belted magnums good bad or just ugly?

[kiwikid]

JE Custom you mentioned the feeding issues associated with rimmed cases which I am fully aware of. Having never used a belted case can you or anyone else explain why the belt on the case doesn't cause similar problems please?

 

[Greyfox]

I have had no issues with performance or feeding. I headspace off the shoulder.

 

[J E Custom]

JE Custom you mentioned the feeding issues associated with rimmed cases which I am fully aware of. Having never used a belted case can you or anyone else explain why the belt on the case doesn't cause similar problems please?

The rim of a case fits on the outside of the breach and is normally much larger than a belt has to be because it fits in the chamber which is very controlled in the diameter.
With the rim being much larger, it has to be stacked in front of the last one loaded in a magazine or used in a tubular mag like a leaver action that places them one in front of the other.

The belt is normally only .011 thousandths larger than the case body. (.022 overall) and can easily be stacked on top of each other in a magazine to feed well. The back of the belt can/is also rounded off to aid feeding past the lower round in the magazine. Also the case head is smaller than the belt so it does not have an effect on feeding.

The rimed case head on average is .084 larger than the body on most rimed cases and will not pass buy each other because of the combined height of the two rims and the flat surfaces on both sides of the rim while feeding so they are placed in front of each other in the mag. Thus the reason that the feed system is much different for the rimed cases.

J E CUSTOM

 

[J E Custom]

[QUOTE="The belts are useless antiques, simply unnecessary today.

If I were going hunting dangerous game, I would not consider anything but a belted case because of the designed safety it possesses. Before the belt was designed and used. many PH's sized more than necessary to improve the chances that they would chamber better under field conditions and always checked each round to see if it would chamber before they went hunting. This practice still did not assure 100% reliability, so many PH's preferred the double rifles so they knew that they had at least 2 shots with the chance that with the firing and extraction of the first rounds the chamber would except the manually load next rounds. The advent of the bolt action rifle only increased the need for the belt because they only held one round in the chamber and the second shot was iffy.

I have had shouldered cases fail to chamber after the first shot because of un burnt powder fouling from the first shot when loads were sized to a minimum to improve case life, but other than frustration I was not in any danger from a crazed deer or Coyote.

The belts eliminated this problem by sizing the case body much smaller than the chamber allowing the round to chamber in a dirty or powder fouled chamber and maintaining the proper head space for safety. Brass life was never an issue as long as you didn't end up that red stuff between the Elephants toes. Belts were always a good idea and still are for some types of hunting. They are hear to stay.

J E CUSTOM

 

[crkckr]

No one in their right mind goes hunting dangerous game with a dirty rifle... not saying it doesn't happen but there are all kinds out there, not all of which are in their right mind! Nor, I think, would someone head out after something that could bite back with a tight chambered rifle... but again, you never know for certain! Personally, I think it's natures way of getting rid of the stupid ones! You can educate ignorant but you just can't fix stupid. (No, JE, I am certainly not calling you stupid, I find it difficult to believe someone with your experience could fall for any of the traps you mentioned, especially since you already know about them).

I do chamber check all of my PD and hunting ammo (especially the factory stuff!), to make sure it will both chamber and eject properly. Not so much practice ammo, but it does get a good visual inspection, at the very least. I also tend to use new brass when hunting, so the odds of having problems chambering the next round are virtually nonexistent for me, other than a possible short stroke or something of that nature. I've never hunted anything that could potentially bite back but I've kept my cool in emergencies before so I would hope to do the same if something ever came at me with ill intent, be it human or otherwise. My .338 WM has a belt but it serves no actual purpose and I would feel perfectly comfortable without it.
Cheers,
crkckr

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

No one in their right mind goes hunting dangerous game with a dirty rifle...

crkckr

You've never hunted a gumbo flat then have you... I'm very careful about my rifles, but 2 years ago I pulled a 7mm stw cartridge from my pocket and somehow it had a gumbo booger on it and bound up the rifle. I had already stuffed a couple in the mag so out the jamb went and the next one went in. I pulled that one and it showed that there was still a bit of that greasy crap in the chamber, so in went a shotgun mop to clean the chamber after I was done hunting at that spot. I still had a working rifle and probably could have chambered the first cartridge.
As to accuracy, this rifle commonly dumps 3 140 Accubonds into 1/2 to 8/10 inch at 200 yards, even with its "loose chamber"... Incidentally that chamber was cut with a brand new Manson reamer...

 

[coop2564]

Been loading them for 33 years. All good.

 

[shooter7]

So my question to both of you, in particular probably to crkcrk because of your comments re 'meaningless & useless' & 'its a handover from days gone by'.
So me as a hunter that has never owned or reloaded for a belted cartridge why would I go out & buy a rifle in a belted cartridge where there are many equivalent rimless options available??

Im wondering why if it is such a defunct design why they are even still available??

Sure, the belt on the 300wm 338wm and 7mm rem mags dont serve the same purpose as their parent cartridge, but one major consideration is the availability. Until support and availability of non belted magnums catch up to the belted magnums, I'm gonna go with what's affordable and available. It might be different for you but I like the fact I can go 5 blocks to the gas station and pick up either loaded ammo or brass for my 300wm.

 

[Calvin45]

I say they're good and not even ugly! The belt serves no real purpose admittedly (in my .300 win anyway) but it doesn't bother anything either. No feeding issues whatsoever. No problem head spacing on the shoulder or even neck sizing only if you wish to. I played with that a bit but now I always full length resize anything I plan on hunting with.

 

[SilverbulletMAG]

Haven't read all the comments but my #1 gripe with belted magnums is case life, or lack thereof.

 

[shooter7]

Haven't read all the comments but my #1 gripe with belted magnums is case life, or lack thereof.

Interesting thought. What do you consider to be a lack of case life?

 

[swe123]

Around here it boils down to; Creedmores don't have belts therefore belts are bad.

 

[SilverbulletMAG]

Interesting thought. What do you consider to be a lack of case life?

...compared to non-belted. I'm doing good if I can get anywhere near 10 reloadings of 338 win where any non- belted (300 RUM for instance) I'd be bummed to get any less than 10 as I get closer to 20 routinely.
*anneal usually every other loading, barely bump shoulder, careful prep, minimal trim etc., etc.

 

[shooter7]

...compared to non-belted. I'm doing good if I can get anywhere near 10 reloadings of 338 win where any non- belted (300 RUM for instance) I'd be bummed to get any less than 10 as I get closer to 20 routinely.
*anneal usually every other loading, barely bump shoulder, careful prep, minimal trim etc., etc.

What type of failures/issues do you see in belted cases?