375 Caliber A-max...might be a possibility. Please read.

[HARPERC]

There are a lot of 1-12" twist .375's out here. If the engineers bypass the marketing guys, and take a more if we build it they will come approach, I think it's worthwhile. If they start shaping and shortening, to satisfy traditional magazine and twists concerns it will bomb and reinforce assumptions there isn't a market for such things.

 

[benchracer]

You should be able to... the 338 rum and edge will do it with 300's given enough bbl.. Something like the 250 gmx with a bit more weight/ bc would help a lot. I know the 260 ab hurts when you touch them off and they group decently so bonded is a possibility.
The 375 h@h will flat scream in the data that barnes #4 has. I have some v540 around; I may have to try that stuff with the 300tsx; They are quoting 2655 fps from the 300 tsx (I'm at 2550 with I 4320) and 2800 fps with the solid. I've been wanting to build up some engine block busters anyway; or are they big bore coyote loads??

I hate to rework a good shooting load though....
I'll probably build up a group or three and see whether their data has merit or they simply have a fast rifle.

I am on the same wavelength as Lefty7mmstw here. I contacted Hornady regarding this very subject earlier this month, but haven't received any kind of response.

In order to get any bullet maker to commit to something like this, there has to be enough volume involved to justify the costs and risk involved. Though the large cased .375's (like the CHEYTAC) offer the most performance, that is a niche market at best. If we are ever to have any hope of there being better options in .375, I believe the bullets will have to be made and marketed toward the most common .375 chamberings and twists in existence. IMO, that spells 12 twist in .375 H&H, .375 Ruger, .375 Weatherby, and possibly .375 RUM. If the response is strong with those, it may be easier to move the arms race along with heavier/higher bc bullets meant for larger cases and tighter twists.

With the right bullets, I am convinced that the smaller cased .375's are capable of offering .338 level long range performance combined with the sort of versatility that no .338 can match. Given the platforms that the most common .375's are available in, I think the sales potential for better .375 bullets could quickly and easily eclipse that of bullets intended for the .338 Lapua/.338 RUM/EDGE class cartridges. The .375 Ruger cartridge, in particular, offers some intriguing possibilities given that it exceeds H&H performance in a lighter, better handling 30-06 length action that can be had at an attractive price. A good .375 bullet in a Superformance loading could really turn things upside down. A .300-ish grain .375 bullet with a .750-ish or better G1 bc at a reasonable price (around $1/bullet) would be a game changer.

Someone else previously stated that a poll is in order here. I concur. Really, I think two polls are in order. The first poll should concern what .375 chambering people presently own. The second poll should concern what sort of bullet is wanted by .375 shooters.

 

[HARPERC]

Respectfully Benchracer, I disagree. There have been bullets 350-385 grains available in .375 for many years. The Barnes original I can personally say will work in 1-12. Their newer TSX (?) is the current listing, the Rhino 385 are also reportedly work 1-12, Woodleigh also has 350 soft points and FMJ.

The niche market for .375 heavyweights for "standard" cartridges and twist is occupied, and not all that strong. Most in this category are rightfully happy with 300 Partitions etc. for Brown Bear, and a possible African trip.

Granted, a couple of bullets exist in long range form as well, but these shooters may be small in number, but they shoot a bunch of bullets.

Set the goal of outperforming the .338's, then do it, and bullets will sell. Market the guys who replace barrels anyway.

 

[benchracer]

Respectfully Benchracer, I disagree. There have been bullets 350-385 grains available in .375 for many years. The Barnes original I can personally say will work in 1-12. Their newer TSX (?) is the current listing, the Rhino 385 are also reportedly work 1-12, Woodleigh also has 350 soft points and FMJ.

The niche market for .375 heavyweights for "standard" cartridges and twist is occupied, and not all that strong. Most in this category are rightfully happy with 300 Partitions etc. for Brown Bear, and a possible African trip.

Granted, a couple of bullets exist in long range form as well, but these shooters may be small in number, but they shoot a bunch of bullets.

Set the goal of outperforming the .338's, then do it, and bullets will sell. Market the guys who replace barrels anyway.

Admittedly, my opinion on this most likely places me squarely in the minority. In my personal experiments, so far, I have found bullets like the Sierra 350g Matchking to stabilize in a 12 twist without a problem. The issue with that bullet, the only high bc standard construction bullet currently in existence, is that it takes AT LEAST a RUM class cartridge to push it to a useful velocity. There are very few of those in existence. There just aren't enough large cased .375's in existence to form a viable market. That is why the 350g SMK is a niche bullet for a niche market.

OTOH, the majority of .375's made are in cases smaller than the RUM. That class of cartridges is capable of running with the RUM/Lapua class .338's with the right bullets. The only bullets that offer that ability now are expensive custom bullets. I would submit that there are far more of the smaller cased .375's in existence than there are .338 RUM's and Lapuas. If the bullet manufacturers would offer bullets with decent bc's that are suited to an initial MV of 2700 to 2800 fps and a 12 twist, it would totally change the character of the H&H/Ruger class .375's. That class of .375's can offer flexibility that the RUM and Lapua .338's simply cannot match. Moreover, the .375's can do it in actions that are more common and less expensive than those required to accommodate the Lapua class cartridges (and some of those needed to house a RUM). Based on what I suspect are the relative numbers of .375's out there vs RUM/Lapua class .338's, I believe the right .375 bullet, properly marketed, is capable of eclipsing sales of comparable .338 bullets very quickly.

