I just got the latest Gun Digest the magazine. They have a "cover" mention about the .375 Ruger vs. the .375 H&H. Inside is a 2 page article by a guy named Brad Fitzpatrick which purports to be a comparison between the .375 cartridges. While he admits that the H&H is the "world standard", its pretty obvious that he's a Ruger (paid?) man. He writes about how the H&H "still" takes countless heads of African game, but starts in about the superiority of the Ruger forthwith.

The only "source" he quotes is Steve Hornady. The article also makes mention of the Ruger Hawkeye "test rifle", but also comments on some other gun makers who are announcing .375 Ruger guns ("CZ's superb Safari Classic Express Rifle" and and Howa). The stuff reads like a advertising copy. I can't be sure that he got a "free" rifle, and free ammo, along with a chat by Mr. Hornady about all in all how superior his product is to the competition. I do know I never heard of him before, and from now on I can say his opinion goes into the "paid shill" category until I see a good body of work that demonstrates otherwise.

Also, he goes on about how much "better" the .375 Ruger is ballistically than the .375 H&H Per the article, less than 150 FPS (although you have to do the math yourself, and this is using the 270 grain bullets) and this accounts for it's "superior ballistics". But what really is funny is he is going on about how much better the Ruger is because of the "shorter and lighter" guns (yes) and the same recoil (huh?) for the two. The guy claims that the ruger is 1 pound lighter, has better ballistics, and is faster than the H&H, but still has the same recoil?

Then he states that you need a "bigger action" for the .375 Weatherby and the .378 Weatherby, and that the .375 RUM is unpleasant with the amount of recoil it gives. Am I wrong, or isn't the .375 Weatherby a improved H&H case, and the same length action will work just fine for the H&H and the .375 Weatherby?

He then goes on to shill for the "excellent new Hornady DGX and DGS bullets." So far, I don't have any experience with the DGX/DGS on game, and after what I was told (that a couple of PH's I hunted with don't like them, and felt there were problems) and that Hornady has "fixed" the issue (this from a company that had a good steel clad bullet in the past, and changed it without telling the consumers, and then started having unreliable bullets with the new ones) makes me a little unsure whether I would call them "excellent" at this point. Once they have a track record over several years, then I would start using superlatives as a descriptive term.

I can understand that some folks like the Ruger cartridge, even though its nothing really new (.375 Dakota?). I can see where the idea of a lighter standard length gun has its appeal, and I can appreciate the .375 Ruger for that. I can appreciate that a Ruger rifle is much less expensive than my .375 H&H. But ballistically, its no different than the H&H or the .375 Weatherby. I doubt that there would be any appreciable difference in the performance on game, or that many (any) would notice the trajectory difference while hunting.

And people wonder why most gun magazines are doing poorly? Here's another example of why. Why don't they ask folks who have hunted Africa extensively to do write ups on these guns/cartridges rather than recite a paid advertisement?

I've been considering a 375 ruger but I'm a lefty so rifles in calibers this big I have few choices without getting into the custom side of things. I've been looking over the CZ American in 375 H&H also. I would like having an H&H I think but I don't know much about this CZ.

Gun business is a very different business. Every now and then, the gun manufacturers have to stir the market with something new otherwise the sales will go down.

The fact remains that most cartridges of 75 to 100 year vintage are hard to top in performance. .30-06, .375 H&H, .404 J and .416 Rigby are still yard sticks in their categories and any new megabuster magnum will have to be "better" than the old dogs in order to sell.

I am sure the gun magazines have a lot to do with developing the market for the new cartridge-rifle combo. Although, most of the times the claims made in favor of the new offerings are just pathetic.

I remember that a few years ago when the RUM cartridges were introduced. A gun writer went as far as saying that he didn't know how he hunted deer before .300 RUM came along because it just killed them so much better than his 7mm mag and .30-06.

crbutler, why don't you just say how you really feel?????????

I tend to agree about how obvious the gun writers are and the intent to sway the buyer. If all in good advertising, no problem, but when it comes across as the authority speaking on what one must have I think it goes to far. Case in point, just last week on Tracks across africa Craig Boddington was discussing this exact cartridge and rifle with the Ruger guy about merits, etc. which is all ok. The part that got me was when they talked action length and the Ruger guy explained in the new shorter 375 caliber they fit it into a standard action at $1150 but when they went to the long action it was around $2400. Ridiculous to think anyone would pay that for a Ruger anyway when you can buy very good 70's CZ's, etc. for 1100-1200 in a classic 375 or 416. Having used to be a true believer in everything he said my eyes and ears have been opened and I just do not believe it anymore. It is all about sales. Just read the many posts here and about regarding what safari company is best, which taxidermy studio is best, shooting sticks, etc. It goes on and on and now this great website has learned how product placements on TV work. Before anyone blasts me, I mean no disrespect for Craig or anyone else. I think he has done more for our interests in Africa in the last 15 years than anyone since Ruark and Capstick. I have just stopped believing all that I read and hear because I think the purpose is obvious. For me, credibility is not the same.

You just have to accept the material in gun magazines for what it is and realize what it is not. Let's start with what it is not, it is not journalism. The writers almost invariably have a bias, a marketing angle, or have been co-oped by accepting free merchandise from the sponsor about which they are writing. So what it is, increasingly rare, it is entertaining.

Mr. Fitzpatrick apparently likes the Ruger .375. No crime there. Come to think of it...I could write the same article and change Ruger .375 to Ruger .375/ .338 !

it is a shame that some of the outdoor publications are nothing more than paid adverts.

gentlemen , i will be taking a ruger .416 with me this season for hunting bait , for clients to borrow and for general camp meat etc , i will be more than happy to post here what my findings are at the end of the season , i am sure i will have had lots of hunting with it by then ...

Brother Jines has it correct. Many of these articles are "puffing" (rank, often exaggerated sales marketing) --- but then I think we all know that and I don't find it offensive unless the author attempts to exclude all contrary thought or conclusion. I would still rather read it than a celebrity rag about wasted lives and opportunity.

For an experiment, I often place a gun or hunting magazine in the waiting area of my office and I find them to be preferred by many of the clients much more than some highway, news or travel magazine -- even by that group of people.

Anyone who thinks one can increase the angle of the case shoulder, shorten the case, shorten the barrel, maintain the same or better velocity with the same bullet weight, and still reduce felt recoil or muzzle flip (without a brake) probably isn't very experienced --- but they will be after being on the receiving end of that high pressure round for 20-30 shots. I prefer lower pressure, proven performance, and longer actions if needed to achieve this performance. I was the only person in 25 years who used an open-sighted .404 Jeff to take a brown bear with this outfitter. What do you know, it worked well.

Having said that, I hope they keep building more rifles and more innovative calibers and variation. Then write about them and let us scoff. Ivan's information gathering should be interesting.

There are always those that like the newest and cutting edge products. The gun magazines play to them and the uneducated inexperienced folks. When it comes to the new Ruger line, the WSM line or the Ultra Mag line -- you have families of cartridges that may work just fine and fit the bill. But for my money, I keep with the 30-06, 375 H+H, 458wm and the 416 Rigby, cartridges that have years of positive recommendations, good proven handloading info and most importantly, ammo stocked in stores from Ankorage to Pretoria.

I don't understand this whole "shorter is better" brouhaha. I must admit that I own 2 "shorties". Both REM600's in 6.5 and 350 REM mag. I have no desire go out and buy any of the WSM's or RCM's as they offer no real complete advantage over another cartridge. However, I will someday own a 6.5-284 ......

quote:

gentlemen , i will be taking a ruger .416 with me this season for hunting bait , for clients to borrow and for general camp meat etc

Ivan, how will you obtain enough ammo? Is there availability of the Ruger .376/.416 in Africa? My concern with taking either thus far has been this. Thanks, Bill

when we did our shopping for a .375, price mattered and overall size/weight/handling of the gun mattered.

We weren't going to be spending more than $1000 for a rifle (got for just a bit under $900)

and we wanted one that felt just like one of our current deer rifle bolt actions.

We, in that price range, in wood-stocked gun, we were looking to compare the Ruger to the CZ. I like CZ's, have a 550 in 9.3x62 . . . but the CZ magnum is a big clunky pot-bellied thing that felt like I was swinging a boat paddle (since they use the same platform for 375 H&H on up to 458 Lott and beyond). Since this rifle was for my wife, she liked the CZ less than I did. Upon picking up the Ruger Hawkeye, it was like picking up her old M77 in 7x57, only lighter and handier!

So that's what we bought.

That said, I basically ignore claims about "recoil reduction" because of "case geometry" . . . felt recoil is so subjective anyway. If Ruger really wanted to reduce its felt recoil, they'd issue thier M77 Hawkeye's with Pachmeyer Decelerators instead of those red hard rubber "pads".

Personally, I can't feel much difference between my Dad's 30-06, .300 WSM, and my 9.3x62 . . . but I figure that's the recoil pad. 30-06 = hard rubber standard ruger pad . . . the other 2 = decelerators.

Troy Hibbitts
(and no, Pachmeyer hasn't paid me a dime for this advertisement)

I look at it another way... Every camp has 375 H&H ammo left in camp by clients. I would like to see how many countries in Southern Africa have 375 Ruger ammo for sale.
So if your ammo gets lost any ammo is better then an expensive club.

Mike

I shot my last (huge) leopard with borrowed .375 H&H ammo (Nosler Partition) from my PH and in my airplane clothes because my ammo was still in Jo'berg with my hunting clothes. My .300 WSM was, as Retreever said: "a useless club" as there was no one with .300 WSM ammo around. Had my .375 been a .375 Ruger, I'd have been screwed. I will stick with the .375 H&H.

crbutler, How much Ruger advertising was in that particular issue? I quit subsribing to all of them years ago when the articles and the ads were to close for comfort.

BigBBear, I could not believe what I heard CB saying either, just look at prices on line!

All these new cartridges are really neat but I'd be worried about ammo and rifle arrving together.

That being said, I took a 300WSM to Africa. It was a roll of the dice, gun and ammo both arrived together. Friends .30 '06 ammo went to Milan and rifle to Windhoek. PH was low on ammo so he had to borrow a rifle. Left one box behind, waiting for me or some else. Last I asked, it's still there.

One can go most places in the world and find 223, 308, 3006 and 375H&H.

Gents, the FTC recently revised their 1980 rule on product endorsements. Read it and make your own judgment. The next two paragraphs are from the FTC website:

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.

What does this mean? It means that if I get a free hunt I must state that if I blog about it here on AR. If I mention a product outside of a traditional ad, and I am either paid for it or I get free product, I must state that. If I recommend Ruger guns and I get a fee for doing so, I must state that.

Hunting and shooting sports (with the exception of competitive shooting) have long been free of the "sponsorship" plague of fishing. Well, that has all changed. It is not unheard of for a writer to get paid a "consulting fee" and then write about a product ad nauseam. In the long run, it might be good for the guy getting paid, but I don’t think it is that great for industry. But who am I to say?

But the guy who wrote about that Ruger may have genuinely liked it. I have certainly written about stuff I liked and received nothing, to include free product, for it. The difference now is that if I do receive anything, I must state that.

You know the best endorsement a writer can make? "I paid for it with my own money." That is true of hunts, gear, and guns.

I wish that the gun guys would take the high road and adapt a model similar to Car and Driver, Road and Track or how movies are reviewed.

I want to see comparisons with honest to god LOSERS. I want to see the good and the bad. I want to see 5 star rifles and 1 star rifles.

It is cheaper and easier for manufactorers to throw some money at a writer or show then strive to create the winning product.

If you had to earn the right to be carried by Craig Boddington on his show or in his videos I have no doubt you'd see more effort to create better products.

Sadly most publications are commiting publishing suicide by sticking to a failed model. In this day and age when I can read thousands of reviews by unpaid actual users of a product I have no use for paid articles/ads.

