I just bought a CZ 550 in .416 Rigby from the guy who always has them on Gunbroker (can't really beat the price). At the very least, it will be on its way to AHR for a new trigger and 3-position safety. But I do NOT want to leave it as a .416 Rigby. I need your advice on what to do.

Option 1:

Re-barrel to .500 A-Square (just send it to Pac-Nor for the re-barrel), and then just have AHR bed it in their DGR synthetic stock while it is there getting a new safety/trigger anyway. This would be more for just the fun of having a .500, as I already have 2 Ruger RSM's that I would probably use if I ever went to Africa (one in .458 Lott as my "back-up" and one re-chambered to .460 Wby. that I am planning on loading to 2400 fps with 500 grainers, a la a .450 Dakota/Rigby). If I go this route, is Pac-Nor the way to go?

Option 2:

Either (stainless)re-barrel/re-chamber to .416 Wby., gun-kote the rifle, and give it a 22" barrel. I would put it in a synthetic stock, and make it the "Alaskan" rifle that I have posted annoying questions about in the past. I know that the choice of .416 Wby. will NOT be a popular one, but I figure that a .416 Rigby deserves to be in something prettier than a rifle designed solely to be beat up in Alaska.
For this purpose, am I better off going with a stainless re-barrel? I'm assuming that a re-barrel would give me better accuracy than a re-chamber of a factory CZ barrel? If I were to re-chamber, the specicied weight of a CZ is 9.3 lbs., so if I hack the barrel to 22" and put it in a synthetic stock like a McMillan, would this make the rifle too light?

I can't decide if I want to be practical or have fun; what should I do?

Any input is appreciated, even if it is to just tell me that I am a jack-a** for converting a perfectly good .416 Rigby into the abomination that is a .416 Wby.

If I decide to go with the re-barrel, I would be willing to sell the factory take-off barrel if someone is interested.

quote:

Any input is appreciated, even if it is to just tell me that I am a jack-a** for converting a perfectly good .416 Rigby into the abomination that is a .416 Wby.

My input exactly.

Gotta say, I would keep the Rigby. Grand old round and hard to improve on.

quote:

Originally posted by interboat:

quote:

Any input is appreciated, even if it is to just tell me that I am a jack-a** for converting a perfectly good .416 Rigby into the abomination that is a .416 Wby.

My input exactly.

Kind of what I felt but if you must, a 505 Gibbs.

the only advantage to a Wby 416 is the higher operating pressures used. They are the same case, one just has a belt. Option 1, load the Rigby to Wby velocities. 2nd option, have the original barrel bored to 458 and own a 450 Rigby.
3rd option, get the barrel bored to 470 and have the bubba's make a 470 Mbogo out of it. That should make your dentist happy.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by interboat:

quote:

Any input is appreciated, even if it is to just tell me that I am a jack-a** for converting a perfectly good .416 Rigby into the abomination that is a .416 Wby.

My input exactly.

I agree 100%. I have a CZ 550 Safari Magnum and it is a tack driver, I had it glass bedded and the barrel floated. I am getting one inch groups at 100 yards of the bench.

Boy, I don't know! I just got one in .416 Rigby, and it is a great rifle as is! Shoots both jacketed and cast bullets beautifully!

I have to agree with your idea to replace the trigger, as I cannot get too excited about that single-set it comes with, and the three-position safety also sounds like an improvement.

But the 416 Rigby seems like a good cartridge. I never buy factory ammo. Just got 100 Jamison empty cases for mine for $137.00 from Grafs.


350-grain cast bullets from mine @ 2100 FPS.....

If you want it to badder,
use the barnes reloading data for the 416rigby... recall that the rigby and the 416 weatherby are fraturnal twins, one's belted


if you must rebarrel, i'll take your take off barrel and sights...


the 500A2/510 wells are far and away the easiest things to do with one, but the BEST is the 470mbogo

make certain you have a barrel recoil lug added

your CZ stock should be perfectly adequet for any of these, if properly bedded and crossbolted, with a pin down the wrist.


jeffe

Leave it a .416 Rigby, it really is a great round.

quote:

Originally posted by PC:
Leave it a .416 Rigby, it really is a great round.

I agree!

I'll second and third that, leave it be!

I've used the same bullet and conditions with 105 gr of H-8700 to deliver 1975 fps.

Not a bad practice load, but for relatively low cost use the 350 gr Speer Mag-Tip w 98 to 100 grains of AA-4350. Has better accuracy and more realistic recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

If you want it to badder,
use the barnes reloading data for the 416rigby... recall that the rigby and the 416 weatherby are fraturnal twins, one's belted

jeffe

It's about darn time that someone made this comment! Thank you jeffe for showing folks the TRUTH!!! I've been MAX loading the Rigby and having lots of fun!!! Now all I want is a .470 Mbogo!!!



BTW, jeffe, how does a fella get into the official "band of bubbas?" Do you have to have a .50 cal rifle or bigger, or could a .470 Mbogo suffice since you can shoot a 600 gr. Bridger solid with boo-koos amounts of recoil?????

I guess I'll just have to get a .416 Rigby in addition to a .416 Wby. then. I love the .416 Rigby (my father bought one of the RSM's when they first came out); it's just that I think that a .416 Rigby is an "African" cartridge. It belongs in a classic gun with a pretty wood stock (w/ ebony tip), barrel band, quarter rib, folding leaf sights, etc. I'd like to build one like that someday when I can afford to throw $4k into a rifle (or maybe just buy an RSM).

However, this rifle will be an Alaskan rifle (I am planning on going fall 2007) that will be subject to serious abuse. It just doesn't seem quite right to parkerize, teflon, gunkote, etc. a .416 Rigby and throw it in a synthetic stock. That is what led me to the Rigby's evil twin, which deserves to be in a hideously ugly rifle. I may even put a MPI A-Square Hannibal stock on it. (just kidding).

However, I have to admit I am a bit curious about the supposed lack of difference between the two (I'm NOT trying to be a smartass; just curious). I know the Barnes manual loads the Rigby pretty hot (2600 fps with 400 gr bullets), but isn't it still about 50-100 fps behind the Weatherby? Obviously, the difference is irrelevant from a practical standpoint, but given that the Weatherby's case capacity is 140 gr of H20 whereas the Rigby is 127 gr (according to Quickload), wouldn't the Weatherby actually have LESS pressure at any given velocity? Regardless, the Rigby is the better round given that it is beltless; I just find it surprising that everyone says that there is absolutely no difference at all in performance (when some people seem to think that a .375 RUM is hotter than a .375 Wby., .338 RUM than .340 Wby., etc.).

Assuming that I go with the .416 rather than .500A2 or .470 MBOGO, what barrel contour should I be looking at for a 22" pipe to get the rifle weight to 9.5 lbs empty (in a synthetic stock)? Would a #5 work, or should I go to a #6 to keep some of the weight forward?

(I know, I know; 22" barrel in Rigby or especially Weatherby is a recipe for severe headaches from excessive muzzle blast; I just want to keep the overall length fairly short because (1) the action is long; and (2) the rifle will have a long length of pull because I have "ape arms.")

I think I'd shoot that baby before I did anything with it. But tell me what isn't a 416 Rigby going to kill?

I( guess I don't understand what the .426wby does that the Rigby won't assuming you are handloading? It's kind of like rebarreling a .280 to 7x64. I would get a syn. or laminate stock (laminate is factory available BTW), trigger & saftey & away you go. Why anyone would want a belted case when the unbelted will do, I just don't get it.

The performance difference (or lack thereof) is NOT why I would go to the Wby. instead of the Rigby for my "Alaska Rifle." Think of it this way, even though the .404J is equal/better (and more classic round) than the .416 Rem., would you ever put build a .404 in a stainless, synthetic rifle (unless your RIP over the .416 Rem. for a big bear rifle? Using the Rigby for the end result I am after would be like using the .404, or putting a 7X57 in a stainless Remington Model 7. The rifle wouldn't do the class .416 Rigby cartridge justice.

Those old rounds were developed because they were and are practical choices for all around work. Mr. Rigby would be pleased and proud if you use his cartridge for chasing animals in Alaska, even with a stainless steel barrel.

I don't see what the problem is when putting a synthetic stock on a CZ 550 Magnum in .416 Rigby. I like mine just fine. The McMillian stock is perfectly shaped for handling recoil and I like the looks. Here it is:

Wink,Nice looking rifle. What does it weigh? studdog

I'm gonna have to invest in a real scale as my bathroom scale isn't close enough to give any real accuracy. It looks (on the scale) and feels around 9.5 to 10 pounds but I can't be sure. I had McMillan fill the butt to make it a little heavier and better balance the rifle. It is still a little too front heavy for my liking but that long CZ barrel could be shortened. If you stuck a couple recoil reducers in the butt it would help the balance as well. When I get a real scale I will let you know.

quote:

However, this rifle will be an Alaskan rifle (I am planning on going fall 2007) that will be subject to serious abuse. It just doesn't seem quite right to parkerize, teflon, gunkote, etc. a .416 Rigby and throw it in a synthetic stock. That is what led me to the Rigby's evil twin, which deserves to be in a hideously ugly rifle. I may even put a MPI A-Square Hannibal stock on it. (just kidding).

I used a Mannlicher Schoenauer carbine and a 1949 vintage Model 70 Super Grade .375 H&H for three years in Alaska, both in the interior and along the coast, with no problems at all as far as the metal finish was concerned. I just wiped them off and swabbed out the bore/chamber every day at the end of the hunting with a patch saturated with Birchwood-Casey SHEATH! Never got a spot of rust or corrosion on either rifle. My hunting buddies said I was nuts, but thy got rust on their rifles!!

You're right Wink, nice looking rifle!

Wink,
That is one good looking rifle. Does McMillan just call that stock "gray" or are there various shades of gray that McMillan offers? I think I am going to have to order one like it for my rifle.

Thanks to all for talking some sense into me. After further consideration, I've decided to go with the .416 Rigby after all. Its increase in accuracy given better headspacing and better availability (and variety) of factory ammo more than offsets any slight theoretical disadvantage it has to the Wby. And while I still don't think of it as an "Alaskan" cartridge, I can't really bring myself to build a 22" .416 Wby. either.

I'm still going to get the rifle re-barreled though, as I really want a stainless barrel w/ a heavier contour to keep the weight up given that the finished barrel will only be 22". I sent the rifle off to MRC to do the re-barreling today, in a stainless #5, .416 Rigby. Thanks again to everyone for the advice.

myoderr03, just make sure McMillan can take care of your new barrel contour. I bought mine as a drop-in stock but didn't check if the same stock is available in other barrel contours. Of course, I am told there are some stockers who rework the McMillan stocks for other contours, just something to be aware of. If you go for a shorter barrel, which I think is a good idea, also consider the recoil reducers in the filled butt. I think McMillan can do this. Lastly, check on aluminum pillars in the stock as well. The thin sleeves/tubes that come with the CZ action aren't really pillars in my opinion; they crush/flare when torqued down.