Ok what am I missing? Why the big hype over the 9.3X66? When I draw them out on top of each other and add a 286gr bullet set so it would function in a normal 06 length magazine I get only 2% net volume increase. If you go ahead and load the 9.3X62 up to the pressure limits for the 66 would you really see a difference? Now if you have a long magazine I can see a gain but that won't be the normal situation.

I ready for a 9.3 but can't see the reason for the extra expense of the 66. Thoughts?

The only potential advantage of the 9,3x66 is additional range.

The impact effectiveness of the 9,3x62 has been stellar for me. Has taken deer, pigs, warthog, impala, wildebeast, kudu, and zebra w 286 gr Noslers. No projectiles recovered.

All shots were at less than 200 yards. Within this range the 9,3x74R or 9,3x62 are wonderful!

If I needed the additional range I might consider a .375 H&H, Wby, or RUM. Have two all weather .375 H&H's, and I have no plans to acquire another rifle in this class.

How would 2% more net capacity gain you any range?

I don't know about the 9.3x66, but if you use the 250BT or one of the Euro bullets in the 250 weight class, the 9.3x62 will reach right on out to 250yds, which is further than any ph will ever let you shoot at an animal.

My load for the 250BT using Varget pushes the bullet to 2600fps. Zeroed to +2.9"@100, it is +1.4@200, 0@225,-1.8@250,-4@275, and -7@300. It is essentially point blank out to 250yds where it has over 2600ftlbs of energy. Kudude

/

quote:

The effective case capacity of the 66 vs the 62 is not just 2%.

Did Lawndart measure the capacity difference? I searched for the post but couldn't find it. Plotting the cases on my cad and measuring the area has always been very close. I get right at 4% gross AI increase on the 06 based cases. In my own improved 280 wildcat I'm right on with my water capacity increase.

I "ASSUMED" if I took the net area with the normal setting dept of a 286 bullet in both the 62 & 66 cases I would be close to net increase. But I've been all wet before. I would be happy to pay for a case and bullet for each and measure the net difference and post results.

Regardless of case capacity, the '62 is less than 100 f/s slower at a max load. Virtually no difference. The cases for the '62 are easily available. The '64 cases are a little harder to find but doable. The '66 cases are a special order only issue and that is its main detriment.

Isn't it jut long-cased 9,3-'06Spr? Unless Russian hunters warm up to "Neo 9,3", it will be caput soon.
We have .375RUM and .375Ruger is going to be with us soon, so we don't need stupid 9,3 Sakotta!

If someone can send me a couple 9.3 x 57 cases I can compare water capacities for the 9.3 x 57, 9.3 x 62, 9.3 x 66, 9.3 x 64, 9.3 x 70 and 9.3/338 Lapua Magnum.

Regardless of which one you use, there are others that move slower or faster, and still others that are more or less "efficient".

None of them has a lock on the title of "most virtuous."

Since I tend to favor 24" cut rifled barrels across the board, it will eventually be possible to compare eficiencies and velocities in a meaningful way.

I will post a couple notes from Erkki Kauppi, who developed the 9.3 x 66 EK (now 9.3 x 66 Sako) a while back. In those he discusses his rationale for doing so. An historical source does not get any more primary than that. I do wish that I could talk to Herr Otto Bock, Herr Wilhelm Brenneke and the DWM engineer(s) involved with the series of shortened, necked down and (very slightly) blown out 404J cases tested fifty-five years before Dakota launched an essentially similar line of cartridges.

The Soviets (don't be lulled by the name change) have begun producing match grade bullets in 9.3 mm for their 9.3 x 64 Brennecke sniper rifles. Wouldn't it be fun to try those with some of these cartridges?

I'll send you some tomorrow in exchange for a hamburger Tuesday.

quote:

If someone can send me a couple 9.3 x 57 cases I can compare water capacities for the 9.3 x 57, 9.3 x 62, 9.3 x 66, 9.3 x 64, 9.3 x 70 and 9.3/338 Lapua Magnum

There is no question that the 9.3X66 is larger than the 62 on a gross volume. Question I would have is the net gain with a normal weight bullet seated to fit in a normal 06 length action.

z1r: quite frankly I found your suggestion very Wimpy.



analog_peninsula

Hmmm I always remembered it as hamburger today and PAY you on Tuesday.

