.375 H&H verses .416 Rem. or Rigby

20 November 2001, 19:25

loud-n-boomer

If you could only have either a .375 H&H or a .416 Remington/Rigby which would you choose and why (No other choices are allowed)? The gun will be used in North America on Elk and larger game, and in Africa on plains game and buffalo. In Africa you will be on the "standard guided hunt". You have the option of whatever bullet weights you want, and can handload for the gun.

21 November 2001, 00:36

<Don G>

l-n-b,

That is a tough choice. I wound up with a .416 Rem because (I thought) I got a good deal on it. I really like the 416 and will probably never change. But I sort of dread filing in the three leaf Express iron sights! The 416 off the bench is no picnic.

If I lost all my dies, supllies and rifles in a fire I might choose the 375 H&H. More bullets, more brass, more choices all 'round. And the 300 gr. bullets seem to penetrate forever.

The recoil of the 375 is respectable, but not likely to induce flinching in a true hunter/shooter. Most people at the range will not shoot my 416 a second time.

Don

21 November 2001, 02:41

John S

The buffalo and possibly brown bear are the only species mentioned that the 416 is superior for. If you intend to hunt a lot of buffalo, lion and brown bear then I would pick it, but most hunters hunt a time or two for each and call it done. The dozens of other species require much less so the 375 becomes the obvious choice here. You're trying to make a specialized rifle into something it isn't with the 416.

[This message has been edited by John S (edited 11-20-2001).]

21 November 2001, 03:30

Zero Drift

I agree with John S that for most situations, the .375 is difficult to beat. Especially when you throw in North American game.

It is easy to find yourself in long range situations while elk hunting. It is not unusual to be shooting 300 + yards at an elk. While in Africa, you seldom shoot a buff, ele, lion further than 100 yards.

The .375 is a little flatter shooting than the .416, however the .416 Rigby offers a considerable step up in terminal performance. The other factor to consider is recoil. Many shooters do not handle recoil well making the .375 a more suitable caliber. At the end of the day, accuracy counts.

All in all, ï¿½Iï¿½ would select the .416 over the .375 for any larger North American or African game. Recoil is not a big issue with me. I destroyed my caution, pain, and flinch brain cells long ago. If you threw in a .338 and a .416 into the mix, there is nothing on this planet that I would be scared of shooting.

21 November 2001, 05:43

Curtis_Lemay

easy, .375 H&H. Until you start wacking at at a bunch of tenacious, unruly, ill-tempered creatures the grand majority of the time you don't needa 416.

------------------
When in doubt, do a nuclear strike.

21 November 2001, 06:05

Atkinson

The 416 owns that world, it will shoot as flat as a 375 and is much better for nasty animals.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

21 November 2001, 06:31

I'm going to have to go with my Ruger M77 in .416 Rigby. Mostly because I shoot it so well and partly because I don't ever want to be wondering if I am packing enough " Big Medicine". The .416 kicks hard, but not hard enough that a dedicated shooter cannot learn to become accustomed to it.

------------------
JR

21 November 2001, 12:33

Paul H

I'd definately go with the 416. While you may only hunt dangerous game a few times in your life, isn't it better to have more gun for the situations where it isn't called for, rather then not quite enough gun when its needed?

Since to get the most out of the 375, you'll use two loads, you can do the same with the 416. A 416 with a 300 or 325 gr bullet at ~2700 is certainly as capable as the 375 with 270 gr bullets at longer ranges.

21 November 2001, 12:47

Nickudu

.375

21 November 2001, 13:31

Oldsarge

Anything the .375 isn't big enough for, the .416 isn't big enough for. The stuff that scares me gets a .458 Class III, everything else gets a .375.
Sarge

21 November 2001, 14:19

<Terry P>

.375HH
Just use the heaviest bullets and pack the case full of powder for the buffalo.

21 November 2001, 14:55

McCray

Keeping two things in mind, the answer is easy. Four-one-six.

The two things that lead to that conclusion are that (A) if it's the only tool in the cabinet, I'm going to use it enough that any slight advantage the H&H has in trajectory will be mute. And (B), I beleive in being prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. The 416 will handle the worst.

23 November 2001, 22:57

Finley

I think would all depend on what caliber you have the most confidence. I bet that either one would be just as effective as the other. The ONLY situation where the 416 might be better would be for Cape Buffalo. Having never hunted them or shot one head of game with a 416 I couldn't really say for sure. But I bet the ole .375H&H has killed at least a couple buff!

I would certainly pick the 375 and I will continue to use mine on everything until I find it is no longer effective. Which I don't think will be anytime soon!

Jarrett

24 November 2001, 04:08

ALF

24 November 2001, 13:39

<jagtip>

Handgun hunters argue about 41 mag vs. 44 mag,etc.Rifle hunters argue about 270 win vs.30/06 etc.Same thing here,just on a different scale.If you've got a 375 H&H,you don't need a 416.If you've got a 416,you don't need a 375.There are obvious differences,but in the final analysis,they both pretty much accomplish the same thing.

27 November 2001, 10:20

Socrates

OK: Of the various versions of 375 out there, which one is prefered, and which one is the cheapest to feed?

27 November 2001, 15:11

Atkinson

I have no doubt that the 375 H&H is a fine Buffalo rifle, it is but to say that it is "as good as" a 416 is purely wrong..

Thats like saying the 416 is as good as the 505, it ain't..The big dog gets the bone every time with Buff and elephant, they do a better job....Anyone that has seen them in action knows that...

That doesn't mean the 375 or 9.3x62 isn't a Buff and elephant gun, they are and they will do the job, but the bigger the better on dangerous game, if you can handle the recoil, I don't like it.

I shoot a 375, 9.3x62mmm, 9.3x64mm, 416 Rem., 404 Jefferys and a 450-400-3"..I like them all but the 404 Jefferys is by far the best killer with a good handload...the 458 Lott and the 505 make my guns look like Ned in the First Reader, the difference is visable....

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

29 November 2001, 08:38

<Antonio>

If you have buffalo in the menu, and you can shoot it properly, get one the 416ï¿½s. It will give you an edge with buffalo.

However, the 375HH ammo is cheaper and more available (particularly in Africa) than the 416ï¿½s...

Antonio

29 November 2001, 11:09

Paul H

Socrates,

Of the .375's there be but one, and that is the introduction of 1912 by msrs Holland and Holland, it is the standard, and always will be.

The 416's face several problems in logistics, there is no clear standard 416, there is the Remington, Rigby, Weatherby, and a passle of boutique, proprietary and wildcat versions. In addition, there just is precious little game that calls for its use.

It really comes down to what one fears more, ones ammo parting ways with gun, or ones bullets not hitting quite hard enough. That really is what one has to base there decision on.

Both gun's recoil, and I find it impossible to imagine one who is an accomplished shot with a 375 would have any adverse effects from the slight increase in recoil of the 416.

The 416 is more gun when the bullets hit, and always will be, bigger heavier bullets do more damage, plain and simple. Often times you don't need that much damage at all, other times you need all you can get.

One more thing, I guess its due to most folks African experience here, but cape buff isn't the only critter that shoes a difference to more gun. I've heard many accounts of folks who have been unhappy with the 375 on the big bears of the north, and the 416 seems to be the most common answer.

29 November 2001, 11:10

500grains

My buffalo had a 375 H&H slug in his stomach wall lining. The camp staff were cutting up the buff, including the tripe, to make biltong, and one of them walked over to me and said "Sir, your bullet." It looks like a Hornday soft point, expanded properly. The diameter is .375.

The problem is that I shot my buff with a 585, and my ph had a 458 lott (which he did not fire). No one within at least 50 miles had a 375. Actually, no one within 50 miles was doing any hunting.

Further, there were no wounds in the vicinity of the buffalo's stomach. So it appears that some time in the past a hunter gut shot the buff and he got better. Then I shot him.

So there's my 375 anecdote.

29 November 2001, 11:44

Brian M

500grains,

Oh great.First the 270 isn't enough for elk,now cape buffalo can asorb 375s and keep chewing their cud.Are you sure you aren't Elmer Keith reincarnated?

BTW,when the heck did you go to Africa?Last I heard you couldn't kill a cow elk with that 470 Capstick of yours.Is that why you used the 585 on your buffalo?LOL

------------------
"Only accurate rifles are interesting"

01 December 2001, 18:58

Socrates

Saeed sure seems to knock those buff down with one shot, from a 375 on steroids.

When it really comes down to it, if the buff wants to keep coming, he's going to keep coming.

I've heard people charged by buffalo with no heart, and a broken hip, but, he kept coming, dying at the man's feet.

I think everyone should shoot with the least gun neccessary. Makes it more sporting. You have to hit your target, and if you don't, the target may hit it's target...

If Karamojo Bell could kill a couple thousand elephants with a 7 x 57, why isn't a 375 enough gun?

Socrates

01 December 2001, 19:00

Socrates

If you haven't, read the Jack O'Connor story on the buffalo that ate 375 and 470 bullets, for breakfast and dinner, and still kept going.

Socrates

01 December 2001, 19:37

Ol Bull

Brian M,
If Elmer was here he would tell you the same thing!! He was right then and would still be.

01 December 2001, 19:54

Ol Bull

Brian,
I forgot the LOL, use what you shoot best for whatever you are hunting!

02 December 2001, 09:17

Brian M

Over 40,

If one day I ever made it over to the Dark Continent for cape buffalo,I'd probibly pack one of the big Weatherbys or a 458.That's just my personal preference.If all I could afford or all I could handel was a 375,I'd take it in a heart beat and not think twice.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

02 December 2001, 12:43

Given the spirit of the question, I'd go with the 375H&H.

I appreciate it's history, proven ability, and the fact that ammo is available most everywhere.

------------------
Brian
The 416 Taylor WebPage!

04 December 2001, 14:36

Go the rigby it will do everything a 375 will do and a little more.

04 December 2001, 15:05

Paul H

quote:
Originally posted by Socrates:
Saeed sure seems to knock those buff down with one shot, from a 375 on steroids.
When it really comes down to it, if the buff wants to keep coming, he's going to keep coming.
I've heard people charged by buffalo with no heart, and a broken hip, but, he kept coming, dying at the man's feet.
I think everyone should shoot with the least gun neccessary. Makes it more sporting. You have to hit your target, and if you don't, the target may hit it's target...
If Karamojo Bell could kill a couple thousand elephants with a 7 x 57, why isn't a 375 enough gun?
Socrates

I believe Saeed's 375/404 is loaded to essentially 375 H&H levels, 300's @ 2600 and 270's @ 2800, though I may be offbase in that statement.

I don't understand using the least gun possible as being sporting, but to each there own. A poor shot with the biggest of guns can still get you stomped, clawed or gnawed. The question is, given you doing everything perfectly, what will also do the same, and the answer is, the 375 isn't 100%, even if you do everything right, give it 95-98%. The 40 calibers seem tootin close to 100%.

Just because Bell used a 7X57 doesn't mean he didn't loose scores of animals. He was a poacher, not a sportsman, so keep the caliber choices in context. Poachers in this country use the 22rf for deer, elk and moose, does that make the 22rf a deer, elk and moose gun?

04 December 2001, 15:14

Paul H wrote:

quote:
The 40 calibers seem tootin close to 100%

Paul,

What is "tootin close"?

Must be that oil-field humor.

Anyhow, I choose the 95% 375H&H based on the fact that I had to do all my hunting with that one cartridge.

Even if it were only 80% (whatever that means ), I'd probably still choose it.

Figure by the time a one rifle hunter gets to Africa, he probably can shoot that rifle pretty good.

Course these are all just opinions, as I've never been to Africa!

Take care

------------------
Brian
The 416 Taylor WebPage!

05 December 2001, 11:22

Atkinson

I have no problem with the 375 for Buffalo, I have used it and the 9.3x62, even the .308, but I have seen the 375 fail with properly placed shots, and proper soft points on several, although rare ocassions, and only on frontal shots...I have not seen the 416's fail as yet...but I have seen bullet failure in the 416 and just about every other big bore.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

06 December 2001, 04:05

<Paul Machmeier>

In the spirit of the original question, the .416. Especially when there is a buffalo and large brownie in your future. If the perfect shot is presented and no follow-up is needed or if the terrain is such that a clear view is presented for additional shots, then I guess the .375 is a comfortable choice. Most of us have both, but when it comes time to select one for the above beasties, I take the .416. And I have not been disappointed, I never seem to get these text book shots and if the animal is not anchored, there is always thick jess or alders 10-20 yards away.
Actually, I love the .375 and shoot it off-hand as much as I can as a tune-up for hunts. The ammo is available everywhere and even less expensive at gun shows. But my vote is the .416 and larger for the potential nasties. For some even the .450's are not too large.
If all your hunting is limited to African plains game, or in NA, all animals including moose, grizzly, and elk, I would select the .375.

06 December 2001, 09:07

<Safarischorsch>

quote:
Originally posted by loud-n-boomer:
If you could only have either a .375 H&H or a .416 Remington/Rigby which would you choose and why (No other choices are allowed)? The gun will be used in North America on Elk and larger game, and in Africa on plains game and buffalo. In Africa you will be on the "standard guided hunt". You have the option of whatever bullet weights you want, and can handload for the gun.

Take the 416!
The 375 shoots a bit flatter (i have a375) but the precision of the 416 is better!

06 December 2001, 09:57

<allen day>

The .416's hit stuff harder, but the .375 H&H is easier to shoot and it still kills most (and I mean 99% of all) animals well. So choose the most potent one that you can shoot well.......

I'll tell you what I really think: Buffalo hunting is sort of an overrated, ten-percent issue. The vast, vast majority of African animals (including the cats) are nowhere near as tough as buffalo to kill (wounded or overly-pestered lions are something else again), yet guys will routinely take rifles for one-rifle safaris that are way over-powered for the vast majority of smaller animals that they would kill better (placed the shots closer to the mark, that is) with something much smaller.

I own an excellent .416 Remington, but the idea of using that rifle exclusively for a two or three-week safari is a rather dreary prospect that I would rather live without.

If I had to choose one rifle for a general-bag hunt that includes buffalo, that rifle would be a .375 H&H.