Over the years I have been a 9.3x62 fan and I noticed that I got really good velocities out of the long tubed 9.3x62s..so I have done some extensive testing over the chronograph and will share that with you.



On the average with 300 and 320 gr. bullets I got 37.9 FPS per inch average to 45 FPS per inch average depending on the bullet and powders used..

I also cut a long throat, used the long 06 length box and 26 inch barrels for best results. I used RL-15 almost exclusively and some H414 was a distant but good second.

250 gr. bullets gave 2559 FPS in a 24" barrel and 2635 in my 26" gun. that's 76 FPS increase, not a lot but substantial with a 250 gr bullet.
This was with H414.

But with RL-15 I got 2520 FPS with a 24 " and 2615 FPS with the 26" for an increse of 95 FPS, and that was with 58.5 grs of RL-15 but my gun shoots 60 grs with ease and that gets me up to 2709 FPS with a 250 gr. bulletl.

With the 300 gr. Swift or 320 gr. woodliegh things really start cooking in that 64 grs. of H414 gave 2371 in a 24 inch and 2459 FPS in a 26 inch for 88FPS and the 320 gr. got even more at a tad more pressure and a bit stouter load,at 2533 FPS.

I have reloaed these cases over 10 times and all is well and the 9.3x62 is equal to the 375 H&H in that it shoots a 320 gr. bullet at 2553 whereas my .375 shoots a 300 gr. bullet at a forced 2600 but I load it at 2550 FPS so its about a push.

The .375 has the advantage of a larger cross section thus it hits harder, but the 9.3 has the SD in its favor and more penetration..

Some on here have said cross section of a bullet is so little it has little to no effect..I personally am convienced it's quite the opposite and cross section is the primary factor in thumping those bit animals. case in point is all double rifles shoot at about the same velocity of 2150 FPS, but the 470 kills better than the 450-400 and on up the line as the bullet gets more frontal size..bullet weight may contribute but I don't see how as its just tagging along behind, its whats up front that counts..

I suggest anyone shooting the 9.3x62 use a long slightly modified 06 box, long throat to seat bullet out and get more powder in at like pressue and a 26 inch barrel is my choice. I like carbine barrels of 20 inches on big bores but any difference in a 20 inch and a 26 in the thick stuff is only in ones imagination, after all one has no way of knowing where intervening brush will be when he ups and shoots..at any rate it has never been a problem with me as to barrel length, I like them all. but the 9.3 benifits more than most calibers with a long tube IMO..

Just thought I would share my tests over the years on this great caliber, without going into great detail.

Ray,

Based on your observations with a bigger frontal diameter, what are you're opinions on
the 400gr .423 compared to a .400gr .416, when both loaded to 2400fps?

Ray I have been getting very good results from IMR4064 in my 9.3x62/250Noslers but I am going to give RL15 a try since you think so highly of it. Thanks for the info.

I get best results with Varget (AR 2208) in my Simson Mod 98. 250 gr TSX bullets are an easy 2650 fps & 286 grs go 2400 easy while the 320 gr Woodleighs do 2230 fps. All are mild low pressure loads & i could get another 50 to 80 fps with max 52000 CUP / 62000 psi loads.

I know that John Barsness was getting 2700+ with the 250 TSX & 2500 with the 286.

My Simson has 24" barrel octagon to round with a full rib & this keeps the barrel relatively stiff. Most loads & bullets have similar point of impact - zero at 100 meters of the Lapua 286gr & 2" high for the TSX 250s & 6" low for the 320gr Woodleigh. The Norma 286 also is zero.

Nakihunter,
I can get a safe 2563 FPS with a load of RL-15 and a 286 gr. Nosler in my 9.3x62 with a the long barrel..

KIKIWILCAT,
Thats a pretty tough question and I have shot a lot of buffalo with both, but it seems to me the 400 gets it done a bit better but I would not swear to it, its just hard to say as so many varibles are involved..

What I am more positive on, is the 458 or 470 at same velocities shows a decided difference on impact and number of steps taken over the 423 or 416's...Enough to concern me greatly? probably not because all calibers in question get the job done.

