I would have to concur with you. The existence of all the unbelted cartridges before the belted cartridge was introduced would be enough evidence to negate the "need" for a belt. I suspect it wasn't all about cheating on workmanship, even though the belt does "ease" some of the effort of manufacturing. I do believe there was a considerable attempt at marketing here. New and improved! "My God, it's so powerful they had to belt the case!" Their advertising of the day seems to indicate this. I suppose in some cases the argument could be made that a belted case offered some versatility to the action manufacturer. The belted case theoretically allowed the advantages of both a rimmed cartridge for singles/doubles and a rimless case for mauser/bolt rifles. Negating the necessity of two versions of the same cartridge. Here we are now, and of course, modern single/double rifles handle rimless cartridges reliably. I can remember the belt issue being hotly debated even in the later part of the last century when such firms as Weatherby (belted) and Dakota (non belted) made their cases (no pun intended) for power and performance. Is there a "need" for a belt? I would have to say no. Have I used belted cartridges satisfactorily? Absolutely. Norman4