I think my point is getting a bit lost. Truly, I don't agree in the least that modern cartridge design has led to quite reliable cartridges and rifles. The question here is about the design features that make for the highest possible reliability in a dangerous game rifle. I've certainly shot my share of .223 and .308 rounds -- far, far more of those than belted rounds. But, in total honesty, I *have* owned rifles in both .223 and .308 that developed feeding problems at one time or another -- sometimes ammo related, sometimes not. For sure, it's never been a common occurrence -- but it happens. But it can happen with any round in any rifle -- and yes, even a .375 H&H
My thoughts here are simply with respect to which form of cartridge design makes such issues the least likely to occur.Again, I agree 100%. Most times, just about any well made rifle is going to function they way we want and need them to, even in adverse conditions. But I still think there's a difference, in my mind at least, in wanting every advantage (theoretical or otherwise) in a potentially lethal encounter. I may be the only one who feels this way, and that's perfectly fine, but when it comes to dangerous game rifles my preference lies vastly in favour of tapered or straight-walled rounds for their smooth feeding characteristics. Hell, I even consider controlled round feeding a mandatory feature in a DG bolt action -- I guess I'm just funny that way
Of course they did, or we wouldn't have so many excellent rifle designs to enjoy these days. But again, my comments were limited to dangerous game rifles, and those who build them. If you want an opinion far more qualified than mine will ever be, give Ralf Martini a call over at Martini Hagn Gunnmakers. For $15,000 he'll put you in his queue (now running 2 to 3 years) for a custom made British express-style bolt action that is arguably among the best made in the world. Oh, but be sure to ask him what his two favourite calibres are for bolt actions re: reliable feeding and extraction. Here's a hint: he'll tell you that it's the .375 H&H for a large bore and a .300 H&H for a light rifle. Or call Joe Smithson in the US. Or any other serious maker of seriously well made and custom bolt actions. Absolutely, they can make very reliable rifles in standard, non-belted rounds. But if you ask them what makes for the MOST reliable cartridge design... These are the guys who know, because they're the ones who spend endless hours tweeking magazine rails and feed ramps.
I didn't read what Wieland wrote about pressure, but ballistics 101 tell us when you use a bigger case and put more powder in it, you can achieve higher velocities. So when you use a bigger case and put more powder in it, you can lop off a few inches of barrel and still achieve the velocity of the smaller case with a 24" barrel, but still have the same pressure. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Bigger case= more powder= more velocity at same pressure. You know- physics.
Absolutely agree in principal. But in some cases, like this one, the difference in case capacity is not enough to fully overcome a 4" barrel length difference. Of course, we're splitting hairs at this point -- but it's still part of the overall big picture.
Take a bit more pressure, a bit less readiness to extract, somewhat less fluid feeding characteristics, and a headspacing need for ammo to more closely match chamber dimensions. I'm not saying that modern cartridge designs aren't marvels of human ingenuity and engineering, because they are. What I am saying is that dangerous game rifles and the things demanded of them make for a different set of requirements, and the H&H round has held its lofty 101 year reputation because it addresses those needs so well.
Of course it was "good" and of course it worked. But it's not like the Rigby round has been flawless. Take a read through "Rifles for Africa" by Gregor Woods (a past editor of Magnum magazine in South Africa), and see what he has to say about the Ruger RSM in .416 Rigby being a total failure, as EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM exhibited ejection problems that were repeatable when they showed up for use in PH exams. In this case, it was a flaw in the rifle's design that only became apparent when chambered for a wider cartridge. But Wood's point is that the same problem is at least possible in any rifles rechambered to the Rigby, and that a gunsmith needs to think it through and get it right in order for the rifle to function as it's supposed to.
For God's sake, please don't think I'm now saying that the Rigby is a lousy cartridge. All I'm trying to say, and this really will be the last time I try to say it, is that in a dangerous game rifle I personally want to have every single aspect of it stacked in favour of it working exactly the way it's supposed to and exactly all of the time. Any good rifle will work perfectly almost all of the time, or almost perfectly all of the time. But in a dangerous game rifle, I expect more than that.
Well, I know that would probably make Ralf feel vindicated in his views
As for me, perhaps I'll just sit on the fence until the Zimbabwean Professional Hunters Association releases it's annual review of PH exams and the accompanying summary of how many tested with a .375 H&H and how many tested with a .375 Ruger. You never know, someone might finally bring a Ruger... Well, not only are those my 2 cents, but probably more than anyone wants to hear. What I would suggest, regardless of one's views on the subject, is to spend some time reading Terry Wieland's book "Dangerous Game Rifles". You may agree or disagree with the points he makes, but his views are very well thought-out and are firmly rooted in a great deal of first-hand experience and a lot of hours in the field chasing stuff that chases you back.
OK, enough of me. Back to Gatehouse
Last edited:
