I'm planning to build three more rifles then quit for a long while. I want to concentrate more on hunting than acquiring new toys. I have plenty of small and medium bores and want to concentrate on rifles suitable for game larger than whitetails.

The three I had originally planned to build are as follows: .338 win Mag for my North American big game needs. 9.3x62 and .458 Win. I chose these calibers because they will easily fit into my Mauser actions.

Just yesterday however a Gunsmith acquaintance offered to sell me a .416 Taylor barrel at a very good price.

My question is which of the above calibers would the .416 be a replacement for? Or should I avoid it and stick to my original plan? I like the original three because I can get factory ammo.

Thanks,

Mike

Here is a large thread that was on the African forum that is not too far removed from you are talking about. There area couple of other 416 Taylor threads there as well.....Mike

http://www.serveroptions.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004758#000000

If you're looking for factory ammo compatible guns, then I'd build a 300 win mag, 9.3X62 and 458 win mag. You can weigh the 416 Taylor vs the 458 win mag, but the cost of a barrel is really minimal to the overall cost of the finished gun. I see the 338 win and 9.3X62 as pretty much overlapping eachother.

The Taylor replaces the 458 win, and then some. You'll get better SD, great vels, and an easy gun to shoot.
jeffe

I would go with the 458 win mag instead of the Taylor. It is easier to find 458 ammo. Plus

Why not the 338, 416T and 458, all have the same parent case and the Taylor brass can be made from either of the 2 others. The 338 and 9.3 have a level ton of overlap, actually I think that the 338 and either of the big bores make a great paring because of very slight overlap, but what the hey. I love my 338 and think that there isn't much out there that I wouldn't hunt with it, and am looking to get some experience with my 458 this year, but still have a vz24 action sitting back to be made into a 416T ;-) gabe

I'd choose 458 lott over 458 mag, withthat you could shoot Mag and lott ammo interchangably

You probably could skip either the 9.3x62 or the .338 and include the .416. If it were my three guns and on what you were saying I would build a .300 something or other, the .416 taylor and then step up a level and get a .450 Ackley or .458 lott built. The .416 could be your north American gun with 350gr bullets and the 500gr bullets for the big cracker.

I'm no fan of the 458 win., it is a poorly designed cartridge, with a history of failure, why then bother with it?...Your other choices are excellent...

The Mauser action will easily accept the 416 Remington round with a just little work...

Obviously, factor ammo is not important or you would not have chosen a 9.3 so perhaps the Taylor will suit your needs, it is a nice round, albiet I much prefer the 416 Rem.

A 308, a 338 and a 416 would cover the bases plus everyone makes the rifles and ammo. The trajectory of surplus 308 is pretty close to that of the 338/250, so you'd have cheap practice ammo. For the cost of a premium barrel, you could get a factory rifle in any of them. You could even get a matching trio.

Hope this helps, Okie John.

Thanks All,

It seems the .416 has more favor with you than the 9.3 and maybe even the .458? I am/was considering the .338 over the 9.3 because I assumed it had a flatter trajectory.

Now, after reading some of these posts and Mike375's link, I'm not sure if I need the .458? So many seem to hate the .458 winnie? Why?

In my limited research conducted last nite, it seems the trajectory of the .416 is on par with or better than the 9.3. It also seems that the .416 is on par or maybe better than the .458 in terminal performance. I wonder then if I shouldn't just go with a .338 and .416? Maybe I'll just build these two and buy something larger later on a CZ550 action.

I'm intrigued by the .458. It sounds like it is nothing more than a stretched .458 win? How much longer is it? That may be the way to go in a CZ action. geta .458 remaed to .458 Lott?

Thanks,

Mike

z1r I think your on the right track now

If he went with the .338 WM and .416 Taylor on identical actions and then a .458 Lott on a larger action, then he would still have 3 cartridges with very closely related cases correct? That sounds like a pretty cool set up.

KBGuns,

You hit the nail on the head. The .338 and .416 will be on Mauser actions that I already have. They will be built relatively soon so I can use them here in North America. The larger bore can wait a while since I'm sure it will be many years before I make it to Africa.

Jeffeoso,

I do like the idea of sharing common components both between rifles and also between casings. I had planned to build the .338 with a 26" tube. I'm not sure if the .416 is better with the same or a 24" barrel? Given the added weight of the .416 I'd think they would handle very similarly even with a 2" difference.

Ray Atkinson,

factory ammo has always been an important consideration for me in a hunting rifle. While I do handload, I've always insisted on chamberings that I can readily find replacements for just in case. Since I anticipated using the 9.3 abroad, I thought that was a logical choice since it seems to be fairly popular outside of the US. And my understanding is that there are several good factory loadings in this caliber. I realize that by choosing the .416 Taylor, I may be forcing myself to comprimise my long held belief by insisting on using my Mauser action but, it does seem that in a pinch I might find the components locally at least or I could canibalize some of my .338's?

I'll be ordering the .338 barrel shortly and by the time I finish putting it together maybe I'll feel comfortable enough to consider the .416 Rem but, the ease of building the Taylor and it's duplication of the original Rigby ballistics has pretty much sold me on it. Call me a wimp but I'm just not a big fan of trying to stuff very long cartridges into a standard Mauser action. It's just not that important to me.

Thanks for all the input.

-Mike