375 H+H for the woods

MarkH

Well-Known Member
Hi Peeps

Just downloaded the 375 H+H with 40gn RL7 220gn Hornady FP. The MV is 1971 fps and energy 1998 fpe. Zero @ 25m and 100 beyond that she drops like a brick.
Should be great for woodland high seat work. Consider it a massive 243 :D The lower shot is the initial sighter which I always take at 25m. the next two ie zero are @ 25 and 100m. Very accurate round so no need to shoot groups for this excercise. To go to full power load just add 8 clicks up - what could be simpler


image.jpg


Mark
 
Thar- here is a sensible answer.

1. It is not sensible to use factory ammo in a 375 or 458 Lott in the UK on deer as the ME are 4122 ftp and 4897 ftp respectively. Both rifles can be safely downloaded to a ME of 2000 ftp which keeps it legal for England.
2. I can legally possess expanding ammunition for both rifles in the UK. Homeloading allows me to tailor my bullets for optimum performance according to the situation.
3. Maximum shooting distance in the wood is 100m but most deer are culled at 25-50m. At 300yds it will have dropped about 70" :eek: (Sorry for mixing units here).
4.My 458 Lott can be used for the humane dispatch of wounded or injured animals. Big heavy slow bullets (220-350gn) are good for this.

Question - Have you tried following up a deer with a broken leg in a pine forestry block at night with dogs, rifle and a lamp? If you have you will know that a 308 whatever with moderator, bipod and 12x56 scope is far from ideal,I have tried it.
A short barrelled properly gun-fitted rifle with low magnification or iron sights is far better balanced and quicker to shoot with, similar to a shotgun. Also it stands less chance of getting snagged in brambles. Some people on this site use a 30-30 for similar reasons.

So in conclusion - because I can :D

Regards

Mark
 
MarkH said:
Question - Have you tried following up a deer with a broken leg in a pine forestry block at night with dogs, rifle and a lamp?

So in conclusion - because I can :D

Mark I have done all the above without problem, but some of the thicket stage plantation I have you have to crawl though, but I think in general we use our dogs differently. Although I don’t see what connection that has with using you down loaded 375 from a high seat. :confused: :confused:

What advantage does this give you over a 308 in a highseat? I can only see disadvantages. :confused:

ATB

Tahr
 
I don't understand what you are getting at?
Its not a case of advantages or disadvantages from a high seat, its more a case of 'why not'. People use 243, 7-08, 303, 300wssm, 300 win mags why should a downloaded 375 case a problem?
Try shooting a fully stoked 375 from a high seat at a fallow that's only 25 m away, once you hearing returns and your shoulder stops hurting.
I suppose its more a case of 'its nice to use a fine quality rifle' within sensible parameters.

ATB

Mark
 
You do because you want to be different? Not for any deer welfare issues then. :confused:

ATB

Tahr
 
Thar

It is clear from this series of posts and previous that further explanation in futile. If you don't understand by now I don't expect you ever will.

I was initially under the impression the forum was for sharing experiences and ideas. Intelligent discussion is a good thing.

Since when did 'different' become a crime.

This is my final word, I will post no further.

Mark
 
MarkH said:
Thar

It is clear from this series of posts and previous that further explanation in futile. If you don't understand by now I don't expect you ever will.

I was initially under the impression the forum was for sharing experiences and ideas. Intelligent discussion is a good thing.

Since when did 'different' become a crime.

This is my final word, I will post no further.

Mark

Mark

No need to throw your toys out the pram, I can see no practical advantage that this exercise achieves, and you have failed to enlighten me.

The only reasons you give is “because you can”, or “to be different .” I agree neither is a crime but I can’t see how the exercise aids deer welfare; all it appears to achieve is to put it politely; “give the owner some degree of personal satisfaction.”

The intelligent debate would be, with me only playing devils advocate in a small way, ;) :- should we all strive to kill deer with the most practical and effective equipment possible or just shoot them with anything that is legal. :confused:

Tahr
 
Thar/MarkH

Right, I'm not trying to wind anyone up but.....devil's advocate #2:

I've followed this trail with interest, primarily because a friend of mine uses a 375H&H when stalking red deer in Scotland as a way of 'practicing' for his trips to Africa. I have no problem with this, primarily because the deer typically drop on the spot :eek:

should we all strive to kill deer with the most practical and effective equipment possible or just shoot them with anything that is legal.

Please, let's not go there ;) As many threads on this site well demonstrate, we can't agree amongst ourselves what constitutes "the most practical and effective equipment possible" - .308, .243, 6.5x55, 30-06, .25-06, .270......every one of these (and many more) has their adherents.

I also can't see why (although I am sure that someone on the site will enlighten me) a .375H&H is any less 'humane' than any of rounds mentioned above, providing it is loaded so that it is deer legal in the UK.

Do we or, more importantly, the deer know any different?

willie_gunn
 
There is so much I would write on this topic. I have stayed out of it and frankly, I'm catching a plane in a few minutes and won't be able to reply to any response to my posts for several days so I won't get started. I will only say that I come down on MarkH's side on this one. ~Muir

PS: Catch you all on the weekend.
 
Thar said:
Mark
No need to throw your toys out the pram
Perhaps It's just me, but this seems to be a belittling and unnecessary remark.

Thar said:
I can see no practical advantage that this exercise achieves
Is there a need for any more 'practical advantage' than has been demonstrated, viz. to put an adequately powerful bullet to the point of aim at the range intended?

Thar said:
and you have failed to enlighten me.
Well, it's not easy, is it? Many have tried and failed :confused:

Thar said:
The only reasons you give is “because you can”, or “to be different .” I agree neither is a crime but I can’t see how the exercise aids deer welfare
Again, perhaps just my view, but I fear there is a risk that this might be interpreted as pompous tripe.

Thar said:
all it appears to achieve is to put it politely; “give the owner some degree of personal satisfaction.”
It appears to acheive an adequately powerful and accurate deer-stopping load which allows MarkH to use a rifle with which he is familliar and comfortable for a particular defined purpose; one for which which low velocity loads and heavy bullets are often considered appropriate.
Perhaps he might be allowed to feel some 'personal satisfaction'?

Thar said:
The intelligent debate would be, with me
:eek:

Thar said:
should we all strive to kill deer with the most practical and effective equipment possible
Not much to debate there, unless it includes the unwritten condition that Thar is the sole arbiter of practicality and effectiveness.

Thar said:
or just shoot them with anything that is legal. :confused:
Straw Man or Red Herring? I can't quite decide!
 
Personally i'd like the oppertunity to try Mark's 375 H&H. Each to their own and provided it's both legal and doesn't contribute any unnecessary suffering to the deer then it's ok with me.
 
No-one has commented on the accuracy of Marks rifle. There are plenty of 'normal' calibres that won't shoot like that!

We should welcome diversity of approach as out of such novel methods comes innovation.

If he can shoot it well, it suits his purpose and it performs well on the intended target then more power to his elbow.

Negativity only reflects badly on the initiator of such.

Regards

Gareth
 
Ok let's face it the rules and laws on the calibres, bullets and rifles that can be used legally for the taking of deer are plainly stupid .

Obviously written but those with their own agenda and ideas whcih they have foisted on everyone. In Scotland the velocity restriction failed to take into the account all the deer cleanly killed using such classics as the 6.5x54MS and the 303.

The thing that has always got me is that you cannot get deader than dead ;) and oen thing that has become blindingly obvious is that one must not stray from what is seen as the norm as Mark has found out :(
 
As the calibre is deer legal in the UK, why should Mark H not use it? Dead is Dead :!: And if he does not have quite as much usable meat as someone else, so what! Its definately not a welfare issue :!:

One of my local gunsmiths, fairly famous in the gun-trade and as an author, uses a 45-70 for culling fallow. Should he be castigated for using something different, away from the norm. I think not :rolleyes:

There appears to be some guff floating about here, and it's not from the owner of a .375 HH.

ft
 
OK Guys

Some of you have got the wrong end of the stick here, I have no issue with anybody using a different calibre, in fact I use a odd ball one myself, in addition if some of you may remember in a previous post I was with a friend of mine only the other week that uses a 45-70.

I would have not thought any debate would be necessary if Mark had said that he had slightly down loaded his 375HH to shoot large deer in the UK because this would allow him to get familiar with the weapon for use on dangerous game in field conditions and it is unnecessary to use full power loads for deer. Absolutely fine in my mind but Mark made no such claim.

The reason I think that Marks post is worthy of debate is because he has deliberately down loaded the cartridge to be just deer legal, by his own admission the drop on this cartridge when so loaded is horrendous. I generally would have concerns of how a bullet would perform (although not in this specific case), expansion of a bullet is directly related to the velocity it is driven, at what point is the velocity so low that the bullet effectively becomes a non-expanding bullet? Remember “English law says that a bullet must expand in a predictable manner.” If you are going to make your dangerous game rifle perform like a 243 does it not make far more sense to just use a 243?

Now in Mark case you might argue what he has done is expectable, and as I said to a degree I was playing devils advocate, so there is a chance I will agree as I have not made my own mind up 100% yet. This then leads to if this is OK when is it not, if ever? Is it OK the use a 500gn bullet doing 1300fps that is still deer legal?

I see some people berate the law surrounding firearms and deer, do you wish to turn back the clock and be able to use whatever you or just importantly other s like?

Of course for those living north of the boarder it is immaterial as we have a minimum velocity limit, in general, is this a bad thing?

I also see that with some individuals you can’t have a debate even if it is months/year ago without it getting personal and them holding a grudge, get over it, just because we debated once and disagreed don’t mean the next time I won’t agree with you.

ATB

Tahr
 
Thar said:
Some of you have got the wrong end of the stick here
Of course! That must be the explanation.

Thar said:
I have no issue with anybody using a different calibre, in fact I use a odd ball one myself, in addition if some of you may remember in a previous post I was with a friend of mine only the other week that uses a 45-70.

A 45-70 loaded to what velocity, I wonder? I hope you made the relevant enquiries.


Thar said:
I would have not thought any debate would be necessary if Mark had said that he had slightly down loaded his 375HH to shoot large deer in the UK because this would allow him to get familiar with the weapon for use on dangerous game in field conditions and it is unnecessary to use full power loads for deer. Absolutely fine in my mind but Mark made no such claim.
I didn't get the impression that that is what he was doing, so perhaps that's why he didn't make that claim.

Thar said:
The reason I think that Marks post is worthy of debate is because he has deliberately down loaded the cartridge to be just deer legal
'Deliberately'?? At least it wasn't accidentally! And 'just deer legal'? A rifle is either 'deer legal' or it isn't, and this one is, being about 300ftlb (17%) above the minimum.

Thar said:
by his own admission the drop on this cartridge when so loaded is horrendous.
Compared to the flat-shooting .45-70? Perhaps the drop is fine over the ranges it is intended to be used?

Thar said:
I generally would have concerns of how a bullet would perform (although not in this specific case)
Perhaps we should be spared further irrelevant speculation on this one, then.

Thar said:
Remember “English law says that a bullet must expand in a predictable manner.”
It actually says 'no bullets may be used other than soft-nosed or hollow-pointed.' It says nothing about what happens to the bullet in practice.

Thar said:
If you are going to make your dangerous game rifle perform like a 243 does it not make far more sense to just use a 243?
Or he could borrow your friend's .45-70, perhaps?

Thar said:
so there is a chance I will agree as I have not made my own mind up 100% yet.
Hmm.

Thar said:
This then leads to if this is OK when is it not, if ever? Is it OK the use a 500gn bullet doing 1300fps that is still deer legal?
Like a shotgun slug?
I suppose there's a point where the trajectory becomes impractical. English law allows us, like Mark, to make up our own minds about that.

Thar said:
I see some people berate the law surrounding firearms and deer, do you wish to turn back the clock and be able to use whatever you or just importantly other s like?
There has been no sugestion of this sort. Another red herring, perhaps.
I'm not sure many would argue the law makes sense in every aspect, though. Why no .22CF in England and Wales for roe, for example?

Thar said:
Of course for those living north of the border it is immaterial as we have a minimum velocity limit, in general, is this a bad thing?
Insomuch as it allows you to offer dire warnings about 156gr bullets in 6.5x55 it certainly a little irritating ;)
Those who effectively use low-velocity heavy-bullet rifles for woodland stalking might find the laws restrictive.
Do you think that deer welfare is better in Scotland because of the rather arbitrary MV limits? My view on legislation in general is that less is better.

Thar said:
I also see that with some individuals you can’t have a debate even if it is months/year ago without it getting personal and them holding a grudge, get over it
Nothing personal with me. I just have a marked dislike of school-playground taunts, 'straw man' arguments, hyperbolic extrapolations and other dubious devices which neither dignify the forum nor encourage proper, non-emotive and hence constructive discussion.

Thar said:
just because we debated once and disagreed don’t mean the next time I won’t agree with you.
Hope springs eternal: I'm sure we can all carry on with a light heart, knowing that this rich blessing might await us should we ever state an opinion with which you agree :)
 
Back
Top