When they held the Beef Cow Symposium in Greeley, Co. a few years back, they used 416 to demonstrate goodness in the Angus breed. He is also a GeneStar, whatever that means.
I think 416 is a good foundation bull.
That said, I wanted one real bad 4 or 5 years ago. So we bought the top bull at a local sale. Jon Alberda (breeder of 416) was there and consulted with us (well, me anyway. My husband HATES bull sales). Jon Alberda is a great guy. Anyway, that bull was out of a daughter of Bon View Bando 598 and he was a disappointment. He was so good as a yearling. Long and smooth. As he got older he got taller and longer and taller and longer. Just what we didn't want. Hard-doing, and the heifers looked to be the same. In researching the genetics, I found the problem came from 598. So, though 598 is promoted heavily, we found his bloodlines don't work in the real world of SE Montana. FWIW. No thanks to 598, we will pass.
FH, evidently 598 was the problem, the comments I have gotten when someone sees the 416 son I retained for use on some comercial cows have all been very positive. He is the most muscular bull that I have raised with great volume, really thick across his topline, and even the Genex rep has commented that he is one of the longest, best loooking 416 sons he has seen. I will also say he has given me my best set of calves yet from those commercial cows. He is very easy doing, as are his daughters thus far, and they will be calving in January. Just my experience with 416. Yes 416 is positive for both genes that have a positive effect on marbling that is why he is called a Genestar bull. I have bred some of his daughters to Freightliner which is positive for the tenderness genes. I guess we will see what happens come Jan. and Feb. I really like matching buls to cows using this "genetic stuff" along with the rest of the epd information. Its verrry interesting.