Has he ever written an article explaining why a sponsor's product is bad?

It's a slightly extended 9.3 Mauser; how could it not kill game?

If the brass was readily available, it would be a great round............

Hmmm, I wonder why he kept comparing it to the 375 H&H when everyone knows that the 375 Rooger wears the crown as king of the medium bores now. C'mon Craig, compare non-belted Rooger to non-belted Socko. Oh that's right, he shills for Rooger, too. Can't very well bite the hand that feeds him.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Has he ever written an article explaining why a sponsor's product is bad?

i can't recall to have read a negative American article, but i have only read 30-50 American magazines, mostly Rifleshooter.
but there was an article on rimfires in a Norwegian hunting magazine 5-8 years ago.
it said: it looks like the only available tools they had was knife and fork.
the trigger is bad.
and if you consider buying one, a used Brno would be a much better choice.
it was a Norinco and i bought it, and it served me well.

anyway...i don't like the 9.3x66/.370 Sako(this applies equally to the x64 Brenneke), because i don't see any use for something a 9.3x62 and a .375

With both bullets seated to fit in a normal 06 length mag box the net capacity gain from a 370 over a 62 is marginal at best. The gain between the two is the pressures they are loaded to.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
With both bullets seated to fit in a normal 06 length mag box the net capacity gain from a 370 over a 62 is marginal at best. The gain between the two is the pressures they are loaded to.

Oops...didn't finish my post so here it is. Many hunters do not reload so they will not see the benefit of the 9.3x62 loaded to max length for a 3.4" magazine.

I went to SAKO’s website and pulled down the following info:
Factory SAKO loadings:
286 gr. Hammerhead Bullet (heavy jacketed bonded core round nose soft point bullet)
9.3x62mm – 0m - 2362 fps, 3536 ft-lb / 100m – 2080 fps, 2742 ft-lb
9.3x66mm – 0m - 2559 fps, 4150 ft-lb / 100m – 2263 fps, 3248 ft-lb

That’s enough difference to make it a viable cartridge.

Rest of my junk to follow.

Well since they will not import 9.3 x 62 in Sako rifles to the States. And I end up getting a Sako Rifle so chambered for the 370. Why should that be a bad thing? Federal is making the ammo, all that is needed is for rifles to be chambered.

Ok, here’s the rest of it. This is based upon CIP specifications.

Something we need to remember is that many of the early 9,3x62 cartridge chambered rifles that arrived in Africa were based upon the Swedish M96 Mauser variant which was manufactured with a 3.240” internal length magazine. So 9.3x62mm commercial cartridges up through the early-20th century were held to basically 3.220” COAL; most likely a max COAL of 3.218”. The 05/15/2002 updated CIP standards for this cartridge specify a 3.293” maximum COAL which is a length that fits within the 3.315” internal length magazine of all M98 Mauser standard length non-commercial receivers.

Ok, today virtually all standard length action rifles have a 3.4” internal length magazine. And we have a new cartridge, the 9.3x66mm, designed to fully utilize this modern internal magazine length.

So using a Woodleigh 286 gr. PP SN (1.323” in length) bullet we can compute the following:

9.3x62mm cartridge:
Case length is: 2.441”
Neck length of: 0.306”
CIP Max COAL: 3.293”
Computations:
3.293”-2.441”=0.852” (length of bullet outside the case mouth)
1.23”-0.852”=0.378” (length of bullet inside the case mouth)
0.378”-0.306”=0.072” (length of bullet protruding below case neck)
2.441”-0.072”=2.369” (distance between base of bullet and case rim-base)
The bullet loaded to Max COAL intrudes into the case to a point 0.072” below neck of case and the base of the bullet at Max COAL is 2.369” above case rim-base of cartridge.

9.3x66mm cartridge:
Case length is: 2.610”
Neck length of: 0.320”
CIP Max COAL: 3.378”
Computations:
3.378”-2.610”=0.768” (length of bullet outside the case mouth)
1.23”-0.768”=0.462” (length of bullet inside the case mouth)
0.462”-0.320”=0.142” (length of bullet protruding below case neck)
2.610”-0.142”=2.468” (distance between base of bullet and case rim-base)
The bullet loaded to Max COAL intrudes into the case to a point 0.142” below neck of case and the base of the bullet at Max COAL is 2.468” above the case rim-base of cartridge.

Conclusion: the base of a Woodleigh 286 gr. PP SN (1.323” in length) bullet would be loaded to Max COAL in the 9.3x66mm cartridge to a point 0.007” above the mouth of a 9.3x62mm case.

That said, I agree right up front that there is little difference between a handloaded 9.3x62mm Mauser at 3.378” COAL and the factory loaded 9.3x66mm Sako – IF one has a rifle appropriately throated to allow the 9.3x62mm bullets to be seated to fully utilize a 3.4” internal length magazine.

Edited to correct Swedish M96 rather than Swiss M96.

quote:

Conclusion: the base of a Woodleigh 286 gr. PP SN (1.323” in length) bullet would be loaded to Max COAL in the 9.3x66mm cartridge to a point 0.007” above the mouth of a 9.3x62mm case

3.378-1.323=2.055 2.441-2.055=.386 in the 62 case.

Sorry it is too late and I don't follow.

/

quote:

Originally posted by George Semel:
Well since they will not import 9.3 x 62 in Sako rifles to the States. And I end up getting a Sako Rifle so chambered for the 370. Why should that be a bad thing? Federal is making the ammo, all that is needed is for rifles to be chambered.

If it'll do what you want and you are happy with it, how can it be a bad thing?

All very interesting....
I think I'll keep my 375/06AI. 300gr/2480+.
Whatever floats your boat.

quote:

All very interesting....
I think I'll keep my 375/06AI. 300gr/2480+.

Curious what powder you are using as well as barrle length. Got my own 380PDK (like a Gibbs or a slightly larger than a 380 Howell. I will be working a load up for in the near future.

If Ray Atkinson or some other PH like him,wrote those articles they actually might have some meaning 25-35 et all roger

OK guess I stirred things up on this one. I admit right up front that I’ve errored in my comments…for that I apologize to all.

quote:

Conclusion: the base of a Woodleigh 286 gr. PP SN (1.323” in length) bullet would be loaded to Max COAL in the 9.3x66mm cartridge to a point 0.007” above the mouth of a 9.3x62mm case


3.378-1.323=2.055 2.441-2.055=.386 in the 62 case.

Sorry it is too late and I don't follow.

As usual just my $.02
Paul K

Paul…No excuse, my data was wrong…I’m not going to plead long day or late night….it was just wrong.

The correct statement should have been the base of the bullet would be 0.08” below the neck junction (2.135”) which is 0.016” above the shoulder of the 9.3x62mm case.

For the 9.3x62mm cartridge the data - 3.239-1.323=1.916 2.441-1.916=.526 in the 62 case – indicates the base of the bullet would be .123” below the shoulder of the 9.3x62mm case.

So I guess the correct statement would be that the 9.3x66mm cartridge and an additional 0.107” dimensional space for powder capacity over the 9.3x62mm case.

Nice drawing program…I don’t have a comparable program… I wish you had targeted the base at the CIP max COAL rather than at 3.35” which would have pictorially shown everyone the bullet intrusion into the cases for both the 9.3x66 and 9.3x62 cartridges. Also, thanks for the pictorial of the 3.58” COAL loading, that’s the one required to maximize the 9.3x66mm cartridge.

Let’s see, using a 3.6” belly magazine that would give 6-down and 1-in the barrel for 7-total shots or would it give 7-down and 1-in the barrel for 8-total shots???

Guess either way it could be a great plains game up to buffalo alternative. But then many would wonder why the .375 H&H wasn’t used instead.

quote:

You have me on the Swiss model 96 in 9.3x62 ?
Being a Mauser Collector I have seen many a 9.3x62 in Africa some with very early SN's and not ever a 9.3 built by Mauser on a 96 action?

Alf…I believed that the Swedish M96 action was utilized for some of the Plezier Mauser rifles, rather than solely the M95 Mauser action, that the Boers utilized early 20th century. Though the early Pleizier’s were primarily in 7x57mm caliber I believed that some of the later Plezier rifles were purchased in the 6.3x62mm cartridge and again that some of these non-M98 Mauser based rifles were based upon the Swedish M96 action.

I cannot find the article that I believed supported this statement so I admit right up front that the information I stated was wrong.

quote:

As to the 9.3x62 COL it was originally 83.6mm and this appears in various original mauser documents as well as DWM data sheets.

Alf…I unfortunately only have a book of DWM case drawings which does not list the cartridge-OAL for the 9.3x62mm cartridge, only the case-OAL. Your DWM’ 9.3x62mm data sheet listing the 83.6mm (3.2926”) COAL dimension is the same as is the 2002 CIP published standard for the cartridge.

The Swedish’ Husqvarna factory did manufacture the Model 46 and later Model 640, both commercial variants of the Swedish M94-96-38 actions without thumb cuts, which were chambered for the 9.3x62mm cartridge. I was unaware that the Model 46-640 was manufactured with magazine having an internal length greater than the M94-96-38’s 3.240” but I do not possess a Mauser book specific to the Swiss Mauser variants; It could be done however as we already know that the standard length M98’s have been successfully modified for 3.6” internal length magazine. Husqvarna also later manufactured a Model 140 and Model 640 which were based upon the M98 action and utilized 3.4” internal length magazines; as did their later Models 1000, 1600, and 1900 – all Swiss cross-model variants of the M96 and M98 Mauser actions.

Most likely I’m wrong again…I have no problem with admitting that.

Perhaps some of our Swedish AR participants could pop in with the correct Husqvarna’ Model 46-640 internal magazine length for a rifle(s) chambered for the 9.3x62mm cartridge. I would find the information very interesting and would like to add it to my collection of Mauser information.

quote:

The mag box length dimension for the Mauser was 85mm

Alf…Regarding the Mauser magazine box length dimension being 85mm (3.347”)…Hum…I’m only an enthusiast with only two commercial and four military based Mauser rifles so I don’t have the breadth of knowledge that a collector would have.

I am aware of a couple of Mauser book’s that listed “standard” internal length magazines of the standard length military M98s as being 3.315”, except for the 1954 Brazilian model which is 3.435”, and the listed “standard” internal length magazines of the standard length commercial M98s as being 3.400”…

Ok, I headed out to the safe to measure the only military M98 trigger guards that I have…here’s the internal length magazine results:
Arsenal Modified Magazines for 30-06:
Columbian FN - 85.1mm (3.3517”)
Argentine DWM - 85.44mm (3.3651”)
Argentine DWM - 85.46mm (3.36589”)
Unmodified Trigger Guards for 8x57mm (don’t recollect the manufacturer):
1st - 84.11mm (3.31272”)
2nd - 84.12mm (3.3131”)

I might be wrong on this one….I might not be…It’s not a hill to die over.

Edited to correct Swiss to Swedish notations.

.429
I am impresed with that load of yours.
However I hope its built on a very strong action.
Does any body here have some software that can estimate the preassure on such a load ?
I suppose you would need more data.
...tj3006

Thanks for the data, I was just about to throw my CZ FS 9,3x62 in the dumpster and order one of these. Guess I'll keep the old girl a little longer. It proved barely adequate to shoot thru a nice 5x5 bull elk last fall at 200+/- yards.

Rich
Buff Killer

capoward,

I think you mean Swedish Husqvarna, I own three Husqvarna rifles and they were all made in Swedan.

quote:

Originally posted by Remington720:
capoward,

I think you mean Swedish Husqvarna, I own three Husqvarna rifles and they were all made in Swedan.

You are absolutely correct. I knew that but I still typed Swiss more than once. My above posts have been edited to correct my error.

Can't hardly see the need for the 370 , I get over 2500 fps with a 286 gr in my 9.3x62 , not even sure it'd be worth the money to re-chamber to the 370 . Seems like a doomed cartridge to me .

/

I think the best description of the round I heard was John Barsness who said it gave factory round shooters the same thing handloaders have had with the 9.3x62 for a long time. Not sure what the controversy is with Boddington liking the round. I think he was pretty clear though the article that he didn't think it was needed and then found out it did about what the .375 could with less recoil so bought one for his wife who didn't like .375 recoil levels. Of course, he could just buy a 9.3x62 and handload, but maybe he doesn't want to.

Lou

quote:

I wish you had targeted the base at the CIP max COAL rather than at 3.35” which would have pictorially shown everyone the bullet intrusion into the cases for both the 9.3x66 and 9.3x62 cartridges

Here you go. Yes if you limit the 9.3x62 to the shorter oal you will eat up capacity. Key thing I use this comparison if to point out loaded to the same oal the net capacity gain for the 9.3x66(370) is very marginal. Just that small area between the case wall and bullet. With a corse powder you might be only compressing powder not filling that area.

If I had a 62 I would make sure and throat it to allow an oal max for my magazine and shoot away. I drew this up thinking of building a wildcat 9.3. Simply went with a 375 instead.

Alf,

You are correct, my data was principally related to military actions and post WWII commercial M98 standardized numbers for the US market. Commercial M98s in the early 20th century is assuredly my dearth of information. I’m going to have to purchase a few very good reference books covering that issue so that I not such a bozo on their specifications.

I did pick up some Swedish M96/M38/M46/M640 data from the GB forum and they also covered the lack of reliable M98 availability during the European WWII eras which lead to their M46/M640 civilian sporting arms enhancements including chambering for the 9.3x62…again a different era. The GB contributors did state the maximum magazine length is 3.260” internal dimensions. Also that Privi Partizan factory ammunition must be watched as heavier bullets result in to long length COAL for the magazine however they had no issue with Norma factory ammunition.

I also finally located a few articles I’d squirreled away on the 9.3x62 and yes it’s the Model B Mauser that was continually referenced.

Paul,

As they say one picture is worth a thousand words – enough said! Many thanks.

Since you can handload a 286 grain bullet to 2500 in a 9.3x62, and this .370 so-called magnum claims only 2550, what earthly reason would there be to have one? Why would they even bring it out?

quote:

All very interesting....
I think I'll keep my 375/06AI. 300gr/2480+.

Curious what powder you are using as well as barrle length. Got my own 380PDK (like a Gibbs or a slightly larger than a 380 Howell. I will be working a load up for in the near future.

As usual just my $.02
Paul K

Its on a 54 Winchester action w/24" Dan Pedersen barrel. Vth N540 powder. The 2480+ is probably pushing it a bit and I usually run it at 2440 but neither show any pressure signs at all.

quote:

Its on a 54 Winchester action w/24" Dan Pedersen barrel. Vth N540 powder. The 2480+ is probably pushing it a bit and I usually run it at 2440 but neither show any pressure signs at all.

Thanks

/

quote:

Originally posted by Indy:
Since you can handload a 286 grain bullet to 2500 in a 9.3x62, and this .370 so-called magnum claims only 2550, what earthly reason would there be to have one? Why would they even bring it out?

I think you can handload a 286 grain bullet over 2500 fps in a 9.3X62 and I have done so with Ramshot Big Game but not at sensible pressures and you have to load it at least three grains over Ramshot's published data. With the 286 grain bullets, I went back to Reloder 15 and dropped down to just over 2400 fps. That would be the max I would use in either of my 9.3X62 rifles.

Dave

What gives velocity is the boilerroom. Increased volume will raise velocity. Simple as that.
Both Remington and Winchester will alow full length 9,3x66. But in .375, it would be so mutch more popular.

Bods would like eating a dogy doo sandwich if some one paid him to eat it!

If Bods likes this, why doesn't he like the 9.3x62mm or the 9.3x64mm. Hey, it's all payola.

quote:

Bods would like eating a dogy doo sandwich if some one paid him to eat it!

He would just tell you that he likes it.
Just like most people that are paid to endorse products tell you that they actually use the product.

quote:

Originally posted by MCA man:
If Bods likes this, why doesn't he like the 9.3x62mm or the 9.3x64mm. Hey, it's all payola.

Oh But he does!!! ... A Most Marvelous Metric. -the Colonel he no fool!...