I have never met a person who didn't fall in love with the 9,3x62 after using them in the field. There are many cartridges around but the 9,3x62 is really something special. Or is it just me?

If there are any shooters out there who tried the 9,3x62 and rejected it - I would be happy to hear your comments.

I don't have much real "need" for a caliber as large as 9.3x62, but I was talked into trading for a 9.3 barrel for my R-93. After seeing what seems to inherit accuracy in the cartridge, I am a huge fan.

It is not hard on my shoulder, but it hits the game I shoot at like a hammer. I think its reputation as an extremely efficient cartridge is well earned. In my CZ 550, it is very accurate, too. Its only shortcoming is that it is not terribly flat shooting, and beyond 250 yards or so, you need to know your range precisely in order to place the bullet well.

My CZ 550 in 9.3X62 is very accurate. I too am a big fan!

In late 2003 a good friend (Rick R) waxed poetic on the virtues of the 9,3x62. When 4Tails advertised a CZ 550 American in the Classifieds at a wonderfully reasonable price ... I bought it.

In 2004 I had a scope fail the week before leaving for RSA ... leaving me with a quandary as to what to take. The 9,3x62 was elected. It did wonderfully well! And has since done as well with deer and piggies.

So well, in fact, that I built a second 9,3x62 on a VZ.24 action. That one went to Africa at the end of May 2009 and did equally well.

The 9,3x62 has done so well for me that I have two that I won't part with!

I do find the caliber interesting, how simular would it be to a .338/06? I was kind of thinking of having an extra barrel made up in that cal. for my take down Winchester mod. 95.

This is not meant to . Why is this cartridge thought to be special when it is only .008" larger in diameter than any .358 cal of comparable capacity? roger

Probably because it is actually widely available in a "cheap" well made factory rifle such as the CZ?

And that it is slightly better than the 358 Winchester in performance and does not have the, supposed, headspacing issues of the 35 Whelen?

Holland and Holland loaded a similar round the 375 H & H that also was once popular in a limited measure (not to be confused with the same size H & H Magnum).

It is enough gun, simple as that. Without the recoil most people find inconvenient.
It is legal many places in Africa, giving it the only edge over the .35 Whelen there is - but an edge that sells.

Imagine .375 Whelen being loaded by Remington since 1954, how many 9,3x62's would we see in the US?

Guys,

I had the same thoughts about the .338-06 and the 35 Whelen. Decided to build a .338-06 as I stock .338 diameter bullets and really did not want to stock yet another diameter.

Did that on an FN Commercial action. Rifle seems to have a problem in that I am getting case failures ... the cases are showing thinning rather far up (an inch or so from the extraction groove). Thinning to the point of separation! Douglas barrel was chambered and installed by a reputable smith.

Has been taken checked for headspace, apart and checked, the chamber repolished, put back together, and headspace checked again. No diagnosis yet. Most curious.

I think I am eventually going to like the little .338, but can't tell yet. Didn't have this kinda problem with either of the 9,3x62s.

That's weird, Mike. Sounds to me like maybe you have a defective sizing die? If the gun is true and the brass is good, there's not much left.

Mike, this is probably NOT the answer to your problem. but then answers to life's little annoyances are sometimes the last items we would suspect...

Have you checked the diameter of your brand new brass in the area where it is stretching, before it is fired even the first time? How does that correspond with the SAAMI specs?

I note that over the last 10 years or so, the ammo companies seem to be making their rimless brass smaller, and smaller, and smaller yet at the case heads. I guess when you're making millions of cartridges, even a tiny saving of brass in every case adds up to more profit.

Anyway, could it possibly be your problem is created by the brass being too small as it comes from the factory? That might make for constant excessive expansion upn firing, and reduction upon resizing. Could it be a contributor to the problem you're having?

Probably not, but then I can't help being curious....

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Probably because it is actually widely available in a "cheap" well made factory rifle such as the CZ? ....

That's my case; I've bought a CZ few weeks ago and I really like it. While I've not tried it in the field, just looking at the stout cartridge I've no doubt about its effectiveness and the rifle is very accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:
I have never met a person who didn't fall in love with the 9,3x62 after using them in the field. There are many cartridges around but the 9,3x62 is really something special. Or is it just me?

If there are any shooters out there who tried the 9,3x62 and rejected it - I would be happy to hear your comments.

Special because it developed a following among African farmers early on.

It was lighter to carry and was inexpensive as compared to the big magnums of its day (really, still true) and IT WORKED.

Also the caliber it developed a following for Moose and larger continental game for the same reasons.

Now, in America, European imports are showing up it significant numbers AND it remains legal in many African countries for some DG (for now).

Add to that ,its a great round and globalization is occurring in information world trade and therefore more knowledge of and accessibility to the round resulting in greater widespread demand.
Besides its cool

Actually met one fellow who didn't like his. He bought a CZ full stock in 9,3x62 and after a bit of shooting decided that it kicked too hard for his taste plus it was overkill for hunting in the Eastern US so he sold it.

Valid concerns from his point of view, but probably not in line with the thinking of most AR posters.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Matherne:
I was kind of thinking of having an extra barrel made up in that cal. for my take down Winchester mod. 95.

Interesting - is this a factory-made take-down, or a later modification?
Is it difficult to obtain new barrels for it, or is it just a matter of buying "any" barrel on the market?

- Lars

The importation of many thousands of Mod. 96 6.5's seemed to kick in that cartridges popularity. More recently Husq's in 9.3; all inexpensive, good guns. Power-wise, 6.5 is a 'sawed off' 270 win., and 9.3 x 62 a scaled-down 375. They are just interesting, neat cartridges that effeciently kill some game as good as some larger cartridges.

quote:

What is it with the 9,3x62?

Provenance ...

It seems many people are so enarmored with speed the heavy bores get overlooked. But most of those who have actually shot at game quickly learned that cross-sectional area means more that they suspected. Elmer Keith was RIGHT about the effectivness of big bullets driven as fast as possible.

But, IMHO, the .358 Win and or .35 Whelen are a better choices than any difficult to feed European round. Any headspacing "difficulty" is blather.

I absolutely love to deer hunt with my .35/336!

I love it too. Shoots like a house a fire in my Blaser R93. I'm wanting a mauser M03 in a 9.3x62 in there trail model.

I like the 9.3x74 too, as my friend Ron says there are no fleas on the 9.3's

Ed

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
This is not meant to . Why is this cartridge thought to be special when it is only .008" larger in diameter than any .358 cal of comparable capacity? roger

I think a better question would be why would anyone want a 35 caliber when they can have a 9,3x62?

With the 9,3x62 you have a round with decades of proven performance in Africa. You can get superb quality brass from Lapua, RWS or Norma and cheaper brass from Privi.

The shoulder is moved forwards and allows you to acheive the maximum performance out of a 30-06 sized case. The 9.3x62 is pretty much a 36 Whelen IMPROVED.

There are lots of superb quality HUNTING bullets available for the 9,3 in a wide range of weights. Why go with a 35 that is much more restricted as far as heavy game bullets go?

Why go with a caliber that's only popular in the States when you can have one with solid Worldwide acceptance?

The 9,3x62 is approved in some places for Dangerous Game the 35's aren't.

So to be honest I really can't see why anyone would choose a 35 over the 9,3's. ...................................DJ

More than fifteen years ago, maybe twenty, I had an FN commercial action that I couldn't figure what to do with, since I had rifle in the basic cartridges already. I noticed that the 9.3x62 was shown in the Speer manual, and the loads looked reasonable. Other research convinced me. At the time, the only barrel maker I could find with 9.3 barrels was Pac Nor, and they had the reamer, so I had them make a prefit barrel. Then I sent it all to a gunsmith, who headspaced it off some RWS ammo that I got from Old West Scrounger. Had trouble finding ammo to at that time.

So, it was an experiment just to be different I suppose, but I have been very happy with the rifle. I recently bought another one on a Ruger action, and I'm finally happy with it too, although I had some initial trouble with the bolt.

I have enjoyed the 9.3 so well that I also have a 9.3x57 on an FN action, but I havent shot it yet. And a 9.3x74R in an Encore, which is a great combo.

I also have a 35 Whelen, and like it, but haven't shot it much since I got the 9.3x62.

Anyway, I figure I'll always have something in 9.3mm as long as I'm able to shoot.

KB

Put me in the 9,3x62 "love it" class!



Think the little dissention we're getting with this thread is the dissenters just don't have one to experience and/ or are jealous of the how we appreciate that cartridge and the rifles that shoot’em!

I have just returned from Africa where I used my Custom 9.3x62 FN Mauser.

Projectile selection is critical as Impact velocities are not high. (Don't go too tough/hard). It seems that a lot of hunters from the USA are enamoured with higher velocity than the rest of the planet and you don't need that velocity with the 9.3x62 if you use it as it was intended: A close range cartrdge (<250 yards) for all sized soft skinned game. Having said that I would use this rifle/cartridge combination to shoot anything that walked on the planet.

Some advantages are:

High sectional density SP and FMJ 320 grain projectiles are available for the toughest game. Factory ammo is avaialable in all variations of construction and weight for all size of game from Fox upwards.

Any .30-06 or .270 length action can be very cheaply and easily re-barreled to 9.3x62. My FN Mauser held four rounds in the magazine and if I ever needed more than that I would get someone to re-teach me how to shoot.

in a few words, it works. They have a quicker twist than the Rem 35W, and that lets them shoot everything from 232gr to 320gr bullets. It also does not kick hard.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:
I have never met a person who didn't fall in love with the 9,3x62 after using them in the field. There are many cartridges around but the 9,3x62 is really something special. Or is it just me?

If there are any shooters out there who tried the 9,3x62 and rejected it - I would be happy to hear your comments.

I don't know what it is about the caliber, but count me in as one who wants one in a bad way...

I have never shot any game with a 9,3x62..

But I have shot a LOT OF GAME WITH A 9,3X74R.
Similar ballistics.

These 2 9,3's are two of the best hunting rifle calibres on the Planet.

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

What is it with the 9,3x62?

Provenance ...

Damn Bubba, put my eight lines into one word--

I know I sure love mine. IMHO the CZ 550 is one of the best DG capabile rifles avialable at a very reasonable price today. Very accurate, in my rifle all weight bullets shoot to the same center point, from 232g to 286 just a couple of clicks for elevation. CRF and holds 5 in the mag. Took the rifle out last year for deer, just flat works, like Thor's hammer, three shots three deer. With minimal blood shot meat. Recoil is not at all bad, uses about the same amount of powder as an 06. Not a lot of bad things, to me all good things. It's one of my "keepers"

I have a 35 whelen, 350 remy mag, and a 9.3x62.


I live my remington Whelen, but I'm selling it bc the 9.3 is better in my opinion. It's got a bit more case capacity and a bit better bullet selction. The rel advantage is however that I can use it as a back up buff gun to my 404 as well as a pg gun. I don't think it would be legal for me to use a 35 Whelen. I'm also pretty sure that the 9.3 loaded with 320 grained bullets provides significantly better bc than a 35 Whelen with 250 grained bullets (heaviest I have in 358)

All that said, boy I love my Whelen.

Gonna hafta quote The Greatest on this one:

"Floats like a butterfly; stings like a bee!"

The 9.3X62 may be like the 30-30 in that the rifles in which it has been chambered are more the attraction than the ballistics. However, my 9.3X62, a CZ550FS, shoots well with anyload and fantastically well with the loads it really likes; and like the 30-30 leveraction it has moderate recoil, moderate cost, and moderate weight. The long, storied past it has in Africa doesn't hurt either.

quote:

Originally posted by HerrBerg:
9,3x62 is really something special.

IMO its centre of gravity is next to equilibrium - same goes for 74R

It's the legal minimum for dangerous game where I'm from.
Recoil in a 7lb rifle is manageable.

I have been able to use one rifle for all hunting from Impala to elephant with every satisfaction. Doesn't destroy too much meat on the plains game, folds a lion nicely, will drop ele or buff...A .375 H&H would also do the same job, but need a longer action and has slightly more recoil and muzzle blast.

quote:

Projectile selection is critical as Impact velocities are not high. (Don't go too tough/hard). It seems that a lot of hunters from the USA are enamoured with higher velocity than the rest of the planet and you don't need that velocity with the 9.3x62 if you use it as it was intended: A close range cartrdge (<250 yards) for all sized soft skinned game. Having said that I would use this rifle/cartridge combination to shoot anything that walked on the planet.

I wouldn't be joining in the Singing, Dancing & Jumping-Up & Down about this cartridge if I didn't think it was one of the outstanding cartridge developments of all time, either.

It's a great cartridge for a number of reasons.

Certainly won't bash anyone's .35 Whelen, .358 Win. or whatever else they're enamoured with and don't even want to go down the "What's the difference in a coupla thousands...." road. Hell, shoot what you prefer; Life's all about choices.

I do think Code 4 has it right-on; he & I are definately sharing a Mind-Meld.

This cartridge does it's best work right at about 2300-2350+ fps with most commonly accpeted bullets weights; 250-286 grs. & the "Heavies". Worked for the African farmers like this and still does the same today although with much improved bullet materials & construction than in 1905.

I'm sure if someone tacked ona 28" tube it'da get 2750 or 2800 fps, too but why? O.K., whatever Floats your Boat.....

My 20" stubby gets right at around 2300 fps with 250 grainers or a tad less with the standard 286ers. Slaps 'em like the Hammer of Thor.

You can hammer nails all day with a 1lb. hammer but your forearm won't he as sore at the day's end if you use a 2lb. hammer.....much like the 9.3x62; most who think this is great cartridge will probably also do just as well with a .30/06 Sprg. & 220 grainers and know just where to tuck that bullet right in behind the elbow, too. But it's a BETTER TOOL.

Am I gonna replace either the .375 H&H or the 9.3x62 in my Battery; not anytime soon. Both are very fine cartridges and each has it's advatages - I'd be hard pressed to find disadvatages in either of them.

The 9,3x62 has always appealed (and continues to appeal) to the cheap bastard in all of us!

It will work for 99% of all hunting...from duiker and varmints to elephant and do so in a less expensive package using ammo that's cheaper than anything else capable (practically and/or legally) of yielding similar results. The round's ability to appeal to frugal and practically minded African farmers is what made the round a success in 1905 and what continues to make the round important today. Add to the practical appeal of the round a bit of old african style and you have a winner!

The thing which has always amazed me reading the old books is, that Elmer (God rest him), spent forty years fecking about trying to invent a round that was almost as good as the 9.3x62.

I cannot remember a single reference to the 9.3x62 in any of Elmers writings, yet there it was since before WW1, the answer to all his questions....

I'll hide now.

quote:

I'll hide now. Big Grin

Brian,

Don't bother to hide - I've got your backside covered.....never thought about it like that but your'e sorta right on about Elmer (Bless his Soul) and his quest for the perfect .333 OKH.

quote:

Originally posted by Claret_Dabbler:
The thing which has always amazed me reading the old books is, that Elmer (God rest him), spent forty years fecking about trying to invent a round that was almost as good as the 9.3x62.

The Whelen/Howe combination did the same ... spent all that time messing with a 35Whelen when they could have used a 9x63 from Europe. Australians had a love affair with the 303/25 ... why when the 250Savage was available? Answer ... case availability and affordability of the rifles at the time.

For what its worth, I'm a 35cal fan ... cant see what difference a 9.3 would bring to the table. Even on heavy game .., I doubt there'd be any definite difference between a 310gr soft from a 35Whelen or a 320gr soft from a 9.3x62, as an all-rounder 275gr vs 285gr. Too same same for me to get out of the 35cal.

Only reason I'd build a 9.3 is if I had a beautiful M98 action and wanted to build a custom rifle. But then my 'smith is itching to try a 400/350NE in a boltgun.
Cheers...
Con

quote:

Originally posted by Con:
Answer ... case availability and affordability of the rifles at the time.

Right...except the "case availability" excuse is not a good one for trying to reinvent the 9,3 on another foundation....at least not as long as you have all the 30-06 brass you could ever want.