Write the best unbiased articles, shoot the best unbiased videos and get the most readers and watchers and then you can control who GETS to advertise with you.

In our business we say he who is closest to the client has the most job security. Earn trust and advertisers will be beating down your door, just ask google or yahoo.

Lighten up. Everyone has to make a living, even gun writers. Have you ever penned an article worthy of print? If every article in every gun magazine wrote how wonderful the 30-06 and 375 H&H are what would be left to write about. Just my 2 cents......

quote:

Originally posted by ivan carter:
gentlemen , i will be taking a ruger .416 with me this season for hunting bait , for clients to borrow and for general camp meat etc , i will be more than happy to post here what my findings are at the end of the season , i am sure i will have had lots of hunting with it by then ...

Ivan,
Not to impugn your integrity in any way, but is this rifle comped or did you buy it? We realize that Ruger is a sponsor of TAA so did they supply the rifle for field testing?

quote:

Originally posted by GeoffM24:
I wish that the gun guys would take the high road and adapt a model similar to Car and Driver, Road and Track or how movies are reviewed.

I want to see comparisons with honest to god LOSERS. I want to see the good and the bad. I want to see 5 star rifles and 1 star rifles.

I thought the most recent issue of Eastman's had a pretty good review of Mt Rifles . . . there were some clear "winners" and some clear "losers", although none of the tested rifles merited 1 star . . .

I don't think I've ever shot a rifle that I'd rate that low, unless maybe I was MOA nitpicker rather than a "Minute of Game Animal" realist.

quote:

Hide Post

Guys,

There are plenty of writers out there that would love to "tell it like they see it." There is no shortage there. However, there are damn few magazines that are willing to publish any material that is critical of anything. Therein lies the problem.

TT

Ivan,

I got all the respect in the world for you man (except living in Michigan part time). You want to impress me with that 416 Ruger? Leave your double in camp and only back clients with that rifle this entire 2010 season. That's a testimony I want to read about.

Rich

Oh, by the way; YES! they do think you are all stupid. What was it PT Barnum said: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.".

It's funny how that big clunky CZ 550 feels just about right in a 500 Jeffery ...

Chuck

quote:

You want to impress me with that 416 Ruger? Leave your double in camp and only back clients with that rifle this entire 2010 season. That's a testimony I want to read about.

Leave a double for a magazine rifle?

"I have a number of friends in the Nairobi cemetery who put their faith in magazine rifles. I have relied on a Holland & Holland .500 double barrel fitted with 24-inch barrels and weighing 10 pounds, 5 ounces. If it had failed even once, I would not be writing these notes." John A. Hunter

I believe that 'accross the board', firearm quality is very high with all the current manufacturers. (Perchance we damm the lawyers too much.) I fired a Mossberg ElCheapo model this year that shot really well. That leaves us with our preferences and makes for some lively campfire conversation. PS - I believe that the Ruger 375/416 were developed because it was cheaper to develop a new cartridge than it was to lengthen the Hawkeye action. Not because Ruger 374/416 is better. My hat's off to Ruger and Hornady for getting similar performance at the least cost. However, I will not trade my Mod 70 for a Hawkeye.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Oh, by the way; YES! they do think you are all stupid. What was it PT Barnum said: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.".

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Ah gunwriters!

They have always been a good source of humor for me from as long as I have been reading their writings.

From Elmer Keith's claim that he had broken the spine of a deer with a 30-06, and it ran off, to Bob Milek's caimm that the 243 Winchester is too light for deer while thye 357 magnum revolver is perfect.

Yes, it is very well known that gun writers are in favor of anything new, especially when advertising dollars are in play.

But, I thik it is unfair to discount these new offerings from Ruger, Hornady, et al as just fodder for consumption. These companies are attempting to put out new and interesting products for their customers all the while making sure that they can continue to develop business.

Worthy of mention is that these new calibres do afford the less affluent with a sound and viable option alongdise the traditionally more costly .375 & .416 offerings.

