Anyone Shot a 416 Ruger Yet?
- Thread starter Camp Cook
- Start date
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I heard they were ferocious in the recoil department when I was at SCI in Reno. Certainly some braggodocio involved from the Ruger booth, but if they're 7.75 lbs like they're advertised, they should be rather sporty. I heard they haven't stocked it in "African" trim because they haven't figured out how to keep the stocks from splitting.
Could be the next generation bear-defense lightsaber.
Could be the next generation bear-defense lightsaber.
I had a 7lbs 14 OZ 416 Rem (scoped, loaded, and slung) that was on the verge of being unshootable....recoil was super quick and nasty...Despite what the calculators say it was far more violent than my 9 pound 450Ackley.
The recoil pulverized a Bell and Carlson stock within ten shots and my best buddy with one.
After trying the rifle once he couldn't continue shooting his 375Wby or 338 Win and wisely called it a day!
A 7-3/4 pound 416 will be way beyond the comfort levels of 99.99% of shooters???
Perhaps it is slightly less power over than the 416 Rem?
Although it will be a hand full it should be fine once scoped.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The 350 gr X bullet load behind 102 grs of 4350 (2800+ clocked) in my Rigby chambered Ruger #1 was OK when shot off hand, but it was at the limit of my ability to shoot well prone; 3 rounds were enough. IMHO the various .416s represent the most powerful family of cartridges that can be employed in the general purpose role. I doubt if the smaller Ruger cartridge would be any more objectionable in a slightly lighter rifle. Had the Ruger Alaskan in .375 or .416 been available sooner, it is unlikely that I would have spent money on a custom #1 Rigby or a custom Brno 602 Ultra unless I had been in the market for a true big bore.
- Location
- Lloydminster
We've sold a few of the Alaskans in 416 Ruger so somebody must have some experience. We've got two 1-H's on the way too in 416 Ruger.
The whole point of bringing up my previous experience (and the point I forgot to mention
) was to that once we brought the rifle weight up to 8-1/2 pounds the rifle became a relative pussycat....5 rounds from the prone position was comfortable and ten rounds with a fairly light hold was not a stretch....as compared to 2-3 rounds with tons of muscle tension (which made extended range out of the question).
Strange that adding a 1/2 pound (I went to a mag filled McMillan) would make so much difference, but the difference was night and day.
What is the performance spec of the cartridge?
Isn't it 400 grains at 2400fps?
) was to that once we brought the rifle weight up to 8-1/2 pounds the rifle became a relative pussycat....5 rounds from the prone position was comfortable and ten rounds with a fairly light hold was not a stretch....as compared to 2-3 rounds with tons of muscle tension (which made extended range out of the question).Strange that adding a 1/2 pound (I went to a mag filled McMillan) would make so much difference, but the difference was night and day.
What is the performance spec of the cartridge?
Isn't it 400 grains at 2400fps?
The New King of the .416's should breathe some life into the .416 category, just as the .375 Ruger virtually took over the .375 market.
However, I can see a bit less interest in the .416. It's probably more than most north american hunter really need or want to deal with in terms of added cost, added recoil, so will mostly appeal to a certain type of hunter.
However, I can see a bit less interest in the .416. It's probably more than most north american hunter really need or want to deal with in terms of added cost, added recoil, so will mostly appeal to a certain type of hunter.
Oh man I some how new that was coming...
I agree on the 416 Ruger's if it wasn't for the pricing I would get a Rem 700 in 416 Rem before I ever looked at the 416 Ruger.
GH do you know if a Ruger factory Mark 2 long action, magnum barrel contour fit an 375/416 Ruger Alaskan rifle?
I agree on the 416 Ruger's if it wasn't for the pricing I would get a Rem 700 in 416 Rem before I ever looked at the 416 Ruger.
GH do you know if a Ruger factory Mark 2 long action, magnum barrel contour fit an 375/416 Ruger Alaskan rifle?
Do you mean fit a stock? The action is the same.
The barrel contour of the 375 Ruger is the same as the .300 and up RUger barrel contours- I THINK!!
.
I Know the 7RM is a smaller contour.
The people to ask is Macmillan...I know they took one of the early 375 RUgers to measure the barrel, to ensure a good fit.
As soon as the 375 RUger came out, it was wildcatted to .416. I know of at least a couple of rifles that were chambered long before the announcement by Hornady and Ruger. I think RCBS and Redding are making dies, and presumably Hornady is, too. I don't think they are listed on thier website, but neither is 375 Ruger, and I know I have a set of RCBS 375 RUger dies
I wondered how hard this rifle would kick I have a Mark II in 416 Rigby that started at 8 lbs. I had to add a recoil reducer to handle it. A 7 lb rifle that generates as much recoil has got to be wicked. I also wonder about the 375 Ruger in a lighter rifle, I shoot a CZ 550 in 375 H&H with out a problem but I think the Ruger may have slightly more reciol.
- Location
- Lloydminster
I thought the Ruger 416 Rigby's weighed in the neighbourhood of 10.5 lbs?
The first M77 magnums in 416 Rigby were at least 10.5 lbs. (I have one from the first yr of production and its almost 11) They then went to a lighter barrel contour which shaved quite a bit off. My heavy contour is a pussycat to shoot.
Last edited:
My Mark 2 416 Rigby weights 10.5 pounds with scope, mounts and mercury recoil reducer. I may have been 8.5 pounds at the start without anything on it. Even with just the scope on it kicked like Hell. It was the hardest kicking rifle I ever shot. Even my 470 Double is pleasant compared to it.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Where's the "Poke the Nest" there CC?
The 400 gr .416 will penetrate better and likely hit much harder than the 405 gr .458. The 405's will also likely suffer from poor construction as well as decreased sectional density. The 416 would undoubtedly be the choice of the vast majority of people who need to stop big problems with a rifle. Now if we were talking about a 500 gr .458" at 2100 versus a 400 gr .416" at 2400 you'd be closer to a coin-toss, but with a 400 FPS edge, the 416 would be the hands down winner.
The 400 gr .416 will penetrate better and likely hit much harder than the 405 gr .458. The 405's will also likely suffer from poor construction as well as decreased sectional density. The 416 would undoubtedly be the choice of the vast majority of people who need to stop big problems with a rifle. Now if we were talking about a 500 gr .458" at 2100 versus a 400 gr .416" at 2400 you'd be closer to a coin-toss, but with a 400 FPS edge, the 416 would be the hands down winner.
The better question is what is the more intelligent selection??
Given that most of us hunt with one rifle at a time
nest what is the caliber better suited to general hunting and crushing the potential from an angry animal.A 45/70 with a 405gr at 2000fps or a 416 Rem with a 350gr TSX at 2750fps????
Duhhh???.....Lets see!
Up close both work well....No argument there even though I prefer the 416/400 for this sort of stuff.
Sight in both 2.5 inches high at 100 yards the 45/70 is zero'd at 150 and down 6 inches at 200 yards.
The 416 on the other hand is zero'd at 230 yards and is 6 inches down at 300 yards.
At 300 yards the 405gr is moving at a pathetic 1155fps and has 1185fpe of energy....
Will it kill?...I'm not going there.
Can the shot be made?? Probably not without an adjustable sight and a laser rangefinder.
Miss estimate the range by 20 yards and likely miss the vitals altogether.
An interesting piece of history, but obsolete nonetheless.
Our (mighty) 350X on the other hand still retains 2050fps and 3300Fpe at 300 yards...
Which should sound familiar since this is the starting velocity and energy of the 45/70.
Welcome to the 21st century! 
