actions thus the rimmed cases aided in extraction because they function identically to double and other break open shotgun actions which they were based off of.

 

[WildRose]

Come on... you're just trying to save face for your buddy. Having a belt might slightly help with extraction but if it does, it was an ancillary benefit. Extraction had nothing to do with the need for a belt in the first place. Feeding and headspacing were the primary goals. Holland and Holland wanted a case that could feed reliably from a box, i.e. rimless, but because of the body taper and shallow shoulder angle, headspacing was a problem, hence the need for a belt.

If the belt was so useful for all three aspects, feeding, headspacing and extraction, why doesn't every dangerous game cartridge have a belt? The Rigby cases don't have belts, the Jeffery cases don't have belts. Come to think of it, if a belt helps so much with extraction, why don't machine gun cartridges have belts? Seems to me extraction is important in a machine gun.

I'm always open to learning something new, so if you can point me to a specific reference I'd love to do some more reading on the subject.

.300 Holland & Holland Magnum
History

Designed by the British firm Holland & Holland, the .300 H&H magnum was introduced in 1925, based on the .375 H&H magnum case necked down to .30 caliber.

By 1888 the famous Mauser company of Germany had designed a rimless cartridge which gave reliable feeding in bolt action magazine fed rifles, influencing cartridge design worldwide and forever more. When H&H set about designing their own cartridges for use in bolt action rifles, it was realized that a rimless case head would not on its own prove reliable based on H&H's existing cartridge designs. H&H cartridges traditionally featured a large degree of body taper and gently sloping shoulders in order to aid extraction of cases during worst case scenarios. Head spacing and extraction at this time was obtained via a flanged rim. When attempting to match a rimless case head design to the H&H case, H&H realized that a shallow shoulder would not give positive head spacing, detrimental to both accuracy and extraction. To counter this a small belt was added at the case head, allowing H&H to utilize their tapered case design.

The belted case was first introduced by Holland & Holland on the .400 and .375 NE cartridges in 1904 followed by the famous .375 H&H magnum in 1912 with the .300 H&H arriving 13 years later.... .

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.300+Holland++Holland+Magnum.html

 

[WildRose]

I know... I was trying to convey the fact that the belt doesn't do anything for extraction. The belt was added so that the H&H cases would feed smoothly from a box magazine (like a normal rimless case) and still be able to headspace correctly.

From the same quoted article.

"When attempting to match a rimless case head design to the H&H case, H&H realized that a shallow shoulder would not give positive head spacing, detrimental to both accuracy and extraction. To counter this a small belt was added at the case head, allowing H&H to utilize their tapered case design."

Any more questions?

 

[gregsjt]

Thanks for making my point! That quote tells me that the body taper and shallow shoulder were designed to aid in extraction, the belt designed to aid head spacing. Isn't that what I said?

"H&H cartridges traditionally featured a large degree of body taper and gently sloping shoulders in order to aid extraction of cases during worst case scenarios."

The belt was added because the body taper and shallow shoulder made head spacing a problem.

"H&H realized that a shallow shoulder would not give positive head spacing."

Not being able to head space correctly then made extraction and accuracy a problem.

"H&H realized that a shallow shoulder would not give positive head spacing, detrimental to both accuracy and extraction."

Poor extraction is a symptom of poor head spacing. They fixed the head spacing issue with a belt, then once the case was able to head space correctly it would also extract correctly. Again, the belt didn't enhance extraction, it was designed to fix a head spacing issue. If it is possible to push a case to far into the chamber because a shallow shoulder doesn't provide enough angle for proper head space, of course it will then also be hard to extract. The belt stopped the case from being pushed to far into the chamber, that's it. Do belted cases extract more reliably than non-belted cases?

 

[jasonco]

only downfall is the rebated rim/feeding issues that can evolve.

Why does people automatically default to this?! I had FAR more problems with belted cases 300WIN, 7RM, 7STW and none with "rebated" cases 6.5x284N, 7RUM, 300RUM(x2), 28Nosler!

 

[highdrum]

Why does people automatically default to this?! I had FAR more problems with belted cases 300WIN, 7RM, 7STW and none with "rebated" cases 6.5x284N, 7RUM, 300RUM(x2), 28Nosler!

I shoot 300/270 wsm, 6.5 saum, 30 nosler as well. I haven't had any issues either. The rifle purists don't like em, nor an action that isn't CRF. Personally I want a short fat case with longer neck for varying bullet lengths. I cannot wait for my new custom long throat 30 nosler to be finished. Outruns 300 win/wby without the RUM recoil.

 

[gregsjt]

.300 Holland & Holland Magnum
History



https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.300+Holland++Holland+Magnum.html

Thanks for that link! I ran across that site a long time ago but hadn't been back since. It has a lot of good info, which I enjoy.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I did catch this quote in that same article:

"Although later cartridge designs featured appropriate shoulder angles for reliable head spacing without the need of a belt, the belted case was an easy marketing ploy to symbolize magnum power."

