The various discussions about the 375 Ultra vs H&H, etc have brought up a question that I am curious about. This doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the 375, it also includes the 7mm, 30 and 338 bores.
I hear an awful lot by various posters about how the extra velocity these rounds generate over the more standard rounds benefits no one, or maybe one in ten hunters. They kick more, have more muzzle blast, burn more powder, yadda yadda yadda.
Okay, how many of the detractors of these rounds have actually spent some serious hunting time with them? How many game animals have you taken with them? What bullets were you using? Was the round loaded to it's maximum potential?
What I am trying to determine here is whether or not the detractors have any basis in fact or field experience to base their negative claims on.

JohnS - If I may be so bold...

I selected a set of guns based upon the Dakota case design. These cartridges are similar to the performance of the Weatherby rounds but below the new Ultra Mag designs.

My biggest concern with the Dakota cartridges was too much velocity. I was concerned that I would be driving bullets beyond their design limits resulting in poor terminal performance. Through a lot of load development and bullet selection, I was able to achieve marginal increases in velocity with exceptional accuracy. I decided not to push the bullets to the maximum pressures. I could easily push my 7mm and .330 Dakota another 150 fps if I wanted to.

The Ultra Mag compounds this potential problem by offering greater case capacity and potential velocity over both the Dakota and Weatherby. With this case design, you can easily push bullets to the point of terminal bullet failure. Other than this potential problem, I have no feelings one way or another about the cartridge. In my opinion this is nothing more than Remington and Winchester attempting to one up Weatherby. I think the only thing they will accomplish will be more work for our gun smiths - fitting muzzle breaks, adding bigger decelerator pads, and replacing shot out barrels.

John,

The only thing in my experience with high velocity rounds is they extend your range at the expense of powder, kick and bullet quality. I currently hunt exclusively with a 7mm STW and a 338 Excalibur. The biggest problem that I have found with these 2 rounds is the bullet selection becomes critical. This is mainly to compensate for close shoots where the bullet fails. If you load premium bullets the close shoots are not an issue you just blow a small hole through the animal.

Remember the energy the round exerts on the animal is the total energy at impact minus the energy upon exiting so the huge energy numbers do not mean much once the bullet leaves the animal. So inside of most people reasonable shooting ranges a bullet moving at 3500fps is not needed. With all this being said I enjoy the hell out of both of these rifles and I would never trade them in for a slower round. I just find them fun???..

CJ

If you look at the ballistics of modern bullets you need roughly 200 to 300 fps increase in velocity to achieve an effective 100 yard increase in range. However, this is only in terms of striking velocity. The trajectory will flatten somewhat but beyond about 300 yards all high velocity trajectories begin to droop very rapidly, so in practical terms you may not gain the whole benefit of that extra 100 yards without raising the maximum height of the bullet path above your line of sight at shorter ranges, which would have the effect of seriously complicating your more likely engagement distances in favor of the unlikely ones. I like (at most) a max height above LOS of 4 inches, preferably only 3 inches for medium game. Using either of those will permit a very long "point blank" range and the most practical trajectory at long range for center of "kill zone" aimpoints. If nearly all shooting will occur at outrageously long distances (600 yards), then a better approach is to zero the weapon at that kind of range and aim for the lower edge of the thorax, provided the max height of the bullet never rises above the height of the shoulder on the animal. But I am not recommending this style of hunting, merely describing the mathematical optimum. In the latter sighting method an ultravelocity cartridge may offer some real benefits. In the former (common to most users) it offers only modest improvement in trajectory and extended lethality and (as offered) potentially a short range non-engagement zone if you don't have a bullet that will behave.

Zero drift-
I actually meant to include the Dakota and Weatherby rounds in addition to the big Lazzeroni rounds.
I am a big fan of the 300 and 375Wby, as well as owning a 338/404 wildcat. The 'cat fits this discussion better than those Weatherbys but they should be included. Anything that can drive a 180gr bullet @ 3250fps is a "hyper" round by my standards.
You are totally correct in that bullet choice gets critical when velocities are pushed upwards, this is why I use nothing but premium bullets for hunting. And like you, the terminal effect on game of a very fast moving "premium" bullet, placed correctly, has to be witnessed to be fully appreciated.

As an outfitter, I get too see all the latest super mags in action. There are 2 main problems that I see with them:

1. The client is unable to shoot it well because he's scared of the recoil and/or the noise. While this is not the fault of the cartridge, it is still a problem.

2. They go faster than the bullets were designed for. I recover bullets far more often in a super magnum than I do in a standard magnum round. When I do recover them, they have less weight retention and are more deformed than the equivelent bullet in a standard round. A very specific example I have seen many times in the last 12 months are 180 gr. TBBCs in a .300 Win VS. a .300 Ultra, but I have seen it in 7mm and .338s as well.

Based on what I've seen, I am not interested in using a round that gets another 10-15% of velocity at a price of 25-40% more powder, more recoil, more noise, decreased barrel life, and a decrease in the performance and integrity of the bullet. Whether the extra velocity is worth it to you is for you to decide.

------------------
Greg Rodriguez
Mombasa Trading Company
www.mbogo.net
(281) 494-4151

John,

As you know I have ordered a Rem 700 in 375 Ultra.

If that caliber will shoot well when loaded to reproduce 375 H&H ballistics, I suspect there will be some alterations to my Model 70s in 375 H&H

1) Magazine capacity for both calibers is 3 shots.

2)The 375 Ultra will allow me if I so desire, to go up into 270 or 300 mag velocities with bullets of similar sectional density.

3)At H&H ballistics I can just about use any powder and get there. Also, the loading parameters are so wide to get H&H ballistics this should enhance the chances of getting good accuracy with a wide range of projectiles and powders.

4)If I use the type of load Saeed uses in his 375/404s, that is backed of loads with slower powders then pressure will be so low that both case life and barrel life will be extended.

Surely those who reject the 375 Ultra as compared to the H&H would also have to reject the 416 Rigby as compared to the 416 Remington. But that does not appear to be the case. In fact just the opposite appeasr to be the situation.

375 Ultra

Mike

Mike-
That's because with the 375 you are walking on hallowed ground, not mere dirt.

John,

That could be why MacD37 avoided the 416 Rigby/Remington issue on the other thread

The percentage difference in case capacity between the Ultra/H&H and the Rigby/Rem would be similar.

Perhaps there is some ballistic science that can answer why a 416 Rigby is better than 416 Rem but a 375 H&H is better than a 375 Ultra.

Mike

/

I have a slightly different twist on the hyper velocity potential advantage(s). Having guided professionally for wild boar on the central coast of CA for 14 years I get the opportunity to carry many rifles on a daily basis. Typically I carry rediculously large guns (.458, .460 Wby., .378 Wby. and currently a .375 H&H) to finish off lightly killed pigs vacating the area. For a while a few years ago I used a 7mm STW and found I was making the longish(200-300 yard) running shots (that the only kind I usually get) more regularly than with the slower guns I normally carried. That extra 400-1500 fps really made it a lot easier to get the correct lead.

Still during deer season I use a .300 Wby. (to lose less meat and shoot a little flatter) and I notice that extra 700-800 fps makes me hit pigs in the head when using my typical .375 H & H "lung lead".

Now for me it wasn't a big enough advantage to stay with the smaller gun, I still switched back to pretending I'm in Africa...

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

Have fun,
Kyler

------------------
Being ready is good, being safe is great, being both is tough.

Mike375,
It sounds as though all your previous posts extolling the virtues of "shootability" are about to get deep-sixed because you have ordered a .375 Ultra. Can this be true? What gains in the field do you anticipate over your H&H?

Nick,

I would anticipate that my 375 Ultra will be loaded to top end 375 H&H. Because those ballistics are so easy to achieve, I think I will be able to get better accuracy across a wider range of bullets. Also the 375 Ultra will have a much wider range of powders that will deliver the top end H&H ballistics.

My 39 grain H4227 Extreme load with 220 Hornady in the H&Hs, I think will be easy to duplicate with maybe about 42 to 44 grains of H4227 Extreme.

The 378 is a different proposition. Because of the very large case and extremely long freebore, reduced loads often involve hangfires. Plus there is the brass, rifles etc.

So in short, I am simply looking at the 375 Ultra to duplicate the 375, but with some extra gears if I feel like using them. In other words there is some censorship with the H&H

As well, and this is an educated guess, I think the 375 Ultra will be more likely to place different loads closer together than the H&H. That just seems to happen as case capacity gets bigger for a given bore size. A 458 is a good example at the other extreme.

But if the Ultra will not deliver the accuracy at H&H ballistics, then the JGS reamer won't be coming.

The Rem 700 is strictly to test one with standard factory chambering.

As to gains in the field I don't think there will be any.

Mike

[This message has been edited by Mike375 (edited 01-23-2002).]

John,

When I owned my 338 Lapua my biggest concern was bullet failure. I was limited to hunting bullets designed for the 338 Win Mag. I never had to shoot anything up close and I am glad I didn't as I am certain that the bullets would have faired poorly.

I chose a 338 Lapua for making 600+ yard shots at elk. I had lost an elk with a 300 Wby and did not want to go through that again. I zeroed my rifle at 300 yards and with the target knobs was easily able to take an elk to 800 yards if conditions were right. The only advantage that the super magnums have is what the military intended them for LONG RANGE shots. I have been beat up before for long range hunting so I do not want to go back there.

Todd E

Mike375,
I think you are on the right track for these goals. I have always liked the .375 Wea. for similar reasons. I used two .378's for a time and quite simply did not make a single kill I could not have made with the H&H and my bullet placement, afield, was generally not as precise, despite a flatter trajectory. For Africa, it made no sense to me to tote anything but the H&H version.
I predict your new Remington will be your most accurate rifle ever in .375 caliber.

My own field experience with this class of cartridges is limited to my 33 G&A wildcat, which is very much like the 338 Ultra.
Loaded to full potential it will typically produce near 3100fps with 250gr Nosler partitions and 3150fps with 230gr Fail Safes. These two loads have accounted for bull elk at 15 steps, 183yds by lazer, and a brown bear at 90yds. In each instance bullet performance was perfect. One elk was hit through the shoulder at 15 steps, he was perfectly broadside and made two steps before collapsing on his nose! Bullet broke both shoulders and exited, quarter sized hole. The other elk was coming towards me at a slight angle so I hit him between the neck and near shoulder. He went down at the shot and the bullet penetrated through the spine, intestines and then broke the rear hip before exiting. It kicked up dirt on the hillside behind him, so we found the spot and dug it out! Only had to dig a foot deep. Similar shot and results on the bear. I can't say how these bullets would work at 3300+ but I know they work better than the same ones out of the 338 this rifle replaced!

Nick,

There isa Wicnhester engineer that posts on HA.

He sent me an email saying the model 70 375s with the old magazine system (new one is from about 18 months ago) are fine for the Ultra with just a 300 Ultra follower and magazine box and no other changes.

I have 2 unfired M70 Stainless that very good as it took 4 toget the 2.

I need to blued/walnut modles to complete my 300 H&H and 375 H&H project.

But as you can see I can press on with the the two H&Hs projects and if the Ultra turns out OK, then presto

I hope to be able to soon test a 300 Ultra and try loading it from 30/06 through to 300 H&H and 300 Win balistics.

Because Model 70s have intergral recoil lug and you don't bed under the barrel and they also in recent years take Jewell triggers I will be able to switch between 300 H&H and 375 H&H and 300 Ultra and 375 Ultra.

Mike

I have no problem with anyone useing whatever they like and what works for them..the big super rounds have their place and I'm all for the expanding choices that are available to day. They certainly kill well and range far. But, for myself I am Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, John...I reserve that right and its based on personal experience.

My main complaint is:
1. people that use the wrong bullets in them, and there are a many that do...Not the guns fault, but a fault never the less.

2...I don't care for the extra blast and recoil over the standard calibers.

3. I don't need the extra ranging capabilities because I don't shoot past 400 yds. these days, and seldom over 200 yds..

4. I am more than satisfied with existing standard U.S. calibers and the fine European rounds.

5. I have this intense nostalgia that takes over my heart and soul, I crave living the life of yesteryears hunter, and the old calibers help take me there. It is a nice perk to my profession I think....

6. My gun choices are mine alone and have nothing to do with anyone elses, I use what I like as that is an individual choice and I surly don't care on wit what anyone else uses as that is their personal choice....an thats the bottom linel.

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

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Like Ray I am a devotee of nostalgia, but that has little to do with my pespective on "ultra-magnums". The original post conjured a picture in my mind of a smallbore loaded with (pick your bullet in the SD ~ 0.225 - 0.250 range) at a muzzle velocity of 3400 to 3800 fps. I don't consider a .338 or .375 caliber "ultramag" based on the same case to be in this league because the velocity difference between such a brute and the next nearest neighbor is only 100 to 150 fps. The recoil will be pretty similar as well. My 1964-vintage .340 Wby is almost indistinguishable from the new generation .338 RUM.

So, I keep reading accounts like that of Alf, describing massive trauma at ultra-velocity impacts with monolithic bullets. That's a world apart from launching Nosler Ballistic Tips at 3400 fps like the Remington factory loads for the 7 mm RUM. I offered before on a couple of previous threads that I thought this was a clear direction for the future.

Here's my only wet blanket comment: the increased lethality you experience with very high velocities is a diminishing quantity at extended ranges. For those cartridges that are small in bore diameter and use ultra-velocity to make up for their small size I suspect that one will see small real increase in maximum range as compared with a larger diameter "old school" weapon relying more on its physical size to produce a comparable effect.

In other words, if my 3700+ fps .257 100 gr Ultra-Zapper load produces a wound similar to that of yesterday's .300 Wby using 180 grain premium bonded bullets, at the point where its velocity falls off such that it begins to perform like the cartridges we typically use today (<3000 fps) it will be a small caliber cartridge once more - and that range may not be much farther than the "max range" of the .300 Wby. Granted, the trajectory will be flatter. But even a bullet with a fairly high BC of 0.477 launched at 3700 fps (thats 300 - 400 fps faster than the STW or Dakota can do it) will decay down to 3000 fps in about 300 yards. Over that distance the trajectory for almost any modern load will be almost equally flat. If the recoil from this cannon is practically the same then I don't see that we have achieved much. We lose the attributes of smallbores that make them more attractive than big bores, namely light weight and modest recoil. I am in no way opposed to the whole idea - on the contrary it intrigues me - but I am not hypnotized with wonder at the possibilities just yet.

PS-- In response to a personal query I received today I have just discovered that the 1960s vintage .257 Wby will (allegedly) deliver a 100 gr Barnes XLC bullet at 3700 fps and recoil no worse than my 7 mm magnum. If there is anyone within an hour's drive of Huntsville, AL with a .257 Wby who will allow me to test this load I would be really interested to see the comparison.

[This message has been edited by Harald (edited 01-25-2002).]