What we know based on
@michael458 test’s of the .416 and .458 with Nosler flat point solids is the .458 penetrates slightly more than does a .416. Granted these quantifiable results are based on a rather small sample set of three each. Since all bullets in each caliber performed to nearly the same depth of penetration, I will accept that for the stated impact velocities with Nosler flat point solids, that the .458 penetrates a few inches deeper in the test media. We do not know if the performance will be the same in the flesh and bones of game animals.
We also do not know with any certainty if the .458 will out penetrate the .416 at the same impact velocities with other bullets. Would the results be the same or different with:
- Cutting Edge Bullets solids
- Woodleigh Hydrostatically Stabilized Solids
- Barnes TSX
- Swift A-Frame
- Nosler Partition
- North Fork Semi-Spitzer
- Other modern, premium expanding “soft” point bullets.
Also, will changing the impact velocities change the results?
I believe that for any expanding bullets, a large sample set will be required due to the variable of expansion. It would be great if I am wrong in this and every expanding bullet performs exactly the same for every shot!
What we do know is that with 60+ inches of penetration in the test media for both calibers with solids, either caliber will provide the performance required so long as the shooter can place their bullets in the kill zones of their prey. Michael458 stated that he found penetration doubled in game animals. Okay 60+ plus inches should get the job done. Double that and I think either caliber at Michael's impact velocities should be sufficient.
For me, and this is opinion, I will choose a .458 for close in work on dangerous game because the larger frontal area of those bullets should transfer energy faster to the prey. If I needed a 200 yard capable rifle that delivers more energy on target that a .375 H&H, I will choose a .416 over a .375 or .458.
Based of the stated evidence, which penetrates deeper, a 416 or 458 reminds me of the old "Tastes Great", "Less Filling", or similar arguments...