Stephen Dean -- 30/375 Ruger

Charles E

curmudgeon
Mr. Dean:

As Matt says, is is hard to beat a .300 WSM. So where does this chambering have a chance?

From Wikipdia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.375_Ruger

Listed capacity, as a .375, is 99 grains of water. By the time you neck it down, it will be about 95 grains of water. Right close to a standard .300 Weatherby; a little less than a .300 Ackley. The big plus is there's no belt on the case. The minus, right now anyway, is you have to use Hornady brass. I'm told the yield of Hornady cases for competition is a little less than the best European brass. Perhaps this will be offset by a lower cost, I don't know.

What does a .300 Weatheby do better than a .300 WSM? Shoot heavier bullets. The WSM seems to peak out with 210s. There are advantages to heavier bullets. The easiest way to pick up BC is weight. The second easiest way is reducing the meplat diameter.

Now IMHO, BC is not the most important quality in a competition bullet. Most important is that undefinable, "accuracy." But if you can get bullets that are just as "accurate" and have a higher BC, you will have an advantage.

The way I think about a competition round involves all the components. The rifle and ammunition is a system; it makes no sense to pay attention to just one component. Notice that I'd posted a thread asking about the .300 Weatherby, 190 and 210 bullets, and H-4831.

Now the answers coming back recommend Rel-25, not 4831. But I've used a fair bit of Rel-25, from different lots. My experience is it varies too much. If you want to use Rel-25, search around for a good lot, and buy 100 pounds of it. I'm not going to do this, and my experience with all the Reloader series of powders is lot to lot performance is quite variable.

[Aside: Lou Merdica, when he discovered that the old "T" worked best in his PPC, bought 1,000 pounds. In the PPC, that's enough for 237,288 rounds. I'd say he solved his powder problem.]

I bought this rifle used. It is a tensioned barrel rifle, everything fits to length. Without changing the barrel, I cannot change the chambering. The rifle already has a 12-twist barrel. etc. OK, from my thinking above, it is already compromised. What it's best at -- long, heavy bullets -- can't be used due to the twist. I'm going to use the bullets I already have for a significantly smaller chambering, case capacity 87.5 grains of water, not 95. And for powder, I'm going to use what has always worked for me, H4350 or H4831.

I hope that shows, just a little, how I think about a rifle. It may not be the best way, but it's how I think, and you asked. BTW. the rifle is slated to get a new barrel, based on the .375 Ruger, but in .338, not .308. That way I can use 285 to 300 grain bullets at about 2,600 fps using H-4831.

If you're still reading, here is another part of the way I think: Generally, increasing velocity give you less drop. I guess if I were shooting tactical matches where the distance isn't known, that would matter. Not only do we know our distance is 1,000 yards (more or less), we get 6 minutes every match to confirm it. So I don't care about drop, about time of flight.

Wind is another kettle of fish. To be dramatic: the drift with a 10-mph crosswind and a .300 grain .338 bullet at 2,600 fps is about 45 inches at 1,000 yards. A fast .30 is more like 65 inches, and the 6mms are a little more. There is a potential advantage to be gained here, but only if the bullets are as "accurate" as some less well endowed ones.

For years I've shot the 187 BIB flat base, to a place in the Long- Range Marksman program. The rifle I've bought is Joel Pendergraft's old rifle, and not only is he far higher on the LRM list, this rifle shot the second best group ever shot at 1,000 yards -- it held the 10-shot group record until Matt Kline took it back last year. Joel also shot the 187 BIBs. So I'll only abandon the 187s with their .520 real-world BC for something with a higher BC if the bullet is close to as accurate.

As luck will have it, R.G. Robinett, who makes the 187s, agreed to make a few heavier bullets for me. They are "neverminds" because at this time anyway, he isn't going to offer them -- it was a one-time deal. They shoot was well as the 187s, but have a BC of almost .100 more. Maybe the new Berger .308 hybrids will do as well, maybe not. But except for the 208s, they'll require a faster twist.

I have never liked VLDs. When they're right, they're hard to beat. But now we're back to the Reloader powders...worse, actually.

Aside from the generalities of everything above, there is also the matter of what a particular barrel likes.

I've learned that little things, like changing the primer, can take you from a barrel that averages 6-7 inch groups to one that averages 4-5 inches.

Or powders. As Jeff Rogers said, with 4831, 4831-SC, and VV-560, you use about the same charge weight fro about the same velocity. But I've had barrels that absolutely preferred 560 and 215 primers. Yet a new barrel for the same rifle absolutely preferred 4831-SC and Russian primers. Go figure.

I've learned that small groups with just one or two outliers, when it happens all the time, are probably not "just conditions," but a less than ideal load. Changing primers, powder and/or charge, and as a last resort, bullets, will as often as not make those outliers go away.

So on top of however you think about things generally, you also have to go out & do the work, shooting those 2 or 3 shot groups to discover what shows promise, then the 5 and 10 shot groups to dial it in.

Well, you asked.
 
Eric can tell you more about this case. I believe he shot it last year in light gun. I think he told me brass wasn't quite as good as Norma. I believe he shot pretty good with it. I don't remember what powder or how fast he was shooting them. Matt
 
Back
Top