As an engineer, the second most unforgivable sin is no-value-added complexity.
I say this because the most unforgivable sin is value-subtracted complexity.
I've read on many a long distance forums that belted cases compromise accuracy.
True?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jski View Post
As an engineer, the second most unforgivable sin is no-value-added complexity.
I say this because the most unforgivable sin is value-subtracted complexity.
I've read on many a long distance forums that belted cases compromise accuracy.
True?
As a non engineer, what are you talking about?
Going back to the early 20th Century, the belt was invented to provide a means of headspacing a cartridge without a shoulder or with a minimal shoulder. Jump forward a few decades, and cartridge developers (wildcatters) saw this huge case just begging to be tampered with, and with such a large supply of cartridge cases, they pretty much ignored the belt. Had other large-capacity cases been developed? Yes, but they were harder to come by, being mainly European or obsolete by that time (both of which translated into "hard to get"). One of these cartridge developers was Roy Weatherby, a custom rifle builder with visions of grandeur, and he developed a whole line of cartridges based on the 375 H&H case necked and trimmed to various lengths, and named them all "magnum". No, he didn't coin the term, but he used it for every cartridge he developed, including the 224 Weatherby Magnum and the 240 Weatherby Magnum, which incidentally did not need the belts for headspacing. So, in the mind of the American consumer, magnum = belted case = super amazing special, and worth paying extra for (a fact not lost on Winchester and Remington). So, until the 1980s, at least in the USA, magnum meant it had to be belted.So again, as an engineer, why add something (the belt) that adds no value (has no purpose)?