THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM MEDIUM BORE RIFLE FORUM

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Rifles  Hop To Forums  Medium Bore Rifles    Please don your 9.3x64 thinking caps
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Paul H
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Please don your 9.3x64 thinking caps
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted
Have been reading Craig Boddington's "Safari Rifles" and as a result have a couple of questions I can't answer...and can't shake out of my mind.


1. Does anyone now make (or did they ever make) a semi-auto rifle in 9.3x64?

2. If not, and you wanted to build one, can you think of an existing semi-auto rifle or action on which it would be feasible to do that?

I am not asking whether it would be useful, advisable, or any thing like that. Just has it been done, and/or would it be feasible to do it?

What brought this all up was Boddington's comments about Jack Lott's semi-auto Browning .458 Winchester, which apparently worked well in African service.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
There is a Russian made semi auto in 9.3x64. I think the Russian military played with a version of it with some sort of hard point armour piercing round.
 
Posts: 2443 | Location: manitoba canada | Registered: 01 March 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by snowman:
There is a Russian made semi auto in 9.3x64. I think the Russian military played with a version of it with some sort of hard point armour piercing round.



Thanks, Snowman. I knew they had the 9x54R Medved which was available to pro huners in Siberia, but I didn't know about their 9.3x64.

While speaking of this, another question... Does anyone know if the 9.3x64 could be made to fit in the BAR which Browning produced in .338 Win Mag?
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
AC as you know I am a 9,3x74R fan. So that also makes me a fan of the 9,3x62, and by default a fan of the 9,3x64...

The 9,3x62 will fit in any rifle made for the 30/06.

With proper bullets I think you could do anything with a Browning semiauto in 338 Win Mag, that you could do with a semiauto in 9,3x64...

With a lot less expense.

A buddy of mine had 2 Browning 338 Bar's, he had KDF muzzle breaks put on them and used them for elk in thick cover.

They worked great, and were plenty accurate.

I am becomming more practical in my old age, so I just do not think any increase in power, in going from a 338 Win Mag, to a 9,3x64, in a BAR is worth the money, and the trouble finding 9,3x64 ammo and reloading componets...


DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY
 
Posts: 16134 | Location: Texas | Registered: 06 April 2002Reply With Quote
Moderator
Picture of jeffeosso
posted Hide Post
take a bar and make a wildcat?.. 7,300,338 win... 336x2.5"HH improved .

the 64 is a middlin casehead -- the 62 is no problem..


opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club

Information on Ammoguide about
the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR
What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR.
476AR,
http://www.weaponsmith.com
 
Posts: 39907 | Location: Conroe, TX | Registered: 01 June 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Apparantly there are 2 semi-auto rifles. The LOS4 which is apparantly as ugly as sin .The other is the Dragunov TIGR 9 and 9-1. This is a civilian version of the SVD sniper rifle. Bet this one is really pretty.
 
Posts: 2443 | Location: manitoba canada | Registered: 01 March 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 779 | Registered: 08 December 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Esskay:
AC,

Here you go

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn...fles/rus/svdk-e.html

Smiler



Thanks very much to both you and Snowman. That is most interesting. Probably impossible to import into Obama-land unfortunately.


I already have a very nice 9.3x62, and a pair of 9.3x74Rs (one a DR, the other a Ruger No.1). I also am very aware that the 9.3x62 will fit just about any action which will reliably handle the .30-06.

Now I have another question...though I KNOW it would be a world champeen hassle (y mucho dinero es neccesito hacerle), I wonder if it would be possible to use a Garand action, build an M-14-type magazine of the appropriate size (and maybe single column), and squeeze a 9.3x64 round into a newly barreled M-1 Garand?

The bolt face might also be a hassle, but perhaps not too much...) Some experimenting would also be required with gas port diameter, timing, etc.

An AR-10 conversion would doubtless be easier, but I just plain don't want or like any of the AR platform rifles except the original Armalite AR-10 select-fire Class 3. As this sort of putzing is for fun and fulfilling curiosity, not to manufacture them, I won't be going the AR-10 clone route.


I like Jack Lott's conversion of the Browning .338 to a .458, but just don't want another .458. Have one and have had others. One is plenty. Also thought about maybe converting one of those Brownings to a .375 Ruger, but as I have plenty of components already on hand for 9.3s, would prefer that route so far.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Just have a .338 Win Mag Browning BAR rebored to .366, and have them cut a neck and a caliber of freebore. You're ready to go. A 9.3x.338 Win Mag should be dynamite in a semi-auto, and you could use .358 Norma load data for starting loads.
 
Posts: 417 | Registered: 07 January 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by whelenite:
Just have a .338 Win Mag Browning BAR rebored to .366, and have them cut a neck and a caliber of freebore. You're ready to go. A 9.3x.338 Win Mag should be dynamite in a semi-auto, and you could use .358 Norma load data for starting loads.


That is interesting, but it would be just as easy or easier to use my .358 Norma
Mag reamer, slap on a .35 barrel, and chamber it to .358 Norma Mag. That way I could buy dies, brass and ammo off the shelf and the headstamp would match the chambering.

BUT, that isn't what I was asking about. There are probably 200 good wildcats or other good factory cartridges in the small medium bore range (.318-.416) which a guy could use, but they aren't what I was asking about either. If I wanted to do something other than a 9.3x64, I'd probably just rebarrel a Browning semi-auto to .416 Chattfield/Taylor and be done with it.

I also wasn't asking about easy, cheap, practical, or any of those things. Just ways to end up with a reliable semi-auto 9.3x64. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it might make a GREAT all-around rifle for Africa for larger plains game, and would handle DG too if one stumbled upon it and got himself into a "tight".
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I think it might make a GREAT all-around rifle for Africa for larger plains game, and would handle DG too if one stumbled upon it and got himself into a "tight".


I think the operative word, preceeding "GREAT" is "might". For such use, IMO that ain't good enough. It's a different set-up in a bolt action because the feeding can be more reliable and assured. Simply because there is no semi auto already setup for the cartridge is a BIG problem. It would require some real creative gunsmithing to get the thing to work, and then with all the other issues with the cartridge, it's simply not worth the trouble.

It's nice to dream about it, but a 338 WM is the answer, especially for Africa plains game, and DG tight spots too. For actual hunting DG, it would be a bolt action for me.