If the insistence is on high bc 350-400+ grain .375 bullets, the .375's will be doomed to a perpetual niche market. There simply will not be enough sales of bullets that require custom rifles to be built to launch them to entice anyone to manufacture them. The ONLY reason the Sierra 350 SMK exists in the first place had to do with development for a military contract. Conversely, the smaller cased .375's are sitting on top of a well of untapped ballistic potential. That same potential would benefit those shooting the larger cased .375's too.

The larger cased .338's and .375's quickly become specialized tools, which automatically limits their appeal to a small group of people. Availability of high bc bullets, of conventional construction, at reasonable cost, and that will work in the H&H class cartridges and up, offers the potential to have a legitimate long range rifle, a dangerous game rifle, and a conventional big game rifle all in a package that can be had for $800-$1000 for the rifle. I believe that is the key to making high bc .375 bullets commercially viable and, thus, more widely available. Going the heavy route in .375 is the surest way I can think of to stay mired in a niche market.

Ultimately, if the high bc .375 bullets being made require a custom rifle, then the barrier for entry into that part of the sport has been set so high that very few people will cross it. That is the same factor that held the .338's back for so long. My overall point is that, for the desired technological development to take place in .375 at anything faster than a glacial pace, the barriers to entry have to be lowered. Making products that can and will offer advantages in commonly available .375's will do that. Making specialized bullets for specialized rifles will not.

 

[Beng]

Guys, pls don't forget that a 300gr .375 cal projectile has an sd of just .305. BCs over .7 aren't realistic. Even .7 implies a form factor of .435. If my memory serves me right (on my cellphone right now), that's about as good as it gets with factory bullets.

 

[Erik Kiser]

I'm no engineer by any stretch but I don't see how you build a 300 gr 375 bullet and get the bc. Up in the mid 700's. Seems as though there are already bullets on the market that fill that niche and also I don't see the 375 Ruger and H&H outperforming the Lapua and Edge. The big 338's are blessed with great heavy high bc. bullets and it's when those bullets became readily available that the 338 caliber really became what it is now. I think the same could happen for the 375. With that being said, I don't think a 400ish gr offering is what's needed. In my opinion the caliber is sorely missing a high bc lead core 340-360 gr bullet that can be used for hunting. It just doesn't seem to exist that I've found and that's the market to start with. If Berger came out with a 350 gr hybrid tomorrow they could sell all they could produce and I think you'd have a rush of guys building 375's from the RUM up. If Hornady does they need to get aggressive with the design in the 350 range and they'll have a winner

 

[benchracer]

Guys, pls don't forget that a 300gr .375 cal projectile has an sd of just .305. BCs over .7 aren't realistic. Even .7 implies a form factor of .435. If my memory serves me right (on my cellphone right now), that's about as good as it gets with factory bullets.

You have me at a disadvantage here, where the limits of my knowledge of bullet design are concerned. What I can tell you is that 300 and 320g .375 bullets with .750 and .830 g1 bc's already exist. They are lathe turned monolithic copper bullets with sd's of .305 and .325 respectively.

My understanding is that, in theoretical tems, a monometal copper bullet will always have a lower bc than a comparable lead core bullet because the monometal bullet is less dense. That is my basis for believing that a 300ish grain .375 bullet should be capable of achieving the stated bc's. With a proper tip and the right ogive, I would think at least mid-.7's would be possible given that has already been done with copper monometal bullets.

Of course, there is a lot I don't know about bullet design, so it is entirely possible that I am all wet when it comes to that assumption.

 

[Erik Kiser]

I believe the mono's have an advantage. Because of their lighter mono metal construction they can be built longer and sleeker at a given weight so I'm not surprised a 320 gr mono has a bc up there. A 320 gr lead core bullet will be much shorter because of the heavier core. SD has little, if anything, to do with bc

 

[Beng]

BC=sd/i

The material a projectile is made from has no relevant influence on it's bc. Only the weight via sd and the formfactor are important for our purposes. Monometallic projectiles do actually have an advantage due to their manufacturing process. It's much easier and rather inexpensice to experiment with and produce exotic shapes in small volumes on a lathe.
Thus it could be possible to manufacture very low formfactor values in monometallic bullets.
For conventional cup and core bullets I'd rather look for existing extremely low drag designs and take their form factors to guesstimate what a new bullet might be able to offer. The .300 gr Berger has a formfactor of .457, with a similar form factor, a .375 cal projectile had to weigh 370 gr to offer similar performance. An even lighter bullet had to be of a more efficient design than the berger (lower formfactor).
I'm not saying that it'd be impossible, but pretty difficult to beat the .338 with it's current bullet selection. Especially considering increased recoil and penetration. The small market for .375 lr stuff was already mentioned.
Nonetheless a .375 cal A-Max would be a great thing, even if it had a bc of just .65.

