The older I get the more I like lighter rifles and shorter barrels. They are just so much nicer to carry around.A couple years ago I thought I would like to pick up a Tikka T-3 stainless synth rifle in 9.3x62. I had seen them advertised but never had one in my hands. Finally got to hold one but unfortunately it was not for sale. I looked for over a year and could not find one in Canada. Seems the importer had quit bringing that calibre in. I recently found one that the owner had fired 40 rds through.I figured this may be my last chance to find one of these. It arrived a couple days ago. Gave it a quick once over and a little TLC and you can't tell it from a new rifle. Rifle alone barely makes 6 lbs. That ought to get my attention when I touch off some 286 gr partitions. Could be why there is a limbsaver pad on it. This may be the ideal rifle (for me) for hunting in timber for moose ,elk and bears and even deer. Can hardly wait to get to the range. I can see this could be my go to rifle for crappy weather where the ranges are not so long. Christmas has come early at my house.

Congrats! Sounds like a nice rifle.

My overall favorite caliber,I own--and hAve owned a passel of them over the last 14 years.i have hunted out west with the 9.3--I have taken it to Africa on a couple of occasions,matter of fact I have one packed to take to SA on the 26th of this month..it will handle damn near everything that walks, and is flat out easy to shoot...even in your 6lb gun. Sounds like you got a keeper!! Good lick with your new rifle!

Ed

Ed, good luck "over yonder".

A friend has a stainless synthetic Tika 338 Win. Don't know if it's the same model, but it is very light. Felt recoil is not bad at all- I think due to the straight comb stock design. The bolts on those rifles are so smoooooooth!

Snowman,

Merry Christmas!

Lighter weight and shorter rifles seem to be a common appreciation from hunters as they age. I'm 63 and these qualities certainly endear them to me as well.

My wife and I both love the 9.3x62, and next year we hope to hunt again with Andrew Baldry. She wants to use her Sako Safari AIV in 9.3 with 300 gr. SAFs to take a Buffalo. It too is very light and also holds 7 rounds (6 down and 1 in the chamber). I own four 9.3x62s; (1) Dakota, (1) CZ and (2) Ruger Hawkeye Africans. Great caliber! So far, we have only taken plains game in Africa with them.

My 404 Jeffery and 458 Lott in Dakota Safaris both weigh 8.5 lbs., and my CZ 505 Gibbs weighs 9.75 lbs. (with its barrel cut down to 22"). None of them have scopes, so this is their carry weight (sans ammo). At some point, we all make a choice of either low weight/high recoil or higher weight/less recoil. The older I get, the more I favor the former.

Please post your results of the felt recoil on this 6 lb. 9.3. I would be interested in your perception.

Many of the t3 light in .338wm and 9,3*62 are sold because the owner dont like the recoil. If you dont like it glue some lead pellets in to the stock to reduce the recoil.

Thanks for all the comments. Nordic2 yes the recoil may deter some people from light weigh rifles like this. A little recoil doesn't bother me as much as much as dragging around a 9 + lb rifle all day. I have the exact rifle (T-3 stainless synth) in a 300 Win Mag. I bought it with less than 20 rds fired because the first owner couldn't handle the recoil. The only thing I dislike about that rifle is the bullets must be seated deeply in order to fit the clip magazine. Wish it was a 308 Norma. So bullets with a long ogive don't work. However the Barnes TSX bullets work just fine and group very well. Great open country rifle. Now with the 9.3x62 I have the same rifle but better suited to timber hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
Thanks for all the comments. Nordic2 yes the recoil may deter some people from light weigh rifles like this. A little recoil doesn't bother me as much as much as dragging around a 9 + lb rifle all day. I have the exact rifle (T-3 stainless synth) in a 300 Win Mag. I bought it with less than 20 rds fired because the first owner couldn't handle the recoil. The only thing I dislike about that rifle is the bullets must be seated deeply in order to fit the clip magazine. Wish it was a 308 Norma. So bullets with a long ogive don't work. However the Barnes TSX bullets work just fine and group very well. Great open country rifle. Now with the 9.3x62 I have the same rifle but better suited to timber hunting.

You are short-changing that rifle if you think (before trying) that it's limited to woods ranges.

Read some of my blogs and I believe you'll think differently. And, unfortunately, there's not a lot of help on forums where users of the 9.3 X 62 tend to go with older factory psi and ballistics.

I have a T3 Lite in 9.3 X 62 and it hs taken 4 years to find out what it can really do safely. Most post tiny bug-eye .366 holes in targets. That's fine, if target shooting is your game. And, I've done that too from the very outset. However, it's a hunting rifle with a match grade Sako barrel, so we expect good results in accuracy. But what about when you load it like a .338 Win Mag (64,000 psi)? I've done that too using the 286 Nos Part at MOA and 2600+ fps from Rl-17! Nice bear medicine, or moose or whatever. And that will care for business on a moose at 500!

Recoil? Like others have said -- and as you'll read in my latest articles -- as I age (79 in a few weeks) I prefer lighter and shorter.

Over the years I've used most of the mediums, including: .338 Win Mags, a .340 Wby, .35 Whelens, .350 Rem Mags and .375 H&Hs... This Tikka in 9.3 X 62 is far-and-away my favorite. It will do anything those others can do... and then some, except a .375 H&H which is its equal.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

And, oh yes, you can load 4, including 1 in the chamber, and I've never had a bolt-action repeater that was as "slick" as this T3 in working the bolt.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

458 I am aware of the range potential of the 9.3x62. Prior to obtaining the Tikka I've had an old Husqvarna 1600 in 9.3x62. Not a bad old rifle .

The idea of a lightweight rifle is a solid one. I went with a Merkel K1 in 7mm RMag and at 6.5# loaded it's quite snappy.

I added a Merkel 161 in 9.3x74r to the mix. At just a hair over 8# scoped it too has that snappy bit of recoil. I don't think it's anywhere near punishing though. 286gr. bullets at 2250 fps is a healthy charge in a lightweight package.

Good times!

smowman

Like you I like light rifles for many applications.

Some of my favorites are my Heym Mod 26B in 30/30, my Chapuis double in 9,3x74R, my Wilson AR 15 in 458 SOCOM, my Blaser Tracker, 19 3/4" barrel, in 308, and the same Blaser Tracker in 375 H&H...

quote:

Over the years I've used most of the mediums, including: .338 Win Mags, a .340 Wby, .35 Whelens, .350 Rem Mags and .375 H&Hs... This Tikka in 9.3 X 62 is far-and-away my favorite. It will do anything those others can do... and then some, except a .375 H&H which is its equal.

Someday I may own and use a 9.3 x 62. It's a nicely designed cartridge. However, in comparison with other calibre I like to seem things kept fair.

The 9.3 is NOT the equal of the 375H&H and even less so the 375Ruger.

Why? Because the loads of one or two rifles does not establish the average expectation of a cartridge. Two things that are basic physics were left out of the above adulation of the 9.3.

First, there is a basic rule of calibre size. As calibre size increases, its efficiency against the growing area of the bullet base allows for greater overall muzzle energy, other things being equal. That means that a 28 calibre can do a bit more than a 27 calibre, other things being equal. Yes, that means that a 9.3 (=36 calibre) can do a wee bit more than a 35 Whelen, just based on that 1 calibre increase (a 2% calibre increase). The 375's have a 2.5% calibre increase over the 9.3. Quickload could probably calculate the increased average muzzle energy, since it can keep other things equally theoretical. Of yes, that means that the 9.3 will have more muzzle energy than a 338-06, other things being equal, and a 9.3 will have LESS muzzle energy than a .375H&H other things being equal (except capacity, which is an additional advantage for the 375H&H, 375Ruger, and 375Weatherby).

Secondly, powder capacity can be an advantage, other things being equal. The 9.3x62 is a cartridge among the "06" capacity family. It is in the range of the 270Win, 280Ren, 30-06, 338-06, 35whenlen, and itself, the near-equivalent of a 36-06.
As a standard of comparison, consider the following capacities from AmmoGuide:
270Win ... 66.7 gn
30-06Sp ... 67.1 gn
338-06 ... 68.4 gn
338WMg ... 82.7 gn
338RCM ... 69.4 gn
35Whel ... 69.3 gn
36x62 ... 71.2 gn [9.3x62]
375 H&H ... 89.1 gn
375Ruger ... 94.6 gn
375Weatherby ... 97.1 gn

As can be seen, the 375 magnum cartridges have an increase of 25% to 36% capacity ABOVE the 9.3x62. That is a significant and large increase, that can be converted into considerable increases of muzzle energy. The 9.3 is a good cartridge but it should not be presented as balistically equal to the 375 magnums. A hunter may happily choose a 9.3x62 Tikka over a 375Ruger Ruger. But they are not ballistically equal.

The 375 magnums have greater diameter (only a little, but nevertheless 2.5%) and much greater capacity (25-36%, 60% for the 378). When loaded to the same pressure with similarly efficient powders, the magnums are a significantly more powerful cartridge. That's just physics, not internet opinion.

Each cartridge needs to stand in line with other cartridges. there is no necessity to elbow a way forward. That is not to say that someone cannot report rifles that seem to equal other cartridges with higher average potential. we're glad to hear of such success. I think that a rifle shooting 286grains at 2600fps sounds like a great all around hunting rifle. It's only wrong when the better-than-average is portrayed as "average" and decisions by others are based on mis-represented physics.

A RealGuns review published 375Ruger shooting a 265gn GSC at 3054fps and 5490ftlbs. WOW! O, yeah, the accuracy was listed at 0.9". Double WOW!! (It's approaching 378 Weatherby ballistics and great accuracy.) But that cannot be portrayed as equal or more powerful than a 416Rigby, despite the great results posted on the RealGuns test site. The same restrictions apply to hot loads in particular 9.3x62 rifles over against 375's. Average should be compared to average, specially tweaked to specially tweaked.

You could load it with 250 gr TSX and have a fantastic rifle out to 200 meters and even less recoil than the 286 gr load.

Varget is the best powder for me.

Great caliber & great rifle. PM me with your email if you want some old articles and load info.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Over the years I've used most of the mediums, including: .338 Win Mags, a .340 Wby, .35 Whelens, .350 Rem Mags and .375 H&Hs... This Tikka in 9.3 X 62 is far-and-away my favorite. It will do anything those others can do... and then some, except a .375 H&H which is its equal.

Someday I may own and use a 9.3 x 62. It's a nicely designed cartridge. However, in comparison with other calibre I like to seem things kept fair.

The 9.3 is NOT the equal of the 375H&H and even less so the 375Ruger.

Why? Because the loads of one or two rifles does not establish the average expectation of a cartridge. Two things that are basic physics were left out of the above adulation of the 9.3.

First, there is a basic rule of calibre size. As calibre size increases, its efficiency against the growing area of the bullet base allows for greater overall muzzle energy, other things being equal. That means that a 28 calibre can do a bit more than a 27 calibre, other things being equal. Yes, that means that a 9.3 (=36 calibre) can do a wee bit more than a 35 Whelen, just based on that 1 calibre increase (a 2% calibre increase). The 375's have a 2.5% calibre increase over the 9.3. Quickload could probably calculate the increased average muzzle energy, since it can keep other things equally theoretical. Of yes, that means that the 9.3 will have more muzzle energy than a 338-06, other things being equal, and a 9.3 will have LESS muzzle energy than a .375H&H other things being equal (except capacity, which is an additional advantage for the 375H&H, 375Ruger, and 375Weatherby).

Secondly, powder capacity can be an advantage, other things being equal. The 9.3x62 is a cartridge among the "06" capacity family. It is in the range of the 270Win, 280Ren, 30-06, 338-06, 35whenlen, and itself, the near-equivalent of a 36-06.
As a standard of comparison, consider the following capacities from AmmoGuide:
270Win ... 66.7 gn
30-06Sp ... 67.1 gn
338-06 ... 68.4 gn
338WMg ... 82.7 gn
338RCM ... 69.4 gn
35Whel ... 69.3 gn
36x62 ... 71.2 gn [9.3x62]
375 H&H ... 89.1 gn
375Ruger ... 94.6 gn
375Weatherby ... 97.1 gn

As can be seen, the 375 magnum cartridges have an increase of 25% to 36% capacity ABOVE the 9.3x62. That is a significant and large increase, that can be converted into considerable increases of muzzle energy. The 9.3 is a good cartridge but it should not be presented as balistically equal to the 375 magnums. A hunter may happily choose a 9.3x62 Tikka over a 375Ruger Ruger. But they are not ballistically equal.

The 375 magnums have greater diameter (only a little, but nevertheless 2.5%) and much greater capacity (25-36%, 60% for the 378). When loaded to the same pressure with similarly efficient powders, the magnums are a significantly more powerful cartridge. That's just physics, not internet opinion.

Each cartridge needs to stand in line with other cartridges. there is no necessity to elbow a way forward. That is not to say that someone cannot report rifles that seem to equal other cartridges with higher average potential. we're glad to hear of such success. I think that a rifle shooting 286grains at 2600fps sounds like a great all around hunting rifle. It's only wrong when the better-than-average is portrayed as "average" and decisions by others are based on mis-represented physics.

A RealGuns review published 375Ruger shooting a 265gn GSC at 3054fps and 5490ftlbs. WOW! O, yeah, the accuracy was listed at 0.9". Double WOW!! (It's approaching 378 Weatherby ballistics and great accuracy.) But that cannot be portrayed as equal or more powerful than a 416Rigby, despite the great results posted on the RealGuns test site. The same restrictions apply to hot loads in particular 9.3x62 rifles over against 375's. Average should be compared to average, specially tweaked to specially tweaked.

I don't know what you actually KNOW about the 9.3 X 62, or where Ammo Guide gets their numbers for case capacity, but the number of water grains for the 9.3 X 62 is 77. That doesn't tell the whole story. About keepting up with the .375 H&H: true, if you load it to 64,000 psi, a 300gr will keep pace with a 286gr from my T3 with equal length barrels, depending on a lot of other factors, of course.

My COL is not standard - it's 3.37" with the 286 NP which allows 70 grs of RL-17, which produces 2622 fps from my rifle at 64K psi, according to QL. But apart from what QL says, I've loaded all of those mentioned with many thousands of rounds, and this load in my rifle shows no more pressure than any of the others. QL says I can get 2460 fps from RL-17 at 64,000 psi (same as a .338 Win Mag or .300 Win Mag or .375 H&H) from the 320gr Woodleigh. I haven't tried that yet, but have knowledge of someone with a 20" CZ who is getting close to that number from the 320gr and MR 2000.

And, since you seem to be "aware" of just about all cartridges and their supposed performance, tell me how I was able to get standard MV of a .458 Win Mag shooting a 500gr Hor. from a 24", from a #1 Ruger in .45-70 with a 22"? It's been done hundreds of times at less than 64,000 psi as tested by one of the best known powder companies in the USA?

Your "numbers" will show that that's impossible, right? As will the manuals and even QL! Even the chief ballistician was surprised as it had never previously be done in their lab with one of their own powders! And a Ruger rep endorsed it this way: "The .45-70 in a Ruger Number One is of equal strength as the .458 Win Mag in the same rifle." And according to an NRA handloading manual, ALL magnums have a MAP of 66,000 psi! Modern .45-70 brass is as strong as ANY brass for any of the magnums, and I've NEVER caused a loose primer pocket in ANY of these loads for a Ruger in .45-70 or .45-70 IMP. I simply chuck them after 10 firings.

But, oh NO, the .45-70 case only has a water capacity of 79 grains versus 94 for the .458 Win Mag! And Hornady's manual says max for the Ruger in .45-70 is 1800 fps! And, implied is that that load reaches 50,000 cup!!!!! So, the powder co. made a big mistake, right! Well, then so did Lyman as they record 1896 fps for the 500gr Hornady at 39,000 cup using identical loads as Hornady. Ooooops! Someone goofed!

Joke of the year: And I'm to trust .416 Tanzan.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

458-
You're only being asked to trust physics. More capacity, equals greater potential energy. Everyone wants to optimize within the particular constraints of a cartridge, but then again, similar optimizations could be performed on other cartridges. That is why it is important to remember the basic physical contraints of the compared items. The relative capacities are not opinion, just fact.

On AmmoGuide's numbers, they are produced through an algorithm known to them. No one considers them absolute, but they provide a way of comparing oranges with oranges. Caveat: one cannot compare Ammoguide capacities with capacities counted differently. Ammoguide says that the 7mRM has 80.8 grains capacity. Their 458Win has 87.6 and the 45-70 has 72.5. Yes, those numbers are different from typical measuring but they show the relative potential difference. If you use Quickload's numbers, they must be used throughout. The capacity also changes depending on seating depths and bullet lengths.

I'm only writing to keep oranges in the oranges basket. If someone wants to say that the 45-70 is equal to the 458Win, it's a silly comparison. Then one would need to say that the 458Win overpowers the Lott, and the Lott is doubly better than the "Lott", etc. And RealGuns testing of the 375Ruger really did produce 5400ftpds safely, which is WAY MORE than a 458Win, etc. etc.

Everything in ballistics and cartridges is a compromise, a trade-off of one thing or another.
But relative case capacities do not lie, nor diameters. They provide a reliable point of comparison among competing claims of 'mine can do xyz.'

On calibre and rifle choice, my wife and I were looking for a nice medium-bore rifle during the past year.

The Tikka T-3 in 9.3x62 got a very serious look. Two obvious attributes were its lightweight and its price. In addition, it is available in a left-hand version and it has a reputation for great accuracy out of the box. The mildly rebated rim (.470" from a .476" head) and the short case length (2.44") were fine. We thought that the Tikka in 9.3x62 might be ideal for her. She had already shot our Tikka 338WM's and we would have planned to load the 9.3 to similar levels 3500-4000 ftlbs, depending on accuracy nodes. The decisive datum came from a different direction. Tanzania has an arbitrary cutoff for buffalo licenses at .375" calibre and .366" is unauthorized and illegal. So she got a 375Ruger, lefthand, 20" barrel, pepperlaminate Ruger. It's a very nice rifle though the Tikka 9.3 would have also been a very nice rifle.

Of course, the 375Ruger has an option to load up to 5000ftlb, but we did not get it for that. In fact, at the moment we are loading the 375Ruger down into the ranges of the 9.3.

I recommend that cartridge choices be made on whatever be the maximum desired load. When building a .510" calibre a few years ago I made an arbitrary choice to build a rifle that would work at a 6000-7000ftlb range. The smallest cartridge that covers that whole range easily was the 500AccRel. So I choose it over the 500Jeffrey or 505Gibbs or 500ASquare. A person should choose the power-level and diameter that they want, and mesh that with the rifle platform and action that they want or are willing to pay for. As mentioned, without the arbitrary law of Tanzania, we would have chosen the 9.3x62 in a left-handed Tikka.

As a further illustration of calibre choice, if I wanted a .416" that would shoot 350grains at 2600fps, I would choose the 416Ruger. The main reason for a handloader to choose a 416Rigby would be to take advantage of the 25% extra powder capacity. Currently, my son and I are staying with the 416Rigby, since we are willing to carry a rifle with a pound extra weight in order to have the extra 25% capacity, which we use at 6000ftlbs (actually 6200ftlbs). If we ever decide not to use that 25% capacity, they the natural point to drop down would be the 416Ruger. Rifles are compromise choice and the little 416Ruger is quite a package, similarly to the .366"x62.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
458-
You're only being asked to trust physics. More capacity, equals greater potential energy. Everyone wants to optimize within the particular constraints of a cartridge, but then again, similar optimizations could be performed on other cartridges. That is why it is important to remember the basic physical contraints of the compared items. The relative capacities are not opinion, just fact.

On AmmoGuide's numbers, they are produced through an algorithm known to them. No one considers them absolute, but they provide a way of comparing oranges with oranges. Caveat: one cannot compare Ammoguide capacities with capacities counted differently. Ammoguide says that the 7mRM has 80.8 grains capacity. Their 458Win has 87.6 and the 45-70 has 72.5. Yes, those numbers are different from typical measuring but they show the relative potential difference. If you use Quickload's numbers, they must be used throughout. The capacity also changes depending on seating depths and bullet lengths.

I'm only writing to keep oranges in the oranges basket. If someone wants to say that the 45-70 is equal to the 458Win, it's a silly comparison. Then one would need to say that the 458Win overpowers the Lott, and the Lott is doubly better than the "Lott", etc. And RealGuns testing of the 375Ruger really did produce 5400ftpds safely, which is WAY MORE than a 458Win, etc. etc.

Everything in ballistics and cartridges is a compromise, a trade-off of one thing or another.
But relative case capacities do not lie, nor diameters. They provide a reliable point of comparison among competing claims of 'mine can do xyz.'

The head ballistics engineer phoned me and the first words out of his mouth were: "YOU HAVE JUST REINVENTED THE .458 WINCHESTER MAGNUM. WHAT WAS THE RECOIL LIKE?"

The test was done in a ballistics lab under controlled conditions. The concern was not pressure but recoil from a 500gr at 2096 fps avg in their 24" test barrel and 2030 from a rifle lighter than 8 lbs and a 22" barrel. No shot reached 65,000 psi and the average was 63,200.

We talked for over 1/2 hr and he answered all my questions re: high and low psi (it was done in psi), variation in MV and safety.

Here's a quote from an NRA publication c.1981, HANDLOADING. "The working chamber pressure for the .458 Winchester Magnum cartridge is commonly limited to about 53,000 c.u.p. The established maximum product average for factory ammunition is 56,200 c.u.p." 56,200 cup is about 66,300 psi.

So, "To say that the 45-70 is equal to a 458 Win, it's a silly comparison." - your quote doesn't seem to come close in any way to that of a chief ballistics engineer!

My conclusion is that you are aware of theory but not knowledgeable at all in the practical of many cartridges.

New powders, COL, barrels, primers, bullets and actual psi can vary a lot within safe parameters. Then, I expect you profess to know all that. However, it's evident to me that you lack hands-on experience except for those rifles you've loaded over time, and, then, HOW you load them is particular to your personality and practices. You can't impose that on anyone else, let alone on EVERYONE who handloads ammo.

For example, my Rem 7400 in .35 Whelen allowed a COL of 3.42" in the clip magazine with room to spare in the chamber with a very long throat. Up to 2635 fps was my load for the 250gr Hornady SP, but I couldn't safely attain even 2500 fps from the 250gr Nos. Part.

I correspond with one of the most knowledgeable northern hunters in Canada (Yukon)who has been using at least a dozen 9.3 X 62s. Each one is different in chamber specs and free bore. And most are "Huskies". Different length barrels, chambers, freebore, powder, primer, COL and bullet used can produce great variances in psi and MV. And that's to say nothing about the guy doing the loading!

I've owned and loaded two .375 H&Hs, and one of those was cut back from a 26" barrel to 22". The other was an M70 with a 24". There were GREAT differences in final results. So, to say there are "averages" is a myth.

My 26" .375 H&H would easily give 2700 fps from 300s. When cut to 22" it could just about make factory specs of 2530 fps. And I was using RL-15, plus a few others.

The M70 could NOT make 2600 fps no matter what I tried! So much for averages!

I've no doubt that the .375 Ruger 23" can push a 300gr NP out the muzzle at around 2700 - 2750. But that bullet has a poor BC and will slow much more quickly that the 286 NP. Others claim 2800 fps from a 23" for the 270 TSX. That bullet has a very poor BC, and beyond 300 yds is less potent than a 286/.366 at an MV of 2600, which surpasses the 270 TSX at 300 yds by 400 ft-lbs!.

So, "apples to apples" isn't possible -- it depends on the rifle and the handloader, how they are loaded and the bullet used.

Then, a 320gr/.366 at 2450 fps (BC .457) is in the same ballpark as a .376 H&H "average"- sporting a 22.5" tube at the same psi-whatever that is.

Phil Shoemaker has stated, in response to a question as to which is preferred for a brown bear, a 9.3 X 62 or a .375 Ruger, that he hasn't noticed a difference, having used both. And he has great appreciation for each. And, they are much more "handy" than any .375 H&H.

To each his own. I don't know how you load your ammo, and frankly I don't care. I do care, however, how I load my own, and I'm not lacking in handloading experience in those mentioned except for the .375 Ruger.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

So, "To say that the 45-70 is equal to a 458 Win, it's a silly comparison." - your quote doesn't seem to come close in any way to that of a chief ballistics engineer!

I'll stand by my quote. It's true.

You haven't understood the issue. No one is saying that a lesser round cannot be loaded up to the book-average of a larger capacity cartridge. But the larger capacity round can be loaded up even higher, should you desire, and the lesser capacity cartridge cannot do THAT. The lesser capacity cartridge cannot do all of the things that the greater capacity cartridge can do. Period. That's why they make different cartridges.

Similarly, the 9.3 is NOT ballistically equal to the 375Ruger, neither in capacity nor in diameter nor in energy. If you want BC, then get a CEB MTH 300gn, BC of .750 or a 320gn with a BC .830! If you want faster, then a lighter bullet will have less BC because of shape and weight. Everything is a trade-off.

Someone on another site is selling a Sauer 202 Synthetic in 9.3x62 for $1,175 shipped....great price.

Made it to the range today to start shooting the Tikka. Worked up some loads with 270 gr Speer bullets. Just about everything shot well.RL 17 and the 270 gr Speer looks to have real promise. Recoil was surprisingly mild. Whats not to like about 270 gr bullets that group under an inch @ 100 yds.

WOW ... 270 grainers that group under an inch @ 100 yards! I am still waiting to receive my LH T3
Hunter in 9.3 x 62. I certainly hope my mine shoots that tight. Care to share your RL17 recipe?

ftbt I'm using PPU headstamped brass. WLR primers and 270 gr Speers with the RL17. 59 grs of RL17 is approaching max in my rifle. There are some loads listed that exceed that charge by a considerable margin. They must be using cases with thinner walls and more capacity. Hope that helps

It does. Thank you very much!

What is the barrel diameter at the muzzle?

Sevens Barrel Diam @ muzzle = .630"

416 Tanzan: Your physics are correct and unassailable. Having had extensive experience with both calibres, I venture to suggest that a better statement would be to say that, IN THE FIELD, the perceived difference between the calibers becomes questionable. That's the truth! I cannot recall a shot that I ever took with my .375 that I wouldn't have taken in identical circumstances with my son's 9.3. Dead is dead, penetration is very much on par and within 150 or so yards, trajectory is a non-issue. The .375's advantage lies in its legality for thick-skinned game in countries where the 9.3 is not permitted. An arbitrary line if ever I've seen one, but one has to draw the line SOMEWHERE.

Back in the nineties when I had my .375 H&H built, my original spec was for a 9.3x62. I believe my 'smith foresaw difficulties sourcing a 9.3 barrel (Sanctions era). His argument was "Anything a 9.3 can do, a .375 will do better". On paper, sure. In the field, in practical terms - well, the Jury's still out.

Rikkie,

I agree with you on hunting in the field.

It's a little bit like the difference between a 270Win and a 7mmRM. I wouldn't expect any difference in 98-99% of the shots taken, possibly 100% if the shots were not marginal.
I would even venture to say the same for 338WMs compared to the 9.3x62 and 375 magnums. The 338 can be very impressive in an accurate rifle in good hands.


While I've never owned a 9.3, we did consider it when looking for a decent rifle for my wife for Africa. She's a lefty and we thought about a 338 so she could use some of our 338 ammo. (Both the 338 and 9.3 are available in lefty Tikkas.) But the 338 is not legal for buffalo in TZ. I checked with some game people about the 9.3 to see if that would qualify. The answer was a definite "not legal for buffalo." So that was that. She now has one of the nice little 20" barrel, pepper laminate stock Ruger Hawkeye stainless Lefty in 375Ruger. We just need for time for shooting, transport, and hunting. We're both glad that she is using something a bit heavier than her 270Win.

There is difference in proformance on game. I have never seen a difference between my 338wm,9.3x62,and 375 H&H on game in the field. I will say my 375 ultra with 300 grain north forks or cup points hits more like my 404 than the others, you see and feel the difference!

Ed