I tend to agree as well. In fact don't see any major reason to choose the .416 Taylor when there are so many .416 factory rounds (often with ammo relatively available even in Africa) these days.
Back when the .416 Tayloer was developed, the .416 Remington hadn't appeared (and the .416 Ruger was far off in the 21st century), and rifles for the .416 Rigby were either extremely expensive, or custom jobs that required handloading, which was often a PITA due to brass availability. The shorter bolt-throw of the Taylor makes no difference in the real world, unless you're so short the withdrawn bolt will hit you in the face. The big factor in rapid repeat shooting with a bolt-action isn't action length, but practice. It might take 10 more milliseconds to work a long bolt between shots.
Plus, of course, the Taylor isn't capable of .416 Remington muzzle velocities without considerably higher pressure, just as the .338 Winchester can't match .340 Weatherby velocities.
But hey, all of it's mostly about what we like and shoot well, and a .416 Taylor loaded to .450/.400 muzzle velocities will kill stuff just as well as either of the .450/400's. Which apparently have always killed buffalo and elephants very well, despite lagging behind the .416 Rigby/Remington/Taylor, et al, by around 200 fps.
The truth is that very few of today's sport hunters will ever kill enough really big game with any cartridge to come to really firm conclusions about any difference in "killing power" with a wide variety of cartridges from .375 (or even 9.3mm) on up--partly because today's bullets are so good, both soft and solid.
