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.

quote:

Originally posted by Esskay:
AC,

Here you go

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

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.

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".

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".

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.

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]

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.

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

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
Interesting question & interesting conversation.

Since you've invited all opinions (which means you haven't excluded mine ), 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!

friar

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Thank you very much Ghubert. 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.

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

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...

PS. Oh! and it should be fairly cheap!