Replacement for Ruger 77 416 Rigby stock.
My first Ruger 77 was when I still had my FFL. So it was no later than 1977. It was a heavy barrel 280. It regularly put my first reloads into 1/2 to 3/8 MOA. The rifle was heavy though and a friend wanted it for his first deer rifle. I often wish that I'd kept that rifle.
The next Ruger 77 was many years later it was a 7mm RM. The stock looked the same. This rifle hurt to shoot. I'd rather shoot my 338's or my 375 AI off the bench.
So now I've bought a 416 Rigby Ruger 77. It appears that the butt of the stock is similar if not the same as the 7mm RM.
so, I reasoned, Why not keep that stock 'as new' and get an after market stock with a larger butt and perhaps a recoil reducer.

After looking for a while, the source of this replacement stock remains allusive.

Anybody - help. Thanks

As much as I like attractive rifles, I appreciate rugged and reliable ones even more and the old canoe paddle Ruger stocks are as lithe and durable as any made. And if you want a larger butt you can easily add a larger recoil pad to them.

Here is my Ruger 416 along side my 22/77.

I don't think the "paddle stock" can be used on any 416 RIGBY which uses the MAGNUM ACTION!

Guess I wasn't reading very closely. I will be anxious to hear who does make a stock for the larger 416 Rigby Ruger.

Who makes a synthetic stock for the Ruger RSM rifles? I've seen this question asked several times on the net and the answer has always been the same - nobody. I have an early RSM in 416 Rigby and was interested in a replacement myself but have never seen one. If anyone knows of a manufacturer please speak up.

I believe this is right and probably only Ruger might be able to supply a replacement for the 416 Rigby RSM, if any are left. The bedding system is different than the standard LA Mk2s.

Not sure why you'd need a replacement as I've never heard of an RSM stock splitting. I had a 458 Lott for quite a while and shot fairly heavy loads in it without problems. A significant distinctive feature of the RSM is the classic wood stock so I'm not sure of the reason for a synthetic replacement.

I agree with 458Win on functionality. To that end I have a couple of Ruger Hawkeyes - a SS Alaskan and a blue steel African - both re-bored to 0.423" that have both wood and synthetic stocks to make them suitable for any climate or conditions. Both are ballistic twins to the 416 Rigby, a lot cheaper, and DG hunting guns by any measure, Africa or elsewhere.

BTW, just buying a 416 Ruger will get you there out of the box with a lot less trouble, unles you happen to suffer from the same disease I do - 404 mania.

Added: Although I don't think it's needed because the stock is well designed to absorb and spread recoil + the rifle is relatively heavy -- if you're looking to reduce recoil, a well fitted threaded muzzle brake with a thread protector can be added. The FS may need to be moved back so it might get pricey. I wouldn't monkey with adding a recoil reducer to the buttstock as the balance changes significantly.

In my opinion, a stock for a big bore should have:
1. A quality recoil pad with rounded edges.
2. Should have a proper amount of drop at the comb and the heel.
3. The pitch of the stock should ensure the whole butt is flat against your shoulder.
4. The stock should have cast-off to direct the upward thrust away from your cheek.
5. The pistol grip should be shaped fairly open.
6. The butt of the stock should be substantially bigger than on a standard caliber.
7. The length of pull should be greater than a standard caliber.
8. The fore end should be substantial for a solid grip of the off had.

According to my count Ruger got #5 close and miserably failed in all other ways. It would be difficult to design a more worthless stock for a heavy kicker. Ruger designers had zero knowledge of designing stocks for heavy kickers. But that's my opinion.

My 458 Lott, my current 416 Rigby and my 2nd 416 Rigby about to be rebored and rethroated to convert to 450 Rigby - all RSMs, with the only stock modification made the replacement of the Ruger factory recoil pad with a LimbSaver pad - provide the recoil control I need to handle those rounds.

I won't disagree with your theoretical list of characteristics to design your ideal stock for a heavy recoil rifle, but IME with the Ruger RSM, the factory stock works just fine. Of course, I've invested a lot of time, ammo and painful lessons with other heavy-medium and heavy caliber rifles, in learning how to shoot them.

Modern classic factory stocks in quality DGRs I have personally shot, in most cases, have not been the LIMFAC. IME proper shooter technique has been the determining factor in providing enough recoil mitigation to control recoil well enough to allow repetitive fast and accurate follow ups. YMMV

BTW, even though there may not be any off the shelf replacement stocks available for your RSM, with the detailed list you've provided, a suitable blank, and a medium-sized stack of greenbacks, there are a number of excellent stockmakers who could turn out your ideal stock.

[quote=Bugger]In my opinion, a stock for a big bore should have:
1. A quality recoil pad with rounded edges.
2. Should have a proper amount of drop at the comb and the heel.
3. The pitch of the stock should ensure the whole butt is flat against your shoulder.
4. The stock should have cast-off to direct the upward thrust away from your cheek.
5. The pistol grip should be shaped fairly open.
6. The butt of the stock should be substantially bigger than on a standard caliber.
7. The length of pull should be greater than a standard caliber.
8. The fore end should be substantial for a solid grip of the off had.
9. The grip should have a palm swell.

According to my count Ruger got #5 close and miserably failed in all other ways. It would be difficult to design a more worthless stock for a heavy kicker. Ruger designers had zero knowledge of designing stocks for heavy kickers. But that's my opinion.

I am a 205 pounder at 5'11 inches tall. I prefer my rifles and shotguns with a relatively short length of pull I like about 12 and 1/2 inches. Who said that there was a rule on the length of pull. I believe the pull should fit your own physical charastics and your preferences. I have read advice that heavy kickers should have longer pulls. Why? Other than putting the scope farther away from your eye what does it accomplish? A longer pull puts the rifle's weight father away from your body center mass and should increase the amount of wiggle your arms impart into the sight picture. Just try holding a 10 lb weight at arms length and again close to your chest. Which positions wiggles more? The one farthest away from your body. It seems to me that the same principle would apply to long length of pulls. In any event, I prefer mine on the short side and I adjust the scope distance from my eye accordingly.

Moving the scope away from the eye is one benefit. Another is a good portion of the recoil can be absorbed by the off hand. For me it's the left hand. I hold a high recoiling rifle way different than even my 338 WM. (Which I do not consider a heavy kicker). But when shooting a 458 Lott or a 416 Rigby things start changing. Spreading recoil around is more comfortable than receiving it all with the butt of the rifle. There's lots of considerations for a high recoiling rifle stock design.
Having a comfortable place for my cheek that pulls away from my cheek is also neccesary - etc.
having a straighter off arm (for me is my left) will allow less recoil absorbed by my shoulder. Having good grip on the fore-end and the wrist will also help.
Many people who hate recoil shoot all the rifles like they're 243's. It seems to me Ruger stock design engineers similarity have little knowledge of their craft when it comes to heavy kickers. They use nearly the same design that they use on their 243's.