 

[WildRose]

Thanks for that link! I ran across that site a long time ago but hadn't been back since. It has a lot of good info, which I enjoy.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I did catch this quote in that same article:

"Although later cartridge designs featured appropriate shoulder angles for reliable head spacing without the need of a belt, the belted case was an easy marketing ploy to symbolize magnum power."

And? More importantly than marketing the .300 H&H was the parent case for all of the belted magnums that followed.

The term "head" in head stamp comes from the fact that until the advent of bolt action rifles pretty much everything had to be regulated, or "spaced" off of Case Head.

Rigby and other got around the need for the flange, Rum, and belt with radically different tapers and shoulder designs than the H&H and Weatherby magnums.

The fact remains that positive extraction was most certainly a consideration in using the belt and head spacing off of it.

 

[gregsjt]

Nope. They designed the rimmed version of the case with lots of body taper and the long shallow shoulders so that it would extract easier. The rimmed case extracted just fine without a belt. Its not like they looked at that design and said hey I bet if we add a belt it would extract even easier. They already had a case that extracted reliably. They wanted a case that could feed from a box magazine. However, when they went to a rimless version of the same case they couldn't get it to head space correctly because of the body taper and long shallow shoulder, so they made a compromise. They added a small belt, which provided a rim to set the head space from. With the belt the case wouldn't get jammed to far into the chamber and because the head space was correct it would also extract properly.

I feel like we are just arguing semantics at this point, who really cares? Everyone knows that belts are as useless as tits on boar. Maybe we should argue about a belted case having a stronger head than a rimless case? That could be fun.

From your link above, but on the .375 H&H Page:
"In 1904 the firm released a radically new cartridge case design, the rimless belted cartridge. This case design allowed for positive head spacing of the cartridge on the belt rather than on the shoulder of the cartridge, a useful aspect for a cartridge firing a bullet nearly as wide as its case body with little shoulder, or rather, a very long and shallow sloping shoulder. The H&H case also featured a long taper to help minimize the risk of cases sticking after firing, a situation that could (and did) prove disastrous when hunting dangerous game. The rimless case head also allowed Holland & Holland to adopt the popular Mauser M98 action system which did not feed traditional rimmed cartridges particularly well."

From the same article:
"The .375 H&H is significantly important in cartridge history due to the fact that it became the parent case design for many 20th century high capacity magnum cartridges. Many would consider this to be most unfortunate as rather than simply adopt the case capacity of the .375 H&H, companies also adopted the H&H belt. This feature was useful on the parent .375 due to its heavily tapered case and shallow shoulder angle, however modern cartridges with less body taper and sharper shoulders did not really need this. Nevertheless, the belt stayed on for marketing purposes to symbolize power."

 

[WildRose]

Nope. They designed the rimmed version of the case with lots of body taper and the long shallow shoulders so that it would extract easier. The rimmed case extracted just fine without a belt. Its not like they looked at that design and said hey I bet if we add a belt it would extract even easier. They already had a case that extracted reliably. They wanted a case that could feed from a box magazine. However, when they went to a rimless version of the same case they couldn't get it to head space correctly because of the body taper and long shallow shoulder, so they made a compromise. They added a small belt, which provided a rim to set the head space from. With the belt the case wouldn't get jammed to far into the chamber and because the head space was correct it would also extract properly.

I feel like we are just arguing semantics at this point, who really cares? Everyone knows that belts are as useless as tits on boar. Maybe we should argue about a belted case having a stronger head than a rimless case? That could be fun.

From your link above, but on the .375 H&H Page:
"In 1904 the firm released a radically new cartridge case design, the rimless belted cartridge. This case design allowed for positive head spacing of the cartridge on the belt rather than on the shoulder of the cartridge, a useful aspect for a cartridge firing a bullet nearly as wide as its case body with little shoulder, or rather, a very long and shallow sloping shoulder. The H&H case also featured a long taper to help minimize the risk of cases sticking after firing, a situation that could (and did) prove disastrous when hunting dangerous game. The rimless case head also allowed Holland & Holland to adopt the popular Mauser M98 action system which did not feed traditional rimmed cartridges particularly well."

From the same article:
"The .375 H&H is significantly important in cartridge history due to the fact that it became the parent case design for many 20th century high capacity magnum cartridges. Many would consider this to be most unfortunate as rather than simply adopt the case capacity of the .375 H&H, companies also adopted the H&H belt. This feature was useful on the parent .375 due to its heavily tapered case and shallow shoulder angle, however modern cartridges with less body taper and sharper shoulders did not really need this. Nevertheless, the belt stayed on for marketing purposes to symbolize power."

Greg everything I said above is correct and we've derailed this thread farther than we should have so let's let it drop.