Is there a name for a wildcat that is based on the .338 WinMag case necked up to use 9.3mm(.366) bullets? If so, how does it perform?

I know the same case is used on .416 Taylor, .458 WinMag and .375 Taylor.

I named mine 366 Alaskan. I don't know for sure how it will perform yet, as it is still at the gunsmith. I hope to be testing it soon.

KB

Charlie Sisk has one, but I don't remember if its based on the 338 or 8mag

The 9.3 Sisk is based on the 8mm Rem Mag brass.

Didn't he also work up one called the 9.3 BS(Barness-Sisk)? What brass was that based on?

I'd call it the 366 Taylor or the 9.3 Taylor.

You can call it anything you like.

quote:

Originally posted by Riodot:
Didn't he also work up one called the 9.3 BS(Barness-Sisk)? What brass was that based on?

350 Rem mag

quote:

Originally posted by cs273:
If so, how does it perform?

Expect a bit more power than the 9.3x64 Brenneke.

Call it whatever you want, because it's a wildcat, but Taylor nor Sisk had anything to do with it, so why associate their name with this most logical 9.3 wildcat, which they bypassed in the development of their own?

KB

So, what would the most appropriate description/designation be of the above cartridge? Some possiblities are:

9.3-338
9.3/338
366-338
366/338

9.3-458
9.3/458
366-458
366/458

Since the case is originally based on the 458 WinMag I suppose the ones using 458 wold be most accurate.

Any thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by cs273:
9.3-338


Since the case is originally based on the 458 WinMag I suppose the ones using 458 wold be most accurate.

Any thoughts?

The 458 has no shoulders. The 338 case is unchanged except for a larger opening, so that should be the proper designation.

OK you guys, we're having fun with this. I tried necking down some 458 brass and it didn't work. I crushed the brass, since the neck was annealed and soft. So necking up 338 brass worked easily. Also I had some 358 Norma brass, which works good too.

But the question is what is a good name for the cartridge? As you may suspect, I have given the matter considerable thought. I like the way European metric cartridges are named - such as the 9.3x62 or 7x64, 6.5x57R etc. because it is descriptive, and simple. In the USA, often we name cartridges somewhat strangly - such as 338 - 06, and there is no consistancy. For example the 257 Roberts is not ever referred to as the 257 - 7x57, nor the 6mm Remington referred to as the 6x57 or the 6mm - 7x57, or in other words a 6mm derived from 7x57 brass. To my way of thinking, naming a cartridge by reference to its parent case is just not right, because the new cartridge no longer has close reference to the parent. It is a new cartridge unto itself. Like the 257 Roberts, it is too confusing to use a name like the 9.3 - 338. Some may wonder - which is it - a 9.3 or a 338?

Or is it a 9.3 - 358 Norma if we use Norma brass?

So we need a better name. Perhaps .366" x 2.5" belted magnum? That's descriptive, and not easily confused with anything else. 9.3x64 mm belted magnum could be confused with the 9.3x64 Brenneke, so that won't work. I don't like mixing metric with inches in a name - so that's out.

So that leaves the creative names, such as 9.3mm Thumper, but yet someone will not know just what it is, like people are always confused by the name 9.3 Sisk or 9.3 Breness/Sisk. Juse exactly what is the source brass - they ask? Or who is Mr Thumper?

So you see where I'm going with this is that the name should be either descriptive (.366"x2.5" Belted Magnum) or something cute and creative, and perhaps descriptive, but not tied to a person's name. That's why I voted for 366 Alaskan. First because I prefer the inch designation over the metric designation, to distinguish it from the European metrics, and Alaskan because that is the particular state where this cartridge can truely be useful. 9.3mm Alaskan would be a good choice too. Also, the only other cartridges I can think of with the name Alaska attached is 358 STA, and the 450 & 500 Alaskan. Those names worked out well for those cartridges, and nowadays few people are confused by those names. Personally, I hope the name 366 Alaskan sticks.

KB

Only problem is most guys won't do the math. People will see it and ask why you didn't use something useful like a 9.3 instead of a weird one-of-a-kind 366.

I posted possibilities above like 9.3/458 because it shows first the diamater of the bullet and the parent case, pretty explanatory. I'm not interested in coming up with some creative or fancy name that needs to be explained what it means.

Also, I'd like it something that can be stamped on the rifle barrel so names like .366 x 2.5 belted magnum are out.

With a barrel designation like .366/458 you can look at a cartridge and determine if it right for that rifle. I doubt someone would spend the money for a wildcat to get custom stamped cases, but I could be wrong.

Well, let's see. 9.3mm is weird to some, but it depends on whether a person preferrs the metric designation or the inch reference. As I said, 9.3 Alaskan or 366 Alaskan, both seem appropriate to me. but when I had my barrel stamped, I decided to not go with both, so I chose one name, and it was 366 Alaskan.

The first generation parent case is the 338WM, not the 458WM, I suppose the 338 being a derivitave of the 458, brass, and in turn the 458WM is derived from H&H brass. So where do we draw the line, in the name, with the generation of the parent brass? Perhaps name it the 9.3 x 375H&H x 458 x 338 -- humm. All that probably wouldn't fit on the custom stamped brass, unless the writing was real small.

Oh well, we could just use 338 brass, or 358 Norma brass, and call the wildcat the 366 Alaskan, and learn to live with it.

As I said, we have become accustom to using the name of 358 Shooting Times Alaskan (STA), 450 Alaskan, and 50 Alaskan, with no problem, and I don't think I have ever seen those cartridges referred to as the 358 - 8mm Rem Mag Shooting Times Alaskan, or 450 - 348 Alaskan, or 50 - 348 Alaskan.

How about calling it the 9.3 Redundant.

For us 9.3 fans, perhaps 9.3 Interesting, or 9.3 Useful, or 9.3 Fortheheckofit, or 9.3 Feeds Good - no action mods required. or 9.3 ETC.

In my humble opinion, the adjective "redundant" could apply to about 85% of all the SAAMI or CIP cartridges in use, and about 99% to all the various wildcats. Yet, there are folks who enjoy something different.

There is nothing wrong with the 9.3x64 Brennekee, but there are some who don't want to chance the problems sometimes associated with bolt face and feed rail modifications.

KB

i think the most "APPROPRIATE" name is the 9,3 win mag since all the carts are cal and winmag. 366 win mag would be the most "TECHNICAL" but the taylor rounds are named after....taylor so name it after yourself, a hunting legend who used the cal in tribute, an animal it is designed for e.g.9,3 moose, or a locale where you will be using it. e.g. 9,3 kenai also a bragadocious name like the 9,3 bang-flop

Horray for you boom stick. Perhaps one of the big companies should settle this and make it a factory round, 9.3 or 366 Win Mag, or Rem Mag, or 9.3 Norma. or 366 Federal. or 9.3 Hornady, or 366 Nosler. WOW, I could go on. Or better yet, a factory round named 366 Alaskan, made by Lapua, and rifles made by Ruger, or even better Ruger and Lapua team up and introduce both together.

Would you buy a factory rifle so named with factory ammo available?


KB

i dont like belts personaly...

the 9,3 whatever would be a good round but of the 9,3s i like the 9,6x66 sako for power (verrrry close to the 375 HH), one more in the mag, 06' action and good feeding design. if i liked the 9,3 and had a 338 win mag that did not shoot well i would consider it.

I like the 366 Win Mag, sounds descriptive. Not complicated to understand or explain to ppl.

If the 9.3 x 62 is as good as ppl say on plains game would the 366 WinMag be and improvement? Does anyone have any idea about how many fps you'd gain?

Thanks for all the replies so far.

it would be almost identical to the 375 taylor

Hi guys,

Relative to 9.3mm wildcatting, here's an email from 9.3Norm, a close friend, who has been wildcatting 9.3mm since before the cows came home. He asked me to add this to the thread since his machine is burping today.

