Why are Weatherby guns in 375+ calibers not liked on a Safari?

[JimP]

In my opinion, things that are built to do a certain job, and do it well look good. Like a bell and Carlson CZ stock. However I can’t figure out what job a weatherby stock was designed for other than looking good,regardless of the material. Therefore I find them ugly.

I once read that Roy Weatherby designed the stocks for his rifles to reduce felt recoil.

Do they? I have no idea since I have never shot a Weatherby cartridge in any other rifle.

 

[IvW]

When I am using a rifle for a job I could care less if it is the ugliest rifle out there, I could also care less about the wood in the stock as long as the rifle and round does its job.

The last two rifles that I have purchased have synthetic stocks on them. No fancy grain wood to scrape and scratch up, or have to worry about swelling when out in the rain for a week. They both are Weatherby's, one a Mark V with the synthetic stock and a Vanguard which also has the synthetic stock. They both are tack drivers and do the job.

And they are both +375 Caliber as per OP?

 

[JimP]

And they are both +375 Caliber as per OP?

No they are not, but the OP wasn't asking about how a rifle looked. He wanted to know why his or some PH didn't like Weatherby rifles and he wondered if recoil was one of the problems.

One of my rifles is a .340 Weatherby. Shooting 250 grain bullets our of a 9 lb rifle the recoil energy and recoil velocity are both greater than a 375 HH shooting a 300 grain bullet, a 400 Jeffery shooting a 400 grain bullet, a little bit more than a .458 Win mag with 400 grain bullets but under with 500 grain bullets.

Now the .375 Weatherby mag is just slightly higher in both recoil velocity and recoil energy but not by much. But once you go up to the 378 Weatherby mag, 416 Weatherby mag, and the 460 Weatherby mag you are jumping up quite a bit in both and would need to go up to the Nitro Express rounds to find their equal.

As for handling recoil some hunters/shooters can handle it better than others when shooting the exact same rifles. I'm not recoil sensitive like some but like all I do feel it.

But the OP also asked another question about push feed vs controlled feed which is another subject.

But I still don't understand what any of what I have posted above has to do with how a rifle looks. If a rifle works and does what it is suppose to do why worry about looks unless you just want to admire it?

 

[IvW]

Life is too short to hunt with a ugly shiny rifle that has more than one hole in the front of the barrel, holds only 2 rounds in the mag, is push feed, has a tiny extractor claw, is difficult to load from the top, has excess velocity, has excess recoil, has no affordable ammo availibilty in Africa and is known to go off when the safety is disengaged in calibers larger than 375....

Yes I dont like Weatherby rifles in calibers larger than 375 and yes I do own a Weatherby actioned rifle, that now has a oil finish on the stock and not the shiny crap it came out with.

 

[JimP]

We can agree on the shiny finished stocks on Weatherby rifles. Of all my rifles none of them will put off a glare from a light source.

We have always made fun of those who are packing a rifle that you can spot from a mile away and that reflects light like a mirror

 

[Rule 303]

I once read that Roy Weatherby designed the stocks for his rifles to reduce felt recoil.

Do they? I have no idea since I have never shot a Weatherby cartridge in any other rifle.

Yes they do, rather convincingly. Might be the ugliest stock going, IMHO they are Fugly but are very practical. I have shot a MkV in 378 in a Weatherby stock it kicked but less so then a Weatherby 375 in a standard type stock. It certainly did not belt the cheek around. Still a bit more on the shoulder than I care for.

 

[CoElkHunter]

In my opinion, things that are built to do a certain job, and do it well look good. Like a bell and Carlson CZ stock. However I can’t figure out what job a weatherby stock was designed for other than looking good,regardless of the material. Therefore I find them ugly.

Wyatt,
The shiny Weatherby wood stock can be used as a survival tool. If your lost out in the woods/bush, you can signal search and rescue aircraft to your location. Kinda works like a dull mirror? Same at night by shining a flashlight on the stock, using it as a reflector. So, it does have a potential important use. It’s in the Weatherby manual.
CEH

 

[IvW]

Get one of these.....
As for shining the torch of the stock....well I guess the folks there have never tried it....I would imagine it would be a lot more effective to shine the flashlight directly at who or whatevers attention I am trying to get rather than try reflect it off the stock.....

The things they can come up with.......

