<snip>

Low Wall:

I am shocked that you would even think such a thing... LOLOLOLOL

I once went to a rib fest. They were giving out bumper stickers that said "We like vegetarians. They make us smile." That's kind of how I feel about these .375 Ruger vs. .375 H&H discussions. They make me smile! Two guns shooting bullets of the same weight and diameter at approximately the same velocity. The Ruger makes up into a more portable rifle but its' going to recoil a bit more. If you like it, pick it. If you like a classic cartridge that feeds like butter because of its' .065 of taper, pick the H&H. They are both good and there is not a dimes worth of difference between them. I will tell you how I answered this question. I sold my .375 H&H and am now the proud owner of two guns chambered in 9.3X62. Now, I have the best of all worlds, light portable rifles shooting a classic cartrige that doesn't knock you out from under your hat. Now, can we get back to the .45-70?

Jeff, quit screwing with these guys. It's just mean! [/QUOTE]

That's interesting. I just had my CZ 550 FS 9.3x62 rebarreled for the .375 Ruger. I like the 9.3x62, but it just didn't have enough at the top end. Besides the barrel, the change over only required very little mag rail work and a little slicking up on the action. All of the other barrel hardware was carried over for a stock appearance. Inexpensive conversion and it ended up a 7 1/2 lb 20 1/2" barrel gun with a lot of flexibility.

Very accurate, both cast and jacketed bullets.

Joe:

I understand what you are saying but I think with the quality of todays bullets the 9.3 will do everything the .375 will do at the ranges at which dangerous game is usually shot. I think in the 9.3, for buff or bison, the 286 Woodleigh PP, Nosler Partition, and 320 grain Woodleighs are great choices but if you want to reach out a little further out for a combination plains game/buff hunt or perhaps elk or moose, then the 250 Barnes bullets would be an excellent choice as well. I have my CZ sighted in with the 286 grain bullets and my Blaser with the 250 grain TSX bullets. In the little bit of testing I did, I found that the 250 grain TSX would penetrate as well as the conventional 286 grain bullets and the 300 grain Swift. That 250 TSX bullet really makes the 9.3 sing! I'd wager that with the .375 or the 9.3, as with most guns, bullet placement is far more important than caliber. On game, I just don't think there is a nickels worth of difference between them but I prefer the lighter 9.3 with the more moderate recoil.

P.S. With the 9.3, try Ramshot Big Game. It works!

P.S.S. Sorry guys. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

I just reread Jeff's original post about the "joust" between the two .375s. The only question he asks is about velocity given comparable barrels lengths. It would be an interesting test and Jeff, even assuming that you are right and I think you are that the Ruger will give you more velocity in a shorter barrel, what's the point? Again, same bullet weights at about the same velocity... your buff is not going to know the difference. Aren't we just arguing about minutia here?

Dave,
here's what I am going to test -- its not really about which is better -- its about knowledge -

Some guys like short barrels .. Great, let's find out what it looks like to do this.

Heck, what happens if you wind up in deepest darkest africa with a 19" 375HH, rather than a 26" cz? Wouldn't be nice to KNOW what you are dealing with?

As for changing persons minds, Jason, I am not trying to do so directly. In terms of "the 375 ruger can't make book" arguement, I intend to provide facts, not speculation. Hardly delusional, though perhaps esoteric.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I am trying to compare the standard 375 hh to the standard 375 ruger? an average of all federal and remington 375hh 300gr loads is almost exactly 2500 (2490)
adding the 2 hornady factory 375HH loads, takes us to a "global" average of 2496.77


Some of the detractors statements about the 375 ruger
1: it can't make book velocity with factory ammo
lots of folks reporting book or right at it
2: it can't be reloaded to book
lots of published works beg to differ
3: the 375 ruger isn't available in africa
perhaps - neither was the 375hh in 1925, but this is a learning exercise
4: there's no way it can make book at 20" barrel
we'll see
5: its no faster than the 375 HH when comparing a 24" hh to a 20" ruger
yet HH fans claim you don't need the speed
6: ruger factory balistics can't be matched by the reloader as they don't have access to "pixie dust" powder that hornady uses
this is a mismonomer, the heavy mag loads did use custom powders that you couldn't get back in the case.. i tore a bunch of it down to see. The SP loads are not the same powders
7: there's no animal out there that can be killed by the whizbang ruger that can't be killed by the OLD STANDARD 375 HH AT 2500FPS
this is a threshold/condition of testing then,...accepted