I believe there is a progression here as the hole in the barrel get bigger, the effect gets better, its slight but there and gets more apparant as the hole gets bigger..

Like I said the best measure of this with me came about from using double rifles inasmuch as they all shoot the same velocity, but you can tell the difference as the bores get bigger around..that cross section equates to pure stopping power to my mind...

This is my experience and probably argueable by some, and so be it, I am only passing on what I believe to be factual base on what I have seen over the years, I have no scientific proof at all..

If I were a PH, I would opt for the biggest gun I could shoot, that probably being a .470 N.E. double or 458 Lott bolt gun loaded down to 2200 FPS. Bullet cross section, bullet construction, velocity and SD are all charge stopping considerations, but most of all is sticking all those factors into the brain of the chargeeee!

Guys, you really ought to try Ramshot Big Game. It is my "go to" powder in the 9.3X62.

Ray, what is the twist rate of your longer barrel?

Dave,
At my age remembering is ocasionally foggy but I am 99% sure its 1x14 as Lothar Walthar only makes one twist for the 9.3x62..If not 1x14 it is 1x16..

It handles all bullet weights from 250 to 320 gr. with equal accuracy in my gun, but that is typical of Lothar Walther barrels.

In my old rebarreled M98 I could easily get 2450 fps with the 286gr(Lapua Mega or Woodleigh) using 60-61 grains of VV N140.
I set the bullet out to 84,5mm col.

In the new Lapua reloading manual(on the Net) they have lowered the load quite a bit, now saying 55 grs is the maximun(for about 2300 fps in a 24 inch tube)

In my Blaser barrel the maximum is about 58-59 grs, based on slightly pressure signs on the case and primer. The chrono tells me 2430 fps on average.
Switching to N150 gives me 2400 fps easily without any signs of pressure.

M

Mine is a 550 FS with a 20.5 barrel. I haven't worked up too many loads with it. Any powder recommendations for a shorter barrel?

quote:

Any powder recommendations for a shorter barrel?

Use the same powders you would use in a longer barrel....

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Any powder recommendations for a shorter barrel?

Use the same powders you would use in a longer barrel....

all righty then!

Yeah, vapodog is right on..My chronograph has dispelled fast powders in short barrels as mostly a myth..It may be so in some cases but I can't find it to be fact and I have tried many powders..I think what occurs is in some cases a fast burning powder works, so it must be so, and that can be misleading..

At any rate the best velocities I got in a 20 inch Sauer that I sold at DSC one year got me the fastest velocity with of all powders IMR-4831, but that was before I tried RL-15 and H414 both of which gave better velocity in a later carbine I tested..

I have found H414 loads in the reloading books to be very under loaded in some calibers under certain conditions.

I won't recite my findings and I don't recommend that anyone else try uploading it unless you have been loading for many years, even then one needs to approach max loads with the usual and exceptable methods of reloading, as you should normally do anyway, with a keen eye of presure spikes, case expansion, cratered primers, flat primers, gas escape around primers, etc, etc. Any one of these is an indication its time to whoa and/or proceed with a caution.

At any rate H414 is an outstanding powder in the 9.3x62, the 30-06 and especially the 7x57. and I am sure a host more. R15 is my powder of choice in any 9.3x62 so far.

Ray,

I've been using R15 and Alliant's new 2000MR which has a similar burn rate. I seem to do ok with the 2000MR which gives me about 2540 fps with a 20" barrel (250 Accubonds). I figure that is good to go with the high BC.

Barnes needs to come out with a 232 TTSX in 9.3.

I don't think there is much doubt about it...for absolute top velocirties from short barrels, use the same powder you'd use for long barrels.

I DO use a lot of faster burning powders in many different cartridges, though, when I am NOT after top velocity. Some of my reasons include:

- When I am able to get enough velocity for my purposes with the faster burning ones, and:

- When I get better accuracy with the faster powder(s).

- Though usually not enough less to be significant (or even felt), many times the faster powders do deliver slightly less recoil, because all of the total weight of stuff ejected from the barrel has the old "opposite and equal "reaction going for it, when it comes to creating recoil. Less ejecta, less recoil.

- When I get more loads per dollar of powder from the faster powders than from the slower ones.

- When minimal muzzle blast and flash is important to me.

- When the slower powders leave the barrel dirties than I like. Once in a while I find the faster burning powders leave the barrel cleaner than do the slow burning ones. (With too slow a powder for a given bullet and cartridge, the pressures may not get up to where they need to be for a really complete burn?)

- When the faster burning powders meter enough more easily and consistently from the powder measure to make the added convenience alone worth using them.

What the heck, if it ignites and burns with regular primers, and pushes bullets out of the barrel, I can probably find a use for it....

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:

At any rate H414 is an outstanding powder in the 9.3x62, the 30-06 and especially the 7x57. and I am sure a host more. R15 is my powder of choice in any 9.3x62 so far.

Ive used a lot of W-760 over the years, which is virtually identical to H-414 and I agree, results are fantastic across the board. I get not only higher velocities and greater accuracy over stuff like IMR-4350 (which is excellent in its own right) but Ive also noticed far less velocity deviation over the chrony..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:

I believe there is a progression here as the hole in the barrel get bigger, the effect gets better, its slight but there and gets more apparent as the hole gets bigger..

Like I said the best measure of this with me came about from using double rifles in as much as they all shoot the same velocity, but you can tell the difference as the bores get bigger around..that cross section equates to pure stopping power to my mind...

Good observations Ray based on your experience but don't forget that generally as the bores get bigger so to does the bullet weight.
Throw a clay target at someones head and they might get mad but not too hurt, throw a similar diameter baseball and they will get mad and hurt, the difference being the weight.
Cross section/weight all similar velocity? Pondoro Taylor maybe new a thing or two about the stopping effect of big bores with his KO value eh?

quote:

but it seems to me the 400 gets it done a bit better but I would not swear to it, its just hard to say as so many varibles are involved..

Sorry Ray, was that the 400g .416 or 400gr .423 you were referring to?

Michael.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:

I believe there is a progression here as the hole in the barrel get bigger, the effect gets better, its slight but there and gets more apparent as the hole gets bigger..

Like I said the best measure of this with me came about from using double rifles in as much as they all shoot the same velocity, but you can tell the difference as the bores get bigger around..that cross section equates to pure stopping power to my mind...

Good observations Ray based on your experience but don't forget that generally as the bores get bigger so to does the bullet weight.
Throw a clay target at someone's head and they might get mad but not too hurt, throw a similar diameter baseball and they will get mad and hurt, the difference being the weight.
Cross section/weight all similar velocity? Pondoro Taylor maybe new a thing or two about the stopping effect of big bores with his KO value eh?

He did. Unfortunately, he was . . . I hesitate to say 'ahead' of his time because he was considered behind. So let's just say, 'outside' of his time with his KO value. Today more and more ballistics writers are coming back to them. I think it reflects a maturation of the shooting population as we outgrow the silly craving for belts and ultra-velocities.

quote:

Pondoro Taylor maybe new a thing or two about the stopping effect of big bores with his KO value eh?

His knowledge and experience on medium bores was good also, He noted 350Rigby[225gn@2625mv] every bit as good as 375H&H, out to 150yd. Todays modern loaded 35whelen takes one beyond that.

We should not be arguing that the 9,3x62 is the same as the 375 H&H ballistically. One can only get so much energy out of a cartridge case, and the case capacity of the 375 H&H is bigger - that is clearly evident.

However, the 9,3 is able to perform the same killings, and in the days when Kynoch was the main source of ammo, the 9,3x62 was better, as it did not suffer bullet failure to the same extent as the 375 H&H. In this context energy is useless as a predictor of performance.

In the end bullets kill, the way they stay together and maintain terminal momentum, the way the expands to create a bigger hole, and when it comes to solids for penetration the best simplistic guide is Mo/Xsa and all we need to judge is the adequacy thereof.

Invariably bullet weight will bring along the highest value for momentum in our current ballistic system and that comes generally with lower velocity. To make a point here compare the 9,3 with a heavy bullet with a 375 with a light bullet and you will see what I mean. Even if the momentum is the same SD will come into play to maximize Mo/Xsa and thus we have:-

Cartridge --- Weight ---- Velocity -------- Energy --------- Momentum -------- SD --- Bekker's KOV
9,3x62 ------- 320 gr ---- 2,193 fps --- 3,418 Ft-lbs --- 100.3 Lbs-ft/sec --- .341 ------- 34.2
375 H&H----- 270 gr ---- 2,600 fps --- 4,054 Ft-lbs --- 100.3 Lbs-ft/sec --- .274 ------- 27.5


Cartridge --- Momentum ----------- XSA -------- Mo/Xsa
9,3x62 ------ 100.3 Lbs-ft/sec --- .13396 ----- 748.4
375 H&H---- 100.3 Lbs-ft/sec --- .14063 ------ 713.1

Essentially velocity is only the tool to get the bullet to the target with some benefits to trajectory and wind drift - then momnetum and bullet construction takes over.

On a more traditional basis the 375 H&H will be the victor:-

Cartridge --- Weight ---- Velocity -------- Energy --------- Momentum -------- SD --- Bekker's KOV
9,3x62 ------- 286 gr ---- 2,300 fps --- 3,360 Ft-lbs --- 94.0 Lbs-ft/sec ---- .305 ------- 28.7
375 H&H----- 300 gr ---- 2,500 fps --- 4,164 Ft-lbs --- 107.1 Lbs-ft/sec --- .305 ------- 32.7

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

Essentially velocity is only the tool to get the bullet to the target with some benefits to trajectory and wind drift - then momnetum and bullet construction takes over.

Warrior

Warrior,
Am I understanding your post correctly??
I find it hard to believe that if all other things are equal - example; using like solid bullets, that a 378 Weatherby, at advertised velocities, would not hit harder, penetrate deeper and thus kill faster than a 375 H&H at advertised velocities. Didn't Roy W. do some testing of that fact? I am not saying in the least that one cardtridge or another is not adequate as there is such a thing as overkill....but in like bullets speed kills. IMO
Please explain.

further, I suppose if we are comparing heavies, then should we not compare the 9.3 320 grainer with a 375 350 or even 380 rather than a 270?

jus sayin

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

Essentially velocity is only the tool to get the bullet to the target with some benefits to trajectory and wind drift - then momnetum and bullet construction takes over.

Warrior

Warrior,
Am I understanding your post correctly??
I find it hard to believe that if all other things are equal - example; using like solid bullets, that a 378 Weatherby, at advertised velocities, would not hit harder, penetrate deeper and thus kill faster than a 375 H&H at advertised velocities. Didn't Roy W. do some testing of that fact? I am not saying in the least that one cardtridge or another is not adequate as there is such a thing as overkill....but in like bullets speed kills. IMO
Please explain.

Roy was a salesman, not a ballistician. He developed his .378 Wby and took it to Africa where, according to eye-witnesses, he couldn't kill anything. Velocity was and is not the answer on heavy game. His response was to go home and develop the .460. Another would be to use stronger bullets than Roy had available in his time. A third would be to forget the extra velocity with its attendant recoil and muzzle blast and just use moderate, comfortable cartridges at reasonable ranges. A super-flat trajectory is useless on a continent where the range of the shot is rarely over 125 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldsarge:
Roy was a salesman, not a ballistician. He developed his .378 Wby and took it to Africa where, according to eye-witnesses, he couldn't kill anything. Velocity was and is not the answer on heavy game. His response was to go home and develop the .460. Another would be to use stronger bullets than Roy had available in his time. A third would be to forget the extra velocity with its attendant recoil and muzzle blast and just use moderate, comfortable cartridges at reasonable ranges. A super-flat trajectory is useless on a continent where the range of the shot is rarely over 125 yards.

My question and thoughts are not about Roy Weatherby and his marketing or shooting abilities. It is about penetration and/or killing power of 2 "similar" bullets, one going at a certain velocity and the other going at a somewhat faster velocity.

If velocity is not the answer then why was the .458 Lott developed? I doubt it was for trajectory purposes.
(I believe I've heard the magic number for killing/stopping power in 500 gr.-.458 is 2150 fps. minimum amongst the Afican circles. (Why no longer 2000 fps. as in the .458 WM?)

So a 150 gr. 30-30 Win. kills/penetrates just as good as a 150gr.-.300 WinMag with the same bullets and a .405 Winchester penetrates/kills just as good as a 375 H&H or 378 Roy?
Don't think so.

I am not disputing anyones experiences in any way, but I totally disagree with the notion that one projectile going faster than another is not a more deadly and penetrate better than the other of the same construction.

I believe Mr. Atkinson's original post goes to prove this point if I have interpretted it correctly.

quote:

If velocity is not the answer then why was the .458 Lott developed? I doubt it was for trajectory purposes.

Rae59,

You are correct, the 458 Lott was not developed for a flat trajectory that is needed for long-range work to gain the edge so to speak. Generally good BC's are also needed to flatten a trajectory, but most big bores are intended for short-range work. The medium bores are more adept at the medium range generally speaking. Sure a 460 Wby Mag that launches the very same 500 grain bullet will have a flatter trajectory than both the 458 Win Mag and the Lott, as we make jumps from 1900 fps to 2250 fps to 2600 fps, and when we really push, we can probably add another 50 to a 100 fps to each.

You ask the reason why they came up with the Lott, well it has to do with maximizing the ratio of the force applied (momentum) over the frontal area (Xsa) for deeper penetration, as empirically the 458 Win came up a bit short on penetration as elephant hunters have experienced. And let us confine ourselves here with a non-deforming solid, so as to eliminate aspects of bullet construction, etc.

Cartridge --- Weight --- Velocity --- Momentum --- XSA ---- Mo/Xsa
458 Win ------ 500 ----- 1,900 ------- 135.7 ----- 0.210 ----- 647.0
458 Lott ----- 500 ------ 2,250 ------- 160.7 ----- 0.210 ----- 766.2

From the above it is clear that the Lott will out penetrate the Winchester.

Again the velocity of 2,150 fps has empirically worked well on the old British doubles and Winchester wanted to equal that with the design of its 458 Win in a bolt-action, but they came up short. It is important that we are guided here by experienced DG hunters and what they have experienced. Going over 2,300 and you push recoil up unnecessarily for very little value if anything. With modern FN Solids in a Lott at 2,250 fps you have the best of both worlds in my opinion, and most PH's now do just that.

As we have seen, soft expanding bullets have to be kept in its operating velocity window to perform best.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:

I am not disputing anyones experiences in any way, but I totally disagree with the notion that one projectile going faster than another is not a more deadly and penetrate better than the other of the same construction.

Sometimes a bullet going faster actually penetrates LESS than the same bullet going slightly slower. Opens up faster, more frontal area, slows down faster.

I tried it with 180gn out of a 30.06 at 10 ft, 100 yards and 200 yards.

weight of bullet has a fair amount to do with penetration, which is why I use "heavy for calibre" bullets.


What is "MORE DEADLY" ?

.

Warrior,
Thank you for your very good and polite explanation.

(What I gathered from your previous post is that velocity was a not so much factor in momentum and penetration.)

The point I am trying to make is that when velocity is increased on anything, so is energy/momentum (violence) upon impact. Your usage of solid bullets to make all things equal is a good one to use as it removes the "you shouldn't be driving that brand of bullet that fast!" from the discussion. I am not using this point in reference to any game animal on any particular continent but to any game animal on any continent or target awaiting to be impacted by a projectile.

I fully understand there is a point of diminishing returns with increasing velocity in ANY caliber and bullet weight. In other words "how much is enough"? But some believe that velocity is non factor in any caliber and that is simply not true. As you might have implied, using a 460 Weatherby or similar cartridge could be exceeding that point as there would be equal amounts of blood on both ends of the barrel while trying to achieve the same result that a "lesser" cartridge would do.

Again thanks for your insight.
P.S. I already knew why J.Lott developed the .458. I was merely using it as point of discussion.
P.P.S. 500N, my above comment on bullets wasn't aimed at you. Your post came up while I was busy responding to Warrior.

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:
P.P.S. 500N, my above comment on bullets wasn't aimed at you. Your post came up while I was busy responding to Warrior.

Thanks, I realised that, didn't take it that way at all.

Was just making a point re some tests I did that showed velocity actually pulled up the bullet.

The point of diminishing return is an interesting one. With solids, it doesn't take a huge amount of velocity to get end to end penetration on a full bodied buffalo.
out of my 505 Gibbs at very normal velocity, very much end to end and then heard it whizz off into the distance.

Interesting discussion.

.

500N,
I'm not trying to dwell on this subject, but as you stated it is a interesting one.
As Mr. Atkinson stated, you can take a smaller diameter and up the speed just a bit and achieve something a larger diameter is doing just at a bit slower velocity.....and vice versa.

Rae59,

Just to add to our discussion Rae, I wish to mention that we can change the character of our cartridges significantly just by how we load them. We can load them up or down, we can go to the lightest bullet, or we can opt for the heaviest bullet, or just stay with its traditional weight. By doing this, we change its character and so its terminal effect. Lighter and faster for longer range and heavier and slower at shorter range or stay in the middle band at traditional velocities.

Some cartridges have a narrow band like the 270 Win (from 130 to 150 grains), some much wider like the 30-06 Spr (from 150 to 220 grains), and with some brands even lighter as mentioned here, but we will stay with the run of the mill. Both the 9,3x62 mm and the 375 H&H offer a wide range and during the last 10 years or so, are now offering many more options in bullet weights, like:

9,3x62 mm - from 180 grains to 320 grains
375 H&H - from 200 grains to 350 grains.

With such drastic deviation from the traditional, its character is also changed drastically. The 9,3x62 with a 180 grain bullet can be launched at 2,900 fps and so we essentially turn it into a 300 Win Mag, and by pushing the bullet weight to 320 grain we are attempting to push it beyond the traditional position of the 375 H&H.

When it comes to choice of a cartridge for a specific task it becomes important how we choose. Also the construction of the bullet and how it will behave at various velocities. Here is the scenario ... Joe Soap and Buffalo Bill both have two rifles in their gun safes and they need to decide which cartridge to opt for Grizzly Bear:-

1. Joe Soap

Cartridge ------- Weight ---- Vel ---- Energy --- Momentum --- SD ----- Bekker's KOV
257 WBY Mag --- 120 ------ 3,300 ---- 2,902 -------- 56.6 ----- .260 -------- 14.7
30-06 Spr -------- 220 ------ 2,437 ---- 2,902 -------- 76.6 ----- .331 -------- 25.4 --->

2. Buffalo Bill

Cartridge ------- Weight ---- Vel ---- Energy --- Momentum --- SD ----- Bekker's KOV
30-06 Spr -------- 180 ---- 2,710 --- 2,936 -------- 69.76 ------ .271 --------- 18.9
35 Whelen ------- 250 ---- 2,300 --- 2,937 -------- 82.1 ------- .279 --------- 22.9 --->

This proves how misleading energy figures can be, and will lead to the wrong decision, even though I deliberately picked a position of indifference with regard to energy levels. I can even model a situation wher the energy of the one cartridge is substantially more than the other one, and it will still lead to the wrong decision:

3. The 7 mm STW yields 11.3% more power as in 'ENERGY'.

Cartridge ----- Weight ---- Velocity -------- Energy -------- Momentum -------- SD --- Bekker's KOV
7mm STW----- 150 gr ---- 3,350 fps --- 3,738 Ft-lbs ---- 71.8 Lbs-ft/sec ---- .265 ----- 19.0
9,3x62 -------- 286 gr ---- 2,300 fps --- 3,360 Ft-lbs ---- 94.0 Lbs-ft/sec ---- .305 ----- 28.7 --->

Warrior

Retrieved bullet from a buffalo.
The bullet was cut out on the opposite side, underneath the skin.
A 286 gr Rhino bullet - retained weight was 285.2%

Carl Arnold
March 18, 2009



Warrior