According to Sako there seems to be quite a difference in performance between these two cartridges.

9.3x62 vs. 9.3x66 Ballistics from Sako.

Velocity m/s @ 0 m. and energy joules @ 0 m. 100 m. and 200 m.

9.3x62 POWERHEAD 250 gr. – velocity = 760 energy = 4679; 3901; 3231
9.3x62 HAMMERHEAD 286 gr. – velocity = 720 energy = 4795; 3719; 2846
9.3x62 TWINHEAD 286 gr. – velocity = 720 energy = 4795; 4070; 3430


9.3x66 Sako ARROWHEAD 250 gr. – velocity = 840 energy = 5715; 4928; 4229
9.3x66 Sako HAMMERHEAD 286 gr. – velocity = 780 energy = 5628; 4405; 3402
9.3x66 Sako POWERHEAD 286 gr. – velocity = 775 energy = 5556; 4684; 3923

Hmmm now why would Sako want to show their new round gives a huge performance increase? Question I would ask is what pressure levels are they loaded to? My data show a limit for the 62 of 56550psi. If that is correct and the 66 is loaded to a more modern level the pressure could explain a lot of the difference.

/

Not always the case Alf, If the magazine box only will accommodate a 3.34"OAL and you load out the '62 you have gained case capacity when you load the '66 to that same length the bullet intrudes into the case more therefore your case capacity is reduced. I think it is a wash. Not enough difference to warrant the extra expense of brass and reamers/headspace guages. Now IF we talk about the 9.3x70 you do have a statistic you can play with. It will be easier to find 9.3x64 brass in the USA than the '66 version.

/

z1r,

Hamburger is in the mail.

Ib404, ramrod340,

I will test all rounds out of the same length of barrel 24", same barrel manufacturer, at the same pressure, same temperature, same range, same day. I will test the 9.3 x 66 with both double and single based powders.

CIP and SAAMI maximum pressure specifications tend to be higher for cartridges that have been standardized in recent years viz those that were codified ~ 100 years ago. Think 300 Win Mag viz 300 H&H Mag viz 30-06 Springfield.

Hi Ingvar,

About 1/2 of the velocity gain of the 9.3 x 66 over the 9.3 x 62 is due to the use of double based-powders instead of single based powders. N-540 & N-550 contain nitroglycerin in addition to the nitrocellulose found in N-140 & N-150.

Since CIP specifications allow the 9.3 x 66 ammunition to be loaded to higher pressures than 9.3 x 62 ammunition it is possible to make use of the more energetic double-based gun powders, and squeeze more velocity out of the9.3 x 66 cartridge.

LD

I will run a few 30-06 basic cases through the 9.3 x 66 FL sizing die this weekend.

I will also neck up a few 30-06 cases, and then size them down.

Pictures early next week (unless we get swamped with more West Nile Virus patients...).

LD

Alf,

I'll mail you a piece or two each of 9.3 x 66 and 9.3 x 70 brass to play with and ponder the possibilities of.

BTW, I have a patient that will be getting fitted with an artificial ankle. I'll try and get some inter-operative pictures for you. He took a seven meter fall straight down onto it temn years ago.

LD

quote:

What's with this "modern" level of pressure ?

I do not get it, both SAAMI and CIP prescribe the safe pressure limits for cartridges based on what a brass case can safely take and somehow there is a notion out there that suddenly there are old and new pressure limits

Hmmm guess that is why there is a 257 roberts and a 257Roberts+P. Or why the 30-06 & 280 is 60000 and the 270 & 25-06 are 65000. They are all the same case. More often than not the pressure was more set by the rifle it was used in. I agree on paper the 66 is 6.5% larger. Loaded to the same pressures that will only get you 1.6% velocity. Even that isn't much. As Ib404 stated when you seat the bullet deep enough to yield 3.34"OAL the capacity gain is around 2%.

Lawndart- curious why with modern brass and modern rifle you can't load the 62 the same as the 66?

Alf we are saying the same thing. No real mega jump in performance so why do it. Kind of like in my Ackley Improved days. Yes you did get some performance benefit but ultimately I quit that game as it wasn't worth the effort. I wasn't changing one thing and not the other, I was merely saying if you have and action that will accommodate only 3.34 OAL then you can seat out the bullets in the 9.3x62 while you will have to seat them deeper in the 9.3x66 thereby loosing the major advantage of one over the other. And you are absolutely right and I agreed with you that the net gain would not be noticable in a real world hunting situation.

quote:

Lawndart- curious why with modern brass and modern rifle you can't load the 62 the same as the 66?

I don't knowingly load ammunition to a pressure greater than the appropriate CIP or SAAMI specification. That is the only way I can ensure that a cartridge loaded by myself to a higher pressure might ever be fired in a gun not up to the task. I don't think anyone should ever do that either.

My adopted dad's father (my adopted grand father?) used to load ammunition. After he died my dad brought home a military style "foot locker" full of reloaded 20 gauge shells and 30-06 cartridges. That was about 18 years ago. I fired one of his shells at a feral cat. It about knocked me on my ass. I cut some more open and about shit my pants. Overloaded with soft lead congealed into a pretty solid slug and too much powder with one of the Alcan wads missing from the wad column, and sealed by someone really leaning on the press. Probably 18,000 LUP .

Short version: Can a CZ 550 handle a 9.3 x 62 loaded to 30-06 pressure levels with the bullet seated out to make more powder room? Surely. But. The only way to ensure that particular cartridge never ends up in a hundred and three year old rifle is to not make it. That goes a hundred-fold for me because I am pursuing the eventual manufacture of commercial ammunition for the 9.3 x 62.

If you own a 9.3 x 62, and decide to hot load it, and to a length beyond what CIP specifies, make sure you have a way to prevent it from getting into anyone elses hands, even after you die (automobile accident, MI, Malaria, whatever).

In the course of my medical career I have treated and/or pronounced dead a fair number of people who came to grief by means more improbable than I have described above.

Erkki Kauppi with some prime back strap before disassembly.

LD

quote:

The only way to ensure that particular cartridge never ends up in a hundred and three year old rifle is to not make it. That goes a hundred-fold for me because I am pursuing the eventual manufacture of commercial ammunition for the 9.3 x 62.

Believe me I find no fault with your logic. But I've also found that you can't completely protect people from themselves. Nothing keeping someone from taking their old 62 run a 66 reamer in it and fire your leftover 66 handloads. Again I think your position while conservative is a very safe one.

Best I do is LABEL big time with load and pressure range. I've also stated in my will that all handloaded ammo will be distroyed except for the wildcat ammo that would only fit in my rifles. I would trust my stepson but the son and son-in-law that would be anouther issue. I also gave up long time ago trying to load everything to magnum velocities. 60-63000psi is my upper limit. I found years ago that a lot of the visual signs of pressure don't show until you are past 70,000.

Anyone that shoots rounds that old is stupid. It is the shooters responsibiility to be sure what he is shooting. End of story. I often buy non factory loaded ammo at gun shows and disassemble it to keep the brass of some of the more hard to get rounds. I never fire them in my rifle and anyone that does is courting disaster. Don't take it personal it isn't meant that way.

quote:

I am pursuing the eventual manufacture of commercial ammunition for the 9.3 x 62.

l.d.

those match grade 9,3 bullets would be great for a 9,3-375 ruger...what do you think???

yood make 366torque a happy camper

i dont know when yer production will hit the public but you have some time before ruger gets its act together. kudos again to you for making high quality ammo

quote:

Lawndart- curious why with modern brass and modern rifle you can't load the 62 the same as the 66?

Actually, brass is made to the orginal spec, regardless of what decade it is made. For instance, 30-30 or 22 Hornet brass is just as thin today as it was way back when. Same for most calibers including things like the 9.3 x 62 which runs much lower pressure than a 270. If you have one of each, section them and I bet you see a difference. I bet 9.3 x 62 primer pockets loosen up way faster at x66 pressures than x66 cases would.

LD, if you have a commercial (especially Remington) 8MM Mauser case you could run it over a 9.3 expander and get close to the right capacity for 9.3 x 57.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiggertate:

Actually, brass is made to the orginal spec, regardless of what decade it is made. For instance, 30-30 or 22 Hornet brass is just as thin today as it was way back when. Same for most calibers including things like the 9.3 x 62 which runs much lower pressure than a 270. If you have one of each, section them and I bet you see a difference. I bet 9.3 x 62 primer pockets loosen up way faster at x66 pressures than x66 cases would.
QUOTE]


That may be true for 30-30's and Hornets, but I think you are wrong about other calibers. Lapua 9,3x62 brass is tough as heck and last about forever at original pressures and we've had some last 10-12 reloadings at modern pressures (i.e. 250's at 2650). If I ever get my paws on a couple 9,3x66 cases I'll section them and compare but I'd bet that they are pretty similar to Lapua 9,3x62's.
I've also seen reduced case capacity (meaning thicker brass and webs) in current brass in other calibers like 7x57.............DJ

quote:

Anyone that shoots rounds that old is stupid. It is the shooters responsibiility to be sure what he is shooting. End of story. I often buy non factory loaded ammo at gun shows and disassemble it to keep the brass of some of the more hard to get rounds. I never fire them in my rifle and anyone that does is courting disaster. Don't take it personal it isn't meant that way.

I don't take it badly at all. You are absolutely correct, I was quite stupid. I am (hopefully) less so these days. Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement (i.e. "The price of wisdom is bitter experience.").

One lesson I learned during my years of flying fighter jets is, "don't try to game the system." That lesson was writ large in blood (fortunately not mine).

Every one decides what ratio of risk/safety they are comfortable living with. We also all decide to what degree we are our brother's keeper.

LD

quote:

LD, if you have a commercial (especially Remington) 8MM Mauser case you could run it over a 9.3 expander and get close to the right capacity for 9.3 x 57.

Thanks tigger,

I have a pile of 8x57 brass. I'll section some 9.3 x 62 and 9.3 x 66 brass.

LD

quote:

If I ever get my paws on a couple 9,3x66 cases I'll section them and compare but I'd bet that they are pretty similar to Lapua 9,3x62's.

Hey dj,

I'll send you some 9.3 x 66 brass to play with. You will look at it for a few week, and then get to thinking. After a while you will send me a PM to send you my reamer for a week or two. You will then have a switch barrel Sako made from an old 30-06, a new McMillan stock and a couple Krieger barrels.

Can you say 9.3 x 62, 9.3 x 66, 30-06 Switch-o-matic???

LD

LD, You are hurting me with temptation. I've had a stray thought or two about converting my Dakota 97 in 9,3x62 to 9,3x66 since I've got my new custom 9,3x62 finished. But the Dakota has some good African Karma in it from it's original owner - something like 22 1 shot kills so I sorta hate to mess with it.
I also picked up 300rds of RWS 9,3x64 brass on my last trip to Germany. I'll get around to building a rifle on it when I decide which action to use and am a little more flush.
I'm thinking the Dakota would be an easy convert to 9,3x66 but it would be a shame to mess up a good thing. I may hold out a year or two for a Sako 85 in 9,3x66.
For the 9,3x64 I'm thinking maybe a Hein?

I would like to see the pics of the sectioned cases. Just be careful I still have a scar from the last time I tried to use a hacksaw to section something!...................DJ

Thanks for the heads up about the sectioning scar. I'll have Lois do the sectioning .

Don't change that good karma 9.3 x 62, ever!

The 9.3 x 64 brass plus a Hein would truly be a marriage made in heaven .

LD

I suppose it could vary with the maker, especially someone like Privi who makes almost everything to mil spec or a case that is revived like the 7 x 57 BUT; you shouldn't count on it. I have brand new 9.3 x 57 Norma brass that is much thinner than their brand new 8 x 57. Generally, it won't be the case (pardon the pun).

I think the 9,3x66 is a way for Sako to drop the long V action previously really only needed for the 375 H&H. Sako did offer the 7mm RM, 300 & 338 Win Mag using with the long action as well, but this is obviously not necessary, just a way to get the necessary rifle weight for those calibers. Production costs would probably sky rocket if they only used the V action for the 375 H&H.

Now they have the 9,3x66 which is "equal or superior" (well...) to the 375 H&H which they cram into a standard length action. The whole thing seems to be a big compromise in every way, with COL suffering etc.

Now, if they bring out their new model 85 with a long action, then I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong.

One positive thing that they did though, was to bring out the 85 model in 338 Federal. Bravo!