Can I pick the expert's brains here

I like to chamber a Mauser 98 action in 416 rigby not the magnum action.

Can this be done safely and is there a version of mauser I should start from like belgium etc

thanks

I own a vintage Parker Hale rifle cal. 375 HH, made on a M98 military action, that seems to me considerably altered in lenght. Since the 416 Rigby cartridge is 3.8 mm longer, I would say that it could be hardly "stretched" some more, not to mention the issues of getting it feed reliably, due to the fatter case. I would certainly prefer to buy a brand new CZ 416 Rigby rifle, but I'm not an expert.

I know that Rigby made a few 416's using standard length M-98's and there is a standard Belgium made M-98 chambered in 416 Rigby floating around here in Alaska. Writer Ray Ordorica even wrote a piece on doing it in a back issues of Gun Digest - so it can be done - but most gunbuilders today shudder at the idea of doing it.

I'd like to hear from other makers on this issue. Never have been commisioned to do so, but feel the conversion is possible and safe to do so. Remember, the 416 Rigby is not a particularily high pressure round. Yes, I too, have seen examples of this conversion

I opened a pair of Mark X (Whitworth) actions years ago to house and feed the 338 x 378 KT round. It required considerable alteration but they are still going strong today. An action such as that might be a good choice for your Rigby.

Most paragliders and cliffhangers also survives, but it is not the same as to say that it is safe.
By opening a m98 up to a 416 rigby, you reduce the support for the lower lug lengthvise by apx 60%, you also whiden the feedingramp, leaving you with a support for the lower lug, strength-wise reduced by apx 70%.
This gives you a more or less singlelock action.
Combined with the dramaticaly increased internal presurearea of the 416rigby, eats up a lot of the safetymargin on a m98.

Dont forget that a 416 easily can be loaded up to modern presures, even if it originaly is desighned for rather low presure.

I dont doubt that most will work, but caling it safe and OK, seems a litle optimistic (to be wery polite)

the famous hunter selby had a 416 built by rigby on a standard military action , this gun is often featured in different articles in gun magazines ,that i have seen thru the years..paul

I had owned one for a few years. Loaded it to standard load pressures. It shot well for me. Never had an oops. I think those that think it shouldn't be done should also think twice about merging onto a freeway. Bad things can happen in both instances and the risks are the same. Rigby records showed they made more on standard actions than magnum actions. This I researched 20 or so years ago along with the English gun maker that used to work at Champlins. I was sorry I let it go as I could have used it on several of my safaries the past few years.

The Selby Rigby

Another note on the Selby rifle, is that he shot it enough that it had to be rebarreled at least once.

Yeah, a new barrel, not a new action! I've seen 2 Mark Xs opened up to Rigby.

Dittos on congomike's post. Someone here referred to Selby's rifle as a POS once. I'll happily be a toilet then . In DeHaus's book he mentioned a guy with a FN magnum length action chambered in .300 HH Imp. and shot a lot with hot loads. The bottom ramp quit supporting the lug and half of the top lug finally let go and the safety lug took over. Even so, I think if one doesn't try to turn the Rigby into a Weatherby getting it to feed reliably would be the only real concern. My two cents.....

Hi
first i must admit i am suprised over the numbers of eksperts, in gunsafety.
Next i truly hope that none of you are responcible for design or safety issues at any gunmanufacture, with a production of more than 1 rifle for own use pr lifetime.
If you rebuild or manufactur rifles for other, i dearly hope that you have a good liabilityincurance.

To congomike:
It does not for sure mean, that a barrel has fiered many rounds at that time, to be replaced, as it was in the time of mercury primers and cordite powder, causing major internal rustproblems in the barrels.

To Larkin:

Try to do a litle math on your one statements.
A 300HHimp, witch leaves about 30-50% more strength on the counterhold of the lower lug, suffers from excaxtly the predicted failure as warned about. OK it was described as hot loads, but it was in a case with 30% less internal presure area.
This problem has also been described on multiple HH rifles in kal 375HHmag.
About the strength of the third lug, we saw on a blowup test on a m98, that the reciever was torn apart in the thumbcut, when a 6.5x55 was loadet up to 70% of what modern actions handled without problems

So to all of you experts, please dont lure other into making rifles with unneccesery low safetyfactors.
If you do it for your self, be welcomed. Some people also think that some of my hobbies , is tendencing a little suicidal. But to heck with that, as i am the only one to get hurt, so for the fun of it

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Hi
first i must admit i am suprised over the numbers of eksperts, in gunsafety.
Next i truly hope that none of you are responcible for design or safety issues at any gunmanufacture, with a production of more than 1 rifle for own use pr lifetime.
If you rebuild or manufactur rifles for other, i dearly hope that you have a good liabilityincurance.

To congomike:
It does not for sure mean, that a barrel has fiered many rounds at that time, to be replaced, as it was in the time of mercury primers and cordite powder, causing major internal rustproblems in the barrels.

To Larkin:

Try to do a litle math on your one statements.
A 300HHimp, witch leaves about 30-50% more strength on the counterhold of the lower lug, suffers from excaxtly the predicted failure as warned about. OK it was described as hot loads, but it was in a case with 30% less internal presure area.
This problem has also been described on multiple HH rifles in kal 375HHmag.
About the strength of the third lug, we saw on a blowup test on a m98, that the reciever was torn apart in the thumbcut, when a 6.5x55 was loadet up to 70% of what modern actions handled without problems

So to all of you experts, please dont lure other into making rifles with unneccesery low safetyfactors.
If you do it for your self, be welcomed. Some people also think that some of my hobbies , is tendencing a little suicidal. But to heck with that, as i am the only one to get hurt, so for the fun of it

Me too. Just weld 2 together or use an Enfield or a proper-length action to begin with.

Sure, you CAN get away with it. I used to bore small-block Chevies 0.125" over, too, but sometimes hit water during operation. IMO a rifle failure would be a LOT more exciting, especially for the client!
Regards, Joe

Everything we do in life has risks. Guns, like automobiles are at their safest when unloaded, parked in a storage facility, and not used for their intended purpose.

Since the issue of unsafe gunbuilding combinations / practices / applications, etc. has crept into this discussion I'd like to offer a caution. Whatever you do keep in mind that guns have a way of falling into the hands of others. Too often I hear of someone building this or that but only using low pressure loads, etc... All well and good so long as you own and shoot it. Once it leaves your hands though someone else may not be so prudent. When undertaking questionable builds consider that it could well be your grandson who inherits your rifle who decides to hot rod it.

For this reason I choose to err on the side of safety. Just beacuse it's been done doesn't always mean it's OK. To that end, I've always accepted that cartridges of the length mentioned take a questionble amount of mass from behind that bottom lug. I'm no pro and I'm not offering adives on what's safe or not. Please do consider the caution on what someone else may do with YOUR rifle one day though!

Now that the .416 Ruger is available, it makes a lot more sense. Sometimes making sense doesn't enter into the equation however when it comes to a new rifle.

I've always wanted to do this conversion myself. I've handled and shot an original .416 Rigby made by Jeffery and it was a wondeful gun. There are M98 actions that should never be used for this and others such as the VZ24 that seem just fine. I personally built a 500 Jeffery on a VZ24 and actually looked for locking lug setback by pulling the barrel after 100rds of full power loads were fired. No measurable change was noted. The .416 Rigby is a low pressure cartridge and If one starts with a strong enough M98 I see absolutely no problem with it. The Rigby is a long cartridge and you will note the Notch in the receiver thats required for loading it. It makes for a interesting challenge. -Rob

i have a 416 rigby on a standard length mauser action, made by Blomfontein Custom Rifles, SA. Feeds and shots great, have put about 400 rounds through it, no problems. It can certainly be done, but it takes some doing! I dont load the case to 416 weatherby velocities, though, as my buddy does with his CZ 550 416, mainly because I dont think it makes a difference to the animal!

416 Taylor will do the same job the same way with a lot less hassle but doesn't have the phallic-symbol braggin' rights....
Regards, Joe

Great thread.. has anyone actualy seen a standard 98 in 416 Rigby fail? I never have seen one or heard of one, The way I see it, the action needs to be opened up about .150 beyond...say a 375. Some of that can be taken out the back...what...maybe .060-075? then the bolt stop is starting to get pretty thin...you only have about .200 to start out with.

Too bad the 416 Taylor didn't "take hold" would really be the sensible answer...maybe the 416 Ruger will eventually win out in the hearts and minds of 416 Rigby fans (me being one of the 416 Rigby fans) Maybe rename to 416 Rugby??

I saw a .416 Rigby in a standard M98 have bodacious lug set back. This was in a European rifle that cost well north of 5 figures many years ago. REALLY nice rifle.

I say it was the heat treatment, period. I would do a Rigby in a M98, properly heat treat it, load it according to the books, and never look back. But then I have tied myself to bulls, swam with sharks, done business with the Russian mafia, and dated A LOT of red headed women!!! What the bleep is there to worry about with a Rigby conversion?