"did the 9.3 on the .338 case some 25 years or more ago.....I called it the 9.3 USA (article on such some years ago in Handloaders Digest. Also the .348 Ackley Improved case necked up to 9.3 (=9.3R North American). Both are right on the heels of the 9.3 x 64 Brenneke. I got five elk with the 9.3 USA. I also did the .30 REM short mag. up to 9.3.....= called 9.3N."

LLS
Mannlicher Collector

Sierra2; You almost have it right except the 9.3x64 is right on the heels of the 9.3 USA. The USA has 4.2% more case cap. than the 9.3x64, 88.33 to 84.75 grains of water. An even better case is the 9.3/300 Win Mag at 90.1 .

sierra2, and Fat-Albert,
Thanks for the info. When I decided to build a rifle in 366, i did a lot of research to try to find someone who had actually done it before. As I remember I finally found one guy, but can't remember who now, I think he was in Sweden, and rumors of another, and several who had thought of it but had not actually built a rifle so chambered.

I heard of the 9.3 USA, but could never confirm exactly what it was, whether made on 338 brass and so forth.

I wonder what powder 9.3Norm found to be the best suited?

KB

Kabluewy
9.3 Alaska or .366 Alaska look good to me, but then so do 9.3-AL or 366-AL. I think 366-AL looks neater.
But these are secondary considerations to quote WS
"A rose by any other name......."
The important considerations are that it should prove ideal for the role performed by the 9.3x64 and at the same time side step the problem of not being able to easily buy cases for the x64.

As we say down here, Goodonya Mate.

PS: I ran the new 9.3x66 Sako throught my LOAD FROM A DISK program it holds only 81 grains of water. That puts it right between the 9.3x62(76grs.) and the 9.3x64(84grs.) I ran out some WHAT IF loads with the program useing the same bullet-pressure-barrel lenght and found that there was about a 100fps step between each or the four cases(9.x62, 9.3x66, 9.3x64 and 9.3 USA) What a 9.3x62 would do at 2300fps the 9.3 USA would do at 2600fps. If someone had a med. mag rifle (264 Win,7mm Rem, 300Win, 338Win) all you have to do is get a 9.3 barrel and have it chamberd to 9.3 USA . There would be no bolt face or action work to do.

top graph trajectory, bottom power

http://www.sako.fi/cartridges_93_statistics.html

red 9,3x66 with 286 gr bullet

black 375 hh 300 gr bullet

blue 9,3x62 286 gr bullet

green 308 win 180 gr bullet(?)





http://www.reloadersnest.com/detail.asp?CaliberID=344&LoadID=9726

http://www.reloadersnest.com/detail.asp?CaliberID=344&LoadID=9725

http://www.z-hat.com/images/9.3x66%20drawing.pdf

the benefit of the 9,3x66 would be ease of 06' conversion (no boltface mods) and an extra round in the mag. noooooo belt

Boom Stick,
I certainly agree with you on the 9.3x66, the extra round in the magazine, bolt face and all. Those charts are impressive, especially since they show such close performance of the 9.3x66 compared to the 375 H&H.

I was also impressed that the Load from a Disk showed 2600 fps probable from the 9.3 USA, with 286 gr bullets. That's what I predicted, although far less scientifically. I have two boxes of 286 gr Barnes TS bullets waiting for the rifle to arrive.

However, in studying this all some time ago, I noticed that my 9.3x62 pretty much took up all the available magazine length in my FN Mauser action the barrel is on. That is with the bullet seated out properly for the throat.

