I’m sure this question has been asked, and answered, ad nausium: why did Jeffrey choose 10.75mm/.423” bore over .410” bore for 404 Jeff? Thanks

It will be interesting if you get any answers on this, should be a kick!!

But I;ll take a shot at this..Perhaps they felt a need for a 404 or 400 short that better fitted the smalller case for a 98 actiion..and the 404 .423 barrels were there and ready..and with a proper bullet of 350 to 400 grs. it was a mild kicking Jeffereys that held and extra round or two in the magazine...Maybe, maybe not.

For what its worth and having built one and hunted Buffalo with it, Im pretty impressed with the 10.75x68 using proper bullets of 400 grs. at 2150 fps.. Its only failure was they used a poor bullet choice of 347 grs. that was too soft and lacked penetration, that gave the caliber a bad reputation..

The 10.75s I built I held 5 down and one up the snout. with 400 gr. Woodleighs at 2135 FPS I liked that plus recoil seemed less than a .375 H&H to me in a nice light 8 Lb. rifle that held 6 shots and 7 was possible....What a shame it failed under such circumstances..Many a buffalo and elephant has given the knee to that caliber properly loaded.

.410 and .411 borea, best I recall were only used in the 450-400s...??????

Sorry Matt, there's a five shrubbery penalty for using the word "Why" in a sentence about British cartridges.

There were a few 10.75 caliber cartridges in use in Europe before the 404 or the 10.75X68 were developed so it was a known quantity so to speak.
Also, Mauser used the same bore and groove dimensions as well as the same rate of twist for the 10.75X68 and the 10.75X73 (404 Jeff) so production is simplified in that respect.

Now to a real brain twister - many early Jeffery built 404s had barrels made of QS nickel steel which was an English development.
Now, would Jeffery ship steel to Mauser to be bored and rifled for their 404s?
Eventually, Jeffery did obtain their 404 barrels from Krupp as they did for their 450/400 rifles. The advent of the QS steel may have just happened to coincide with the development of the 404. It was billed as superior to Krupp early on so why did Jeffery decide to stop using it?
Add to this, it is said that Jeffery sourced their Mauser actions from LePersonne and the barrels from Krupp and had the rifles finished by Lenord or Taylor.
A tangled web indeed!

Of course, if one was to want to really swat the hornet's nest, it may be suggested that the 404 was really a European development which Jeffery simply adopted or even contracted as their own proprietary cartridge - sort of like the 500 Schuler/Jeffery situation.

Huvius,

Thanks for all of that info! The 404 was supposedly introduced in 1905. I’ve come across three original Oberndorf commercial sporters in 10.75x68 with 1908 stamped on the top of the front ring. I’ve heard of, and saw pictures of, a 10.75x63 cartridge that looked just like the 10.75x68, but with a shorter neck. I know no history of that one. Then there is the 10.75x57, which I’m clueless about as well. When did that one come out, and what other 10.75mm rounds were there before the 404?

There are some old rimmed cartridges as well.
10.75 Collath, and some shorter necked 10.75s.
One was offered by Johann Springer in his double rifles and Kipplauffs.
I think you are correct that the 10.75X68 is close to 1908 or so although some sources say early '20s.
Speed certainly lists examples from as early as '08 and '09 and interestingly lists the earliest Jeffery built 404 from 1908 on a magnum length action which is four years ahead of the end of the supposed expiration of Rigby's lock on magnum actions from Oberndorf - apparently at least one slipped through...

I think I've read that the first "404" actually was a .410" projectile.
Why that was abandoned, I have no idea.

quote:

Originally posted by bpesteve:
Sorry Matt, there's a five shrubbery penalty for using the word "Why" in a sentence about British cartridges.

That is a good one.
S

The short answer : Ballistics science and math:

The race was on in GB to find a suitable big bore cartridge for Mauser's standard size action.

The Bolt action had overtaken the sporting rifle market from single shot falling blocks and expensive double rifles.

The British were hamstrung to the use of stick cordite and at the time Jeffery already had their popular 450-400 and it was logical for them to use the same case dimension ( approximately )albeit in Rimless format.

As the bolt action was capable of much higher pressures than the old single shots and doubles the ballistics engineers at Krupp took the 450-400's bore and upped it to .423 to make the ballistics math work.

Though Rigby at the time had access to magnum Actions via Rigby made specially for their 400-350 Rimmed this was not available to Jeffery, not until Rigby lost their sole rights to Mauser. Rigby did try and steal Jeffery's thunder by taking the 450-400 Jeffery as is, turning down the rim and cutting a extractor groove. Thus is 450-400 Rimless Rigby and mating it to a Magnum Mauser. Ammo for this turned up in collections in South Africa and at least one Rigby Rifle is known to exist in this caliber...... possibly currently residing in Australia.

The Very same math that governed the coming about of the 404 in .423 caliber had DWM load the 10,75 x 68 to a .347 gr bullet and not the 400 and 410 gr bullet of the 404.

just to add: in the development of the 30-06 as we now have it the very same problems existed for developers and ballistics engineers in the US circa late 1880's. We see them faced with the same issues as that of the british gun trade. Almost everything was linked to the available propellant at the time. The US arms developers faced serious issues with pressure management with their first smokeless propellants.

Thanks,Alf!

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
There are some old rimmed cartridges as well.
10.75 Collath, and some shorter necked 10.75s.
One was offered by Johann Springer in his double rifles and Kipplauffs.
I think you are correct that the 10.75X68 is close to 1908 or so although some sources say early '20s.
Speed certainly lists examples from as early as '08 and '09...

The 1920’s date for the 10.75x68 is definitely male bovine excrement spread, I believe, primarily through Frank Barnes 10.75x68 entry in “Cartridges of the World”. The 10.75x68 was “Normalized” in an industry conference in 1909, along with several other smokeless Euro rounds from the previous decade. Given the three 1908 Oberndorf rifles I’ve seen, it was released no later than 1908.

Easy; the reason the 404 has a .423 groove is because everything on a bolt action was developed and made at Mauser and they made it metric; it is a 10.75. Rigby had exclusive import rights with Mauser. Why would anyone in England copy a metric barrel diameter?
It should have been a .410; because the intent was to duplicate the 450-400 in a bolt action and it would have been if it was developed in England.
And this is why I build them with .410 barrels; so many more and better bullets available. I use 404 brass and 450-400 dies. Easy wildcat; and what it should have been all along. NO good reason for it to be a 423.

With all due respect: Mauser had nothing to do with the original development of the 404 Jeffery. It was a Jeffery/ Eley / Krupp gig !
Their involvement came much later and it was with the appropriate action. Mauser had their 423 caliber in the form of the low pressure loaded 10,75x68 of 1908 derived from the 10,75x63 possibly designed by Grundig of Dresden.

From Part 1 of two articles on the 404 Jeffery researched and written by the said gentlemen below.

.404 Jeffery - The Full Monty By Casey Lewis & Alf Smith

Jeffery did not have access to magnum length Mauser actions and had no choice but to use the standard Mauser action. In doing this he could not use the 450/400-3" case turned into rimless as the degree of opening up needed it would have affected action integrity too much.
Jeffery had to design a shorter rimless cartridge by reducing the case length of his popular .450/400x3" case from 3"176.2mm to 73mm. This still marginally reduced the safety margin, but was sufficiently strong as long as the pressure was kept at the original specification of 17.2 tons per square inch (2,240 lbs to the ton). This considerable reduction in the volume of the cartridge case would have resulted in a drastic increase in pressure had they retained the .450/400x3" load and kept the same diameter bullet as for the .450/400; namely the .408". Jeffery worked through Le Personne with Krupp regarding barrel specifications as well as Eley and Kynoch who possessed the cartridge design expertise, to duplicate combustion space by increasing the case base diameter from 13.76mm/0.5417" to 13.843mm/0.545" and the shoulder diameter of the .450/400x3" from 13.233mm/.521" to 13.462mm/.530". The rimless version's bullet diameter was consequently increased to .4225". The nett result of the modifications to the .450/400x3" was the shorter, fatter, rimless cartridge we know as the .404 Jeffery and which used the weight of bullet and propellant as its rimmed predecessor.

Exactly as we wrote
To add to that:

Jeffery's 404 first offered in a Eley Loading was available from circa 1905 and research shows that by 1905 Jeffery no longer produced single shot falling block rifles.

The original 404's were built on Military Mauser 98 actions sourced via Le Personne. Jeffery dealt directly with Krupp for their barrels. The guns were built by H Leonard. The actions were opened up and variations of this can be found in early Jeffery 404's.
Around 1912 Jeffery and Mauser started a direct relationship and now we see the use of Mauser Magnum Actions. Examples of Mauser action numbers hailing from 1911 are also seen though 1912 is generally seen as the date when Jeffery and Mauser start their relationship.

The problems with their 450-400 and use of cordite was a major headache for Jeffery's reputation as "The Field" reported extensively on their pressure problems and this was doing Jeffery a lot of harm .... by all accounts there was no love lost between The Field and Jeffery.

The new 404 basically faced the same issues hence the decision increase the caliber.

By doing this and increasing "air space" in the case they could control pressure.

We must not forget the original 404 was a low pressure cartridge with Kynoch keeping the pressure down to around 36,850 PSI

Mausers 10,75 x 68 was loaded to only 39,800 psi by DWM ( 1934) and the 10,75x73 German version of the 404 to around 46,000 psi.

FWIW Norma also kept the pressure down for the 404 ammo they loaded for Parker Hale, one of the iconic crosshair on elephant head ammo boxes shown in your article Alf.
I have an original letter from Norma with details of the Parker Hale load where they gave their 400gr solid a MV of 2,245fps at a pressure of 34,765psi. I had enquired off Roger Hale if Norma may have any components for reloading the 404 and they responded to Roger who passed a copy of their letter to me. No components left from the run of ammo they loaded but they did provide details of the ballistics, powder and charge.

