I've been working with various 375's for quite a while now so let's see if I can help.
When originally introduced .375 H&H rifles were originally built to feed and shoot 300 grain round nose bullets. Recall the original 30'03, the immediate forerunner of the 30'06, was designed for a 220 gr round nose also until the army saw its error and redesigned it for a lighter pointed bullet, changing the clambering slightly to the 1906 version we all love.
This modification never happened with Holland's 375. As a result, the SAAMI spec chamber is the same as yesteryear, to this day all major US manufacturers and standard aftermarket clambering reamers as well as feeding ramps were designed to feed round nose bullets. Normally feeding shouldn't be an issue with pointed lead or plastic tips, but I've observed at least two or three occasions where pointed or flat-tipped bullets would jam on the ramp designed for round nose. This happens with TSXs in my 458, for example.
The other problem created is that the old round nose bullet requires the rifling lands be located well into the throat. This will leave almost 1/2" of freebore (according to my actual measurements 0.427" with a factory loaded VOR-TX) or other sharply pointed bullets seated to fit in the standard 3.6" magazine boxes, due to the pointed bullet's longer ogive (curve to the point).
This caused accuracy problems when pointed bullets first began to be tested in them, as well as feeding issues. This is why most 375 spitzers and spire points were originally designed with long shanks and short points. One look at the older pointed factory rounds as well as the Hornady spire points, Nosler Partitions, Bear Claws and others will bear this out. The 300 Nos Parts now sport a more tapered ogive, and of course the Accubonds, but the 260's still retain the long shanks and short ogive.
Wonder why factories still load round nose soft points? Some older rifles may not feed pointed bullets well.
So what does all this mean? It means that the current crop of long, sleek bullets designed primarily for aerodynamics may not feed nor shoot up to their potential in all rifles, therefore one must thoroughly test them in any rifle. If one is bent upon their use, in which case the repeating magazine rifle must be modified to handle them. I just did it.
By the way, before going any further, I believe most reloaders are coming to agree that the Barnes TSX / TTSX bullets like a lot of freebore. The aforementioned 300 gr VOR TX factory fodder shooters under an inch in my 70. (Wish I could say the same about Accubonds that were seated to the cannelure, would have saved me some trial and error work on the receiver.)
In a Ruger #1 they pose no great challenge to the handloader, simply seat your Accubonds out to within about 0.030" of the lands if it won't shoot standard length (3.6") rounds. I don't have my notes handy but this will result in a cartridge overall length of about 3.75", and this is exactly how my #1 likes them. Unfortunately, so does my Winchester. So that leaves the shooter a choice, single load the longer bullet for the first shot and put shorter back-ups in the box, or modify the rifle to take them all.
Problem is that 375 H&H magazine rifles will require OALs not longer than 3.600" or slightly less to fit in the box. Loading the box with cartridges 3.75" long requires a new box, Wyatt's Outdoor makes them for 70's and 700's, but they will require machining the receiver as well as altering the bolt stop and in the case of the controlled feed Winchester, the ejector.
So why do they make the new bullets so pointed then? Long range shooting with rifles that will shoot them well. The more modern 375s, like the 375 Ruger, 378 Weatherby and others have no such antique SAAMI or CIP standards to contend with. The loads for them are pointed and even if they weren't they'd will never see a round nose bullet anyway.
If you own the Holland variety, test well and stick with bullets that will shoot well and feed reliably.
Just so happens that the Barnes factory loads do both well in either bolt action I have so chambered, but I wouldn't count on Barnes ... Nosler, Hornady, or any load for that matter ... doing so on dangerous game without a hellava lot of range time behind it.
