How light is too light for a 9.3X74R stalking rifle?

I am looking for a mountain hiker, and have only shot 9 and 10 pound rifles in this caliber. At these weights recoil is not a problem.

Any ideas on the grief caused by a 6-7 pound rifle in the same caliber and loading?

I plan on using 250-286 grain bullets at 2200 to 2500 fps.

Thanks

Hello Merkelmeister - my Sauer 9.3x62 was made in 1935. Half octagon barrel and weighs a feather over 7lbs. I have carried it all day in the Namibian bush usually just in one hand (or the other)and it still felt light after 6 hours.

Yes, the recoil is energetic - certainly not a 20 shots at the range gun - but for hunting it's just fine. I bought it in 1963 (or thereabouts - the memory dims) and I have never felt that I needed to change anything.

Sorry - there was the time when I seriously thought of having it rechambered to 9.3x64. Fortunately sanity prevailed - a whole series of one-shot kills made me realise that you just can't get deader than dead!

What other rifles have you shot?

cheers edi

Edi: I have amerkel SXS in 9.3, but it weighs 10 pounds and is just a bit heavy to haul around the elk mountain hunt I am going on. ALso have had several 9.3X74 overunders, just never got the right one to keep and hunt with. traded and resold.... I also have several older bolt guns in 8X57 and 7X64 calibers..

My son shoots the winchester featherweight in 270, (7lbs, 12 ozs with scope, empty) but I am leaning toward a kipplaufbuchse. simple and easy to pack and working for one good shot is what I prefer to do.

Your sauer must be light indeed if it has a scope!

cheers and I hope to get to Africa on a hunt someday.

If you handload: make soft loads which equal the 9,3x57 with 286 grs. bullets. Than you can shoot a 7� pound properly stocked rifle without problems. For standard factory loads it would still be shootable, but I think you would appreciate it slightly heavier.

Fritz

[ 09-13-2002, 19:04: Message edited by: Fritz Kraut ]

Hello Merkelmeister

Concerning recoil:

In the Lyman reloading book they give the following formula for calculating the rifle recoil. (I’ve rearranged it a bit so that it reads a bit more logically).

E = [(Wb/7000 x Mv) + (Wp/7000 x 4700)] (squared) / (2 X 32.2 x Wr) ft lbs

where

E = recoil in ft lb
Wb = bullet weight in grains
Mv = muzzle velocity in ft/sec
Wp = propellant weight in grains
Wr = rifle weight in lbs

Constants

7000 grains = 1 lb
4700 = gas velocity of burning propellant ft/sec
2 = a number necessary to give the right values.
32.2 = g = acceleration due to gravity ft/sec/sec

Using the values for my 9.3x62 (Sauer K98)

bullet - 286 grains (Norma plastic point)
muzzle velocity - 2250 ft/sec
powder - 54.5 grains (Norma 201)
rifle weight - 7.0 lbs

gives a value of 36.6 ft lbs.

And for my 8x68 (Sauer 80)

Wb - 170 gns
Mv - 3100 ft/sec
Wp - 72 gns
Wr - 9.4 lbs

E = 25.2 ft lbs

Now my experience is that I can stand/sit at the range and fire 20 shots from the 8x68 with no discomfort. However after 5 shots of the 9.3x62 I’m more than happy to change to a 0.22!

When hunting I’ve never noticed the recoil from the 9.3 at all.

And I have a 0.270 Walther barrel that is looking at a K98 Erfurt action and I hope to be able to build a mountain rifle that weighs less than 6 lbs.

Wb - 150 gns
Mv - 3000 ft/sec
Wp - 55 gns
Wr - 6.0 lbs

E = 26.5 ft lbs - So the recoil from a 0.270 rifle weighing 6 lb won’t be a problem.

Why don’t you read an article on page 76 of the 2002 Gun Digest about a take-down rifle with three interchangeable barrels. This was built on a Farquharson falling block action. One of the barrels is chambered for the 0.35 Whelen and a falling block action would be far stronger and more rigid than a kipplaufbuchse.

I have a scoped Gibbs-Farquharson in 0.303 which weighs 7.5 lbs. Curiously the balance of the Sauer 9.3x62 is far better, probably because of the barrel profile.

Cheers edi

And to clear up another possible ambiguity I’ve rearranged it yet again - sorry. Engage grey cells before typing and all that....

E = [(Mv x Wb/7000) + (4700 x Wp/7000)] (squared) / (2 X 32.2 x Wr) ft lbs

Sorry about that - cheers edi

Hello All - if you are tempted to come hunt in South Africa then the best advice I could give anyone is to suggest that you contact our local hunting/shooting/fishing/tall stories magazine "Magnum" by e-mail at
manmagnum@saol.com . Ask Elizabeth Howard-Davies (she's in charge of subscriptions) for a 12 month subscription starting from Jan 2002.

This will set you back a whole $25.

The reason for suggesting that you start from Jan is that from the March issue the ads begin to offer hunting opportunities/prices and the like.

There are all those people eargerly waiting to answer your questions - hoping to attract you to their farms.

And - if you sit with a decent map of the country - you can then see where everything is!

It's never too early to starting making plans and we are only a day or so of flying away.

cheers edi

Gentlemen

This is a hard question to give an exact answer to since recoil is felt personal. I would go for a 8-8,5 pound rifle with a straight stock and a good pad.
I guess you can take that rifle far and still shoot well with it. In a rifle with this weight it should't be that much of a problem shooting stout loads

I have never liked light rifles too much

Good Luck

/ JOHAN

Hello Johan - you are correct. We all have different abilities to absorb recoil.

But by drawing on one's experience and using the formula for recoil, you can determine the energy that you are absorbing from rifles that you are happy/unhappy with. Now you have some data which you can use to select a final weight of your new still-to-be-built rifle.

My personal findings are that, on the range, I can tolerate many shots at the 25 ft lbs level. During hunting, 36 ft lbs doesn't worry me - but I don't particularly care for it on the range.

To achieve recoil of 36 lb with the 0.270 I would have to make a 4.3 lb rifle! This is a near impossiblity with the pieces metal that I have for the project. However the recoil from a 6 lb rifle is no worse than what I routinely handle at the range - so for hunting....?

cheers edi

I have no problem with a 9.3x72 or 9.3x62 that weighs 6.5 lbs or a bit more....

If I ever get a double in 9.3 I want it to weigh no more than 7 lbs....

My FN-Browning O/U in 9,3x74R weights 3,8 kg (8.4 lbs) with scope and my K98 Scout in 9,3x62 tips the scale at 3,4 kg (7.5 lbs), scope incl. Not exactly bench guns but then, they're not meant to be and, in the field, when seeing hair through the scope, I'd swear they kick no more than a .22...

[ 09-22-2002, 18:55: Message edited by: Andr� Mertens ]

Andr� Mertens is spott on my 9.3x62 weights 7.3 lbs. I`v shoot 25 shoots in a bench with it (in a t-shirt not to funny whit 285 gr home lodes) but in a hunting situasjon you whil not fell a thing.. I love my 9.3 and for moose hunting i will not cainge it for eny ting!!!

My Chapuis 9.3x74R weighs 7 1/4 lbs on a postal scale without the scope, if I remember correctly. It is a joy to carry and the recoil is not punishing.