| ChinaFleetSailor |
| (.224 member) |
| 22/01/09 01:26 PM |
Re: Which .416
|
Quote:Quote:
NitroX
I have been told that the good old .404 Jeffery is slow with a poor SD, making it no good for buff and elephant. The bullets doesn't penetrate and there is no "punch". The new .425 Express is supposed to be better, but brass is no-excisting. Have you any experience with the .404 Jeffery?
Robie
The .404 (in a modern rifle) is every bit as good as the .416 Rigby/.416 Rem/.425 Express. I´m shooting a Rem700 in .404 with 22"-barrel (Lothar Walther barrel) for many years without ever having a problem with "stickies" or that....
The load with 400 Woodleigh RNSP (chronographed at 2.442 out of my 22-incher) is my standard & standby. My short .404 allways reached or bettered the level of my formerly Rem700 Safari in .416 RemMag w/24"barrel (the barrel was chopped later) and 400 grs bullet....
(the only exception was a very hard "experimental" load with the 350 BX in that .416/24", that went 2.698 fts over the chrony, the bullet dropped only 14,5" at 300 meters while going only 1,5" high at 100 meters, it showed actually a lesser drop than a friends .338 Winmag with 250 grs!!)....
I have to agree about the .404 Jeffery being just as good. Some of the critiques of the round just don't pass muster. Now, I don't claim to have experience with the .404 Jeffery, but the two points I'm going to make regarding sectional density and velocity don't require any. Just objectivity.
First, I've heard that knock against the Jeffery round that it has "poor" sectional density before. Which, when you look at it, is ridiculous. Sectional Density isn't a matter of opinion but mathematically determined. The difference in sectional densities between two 400 grain bullets, one .416" diameter the other .423, is tiny. The .416 is higher of course, at .330. But the .423 bullet has a SD of .319. That's not "poor;" that's better than many rounds noted for deep or at least adequate penetration. The .375H&H earned its fame with a 300 grain bullet that has a SD of .305.
As far as being slow, that too doesn't pass muster if you examine available facts. Exhibit A is, ironically, Norma .416 Rigby ammo. I've talked to several PHs who say Norma ammo has an excellent reputation. The normal loads, not the PH stuff. If you check the ballistics for Norma's 400 grain Barnes solid loads, note that its advertised velocity is 2097fps. This is below original Jeffery ballistics, but no one is complaining about the performance.
I suspect that in 1909 and 1911 when the Jeffery and Rigby rounds were introduced both their advertised velocities were overly optimistic. But the fact of the matter is, if a 400 grain bullet launched from a Rigby case can kill an elephant at Jeffery velocities, than so could a 400 grain bullet launched from a Jeffery case at Jeffery velocities.
If you were to chronograph your .404 Jeffery loads to ensure they were merely meeting the velocity standard set by the factory in 1909 of 2150fps, your loads would be faster than SOME widely used .416 Rigby factory loads. And those Rigby loads have proven to be perfectly satisfactory. So how could the Jeffery be "too slow?"
I have a .416 Rigby, not a Jeffery, but the facts are still the facts.