.416 Ruger vs .416 Remington

[Elkeater]

So I’ve been contemplating a .416 rem mag for a bit. But was recently looking at a reloading manual and started comparing the .416 Ruger published data vs .416 rem published data. Not much difference that I can see. Brass availability is an issue I think but other than that is there a reason to not go down the .416 Ruger road? Part of the reason I ask is that I have a Ruger M77 II in .300 win mag that I could simply rebarrel I believe. The .300 pretty much just sits in the safe and doesn’t get used. I have other rifles that come out for pretty much anything I hunt these days. You all have any thoughts? I don’t plan on hunting buff until my kids are out of the house in another 8-9 years so mostly I just want a big bore for fun and the odd hunt for bison (killed the last two with a 7-08ai) or hogs or just because I want to hunt something with a big bore.

 

[Forrest Halley]

.416 Remington has the advantage that it can be necked up to .458 Lott! .416 Ruger has the advantage of...? Being commonly unavailable? There are a stream of .458 projectiles available for your enjoyment while practicing or plinking. I cannot say the same for .416. That was the major reason for my avoidance of the .416 Rigby #1. If you must have a .416, get the Rigby and load it for effect.

 

[mgstucson]

I am a novice when it comes to the 416 calibers, so I am just curious. From load data I have seen, the Rigby, Rem, and Ruger in 416 all seem to be in the same ball park for velocity with the same bullets, but the Rigby takes more powder and has more recoil. It seems the Rigby in some cases may do the same thing with less chamber pressure, but I am not even sure about that. Please help me understand the advantage(s) a Rigby might offer of the OP's stated choices?

Thanks

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Let's start with this artical comparing the 416 Remington to the 416 Rigby.

U

Thread 'The .416 Remington Magnum'

Mar 9, 2018

The first .416” diameter bullets saw the light of day in 1911, in John Rigby & Company’s proprietary cartridge, the .416 Rigby. It was initially loaded with cordite, the popular propellant of the day in early twentieth century Britain, and a large ring Mauser receiver was necessary to house the voluminous case. Truth be told, the bullet diameter and cartridge didn’t catch on immediately. It sort of clambered along, despite being praised by John ‘Pondoro’ Taylor in his famous African Rifles and Cartridges. The .416 Rigby and the all of today’s .416” bores owe...

• USAN
• Replies: 17
• Forum: Articles

• 

Now for the 416 Ruger. It is an excellent cartridge equal to the 416 Rem and Rigby in performance but not in availability. Logistics, logistics, logistics are most important when hours away from resupplying any missing ammunition.

If I were to venture toward either a 375 or 416 Ruger, I would first acquire at least a few hundred new cartridge cases since they probably won’t be available when I buy one of those rifles. Unfortunately, only Hornady to my knowledge has produced loaded ammunition for these cartridges. I don't know if brass was ever made available. If you don't believe me, check for either brass on ammoseek.com For either Ruger cartridge, it seems one must buy Hornady factory ammo to accumulate brass for their own loads.

I own a couple of 416 Remingtons but I very much like the 416 Taylor. For the Taylor, once can form brass with a stroke of a reloading press and a 458 Winchester case. I owned one and shot 458 cases for practice and saved my 416 Taylor head stamped cases for Africa. Logistics, logistics, logistics…

 

[Doug3006]

From a performance perspective there’s no difference. You’ll hear speculation about the higher pressure of the Remington being a drawback, but seldom from anyone who has experienced problems….like stuck cases. I’ve also heard the rumors about the Rigby kicking harder, but I haven’t noticed any difference.

I have owned one example of each of the three calibers. I started with the 416 Ruger in a Hawkeye African. I took my first Buffalo with it. The lack of ammo and components convinced me to sell it. Otherwise, no complaints.

 

[coreydb]

Ballistically, the .416 Rigby an the .416 Rem Mag are neck in neck, with the rem mag not requiring a larger receiver to accommodate the much larger Rigby. The Ruger has a faithful following to be sure, but when looking at "low density" ammo like any of the DG calibers, try and choose what is the most readily available, or easiest to obtain bullets to handload.

 

[Elkeater]

So looking at what everyone has to say so far, I guess I’m inclined to continue down the .416 Remington path. I would consider the rigby as well but to me the .416 Remington is a good blend of stopping power and decent trajectory for larger plains game as well as being a touch easier on the recoil side. That is what originally drew me to that cartridge. I plan on hunting buffalo eventually and even though it’s not really needed I want one for my next trip with the plan to hunt eland and maybe a buffalo cow.

 

[Fatback]

I got my first 416 Rem earlier this year and have really enjoyed shooting it. Good quality ammo is readily available, much more so than for my 404Jeffery.

Recoil is manageable and so far I’ve been pleased with my ability to shoot it accurately. I’ll be taking it for buffalo and elephant in August. I had been planning on taking my 404Jeffery but with ammo more available, I can practice more with the 416 Rem, so it gets the nod this time. Here she is after a recent practice session.

 

[ldmay375]

So I’ve been contemplating a .416 rem mag for a bit. But was recently looking at a reloading manual and started comparing the .416 Ruger published data vs .416 rem published data. Not much difference that I can see. Brass availability is an issue I think but other than that is there a reason to not go down the .416 Ruger road? Part of the reason I ask is that I have a Ruger M77 II in .300 win mag that I could simply rebarrel I believe. The .300 pretty much just sits in the safe and doesn’t get used. I have other rifles that come out for pretty much anything I hunt these days. You all have any thoughts? I don’t plan on hunting buff until my kids are out of the house in another 8-9 years so mostly I just want a big bore for fun and the odd hunt for bison (killed the last two with a 7-08ai) or hogs or just because I want to hunt something with a big bore.

You pretty well covered the pros & cons.
I have both, like both. Predominately I use the Ruger. I like the 20" barrel more than 22" of my stainless 416 Remington, and prefer the shorter cartridge for basically the same performance.
300, 325, 350 grain bullets both are easy 250 yard cartridges ballistically for most things in North America.

 

[mgstucson]

Thanks for clearing that up guys. @Elkeater, sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I bought a 416 Ruger African model. I have since acquired over a thousand new cases for it, and a few fired ones. I contemplated the same decision between, the Rem, the Ruger, and the Taylor.

I went with the Ruger because:

1. The shorter case means it is more efficient and can get the same result in shorter barrels. I like short barreled guns if they may need to be used for quick shots in dense cover, and just for carrying all day long.. The Taylor has the same efficiency advantage, and is easier to find 458 brass to make practice rounds from, but harder to find properly head stamped brass to take to Africa.

2. The only plus side of the 416 Ruger brass being so hard to find is that the rifles are cheap. I found my 416 Ruger African on GB for under $800. 416 Rem rifles are considerably more, and 416 Taylors are more expensive, and harder to find.

3. 416 Ruger rifles come from the factory with all the bells and whistles I would ever want, so less dollars buying aftermarket sights, mounts, rings, etc. Even comes with a threaded barrel and a muzzle break I can use from the bench when sighting loads, and then remove when hunting, and/or I can mount a can on it if I so choose without have to send of the barrel for custom work. I also like the all stainless versions for using in inclement weather like Alaska, and will probably add one of those to my collection when I find a screaming deal on one (which won't be hard if Hornady does not start making more brass.)

4. I make my own bullets in 416 caliber (and 510, and 500, and 475 and 458 and 375, and 358, and 338, as well as most any other hunting calibers I use) so bullet availability and variety is mute issue for me. I can make an infinite variety of weights, solids, partitions, bonded/unbonded, etc. The only thing I have to buy anymore are monometal bullets when I want to use them. I can make a double jacket bullet with .035 thickness jackets (I make the jackets also) and that gives me a jacket thickness of .07. (Standard bullet jackets are around .015) So for example on a 416 bullet if I make a bullet using solid copper double jackets, I can use a .276 diameter bonded lead core and basically get the same terminal ballistics as a monometal, with a shorter bullet in the same weight so it is easier to find a powder and load to give me maximum velocity..

Frankly, I don't think there is a wrong answer to the question between the Rem, Ruger, (or Rigby, or Taylor.) I think they are all great options. It boils down to personal preference. I think the Rigby and Rem would be easier to find ammo for in Africa, and like others said, all other things being equal, logistics can sometimes be the deciding factor.

 

[DLSJR]

I shoot a .416 Hoffman, which is essentially the same as the 416 Remington (Hoffman shoulder is very slightly longer, so will shoot 416 Remington ammo as well as Hoffman ammo), so I’ll speak as if I have a Remington chambering. I had my Hoffman built before either the Remington or Ruger were developed or I’d have bought a Remington.

I think the 416 Remington is the way to go. It is pretty easy to get at least 2,450 with a 400 grain bullet. That’s more than the original Rigby load and more than enough for anything you may shoot. Jack Carter, the founder of Trophy Bonded Bullets, loved the Hoffman himself and gave me his load data which was 81.0 grains of Reloader 15, Federal 215 primer and a 400 grain Bearclaw. Jack said “It’s a hell of a good buffalo killing load”. He was spot on! I got 2,510 with that load out of my model 70 with a 22” Hart barrel. These days I shoot a bit milder load of 79.0 grains of RL 15 and like it just as much. It kills Buffalo plenty dead. I think the last 7 buffalo I’ve shot, including one last week on Hammond, have all been with that load.

Last week’s bull took a 400 grain Bearclaw on the point of the shoulder at 35 yards and went about 50 yards before dropping dead. His shoulder was completely smashed and leg flopping loosely. That’s all anyone can ask for in any gun. The bullet was fairly beat up but went right through very heavy shoulder bone.

I don’t think the Ruger offers any real advantage over the Remington, certainly not from a real world practical standpoint. Also, there is no real disadvantage in a 22” barrel vs. 20” unless you’re hunting Bongo in the jungle. The bush on Hammond is incredibly thick right now and I never felt the barrel length was a hinderence. Remington ammo and brass is much easier to source.

I’d go with the Remington and never look back.

 

[Tally-Ho HUNTING SAFARIS]

purely from a convenience point of view
416 rem all the way, easy to find ammo, cases etc
ammo is cheaper compared to all other 400+calibres
and its nicer to shoot

 

[harris88]

 

[AZDAVE]

The ruger,Remington, Rigby, Taylor etc pretty much get the job done with basically the same ballistics. The rigby hats lower barrel pressure. So lay in the ammo, brass,reloading components to last you 10 years and go hunt.