Guys, I'm considering having a new DR built and was thinking along the lines of the 450-400. Does anyone here have experience with the 500-416?

I'm a reloader so assuming I get enough brass procured to last into the foreseeable future, what would be the pro's and cons between these 2 calibers?

I have a 416 Rigby which I really like but would like to have its capabilities in a double rifle with a proper rimmed case.

Thanks.

Todd

.450/.400: more traditional, better ammunition availability, wider availability of rifles.

I agree with all three points Mike.

But from a performance standpoint, assuming the rifle would be scoped, and would be matched with an open sighted 500NE, would the 500-416 make a better all around and/or second rifle than the 450-400? I know the ballistics on both but haven't fired or hunted with either of these "40"s. Would you think the 500-416's extra couple of hundred fps would make any significant difference?

I have shot both, and I have hunted and killed cape buff, elephant, lion, bear, deer, wild pigs, baboon, zebra,warthog, with a 450/400 3 1/4", same ballistics as the 450/400 3".

The 500/416 kicks as hard as a 470.
I say this after shooting them side by side.

The 450/400 3" kicks a lot less. Also 450/400 3" ammo is much easier to find and much cheaper to buy.

IMHO the 450/400 is a much better choice.

I think every 450/400 should be scoped, with claw mounts.

As much as I like what the 500/416R has to offer, in my opinion the 450/400 can be built into a nice light and handy rifle with little recoil which is a plus if considering a quick detachable scope.
Looking at the compact Verney-Carron action I think this would be a great base for it.

I have a Krieghoff .500/.416 and I really like it. I wanted something that was ballistically similar to my .416 Rigby. The posters above are all correct. The 450/400 is much more popular but ballistically, it can't hold a candle to the .500/.416.

I agree with Dave. Are you buying a rifle for tradition or performance? How many factory rounds are you going to purchase? I own a 500/416, a 450NE and a 500NE and I do not have a single factory round! 500/416 brass is readily available and it is a 416 Rigby in D/R configuration. Now, the comments about the gun configuration eg. weight and handling are well taken. My K gun in 500/416 is perhaps on the heavy side when compared with the 450/400 but the recoil is not objectionable.
Just my $0.02, Peter.

Since you already have, and like, the great old Rigby creation, the .416 Rigby, seems to me that you would want a double in the .500/.416 Rigby. Thus, you could use same bullets in both, and of same weight. Performance of the .416 Rigby and the .500/.416 R. are identical; that is why Kreighoff created the cartridge, rimmed, for double rifles. Both the .450/.400 and the .416 use same bullet weights, but the .416 spits them at higher velocity with its benefits.

The 500/416 answers the assumed need for 416 Rigby ballistics in a properly rimmed DR caliber. It reaches the "400gr @ 2,400 fps" power level, but in a double rifle configuration.

I have owned 4 450-400 3 1/4's so when I had my sidelock made it was in this caliber. I love the caliber and there are plenty of outlets for brass, to include Hornady as well as projectiles. As you are a reloader there should be no problem with putting together an accurate load in this caliber

The same can be said for the 3 inch version with readily available loaded ammo. Steve Hornady informed me that he has no intent to produce the 3 1/4 round as there is no demand. However, with the 3 inch available in loaded form as well as components you may decide it the better way to go. Just my 2 cents worth.


Dutch

Both sides have good points but the advantage of the 500-416 is most effective only if you scope the rifle. It's very flat shooting and has great reach that is hard to utilize if you limit yourself to express sights.

450/400 light recoil and a 40 caliber but a 500/465 would take you up to another level entirely. a plain 500 a crusher.

Miker

Looks like the preferences are just about split down the middle. Same as my opinion. Split!

Seems that the 500/416 is the better performer but the 450/400 is a better package. The one thing I was not aware of is the 400 being built on the smaller frame. Obviously, the 416 is built on the 500 frame, so is the 400 built on the same frame as the 450NE?

Todd, I am not sure that what you are saying is true. If you search this forum you will find pictures (and weights) of my doubles. The frame size of the K gun is actually (to my eyes) quite slim. Compare it with my 450 x 3 1/4, which is an Owens gun so it is quite heavy. So I am not sure that action size necessarily equates to weight, although the connection is obvious. Barrel thickness and length also come into play. Others will have to comment on the actions that the 450/400 is typically built on, I would suspect a 20 ga. perhaps?
Peter.

PS. Here it is: http://forums.accuratereloadin...901046741#5901046741

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Todd, I am not sure that what you are saying is true. If you search this forum you will find pictures (and weights) of my doubles. The frame size of the K gun is actually (to my eyes) quite slim. Compare it with my 450 x 3 1/4, which is an Owens gun so it is quite heavy. So I am not sure that action size necessarily equates to weight, although the connection is obvious. Barrel thickness and length also come into play. Others will have to comment on the actions that the 450/400 is typically built on, I would suspect a 20 ga. perhaps?
Peter.

PS. Here it is: http://forums.accuratereloadin...901046741#5901046741

Nice rifles Peter, but it looks as if your 450 is abnormally heavy?

I was asking the question since several have noted that the 416 is heaver than the 400. From that I assumed that the original case being the 500 in the case of the 416 and the 450 in the case of the 400, I know the 450NE CAN be built on a smaller frame. I assume this is the reason for the comments about the 450/400 being lighter? That seems obvious to me now that it was pointed out, but I didn't make the connection earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by retreever:
450/400 light recoil and a 40 caliber but a 500/465 would take you up to another level entirely. a plain 500 a crusher.

Miker

Not exactly sure what you are saying here. "A plain 500 a crusher."? Also, 500/465? Can you clear that one up a bit?

Performance wise on buff and particularly lion the 500/416 is far superior. on ele - both as good.

The 450/400 can be built lighter on a smaller action (same action as .375 FL) which makes it easier to carry.

If you reload, ammo is equally available!

The major drawback of the 500/416 is that wasn't created 100 years ago. If elephant is on your plate, I would opt for the 500/416. Yes, recoil is heavier but energy is substantially boosted. Seems like a lot of PHs are using the Krieghoff 500/416 rifles for penetration benefits on elephant.

Todd:

My Krieghoff comes in right at 10.5 pounds. Of all the "off the rack" guns, I think that the weight is perfect.

Todd, the M.K. Owen doubles have a reputation for being heavy, and they are. The plus side is that the 450 NE is very comfortable to shoot. I like mine a lot. That caliber (and the 500NE) are regarded as "stoppers" whereas the 500/416 is not so regarded. My 500/416 shoots GS Custom 380 grain solids extremely well.
Peter.

Dave, I got the pics of your rifle. Thanks for sending them. I'll stay in touch with you concerning it! You never know!!

Peter, I'm not familiar with the M.K. Owen rifles but it does look like a nice weapon. Understand about the "stoppers".

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I carry my 500NE as my big gun. I'm into the 2 double rifle battery right now and just purchased a 9.3X74R Chapuis from Ken that I intend to scope.
That combo will probably handle all my needs but I am researching and thinking about this "40" cal double because I want the second/smaller/backup/all round rifle to be capable of handling the big stuff should something happen to my 500NE while at the same time, having the trajectory to handle plains game and the like, especially if the need to reach out a bit arrises.

It's all a compromise anyway! I'm not recoil sensitive so the 500/416 won't bother me, but the thought of a lighter in weight and lighter in recoil package is appealing. Also, on three of my Safaris, I've had one of my 2 sons along hunting. Having the 3 rifles, ranging from the 9.3, "40", and 500 would allow them to have a double double hunt as well! One is 21 now and the other 17 but both are slight in build. Neither can handle the 500, at least not at this point. So from that angle, the lighter recoiling 450/400 is also appealing.

Like I said earlier, I'm split on my decision! It's a fun process of elimination and thanks to all for the input!

Ask krighoff....a fair number of PH's in Zim have gone looking for .500/416 barrels for thier rifles for use when hunting ele. On buff the .500 is the winner. On elephant, the 500/416 wins every time from the PH's point of view.

From personal experience I cannot tell the difference in recoil between a .470 and a 500/416 but in the Krieghoff rifles the .500's feel better balanced to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Todd, the M.K. Owen doubles have a reputation for being heavy, and they are. The plus side is that the 450 NE is very comfortable to shoot. I like mine a lot. That caliber (and the 500NE) are regarded as "stoppers" whereas the 500/416 is not so regarded. My 500/416 shoots GS Custom 380 grain solids extremely well.
Peter.

Peter you are correct that the M.K. Owen doubles are very nice looking, and I was initially impressed till I picked one up!

It was a 450NE 3 1/4 Inch and I'd swear it weighed 13 or 14 pounds from the feel of it. The rifle may not have weighed that much but it was weighted enough to dampen any trace of liveliness in the handling of the rifle! Not good for instinctive shooting that double rifles are known for!

Mims Reed had that one and a 500NE on his table at the Dallas Safari Club show, and I picked up the 500NE and it weighed about the same as the 450NE double, but balanced better but still too heavy!
You carry a double rifle a lot more than you shoot it, and the recoil from a 9 pound 450NE double rifle is not something to dread, and a 10.5 pound 500NE is plenty heavy enough to carry all day, and will not loosen you fillings when shot.

I believe Mr. Owen makes his doubles so heavy to make them easier to regulate, not because they are easier on your shoulder! As for me if M.K. Owen would learn to make his double rifle a little more properly weighted I might be interested, but not at the weight he makes the ones I’ve handled. I’ll pass!

…………………………………………………………….

quote:

liveliness in the handling of the rifle! Not good for instinctive shooting that double rifles are known for!

Mac, your point is well taken. I guess I have never handled a double with the liveliness that you speak off. Can you please give examples of such guns so that as my circle of acquaintances expands I can seek out such guns to shoot? I would certainly like to handle a 10 pound lively gun that allows me to shoot instinctively.
Thanks, Peter.

Peter, you are more than welcome to try mine. PM me if you want to shoot it. jorge

Thanks for the offer Jorge. I will PM you in the near future. I belong to a range in St. Augustine which is more "free wheeling" than Gateway.
Is the V-C the only example?
Peter.

Yep, the VC's the only one I own...for now

My two favorite double rifles are the 450-3.25 and the 450-400-3"....

The 500-416 kicks as much as a .470 or 450-3.25 so I see little need for it, but I bet it penetrates very well indeed..

The 450-400 is the lighter caliber of those in question so it will not perform as well as those larger calibers, but it has always got the job done for me never the less. Its the one caliber I have used more than any other double rifle caliber.

I'm not really sure it makes much differnce if the bullet is placed right..I suppose in a charge situation I would opt for the largest caliber every time. but the 3 charges I have stopped have all been with the 40 calibers to the best of my memory anyway.