Anybody ever heard of a wildcat 338 based on the 9.3x62 case? I found myself looking at the 338-06 when trying to find a standard action cartridge that would do what I was looking at a 338 SAUM to do on a short action -- i.e., 225gr@2700fps from a 22" bbl. The 06, of course, has about 6gr less water capacity, so it comes up short unless you make the barrel long. However, the 9.3x62 case should have almost exactly the same capacity as the SAUM when each is necked to 338. To keep the already short 9.3x62 neck from getting even shorter when necked down, I'd also change the shoulder angle to 35-degrees while keeping the base-to-shoulder length the same as the parent case. That will give you a .337" neck length.
I know there's a CIP 8.5x63 case, but it's pretty much impossible to find brass, reamers, or dies for it. Starting from the 9.3x62 gets you to almost the same place, but with the advantage of readily available, quality (Lapua) brass.
All in all, it looks to me like an interesting way to get a compact, standard action elk gun that is good to about 400yds with a 225gr Accubond. Any thoughts or comments?
The cartridge you are looking for is the 8,5x63 which is also available in a rimmed version. The case is actually reformed from the .280 Remington, a 7x64 should do as well. Blaser makes barrels once in a while.
Yes, I know about the 8.5x63 (as I mentioned in my initial post.) The 8.5x63 ballistics are exactly what I want. However, 8.5x63 brass is essentially non-existent and is no easier to form than my proposed 8.5x62. Off the shelf reamers and dies are also difficult to impossible to come by. The 8.5x63 is no more or less a wildcat than would be the 8.5x62. I already have 9.3x62 Lapua brass, can easily get more, and could easily form it into 8.5x62. Such an 8.5x62 would be ballistically equivalent to an 8.5x63 for all practical purposes, so I'm quite confident I would like the results. I was more or less just curious why this hasn't been done before.
I'm familiar with the 338 Hawk, but not the Howell. I agree that the Hawk has the ballistics that I am looking for, but why do you think it is better than my 8.5x62? The prefered parent case for the Hawk is 35 Whelen, but I don't know of any first rate factory brass in 35 Whelen. Good 30-06 is available, but a bit more work. Whether using Whelen or 06, necking up before necking down to move the shoulder forward looks like more trouble than a simple neck down and shoulder angle change for the 8.5x62. After the extra work, the Hawk still has a shallower shoulder more prone to brass flow.
Am I missing something about either the Hawk or 8.5x62 that makes one preferable over the other?
I thought that the parent case for the Hawk WAS the 9.3 X 62. The Howell uses longer brass. I was simply trying to give you some already available options. - Dan
Posts: 5285 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 05 October 2001
Ya'know, I'm not sure about the Hawk's parentage. Wayne van Zwoll's article from Handloader that is reposted on the z-hat site definitely mentions the 9.3x62 in the history of the 375 Hawk, but it is not clear to me whether the 338 Hawk is 06-based or not. All the other information on the z-hat site says the Hawks are based on the 30-06, and the brass forming instructions for the 338 list the 35 Whelen as the prefered parent case. The 9.3x62 is only a little bit wider and a little bit shorter than the 30-06, so I suppose it is possible that the Hawk dimensions and chamber are based on the 9.3x62, but that 06 brass is used just for convenience -- but I don't know. I think the 338 Hawk really is based on the 06 case, which makes it similar to the 8.5x63 in approach: move the shoulder forward on a case (06 or 7x64) that is a little bit skinnier and longer than a 9.3x62 case to create a case with almost 10% more capacity than a 338-06. I think necking down a 9.3x62 case and steepening the shoulder angle to 35-degrees while leaving the base-to-shoulder length unchanged is an even simpler way to arrive at the same capacity and ballistics.
quote:Originally posted by InfoSponge: Yes, I know about the 8.5x63 (as I mentioned in my initial post.) The 8.5x63 ballistics are exactly what I want. However, 8.5x63 brass is essentially non-existent
Dear InfoSponge, this statement seems not to be correct any longer. And even factory ammo will soon be available.
Why don't you email the cartridges's "inventor", Werner Reb ? I see little justification and no reason in re-inventing the wheel for a cartridge that has now existed (with great success, as I should underline) for 20 years already... and with brass, reamers and dies readily available.
Obviously they'll be found somewhere in Europe, but where and by whom? You'll have to help me out a bit more, because I haven't been able to find them in any listing of Lapua, Norma, or RWS brass.
You *could* just change hunting areas to where the deer and elk don't pay attention to ballistics tables.
I *can* easily get 2700 with a Barnes X in my Whelen, but I load it to 2550 for comfort, accuracy, and because NO animal knows the difference!!
I'm in basic agreement with you, Jack. I don't want some 3300fps Ultra Ridiculous Mag or to push a cartridge so hard that it is inaccurate -- and certainly not so hard that it is unsafe. What I do want is an impact velocity of about 2100fps at 400yds with a 225gr .338 bullet. I think that is an excellent impact velocity for many bullets, and the data I have seen show bullet performance and penetration falling off at impact velocities much below this -- depending on bullet type, of course. I don't think 2100fps is a hard cut-off, but I also don't think I want to cut into my performance margin by going much slower.
If you disagree with my design goals, I'd be curious to know why. Are you saying that substantially lower impact velocities are perfectly acceptable? If so, I'd like to see any data that back this up. Are you saying that, while 2100fps may be a good minimum impact velocity goal, 400yds is too far to shoot -- just get closer? I'll mostly agree with that, but I also don't want to give up a 350-400yd quartering shot on an elk just because I'm not comfortable with bullet performance at that range.
![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon}
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}
). After all, the 8,5 x 63 is a well-estabished cartridge by now. 
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon}