Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Ya I tried to split them up to make it not so easy. Good job though, I'm impressed that you got 7 of the 9 right out of the box.
I'll make it harder next time and find a bunch of old obsolete Winchester calibers.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Ya I tried to split them up to make it not so easy. Good job though, I'm impressed that you got 7 of the 9 right out of the box.
I'll make it harder next time and find a bunch of old obsolete Winchester calibers.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Ya I tried to split them up to make it not so easy. Good job though, I'm impressed that you got 7 of the 9 right out of the box.
I'll make it harder next time and find a bunch of old obsolete Winchester calibers.
Man that's BS, 8mm rem mag was a good guess for 340 wby - the only difference is the shoulder and like .010 bullet diameter. I want at least half a point!!!
Man that's BS, 8mm rem mag was a good guess for 340 wby - the only difference is the shoulder and like .010 bullet diameter. I want at least half a point!!!
Close but no ceee-gar.
C'mon, I mean to not ID it at least as a wby on the first try with that shoulder
Besides, when you called the .458 WM an Express, you'd have lost the half point. .458 Express is like 50 yards longer than a WM.
What do you have a bunch of these laying around like I do too? If only I had all the rifles for the cartridges I own, then I'd be happy.
Shoulder was hard to tell on the pic - so its all your fault.Close but no ceee-gar.
C'mon, I mean to not ID it at least as a wby on the first try with that shoulder
Besides, when you called the .458 WM an Express, you'd have lost the half point. .458 Express is like 50 yards longer than a WM.
What do you have a bunch of these laying around like I do too? If only I had all the rifles for the cartridges I own, then I'd be happy.
As a punishment for messing up 458s - I think I'm going to order barrel/brass/dies for 458 wm for my wsm savage (single load obviously)
Yes, I do collect cartridges ... but the pic is "borrowed" and edited.
back-on-topic:
I can't find any pics of 375 belted extractors in doubles - I saw a lot of rifles, just no close ups of the extractors. 375 flanged does make a strong case that belt was not good for extraction, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't intended purpose.
You're probably right. I once thought that there was a woman to blame, but I know... it's my own damned fault.
That sounds like the perfect penance.
Any particular area of most interest? I could probably fill some gaps with the amount of extras I have.
I'm eagerly awaiting Holland & Holland's answer. They probably don't have much time or inclination to facilitate questions for people who aren't spending more than a car for a double rifle, but I tried to appeal to their sense of historical accuracy with my email.
I adjust so the shoulder doesn't get pushed back, and trim to length. Splits can occur when the case mouth grows beyond the optimum length.
I also have one of the collet dies that size the case just above the belt. I have had some used brass that wouldn't chamber in my gun until I did
that operatiuon. When I do have case mouth splits, I usually make 7mm mag brass out of the 300 stuff and get a few more shots out of it..Blitzfike
I also have one of the collet dies that size the case just above the belt. I have had some used brass that wouldn't chamber in my gun until I did
that operatiuon. When I do have case mouth splits, I usually make 7mm mag brass out of the 300 stuff and get a few more shots out of it..Blitzfike
OK well I haven't heard doodly-squat back from the email I sent to Holland & Holland.
I sent it to the UK gun room since they ought to be the keepers of the knowledge there, but I'll try the NYC and whatever others they have around.
I know there will be some double rifle type collectors at the Wanenmacher's show. If I get a chance to walk around, I'll try to get their ear on the subject and see if they have any examples of early 1900's double rifles to check out chamberings and extraction methods.
I sent it to the UK gun room since they ought to be the keepers of the knowledge there, but I'll try the NYC and whatever others they have around.
I know there will be some double rifle type collectors at the Wanenmacher's show. If I get a chance to walk around, I'll try to get their ear on the subject and see if they have any examples of early 1900's double rifles to check out chamberings and extraction methods.
I looked around at Wanenmacher's a little but didn't find any examples of early doubles.
I did speak with a few people who should know including the guy against the far East wall on the lower level who reloads all of the big and dangerous game calibers and obsolete stuff.
