Gents
I have no experience with the Hawkeye.
Hows the trigger?
Is it pretty well a buy the rifle and a nice aftermarket trigger while your at it kinda deal?

I have three Hawkeyes and love the new trigger and stock. The .375 Ruger and .30-06 are both very accurate and did a great job on plains game back in June. I just bought the .300 Mag and haven't taken it to the range yet.

My African has a great trigger.

Gatehouse mentioned on a previous thread that the trigger on his Alaskan model needed a little smoothing by a gunsmith.

Cheers,
Canuck

The main idea with the Hawkeye design was to make it with a better trigger than the Mark II, which was indeed easily fixed with an aftermarket trigger. The Hawkeye trigger is better, but might still be improved a bit with a "trigger job." Lawyers.

The trigger is the only real difference between a Mark II and a Hawkeye, besides the engraved Ruger Logo on the Hawkeye floorplate.

My 'smith got mine down to a great, crisp, 2.5#s

The trigger on my Alaskan is pretty good. Way better than the stock trigger on my Remington Model 7 if that's any guage. I've been very happy with mine and will probably buy a wood stock eventually just for aesthetics.

WBYPOWER,
Re-read my post..In the first paragraph I was talking balistic comparaisons. .280 vs. .270 and 375 Ruger vs. 375 H&H, no difference.

In the second paragraph I said make your choice by the gun itself meaning one had a long action and the other a med. action. Pick the rifle you want and in either caliber.

I went to Hodgdons web page at www.hodgdon.com and looked up their load data on the .375 Ruger and they are giving PSI thats pretty darn high on the scale..

I would load the .375 Ruger below what they are suggesting, and that would duplicate the .375 H&H..

I like both rounds very much and see a place in the scheme of things for them both..

Ray, you are right! To get that extra 100 fps the .375 Ruger generates a lot of pressure. Hot weather, high pressure and fairly straight case. Not a recipe for success. I would load it down a bit too. I'm sticking with my H&H. Less pressure and nice gentle taper for a buttery smooth feed.

Dave

Let us not mislead.
.375 Ruger loads of 60K PSI are shown.
.375 H&H loads of 50K CUP are shown.
The maximum loads shown are about 2000 PSI below maximum for the .375 Ruger.

Both cartridges have max pressures allowable of over 62,000 PSI.
They are loaded to the same pressures!!!

PSI is not CUP.

The old .375 H&H CUP values are badly in need of updating to more meaningful PSI measurements.

The .375 Ruger has plenty of taper for smooth feeding and extraction!!!

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Let us not mislead.
.375 Ruger loads of 60K PSI are shown.
.375 H&H loads of 50K CUP are shown.
The maximum loads shown are about 2000 PSI below maximum for the .375 Ruger.

Both cartridges have max pressures allowable of over 62,000 PSI.
They are loaded to the same pressures!!!

PSI is not CUP.

The old .375 H&H CUP values are badly in need of updating to more meaningful PSI measurements.

The .375 Ruger has plenty of taper for smooth feeding and extraction!!!

Worth repeating. I know RIP has repeated it many times.

Cheers,
Canuck

Gents
Thanx for the answer on the Hawkeye trigger, is it self adjustable at all?
Your mention of some smithing makes me doubt it but I like to do my own where I can.

Assuming equally suitable powders are used and the same velocties the 375 Ruger will have less pressure than the 375 H&H.

Thus if standard 375 H&H ballistics are the goal then the H&H is the high pressure cartridge and the 375 Ruger is the low pressure cartridge.

Sorry about that but you can't beat cubic inches.

Mike

quote:

is it self adjustable at all?

Not according to the promotional material.

As Canuck stated, I sent my rifle to a gunsmith to have the trigger smoothed and lightened. Best $30 I ever spent.

its perfect now.

......the sevral 375 Ruger triggers I have tried were pretty good but just a little playing around with springs can get it even better and still be 100% reliable at cocking the rifle .,.,.,

I don’t have either but as I’m interested in the 375 Ruger and it’s derivate wildcat (hopefully future SAAMI) cartridges. I also recently looked at Hodgdon’s reloading data primarily for a better comparison between the 375 Ruger and 375 H&H ballistics.

As Hodgdon listed some in CUP and some in PSI I decided to use the CIP CUP to CIP PSI conversion formula noted in this document:
http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf
Here’s what I came up with using Hodgdon’s reloading data for maximum loads and Hodgdon powder for some DGR loads after conversion:

Cartridge Identification Bullet Powder Grains Muzzle Velosity PSI ressure CUP to PSI Pressure*
375 Holland & Holland Magnum 300 Gr. SIE SPBT H4350 81.5 2,645 57,044 57,044.065
375 Holland & Holland Magnum 300 Gr. SIE SPBT H414 78.0 2,548 53,779 53,779.468
375 Holland & Holland Magnum 300 Gr. SIE SPBT H4895 65.0 2,505 58,132 58,132.264
375 Weatherby Magnum 300 Gr SFT SP H4831 93.0 2,649 60,430 60,429.573
375 Weatherby Magnum 300 Gr SFT SP H4650 85.0 2,642 59,000 62,726.882
375 Weatherby Magnum 300 Gr SFT SP H414 84.0 2,623 61,881 61,880.505
375 Weatherby Magnum 300 Gr SFT SP H380 75.0 2,458 60,913 60,913.217
375 Ruger 300 Gr HDY RN H4831 88.0 2,611 57,800
375 Ruger 300 Gr HDY RN H4350 80.7 2,660 59,600
375 Ruger 300 Gr HDY RN H414 79.5 2,642 60,100
416 Remington 400 Gr HDY RN H4350 88.0 2,395 56,103 56,102.704
416 Remington 400 Gr HDY RN H380 84.0 2,367 58,642 58,641.835
416 Remington 400 Gr HDY RN H4895 76.0 2,391 61,639 61,638.683
416 Remington 400 Gr HDY RN H380 75.0 2,458 60,913 60,913.217
416 Rigby 400 Gr HDY RN H1000 116.0 2,470 48,218 48,217.562
416 Rigby 400 Gr HDY RN H4831 102.0 2,432 49,548 49,547.583
416 Rigby 400 Gr HDY RN H4350 94.0 2,456 49,789 49,789.405

* Using CIP CUP to CIP PSI Conversion as noted in article
at http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf

The formatting doesn't stay together so you'll have to work with this.

I would prefer that the same bullet be used and that the pressure to be captured and stated in both CIP CUP and CIP PSI by the provider of the reloading data - but that didn’t happen.