I don't see a lot of posts asking the usual questions about these cartridges. Why is that?

odd bullet sizes, no perforamnce gain over the 416 rem/458 lott, and only HH fans want the 465 ...
a friend if doing a 400 ... funky looking, for certain

Wink,

Those rounds were discussed vigorously at the time of their announcement. If you search this forum on either round, you should see the threads.

As for why there haven't been any recent threads, perhaps no one has used them in the field.

George

I'm finishing a 400 right now and Jeff is right, it doesn't do much that more accessable rounds don't do already.

In a nut shell, the 400 is intended to dupilcate the 450/400 in a magazine rifle, with all the appearance of a true H&H creation.

It is a case of a company with a certain heritage and philosophy wanting something proprietary that matches their existing rounds.

The 400 has the classic H&H sloped body for ease of feeding and extraction. You can sure make the argument that with modern powders that is an obsolete concern but Holland's is about tradition, not modernity.

I did it because I got a "cheap" reamer for it. How many times will I fall for that?

Like Tigger says, they are made to duplicate H&H's own rimmed cartridges. They look good, and carry a name. I really do not understand why they did not use the belted Holland's for the .465 also, as 2150 with a 480 gsr bullet is very easy at low preassures - the .470 Capstick takes a 500 grs bullet to 2400.
I believe they did not like a stright cartridge - the good people at H&H do not need more than that.
On the belted Weatherby, it has more of a sloopy shoulder, like the .400. Loaded to max, it would be close to the .475A&M!!!


.375, 400, and 465 H&H.

Great picture, Bent. And looks can be deceiving; the 400 has greater case capacity than the 375 even though the low shoulder makes it look otherwise.

Can someone tell me the case capacity of the .400 H&H and that of the .416 Remington? Just curious.......

Quicklpoad says 104 for the 400 and 107 for the 416.

If I recall, the working pressure is the same as the 375 H&H and the published statistics are a .411, 400 grain bullet at 2350 plus or minus.

The case capacities of my 400 H&H brass vary from 95.0 to 98.0 grains of H2O, depending upon the brass manufacture/brand.

That .465 H&H looks short!
It looks like it could be made on a standard size Mauser action?
Tons of class and stiff upperlip.

Cheers,

André

Andra aka Jeffery Denmark...yerright...them short tip to canalure 465's for the 500/465 might fit the oal for mausers...

I know that many .375 H&H are made on standard Mauser actions.
You might need a bigger magazine but not much streching needs to be done.
Interesting caliber

Cheers,

André

I say neck that sob up to 475... the 7 thou from .468" will not be missed.

You got it.
It could be the poor mans .475 No 2

Cheers,

André

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Quicklpoad says 104 for the 400 and 107 for the 416.

If I recall, the working pressure is the same as the 375 H&H and the published statistics are a .411, 400 grain bullet at 2350 plus or minus.

But that does not duplicate the rimmed round at all?? Besides that with a smaller diameter bullet and smaller case capasity, it should give higher preassures than 2400 with a 400 from the .416 Remington??

The .465 is, as Boomy says, short because of the stumpy bullets made for the 500-465 NE, but still longer than the .500 Jeffery, and requires the same modifications to a M98 lengthvise as the .375 and .400.

That has always been the controvery about the round and its published ballistics. How can that be? Unless they hit a perect storm of case capacity, bullet weight and pressure for a faster burning powder, I don't know. I have not chronographed any of my loads so I cannot verify the velocity (yet).

Look here: 400 Article

There is a behind the scenes effort to make a run of Blaser R93 barrels in 400H&H. I hope we will have more news about it in the next month or so.

I will be ordering one for my '09 Cape Buffalo hunt in Mozambique.