I am offering and will address all of the above, at a range of barrel lengths, except using number 7 as a baseline for ammo. You see, part of the complaints of the ruger is that you don't "need" the "extra" velocity. The hornady super performance loads aren't available in africa like the old standard by ammo is, and therefore the one freak load has to be excluded as it meets the same complaint, 3, above.. if the ruger aint there, the super performance aint ever. Its a goose/gander thing.

for the record, my opinion is that neither the 9,3 or 375 are actually big bores, as that starts with .4xx" and does NOT include the 444 and the 45/70, regardless of load.

i've said it before, I'll say it again, the 375 is a fine medium that does a garn good job ...

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Joe:

I understand what you are saying but I think with the quality of todays bullets the 9.3 will do everything the .375 will do at the ranges at which dangerous game is usually shot. I think in the 9.3, for buff or bison, the 286 Woodleigh PP, Nosler Partition, and 320 grain Woodleighs are great choices but if you want to reach out a little further out for a combination plains game/buff hunt or perhaps elk or moose, then the 250 Barnes bullets would be an excellent choice as well. I have my CZ sighted in with the 286 grain bullets and my Blaser with the 250 grain TSX bullets. In the little bit of testing I did, I found that the 250 grain TSX would penetrate as well as the conventional 286 grain bullets and the 300 grain Swift. That 250 TSX bullet really makes the 9.3 sing! I'd wager that with the .375 or the 9.3, as with most guns, bullet placement is far more important than caliber. On game, I just don't think there is a nickels worth of difference between them but I prefer the lighter 9.3 with the more moderate recoil.

P.S. With the 9.3, try Ramshot Big Game. It works!

P.S.S. Sorry guys. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

As a guy who has handloaded lots of 9.3 and 375 ammo, and hunted with both extensively, I hear you, but that's sort of like saying there isn't a lick of difference between a .30-06 Springfield and a long case 300 Magnum. Which of course means all we need in any situation is a 30-06 Springfield and a .458 Winchester Magnum.

If you can flatten trajectory considerably, which is the case here, you can get a major increase in point blank range, which makes hunting that much easier and shot placement much more predictable.

At these hefty bullet weights, energy increases at the square of the velocity so even relatively minor increases can result in large down range improvements. Reduced time in flight, increase in kinetic energy and momentum for expansion and penetration. On game, and in ballistics medium for an apple to apple comparison, the 375 Ruger and H&H out perform the 9.3 in penetration, particularly beyond 100 yards where the difference can be 12" - 20" greater depending on bullet weight and construction.

And my final argument, Dave, I've heard a lot of guys who own 9.3's say they are almost the same as a .375 Mag, but for some strange reason I have never heard a guy who owns a .375 mag say it is almost the same as a 9.3

Back to the thread. I've shot 375 H&H handloads and factory ammunition side by side in my own 25" and 20" guns. I've shot 375 Ruger ammo in my 24", 20" and 21.5" guns. The fall off per inch of barrel loss has consistently been a toss up as long as powder of similar burn rate is used with similar bullet weights. With the Ruger holding only marginally more powder, and always with a 1/4" effective bore advantage with same length barrels, why would there be a difference anticipated? The value in the cartridge is ease of use in standard action lengths and 7 lb factory rifles rather than 9 or 10.

P.S. Try Varget or H414, it works even better.

Joe:

I agree with everything you said and would not dispute that the both the .375 Ruger and .375 H&H are more powerful and flatter shooting than the 9.3X62. However, I think your argument about trajectory is pretty much irrelevant, at least for me anyway. I doubt many buffalo are shot at ranges exceeding 100 yards and I know I have never killed a bison beyond that distance. As my tag line says, "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer". At dangerous game range, there just is no practical difference between a 300 grain .375 bullet at 2500 fps and a 286 grain .366 bullet at 2400 fps. Just ask Ganyana.

I laughed when I read your post. I shoot a 30-06 too

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
for the record, my opinion is that neither the 9,3 or 375 are actually big bores, as that starts with .4xx" and does NOT include the 444 and the 45/70, regardless of load.

i've said it before, I'll say it again, the 375 is a fine medium that does a garn good job ...

Now Jeff, don't you be dissin my 45-70 again

Dave,
just my opinion, brother .. rob thinks bigbores START at .501 ...

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Joe:

I agree with everything you said and would not dispute that the both the .375 Ruger and .375 H&H are more powerful and flatter shooting than the 9.3X62. However, I think your argument about trajectory is pretty much irrelevant, at least for me anyway. I doubt many buffalo are shot at ranges exceeding 100 yards and I know I have never killed a bison beyond that distance. As my tag line says, "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer". At dangerous game range, there just is no practical difference.

I laughed when I read your post. I shoot a 30-06 too

Sure. Guns very much depend upon application to be placed into proper context of usefulness. I don't shoot cape buffalo or bison. Moose or bear are about the limit and deer and hogs the most frequent. I honestly get more out of routine recreational target shooting and experimenting with firearms and cartridges than hunting. Guns are pretty nifty machines.

I'm not exactly sure why close up ranges are defacto for heavy game, other than a professional hunter worrying about client's shooting skills, the downside of dangerous game running around wounded or softball trajectory heavy rounds that were designed for close up use only and don't have the steam at longer ranges to be useful.

One thing I believe we can all agree upon. For truly heavy stuff, the .45-70 is the best choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Joe:

I agree with everything you said and would not dispute that the both the .375 Ruger and .375 H&H are more powerful and flatter shooting than the 9.3X62. However, I think your argument about trajectory is pretty much irrelevant, at least for me anyway. I doubt many buffalo are shot at ranges exceeding 100 yards and I know I have never killed a bison beyond that distance. As my tag line says, "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer". At dangerous game range, there just is no practical difference between a 300 grain .375 bullet at 2500 fps and a 286 grain .366 bullet at 2400 fps. Just ask Ganyana.

I laughed when I read your post. I shoot a 30-06 too

Quick note, I think that 300 grain 375, if it's a Ruger, is about 150 fps shy of a typical handload or Hornady factory ammo and the 9.3 is a tad fast. even at 250 fps separation, the difference is signficant... except when shooting a buffalo or bison a few yards away

Joe:

In my 9.3 I am getting 2400 fps without any problem with a 286 grain bullet and over 2500 fps with a 250 grain TSX. I really didn't load my .375 H&H much over 2500 fps with a 300 grain bullet so they were pretty close. Hey, it's all about choices. I just prefer the 9.3 but completely understand your affinity for the larger case.

quote:

Originally posted by joe-4570:

One thing I believe we can all agree upon. For truly heavy stuff, the .45-70 is the best choice.

By golly, now you're talking!!!

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:


Today, I have zero interest at all in going to the field with a "common" cartridge or rifle. It simply does not interest me at all. I would rather be on the range doing test work with other things as to be in the field with a "common" rifle or cartridge, of which I have plenty of.

Maybe these things are silly to some, and that's fine with me. We all have our reasons to go to the field, to experience the great adventures we might find, to view the wildlife, to be up close to dangerous critters that might eat, stomp, horn us, to see the sunset and sunrise on the Zambezi River, to lay out all night in the leopard or lion blinds, to walk for miles day in day out toting an 11 lb beast of a rifle in 110 degree heat to chase elephants, to hear the roars of lions at night, or any number of things that might run thru ones mind. For me, it's many of the things mentioned, but it simply must be my rifles, my cartridge, my ammo, and the things I had worked on for that particular hunt months or longer in advance, and without this it holds zero meaning to me.

So that's where I come from and therefore the misunderstanding I think.

Wow! I wish I could make my positions understood in such a clear and concise manner.

After reading that I see that we are not as far apart in our views, espically in regards to rifles. I cobble together all my own rifles and I can't see ever wanting to hunt with borrowed rifles, but I will if I have to because my rifle is lost or whatever. I have had to do so once or twice, but some of the enjoyment of getting the job done with "my" rifle is gone.

I am also a handloader and I shoot everything with my own handloads. I don't have a problem using factory ammo if the need arose. But I would rather use my own ammo.

To me, there is a small compensation in having to use borrowed gear and that is that it adds an additional sense of adventure to the hunt as I have to use additional skill or effort to compensate for the untested equipment. An example would be getting closer because I don't trust the rifle to shoot where I am, or taking only broadside shots because I don't trust the bullets to penetrate.

For me it's not all about the rifle and ammo, but it is pretty important.

OK, where's all the data?

With my 17" .375 Ruger, I got about 2,750 FPS with a 250 gr. Sierra BTSP, and 82 Gr. IMR4350. No flattened primers and think I can add another few grains before I get to max. in my rifle. But don't feel a need to go higher. I like it a lot at 81 grains, as it produces 2,727 FPS and it's a comfortable and fun load to shoot. At 82 grs., it gets a little blasty with it's short barrel.

So. . . . . . . still waiting for data. . . . . . . . . . . .

got most of the parts .. Jim is sending me 2 bolts .. we'll scrwe it all together and get ready!

O BOY. . . . .

Wow! What a great read about 375s. Well I dont have a horse in this race, but I am going to help Jeff assembly these two rifles and help shoot up a bunch of expensive ammo(on his dime) and get to help cut up some barrels. Gonna be a blast!

When you get down around 17" or so, "Blast" is right. Be sure to wear both plugs and ear phones.
I like shooting the slower 300 grain bullets, but when you start to hit 2,700 fps with the lighter slugs, you may start to blow snot bubbles!
Think I'm staying with the heavier bullets in mine. May even try a 350.

Michael,

I feel the same way you do. It has to be my gun with my loads. Half the reason to shoot something is to test all the components in the system. One of my hunting friends has actually gone overseas and rented guns and used the PH's ammo on purpose. I wouldn't bother going.

Blake, your right on with the my gun my loads approach. You will find that two identical rifles firing the same ammo will often show a difference in muzzle velocity and accuracy. I work up good handloads for all my rifles to try and get maxium performance from each one.

The purpose of this 375 test is to get representative data for 375 H&H and 375 Ruger at progressively shorter barrel lengths. The resulting data will be representive only and not absolute as different rifles with different loads may show some difference in results.

Rocky

Yup, rite, I'm ready, let's hear it. . . . . . .

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
Yup, rite, I'm ready, let's hear it. . . . . . .

its gunna be a couple weeks...

Ballistically, not sure what this will reveal or not reveal. Although watching a number of folks shoot the .375 Ruger (and owning one myself) I can say that the recoil is much sharper, faster than the .375 H&H. To the point that someone that is recoil sensitive is much more likely to be effective with the .375 H&H. I much prefer shooting the .375 H&H to my Ruger.

here's the plan, Mike
http://forums.accuratereloadin...591005331#9591005331

Well Jeffe it has been a month since your last post. What is going on? Have you been burning powder only to discover that the Ruger does in fact not make book? Maybe you happened across a "fast" H&H barrel and like Dr. Johnny Fever the results are unpublishable.

Or maybe, just maybe you have finally figured out that all you really need is a 45-70 to take all the animals in the world at both close and far distances

attention ONEFUNZR2 tried to send you a PM but was rejected. You might be interested in what I propose. Unless you are a friend of a certain administrator on another board and are recieving one side of a story and believing it to be God's truth.

i've got everything but bolts ..
we'll see if i cant do something in the next couple weeks ...

dang, its been 80 before 8am most days for the last month, with no relief in sight ... i'd LIKE to shoot at nearly the same temp -- but not just one load per DAY ..

results will be published, whatever the turnout ..

so, nuttin has happened

How much faster is the 375 ruger then the 375 H&H.

IMHO the dialog on barrel length goes back to the revolutionary war when everyone knew that an American Kentucky Long rifle could shoot the eye out of a squirrel but the British Brown Bess couldn’t hit a barn door beyond five feet.
We will NOT let this dialog be dragged into phallic symbols and the superiority of the long and narrow over the short and fat!
The specific subject is the short barrel vs. the long barrel, bolt action, dangerous game rifle of big bore caliber - 40 caliber or more. For this dialogue we’ll consider 16 inches as the minimum and 24 inches as the maximum barrel length - without muzzle brake. Ranges are to be 100 yards or less - a lot less, if you’re very fortunate in a stalk or very unfortunate in an encounter.
The first requirement for the barrel is to permit sufficient time to burn the powder in the shell and barrel to enable the bullet to achieve the desired velocity.
The second requirement for the barrel is to work with the rest of the components of the rifle in such a manner to enable the accuracy required for dangerous game hunting.
The third requirement is for the barrel to work with the rest of the components of the rifle in such a manner as to enable the hunter to rapidly acquire the target and get off a killing shot.
There are other requirements that do not relate to barrel length.
Based on the work done so far on various threads on the site, I see absolutely nothing that a barrel of longer than 18 inches contributes to those three requirements. I would make the case that the longer barrel works against the third requirement.
As an aside, if someone wants more weight in their rifle for whatever reason, then use lead or mercury or whatever on the shorter rifle. You won’t get quite the ease of target acquisition (you have more mass to start moving and stop moving - Newton rules) but you will have the option of placing the weight where ever on the rifle you want.

quote:

Originally posted by I Bin Therbefor:

The first requirement for the barrel is to permit sufficient time to burn the powder in the shell and barrel to enable the bullet to achieve the desired velocity.

The second requirement for the barrel is to work with the rest of the components of the rifle in such a manner to enable the accuracy required for dangerous game hunting.

The third requirement is for the barrel to work with the rest of the components of the rifle in such a manner as to enable the hunter to rapidly acquire the target and get off a killing shot.

Based on the work done so far on various threads on the site, I see absolutely nothing that a barrel of longer than 18 inches contributes to those three requirements. I would make the case that the longer barrel works against the third requirement.

IBT

Very well stated, these 4 points above are very excellently articulated! Well Done!


Michael

Michael

Thanks. That's one in a row!

IBT

quote:

Originally posted by drewhenrytnt:
attention ONEFUNZR2 tried to send you a PM but was rejected. You might be interested in what I propose. Unless you are a friend of a certain administrator on another board and are recieving one side of a story and believing it to be God's truth.

1. I was forced to disable my PM feature because I wished to not receive the constant PM's from Jeff0ss0. Asking him to cease and desist was about as much use as asking a tomato stake.

2. I know no administrator on another board.

3. As I told Jeff0ss0, if you have anything to say to me, or towards me, doing so out in the open on this public forum is fine with me.

4. I doubt I'll have any use for what you propose ( or Mr Smith's folly for that matter) as I have NO intention of buying any Rooger product or any other brand in a Rooger chambering, ever. My current two 375 H&H's suit me as is.

5. Have you ever in all your born days, witnessed as many lame excuses for the delay in getting things done as provided by Mr Smith?
I'm lazy, it's too hot, I'm waiting on another gunsmith, yada, yada, yada. It really is laughable.

I recollect that PO Ackley did much the same…on his time and dime…with the 30-06 cartridge. It was a very informative piece of work for any with an open mind who desired to really know whether they needed that trendy 26” barrel of the day or that they could get by just fine with an 18” barrel.

Dave,
I’ve never met you or Jeff…nor do I have any idea what the issue is between the two of you…nor do I really care what it is as its not germane to this thread. That said, understand that Jeff is doing this testing on his dime and time so when he gets it done it’ll be timely. If you’re footing the bill then by all means bitch all you want about the delays. Otherwise why bring personal issues into the thread?

After shooting the compact B&M rifles I think 20" is long

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
After shooting the compact B&M rifles I think 20" is long

Me Too!


M

I like 23" barrels .. i might be converted to 20" after this testing .. sub 18" well, dang, i just don't know .. fireballs and all

Based off a suggestion of a couple friends ---

quote:

Ignored post by onefunzr2 posted 06.July.2010 15:53

I'm here to tell you that For the bigger bores, I'm hooked on the shorter barrels. Now if we're talkin my .300 WM, nope, I'll keep the 24"+ thank you.
About anyone who tries the shorter barrel guns "in the thick stuff", will agree. They are the best fighting rifles.
But, I would also say, I will use the heavier bullets with short barrels, to keep blast to a minimum. My 17" .375 will use nothing but 300 grainers from here on out. Maybe a 350. But no lighter.
That Michael has done gone and ruint me for longer rifles for sure.
I didn't notice no fire balls r' nothin like that there though.
Just fast handling. They are a fightin gun for real men! Come on Jeffe', go for it. . . . .