what do you think of this idea...

use 416 taylor dies and grind the belt off the 416 taylor reamer and have a beltless 416 taylor

the same could be done with the 375 taylor

there is a 5 thou diff in casehead but a few min of work will remedy that.

depending on mag geometry that could mean one more down.

no benefit realy except no more belt and maybe another down.

Pssst...... or you could neck up the 375 Ruger.

the 416 ruger to be will be great. this may only provide an extra down in comparison. with less recoil

here is a poorly photoshoped pic of what it would look like

Yes Boom - I like it!

One more down!

most hh belted cases, in front of the belt, are about .510 to .508

but why start with a hassle, in either turning off belts or expensive x64 brass, ... and a KNOWN high pressure loading ,.,, and, frankly, reinventing the 10.75x68 x.416 ...

LOL, 416 AR .. cheap brass, dies from CH4d, and bigger than a 416 remington

jeffe

i was looking at the 10.75x68 brass but i think the 64 is stronger and would work with the taylor dies because of the similar casehad ect.

it would be less recoil and one more down.

the 416 a.r. is a more of a power cart...this is a step down

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:
Yes Boom - I like it!

One more down!

you would have to have that funny bolt size unlike the 411/416/423-240 to be

bent...what will be the official names?

i assume they will be moose and boar carts...

the norse line of carts?
maybe after some nordic viking or nordic legend?
hammer of thor ect

416-240 weatherby is too plain for me

oh jeffe regarding high preasure...

yes most here have pushed the 416 taylor to 400 @ 2350 and 2400 which i think is loco but hey...

i think the standard is 400@ 2150 and this cart should go up to 400 @ 2300 max imho and that is all that is needed imho. 2250 would be the happy medium.

does anyone have a piece of 64 brass that is past its primer (ha!) that we can use to form a 416x64?

Why do people go nutz???...over wildcats????

What about the 416 WSM??? It's already been done...way back...and can be set up in a SA if you want. Simple to do...not sweat...no hassle...NO MINDLES MESSING AROUND...I won't tell you the numbers cuzzz it will make you even crazier.

What about the 416 Dakota shortened 0.350" if you just HAVE to have a 2.5" case or any number of other 404 J cased offshoots.

Why mess around with the, basically, oddball 64 case when all the other cases are readily available and CHEAP?

And what is the matter with the belted 416 Taylor anyhow??? Mine shoots a Speer 400 at 2300 f/s, 24" bbl, without any fuss or pressure and feeds slick as any other big bore belted cased rifle I have.

If you are going to wildcat, do it with panache and a little bit of thought to what has already been done....many times over. BE AN ORIGINAL THINKER.

i dont see a need to make a custom shoulder ect.
if you could have 4 down instead of 3 down in africa with the nasty beasts around would that not give more confidence thus a cooler head and better shooter?

the taylor dies ect is convenience and cost cutting.

many have hunted africa with taylors because of the lighter recoil and ligher action in a handier rifle. now give them one more and skip the belt. yes it is not much but to some yes. it is just an idea to throw around for now.

the 416 taylor beltless aka 416 brenneke-taylor is a neet idea.

the 416 b.t. is a good name. it could stand for beltless taylor or brenneke-taylor

Wildcatting are many things.
It can be acheap way to resemble an old classic, it can be an idea of the perfect cartridge, or simply doing sometrhing new.
Sometimes an idea gets approoval and a cartridge is borne.
Remember, a good cat for one might be ridicules to another.

The '64 Brenneke brass might be expensive, but it gives benefits a standard H&Hbelted, RUM, or Jeffery does not give - simple as that. One more down, essecial to some, BS to others.

Boom, the naming of our stright belted, lets keep it in that thread.

Absolutly nothing is gained by necking a 10.75x68 down to .416.

The catch of the day is the 416/375 Ruger if one must have a wildcat caliber and I do have such a caliber at present, but wish it was a .404/.375 Ruger for some unknown reason only I can make since of.

I have never found fault with the belt, and in 10 or 20 years after it is gone, some brilliant gun nut will reinvent it and it will be the screaming sensation it once was all over again.

The 375 H&H has proven itself for a couple of centuries and the 416 Rem is following that same course. Long live the belt, there is plenty of room for it in our world of hunting.

losing the belt is cart evolution. if it is a nostalgia thing or a no shoulder thing it is fine and dandy.

The Ruger case would be a very good one to use. From the measurements it could be taken out to .475 without any problem and just by making the case cylindrical, it could be taken out to a full half inch. That would be interesting.

But after all is said an done and having done quite a bit of 'catting, I would use the 404 case cut to 2.50" to build another large cal 'cat. I don't really see any benefits in the 64 B case over the 404 J case.

I've thought about doing a 500 cal on a 404 case...as have at least quite a few before me...just to see how it would work. At least it would be good for stirring the pot a bit.

I'm dinking around with the 450 Marlin and 416 to ? WSM case in a Lee Enfield action just for fun right now. They both fit the standard 303 magazine, cycle slick as snot and will become a real shooter soon. Definitely NOT for those with magnumitis but the numbers look good for USA size game. It will be equal to or slightly better than factory 450 M.

I really think 'cats are just for "having something different than the also rans". Standard factory fodder pretty much does the job in today's world. We did learn from those long ago days before chrono's blew away the smoke. I also think the mo' the betta' so keep 'catting, it's no thang.

foobar...458 is the largest you could go on the ruger case unless casemouth headspacing... 10 thou taper and 20 thou shoulders.

do a search on the 500 a.r. and the other a.r. line of carts...

well since it is doable...

it would be neet do the whole line...

6.5, 7, 338, 358, 375, 411 and 423

now i need to pick up some brass and run them through the dies...

get an extra down, same power, same loads.

I thought we were talking about a 2.5" case length and something to work in a standard action...without going nutz??? The testosterone was getting a bit thick in some of those 500 AR posts. I haven't seen any T-Rex's out and about for a while so you keep your 50 BMG for those occasions when one happens by. Of course, it's always good to push the experimental limits.

You remind me of my old drinking buddy JJ. Start talking about shooting rats with a 17 HMR and after a few hits of JD (or whatever someone else brought) he starts working his way up the latter and pretty soon he whips out his 50 BMG switchblade and wants to build a 50 quad for the light stuff. Hahahahaha

A 50 cal on a shortened 2.5" RUM case will work for me quite well. Basically a rimless 50 Alaskan, necked up 416 Winchester Express, shortened and necked up 404 J, shortened, necked up 375 RUM, or take your pick of several other cases, plus the "Muscle Beach" syndrome is kept within the average male range. Should be an easy conversion on just about any standard size action without a lot of magazine, bolt or rail work...and not cost an arm or left nu** for the reamer or dies. Or a Ruger #1 or NEF as long as your reloads are within the action limits. I might have just talked myself into to moving that project to the top of the list.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Absolutly nothing is gained by necking a 10.75x68 down to .416.

The catch of the day is the 416/375 Ruger if one must have a wildcat caliber and I do have such a caliber at present, but wish it was a .404/.375 Ruger for some unknown reason only I can make since of.

I have never found fault with the belt, and in 10 or 20 years after it is gone, some brilliant gun nut will reinvent it and it will be the screaming sensation it once was all over again.

The 375 H&H has proven itself for a couple of centuries and the 416 Rem is following that same course. Long live the belt, there is plenty of room for it in our world of hunting.

Not saying you are wrong, but looking at it from another angle.
There ARE more - and cheaper - bullets available in .416.
The Brenneke will give one more down than the Ruger.
No tecnical fault with belt, no - but it steals capasity. And really - what good does it do?
The .375 H&H has prooven itself, oh yea, but it is hardly a superior construction.If the Americans had acces to the Brenneke case, and necked it to .375 in 1948, how would it look today? The .375 Ruger is MORE - yes. Needed by who? In real life?

There is a reason we call theese cartridges "wildcats".
It is the most loved and hated animal on planet eart!

foobar
the 500ar is on the rigby case, as there is not enough shoulder to headspace on, for a dgr, if one used a .510 bullet and a rum case.

let's back up, just a bit, please, on the 10,75x68.. it is a 400gr bullet at 2250 MAX. slim, trim, nifty, and on my list to make.. let me stumble into a .423 ultralight barrel, and one will get made.

now, one of *MY PERSONAL STANDARDS* for designing a wildcat is the brass has to be available, and it has to have a raison d'entier...

the 416 taylor is a 400gr .416 bullet, at 2350-2400fps, with a belt.

a 416 taylor without a belt would assume no other changes.

except in this case, the case is smaller, it goes slower, and is one .007 smaller than an existing, otherwise IDENTICAL case.

That case, btw, is "stupidly" expensive, per case, and there is nil raison d'entier to have something that is NOT just a beltless 416 taylor.

Rework the 10.75x68 to .416 (which is what this whole thread is doing) is not a "bad" idea ... just like a .510x505gibbs..

but one can not claim taylor performance without stupid pressures.

again, a 10.75x68 to 416 has some merit, but making a 9,3x64 into a .416 bullet, just to NOT match the 416taylor .. well, it's PII...

and with the 411 hawk right there, there's no reason, it doesn't do anything that's not available, in fact, it uses the same brass, just at a different caliber.

btw, generally I can't stand a .423 bore, as the bullets just aren't available.. but *I* shoot a s***pile of bullets every time I go out, and most guys think a 404 kicks (hint, it's a girl's recoil level at classic loads)

jeffe

yes el jeffe the brenneke brass is $150 a pop...$1 more than the rum

but i think the 416-9,3x64 can do 2300 with 400 grain pills but like i said i think 400 @ 2250 is ideal and to get an extra down is cool. the taylor is not a rigby and "i" would not make it one...yes taylors have been loaded hot but i am not advocating that...this is a one more down and no belt thing with avaliable dies and reamers.

if you want to get exotic with custom dies, reamers ect the 423x64 can be done (we'll just add that to this imaginary line up) and will have better shoulders than the 10.75x68 say 20 thou per shoulder.

but no real gains on the 416 b.t.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
if you want to get exotic with custom dies, reamers ect the 423x64 can be done (we'll just add that to this imaginary line up) and will have better shoulders than the 10.75x68 say 20 thou per shoulder.

Huh?? The Brenneke have a smaller head than the '68, how do you come up with a better shoulder??

But I am with you, Boom, I would much prefer one more down and 2200f/s, than the regular Taylor. Both are wildcats, and the cost of the brass is just not interesting, as long as a dollar is the difference. but remember, you probably would have to work with the do-nut in the neck,and I really hate such work.

That's why I prefer the 10,75x68 as it is!

the specs i have has the 10.75x68 has a .495" casehead and the breneke has a .507"

that is 12 thou more to play with.

Sorry, my bad!Mixed up some cartriges, you are all right!

does that mean a 423x64 improved is in yor future?

I like the 9,3x64 verYmuCH, but I would prefer your .416 0n the 8x68s case.
ERA-Recknagel have two different bottom metals,
one that offers
4cap.x68s case/5cap.9.3x64B case.
and another,
5 cap.for x68s/6cap.for 9.3x64B.
they are a drop floorplate design rather than a "dropbox" design.
I dont have scanner handy ohterwise I would post pic.

I didn't get down and dirty into the measurments of a 500 WSM, but it doesn't take much shoulder or taper to stop up the works, for something besides a DGR, as anyone who's worked with cylindrical objects knows. Just a rough look and vague rememberance of a already-been-done similar cartridge in a standard action. Maybe a 475 cal would be workable and "almost" as good, but without those magic words "50 CALIBER". Time will tell.

But, you have me thinking about a 2.5" plus or minus a bit, 500 AR(S) for Shorty. I would bet it's another ABD (already-been-done) or at least thought of. Can't get to my shop as I'm all locked up and heading out for a few weeks of family problems, but when I get back I will definitely check into the feasibility of going to the Rigby case and the Lee Enfield 2a action and 303 Brit mags. I hadn't coinsidered the Rigby case at all, but it would definitely be in the same action pressure limits. As I said I'm looking at the 450 Marlin and WSM cases, which WILL work without any action mods, but a 50 cal SOMETHING-BADAZZZ would be even Mo'Betta. Just open up the chamber hole a bit.

CH4D and Dave Kiff will cut ANYTHING you want in the way of dies and reamers.

But I will leave you to it. You guys are way too deep into esoterica, strutting and mind farting. I'm just a simple "I want it to work, stay away from JD fumes and KISS it off" man and I can get way too deep into my own mind farting as it is.

Boomstick...you sure you're not JJ in diguise and just aquired a new book-of-all-wildcats? When did you move out of Nevada into the Kalifornication state? Hahahahahaha.

the 475/458/416 AR are rum's shortneed to 2.65 .. the 500 are is a riby blown out, improved, to 2.65 .. cases that is

The belts work and the 416 Taylor does just great as is where is...Jeffe is right about the 416 AR ....The 8x68 case would probably work , but why ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? If it ain,t broke don,t fix it.......The 10.75 x 68 and the 411 Hawk round out the bunch ...For the short actions the 416 WSM or Short RUM are perfact ....Turning the belt off perfactly good brass doesn,t make sense...And yes I have necked 9.3x64 B brass up to 416 and it ain,t got enuf shoulder for me at least

been thinking of this a bit and some more thougths...the 411 kdf version would be great on the 1895 winchester...
the 358 norma version would be a great 35 whelen conversion and drumroll please....

the 458 version

this would require cutting or swaging a belt but hey...an extra down and use 458 win mag dies.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

the 458 version

this would require cutting or swaging a belt but hey...an extra down and use 458 win mag dies.

No, that will not work. You would need a custom die to size the case all the way down to the new belt, as a winmag die would not do that.
Sorry!

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458:
The 10.75 x 68 and the 411 Hawk round out the bunch .......................And yes I have necked 9.3x64 B brass up to 416 and it ain,t got enuf shoulder for me at least

How did you ever get a smaller shoulder on a necked up '64, than what exists on the 10,75x68 and .411 Hawk? You did not just neck it up, did you? And then judging before fireforming? It will have the same shoulder as the .416 Taylor, as that is the reamer to be used.

The .416x64 give you a beltless .416 Taylor, wich gives one more down with no custom stuff.
I am not saying there is something wrong with the Taylor or its belt, other than that it steals magazine capasity. For the man who cares to go through the hazzle, I think it is a neat idea.

what would make it more interesting is the 400 version using 411 kdf dies but hey...

the smaller ones are fine with the belt but the larger ones 375, 411 and 416 are interesting to me. the 423 is a moot point with the 10.75x68

the 411 being the most unique and versatile has my attention...

4 down in an opened up 06 bolt with enough power for anything with premium rifle, 405 win and pistol bullets.

if you were into it you could rebate it back to .470" but i would keep it as is.

i thik it would be a neet cart...

it seems this beltless magnum has been done before in the form of the 6.5mm x 63mm Messner Magnum
so i am not that crazy except i would like to go big.
now going to the bigger side...

the diff between the win mags and the ruger brass is 10.5 grains

the 416 taylor has 91 and the 375 ruger has 101.5

i am guessing the 411x66 to have one less grain than the taylor. so the diff is about 11 grains to the ruger but the loss of one down. is the extra one down worth the 11 grains capacity???

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
is the extra one down worth the 11 grains capacity???

When the extra down is needed, is at a point were the extra 11 grains would not mean shit - in other words, close quarters.

Were the extra grains are needed, one extra down means equal litle.

The bigger the bullet, the more I opt for "one more down"

I can get four cartridges down in my 375 H&H, on a Winchester 70 action, because my gunsmith changed the follower and spring (thinner).

I have tried 9.3x64 dummy rounds in my Ruger and Mausers, which have standard magazines and spring and follower. I can only get three down. While it is probable that four down can be accomplished, by changing the follower/spring, or perhaps buying a Sunny Hill magnum magazine, for example, it's not just a drop in solution.

Another issue is that a guy would have to start with an 06 bolt face and open it up. This would limit the action choices to Mausers, Rugers, Winchester, and a few others, but probably exclude any push feed action. I don't like push feed for a DG rifle anyway. I think the CZ 550 action is big enough for four down with the factory magazine, but I haven't specifically tried this. Maybe I will, since I have a friend with one in 9.3x62.

Heck, with all this trouble, if a guy was making such a rifle, and planned on using it for DG, then one of those drop box magazines would be the way I would go, if extra cartridge capacity was that important. Five down should be enough, otherwise --- run --- save yourself --- you're either a very bad shot or you don't have a big enough gun.

KB

the 9,3x64 cz would be a great donor and do a switch barrel to do a 9,3x64 AND a 400 or 416x64 improved!

now that is a good idea...thanks for the idea seeds kabluewy

OK, during lunch, my friend brought over the CZ 550 Medium action, which has the factory 9.3x62 barrel. I tried some 9.3x64 dummy rounds, and found that three down is it.

However, I found the feeding to be as smooth as any action I tried, equal to the Ruger. This action will be an easy conversion to feed the Brennekee brass. Factory barreled in 9.3x62, it would be one of the easiest conversions to 9.3x64 out there. Just pull the barrel, ream out the chamber, open the bolt face and extractor, head space, and you're in business.

I don't have a problem with just three rounds down in the magazine. We are all used to that with any magnum already, so where is the problem? Heck, if a guy just had to have a 9.3x64 or the derivatives you mentioned, the basic 06 Ruger action, or the CZ would be excellent. There are way too many 270s out there that NEED to be removed from the gene pool.

I hunt deer in places where some of the largest coastal brown bears live here too, and I count on having two shots available. I consider more than two shots as bonus shots, so I don't feel too bad about having only three in the magazine.

In most of the places around here where a bad encounter might happen, frankly a guy would have to be ready just to get one shot off, and the second hopefully would be a finisher. If the bear was after you in this thick bush, he would mostly have you if the first shot didn't turn him or put him down. In hunting situations, if he can the bear often runs away (zips into the bush) after the first shot, with very little time to accurately place a second shot. So again, second shots are mostly useful only as finishing shots. That usually means that if you mess up the first shot, the second shot is a moot point, because you don't get to use it effectively anyway. Yet, it's very reassuring to have the second shot, and a rifle that feeds perfectly.

I'll tell you something that is probably peculiar just to me. I like having the second available round, the one on top in the magazine, come off the right side of the stack. That comes from somewhere in my past, mostly forgotten now or at least foggy, where I had a rifle that would every now and then jam the nose of the cartridges feeding off the left side of the stack right into the base of the barrel, right side, where the receiver meets the barrel base. It took some effort to get the jammed cartridge out of the way, and it was far more than just annoying. That rifle is long gone, but I still notice on several of my rifles that they feed the cartridges off the right side better than the left side. I don't know if that's just me, or if others have noticed that too.

Except my Mod 70 375 H&H, which feeds exceptionally well either side, I even go so far as to load only three down, even if the magazine holds four, in order to get that second shot to feed from the right side. That way, at least I've got two shots to count on, and more if I'm lucky - or unlucky enough to need them. I thought about looking for a backward follower, but decided I really didn't need it.

KB

thanks kabluewy...

good news...

torque is sending canuck some brass and the shell holder to be made into a 416x64 improved dummy. thanks guys!