Not to start another belt vs non-belt discussion.... But the truth is the belt on a lot of cartridges is a left-over of old design, and since it's source was double rifles and headspace issues, and the design of the 375 hh in that era, it would make sense that the children of the 375 HH, lots of them, would have a belt.
Gladly new cartridges have figured out that current designs don't need a belt, but calling something a magnum based on one part of their design isn't effective.
But what about when you design the .458 Lott? Isn't that the magnum of the 458 win mag? Magnum by definition is something that is larger than normal. And what is the 458 win mag larger than? It's a blow out of the 375 that is also a "mag."
And since the 450 marlin is also based on the 375 hh magnum (being a cut down 458 win mag) is it a magnum because it's parent case is? Or is it not since it is a smaller of a magnum? And does it being smaller than the .458 win mag make .458 a magnum?
And if that's true does the 243 make the .30-06 a magnum?
Did the invent of the 416 barret make the 50 bmg a magnum?
So newer cartridges are not throwing in magnum. Chey-tac, lazzeroni, the new proprietary cartridges figured out "magnum" is a played out marketing term.
So if by "true magnum" you are referring to a term over coined based on companies trying to market their cartridges as African type and capable cartridges, then the children of those, including their .2xx caliber kids kept that designation, than those "true magnums" really aren't based on their power or their capacity or their design, but the era of their originating design.
I and then smith and Wesson had to use it to sell handguns.... Casull didn't need to steal any marketing terms.
So I guess the 450 marlin is a magnum!
