.416 Rigby & .458 Lott - Equal Recoil?

[Milan]

I have to admit this is a lively conversation. I would still add a piece to the puzzle . That 300 Weatherby I bought was a bargain deal years ago and is a vanguard. I thought the recoil would be horrible because the thing is light for caliber. It shoots at an 06 level of recoil, as I said earlier. And is unbelievably accurate too
Savage makes an AccuStock that’s railed inside , and stiff by target standard by its design. Maybe a similar DG rifle stock could be made to work the same? Absorb more recoil and be dependable.
I look at the CZ 550 I have , and because it’s a brute, I need to modify it somehow. So recoil reducer to buttstock, new recoil pad, and hope money spent would be worth it. But, a recoil reducing DG stock would be a neat alternative to everyone with a thumper. I’m just imagining this obviously, but any ideas how this would be accomplished would be interesting. Kevlar and aluminum bedding frame . Maybe pin the frame? Food for thought

Honestly, that Vanguard II I had was in .300 WM. It felt like a 30-06, with a brake I added like a .243. Really. I'm sure the brake made it flex even less but it was precise to begin with. So that stock was not only comfy it seemed to be repeatable. That was the one that put me onto not necessarily discounting polymer stocks. But as mentioned elsewhere here, I also think the geometry of it has maybe more to do with it than flex. Plus the rifle was quite heavy (9+ pounds) for a .300 WM. It would need to be measured in more ways than one to see what helped most and how much it actually flexed. I did experience same in handguns. A S&W M&P being "softer" on my hands and lighter to hold than my CZ 75 Shadow SP01. Still prefer the Shadow. Less muzzle rise because it is heavier and does not flex. Accuracy was comparable. So, in the end, give me a properly fitted gun with properly fitting stock and then we will see how much recoil is felt. And then I'd still go for other solutions first (weight, brake, etc.) unless I did not want those (I hate heavy and a I hate noisy).

 

[Milan]

I had my 3 guns out for a shoot last weekend. My CZ in 375, my Model 70 in 458 WM and My CZ in 416 with the B and C stock.

The 416 kicks less than the 458 WM shooting Hornady DGX but the CZ weighs atleast a pound heavier with rings and scope.

It would be interesting to shoot a 458 Lott in the same rifle, same stock vs the 416 rigby to feel the difference but I'm guessing the 458 lott will feel more substantial.

Yes. The CZs seem heavier. But I did have a Interarms Mark X in .375 that was much lighter (almost 1.5 lbs less) than my CZ 550 in .375 and it was just as comfortable to shoot. Both wood. Just better design/geometry on that old stock on Mark X. I'm sure it recoiled more being lighter, but felt recoil was quite a bit tame. Funny how that works.

 

[hoytcanon]

A

This I agree with. It is one thing to have a .300 WM recoil "tamed by plastic" and it would be another to have a .458 Lott in cheesy plastic.

That said, I still kind of plan on putting together another .375 and maybe a .404. It is based on a VZ24 action and I still have one of those cheap over-molded stocks. The idea is to put it in B&C stock so it can be a "proper" rifle. But I for sure will stick it in that plastic just to see the difference. However, .404 reamer is months away and so are dies. So who know when that will happen.

I also found them very good and quite stable and repeatable when bedded. Their geometry is not too bad for me either. Not best for low open sights, but taller sights or scope do just fine.

Not taken personally. I come here for discussions not arguing. I simply took a little exception to the first reaction to my original post. But I think we both explained ourselves well and in the end mostly agree anyway. And even if we did not, who cares. People can have different opinions especially if they have different experiences.

All good... as you say, no need to be hurt by a different opinion. Have a good day.

 

[Edward Wright]

I want to add , I found a B&C stock for the CZ 550 action on their website. It has aluminum frame imbedded as I mentioned in the Savage stock before. It comes in various colors and is exactly what I want for the 550 I have. I’ll keep everyone posted on felt recoil. I may just get a buddy to help and make a barnyard study of wood vs synthetic for a DG rifle .

 

[meritman]

IMHO I feel my 416's are worse than the 458WM I shoot.

Some of this is probably related to the venturi effect of the necked down 416 cartridge in the Rigbyand the amount of powder burned.

That said I feel a full bore 458 Lott is worse than the Rigby, either of which will make your 12 ga slug feel like you are shooting a 22 rifle.

 

[Northern Shooter]

I'm curious if anyone has shot the 416 Rigby back to back to back with the 416 RemMag and 416 Ruger and could comment on if there is any perciebable difference between them? The 416 Ruger has what, 20 grains less than the Rigby?

 

[colorado]

I call BS. If Synthetic stocks soften recoil, it means they are flexing and in doing so absorbing some energy, and also eroding potential accuracy. More likely, the "perception" of less felt recoil is due to the stock profile/ergonomics, the recoil pad and the "grip-ability" of the stock. A lighter stock will transmit more felt and actual recoil when all else is equal... so if there is LESS felt recoil, all else is NOT equal... in general, most dense Walnut stocks will be heavier than most synthetic stocks and therefore absorb more felt recoil (all else being equal).

Well I'm going to add to the BS. I bought a Rem XCR II in 375 H&H in the spring of 2011 for a brown bear hunt. It felt awful light. I weighed it on a postal scale. With a Leupold 2-7x Firedot scope on it, it only weighed 7 1/2 lbs. I thought "this is going to hurt!" Took it to the range using the same ammo (Remington Safari Grade 375 H&H with 300g A-Frames) i shot in my 9 lb plus CZ 550 and it kicked less! Maybye the soft stock is hurting accuracy but it shoots sub MOA and I'm good with that. I had the CZ rebarreled to 500 Jeffery (it now weighs 12 lbs with scope) so if I ever miss recoil I've got the solution.

 

[C.W. Richter]

The 416 is a larger capacity and dimension cartridge with 100 grains less bullet. It's generally speaking from a factory standpoint a lower pressure round than the often full Lott cartridge with higher pressure and a 25% larger slug, so all other gun variables kept the same per the calculations above, the Rigby is more pleasant to shoot and it is the choice of many a PH. As also suggested above not using overboard loads and adding to gun heft can reduce pressure and accompanying felt recoil energy. I prefer the 416 as it has a better SD and BC for better penetration and longer shots not to mention the recoil difference. I had a four five eight and I traded to 416 after considerable testing on the bench and in the field.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I'm curious if anyone has shot the 416 Rigby back to back to back with the 416 RemMag and 416 Ruger and could comment on if there is any perciebable difference between them? The 416 Ruger has what, 20 grains less than the Rigby?

I'd like to see the results of that test too. With a video of the testing posted on here. LOL

 

[C.W. Richter]

You forgot 416 Chatfield-Taylor, but generally speaking the shorter (standardized former wildcats) exhibit more pressure and thus felt recoil in the same weight gun using the same weight bullet. The Taylor is brutal with 2500 fps+ rounds, which are unnecessary (factory is 2,350 and totally fine and the 2,450 handloads are tolerable but FELT!) I'd have to imagine a heavily handloaded RCM would be similar, but factory loads tend to be more tame (in the Rem and Rigby.) This has all been covered in K. Robertson's books. Africa's Most Dangerous comes to mind. He likes 'em all but spells it out. Gun weight plays a definite part, and using 2 Hg recoil reducers and the proper heft barrel pays dividends!!! You can always install 'em in a synth or wooden stocked gun. I've tried magna-porting but it's not magical-you have to use the aforementioned means to tame it down (also brakes but they're not good for anyone's ears-they WORK.) 2,350+ using the proper 400 gr slug at 100+/- yds will def do the trick (not to your shoulder.) If you're recoil-hardy, you can step it up 50-100 fps. Most factory ammo is NOT punishing at all (unless we're talking about those 100+ ft/lb RE big boys. It's a shove, but it's a major shove!!!) Watch Capstick shooting his elephant....lol flames and possible skeletal damage (it looked like my house walls in an earthquake in slow motion!) He lived. He also placed the shots very well! Generally speaking, hot handloads (compressed loads) in shorter cartridges impart more pressure (they have to to achieve the same 2,450 fps benchmark potential in 416 using the same size slug.) Factory guns tend to be lighter too and that's not your friend. Build it right for such endeavors! (also covered in Robertson's prose.)

 

[Hunting Hitman]

My 458 Lott gives but a gentle push and I really enjoy shooting it. Fires a 500 grain pill at 2300 fps and hits very hard.

HH

 

[C.W. Richter]

My 458 Lott gives but a gentle push and I really enjoy shooting it. Fires a 500 grain pill at 2300 fps and hits very hard.

HH

i buy that because it's 0.3" longer than a 458 WM and you get about 100 fps per 0.1" in that FL 375 Wyatt/Lott/Ackley case-all the same. Full or compressed, it's 2450 fps and that smarts (in a typ factory gun weight)! Yours would have approximately 0.1" of airspace left in the case, which reduces pressure (V, and RE.)

 

[CoElkHunter]

You forgot 416 Chatfield-Taylor, but generally speaking the shorter (standardized former wildcats) exhibit more pressure and thus felt recoil in the same weight gun using the same weight bullet. The Taylor is brutal with 2500 fps+ rounds, which are unnecessary (factory is 2,350 and totally fine and the 2,450 handloads are tolerable but FELT!) I'd have to imagine a heavily handloaded RCM would be similar, but factory loads tend to be more tame (in the Rem and Rigby.) This has all been covered in K. Robertson's books. Africa's Most Dangerous comes to mind. He likes 'em all but spells it out. Gun weight plays a definite part, and using 2 Hg recoil reducers and the proper heft barrel pays dividends!!! You can always install 'em in a synth or wooden stocked gun. I've tried magna-porting but it's not magical-you have to use the aforementioned means to tame it down (also brakes but they're not good for anyone's ears-they WORK.) 2,350+ using the proper 400 gr slug at 100+/- yds will def do the trick (not to your shoulder.) If you're recoil-hardy, you can step it up 50-100 fps. Most factory ammo is NOT punishing at all (unless we're talking about those 100+ ft/lb RE big boys. It's a shove, but it's a major shove!!!) Watch Capstick shooting his elephant....lol flames and possible skeletal damage (it looked like my house walls in an earthquake in slow motion!) He lived. He also placed the shots very well! Generally speaking, hot handloads (compressed loads) in shorter cartridges impart more pressure (they have to to achieve the same 2,450 fps benchmark potential in 416 using the same size slug.) Factory guns tend to be lighter too and that's not your friend. Build it right for such endeavors! (also covered in Robertson's prose.)

My Taylor is TAME in an 8.5lb unscoped Whitworth compared to my scoped CZ 10.5lb Rigby? Go figure? I think it's the massive powder charge in the Rigby, but I don't really know?

 

[C.W. Richter]

My Taylor is TAME in an 8.5lb unscoped Whitworth compared to my scoped CZ 10.5lb Rigby? Go figure? I think it's the massive powder charge in the Rigby, but I don't really know?

major pressure differences between the two. factory ammo (there are only a few but they are 2,350 tame-above that my front hood blows off ev couple of shots. ) If anyone finds the last one in the caprivi i'd greatly appreciate it COD.) LOL both sound a bit light!! what ammo are you using in the C-T?

 

[CoElkHunter]

major pressure differences between the two. factory ammo (there are only a few but they are 2,350 tame-above that my front hood blows off ev couple of shots. ) If anyone finds the last one in the caprivi i'd greatly appreciate it COD.) LOL both sound a bit light!! what ammo are you using in the C-T?

Reloaded 400gr. Barnes originals under 70.5gr. RL15 in the Taylor versus FACTORY Hornady 400gr. DGS in the Rigby. I haven't reloaded for the Rigby yet. I need to BUY some TIME somewhere. LOL The Barnes are probably loaded hotter but the rifle weighs 2lbs. more also? That's only a medium load in the Taylor too. So, I don't know?

 

[Northern Shooter]

So what seems to be the largest contributor to felt recoil? Powder charge? Velocity? Projectile weight? Max pressure? I know it's a combination of all of the above but curious if one input contributes more than the others.

Where are the physicists here?

 

[CoElkHunter]

So what seems to be the largest contributor to felt recoil? Powder charge? Velocity? Projectile weight? Max pressure? I know it's a combination of all of the above but curious if one input contributes more than the others.

Where are the physicists here?

Nobody seems to know for sure? I do know, heavier projectiles TEND to create more FELT recoil in a given cartridge. ALTHOUGH, a factory 450gr. Barnes TSX in my CZ .458WM FEELS "snappier" than a factory 500gr. Nosler Partition in my CZ Lott? Barnes loaded hotter than the Partition? Who knows? I don't own or have access to a chronograph, so I have to go by felt recoil. What did they do back in the day before chronographs? I personally don't know anyone who has one even today. I/they always have gone by the reloading manuals reloading data. How primitive? LOL

 

[Forrest Halley]

Nobody seems to know for sure? I do know, heavier projectiles TEND to create more FELT recoil in a given cartridge. ALTHOUGH, a factory 450gr. Barnes TSX in my CZ .458WM FEELS "snappier" than a factory 500gr. Nosler Partition in my CZ Lott? Barnes loaded hotter than the Partition? Who knows? I don't own or have access to a chronograph, so I have to go by felt recoil. What did they do back in the day before chronographs? I personally don't know anyone who has one even today. I/they always have gone by the reloading manuals reloading data. How primitive? LOL

Dear Primitive Elk Hunter from Colorado,
They are selling the contraption known as a chronograph for less than you might pay for a box of your dearest .458 WM. This device allows you to make a scientific approach to hunting and know more closely the trajectory of your ammunition over given distances ahead of time. This would allow you to spend more time talking to @Bob Nelson 35Whelen on video chat than walking about on the rifle range. As we have proven that companies lie to us in order to promote sales, we now use this tool to find the truth. It might be especially useful when you come down out of the magazine restricted nose bleed seats and hunt elsewhere.

 

[Sideshow]

To measure felt recoil IMO you need two identical rifles in deferent calibres.
Its really of no real use to say that X rifle in 357 kicks more that Q rifle in 416. They will feel different simply because of stock shape, barrel lenght, weight etc etc.

 

[Northern Shooter]

So what seems to be the largest contributor to felt recoil? Powder charge? Velocity? Projectile weight? Max pressure? I know it's a combination of all of the above but curious if one input contributes more than the others.

Where are the physicists here?

So I decided to play around with some of the variables using this ballistics calculator (https://shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php).

Starting with the following variables as my baseline:

Bullet Weight: 400 gr
Bullet Velocity: 2,000 FPS
Powder Charge Weight: 100gr
Rifle Weight: 10lbs
Recoil = 53.6ft-lbs.

1. By increasing the bullet weight by 10% (all other variables remain the same), you experience a 12.69% increase in recoil energy.
2. By increasing bullet velocity by 10% (all other variables remain the same), you experience the same 12.69% increase in recoil energy.
3. By increasing the powder charge by 10% (all other variables remain the same), you experience a 7.84% increase in recoil energy.
4. By decreasing the rifle weight by 10% (all other variables remain the same), you experience a 11.10% increase in recoil energy.

So judging by these findings, any equal increase to either the bullet's mass or velocity will result in the equivalent increase in recoil. Rifle weight is the next largest contributor to recoil energy, followed by powder charge.

Interesting.