.450 Dakota (500gr/2350fps) and the Dakota 76 African rifle

I'd owned a ZKK 602 in .375 H&H, and a Win Model 70 in .416 RM (which I took on my first African safari).



The .416 RM (400gr/2400fps) is a fine medium, but I really wanted a .458 for its extra edge. Buffalo seems to stay down more reliably with that larger caliber.

When I was planning my second Cape Buffalo hunt, I wanted a 500gr .458 which was shouldered/nonbelted/noncompressed, and easily capable of 2300-2450fps. It did not have to be in a standard length action. I don't care for Weatherby calibers/rifles, and the .458 WM hadn't the MV I wanted. The .458 Lott has decent ballistics, but I didn't like the belted/tapered case.

Having handled and shot Jeff Cooper's .460 G&A "Baby", I liked the rifle (but not the handloading hassles of that caliber, a necked up .404 Jeffery with very narrow shoulder and poor headspace control). The rifle itself is set up about perfectly for DG, and Jeff used it well over there. (Below is me with "Baby", riffing on the 1930s Mauser ad.)



What met my criteria was the .450 Dakota. It's a beautifully designed round, 26° shoulder, with no vices. It's a necked up .416 Rigby, with less sharp shoulder than the .450 Rigby. Brass and dies are available and affordable. It handloads nicely with 500gr and RL15, including the longer Barnes TSX without compressed loading. I load 500gr/2350fps as an additional 50-150fps would not likely be any more effective while adding additional recoil. My Dakota 76 (an heirloom grade production rifle of lovely quality) weighs w/o scope about 10.6 lbs, and recoil feels about like a 10ga shotgun. It's comfortable to shoot. (If you're a beast for recoil, it'll load 500gr/2550fps and 600gr/2350fps, both providing 7200+ ft-lbs.)

I've taken three very nice animals with it: a cow Bison in South Dakota (only animal I used my Zeiss on), a very fine Eland bull (with very faint Livingston white stripes),



and a 41" Cape Buffalo.





The 500gr .458 Barnes TSX performed to perfection, with straight bullet tracks and 99+% weight retention. (If case compression is an issue with your caliber, then go 500gr Swift A-Frame.)

While the .470 Mbogo intrigues me, I'll "suffice" with my .450 Dakota. It's the caliber and rifle for me, and difficult to improve upon! It has enough performance for anything on the planet, in a package that isn't brutal to shoot.

More details of the buff hunt at:

Although I'm a fan of the 450 Rigby, the formula for velocity and bullet weight is the same as the Dakota, and they both have a devastating effect on Buffalo.

They may not all drop at the shot like yours, but everyone that I've talked to that has shot Buff, Ele and other large Dangerous Game with these cartridges makes the same claim for them. When a good quality bullet from one of these is put where it needs to go, the effect is immediate.

One PH I know personally told me the 450's provide "the most rapid attitude adjustment" he has ever seen on Dangerous Game.

Thanks; that shot was an attempted spine shot, while about 2" off on the near side, it was close enough to the spine to drop him...until his friend revived him somewhat! He needed and got a finisher.

Jeff Cooper quipped that using .375 on buff was like using 9mm on people: it generally works, but when it doesn't.... Along the same train of thought, a .416 RM is like a .40S&W, and the .458 Dakota/Rigby is like a .44 Mag! Yep, the critters seem to notice the difference!

Nice rifle in an interesting cartridge.

Now you need to look into the 505 Gibbs. I was using 570gr Swift A-frames at 2300fps and 600gr Peregrine VRG3's at 2250fps. My rifle was a custom CZ 550 built by AHR and weighed a touch over 11lb empty. Recoil was stout but managable. I regret selling that rifle .

matt85 said:

Now you need to look into the 505 Gibbs. I was using 570gr Swift A-frames at 2300fps and 600gr Peregrine VRG3's at 2250fps. My rifle was a custom CZ 550 built by AHR and weighed a touch over 11lb empty. Recoil was stout but managable. I regret selling that rifle .

Click to expand...

570gr/2300fps and 6700ft-lbs is pretty mighty. In a chat with rifle builder Ryan Breeding, he remarked on the visibly greater effectiveness of the .500s. He recommended them if I were ever going to shoot a lot of buffalo. I'd be wondering about the tradeoff of penetration (83 by my Royce Penetration Index) for shock power. Has your .505 Gibbs reliably tracked to the vitals, or even exited?

