.375 H&H Plinking Loads

[Mike Van Horn]

H-4895 is a good powder for reduced loads
It's also a good powder for full power loads in the 375H&H also

 

[DrBob]

H-4895 is a good powder for reduced loads
It's also a good powder for full power loads in the 375H&H also

Very good powder as you say... Lee has a formula for reduced loads... I have the software version but one of their old books had it. With the 300 grain Sierra, 64 grains was good for full power while still being great for reduced loads. I ran the Lee software program and a 300 grain bullet at 1500 fps was 35.6 gr for H4895.

 

[Ray B]

The Lyman Handbook shows listings for 2 cast bullets for the 375H&H. Jacketed bullets will generally run the pressures up so best to start at the low end. But they are:
249gr flat base
10.5 - 15.0 grs Red Dot 1150 - 1420 fps
11.5 - 16.0 grs Green Dot 1195 - 1450 fps
13.0 - 18.0 grs Unique 1260 - 1525 fps
15.0 - 20.0 grs Herco 1335 - 1590 fps
17.0 - 24.5 grs Blue Dot 1395 - 1750 fps

269 gr w/gas check
10.5 - 14.5 grs Red Dot 1115 - 1335 fps
11.5 - 15.5 grs Green Dot 1165 - 1370 fps
13.0 - 17.5 grs Unique 1220 - 1460 fps
15.0 - 19.5 grs Herco 1295 - 1515 fps
17.0 - 23.5 grs Blue Dot 1355 - 1645 fps

The manual doesn't indicate anything over the powder so it would be best since the loads are well below 50% density to point the muzzle upward prior to each shot to settle the powder back against the primer.

 

[fourfive8]

Hodgdon online load data has a couple sections devoted to reduced loads- https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-education/tips-and-tricks/low-recoil-loads.

Good to pay attention to the difference as has been posted between loading for cast vs jacketed bullets. Progressive smokeless powders react differently to cast bullets and jacketed bullets even though they may weigh the same. Has to do with differences in obturation/resistance/bore friction.

Accurate 5744 is a good reduced load powder especially with cast bullets. It behaves much like and takes the place of the now discontinued/obsolete SR 4759. 5744 is one of my favorite powders for duplicating low pressure cast bullet/BP ballistics in straight wall rifle cartridges like the 45-70 and 45-110.

Using greatly reduced charges of the fast shotgun and pistol powders require extreme caution because of the low load density required.

I like Trailboss for cast bullets in very high expansion ratio cartridges like the shorter straight walled pistol cartridges... but remain very cautious about using it in large capacity and over bore type rifle cartridges. Even though its low density helps prevent over charges it is still a very fast powder not unlike Bullseye.

 

[Alistair]

Gents.

I do appreciate the input, but I'd like to reiterate the design spec here.

There are some great loads shared here, but what I'm looking for is the following:

1.) The lightest possible bullet (low recoil, low wear, low cost)
2.) 2450fps (correct lead for my driven boar practice load versus the hunting load).

Yes, you can do brilliant downloaded stuff with cast bulets at around 1000-1500fps, but that's not what I'm looking for here. The brief is 'full power load - lite'. Lower weight bullet at full power load velocities(ish).

Once again, appreciate the effort put into the response though!

Regards,
Al.

 

[Ray B]

the now obsolete SR 4759.

It might be discontinued but it's not obsolete until I shoot it.

 

[fourfive8]

agreed! I still have some but it's been pretty forced to the sidelines by 5744.

4759 was used extensively as a BP replacement for ship to ship line throwing systems. I also think it had other military specialty uses as a BP replacement.

The main difference between it and 5744 that I notice is that it is dirtier than 5744 with more carbon fouling. 5744 leaves a few, very low density, gray "ghost" particles behind.

 

[Ray B]

Given your parameters of pushing a 200 gr bullet to 2450 in a 375 H&H, I don't see that as safely possible given the powder choice Reloader 22, N160, N150 (all 3 too slow) H110/W296 not given to reduced (excessive air space) loads, Unique (too fast). It's possible that your performance needs could be met by some of the middle range powders- 4895, 4064, Varget to name a few, possibly even N140.

 

[Ridgewalker]

Oops...now I understand a little better what you’re looking for. I don’t believe any of the powders you have listed will achieve that. On the Hodgdon website (as others have mentioned) H4895 using the 200 grain Sierra flat nose bullet should achieve what you Are looking for. It looks like using 75-80% of their max load should do it. Hodgdon states do not go below 60%.

Now your problem is finding H4895 and Sierra 200 gr bullets.
Best of luck!

