I thought Ruger was going to bring out the 416 Ruger in 2008 but I have not heard a thing.I want to build a old Ruger Model 77 in it but my gunsmith says wait till its a factory round till you build the rifle so you can chamber factory rounds.

I just read that Ruger's next offerings will be 338 and 300 based on the new case. No plans for a 416 or a 458 at this time per the article.

I'm going to keep beating this drum as long as I can.

What sense does it make for Ruger to build a 416 to compete against the 416 Rem and the 416 Rigby, when a 404 would only compete against a 404 Jeffrey in a standard action?

Ruger assured me the .416 was in the planning stages at Reno last year...

I have a Mauser barrelled action on my desk as we speak in 416/375 Ruger...,I have two fired cases and they are beautiful to look at..

Actually you can just fire 375 Rugers through it and it will fireform perfectly, the same a shootng 30-06s in a 35 Whelen..It does not damage the bore btw. I fired these two to send to RCBS for dies...

I am going to sell it as is or stock it whichever comes first, then build a couple of more..

I'd love to see Ruger bring out a 416 and have it be a success.

Fjold, the way I see it, a 416 Ruger wouldn't compete directly against the 416 Remington and 416 Rigby because both of those rounds require a magnum length action and/or a lot of gunsmithing. The 416 Ruger really only competes head-to-head with the 416 Taylor and other wildcats. As to the 404, I think few people outside of this forum even know that a 423 caliber even exists. US shooters are "accepting" of a 416 caliber but I'm not so sure about the .423 yet.

Personally, if I were going to build a .423 of some sort on a standard action, I'd just build a 404 Jeffery. There's not much reason for an alternative.

I think the 416 Ruger would be an awe round because it will fit in alot more actions and be smoother without a belt.It would kick less than a 416 Rigby and ammo would be less.I think if the 416 350 gr speer mag tip was loaded it could be used more often in other animals such as bears and moose.I think the 416 Ruger would outsell both the 416 Rem mag and the Rigby in many guns.I hope it comes out or I may have to wildcat in my old Ruger 77 7 mm rem mag .I think it would feed out of the 7 mm rem mag magazine just fine.

dgr416,

agreed, it would be a really neat cartridge. But, it simply cannot kick less, especially since it is in a rifle that weighs less. Go to www.beartoothbullets.com, click on the ballisticians corner, and do the recoil calculator.
Plug in a 9.5lb rifle and then an 8lb one...gets oogly fast!

Rich
DRSS
Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost...

I'm building a 416 Ruger now but have no inside info that the thing is in the works for the future production from Hornady.

A 416 built on the .375 case would easily duplicate or better the 416 Remington and do so in a standard action. Mine is on a Persian '98 and will be a very fine ele pounder.

The 416 makes a lot more sense than the short mags Ruger has planned.....where's the barfing emotican?

I am thinking my .416/375 Ruger will out perform the 416 Rem..It should because the 375 Ruger outperforms the .375 H&H..All this by a tad and on paper, but in reality I think they will equal each other.

I have to stock mine now and I will get started this week with either a refinished FN stock of yesteryear that I like or just build a custom stock for it...

I am using the original bottom metal that is slightly reshaped because I think the small Mauser bottom metal lock screws are a dandy idea on a heavy recoiling rifle, and once again Paul Mauser has proved himself smarter than todays gunsmiths when you take cosmetics out of the equation. This one will be a working gun..

I did weaken and go with a 3 pos. safety, custom iron sights, Talley scope mounts, Talley bolt, and custom trigger, afterall its no longer a "battle rifle" and some cosmetics are a must! maybe, I guess, I confused

A .375 Ruger cannot equal an improved .375 H&H like the .375 Wby or .375 AI, JRS, etc.

A .416 Ruger cannot equal a .416 Remington, unless it is through the selective use of pixie powder or faulty chronography.

A .416 Ruger will better the .416 Taylor in the same standard action.

Do you need more than 400 @ 2400?

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Do you need more than 400 @ 2400?

Of course not.
A .416 Ruger should do that in a 24" barrel quite comfortably, eh?

Taylor: 2350 fps
Ruger: 2400 fps
Remington: 2450 fps

Let's get real and on average, at same pressures, no pixie powders and good chronograph.

No doubt Ruger will want it to do 400 @2500 out of a 24" barrel African and 2400 out of the 20" Alaskan.

Nothing can outdo the 416 Rigby IMO. Or the 450 Rigby. You can't outdo the Rigby case! I don't care anymore about action lengths or the size of caseheads. I've fallen for the 416 Rigby all over again, and over the 416 Rem. Now all I think about, after dreaming and drooling and hand wringing as I await my 470 DR, is ordering a CZ Classic 450 Rigby.

Never would choose a 375 Ruger over a H&H. And the Hawkeye leaves ALOT to be desired.

Dear RIP:

The potential 416 Ruger should come pretty close to the 416 Remington in ballistics based upon case capacity.

I worked up some case capacity numbers by necking up some 375 Ruger brass to .416 caliber, and measuring some R-P Nickel plated 416 Remington brass. The .416 necked up Ruger measured 100.70 grains of water, and the 416 Remington brass measured 102.70 grains of water.

Looks pretty close to me. Should be nearly identical ballistics based upon the case capacity.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:
I'm going to keep beating this drum as long as I can.

What sense does it make for Ruger to build a 416 to compete against the 416 Rem and the 416 Rigby, when a 404 would only compete against a 404 Jeffrey in a standard action?

... and a 0.411" would compete against nothing with Hornady already having a 300gr spitzer/FN combination and a 400gr RN soft/FMJ combination in the stable for this beast. But ... load it at 2400fps with 400gr and 2600fps with 300gr spitzer ... and you'd never need a 375Ruger!
Cheers...
Con

quote:

But ... load it at 2400fps with 400gr and 2600fps with 300gr spitzer ... and you'd never need a 375Ruger!
Cheers...
Con

Yeah... with a 416 handloaders don't need a 375, and with a 458 Lott you don't need a 416, and so on. It really does ultimately boil down to wants and not needs.


Showbart-

Your taste is as fickle as a fart in the wind. A month ago, it was all about the remy.

I guess it would be hypocritical of me to criticize you for it, but I'm not being critical b/c I have the same problem. That said, many folks advocate the rigby over the remy and the taylor b/c of its superior case capacity. Other than lower pressures, which isn't that much of an issue anymore, who cares? Like it was stated earlier, do you really need more than 400 @ 2,400 fps?

That aside, make sure and holler at me when you get your new 416 and soon to be 450 up and running. I'd love to shoot em'.

I think some get to et up with with the technical side of this gun stuff.

A Buffalo bull cannot tell the difference in a .416 Ruger, 416 Rem, or 416 Rigby..All of them stick a 400 gr. bullet at 2400 FPS in a buffalo bull and 50 FPS difference is zilch! and even a couple of hundred more FPS will make no difference what so ever.

I have no use for the 416 Rigby, as good a round as it is, because that action is big enough to take a 500 Jefferys or 505 Gibbs, why waste it...If I want a .40 caliber then I want it on a std length action and a lighter, slimmer, rifle than is usual for the Rigby.

Just my thinking on the subject and no a slam on the good Rigby round..

I dubbed the 400 version the 400 Pondoro

A big powerful round SHOULD be on a large action. Myth; the CZ is a big fat oversized action. Truth; it's a long mag action for long magnums. I don't want an '06 length action modified to accept a 375H&H length round. Ths CZ action is nearly identical in dimensions to the modern M70. Receiver length is the same, mag well nearly the same, rear ring diameter the same. The front ring on the CZ is beefy and it has a very large ejection port cutout, due to a more rearward rear ring, but is only slightly larger than a M70 Express, this is mirrored at the mag well. Bottom metal, same length. Barrel action weigh essentially the same.

The CZ is big and beefy due to the mag box setup. ANY M70 or Mauser with a Blackburn or Sunny Hill high cap setup has got to be nearly the same dimensions, and when stocked accordingly is a bulkier rifle, just like the CZ. I love the M70 Express AND the CZ. The M70 is more svelte but on average the same weight. The CZ feels more substantial and I like that.

Wales, yeah I'm a fart in the wind, but there's alot to be learned and figured out on all these bolt guns. I've got to do it myself, can't rely totally on what I hear, read or am told. I thought the M70 was the only ticket for me after my first crappy CZ. But the CZ has alot going for it, I know now, after getting deeper into these M70s. The M70 has marginal sights, a crappy extractor and an unbelievably fucked up excuse for a bolt mounted gas block that must go. This piece of shit idea of some fuckwit bean counter will get you killed and needs to be replaced. The CZ has none of these problems. Much of this I could only discover by having all these rifles at the same time, stripping, shooting, tweaking, asking questions, breaking shit (yeah, the M70 gas block) and comparing.

I think the 375 Riger is a neat round and totally unneccessary. If it was chambered in a good rifle I'd likely play with one tho, but I wouldn't take it to Africa. I think the Hawkeye is a marginal piece and that's the rounds biggest shortcoming.

I like 416 rem mags but I dont like how thin the brass is.I have the have had so many pieces of 416 rem mag bulk that were smashed unusible.I think the 416 Ruger would be stronger brass.Once the 416 rem mag brass is fired its seems alot harder.I think the 416 brass needs to be annealed.I have a friend who makes his 470 capstick out of 416 rem mag and looses about 30% of the brass.Its harder to form once fired brass but I think its alot stronger to reload.

the 416 ruger will be the best factory rimless big bore since the 404 jeffey

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:

Ruger assured me the .416 was in the planning stages at Reno last year...

Ray, I have to say with all due respect to what you have been told, I would be really, really surprised if Ruger does indeed bring out a ".416 Ruger." First, there is a problem with numbers. How many .416's are actually sold? I doubt they could make any money on it. Then, there is the platform. Would they put it in the Hawkeye? Think about it... a 400 grain bullet at 2400 fps. out of a 7 3/4 pound rifle! Then there is the competition. I would be directly competing with the .416 Rigby. That's what Remington tried to do and look what happened and you can now buy a .416 Rigby for under a grand.

I think Ruger has now given us a signal of where they intend to go with the .375 Ruger case with the Ruger Compact Magnums. I think they are going to go smaller, not larger but who knows?

Dave

There have already been 416 Rugers and ammo built.I think a short bolt throw and stronger cases and easier feeding are benifits.Remington and Winchester made about 150 416 Remingtons a year.I think they do it more for customers than themselves.Remington keep quit making 416 remington brass sometimes so I stocked up on it.I want a tang safety 416 Ruger 77 but I would a love laminated stock and sites also.A detachable muzzle break would not be bad either.I use my remington Model 700 Big Game rifles in 416 Rem mag with 22" barrels.I think 22" is the shortest barrel you should have on a 416.I have a 24" Model 70 416 rem mag.I always think of it as a longer range gun.The two Remingtons weigh 7.5 pounds in HS stocks.I also have a Kevelar stocked Model 700 stainless in 416 Rem mag.For me to want a 416 Ruger would be to have it in a tang saftey model 77 .I guess I will stick a stainless barrel on a old model 77.I will still need a good stock which is hard to find for old model 77 Rugers.I would take a laminated stock in a heart beat.It should weigh 8 pounds with a 22" barrel and hold 4 in the magazine.I love the 416 caliber.Its way better than the 375 and more versitile than the 458 caliber.I have shot 325,350,400 and 410 gr bullets.I have shot nice groups at 200 yards and have Nikon 3x9 scopes on them.I think the Ruger Rings would also help the 416s.I have Weaver bases and Burris Signature rings on all of my 416s.I wish the 325 gr barnes bullet was back.I like 410 gr woodleigh bullets also and love the 350 gr speer mag tips.I think if the v416 Ruger camr out with $50 ammo in the 350 gr mag tip and a laminated stainless rifle with a 22" barrel it would sell at least 2000 guns a year.I would buy one if its under $1000 .Thats another thing I only paid $600 each for my 416 except my stainless ones I paid $1000 for.I think the 416 Ruger would fly right along with the 375 Ruger but it would only surpass it.

dgr416:

Two Thousand 416's a year! Not in your wildest dreams!

Dave

Isn't there already a couple of previous 416's on the 404 case that can work through a standard action...like the 416 Howell and the 416 Winchester-Express??? Seems like everyone is going nuts on the Ruger case and forgetting what came before....or how easy it is to aquire. Anyone can have a 416 Ruger for the price of a reamer and dies, and a basic DGR minus the barrel. You could even use a 416 Taylor or 416 Rem barrel, set it back a half inch or so, rechamber and go shooting. Simple as cake and twice as sweet. I mean...DAYYAM..."anything else is Twaddle"

Thats why I am rebarreling my old Ruger 77 Mark I in 7 mm rem mag.I do need to figure out if I can get a laminated stock made.I use to know a stock maker who could copy any stock.I love the tang safety and I think the blued Mark I Ruger 77 is smoother than the Mark II stainless.I will put on a good stainless berrel.I think I can use some good glow sites also .I think the 416 Ruger could knock the air of of the 416 Rigby with cheap ammo and a cheaper gun.

I would think any competent stockmaker could do a tang Ruger. Boyd's has them off and on.

I wouldn't do a laminated stock for that level of recoil, I've had two laminated stocks crack apart through the cross bolts and I read someplace a laminated stock is good only from about 300 Mag down in recoil. Maybe mine were just bad stocks.

I think a good looking walnut or other dense wood or a good quality synthetic stock with cross bolts would be better over time. I stopped using laminates for anything except varminters and went back to wood or synthetic as the different caliber barrels get used up and ready for replacement. Laminates DO dry out and de-laminate over time, just not as fast and in a different way as compared to solid wood.

'Njoy

All I can say is what the big boys told me, they intend to make a series of rounds and that only makes since...They either will or they won't and respectfully, neither of our "opinnions" mean much on the subject.

I really don't care, its a simple task to run a .375 Ruger up into a set or 416 Ruger dies and bingo, you got it...

I am thinking about selling my 416/375 Ruger as I am building a 404/375 Ruger, for whatever reason other than and I am a 404 buff. Yeah I know 416 bullets and components are a lot easier to come by, damn I'm talking myself out of it..

Let's hope when ruger introduces the 416 ruger, they produce a 300-350gr bullet for it.I'm building a stainless 416 ruger this winter on a
mk11 action.