Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only 416 Rigby vs. 416 Ruger: Competition or Coexistence

I guess I threw the SCI magazine out without even reading Sundra's article on the .416 Ruger . Oops...

I guess I would have to stick a few bullets in the case with various suitable powders in suitable amounts and give it a try, because I don't think a gunny even as experienced as Jon R. Sundra can make that judgement without trying it out. If one used powder like, say H414, the bullet sticking 1/3" below the case would not prevent more than enough powder from being poured into the case. At least...that's my opinion. And given that Mr. Sundra does not appear to have actually tried handloading the TSX in the cartridge -- opinions are all we have to deal with at the moment.

Thanks for the followup. I was amused to note, in my mad searching through American Hunter's Internet presence, that they persist in referring to the .375 Ruger and .416 Ruger as the .375 RCM and .416 RCM...which they most assuredly are not.

This is making me almost obsessed enough to buy a .416 just to prove I can drive a 400-gr TSX over 2400 fps... .

Dennis

Betcha can't...jorge

No need Dennis, you can get 2400 FPS from a .416 Ruger with a 400 gr. TSX and almost 2400 FPS with a 450 gr. Woodleigh RN, I did in my short tubed 416 Ruger Mauser..However I see little need for a 400 gr. TSX and prefer the 350 gr. monolithics in all the various 416s and the 404 Jefferys, and I assure you it has more than ample penetration, better expansion, and shoots a bit flatter if that means anything in a 40 caliber big bore...

BUT, you can get considerably more velocity than 2400 FPS with a 416 Rigby ( probably 2600 or more FPS) and perhaps a tad more than 2400 FPS with a 416 Remington, I get 2440 FPS with my Rem., all of which is proud flesh and makes absolutly no difference in killing power on the game these rounds were designed for. 2300 to 2400 FPS is ample under all conditions that I can think of.

I have seen some spectacular kills on Buffalo with the 350 gr. 40 caliber BXs including lengthwise penetration and beautiful expansion, and I have seen the 400 gr. perform pretty poorly "sometimes" with zero expansion?? I also believe that you can get a bullet too long and it tends to tip on contact and it has more yaw up close and personal..

Oh, I know. I was just intrigued by Jorge's discussion of a magazine article wherein that author claimed to "know" something without having tried it.

I'm fairly confident that 2300 fps is plenty for 400 gr bullets, at any sane range that dangerous game would be shot at.

In truth, I would much rather build a .404 Ruger than buy a .416 Ruger . And it's not like I "need" either one... .

Dennis

I know Sundra to be experienced and therefore know whereof he speaks but I thought this anti- the-bullet-seats-below-the-neck bias to be mostly gone thanks to the 300 Win and the .284 win. In the later I can load the very long (1.36") 140-gr TTSX .37" below the neck to get a cartridge OAL of 2.92 and still hit 3k fps.

I would think in a DG cartridge 416 caliber it - seating below the neck - would be even less a consideration as long as you can get in the EVR (effective vel range) of 2150 to 2400 fps.

Seems to me you all are arguing/debating a non-existant issue. They'll co-exist without a doubt. Wasn't the 416 Remington to be the end all of the 416's. Not to mention all the wonderful wildcats that have come about in the last 100 or so years, since the Rigby was birthed. The Rigby is here to stay and, I think, so is the Ruger. They both have a market and both appear to be sound cartridges, well the Rigby is proven and the Ruger soon will be.

For a guy building a 416 with AAA Fancy English Walnut and all the trimmings, it'll most likely be a Rigby, but not necessarily. For the guy building a no-nonsense, composite stocked warrior, it'll likely be a Ruger, but not necessarily. Individuals have their druthers and that's the end of that. To each his own, as always. Arguing as to which is better is an endless, pointless discussion as each has it's own set of virtues to the man writing the check. And that, my friends, is all that really matters.

Ya'll have a good weekend and don't have a coronary over this 416 thing.

David

x2mosq,
You forgot to take in one consideration and that is the cost of a big Mauser or to open up an Enfild action for the 416 Rigby and that alone will run costs up to as much as $4500 extra if you put all the math to it...If you buy one of the custom actions built by a few USA gunsmiths then your looking at $5500 for the action alone in some cases...Howeve one could just buy a Ruger 77 or No. 1 and be good to go...That is quite a buy when you think about it!

All the 416s are excellent choices, its up to each individual to pick and choose, its still America, at least for now!! That seems to be changing daily with our man in Washington..

Maybe the economics of the whole thing is the reason some people become so exercised over the .375 and .416 Rugers -- they are somehow viscerally connected to the idea that rifles in DG cartridges must cost $XXXX amount, and the idea of Ruger producing really viable, functional, and attractive DGR's for under $1000 street price offends their exclusive sensitivities.

Stranger things go on in the hearts of men... .

Dennis

You guys are missing the point apparently, but I see you now have "reviewed down" to 2300 fps.

The author said you CAN get 2400 fps out of a 416 Ruger IN A MAUSER TYPE ACTION because you can seat the bullet out further but NOT in a 416 RUGER ACTION as it's limited to the short mag length. Tell you what I'll do, I have a couple of boxes of 400gr 416 TSXs, if you can get 2400 fps out of it IN A RUGER AFRICAN action, I'll GIVE THEM TO YOU. jorge

Sundra made it pretty clear in the article that he never actually tried it -- he was just "sure" that it wouldn't work. That is my point. He might be right, though I actually doubt it. If I go to that length, I'll build a .404 Ruger, and shoot 400 gr bullets in it. Since the .404 Ruger bullets will be .007" larger in diameter than the .416 ruger, maybe those 400 gr bullets will be short enough to work out just right.

My point on 2300 fps was not to "review it down", but simply that the whole controversy over 2400 fps is functionally irrelevant. Even though I believe I can get there with the Ruger case.

But this argumentation has gone way out of kilter, based on a rather questionable comment by an author who actually contributes here occasionally. Maybe he'll find this thread and add his comments. I would love to hear from his mouth whether he actually handloaded for the .416 Ruger in a Ruger rifle.

But none of it is worth arguing seriously over.

Dennis

Now gentlemen, the longer this discussion goes on the curiouser it gets.

Jorge, if I understand this argument correctly, if the 416 Ruger is loaded in a "Mauser type action" - designed for the 8x57 Mauser, max OAL = 3.290" - it can be loaded to a longer OAL than it can in a "short mag length" Ruger African - designed for the 375 Ruger max OAL = 3.340". Now that would be a mathematical miracle of the first water.

Those of us who've actually reloaded for the 375 Ruger - a few of whom are actually taking part in this discussion from the perspective of experience rather than conjecture - will tell you that actual OAL achievable in the "short mag length" Ruger African is about 3.425". BTW, the same miracle is also possible in the other "short mag length" Ruger, the Alaskan.

Don't know where Mr. JS acquired the opinion that the Ruger 416 can't be loaded up to spec OAL, but it must have been in fanciful gazing through the looking glass, certainly not in the fact based world of the reloading bench. Oh, well it does make for interesting after dinner reparte.

Well all I can tell you is I saw the pictures of the 400TSX and a Ruger case and to get it to fit in the Ruger box it would have to be seated longer than the magazine cantake.(again according to the picture in the article). Regarding the standard Mauser action, everyone knows that you can get them to work with longer cartridges, just like the Ruger I imagine, but what JS was trying to say was that in a factory Ruger 416 African the 400 TSX has to be seated in to deep in order to fir the factory box, hence maybe not enough powder to reach 2400. Regardless, my offer still stands (as I have no intentions of ever owning either Ruger offering) if you have one and need the bullets for the experiment, I'll gladly send them to you. Lastly, in my experience there is a difference between a 400gr slug at 2300 and one at 2600. I load my 416 Rigby with 400gr A Frames and Hornady steel solids to 2450. jorge

Well, splitting the difference between the Rigby & Wby seems to make sense, as the Rigby has certainly been shown to be 'enough gun' for most sensible applications.

Can't comment from experience on game about the .423" bullet's performance at any speed, but will bring you back a 'field report on buff' (how do you like that for gun rag slang?) in a few months.

Meanwhile, I think I'll finally get the reloading equipment unpacked today and load up some 404-375s with successively larger charges of 4350 and we'll see how much we can pack under a 400 grain TSX. I know for sure 80 grains fit in the case, the cartridge fits in the short African magazine, and I have some capacity to spare - done that!

Experience always trumps conjecture, so it seems . I'm looking forward to seeing your results.

Dennis

Whenever you get around to testing the 416 Ruger, in a Ruger African with 400gr TSxs, let me know and I'll send you the bullets to test. jorge

Ray,

The only reference that I was making to money was the fact that the man writing the check is the bottom line on cartridge choice. If he wants the Rigby, he does have the obstacle of action choice. That is fairly simple to overcome as the CZ actions are available as far as I know and are plenty big enough for a Rigby. Of course there are others available for a lot more money, but I doubt seriously that they are any better, meaning actual quality. The CZ may need to be "slicked" up a little and I'd want to put a M70 style safety on it, but otherwise it is, by all accounts, a good quality action.

With that said, the Ruger would probably be more economical to build, and is certainly less expensive in factory rifles. However, when you compare apples to apples in the Ruger rifle line, what you get in a RSM as compared to the Ruger African or Alaskan, may acutally me a better deal if you're looking at it on a feature-by-feature basis. Considering the significan upgrade in wood, the quarter rib milled into the barrel, etc... you're looking at a small price to pay for the included upgrades. The downside of course is the weight of the RSM versus the African and maybe the feel of the rifle. The RSM is a BIG rifle, any way you slice it. But that's the way it was designed. It's designed for BIG cartridges.

Back on topic, the bottom line, again, is what the guy writing the check wants. Not everybody has to squeeze every last bit of velocity out of any given cartridge they use. Not everyone shoots Barnes bullets. To each his own. They both have a niche and I feel they'll both be around for quite a while. I did also read an article in Rifle magazine, May/June 2008.

In this article, Sundra was using a rifle he had built by Empire Rifles with a reamer that he supplied and custom dies made by Redding. The only reference to the 400gr. TSX in this writing was a caption under a picture of the 400 TSX, 400gr. Hornady RN, a round each loaded with the Hornday and a 350 TSX, and then a 350gr. TSX bullet. The caption reads as follows: "he two bullets Sundra's experimented with so far are the 400-grain Hornady roundnose and the 350-grain Barnes' Triple Shock. At far left is the 400-grain Barnes, which he decided was too long." So Sundra, according and at the time of this article, never tested the 400 TSX. He did say that he got 2405 with what he thought to be a starting load, using the 400gr. Hornady out of the 22" barrel on this rifle, but he does not mention the COL that he loaded to. It appears that he crimped the load pictured on the cannelure of the Hornady bullet and the 350 TSX is loaded slightly longer.

Xmos,
Point taken, and I was just adding another varible to the equasion of why the Ruger might be a better 40 caliber, or something like that!

Jorge,
Since my 416 Ruger was a Mauser and my magazine and throat was opened a tad, it could make a difference I suppose, but my barrel was also 20 inches, so I still belive I could safely get at least 2400 FPS, but if not, I would settle for 2300 or even 2200 and go about my business...I suppose the thing to do is let someone try and see what they can get..

Bottom line for me is I have never felt the 400 gr. 40 caliber monolithic a viable choice for DG..It is simply too long, has two much yaw at close range and it might tend to tilt on impact??
I do know that it would be hard to improve on the 350 gr. Monolithic as they perform so well on Buffalo and other dangerous animals, and they have more than enough penetration and better expansion than a heavier monolithic.

Concur with your second observation Ray. I know of two hunters who had "misdirection" with 400gr 416 cal TSXs and mono solids. Randy Brooks prefers the 350 TSX for his 416, a bit more velocity, great penetration and in the case of the shorter 416s, no case capacity issues. As to the 416 Ruger in a Ruger African shooting 400gr TSXs or monos for that matter, I'll have to wait and see until someone shoots it and reports. jorge

416 Rigby vs. the 416 Ruger is the same argument as the 375 H&H vs. the 375 Ruger. Two snot nosed kids vs. two veterans. It just depends what you want. Both the new cartridges will perform on par with their venerable counterparts, it's they don't do it with class or tradition, which is important to me. Lou