Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only Tell me about 375 RUG

Do I think? Has nothing to do with me, I'm only reporting what I have seen happening in the last few years where I'm at here in Alaska, that covers a lot of folks in Fairbanks also.

As a little aside, the 1.5x5 is not 1.5x5 it is I believe 1.2x4.2 at least since they have been on the market.

Seems like a huge lack of reading comprehension on the Internet.

Ray,

Another neophyte question from me...Why is the 20mm objective better for a DG rifle than the 32 or 40 for that matter?

In the hunting camps that I am affiliated with I have noticed that the more that sticks out of that front ring, the more likely that the zero can be knocked off from one degree to another...

Some of those big scopes just never seem to stay sighted in after a rough day of bouncing around in the bakkie or in a saddle scabbard...

Based on that I did some "wack tests", sighted the gun in on a target then gave it a big wack on the objective lens with the palm of my hand, and sure enough the the bigger scopes moved POI and the bigger the scope the more it moved. mostly we are talking about one to as much as 4 inches inches per wack..but to me that is sugnificant as I may need to stick a bullet between somethings eyes...The 20 mm objective protrudes only an inch and is almost impossible to knock out of zero.

................And along with what Ray just posted, straight tubed scopes are more associated with a DGRs, or at least I associate them more with DGRs. Although they can be used and many do, DGRs don`t need the higher variables such as 2x7s, 2.5x8s, 3x9s and so on for hunting use.

For DGRs imho, the 1" straight tubers look better, are lighter, more compact, faster and obviously have the lower profile. I use the 1.5-5x20 VX111 #4 on my 375 Ruger Alaskan, which is certainly enough magnification for any non dangerous game I`d use that rifle for out to 400 yards or even a little further.

At least in my thinking, why have a belled objectived scope with extra magnification when it is not needed!!!

This maybe a totally new concept for many on the fire, if you worry about your scope, why carry the darn thing on a rifle? Has anyone ever heard of a rifle that has just metalic sights on it? This is a reason for having the same exact rifle as your others that only sports iron.

Very good info, thanks.

.........Yep! But there are a few DGR cartridges out there, which when scoped on DGR rifles, have far better long range capabilities and accuracy on game and other targets vs ones that are not scoped even when using the same cartridges.

That`s why most scope their DGRs including me. Nevertheless, a 20mm straight tubed scope has just a little less chance to get knocked around due to its smaller objective size and lower profile.

I would be very hard pressed to consistently nail one gallon milk cartons filled with water using my 375 Ruger only with iron sites. However with my 1.5-5x20, VX111, I have yet to miss.

For any game beyond 75-90 yards, dangerous or otherwise, it would be much better imo using a scope as opposed to using only iron sites.

Milk cartons at 300 yards!!

I just shot my 375 Alaskan this week; she comes at you hard, but not so much that you wouldn't want her to do it again!!!

Where can I get a laminated stock for mine?

change the side of the bolt ...!!!

I haven't tried it myself but suspect the MKII LA laminated stock should fit. Fiberglass bedding and possibly crossbolt(s) installation make sense IMO.

I really like my 375 Alaskan.

With Hornady 300 grain ammo it was shooting 3 shot groups of about 1 1/2" - 1 3/4" at 200 yards. I was using a 3-9x Trijicon Accupoint.

It put 6 shots in 2 5/8" at 200 yards. I pulled the 4th shot or the group would have been right at MOA.... I know though, flyers DO count.

The recoil is not bad at the shoulder. The rifle does come up into the face a little upon recoil, but nothing horrible at all.

I really like the feel and recoil absorption / dissapation of the stock.

Trigger weight is good, but has the typical Ruger creep which I see no reason for in 2009. Remington has been providing better triggers for decades.

My safety movement was horribly stiff. I don't think it was ever even fit to the trigger at the factory... just installed and shipped. I have handled a couple others that were the same. I would not order a Ruger Hawkeye of any kind. I like them, but would only buy if I could handle and inspect the individual gun first to check the workmanship quality... of course I feel this way about most guns from most manufacturers. Many ship with glaring problems.

With the smaller 20 mm objective lens you also get a wider field of view which is most important on a DGR.

On my Hawkeye African I am using a 1.5 x 4 leupold and find it quick to find the target keeping both eyes open when sighting. I doubt if any dangerous game will need any extra scope power at longer range than what can be covered with the 4 power and bullet selection.

If the game was always at longer range then it isnt in my mind what I associate the tag dangerous game and it could be covered by a mid bore calibre ie .300,.338,.35 with correspondingly more powerfull scopes where a more deliberate shot can be taken.

In my Ruger I have found 270gr Accubonds respond well for lighter game animals and 300gr woodleighs both solid and soft nose work well also.

I think the 375 with the accubonds would be a good choice for african plains game and the woodleighs would be a good backup for heavier game if they were on the hit list.

This would seem to defy logic.

............Yeah! But it`s true. The 1-4x20 VX11 and the 1.5-5x20 VX111 have larger FOVs than do the 3x9 scopes with larger objectives.

The 1.5-5x20 VX111 is on my 375 Ruger Alaskan. FOV is 66' on the low end, and 20 something (I forgot exactly) feet on the high end.

Just for comparison purpose. I went to Leupolds sight and got the following information.
Taken at 100 yds with the lowest magnification figure first the field of view for various models in feet are as follows:-

VX11 1x4x20 = 75 - 28.5
VX11 3x9x40 = 32.3 - 14.00
VX111 1.5x5x20 = 68 - 23.8
VX111 1.75x6x32 = 51.4 - 19.1
VX111 2.5x8x36 = 37.5 - 13.7
VX111 3.5x10x40 = 29.8 - 11.00

As can be seen from these figures higher power on a DGR isnt always a good thing especially when the Dangerous game is up close and nasty. The more field of view the better chance of seeing the animal before it gets you. The lower power scopes are ideal on the 375 ruger for close in work but I conceede that if you are hunting game at longer ranges then I would suggest a stronger scope but only if the longer ranges was where you are doing most of your hunting.

I know of a hunter who has 2 scopes both sighted for different loads one a close in load and the other a long range load. He uses leupold quick release mounts so if he is hunting close in game he use one scope then changes to the other scope if hunting longer range stuff.

Is it worth setting back the barrel of a 375 H&H and having it rechambered for 375 Rug? Is this even feasible? What about bolt face diameters between the 375s?

bigjedd--

As the FOV date from Leupold show, the greater field of view comes from the lower magnification, not from the 20 mm objective lens.

WiFowler--
I can't see any reason to set back an H&H for a Ruger because you already have an action set up to use the longer case.

...........Set on the highest power of 5x (really a 4.5x), the 1.5-5x20 VX111 has enough magnification (for my eyes anyway) at 400-500 yards for any deer sized animal and larger. One gallon milk cartons are a piece of cake @ 300 yards. That magnification range fills the bill wonderfully for any close up work offering a wide FOV and longer ranged shots as well. No need to do any scope switching to match the circumstances. Simply turn the dial.

I'm one of those that mounted a 1.75-6x32 on my Alaskan and I'm happy I did. My first trip to AK with the 375 Ruger was with an African, now re-bored to the 404-375 Ruger wildcat. But I wanted SS for subsequent trips to the wet places, so the Alaskan with the 32 mm objective scope, a good buy I found at Cabela's bargain cave.

Ed Stevenson, my outfitter, pointed out that it's easier to clear snow, water, dirt, etc. from a tube larger than 1", and I found out he's right. Just so happens the only shot I could get at a black bear in the open on my last trip to AK was at more than 300 yds. and the 6x helped. Probably would have had the same outcome with the 5x, but why not use a little more magnification if you have it along?