I think the 416 Taylor is not a wildcat anymore, and brass is available with the correct head stamp, so if the action could handle it, and more thump is needed than the 338 can do, then the 416 is a good idea.

I don't think the 9.3x64 is a good idea at all, but a BAR in 9.3x62 would be a good one, simply because it could be made by converting one of the great semi-auto actions setup for a 30-06, with a greater probability is getting it to feed right.

Also, there are several choices of possible actions, with magazines already tuned to feed cartridges of the 9.3x62 diameter and general length.

Maybe you are not concerned about easy, cheap and practical, but IMO you should be. To me, there are few things more frustrating than a difficult, expensive and impractical rifle project, and that IMO is what it would be with trying to make the 9.3x64 work.

The probability of success is far, far greater with something like the 9.3x62, 338 WM or the 416 Taylor.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kabluewy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I think it might make a GREAT all-around rifle for Africa for larger plains game, and would handle DG too if one stumbled upon it and got himself into a "tight".


I think the operative word, preceeding "GREAT" is "might". For such use, IMO that ain't good enough.

But that opinion is not what was asked about, now was it? What was asked was whether such a rifle exists already (turns out it does) and if not, which existing action(s) might work well for building one? And I intentionally used the modifier "might" because if not reliable, I would not use it. But the fact that the first few tries might not be reliable doesn't mean it can't be done, does it?


It's a different set-up in a bolt action because the feeding can be more reliable and assured.

Oh? Welcome to the current century! How many major military powers do not presently supply their grunts with semi-auto rifles for their man-hunting? And what game is there that is more dangerous than men with modern technology, the ability, the will, and the intent to shoot back? THEY may even shoot first with either a semi-auto or full-auto!

Simply because there is no semi auto already setup for the cartridge is a BIG problem. It would require some real creative gunsmithing to get the thing to work, and then with all the other issues with the cartridge, it's simply not worth the trouble.

Apparently you mean not worth YOUR trouble.Does that mean everyone else must assume that view? I'm sure glad John C. Garand did not think that way before he finally got the bugs out of his semi-auto. We had already had the reliable bolt action Springfield in service for about 35 years when the Garand went into full production.


It's nice to dream about it, but a 338 WM is the answer, especially for Africa plains game, and DG tight spots too. For actual hunting DG, it would be a bolt action for me.

Come on, KB. I know you are experienced eough to understand that NO one rifle is THE answer. If you don't want a 9.3x64 semi-auto, then DON'T TRY TO BUILD ONE!

BTW No one suggested intentionally hunting DG with it. But what bappens when you are prowling around in the bush looking for some sort of nice large antelope and you almost trip over a wounded 12,000 pound elephant, or a poacher-wounded 6,000 pound black rhino, or a pain-maddened buffalo some native plinked in the guts the day before with a 7.62 NATO round? Would you prefer a .338 Win Mag or a 9.3x64 (both semi-autos)? I'd prefer the 9.3 both for killing the animal as quickly as I could with my plains game rifle, and for explaining why I was using that cartridge on DG when explaining the scene to some local bureaucrat.


I think the 416 Taylor is not a wildcat anymore, and brass is available with the correct head stamp, so if the action could handle it, and more thump is needed than the 338 can do, then the 416 is a good idea.

And as I already said, that would be easy. I know it would work because there is no more boot from the .416 Taylor than from a .458, and if one can make a .45 feed reliably on that same case, then there is no major problemo in making a .41 feed.

I don't think the 9.3x64 is a good idea at all, but a BAR in 9.3x62 would be a good one, simply because it could be made by converting one of the great semi-auto actions setup for a 30-06, with a greater probability is getting it to feed right.

Also, there are several choices of possible actions, with magazines already tuned to feed cartridges of the 9.3x62 diameter and general length.

Maybe you are not concerned about easy, cheap and practical, but IMO you should be.


Now let me get this clear and straight....you are telling me what I should have as my considerations in potentially spending my money on my rifle? Have I ever told you anything similar? Please try to guess why not...


To me, there are few things more frustrating than a difficult, expensive and impractical rifle project, and that IMO is what it would be with trying to make the 9.3x64 work.

See that's the difference between us in this situation. To me solving that kind of problem is one of the most fun things in building rifles. It gives one an opportunity in real time to diagnose and solve problems, to use their ingenuity, to do some productive research, and to add to their knowledge.

The probability of success is far, far greater with something like the 9.3x62, 338 WM or the 416 Taylor.


Perhaps. To me that is not success at all. Accepting a cartridge one does not want to use (because it is easy) is an even bigger waste of time and money when viewed through my eyes. If I wanted a cop-out then it would be easiest for me to use my .338 WM, a 9.3 conventional rifle (I have three already), a .376 Steyr, a .375 H&H, a .405 Win (I have two), a .404 (I have two), a 450/400, or some one of my other small medium bores.

But EASY & CHEAP are not why I posted my inquiry.

So, do you have anything other than rain to contribute to this parade?
KB[/QUOTE
[/color]
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I doubt that a BAR chambered for the .300 Winchester would require any reworking (other than the proper barrel) to handle a 9.3x64. The 9.3's rim is a tad smaller, but that is irrelevant if the extractor will hold it. If it won't you could bush the bolt face and install an extractor with a little longer reach. I'm not sure how difficult it is to machine the gas capture mechanism into a custom barrel, but I wouldn't think it would be impractical.

The magazine would be crowded, but the .300 Winchester with its slightly longer case is made to go in the BAR action, so you should be able to fit a 9.3x64 in there similarly. You might have to seat the long 9,3 bullets a bit deeper than standard, but that would be easier than re-engineering the magazine to take a .10" longer loaded round.
 
Posts: 13256 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I doubt that a BAR chambered for the .300 Winchester would require any reworking (other than the proper barrel) to handle a 9.3x64. The 9.3's rim is a tad smaller, but that is irrelevant if the extractor will hold it. If it won't you could bush the bolt face and install an extractor with a little longer reach. I'm not sure how difficult it is to machine the gas capture mechanism into a custom barrel, but I wouldn't think it would be impractical.

The magazine would be crowded, but the .300 Winchester with its slightly longer case is made to go in the BAR action, so you should be able to fit a 9.3x64 in there similarly. You might have to seat the long 9,3 bullets a bit deeper than standard, but that would be easier than re-engineering the magazine to take a .10" longer loaded round.