 

[benchracer]

BC=sd/i

Monometallic projectiles do actually have an advantage due to their manufacturing process. It's much easier and rather inexpensice to experiment with and produce exotic shapes in small volumes on a lathe.
Thus it could be possible to manufacture very low formfactor values in monometallic bullets.

The small market for .375 lr stuff was already mentioned.
Nonetheless a .375 cal A-Max would be a great thing, even if it had a bc of just .65.

From my own examination of the Cutting Edge bullets I have experimented with, the only design features that are exotic involve bore rider, driving band, and seal tite band features that control bearing surface and gas seal characteristics. These seem to allow slightly higher muzzle velocity with a given powder charge (I was getting just shy of 50 fps more vs conventional bullets). The ogive on the Cutting Edge bullets doesn't appear as aggressive as that present on some of the VLD's that I have. Where bc is involved with the Cutting Edge bullets, I have not been able to see that anything exotic has been done. Of course, here again, my knowledge of such things is limited so there may very well be some things I am missing.

Where the small market for .375 long range stuff is concerned, it was not so long ago that the same was true of the .338's. I would argue that it was innovation among a very few dedicated shooters and craftsmen that changed that situation. The same can be done for the .375.

I agree that a .650 or so bc .375 AMAX would be a good thing. It would definitely be a step up, even if it didn't allow for .338 class performance. At the very least, it would still allow for good practice at extended range. If any bullet maker could be persuaded to make such a bullet in a light and a heavy version, that would be better still.

 

[IdahoCTD]

I'd try a .375 Amax as long as a 10 twist would stabilize it. I really think two different bullet weights would be best here. A lighter version, something in the 275-300gr range with a BC in the .600's, to work in the 12 twist guns and a heavier bullet, 350+grs .800+ BC, for the bigger calibers with faster twists. They will probably compromise though and do something between 300 and 350grs that will still work in a 12 twist.

It's pretty obvious people will buy reasonably priced bullets with higher BC's. Look at how fast the 285 Amax's sold out at most places despite very few people actually hearing of them.

 

[bigngreen]

They have to build a bullet that will compete with the Berger 300 gr .338 cal or it will be a non starter IMO, there are so many guys perched ready to build a great long range 375 but when you look for the projectile you really have the SMK350 that is a proven accuracy bullet at ELR but it is a hard as nails bullet. A 350 gr A-Max would be a very welcome bullet to the long range hunting community!!

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

They've already got the 250 gmx design. Add a bit of heft with a lead or Silvex rear core (Silvex would keep it "green") and a more aggresive boat tail and you'd have a 375 cal pill with around 280 grains weight, enough slipstream to beat .500 bc a good bit, and dense enough to still have powder capacity in the smaller 375's. The bullet could be extended for the heavy bullet guys with rums and 378's.

Using 200 yard zero and a .550bc 280 grain 375 cal. slug doing 2800 fps you are 304 inches down at 1000 yards. Bumping it to 3000 fps gets you to 260 inches drop.

Using the 250 gmx with its .430 bc and 2900 fps and a 200 yard zero you are 340 inches down at 1000 yards.

These compare to the 300 grain berger with its .818 bc at 2750 fps out of a larger 338. using the same 200 yard zero that pill is down 257.6 inches at 100 yards.

By using a decent capacity 375 you could run with the 338's and hit them with a good bit fatter slug to boot.

An observation... none beat my 7stw with only 212 inches drop with a 140 nosler ( 200 yd zero) starting at 3400 fps. If my 150 lrab load is as good as it looks I'll shave another 6% off of my drop.

 

[benchracer]

They've already got the 250 gmx design. Add a bit of heft with a lead or Silvex rear core (Silvex would keep it "green") and a more aggresive boat tail and you'd have a 375 cal pill with around 280 grains weight, enough slipstream to beat .500 bc a good bit, and dense enough to still have powder capacity in the smaller 375's. The bullet could be extended for the heavy bullet guys with rums and 378's.

Using 200 yard zero and a .550bc 280 grain 375 cal. slug doing 2800 fps you are 304 inches down at 1000 yards. Bumping it to 3000 fps gets you to 260 inches drop.

Using the 250 gmx with its .430 bc and 2900 fps and a 200 yard zero you are 340 inches down at 1000 yards.

These compare to the 300 grain berger with its .818 bc at 2750 fps out of a larger 338. using the same 200 yard zero that pill is down 257.6 inches at 100 yards.

By using a decent capacity 375 you could run with the 338's and hit them with a good bit fatter slug to boot.

An observation... none beat my 7stw with only 212 inches drop with a 140 nosler ( 200 yd zero) starting at 3400 fps. If my 150 lrab load is as good as it looks I'll shave another 6% off of my drop.

Following Beng's use of sd's to make a ball park estimate of max theoretical bc's for a given bullet weight and diameter, it should not be difficult to construct a 300ish grain .375 bullet that would achieve mid to high .6 g1 bc's. If that proves out, the .375's might do a bit better yet than the above numbers indicate.

However it all shakes out, I sure would like to have some better .375 bullets to shoot. I hope somebody will see their way clear to make that happen and I would like to help out however I can.