If you had to do all your shooting with 416 Taylor or bigger which calibre would you choose and why.

You can have as many rifles as you like and in any configuration or type BUT they must all be in your chosen calibre.

416 Taylor is the minimum bore size and minimum case capacity allowed.

Mike

It would have to be .416 Remington for practicality's sake. I do not need to elaborate. Everyone knows why.

The second most practical would be the .416 Taylor.

Then the .458 Lott.

If I were to take the beltless quirk and make replacement brass or bullets a bit more scarce, then It would be either the .416 Dakota or .404 Jeffery.

Easy - .416 Rigby or Dakota. Tons of reach and plenty terminal juice.

500 a2....
cheap brass
cheap bullets
good selection of bullets
surplus powder
easy to make the gun feed

jeffe

ALL of my shooting with a 416 T or bigger, eh?

I'd probably stick with my 416 T cuz I already have one and quite like it.

ALL of my shooting includes backpacking for sheep, goat hunting, elk, moose, deer, both bear, coyotes, gophers, etc, etc. Anything bigger than 416 would be too big a trade off in terms of both trajectory and recoil. I wouldn't even be happy with any 416 for most of the shooting I do in the field.

If I was to build a collection of rifles in my one chosen cartridge, I would probably change my choice to the 416 Rem Mag. More versatility, more practical (factory ammo, lots of brass available, etc). The Rigby would require too large an action for some of my shooting/hunting needs (ie. too heavy a rifle for backpacking, etc), is unnecessarily expensive, and ammo is very hard to come by anywhere except the largest retail outfits in Canada (minimum 800 km drive from home). The 416 Dakota is the same but worse ($$, availability). The Weatherby is just too heavy a kicker to shoot prone comfortably so that excludes a lot of hunting scenarios.

I could go on with the bigger cartridges from there but I am sure you see my point.

Cheers,
Canuck

458 Lott, because I already have it. It can be hand loaded over a wide range, 45-70 plinker to full house elephant. Lots of different bullets,etc.

Hog Killer

458 Lott. There is a vastly greater selection of jacketed and cast bullets in 45 caliber, they are more readily available, and there are the bulk cheapies as well.

Yes, at full patch boogie the Lott sets you back harder on the shoulder, but all my practice would be with milder loads, enough so that I'd be very familiar with the gun, and full patch loads while hunting are dealt with.

The lott can be easily loaded down to do whatever the 416's can do, and it can also be loaded to full potential.

The .458 Lott!!!! Like above the range of bullets is greater.

Personally I've been very satisfied with the .458 Win Mag and have two rifles in that chambering (an old M77 and a #1). Both are accurate and components are cheap and plentiful. There's a huge selection of .458" bullets and I've found the round easy to load for.

I wouldn't say anything against the Lott either, I just don't happen to have one and don't feel it's something that I would gain much from over what I already have in hand.

This round can be downloaded to the 1800-1900 fps range for deer/elk in the timber. Even the classic 500gr RN/2100fps load is a 200 yard rifle with minimal training (zero'd at 150 yards it only drops 5" at 200 and is only +/- 2" or less from line of sight out to 165 yards).

I will say the .416 Remington Magnum.

It was most difficult to not name a .45 caliber and I was ready to delete line one more than once.

If I could have just two calibers- - - - - @ .416 up... Then it would be line one along with a .475 OKH....

Probably better known to you young guys as the one with "CAPSTICK" in the name!

BigRx

The Lazzeroni Maverick.

From Canuck:

quote:

I'd probably stick with my 416 T cuz I already have one and quite like it.

At 7 1/2 lbs., I shooting for my next one to be under 7 lbs.

Tufted tit mouse to jumbo.

For me it would be the .416 Rigby as I can have 30/06 trajectory................I would have bullets from Taipan, woodleigh, speer etc.

Is there a 300gr spitzer readily available in 416? With a range of 300gr/350gr and 400gr, I'd be happy with either the Taylor or Rem with a preference for the larger.
Cheers...
Con

For me it would be a 475 A&M. Tough choice between that and a 470 Mbogo or a 600OK. - John

I'ld stay w/ my .404 because I have it, & get a .416rem. as backup because of the availability of components. The over .42 bores(except for the .45-70, 90, etc.) have proven too much of a good thing for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
From Canuck:

quote:

I'd probably stick with my 416 T cuz I already have one and quite like it.

At 7 1/2 lbs., I shooting for my next one to be under 7 lbs.

Tufted tit mouse to jumbo.

Will,
You just gave me an idea.

Just for kicks, I will have a .416 barrel turned down to 0.625" at the muzzle (yours is 0.611") shorthened to 22" and install it on my 6.75 lbs. Pre-64 M70 .375 H&H.

The barrel will match the No.3 Douglas sporter that is already there.

With a .416 barrel of the same contour, I will have a .416 Taylor somewhere around 6.5 lbs. with a barrel band front sight and peep.

I can throat and seat out to 3.6" COL and it will be practically the same as a .416 Remington.

With such a whippy barrel it won't shoot worth heck, but what the heck.

I'll let you see it when I get it done. The Brown Pounder stock is the key.

416 Rem or 404 Jefferys, either one would suit me....

When the 416 blitz roared down the Alaskan Penisula I had my 300mag rebarreled to 425Express. It shoots plenty flat for 200yd shots and has power to spare up close.There's a 458Lott on the rack but its mainly used for yard work. Jim

.416 Rigby
.458 Lott

Roland

RIP,

The Mod.70 action weighs less than the CZ 550, so you're ounces ahead of me already. Like you say, the only things left are the barrel and the stock. The McMillan stock on mine is 2.15 pounds, a real heavyweight!, and the real killer for dropping below 7 lbs.

I don't see McMillan changing that any time soon.

Let us know what happens!

Just to make you crazy, I'm making a drop belly floor plate for the CZ so that it will hold four down and 1 up, something I had to do to help subdue my nightmares of charging jumbo.

Will,
I just made up a dummy .416 TLC (Taylor Long Cartridge: designation subject to change at the next whim). Seated out to 3.600" with a Barnes TSX (5 cannelures total), it has 3 of the cannelures above the neck, 1.1" of bullet sticking forward, and 0.5" of bullet seated into the neck, 2 cannelures down in the neck and the second cannelure from the base is located just right for crimping there.

Even the .416 Remington has so much buried bullet that it is silly.

That long bullet leading the way makes for slick feeding from my Pre-64 M70, which has a wider box than the Classic. It is perfect for four down, as is, with the .416 TLC. Good idea with your drop box, I got one already.

The standard Clymer Reamer has 0.4000" of freebore for the .416 Taylor. Increasing the freebore by 0.1000" will be more than enough to accommodate the .416 TLC. Thus a total freebore of 0.5000" will not be too much to detract from accuracy with shorter loads with light bullets seated as far out as they can be.

This is not a tack driver anyway. It is a 6.5 pound elephant swatter, eh?

It is difficult to keep up with experimenters like you and Dago Red.

If you can get the velocities you want by seating the bullets out further there is probably no need(!) to go to a case size/capacity between the Taylor and Rem.

So if you have magazine length long enough for the TLC ot TLN, then its a great idea with maybe a boost in velocity. I apologize for doubting you and Dago Red.

Probably 458Lott, versatility.

Is there a non-belted version of the 416 Taylor? Is so, what is it based on, the 404 Jeffery? Seems like it would be a good cartridge, ~ 2.5" long with ~ 20-25 degree shoulder, and no belt-and be able to feed into a non-magnum action.

Is there such a beast?

IIRC, somebody at _Big Game Adventures_ magazine turned the belts off the .416 Taylor and turned the rim down to match a non-rebated profile, and called it the .416 Aagaard.
Sweet.

Then, the .416 Howell on a shortened .404, etc.

50 cal Browning. Reason: govment ammo; I'll never run out!

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
It is difficult to keep up with experimenters like you and Dago Red.

If you can get the velocities you want by seating the bullets out further there is probably no need(!) to go to a case size/capacity between the Taylor and Rem.

So if you have magazine length long enough for the TLC ot TLN, then its a great idea with maybe a boost in velocity. I apologize for doubting you and Dago Red.

Will,
Thanks. The whim has struck.
Dago Red has the .416 Taylor Long Neck.
Mine will be the .416 Taylor Long Nose.

Since he has claimed ".416 TLN," I will give up my sissy sounding ".416 TLC."

Henceforth the .416 TAylor LOng Nose will be also known as the .416 Talon ... That 1.1" of bullet nose sticking out of the case looks like the extended claw of a predator pouncing. Growl.

I am reclaiming the ".416 Talon" name. Dago can't have it. He didn't want it anyway.

As easy as it is to open a Mauser or m-70 out to a 416 Rem, I just cannot see any reason to own a Taylor, it died with the birth of the 416 Remington.

Ray,

If someone has a 300 or 338 Win the road to 416 Taylor is simpler, cheaper and without potential feeding problems.

Also, the shooter might want to use mounts such as Leupold Dual Dove Tails which I think are still not available for the M70 375 and I think that would be the case for some other mounts.

Mike

Will,
Ray says you are all wet.

quote:

Will,
Ray says you are all wet.

That just Depends!

I would have a scope in claw mounts installed on my 450/400 3 1/4" double rifle.
The scope would be used for my 300 grain load at 2330fps for deer sized game and 400 grain Woodleigh Softs for bigger stuff. I recently shot the rifle with the 300 yard leaf at 300 yards and have no doubt the rifle can hit a deer sized animal at that distance. However I need a scope before I would shoot at game animals that far away.

We already have the CZ .458 WM Long Nose rifle available off the shelf. The .458 WinMag has a long sloppy leade that will accommodate about any bullet seated out as far as it will go in the CZ's 3.8" box.

The 450 grain TSX is dandy at 3.682" COL.

The 500 grain TSX is swell at 3.788" COL.

I don't need a 6.5 pound .416 Taylor Long Nose.

How about the 9.5 pound .458 Winchester Magnum Long Nose? It will beat a .458 Lott.

It's been fun, but now, on to the 7.25 pound .416 Dakota ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
How about the 9.5 pound .458 Winchester Magnum Long Nose? It will beat a .458 Lott.

Absolutely great comment!

Not that anything is wrong with a .458 Lott mind you..... I still wish I had an old .450 Watts for that matter... But the ol' .458 Win Mag has ate a ton of it with only a little part being warranted..... New powders make it better than the old heavily compressed sphericals that tarnished it, and the double based tubulars even O.K. compressed a fair amount.(not heavily) IMHO.
I think someone needs to work up some loads in the old Winnie with Alliant 10x. If I still had one (.458 Win Mag) that's what I'd try. The results could be surprising!!!!! It works in the .405 Win (with room to spare) Someone with pressure equipment........

Until then look out all you .458 Lott fans! The .458 Winchester Magnum long nose (maybe .458 Super Win by a Nose?) The .458 SWN will do the same thing and irritate all in the "know" that see it back in use....... Just with its headstamp and obnoxious short case! Both will do the trick. Brass cheap enough to let it lay for future @#%*%^@ ings as well!!!!

BigRx

quote:

Originally posted by BigRx:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
How about the 9.5 pound .458 Winchester Magnum Long Nose? It will beat a .458 Lott.

Absolutely great comment!

Not that anything is wrong with a .458 Lott mind you..... I still wish I had an old .450 Watts for that matter... But the ol' .458 Win Mag has ate a ton of it with only a little part being warranted..... New powders make it better than the old heavily compressed sphericals that tarnished it, and the double based tubulars even O.K. compressed a fair amount.(not heavily) IMHO.
I think someone needs to work up some loads in the old Winnie with Alliant 10x. If I still had one (.458 Win Mag) that's what I'd try. The results could be surprising!!!!! It works in the .405 Win (with room to spare) Someone with pressure equipment........

Until then look out all you .458 Lott fans! The .458 Winchester Magnum long nose (maybe .458 Super Win by a Nose?) The .458 SWN will do the same thing and irritate all in the "know" that see it back in use....... Just with its headstamp and obnoxious short case! Both will do the trick. Brass cheap enough to let it lay for future @#%*%^@ ings as well!!!!

BigRx

O.K. everybody, just get rid of the .458 Lotts and get back to the .458 WinMag with SPECIAL .458 SWN ammo.