I do like the .375H&H. It is a very good all round calibre which will take anything on earth and is legal to do so pretty much anywhere on earth as well. (Was shooting one last weekend actually, CZ550)
I think in the UK, as .375H&H is considered the legal minimum for dangerous game, a lot of licensing departments won’t let you have it or will take a lot of convincing.
Interestingly, my 9.3x62 was not much of a challenge to get conditioned for deer and AOLQ with the Met.
I’ve often wondered why the 9.3x62 was fine in a lot of countries for DG and now is not, arguably with modern bullets the 9.3 is better than ever. I do wonder how well it deals with the heavier solids though. I think the 9.3x62 might be better on the thin skinned stuff but the .375H&H being able to use anywhere is great.
Oh, and if we had half decent gun laws in this country, I’d have a .375H&H in the cabinet as well as the 9.3x62, but I get the chance to go for buff, I’m taking a .416 Rigby or .404 Jeffery.
I've no doubt the 9.3 with proper bullets could take any game animal in Africa including elephant.
The thing, however, is that the 9.3--as good as it is--is not the 375 H&H. It is very popular as a bushveld cartridge, and on the continent for boar. The trajectory is actually quite good, but again, not as good as the 375 H&H when comparing full house loads. The 375 H&H has a trajectory similar to 180gr .30-06 loads, except with 300 gr bullets. You have bullet weights from 200 gr for antelope all the way up to 380 gr for the largest animals on this earth. It is more versatile and has other things going for it as well...
It is the legal minimum
everywhere for dangerous game.
It is ubiquitous thus ammunition can be found even in remote parts of Yukon/Alaska/Africa/etc (reloading supplies can be bought locally, too).
The cartridge is the smoothest feeding and extracting I have
ever encountered.
The belt, though often criticized as unecessary, adds another element of reliability in extreme conditions and when hunting dangerous game.
It is actually relatively mild mannered when the gun is fitted properly. Not as mild as the 9.3, but again, it is not the 9.3 and has never aspired to be.
And that is why I avoided the comparison. I actually love the 9.3 and its NA equivalent--the .35 Whelen. They are both capable cartridges that will take any game animal here within sensible range. They fit in a standard action and thus can be made 1 to 1.5 lbs lighter. A .375, however, can be made into a just as handy of a rifle if need be. You can always download the .375, but you cannot upload the 9.3.
The 9.3 was always the poor man's .375 H&H. And that is NOT to denigrate it because obviously the formula worked!, and very wealthy people shoot it in place of the .375. It is an extremely practical cartridge and all things being equal, the rifles cost less and are cheaper to shoot. Magnum Mausers were only ever made commercially. The 9.3x62 allowed farmers in Africa to convert there surplus 98s to the 9.3 on the cheap and this worked very well. There were also many commercial Mauser chambered in this cartridge.
But again, the comparison isn't fair and the criticisms not really criticisms, but mere preference. Other than cost, the only major criticism of the .375 is weight/bulk, which in a properly finished gun is an additional lbs or so. In a cartridge that fires 18 more more grams of powder than the 9.3, that extra bit of weight is NOT a drawback. With a good sling I can hike 8+ hours with it and not be bothered.
The .375 H&H is a versatile and inspiring workhorse that will continue to be popular the world over for another 100 years. Those who own and shoot this cartridge do so because they recognize its unique traits and balance. It is [still] the top choice in its class. Necessary for NA and Europe? Absolutely not. But for moose and bear it is near ideal, and it will perform equally well if you choose to take other (smaller) game animals with it.
