Long winded reply:

I’m just not seeing any issue with recoil or with velocity from a 375Ruger out of a mkII/Hawkeye, but I do see big differences between the 375Ruger and the 375H&H. I’ve been a card carrying member of the end-user group pushing to see a factory based 375 in a standard production Ruger mkII since I built my first Ruger 375/338 long ago. The 375H&H RSM was a sluggish truck axle of a rifle and it took a comparison test and critical review from Dave Scovill to make Bill Ruger get off his duff and do something to try and lighten up the RSM. Even with the subsequent improvements, the RSM is still too heavy a rifle for a 375H&H class cartridge. Scovill took the next step to have Bill Ruger’s long time right hand man, Bill Atkinson, convert a mkII 338wm into a 375H&H. Scovill had the same motivation as I had in building my 375/338, but Scovill went the 375H&H route. His written words in the article on this rifle build from nearly a decade ago sums up this motivation well:

“The Ruger was a bit too heavy for the caliber, albeit I felt it would be fine when chambered for a heavy-kicking .458 Winchester Magnum or .416 Rigby. When the tests were over, I bought the Winchester, took the Remington on a brown bear hunt and sent the Ruger back.

When the magazine with my test results was published, Bill Ruger sent word that he wanted me to take a second look at their "new" magnum with the sling swivel mounted on the shorter 23-inch barrel. It was, in my opinion, a better rifle than the version tested previously, but it was still a little heavy for an extended hunt for elk, moose, brown bear or African game. Admittedly, the extra heft helped to dampen recoil somewhat, but like any rifle that is carried a lot, and fired only occasionally in the field, I envisioned something more like 7 to 7.5 pounds, or more in line with the standard MKII .300 or .338 Winchester Magnums. It makes no sense to leave the 8.5- to 9-pound rifle at home because it becomes a burden to carry in rough country. At 7 pounds or thereabouts, like the Remington Classic I packed nearly 20 miles in a bit less than 2 days in Alaska, I had the punch of a .375 H&H if needed but didn't have to pack a 9 pounder in addition to a full pack.

I've often wondered why Ruger didn't build a relatively lightweight "packing" rifle based on the standard Model 77 MKII. The idea would be to build a rifle like the Model 700 Classic, just over 7 pounds, but with a stock designed for use with open sights, like the Model 77 MKII .338 or .300 Winchester Magnum with sights. If the user wanted to mount a scope, that's fine, but the basic idea is to keep the weight of the rifle to a responsible minimum, so you can carry it around for days, weeks or even months, and have it on hand when it's needed.”

Scovill column from Rifle
January - February 2004
Volume 36, Number 1
ISSN: 0162-3583
Number 211

That Bill Atkinson custom built mkII 375H&H is owned today by the professional bear guide Phil Shoemaker. According to Phil, the rifle still works well but there are inherent issues with the modifications in opening up the mkII action to squeeze in the 375H&H cartridge, especially with the metal removal in the bolt stop. This would be a poor choice on basing a line of production rifles.

Now less than a decade later, Ruger/Hornady developed and released the perfect answer, the 375Ruger cartridge. It not only makes the perfect fit in the mkII action, but it also opens the door for other custom applications. From a hand loaders perspective, it is head and shoulders above the H&H making for a very efficient overall package. As to velocity, I see no problem in getting big rifle 375H&H performance out of the more compact mkII/Hawkeye package. My beloved 375/338 is now obsolete and the 375Ruger makes for a better fit and a better overall working package than the H&H.

As to popularity, it is becoming the best thing since sliced bread for many guides in AK. I’m not seeing too many from that corner arguing to see more added bulk and weight. Not everyone uses the same methods for hunting and not every style of hunting is that forgiving for excessive weight. Using the differences between the style of hunting often used by Americans who hunt Africa, compared to the style of hunting often used by Americans who hunt Alaska, they can be polar opposites. Phil Shoemaker not too long ago wrote of his son’s recent experience working in Zambia:

“You can't compare the two. After two years of working in Zambia with one of the best in the business my son decided that he missed "real hunting" and came back to Alaska. Not that he didn't enjoy his experience but that the way most African outfits do their hunting it is no different than road hunting in America.
I know a lot of excellent African PH's and they would all prefer to do "real" hunts on foot but the average American hunter is looking for the most animals for the $bucks$ and road hunting is the best way to do that. Plus it is the best way for them to make their trophy fees!! The average American hunter equates number of animals to success!” - Phil Shoemaker

Now, I can see some in this later camp arguing for more bulk and weight to tame felt recoil and I can see such styles of hunting as being more tolerant to lugging around heavier tackle. But I don’t see this style of hunting as cornering the entire market when it comes to what makes the perfect 375 dangerous game rifle. No matter the style of hunting or the choices in rifles and cartridges, I just think it unreasonable to expect for an out of the box factory production rifle to be up to speed for any form of actual long term dangerous game hunting without needing some tweaks and modification. Even then, the rifle should see a sound vetting before it is deemed good to go.

Best

Gary, not to hijack, but here are two recent posts I made about my own 375H&H Ruger project. I have an RSM that's accounted for a few brown bears, but as everyone says is WAY too heavy. This rifle weighs 7.5lb bare with an AL floorplate and laminated stock. I have a plastic one that could take off a few more ounces if I wanted.

It now has fixed sigths and a 2.5x Leupold in detachable rings too. As noted, I didn't have to move the bolt stop to get it to feed 3.60" hornady and nosler 300 grainers and it shoots 1.5" at 100yds with the 2.5x, which is as good as can hold.

Bob

#1

Here are some photos from my own project, turning a 300W into a 375H&H. The rifle is rebarreled and shoot fine, but the fixed sights still have to be remounted. I'll post a picture of the completed gun tonight. It has a 22" pacnor and is .62 at the muzzle to keep weight down.







I added a thin piece of nylon at the back of the mag box to keep the rounds from sliding too far rearward. That probably isn't needed if the bolt stop is relocated, but in reality the stop screw can only move about .15" or .2" (I'll have to look up my notes) before you run out of meat for a hole.

Bob


Post #2

Here's the above rifle. I dropped it off at the smith today to have the fixed sights mounted, but ultimately I decided to put a 2.5x fixed Leupold on it.

It would have been much easier to just buy a 375 Ruger, but as Matt said above there is only one 375 . I wanted to build an all weather 375H&H that was as convienent as my 30-06. I haven't weighed it, but is its definitely light and handly and is easy to shoot despite the crappy factory pad.

I'm completely at a loss as to why Ruger doesn't make'em like this at the factory!?




Bob

quote:

I'm completely at a loss as to why Ruger doesn't make'em like this at the factory!?

That was my reaction to the introduction of the 375Ruger. Building a 7.5 lb 375 is not rocket science. I am sure you could do the same thing on an M70 action. Browning made a 7 lb 375 safari way back when on a Mauser action and that was a 24in bbl. And apparently, Remington offered a light option in 375. Ruger could not figure it out!

Then whats wrong with this picture: Ruger offers an Alaskan not available in 338win and a so called African not available over 375!

375H&H performance out of a Ruger mkII sized rifle makes for a nice handling package. But without a Ruger redesign of the mkII receiver, the mkII must be compromised in some degree to squeeze in the 375H&H with very little room to work. My understanding Ruger would need to alter the bolt stop to reach specs, and from a Ruger engineering standpoint these needed modifications for a production run weaken the design, especially in the area of the bolt stop to the point of being unacceptable as a Ruger production rifle. As Shoemaker himself said about the 375H&H modification with his own rifle; if Ruger made a bunch of them with this inherent flaw, it wouldn't be too long before someone working the bolt hard in a tight situation would break it into two pieces with the rifle in one hand and the bolt in the other.

This was the reason I chose to use the 375/338 over the H&H with my conversion, and this is why Ruger did not make a factory mkII 375H&H. Today, the 375Ruger makes for the better fit and better package in the mkII. The 375Ruger is actually extremely well thought out for the mkII and it works extremely well in that action.

I own or have owned and used nearly every rifle noted in this thread. Each one of them have had different issues to resolve and none were perfect out of the box. I also continue to use and love the 416 Rem Mag as well as the 375H&H. They'll be around a long time. The 375/416 Rugers will be around a long time as well for the very reason that they are so well thought out and they just plain work so well. I'd just not get so worked up over the success of these Rugers as if they are somehow a personal insult to our beloved older rifles and cartridges. I'd also not get so worked up over Ruger for not getting everything out into the market at the same time. At first people were upset that there was no 416, now people are upset because there is no 416 in the African. Some are upset that they cannot get the IonBond finish on the 416. We are never happy and we tend to be a fickle bunch

Best

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
375H&H performance out of a Ruger mkII sized rifle makes for a nice handling package. But without a Ruger redesign of the mkII receiver, the mkII must be compromised in some degree to squeeze in the 375H&H with very little room to work. My understanding Ruger would need to alter the bolt stop to reach specs, and from a Ruger engineering standpoint these needed modifications for a production run weaken the design, especially in the area of the bolt stop to the point of being unacceptable as a Ruger production rifle. As Shoemaker himself said about the 375H&H modification with his own rifle; if Ruger made a bunch of them with this inherent flaw, it wouldn't be too long before someone working the bolt hard in a tight situation would break it into two pieces with the rifle in one hand and the bolt in the other.

This was the reason I chose to use the 375/338 over the H&H with my conversion, and this is why Ruger did not make a factory mkII 375H&H. Today, the 375Ruger makes for the better fit and better package in the mkII. The 375Ruger is actually extremely well thought out for the mkII and it works extremely well in that action.

I own or have owned and used nearly every rifle noted in this thread. Each one of them have had different issues to resolve and none were perfect out of the box. I also continue to use and love the 416 Rem Mag as well as the 375H&H. They'll be around a long time. The 375/416 Rugers will be around a long time as well for the very reason that they are so well thought out and they just plain work so well. I'd just not get so worked up over the success of these Rugers as if they are somehow a personal insult to our beloved older rifles and cartridges. I'd also not get so worked up over Ruger for not getting everything out into the market at the same time. At first people were upset that there was no 416, now people are upset because there is no 416 in the African. Some are upset that they cannot get the IonBond finish on the 416. We are never happy and we tend to be a fickle bunch

Best

Very well said

I'd have to agree on the ease of fitting the 375 and 416 Ruger into standard actions

Below I have my own 416 Ruger, built on a HOWA/VANGAURD action. The rifle started life as a 300 Win Mag I have made NO modifications to the action to fit the 416 Ruger in. It's smooth and feed floorlessly.





Now the stock already has "pre installed" factory fitted internal cross bolts, seems like it's easy enough for HOWA/VANGAURD to do it. I'll say it again, SURELY Ruger could do this, Howa/Vangaurd get it done factory fit(boyds make them I think) and I dont know what prices are like in the USA, but in Australia HOWA/VANGAURD rifle prices are cheaper than Rugers firearms.

I did however bed the action as well.

NOw this gun has fired 150 +, 416 Ruger rounds with no effect to the stock.

It has a fluted 22 inch 416 Barrel, and is the most accurate big bore I own. Yes I know its a push feed, but I have bigger more dangerous guns in CRF for those situations.

Topped with an old faithfull 2-7 Leupold and running 340g woodleights at about 2600fps its one of my fun guns.

regards
S&F

quote:

Using the differences between the style of hunting often used by Americans who hunt Africa, compared to the style of hunting often used by Americans who hunt Alaska, they can be polar opposites.

Point well made and taken. Alaska has more water and humidity than Africa and I can well appreciate the difference. The hunt in Alsaka may well be tougher as well, especially if you are on your own with no guide or PH. We here is SA just have no idea what it is like, we can only imagine what it is like, unless we did a hunt over there.

Warrior