quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

....But for a stopper, the ball game starts at .458" bore diameter. Even PHs who carry .416 Rigbys will admit this. That is why I classify the .416s with other small bores, such as the 9.3 and .375 As a hunting cartridge, the various .416s are excellent, but they have proven themselves to be less than perfect stoppers.

Im not rining my bell as an expert,but

Mr.H.Selby used a 416Rig. for quite a number of decades as his Client backup rifle,without seeing the need to change,Im sure its more than just continuous potluck that got him throught all those years.Today we have better bullets to add. If PH admits the 416 hes carrying is not the best stopper, why have they not sensibly changed?
The 416/450gnWL or GSc410FN seems substancially more than just a medium bore9.3, but I could be wrong

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Woodjack:

Mr.H.Selby used a 416Rig. for quite a number of decades as his Client backup rifle,without seeing the need to change.

From what I have read about Harry Selby's hunts, he did use a heavy 470 double when hunting Ele and Rhino in thick country such as the Thornbush and Palm thickets of Kenya's north eastern frontier.
ozhunter

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
If PH admits the 416 hes carrying is not the best stopper, why have they not sensibly changed?

Due to both economics (PHs do not earn much) and practical considerations (availability of other suitable rifles and ammo for them).

ErikD

My ZG-47 is an orginal 9,3x62, made -56 and was in mint condition when I bought it.

Lucky bastard!!!

I could give up all other calibers and hunt just with a 9.3mm. I like them so much that I have two now, a FN Mauser in 9.3x62, and a TC Encore in 9.3x74R. Just for fun, I'm having built a 9.3x57 on another '98 Mauser action, as a classic.

But my special 9.3 project is what I am calling the 366 Alaskan, which is simply the 338 WM necked up to 9.3mm. It's close to finished, and hopefully soon I'll get to start developing loads, which I expect will be very close to the 9.3x64.

you could pretty much use the identical loads to the 375 taylor since it is almost the same, .009 diff.

http://www.geocities.com/bw_99835/

use these as a guide

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
you could pretty much use the identical loads to the 375 taylor since it is almost the same, .009 diff.

http://www.geocities.com/bw_99835/

use these as a guide

Or tag along with the .366 AR.....BoomStick....what's your thinking on that one?

A 286 grain A-Frame at 2,800'/sec.....maybe more.

It'd sure put a Kai-bosch on bears in a hurry!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
... But my special 9.3 project is what I am calling the 366 Alaskan, which is simply the 338 WM necked up to 9.3mm. It's close to finished, and hopefully soon I'll get to start developing loads, which I expect will be very close to the 9.3x64.

Since I got my 9.3x62 (CZ 550) a couple of years ago, I began thinking a 9.3 on a .338 Win Mag case would make a neat cartridge. Just speculation on my part, but I bet it would be close to the 9.3x64 Brenneke in velocity but use relatively inexpensive and more easily obtainable .338 WM brass. I also like the idea of the 9.3 B-S cartridge on the .350 Rem Mag case that Charlie Sisk and John Barsness came up with. It duplicates 9.3x62 ballistics, so I realy don't need one since I have a 9.3x62, but I still think it's a neat little cartridge.

Just my ramblings.....

-Bob F.

quote:

Or tag along with the .366 AR.....BoomStick....what's your thinking on that one?

A 286 grain A-Frame at 2,800'/sec.....maybe more.

i am not a 9,3 guy but i like the idea of the .009 larger version (375 for the math impared)

necking up a 330 dakota is the next best thing for the 9,3 guys



jeffeosso is the a.r. dude...he is not reeeeely into the smaller rounds...yet cuzz all the other crowded competition.

quote:

Originally posted by BFaucett:
I also like the idea of the 9.3 B-S cartridge on the .350 Rem Mag case that Charlie Sisk and John Barsness came up with. It duplicates 9.3x62 ballistics, so I realy don't need one since I have a 9.3x62, but I still think it's a neat little cartridge.

Just my ramblings.....
-Bob F.

Good Ramblings Bob,

For me the 9.3 wildcat based on the 350 RM, duplicating the 9.3x62, has the same problem of the 350 RM, duplicating the 35 Whelan. The "problem", if really a problem, is that both the 35 Whelan and the 9.3x62 will feed really well in a standard '98 Mauser, holding one more round in the magazine -- something the short Magnum round and magazine will not accomodate.

For me, duplicating the performance of the 9.3x62 with a wildcat, is a waste of time and money, when the 9.3x62 is one of the world's all-time great cartridges -- as is.

One main reason I went with the 2.5" belted case of the 338WM is because it fed really well in a standard length Ruger magnum action. The longer 8mm RM case offers just more performance and length than I needed or wanted. I would need a longer action for it anyway.

After discovering how good the 9.3x62 is, I have wanted the 9.3x64 too, so this ought to be close.

Regards

[QUOTE]Originally posted by boom stick:

i am not a 9,3 guy but i like the idea of the .009 larger version (375 for the math impared)

necking up a 330 dakota is the next best thing for the 9,3 guys

[QUOTE]

Boom Stick,

I thought the same thing was a good idea. I ordered a box of the 375 Dakota brass with the notion of using as is, or necking down to 9.3 possibly. After trying it in the magazine of all the magnum actions I have, I realized that major modifications would have to take place to fit three in the magazine, plus they didn't feed naturally, which would require mods too.

Bigger problem than I want to tackle, and it comes down to how much performance is enough?

Feeding issues are a big deal to me. If the cartridge won't feed properly, then it really makes no difference what it's ballistics are.

Regards
KB

the cheapest 9,3x64 brenneke ballistics is the 9,3 wsm!

does anyone have one?

i know the 375wsm wildcat has a slight edge over the 376 steyer so the 9,3 version should be good for those euro types who want 375 h+h ish performance at high preasures which the case can handle.

no feeding issues, just rechamber and rebarrel.

personaly i think the wsm should be a straight walled case and necked to 475 bullets

where can you get wsm basic cylindrical brass?



make it .555 at the shoulder and have a .020 shoulder on each side

yes, it would be a glorified 50 alaskan/45-70 but lots of fun!

Boom Stick,
Start a thread under big bores relating to the 45-70 vs 450 Marlin, especially in a bolt action. We can engage there.

Back to the subject of this thread:

I am not an advocate of wildcats, actually I dispise wildcats because they are generally not necessary, and too expensive. I made my one-and-only exception for the 366 Alaskan (9.3/338) because it filled a specific niche I had in mind. Most appealing about this wildcat is its simplicity, like the 375 Taylor idea, but going with the 9.3 was simply a personal preference.

I came very close to making a 358 Norma, but it basically duplictes the 338 WM in my opinion. I wanted something closer to the performance of the 375 H&H or Taylor, but I specifically wanted to stay with the 9.3mm, I figured that if I was going to do something different, do something that is uncommon or possibly hasn't been done before, but not complicated. There are not many gaps in the factory offerings, but there is a small gap, made vacant by the demise of the great 9.3x64. This 366 AK fits right in there nicely - no more, no less, enough, just simple and readily available.

The dies, reamer, and barrel were relatively easy to obtain too, unlike some of the more complicated 9.3 wildcat ideas out there. I'll give details to anyone intrested in making a 366 AK of their own.

Incidentially, and no offence intended to anyone, but I just don't want to deal with rebated brass in any of its forms, wildcat or factory stuff. Also, I limit all my rifles to .473 - 30-06 bolt face size, or the .532 belted mag size. The only exception is my 6.5x55. I also limit the brass length to close to 2.5" so as to not create an overall length problem, or have to seat the bullets deeply to get the cartridge to fit the magazine. My only exception with that is my 375 H&H, which is in a Winchester action made for the H&H. Bolt face and feed rail issues are the main reason the 376 Steyr, 9.3x64 or Dakota are not on my acceptable list - at all. The 8x68 brass is not acceptable for the same reasons, but also because of over-all-length issues, and it's difficult brass to get. Where would one get dies/reamer at reasonable price? That's the short version. Makes sense to me. Hope you appreciate that.

Best Regards

it should be a great gun. please post pics of the gun and rounds when you can

the 9,3 wsm is still a good idea though...

I did think of the 366 wsm, but the Brenneke won.

I would not say no to the .366/338win.but,

The 9.3x64, aint it beautiful!

This gives you an idea of what something looks like when done right in the first place. No unnecessary belt,well thought out balance of dimensions for capacity headspace&feed,all the balls of a 375 with more in the stack, and an ideal fit in std.action.(a std depth boxM98-9.3x64 is what I would much rather be carrying and swinging than a magnumlengthdropboxM98).
It simply dont get much better than that.
Despite being a more uncommon round,its still easier to sell than a wildcat. So dont complain about the price of brass cause you will loose much more on your wildcat rig when you sell. People will uhm&ah more over the cat,and while you may not get a great number of takers for the brenneke,those true enthusiasts whos ears do prick up when they here of one, dont need much, if any, convincing.
It may not be legal in Africa for something,Which many of us are unlikely to hunt in our lifetimes anyway,but that still leaves us a hell of alot of game to choose from.
If you want a real challenge it dont take mega$, try some Sambar stag in Oz. You will be much more pleased that you had a lighter 9.3 in your hands for those snap-shots and slopes,than your african 375.

And if you did want more steam than the brenneke,the 8x68s case offers a fine basis for that platform, without all the excessive chopping and chewing of fitting a 375h*h to a std action.

heres a sample:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
But my special 9.3 project is what I am calling the 366 Alaskan, which is simply the 338 WM necked up to 9.3mm. It's close to finished, and hopefully soon I'll get to start developing loads, which I expect will be very close to the 9.3x64.

Sorry to say, but that caliber has already been developed by Mr Ken Stewart of Stewart Bullets SA(an old friend and relative of Harry Selby). The caliber is known as the 9,3 Venter. Mr Venter was a friend of Ken Stewart.

Husky

quote:

Originally posted by husky:
Sorry to say, but that caliber has already been developed by Mr Ken Stewart of Stewart Bullets SA(an old friend and relative of Harry Selby). The caliber is known as the 9,3 Venter. Mr Venter was a friend of Ken Stewart.
Husky

Husky,
Its cool with me that Mr. Stewart did this wildcat before. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm not surprised because it's such an easy conversion. Also, info from Redding Dies is that Craig Boddington had ordered a die set prior to my order. Dave Kiff of Pacific tools said he had made a reamer for Craig's project, coordinating with Redding, so that's how he had the specifications. The info I had was that I was the second buyer of the reamer/dies from those sources.

Other than that, I have heard of several who had thought about doing it, but none who said they actually had. I suppose I needed to look world-wide for such info.

It's good to know, but it really doesn't matter to me what it has been called before, since it is a wildcat, I'll call it what I want, which is 366 Alaskan. Perhaps that's a first.

Thanks.

[QUOTE]there is a small gap, made vacant by the demise of the great 9.3x64. /QUOTE]

When did that happen?
Me thinks reports of the demise of the 9.3 Brenneke are a little premature

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:
When did that happen?
Me thinks reports of the demise of the 9.3 Brenneke are a little premature

To use a famous quotation - the 9.3 Brenneke is like the old soldier who doesn’t die, but just slowly fades away - into obscurity.

The main clues, for a long time now, are lack of factory rifles, factory ammo, and brass being available from one or perhaps two sources, and expensive, and available only someimes.

In my hunmble opinion, all future reference to the 9.3x64 should be "the late, great 9.3 Brenneke." All good things come to an end, but let's not be sad, because we have the 366 Alaskan. Greatness begets greatness.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:
When did that happen?
Me thinks reports of the demise of the 9.3 Brenneke are a little premature

To use a famous quotation - the 9.3 Brenneke is like the old soldier who doesn’t die, but just slowly fades away - into obscurity.

The main clues, for a long time now, are lack of factory rifles, factory ammo, and brass being available from one or perhaps two sources, and expensive, and available only someimes.

There's some cofusion here, demise means death.

In my view, and I'm pleased to say, it's on the up.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by husky:
Sorry to say, but that caliber has already been developed by Mr Ken Stewart of Stewart Bullets SA(an old friend and relative of Harry Selby). The caliber is known as the 9,3 Venter. Mr Venter was a friend of Ken Stewart.
Husky

Husky,
Its cool with me that Mr. Stewart did this wildcat before. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm not surprised because it's such an easy conversion. Also, info from Redding Dies is that Craig Boddington had ordered a die set prior to my order. Dave Kiff of Pacific tools said he had made a reamer for Craig's project, coordinating with Redding, so that's how he had the specifications. The info I had was that I was the second buyer of the reamer/dies from those sources.

Other than that, I have heard of several who had thought about doing it, but none who said they actually had. I suppose I needed to look world-wide for such info.

It's good to know, but it really doesn't matter to me what it has been called before, since it is a wildcat, I'll call it what I want, which is 366 Alaskan. Perhaps that's a first.

Thanks.

Kabluewy,

I haven't been following the posts on your project and it had just caught my eye. I think it is an excellent idea. The 338WM, 375/338WM, 416Taylor and 458WM are all superb cartridges and I'd think a 9.3 variation should be equally superb.

What did Boddington use ase a name to identify this cartridge when he ordered the reamer and dies? As far as "366 Alaskan" goes, it sounds better than "9,3 Venter".

G

nevermind

[/QUOTE]
Kabluewy,

What did Boddington use ase a name to identify this cartridge when he ordered the reamer and dies? As far as "366 Alaskan" goes, it sounds better than "9,3 Venter".

G[/QUOTE]

My dies and reamer are stamped 9.3-338. I had the barrel maker stamp 366 Alaskan on the barrel, because I think the name is appropriate. There are not many places left in the world where such a powerful cartridge is really useful, except Alaska, and perhaps Africa. Here in Alaska we don't have regulations that say one must use ammo with the proper headstamp. It can say 338WM on the brass, and no one will care. So, As far as I know, Alaska may be the most appropriate place left in the world for this cartridge.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Woodjack:
I would not say no to the .366/338win.but,

The 9.3x64, aint it beautiful!

This gives you an idea of what something looks like when done right in the first place. No unnecessary belt,well thought out balance of dimensions for capacity headspace&feed,all the balls of a 375 with more in the stack, and an ideal fit in std.action.(a std depth boxM98-9.3x64 is what I would much rather be carrying and swinging than a magnumlengthdropboxM98).
It simply dont get much better than that.
[QUOTE]

I wish we had this conversation before I committed to the wildcat !!!! Everything you say is so right. Now you have even me convinced. I feel bad that I am not in the market for 9.3x64 brass or something, to do my part in reviving the fine old man.

However, I am committed on seeing my project through. I have too much invested now, and it will be very good anyway.

But, I didn't have to use the SS Ruger action I had, but I really wanted to fit something on it other than the 300 WM it came with. I like the Ruger action because I don't have to mess with it to make it work properly. Trigger work - yes, but that's easy enough. I could have sold it and had one of my Mausers modified to work with the 9.3x64. It's been done many times before, with apparant satisfaction.

I had some bad experiences in the past with Mauser action modifications, which never did result in proper feeding, and I just took my losses and got rid of the actions. That influenced my decision to go with the unmodified Ruger action this time.

However, I simply have to agree with you about the design of the 9.3x64 cartridge. Breneeke did in fact get it right, as he did with all the cartridges he designed, as far as I know.

Best Regards.

Kabluewy,
One thing you are doing for us 9.3 fans is using 9.3 bullets, which helps us out a lot!

Kabluewy,

Mr.Brenneke together with Mr.Mauser was one of the sages of the rifle world, I would not say they were ahead of their time,just that not too many others were up to them.Both are up there together laughing at all the fools that have come since.
The MightyMasterOfTheForest 9.3x64,is dead only to those distracted by marketing, but its brilliance together with Pauls work is undeniable, even for those who choose not to see it.
I am sure you will enjoy your MetricCat very much.

Let me add to this post,
In this day and age we have these ultramags.
Yet I dont feel it always so necessary to stuff extra powder in case to get what you need.Thats only one approach. There are more subtle,more effective, more efficient,more intelligent ,less brutal ways of getting what you want or need, and often with superior results.
Gerard and his GSCHv bullets,offer a man who has wisely chosen an m98/9.3x64 something much to a hunters advantage with an intelligence that compliments that of Brenneke&Mauser very well. He is another man not affraid to think outside the square,and like Brenneke does not have a huge following,dont think that is what he is after anyway.
Remember I said it dont get much better? well it doesnt, not until you load one of Gerards pills.
He makes a super 9.3-260gnHv.Which am gathering info on at the moment. But as temporary example, his .375-265Hv(1.427") has a BC of.525
With the technology of design that pill can be lauched from the 375 at mv2900(24").But even if you launch it at a very sober 2670, which is about the same as the 270failsafe factory load,the bugger has about 15% more e/v at 300yds than the Fs has at 200yds.
The 9.3 260Hv(1.531") with higher sd&bc, should whistle across the prarie somewhat better, and give you a launch velocity well in excess of 2700 without much strain or effort.Once again everything starts to add up beautifully.

So if you plan on drilling anything substantial up close or way out on the AlaskanTundra you can do it without the need to carry a heavier more cumbersome and tiresome axe.
Time is not an issue when it comes to wisdom.You can gather what you need from any part of history and the present and combine them to form a great result.
A 260hv/9.3x64/newChromemollyM98,offers you just about the best of everything. By the way, I am all for quality Sythetic stocks and Muzzle breaks. You could end up with an 8lb thunderstick that boots like an 06' and kills extremely well near&far.....Hmm dont sound to bad so far.
Too me thats the ideal mountain, moose & African plains gun, Period!

As for That 350x68s case above, I believe it makes a fine ".375 Holderin"

8x68s...9.3x64B....375x68s Holderlin.

its fine for backup, here in norway, the whalers used it fior finishing shots on whale before the war, but now they use 458s for it. the ammo they used for the 9,3x62 was the rws 286 grs fmj.

quote:
Originally posted by Woodjack:

Kabluewy,

Mr. Brenneke together with Mr. Mauser was one of the sages of the rifle world, I would not say they were ahead of their time, just that not too many others were up to them. Both are up there together laughing at all the fools that have come since.
The MightyMasterOfTheForest 9.3x64, is dead only to those distracted by marketing, but its brilliance together with Paul’s work is undeniable, even for those who choose not to see it.
I am sure you will enjoy your MetricCat very much.

End quote:


Metric Cat !!! Now there’s a neat term I haven’t seen before. Yes – something European, something North American – a good combination. As I said before, I really loath the idea of spending my money on a non-standard chambering, but I like the ideas of wildcats – just on someone else’s time and money. My frame of mind is based on experience, having done a few wildcats, back when tooling and custom dies were not as expensive as now.

But, I made an exception – vowed one-and-only-last-time exception – for this 9.3 Metric Cat, and I don’t think I will regret it. This project was much thought out, before I committed. I have already had guys say they would buy the rifle when finished, if I wanted to sell. Talk is cheep, but I think they are serious. Perhaps they will have their own made using my reamer.

I appreciate your understanding that my agreement with you about the 9.3x64 was simply acknowledgement of the “undeniable brilliance†of Mr. Brenneke’s design, and of course the same applies to Mr. Mauser. It’s silly to ignore such facts. I doubt either of those geniuses worried much about marketing. They were looking for practical solutions, and Mauser had the backing in millions of government $ to refine the ’98. He had to produce something special, and succeeded.

And as we know, many of the modern rifle actions are derivative of the Mauser ’98. This certainly includes the Ruger 77, which I consider a refined Mauser. The controlled feed is important to me. But most important is that it has the same other characteristics of the Mauser, with refinements for sporter use, and I don’t have to mess with it to get it to feed properly with something other than the 8x57.

Granted, I prefer the non-belted brass, but the belt is a small problem, if really a problem, especially since I have never had any trouble with it. I pretty much decided to ignore the issue of belt vs. no belt. In my list of criteria, going with something without the belt brought on more problems that it solved.

So you see, the criteria which defined my project were not limited by tradition, marketing, or by focusing just on ballistic performance. Instead, I had a list of criteria including ballistics, and all had to be satisfied before commencing. Specific action, stainless, minimal modifications, readily available pre-inletted stock, integral scope bases, modern metallurgy, less cost than alternative, controlled and flawless feeding, and more - including component cost, availability, and very important - simplicity. I wasn’t looking to build a classic, instead I’m looking for a working rifle that can go anywhere in Alaska, suffer salt spray, four wheelers, skiffs, etc., deer hunting, and yet clobber a brown bear if needed – I mean perforate that SOB all the way through - from stem to stern, break bone, change attitude, with manageable recoil, flat shooting, near 375 H&H thump, in a standard length magnum (.532) stainless action, using the great 9.3mm bullets. To understand, one needs to look at the whole combo package, and intended use.

brenneke was ahead of his time...

i can get 64 loaded ammo from a square or midwayusa.com

the 375 dakota is a nice coppy of the brenneke

http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=3&Cat...ystring=653***690***

Using a quotation from an Alaska pipeline engineer:

"Sir, if cost is not a problem, then yes, we can make that work for you."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Woodjack:
I would not say no to the .366/338win.but,

The 9.3x64, aint it beautiful!

This gives you an idea of what something looks like when done right in the first place. No unnecessary belt,well thought out balance of dimensions for capacity headspace&feed,all the balls of a 375 with more in the stack, and an ideal fit in std.action.(a std depth boxM98-9.3x64 is what I would much rather be carrying and swinging than a magnumlengthdropboxM98).
It simply dont get much better than that.
Despite being a more uncommon round,its still easier to sell than a wildcat. So dont complain about the price of brass cause you will loose much more on your wildcat rig when you sell. People will uhm&ah more over the cat,and while you may not get a great number of takers for the brenneke,those true enthusiasts whos ears do prick up when they here of one, dont need much, if any, convincing.
It may not be legal in Africa for something,Which many of us are unlikely to hunt in our lifetimes anyway,but that still leaves us a hell of alot of game to choose from.
If you want a real challenge it dont take mega$, try some Sambar stag in Oz. You will be much more pleased that you had a lighter 9.3 in your hands for those snap-shots and slopes,than your african 375.

And if you did want more steam than the brenneke,the 8x68s case offers a fine basis for that platform, without all the excessive chopping and chewing of fitting a 375h*h to a std action.[QUOTE]

BEAUTIFUL, absolutely beautiful.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:

Too me thats the ideal mountain, moose & African plains gun, Period!

As for That 350x68s case above, I believe it makes a fine ".375 Holderin"

8x68s...9.3x64B....375x68s Holderlin.

I am feeling a great deal of wanting right now.

quote:

Originally posted by atomiclab:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Woodjack:

The 9.3x64, aint it beautiful!

I've always felt the 9.3x64 was the most sensibly designed cartridge for anywhere in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by cobra:

quote:

Originally posted by atomiclab:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Woodjack:

The 9.3x64, aint it beautiful!

I've always felt the 9.3x64 was the most sensibly designed cartridge for anywhere in the world.

Agree, it is superb. I have a 9.3x64 by Frankonia - lovely light gun.

.

I have an old Husqvarna Mod 1600 (small ring Mauser)in 9,3x62.

Love the rifle and the caliber so much that I will sell my .404 Jeffery!

Got my hands on a big amount of Winchester 9,3x62 ammunition loaded with 286gr Nosler Partitition.

I am also using the Norma 325 grain Oryx bullet, hits like the fist of Thor!

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by oldun:
When did that happen?
Me thinks reports of the demise of the 9.3 Brenneke are a little premature

To use a famous quotation - the 9.3 Brenneke is like the old soldier who doesn’t die, but just slowly fades away - into obscurity.

The main clues, for a long time now, are lack of factory rifles, factory ammo, and brass being available from one or perhaps two sources, and expensive, and available only someimes.

There's some cofusion here, demise means death.

In my view, and I'm pleased to say, it's on the up.

Many have notion that 9.3x64 brass is near impossible to obtain. I find no difficulty in finding RWS brass in Canada. However if you are having difficulty finding brass it is not difficult to make brass from 338 win or 458 win brass. I have found that using Win brand 458 brass produces a case with the exact capacity the RWS has. With excellent bullets from Nosler, Swift,Barnes and Speer things are actually pretty good for the 9.3x64.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
However if you are having difficulty finding brass it is not difficult to make brass from 338 win or 458 win brass. I have found that using Win brand 458 brass produces a case with the exact capacity the RWS has. With excellent bullets from Nosler, Swift,Barnes and Speer things are actually pretty good for the 9.3x64.

How do you do that? Are special forming dies required? What happens to the belt?

Once, I measured the case capacity of the 9.3x64, compared to 338 WM brass simply necked up to 9.3mm, and found the capacity very close.

KB