.416 Rigby & .458 Lott - Equal Recoil?

[Milan]

I had a Ruger RSM in 458 Lott and 416 Rigby. I also had two CZ 550s in the same two calibers. The 416 CZ had a walnut stock and the 458 CZ had a Bell & Carlson fiberglass/kevlar stock. Of all those, the 458 Lott CZ was the most "pleasant" to shoot. The 416's recoil was just sharper. Ruger RSM stock just knocked my teeth around too much, making the RSM in 416 even worse than the 416 CZ. And the 458 Lott Ruger I only fired twice to confirm my theory of "unfit for me". Theory confirmed. Even more brutal. I sold them all but the 458 Lott in the CZ I could have easily live with. Fired 19 shots sitting from a bench, no problem. But I'm now thinking a 404 J or maybe sticking to my now much smaller, lighter kicking calibers.

 

[Edward Wright]

I had a Ruger RSM in 458 Lott and 416 Rigby. I also had two CZ 550s in the same two calibers. The 416 CZ had a walnut stock and the 458 CZ had a Bell & Carlson fiberglass/kevlar stock. Of all those, the 458 Lott CZ was the most "pleasant" to shoot. The 416's recoil was just sharper. Ruger RSM stock just knocked my teeth around too much, making the RSM in 416 even worse than the 416 CZ. And the 458 Lott Ruger I only fired twice to confirm my theory of "unfit for me". Theory confirmed. Even more brutal. I sold them all but the 458 Lott in the CZ I could have easily live with. Fired 19 shots sitting from a bench, no problem. But I'm now thinking a 404 J or maybe sticking to my now much smaller, lighter kicking calibers.

I have a CZ 550 in 458 Lott, and it has a nasty punch to it. I have a 375 Win 70, that shoots like a dream. I was considering buying a Rigby 416, but the hope of a “ push” recoil impulse maybe absent in the Rigby similar to the Lott. Your comparison in stock materials is interesting, I wonder if changing the stock on the CZ to a composite Bell&Carlson, would give me the recoil impulse I’m looking for?? Never believed a composite could impact recoil that much??
I could add I have a 300 Weatherby that’s composite stocked, and I think it shoots softer than an 06? Maybe , I have been wrong thinking about composite and recoil??

 

[Milan]

Stock will definitely affect how rifle recoils and how it is felt. I find most polymer stocks soften the recoil (my Tikka superlite was an exception - kicked like a mule even in .308) and those that can be bedded or are well fitting the action tend to be consistent enough. The cheap Hogue overmolds seem to be soft recoiling, but can shoot well. Weatherby Vanguard II stock was also very comfy. With the CZ vs. RSM I think it was mostly weight (CZ was heavier if I recall correctly) and mainly the shape. While i never complain about the hogback CZ stocks, on bigger calibers like .375 and up I do prefer the straight comb ones. Wooden or fiberglass. Give that B&C stock a try.

 

[hoytcanon]

I call BS. If Synthetic stocks soften recoil, it means they are flexing and in doing so absorbing some energy, and also eroding potential accuracy. More likely, the "perception" of less felt recoil is due to the stock profile/ergonomics, the recoil pad and the "grip-ability" of the stock. A lighter stock will transmit more felt and actual recoil when all else is equal... so if there is LESS felt recoil, all else is NOT equal... in general, most dense Walnut stocks will be heavier than most synthetic stocks and therefore absorb more felt recoil (all else being equal).

 

[flatwater bill]

@cajunchefray The article you cite from Rathcoombe is truly an excellent one. The author is obviously very knowledgeable about engineering, physics, history and even aesthetics (but NOT reloading). Stock fit is about as important as rifle weight in perceived recoil, as he correctly states.......FWB

 

[C.W. Richter]

Generally speaking (for DG-size cases), the larger the case the lower the pressure. The Lott operates in the 62K pressure range whereas the Rigby 52K. The Rigby, although it holds considerably more powder, is clearly more of a pleasure to shoot. You can play with the gun weight, but a Rigby field rifle will always be more pleasurable all the way 'round! Why the Rem and Taylor 416s have more felt recoil than the Rigby (increased pressure with decreasing case size-in the size/volume range of DG cartridges.) The Lott/Wyatt/Ackley improvement over the 458 Win Mag (using the FL 375 Case instead,) wasn't wildcatted for recoil mitigation. The Rigby (much like the 275 Rigby-also borrowed 7x57 Mauser) was pretty much borrowed from the 416 Schuler (and 404 et. al. developed '04-'06) design of German origin. Those guys (Schuler, Mauser) were genius'! The others (including Browning, Win, Rem) simply capitalized upon it for mass production and $$$ purposes.

 

[Milan]

I call BS. If Synthetic stocks soften recoil, it means they are flexing and in doing so absorbing some energy, and also eroding potential accuracy. More likely, the "perception" of less felt recoil is due to the stock profile/ergonomics, the recoil pad and the "grip-ability" of the stock. A lighter stock will transmit more felt and actual recoil when all else is equal... so if there is LESS felt recoil, all else is NOT equal... in general, most dense Walnut stocks will be heavier than most synthetic stocks and therefore absorb more felt recoil (all else being equal).

Bs on what? I was saying polymer stocks which flex cushion recoil. Some flex more than others. Fiberglass/kevlar etc. are stiff so would not do that. In those and in wood the shape/geometry of it matters more. Where is the BS??

 

[Edward Wright]

I will not argue the premise of composite stock being lighter , and my beliefs they transmit “more” recoil than wood. But, my 300 Weatherby mag shots under 1MOA, with a composite stock, and by my opinion shoots softer than a 06. Only a high grade composite stock should be applied to DG rifles. This I would agree, but with “ excessive” recoil of the big cartridges, is it possible that recoil is distributed differently enough to change recoil impulses ?? Food for thought for sure

 

[Riflecrank]

@cajunchefray The article you cite from Rathcoombe is truly an excellent one. The author is obviously very knowledgeable about engineering, physics, history and even aesthetics (but NOT reloading). Stock fit is about as important as rifle weight in perceived recoil, as he correctly states.......FWB

Ditto.
He did not even try H4831/H4831SC with the 400-410 grain bullets, only with 350-grainers.
John Buhmiller and Jack O'Connor both touted 105 grains of H4831 with any 400-ish-grainer in the .416 Rigby. I tried 5 different bullets from 380-grains to 410 grains with that powder charge, they all shot well, at 100 yards, load development was complete in 15 shots.
Pick your bullet, load up a bunch and zero the scope.
Velocities were all in the 2400 to 2450 fps range, except this 380-gr GSC FN, a smidge over 2500 fps:

I wish he would have shown photos of the replacement recoil lug on his Ruger RSM.
I agree with his "Rube Goldberg" assessment of the factory recoil plate cantilevering from a bolster on the action.
The single recoil lug on the factory RSM rifle is detachable !
But they are accurate, above rifle is a Gen-2 .416 Rigby RSM with 24" fat barrel.

 

[hoytcanon]

Bs on what? I was saying polymer stocks which flex cushion recoil. Some flex more than others. Fiberglass/kevlar etc. are stiff so would not do that. In those and in wood the shape/geometry of it matters more. Where is the BS??

The BS is using a shytey, flexy synthetic stock as a means of controlling recoil... that is a very poor idea when you factor in the downside of the effects of that stock on the critical function of the rifle.

 

[Milan]

The BS is using a shytey, flexy synthetic stock as a means of controlling recoil... that is a very poor idea when you factor in the downside of the effects of that stock on the critical function of the rifle.

First off, I did not say he should use shytey, flexy stock as means of controlling recoil. I simply stated my experience in difference of felt recoil with different stocks. I believe I recommended B&C fiberglass/Kevlar stock. I'd bed it too.

Additionally, I feel stock fit may have more effect on perceived/felt recoil and its management more effect than even weight or composition of the rifle stock. Physics of recoil notwithstanding. Again, hence my suggestion of the B&C stock.

But if all that is not enough...it is a matter of how it's done. Everything flexes. The key to consistency is it flexing and then coming back to the same point for the next shot. While I will agree that most plastic stocks are shit, some not only work but due to their flex "hurt" less. Whether the difference between the precision of it and some other "high quality" stock is important, is up to the shooter. The Weatherby and Hogue stocks are a good example in my case and from personal experience. Would I choose them for a precision competition shooting rig? No. For hunting? Easily. And yes, even for hunting I still want the rifle to be precise. Did I change some other original stocks to these mentioned to mitigate recoil? No. They were what was on the rifles. Would I? Maybe. Maybe if all else failed. Did I or would I suggest OP spring for shitty plastic stock to mitigate recoil? No. Would I scold him if he decided to go that route because it felt softer? Also no. So still no BS as far as my post is concerned.

 

[Milan]

The BS is using a shytey, flexy synthetic stock as a means of controlling recoil... that is a very poor idea when you factor in the downside of the effects of that stock on the critical function of the rifle.

Are plastic stocks BS. The shytey ones yes. Whether they are flexy or just hard, they all feel like cheap shit to me. Do some actually work? Yes. Are hard ones better than the soft ones? I'd say that depends. If the less flexy stock does not return the action to the same place after the shot, but the soft one does, then I'd pick the soft one. Likeliness of that being the case? Dunno. Probably depends on overall construction and materials to determine where it flexes the most and how it "returns".

Is using flexy plastic stock to mitigate recoil BS. As the first or only solution? Yes. Would I suggest it first? No. If all else fails and you tired or don't want to try anything else? Well......See above post....again it depends. It's up to you. If you do opt for one, pick one that will be consistent enough.

 

[Milan]

@Tex .416,
I like these discussion. I kind of wonder how the .416 would have felt vs. the .458 in the same stock. Swapping them and trying it only occurred to me after I sold the .416. And to think I could have tried both in both stocks slays me. Such cool experiment for my own piece of mind and I missed it.

My guess is the .416 would still be recoiling sharper but maybe it would be manageable and overall not bad at all.

 

[Milan]

There is a discussion of that question in this article, scroll down quite a bit to the section on load data.

Ruger Model 77 Mk II Magnum Express Rifle - .416 Rigby

I have read the article after I had sold the Rugers I had. I agreed with the article completely. I thought the rifle was a fine piece just needing exactly the modifications listed in the article. All the article did for me, was to confirm that I was not imagining things. Yet I know there are many people praising the fit and feel of the Ruger stocks regardless of caliber. It only goes to show how important stock fit is.

 

[hoytcanon]

First off, I did not say he should use shytey, flexy stock as means of controlling recoil. I simply stated my experience in difference of felt recoil with different stocks. I believe I recommended B&C fiberglass/Kevlar stock. I'd bed it too.

Additionally, I feel stock fit may have more effect on perceived/felt recoil and its management more effect than even weight or composition of the rifle stock. Physics of recoil notwithstanding. Again, hence my suggestion of the B&C stock.

But if all that is not enough...it is a matter of how it's done. Everything flexes. The key to consistency is it flexing and then coming back to the same point for the next shot. While I will agree that most plastic stocks are shit, some not only work but due to their flex "hurt" less. Whether the difference between the precision of it and some other "high quality" stock is important, is up to the shooter. The Weatherby and Hogue stocks are a good example in my case and from personal experience. Would I choose them for a precision competition shooting rig? No. For hunting? Easily. And yes, even for hunting I still want the rifle to be precise. Did I change some other original stocks to these mentioned to mitigate recoil? No. They were what was on the rifles. Would I? Maybe. Maybe if all else failed. Did I or would I suggest OP spring for shitty plastic stock to mitigate recoil? No. Would I scold him if he decided to go that route because it felt softer? Also no. So still no BS as far as my post is concerned.

I said the concept is BS, and not a good route to go down for the reason of mitigating recoil. I have a whack of rifles with nice walnut, I also have whack of rifles with synthetic stocks, including B&C stocks... but they aren't in the B&C stocks to mitigate recoil... they are in them because they are working rifles and the synthetics can take a beating (hard use and bad weather) and keep in ticking, and because a scratch on pretty walnut is like a knife in my heart.

 

[Milan]

And I kept explaining I did not suggest it as a concept to begin with. So why call something that wasn't there BS? That's all.

The subsequent posts were just an expansion on the topic and considering "softer stocks" as a concept at that point, since it was mentioned. Also explaining "the concept" could actually potentially work for someone in the end if all other recoil management solutions still did not yield enough recoil reduction. This will be true regardless of how much people think it's BS or not. I think I explained my thinking behind those statements well enough. You can call those posts and concepts within BS. Then we will just have to disagree.

I have wood, B&C, carbon, plastic, etc. The B&C stock was suggested as perhaps "better fitting" stock which I believe helps with recoil management more than people realize sometimes. Also makes me wonder how much more manageable the RSMs would have been, were they in B&C stocks or just stocks fitting me better in general.

 

[hoytcanon]

I have had many RSM's and still have two in .375 H&H and .458 Lott and I don't find the recoil to be obnoxious. The "BS" I was referring to was the idea of setting a heavy recoiling rifle in a "flexy" synthetic stock... not a good idea, IMO. There are lots of good (stiff & stable) synthetic stocks out there, and I certainly have no beef with B&C stocks, as I have found them to be very serviceable. I was not taking aim at you personally, Milan... just the idea of using an unstable synthetic stock to mitigate recoil.

 

[Edward Wright]

I have to admit this is a lively conversation. I would still add a piece to the puzzle . That 300 Weatherby I bought was a bargain deal years ago and is a vanguard. I thought the recoil would be horrible because the thing is light for caliber. It shoots at an 06 level of recoil, as I said earlier. And is unbelievably accurate too
Savage makes an AccuStock that’s railed inside , and stiff by target standard by its design. Maybe a similar DG rifle stock could be made to work the same? Absorb more recoil and be dependable.
I look at the CZ 550 I have , and because it’s a brute, I need to modify it somehow. So recoil reducer to buttstock, new recoil pad, and hope money spent would be worth it. But, a recoil reducing DG stock would be a neat alternative to everyone with a thumper. I’m just imagining this obviously, but any ideas how this would be accomplished would be interesting. Kevlar and aluminum bedding frame . Maybe pin the frame? Food for thought

 

[Northern Shooter]

I had my 3 guns out for a shoot last weekend. My CZ in 375, my Model 70 in 458 WM and My CZ in 416 with the B and C stock.

The 416 kicks less than the 458 WM shooting Hornady DGX but the CZ weighs atleast a pound heavier with rings and scope.

It would be interesting to shoot a 458 Lott in the same rifle, same stock vs the 416 rigby to feel the difference but I'm guessing the 458 lott will feel more substantial.

 

[Milan]

The "BS" I was referring to was the idea of setting a heavy recoiling rifle in a "flexy" synthetic stock... not a good idea, IMO.

This I agree with. It is one thing to have a .300 WM recoil "tamed by plastic" and it would be another to have a .458 Lott in cheesy plastic.

That said, I still kind of plan on putting together another .375 and maybe a .404. It is based on a VZ24 action and I still have one of those cheap over-molded stocks. The idea is to put it in B&C stock so it can be a "proper" rifle. But I for sure will stick it in that plastic just to see the difference. However, .404 reamer is months away and so are dies. So who know when that will happen.

There are lots of good (stiff & stable) synthetic stocks out there, and I certainly have no beef with B&C stocks, as I have found them to be very serviceable.

I also found them very good and quite stable and repeatable when bedded. Their geometry is not too bad for me either. Not best for low open sights, but taller sights or scope do just fine.

I was not taking aim at you personally, Milan... just the idea of using an unstable synthetic stock to mitigate recoil.

Not taken personally. I come here for discussions not arguing. I simply took a little exception to the first reaction to my original post. But I think we both explained ourselves well and in the end mostly agree anyway. And even if we did not, who cares. People can have different opinions especially if they have different experiences.