Once again
I dearly hope that you guys don't set the safetystandards in this industry

Obviusly there is not many reports of failed m98 in 416Rigby, as there is never made many.

There are thoug multiple reports on failed m98 in 375HH, and also in 300HH.

If Belgium made FN mausers has failed in the 375 conversion (as on the H&H rifles). Please tell me why a further weekening, combinde with a 30% larger presurearea suddently should be safe.

Has any of you guys actualy done a cross sectioning of a standard m98 reciever converted to accept an 416rigby. Has any of you actualy done a strength calculation on sutch reciever.
Has any of you actualy done a practual high presure test to se where the limit actualy is.

If your answers is no to all of the above 3 questions, i ame sorry to say, that you base all your statements on pure belive and hearsay, combined with werry limited acces to reference material.

If one shall take your safety insurance fore any value, please come up with some real test or calculations showing that there is any substance in your statements.

I dont doubt that this conversion can be made, and it can work, IF you only use the best of the actions, and only use low presure loads.
But why in the heck expose your customers or freinds to an unneccesary risk. When there is multiple actions mutch safer for the purpose.

The argument about that one has never heard about, can meens many thing.
1: you dont hear wery mutch of all that hapens in the world.
2: you talks more than you listens
3: Many things hapened long ago, and often is let alone
4
5
6

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

There are thoug multiple reports on failed m98 in 375HH, and also in 300HH.

I currently own a nice 40 years old Parker Hale cal. 375HH based on a M98 action; would you please tell me more about said failures? Thanks.

I love this site. Ir's better than TV, or any gun magazine published today.

Just a little to wonder about, in this safetydebate.
Once in hospital i meet an old guy age 89, who was pretty bruced.
He had been lightly injurid from falling, while painting his hous. He never thought it would be dangerous, as he never heard of anyone falling of a ladder, placed on a chair, in a weelbarrow, on 4 pallets in a 4 wheled waggon.
I met him, but i newer heard of anyone else been injuried falling from similar setup.

By the way, do you know of the safest place during an earthquake???

Answer: In the middle of your kitchendoor, lying on your back, with an smoked herring across your stomac.

At least i never heard of anyone killed during an earthquake in that position

I would point out that Duane Weibe is among the most highly respected gunmakers alive today and his skill, knowledge an integrity are simply BEYOND question...at least to anyone with any real rifle experience.

Do you actually think that a firm such as Rigby would sell an inferior rifle, such as the Mod. 98-based .416 Rigby used for DECADES in African heat by Harry Selby? I seriously DOUBT that the British gunmakers would EVER compromise safety for ANY reason.

As to FN Brownings, having OWNED, loaded for and shot a Safari in .375H&H, I NEVER found the SLIGHTEST problem with it and doubt that such exists. I prefer old Mod. 70s in .375H&H and simply because they offer an extra shot, but, I know a lot of guys using Brownings in .375 and these rifles are over 40 years old and still work just fine....BETTER than a lot of "Eurocrap" made today.

Sooo, maybe tell us some facts about this?

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
I would point out that Duane Weibe is among the most highly respected gunmakers alive today and his skill, knowledge an integrity are simply BEYOND question...at least to anyone with any real rifle experience.

Do you actually think that a firm such as Rigby would sell an inferior rifle, such as the Mod. 98-based .416 Rigby used for DECADES in African heat by Harry Selby? I seriously DOUBT that the British gunmakers would EVER compromise safety for ANY reason.

As to FN Brownings, having OWNED, loaded for and shot a Safari in .375H&H, I NEVER found the SLIGHTEST problem with it and doubt that such exists. I prefer old Mod. 70s in .375H&H and simply because they offer an extra shot, but, I know a lot of guys using Brownings in .375 and these rifles are over 40 years old and still work just fine....BETTER than a lot of "Eurocrap" made today.

Sooo, maybe tell us some facts about this?

Dewey, I've seen the putz try this crap before. Since then, to enhance my reading I've found this to be theraputic!

quote:

Ignored post by jørgen posted 11 February 2009 18:35

Hi Dewey
About the skills and integrety of Duan Weibe. I find the pictures and the tellings of how he does his products, werry interesting, and werry positiv informativ. His finish and sence of details i find excelent. By other words, his work is beautifull.
That said, it is not the same as his evaluations is always 100% correct, and i dont hope that there is a law against disagreeing with him.

Do you actualy know how manny 416 rigbys was made on standardlength m98 actions. ( i heard rumors of mutch less than 50 ??)

About anybody compromising safety, we all learns everyday.

The 375 conversion on std length m98, can be made to an acceptable level of safety, as long as a decent basic action is used.
But ther are articles and describtions about the problematic about the Holland & Holland rifles with lugsetback on lower lug, and cracked upper lug..
Her the problematic is not as critic as it is loaded to standard presures.
The 416 conversion is way more critical, as it also requires low presure to be within a socalled safe limit.

JA',rgen,

How do you manage to get anything done, worrying about us like you do?

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Hi Dewey
About the skills and integrety of Duan Weibe. I find the pictures and the tellings of how he does his products, werry interesting, and werry positiv informativ. His finish and sence of details i find excelent. By other words, his work is beautifull.
That said, it is not the same as his evaluations is always 100% correct, and i dont hope that there is a law against disagreeing with him.

Do you actualy know how manny 416 rigbys was made on standardlength m98 actions. ( i heard rumors of mutch less than 50 ??)

About anybody compromising safety, we all learns everyday.

The 375 conversion on std length m98, can be made to an acceptable level of safety, as long as a decent basic action is used.
But ther are articles and describtions about the problematic about the Holland & Holland rifles with lugsetback on lower lug, and cracked upper lug..
Her the problematic is not as critic as it is loaded to standard presures.
The 416 conversion is way more critical, as it also requires low presure to be within a socalled safe limit.

So, there ...are rumours..., eh? There are ...articles... as well? Well, I have now been shooting for 51 years and carried a heavy rifle for months on end, every day, working alone in very remote Canadian wilderness. I have several friends, born and raised in Africa, who worked THERE doing much the same thing AND I DO NOT put much faith in rumours.

You can disagree with anyone you wish to, but, may I suggest that there are men here, Mr. Wiebe is one of them, whose actual gunmaking and using experience quite obviously exceeds yours and by a huge margin.

HOW MANY problems with Mauser 98s in .375H&H and other large-cased rounds have you SEEN and how many cracked lugs have you experienced?

You DO actually OWN and regularly load for and shoot .375H&H and .416 Rigby rifles, of course.....or, maybe not.......

No offence intended, old boy, but, I kinda suspect that your real experience with big rifles, dangerous animals and remote wilderness is largely derived from watching videos.

quote:

jørgen: There are thoug multiple reports on failed m98 in 375HH, and also in 300HH.

Maybe, although I've never heard of any. I have heard of lug setback on some early Weatherbys built on FNs. Never any problems to my knowledge with the multitudes of 375 Whitworths however.

To all: you can do whatever your wallet and brain can conceive and execute, but IMO it's kinda stupid (yes, I really mean that!) to contemplate spending thousands or tens of thousands on a rifle that's not built within design specs and dimensions. Especially a DGR like a 416.

Now reasonable men can always disagree, but I'll put my own knowledge, experience and expertise up against most folks' including any on this forum. If you choose to build such a beast then I hope it'll be just a safe queen like most of the high-$ rifles I've seen mentioned here.

Sure, you can take your marginal rifle to Africa for a week or a month and congratulate yourself that nothing went wrong, and probably nothing WILL go wrong.

Probably.

Are you willing to risk everything (hunter's life, hunter's partner's life, client's life, client's partner's life, gun builder's reputation, gun builder's savings, cost of safari, and finally by far the least the cost of the rifle itself) on having a marginal 'braggin' rights' rifle?

Just because, basically, you were too CHEAP to purchase or commission one built on a properly-sized action?

Speaking personally I've never seen a Mauser catastrophic failure where the receiver actually released the bolt to the rear. But I HAVE seen several dozen Mausers from several different sources over the last 45 years suffer marked lug setback when they had their magazines lengthened and lower recoil shoulders cut down.

I have just one question: if you're already contemplating spending thousands on a DGR, why in the world would you even consider taking the cheap way out?
Regards, Joe

I would not be surprised if there were multiple cases of half-assed post war gunsmiths screwing up the job here and in Europe. It isn't like the Continent was over-supplied with industrial-grade metalurgical support. That is a bit different than saying the job can't be done right.

Joe, I see your point, am not ...cheap...and have at present 26 repeating big game rifles all of which except three now being customized are "tuned" to the point where I totally trust them in Grizzly country....I was born, raised and have spent my life in western/northern Canada and have enough field experience to know what works and what does not.

I have no desire for a .416 Rigby, have shot my buddie's Ruger RSM, had one in .375 for a work rifle one season and dislike them. I have an other friend that offered me his Ralf Martini tuned CZ-550M in the great, old round and I declined, bought the Browning Safari .458WM instead.

My point here and that of others, as I see it, is that this CAN and HAS been done very well with flawless function and reliablity and such rifles have been used by some pretty major guys for decades under the worst conditions. I would NOT choose this route were I in need of a .416 Rigby, but, I am not about to decry the points made here by Duane and others or the facts about Harry Selby's rifle.

I have primarily used P-64 Mod. 70s and prefer a .338WM in one of these as a BC rifle. I have had ONE P-64 receiver cracked by a well-known 'smith quite highly thought of here and have seen two others so damaged. Yet, I have found MY rifles of this make/model to be totally reliable and have yet, in over 40 years use, to have any problem with one.

So, my conclusion is that the P-64 Mod. 70 IS a hell of a working rifle and I will use mine until I can no longer lift one. I am aware that a full custom Satterlee or whomever may well BE a "better" piece in every respect, but, what I now have works and many other guys I know would substantiate this with their experiences.

I DO agree that one SHOULD choose what is most practical, but, I have known men in BC who have shot over 50 Grizzlies with a battered old Lee-Enfield, because that was all they had. I would suggest that one CAN obtain a perfectly functional DGR for much less than thousands....but, I WOULD kinda like a Satterlee, Empire or Echol's "Legend".......

Gosh...don't get me in this any further than I am now. I will make comment re the FN's...I've seen two "set backs"..one in 7x61S&H and the other 7mm Super Mashburn. These actions came in at 22R...Burgess used to recommend 36.

As to the 416 Rigby...well, don't know how I'd actually handle such a request in the real world.

I would build one for MYSELF if I couldn't think of any possible reason not to use either the Taylor or Ruger..or maybe Remington versions

Rigby using standard 98's to build 416's also meant they were subject to proof, so that kind of re-inforces my feeling that the properly done conversion is realisic. Jorgen's warnings must also be given weight.

Hi Duane
Glad to se your last reply.
As a colegue i respect your initial reply on that you think it is ok as it has ben done before. I mutch more respect you for actualy taking in concideration, the warnings on strength issue.
It is a little like some early statments about the inferior products made on CNC. and later accepting that they actualy makes a hell of a basic qualityjob, as on your bottommetal

You know i sometime get a little carried away on those safetyissues, as i work with it for a liwing. And it would be a disaster for a manufacturer if one missed an vital safety issue, because of that one leaned back with the excuse (many others has done likewise).

I find it pretty funny and frightening how many who has an opinion of what is safe, and what is not safe. So for the credability of this industri, it would be better with a little more crittical aproach.

By the way, wasn't most of the rigbyes build on real magnum actions, and only a limited numbers on the standard length, This mainly because of supply shortage of the tru magnum actions,

And yes they were proofed at the current werry low presure

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:

quote:

jørgen: There are thoug multiple reports on failed m98 in 375HH, and also in 300HH.

Maybe, although I've never heard of any. I have heard of lug setback on some early Weatherbys built on FNs. Never any problems to my knowledge with the multitudes of 375 Whitworths however.

It didnt come to your mind that Roy Weatherby werry quickly stopped to use those actions as a base for his high power long and fat cartridges.
As i remember he werry soon used actions capable of handeling the presure and thrust. I gues he soon started using some Schultz & Larsen and some Mattheu arms actions, before finaly ending up with the Sauer produced MarkV.

My guess is that he imediatly realized the limitation in safety on the converted FN Mausers, when extended in the magazine area.

Well...that is, by your own admission, only a guess.,but fact is that the receivers furnished by FN were pretty darn soft.

Let's say...that the "historical" limit for opening up the 98 is enough to handle the 300/375 H&H. The OAL max of 91.44 mm (3.6in)
My CIP book lists the max OAL of the 416 Rigby @
95.25mm(3.75in) So...tha means you should open the action .150 beyond "historical max???

However, my supply of factory loaded 416 Rigby measures 3.588 in (91.22 mm)

Were I to build a 416 Rigby on a 98, and use the factory ammo as a guide, I would fall within the hisorical maximum and feel fine doing so.

The problem is that somebody will insist on loading to max OAL and now the cartridge will not fit in the magazine..and want it opened up....Here is where I would not feel comfortable in doing so.

If someone has a Rigby on a 98, I'd love to know the inside dimension of the box. My GUESS is that it will measure less than 3.75"

I can follow you in the idea of opening it only to 91.2mm, This helps you keep higher safety levels, but how do you evaluate the widening of the ramp needed to make the 416 feed and stack in the magazine. And how about the larger internal presurearea in the 416rigby (same presure produces 30% higher thrust in a 416, compared to a 375HH)

What is actualy the magazine length on the rifles rebuild for 375HH, is that also the "needed" length or the CIP length