If Ruger uses a heavier profile barrel, puts some lead or a recoil reducer in the stock and adds a barrel lug, it might be pretty nice.

Thanks to the guys who addressed my original point. I never tried to imply this was a bad round or anything of that nature. Can anyone give the specs...ie: length, base, shoulder, and rim diameter or has this already been said? I realize the .416 Rigby is a LARGE case and ballistics don't match its physical profile but John Rigby did that on purpose to get that "magic" 400 Gr@2400 FPS and stay within aprox. 40K CUP for extraction purposes. I'm sure about everyone here knows of the design intent.

how does this work ?, Never tried the quick reply before ... Huh .


No doubt it will need a 2nd recoil lug , and I would like an integral sling eye , But I hope they don,t make it some great big huge thing ... Mayby they should make 2 different models .. . African where you all can hire a gun bearer . And a 7 1/2 lb for us strappin Alaskans!!! And maybe some Canadians if they are Skookum lads ..

Basically just a modern day 425 Westly Richards .......COLONIAL GRADE

Dang I been out of touch too long.I been waiting for the 416 Ruger for a while.I guess the old Ruger 77 in 7 mag can be made into a 416 Ruger.I like the tang safety best.Now I need a stock strong enough for it.I wish a laminated one was made.I think its a cool ropuld should be strong brass that you can reload a bunch of times.I hope they load a good 350 gr bullet for American use .

Is this .416 Ruger so amazingly much better than my .416 Rem that I must rebarrel my gun or get a new gun instantly?
By the way is it possible to rebarrel a .416 Rem to a .416 Ruger?

quote:

Originally posted by .530Woodleigh:
Thanks to the guys who addressed my original point. I never tried to imply this was a bad round or anything of that nature. Can anyone give the specs...ie: length, base, shoulder, and rim diameter or has this already been said? I realize the .416 Rigby is a LARGE case and ballistics don't match its physical profile but John Rigby did that on purpose to get that "magic" 400 Gr@2400 FPS and stay within aprox. 40K CUP for extraction purposes. I'm sure about everyone here knows of the design intent.

Little doubt that Hornady's claim is correct.

First off, the standard velocity for the .416 Rigby was never 2,400 fps, nor was standard velocity ever taken in a 24" barrel. It was created and standardized by the British. While those standards have been restated in recent years (velocities adjusted for shorter barrels and pressure converted to chamber pressure from the original bolt thrust), the original standards have never changed. From it's introduction in 1911, Kynoch was the only manufacturer to load it for nearly 70 years. They still load it to the same standard they always have. 71 grains Cordite/410 grain bullet equals 2,371 fps from a 28" barrel for 18 tons BaseCUP. Today, Kynoch lists the same load with new powders at 2,300 fps in a 26" barrel. Real velocity in a 24" barrel was more like 2,250 fps. Yes, some manufacturers load it hotter today, but it isn't standard ammo.

The standard load for the .416 Ruger does 2400 fps in a 24" barrel, 150 fps faster than standard Rigby in barrels of the same length. Yes, the velocity loss between a 20" and a 24" is significant, but I doubt it's as much as 150 fps. Even if it is, the Ruger would still be just as fast from 20" as the Rigby from a 24" given standard ammo.

BTW, standard pressure for the Rigby was never 40,000 CUP, as the British didn't standardize on chamber pressure for rifles, so they never measured it. By the time conversions to chamber pressure were done (after the UK joined CIP), CUP was no longer in use.

Do you think they will amke a ruger 458? Just curious

I like the 416 Ruger because it will fit in the old model Ruger 77.I have 6 416 rem mags ,8000 pcs of 416 rem mag brass and 5,000-6,000 416 bullets.I am ready if they bring the mastidons back.Wouldnt that be alot of fun.I love the 416 Rem mag the 416 ruger is the same might feed a littler smoother and a littler shorter bolt throw.My reason I love the tang safety of the old Ruger 77s .I hate the model 70 safety a bear can eat you by the time you get it off and its noisy as heck.

Maybe a 470 Ruger to match the 416.I like the 470 capstick I shot it kicks butt on both sides.

.458 is the minimum shoulder *I* would do....

.532(base)-.032 (neck)=.500
.500, -.458=.042/2 .....021 a side shoulder, at zero taper

quote:

Originally posted by David Walther:
Is this .416 Ruger so amazingly much better than my .416 Rem that I must rebarrel my gun or get a new gun instantly?
By the way is it possible to rebarrel a .416 Rem to a .416 Ruger?

...

I think it is good enough to get a factory gun right away , But I won,t be doing any changing to my 416 Rem ... A guy would need rocks in his head to do that ..

quote:

Originally posted by dgr416:
.My reason I love the tang safety of the old Ruger 77s .I hate the model 70 safety a bear can eat you by the time you get it off and its noisy as heck.

...

416 , what are you talking about ... It might be a challenge if you had Mushers Mitts , or maybe Welders Gloves on . But one of the GREAT things about the M77MK II safety is there isn,t anything in the guts of it to go wrong ...I know of a number of original M77s that the safety failed to release , and 2 times that I know of the guy was closing on a wounded bear ....,,. Some stupid little part inside the safety / trigger failed and the owners could have lost their face ......... On full safe the Mk II safety is designed to NOT accidentally move to fire . On half safe it is a spectacular safety for many reasons and it is easy to release to the fire mode .......If the situation is such that you have to wack the safety off as you raise the rifle to fire a little click sound isn,t going to matter .......

I have released the safety to the fire mode hundreds of times when hunting ect. and I have never had it,s noise make any difference to the outcome of a hunt ...... Most of the time you can use your thumb and index finger to release the safety anyway .....

. I wonder if RIP will make a 395,416 Ruger

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by .530Woodleigh:
Thanks to the guys who addressed my original point. I never tried to imply this was a bad round or anything of that nature. Can anyone give the specs...ie: length, base, shoulder, and rim diameter or has this already been said? I realize the .416 Rigby is a LARGE case and ballistics don't match its physical profile but John Rigby did that on purpose to get that "magic" 400 Gr@2400 FPS and stay within aprox. 40K CUP for extraction purposes. I'm sure about everyone here knows of the design intent.

Little doubt that Hornady's claim is correct.

First off, the standard velocity for the .416 Rigby was never 2,400 fps, nor was standard velocity ever taken in a 24" barrel. It was created and standardized by the British. While those standards have been restated in recent years (velocities adjusted for shorter barrels and pressure converted to chamber pressure from the original bolt thrust), the original standards have never changed. From it's introduction in 1911, Kynoch was the only manufacturer to load it for nearly 70 years. They still load it to the same standard they always have. 71 grains Cordite/410 grain bullet equals 2,371 fps from a 28" barrel for 18 tons BaseCUP. Today, Kynoch lists the same load with new powders at 2,300 fps in a 26" barrel. Real velocity in a 24" barrel was more like 2,250 fps. Yes, some manufacturers load it hotter today, but it isn't standard ammo.

The standard load for the .416 Ruger does 2400 fps in a 24" barrel, 150 fps faster than standard Rigby in barrels of the same length. Yes, the velocity loss between a 20" and a 24" is significant, but I doubt it's as much as 150 fps. Even if it is, the Ruger would still be just as fast from 20" as the Rigby from a 24" given standard ammo.

BTW, standard pressure for the Rigby was never 40,000 CUP, as the British didn't standardize on chamber pressure for rifles, so they never measured it. By the time conversions to chamber pressure were done (after the UK joined CIP), CUP was no longer in use.

.530 Woodleigh:

Don't let 400 Nitro Express try and lead you astray here! He is correct in what he says but remember this... the .416 Ruger may equal the .416 Rigby IF the Rigby is loaded to very modest traditional pressure levels. That's like saying that my four cylinder Honda will go 100 mph and so will my V8 Corvette. That's true but the Corvette can be pushed a lot faster than the Honda. The .416 Rigby has a case capacity of 132.56 grains or water. The .416 Ruger can never be made to "equal" the .416 Rigby.

Dave

Thanks Dave Bush, I already knew this and was kinda my point. The .300 Savage claimed it was as powerful as the "original" .30-06 load. Key word here being "original".With same barrels and pressure it can never match Rigby speeds.Everyone here knows this but just want to give me a hard time.
Seems like all the "pissing and moaning" was coming from the folks accusing me of pissing and moaning.If noticing a descrepency on Ruger's web site is pissing and moaning then I'll wear that sign proudly. LOL Then there are folks who imply that just because I don't plan to buy one I should keep my mouth shut? Do what? So much for "One Of Us". Fols shouldn't take it personally if another guy don't want to buy a certain caliber.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
...The .416 Ruger can never be made to "equal" the .416 Rigby.
Dave

In my opinion the whole point behind the .416 Ruger is that most people don't buy a .416 Rigby to have it maxed out at weatherby velocities.

So why have the big case and big (expensive) magnum length action when all you want is 400gr at 2400fps?

This is the logic behind the .375 and .416 ruger - and I think it is sound logic.

Personally I think cartridges like the RCM's and WSM's are a logical idea ruined by taking it a step too far, but thats just me.

I also think the .416 & .375 would have gotten a better reception if they were called 'Hornady Magnums' - the Ruger name does have an aura of cheapness about it, but they had to get someone to make rifles for thier new cartridges.

quote:

the .416 Ruger may equal the .416 Rigby IF the Rigby is loaded to very modest traditional pressure levels.

Yes, that would be the pressure that .416 Rigby rifles are proved for.

Didn't attempt to lead anyone astray. I simply explained why the statement on the website was obviously correct, and also observed that data that .530 Woodleigh posted was incorrect. When you load a cartridge beyond max pressure and beyond the pressure the rifles chambering it were proved for, you're no longer comparing standard cartridges.

quote:

Originally posted by Wes Pryor:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
...The .416 Ruger can never be made to "equal" the .416 Rigby.
Dave

In my opinion the whole point behind the .416 Ruger is that most people don't buy a .416 Rigby to have it maxed out at weatherby velocities.

So why have the big case and big (expensive) magnum length action when all you want is 400gr at 2400fps?

This is the logic behind the .375 and .416 ruger - and I think it is sound logic.

Personally I think cartridges like the RCM's and WSM's are a logical idea ruined by taking it a step too far, but thats just me.

I also think the .416 & .375 would have gotten a better reception if they were called 'Hornady Magnums' - the Ruger name does have an aura of cheapness about it, but they had to get someone to make rifles for thier new cartridges.

.

.. I totally disagree with the [Aura of Cheapness ] ,,, IME Ruger stands for Toughness ...... The M77mkII is the toughest , most reliable rifles since the 17 Enfield ...... If I had to pick 1 rifle to Rely on it would be an M77mkII stainless Ruger ... Probably in 375 Ruger Caliber .....


Comparing the 416 Ruger to a hot handloaded modern 416 Rigby is like comparing apples to Watermellons , Big watermellons ..........

quote:

Originally posted by Wes Pryor:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
...The .416 Ruger can never be made to "equal" the .416 Rigby.
Dave

So why have the big case and big (expensive) magnum length action when all you want is 400gr at 2400fps?

There are two reasons for that big Rigby case with .041 taper that are just as valid today as they were in 1912. First, to keep pressures down. Second, to provide effortless feeding and extraction. It worked.

Look, it you think a .416 Ruger in a 7.75 pound rifle is your idea of fun, I say have at it boys and girls! Hey, why not build on up about six pounds even and really have some fun

Every thread regarding one of the Hornady’ Ruger cartridges raise the hackles of every legacy cartridge lover in that caliber.

Want to keep your .375 H&H, your .416 Rigby, or your .404 Jeffery (still think it should have been tagged as a .423 but hey – Jeffery designed and tagged it not I) then by all means do so. Totally enjoy it but don’t rag on those who desire a round not original designed around the long cordite powder which drove the design of these superb rounds.

The .375 Ruger and .416 Ruger are great cartridges and definitely “fill†a factory cartridge need for standard length (3.4†COAL) actions. Rebarrel your 2.5†belted magnum cartridge based action, perhaps a bit of feeding work, and you’re good to go with a factory round smaller than a .458 caliber round. Modern temperature insensitive powder will keep these two cartridges functioning optimally in freezing or 100º+ temperature conditions – something that cordite powder did/does not do.

The .416 Remington Magnum is a great cartridge and definitely “filled†a factory cartridge need in the long length (3.6†COAL) actions. Need a bit more than your .375 H&H or smaller long belted magnum cartridge the .416 Remington Magnum will fit your factory cartridge need for something smaller than a .458 caliber round. I wasn’t a member of AR at the time but I’m sure that the .416 Rigby lovers questioned why anyone would ever need such a marginal round when the .416 Rigby could easily outdo it at any performance level. Oh well.

Myself, I thing Remington should produce .416 and a .458 cartridges based on the RUM case – would give them and the gun consuming public an awesome range of cartridges – but perhaps wouldn’t be fiscally workable – oh well guess that’s why wildcatting is still alive and well.

the 416 ruger won't equal a heavily loaded rigby, true but who cares.It will be an ideal packing rifle for grizz in alaska, light and portable.We should commend hornady for bringing out new rounds like the 375 & 416.Any new bigbore is a good thing.The rigby is a great round, I love mine but I will find room for a new ruger as well.How mny of us love 300 mags but still find have a 308 or 30/06 in the safe.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward

The .416 Remington Magnum is a great cartridge ... I wasn’t a member of AR at the time but I’m sure that the .416 Rigby lovers questioned why anyone would ever need such a marginal round when the .416 Rigby could easily outdo it at any performance level. Oh well.

I suppose being a member of AR when the .416 Remington usurped the .416 Rigby (November 1988) is just your euphemism for being a gun nut, since AR.com did not exist back then.

gumboot458:

The .395 Ruger Max already exists.
Reloading dies from Hornady.
Barrels from McGowen.
Chamber reamer from Dave Manson.
Brass: change the "7" to a "9" on the Hornady headstamp, and engrave the rifle barrel "395 Ruger."

It would be silly to neck down a .416 Ruger to .395, since it would not have the headstamp ease.

Proper method is to neck up the .375 Ruger to .395: 375 >>> 395 is easy with a hand engraving tool.

Grins and giggles to all.

Hi Guys

Ok all in all we know this will sell , I htink it is a great idea, just a pity I live in SA, would have loved a set of 375 and 416 Ruger's

But can anyone say what the pressure in the 416 Ruger is ??

Close enough:

.416 Rigby: 47K psi
.416 Ruger: 62K psi

That ought to give about the same external ballistics for both, with the same length barrel. Close enough.

The .375 H&H and .375 Ruger both operate at the same pressure, which should be the same max pressure for the .416 Ruger.

Just my SWAG.
Sumbuddy who really know feel free to correct me.

This would have been a way better choice for Ruger than either a .375 or .416:

"The .366-caliber .370 Sako Magnum rounds are loaded with either a 286-grain Barnes Triple-Shock X-Bullet or a 286-grain Nosler Partition bullet. Based on a case that is slightly longer than the .30-06, the new .370 Sako cartridge achieves energy levels comparable to the .375 H&H and provides excellent stopping power on large game at shorter distances. Due to the length of the case, .370 Sako-chambered rifles are built with standard-length actions instead of magnum-length actions. Muzzle velocities of the two new offerings are rated at 2,550 fps with muzzle energies of 4,129 ft-lbs."

See, I am NOT a luddite!

quote:

Originally posted by Kwan:
Hi Guys

Ok all in all we know this will sell , I htink it is a great idea, just a pity I live in SA, would have loved a set of 375 and 416 Ruger's

But can anyone say what the pressure in the 416 Ruger is ??

I'd think the quickest road to acceptance for the .375 and .416 Ruger rifles and cartridges would be for Hornady and Ruger to sell them cheaply in Africa. They'd become a household item and carried by local gun shops.

That would help with the "what will you do if the airline looses your ammo" argument for the .375 H&H and .458 Win.

After thinking about it, if I were in the marketing department at Ruger I'd almost GIVE some .416 Ruger rifles to various game departments. Look at what that type of exposure did for the .404

quote:

Originally posted by Kwan:
Hi Guys

Ok all in all we know this will sell , I htink it is a great idea, just a pity I live in SA, would have loved a set of 375 and 416 Ruger's

But can anyone say what the pressure in the 416 Ruger is ??

So, if one were to show up with said rifles and didn't leave with them, what's it worth to the PH?

I have scared alot of game with noisy model 70 safetys.My 338s never failed me and I can pull the trigger like a double shotgun very fast safety and trigger at the same time.I have shot all of my Ruger 77 mark ones around 3,000 tiomes with out any problems.Rust on the inside might screw it up.I take my Rugers apart and check them out at least once a year.My worst gun ever is a model 70 stainless 338 with a boss.It took winchester forever to make it feed.Then its finish rusted and flaked in the caser.The scope mounts holes were drilled crooked the butt plate was like a knive.I complained enough to Winchester that they wanted to buy the gun back from me.My model 70 in 416 rem mag blew off a chunk of the bolt that was scary but I had it fixed also.I have never had any problems with Ruger 77s mark I or II .They are more accurate than the winchester with the boss also.The straw tube on the 338 win mag model 70 is a joke.The safety was so noisy clicky thyat it always scvared game off.The old 338 ruger had killed them before that heard the boom.I love old Ruger 77s might not be good in the salt regions of alaska but good where I hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick R:

quote:

Originally posted by Kwan:
Hi Guys

Ok all in all we know this will sell , I htink it is a great idea, just a pity I live in SA, would have loved a set of 375 and 416 Ruger's

But can anyone say what the pressure in the 416 Ruger is ??

....



quickest road to acceptance for the .375 and .416 Ruger rifles and cartridges would be for Hornady and Ruger to sell them cheaply in Africa. They'd become a household item and carried by local gun shops.

That would help with the "what will you do if the airline looses your ammo" argument for the .375 H&H and .458 Win.

..


Now that is a good idea !!!!!!!!!!!!

366torgue

What is it worth too the PH


and did I mention the naked girl dancing in camp

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I think the 416 ruger is a great idea I could have only hoped it would have been on the marget 5 years ago when I had my 416 taylor built.

Not that the taylor is a bad round but as a wildcat you have all the normal wildcat ammo trouble not being able to walk in a store and buy them. I reload 99% of all my ammo but if one really needs a box beable to go and buy one would be nice.

Do you think the Ruger reamer will clean up the Taylor chambering. It may be a simple way of going legit.
Frank

the taylor IS saami, I believe... AA ws a saami member

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Martinez:

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I think the 416 ruger is a great idea I could have only hoped it would have been on the marget 5 years ago when I had my 416 taylor built.

Not that the taylor is a bad round but as a wildcat you have all the normal wildcat ammo trouble not being able to walk in a store and buy them. I reload 99% of all my ammo but if one really needs a box beable to go and buy one would be nice.

Do you think the Ruger reamer will clean up the Taylor chambering. It may be a simple way of going legit.
Frank

Frank,

This is a question periodically asked a few times since rumors started last spring that a .416 Ruger was destined to be released.

Comparing PT&Gs chamber prints of the .375 Ruger and the .416 Taylor (Chatfield-Taylor) one could say that yes, the probable .416 Ruger reamer would chean up the Taylor (Chatfield-Taylor) chamber very cleanly with one possible issue – that issue being the chamber diameter at the belt, at the 0.200†location. The .416 Taylor (Chatfield-Taylor) chamber print indicates a 0.536†parallel diameter from bolt face to the 0.200†location while the .375 Ruger (and one would assume the .416 Ruger) chamber print indicates a slight taper from bolt face with a 0.533†chamber diameter so with a tight chamber and “on-spec†reamers you’ll have a 0.003†diameter difference – “out-of-spec reamer†and loose chamber and it could be worse. The Ruger/Hornady cartridge cases are built strong in this webbing area so it likely will not be a safety issue – might have a slight crease in the case at this junction but it wouldn’t cause a case failure at SAAMI pressure specification.

I mean, the US manufacturers of 9,3x62mm cartridges utilize ’06 based cases in their manufacturer so we’re talking a 0.008†(maximum cartridge diameter at case head vis-à-vis minimum chamber diameter at case head) so one must presume that this it is within manufacturing “safe†tolerances.

If you have a nice piece of wood then live with the potential case crease, if that’s not an issue – or you’re using a synthetic stock then I’d have a gunsmith set the barrel back and then rechamber to the .416 Ruger.

Jim

I cannot help but inject myself somewhat into this thread, as I think that some are totally missing some very important points to ponder. I will try to address my concerns in an orderly manner, one by one.

First for the record I think the 416 Ruger is a fantastic addition to many wonderful 416s already out there, and can fill a niche that I have already filled for myself, with my 416 B&M cartridge. As known the 416 Ruger is in a shorter than standard, 20 inch barrel rifle. So is my 416 B&M. I am not sure of the action length, and to be honest I have not even looked at the specs on the 416 Ruger cartridge in particular, but if the cartridge can get anything from 2250 to 2300 fps with a 400 gr bullet then that is more than adequate to do any job it is called upon to do, and do it well. I have yet to run into any critter, large or small, that a 400 gr 416 caliber bullet would bounce off of at 2250-2300 fps! If that was the case? In the case of the 416 Ruger, we need to look at the "Platform" it is built on, and forget comparing it to the Rigby or anything else for that matter.

To compare the 416 Ruger to the Rigby or anything else is rather useless in fact. Any of us know that by just the case volume--the smaller case cannot equal the big Rigby or Weatherby, so put that to rest. Once again however, look at the two platforms that each is on, the rifles!

I hear some noise about "pressures" too. 100 years ago this was without doubt a concern, thus our big cartridges and large amounts of cordite at the time. Today, not so. I have hunted with high pressure loads in 458 Winchester, 458 Lott, 416 Remington and others in high temps of 100-115 degrees many times and never had an issue, never a sticky case, nothing. With todays powders, brass, and rifles made to withstand these pressures I can't believe that this is still a valid point. Of course if you leave home with a load that is over max, then that is what you will get in the field! Do not misunderstand, or twist the point. I live in South Carolina, rather warmish in the summer. I have worked up loads in both summer and winter, sometimes very close to max pressures, and hunted in 115 degree weather without issue. I have never known anyone that had this problem. I am sure they might exist, however I am very nearly sure that the problem may have existed before they left on the trip too! Todays powder, brass and rifles are not the same as 100 years ago, or very near that long!

Ok, now we have settled the argument of Rigby vs Ruger or others. Rigby is big, Ruger case is smaller end of story. No way the Ruger can outrun the Rigby, can't happen! Nor does it NEED to do so either. OK we have talked about pressures, I think we solve that too.

Now let's talk about what is the point exactly, and that is the "Platform" or the rifle the cartridge is built on! Smaller, lighter, shorter, handy, faster, and damn sight easier to carry. I have the 416 Rigby, half dozen 416 Remingtons, had a Taylor at one time, I now have my 416 B&Ms which is a 2.25 inch case, fits in a WSM short action, Winchester M70 with a 20 inch barrel, since 2005, pre dates the Ruger a bit, and the 375 Ruger as I recall. The case is made from RUM brass, cut and formed, very much the same as jeffeossos 416 AR at 2.55 in a standard action. I see someone on this thread call such a thing "Stupid", "senseless" and probably a few other things. Well "Buckwheat" how stupid is it when you have to carry this thing all day long, day in, day out, in soft sand, 110 degrees, walking your tail off, for god knows how long? How about crawling along in and out, under and about thick brush with a rifle that is half a foot longer all day? Just how "Stupid" is that? I can tell you for a fact that I would much rather carry that 7-8 lb rifle that is from 5-6 inches shorter than your standard 24 inch 416 Remington, Rigby, or 458 Winchester or Lott. Life is a compromise however is it not, same with rifles and cartridges. If the standard for 416 400 gr bullets is 2400 fps-then one must compromise, but one can do that to the point that it matters little. I will make that compromise, my 416 B&M will run a 400 at 2300-2325 fps safely, and under max pressure, in it's short action and 20 inch barrel, I am making one with a 18 inch barrel! I will make that sacrifice, what little it is, to gain the lighter weight, to gain the portability, and to have a rifle that handles faster! The 416 Ruger will also give you this to a degree! It is a wonderful idea, and I am sure it will be a wonderful cartridge.

Most people carry a rifle such as this far more than they shoot it! They should shoot it, and shoot it a lot, but that is not always the case. These same folks don't shoot the Rigbys or Remingtons either, so it does not matter. At least with a Ruger they have a rifle that is lighter, shorter, handier, faster, and at the end of the day might just have a little more bounce in the step. I am a nut case, I shoot from 100-200 rounds of this stuff a week, doing test work, getting ready for hunts, things like that. But most do not, they carry a rifle far more than they will ever shoot it. Might as well carry one that does not wear you down.


Some say recoil would be an issue. Maybe for some it would, I can't attest to that. I shoot too much to pay it much attention. I honestly can't tell much difference if any between equal loads in my 416-458-500 B&M as I can either 416 Remington, Rigby or 458 Lott. Now yesterday I will admit, in my 458 B&M, 2.25 inch case, short WSM action, 18 inch barrel, stainless Winchester M70, with the very light Ultimate stock, entire gun weighs 6.25 lbs, I was shooting some 500 gr Woodleighs at just a tad over 2100 fps that was very nearly all I wanted. Not really the recoil as much as the bolt handle knocking the skin off my trigger finger! For that rifle I think 450s at 2200 fps are a bit better for me. But back to the point at hand if one shoots enough and gets used to the recoil then it is not an issue, and the small rifle is a joy to carry and handle while in the field. When the rifle goes to 7-8 lbs then recoil is not anymore than what you would perceive with the normal standard size guns. I shoot nothing but Winchesters the last 10 yrs, and recoil to me is much less than that of other rifles.

I spent many days in the field with the standard 10.5 lb (with 1.5X5 Leupold) and 24 inch rifle! Some days that rifle would seem like a 6 ft long musket at the end of the day! Since 2005 I have been hunting with my rifles/cartridges and there is a world of difference. I suspect the same with the new rugers. Today we are so hung up on getting that last 100 fps that we loose sight of what is important--what difference does 100 fps-or even 200 fps make on a 416 caliber between 2400 and say 2200 fps? From experience I can tell you very little! For dangerous game you are not shooting anything long range, you should be close anyway, so velocity does not gain you range! A solid at 2200 fps will be more than adequate to accomplish any mission that a solid at 2400 fps can accomplish. Buffalo don't give a damn about 100-200 fps. Some extra velocity might help with thin skinned dangerous game, maybe lion or bear, but I would rather gain that velocity with a lighter bullet, 340-350 grs in 416 caliber, than to gain it with 4-6 inches longer rifle and 2 or more extra lbs! It's the "Platform", that's the difference.

This takes nothing away from the Rigby, or Remington, or any of the others. The 416 Ruger will not make the Rigby obsolete, or less than it is, but it finally gives the masses a rifle that is better suited to carry and handle easier. That is all!


Some say Remington must do something, well forget that between jeffeosso and his fine series of 2.55 inch AR cartridges, and my B&M series of cartridges we have that covered. One need look no further!

That's my 2 cents worth!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

When the rifle goes to 7-8 lbs then recoil is not anymore than what you would perceive with the normal standard size guns.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by dirklawyer:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
I confess that I was one of the doubters but not because I didn't think it was possible but because I didn't think Ruger had an appropriate platform for the cartridge and I still don't. The Ruger Hawkeye weighs in at 7.75 pounds. That's far to light for a .416 pushing a 400 grain bullet at 2400 fps. However, for those guys who want one, I say have at it. I think the low pressure .416 Rigby is maybe the best magazine cartridge ever.
Dave

Ditto's Dave,
Hope they see the need to beef-up the stock and add a pound or two for this caliber to be a great addition to the 375.

There you guys go again trying to ruin a lightweight rifle. I hope it indeed weighs 7 3/4 pounds.

Well for those of you that are scared of the lighter guns then by all means carry one that weighs 13 lbs and be done with it!

I will take the lighter ones, thank you very much!

Thanks Will, as always!

Y'all have fun toting those big heavy guns, believe me I have done so for many years and many a damn mile. While in the field I won't have any part of someone carrying my rifle for me either, although I have wished many times someone would have.

Thanks
Michael

Michael:

There are a number of ways to deal with recoil. All things being equal, the perceived recoil of a heavier gun will be less than a lighter gun. Another way is with a brake. The third way is with a lighter caliber. When I know I am going to do a lot of walking, I grab my eight pound 9.3X62 and not my ten pound .500 Jeffery.

As I said im my earlier post, if you want a seven pound .416 be my guest. It's just not for me.

Dave

Dave

Excellent suggestion! Just so happens I have 3 6.5-7.5 lb 416 B&Ms that are capable of 350s at 2450 fps or 400s at 2300 fps, 20 inch barrels, I have 5 458 B&M from 6.5-7.5 lbs that are capable of 450s at 2250 fps or 500s to 2160 fps depending on barrel--18 to 20 inches, I have an even half dozen 50 B&M--.500 diameter 7-8 lbs 18 inch barrels 510 gr bullets at 2100 fps, working on a 500 Ultra with 21 inch barrel--little heavy at 8.5 lbs capable of 550 gr .500 caliber bullets at 2300 fps. Thanks.

Nope, not for everyone, and not for you, and that is 100% ok and not a problem, but it don't make it "Stupid" just because it Ain't for you!

Hell, it's not "Stupid" to me that you have a 10 lb 500 Jeff, or 10 lb 416 Rigby, for that matter I have a 11 lb 510 Wells and have been looking for some wheels to put on it to drag it around!

I don't own a gun with a brake on it, not real good for field use. I have a fine little 9.3X338 Winchester that I have been playing with too! I really like it, lot's of fun. As for light or heavy reducing recoil, maybe to a point, but I think stock design seems to have much more to do with it than a lb or two---TOO ME! But I am not a good judge of these things because I plainly shoot too much of this stuff and I am very honest with you when I say I really can't tell much difference in my Winchesters between say my 416 Remingtons with 400s at 2300-2350 and the 416 B&M with 400s at the same velocity, even though the 416 B&M is shorter, and at least 2-3 lbs lighter! BS if you want, I can't see much difference! Now I have never sit down and done them both side by side, so maybe it is just my memory failing, but I don't see any 416 being an issue about recoil to start with.

I am glad we finally agree!

Michael