Hello again Daisy,
I have been replying to your posts on this topic.
Definitely, my opinion is different than yours.
However, I cannot see how that is somehow “bypassing” what you’ve posted and I quote you:
“Again, you continue to bypass what I’ve said”.
I’m just guessing in the dark here but, maybe you said that I continue to “bypass” what you’ve said, because I quote the philosophy: “If it works, don’t fix it”, as a blanket reason to prefer the original H&H version, instead of agreeing with you ?
Far as I’m concerned, “If it works, don’t fix it”, fits perfectly as a response to yours plus, pretty much all other’s comments and questions, posted on this topic of the .375 Ruger vs .375 H&H.
If that is “bypassing” what you’ve posted in this thread, I apologize.
“Bypassing” yours or anyone else’s posts that I have replied to was not my intent.
Indeed, I do read posts on this plus many other topics here, within the worlds greatest forum that, I do not feel like responding to, for whatever reason.
And with that, I agree that I am definitely “bypassing” AKA: “Ignoring” the posts that do not really draw me in, (evidenced by my silence on whatever was posted).
However, yours and a couple of other members comments on this specific topic caught my attention and so, I responded to you and 1 or 2 others.
As such, it still seems to me that, “If it works, don’t fix it” pretty much answers any argument posted by you chaps who believe that higher velocity is somehow preferable to that which has worked extremely well for more than 100 years now.
Even so, you say that I “continue to bypass” what you’ve said.
Therefore, maybe I should be responding to each of your sentences individually ?
Ok, here goes:
Your sentence:
1.
If you can get the same performance from a shorter barrel then, how is that not a win ?
My Response:
It is not a win, indeed it is a loss.
Here’s why:
Regarding any large powder capacity cartridges, the shorter the barrel, the more piercing the muzzle blast and the more likely the rifle is to recoil upward (“muzzle jump”) than I care for.
On that note, a person can have installed a heavier than standard contour short barrel, thereby reducing the chances of excess muzzle jump.
Or, they can have a brake installed and / or holes and slots cut through the barrel (“porting”).
I don’t recall you mentioning muzzle brakes or porting the barrel.
But I added same, for other readers who like those sorts of things (I strongly dislike muzzle brakes and porting).
Anyway and however ……..
Shorter barrels, muzzle brakes and porting all still leave the shooter with a little more felt muzzle blast, especially troublesome when there isn’t time to put in the ear plugs.
Furthermore, we do suffer permanent hearing damage from loud noise, right through hearing protection, albeit in tiny increments.
Nonetheless, shorter barrels, especially shorter barrels firing cartridges that burn a lot of powder, (the .375’s come to mind)grief to this progressive hearing loss.
So for myself, most rifles in .375 caliber are made with a proper length, contour and weight barrel in the first place.
I have never liked short carbine length barrels for rifles chambered in large powder volume cartridges.
Your sentence:
2.
“Also, newer cartridges like more velocity than the ones you mention above”.
Uhhh, and so …….. ?
Again, I’m just guessing here but earlier I had mentioned the 6.5x55 and the 7x57 cartridges, regarding them being lately hard to find if not impossible to find in stores.
Higher velocity has no context in this matter whatsoever, at least not if you hand load and / or shoot one or two brands of European factory loaded ammunition.
Apparently, the 6.5x55 is gone from retail shelves, due to the latest fad 6.5 cartridge replacing it (6.5 Creedmoor).
However, the Creedmoor does absolutely nothing that the Scandinavian round has not already been doing for over 100 years.
Likewise, the 6.5x55 is almost always built on long enough actions to accommodate 160 gr bullets in the magazine.
I’m not sure the Creedmoor rifles always have long enough magazines for 160 grain bullets.
And the 7x57 has been doing everything that the newer and trendy 7mm-08 is advertised as doing.
Again however, I know from experience that some rifles made for the newer round definitely do not have long enough magazines to accept 175 gr bullets.
Yet, 7x57 live ammunition is gone from retail shelves lately,
In favor of the 7mm-08.
Both the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 7mm-08 are no better than and in at least one way, actually inferior to the 100 plus years old 6.5x55 and 7x57 Mauser cartridges.
Your sentence:
3.
“A car that goes faster than another one has better performance. It will tear up (whatever that is) faster, be louder, go through brakes faster, etc. But no human alive would say the faster (car) doesn’t have better performance.”
My response:
I am a human alive who would not say that at all.
Your own description of the faster car is to me pretty much, polar opposite of “better performance.”
Even if the faster car was not louder and not wearing out brakes faster than other vehicles do, I already have a full size pickup truck with a V-8 motor that will supposedly reach about 120 mph.
Yet, the maximum speed limit here where I live is 65 mph.
And so, why in the world would I want a car that goes even faster than 120 mph ? (especially if it was loud and wore its brakes out sooner than my truck).
“Better performance?” … hmmmmm, not from my point of view.
Incidentally, my opinion on this .375 topic is primarily the result of 40+ years experience with the original H&H version, here in Alaska where I live and several hunting trips to Africa wherein, either I used a .375 H&H or my hunting partner/s used one.
Well anyway, in an attempt to figure out if you lived near Dallas, (in hopes you’d be at the AH Dinner), I tried to scan your forum profile and found it awfully blank.
It’s not any if my business why so, I am not asking about that.
However, I am hoping you will be at the dinner, so that I can buy you a drink and we can further discuss rifles and cartridges.
Best Regards,
Velo Dog
(Paul Ard)
