.375 H&H vs the other .375's

07 August 2001, 18:53

<JohnT>

LE 270,

Will your load at COL of 3.72 feed from the magazine or is it for single loading only?

Also even if it feeds in the magazine watch out as it may not eject an unfired round (say a misfire) at that length.

08 August 2001, 09:51

1894

Well seeing as many feel that to burn a shedload more powder to make a lot more noise and achieve a rather miserly (and superfluous?) velocity increase is to fall victim to hype, I would like to put a different spin on this and ask what does the 1912 375H&H offer that the 1904 9.3x62 doesn't in practical hunting situations?

For those unfamiliar:-

9.3x62 - 270gr, 60gr H414 = 2583fps

375H&H - 270gr, 74gr Re15 = 2717fps

Who am I to suggest that 375H&H (and for that matter 9.3x64) owners are themselves victims of this sort of Ultra Mag marketing hype but perpetrated 90 years ago!

[This message has been edited by 1894 (edited 08-07-2001).]

08 August 2001, 02:21

<buffalo_buster>

1894

08 August 2001, 02:33

<buffalo_buster>

1894,
I agree with you on the benefits of 9.3x62, and in field hunting conditions it may not offer much over the .375 H&H with same weight bullets. But it does fall short when considering the bullet selection in this caliber. .375 does come out to be a winner and hence more versatile of the two. And since H&H is widely accepted as the minimum caliber for African dangerous game (although some countries consider 9.3 to be minimum)the question remains,
Does a new .375 offer much over the old H&H? and the answer is, NO! Not until cape buffaloes start wearing bullet proof jackets. H&H was the best medium caliber 89 years ago and it still is.
BB

08 August 2001, 05:53

375hnh

le270,

Like John T, I am curious about magazine feeding at that length, or do you shoot a single shot? My M70 won't feed if you exceed 3.600". just curious

DGK

08 August 2001, 06:17

LE270

quote:
Originally posted by JohnT:
LE 270,
Will your load at COL of 3.72 feed from the magazine or is it for single loading only?
Also even if it feeds in the magazine watch out as it may not eject an unfired round (say a misfire) at that length.

I just checked, and, yes, they are a bit too long to work through the magazine. I can get one load in the magazine and have that one work, but no more. So, for hunting, I'll have to make the OAL shorter, by maybe 0.1 inch.

08 August 2001, 23:25

1894

quote:
Originally posted by buffalo_buster:
But it does fall short when considering the bullet selection in this caliber. .375 does come out to be a winner and hence more versatile of the two.

I can't really say a 375H&H is a superfluous development on a 9.3x62 but I don't agree with your bullet selection point.

9.3 bullets are made from 200gr (Hawk) to 320gr (Woodleigh) with a full range of softs and solids in between by (amongst others):-

Barnes, GS, Rhino, Woodleigh, Speer, Nosler (the 375 doesn't have a ballistic tip) Swift, RWS, Lapua, PMP, Norma.

In my view that's enough to make any more choice redundant.

09 August 2001, 13:28

Atkinson

There is no such animal as an "Improved" 375 H&H, just can't be....

The 9.3x62 and 9.3x64 are just as good as the 375 H&H, and thats no light praise....There is actually very little, if any, difference in killing effect on any of the worlds biggest game, between the three, and I actually like the 9.3x62 the best, at least this week I do....

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

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com