There might be a new group of shooters out there that will take these and actually go to Africa to use them.

I don't think we should be too critical of these companies trying to create new markets - any new hunters / shooting enthusiasts they might attract should be welcomed by our fraternity - especially these days when the marketplace and the sport in general are under constant attack by the "antis".

Good for Ruger and Hornady for getting something pretty decent out into the marketplace despite these troubling econimc times.

A strong and viable gun trade benefits us all.

JW

I have owned several H&Hs, and presently do own the Ruger. I like it better. Sold my H&Hs.
New cartridges always take some flack until someone actually trys them.
Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Wemmer:
Yes, it is very well known that gun writers are in favor of anything new, especially when advertising dollars are in play.

But, I thik it is unfair to discount these new offerings from Ruger, Hornady, et al as just fodder for consumption. These companies are attempting to put out new and interesting products for their customers all the while making sure that they can continue to develop business.

Worthy of mention is that these new calibres do afford the less affluent with a sound and viable option alongdise the traditionally more costly .375 & .416 offerings.

There might be a new group of shooters out there that will take these and actually go to Africa to use them.

I don't think we should be too critical of these companies trying to create new markets - any new hunters / shooting enthusiasts they might attract should be welcomed by our fraternity - especially these days when the marketplace and the sport in general are under constant attack by the "antis".

Good for Ruger and Hornady for getting something pretty decent out into the marketplace despite these troubling econimc times.

A strong and viable gun trade benefits us all.

JW

Jeff,

I don't disagree at all: look at Hodgdon's work on their Extreme Powder line. It is great stuff. While I have always offered to pay full price for it, I do get free samples and a discount on the stuff I buy. I can get the same deal from other suppliers, but for the most part, I am perfectly happy with Hodgdon powders, so that is what I largely write about.

To all those who think rifle actions stopped improving with the Mauser 98 I have news for you: you are wrong. Take a look at a Stiller action (I admit to getting a 10 percent discount). I recently tested an X Bolt from Browning. Wow...the accuracy was stunning. I could have bought it at a discount (after all, they are "used" after we test them) but sent it back - I don't need another rifle in that caliber.

The real problem I see is the lack of transparency. Does Ivan love Ruger, or are they simply a sponsor?

I talked with a pretty famous guy last fall in Africa who books hunts. Jim Shockey wanted to go on one of his hunts and wanted it comped. The guy said, "Forget it, he doesn't need the advertising."

Shockey really wanted to do the show so he paid for it. Who would you rather book with? Some guy who paid full price or some guy who got a free hunt? Trouble is, we never knew that when watching the show.

I write as a hobby; my software business keeps me hopping. So I suppose I have the luxury of being able to pontificate about this stuff. But at the same time, I have made a concious decision to support a limited number of vendors whose products I really do think are great. But even that position doesn't prohibit the growing tide of "sponsorship" in the outdoor media. Why do we see so many TCs? Do these writers really think they they are the best???

Transparency is a good thing. And I am fairly confident the internet is going to provide much more of it. So if you want to use the internet to promote your sponsors, be transparent. After all, now it is the law, at least in the US.

Real quick and to the point. Until we win the 100 million$ lottery, sponsors are what makes it possible to do our two African TV shows. FYI , we turn down several potential sponsors each year that have a product or service we feel is a bad fit or product we are not confident in. The cash would be handy, but not at the expense of credibility. I can only speak to "TAA and Hornadys Africa" but I can tell you we believe in, and use every product you see advertised on air and the results are very transparent in MHO.
No sponsors and goodbye Tracks, NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, UFC, and so forth. Are there whores? You bet, but not all of us.

I don't think anyone has a problem with sponsors. We all realize that they pay bills, and after all we're not communists.

With that said, When did writers give up journalistic integrity to become pitchmen for the outdoor industry”? Much of what is written today could be best described as advertorials. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, a vast majority of outdoor scribes forgot the basic tenants of journalism 101, and flipped over to marketing 101.

