I was wondering which of these two has the most recoil assuming the guns are identical (weight, barrel length, maker etc). I was thinking of the .416 loaded with a 400 gr. bullet and the .458 loaded with a 500 gr bullet.

I'm not sure about the charge weights of powders for either cartridge. I guesstimated 85 grain powder charge and a velocity of 2350. A 400 grain bullet for the 416 and a 500 grainer for the Lott.

With those numbers the recoil works out to be 58 ft/lbs. for the 416 and 81 ft/lbs. for the Lott.

Without good powder charge numbers those figures could be off by quite a bit.

Assuming safe, maximum loads they are not close. The Lott hits a good bit harder, at both ends. IMO, it is a bit much for most shooters.

Scrollcutter,
Thank you. That is what I was looking for. I am getting antsy to get my big bore done.It looks like it will be the Rem or the Lott. Also after your post I went to Google and looked up recoil calculators & found a good one. I plugged in the data from Barnes #3 and it looks like the Lott has about 50% more recoil.

[ 11-09-2003, 05:27: Message edited by: WyoJoe ]

The Lott doesn't have 50% more recoil.

My .416 weighs 8.9 lbs. (too much) and the Lott 9.3 lbs. There is a noticeable difference in recoil but nowhere near 50%.

The .416 has about 5200 ft-lbs. of muzzle energy (400 gr. @ 2400 fps) and the Lott about 5800 ft-lbs. (500 gr. @ 2300 fps) There you go.

[ 11-09-2003, 13:50: Message edited by: Will ]

400 grains vrs 500 grains at about the same speed and powder charge. 25% more recoil.

I fel the 500 gr bullet from my lott does not boot like the 400 going a couple of hundred feet per second faster, the recoil is a push rather than a sharp thump. If that counts for anything.

Using the 450 grain Barnes "X", just to get bullet weight and velocities as close as posible, the Lott still recoils much harder than the .416 Remington.

PC,

A Lott is more than a hard thump, IMO. I think the 416 is a pussy cat in comparison, which reveals my recoil tolerance limit.

Will,

I just found when I fired some 400 gr loads from my lott and then a couple of 510 gr loads that the 400 gr bullet going faster felt like a real sharp jab. I have not fired my .416 Rigby for a while have been mucking about with the lott and my 9.3x62

The numbers I put up are pretty close. If I had real powder loads the numbers would be more accurate.

I do realize that these numbers are only mathematics, but they are close. I have found that different powders do seem to vary the "briskness" of recoil. But, I also know that recoil is an extemely subjective thing. There will be more felt difference in the recoil due to stock design and weight distribution than any variance in the recoil numbers I have put up.

Recoil calculators are all over the Internet. Another way I look at this is 60% of the .375 shooters out there can move up to a .416 Remington with reasonable success. I doubt 20% could do likewise with the Lott. Apples to Apples, I'm referring here to the use of optimum bullet weight at optimum velocity, per caliber. The .416 Rem is "cake" in comparison to the Lott, which is just one of the reasons it's such a fine choice for the visiting hunter.

Nick

That's exactly what the numbers I posted earlier are saying.

There's a big difference in the two calibers.

I think you can get used to either. I started the Big Killer game with a .450 Rigby. Its ballistics are so close to the Lott that it would take a bean counter to prove any difference. Currently I'm working with a hot loaded .404. Its ballistics duplicate the Remington. In either case, if you stop shooting the big bores, you will have to start over getting used to them. You just start out one round at a time until you can work up to five aimed rounds either offhand or off sticks. That's good enough for the range. On game, you won't notice anything, at all.

With the Lott loaded down to .416 Rem-mag ballistics (400 at 2400), it's quite noticably less recoil than full house 500 gr. Lott loads. Which is exactly what the math indicates.

The Lott's not really a good all-around shooting candidate. It's specialized; no 300 yd. shots contemplated with it. On the other hand, the .416s can do that with ease-- and you may not need to buy the very longest eye-relief scopes available, giving you more options for longer shots with the .416 vs. the Lott. No way would I put a "normal" scope on my Lott. With the 2.5X Leupold fixed, I still had someone get popped in the forehead. With a .375, that would never be a problem. The .416 splits the difference.

Wyo Joe...I have one of those new Ruger's in the 458 Lott...I know you have to hang on to them when shooting...To prevent from getting the 'snot knocked out of you'...Hold the rifle in your hands with a push pull grip...I have had a 990 pachmayr decelerator glass bedding and waiting for the scope QD mounts....
Have shot 16 rounds in an hour or two and no bruising or sore shoulder or face...
Shooting 500grs RN softs and solids..
Yes the Lott kicks more then the 416...

Mike

K,
here's the way *I* see, so it's probably flawed

assuming 9.5# gun (~weight of a cz)
458 lott 500 gr
2300 fps
5860 ft/lbs
78ft/lbs energy
23 feet per second which is critical in FELT recoil

416 rem
400 gr
2400 fps
5100 ft/lbs
57 ft/lbs recoil
18 feet per second (MUCH slower and SOFTER)

and, for what it's worth
10.5# 500 jeffery
535 gr
2300 fps
6300ft/lbs
92# recoil
23.8 feet per second..

the 416 is easy to learn, and I think anyone that wants to can, the 500 REQUIRES lots of practice

jeffe

I'm sure no expert on this stuff. But I have had Ruger No. 1 Tropicals in .416 Rigby and in .458 rechamberd to .450 Nitro, virtually the same gun from an ergonomic standpoint. My recollection is that the .416 Rigby at about 2400 with 400-grain JSPs was considerably more pleasant to shoot than the .450 NE with a 500-grain Hornady at about 2300. Neither was an afternoon plinker. But the Rigby, with 365-grain cast bullets over 52 grains of 5744 -- now that was an accurate and pleasant big bore plinker. Likewise, the .450 NE when loaded with cast bullets and about 120 grains of drop-tubed black powder, was simply a hoot.

[ 11-10-2003, 05:11: Message edited by: Bill/Oregon ]