Thanks for your thoughts, Stonecreek. I thought the length might be okay, but I fear I might have to make a new single column magazine box to handle the fatter case. Hope not, cause would like to keep mag capacity at three rounds or more. Otherwise, I might prefer a double in some variety of .375 chambering with about the same power. (Both the 9.3x64 and the .375 H&H are a clear and distinct step up from the .338 WM in their power to stop DG not just kill it.)

But, it should also be possible to convert the magazine to a detachable sort, so one could then get 4 or 5 down if he didn't mind it protruding from the bottom of the action.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kabluewy:
I don't think the 9.3x64 is a good idea at all, but a BAR in 9.3x62 would be a good one, simply because it could be made by converting one of the great semi-auto actions setup for a 30-06, with a greater probability is getting it to feed right.

Also, there are several choices of possible actions, with magazines already tuned to feed cartridges of the 9.3x62 diameter and general length.

Maybe you are not concerned about easy, cheap and practical, but IMO you should be.


Now let me get this clear and straight....you are telling me what I should have as my considerations in potentially spending my money on my rifle? Have I ever told you anything similar? Please try to guess why not...


To me, there are few things more frustrating than a difficult, expensive and impractical rifle project, and that IMO is what it would be with trying to make the 9.3x64 work.

See that's the difference between us in this situation. To me solving that kind of problem is one of the most fun things in building rifles. It gives one an opportunity in real time to diagnose and solve problems, to use their ingenuity, to do some productive research, and to add to their knowledge.

The probability of success is far, far greater with something like the 9.3x62, 338 WM or the 416 Taylor.


Perhaps. To me that is not success at all. Accepting a cartridge one does not want to use (because it is easy) is an even bigger waste of time and money when viewed through my eyes. If I wanted a cop-out then it would be easiest for me to use my .338 WM, a 9.3 conventional rifle (I have three already), a .376 Steyr, a .375 H&H, a .405 Win (I have two), a .404 (I have two), a 450/400, or some one of my other small medium bores.

But EASY & CHEAP are not why I posted my inquiry.

So, do you have anything other than rain to contribute to this parade?
KB[/QUOTE
[/color]


Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, only try to give you a reality check. If your goal is to mess with something near impossible, just for the sake of a project, and money and time is no problem, have at it. If you are building something to actually use, IMO you are wasting your time and money.

It's not a cop-out to be practical, it's wise. I have wasted my time and money on simpler projects, and wasn't happy with them when done, and just had to eventually give up.

What's worse - the satisfaction of being practical (lord forbid that) and having a reliable functioning rifle, or throwing a lot of time and money at something that ends up far less than perfect? Obviously you have a different answer to that question, but my lessons have taught me there is real value in practical, and very little value or satisfaction to be found in projects requiring extreme modifications in the basic platform in an attempt to make it work.

You can argue all you want, and say it's your money, which is fine, but it's not fair to post something like this and expect others to just say what you want the read. Sorry to dissappoint you, but that's just the way it is. IMO, you should thank me for the advice rather than scold me. I think it's better to be dissappointed now, and it costs you nothing except ego, rather than two years and five thousand dollars plus your ego later. IMO, you would be better off just writing a $5,000 check to your favorite gunsmith or perhaps family member now, and take a nice vacation instead of a project like this.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I thought the length might be okay, but I fear I might have to make a new single column magazine box to handle the fatter case. Hope not, cause would like to keep mag capacity at three rounds or more.
I don't see that you would have to do anything to the magazine. My reference shows the .300 Win with a shoulder diameter of .489" while the 9.3x64 is a tad smaller at .474". Base comparisons run .511" (just ahead of the .525" belt) and .507", respectively, so the 9.3x64 is a little slimmer than the .300 Win all the way. However, I don't believe the difference is enough that there would be any need to modify the magazine.
 
Posts: 13256 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
That is even better information "Stonecreek. Thank you very, very much. Sounds as if there was any trouble making it feed, it might be remedied just by judicious bending in of the magazine lips.

Now basically all I need to do is go out there nd find a donor BAR in 7m/m RM, .300 WM, or .338 WM. I have a friend in Canada who has the North American distributorship for NOS Browning parts, so he could provide magazines if I need some to mangle or mend. (I think I already have a 9.3 barrel blank laying around, and MIGHT still have a 9.3x64 reamer too. If not I can get one by either purchase or rental.)

The nice thning about projects like these is a person doesn't have to pay the whole shot in one "swell foop" and if things go to "jell" in a handbasket, most of the tools and components are saleable for at least as much as one paid for them. Inflation takes care of that. coffee
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of friarmeier
posted Hide Post
Interesting question & interesting conversation.

Since you've invited all opinions (which means you haven't excluded mine Big Grin ), I'll give it even though it probably isn't worth spit.

As to what some of the fellas have said regarding certain difficulties about your project, I would say they are correct in highlighting the technical hurdles. They also point out, rightly so I believe, that those hurdles will be difficult & significant.

That said, I think you're looking for a bit of a challenge, Alberta, and so difficult & significant may be just what you want. And if you've got the time, money, and inclination to do so, I see no reason why you should'nt have a go at it.

My father's personal pipe-dream is a Skyote all metal (fabric covered) aerobatic bi-plane. All he had to go from was paper plans.

That thing is the epitome of a money-pit/pipe dream, and who knows what he smoked in welding the damn thing up. But it is his dream, albeit unfinished, and it may be the one thing that's kept him sane.

So have at it, brother! beer

friar


Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.
 
Posts: 1222 | Location: A place once called heaven | Registered: 11 January 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kabluewy:

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, only try to give you a reality check. If your goal is to mess with something near impossible, just for the sake of a project, and money and time is no problem, have at it. If you are building something to actually use, IMO you are wasting your time and money.

It's not a cop-out to be practical, it's wise. I have wasted my time and money on simpler projects, and wasn't happy with them when done, and just had to eventually give up.

What's worse - the satisfaction of being practical (lord forbid that) and having a reliable functioning rifle, or throwing a lot of time and money at something that ends up far less than perfect? Obviously you have a different answer to that question, but my lessons have taught me there is real value in practical, and very little value or satisfaction to be found in projects requiring extreme modifications in the basic platform in an attempt to make it work.

You can argue all you want, and say it's your money, which is fine, but it's not fair to post something like this and expect others to just say what you want the read. Sorry to dissappoint you, but that's just the way it is. IMO, you should thank me for the advice rather than scold me. I think it's better to be dissappointed now, and it costs you nothing except ego, rather than two years and five thousand dollars plus your ego later. IMO, you would be better off just writing a $5,000 check to your favorite gunsmith or perhaps family member now, and take a nice vacation instead of a project like this.

KB



Well, KB, I think it reasonable to expect people to stick to the topic of the thread. The topic of this thread was and is a request for information, not for a lecture. And I didn't start this "argument" you and I find ourselves in, you did. All I asked for was some simple factual information, not negative conjectures based on God knows what.


As to practical, you haven't a clue how practical I am or am not.
As I have probably alluded to before, I have about 140 rifles now. Almost all of them are single shots, lever guns, and conventional bolt guns, ranging from .17" to .475" bore diameter, and set up for various practical uses from varminting to meat-getting, to DG hunting, to target shooting.

The impractical part to some eyes is that I have so many of them. The practical side of that is that if I want to, I can use, sell at a profit, trade, or do pretty much whatever I want with them.

Apparently Stonecreek thinks my potential 9.3x64 semi-auto project may be possible. He has contributed some information to support that view and potentially help me out. I very much appreciate his input.. I can see he is thinking it through, which is all I hoped would occur when I asked folks which action(s) they might suggest for such a project.

I could get a knee-jerk "Oh that's not possible" from anyhere; a clerk at Wally World could provide that.

As to how I spend my money, my wife just bought another $30,000 horse this week. I think that may entitle me to spend a couple of grand on a rifle project, don't you?
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by friarmeier:
Interesting question & interesting conversation.

Since you've invited all opinions (which means you haven't excluded mine Big Grin ), I'll give it even though it probably isn't worth spit.

As to what some of the fellas have said regarding certain difficulties about your project, I would say they are correct in highlighting the technical hurdles. They also point out, rightly so I believe, that those hurdles will be difficult & significant.

That said, I think you're looking for a bit of a challenge, Alberta, and so difficult & significant may be just what you want. And if you've got the time, money, and inclination to do so, I see no reason why you should'nt have a go at it.

My father's personal pipe-dream is a Skyote all metal (fabric covered) aerobatic bi-plane. All he had to go from was paper plans.

That thing is the epitome of a money-pit/pipe dream, and who knows what he smoked in welding the damn thing up. But it is his dream, albeit unfinished, and it may be the one thing that's kept him sane.

So have at it, brother! beer

friar



Thank you Friar. I appreciate the understanding you bring to the table. Yes, to me it is a fascinating potential experiment.

And not a supremely difficult one, either. As Stonecreek mentioned, there will likely be no problem with the magazine being large enough, and they are easy to make smaller via spacers, if that proves to be needed.

When looking at it from a practical point of view, I think that once complete it may be very practical. Lott reportedly took Elephant, Buffalo, and Lion with his.458 semi-auto built on the same model of action. I seem to recall there was a rhino thrown in there too, but would have to go back and look that up again before asserting it to be so.

But, I won't bother, as exactly what all he shot with it isn't important. What is important is that it worked well when he needed it to.

In case folks wonder why he dropped its use, it is because he didn't consider the .458 Winchester to be an adequate cartridge, when factory loads started dropping well below 2,000 fps at the muzzle in later production. So he went to, what else?, the .458 Lott. (But it was too long for his BAR action.)

And you are most perceptive when you say that such projects are often what keeps some of us older folks alive. Some folks turn to quack diets, orthers to "medical" marijuana. Still others give their money to a majareesh or some other "eternal life" guru.

Me, I just like to inhale burnt propellant gases exuded by some of my projects. Whistling
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Well, KB, I think it reasonable to expect people to stick to the topic of the thread. The topic of this thread was and is a request for information, not for a lecture. And I didn't start this "argument" you and I find ourselves in, you did. All I asked for was some simple factual information, not negative conjectures based on God knows what.

As to practical, you haven't a clue how practical I am or am not.
As I have probably alluded to before, I have about 140 rifles now. Almost all of them are single shots, lever guns, and conventional bolt guns, ranging from .17" to .475" bore diameter, and set up for various practical uses from varminting to meat-getting, to DG hunting, to target shooting.

The impractical part to some eyes is that I have so many of them. The practical side of that is that if I want to, I can use, sell at a profit, trade, or do pretty much whatever I want with them.

Apparently Stonecreek thinks my potential 9.3x64 semi-auto project may be possible. He has contributed some information to support that view and potentially help me out. I very much appreciate his input.. I can see he is thinking it through, which is all I hoped would occur when I asked folks which action(s) they might suggest for such a project.

I could get a knee-jerk "Oh that's not possible" from anyhere; a clerk at Wally World could provide that.

I think that may entitle me to spend a couple of grand on a rifle project, don't you?


Of course I agree that you are entitled. That's not the issue. As far as knee-jerk and the insult implied with the wal-mart comment, I have thought this through. I didn't say it was not possible. I said it's not practical. As far as you later selling it for a profit - you're dreaming.

I too am contributing some information and support and potentially help you out. You simply haven't yet properly appreciated it. Wink

I have stayed on the topic of this thread, but I'm not saying what you want to read. You want me to say it will work, and praise your project. I say that I have doubts that it will ever work, and because of that, I can't praise it. I am awed at your willingness to waste money though.

So, you say there is a semiauto action made for this cartridge - what is it?

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kabluewy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Well, KB, I think it reasonable to expect people to stick to the topic of the thread. The topic of this thread was and is a request for information, not for a lecture. And I didn't start this "argument" you and I find ourselves in, you did. All I asked for was some simple factual information, not negative conjectures based on God knows what.

As to practical, you haven't a clue how practical I am or am not.
As I have probably alluded to before, I have about 140 rifles now. Almost all of them are single shots, lever guns, and conventional bolt guns, ranging from .17" to .475" bore diameter, and set up for various practical uses from varminting to meat-getting, to DG hunting, to target shooting.

The impractical part to some eyes is that I have so many of them. The practical side of that is that if I want to, I can use, sell at a profit, trade, or do pretty much whatever I want with them.

Apparently Stonecreek thinks my potential 9.3x64 semi-auto project may be possible. He has contributed some information to support that view and potentially help me out. I very much appreciate his input.. I can see he is thinking it through, which is all I hoped would occur when I asked folks which action(s) they might suggest for such a project.

I could get a knee-jerk "Oh that's not possible" from anyhere; a clerk at Wally World could provide that.

I think that may entitle me to spend a couple of grand on a rifle project, don't you?


Of course I agree that you are entitled. That's not the issue. As far as knee-jerk and the insult implied with the wal-mart comment, I have thought this through. I didn't say it was not possible. I said it's not practical. As far as you later selling it for a profit - you're dreaming.

I too am contributing some information and support and potentially help you out. You simply haven't yet properly appreciated it. Wink

I have stayed on the topic of this thread, but I'm not saying what you want to read. You want me to say it will work, and praise your project. I say that I have doubts that it will ever work, and because of that, I can't praise it. I am awed at your willingness to waste money though.

So, you say there is a semiauto action made for this cartridge - what is it?

KB


First off, let's get this straight. I do not give a tinker's damn about your approval or disapproval of this project. I was not only not asking for a positive blessing response, I wasn't asking for any opinion pro or con about whether I should do the project.

What I do care about is getting useful information relevant to my original two questions with which I started this thread.

The first one was whether anyone knew of a semi-auto using the 9.3x64 Brenneke cartridge. Apparently you did not and still don't, even though one of the early responses includes a link to exactly such a rifle developed and used by the Russians.

My second question asked which actions anyone might think could be made to work to build such a rifle if one doesn't already exist. Apparently you drew a blank there too, as you suggested none, and instead dumped all over the whole concept.

You may consider that assistance, but I do not.

Nor do I think several posts full of snide remarks about impracticality, being a certain failure, a waste of time, money and so on were helpful. In particular, they were not helpful because they gave no specifics at all other than that you have had projects which failed and disappointed you greatly. So who hasn't?

But that is no reason to throw in the towel and quit trying things out unless doing so harms some other vital part of one's life.

In my case it doesn't hurt the rest of my life and won't.

What I really don't appreciate is having the thread hijacked to include your love of bolt actions and what you would use for dangerous game hunting, as if that was a good reason for my not doing my potential project.

My purpose for asking the two questions was to see if I could buy or put together a rifle with the following attributes...

1. A cartridge I like which happens to be a superb long range "large plains game" round
AND a marginal but legal DG round.

2. A very fast working action.

The desire was to see if I could build something with the power of a .375 H&H, a very flat trajectory, the speed of loading of a semi-auto, the magazine capacity of a bolt gun, and lacking the action noise of a bolt gun...and even the unhappy possibility of functioning one handed if that sort of punishment became the lesser of two evils some day.

Anyway, there is no point in you and I throwing brick-bats at each other any longer. It appears to me you have had a long winter in Alaska and because of that or some reason or another are in a foul mood.

I hope you have a good Spring, and if and when I get my 9.3x64 semi-auto up and running you will be welcome to stop by and shoot it on your way to or from Texas.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
First off, let's get this straight. I do not give a tinker's damn about your approval or disapproval of this project. I was not only not asking for a positive blessing response, I wasn't asking for any opinion pro or con about whether I should do the project.

First, I wasn't approving or disapproving your project. I melery expressed my opinion, based on lots of knowledge and experience, that I thought this project is not a good idea, and it's impractical, for whatever that's worth, which apparently ain't much to you, but I'll say it anyway.

What I do care about is getting useful information relevant to my original two questions with which I started this thread.

The first one was whether anyone knew of a semi-auto using the 9.3x64 Brenneke cartridge. Apparently you did not and still don't, even though one of the early responses includes a link to exactly such a rifle developed and used by the Russians.

My second question asked which actions anyone might think could be made to work to build such a rifle if one doesn't already exist. Apparently you drew a blank there too, as you suggested none, and instead dumped all over the whole concept.

I answered your two questions in saying that there are no good semiauto actions suitable for such an expensive project. I also answered your question that IMO no semiauto action can be made to work acceptably. I didn't draw a blank. I'm of the opinion that such a project will fail. Now, I could be wrong, and if you have found a Russian action that's worth the trouble, have at it.

You may consider that assistance, but I do not.

I do consider it assistance, Sorry that you do not, but I insist in giving it anyway, thank you very much.

Nor do I think several posts full of snide remarks about impracticality, being a certain failure, a waste of time, money and so on were helpful. In particular, they were not helpful because they gave no specifics at all other than that you have had projects which failed and disappointed you greatly. So who hasn't?

I did not mean for my remarks to be taken as snide. Sorry that you took them that way. You want specifics? It's all about feeding. Get it to feed, and problem solved. But, IMO you will ruin an action or two trying, unless you can find a Russian or other action already set up for the cartridge or one real close.

But that is no reason to throw in the towel and quit trying things out unless doing so harms some other vital part of one's life.

In my case it doesn't hurt the rest of my life and won't.

Agreed, but I would still put this idea on the reject list, and think up something better. While messing around with this, that other and better project is on the verge of discovery.

What I really don't appreciate is having the thread hijacked to include your love of bolt actions and what you would use for dangerous game hunting, as if that was a good reason for my not doing my potential project.

That's just not true. My posts have been on topic, and the only reason to not do the project is if you are worried about the significant probability of it failing. If not, then proceed. Personally I wouldn't even get a good inertia at it until I saw an action that would feed, and feed perfectly, then and only then proceed.

My purpose for asking the two questions was to see if I could buy or put together a rifle with the following attributes...

1. A cartridge I like which happens to be a superb long range "large plains game" round
AND a marginal but legal DG round.

2. A very fast working action.

The desire was to see if I could build something with the power of a .375 H&H, a very flat trajectory, the speed of loading of a semi-auto, the magazine capacity of a bolt gun, and lacking the action noise of a bolt gun...and even the unhappy possibility of functioning one handed if that sort of punishment became the lesser of two evils some day.

Simply said, all those attributes are worthy and achievable in a semiauto, with little doubt, however my doubt increases off the chart when you say you want it done with a 9.3x64 --- and it's all about feeding, and really nothing more.

Anyway, there is no point in you and I throwing brick-bats at each other any longer. It appears to me you have had a long winter in Alaska and because of that or some reason or another are in a foul mood.

I hope you have a good Spring, and if and when I get my 9.3x64 semi-auto up and running you will be welcome to stop by and shoot it on your way to or from Texas.

That would be really cool, and I would like to be proven wrong about my opinion re the 9.3x64 semiauto. In fact I welcome it. I also hope to see some progress photos. I too would like to see a suggestion of an action that is highly probable to work well, and feed properly, but I highly doubt that such a solid suggestion will emerge herein. BTW, I don't think much of the Russian sniper rifle as a basis to a sporter, but it would probably work if you can get one. It's suitability would then depend on how handy you could alter it to become.


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kabluewy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
First off, let's get this straight. I do not give a tinker's damn about your approval or disapproval of this project. I was not only not asking for a positive blessing response, I wasn't asking for any opinion pro or con about whether I should do the project.

First, I wasn't approving or disapproving your project. I melery expressed my opinion, based on lots of knowledge and experience, that I thought this project is not a good idea, and it's impractical, for whatever that's worth, which apparently ain't much to you, but I'll say it anyway.

What I do care about is getting useful information relevant to my original two questions with which I started this thread.

The first one was whether anyone knew of a semi-auto using the 9.3x64 Brenneke cartridge. Apparently you did not and still don't, even though one of the early responses includes a link to exactly such a rifle developed and used by the Russians.

My second question asked which actions anyone might think could be made to work to build such a rifle if one doesn't already exist. Apparently you drew a blank there too, as you suggested none, and instead dumped all over the whole concept.

I answered your two questions in saying that there are no good semiauto actions suitable for such an expensive project. I also answered your question that IMO no semiauto action can be made to work acceptably. I didn't draw a blank. I'm of the opinion that such a project will fail. Now, I could be wrong, and if you have found a Russian action that's worth the trouble, have at it.

You may consider that assistance, but I do not.

I do consider it assistance, Sorry that you do not, but I insist in giving it anyway, thank you very much.

Nor do I think several posts full of snide remarks about impracticality, being a certain failure, a waste of time, money and so on were helpful. In particular, they were not helpful because they gave no specifics at all other than that you have had projects which failed and disappointed you greatly. So who hasn't?

I did not mean for my remarks to be taken as snide. Sorry that you took them that way. You want specifics? It's all about feeding. Get it to feed, and problem solved. But, IMO you will ruin an action or two trying, unless you can find a Russian or other action already set up for the cartridge or one real close.

But that is no reason to throw in the towel and quit trying things out unless doing so harms some other vital part of one's life.

In my case it doesn't hurt the rest of my life and won't.

Agreed, but I would still put this idea on the reject list, and think up something better. While messing around with this, that other and better project is on the verge of discovery.

What I really don't appreciate is having the thread hijacked to include your love of bolt actions and what you would use for dangerous game hunting, as if that was a good reason for my not doing my potential project.

That's just not true. My posts have been on topic, and the only reason to not do the project is if you are worried about the significant probability of it failing. If not, then proceed. Personally I wouldn't even get a good inertia at it until I saw an action that would feed, and feed perfectly, then and only then proceed.

My purpose for asking the two questions was to see if I could buy or put together a rifle with the following attributes...

1. A cartridge I like which happens to be a superb long range "large plains game" round
AND a marginal but legal DG round.

2. A very fast working action.

The desire was to see if I could build something with the power of a .375 H&H, a very flat trajectory, the speed of loading of a semi-auto, the magazine capacity of a bolt gun, and lacking the action noise of a bolt gun...and even the unhappy possibility of functioning one handed if that sort of punishment became the lesser of two evils some day.

Simply said, all those attributes are worthy and achievable in a semiauto, with little doubt, however my doubt increases off the chart when you say you want it done with a 9.3x64 --- and it's all about feeding, and really nothing more.

Anyway, there is no point in you and I throwing brick-bats at each other any longer. It appears to me you have had a long winter in Alaska and because of that or some reason or another are in a foul mood.

I hope you have a good Spring, and if and when I get my 9.3x64 semi-auto up and running you will be welcome to stop by and shoot it on your way to or from Texas.

That would be really cool, and I would like to be proven wrong about my opinion re the 9.3x64 semiauto. In fact I welcome it. I also hope to see some progress photos. I too would like to see a suggestion of an action that is highly probable to work well, and feed properly, but I highly doubt that such a solid suggestion will emerge herein. BTW, I don't think much of the Russian sniper rifle as a basis to a sporter, but it would probably work if you can get one. It's suitability would then depend on how handy you could alter it to become.




I think your responses were off topic and think they still are.

It is pretty obvious that until someone tries such a project, no one can show a semi-auto action that will feed trhe 9.3x64 perfectly smoothly, and you know that as well as I do.

But that is an inherent part of building MANY rifles, including many on the sainted Mauser action using cartridges they weren't desinged for.

That's one reason why Duane Weibe has a whole special topic on the gunsmithing forum titled "making it feed" or somethng like that.

And you were accusing me of being unhappy with your posts because they didn't give the blessing I was looking for. That in itself is simply incorrect.

But any way, as far as I am concerned, as you insist on having it your way, you and I are done. I will not respond to any more of your "opinion" posts on this subject. If you have some useful suggestions as how to accomplish the goal I have in mind, I will welcome those, but otherwise you are simply beating up on a straw man.

Instead, I will gather the useful information which is presented by others and decide whether to further explore the potential of such a rifle, on my own with thanks for their factual contributions.

As far as progress photos go... if I take any, they will be distributed first and foremost to folks who have assisted in getting the thing done in working order.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I think your responses were off topic and think they still are.

It is pretty obvious that until someone tries such a project, no one can show a semi-auto action that will feed trhe 9.3x64 perfectly smoothly, and you know that as well as I do.

But that is an inherent part of building MANY rifles, including many on the sainted Mauser action using cartridges they weren't desinged for.

That's one reason why Duane Weibe has a whole special topic on the gunsmithing forum titled "making it feed" or somethng like that.

And you were accusing me of being unhappy with your posts because they didn't give the blessing I was looking for. That in itself is simply incorrect.

But any way, as far as I am concerned, as you insist on having it your way, you and I are done. I will not respond to any more of your "opinion" posts on this subject. If you have some useful suggestions as how to accomplish the goal I have in mind, I will wqelcome those, but otherwise you are simply beating up on a straw man.

Instead, I will gather the useful information which is presented by others and decide what to further explore the potential of such a rifle, on my own with thanks for their factual contributions.

As far as progress photos go... if I take any, they will bge distributed first and foremost to folks who has assisted in getting the thing done in working order.


My responses are on topic.

Until someone tries such a project, is right. All you are going to get is speculation for advice. One thing I'm not doing is speculating about feeding. It's critical. and until someone shows me an action that will feed, then when I say there is no such action, it's more than speculation. When shown, I'll admit that I was wrong.

Insofar as many rifles, etc, and Duane Weibe's making it feed, what you are suggesting is much more difficult, unless you find an action that's close to start with, including the bolt face and magazine length.

Frankly, I don't care if you are done with me. So, I'll post for other's comments and education. If you won't listen, then this can be an education for someone else. This isn't your private thread anyway.

I'll even go so far as to say your hopes of getting useful info, re making it work, will not happen. It ain't there to be had. What I've presented to you is as close to factual as you are going to get. You're not looking for factual anyway, but soliciting specualtion. Maybe this or that will work.

If you want to increase the odds, and insist on using an oddball cartridge, you might want to think about the 376 Steyr. At least with one factor, OAL, that may be one less thing to worry about.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
If you are really interested in going beyond the realm of speculation, into the "I know this will work" turf, take a close look at this:



Left = 338 WM, Right = 9.3x338 loaded with 250gr TSX and H4350. I can get over 2800fps out of it.

The 9.3x338 will solve most of your obstacles to success. For sure the Browning will feed. Most likely a Benelli will work too. For sure this cartridge will achieve all the other attributes you listed, except Africa, since it's a wildcat. It's an easy wildcat, and duplicates the 9.3x64. There is no extraordinary gunsmithing required to get this one to work ---- perfectly.

This is the difference in speculation and making it feed, compared to a sure thing. It's the most satisfying cartridge that I shoot and load for.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
Thank you for the suggestion and picture, but it falls short of my aim on two counts, both related to its being a wildcat. One, it isn't legal for some of the commonly hunted parts of Africa. Two, one can't buy ammo for it anywhere that I know of.

Neither of those is a problem with the 9.3x64. There may not be a lot of 9.3x64 ammo everywhere in Africa, but it is just a short overnight flight from a shipper in Europe. In my view both of those considerations remove all wildcats from the "practical" realm.

And as with most experimental developments, knowing in advance that it will work takes it out of the realm of an experiment and for me, removes much of the fun..even if it could be used in Africa, which it can't.


It appears potentially very useful for Alaska, but that isn't the venue I have in mind.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Alberta Canuck the main factor in this rifle you are considering is what is pictured on the box the ammo comes in? If it shows a gopher, then it will not work on ANYTHING bigger. I learned this from one of the major authorities that has contributed to this thread. $30K for a horse? Tell your wife she should have bought a Ford F-150.
 
Posts: 3811 | Location: san angelo tx | Registered: 18 November 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by carpetman1:
Alberta Canuck the main factor in this rifle you are considering is what is pictured on the box the ammo comes in? If it shows a gopher, then it will not work on ANYTHING bigger. I learned this from one of the major authorities that has contributed to this thread. $30K for a horse? Tell your wife she should have bought a Ford F-150.



I don't know how you arrived at those conclusions, but neither is valid.

As to my wife's horse, did you ever try to enter a Ford pickup in the World Cup? One of her horses was a competitor three years ago in the World Cup Grand Prix jumping competition in Sweden. And $30,000 is dirt cheap for a World Cup qualified horse...or one capable of becoming such.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Alberta---My comments were 100% tongue in cheek. Not a shred of seriousness intended. But I do think a Ford F-150 could win the Kentucky Derby if it got entered, maybe not the world cup.
 
Posts: 3811 | Location: san angelo tx | Registered: 18 November 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
Oh, Okay.tu2 I wish she had bought a truck too...her old one about needs replacing and that would be one less "necessary" bill to look forward to. rotflmo
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Thank you for the suggestion and picture, but it falls short of my aim on two counts, both related to its being a wildcat. One, it isn't legal for some of the commonly hunted parts of Africa. Two, one can't buy ammo for it anywhere that I know of.

Neither of those is a problem with the 9.3x64. There may not be a lot of 9.3x64 ammo everywhere in Africa, but it is just a short overnight flight from a shipper in Europe. In my view both of those considerations remove all wildcats from the "practical" realm.

And as with most experimental developments, knowing in advance that it will work takes it out of the realm of an experiment and for me, removes much of the fun..even if it could be used in Africa, which it can't.

It appears potentially very useful for Alaska, but that isn't the venue I have in mind.


You got me so wound up that I took my 9.3x338 to the range and got it sighted in. Hopefully I'll get a chance to go black bear hunting soon. Smiler I enjoyed those tiny groups again, but not the recoil. It's pretty stout. I'll bet the Browning semiauto would take some of the bite out.

I figured the wildcat thing would be an issue for Africa. I just don't know about all those rules and laws. If .375 minimum is the issue, then that's a problem. I just figured that Africa game laws allowed something like the 338WM for plains game, so surely a 9.3mm would be ok. I got the impression that this was a plains game rifle mostly.

You're right about my 9.3x338 being just right for Alaska. I had my barrel engraved with "366 Alaskan" just for the heck of it. I haven't killed any game with it yet. I only recently got it completely finished. I've had it in progress somewhere for several years.

That's why I don't care for a real experiment. I want a rather high level of certainty that it will work simply because it takes a long time to get there. I don't enjoy the process anymore as much as I enjoy the finished thing - - that works.

I'm pretty sure that there are custom ammo makers out there who will do wildcats, even with the correct headstamp, for a price. I've never been concerned about it so I haven't checked.

Again, the 416 Taylor isn't a wildcat anymore, and it will do plains game with one load, and DG with another. I'm not sure about the merits of having factory loads available for this purpose. The versitility comes from having two loads, a light bullet and a heavy bullet. I seems more complicated for Africa because they use solids for some purposes.

A short barreled semiauto 416 Taylor or 9.3x338 on a Browning would make a great bushwhacker for Alaska or Canada.

Anyway, if factory ammo is really a big deal, you can't beat the 338WM, if the caliber is adequate to meet the rules or laws.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
Well, we're still waiting for all those good suggestions relating to actions and such that AC can count on for this his 9.3x64 semiauto project? He's counting on you.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
You are still missing the point.

I DON'T WANT a .338 WM semi-auto. If I did, I'd just buy one....

It is not legal for DG, and it is not something that historically most seasoned African hunters appear to choose for plains game hunting where they may also encounter dangereous, thick-skinned game at any turn. We know that, because it has been available for over 55 years now and there has been no mad rush by them to acquire it, even back when it WAS legal for DG.

When hunting in Africa, one can't dictate what he may or may not run onto, OR the condition and temperament in which it may be.

At any rate, there is no point in your continuing the effort to sell some other cartridge for my potential project. As I said before there are at least 200 wildcats and factory cartridges one might choose. Feel free to choose whichever you want. I have done that for the purpose of this thread when I chose the 9.3x64 to specifically ask about.

It is true that feeding is one of the critical issues. It is also true that there ARE people who can make rifles feed just about anything, even if you don't feel secure in trying to do that.

You are more than welcome to go start your own thread on whatever you wish, including the perfect plains and dangerous game combo cartridge for semi-autos. Or, you can have this one if you insist. You already seem to have taken it over anyhow.

We already know you don't think my potential project will work, you don't need to keep insisting that only your view is the final word on the subject.

Me, I don't know if it will work or not, but I am willing to put my time and effort where my mouth is, and at least find out before I go whole-hog yea or nay.

N.B: If you go here and scroll through the pages, you will see that the BAR does not have the problems in adjusting the feeding that adjusting a Mauser or most other bolt rifles may have.

Essentially, there are no action feeding rails where one has to be extremely careful to not remove metal from the wrong area, and thereby risk ruining the whole action. Instead the lips on the magazine control the presentation of the cartridges to the bolt and chamber. Those lips can be adjusted back and forth to some degree, and if one really screws up, all he needs is a new magazine box, not a new action. New magazines are approximately $40 plus shipping. So this quote isn't really valid "Insofar as many rifles, etc, and Duane Weibe's making it feed, what you are suggesting is much more difficult, "....


media.browning.com/pdf/om/bar_98355_om_s.pdf
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Ghubert
posted Hide Post
At the risk of getting my head bitten off here... Big Grin

The Benelli R1 semi auto is fairly popular on the continent for driven boar shooting in 9.3x62.

I think if you can get over the plastic thing on a hunting rifle, not sure that I could, it should be made to work with the 9.3x64.

It's pretty reliable from what I hear but of course we are not allowed such WMDs in the UK so I have no direct experience... Frowner
 
Posts: 11731 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Alberta Canuck
posted Hide Post
Thank you very much Ghubert. tu2 I suspected somewhere on the continent there was a rifle being made which might be adapatable to what I am seeking by way of a chambering.

I used to be big time anti-plastic on rifles and really resented it when M/S dropped their classic metal spool magazine. However, since I have three of their newer series of rifles, I find them absolutely reliable and splendidly engineered. Most of all, I find them dependable and wonderful in their feed characteristics.

NEVER, EVER had a jam with ANY of my three, which include a .308 Sniper rifle (pricey bit, that!), an 8x57JS, and a .376 Steyr.
 
Posts: 9685 | Location: Cave Creek 85331, USA | Registered: 17 August 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
Ghub, that's an excellent suggestion, IMO.

It's a great starting place for dealing with actual issues in "making it feed".

First, there is the issue of getting the 9.3x64 reamer in the chamber. Given the overall challenge, small thing for a creative gunsmith. Same with the magazine alterations. At $100 each, and gunsmith time, going through two or three to get it right - no big deal.

The biggie, seems to me is the bolt face. Apparantly the Benelli is interchangable, and a good machinist could make one that's correct, or perhaps modify the 9.3x62 size, including the extractor. Could be that luck will play a role and Benelli already makes a bolt to fit.

Anyway, the Benelli platform is a good suggestion, IMO.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Ghubert
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Thank you very much Ghubert. tu2 I suspected somewhere on the continent there was a rifle bing made which might be adapatable to what I am seeking by way of a chambering.

I used to ve anti-plastic on riflews big time and really resented it when M/S dropped their classic metal spool magazine. However, since I have three of their newer series of rifles, I find them absolutely reliable and splendidly engineered. Most of all, I find them dependable and wonderful in their feed characteristics.

NEVER, EVER had a jam with ANY of my three, which included a .308 Sniper rifle (pricey bit, that!), an 8x57JS, and a .376 Steyr.


No problems sir, I would have posted a link but the only article I found in English was about one in .338 Win mag... Big Grin sofa

I think it would be easier to open up the x62 bolt face a tad than bugger about bushing a magnum one smaller and you might even be able to re-chamber the barrel.

I'm not sure if the mag is long enough to seat bullets out as far as you perhaps might want but maybe someone could chime in here.

PS. Oh! and it should be fairly cheap! Big Grin
 
Posts: 11731 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Ghubert
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Ghub, that's an excellent suggestion, IMO.

It's a great starting place for dealing with actual issues in "making it feed".

First, there is the issue of getting the 9.3x64 reamer in the chamber. Given the overall challenge, small thing for a creative gunsmith. Same with the magazine alterations. At $100 each, and gunsmith time, going through two or three to get it right - no big deal.

The biggie, seems to me is the bolt face. Apparantly the Benelli is interchangable, and a good machinist could make one that's correct, or perhaps modify the 9.3x62 size, including the extractor. Could be that luck will play a role and Benelli already makes a bolt to fit.

Anyway, the Benelli platform is a good suggestion, IMO.

KB


Bolt face shouldn't be too hard, the x64 is something like .496" on the rim and the x62 something like .470".

Should be able to just turn it out a tad, it'll have plenty of meat left as it's also designed for the magnum cases. Smiler
 
Posts: 11731 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 02 September 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kabluewy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ghubert:
I would have posted a link but the only article I found in English was about one in .338 Win mag... Big Grin sofa

PS. Oh! and it should be fairly cheap! Big Grin


The Benelli in 338 was my thought as well, with the possibility of reboring the barrel to 9.3mm, thus the 9.3x338. But the suggestion didn't get far enough to fill in the blanks.

KB


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
 
Posts: 12818 | Registered: 16 February 2006Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Rifles  Hop To Forums  Medium Bore Rifles    Please don your 9.3x64 thinking caps

Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia