There was some discussion on this wildcat, but I don't remember reading anyone saying they actualy had a rifle chambered in this 9.3x68S wildcat, and where they got the reloading dies.

Some additional info would be appreciated. Thanks.

KB

Give Redding a call.

Thanks Doug. I'll do that.

Do you own a rifle chambered in the 9.3x68 ?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
...9.3x68S wildcat...

The designation "9.3x68S" is a bit of a misnomer. I take it this wildcat is based on the 8x68S. Here the "S" refers to the "8" and designates a .323 bore. If the caliber is no longer an 8mm, it makes little sense to keep the "S" designation.

Just out of curiosity, why is it worth it basing a 9.3 wildcat on the 8x68S case, when the 9.3x64 already sports an enlarged case?? Or are we talking wildcatting for wildcatting's sake?
- mike

mho,

I think in this case the "S" is in reference to "S"huler who came up with both the 6.5 and 8mm x68S cartridges. The 6.5 is the first one, it appeared in 1938. RWS introduced the 8x68(S) Magnum two years later in 1940. I made a screaming .25-caliber on the 6.5 by necking it down .007" and blowing it out to minimum taper and sharp shoulder. As a side note, both are available in rimmed version.

regards,

Rich
DRSS

I have to agree with mho. The 8x68 case has a little more volume than the9.3x64 case but not that much. If you want a 9.3 wildcat why not go to 375 Rum case and neck it down to 366 or if you want brass that costs even more there is a 366 DGW on 416 case necked to 366.

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:
Give Redding a call.

OK, I called Redding today. They said Redding has never done a set of dies in this wildcat. The estimated cost for a two die set is around $200. So they will do it, for a fee.

I'm still wondering if anyone has a rifle in this wildcat, and a set of dies? Or, was it all talk?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by mho:
Just out of curiosity, why is it worth it basing a 9.3 wildcat on the 8x68S case, when the 9.3x64 already sports an enlarged case?? Or are we talking wildcatting for wildcatting's sake?
- mike

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
I have to agree with mho. The 8x68 case has a little more volume than the 9.3x64 case but not that much. If you want a 9.3 wildcat why not go to 375 Rum case and neck it down to 366 or if you want brass that costs even more there is a 366 DGW on 416 case necked to 366.

I understand and agree with both of you. There was some discussion of this that tweeked my interest, so I am exploring the possibility. There are several factors to consider - for starters - what action to use? It just so happens I have an action that will work.

I'm not interested in anything associated with RUM, or the DWG - they won't work in the action I have anyway. It's not a question of brass price or availability. 9.3x64 brass is about the same cost as 8x68S brass, and availability is about the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
mho,

I think in this case the "S" is in reference to "S"huler who came up with both the 6.5 and 8mm x68S cartridges. The 6.5 is the first one, it appeared in 1938. RWS introduced the 8x68(S) Magnum two years later in 1940.

...As a side note, both are available in rimmed version.

regards,

Rich
DRSS

Rich, the story of the "S" designation is a rather sad one. The German Military at one stage decided to move from a .318 cal bullet to .323 cal. Rather than clearly change the cartridge designation, which for the .318 cal was already "8x57I", they decided to stay with the "8mm" designation, but distinguish between the two calibers by postfixing an "S". Thus the new caliber became 8x57IS. So what they really meant was: 8Sx57I, but probably because they had a bunch of guns to restamp, what is now the official designation (8x57IS) could be achieved without too much effort.

Bad decision!! Since then, the World has had to contend with TWO 8mm calibers!!!

A bunch of calibers exist in both S and "non-S" versions, case in point: 8x57IR(S), 8x60(S), 8x64(S), 8x65R(S) etc. Here in Central Europe, a lot of emphasis is put on the difference between S and non-S calibers - for obvious safety reasons - e.g. S-caliber factory ammo has differently coloured primers (black, red - you name it). In other parts of the World, this issue seems to be treated with much less rigour, and the essential "S" designation is often omitted.

The 8x68S is one of the few "8mm" calibers which was only ever available in .323 cal. Still, the correct designation is 8x68S. There is no rimmed equivalent for the 8x68S.

The 6.5x68 is the full designation for this cartridge - as it is not an "8mm". A rimmed version of this exists: 6.5x68R.

The German system for cartridge designation gives the impression of being more "scientific" and precise than the corresponding anglo-saxon systems, which largely sport non-systematic names. In one sense this is correct - at least the German designation gives you an approximate idea of caliber and case length. In reality, the German system is not all that precise. Case in point, the .257 cal is largely unknown over here, but both .257 and .264 cal bullets are sold under the designation "6.5mm". Why this is a good idea is beyond me?? Calibers are measured in a number of ways, over lands, over grooves etc etc. It seems that every country has its own system. But even in the "scientific" German system, a 7mm (.284 cal) bullet actually has a diameter of about 7.21mm, the .277 cal bullet is the "real" 7mm with a diameter of about 7.04mm. Go figure...

Btw, in Switzerland a lot of Cantons specify a minimum caliber of "7mm" for big game hunting. Nobody can quite figure out whether this means .277 or .284 cal minimum, so people tend to argue this issue at length, or simply apply their own rules...

- mike

thank you for the corrections/update. My information from Huntington was that both were available as rimmed versions. They list the 6,5 x 68 as the 6.5 x 68 Shuler. and shorten it to S elsewhere. Never assume!

regards,

Rich
DRSS

Kabluewy 4DCH in Mt Vernon Ohio will make custom dies. The last set I had made were just under $100. The price may be up by now. Do you have a reamer for your 9.3x68? An improved version may warrant consideration.It would give you quite an increase as the 8x68 case is quite tapered.

Snowman,
Do you have contct info for 4DCH?

Pac Nor has the 8x68 and the 9.3x68 listed as chamberings, so I don't need a reamer.

My opinion about an improved version is that I would rather have the non-improved version, assuming the shoulder is enough for reliable headspace, and I believe it is. I also believe the case has plenty of capacity without blowing out, and feeding is enough of an issue anyway without introducing the fatter case into the equasion. I think the case is well designed as-is by RWS, and doesn't need any changes. If I were to change anything, I wouldn't have rebated the rim, but that is what it is.

This is probably something that ain't going to happen, but I am doing a thorough feasibility study on it - all the way from the appropriate action to the feeding issues, reamers, dies, loading data, availability of componants, etc. - everything.

I really think this is a good design and idea, but practical? Maybe not, but may be worth doing anyway - just for fun, and I'm sure it will be a good performer.

I think the cartridge with its original design, lots of body taper, will enhance the feeding. I wouldn't change a thing except neck up to 9.3mm. The 8mm original ain't bad either.

Think about it - the body taper and low angle shoulder is what gives this cartridge it's merit. Take that away, and I might as well use the 8mm Rem brass. Or worse yet - the 325 WSM brass. This is a good example of two opposing schools of thought as to what makes a properly designed cartridge.

KB

Kabluewy CH4D Tool & Die phone (740)397-7214 or Fax (740) 397-6600. I had that backwards before

Kabluewy,

know what you mean about "that itch", you can only scratch it one way...$$$.
I am getting a "Jones" for a 9,3x404J, seems like a logical cartridge case to me.

regards,

Rich
DRSS
9,3mm fan

I did a search of old discussions in this forum, using 9.3x68 and 9.3 Expert and found this topic has been discussed quite a bit before.

The trick is getting an action that will work. I have an Interarms Mark X that I think will work for the 9.3x64 or the 9.3x68, but I don't know for sure about the 9.3x404J. The action has a slight feeding and ejection problem with standard belted magnum brass, so that's partially why I'm considering brass that is slightly smaller in diameter than the belted mag stuff. Anyway, I'm still working with it and I think these problems can be worked out. I ordered a magazine/bottom metal unit, with follower, made especially for magnum cases. I'll see how that works, then make further decisions based on that outcome.

One think I may consider is seeing how the 9.3x64 ammo fits in and feeds and ejects after the magazined has arrived. The thing about this action is that I can fit it with a bolt with a face to fit any size cartridge head from 9.3x62, 64, 68, 375 Ruger, or the 404J. I can also use standard 30-06 magazine, wider magnum magazine, or wider & longer magnum magazine.

It's a terrible thing sometimes to have so many options.

So prime candidates I'm considering for this action - other than the 9.3x68 is the 9.3x64 or mayby the 375 Ruger, or maybe a 308 Norma, if I can solve the feeding and ejection issues with belted brass.

I'm still in the thinking about it stage. We'll see.

KB

Kabluewy I would suggest you pay close attention to your magazine length if you intend to go with the 9.3x68. I have an 8x68S and yes they can be built on a 98 action...but it takes all the magazine length you can get. the 8mm bullets loaded in the 8x68S are seated very deep. I think you are going to find that is going to be a problem with the 9.3 cal bullets. The 9.3x64 works perfect in the mauser action.

Kabluewy,

are you talking about a Savage 112 action? I am looking at a set of bolt heads now in 223, '06, standard magnum, and one I hogged out to make my 22-378 Ear-gesplitten, Louden-boomer Ackley Improved variation.

Rich
DRSS

YOU'LL GET BETTER DIES FROM CH4D

contact dave@ch4d.com for a price & availabiity

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Kabluewy,

are you talking about a Savage 112 action? I am looking at a set of bolt heads now in 223, '06, standard magnum, and one I hogged out to make my 22-378 Ear-gesplitten, Louden-boomer Ackley Improved variation.

Rich
DRSS

OK, have you fun - I can take it. Pay back is my surprise gift to you.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
Kabluewy I would suggest you pay close attention to your magazine length if you intend to go with the 9.3x68. I have an 8x68S and yes they can be built on a 98 action...but it takes all the magazine length you can get. the 8mm bullets loaded in the 8x68S are seated very deep. I think you are going to find that is going to be a problem with the 9.3 cal bullets. The 9.3x64 works perfect in the mauser action.

I was thinking of using a magazine made for the 375 H&H, which I think is long enough, and opening a standard bolt face/extractor to fit. I realize I would be gaining practically nothing over the 338 Win Mag, and that is the reason this may not happen, but it's winter in Alaska, and I think spring and sunshine may cure this problem. The 8 or 9.3x68 is a good idea though, but perhaps not practical in the USA. However, after studying this idea, I think I would preferr the 8x68 over any 300/308 magnum. It's just the step up in performance from the 06, that the 300 magnums don't fulfill, but the same can correctly be said of the 338 WM. I know for sure either the 338 or the 8x68 will do anything any of the 300 mags can do plus fulfill the real potential of a magnum.

And the 9.3x68 is as good as the 375 H&H, without the belt. But, why duplicate the 375 H&H or the 375 Ruger with a wildcat? It ain't prudent.

Regards, KB

KB,
I was not poking fun, is there any other action besides the Savage 12/112 series (which I happen to admire for the switch bolthead and go from 223 to 220 Swift, to 350 Rem Mag or the SAUM's ) that you can switch bolt heads on? That sounded like what you were posting, that your action bolt had switch capabilities...? If I was in error I apologize, and I encourage you in this project 100%. It may prove a very efficacious design.

regards,

Rich
DRSS
rifle crank

Rich,

OOPS, I apologize too. I should have known you better than that by now.

I have never taken a serious look at the Savage. Now I certainly will.

Actually, in my posting I was talking about machining - one time - the bolt face to take the chosen cartridge.

Apparantly the savage has the advantage of exchanging the head, and the magazine is long enough too. As I remember there is a special nut that allows the barrel to be switched easier than conventional barrels.

I'll get back with you on this one. If you have some info to add, please do.

Thanks,
KB

Rich,
Is this the Savage rifle you are talking about?
http://www.savagearms.com/116fhss.htm

KB