Forums.NitroExpress.com

Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact NitroExpress.com: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies

*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

You are not logged in. [Login]

Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Big Bore Rifles

Pages: 1

Handloader52
.224 member

Reged: 13/12/09
Posts: 40
Loc: Maryland, USA

416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota
#179689 - 23/04/11 05:44 AM

I'd like some candid feedback concerning how the 416 Taylor compares to the 404 Dakota. Nominal performance on paper says they both shoot 400 grain pills at 2400fps. One is .416" and the other .423". Taylor brass cheap and easy to form, Dakota brass has one source and is expensive. However, from what I've read the 404 Dakota has a very good reputation for solid performance at low pressure.

I'd like your feedback on how they compare - all other factors being equal.
Keith

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

fourbore
.275 member

Reged: 28/03/10
Posts: 70
Loc: NewEngland

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: Handloader52]
#179755 - 23/04/11 12:16 PM

IMHO, I dont think either of those two can hold a candle to the two original classic's either the 404 Jeffrey or the 416 Rigby. Both with a 100 year proven track record of solid performance at low pressure - year after year, generation after generation.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

portdivers
.224 member

Reged: 28/10/09
Posts: 32
Loc: Vic. Australia

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: fourbore]
#179759 - 23/04/11 12:52 PM

Whilst never having shot a 404 Dakota, I have a lovely custom 98 mauser in 416 Taylor built on the H&H take down system. Great to shoot and reload, I recall reading an article years back on the 416 written by Gun Wrtiter Nick Harvey, I spoke with Nick recently about the 416 and he still describes it as a great cartridge.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

JabaliHunter
.400 member

Reged: 16/05/07
Posts: 1958
Loc: England

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: portdivers]
#179777 - 23/04/11 06:37 PM

Don't forget the .425 express - similar to the Taylor but .423" bullet. I think it is a .300Win necked up?
No flies on the old .404 Jefferey though...

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

DarylS
.700 member

Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27509
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: JabaliHunter]
#179803 - 24/04/11 01:03 AM

To get low pressure, one needs a larger case than necessary, which requires a larger, subsequently heavier, more expensive action with a longer throw - normally.

In concert with the lower pressure comes more recoil energy, although it is usual to be at a slightly lower recoil speed (due primatily to lower pressure).

Since you are dealing with a modern rifle, there is no need for low pressure ctgs. today, if a standard ctg. fills the gap - however, there is always a "need" if one wants one regardless.

More costly dies & brass, a quite narrow and expensive supply bullets are also requisite for the .404 Dakota, .425 Express or .404 Jeffery.

However, for a wildcatter, sometimes one just WANTS something different.

The .416" bullet of course, has a higher SD and BC than the .425" versions, which, with modern Premium deep penetrating bullets, is not a valid argument - depending on availability, of course.

With use of today's powders, low pressure is a non-argument and has negatives attached, like size, recoil, cost.

The more it costs to shoot, the less it will get shot.

--------------------
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

fourbore
.275 member

Reged: 28/03/10
Posts: 70
Loc: NewEngland

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: DarylS]
#179844 - 24/04/11 12:48 PM

I ve been holding back to see which way this thread progressed expecting some followup from HL52.

I'll toss in another 2c. Back in the 1970's I used to read like clockwork magazine articles lamenting the loss of the great 416Rigby. The magic killing power. Yadda Yadda. Then predictably, the wild cat dejour that would fill that void. Fast forward, today, we have ammo for both great classics the 416 Rigby and 404 Jeff. That plus modern offerings in .416 by Ruger, Remington, Weatherby, Dakota and god knows who else. New factory rifles, various size and weights, for all. I never heard of a 404 (.423) Dakota. It figures! Just what we needed

From famine to gluttonous feast. All those old wildcats, while having earned a bit of nostalgia in their own right, are today a solution to a problem that no longer exists. If anything we are overloaded with too many 40's that dilute a very small market.

If you want one or the other, there is no point is asking, just go do it. Which is better is purely and individual choice, or who speaks most eloquent on a forum. Angels on the head of a pin.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Handloader52
.224 member

Reged: 13/12/09
Posts: 40
Loc: Maryland, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: fourbore]
#179881 - 25/04/11 01:24 AM

I've found the discussion interesting but just a bit off topic. I restricted my initial examination to 416 Taylor and 404 Dakota for a variety of reasons, most having to do with the basic gun platform I was working with: Mark X Whitworth action, Blackburn bottom metal (+1 to fit 458 Win Mag) and McMillan CZ Express stock. This morning I dummied up some cases in 404 Dakota and 416 Taylor for a trial fit in the magazine box. 4 Taylor cases are a near perfect fit. 4 Dakota cases are too big for the magazine box in both width and depth. Based on that I'm restricted to a 458 Win Mag or one of its derivatives such as the 416 Taylor or 425 Express.

I think Daryl's comments about limited bullet choice and cost of components is telling, as is the fact that some of the more renowned ammo suppliers like A-Square load the Taylor but not the Dakota. Since I'm an experienced reloader, practice ammo is not the issue, but I have a real fondness for A-Squares Triad loads when commercial ammo is required.

Thanks for everyones' input, but 416 Taylor seems to get the nod for a host of reasons. Thanks.
Keith

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

fourbore
.275 member

Reged: 28/03/10
Posts: 70
Loc: NewEngland

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: Handloader52]
#179903 - 25/04/11 07:26 AM

Although I have no use for it myself, the 416 Ruger might be worth some consideration for your specific application. I think it has same max case OD as the Taylor, but without a belt means more powder capacity.

Too bad the 404 Jeff is just a hair wider and longer. If you ever had to sell this gun. I bet you could figure 2x the resale on a classic style Jeff. Me think.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Handloader52
.224 member

Reged: 13/12/09
Posts: 40
Loc: Maryland, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: fourbore]
#179906 - 25/04/11 08:09 AM

The 416 Ruger presents a viable alternative, possibly a superior one to the 416 Taylor. However, I've been unable to locate a SAAMI drawing of it. Any leads?
Keith

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Reggie
.224 member

Reged: 02/03/10
Posts: 36
Loc: Southeastern Louisiana, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: Handloader52]
#179932 - 25/04/11 05:29 PM

There have always been two types of wildcatters - those that just want "something different" and those that actually want something practical. I am of the second group...

The Taylor can be chambered into any sound standard-length action; the brass can be formed very easily from a parent-case that is readily available at a reasonable price; and, the bullet selection is quite good for most any application (from cast bullet plinkers to the DG jacketed stuff). All this and the simple fact that the Taylor has quite a large history of being proven in the field makes it simple.

Sure, there are other 40's out there - practically, you just shouldn't need anything more than the Taylor. If you do, then you might ought to opt for something with a lanyard and wheels.

Reggie

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

86thecat
.224 member

Reged: 14/07/05
Posts: 46
Loc: Black Hills SD, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: Handloader52]
#182900 - 31/05/11 10:57 AM

Tried 375 Ruger dummies in a Herters (Mark X) action which was a factory 7mm RM and found feeding problems. The standard magnum magazine box is too narrow forward and not deep enough for the fatter Ruger case. If going with custom bottom metal specific for the Ruger then it may be a good choice. I don't believe standard magnum bottom metal will work and the rails will need adjustment for proper feeding.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

DarylS
.700 member

Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27509
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: 86thecat]
#182902 - 31/05/11 12:38 PM

Seems to me the Ruger base is .532" - same as the belt diameter of normal belted cases.

Since the normal belted 2 1/2" case has around 85 to 87gr. capacity, I would assume the fatter Ruger case has about identical capacity as the long .416Rem, that is, as long as the Remington case has the larger shoulder diameter of the 8mm Rem. mag.(at least larger than the .375 H&H)

This coul.d pretty much even up the 6gr. advantage the shorter Ruger case has over the longer H&H case to start with.

A straight 2 1/2" belted case, the .458 Win Mag has about 92gr. capacity. Different makes of brass will vary, of course.

The will all give roughly the same ballistics, so it's simply a case of semantics and parts availability, or personal choice.

--------------------
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

86thecat
.224 member

Reged: 14/07/05
Posts: 46
Loc: Black Hills SD, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: DarylS]
#182948 - 01/06/11 07:15 AM

Base of the Ruger is the same as most belted magnums, but the diameter at shoulder is much greater than unimproved magnums (7mmRM, 300WM, 338WM etc.). Since the Ruger arrived on the scene many have stated that it will fit right into a standard magnum action. That was not the case with my Herters action and would have required aftermarket bottom metal specifically for the Ruger round. So, add 5-600 bucks to the convert to a Ruger rather than a Taylor.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

DarylS
.700 member

Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27509
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: 86thecat]
#182954 - 01/06/11 09:07 AM

Most belted magnums have a .505" to .513" base diameter - that's the "ahead of the belt" measurement, behind the case web.

I suspect you meant the standard belt diameter of .532".

Seems to me, they have around .500" shoulder diameter. Perhaps a googled site has a chamber diagram or reamer specs.

--------------------
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

86thecat
.224 member

Reged: 14/07/05
Posts: 46
Loc: Black Hills SD, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: DarylS]
#182989 - 02/06/11 06:29 AM

Shoulder dia is .515" vs .490" with the Ruger shoulder further forward. Doesn't sound like much of a difference but there was not enough mag box thickness in the action I planned to use to open things up for proper function. Don't want to belabor the point so just let me say that anyone considering building a 375 or 416 Ruger on a MarkX action should do their research first. The old trick of rubber banding three cartridges together and using a dial caliper to measure for required mag box size would be a good start.

Cartridge Drawings-
http://www.stevespages.com/page8d.htm

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

DarylS
.700 member

Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27509
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: 86thecat]
#182992 - 02/06/11 12:08 PM

TKS '86TC - found that in a new loading manual today - .515" shoulder with the .532" base.

--------------------
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

NitroX
.700 member

Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 40465
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: Handloader52]
#183166 - 07/06/11 01:56 AM

Quote:

I'd like some candid feedback concerning how the 416 Taylor compares to the 404 Dakota. Nominal performance on paper says they both shoot 400 grain pills at 2400fps. One is .416" and the other .423". Taylor brass cheap and easy to form, Dakota brass has one source and is expensive. However, from what I've read the 404 Dakota has a very good reputation for solid performance at low pressure.

I'd like your feedback on how they compare - all other factors being equal.
Keith

The 416 Taylor at 2400 fps sounds "hot" to me, as I've normally seen them reported as delivering around 2150 fps with a 400 gr bullet.

However I do not have one.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

DarylS
.700 member

Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27509
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: NitroX]
#183169 - 07/06/11 02:09 AM

Askins used IMR3031- which Waters felt might be too fast a powder so he used IMR4320 to get 2,400fps, while others use H4895 or IMR 4895. Seems to me, Whooters used IMR4320 as well. I personally think that round might properly support BLC2 or H335 in ball powders for lower pressure at that speed, but have no experience loading the .416 Myself. It is what I would build, if I was going to have a .416. As-is, I kinda like my 9.3's and .375's as my modern big bores.

The .416 Taylor was loaded to 2,400fps/400gr. (.032" and .049") Colorado Custom pure copper jacketed bullets by Charles Askins 50 or 60 years ago, Ken Waters about 45years ago in "pet Lods" with probably the only Ruger Ever factory chambered in that round, by John Whooters about 50 years ago in acustom rifle he took to Africa and shot 1 or more Cape Buffalo with it - WOW! time is rushing by nowadays.

Today, some people seem to download it a bit, other's not so much.

--------------------
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

coll416
.275 member

Reged: 19/02/12
Posts: 83
Loc: Central Queensland

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: DarylS]
#203026 - 20/02/12 06:37 PM

My ole Zastava custom .416 Taylor has no problems achieving 2400fps with 410gn Woodleigh bullets (SN & FMJ) in 24" barrel using AR2206H. About 2350fps gives best accuracy & shootability. Load data shot in 1992 shows 2420fps with 400gn Hornady & 2400 fps with 410gn Woodleigh using AR2208 which was faster then!

The 340gn Woodleigh at 2540fps is dynamite on anything up to Buffalo.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Ripp
.577 member

Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA

Re: 416 Taylor Compared to 404 Dakota [Re: DarylS]
#203067 - 21/02/12 04:18 AM

Quote:

To get low pressure, one needs a larger case than necessary, which requires a larger, subsequently heavier, more expensive action with a longer throw - normally.

In concert with the lower pressure comes more recoil energy, although it is usual to be at a slightly lower recoil speed (due primatily to lower pressure).

Since you are dealing with a modern rifle, there is no need for low pressure ctgs. today, if a standard ctg. fills the gap - however, there is always a "need" if one wants one regardless.

More costly dies & brass, a quite narrow and expensive supply bullets are also requisite for the .404 Dakota, .425 Express or .404 Jeffery.

However, for a wildcatter, sometimes one just WANTS something different.

The .416" bullet of course, has a higher SD and BC than the .425" versions, which, with modern Premium deep penetrating bullets, is not a valid argument - depending on availability, of course.

With use of today's powders, low pressure is a non-argument and has negatives attached, like size, recoil, cost.

The more it costs to shoot, the less it will get shot.

Agree totally with this post..

The Taylor I believe is very similar to the .416 Remington in terms of FPS and Energy..the latter of which I have used on 4 hunts in Africa in a wide variety of temps...have not had one single incident to date..plan to go back in the not too distant future..will probably be take one of the 3 I have in that caliber once again..recently added the "new" version of the safari grade Winchester..having it fitted to a custom wood stock as I did NOT like the factory one even a little bit..to me it felt like a club...

ON my reloads for the .416 shooting 400 gr bullets using RL-15.---I am getting in excess of 2400 fps per my chrono..with both Barnes solids and Swift A-Frames...

Having said all that, actually have been looking around for an action to build a .404 Jeffrey..have always wanted one of those as well..and as stated above, "need" has nothing to do with it..

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Edited by Ripp (21/02/12 04:29 AM)

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pages: 1

Extra information

0 registered and 57 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 9991

Jump to

NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact

Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved