416 ruger recoil

B

BigBraz15

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
101   0   0
Location
N.W. Alberta
I have always been intrigued with the 416 caliber. I love the long full length rounds like the 416 Rem Mag, but I think the ruger makes more since as a platform for what I would use it for. Just wanted to see how the recoil is in the Ruger rifles, and if possible to load light loads to tame it down a bit and slowly work up in power as you go. Recoil never used to bother me, but I was rear ended a few years ago and if I get too carried away I get headaches for days. I'm sure if I build up tolerance slowly it will be fine though.

Thanks for the input!
 
I have the Rigby, Remington and Ruger versions of the 416. The Ruger is the lowest recoiling. You feel it with heavier 400+gr loads but the 350 TSX is a real nice round to shoot. As with any rifle, how the stock fits and the weight of the rifle mean as much to recoil as the caliber. IIRC the new Ruger versions have shorter barrels and some come with Hogue stocks.
Hornady makes the 416 Ruger brass and it was available when I bought it.

I pieced together my 416 Ruger off a 77 tang safety, Mcmillan and a Bevan King barrel.

AOwaD1Ul.jpg

XkKeD6al.jpg
 
Last edited:
My Ruger Alaskan is in the Hogue over molded stock. I find full power loads in it quite manageable, I think due to the stock design. Jet Bullets makes a great cast bullet for 416, and allows for a reduced recoil load that won't break the bank, and is very accurate in my gun. There is lots of recoil with the 416, but I don't find it as sharp as some others. To me, a light weight 30-06 is much more objectionable, as are a lot of 45-70s when loaded warm. I suppose this is all subjective, but I was pleasantly surprised at how manageable the 416 is.
 
I've had a rigby (ruger #1) and the ruger (m77 Alaskan) and like buckmastr I found the ruger to recoil noticably less than the rigby. Not sure how much was to do with stock design etc.
 
416 Ruger recoil seems sharper with faster lightweight bullets, and more of a push with slower heavier bullets. I have the 340gr CEB MTH V15 loaded at 2500 fps MV, and recoil isn't quite as sharp compared to a 300gr TSX at 2800 fps.

Need some numbers to make the comparison a bit more meaningful (although the values below are nearly equal) -

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php

For a 9 lb rifle with scope -

340gr @ 2500 fps: 58.92 ft-lbs

300gr @ 2800 fps: 56.39 ft-lbs

30-06: 21 ft-lbs :p

Nice thing about the 416's is that game shot with one has a tendency to pile up right now. :eek:

35559126236_730fff6f68_b.jpg

416 Ruger Alaskan with Nikon Omega BDC 250 3-9x40mm

35210667840_70d2a1df4e_z.jpg
35233497350_e7a8841db6_z.jpg
 
Given the fact that 416 Ruger rifles are generally significantly lighter weight than 416 Rigbys and somewhat lighter than 416 Remingtons, given all the givens they will recoil a little more (same weight bullet and same MV). There is a slight difference due to the difference in powder charge weight but all in all the only real variable is the initial rifle weight. When I was at the SCI show in 2009 I spoke to one of the senior guys at Ruger who told me that they initially introduced the 416 Ruger in the "Alaskan" platform and not the "African" because they were having difficulty with stock cracking in the wood stocks. Conversely, there was never an issue with the 416 Rigby in the RSM which used a wood stock and the same funky Ruger bedding system. I can only surmise that a) the wood in the RSM was stronger (which is unlikely because it was much more highly figured and figured wood is more likely to split than plain), or, b) The 416 Ruger had a different recoil impulse or force which caused premature stock failure.
 
If recoil is an issue reduced loads can be made. In my 416 RM I can load a 400gr bullet at 1850 fps MV with very good accuracy using a fast burn rate powder. Should also be possible in the 416 Ruger.
 
I really enjoy shooting my Ruger Alaskan 416. I don't shoot a lot of rounds at any one time and usually from field positions and rarely off a bench. It really isn't too bad. The stock isn't the prettiest but it fits me very well and I think the design helps with felt recoil.
 
I can shoot 10 rounds 400gr Hornady or more off the bench with my Ruger Alaskan 416 in one section but I can only tolerate no more than 5 rounds 180gr 300wm in my Tikka lite SS.

The 416 is more like a heavy push but the 300 recoil is much faster and sharp.

From my seat of the pants comparison its about the same or slightly less than shooting my 602 in 375h&h shooting 270gr factory load.
 
Personally if recoil is at all a concern I'd be shying away from medium bores above the 9.3s with perhaps the exception of the .404. As most of the rifles are lighter, the .416 Ruger is equivalent to the .416 Rem in recoil for all intents and purposes and few would say they are gentle or moderate in recoil. I find them perfectly reasonable, but wouldn't approach any of the .375 or .416 Mags if wary of a flinch from the outset.

Side note, but is there a buffalo / grizzly outting coming? A .30-06 or .300 will do either of them perfectly. Heck done it with 7x57 and no flies on it either. I'm a bonafied big gun enthusiast but admittedly see less and less use for the big guns on our continent. Don't get me wrong big guns are as fun as they ever have been, that's reason enough, but I wouldn't flirt with a flinch if wary.
 
BigUglyMan said:
Given the fact that 416 Ruger rifles are generally significantly lighter weight than 416 Rigbys and somewhat lighter than 416 Remingtons, given all the givens they will recoil a little more (same weight bullet and same MV). There is a slight difference due to the difference in powder charge weight but all in all the only real variable is the initial rifle weight. When I was at the SCI show in 2009 I spoke to one of the senior guys at Ruger who told me that they initially introduced the 416 Ruger in the "Alaskan" platform and not the "African" because they were having difficulty with stock cracking in the wood stocks. Conversely, there was never an issue with the 416 Rigby in the RSM which used a wood stock and the same funky Ruger bedding system. I can only surmise that a) the wood in the RSM was stronger (which is unlikely because it was much more highly figured and figured wood is more likely to split than plain), or, b) The 416 Ruger had a different recoil impulse or force which caused premature stock failure.
Click to expand...

the 375 ruger in african with wood had some issues to crack the stock ...
 
No big game plans like that unfortunately... I took my bison with a 338-06 and it is a very effective chambering. I've always had an interest in the big bores, but I backed away from them for a while. I shot a 378 weatherby before I was injured and the recoil was no issue at all. I had a 458 Brno and it was a bit much. Went to a Browning a bolt in 375 h&h and got headaches for days at a time. Was thinking of getting back into a bigger chambering, but it might not be worth the headache. Haha. I appreciate the honest answer Ardent! How are the 9.3's for recoil?
 
Recoil?? It's a high speed 40+ caliber, it's going to recoil. These are typically DRT heavy game stompers so reduced chance of your quarry buggering off into the thickets when shot properly with one of these. The end justifies the means.
 
BigBraz15 said:
No big game plans like that unfortunately... I took my bison with a 338-06 and it is a very effective chambering. I've always had an interest in the big bores, but I backed away from them for a while. I shot a 378 weatherby before I was injured and the recoil was no issue at all. I had a 458 Brno and it was a bit much. Went to a Browning a bolt in 375 h&h and got headaches for days at a time. Was thinking of getting back into a bigger chambering, but it might not be worth the headache. Haha. I appreciate the honest answer Ardent! How are the 9.3's for recoil?
Click to expand...

Impressed by how honestly and wisely you're approaching your return to the medium bores post accident, the 9.3s are a moderate bunch as long as the rifles aren't too light. I'd be all over a 9.3x62 or 9.3x74R in your circumstances, .30-06+ is how I'd describe the recoil. You avoid the speed with them, and hence the sharpness you get in your .375.
 
My 9.3x74R Ruger No.1-S vs. my 375 H&H Mag. Sako 85 Kodiak:

9.3x74R (286gr@ 2450 fps): 39 ft-lbs

375 H&H Mag. (300gr@ 2300 fps): 42 ft-lbs

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php

Both are about 8-1/2 lb rifles scoped and felt recoil is similar as the numbers indicate.

35288783133_79dd06f868_b.jpg

9.3x74R Ruger No.1-S with Leupold VX-3 1.5-5x20mm

35246701963_c14a72e4d0_b.jpg

375 H&H Mag. Sako 85 Kodiak with Leupold VX-2 1-4x20mm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom