375 Ruger

[IdaRam]

CTDolan, an interesting assertion. I tend to agree with you to a degree. BUT...
Superior design means little without superior performance. If all we're discussing here is engineered design superiority of the cartridge, maybe we're done??? Well... Maybe, maybe not.
The Ruger is pretty much a ballistic twin to the H&H so exterior ballistic performance is pretty much a wash. The Ruger fits in a standard length action so that may be a check in the Ruger column.
On the flip side Ruger is STILL replacing Alaskan's in both .375 & .416 Ruger due to feeding issues. I would suggest the design of the Ruger cartridge may in fact be inferior from the feeding and ejection standpoint. Of course, one could argue that this is dependent on the gun/manufacturer... Still, tough to beat that long taper and small, shallow angle shoulder and smaller body diameter of the H&H.
Switching gears a little, I'd suggest that anything the .375 Ruger or .416 Ruger can do, the .416 Rem Mag can do better. Even though the cartridge design itself may be "inferior" (belted and long action) I would most likely choose a .416 Rem Mag and/or a .375 H&H over either of the Rugers.
I really like both of the Ruger cartridges and I would own either one or both. Just not over the H&H or the .416 Rem. So strictly from an engineering standpoint, maybe the Ruger's are better. But from the performance standpoint there are cartridges that are superior to them both. So is the design really superior? Depends on how you define "superior".
I guess that puts me happily in the RedLegVeloDog camp That is, if they'll have me
Cheers amigo

 

[CAustin]

Well Matt you make it clear all the time that you dislike Hornady ammunition and that you will not use it. That's your opinion on the subject. So just because you dislike it doesn't mean the rest of us have to. Not everybody reloads either. Don't care to myself. Probably not smart enough to reload without blowing the house up. All my ammo is factory so I have no reason to think the ammo will not perform as advertised ......all my experience with it says that it will. I pull the trigger the rifle goes boom and the animal down range drops dead! I couldn't care less about getting 2300 fps or 2298 fps. I don't have a meter to test that and wouldn't waste my money on it because I don't care. I couldn't care less if the bullet retain 80% of its weight or 90%. All I want to see is the animal drop. Heck We all have rifles and ammo that we are partial to and that's ok by me. You tell people Hornady is no good from your experiences and that the 416 Ruger can't properly push a bullet at 2300 fps .....not my experience!! No disrespect Matt I just don't see it the way you do.

 

[matt85]

CAustin, i think you and i are simply looking at this from two different angles.

from a hand loaders point of view the cartridge is a step down from all other 416s. but from the point of view of someone who only buys from the factory i can see it being equal to its factory counter parts wehn it comes to performance with the same bullet.

a hand loader "might" be able to get around 2200 fps from the 416 Ruger if the right bullet/powder combo is used (staying within standard pressure limits). it would have to be a RN lead bullet with a short base combined with a fairly fast burning powder. basically you would be restricted to Hornady or Woodleigh traditional round nose bullets.

we will have to agree to disagree on the topic of the DGX bullet. we both know each others stance on the subject and we are both stubborn as mules.

-matt

 

[vancewalker007]

I have a 375 Ruger I had built on a Montana Rifles 1999 Long action. So far factory 270s shot just under 1 an inch at a 100 yards and last weekend 82 grains of RL17 behind a Barnes 250 gr TTSX shot 0.5 inches. So far so good. Can't wait to chrono some. Headed out to the range this weekend to burn some more powder.

 

[Velo Dog]

Well, the basic premise is that the cartridge is a very sound design, superior to any other of the same caliber (and, in a general sense, superior to almost anything else, period). It sits in a sweet spot, a very sweet spot for its caliber, as does the 338 Win Mag. This has nothing to do with factory ammo, or availability. The conclusion is based purely upon design.

Objection Your Honor, vagueness.

 

[Velo Dog]

As for the 375 H&H, it's a good cartridge, of course, but is obviously a very dated design and would never gain any traction, were it introduced today, alongside the 375 Ruger.

RE: "it's a good cartridge" (the original H&H version) ... I submit it is by far, the finest general purpose hunting cartridge ever dreamed up.

RE: "and would never gain any traction, were it introduced today, along side the .375 Ruger" ... I have to say that in terms of smooth H&H feeding vs feeding issues of the Ruger version, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Velo Dog]

I have a 375 Ruger I had built on a Montana Rifles 1999 Long action. So far factory 270s shot just under 1 an inch at a 100 yards and last weekend 82 grains of RL17 behind a Barnes 250 gr TTSX shot 0.5 inches. So far so good. Can't wait to chrono some. Headed out to the range this weekend to burn some more powder.

I'm not saying you should have chosen the H&H version, because to each his own but, I am curious why you chose the Ruger version for such an expensive custom rifle project.

 

[johnnyblues]

I would have to agree with everyone's statements here in one form or another. I recently purchased a Ruger 375 in their guide rifle model. I recently got to finally shoot it a bit and sight it in . I like it a lot. The removable muzzle break is a blessing on the bench. I sighted in using Hornardy 270 gr bullets. I do agree completely about availability. Not happy with that at all. Not that the gun didn't shoot well with the factory ammo, it's just I don't like to be that limited. My thoughts being just how much will I use ? I can say not that much. I own a 270 wsm and a 300wsm built by Hill country rifles, TACK DRIVERS for sure, my point being why not take advantage of an improvement on the 375 H H. Here's my final group. Bottom right I pulled. I ll take this kind of accuracy. As far as better bullets....Hornady will kill em.

 

[CAustin]

Amen Johnny

 

[johnnyblues]

It's me and you Charlie!

 

[johnnyblues]

Well Matt you make it clear all the time that you dislike Hornady ammunition and that you will not use it. That's your opinion on the subject. So just because you dislike it doesn't mean the rest of us have to. Not everybody reloads either. Don't care to myself. Probably not smart enough to reload without blowing the house up. All my ammo is factory so I have no reason to think the ammo will not perform as advertised ......all my experience with it says that it will. I pull the trigger the rifle goes boom and the animal down range drops dead! I couldn't care less about getting 2300 fps or 2298 fps. I don't have a meter to test that and wouldn't waste my money on it because I don't care. I couldn't care less if the bullet retain 80% of its weight or 90%. All I want to see is the animal drop. Heck We all have rifles and ammo that we are partial to and that's ok by me. You tell people Hornady is no good from your experiences and that the 416 Ruger can't properly push a bullet at 2300 fps .....not my experience!! No disrespect Matt I just don't see it the way you do.

You said a mouth full Charlie. I could not AGREE with you more. I have only used factory ammo in all my years, and have 38 dead animals on my wall or floor to attest to your thoughts.

 

[CAustin]

I get what Matt is saying as he reloads. He is very into what he does to get the loads to do what he wants. From previous posts he has explained his disappointments with Hornady. I haven't experienced the same as I don't reload and my use in the field has given me the expected results.
I like my Guide a Gun a lot. It feels great on the shoulder and the short bolt action on my unit is smooth. I guess what really matters is I am very accurate with the rifle . The 400 grain solid is powerful in the DGS load. I have had good results with the DGX loads and my son will take a Giraffe this trip with that bullet.
I will share the results good or bad with everyone when I get home!

 

[vancewalker007]

I'm not saying you should have chosen the H&H version, because to each his own but, I am curious why you chose the Ruger version for such an expensive custom rifle project.

Just rifle crank I guess. I like all the rounds that have been built off the 404 Jefferys, no belts. I have had great luck with the 270 and 300 WSMs and I am building a new 7 mm LRM currently to become my new long range deer rifle. My father and I have always been into trying new things. We built 7mm STWs back in 1990, years before it was a standard caliber. We got a lot a fun trying loads and fire forming 300 Weatherby cases when you couldn't buy pre-made STW cases. We also got a lot of great long range performance from those rifles on Coues Whitetails. So buying a "new" caliber comes natural to me. But the 375 Ruger really isn't that new, it was first produced in 2007. Further, I'm a hand loader so ammo price is a non-issue. The biggest problem would be travelling to some far flung locale and losing my ammo. In that case I guess I'd just borrow a rifle, but 375 Ruger ammo is available in Johannessberg. All flights to sub-Saharan Africa pretty much go through JoBerg. So I say try something new, you might like it.

 

[matt85]

But the 375 Ruger really isn't that new, it was first produced in 2007.

compared to the age of most of the cartridges on this forum, a cartridge invented in 2007 is VERY new.

(from the wiki)
500 NE: designed in 1890
450 NE 3.25: designed in 1898
470 NE: designed in 1900
450/400 NE 3": designed in 1902
505 Gibbs: designed in 1910
416 Rigby: designed in 1911
375 H&H: designed in 1912
458 Win Mag: designed in 1956
458 Lott: designed in 1971
416 Rem Mag: designed in 1988

if you like cartridges without belts, the 416 Rigby doesn't have one and is easily the king of the 416 cartridges!

-matt

 

[vancewalker007]

compared to the age of most of the cartridges on this forum, a cartridge invented in 2007 is VERY new.

(from the wiki)
500 NE: designed in 1890
450 NE 3.25: designed in 1898
470 NE: designed in 1900
450/400 NE 3": designed in 1902
505 Gibbs: designed in 1910
416 Rigby: designed in 1911
375 H&H: designed in 1912
458 Win Mag: designed in 1956
458 Lott: designed in 1971
416 Rem Mag: designed in 1988

if you like cartridges without belts, the 416 Rigby doesn't have one and is easily the king of the 416 cartridges!

-matt

So using the older is better logic we should all switch to a 500 NE. Look, shoot what you want I'm sure it will please you to no end, and old to me is yesterday. In fact yesterday I shot a couple 1 MOA groups with my 375 Ruger and it bloody glorious.

