Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only 375 Ruger Again?

If the "advantage" of a 375 Wby over a H&H makes you giddy you are an easy man to please. I know; I've had a 375 Mashburn (same cap as a Wby) and the H&H and when loaded to the same pressures, other than the recoil, I doubt you will notice that "advantage" in the field. Now I have the .375 Ruger which splits that small difference even more but that's not why I have it. I'm long out of the race for the last 150 fps I can get.

Understand. The 375 Weatherby is rated at higher pressures and that does give it a 250 fps edge with 300g bullets. The edge with 350g bullets is about 200 fps. I can also shoot 375 H&H in a pinch. As far as velocity loss per inch of barrel, the standard has always been 25 fps per inch of barrel loss between 2500 and 3000 fps. That can sometimes be overcome with slightly faster powders and hotter primers.

Not in factory rifle magazines which is what this thread is about

..............Well! Those #s I posted were from Hodgdon.

Well how about these factoid #s then, which support my opinion even better than what Hodgdon did!!

Go here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-Hawkeye375.htm

From those 20 or so loads, notice the chrony results from the two 300 grainers.

Me dangerous? Naaaaa

I thought this was all about comparing factory 375 Ruger rifles with properly dimensioned boxes with other 375 H&H rifles - many with one size fits all boxes.

If the Ruger is "such of a properly fitted box" then why doesn't it feed any ammo that is loaded into the gun?

Are you sure about the higher pressure rating of the Weatherby?

jwp - Never touched the box on my 416 Ruger, just polished the ramp and other friction surfaces, then shaped & adjusted the feeding rails. It feeds any factory spec ammo now, so it must be the right sized magazine box......right? I can also tell you that Ruger changes the dimensions on the magazine box used for different shaped rounds, so it's not a one shape fits all approach. On my Ruger 30-06, it's the same box (as the 416) but has been modified with a narrowing taper at the front. (Bent inward.)

So, the magazine box on the Ruger (which is the same for the 375 & 416) is correctly sized for the 375 Ruger case and the 375 H&H tapered case has no advantage over straight walled cases in properly fitted magazine boxes and that makes you WRONG in your assumption. lol


What is really interesting is a discussion I had with a ex - girlfriend who is a psychologist on this topic. Being able to admit you were wrong is the sign of a secure well adjusted person. I've been wrong before, many a time.......LOL.........but when a REAL expert backs what is said................time to fold your cards.

There isn't a hunt that's harder than for most guys admitting they may be or are wrong about something.

I looked it up Jorge, you are right, they aren't different both the 375 H&H and 375 Weatherby are spec'd to 62,000. I should've have checked. Weatherby states the 375 Weatherby gets 2800 fps out of a 26" barrel with 300g Nosler Partitions. RIP on the AR forum has several 375 Weatherby's and gets 2740 fps out of a 24" barrel which corresponds pretty closely to losing 25 fps per inch of barrel.

They're all good rounds, I just chose the 375 Weatherby.

I doubt this is true across the board....the Ruger has only 5 gr more capacity than the H&H.....this is not earth shattering...it was designed to equal or slightly exceed the H&H in velocity from a shorter cartridge...this it does.

But not by enough to matter.

After working with a 375 AI(just another form of Improved 375 like the Weatherby),and clocking a Ruger,I still don't see enough difference between the 3 to even bother with.

The Ruger gave a bit over 2800 with 270's.

The 375AI gave a bit over 2900 with 275's (22" tube)

The H&H gives 2750 with 270's;and over 2900 with 250's.

Looking at the load data for the 3 cartidges makes the lines in the sand even fuzzier....and so did shooting all three,which is why I never built an AI or Weatherby,and ditched the Ruger.

Of course the Ruger and the Weatherby are faster;they hold more powder....but we are talking a spread of only 100-150 fps, at most, between the 3....

Thing is, the Ruger is in a well thought out AFFORDABLE rifle. I think that was the prime purpose of the 375 Ruger. A Hawkeye African and good VX II Leupold cost about what a bald Mdl 70 Safari Express costs, and to many of us it makes a Big difference. It gives the average guy a few more bucks in the budget when planning a safari or bear hunt.

I remember having to pass on a world class Coke's hartebeest, a rare trophy, because I just didn't have another $325.00 to spend.

Good point!

Lu2: No question....my comments had entirely to do with the minor differences between them from a velocity perspective....not the affordability,nor the appeal of the package.

I think a Ruger African is as nice a 375 bore rifle as a guy could get for the money...and I MIGHT have been the first in my neighborhood to own one.....just discovered that it had nothing over what I owned and had been using for years....I could only use one at a time....


Which of course has nothing to do with its' relative merits.

Yep...

The 375s all kill about the same, with the 9.3s close behind.

Individual rifles will cause a lot of overlap, too.

Luv2 and Bob, I think the 375s, excepting wby's 378, just bring a wonderful compromise in bore size, bullet weight, and velocity at a relatively low cost in recoil and therefore demand in rifle weight, all of which is about as new as a lump of coal, but it does bear repeating. All the iterations with the exception mentioned above come close enough in the rifle of your choice to really do it all.

George : Agreed.....I do like 375 bore....it has been tough to beat for a lot of years and better today,with the new bullets and powders, and all.

............After my post above and later on this thread, I did post this link.

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-Hawkeye375.htm

The Hodgdon loads for the 375 Ruger and probably the 375 Wby too are a little conservative. I can exceed the Hodgdon loads in my Alaskan and do so with no pressure signs.

Regardless, the 375 Ruger is much closer to the 375 Bee, than the 375 H&H is to the 375 Ruger. That said, the extra performance these two have over H&H will make no difference on big game.

Well If I was in the Market for a 375, I would go with the Ruger Safari and put a 1.5 to 5 x Leupold on it and call it a day. Its a very very good rifle for the money. And this is from a guy who shoots a Blaser R-93. On top of that In the Ruger Safari, you can get it in 9.3 x 62 or A 338 Winchester. Its all such a moot point as to the simple fact is how much big game are you ever going to shoot in your life time were the game in question needs a 375 to bag! Let face it, Most of the 375's that are bought in the US, end up as safe queens. And a good many 338 follow that bit of observation as well. With rare exceptions, most will only hunt brown bear one or not at all in a life time. Same for DG in Africa. For most and for 99% of the big game you would ever hunt a .30-06 is going to do the job, and you could make the case for about two dozen similar cartridges. In the end shoot what you want to shoot. I think the 375 Ruger will do well over time, after all it took almost fifty years for the 338 Winchester to become as popular as it is today. The real question for us to ponder is not this taste great less filling but what will hunting be like if at all in 50 years from now!

Some very good points by a man who obviously is open-minded (shoots a R93-- I did too but converted to a K95) and very wise (I just bought a Ruger African in 375 and sent it off to Roger Ferrel for some tuning).

About hunting in 50 years-- it'll take many present trends to reverse themselves for folks at that time to even [/i] realize[i] it's gone.

About the 338 and the 375, it's been my experience shooting both for years that the 375 is no more unpleasant than than the former in full house loads. But of course YMMV. For guys like us on the 'Fire, it'll never be Just about [/b]need[b] but rather about, "I need to try that!"