Also, when deciding whether to really go for the wildcat 366 Alaskan, I tried some dummy rounds of 9.3x64 in the same FN Mauser action. I found that I could only get three in the magazine and close the bolt. I also found that aside from the bolt face, the feed rails, and probably the follower would have to be modified. Although usually not too big of a deal, it is something I chose to avoid if possible. I don't want to take any chance on messing up a good action, especially since I like the 9.3x62 so well. I'm already set up with dies, brass, and everything. And with the 9.3x64, the bullets would have to be seated somewhat deeply to fit the magazine length, thus limiting the throat length, and besides I didn't know anyone with the proper reamer for 9.3x64 or 9.3x66.

Of course when you go with the belted mag brass, only three will fit into the magazine, but that's not a problem for me. Of course I also tried the loaded dummy rounds of 9.3 on 338 brass in the magazine to check overall length and feeding. The Ruger action, magnum bolt face, is perfect for this round, with no apparant feeding problems, and the bullets can be seated to exactly the proper place to line up with the grove for crimping if needed. I tried Lapua, Barnes, Nosler, and another I can't remember now.

I also tried some 300 Win Mag brass, and found that the bullets would have to be seated deeply to fit into the factory magazine. I definately do not want to get into modifiying magazines.

I am sure that actions different from the FN Mauser and the Ruger would yield different results. I suspect the Sako action has enough length to accomodate the 9.3x66 or the wildcat based on the 300 WM brass, but my actions are perfect (FN and Ruger) for the 9.3x62, and the 366 Alaskan respectively.

to get the max out of the 66 sako i think you have to start with a rifle with a good magazine length and go from there...

i like the good feeding design it has.

i think it is scraming to bu stuffed in a rem 7600 pump with a trigger job

Just received a case from CalCart, a 366 DGW made by QualityCartridge. Its based on a full lenght 416 Rigby. Base to shoulder is 2.36,",shoulder dia.is .535", a shoulder like a 416 R and a neck that is .470" long . It looks like a 378 Wby.w/ no belt and neck to 9.3 or a 416 R necked to 9.3. A 9.3x66 holds 81.8 gr. of water, a 9.3x64 88.5, and the 366 DWG holds 127.5 gr. of H2O. All that it would take would be a 416 CZ action and a new barrel. Should make a hell of a chipmonk gun with 270gr. Speer.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
the benefit of the 9,3x66 would be ease of 06' conversion (no boltface mods) and an extra round in the mag. noooooo belt

If the brass is hard to get, why not just go with the 9.3x62 for all the reasons you give for the 9.3x66? Any '06 action can be used for the x62 and there is so much brass and data for it that is is hard to believe there is a need. Comparing the x62 to the x64 there is less that 100 f/s advantage to the x64. I load for both and have fine custom rifles for both. In the load development of both, I use the same pressure limit on the x62 as the x64. With that in mind, the most I have been able to get from the x64 over the x62 is about 110 f/s and that was pushing the x64 to higher pressures.

I used to love wildcatting but these days I look for an appropriate factory round to play with. I only own one wildcat and that is my 25 year old 416 Taylor. It still gets the job done with no fuss and I now have properly head stamped brass to use in it. All of those converted cases I can use for fun in the USA. I got tired of waiting for A2 to get brass for the 6.5-06 so I bought a Kreiger barrel, RWS brass, Redding dies, and a reamer and head space guage for the 6.5x65 RWS and am really happy. No wildcat. A bit expensive to put together but all factory stuff in this gun. Loads off the Computer programs put it about 10% faster thant the 6.5-96.

Interesting comments re the x62 andx64 velocities.
The Vihtavuori reloading manuals state;

9.3x62 285 grian RWS TMR, max load 54.5 grains N135, velocity 2330fps
9.3x64 285 grain RWS TMR, max load 67.0 grains N140, velocity 2530fps
9.3x64 285 grain Lapua Mega, max load 67.9 grains N140, velocity 2543fps

A 285 grain bullet can be driven 200 fps faster in the x64, not a huge ammount, but sufficeint to make it a catridge to be given some serious consideration.
It's the ability to drive the 285grain bullet at 2500fps that I like about the x64 and why I like the 366 Alaska.