I am not a light bullet lover either. The neck of the 8.5x63 isn't much shorter, if any shorter, than a .338 win. mag's neck anyway.

As to trying to push a smaller case to do the job of the larger case, I don't think that is the situation at all.

Those are the ballistics of that case - period. The .338 WM puts out it's ballistics using the case it has - period.

In that they are similar means the smaller case is more efficient, that's all. It uses less powder to get the job done. Less powder, less recoil, & no belt on a case that doesn't need one as-is the situation with the .338WinMag.

The suggestion for a velid argument for stronger brass is moot - the 63mm or standard '06 case is plenty strong enough for loadings up to and over 20 times per case. Few belted cases last even 5, let alone more loadings. The 8.5x63 doesn't need a belt and nor does the .338 Win Mag. for that matter. It's main problem is it has one.

Ever measure the headspace on those belts? If you did, you'd probably find that neither SAAMI nor CIP standards fit. Much of the belted brass today varies up to between .012" and .016" on headspace, from the 0 point. Shooters who reload belted magnum cases use the shoulder for headspacing. Those who don't & hit the shell holder with the die, ie: FL size, rarely get more than 3 firings from brass before it splits at the web - a normal occurance for excessive headspace - which all factory belted ammo must have, just in case a chamber is made with 'tight' tolerances. I've seen belted magnum US made ammo expand the shoulder forward as much as .100". Guess where that brass came from to move the shoulder that much (or any for that matter)?

The web is the correct answer, btw. Excess headspace is seemingly inherrant in belted cases.

Personally, I don't like belted cases where they aren't needed - maybe it shows?