 

[USMA84DAB]

Rigby is great - and requires a stuffed wallet to buy the true magnum length action required to stuff it into a rifle.

The H&H also requires a bit more $ for the "MAGNUM" moniker. The manufacturers always charge more for the "MAGNUM" name.

The .375 Ruger is the working class version - standard length action - available in a $500 Mossberg Patriot (which I would not use for dangerous game), but also the M77 from Ruger. It is a better design, so if the two were starting from scratch today, the Ruger should win. Since I started in 2018 actually taking steps for my plains game safari, I selected the better cartridge. How awesome that we can argue nits to pick! The 100,000s of dead animals slain by the H&H stand as evidence that that cartridge is "good enough". Since I had a clean slate, I went with the Ruger. The $750 for the rifle WITH the Leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36 helped the decision process along as well!!!! LOL!!!!!

The Guide Gun/Alaskan set-up from Ruger just sings. 20" barrel is lighter and easier to wield. The stock is a high comb/straight design. The synthetic absorbs some of the recoil, so perceived recoil is lessened. I am watching for a Guide Gun to buy a 2nd .375 Ruger. That is how much I like the rifle/cartridge.

Savage chambers in .375 Ruger now, so that makes three companies.

Remington can't keep the doors open, so buying a .416RM is problematic to me - am I getting a MON morning/FRI afternoon gun made on WED at noon because Sam is worried he will have a job next week. Add in push feed, and I just see no reason to tempt fate/Murphy. Can one buy a .416 RM in a Model 70 - I believe so. However, I myself will steer clear of Remington.

I have not been able to find .375 or .416 Ruger brass for months. Only ammo available is .375 Ruger, 300 gr Hornady at $3.50/round. This is a very high suck factor for me reloading the two cartridges. Not sure why Federal or Winchester are refusing to adopt the two Ruger cartridges and make ammo. Buffalo Bore loads the ammo also, but it is $6/round.

I intend to pick up a .375 H&H one day. My favorite is going to be the .375 Ruger though.

I have a .416 Ruger that shoots within MOA and I really won't need it. My .495 A-Square will be used for a buffalo over the .416 Ruger. But how does one sell a rifle off that shoots MOA?! It simply doesn't seem sane.

 

[Safari Dave]

I think the .375 & the .416 Ruger are great cartridges.


I just have my doubts that they will still be around 30 years from now.



(Maybe that doesn't even matter)

 

[CD24]

I am 100% in the Ruger guide gun camp. I haven’t touched my 375H&H since I got one in 416 Ruger. It is compact, fast to shoulder, fast to rack rounds, and seems to hit a decent bit harder. For the $1100 I spent on it brand new I think ruger hit a home run on that rifle.

 

[Laniarius]

On the flip side Ruger is STILL replacing Alaskan's in both .375 & .416 Ruger due to feeding issues. I would suggest the design of the Ruger cartridge may in fact be inferior from the feeding and ejection standpoint. Of course, one could argue that this is dependent on the gun/manufacturer... Still, tough to beat that long taper and small, shallow angle shoulder and smaller body diameter of the H&H.

This is one of the reasons why I sold a 375 Ruger Guide Gun after having it for a year and putting about 400 rounds through it. I didn't have actual issues with feeding, but it just wasn't very smooth. I suspect Ruger would've considered it within spec.

Otherwise, it shot just fine. But I decided I wanted to use a cartridge that feeds more smoothly in a production gun. So I sold the 375 Ruger and got a Winchester Model 70 Safari in 375 H&H and am extremely happy with it. Bench accuracy with handloads from both rifles is about the same (1 to 1.5 MOA).

For context I should add that I am a Ruger fanboy and have a Guide Gun in 30-06 and love it. I use it without the brake (pretty unnecessary for a 30-06) and like the handy compactness of it.

So, I accept the points that the 375 Ruger is more efficient, allows a shorter receiver, etc. I've just found that cycling the 375 H&H in my newer gun feels much smoother and I strongly prefer it. The 375 Ruger is great for making a 375 cartridge available in more affordable guns, and for custom builds where a shorter cartridge is desired.

 

[BeeMaa]

I'm on board with the 375RUGER and believe it will be around for a long time to come. After all the 308WIN, 30-06 and 300WM have all managed to survive alongside one another...why not the Ruger and H&H?

As for the 416RUGER, I'm not so sure. After the initial offerings from Ruger and other gun companies it seems interest has fallen off. Much more so than the 375RUGER. It goes to show that performance isn't everything and I'm not sure what the other part holding it back is. Possibly popularity or cool factor? What I do know is that there are a lot of great .30 caliber cartridges out there that are mostly relegated to handloading despite being better performers than the 308WIN, 30-06 and 300WM. Time will tell if the 416RUGER will survive.

Side note - Not that this is definitive in any way, but a search on AmmoSeek.com shows 25 results for 375RUGER and only 1 for the 416RUGER...that should tell you something.

As for @USMA84DAB and his attempt to stir the pot with a comment of PF vs CRF...a debate for another thread. LOL.