 

[EfRed]

As for "Improving" the 375 H&H(the King of the medium calibre's), it does make sense IF-you do so to gain a bit more case capacity to keep chamber pressures down when loading the super heavy weight bullets. We have a locally made 380 grain 375 H&H bullet designed specifically for buffalo hunting. In the standard case and with our local powders you can get realistically 2200 Fps. If you would like to increase that to 2300 Fps which is a superb speed for dangerous game hunting, it would make sense to increase case capacity in order to achieve that. The best option is to then go the AI route as you can still shoot standard ammunition in an AI chamber. This will give you roughly 9% more case capacity.

If you increase case capacity purely to shoot 300gr bullets faster this is the wrong way to go as the 300 grain bullet in the standard 375 H&H loading is going fast enough at 2500 Fps.

I have two 375 H&H rifles and have been considering to do the AI conversion or alternatively to re-barrel to 404 Jeff. I may well first do the AI chamber and see how that works out with the 380 grain bullets.

"If you increase case capacity purely to shoot 300gr bullets faster this is the wrong way to go as the 300 grain bullet in the standard 375 H&H loading is going fast enough at 2500 Fps."

For animals of a certain size, hydrostatic shock is an aid to fast killing. Maybe not for buffalo, largest moose, eland, largest great bear or larger, but true for many smaller beasts, especially big bear and big cats. The extra 300 fps from the improved 375 H&Hs might be worth quite a bit there at closer ranges, to have the benefit of hydrostatic shock. A sound expanding 300 gr bullet at 2800 fps is not to be sneezed at and in some circumstances may be superior to the lower H&H velocity.

Max penetration (lower velocity, heavier bullet) is clearly the way to go on the larger animals, where the possibility of effective hydrostatic shock doesn't exist.

 

[Tanks]

"If you increase case capacity purely to shoot 300gr bullets faster this is the wrong way to go as the 300 grain bullet in the standard 375 H&H loading is going fast enough at 2500 Fps."

For animals of a certain size, hydrostatic shock is an aid to fast killing. Maybe not for buffalo, largest moose, eland, largest great bear or larger, but true for many smaller beasts, especially big bear and big cats. The extra 300 fps from the improved 375 H&Hs might be worth quite a bit there at closer ranges, to have the benefit of hydrostatic shock. A sound expanding 300 gr bullet at 2800 fps is not to be sneezed at and in some circumstances may be superior to the lower H&H velocity.

Max penetration (lower velocity, heavier bullet) is clearly the way to go on the larger animals, where the possibility of effective hydrostatic shock doesn't exist.

I shot a bear a while ago, 335 grain tipped cutting edge raptor bullet at 2,850 fps from my .500 MDM. Opened up the bear to look, the heart was soup nothing solid was left. Here is a video of the effect, the bear was dead instantly.

 

[Forrest Halley]

I shot a bear a while ago, 335 grain tipped cutting edge raptor bullet at 2,850 fps from my .500 MDM. Opened up the bear to look, the heart was soup nothing solid was left. Here is a video of the effect, the bear was dead instantly.

So you're saying that Thread Lazarus' protege is...wrong? I'm thinking a hot CEB from any rifle will be a game changer.

 

[Tanks]

So you're saying that Thread Lazarus' protege is...wrong? I'm thinking a hot CEB from any rifle will be a game changer.

I am saying hydrostatic shock matters on appropriate game.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Enough is enough and more is too much. I have been around a few of these discharging at the range and it was very unpleasant. It isn't for debate, I am just expressing what I experienced.

 

[Tam Dl]

I once read that Roy Weatherby designed the stocks for his rifles to reduce felt recoil.

Do they? I have no idea since I have never shot a Weatherby cartridge in any other rifle.

At least in two respects. One is that the classic British style of stocks, the kind you see (in general terms) on Ruger rifles and actual examples, the comb drops relative to the bore, as the comb flows to the butt of the rifle. This means that during recoil it will rise up and hit you. The Weatherby ( and any other high comb that rises as it goes to the rear rifle stock", will slip relatively more from you face during recoil. These effects are independent of the actual drop at the toe of the rifle. And a tradtional comb is of less concern when Iron sights or any similarly low sight radius sight is used.

The second advantage is that Weatherby stocks were correctly designed early on, to allow a cheek weld with an optic mounted on the rifle, even one that is on a high mount. So there is not a lot of free movement before you get hit, your face is precisely placed, and this reduces parallax, and your face rides the rifle stock during recoil. Though as mention the angle of impact of the comb to face allows you to slip a bit of the effect.

We know Weatherby got the design correct because while it has taken as much as 50 years to sink in, they are ubiquitous in any serious rifles for target shooting, and a lot of military uses. Normally today all the relevant surfaces are adjustable.

I am not a fan of the Weatherby rifle stock, it looked bourgeois to me, had tacky white line spacers, and a variety of other vulgar features, though some of that was probably baked into the times. His use of local and accent woods could be attractive. While the super gloss is not appealing, it may have helped with wood movement, if it was continuous. I suppose super gloss is less a problem on rifles designed to be used at extreme range. Light reflections are not always distressing to animals as they occur broadly in nature, but light movement can be.

I am not knowledgeable about who originally invented the features described in his stocks, I am not suggesting he was the originator.

I did just recently buy a Howa/Weatherby in 6.5x55. My first Weatherby, if one can call it that. It seems a sound design and has an M16 style extractor, which seems sufficient for a deer rifle. My other 6.5x55 is an M96. I generally prefer any hunting rifle to have a little bit of battle rifle in it's DNA.

 

[ZG47]

@Tam Dl You forgot to mention that Weatherby stocks have cast- (off for dexters and on for sinisters).

 

[Red Leg]

At least in two respects. One is that the classic British style of stocks, the kind you see (in general terms) on Ruger rifles and actual examples, the comb drops relative to the bore, as the comb flows to the butt of the rifle. This means that during recoil it will rise up and hit you. The Weatherby ( and any other high comb that rises as it goes to the rear rifle stock", will slip relatively more from you face during recoil. These effects are independent of the actual drop at the toe of the rifle. And a tradtional comb is of less concern when Iron sights or any similarly low sight radius sight is used.

The second advantage is that Weatherby stocks were correctly designed early on, to allow a cheek weld with an optic mounted on the rifle, even one that is on a high mount. So there is not a lot of free movement before you get hit, your face is precisely placed, and this reduces parallax, and your face rides the rifle stock during recoil. Though as mention the angle of impact of the comb to face allows you to slip a bit of the effect.

We know Weatherby got the design correct because while it has taken as much as 50 years to sink in, they are ubiquitous in any serious rifles for target shooting, and a lot of military uses. Normally today all the relevant surfaces are adjustable.

I am not a fan of the Weatherby rifle stock, it looked bourgeois to me, had tacky white line spacers, and a variety of other vulgar features, though some of that was probably baked into the times. His use of local and accent woods could be attractive. While the super gloss is not appealing, it may have helped with wood movement, if it was continuous. I suppose super gloss is less a problem on rifles designed to be used at extreme range. Light reflections are not always distressing to animals as they occur broadly in nature, but light movement can be.

I am not knowledgeable about who originally invented the features described in his stocks, I am not suggesting he was the originator.

I did just recently buy a Howa/Weatherby in 6.5x55. My first Weatherby, if one can call it that. It seems a sound design and has an M16 style extractor, which seems sufficient for a deer rifle. My other 6.5x55 is an M96. I generally prefer any hunting rifle to have a little bit of battle rifle in it's DNA.

You and I must use different straight comb stocks - whether English or American - traditional or contemporary. While it is true that many a pre-war English (or American) rifle will have a bit more drop at heel due reliance on iron sights, that is certainly not the case of anything built in the last sixty years or so on either side of the Atlantic.

My Rigby Stalker, Blaser R8 and Ruger No. 1's represent a pretty broad range of examples for modern, straight comb production rifles. Not only do they offer superb scope or open sight alignment, but the design moderates perceived recoil, and mitigates muzzle rise.

On the other hand, I frankly think the Weatherby design is not very practical - whether crudely bourgeois, I'll leave to more refined tastes. The forend, with its angular surfaces, is perfect for shooting off a bench - but my left hand forms a curved rest - so does every other human beings - unless they are left handed, in which case the right hand does. The unnaturally high comb (or unnaturally low butt) creates a greater angle between butt and cheek. Whether this facilitates or hampers proper cheek weld is largely dependent upon individual physical characteristics. But what it can do, particularly as recoil increases, is accentuate muzzle climb. Going back to the OP's original question, that is not a good attribute for a dangerous game rifle. As for the finish - it was sprayed on so it could be done quickly and cheaply. With the rifle's high gloss blue medal work, I suppose the stock might as well have been glossy as well.

I have no clue what military application you believe benefitted from the Weatherby design. The M40, which is the family tree from which the American concept of the sniper rifle is primarily derived, is pure Remington 700. If you can find any "battle rifle DNA" in a Howa, I suppose it might be its synthetic stock if it has one - but certainly not a battlefield design contribution by Roy Weatherby.

I do find utility in several of his caliber creations or modifications. The .300 is a superb, world-wide general purpose cartridge that has found its way into the production lines of many makers. The .257 is a tremendous longer range deer, prong horn, and light PG choice. I don't have any personal use for the larger calibers, because the traditional solutions are so effective with far less "sturm und drang." But with the right bullet, they work.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Weatherby Mark V rifles really had their heyday during the late 1960s and 1970s . Especially amongst younger American hunters . I saw them in the hands of quite a few visiting American hunters during my 1974 Kenyan mixed bag Safari . They were mostly .378 Weatherby Magnums , with the odd man liking a .460 Weatherby . I’m lucky that I opted for a simple .375 Holland & Holland Magnum and a .30-06 Springfield ( and a 12 gauge , but that’s another discussion ) .

Here’s why I believe Weatherby rifles in big calibers have lost favor :
- Muzzle brakes are detrimental for the ears of those near the shooter ( personal experience )
- Until the recent advent of monolithic all-brass / all-copper bullets , most jacketed bullets couldn’t stand up to the extreme velocities of the Weatherby Magnums . Bullet deformation was very common in Weatherby Magnum calibers , during the 1970s ( personally witnessed )
- These rifles have extraction issues , not just because they’re push feeds ( indeed , the push feed problem is mostly a thing of the past now ) but because of the excessive pressures which the Weatherby Magnum calibers rum at ( heard from multiple independent sources )
- Recoil is overtly violent ( personally experienced )

An American gentleman ( great hunter , by the way ) almost lost a Kenyan bull elephant with a frontal brain shot from his .460 Weatherby Magnum . The 500 grain Hornady cupronickel jacketed FMJ solid mushroomed like a soft point on the elephant cerebral bone . Luckily , the white hunter downed the elephant with his .458 Winchester Magnum ( a BSA Majestic ) . These days , you have better bullets which can stand up to Weatherby velocities ( like the Woodleigh Hydrostatic monolithic solid ) . But what do you gain with all that superfluous velocity and recoil ?

A good rimless .450 caliber is the .458 Lott or the .450 Rigby . Not the .460 Weatherby Magnum .

 

[Arthur Morta]

Enough is enough and more is too much. I have been around a few of these discharging at the range and it was very unpleasant. It isn't for debate, I am just expressing what I experienced.

Many apologies Kev .

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Many apologies Kev .

You are forgiven!

 

[Sabattiboy]

When I was a young pup I was awed by Weatherby rifles with really deep bluing and fine looking stocks. The Colt Sauer rifles of those days had the same kind of deep bluing.
Anyone remember the Bank of Bolder CO (if I remember correctly) that would take your money in a CD and give a weatherby rifle and a Kenya cape Buffalo hunt then your money back when the CD matured? That went down the tubes when Kenya closed all sport hunting.
One complaint I heard in the 1990's was that good ole Roy only saw fit to D&R the receivers for #6 screws. Early scopes were not that heavy like the multi power and featured optics weighing 3 lbs these days. I never saw it happen or the aftermath in person but was told the 378 or 460 recoil could shear off the scope mount screws and launch said optic over the head of the shooter. This could have stemmed from loose screws but legends never add the circumstances if that was the cause.
In modern times many rifles, though not all, have #8 screws in them.
Late 1990's I got to shoot a Weatherby in 378 from the bench in a tee shirt. I regularly shot a SBS 10 gauge shotgun. Published recoil for the 378 was 95 ft lbs and I believe it. After being mauled from several groups I had to make 3 or 4 flinches at the trigger before I could steel myself to not flinch. I believe Weatherby guaranteed 1.5 moa in those days. The owner reloaded so don't recall if any I fired were factory. I do remember 117 grains of powder.
A man I worked with at one time was a lefty. He showed me his new hunting jewel that turned out to be a Weatherby MK-5 in 378. He said there were few left hand rifles available then and since he was getting one purchase he figured he would buy big nice and bad. He loaded the Speer 235gr SP to cut down on recoil.