He agreed with my premise that the belt has and had absolutely nothing to do with extraction directly, that the only way it only aids in feeding or extraction is by it's lack of a rim in a bolt action, magazine fed rifle. Sure, it is possible to successfully use a rimmed cartridge in a bolt action rifle, there are many examples, but it's certainly not the most reliable scenario. Remember too that H&H at the time was looking to compete with the onslaught of Mauser action rifles that were looking to cut into their stranglehold on the African hunting market. They evidently felt that postive claw extraction and rimless design for feeding was the way to go for that type action. When you couple all of this with the fact that in the early 20th century, brass and chamber tolerances aren't exactly what they are today, I can understand their desire to headspace from something more positive and repeatable than a long tapering neck at that time. It is necessary for headspace today? Arguably no... but that doesn't mean it wasn't back then or at the very least percieved to be an issue. Remember this part of the discussion was the reason and intent behind the belt, not it's practical use or need in today's world. Most everyone would agree now that bumping the shoulder back slightly to headspace from it is the way to go for both accuracy and case life and Blitzfikes collet die / slight or no bump seems to be the answer to the OP and his splitting problem.
I submit these two points in my final argument:
1. IF H&H truly only introduced the belt on the .375 H&H Belted Rimless Magnum for extraction purposes, then why did they also introduce a .375 Flanged (same cartridge only rimmed) at the same time designed for use in double guns? Wouldn't they have just chambered their double guns in .375 H&H?
2. In order to arrive at the conclusion that the belt was incorporated for direct, positive extraction, wouldn't there have to be firearms that actually do use the belt as a method of extraction? I submit that there are no firearms that exist or have existed; double gun, bolt action or otherwise that use the belt on a magnum cartridge for direct extraction. I believe all .375 H&H Magnum cartridges are and have been extracted via spring loaded pawls (on double guns), claw type extraction or other methods that use the extraction groove rather than the belt.
I believe the beginning of the Wiki article on the .375 H&H to be incorrect and without sufficient documentation to prove. I'll be looking into the method to challenge and change it.
I did speak with a few people who should know including the guy against the far East wall on the lower level who reloads all of the big and dangerous game calibers and obsolete stuff.
He agreed with my premise that the belt has and had absolutely nothing to do with extraction directly, that the only way it only aids in feeding or extraction is by it's lack of a rim in a bolt action, magazine fed rifle. Sure, it is possible to successfully use a rimmed cartridge in a bolt action rifle, there are many examples, but it's certainly not the most reliable scenario. Remember too that H&H at the time was looking to compete with the onslaught of Mauser action rifles that were looking to cut into their stranglehold on the African hunting market. They evidently felt that postive claw extraction and rimless design for feeding was the way to go for that type action. When you couple all of this with the fact that in the early 20th century, brass and chamber tolerances aren't exactly what they are today, I can understand their desire to headspace from something more positive and repeatable than a long tapering neck at that time. It is necessary for headspace today? Arguably no... but that doesn't mean it wasn't back then or at the very least percieved to be an issue. Remember this part of the discussion was the reason and intent behind the belt, not it's practical use or need in today's world. Most everyone would agree now that bumping the shoulder back slightly to headspace from it is the way to go for both accuracy and case life and Blitzfikes collet die / slight or no bump seems to be the answer to the OP and his splitting problem.
I submit these two points in my final argument:
1. IF H&H truly only introduced the belt on the .375 H&H Belted Rimless Magnum for extraction purposes, then why did they also introduce a .375 Flanged (same cartridge only rimmed) at the same time designed for use in double guns? Wouldn't they have just chambered their double guns in .375 H&H?
2. In order to arrive at the conclusion that the belt was incorporated for direct, positive extraction, wouldn't there have to be firearms that actually do use the belt as a method of extraction? I submit that there are no firearms that exist or have existed; double gun, bolt action or otherwise that use the belt on a magnum cartridge for direct extraction. I believe all .375 H&H Magnum cartridges are and have been extracted via spring loaded pawls (on double guns), claw type extraction or other methods that use the extraction groove rather than the belt.
I believe the beginning of the Wiki article on the .375 H&H to be incorrect and without sufficient documentation to prove. I'll be looking into the method to challenge and change it.
Last edited:
Put it up.
Make sure you have google active on another tab. Good info.
Similar threads
