Magazine capacity of a 375

[Bonk]

I own several CZ550s and only 1 M70 so you can guess which side I fall on. Full disclosure, the extra capacity is only one reason I prefer CZ over Winchester. YMMV.

Though there is something I've always wondered about. Whenever the "how many rounds is enough" question comes up inevitably a few folks will say something to the effect of "If you can't get it done with 2 (3) (4) (5) then you probably need to work on your marksmanship or hunting skills" or "Don't worry about it, your PH is backing you up". Ok, fair enough but I have to ask does that also apply to caliber choice? I think most people would agree that a properly placed 375 will easily kill anything on the planet yet the consensus is when hunting the big nasty DG it's best to have a rifle chambered in something that begins with a 4 or 5. You know, just in case. If 2 or 3 rounds are enough if you place your shot correctly then why isn't a 375 also enough if you place your shot correctly? Seems to me any extra insurance is a good idea whether it's a larger caliber or an extra round. If you blow the first shot or the critter is one of those that doesn't know it's supposed to die then every extra round is a treasure and the bigger the bullet the better.

 

[One Day...]

Now , if a gentle man cannot dispose of his quarry in 4 shots ... Then , he has no business hunting ... in the very 1st place . He should take up another hobby.

Does anyone really think they will get off more than three rounds in a hunting situation

OK, fair enough but I have to ask does that also apply to caliber choice? I think most people would agree that a properly placed 375 will easily kill anything on the planet yet the consensus is when hunting the big nasty DG it's best to have a rifle chambered in something that begins with a 4 or 5.

These are great and quasi century-old questions, and each of us will have our own answers to them.

Going by the experiences shared by many books from reliable sources, either "modern" or "Golden Age"; going by the now wonderful resource of many safari videos on YouTube; and going by the experience of half a dozen friend PHs who hunt buffalo every year, I personally think that the answers are quite simple:

1. The .375 H&H will kill (emphasis: kill) anything that walks the earth quite cleanly with a properly placed shot.

2. Any .416 delivering Rigby performance will hit them noticeably harder. This is quite logical, right? 400 gr vs. 300 gr... The same goes for the .404.

3. The .458 and larger will stop (emphasis: stop) them significantly more reliably than either .375 and .416. This, again, is quite logical, right? 500 gr vs. 400 gr vs. 300 gr....

4. The issue it seems, with buffalo in particular, is that regardless of caliber (.375, .416 or .458+) if the first shot is not fatal - whether on the spot (brain or spine hits) or whether within 100 yards through catastrophic blood pressure drop (upper heart or double lung hits) - then adrenaline kicks in and it can take a lot more killing to finish things.​

So yes, I absolutely believe that it is quite common to expand more then three rounds in a buffalo hunting situation, but one must not focus always on "charges" (which to begin with only happen when, generally, a mistake was made). Indeed the chance to fire 3 shots at a charging buff are likely low, but the chances of a client shooting against a charging buff are even lower.

The much more likely reality is a client pumping lead in a wounded and retreating buff, and for this type of shooting, there are many precedents indicating that not only 2 backing shots (therefore 3 in total) are very common, but actually it often takes a lot more than 3 shots to put down an adrenaline-charged wounded buff.

So, in my mind, yes, I prefer 5 over 3, or if it was timely to slip one round under the extractor and let the bolt carry it into the chamber, 6 over 4. There are many reliable example in the literature from credible PH authors of buffs taking up to a dozen hits or so from anything from .375 to .500 to finally go down...

Do we all strive to have one-shot kill buffalo? Of course we do! But sometimes things happen ... even to gentlemen... the buff takes one step or turns just as the trigger breaks; an unseen branch deflects the bullet; the field shooting position is a little less stable than hoped for; truth be told: many first time buffalo hunters can be a little excited or apprehensive, or both, etc. etc. and that perfect shot ends up a little off...

 

[BeeMaa]

IMO - You will kick yourself for not getting the BRNO/CZ at this time.
Especially one with a peep sight.

The BRNO 602 and CZ550 are both out of production.

If you still want a Win M70 in 375 after buying the BRNO, it shouldn't be a problem.
Winchester is still making them.

 

[Forrest Halley]

Indeed the chance to fire 3 shots at a charging buff are likely low, but the chances of a client shooting against a charging buff are even lower.

If I ever got into the situation where I was being charged by an animal I had shot, I don't think there would be much prompting needed or waited upon for me to shoot. I tend to find the follow-up shot rather natural.

 

[SRvet]

SRvet,

This wouldn't happen to be my Win 70 for sale on the Stalking Directory by any chance?

Obviously I'm biased, but I'll try and put that aside to give useful advice. Let me know how I get on with that!

When I was enquiring about .375s with the fine peope of this forum, the feedback was that whilst the CZ does have some advantages as discussed below, it also has a disadvantage.

The disadvantage being that it may not actually work reliably, smoothly and repeatably straight from the factory. The CZ can be made to work absolutely relaibly, but I was advised that a degree of additional expense and fettling should be expected.

So I guess that's your choice.

Advantages of the CZ:

doube bridge with integral scope mount
magnum size action (not that it matters in .375, but I would consider that you are limited to the book COAL of 3.600" by the magazine in the Win, whilst the CZ might possibly allow yo to seat the havier bullets further out if desired.)
5 rounds vs 3
25" vs 24" barrel gives more velocity
Possibly more machined vs cast parts (depending on vintage and also depending if this is genuinely an advantage)
Possibly a couple ounces heavier, especially once you've 5 rounds down.

Advantages of the Win 70:

It's very likely to work direct from factory.
firing pin blocking safety
Smoother action as new
possibly marginally lighter (not much in it as said)
Possibly slightly better standard of general fit and finish
Possibly better wood
Flxibility in scope mounting (you have the choice of putting whatever mounts you want on, the CZ design is more limited)
Slightly shorter barrel and overall length

I'd suggest that actually, the barrel profile is roughly the same on the CZ and Win Safari Express, whilst the weight of both is stated as 9lb for the Win and 9.13lbs (not sure if this means 9lb 1oz or 9lb 13oz) for the CZ.

Someone said above that the CZ can be everything that the Win is and more, you just need to do the work.

Honestly, I think this is probably true, but by the time you've swapped out the stock, got it bedded, got someone to smooth the action, swapped out the safety for a Win unit, all on top of actually buying the gun, its also nearly twice the price of simply buying a Win 70 which works as standard. Especially considering UK prices for all firearm bits, and the difficulty of actually sourcing all these bits here.

For proof of this, AHR in the states offer this upgrade service. Total price on top of the base gun for the stage 2 tune up (all things suggested above excepting buying a new stock) - $1,795 on top of the base gun ( https://americanhuntingrifles.com/upgrade-your-cz/). I make the 'superior' Cz a roughly £3,000 purchase (£1,650 for gun plus £1,350 in fettling) in the UK to get it right, versus the Win at maybe £1,300. I went with simplicity and cost and am very happy with my Win. Sad to have to sell it really.

Something to consider either way and I hope you find what you're looking for!

Al.

Hi Alastair
Yes your Winchester set me thinking when I thought a decision was made. The sensible option I’m sure is to go with the more modern Winchester but there are so many with significant experience who speak well of the BRNO that I would be daft not to consider it. I would definitely want to change the safety to a 3 position unit a la American Hunting Rifles, and my plan was to see how comfortable I find the factory stock before looking out a replacement. Part of the trouble is I found this picture of a restocking job on a 602 done by a Uk stocker called Gary Cane which to me is so beautiful in many ways, completely functional without being excessively ornate. Like I said on SD if the other rifle doesn’t come off I may well be giving you a call. Thanks to you and all the other contributors for the information so far.

 

[One Day...]

If I ever got into the situation where I was being charged by an animal I had shot, I don't think there would be much prompting needed or waited upon for me to shoot. I tend to find the follow-up shot rather natural.

What I meant to imply Forrest Halley, is that unless the client is a "seasoned" and trusted repeat client, the PH is unlikely to take the client on a wounded buff (or lion, or leopard, etc.) follow up in thick stuff. The reality is that a novice client with a loaded rifle off safety is more a liability than an asset in a dangerous situation up close.

Of course, if the buff comes in your direction after the shot, whether it be a true charge or just a stampede in the direction you happen to be, you will shoot, but this is not what I meant by taking a charge (implied: during a wounded buff follow up in thick stuff).

Sorry, I should have been more specific...

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I feel the big BRNO magazine is really handy for the big cartridges, like 416 Rigby and 500 Jeff. On a 375 I’m comfortable with four. Likewise on a 500 Jeff I would also want four. But more cartridges are always welcome.

 

[Forrest Halley]

What I meant to imply Forrest Halley, is that unless the client is a "seasoned" and trusted repeat client, the PH is unlikely to take the client on a wounded buff (or lion, or leopard, etc.) follow up in thick stuff. The reality is that a novice client with a loaded rifle off safety is more a liability than an asset in a dangerous situation up close.

Of course, if the buff comes in your direction after the shot, whether it be a true charge or just a stampede in the direction you happen to be, you will shoot, but this is not what I meant by taking a charge (implied: during a wounded buff follow up in thick stuff).

Sorry, I should have been more specific...

No apologies necessary. I figured it out. I know all too well the liability of the well intentioned armed person. Gun fumblers are quite the soup sandwich.

 

[BRNO zkk602]

You will kick yourself if you don’t get the Brno/ cz550. Most affordable well built rifles out there and the magazine capacity is great. Yes you might need to spend a bit of money when right out the box but then again 90% of the time you buy a rifle and take it to the range and test it out and practice and you will iron out all the small things so when you do go out hunting with it you are completely confident and familiar with it. I do t know anyone who has bought a rifle and 5 minutes later they are on the road or on a plane to go hunt with it without trying it first. A lot of hunters guides in Africa use that weapon because it is reliable affordable and accurate no bells or whistles so they can’t all be wrong can they. But a big plus is the magazine, Better to have and not need than need and not have.

 

[Red Leg]

These are great and quasi century-old questions, and each of us will have our own answers to them.

Going by the experiences shared by many books from reliable sources, either "modern" or "Golden Age"; going by the now wonderful resource of many safari videos on YouTube; and going by the experience of half a dozen friend PHs who hunt buffalo every year, I personally think that the answers are quite simple:

1. The .375 H&H will kill (emphasis: kill) anything that walks the earth quite cleanly with a properly placed shot.

2. Any .416 delivering Rigby performance will hit them noticeably harder. This is quite logical, right? 400 gr vs. 300 gr... The same goes for the .404.

3. The .458 and larger will stop (emphasis: stop) them significantly more reliably than either .375 and .416. This, again, is quite logical, right? 500 gr vs. 400 gr vs. 300 gr....

4. The issue it seems, with buffalo in particular, is that regardless of caliber (.375, .416 or .458+) if the first shot is not fatal - whether on the spot (brain or spine hits) or whether within 100 yards through catastrophic blood pressure drop (upper heart or double lung hits) - then adrenaline kicks in and it can take a lot more killing to finish things.​

So yes, I absolutely believe that it is quite common to expand more then three rounds in a buffalo hunting situation, but one must not focus always on "charges" (which to begin with only happen when, generally, a mistake was made). Indeed the chance to fire 3 shots at a charging buff are likely low, but the chances of a client shooting against a charging buff are even lower.

The much more likely reality is a client pumping lead in a wounded and retreating buff, and for this type of shooting, there are many precedents indicating that not only 2 backing shots (therefore 3 in total) are very common, but actually it often takes a lot more than 3 shots to put down an adrenaline-charged wounded buff.

So, in my mind, yes, I prefer 5 over 3, or if it was timely to slip one round under the extractor and let the bolt carry it into the chamber, 6 over 4. There are many reliable example in the literature from credible PH authors of buffs taking up to a dozen hits or so from anything from .375 to .500 to finally go down...

Do we all strive to have one-shot kill buffalo? Of course we do! But sometimes things happen ... even to gentlemen... the buff takes one step or turns just as the trigger breaks; an unseen branch deflects the bullet; the field shooting position is a little less stable than hoped for; truth be told: many first time buffalo hunters can be a little excited or apprehensive, or both, etc. etc. and that perfect shot ends up a little off...

My only quibble with this analysis, and it is a significant one since it forms the basis of the conclusion, is that I think it is extremely uncommon to need more than two shots as a client without the opportunity for a reload. I base this on just a bit of personal experience, but also that of the experiences of a rather large number of friends and acquaintances. It is, after all, one of the basic arguments mitigating in support of the use of doubles. Two shots at a buffalo by a client before it disappears is relatively common, but even only then with a with a capable person behind the rifle. Three, without an opportunity to reload would be extremely rare. I know of no instance where more than three could have been fired before a reload was possible. Not one.

 

[375Fox]

My only quibble with this analysis, and it is a significant one since it forms the basis of the conclusion, is that I think it is extremely uncommon to need more than two shots as a client without the opportunity for a reload. I base this on just a bit of personal experience, but also that of the experiences of a rather large number of friends and acquaintances. It is, after all, one of the basic arguments mitigating in support of the use of doubles. Two shots at a buffalo by a client before it disappears is relatively common, but even only then with a with a capable person behind the rifle. Three, without an opportunity to reload would be extremely rare. I know of no instance where more than three could have been fired before a reload was possible. Not one.

I fully agree with what you wrote, but here is your one instance. Shooting starts at 2:10, very impressive shooting if all 4 shots actually connected.

 

[Red Leg]

I fully agree with what you wrote, but here is your one instance. Shooting starts at 2:10, very impressive shooting if all 4 shots actually connected.

I would agree that is superb shooting. I suspect no more than one in a hundred clients are capable of that. Who knows if all four were required, but I have no problem with the concept that there is nothing ever wrong with another bullet if a buffalo is still standing. But this is indeed the first instance that I have seen where four were taken without opportunity for a reload. I would also note the client was doing that with a straight pull action. With a standard mauser clone, the shooter would have been lucky to get off three (the choir sings God bless the R8 and its ilk in the background). That said, other than my 100 year old Cogswell & Harrison Certus, I don't know of a bolt action, assuming one in the chamber, that doesn't have three in the magazine for a total of four. Number five or number six would not be a determining factor for me.

 

[Red Leg]

You will kick yourself if you don’t get the Brno/ cz550. Most affordable well built rifles out there and the magazine capacity is great. Yes you might need to spend a bit of money when right out the box but then again 90% of the time you buy a rifle and take it to the range and test it out and practice and you will iron out all the small things so when you do go out hunting with it you are completely confident and familiar with it. I do t know anyone who has bought a rifle and 5 minutes later they are on the road or on a plane to go hunt with it without trying it first. A lot of hunters guides in Africa use that weapon because it is reliable affordable and accurate no bells or whistles so they can’t all be wrong can they. But a big plus is the magazine, Better to have and not need than need and not have.

A good rifle from a quality maker should have no "small things" to iron out.

 

[sierraone]

I fully agree with what you wrote, but here is your one instance. Shooting starts at 2:10, very impressive shooting if all 4 shots actually connected.

Agree with you, if all four rounds were hits, and that was definitely a straight pull bolt, but also the shooter was very small, maybe even one of the other hunter's kid. That was apparently some great shooting. As Red Leg mentions in the following post about a Mauser type action, I may or may not get off three rounds with one of my Winchesters or Rugers in that time, but it would take a lot of luck to make three hits!

 

[One Day...]

And of course there is this rather notorious (note: I did not say famous) Rob Dunham Magnum TV video:

The shooting starts at 14:10 and the loudest noise in Africa "click", and the (in)famous words "I am out!" come at 17:55...

Interestingly, this guy is far from being a first timer in Africa; the first shot does not look too bad from what we can see (likely a little high and right); and he reloads his Win 70 at 14:30...

So, by my count, he shoots his .375 H&H (identified as such at 3:05) 2 times, then I would assume he reloads to full capacity (4), and he must be shooting in footage we do not see because he runs dry, and it requires 1 more shot (that we see) to put the buff down. Total: at least 7 shots, plus likely an "insurance" shot... This illustrates the above statement I was making: "I absolutely believe that it is quite common to expand more then three rounds in a buffalo hunting situation"...

But I gladly concede Red Leg's point that he had an opportunity to reload... although he does run dry on his reload... (and he is lucky that the buff does not decide to take the offensive...)

I agree with you Red Leg, that the above two videos do not represent the general case but rather the exceptions, but apparently it happens...

I will emphasize one more time that capacity is not what makes me lean toward CZ 550 / ZKK 602 compared to Win 70 - double square bridges with integral scope bases is what I like best (same concept used for the R8 ), then integral rear sight barrel boss and barrel band front sight, then 100% machined steel parts, etc.

All this being said, I am not trying to convince anyone, just sharing my thoughts and the logic behind them, and I happily confirm that I see certainly no harm in a 5 round magazine capacity, and likely an advantage if anything (certainly not a disadvantage), even though I agree that it is indeed exceedingly rarely useful (I have never "ran out" myself...)

Anyway, to each their own

 

[375Fox]

And of course there is this rather notorious (note: I did not say famous) Rob Dunham Magnum TV video:

The shooting starts at 14:10 and the loudest noise in Africa "click", and the (in)famous words "I am out!" come at 17:55...

Interestingly, this guy is far from being a first timer in Africa; the first shot does not look too bad from what we can see (likely a little high and right); and he reloads his Win 70 at 14:30...

So, by my count, he shoots his .375 H&H (identified as such at 3:05) 2 times, then I would assume he reloads to full capacity (4), and he must be shooting in footage we do not see because he runs dry, and it requires 1 more shot (that we see) to put the buff down. Total: at least 7 shots, plus likely an "insurance" shot... This illustrates the above statement I was making: "I absolutely believe that it is quite common to expand more then three rounds in a buffalo hunting situation"...

But I gladly concede Red Leg's point that he had an opportunity to reload... although he does run dry on his reload... (and he is lucky that the buff does not decide to take the offensive...)

I agree with you Red Leg, that the above two videos do not represent the general case but rather the exceptions, but apparently it happens...

I will emphasize one more time that capacity is not what makes me lean toward CZ 550 / ZKK 602 compared to Win 70 - double square bridges with integral scope bases is what I like best (same concept used for the R8 ), then integral rear sight barrel boss and barrel band front sight, then 100% machined steel parts, etc.

All this being said, I am not trying to convince anyone, just sharing my thoughts and the logic behind them, and I happily confirm that I see certainly no harm in a 5 round magazine capacity, and likely an advantage if anything (certainly not a disadvantage), even though I agree that it is indeed exceedingly rarely useful (I have never "ran out" myself...)

Anyway, to each their own

Notorious is the right word. I was in disbelief the first time I saw this video. I’d like to think most hunters and especially PHs would focus on reloading instead of getting a charge for the camera. Notice he starts talking about the charge just after his first two shots, talks about it while tracking, then runs at the buffalo for his final shot where he’s empty. Just a failure at so many levels. Definitely no harm in a 5 round magazine but might have actually helped this guy to only have a single shot to remember to reload and reduce his ego.

 

[BeeMaa]

I fully agree with what you wrote, but here is your one instance. Shooting starts at 2:10, very impressive shooting if all 4 shots actually connected.

Yes, 4 shots...and did you happen to notice what rifle he was carrying?
Blaser R8 (or possibly the R93) straight pull bolt action.
The only straight pull rifle chambered in 375H&H and up.
Magazine capacity is 3+1 in the magnum calibers and he ran it dry.

I wonder how many well aimed shots he could have gotten off with a traditional bolt rifle...

 

[One Day...]

I would also add that because the R8 has the possibility to carry one round in the chamber without the "hammer" being cocked on it, it is indeed 100% safe to do it and the R8 can truly be envisioned as 3 + 1.

This is not the case with other systems, including CZ 550/ZKK 602 or Win 70 where the rifle is fully cocked over a loaded round, even though the Win 70 firing pin-blocking safety (assumedly retrofitted on the CZ/ZKK) is the best mechanical safety there is. But one can still envision the safety somehow disengaged either by accident (e.g. catching on branches) or by intent (e.g. safety off for a previous shot opportunity that did not materialize, and left off inadvertently). This is the reason why I was earlier questioning 6 vs. 4, as I believe that the most common reality is actually 5 vs. 3, loading from the magazine as action becomes imminent.

In my mind, the R8 is a safe 3 + 1 but I do not believe that either Win or CZ/ZKK should be considered 3 + 1 or 5 +1. There may occasionally be time to slip the + 1 under the claw, depress the ones in the mag, and let the bolt carry + 1 into the chamber, but my own experience is that in most cases of imminent use, it is not timely to do so... therefore Win should be considered just 3 and CZ/ZKK just 5, to stay on the safe side.

One more argument I would expect the R8 aficionados to make, and I would agree with it

 

[BRNO zkk602]

A good rifle from a quality maker should have no "small things" to iron out.

I hear you on that but everyone is different, and like things a certain way some people don’t like the hog back stock on some CZ or Brno rifles so they change it, some people don’t like the safety and change to 3 position safety, some want a barrel band put on, some people might want to shorten the barrel and it seems that most people on here think the action needs smoothing up where I find it perfect everyone is different and it does not make the rifle inferior, they are bloody good rifles for what you get and if you want better then pay more for a rigby.

 

[Major Khan]

I hear you on that but everyone is different, and like things a certain way some people don’t like the hog back stock on some CZ or Brno rifles so they change it, some people don’t like the safety and change to 3 position safety, some want a barrel band put on, some people might want to shorten the barrel and it seems that most people on here think the action needs smoothing up where I find it perfect everyone is different and it does not make the rifle inferior, they are bloody good rifles for what you get and if you want better then pay more for a rigby.

Young man ... What calibre is your BRNO ZKK 602 ?

Here is @Kawshik Rahman 's BRNO ZKK 600 , chambered in 7 × 57 mm Mauser . It has the pre 75 pop up peep sight ... Located in the receiver .