In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

416 Ruger

ButteIrishButteIrish Member Posts: 8 ✭✭
edited November 2011 in Ask the Experts
How is the 416 Ruger, especially in Ruger Alaskan? Is it decent to shoot like 416 Rigby or a kicker like the 416 Mag? Is it a good heavy hitter - say for bears?
Thanks for any insight.

Comments

  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    ButteIrish,

    Sometimes it's easier to judge the cartridge by watching someone else shoot it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ0RUECPAgg&feature=player_embedded

    I was first attracted to this cartridge because it would fit in any of the standard length long actions. There was no need to look for those extra long actions (as needed for the Rigby) which often carried bigger price tags unless you wanted to settle for a Remington M700. This means that the .416 Ruger fits perfectly in the quintessential Mauser M98.

    At 8 lbs. without a scope, the Alaskan is not terribly heavy so recoil can be a little more noticeable. I don't pay much attention to it because it isn't a problem for me as long as I'm standing. Sitting at a bench is another story entirely. I did all of the load work up from a standing rest that I use frequently for large caliber cartridges that impart significant recoil.

    Ruger and Hornady use some very selective data to substantiate their claim of velocity/energy equaling the older and much larger .416 Rigby. They can believe and state what they want but when the Rigby is brought up to modern standards, it will beat the Ruger hands down.

    This in no way is meant to detract for the .416 Ruger or it's performance. 2350 FPS and 4800 ft/lbs. of energy in nothing to sneeze at under any circumstance. The 20" barrel makes for a very 'handy' rifle which still balances properly when carried for hunting. The .416 Ruger is more than capable of handling any game in the U.S. or Africa for that matter, as long as proper shot placement is the primary concern.

    Best.
  • ButteIrishButteIrish Member Posts: 8 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thank you, Nononsense. That's a complete answer! Appreciate your insight and help.
  • Riomouse911Riomouse911 Member Posts: 3,493 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A 'Smith friend of mine has been making/threading muzzlebrakes for the .416 Ruger more than any other round over the past year or so, it seems to be a popular big bore. As NN said, it'll do anything you'll ever need of it, and be pretty easy to pack along.
  • Manoa-FishermanManoa-Fisherman Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    How does the 416 Ruger compare to the 416 Taylor? Does the case capacity of the 416 Ruger provide more powder with the belt removed? The Taylor is just a 458 Win Mag necked down to 416.

    Several of my friends had Taylors custom made on Springfield and FN actions. A full charge on a 400 gr. bullet whacks you like you wouldn't believe in a 7 lb rifle. I think the load was 72 grs of #4064.
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Manoa-Fisherman,

    The .416 Taylor has a 92 gr. capacity for water up to the case mouth.
    My favorite load was with the 400 gr. Nosler Partition over 62 gr. of 3031. (~2300)

    The .416 Ruger has a 104 gr. capacity for water up to the case mouth.
    My favorite load was with the 400 gr. Hornady DGX over 80 gr. of Re-17. (~2450)

    The .416 Rigby has a 128 gr. capacity for water up to the case mouth.
    My favorite load was with the 400 gr. Barnes Banded Solid over 94 gr. of IMR-4350. (~2500)

    Best.
  • Manoa-FishermanManoa-Fisherman Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nononsense,

    Thank you for the information on the case capacity. It looks like the new 416 Ruger is the way to go for my friends with the 416 Taylors. With luck may be they can just get someone to ream out the chambers for the new Ruger.

    My friend corrected my load info I posted, it was 67 gr of 4064, not 72 gr, he thinks.

    Does the capacity of the 416 Ruger match or come close to the 416 Remington Mag? If it does, boy will it hurt when full load goes thru a light rifle. A old friend went through a dozen or more rounds in a 7 1/2 lb Browning in 458 Win. Mag and found out the next day the error of his ways when his shoulder was black and blue and hurt like hell.

    Your expertise and guidance is always appreciated.
  • nononsensenononsense Member Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Manoa-Fisherman,

    The .416 Remington Magnum has a case capacity of 107 gr. of water to the top of the neck. This is a just a pinch more than the Ruger case. The .416 Remington Magnum was always a nice alternative to the Rigby due to the size. It took a lot of work and new bottom metal to get the Rigby to feed from standard length actions.

    Best.
  • Manoa-FishermanManoa-Fisherman Member Posts: 190 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nononsense,

    Thanks again for the info on the 416 Rem. Mag. One of my friends who was going to build a Rigby found that the only action he could use was an Enfield P-14, but the cost of the brass for it was too expensive. The last time I saw a box of 20 rounds for the Rigby was $106 and I think that was just the brass, that was in 1976.
  • Riomouse911Riomouse911 Member Posts: 3,493 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Why do they not just stay with the .416 Taylor? I doubt there will be any difference in impact on the critter, the gun is already done up for them, and .458 cases (or any 2.5" belted mag case) are all over the place and not tough to make into Taylors...unlike the unbelted fat-bodied Ruger cases which are more limited in availability and price than the .458 cases.

    Unless they're all wanting something new to spend $$ on of course, then anyhting goes!! [:)]
Sign In or Register to comment.