The 404J

The first and last time I wrote on this one was near the beginning of my blog writings. I was doing a series on Big Bores in comparison to the .458 Win, using a set of ten criteria. The 404 Jeffery was a hot item being rediscovered at the time, and Hornady was the main promoter in the production of brass, bullets and dies in .423-caliber. Since then, several new series of short-fat magnums by both Winchester and Remington have been produced based on the 404J. Then, in more recent times, Nosler has created their own powerful versions of magnums in 26, 28, 30 and 33 calibers based off the old 404 Jeff.

And just within the past few days somebody at http://www.24hrcampfire.com has started a thread discussing any contemporary likes and/or interest in it. A few have responded with their personal experience in building a rifle or having one built. A general consensus being that the .416 Remington, though somewhat smaller in case capacity, has basically taken over that spot in ballistics, so interest in the 404J is declining. There’s really not much left to distinguish it except nostalgia for those so inclined. Pragmatically, the .416 Rem has more bullets and weights to make it attractive, as well as new rifles. It’s apparent that the 350gr TTSX from Barnes is a favorite in the .416 Remington at up to about 2700 fps. But the Remington runs at a significantly higher pressure of 65,000 psi.

A very nice McMillan G30 PRESTIGE in .416 Rem Mag that holds five.

Nonetheless, both run a 400gr at ~2400 fps from 24″ barrels, and each is capable of at least another 100 fps within psi limits, though the JEFF is a larger case. That’s a point of contention that some potential handloaders don’t understand: How can it be that a larger case in the same caliber doesn’t always produce better ballistics than a smaller case in the same caliber? The simple answer is a lack of the best powder(s) for a particular case loaded with a specific bullet. That would be idealistic, but it’s not always practical. For example: The largest case that has the greatest capacity in a certain magnum caliber may demand a much slower powder to fill the case than another magnum cartridge in the same caliber.

The smaller magnum cartridge in the same caliber can use a faster powder that fills the case for maximum psi, say at 64,000 psi (for each). Then barrel length for the larger case is critical for the slower powder to be fully effective and efficient. If the same faster (NOT “fast”) powder is used in the larger magnum case to reach maximum psi, it will not fill the case so may be subject to spikes in psi and may cause damage to the rifle and/or shooter. . . . and at the very least unsuitable accuracy. So the chosen propellant must be fine-tuned to the case capacity/caliber for best results, and a heavy dose of slow powder in a certain bottleneck cartridge may be too slow for best results; and in order to find the “right” propellant for ideal results may not yet exist for the general public handloader.

The .264 Win Mag comes to mind: Back in the day, the slowest available powders were made for the .50-caliber BMG that were too slow and others like H4831 that were maxed at 61 grs under the 140gr XFB because of the length of those monometal bullets in a cartridge constrained by SAAMI to 3.34 inches. The case would easily handle 75 grs of H4831 in a single-shot with a long throat, or an action designed like Weatherby for its long magnums – or like modern 6.5s where long bullets are seated long – again, the 6.5 – .300 Wby comes to mind.

The .416 Remington is ideal for what it is and does: A relatively modest amount of a magnum-type powder at 65,000 psi at ~2400 – 2500 fps. Plus, rifles and handloading components are relatively available and reasonably priced. Of course, they still lag far behind the .458 Win Mag in those matters and versatility, but that’s off topic.

Honestly, if I really wanted the ballistics of a typical .404J or .416 Rem, I’d choose a .416 Taylor. Why? Because I like the size and efficiency of the .458 Win Mag case. It would satisfy my pragmatic sense of efficiency – equality of product from less of everything. The rifle could be made lighter and handier (like a Ruger .416) with less recoil and weight, burning less of the right powder at 65,000 psi, still giving ~2350 fps from 400s in a 22″ barrel.

A gorgeous M70 from their custom shop in .416 Taylor. Still available at EPPS at a much reduced price, but still too rich for my bank account.

I’ve long considered such a project, put together by my eminently capable smith, Edward Von Atzigen. However, the negative and dominant side of that matter was the absence of and variety of any really suitable projectiles to make it comprable to either a .45-70 or .458 Winchester Magnum. But I’ve always cherished a short -n – handy, powerful big-bore rifle that could do-it-all! The Marlins in .45-70 came the closest, except for the porting in the short-barreled Guide Gun. Edwin had my last 1895 Marlin in possession for 6 months or more but never cut the barrel to 20″, as I requested. His excuse was he was reluctant to spoil the rifle, and was waiting for me to change my mind. So it got traded on the current Ruger No.1H in .458 Win.

A friend and by times partner in our hunting adventures, owns a Marlin lever-action in .356 Winchester. It has a 20″ barrel, and one of the sweetest handling rifles ever for deer, bear and moose when appropriately handloaded. I think Marlin made a serious mistake in cutting their 1895 barrels to 18.5″ rather than 20″. Those barrels are heavy and shortening them was a good thing – BUT they overbaked the cake! I’ve owned 4 1895 Marlins in .45-70, one of ’em in the GG with the ports! It was horribly loud! After one year I sent it away! It was replaced by a Classic with the 22″ barrel that made it unhandy and too heavy! I’ve not owned another – and never will. Not sure what Ruger’s thinking is, but they’re way too costly, and probably still too costly compared to the past – yeah, everything is. . . BUT twice what they were?

I mention all that history because of my affinity for a powerful BIG BORE, that was relatively short n handy. I’ve had some other rifles that came close in bolt-action repeaters – but they were not BIG BORES! I can think of my once owned Rem Classic in .350 Rem Mag. A beautiful rifle in all respects – handling and accuracy – but disappointing ballistics due mostly to the short action, plus the best powders were still not on the market for handloaders – and it was far from an 1895 Marlin in ultimate ballistics.

<My final 1895 Marlin – note the heavy barrel. It got invested into my current Ruger No.1H in .458 Win.

Then came my first .458 Win Mag: A Ruger 77, tang safety, 22″ barrel. It was like new and mine for $400. It was an investment piece until I could find a little used Ruger No.1 in .45-70. About a year later, I found one in perfect shape at the same store where the Ruger 77 in .458 was purchased, and it so happened at the same price – I snached it and sold the .458. Hence, my love affair with the .45-70 evolved: A sturdy, compact BIG BORE that was on the heels of the mighty .458 became the basis of a handloading journal, and my preoccupation for the next 1/4 century.

That’s the background of why no other Big Bores have held interest for me, including the 404 Jeffery. But not the .458 Win. As far as I’m concerned it’s the epitome of all BIG BORES, but needs to be handier than most commercial models – the Ruger 77 mentioned above was about perfect in that regard. My Ruger No.1H at 40″ in length is about right for thick bush, but it still has a 24″ barrel for maximum performance in ballistics. Even my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT with its 22″ barrel was the near equal of a handloaded 22″ 458 Win Mag at 2200 fps from a 500gr. Pressure was less than a .416 Rem at 65,000 psi.

< From my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT shooting the 500gr Hornady RN. At 5 yds from the muzzle, actual MV was 2212 fps/5432 ft-lbs. The site was my number one for bear over bait. The blind is just outside the upper right corner of the pic.< At my favorite bear-bait site. The rifle was my CZ550 in .458 Winchester Magnum. The load was a 350gr TSX at 2750 fps. Yes, it took out a bear!

But aging takes its toll in more than a few ways! I have sight in one eye only since age six due to a childhood accident that I imposed on myself – not someone else. My dominant side is right, but I lost that eye so have had to shoot any and all rifes from my left side. But the action of the Ruger No.1s is ambidextrous, so it’s more or less natural for me.

As mentioned from the top, I believe that rifle’s like the 404J hold an attraction for those who tend to nostalgia, or strong curiosity or a “must have that one too” nature. The only one of those three impulses on my part might be “curiosity”. But, to go the route of a custom build would be far too rich for my blood for curiosity’s sake. No, I can read other’s thoughts and experiences and ponder.

My pragmatism is too strong to venture where my adventurism can be fulfilled less extravagantly than pursuing every fleeting thought!

Till the next . . . .

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL