quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
I thought that Taylor did not design the 375, that it is really a 375x338, but that since he did do the 416 Taylor everybody just calls this the 375 Taylor. am I wrong?

Red

This is the .375 Taylor, which is listed in the Reloading Data at the .416 Taylor page (click on the Reloading Data link):
http://www.geocities.com/bw_99835/

The .375 Taylor was designed on a .338WM case, and that's why it's also called .338-375. However, since both the .338 and .458 cases are "related," either one should work. But to me at least it makes more sense to use the cheap and readily available .338WM case.

I pirated the reloading data from the above link.

I also think the case could be made from 358 Norma cases.

Hornady SP 270gr





IMR-4064 69gr 2,763 accurate


IMR-4064 71gr 2,822 accurate


IMR-4895 67gr 2,685


IMR-4895 68gr 2,722


IMR-4320 68gr 2,645


IMR-4320 69gr 2,690


RL-15 73gr 2,864 accurate






Bullet Type Bullet Weight Powder Charge Velocity Comments
Swift A-Frame 270gr




* IMR-4064 68gr 2,675 accurate


IMR-4320 68.5gr 2,690






Bullet Type Bullet Weight Powder Charge Velocity Comments
Nosler Partition 260gr





IMR-4064 69gr 2,793 accurate


IMR-4064 70gr 2,822 accurate

* RL-15 70gr 2,775 accurate


RL-15 71gr 2,843 accurate


RL-15 73gr 2,906 accurate






Bullet Type Bullet Weight Powder Charge Velocity Comments
Swift A-Frame 300gr IMR-4064 66gr 2,560 accurate






Bullet Type Bullet Weight Powder Charge Velocity Comments
Sierra BTSP 300gr IMR-4064 66gr 2,620 accurate

Paul B: I've killed 8 elk in the last 8 years with a 375 loaded pretty mild. Used 250 Sierra BTS, 270 Barnes X and Hornday SP, 300 Nosler and Barnes Original. All worked really good, but I am sold on the 300 Nosler. Loaded to around 2500 will do a job from any angle. I huntem in the woods, where 150 is a long shot. In the open, go with a 250-270. 375 is a great bore no matter what case you put behind it. BTW, I'd think about sticking with 375 SAAMI specs in the Taylor - specs have more to do with bore dia than case design, tho the new shorties I guess have a heavier web thus run hotter and get velocity through higher pressures. If you have a short action, you can do fine with the Taylor. I have a Husky Mauser that would make a great one. The 9.3x64 Brenneke is another short round that runs with the HH.

[quote]Posted 29 May 2006 01:09


Nosler Partition 260gr

RE 15 73 grs 2900 ?????

This has got to be pretty hot!!

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Paul B et al.

The case capacity of the Taylor is 87.92 gr vs. the 96.37 gr of the H&H and as they share common parentage in terms of case base and head diameters the one is simply more of the other in terms of capacity.

So no matter what you do if we load to maximum capacity and to modern standards the rules of internal combustion dictate that we can get more powder into the H&H case and more powder means more FPS. As long as we remain within the limits of safe pressure the velocity relationship all things equal is linear. For each grain of powder we will get a contant velocity yield.

For the same reason an improved 375 H&H will beat out the standard H&H.

Apply the same standards to both and the bigger case capacity case means more FPS.

The same rules apply when we compare a 38 special to a 375 magum vs a 375 maxiumum or in rifles a 7mm rem mag vs the 7mm Weatherby vs the 7mm STW, In large bores the 458 Win vs the Lott vs the 3 inch express.

Same bullet plus more powder equals more velocity (to a point) when all else is equal. But, I didn't think all was equal when comparing the 375H&H to the 375-338WM. Even though they share a parent/similar cartridge, I thought there was a difference in expansion ratios/efficiency. As a result, current SAAMI Rifle Pressure Specifications (Maximum Average pressure) for these cartridges are as follows:

- 300H&H = 54,000 max
- 375H&H = 62,000 max
- 338WM = 64,000 max
- 416RM = 65,000 max

Therefore, the 375-338WM can be loaded to a higher pressure than the 375H&H while staying w/in industry standards even though the 375-338WM has less case capacity than the 375H&H.

I thought that this was the reason that the 375-338WM could not only reach standard 375H&H velocities but in addition, could do so in a shorter class of cartridge.

G

quote:

I thought there was a difference in expansion ratios/efficiency. As a result, current SAAMI Rifle Pressure Specifications (Maximum Average pressure) for these cartridges are as follows:

- 300H&H = 54,000 max
- 375H&H = 62,000 max
- 338WM = 64,000 max
- 416RM = 65,000 max

This may be true.....however SAAMI has nothing to do with efficiency or expansion ratios....it's more a reflection of the rifles chambered in these rounds and the specs of original loading.

Alf is right when it comes to a .375 H&H and a .375 Taylor chambered in a modern M-70 or other (same/identical) action....the larger capacity case wins every time.....maybe not by much but it wins.

I've also posted this about the difference between the .375 H&H and the .375 Weatherby.....loaded to the same pressures there is little difference but the larger case wins.

The Weatherby lovers don't like to hear this (just like the AI guys don't like to hear it) but that's the way it works.

I forgot to add one more thing:

Because you can reach standard 375H&H velocities using the 375-338WM while using less powder, you'll have less recoil in equal weight rifles. Or, you can build a lighter weight Taylor and have no more recoil than a heavier H&H.

G

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Alf is right when it comes to a .375 H&H and a .375 Taylor chambered in a modern M-70 or other (same/identical) action....the larger capacity case wins every time.....maybe not by much but it wins.

I'll put it this way. A big reason why the 375-338WM can stand on its own is due to its efficient expansion ratio. Example:

Take equal weight rifles (8.5lbs) chambered in 375-338WM, 375H&H, 375Weatherby. Load all three up using the same 300gr bullet loaded up to max pressure within industry standards. All three will use different amounts of powder but all three will be fairly close to the same 2600fps velocity and all will be within spec. The big difference is the recoil.

- Taylor (66gr @ 2600fps +/-) = 43 foot-pounds recoil.

- H&H (81.5gr @ 2600fps +/-) = 49 foot-pounds recoil.

- Wthby (93gr @ 2600fps +/-) = 53 foot-pounds recoil.

To go one step further, you can build the Taylor to as light as 6.9 pounds and have no more recoil than the Weatherby at 8.5 pounds.

You can load the 375H&H up to 375-338WM pressures and run away w/ a bit more velocity, but you will exceed industry standards and you will increase recoil at a greater rate than that of the velocity increase.

G

GaryVA make a very good point. My .375 Taylor weighs 7.5 pounds with scope, sling and a full magazine and a round in the chamber. Stock is a Ramline, if that makes any difference. My Ruger #1 Tropical in .375 H&H weighs 9.5 pounds with scope, sling and a round in the chamber. The .375 Taylor kicks noticably less than the Ruger. Part of that may be due to the fact that it has a better recoil pad than the Tropical, and maybe the synthetic stock does give a little helping to reduce recoil. I do know that it hurts less to shoot it than the #1.
Allow me a slight rant here, but why in hell doesn't Ruger put a decent recoil pad on their harder kicking guns intead of the Mickey Mouse pad they probably bought at a fire sale?
Rant off.
I do know that it is no problem to duplicate .375 H&H velocities with the .375 taylor base in my chronograph readings of factory H&H ammo VS my loads for the Taylor. it's pretty difficult to dispute empirical data.
Paul B.

I am STILL trying to figure out how Taylor gets the credit for thinking up the 375/338. Is everything necked down on the 458 or necked up on the 338 automatically called a _ _ _ Taylor?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnum Hunter1:
I am STILL trying to figure out how Taylor gets the credit for thinking up the 375/338. Is everything necked down on the 458 or necked up on the 338 automatically called a _ _ _ Taylor?

Like you I've heard it described as 375 Taylor, 375 Chatfield-Taylor, 375-338WM. All three shared the same dimensions so they are probably the same. I had an RCBS technician look through their data and I was told that Taylor had nothing to do with it. Also, RCBS indicated that the proper way to load for the 375-338WM was to run 338WM brass directly through their 375-338WM die. No fireforming was needed. They advised this was prefered over starting w/ 458WM brass. The actual 416 Taylor is made from 458WM brass though.

G

All:

A couple of summers ago, I built a .375 Taylor on a Montana M1999 action with a 23" Shilen #4 barrel, sitting in a Borden Rimrock stock. I have not weighed it, but suspect it is 8-8.5, maybe even 9 pounds. I have a Zeiss 3.5-10X40 with #4 reticle on it. During the course of working up loads, I chronographed a bunch and posted them on either the Wildcatting forum or the Reloading forum, I've forgotten which. But, do a search and you will find them. Since then, I've paid attention to what others are getting out of their .375 H and Hs, and the .375 Taylor is right there, if not slightly faster, than what others are getting. I don't know why, but I know what my chronograph reads. BTW, my elk load is 70.0g of RE-15, Fed magnum primers, 270g Barnes TSX. It chronos somewhere around 2700-2725fps and is very accurate. I make my brass from virgin .338WM brass, one pass thru the .375 Taylor die.... I have seen over 2800fps with 260g Accubonds and AA2520, but it wasn't as accurate as the Barnes TSXs.

I'm certainly biased, but I think the factories have really missed the boat in NOT legitimizing the .375/.338, .375 Taylor, or whatever you want to call it.

MKane160

quote:

I think the factories have really missed the boat in NOT legitimizing the .375 Taylor,

Ditto man......I agree. Add the 416 Taylor to it as well.