I realize that publishing is a competitive, cut throat industry and advertising pays the bills. My wife is publisher of a newspaper and I have done free lance articles for hook and bullet publications.

Yet I wonder why newspapers can write critical pieces about industry, government, businesses, etc and still stay in business (there are a few left). A majority of outdoor magazines never question a product or company. Ask yourself when was the last time you saw a less then glowing report about a single item of outdoor gear, or someone report a bad hunting trip and actually name the guide and outfitter.

Could you imagine the uproar if a writer for your local newspaper wrote a favorable piece about a company and you found out they did because they owned stock in the company. The uproar would be instant, and said writer would find himself out a job.

What I would love to see to see is an injection of truth and disclosure in many of today’s outdoor stories. If you are hunting at Super Hunt Lodge, let me know who paid for the trip. Did the magazine pay for it? Was it donated free by the owner of the lodge? Was it a trade for advertising?

Did Company ABC pay for you to come out and try their gear? Did you get to keep the demo models or purchase them at a discounted price?

The cost of everything we do goes up every year. Licenses’, trucks, ATV’s, fuel, ammo, and all the things associated with playing outdoors aren’t getting any cheaper. Add in booking a trip out of state or country with an outfitter and you are looking at a substantial investment of money and time. As paying subscribers to said magazines, I feel that the publishers, editors and writers owe their readers a modicum of honesty and disclosure, anything less is a shame.

Opinions are like...

What else would they write about? Another article on why the .375 H&H is the only one to own? Why you don't need anything but a .30-06?
PLEASE! BORING! You know that already!

Show me the money!
Of course it sounds like advertising.
There's another reason that the articles in magazines read like advertisements: The new products developed by the companies use the advertising dollars and samples and loaners to expose the products to us. They do have to earn a profit. I think we don't often mistake the opinions of a company employee, as given in the story above ("and the Ruger guy explained in the new shorter 375 caliber ")for the opinion of the celebrity. The manufacturers develop "new" products to differentiate themselves from the competition, whether we need them or not. Whether they are or not, whether we agree or not, that determines the life of the product.

Ever read Gun Tests? That's the Consumer Reports of firearms testing. No advertising, no free guns- they buy them all. They even react like a true end user when they get a problem gun for testing. That part is not very useful as something small may lead to poor ranking or only partial testing. Sorry, but it is not everything I look for in a magazine. I enjoy the stories where they relay the factory logic for new equipment design (advertising language and all) while the writer uses it on a hunt. Would it influence me or any responsible adult? Not unduly. Do I think the writer is being paid in kind or cash for the plug? Absolutely, because, in the final analysis, he is. One way or another, all the "professional" writers are paid by the sponsors - shocked? You shouldn't be. Funny we think the gun writers are somehow journalists with the highest ideals. I think they are what they are, and that's not a negative. I HOPE they are getting a free gun and hunt and all that stuff. I'm smart enough to evaluate what I read. You are too!

And every once in a while you get the amusement factor...

Well said Hutty.

The main advantage of the Ruger ctg (35 or 416) is that you can build yourself a custom DG rifle for about $500 less than if you need to lengthen the action. Not having a belt is also a very good thing, esp if you are a reloader.

As to the actual rifles, at one time Rugers would not cycle properly in the shoulder. The bolt would bind. I don't know whether they fixed that.

The 416 Ruger rifle seems like a very useful thing, for not a lot of money.

Yes, you will have a problem on your hands if your ammo gets lost, but you can always borrow a 375 ouch&ouch, or a 458 Win Mag if it comes to that.

I say, well done Ruger.

I would opine that we can exempt TAA from the "whore" side of the business. Maybe it's because I enjoy it so much, but they present Africa as I experienced it, and hope to do so again April 8th.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Africa as I experienced it, and hope to do so again April 8th.
Rich

Be sure to continue to remind everyone of that fact with every post you make, maybe there is still someone on the forum who doesn't know that you are going back.

Sharpshooter
I knew you were going and I am tickled for you. I'm off to CAR in late April and I'm tickled for me! Nothing wrong with looking forward to a safari my friend.