404 jeffery vs 416 Rigby

[Hallgeir Gravråk]

I was in my beleives that the scale was right, but it was adjusted with zeroing with a caramicbowl on the scale.
When I Find out I put the rifle on the scale and this was the result, quite something else from what I said earlier. Sorry for that.

 

[Shootist43]

Hallgeir, there is computer software available namely "Quick - Load" that might possibly be of help. Your need to shorten the neck of a 404 Jeffery case indeed does reduce its' capacity. As previously stated I use 84 Gr. of H 4350. It should not be too difficult find out how much of that powder is necessary to produce the same pressure in your smaller case. Drilling out your stock and inserting a Mercury Recoil Reducer or lead will increase the weight of your rifle and reduce the amount of "felt" recoil. Another thing you might try is to contact someone in the Technical department of your powder manufacturer and see what they would recommend.

 

[postoak]

So scope and rifle weight 9 pounds 14 ounces and it still kicks you badly? You could add a mercury recoil reducer and to get the weight up some more go to a heavier scope. Most scopes weigh between 8 oz. and 22 oz., with the vast majority being 11-12 oz. I would put on an inexpensive tactical scope (they're heavier) such as the Bushnell AR Optics 4.5-18x40. It is a compact scope, but heavy at 21.5 oz. Just keep it at 4.5 x. That will increase your weight about 10 oz. probably.

 

[Rule 303]

Rule 33, the 416 Rigby takes a lot of powder, the slower the powder, the more it can take, it will kick one way or another. Comes a point where the subtleties of feeling real or perceived recoil are out the window. These can be more felt in a 375 H&H, or mild loads in a 404 Jeffery in my opinion, once past a certain level of recoil, they all kick. The Rigby is up there. This is my shoulder talking.

.

Paul, I am hearing you there. The 416 is about the limit of my recoil tolerance. I sure notice the difference going to a 450 grain bullet. Way more than going from a 235 grain 375 to a 350 grain 375.

Re scope weight. I would avoid heavy scopes on a hard kicking rifle if possible. Also any scope on a hard kicker needs good eye relief.

I had a spring loaded recoil reducer put in the but of my CZ550 wood stock on the 416. It helped but not as much as putting a McMillan synthetic stock that was a better fit all round. Not much flex in this one but length of pull is near 14 3/4" inches and weights about the same as the wood stock.

 

[Rule 303]

I was in my beleives that the scale was right, but it was adjusted with zeroing with a caramicbowl on the scale.
When I Find out I put the rifle on the scale and this was the result, quite something else from what I said earlier. Sorry for that.

Hallgeir I no longer think you are a pain freak.

 

[IvW]

So scope and rifle weight 9 pounds 14 ounces and it still kicks you badly? You could add a mercury recoil reducer and to get the weight up some more go to a heavier scope. Most scopes weigh between 8 oz. and 22 oz., with the vast majority being 11-12 oz. I would put on an inexpensive tactical scope (they're heavier) such as the Bushnell AR Optics 4.5-18x40. It is a compact scope, but heavy at 21.5 oz. Just keep it at 4.5 x. That will increase your weight about 10 oz. probably.

I cannot agree with this one.

The heavier the scope the more beating it will take.

Inexpensive scopes are not the way to go on a big bore rifle, they will fail.

4.5-18x40 magnification is way too much and at close quarters the minimum magnification of 4.5 will restrict your field of view and most certainly get you into trouble on follow ups.

A DG scope with 1-5 or 6 magnification with something like a German nr.4 reticle with a illuminating dot is all you need. They are also built to withstand the recoil and have ample eye relief.

If you need to increase weight do so on the rifle not the scope.

 

[postoak]

I knew my scope recommendation would be controversial. Are you guys saying that on DG with the typical scope of 1.5 - 5 that you keep it cranked back from 5x? Otherwise what would be the difference?

What are some ways of increasing the rifle weight besides the mercury recoil reducer (if that does reduce weight)?

 

[IvW]

I knew my scope recommendation would be controversial. Are you guys saying that on DG with the typical scope of 1.5 - 5 that you keep it cranked back from 5x? Otherwise what would be the difference?

What are some ways of increasing the rifle weight besides the mercury recoil reducer (if that does reduce weight)?

Yes you always keep the scope on the lowest magnification while stalking DG. If it then happens you need to take a longer shot you can crank the scope up. After your first shot and whatever it is you shot at runs off you again crank the scope down to the lowest setting before follow up.

What would be the difference? Well at 4.5x minimum your field of view is seriously compromised for short range hunting. This is a big drawback when hunting DG especially on follow up.

Typical shots at DG would be from 40-100 yards on buffalo and 10-40 yards on elephant. What will you do with all the magnification except put yourself at a disadvantage?

The illuminating dot is great for low light conditions on Lion, leopard and even thick bush for buffalo.

The heavier the scope the more force is exerted on it under recoil.

Increasing the rifle weight can be done by:

Restocking the rifle with a denser wood.
Adding lead inserts in the stock by a competent gunsmith.
Adding mercury recoil reducer.

I have to mention here that proper stock design and fit as well as a high quality recoil pad is much more important than the actual weight of the rifle.

 

[postoak]

Good points, IvW.

 

[Hallgeir Gravråk]

I have mounted a Leupold VX R 2-7x33.
I think this will do, I`m planning to put in a recoilstopper in the stock, it will increase the weight a bit and most of all it will work against the recoil.

 

[Paul Homsy]

Hallgeir, Test it a bit to make sure it holds up. Mine is on a 30-06, not on a heavy rifle.

Mercury recoil reducers do reduce recoil very well in shoguns because of the much slower impulse. In rifles, my experience is that you can only count on the added weight which does reduce recoil, but not really in the mercury movement to affect recoil, not by much anyway. The recoil impulse is too fast for the mercury to counteract it simultaneously and if it does, the mercury itself in the tube may not weigh more than 4 or 5 ounces which isn't much. I've only tested them in fast 300 magnums, they may be more effective in larger bores with reduced speeds compared to 300s. I may be splitting hairs here but it seems to me that a larger diameter tube 6 or 7 inches long may allow faster movement of the mercury and be more effective as opposed to a long slimmer tube.

In a twelve gauge shotgun I've gone from being able to shoot 50 rounds to comfortably shooting two hundred in one session after adding a fat mercury recoil reducer. In a rifle the effect of the mercury reducer wasn't that impressive. Simple weights would have done the same thing in my opinion and are probably the best way to go.

 

[Rule 303]

I'll back up what IvW said about scopes and rifle fit for reducing felt recoil. amazing how a good fit speeds up time to get on target.

As a test put a scope on 4 power and see how far you have to be from a 4 or 5 gallon drum to see it and what is around it clearly. Now do it again with a 44 gallon drum. If those drums were animals how hard is it to find the vital zone and how hard is it to track the animal if it is moving, especially towards you where high magnification will loose focus.

 

[Felipe]

Tengo un .404 Mauser M03 y un Heym .416 rigby. Me gustan los dos.

 

[Shootist43]

Felipe, con razon!! I own both calibers as well, but mine are no where near the quality of yours.

 

[Felipe]

Gracias Hoy hay muy pocos rifles nos en estos calibres. Los míos, la verdad, son muy bonitos y van muy bien. Gracias

 

[Felipe]

Rifles Pocos malos eos calibres, he querido decir

 

[Daga Boy]

Both calibres are popular over here, with the 404 seeming to be on the up for use on big stuff at the moment.
Personally i would steer clear of a hot loads in the Rigby. A 6000 foot pound thing kicks like a mule and there is a high risk of bullet failure on heavy game at close range. Better to load the Rigby at around its original operating levels (400gr at say 2400fps) and use another, lighter weapon for longer range applications (The .338WM is a good choice for that).
That having been said there are not a lot of places over here where one would need to take shots in excess of 200m, and even that would be considered a long shot except in the desert regions.

 

[sierraone]

IMO "hot" loads in a .375 HH up are totally unnecessary. Most of the
African calibers we talk about on this forum have been taking dangerous game for close to 100 years and more. The .404 J is the only one I can think of at the moment is not quite 100 just yet. Needs about 6 or 7 more years to reach that age. Bullets have evolved greatly and have given the old guys much more killing power without greatly increasing the speed.

 

[Daga Boy]

Agreed. In fact high velocities are known to cause problems on dangerous game. The 375H&H for instance is known for bullet fragmentation, bending, fishtailing, etc when used on elephants at close range. However the problem disappears when the muzzle velocity is dropped by about 200fps, so bringing the cartridge back to the original performance, on which it built its fame. For this reason people have taken to loading the .375 with heavier bullets (350-400gr) for that application. Barrels are frequently also cut down to 23". This costs about 120-150fps depending on the load, but overall the weapon performs better for big game applications when so modified and loaded "heavy and slow".
For cats and bigger thin skinned game one would go back to a 300 or 270gr bullet as one does not need massive penetration and the explosive effect of a faster, more frangible bullet is an advantage in that application.

 

[Velo Dog]

Tengo un .404 Mauser M03 y un Heym .416 rigby. Me gustan los dos.

View attachment 219120 View attachment 219119

Dos bonitos.