 

[Wyatt Smith]

In my Speer manual using the 235 grain bullet
IMR 3031, 63 grains gives 2478
IMR 4895, 64 grains gives 2420
Both are starting loads.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Hornady

 

[Mike Van Horn]

Speer 235 grain, H-4895

 

[Banater Bu]

Hi Albert,

Thanks for the info, sounds good. Unfortunately though, it doesn't seem like it's available in the uk thanks to our stupid REACH legislation. Neither is Trailboss, although not sure on Tin Star

Any other ideas?

Cheers,
Al.

You might be able to get Lovex D060, which is the same as Accurate 5744.

 

[PARA45]

I found this while looking for H-4895. I hope this helps.

 

[Longwalker]

I have done what you are trying to do, with the Speer 235 gr. and 60-64 gr. of IMR 3031. Velocity depended a bit on rifle barrel length and primer used. My Sako M85 shot this acceptably well, my CZ550 got indigestion and the groups were terrible.

 

[Ray B]

I have done what you are trying to do, with the Speer 235 gr. and 60 gr. of IMR 3031.

That should be quite a suitable charge with the substitution of the 200 grain bullet. tho not sure if IMR 3031 is available in UK.

 

[tarbe]

Gents.

I do appreciate the input, but I'd like to reiterate the design spec here.

There are some great loads shared here, but what I'm looking for is the following:

1.) The lightest possible bullet (low recoil, low wear, low cost)
2.) 2450fps (correct lead for my driven boar practice load versus the hunting load).

Yes, you can do brilliant downloaded stuff with cast bulets at around 1000-1500fps, but that's not what I'm looking for here. The brief is 'full power load - lite'. Lower weight bullet at full power load velocities(ish).

Once again, appreciate the effort put into the response though!

Regards,
Al.

235gr Speer and 65-66gr of IMR 4895.

I have been using this load for 3 decades. Fits your parameters.

If available where you are. The 235gr Speers are often the least expensive jacketed bullet available for the .375...at least here.

And regarding REACH...IMHO, nothing but a scheme to protect markets. We make and sell the same molecules using the same chemistry and same raw material in both the U.S. and EU and cannot move the U.S. molecules into EU without REACH approval? lol

 

[fourfive8]

If I were to "design" from scratch a plinking load for the 375 HH I would start with getting a cast bullet mold either already in existence or design one based on what I know works. I would slug my bore. The mold would drop a cast bullet of between 250 and 300 grains. It would be a conventional gas checked and lube grooved bullet. The bullet would have a small flat nose meplat. It would have a bore riding nose matching the diameter of the land to land bore diameter of my bore. The shank length would match the approximate length of the case neck length. It would be sized to about .001" larger than groove diameter of my bore. It would be cast of fairly soft alloy- about 12 BHN. A properly designed and sized gas checked bullet of fairly soft alloy not pushed too hard will provide trouble free loading, shooting and cleaning. I would start with about 20 gr 5744 and loose Dacron fill between bullet base and powder and pan lube the bullets with a fairly soft BP type lube. Use a chronograph and slowly work the powder charge up to maybe 1200-1500 fps at most. Result- nice, inexpensive plinking load with no issues.

Otherwise I would avoid small charges of really fast powders and probably just stick with published recommendations like using the 60 % rule for pressure tested H4895 loads.

Here's an example of a site with real time design software where you can design your own mold.
https://www.mountainmolds.com/index.htm

 

[Opposite Pole]

And regarding REACH...IMHO, nothing but a scheme to protect markets. We make and sell the same molecules using the same chemistry and same raw material in both the U.S. and EU and cannot move the U.S. molecules into EU without REACH approval? lol

It has nothing to do with market protection. If a chemical is banned under REACH it cannot be used regardless of the origin.

 

[tarbe]

It has nothing to do with market protection. If a chemical is banned under REACH it cannot be used regardless of the origin.

They are not banning or approving chemicals, per se. They are approving (or not) chemicals made by specific manufacturers. Big difference...you have to go through the hoops and spend the money for approval...even if other manufacturers of the same molecule, via the same process, have been approved.

I am convinced the underlying motive is protecting markets. It is harmful to competition for certain, and has increased the market prices for many basic chemicals relative to other markets, which increases prices of finished consumer goods. I know, because my company sells many products in both the EU and the US and we track the prices, as you might expect. REACH has kept competition down and prices up.

This is the view from a manufacturer from outside the EU. If I was producing in the EU (we do, just not the products I deal with) I would likely welcome REACH!