Here is one good thing about this cartridge, you can neck it to .550” For a 28 gauge rimmed case. Maybe that could be a fun lever action case.

Found the doppie, .505 Gibbs Flanged:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
sambarman338,

Converting C.I.P. mm to inches:

450/400 N.E. 3" throat: Leade-only with beginning diameter of 0.4134" and semi-angle of 0*58'14"

.416 Rigby No.2 throat: Leade only with beginning diameter of 0.4169" and semi-angle of 0*54'36"

The .416 Rigby and .416 Rigby No.2 are even tighter-throated than the 450/400 N.E. 3",
if that little difference has any significance.

Rethroat your single-shot not your double rifle, unless you need to re-regulate the double rifle.

Circa 1903, H&H would "cone-up the breech" of their single shot 450/400 B.P.E. 3-1/4" rifles for those adventurous customers who wanted to see,
after signing on the dotted line of a waiver of liability for H&H,
if the rifle and their personal anatomy could survive the transition to Cordite loading.
I doubt they ever did it to their skinny-barreled B.P.E. double rifles.

Rip ...

Sorry RIP but I've only got the double and that calibre only because that's what Heym had on hand at the factory. Xausa's 458 No. 2 would have suited me better.

Well, here are my two centavos: I think the Rigby .416 No. 2 is just gorgeous and I'd love to have one in a Ruger No. 1.
But I confess that big bores generally make me swoon.

Not sure we need the "new" cartridge when we already have the wonderful 500/416 NE that was developed by Wolfgang Romey https://bobp.cip-bobp.org/uplo...iical-en-page124.pdf

Sounds like someone between Rigby and Blaser decided that putting the 500/416 into their product wasn't really in keeping with the marketing philosophy. For the marketing side of things, it makes sense to do it this way. And it likely is something that should have been done long ago, like about 100+ yrs ago. It would probably be an "old classic" these days.

Many years ago, at an SCI show, Beretta had a beautiful .416 Rigby double for sale. I made up my mind to buy it, but the Beretta representive was never at the booth. The booth babe did not have a clue. Must have gone by the booth a dozen times, and this guy was always MIA. Often wonder what happened to that rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by 209jones:
Sounds like someone between Rigby and Blaser decided that putting the 500/416 into their product wasn't really in keeping with the marketing philosophy. For the marketing side of things, it makes sense to do it this way. And it likely is something that should have been done long ago, like about 100+ yrs ago. It would probably be an "old classic" these days.

In “AFRICAN Rifles and Cartridges” John Taylor questioned why Rigby didn’t make a flanged version of the 414. He wrote that it would be perfect for dangerous game. Now, 70 years later they get around to it!

Question: what is the difference between the Rigby and the 500/416 Krieghof?

quote:

Originally posted by drongo:

quote:

Originally posted by 209jones:
Sounds like someone between Rigby and Blaser decided that putting the 500/416 into their product wasn't really in keeping with the marketing philosophy. For the marketing side of things, it makes sense to do it this way. And it likely is something that should have been done long ago, like about 100+ yrs ago. It would probably be an "old classic" these days.

Yup.

In “AFRICAN Rifles and Cartridges” John Taylor questioned why Rigby didn’t make a flanged version of the 414. He wrote that it would be perfect for dangerous game. Now, 70 years later they get around to it!

Yup.

Question: what is the difference between the Rigby and the 500/416 Krieghof?

The .500/.416 Nitro Express 3.25" (Krieghoff) of 1991 is about 6 percent bigger in case capacity,
and is based on the .470 NE case, or .500 NE 3.25" which has same base and rim.
It is thus slightly skinnier at the base and 0.35" longer in case length,
and has a 15-degree shoulder instead of 45-degree of the .416 Rigby No. 2.

I prefer the thicker rim of the .416 Rigby No. 2 of 2018,
and it uses same dies and load data as the rimless .416 Rigby No. 1 of 1911.
That rim thickness is same as on the .450/.400 NE 3" originally known as the .400 S. Jeffery: 1.65mm or 0.065"
That was a uniquely new case design in 1897,
and Jeffery was shooting and tooting about it very shortly before Rigby did the same for the .450 S. Rigby aka .450 NE 3.25"
based on the older rim thickness of 0.040".

I referred to Pierre van der Walt for some of the above.
In discussing the .416 Rigby he said a great funny, on page 253 of AFRICAN DANGEROUS GAME CARTRIDGES:

"When Jeffery introduced the rimmed .450/400 NE 3" on the 8 November 1897, a serious cat was obviously set loose among the pigeons.
You can read more about how Rigby scrambled to get a .400 calibre cartridge going in the section dealing with the .450/400 NE 3" Jeffery."

Not to mention the .404 Jeffery of 1905 on a standard M98 Mauser,
it took Rigby 14 years to out-do the .400 S. Jeffery singles and doubles with the .416 Rigby No.1. Magnum Mauser.
It took 121 years to concede to Jeffery's pioneering choice of rim thickness on the .416 Rigby No. 2.

Rip ...

Sorry if someone has already mentioned it but, even if a new cartridge does have some advantage over something similar, it reduces the chance of finding what you need in hinterland trading posts.

Shopkeepers have to be into stock control (my local me an offer on all his stock of 270WSM, just to clear the shelf space).

So, a merchant somewhere SE of Ouagadougou will get the new ammo but decide he can longer justify some old, less-fashionable calibre - the kind BOFs like me tend to use.