Like most shooters I can get a little optimistic from time to time but I try to let the chronograph be my guide..With the RL-17 powder I was pretty convienced the 9.3x62 would equal or better the .338 Win, but decided that needed to be tested..
I had been testing RL-17 and it was performing wonders in the 9.3x2 and that was what I was baseing my bias for the 9.3x62..But then I found it worked great with the .338 also, so therein was my quandry..

After all was said and done, and I did not expect any earth shaking miracle but perhaps a tad one way or the other. So by taking what I had available I found the .338 was better from a trajectory standpoint and that I had to go to somewhat questionalbe pressures to make the 9.3x62 come close in that dept... I believe The 338 Win. always had the velocity edge albiet with lighter bullets..I decided with my crude testing, mostly chronograph and actual shooting out to 500 yards that the two were equal to about 250 yards and at 300 even more so. The .338, particularly with the 210 Nosler took the long range blue ribbon..At DG ranges they were probably equal with the .338 300 gr. Woodleigh and the 320 gr 9.3x62 Woodleigh. The 9.3x62 had a better cross section and I am a believer in cross section, evem in tiny MMs..The .338 has the SD and I believe in that for penetration, even with but to a lesser degree with monolithic bullets.

All in all, I believe I must have both, for the foregone elk hunter in Idaho shooting at extended ranges in some areas I will use the .338, but for our swampy black timber forests and blow down timber, and they are many, I would want my 9.3x62 with 300 gr. Swifts or 320 gr. Woodleighs and I have the perfect place in mind for that, and it is where the big boys go after the first day of season.

Just my opinnion, but I'll stick with it and keep both..

For an all around caliber, the .338 is a better choice IMO..

Interested in all point of views.

Ray, starting out by telling the truth is a funny way to start an argument.


But I'll chime in and say that while my favorite everyday carrying rifle is a 9.3x62 , the rifles I loan to my clients when I want them to actually hit and kill something are .338's with 250 Nosler Partitions.

Up to 200y the 9,3 is doing as well as the 338, in a more pleasant way...

M

I'm gonna split the difference and stick with my 358 Norma Magnum w/280gr Swifts!

quote:

Originally posted by waterrat:
I'm gonna split the difference and stick with my 358 Norma Magnum w/280gr Swifts!

I don't have one of those.......yet. Good choice.

9.3x62 has more charm,history and has no ugly belt,both are good,why to bother and compare,9.3x62 is way older and for that time more advanced cartridge,

if u like hunt with class and clasicc go with 9.3,if ammo is scarce to find go with 338,despite otto bock cartridge is older 53 years,,and knocing animals on all continents way before 338,i would say inside 200 meters go with 9.3,

Ray that was most excellent reasoning on the necessity for not limiting one's self to only one gun!

I understand that older can be better in wine & scotch but don't see a direct correlation in cartridges, rifles or women.

I've just set up a buy for a 338 and I am really excited to get another one on my grubby hands. I had one years ago and missed it the day i sold it. That being said, I'll be converting a M70 06 yo x62 probably later this year. I do not consider the two fungible, just different rifles altogether. And I'll be happy as a pig in shit with both..

You have very accurately (pun intended) discovered the difference between the two.

458WIN...If she wasn't looking over your shoulder you would not have mentioned beverages...someday soon I'll be able to book with you and your family...best regards...bearit...

OK... So I have no direct experience with the 9.3x62 but have a ton of experience with the 9.3x74r. I also have some experience with the .338wm. I had a Sako 75 in .338wm that was a go anywhere and so anything piece of equipment. There is no question that the .338wm can walk all over the 9.3. But at what cost? That Sako beat the liven shit out of me. I carried it in Alaska and Canada. Every time I pulled the trigger it would knock my fillings out.

Now... My 9.3x74r DR is tame in comparison and will do almost all that the .338 will do (and it doesn't beat the shit out of me). The only downside is bad weather... I hate to see my Merk get wet!!!

It's a toss up guy's... If you like pretty DR's or singles, go for the 9.3 (or the 62 in a bolt), but if you like scoped LR rifles that make a nice hole, go for the mighty 338!

Is there anything the 9.3 won't kill just as dead under 300 yds? A good friend shot a hog at 150 yds and killed the one behind it and exited as well (should have planned that better). Never had a 338 and don't feel the need but I suspect its the better choice over 300 yds....but that's not my territory.

Jon - That's a great point - I've never killed anything over 200yds...

-
Ray, that was a fair post and I appreciate it.

I've never owned a 9.3x62 but the day may come. Sounds like fun to hunt with down around the 2200-2400 level.

I've owned 4 338WM's over three decades. My son thinks the 338WM is way up there on a preference list and about as wonderful as O'Connor felt about the 270. Our last two 338's have been lightweight affairs--about 7.5-7.6 lbs. with scope. They bounce a little on firing because of the light weight but they can only be described as comfortable. Maybe it's the Limbsaver recoil pad? We've shot some warthogs with the old 300grain Barnes copper/lead, the forerunner to the Woodleigh 300's. They were impressive and sometimes produced DRT without seeming to get near the spine. But warthogs are not much of a real test. In the past I used to have all sorts of loads available, the 200gn Speer, 250 NP, 250 Sierra boattail, 275 Speer, and 300 grain Barnes (original). The 250 Nosler worked its way into an allaround do it all at 2700fps. That was the 80's. For the past few years we've gone to the 225 gn TTSX. It has a great BC 0.514. While its sectional density is down to .281, the monometal construction means that it functions like a .30+ SD. It flies at 2838fps, which means 4000 ftlbs muzzle and -6.2" drop at 300 yards when sighted-in at +2.0/100yards. That is a very huntable load. Back up loads have 250 grain flatnose solid that print just about dead on at 100 yards. My son put one through the back of the neck on a thrashing buffalo last month. See pic, pointing to entry hole:


So, yes, someday I look forward to hunting with a 9.3x62 and I expect that it will do it all. It will be nice to come full circle back to common all-African cartridges. (Yes, the 8x57 and 7x57 are great, too, but we've been spoiled by 270 trajectories. The 416Rigby has been nice, even with a little bit of elitest history, especially now that we shoot it with 350 grainers at 2800fps.) Until then, and a 9.3, the 338 WinMag will serve and it is probably the most cost effective way for a common hunter to reach dominating energy levels for plains game. I've often wondered about upgrading to a 338 RUM, 338/375Ruger, or 338 Lapua, but the 338 WinMag just does such a nice job on everything under 400 yards that I've never crossed that threshhold. (Hey, it's only -19" down at 400 yards and -39" inches down at 500, and I've only shot two animals in my life at a full 400 yards.)

PS: Reloder 17 may be the 'go to' powder for the 338 WinMag. It has worked great for us over the past five years.

Well I don't intend to be without either, besides I have a 30-06 and in the real world it'll do for all that walks on this earth! Really it will!

If it's big enough that a 30-06 can't handle it, bring out the 375 :-)

After shooting a 338 for years, I moved on to the 9.3x62. Two reasons, less kick (bad neck, can't take it anymore) and the standard barrel makes my 9.3 4" shorter overall.

There is not an animal in the world that will know the difference between the two cartridges when you shoot them with it.

-
Where did the 30-06 come from in the discussion? Yes, it's a nice calibre and I've even done a little with it.

I've seen alot of animals taken by the 30-06 and 270 in Africa (even an occasional buffalo) and they are both good rounds that produce very similar effects on game. They work. But I cannot call them impressive. Many animals would run and walk some distances before lying down to die. What we noticed with the 338, in comparison, is that there was a higher percentage of animals that walked wobbly-sick or looked stunned after taking a boiler-room shot from a 338. Was there a difference that would be worth the extra recoil? Absolutely. No question. I am happier walking in a forest with a 338 than a 30-06. Especially with lions out there (or big bear in NA). As a back-up gun for 'whatever happens out there' (and without a PH around) the 338 is better than an 06. And if it needs to be bigger than a 338, I reach for the over-40 calibres. I suppose the same is true of the 9.3x62. My "space" would be more like 250 yards than 300, and if it needed to be bigger, I'd still go over 40.

The question for me is the 9.3x62. It's energy levels may be down around or below the 300WM but it has the advantage of more diameter. Even though with tough bullets the 300's, especially the Weatherby, affect game more than the 30-06/270, I think that I would prefer the bigger bullet of the 9.3. Yes, I think I would. It's the bullet that does the work, the rifle and cartridge are just the delivery system. My son keeps reminding me that as bow hunters we shouldn't be demanding string-flat trajectory out to 300 yards. But I've spent over three decades hunting with those trajectories and its an adjustment to think in terms of 2200-2400fps, and to worry about drop when looking across 300 yard open-spaced 'mbuga's. People can get used to 2700-3000fps trajectories. They have allowed us a little more margin and probably a few extra animals to take home over the years.

quote:

Originally posted by f224:
After shooting a 338 for years, I moved on to the 9.3x62. Two reasons, less kick (bad neck, can't take it anymore) and the standard barrel makes my 9.3 4" shorter overall.

There is not an animal in the world that will know the difference between the two cartridges when you shoot them with it.

Words of wisdom , taken all the words out of my mouth

BTW captain got a reply from blaser factory

twist rate for 338 blaser magnum is 1 in 12 so I will give it a miss for obvious reason

-
PS on the trajectory thing:

here is a note from the Hunting forums:

quote:

@dukxdog:
No I didn't want a Roan. I wanted a Hartebeest and I had a very nice one in the scope. However I hesitate too long because of the distance. It would have been a 150m shot and I was not sure much much the bullet will drop... while thinking about it it disappeared. Was my first hunt with the .458 and next time I will be prepared. Of course after this easy chance we battled to find a male Hartebeest with decent size.

That hunter would probably gotten his shot off if carrying a flatter shooting rifle. I think that my son and I have probably taken home more game carrying a 338WinMag than we would have, had the rifle been a 9.3.

quote:

but for our swampy black timber forests and blow down timber, and they are many, I would want my 9.3x62 with 300 gr. Swifts or 320 gr. Woodleighs

I would suppose you to build 9,3x57. It´s nice to shoot and it´s "tough medicine" up to 120 yards.

I think Ray better check his ballistic numbers again: go to my blog and check the comparison made there which is a fair one.

The 286 NP beats the momentum and wound channel displacement of a 250 NP from a .338 WM all the way to 500 yards, as well as in energy!

I hate it when Ray starts an argument like this with both feet in his mouth!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

The question for me is the 9.3x62. It's energy levels may be down around or below the 300WM

Its very easy to push 38-3900 ME with a 9.3x62. That seems solidly in 300WM territory.

How about well over 4000 ft-lbs!!!!!!

Check my blogs and Real Guns, plus what Ray himself has posted... and 24hr Campfire!

3600 to 3900 ft-lbs are OLD, worn-out numbers!

Use the best powder! Which Ray himself has promoted -- RL-17 and 2600 fps+ is safe and doable = 4200 to 4400 ft-lbs! That's tromping on the .375 H&H territory!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

-
A person needs to compare apples with apples, not oranges.

If you have brass, powder, and rifles to load a 9.3 to 4400 ftlbs (sic!), you will be able to load the 338 WM to 4700ftlbs (not recommended!).

Frankly, I prefer the old numbers if they are averaged out by a lot of users and rifles and labs. The 9.3 is rated around 3500 ftlbs along with the 300WM at 3600ftlbs. The 338WM is rated around 3900ftlbs. Yes, I know of safe loads that push the 338WM into the 4100-4200ftlb range, and that push the 9.3 into the 3800-3900 ftlb range. Yes, the 9.3 has a calibre advantage 36 to 33, but the 338 has a 16-17% capacity advantage. The 338 also has the advantage in sectional density should a person decide to compare equal weight and construction of bullets. Try the 285grain LRX in 338 (.356 SD vs 9.3's .305) or the 250 grain TTSX in 9.3 (SD=.267 vs. 338's .313)

The whole exercise is called physics, and a 9.3x62 cannot be rated higher than a 375H&H or 338WM.

when it comes to momentum and penetration, there are many surprises, but much depends on the integrity of a particular bullet and the amount of its frontal upset. The size of mushroom, shape, SD, and amount of retained weight vary greatly in tests and directly affect penetration. The Rathcoombe Shooting Holes in Ballistic Theory posts are quite enlightening, as well as Michael McCourry's post in Big Bores. And when an anomoly occurs, it's just that, an anomly that needs further testing and verification. There are no magic calibres, but there are some special combinations and packages for special purposes.

-
PS:
I did look at RealGun's reviews of the 9.3x62 and I was impressed. Joe is a guy who will run the 338WM up to 4200ftlbs and the 416Rigby up to 6000 ftlbs keeping it under 60000psi (it will do quite a bit more, too. That Rigby case is huge.) So seeing him run the 9.3 up to 4000+ ftlbs was not unexpected but more importantly, it was impressive. So much so that it might make a great rifle for my wife:
1) IF Tanzania will write a buffalo license on a 9.3 .366" (currently that is against the law), and
2) IF a nice, reasonably lightweight Ruger or CZ will be done in lefty. Right now, the lefty of choice would be the African 375Ruger, which can be downloaded to 9.3 levels (see below).

(OK, the 9.3 cannot equal the 375Ruger ballistics [RealGuns runs them up to and consistently over 5000 ftlbs], but the 9.3 are impressive enough and might fit my wife's desires a little more. The Barnes 250 grain TTSX in .366" at 2600-2625 fps (3750-3800 ftlbs) would be sufficient as an all-around bullet, from reedbuck to buffalo, with monometal integrity upclose and a reasonable BC for over 300 yards. Flatnose solids would be a backup in either 250 or 286 grains. and if a lefty 9.3 would not be available, one could always load the 250 TTSX .375" to 2600fps in the 375Ruger. Would the buffalo know the difference?)

My own, somewhat different angle on considering ANY cartridge for field use....

I don't care what any of them CAN be loaded to, either up or down.

What I am interested in is what they will do with their standard factory cartridges or equivalent reloads.

I only want to have to learn one trajectory for each of my rifles, and I want that trajectory to be the same as factory standard, so I can use cartridges which I can get when I don't have or am out of my fancy/dancy handloads.
\
I have .338 WM, 9.3x62, 9.3x74R, .376 Steyr, and a number of other similar rifles right now. Of the bunch, I prefer the .376 Steyr performance, but I wouldn't choose it as the best because of the difficulty of finding ANY factory ammo out in the NA boonies. Ditto the 9.3x74.

There is a little 9.3x62 ammo beginning to show up fairly often in the hinterlands, but the .338 WM can be found in almost any rural gun shop or hardware store in NA.

So, if I'm spending a bunch of money or hard to come by spare time for a hunt, I'd take my SAKO Safari-Grade .338 Win Mag. If the 9.3x62 ammo becomes even more available, I'd be just as happy with that, maybe even a bit happier because of their lesser amount of recoil.

One thing for sure though. They all kill very well ehen placed under good management.

I hunt the nightmare landscape of north central Idaho. I hunt strictly Federal land and in the last 10 years I have not seen an elk outside of 300 yards and most inside 100. I use the 9.3 and am completely satisfied. It doesn't kick like the vicious 338. In fact I would rather shoot my 375 or 416 Rigby than my 338 or the 2 338s I have tried that friends own. With 286 grain bullets you can see the elk react to the shot which always comforting.

I'm not a newbie to this business... I've been around about as long as Atkinson, with 60+ years of hunting and 30+ of handloading most of the common magnums, including a couple of .338 Win Mags, a couple of .375 H&Hs, a 340 Wby, .35 Whelens, .350 Rem Mags, eight 300 magnums, three 7mm magnums and a couple of .458 Win Mags.

I'm not pushing the 9.3 X 62 beyond what I've done with those in psi. Like the .30-06 (which I've also handloaded), in a modern rifle can be safely loaded to 65,000 psi, just the same as a 300 Weatherby (which I've also owned and handloaded). The 300 Wby was chambered at one time in a Rem 700 Classic, which I owned. A Rem 700 is a Rem 700, and will handle the same psi whether in a .30-06 or a .300 Win or Wby.

The same holds for any modern bolt-action in 9.3 X 62 vs. a .338 Win Mag. They can be safely loaded to the same psi. Period. It's the brass that decides that... NOT the rifle!

And NO... you can't get 4700 ft-lbs from ANY .338 Win Mag and still eject the cartridge-case in one piece, or any possibility of reloading it! But you can get 4475 ft-lbs/ 2840 fps from some 26-inch tubes with the right combinations of components.

AND, by the way, I've reloaded those same cases in 9.3 X 62 four times without any evidence of excess psi.

What do you know about it Tanzan, other than book numbers for old rifles made in Europe for old components, not modern anything?

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by londonhunter:

quote:

Originally posted by f224:
After shooting a 338 for years, I moved on to the 9.3x62. Two reasons, less kick (bad neck, can't take it anymore) and the standard barrel makes my 9.3 4" shorter overall.

There is not an animal in the world that will know the difference between the two cartridges when you shoot them with it.

Words of wisdom , taken all the words out of my mouth

BTW captain got a reply from blaser factory

twist rate for 338 blaser magnum is 1 in 12 so I will give it a miss for obvious reason

I knew they would. We are waiting for an updated twist rate chart from Blaser.

With modern powders like RL-17, a 250gr 9.3x62 can safely produce 2600fps. Put's in the the 338WinMag class if a guy needs the long range capability the 338 provides.

a gentle reminder;

- Energy does not kill.

- The more energy a bullet has, does not necessarily equate to more penetration or lethality.

- A lower energy bullet can reach the vitals better than a bullet with much higher energy.

- More initial energy and more energy used, does not necessarily equate to more rapid or more efficient stopping or killing.

- A bullet can have less initial energy and use less energy to passage through the animal
[still having energy to exit],...and still be more effective at stopping & killing,..
than a bullet with notable more initial energy that gets all used up in the animal.

Yes, you can have less initial energy, the bullet can use less energy to do its work
[i.e.; retain more energy after the bullet has done it work],
and it can still result in more effective stopping and more rapid killing.

quote:

What do you know about it Tanzan, other than book numbers for old rifles made in Europe for old components, not modern anything?

Well, I've done a bit over thirty years of reloading, too. And I've seen primers fall out of a case on extraction, or flat and giving the casehead a two-tone color. Yes, even a rubbermallet to open a bolt. Thirty years ago I even had some Chech factory ammunition that would blow primers. All of that is to be avoided and I much prefer staying away from such things. Although it has limitations, I like to watch all of my loads with a chronograph and to stay within what I determine to be reasonable expectations.

I've also had problems with chronographs. I've had loads that I knew were clocking around 2800fps suddenly start clocking over 2900fps and even 3000fps, without any indication of difference in primer, casehead, or extraction. And then in another session, back to 2800. Sometimes I use two chronographs in series. They usually read within 40 fps of each other, but not always.

So what do I do? If I want to go beyond reasonable expectations, then I get a bigger calibre/cartridge. If you have a combo in 9.3 that does 4350ftlbs., you are welcome to it. If I wanted that level, I would probably just get a 375Ruger, 340 Weatherby, or wildcat a 338/375Ruger. I'm not even bothered if my 338WM loads clock around 3850-3900fps. It depends on the rifle. Right now we have a 338 that does 4025ftlbs (2838fps) with 71.0grains R-17 and a 225TTSX. That is 3.5 grains above Alliant's recommendation and as much as I've ever wanted to surpass manufacturer recommendations. But the rifle has a large-cut chamber and after 100 rounds of such loads has been carted over to Africa for working in the noon-day sun (still safely, since noon-day suns in the western US are perfect training grounds for Africa). How much more can that rifle do? I don't really want to know. It's in my comfort zone of expectations, and I just want to make sure that I'm getting 57000-65000psi out of a modern cartridge/rifle/brass combo. I don't want to be cheated out of performance (our 416Rigbys do 2825 with 350grainers and round-edged primers), but I'm cautious before going over expectations and do so very slowly, if at all. If accuracy is good, like the 3/4" groups of the 338 load mentioned above, there isn't a lot of incentive to go on.

PS: I remember way back when, when a 250 grain .338" NP could use 71 grains of IMR4350. Nowadays, recommendations are much less. In the early 80's we hunted with those loads, but without a chronograph. Probably somewhere between 2650-2775fps. They did well, sometimes exiting, sometimes becoming souvenirs, even took a buff with it.

Had the debate been .338 Win vs 9,3x64 I would have seen a resemblens since these two cartridges runs head-to-head-horn-to-horn in ballistics. The x62 is an efficient cartridge for sure, bur the .338Win just surpass it from muzzle to groundimpact. These debate always srirres up something

The .338 is faster and has a better BC but if I want that kind of recoil I'll use a .375 and have more gun all around. For some reason in modern guns the .338 is the most vicious thing under .4" that I've encountered. More so than a .375 Bee even.

Love'm both! Pretty much for the same reasons as given by others.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

quote:

a gentle reminder;

- Energy does not kill.

- The more energy a bullet has, does not necessarily equate to more penetration or lethality.

- A lower energy bullet can reach the vitals better than a bullet with much higher energy.

- More initial energy and more energy used, does not necessarily equate to more rapid or more efficient stopping or killing.

- A bullet can have less initial energy and use less energy to passage through the animal
[still having energy to exit],...and still be more effective at stopping & killing,..
than a bullet with notable more initial energy that gets all used up in the animal.

Yes, you can have less initial energy, the bullet can use less energy to do its work
[i.e.; retain more energy after the bullet has done it work],
and it can still result in more effective stopping and more rapid killing.

Not so gentle reminder:

It is all about energy and nothing else !

A gun is a devise that transforms potential energy from a charge of energetic propellant and transfers part of the energy to a bullet in the form of kinetic energy. The bullet in turn transfers energy to the target.

The effect observed in the target is the result of the targets reaction to energy.

It is the effect of transferred energy from bullet to target that has the potential to kill.

Maybe. That assumes that the expansion of the bullet is the same in both instances. It is not only the transfer of energy which kills (though Roy Weatherby probably believed it was). It is also the action of the bullet on the internal organs and the resulting size of the wound channel which can have a lot to do with that, even when both bullets strike in the same spot on vital organs.

Witness a shot through the lungs of a moose (or any other deer). The bigger the deer, the more lung damage is needed for the animal to die quickly. As a matter of fact, I have shot moose which had previously been shot through the lungs and did not die at all. The bullet, which was under the skin on the opposite side from where struck, was encapsulated in a gristly mass, but was no hinderance to the animals when I met them.

There is no doubt that the previous bullet(s) had expended all their energy in the moose (or they wouldn't still be there), but they did not kill.

It is a combo of energy and bullet damage to the engine works or other vital plumbing which kills, I suspect.

The bullets (139 grain spire points) from my little 7x57 both expanded and tore up all kinds of lung tissues, and also exited the far side of the animals, thus did NOT expend all their energy in them.

It is a combo of hitting the right place, having enough impact energy to make the bullet work as designed, and penetrating far enough to let blood out and air in which ultimately seems to kill.

I have used a 300 & 340 Weatherby for years. They are both excellent long range hunting rounds. For a few years I have been using a CZ550 9.3x62 with 250gr North Forks.
If I was in Bear country I would rather have my 9.3x62 with me. The bigger bore size does make a difference & the 250gr North Fork @ 2700fps have awesome penetration. It is more gun than it's ballistics indicate. I love the 300 & 340 but if it's big bad n ugly I'll have my 9.3 with me.

458 Only,
I agree with most of what you say, and I have read all your web page info and found it excellent, but I will stand by my tests that show the 338 Win with my handloads will beat the 9.3x62 from 200 yards out. The 210 Nosler at 3020 FPS in my .338 Win. is a devastating round on anything up to the big bears IMO, and and shoots as flat as a 300 Win mag. The 300 gr. Woodleigh in my .338 is equal to my 9.3x62 in every respect from a practical standpoint.

Your figures seem to be very enthusiastic my friend, but hey so are mine. and I don't give a hoot about energy figures they are without merit IMO..

Also there is a much to be said about water capacity as to which round holds the most powder, and powder capacity is very important.

But let it be known, I love the 9,3x62, got a couple of them, a carbine and a rifle. Can't imagine not having both a .338 and a 9.3x62.

When all it said and done, there is probably precious difference in the two of them when one is in the field hunting. I would opt for the 9.3x62 on DG for the most part and for the ,.338 on Idaho elk almost every time.