Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
Case necks splitting
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HMFIC" data-source="post: 1664653" data-attributes="member: 7539"><p>I looked around at Wanenmacher's a little but didn't find any examples of early doubles.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I submit these two points in my final argument:</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HMFIC, post: 1664653, member: 7539"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Ammo & Reloading
Case necks splitting
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom