What are opinions on the use of the 9.3x62 on Alaskan coastal grizzlies by an out of state hunter (286 grain premium bullet at about 2400 fps). Has anyone used this cartridge on these animals? Any input on either question would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I cant see why not. You will hear that it is not enough, but that the 338-06 or the 35 whelen is what you need . I would have no reservations using the venerable 9.3 x 62 for any game on the planet. Chances are that you shoot it better than any of the magnums out there (and we must remember we are hunting and bullet placement is 90+% of the job) and if it will penetrate the skull of an ele it sure will a lowley grizzly. Now remember that you will need to be backed up by someone carring a 45/70 because that is a perfect bear gun

Better ask where in the Land of Midnight Sun are you going to find 19g TUG RWS ammo?. You are lucky, there is something magical called .375H&H with premium ammo readily available. Why bother getting your hands "dirty" or hunt for fodder when local shop has good ammo? Good life wasted, indeed!
Become a 9,5 rifleman and enjoy good life.

Woodleigh make 320 gr solids and softs for the 9.3 might be of interest to you.

Too bad that Barnes doesn't make a triple shock in 9.3. If they do I can't find any listed.

I do not have a 9.3x62, yet, although I have one on a ZG-47 in the works. I do have a Merkel drilling in 9.3x74R, the rimmed version and I load 286 NPs to about 2400 fps-mv. I also have some Grizzly experience as well as a .375 H&H and several .338s and have used these extensively. I consider the 9.3x62 to be probably the finest choice for a Grizzly buster available today, in a good Mauser rifle, as you have power, capacity, reliability and ease of use in this combo. This is why I am having one built and intend it to become my main meat rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3 rifleman:
What are opinions on the use of the 9.3x62 on Alaskan coastal grizzlies by an out of state hunter (286 grain premium bullet at about 2400 fps). Has anyone used this cartridge on these animals? Any input on either question would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Wouldn't be my personal choice but it will do the job if distances are prudent. More important is shot placement. Before you go practice, practice, practice. The rifle you take, make sure you are intimate with it, know it backwards and forwards. Grizzlies are no place for guesswork.

There would be nothing wrong with a plain jane no bells & whistles Mauser 98 in 404 Jeffry with open sights.

The problem with a "heavy" rifle like a .404 is recoil and this is exacerbated by the light weight of the rifles that are appropriate for carrying in Alaska, B.C. and other places with very dense cover and steep, slippery footing. You need to frequently carry the rifle at "port arms" and this is no fun with a 10.5-11 lb. rifle, especially through "Devil's Club", Sitka Alder and other conponents of "the Green Hell", this is decades of experience talking.

Also, a good scope is much better than irons in the conditions one hunts in as shooting at a furry blob in the odd light found in the "jungle" is easier with the scope. I do use an auxiliary peep-post setup with Q.D. mounts on my rifles, but, a scope is best....and tougher than many iron sight setups.

A friend of mine built up a VERY light .416 Rem. based on a Sako Classic Synthetic and this was to be THE Grizzly gun....we shot it for awhile and he sold it as it was just too tough to regularly shoot the insurance shot quickly, due to recoil. So, I favour the 9.3 as it is a very practical choice.

Doug,
The Barnes 9.3mm Triple Shock is available. I have not tried it yet in my 9.3x62 CZ American but will in the near future.

Here are two sources with inventory -
MidwayUSA
or
MidSouth

Phil

Thanks for that info., I can't buy from them, being a Canuck, but, at least I can get those for my rifle when it is finished. I expect that this bullet would absolutely "bang-flop" ANY Grizzly!

The last Grizzly I saw shot was in Sept. 03 and one shot from a .300 Win.-180 NNP did it, so, the 9.3x62 would do even better, IMO. The guide in northern B.C. who has shot the most Grizzlies of anyone I know uses a .35WAI. and considers it about ideal, again, this is mucho liko 9.3x62.

Thanks Phil.

That should make one bad ass load. I think they could make it lighter or also make lighter version.
The X bullets don't need to be as heavy as conventinal soft points.

The 9.3x62 should work as much as a .338-06 or a .35 Whelen, but these are general hunting cartridges, that have no advantages over quite a lot of other hunting cartridges.

The problem is finding such ammo in Alaska, where the .30-06, .300WM, and the .338WM are the most popular cartridges.

Even though the .338WM and the .375 H&H would be better than a 9.3x62, the real bear guns (you mentioned coastal bears) start with numbers such as ".416"

9.3 will work very well. And don't worry about the ammo not being available locally as where I hunted in Alaska there were never any stores any way.

I'd consider it just as good as a 338 win mag (possibly better), which is considered the prudent minimum for the big bears. A good expanding 286 gr bullet @ 2400 is certainly up to taking out both shoulders and producing a decent wound channel, my personal criteria for determining what makes a bear round.

I do agree that should your ammo part ways with you, you're likely up the creek.

On one hand I would say why not, it certianly packs enough punch to drop even the big coastal browns.

On the other hand, if it were me, I would consider a grizz hunt to be a rare opportunity and I would want to give myself every possible advantage. Nostalgia be damned. There are rounds that pack just as much punch and are good out much farther.

The 9.3 will perform with the best of them. Since you are a non-resident, you'll be hunting with a guide (or kinfolk), so mail them a box of ammo before you go.

For all I know, Sportsman's Warehouse in Anchorage [(907)644-1400] has a box floating around.

Frankly, every time the subject of hunting with an uncommon caliber comes up, paranoia about ammo supply comes up just as fast. For over 30 years I've been traveling hither and yon on hunting trips and never yet has my ammo been waylaid, unless I did it to myself for not packing it

I was thinking about the same cartridge for Grizzly hunting and couldn't find anything negative about it. All the folks here on this board who shoot 9.3x62 speak very highly of it and on paper 286 grains at 2400 fps sounds like just the ticket for the task at hand.

Better yet get a 9.3x64 and duplicate .375 H&H performance while shooting a cartrudge that's different than the most you will encounter in any grizzly camp.

Even if you stay with the 62 , there would be very little practical difference between 286 grains at 2400 fps vs. 300 grain at 2500 fps of the H&H. I'll bet you anything the target will never be able to tell the difference.

Harris

You know, the paranoia about spare ammo really depends on your location. In other words, If you are in South Africa, you better worry about finding your .35 Whelen ammo, and yeah, 9.3x62 is readily available, and in Alaska/Canada, yes, you might want to worry about finding metric ammo. As an experienced hunter, one would think in terms of carrying enough ammunition, whatever the conditions
LLS

9.3 is plenty for hunting Griz, as are it's smaller brothers, the .338-06 and .35 Whelen. They'll do great on a Griz hunt. It's when the big Griz starts hunting you that you'd wished you'd packed more...

How do you guys compare the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen to the 9.3 X 62mm? You might want to consult a reloading manual. The first one that I saw with load data for the 9.3 X 62mm had but one bullet for it then and it was the SPEER #11. The load with their .366" 270 gr. bullet is listed @ 2550 FPS with 64 grs. of IMR 4350 powder and CCI-250 primer in Winchester cases. The Whelen and the .338-06 are not even in the same ball park and if you shoot a .338, it better be the Winchester Magnum variety to surpass the 9.3 X 62.

The .275 grain .338 WM load is only 5 grains heavier and to propel it to the highest listed velocity of 2615 FPS, it will take 75.0 grains of 7828, 74 grains of MRP (2614 FPS), or 72 grs. of MR 3100 (2595 FPS) to better the energy of the 9.3 X 62. Not to mention the higher recoil you get in the bargain because of the higher charge weights and the longer bullet engagement of a .338" vs. .366" bullet diameter.

The 9.3 X 62mm is also available in an outstanding rifle that is one of the true bargains today. The CZ 550 that has a single set trigger that will give you a crisp 14 ounce trigger option, Mauser extraction and very high quality hammer forged steel barrel for under $650. Try and get that in .338-06, .35 Whelen, or even the .338 WM and what you will have to pay for the aftermarket trigger you'll have to buy!

9.3 X 62mm for a Grizzly Gun? 9.3 Rifleman, looks like you have made about as sound a choice as anyone could!

If you like reloading, traveling with extra ammo, and a trim bolt gun than 425WS has a lot going for it. It should STOMP any belligerent "Cave Bear", if it doesn't .......to valhalla you go!

quote:

Originally posted by KLN357:
How do you guys compare the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen to the 9.3 X 62mm? You might want to consult a reloading manual. The first one that I saw with load data for the 9.3 X 62mm had but one bullet for it then and it was the SPEER #11. The load with their .366" 270 gr. bullet is listed @ 2550 FPS with 64 grs. of IMR 4350 powder and CCI-250 primer in Winchester cases. The Whelen and the .338-06 are not even in the same ball park and if you shoot a .338, it better be the Winchester Magnum variety to surpass the 9.3 X 62.

The .275 grain .338 WM load is only 5 grains heavier and to propel it to the highest listed velocity of 2615 FPS, it will take 75.0 grains of 7828, 74 grains of MRP (2614 FPS), or 72 grs. of MR 3100 (2595 FPS) to better the energy of the 9.3 X 62. Not to mention the higher recoil you get in the bargain because of the higher charge weights and the longer bullet engagement of a .338" vs. .366" bullet diameter.

The 9.3 X 62mm is also available in an outstanding rifle that is one of the true bargains today. The CZ 550 that has a single set trigger that will give you a crisp 14 ounce trigger option, Mauser extraction and very high quality hammer forged steel barrel for under $650. Try and get that in .338-06, .35 Whelen, or even the .338 WM and what you will have to pay for the aftermarket trigger you'll have to buy!

9.3 X 62mm for a Grizzly Gun? 9.3 Rifleman, looks like you have made about as sound a choice as anyone could!

Yes, but you're somewhat comparing apples with oranges. The 270 gr .366 will have less sectional density than the 275 gr .338 bullet. (BTW Speer doesn't make a .338" 275 gr any longer.)

.366" 270 gr SD = .288
.338" 275 gr SD = .344

A better comparison, IMHO, is between the 286 gr in the 9.3x62 and the 250 gr in the .338 Win Mag.

.366" 286 gr SD = .305
.338" 250 gr SD = .313


My handloads:

9.3x62
286 gr Woodleigh
Sectional Density: .305
Muzzle velocity: 2390 fps
Muzzle energy: 3628 ft lb
(58.0 grs of RL-15, WLR primer)

.338 Win Mag
250 Nosler Partition
Sectional Density: .313
Muzzle velocity: 2650 fps
Muzzle energy: 3899 ft lb
(69.0 grs of IMR-4831, WLR primer)

Also, Finn Aagaard rated the .338-06, the .35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 as about equal in effectiveness on game with a slight advantage going to the 9.3x62. He also stated that the 9.3x62 matched the .338 Win Mag in effectiveness on game out to about 200 yards. As I have far less hunting experience than Finn Aagaard, I believe I will defer to his opinion.

Just my two cents worth...
-Bob F.

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3 rifleman:
What are opinions on the use of the 9.3x62 on Alaskan coastal grizzlies by an out of state hunter (286 grain premium bullet at about 2400 fps). Has anyone used this cartridge on these animals? Any input on either question would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Well, I've never heard anyone say that the .35 WQhelen is not enough for those bears (one of the largest Alaskan Brown bears ever shot was killed with a M95 Winchester chambered for the .30/40 Krag!!), so see no reason why that 9.3 would not be even better than the Whelen!!

quote:

paranoia about spare ammo really depends on your location

In Alaska or Canada, I'd say it depends more on the reliability of the air carrier. Trying to find any ammo other than 300WM or '06 in Kotzebue/Bethel/Dillingham would be a losing bet, and that's where you'd be before you discovered the problem. You get on the plane in the lower 48 and never leave the airport until you get to the hub location for the final jump-off. If you were really paranoid, you'd either schedule an en-route overnighter in Anchorage to see if your ammo made it that far (Anchorage being the hub for the rest of AK and big enough to have a few shootatoria to choose from), or just mail a box to your guide/outfitter ahead of time.
There's probably a few more likely problems than ammo loss to spend your time worrying about.

How about the 376 Steyr? THe Hornady manual lists the 300 grain bullet at 2500fps (probably 2400-2450 realistically). I shoot mine regularly and I have back and neck injuries. The 270 lists at 2650 fps. It isn't a hard pounding cartridge.

You realize some say a super duper rifle is not always needed. Read this:


“Grizzly Guns†by H. V. Stent

If you are planning a grizzly hunt or only dreaming of one, a big question is which rifle to use.

On that fascinating subject, I’ve been amassing information for some 40 years of living as a teacher, fruit grower and hunter in that bear paradise, British Columbia, where stories of encounters with grizzlies and brown bears are enjoyed where ever sportsmen gather and are often headlined in newspapers and television newscasts.

Such meetings sometimes result in a mauled man or shot bear, or both. A recent one ended with both man and bear dead.

Rolf Voss of Surrey, British Columbia, had shot a caribou near Fort Nelson, in the north-central part of the province, and was carrying parts of the carcass back to his camp in wooded mountain country when a grizzly, perhaps smelling the meat, attacked him. Voss got off two shots with his .270 that proved fatal to the bear, but the grizzly bit Voss about the head – they usually go for the head – and killed him. The two bodies were found side by side.

This is no reflection on the .270. That cartridge has killed many grizzlies and browns. In 1985, a fine 27-incher (total skull measurement) fell to a .270 in the hands of Roger Pentecost of Peachland, BC. In 1986, another record-class grizzly was killed by Alvars Barkis of Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania, with a .300 Magnum; and a medium-size one, about 500 pounds, was killed by 12-year-old Gary H. Holmes of Kimberly, BC, with a .25/06. Back in 1965, the world-record grizzly fell to one .30/30 bullet fired by Jack Turner. And before that, the world-record grizzly succumbed to a .22 Rimfire!

Bella Twin, an Indian girl, and her friend Dave Auger were hunting grouse near Lesser Slave Lake in northern Alberta. The only gun they had was Bella’s single-shot bolt-action .22 Rimfire rifle. They were walking a cutline that had been made for oil exploration when they saw a large grizzly following the same survey line toward them. If they ran, the bear would probably notice them and might chase, so they quietly sat down on a brush pile and hoped that the bear would pass by without trouble. But the bear came much too close, and when the big boar was only a few yards away, Bella Twin shot him in the side of the head with a .22 Long cartridge. The bear dropped, kicked and then lay still. Taking no chances, Bella went up close and fired all of the cartridges she had, seven or eight .22 Longs, into the bear’s head. That bear, killed in 1953, was the world-record grizzly for several years and is still high in the records today Which only goes to show that in an emergency, strange things are possible, but who wants that kind of emergency?

I've had some success w/ bears, but my experience is far less than many who post here. My logic may be skewed but I'm of the opinion that there are many excellent cartridges that would be fine to hunt bear w/ but may be a lesser choice if used as "insurance" to backup or defend against a wounded or aggressive bear. I guess this could apply to any dangerous game animal.

With that said, I'd say the 9.3x62 shooting a well constructed 286gr bullet at normal velocities from a reliable repeating rifle by a competent shooter would be "big medicine" on bears.

Gary

quote:

I'd say the 9.3x62 shooting a well constructed 286gr bullet at normal velocities from a reliable repeating rifle by a competent shooter would be "big medicine" on bears.

That's what I'd say too. I haven't killed a brown bear with the 9.3X62 but plenty of other big game up to 800+lbs and it just works!

quote:

Originally posted by KLN357:
How do you guys compare the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen to the 9.3 X 62mm? You might want to consult a reloading manual. The Whelen and the .338-06 are not even in the same ball park and if you shoot a .338, it better be the Winchester Magnum variety to surpass the 9.3 X 62.

)

I suppose that depends on what Manual you are looking at and what part of the manual you consider important. As in energy figures at the muzzle, @ 300 yds.. Trajectory, etc. Manuals are references, not bibles.

It seems to me that several manuals reflect the actual velocities being reported by many 9.3X62 users, but few of them show the real potential of the Whelen, most refelct Remingtons anemic loading, many members (including myself) are getting over 2500 fs from a 250 gn bullet from their Whelen which is VERY comparable to a 9.3X62 with a 270 gn bullet (similar sd).
Granted the Mauser case does have a bit more capacity and will always have a slight edge in that aspect, especially with heavier bullets. But comments like it is better compared to the a 338 WM or 375 H&H are simply not true. A 358 Norma will burn the 9.3X62 all day long. Especially in terms of trajectory and retained energy past 200 yds.

The 9.3X62 is a fine cartridge, but it is not this majical mystical round that some folks like to make it out to be. The facts are a matter of physics and apply as such.

quote:

Originally posted by BFaucett:


Yes, but you're somewhat comparing apples with oranges. The 270 gr .366 will have less sectional density than the 275 gr .338 bullet. (BTW Speer doesn't make a .338" 275 gr any longer.)

.366" 270 gr SD = .288
.338" 275 gr SD = .344

A better comparison, IMHO, is between the 286 gr in the 9.3x62 and the 250 gr in the .338 Win Mag.

.366" 286 gr SD = .305
.338" 250 gr SD = .313


My handloads:

9.3x62
286 gr Woodleigh
Sectional Density: .305
Muzzle velocity: 2390 fps
Muzzle energy: 3628 ft lb
(58.0 grs of RL-15, WLR primer)

.338 Win Mag
250 Nosler Partition
Sectional Density: .313
Muzzle velocity: 2650 fps
Muzzle energy: 3899 ft lb
(69.0 grs of IMR-4831, WLR primer)

Also, Finn Aagaard rated the .338-06, the .35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 as about equal in effectiveness on game with a slight advantage going to the 9.3x62. He also stated that the 9.3x62 matched the .338 Win Mag in effectiveness on game out to about 200 yards. As I have far less hunting experience than Finn Aagaard, I believe I will defer to his opinion.

Just my two cents worth...
-Bob F.

Apples to Oranges? Well, I think you set us straight since you are loading the .338 WM with IMR-4831 and the 9.3 X 62mm with Reloader 15. If you want to split hairs, there are slower powders that will get you higher velocity than R-15 with the 286 gr. bullets in 9.3 X 62mm.

Obviously .338 bullets with their smaller diameter and longer lengths will have higher BC's, but at the same energy levels, they'll also produce more recoil because of it. I didn't really think BCs were an issue, even at .288 with 270 grains to push it. Point is that there have been several good bullets introduced by American bulletmakers since then, in similar weights and the .286s have been around even longer and used by African hunters like Mr. Aagard. In many cases on dangerous game and I don't think many African hunters are going to choose the .338-06, or the .35 Whelen over the 9.3 X 62mm.

I don't see that I am disagreeing with the late Mr. Aagaard either. I didn't say the .338-06 or the .35 Whelen couldn't be used for Griz, if that's your choice, just that contrary to some oppinions stated previously, they are not the ballistic equal of the 9.3 X 62mm. After all, one of the oldest precepts in ballistics is that cartridges based on the same parent, will give the advantage in power to the one of greater diameter, or the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen wouldn't be part of the discussion, since they were wildcatted originally to use heavier bullets than were available for the .30-06.

I also noted you stating, in Mr. Aagaards oppinion that .338 WM offered little more in practicle terms at 200 yards than the 9.3 X 62mm and I don't think many Griz hunters are looking to extend that range. Especially if their guides have anything to say about it.

Load the .338 WM and the 9.3 X 62mm both to their maximum potential and ask yourself if the additional recoil and the belted case are really neccessary here. Then consider the cost difference between a CZ 550 (around $600) that comes with a 14 ounce trigger that might come in handy on those 200 yard shots, vs. what a .338 WM will cost after the trigger job most of them will need if they don't come with an adjustable one.

Wstrn hunter, First off, you never saw me make any comparison between the 9.3 X 62mm and the .358 Magnums or the .375 H&H. If you want to start your own controversy, please don't make me part of it!

quote:

Originally posted by KLN357:
Wstrn hunter, First off, you never saw me make any comparison between the 9.3 X 62mm and the .358 Magnums or the .375 H&H. If you want to start your own controversy, please don't make me part of it!

You stated that the 338 WM and 9.3X62 compare better than the 338-06 or 35 Whelen do with the 9.3. I disagreeed. Other people on these forums have made the 375 H$H comparison.

The 358 Norma is pretty much the same case as the 338 WM, very little difference in those rounds.

That's fine. Quote them next time. I didn't get on this thread just to defend a pet cartridge.

If you would rather a use a .35 Whelen with a 250 gr. bullet loaded to 2500 FPS, I don't have any problem with that. You also mentioned physics, which makes it relatively simple to understand the difference between it and a 270 gr. bullet from a 9.3 X 62mm at 2600 FPS. At least I hope it does.

And, there is more than one .358 Magnum, so I never needed to get into a debate when it is clear that I already pointed out that the .338 WM has a ballistic advantage, over the 9.3 X 62mm. My whole point is that if you want a more powerful round, the case will need a belt unless it is one of the newer beltless magnums.

Swift makes a 275 A-Frame for the .338WM, and I believe Kodiak makes another. Woodleigh makes a 300-grain soft point for the .338WM.

Other than that, the .338WM is king up here (Alaska).

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3 rifleman:
What are opinions on the use of the 9.3x62 on Alaskan coastal grizzlies by an out of state hunter (286 grain premium bullet at about 2400 fps). Has anyone used this cartridge on these animals? Any input on either question would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

P.H. Kevin Robertson claims his ZG 47 has over 600 cape buffalo to its credit. I'm sure it will get the job done with room to spare.

quote:

I do not have a 9.3x62, yet, although I have one on a ZG-47 in the works.

Right on Kutes. I just picked up a blueprinted M70 action and am planning on building a 9.3x62 also.

quote:

It seems to me that several manuals reflect the actual velocities being reported by many 9.3X62 users, but few of them show the real potential of the Whelen, most refelct Remingtons anemic loading, many members (including myself) are getting over 2500 fs from a 250 gn bullet from their Whelen which is VERY comparable to a 9.3X62 with a 270 gn bullet (similar sd).
Granted the Mauser case does have a bit more capacity and will always have a slight edge in that aspect, especially with heavier bullets. But comments like it is better compared to the a 338 WM or 375 H&H are simply not true. A 358 Norma will burn the 9.3X62 all day long. Especially in terms of trajectory and retained energy past 200

The B.C.'s on the 35 cal. bullets could make up some of the edge that the 9.3x62 have over rounds like the 35 Wh.

35 Cal. 250gr Swift A-Frame, BC 0.347

9.3 Cal 250gr Swift A-Frame, BC 0.267

35 Cal has always been under rated IMO. I'm still going to build a 9.3x62 though.

I caried a 9.3 X 62 with 286 Grain NP on a brown bear hunt on Kodiak this spring never saw
any I wanted to shoot. But I felt very comfortable with the caliber. Ammo will be hard to find here so send some to your guide or
hunting partner. I have heard rumor that you can USPS mail ammo to AK please verify.

Getting back to the original question, I haven't used it on the coastal griz, but have used the various 9.3's on a lot of inland tundra griz up to 10'6". All but an excited 5 year old were one shot kills, and none complained that I should have used a different caliber or a bullet with more SD, etc. A lot of my guides have now gone to the 9.3's based on field experience. They read also, but put a lot more belief in actual field experience. ~Arctic~

MY FATHER TOOK KODIAK BEAR WITH 9.3X74R,232 GRAIN NORMA VULKAN, HE USED MY MERKEL DOUBLE RIFLE,INSTANT KILL AT 85 METERS,BEAR WEIGHT WAS AROUN 1200

I have a .338-06, a lovely pre-64 custom M70 in .338 Win Mag, a 9,3x62 on a VZ.24, a CZ 9,3x62, a Chapuis DR in 9,3x74R, and a 1909 Argentine in .376 Steyr.

(As you might guess I like the heavier mediums.)

I consider the .338 Win Mag to be better than any of the 9,3s only in that it has more range. Within their appropriate range the larger diameter of the 9,3 seems to better transfer energy to the target. Very, very effective.

For a Grizz hunt, I'd choose among my rifles more by the expected weather, range, and required handiness than by effectiveness.

I shot my mountain grizzly in B.C. with a 300 Wby Mag, 180 grain Wby ammo. I shot my Coastal Brown Bear in Alaska with a 375 H & H using 270 grain green box Remingtons. Two black bears in B. C. with 300 Win mag, 180 grain green box Remingtons. I now own a 9.3 x62 CZ and would not hesitate to hunt any of the above with it.

Don't worry about it, just shoot well.