True story. Being gun cranks, we all like to split hairs (I know I do, or at least that I love thinking on the subject and of the relative merits of each), but in the real world, it's a non-issue.
+1 on CTDolan's above post on splitting hairs - I am definitely guilty of that one.
Also, I have to confess here and now that, nostalgia plays a major role in what rifles and cartridges I am drawn to.
It is partly because a lengthy track history speaks volumes to me about whether or not I might want to buy / use a particular one but, partly it is just the history that I find interesting enough to want whatever rifle and / or caliber it is that has caught my attention.
This is I suppose why some car collectors are drawn primarily to Pre-1970 models or, name your bygone year as the cutoff point in car manufacturing history.
A good example in my specific "OCD about rifles problem" is the 10.75x68 Mauser.
It did not enjoy a very happy reputation in history but, I'd love to have one because it was there when Africa was very wild - too bad the bullets for it were too soft back then.
As long as I didn't try to make shoulder shots on elephants with it, I expect it'd serve me well.
In fact the 10.75x68 loaded with 347 gr Woodleigh softs seems like it'd be a great rifle for so called "plains game" in areas that have fairly thick foliage, such as The Limpopo District of South Africa that I enjoy so much (especially for tough guys like zebra, waterbuck, etc., and big guys like eland, yet probably not wreck the skin on smaller ones like warthog, bushbok and such).
Getting back to the original question about the .416 calibers - I like the Rigby because of what I ranted about in the above paragraphs.
But, the animal being sacked is never going to know if it was the Remington or the Rigby that put him in the salt.