To give you an idea of a standard length Mauser action opened up in this case to fit the 404J cartridge, the first photo shows the degree of magazine lengthening with the mag follower shorter by quite a bit than the magazine box and the second photo shows the work done on the front ramp to provide room for lengthening the magazine box and feeding of the longer cartridge. Also a bit of work done at the back of the magazine box too.
In the second photo, at the top left of the feed ramp can be seen a portion of the original ramp which would normally be a perfect concave profile matching the round profile of the bolt nose across to the other side of the ramp with about 1/16" of flat top rather than the sharp edge that is seen over the front edge of the ramp. The right hand locking lug on the bolt rotates down in front of the ramp and the ramp provides the strength for that lug lock up. If you look at the bearing surface of the bolt lug it is not a hell of a lot and any cutting back and down on the feed ramp can possibly compromise the shear strength in this area (according to Mauser anyway).

In your photos of this area on your rifle, more so the first one, it looks like some fairly drastic grinding down and reshaping of the feed ramp has been done to the point that there doesn't seem to be much left as a 'backstop' behind the bolt lug that rotates down into the recess? This is what has led me to query if the action had been opened up for the 416 Rigby. Mauser specifically made the magnum length action so these big cartridges would not need such work doing.

I have always wished I could see Selby's famous Mauser in 416 Rigby as his was made on an opened up standard length Mauser action by Rigby. It was re-barreled at least once in it's lifetime and he said it had never ever let him down in terms of feeding and function. Would be a mission to get that cartridge, which is longer again than the 404J cartridge, into a standard Mauser but it was done.

Mercy, Id kill for that one!! whats not to love about it..all else is twiddle.

The picture is still filling in. I was very lucky to get input from Johan van Wyk and Andrew Tonkin, whose opinionsw I value greatly.
This is what Mr. Tonkin had to say:

My comments are as follows:

1. Regarding the three contractors, it is almost certain that Rigby supplied the barrelled action, Wilkes performed the stocking and sighting, and Johnson’s did the finishing. (as you know WJJ did not do any work themselves, and did not have a factory) This will also explain the relative disbursements of the funds.
2. The addition of scope mounts of the configuration shown does not require re-proof according to the London rules of proof, neither does the addition of the modern safety, not the forging of the bolt handle. If the scope mounts were of the type that requires the drilling of the receiver ring, it would have required re-proof. It is therefore likely that the fresh proof marks on the barrel were added because of re-barrelling in London at the time of the sighting modifications.
3. What I do find strange is that Rigby’s would have supplied a barrelled action on a magnum Mauser during 1951, as the supply from Germany had dried up by then, and surely they would have hung on to what they had. I am of the opinion that it was originally a pre-WW2 project that was finished after the war. The WJJ records show a lot of discrepancies in the 1939 – 1961 period.

Hope this helps,

Andrew


Paul Roberts acknowledges the later work, but doesn't recall any specifics.

What a beauty!! A very nice rifle in a legendary caliber. I had an original 416 Rigby on a mag Mauser action. It was a pre-war rifle and although a bit rough on the cosmetic side, the action felt like it was on bearings! Glass smooth and a pleasure to use.

It happens. Understandably in this case.

First of all, Rigby,Jefferys, and WR and even Holland and Holland built, as I recall, .416 Rigbys on magnum Mausers and std Mauser actions, so it could be either. It appears to be a standard action, I won't commit on that without a set of mics to measure the specs..

As to the safety I have seen that on other English rifles one being a Jefferys and on one museum quality Rigby rifle..
If you look close you can plainly see the mod 70 safety is custom made on a modified Mauser housing and cocking piece, and pay special attention to the screw that holds everything together, you won't see that on a Mod. 70 knock off from the US custom makers like Dakota, Gentry and one other?? whom I can't recall.

As to the date of manufacture I would say its probably a later rifle, and one hell of a nice one..

The main thing is to do your homework on the rifle, contact Rigby first and foremost. You qet all manor of experts on forums, some right and some wrong, document whats said for future reference and begin your investigation. I personally feel its a legetamate rifle, just opinion on my part.

I recently had a barreled action in the white by Rigby with all the same markings as your as I recall..Folks came out of the woodwork with nay saying as to its origianality, some to expound on their expertise and othes to low ball the price but and eventually a supper nice gent who posts on AR, took my word for it and accepted the background work I did on it being original to the best I could find out, and I was sure in my heart it was the real deal, but still in the white and had been lightly polished, some small doubt was in both our heads...The gent paid a lot of money for it, sent it to Rigby and the boys at Rigby claimed it as one of their own and they are in the process of restoring it and stocking it...My friend cut a fat hog on that deal, and will soon be the proud father of an original lettered Rigby, and a bloody expensive rifle to boot..He has graciously agreed to allow that rifle to be my grandson!!

I can't wait to see it!!

I think that's about what you have for better or for worse! If its the worse, you have still won the ball game hands down..Nice gun.

Here is a photo from the Jeffery ledger. My rifle is 38798.
The barreled action was built by Rigby in 1951 for Lawn and Alder on a magnum action. Wilkes presumably did the stocking, and Johnson I am guessing sights and finish? I have no Idea who Johnson is. It was built in 416.
The 2007 London proof mark likely indicates rebarreling, when Roberts added the model 70 safety and Holland style mounts. Much of that is presumptive, as Paul Roberts has no recollection of that particular rifle, although he acknowledges the work is his.
Most of this information is in older postings, but I hadn't gotten the ledger book photo over to Photobucket, my bad.
It looks like the selling price to Lawn and Alder was 68 pounds and change.

That's pretty awesome, good catch!

The work on the feed ramp certainly could have been an aftermarket (bubba ?) remedy to make it feed a certain brand of ammo better.

A beautiful rifle. Use it successfully in good health for many years!

Just chiming in on the "std. vs magnum" debate.

You have obviously taken it out of the stock so this will be plain to observe.
A standard length action has its front action lug toward the front of the receiver ring so the recoil lug is positioned near the middle of the underside of the front ring.

The magnum action has the front action lug toward the rear of the front ring so a recoil lug will be positioned almost directly below the very rear of the front ring. The magazine screw spacing is the same on both.
You can see that the action lug on your rifle is well back and the recoil lug in the stock is as well so I am thinking it to be a true magnum length action.
Also, I have heard some standard length actions referred to as "magnum actions" such as the DSB solid wall Oberndorf actions. I always figured that the length is what differentiates between the two but it must not be seen that way by all.

Huvius,
good post, and Ive seen many instances wherein the owners of .375s and 458 referred to those standard actions as magnum actions, but they were just std. 98s or whatever...

From a practical stand point I would judge the rifle by how it feeds and functions, opening up a std mauser such as Whitworth does isn't a crime, just not my choice..Ive never seen a Whitworth blow up form having the front end opened up, and they are completely opened up all in the front!! and they been around a long time.

Ive not had 110% feeding in most std. action by some well known gunsmiths, so I use the true magnum drop box actions in the 404 and 416 Rigby, and have had no problems..thats my choice. I did build a 458 Lott on a Whitworth rifle some years back and it functioned fine and I traded it to Bob Richards then of Wesley Richards for "Sweet Thang", my best ever double rifle in 450-400-3", she wasn't pretty but damn she shot eye ball size groups at 75 yards. That Lott went to a well know SCI deligate of some fame, but can't remember his name, nice guy however..Memory gets thin in your golden years! along with everything else.

Huvius-
Thanks, a good piece of information. It does confirm.

Does anyone have any idea who "Johnson" mentioned as having done some work on my the rifle in 1951 might have been?

Beautiful rifle, congratulations.

The Magnum Mauser action bolt is approx. 1/2" longer than a standard length ('09 action). These figures by my personal measurements.

Cheers, Chris