PS The buffalo seen in my avatar was shot with one of the Parker Hale rounds as were a few others, this low pressure and moderate velocity load with a 400gr solid dropped buffalo with one shot no problem.

All wrong... They made it a .404 because it was 101 percent better than a .303!

Having shot and built myself a couple of 10.75x68 rifles, I developed a liking for the caliber, its original downfall was the 347 gr. bullet, and what a shame and mistake that was..

My take on the caliber is it duplicates the 450-400-3" or 3=1/4" with a 400 gr. bullet at 2125 to 2150 FPS, add to that it can be built to hold an extra round or two in a lighter rifle. works fine in a 98 Mauser or mod 70, whereas the 404 is a bit of a squeeze.. The 10.75x68 is a grand old girl with 400 gr. bullets..I shot a few buffalo with mine out of nostalgia I suppose, and it was impressive, recoil in my light rifle seemed 375ish and killed like my 450-400s of course..My 404s were loaded beyond the 10.75s capabilities but I couldn't tell much difference in the field..

I would like to see the 10.75 x68 make a comeback, but that ain't gonna happen..

quote:

its original downfall was the 347 gr. bullet, and what a shame and mistake that was

What a load of codswallop !

It's like arguing the Ford model T was a mistake because it only had a 20 HP 4 cylinder motor !

The pressure loaded to was dictated to by the strength of the available platform and ballistics qualities of the available propellant at the time !

No manufacturer at the time could afford failures !
This fact hounded each and every gunmaker at that critical time. Jeffery in particular took a huge spanking with their 450-400 ! If we look at how the 30-06 actually came about from 1892 onwards and the issues the US had with Early smokeless propellants we see the same recurring theme.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

its original downfall was the 347 gr. bullet, and what a shame and mistake that was

What a load of codswallop !

It's like arguing the Ford model T was a mistake because it only had a 20 HP 4 cylinder motor !

The pressure loaded to was dictated to by the strength of the available platform and ballistics qualities of the available propellant at the time !

No manufacturer at the time could afford failures !
This fact hounded each and every gunmaker at that critical time. Jeffery in particular took a huge spanking with their 450-400 ! If we look at how the 30-06 actually came about from 1892 onwards and the issues the US had with Early smokeless propellants we see the same recurring theme.

The relatively primitive pack-hardening method that Mauser used in 1908 certainly didn’t allow for magnum pressures, and smokeless powder technology was still in its infancy. However, it seems to me that Mauser was at least a little anal retentive in their approach with the 10.75x68. Jeffery, Elley, and/or whomever Jeffery contracted to produce those early standard action 404’s, surely tested those Swiss cheesed 98 actions enough to feel totally confident in their safety in field. I believe Mauser could have opened up their standard length action a little (as they did with ‘06), added some bullet weight, and raised pressures to at least that of the 404 Jeff’s hotter load. Instead, they kept the overall length at about the same length as the 8mm, loaded the Jellybean shaped bullet, and kept pressure as low as a popcorn fart. I suspect Mauser didn’t design the 10.75x68 entirely on their own. The ammo manufacturer may have had something to say about it, and if the new round could be adapted to other (less capable) commercial rifle platforms, then the prospect of more ammunition sales could have played a factor. This is all purely conjecture, I know.
Ray’s loading of the 10.75x68 to equal 400 Jeff performance is sensible, and it’s all I would want from it. However, it can equal the performance of the 416 Taylor if loaded with similar bullets, powders, and OAL. That would make it a fundamentally different cartridge, though.

Bullshit, the 347 gr. bullet produced in the day, was a total failure on Buffalo and thats a common fact..If you have issue with that find and old box and shoot that putty bullet into some media, even on plainsgame with comes apart, I can vouch for that on a couple of Hartebeast that I tried it on..A say a couple because I only had 5 rounds, but that information has been documented to the point its common knowledge...Today I did find the 350 gr. Barnes X bullets at 2350 FPS were pretty awesome on anything..

Agree with Ray, it's not a myth that the 10.75x68 suffered from bullet short comings, the stubbier 347gr .423" bullets, solids or softs, commonly loaded in the 10.75x68, were never going to be as effective on large heavy boned and muscled animals as the longer, heavier bullets for the 404J, 416R or 425WR, all three of which we know provided penetration and performance par none.

The RWS 347gr blue nose bullet often seen in images of loaded rounds for the 10.75x68 would not have been a great penetrator when it came to big animals. I used a few of these in my 404 at around 2100fps, they knocked feral goats and from memory, a couple of red deer over okay but I wouldn't be relying on them for anything but the smallest in Africa. Would have more faith in my 400gr cast for bigger non-dangerous animals.

RWS 347GR .423"