Fellowship in Firepower: The Hornady-Ruger Cartridges

The Year 1949 was good for gun people. It was that year when entrepreneurs and gun guys Joyce W. Hornady and William B. Ruger started the companies that bear their names. Both started small, but look at them now. Hornady Manufacturing and Sturm, Ruger and Co. both celebrate their 75th anniversaries in 2024.

The contributions of both brands are legion. Ruger, in excellent and incredibly varied firearms, and Hornady, in bullets, reloading equipment and ammunition. Some will recall that an unusual partnership once occurred that produced a series of cartridges launched from 2003 to 2008.

Part of what made these cartridges possible: In the gun industry, whether the manufacturing side or my branch, the media, there are competitors, but bitterness is rare. 

We are often close friends, and almost always friendly competitors. However, if you think about it, Hornady’s ammunition and Ruger’s firearms are natural pairings. Hornady doesn’t make firearms, and Ruger doesn’t make ammo, but this collaboration only started 20 years ago. At that time, both companies were mature, approaching middle age, secure in their identities, and aggressively seeking innovation. The Hornady-Ruger team-up produced six Ruger cartridges, all excellent, plus two significant bonuses. They were created in concert, with cartridge development led primarily by Hornady’s engineers, and the initial firearms by Ruger’s.

.480 Ruger

Introduced in 2003, the .480 Ruger was the first Hornady-­Ruger collaboration. Unlike the rest — which are rifle cartridges — the .480 Ruger is a powerful revolver cartridge developed for the double-­action Super Redhawk. Although later eclipsed by the .460 and .500 S&W cartridges, at that time the .454 Casull was the most powerful production handgun cartridge. The Super Redhawk was the only six-­shot .454, too; the rest had five-­shot cylinders, allowing for thicker cylinder walls.

Energy-­wise, the .475 Linebaugh wasn’t quite as powerful as the .454, but it handled .476-­inch bullets up to 400 grains. Ruger wanted a caliber larger than .45, but they wanted to keep the Super Redhawk’s six-­shot cylinder. So, Hornady went to work. They shortened the .475 Linebaugh case, reducing pressure, but also ensuring that a .475 Linebaugh cartridge couldn’t fit in a .480 chamber. The .480 Ruger also has a narrower rim than the Linebaugh, enabling Ruger to maintain the six-­shot cylinder.

The relationship between .480 Ruger and .475 Linebaugh is thus the same as the .38 Special/.357 Magnum and .44 Special/.44 Magnum. Although plenty powerful with the advantages of heavy bullets having a large frontal area, .480 Ruger recoil is more sustainable than the Casull, Linebaugh, and big S&W cartridges. It’s a stretch to say that the .480 Ruger has been extremely popular, but it seems to be seeing renewed interest. It is chambered in both the Super Redhawk and Super Blackhawk.

.204 Ruger

The .204 Ruger came along just a year later, in 2004. Around the turn of the millennium, wildcatters and varmint hunters were doing much experimenting with .20-­caliber (.204-­inch) bullets. The idea was to sort of split the difference between the .17s and the fastest .22s. Although velocity can be extreme, the heavier .20-­caliber bullets hold up better in wind and don’t create the barrel fouling problem of the fastest .17s.

Numerous parent cases and case designs were experimented with by Hornady and others. Hornady went back to the almost-­forgotten .222 Remington Magnum. Initially developed for the military, the .222 Rem. Mag. is a lengthened .222 Remington, while the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm is a shortened .222 Rem. Mag. The longer-than-.223 case allowed the .204 Ruger to be among a tiny handful of commercial cartridges able to exceed 4,000 feet per second (fps).

In varmint cartridges, it seems silly to talk about recoil, but that’s a big difference between the .204 and the .22-­250 Remington, which have similar velocities, depending on bullet weight. When shooting prairie dogs, you can call your shots through the scope with a .204 Ruger. Unless the rifle is fairly heavy, you can’t do that with a .22-­250.

The .204 Ruger has become a standard varmint cartridge. It’s now chambered by Ruger and several manufacturers. It’s in semiautos, bolt-­actions, and single-­shots, and is preferred by many serious varmint hunters. I did some prairie dog shooting wildcat .20s, but, to be honest, I didn’t get it. When the .204 was first introduced, I had a chance to evaluate a stainless-and-synthetic Ruger No. 1 in .204, and I fell in love. It has been my go-­to varmint rifle ever since. Despite its high velocity — and nearly 20 years of use — the barrel is still sound; it still produces half-­MOA groups and pounds prairie dogs.

.375 Ruger & .416 Ruger

Cartridges are developed in various ways, and for various reasons. Although Ruger had its big M77 Safari Magnum action, the stock-­in-­trade bolt-­action was the standard (.30-­’06-­length) M77 Mk II, which they wanted to update. As legend has it, Ruger asked Hornady for ideas on a more powerful chambering. It’s not a problem to neck existing belted magnums up or down; that’s been done in wildcats, but not in factory form. Although dimensions are familiar, Hornady came up with a new concept for a cartridge case that I found just brilliant. They took the standard .532-­inch rim — common to almost all belted magnums since 1912 — and eliminated the belt, bringing the case straight out to 2.580 inches, necking to .375, specifying Cartridge Overall Length (COL) at 3.340 inches. This created manufacturing efficiency: Standard magnum bolt face, standard-­length action and magazine box. The intent was to equal the velocity of the .375 H&H. They hadn’t banked on the efficiency of the shorter, but relatively fatter case. The .375 Ruger actually exceeds the .375 H&H by 100 fps. No buffalo is likely to see the difference, but, as much as it hurts me to write it, the .375 Ruger is actually a better cartridge than the .375 H&H! Its modern, more efficient case design in a smaller action gives it the win. Will the .375 Ruger ever become as popular? Perhaps not, but for such a powerful cartridge it has done well. It was introduced in the greatly updated Ruger M77 Hawkeye. Although the .375 H&H remains a worldwide favorite, the .375 Ruger is typically chambered by numerous manufacturers that do not offer full-­length actions for cartridges such as the .375 H&H. I was with Steve Hornady when he shot the first animal taken with the .375 Ruger, which was a fine Zambezi Valley buffalo, cleanly dropped. That was 2006. We let the cat out of the bag a bit soon, before Hornady was ready to release the cartridge, which caused some issues. Still, it was almost certainly the most successful large-­caliber cartridge introduction ever. 

A year later, the .375 Ruger case was necked up to .416. Although the .375 Ruger has been surprisingly popular, the farther we go above .30 caliber, the quicker sales can be expected to drop. The .416 Ruger has not been especially favored, certainly in part because it follows long-­established .416s. That said, it’s an amazing little powerhouse that fits into a standard-­length action. Yet, with its efficient case, it duplicates .416 Rigby and .416 Remington performance. Again, Steve Hornady was probably the first to use it, taking an awesome lion in Zimbabwe’s Chewore area.

Like the .375 Ruger, the .416 Ruger appeals to manufacturers who want to deliver that level of power but don’t offer an action long enough to house the longer-­cased .416s. Last year in Mozambique, my friends Bill Green and Gordon Marsh both used a .416 Ruger barrel on a Strasser RS 14, taking buffalo and hippo. Naturally, Ruger offers its cartridges, chambering the .375/.416 paternal twins in versions of the M77 Hawkeye, appropriately dubbed Alaskan and African. Respectively, they are in synthetic/stainless and walnut/blue.

In 2018, Jason Hornady and I hunted in Congo, a country where rifles cannot be imported. We were both delighted that the outfitter had a pair of .375 Ruger Alaskans. It was the perfect setup for the African forest, where it’s tough to stay ahead of rust.

.300 RCM & .338 RCM

Again, cartridges are developed for various reasons. At about the same time Hornady was finalizing the .375 Ruger, Ruger came to Hornady with a problem: They were going to chamber M77s to the Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) cartridges — then decided not to. They had a backlog of short bolt-­actions and wondered if there was an opportunity.

Simple! Hornady shortened the .375 Ruger case to 2.1 inches. Several manufacturing expenses can be solved with the .532 bolt face/rim diameter. As a bonus, actions designed to feed a .532-­inch rim with belted cartridge case tend to feed well with cartridges that maintain the .532-­inch diameter. Ruger needed little design work to ensure operation in its existing bolt-­action. The result was the .300 Ruger Compact Magnum (RCM) in 2007, followed quickly by the .338 RCM in 2008.

Neither has been especially popular. I attribute this to the “too many, too fast” situation I’ve written about in the past. Between 1998 (.300 WSM) and 2008 (.338 RCM), a bewildering array of WSMs, Remington Ultra Magnums (RUM), Remington Short Action Ultra Magnums (RSAUM), Winchester Super Short Magnums (WSSM) and, finally, RCMs, hit the market. Not all could possibly make it, and many haven’t. At the tail end of this era, the RCMs suffered, which were largely confined to Ruger products. This is unfortunate because the RCMs, with 2.1-­inch short-­action cases, are efficient little fireplugs. I have done range work and hunted with both, and in Ruger rifles they feed wonderfully, offering “almost .300 Win. Mag.” and “almost .338 Win. Mag.” performance out of short, handy rifles, that lose little velocity in short barrels. When the .338 RCM was new, then-Ruger ­CEO Mike Fifer and I shared a Ruger in .338 RCM on a variety of game.

The indefatigable Steve Hornady has been extremely loyal to the RCM cartridges, doing most of his recent mountain hunting with a Ruger in .300 RCM. This included a marvelous Kashmir markhor taken in Pakistan. Steve Hornady and I have hunted together off and on for 40 years. He’s a of couple years older than me, so I understand the word “fatigue” and can use “indefatigable.” Our industry is lucky to have him and have him in the field. Just recently, he shot a huge Alaskan moose with a Ruger .338 RCM. Steve told me a days before writing this, “What I like about the RCMs is the meaningful velocity with short barrels. With that little Ruger rifle slung, the barrel barely reaches over my shoulder, yet I can shoot as far as I need.”

Performance is essential, but timing is everything. I don’t expect the RCMs to experience the marketing success that other Hornady cartridges have, such as the Creedmoors and PRCs. The Great Short Magnum Race is over, and they crossed the finish line. While they didn’t win, they are sound cartridges worth a second look. It’s essential to mention that the parent case for the popular 6.5 PRC is the .300 RCM necked down to 6.5mm. Both the 7mm and .300 PRC are based on the .375 Ruger case, also.

Bonus Big Bores

In 75 years, there were just six Hornady-Ruger cartridges. In 2005, however, I was filming the first season of “Tracks Across Africa” with Hornady and Ruger as sponsors. At that time, Hornady’s only large-­caliber offerings were .375 H&H and .458 Win. Mag. That expanded into what became the Dangerous Game line. There was much discussion around the campfire in the Zambezi Valley in those days. Classics including the .416 Rigby, .470, and .500 Nitro Express were first to be offered. What other cartridges needed to be resurrected?

My idea: How about the .450/.400-­3-inch? It was the standard tiger cartridge in India. In Africa, it was considered adequate for elephant, featuring less recoil than the .470 class. The Hornady and Ruger folks in camp didn’t know the cartridge, though. I happened to know that the .450 rim and base diameter maxed out the Ruger No. 1 action. Perfect!

W. J. Jeffery introduced the .450/.400-­3-in., aka “.400 Jeffery” Nitro Express (NE) in 1900. A lot of double rifles and British single-­shots were so chambered. No ammo had been made since about 1960, and no rifles since the start of World War II. It became a collaborative effort. If Hornady would make the ammo, Ruger would make the rifles, and vice versa. Resurrecting case dimensions and precise bullet diameter caused issues on both sides, though. It turned out that the .450/.400 (i.e., the .450 case necked down to .400 inch) had more variance than most, complicated by two non-­interchangeable case lengths, 3- and 31/4 inches. This I knew; diameter variance I knew not. In older guns, these numbers apparently wandered from .409 to .412 inch. I’m pretty sure the engineers hated me.

Hornady settled on a .410-­inch bullet. It was safe in older guns, and that’s what all current doubles and modern single-­shots are barreled to. In 2006, I shot the first buffalo with a No. 1 so chambered. My wife, Donna, shot the second. It produced awesome performance with little pain. Donna shot her big Botswana tusker with it in 2008, and I’ve taken elephants with it as well — and a lot of buffaloes. Ruger has done several runs of the No. 1 in .450/.400-­3-in., and most modern doubles are now offered in .450/.400 and regulated with Hornady ammo. I consider bringing back the .450/.400 to be one of my better contributions.

I didn’t do as well with my second recommendation. My favorite big-­bore double-­rifle cartridge is the original John Rigby .450-­3¼-in. NE. Introduced in 1898, it is also called the “.450 NE” or “.450 Straight” because it has little taper and no shoulder. I like it because it uses common .458-­inch bullets, and, with a smaller rim/base diameter than the .470 family — most based on the .500 case — it can be fitted into a slimmer action. Unlike the .450/.400, there was no controversy over bullet diameter; it’s been .458 from the start.

The .450-­3¼-in. really maxes out the Ruger No. 1. Again, if Hornady made the ammo, Ruger would chamber rifles. I love the .450, and I did most of my elephant hunting with a Rigby .450, but it’s a lot of recoil in a No. 1, Most double rifle makers now offer .450. I’m happy with that, but it hasn’t been as popular.

What's in a Name?

To date, the only cartridge that bears the Hornady name is .17 HMR, designed in 2002, and there are no Ruger cartridges without the collaboration of Hornady’s engineers. With some latitude given 40 years of friendship, I asked, “Why are these cartridges dubbed “Ruger” and not “Hornady?” The answer: Tradition. Cartridges used to be introduced by firearm manufacturers. You’ll recall those named “Colt,” “Remington,” “Savage,” “S&W,” and “Winchester.” Some also made ammo, but Peters, Union Metallic Cartridges, and Western rarely introduced cartridges. Even today, an ammo brand like Federal has introduced few. The primary rationale? New cartridges are often tied to the firearms they were introduced in.

I opined that it was generous of Hornady to develop cartridges and call them “Ruger” vice “Hornady.” This introduces a practical reality: Federal, Remington, and Winchester may not load a cartridge introduced and named after a rival company, unless it becomes so popular that it is unavoidable. And the reverse: Whether it makes sense or not, there are friendly-yet-­competitive companies that will not load or chamber to a Ruger-­named cartridge until enough customers clamor for it. Today, new cartridge nomenclature has somewhat shifted away from that tradition. I call these new names “whimsical,” but, from a marketing standpoint, you could call them “originator neutral”: Creedmoor, Grendel, Legend, Valkyrie, and Western.

This is a trend that makes me happy that I’m not on the marketing side. I’m happier that I’ve been around to work in this industry and see relationships grow, which is not new. Joyce Hornady (1907-­1981) and Bill Ruger (1916-­2002) didn’t just know each other from convention aisles, they were friends who hunted together. Neither saw the cartridges their companies would develop together, but, in this 75th year of both Hornady and Ruger, I think the founders would be pleased. Despite our current trend in naming cartridges, I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of the great Hornady-Ruger team.

---