If I ever were tempted to a larger caliber, I think I'd stop at the .470 Mbogo vs. going to a .500, but that's based only on my current knowledge. WDYT?

Many previous penetration and shock power indices exist (Wooter's Lethality Index, etc.) but what I thought lacking was their connection to proven benchmark.

In my Safari Dreams, as a thought experiment rather than the purporting of new ballistics gospel, I employed A-Square's Penetration Index (PI) and Shock Power Index (SPI) formulae but with my twist of indexing such to a proven balance of penetration and shock power: the 400gr/2400fps .416 Rigby, which just works. (For PG I indexed those calibers to the 180gr/2600fps .308.)

Thus, the classic .416 Rigby load would score 100 PI and 100 SPI. I believe such values are the ample reliable minimum for DG, although one can manage with less (such as the .375H&H).

286gr/2360fps 9.3x62 scores 83 PI and 53 SPI
300gr/2550fps .375H&H scores 91 PI and 69 SPI
465gr/2220fps .458 Win Mag scores 78 PI and 121 SPI
500gr/2400fps .450 Dakota scores 109 PI and 152 SPI
500gr/2500fps .470 Mbogo scores 100 PI and 177 SPI
570gr/2300fps .505 Gibbs scores 83 PI and 197 SPI

Now, perhaps in the field an 80ish PI has been shown generally sufficient (in conjunction with high SPI), and I wouldn't challenge that. Same with the .375H&H's 69 SPI (because its 91 PI does get the bullet to the vitals). The absolute legal DG minimum of 9.3x62 with scores of 83 PI and 53 SPI is an illustrative reference point (no .45-70 load comes even close).

It's interesting, for example, that the 400gr .458 Lott and 500gr .470 N.E. have the same PI and SPI, which betokens very similar effect on game, even though the .470 has <400 ft-lb.

Obviously, these scores do not perfectly replicate real world terminal ballistics. My table was created to provide a rough theoretical comparison of DG cartridges in relation to a proven balanced performer praised by all. It's a tool for understanding what is given up or gained vs. the .416 Rigby. It was fun to devise, although I'm not "married" to it.

BTP-KennethWRoyce said:

570gr/2300fps and 6700ft-lbs is pretty mighty. In a chat with rifle builder Ryan Breeding, he remarked on the visibly greater effectiveness of the .500s. He recommended them if I were ever going to shoot a lot of buffalo. I'd be wondering about the tradeoff of penetration (83 by my Royce Penetration Index) for shock power. Has your .505 Gibbs reliably tracked to the vitals, or even exited?

If I ever were tempted to a larger caliber, I think I'd stop at the .470 Mbogo vs. going to a .500, but that's based only on my current knowledge. WDYT?

Click to expand...

I shot a cape buffalo with my 505 using the 570gr a-frame at 2300fps. The first shot actually hit a small tree (about 1.5-2" thick) before the animal... The tree exploded with the upper portion being launched into the air. The bullet then hit the animal (already fully expanded) in the shoulder, breaking the shoulder, then passing through the vitals. The animal was found laying down about 100 yards from where he was shot. It made a feeble attempt to get up when it saw us but a few more 570gr pulls sent it the the grazing grounds in the sky.

None of the bullets exited the animal. I didnt see the bullet recovery but was told they were all just under the skin on the opposite sides of the entry.

After the hunt I developed a load for 600gr North Fork CPS bullets. But never tested them on game.

I have shot a lot of buffalo here in Australia with a .458 Lott.
The .458's certainly do perform well on bovines,
if you can shoot them well they are very effective.

Good to see you reloading from the shoulder.

Thanks for posting.

matt85 said:

I shot a cape buffalo with my 505 using the 570gr a-frame at 2300fps. The first shot actually hit a small tree (about 1.5-2" thick) before the animal... The tree exploded with the upper portion being launched into the air. The bullet then hit the animal (already fully expanded) in the shoulder, breaking the shoulder, then passing through the vitals. The animal was found laying down about 100 yards from where he was shot.

Click to expand...

Good Lord, what a freight train of a bullet. How fortuitous it didn't deflect off the small tree. Was the buffalo walking during a leading shot?

PaulT said:

I have shot a lot of buffalo here in Australia with a .458 Lott.
The .458's certainly do perform well on bovines,
if you can shoot them well they are very effective.

Good to see you reloading from the shoulder.

Thanks for posting.

Click to expand...

Spot on with "if you can shoot them well they are very effective". Not many clients seem to use a 500gr/2300fps .458 Lott though I think that more could. No doubt it serves you well Down Under! It's a fine PH rifle, and it's available.

Regarding DG calibers, I'd really like to see the .375 H&H crowd move up to at least the .416 Rem/Rigby. 400gr/2400fps is "enough gun". You just don't read of anecdotal inadequacies from well handled .416s. IMO, the .375 is a bit light on buffalo, and the .458 is a bit recoil heavy for most clients. The .416 seems "just right" for client use.

The lower .40s offer a significant edge over the .375 on dangerous game. They won't make up for sloppy bullet placement any more than anything else, but they will stop a charge much more reliably. There is a big difference between hitting a buffalo with a .375 and hitting one with the .416.
-- Craig Boddington, Safari Rifles (1990), p. 59, 70, 291

Click to expand...

I miss my .416 RM Win 70 and would have been content to keep it for buffalo...until that .450 Dakota fell into my lap.

Shoulder reloading a magnum-length action can take some cheekweld experimentation to avoid the bolt. If one finds one's face crowding the bolt (more likely, as I learned, with iron sights, vs a scope), a thin bead of silicon on the stock could serve as a cheek-tactile reference point. I believe in lots of dry-fire work from the sling (both sides of the body). Hundreds of iterations at home will create muscle memory for when it's needed in Africa.

BTP-KennethWRoyce said:

Good Lord, what a freight train of a bullet. How fortuitous it didn't deflect off the small tree. Was the buffalo walking during a leading shot?

Click to expand...

A benefit of lead round nose bullets, they are less likely to deflect off heavy bush.

The buffalo was holding still when shot. The small tree simply wasn't visible at the distance of about 60-70 yards without any magnification (I was using a Trijicon RMR).

BTP-KennethWRoyce said:

Obviously, these scores do not perfectly replicate real world terminal ballistics. My table was created to provide a rough theoretical comparison of DG cartridges in relation to a proven balanced performer praised by all. It's a tool for understanding what is given up or gained vs. the .416 Rigby. It was fun to devise, although I'm not "married" to it.



View attachment 786262

Click to expand...

Finn Aagaard had a great point about lethality indices: since (in his opinion) shot placement is 90% of the killing effect, only the 10% remaining can be affected by the bullet's impact velocity, sectional density, penetration, expansion, and weight retention.

Thus, any formulae should be applied to only that 10%, which makes caliber comparisons much less relevant. For example, between my 100-score of .416 Rem Mag and 83-score .375 H&H, in his opinion the practical difference would be only ~2%. A mere 2% improvement does not quite seem borne out in the real world between the two cartridges as the .416 is widely known as visibly more effective than that (though maybe not 17% more effective as my table math implies).

With the greatest respect for Finn, I believe he overstated the value of bullet placement at 90%. Mere placement alone cannot be 90% of the answer as I could perfectly place a .22LR behind the buff shoulder for a high-heart/lung shot, but it likely wouldn't reach the vitals much less pass through them. It is ample bullet performance which makes relevant the bullet's placement.

A bullet must have sufficiently straight and deep penetration to reach/perforate the vitals, with enough destructive energy along the way. So, as a conversational starting point, perhaps Bullet Placement should be rated at 60% and the bullet at 40%? Such would then put the .416 at 100-score and the .375 at 93-score (instead of 83 in my table), the .416 being 7% more effective. I think most PHs would agree to at least that 7% margin (though maybe not my original 17%).

Accounting mathematically for the bullet placement's share seems a fair refinement to my lethality table, and more commonly reflected in the field. (I think it quite useful for defensive handgun caliber comparisons, such as 9mm vs. .40 S&W.) I may revise my book data accordingly.

It's at least fun to kick around.

Like soo many that argue for lighter and faster bullets their argument is always when talking about perfectly placed shots. They never talk about missing the bullseye. What happens when you hit the 5 ring instead. That's when the larger caliber bullets have some advantages with the much larger wound cavities they produce.

First shot placement is obviously very important and I don't discount that in any way, but when it's not perfect I like having a bit of insurance the larger caliber might provide if it's on the edge of the vitals.