Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Are there practical reasons to own a .300 H&H?

steve,

Yeah, there are impracticalities about owning a .300 H&H. If you don't handload, ammo is hard to find and not very varied, and even if you do handload brass can be hard to find.

Other than that, the .300 H&H works fine, but to turn your logic in the opposite direction, it doesn't do anything the other .300's don't.

Bingo! Since when does a rifle loony need a practical reason?

Nostalgia only. But that's not a bad thing.

I agree and the pros & cons have been well discussed.

If I had a 300 H H, it would HAVE to be in a Nostalgic Rifle. I would not want to build a custom nor to have it in any NEW production rifle.

Nostalgia = Nostalgia


Jerry

I do not see the practicality.
But, the 300 H&H is one cool cartridge !!
I am not a big fan of 300's, but of course have a couple.

The 300 H&H is one that I could learn to be fond of.
A 300 H&H rifle matched to a 375 H&H rifle is an interesting idea to me.

Yes... just another brass cylinder, and a poor one at that.

Live in the time you live, where you are now. Build memories from this place, not upon the shoulders of another man long gone.

Well, the .300 H&H was a product of it's times. It was originally designed to reproduce 1920's .30-06 velocities with Cordite, which was VERY heat-sensitive, the reason the case was a lot larger than the .30-06's, and considerably tapered--which aided extraction if the case got a little sticky. Which is also the reason for the shallow shoulder angle, which was the reason for the belted case: The shoulder angle of 8.5 degrees wasn't even as much as the .375 H&H's 15 degrees, so was worthless for headspacing.

Which is why the .300 H&H is prone to case stretching and hence short case life. How long the cases last depends on how closely the belt matches the the chamber, which is a crapshoot with today's brass in any rifle. I know this (again) because I've owned and handloaded for several .300 H&H rifles, including a pre-'64 Model 70, a Ruger No. 1 and a custom-barreled Model 70 Classic.

.300 H&H brass is available, though not nearly as often as .300 WSM, .300 Winchester and .300 Weatherby, and when it is available costs more. Because of the case shape it doesn't last as long.

As far as the .300 H&H "feeding" better, I've owned several .300 WSM, .300 Winchester and .300 Weatherby rifles and they all have fed just fine--except for the very first .300 WSM, a first-year M70 Classic in .300 WSM made before the bugs got worked out.

The .300 H&H has just about exactly the same powder room as the .300 WSM, and at the same pressures is capable of the same velocities. This was proven years ago in project I suggested to Charlie Sisk, who first chambered a barrel in .300 H&H and tried several loads, with pressure-testing. Then he rechambered it to .300 WSM, keeping the throat in as close to the same place as possible. The same powder charges and bullets resulted in basically the same velocities and pressures.

The .300 H&H is a case designed for powder problems that no longer exist, so involves problems (and expenses) that are non-existent for newer .300 magnums. If somebody has a .300 H&H and plenty of brass, obviously it produces ballistics resembling most other .300 magnums, so will work well.

I've dealt with a bunch of rifles that have even more practical problems, and will again. The official motto of our little company, riflesandrecipes.com, is "Need has nothing to do with it." But for me to deal with another .300 H&H with require running across some REALLY nifty old rifle. I'll then go ahead with knowledge of the H&H's "practical" problems.

I've had very good case life with .300 H&H brass. Like most other rifle cartridges, especially belted ones, I size just enough so that a little effort is required to close the bolt. After five or six firings, a full-length sizing may be required. I would guess that full-length sizing of H&H brass everytime would result in case separation after two or three loadings.

It's discussions like this one that might make a guy realize that what appeals to him may or may not be rationally justifiable. Sometimes I like stuff---or NOT---just because. I'll bet I ain't the only one.

Practical? absolutely not but as a rifle "loon" and historical one as well. I've been fortunate the pre-war 70 I have shoots just about everything to POI with varying bullet weights, especially the 180 and 200 gr Partitions. Using the old Nosler reloading manual, I was never able to break 2900 fps with the 180s, but after I switched to RL-22, it is an honest 3000 fps rifle. I have a lifetime supply of WW brass, but this rifle doesn't really care if I shoot RP, Nosler or Hornady brass and I've even been known to use the old 220gr RN Horndays as well (and talk about a COOL looking round that is simply devastating on hogs). It's like a beautiful woman with expensive tastes, but hell, life's just too short to shoot "practical", if I wanted that, I'd have an ugly wife and shoot a 308.

lotech,

I've used that technique not only in my own .300 H&H's but a couple loaned for testing. It CAN work, but depends very much on the dimensions of the belt of the cases, and the chamber.

It's lot like "gently" resizing any of the older tapered cases that headspace on a rim or belt, instead of a substantial shoulder. It depends a lot on the fit between the rim/belt of the particular brass and the particular chamber. In a higher-pressure round like the .300 H&H this is more critical than in a low-pressure case like the .22 Hornet, but the results still vary.

Would the H&H be a prime candidate for sizing with a collet die?

I have a Zastava 300HH length action out in the shop. On a new barrel, the 300HH would not be even thought about. 300 Weatherby most likely, since I have the Die set.

That's a good enough reason for me. I've never bothered to rationalise a cartridge choice. I buy the rifle in the cartridge I want purely for interest, nostalgia or whatever you call it. All three of my .257 Roberts's are built on standard length actions (.30-06 length). Rationally, it would make more sense to turn them into .25-06s to use the wasted magazine space. But the .25-06 just doesn't grab me as the .257 Bob does. So I don't worry about it. I enjoy hunting deer with a .257 Roberts and for me, that's what it's all about.

If you want a .300H&H go get one and enjoy it.

Well now, I do have to concede that point about factory ammo. To be honest, I didn't even think of that because in center fire rifle ammo, I bet I have not bought 100 rounds of factory ammo in the last 50 years combined. I just aotomatically assume I am going to provide my own ammo.
So you point is accepted and taken.

Brass..............only a problem if you want the head stamp to read "300 H&H"

I just run a 375 H&H through the die and bingo...got it.
No problem at all.

When I was in high school, my dad approached me one day with the cutest little round I'd ever seen. It was a tiny case, with a 17 caliber bullet. He told me it was a 17 K-Hornet, and then went on to excitedly describe the particulars of the case and the gun he'd gotten. He was so excited about that little cartridge. Looking back now, I can see that he sold me that day on cases where the taper had been taken out for both capacity and case life. It was the case shape though, that stuck with me. I suppose that's partially why I've never found the 300 H&H appealing. I have no desire for one, and never did. I'd build a Win Mag long-throated for 3.6" COL today on a 700 if I was after that kind of performance in a 30. To each his own.

Now there's a motto to hang your Rifle Loony hat on.

There is a reason I load for over 40 different cartridges and practicality isn't it. In fact I have more die sets I need to get rifles for.

All .30 caliber components are readily available. Hornady makes cases and have been in constant supply for years. With the internet, finding cases is not a problem.
Loaded factory ammo is limited in comparison to other main stream calibers but not a problem to a rifle loony and hand loader.

It has a better length neck for loading the heavier bullets without losing powder capacity as in the .300 WM.
You can load it pretty stout or mild to suit your fancy. It will NATURALLY feed and extract slicker than most. No custom gunsmithing required to make it digest cartridges like others.
It is capable of extreme accuracy. In the right hands, it has unlimited potential in the field. It has been around for a few years and not withered away like some. With today's bullets/components it is deadlier than ever and keeps pace with the newer.

To me, it is a 63 split window Corvette with a 427 CI. No need to justify it if you can afford it. Sexy can be expensive.

MLF,

You suffer under a common misconception, that somehow a longer neck prevents a seated bullet from taking up powder room. This is because you (and many shooters) believe all the powder room in a bottlenecked case is below the neck.

It isn't. There's also powder capacity IN the neck. The rule of thumb is that seating bullets about one caliber deep is required to hold bullets firmly. This means that in .30 caliber cartridges, seating bullets more than .30 deep is "losing powder capacity," to the same extent as seating them into the body of the case below the neck. A bullet's shank takes up the same amount of room, wherever it ends up.

But the .300 Winchester Magnum, as Bob Hagel pointed out in the 1970's, also has plenty of room for powder AROUND the bullet's base. The .300 H&H's shallow shoulder prevents this, which is exactly why a .300 Winchester Magnum actually has more powder capacity with a 200-grain bullet seated than the .300 H&H. I know this from actually measuring the powder capacity of both rounds with a 200-grain Nosler Partition seated to the standard industry overall length--not guessing it due to a misconception fostered by many old-time gun writers.
And one of the rules of internal ballistics is that more powder space allows more velocity when cartridges are loaded to the same pressure. It's the same principle involved in internal-combustion automobile engines: There is no replacement for displacement.

In fact, with the same bullet seated to standard industry OAL, the .300 WSM has just about exactly the same powder capacity as the .300 H&H. I also know this from actually owning and measuring the capacity of both rounds, which is why they're both capable of the same velocities, when loaded to the same pressure in the same barrel length. I mentioned an pressure/velocity experiment proving this earlier, which apparently you missed--but it does result in another interesting fact that actually can help .300 H&H handloaders. There isn't much new pressure-tested loading data for the H&H these days, especially with newer powders, because the round isn't very popular anymore. But you can use .300 WSM data for newer powders when loading the .300 H&H. I know this, again, because of actually doing it, not guessing.

I might also mention that while some early .300 WSM's had feeding problems, but they disappeared shortly after the cartridge was introduced in 2001. I've owned several .300 WSM's in the past dozen years, from various manufacturers, and all fed very slickly without any "custom" work.

Yes, Hornady has made .300 brass for several years now, and it's good stuff. But it isn't nearly as available as brass for the .300 WSM or .300 Winchester, and when it is costs more. I looked at the four websites where I buy most of my handloading stuff, and only one had Hornady .300 H&H brass in stock, for $56 per 50 cases. Brass for the other two could be be easily found for $32 to $40 per 50 on all four sites.

Now obviously that cost wouldn't matter to a guy like you, who has a '63 Corvette, but it would to many other people. And this thread is about practical reasons to own a .300 H&H.

I'm glad so many people find owning one a nifty rifle-loony experience, partly because I've been among those, and may well be again in the future. But the practical reality is the .300 H&H is NOT a superior case design, because it appeared when powders were very different than they are today, and there's no practical reason to choose one over a .300 WSM or .300 Winchester Magnum.