Why so many 416's?

10 August 2001, 06:35

<Adirondack Joe>

Why so many 416's?

I was just browsing through the reloading pages here and glanced at the 416 cartirdges and was a little confused. For instance, the 416 Rem Mag, 416 Taylor, and 416 Hoffman all look the same, I do believe they are based on the same case (458 Win) and they all get the same ballistic performance, pretty much. And the thing that confuses me even more is why someone would shoot one of the when a 416 Rigby can get those velocities at lower pressures and can be loaded to get another 150 fps or so with a 400 grn bullet. Is it just that the term "gun nuts" is more accurate than we think?

------------------
Let the strucken deer go weep
The hart ungalled play
For some must watch while some must sleep
Thus runs the world away
-Hamlet

10 August 2001, 07:31

Cannon

Joe,

Of the cartridges you mention, only the Taylor is based on the .458 Win Mag -- the other two are based on a more-or-less full length H&H case (~2.85"). The Remington round is very close to George Hoffman's wildcat, and both hold quite a bit more powder than the Taylor. You are correct that the Rigby outperforms the lot of them, but keep in mind that the Rigby requires a true "magnum-length" action. That's an expensive proposition today, and was much more so several years ago -- I believe that's one of the primary reasons Mr. Hoffman developed his wildcat instead of using the Rigby. Loaded ammo and brass for the Rigby is considerably more expensive than any of the others as well.

10 August 2001, 08:06

JohnTheGreek

Joe,
You might read Ray Atkinson's postings around here on the .416 wars. The .416 Rigby can be loaded for higher velocities but . . . why when 2400 fps does the job just fine and the Rem. or Hoffman does this in a standard (read: less expensive) action. True, the pressures are lower in the Rigby, but with the innovations in propellant technology and metallurgy since 1911, this is of little, if any, practical concern.
If you want the extra punch of loading up a .416 Rigby, you are halfway to the conclusion that a .416 is really just a medium bore (something I don't believe) and you should probably step up to a big .50 cal if you can handle the recoil.

Happy Shooting,

JohnTheGreek

10 August 2001, 09:47

Big Bore

All true enough, but there is one thing the Rigby has that the others will never have, no matter how hard you try, they will never be a Rigby. I can prove it too. Sit back and think of the names, Hoffman, Taylor, Remington, and Rigby. Which of those names immediately conjours up images of the Dark Continent and the glorious days of the Ivory Hunter. Nuff said!

10 August 2001, 09:54

Paul H

Here is a rough breakdown on the 416's. The Rigby was the original, back in 1912 as I recall (well before my time). It requires a massive action, and the unique brass was never common, and after WWII it was very uncommon.

Not sure on the dates, but Mr. Hoffman felt the 416 bullets were outstanding, if one were to use a chambering for the more common magnum actions. He simply necked up the 375 H&H, and walla, 416 Hoffman.

In the 70's some folks decided that using the 458 win mag necked down to 416 would make a swell round, and use the even more common std length action, walla, 416 Taylor, which despite what its proponents state, won't reliable achieve 400 gr @ 2400 fps, more of a 2300-2350 gun.

Then Remington decided to go commercial with a 416, but instead of adopting Mr. Hoffmans round, they necked up their 8mm mag, and walla, 416 Rem mag.

Concurrent with the Remington's work, Ruger developed a new massive M77 action, and Federal came out with factory 416 rigby ammo. So, until this happened, the 416 Rigby was nearly an obsolete round.

Weatherby, who took the 416 Rigby, then put a belt on it and funny looking shoulders made their 378 and 460 on the case, then about the same time as Rem and Ruger, they released the belted 416 Rigby, or 416 Weahterby.

I might as well add one of my pet wildcats, the 416 howell, the 416 Win that never was. Ken Howell took the 404 case, shortened it to 2.5" and necked it down. Here was a std length action round that had the same capacity as the 416 rem and Hoffman. For various reasons, Winchester never adopted it when it was discussed in the late 70's.

There is also the Dakota 416, I believe a Lazoroni, and a few other proprietaries and wildcats.

10 August 2001, 14:03

John Ricks

The real answer as to why so many 416's:

To keep the gunmakers happy.

Nope, after rethinking the above, to keep the reamer makers happy. (I have 4 each different 416 reamers, plus the 404)

11 August 2001, 01:49

Recono

quote:
Originally posted by Big Bore:
All true enough, but there is one thing the Rigby has that the others will never have, no matter how hard you try, they will never be a Rigby. I can prove it too. Sit back and think of the names, Hoffman, Taylor, Remington, and Rigby. Which of those names immediately conjours up images of the Dark Continent and the glorious days of the Ivory Hunter. Nuff said!

Actually, "Hoffman" does a fair job of conjuring up images of the Dark Continent. Even "Taylor" does it, if you don't know it's not the same Taylor.

11 August 2001, 11:51

Mike375

I think if the 416 Rigby could be easily chambered in actions like the Model 70, Mauser 98, Rem 700 etc. it would have totally dominated the 416 bore size as does the 375 H&H the .375 bore size.

Mike

13 August 2001, 22:34

<Mitch>

It is true the 416 Rigby should be built on a magnum lenth action, But you can buy a 416 Rigby chambered in the CZ550 for under $800.00 retail. Personally I prefer the larger case of the Rigby or 416 Weatherby which allow you to run 2400 fps. with 400 gr. bullets at much lower presures than any of the smaller cartridges.