Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only Recoil Impulse Comparison.....the two Rugers (375 & 416)

I know a bunch of you don't like the Hogue stock, but aside from that, has anyone here shot both the 375 and 416 Ruger in factory form? (I can replace the stocks later)

If I shoot like rifles in .458WM and .375H&H, I get a sharper recoil from the H&H and find the WM actually more comfortable/enjoyable because of the slower recoil impulse. I was just wondering if this applied to the two Ruger cartridges (I've never shot a .416 anything, so I'm assuming the recoil impulse will be slower than the more constricted .365 bore)

I may have an opportunity to back up bowhunters after buffalo in Australia with a rifle and am looking at the .416 Hawkeye. I have my Lott, but it's a No.1 and I'd like a short lightweight repeater in this situation. If I was just hunting for myself, I'd just take the Lott, but I'll have the added responsibility of taking care of someone else's hide.

Any experienced replies are appreciated.

Thanks,

Stump

Stump!........Don`t know if anyone here owns or has shot both yet for a recoil comparison.

I have a .375 Ruger Alaskan but have not personally shot as of yet the 416 Ruger, so I cannot help you in the recoil comparison dept between the two.

You may have seen this already, but here is something to see that may help you and give you a better idea.

Go to the Hornady site and from the home page click on the new `09 products section and then click onto the 416 Ruger. Within that video, they talk about the recoil of the 416 Ruger and say that it is considerably less than either the 416 Rem and the 416 Rigby.

Even though I`m not the best help with your request, it would seem to me that the 416 Ruger would have less recoil than your 458 Lott and just may be closer in recoil comparison to the 375 Ruger.

Two facts come to mind..The guns you mention recoil in following order .458, 416, and then 375 being the least..That is fact.

The stock can make a difference in "felt recoil" if it fits you is the second fact. Felt recoil is the most important factor regardless of the reason behind it.

I am convienced that its mostly mental on your part that the 458 recoils less than a 375, but if you are convienced of that then that is all that counts, that means it works for you.

I hear things like the .338 has sharper recoil than the slow push of a 458 or 404..Mostly a croc IMO..I shoot all the big bores and bottom line is all things being equal the bigger the gun, the worse it hammers me. Stocks that are too straight as many profess sucks up recoil don't suit me because they drive the recoil staight back inot my old body..I prefer to have a little drop, some cast off, a lower comb and get half of that recoil going up and the other half coming back, much like what you see on a high grade English bolt gun.

As to a composite stock absorbing recoil more than a wood stock, that's just another croc, even if that were true, the difference in weight, the composite being lighter would negate any such reaction...

There are a lot better composite stocks than those HOgue stocks that don't seem to fit many people from what I read on 24 hr. campfire. I can look at the design on one and tell you that I want no part of it..

Thanks Guys,

Just got an e-mail reply from a gentleman who has shot both and it's his opinion the 416 has a slower more "shove-like" recoil too.

I "Know" the Lott has more recoil mathmatically, but I can't stand shooting my 375 or the 7mm/300 magnums more than just a couple of shots. I can easily (not cheaply) put 20 through my Lott without wincing since it feels more like a big push, rather than a quick hard slap. Again, this is just me and stock design does play a big part (As I mentioned, stocks can be switched out...but this was covered in length on another thread).

Thanks, and I look forward to any other replies (that don't have to do with how much you dislike the Hogue stock).

All the Best,

Stump

I LIKE MY HOGUE STOCK!............

I believe you've mentioned that once or twice!!

.......Ooooops! Es cuuuuzze me!

Stump Buster,

I have little experience with any of the .458's, but have plenty with the .375 H&H and .416 Remington. With identical rifles and scopes, both M70's Safari Express, I can say without a doubt that the .416 has more recoil than the .375 H&H, as Ray has said. As you might imagine, the .416 still has more recoil using a 350 grain bullet when compared to a 300 grain bullet in the .375. Nonetheless, even in my lighter weight synthetic/stainless M70 in .375, the recoil is not bad at all, even with heavy charges using 300 grain bullets. Personally, I wouldn't describe the recoil from a .375 as being quick or sharp. Certainly not like a fast .30 Magnum. However, as others have stated, the stock design between your two rifles might have a lot to do with your felt recoil.

As for backing up bowhunters, I agree that you're on the right track with looking for a larger cartridge than the .375, but in a bolt action rather than a single shot. I see your attraction to the .416 Ruger and if you're comfortable with the choice, then go for it. However, after reading Jon Sundra's analysis of the round in the recent SCI publication where he saw some issues with handloading 400 gr. bullets in the 416 Ruger case, I'd personally look for something else. But then again, I'm a handloader and if all you're going to do is use factory ammo, then I wouldn't think you'd have any problems since the factory 400 grain loads seem to be right close to 2400fps, which is where the Remington and Rigby are. Just my 2cents. <grin>

Best of luck,
Test

Test1328,
I found your post interesting about John Sundra having issues with the 416 Ruger..I built myself one a year before they ever got it on the market. I necked up 375 Ruger brass and went to work on it...

I shot a lot of 400 and 450 gr. Woodleighs and got identical velocities as my .416 Rem. got, except my .416 Ruger had a shorter barrel..I found it to be an outstanding caliber void of such problems and I was operating at safe pressures..I suppose I will have to read his article, although I doubt that he will convience my otherwise.

The other thing that comes to mind is if I can get 2300 to 2400 with any 400 gr. bullet then I'm good to go..I can get considerably more velocity from my 416 Rem but I shoot it at 2400 or a tad less FPS and it kills those big black bulls really well. Maybe that is his case, I know he likes to make'em sing.

I like the Hogue stock. I have two. One on the .375Ruger and one on a MkII in .300 RSAUM. They fit nice, lots to hang onto and quiet.

test1328,

Thanks for the reply! Is this the article you are talking about or has he written a newer piece?

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/RS_wildcatting_200806/


Stump

Ray and StumpBuster,

First, the article I was referring to was his newest one in the current SCI magazine. It is a relatively short article and is not the same as the one StumpBuster references in his link, although there is similar info.

I suppose I should have also been more detailed in my mention of Sundra's concerns about the 400 grain bullets. Primarily, what he says that concerns me is that he concludes that the 400 grain TSX is too long to be used in the .416 Ruger in a rifle with a standard sized magazine. He doesn't really state that in the article from Rifleshooter magazine, but it is mentioned in one of the photo captions in that article on page 3, although he doesn't give a reason. In the SCI article, Sundra says that his rifle, built by Empire, uses a full magnum action, so he says he wasn't constrained from seating the bullet further out as you would be by a shorter magazine that you would find in a Ruger rifle . In other words, with a normal 30-06 sized magazine, you'd have to seat the bullet into the case too far. I'm just trying to convey what he said since I have no knowledge of the cartridge myself. Sundra does say in both articles that the 350 grain TSX bullet can do whatever needs doing and I can't say that I disagree with him. However, for a stopping cartridge, I would want a heavier bullet than the 350gr. Maybe even one of Robertson's 450 grain bullets! (Ray seems to be of the same mind set with the heavy for caliber bullets) I do know that a 400 grain A-Frame is about the same length as a 350gr. TSX, so I know you probably wouldn't have a problem with using other 400 grain bullets in the Ruger cartridge. However, with the monolithic soft points and also with the solids currently out there, you might not be able to get to 2400fps.

All this being said, I suppose attaining 2400fps is not all that critical. Even if you get to 2200-2300 fps, you'd still probably have a heck of a dangerous game cartridge, just like Ray says.

Sorry to have thrown a monkey wrench into this. I was just trying to relay some info I thought might be relevant.

Test

test1328,

No monkey wrench at all. Thanks for the info!!! Sometimes I don't "type" how I intend to sound when I type stuff on forums. I hope you didn't take my post as negative, it wasn't intended at all. If it wasn't for your reply, I wouldn't have found the on-line article. I appreciate ANY feedback on the topic.

Thanks for the update!!!

Stump

Stump,
No offense taken here. I just didn't want people getting wrapped around an axle over this based just on what I wrote since I don't have any first hand experience with this cartridge myself.

Since I am home today and have ready access to the SCI Safari magazine where Sundra's artcle appears, I thought I would tell you exactly what he says.

Sundra relates how he was able to duplicate the nominal 2400 fps listed for Remington's 400 grain factory load and Federal's 400 grain .416 Rigby load. He then says, "I hasten to add, however, that the Empire action is of magnum rather than standard length, so I didn't have to keep overall cartridge length to the 3.3 inches required to cycle through the Ruger rifle."

He goes on to talk about using the 350 grain Barnes TSX bullet and says, "If loaded to the .416 Ruger factory-ammo length the base of the bullet is 1/3 inch below the case shoulder, and the 400 grain TSX is so long as to be unusable in my opinion."

I do know that I concluded the same thing about the 400 grain TSX in my .416 Remington, so I definitely can understand where Sundra's coming from with the .416 Ruger.

Hope this helps you out a bit. Good luck to you and let us know what you decide.

Test

Although I am not a fan of the Hogue stocks on the Ruger it is a comfortable stock to shoot and yesterday I was talking with a man who absolutely loves his and claims the felt recoil from his 375 ruger is dramatically less than the recoil from his 375 H&H Whitworth. I would give the Ruger and the Hogue an honest try and decide for yourself. Plus the new DGX Hornady steel jacketed soft nosed and solid bullets look like they should work perfectly for you intended use. I certainly plan on using them this season.

Although they'll win no beauty contest, I actually like the Hogue much better than the standard offering on the Ruger All-Weather. I guess I should say that even though I like the 'lines' of the standard model, I find them to simply feel and look cheap.

I do find the Hogue to be a bit more comfortable to shoot, but the pistol grip is slightly too beefy for my hands. Perhaps because I've yet to use mine anywhere but in the humid, tropical heat, I like the grippiness of the stock as it aids in keeping my sweaty hands on the firearm. Of course, my opinion could change completey under different conditions.

I also plan to try the new Hornady ammunition and believe that it should prove to be some pretty good stuff. Only time will tell for sure.