9.3x62

[Echo-Gecko]

Hi all

I am thinking about a rifle in this caliber for hunting Elk, bear and moose with in the 300 series WMU.
Anyone have experience with it?
Do you think it's a good choice or bad?
Thanks
Echo

[bobinthesky]

The 9.3 x 62 is very close in power and performance to the 35 Whelen, which is a proven Elk killer. In fact, it's not far behind the .375 H&H in power! It's an old cartridge that we don't see much here in North America but it was very popular in Africa. I believe Norma makes new head stamped brass and possibly some others too but you can make you own easy enough by necking up 30-06 brass and trimming back to the proper length. It's generally recommended to expand the neck to .375 and then reduce to .366, or 9.3 mm's. RCBS makes dies for this cartridge.

[raised by wolves]

Nice calibre if you can handle the recoil and find ammo. Older cartridge that has only gained a bit of recent hype due to an article in one of the gun magazines. There are better guns out there that are much easier to shoot and find ammo for. Still popualr among the old boys in northern Europe.

[Echo-Gecko]

There are better guns out there that are much easier to shoot and find ammo for.
What would you suggest as an alternative?

[Pioneer2]

The 9.3x62 is more powerfull than the 35 Whelan and easily made from 30-06 brass.Smallest caliber allowed in most African countries for dangerous game.It is .366" diameter and both Nosler and Speer make bullets.RE-15 is a great powder for this........................Harold

[Frans]

I have a Sauer 200 in that caliber. I have enough brass to last me a while, and usually bullets are available. There are all sorts of good bullets out there, but you may not always be able to buy what you want off the shelf. And no need going around trying to find a box of factory ammo around here. I tried that once, and got a lot of blank stares from across the counter.

I have used it mostly in Europe and killed red deer stags with it without a problem. I've taken off the big scope I had on it, put on a peep sight and carry it around on hikes in winter, when a wolf or cougar might just give me a chance.

Frans

[Echo-Gecko]

Lots of guys used it back home in SA but I never used it though. I have this little DMW 8mm that I am thinking to use as a action for the 9.3 should work as the case is about the same as a 30/06 in length

[Pioneer2]

No problem with a 98 action.A 30-06 is 63mm long..............Harold

[bobinthesky]

The 9.3x62 is more powerfull than the 35 Whelan and easily made from 30-06 brass.Smallest caliber allowed in most African countries for dangerous game.It is .366" diameter and both Nosler and Speer make bullets.RE-15 is a great powder for this........................Harold

The 9.3x62 may be very slightly more powerfull than the .35 Whelen...but please prove it!

I'm not trying to bust you're chops...but I do think you're splitting hairs.

[Homesteader]

I think the 9.3 X 62 would be an excellent round for the game you listed. I don't have nor have shot one, but I do have a 35 Whelen and it is very similar .358 vs .362 I think can't remember the exact number for the 9.3, whatever the diff is negligible. Power wise the 9.3 has only a very slight edge in my eyes, I am only going by the books here, and the loads that I have fired from my Whelen (250g Speer Hot cor's clocking a hair over 2600 fps on my chrony at about 5 deg.c, out of a 22" pipe). I also have a 338 win mag and although I'm shooting 210s out of it, it definately hurts me more, very light rifle though as well, so it's not apples to apples.

I believe you can get a T-3 factory chambered in the 9.3 and probably a Bruno/CZ. I'm guessing it's not that easy to find 9.3 ammo, but it's no picnic to find good Whelen ammo either. I reload so it's not a big deal, but something to consider as well.

I know people use 06 based cases for 9.3 reloading, but I think they are just a titch smaller for bolt face measurement. They still work, but I would want 9.3 brass myself.

Remington is again chambering the Whelen in it's CDL line, very nice rifle if CRF isn't a must.

Good luck in your quest.

P.S. Your 8mm should also put the lights out on any of the animals you listed as well, but hey if a new cartridge turns your crank, I'd be the first to say go for it.

[Pioneer2]

No problem..................The 9.3 can use 286gr-300gr bullets at .366"dia[been used sucessfully on cape buffalo + elephant where penetration is a matter of life and death] while the 35 Whelan is .358 and not as heavy a bullet selection.I recently talked to an older German fellow that has a wildcat 9.3 on a .338 Lapau mag case and during an AB moose hunt the bull he pounded just vanished when hit..[the guide never saw one drop so fast]....................I'm at work so I don't have the ft lbs for the 9.3 verses 35 Whelan but I'm sure it's lopsided all things considered....................I want one someday...........Harold

[bobinthesky]

The Lapua case has a considerably larger amount of space for powder than does the .35 Whelan, or 9.3x62, roughly double in fact, kind of like compareing a 30-30 win to an 8mm Rem mag! So that's a rather irrelevent comparison IMO.

BTW, Woodleigh makes a 320 bullet in 9.3 cal, as well as a 310 grain bullet in .35 cal. so the .35 Whelen is not as limited in bullets selection as you may think! I'm going out on a limb here, but with the slightly shorter case of the 9.3x62, the Whelen may be almost equal to it with heavier bullets since (theoreticly speaking) it should be able to push the bullet faster since it holds a couple more grains of powder! But now I'm, like you, splitting hairs.

[Kutenay]

I currently have an original Oberndorf sporter, Type B, in this superb chambering and it will SHOOT, even tho' it is 71 yrs. old. I had a Wm. Oschatz custom Mauser in this, as well, the gorgeous 80 yr. old piece shot Norma ammo into .6" groups consistently and I hated to part with it, but, needed a new Leica spotter and tripod, more.

I have another, a Brno ZG-47 and also a custom on an FN action, with a Heym sts. bbl, Recknagel irons, Talley lever mts., Gun-Koted and a very modded Boyd's lam, classic stock, these two are being gunsmithed now as I am having a Wisner safety and Sako trigger put on the ZG and the FN was SUPPOSED to be ready by Christmas, last year......

Finally, I have a Merkel drilling in 12-12-9.3x74R, the rimmed version of the 63mm case; I am a HUGE fan of these cartridges and they are just super for BC hunting and working in Grizzly country, esepcially alone.

The 9.3x62 is considerably more powerful than any .35 Whelen variation and you can get 2500 fps, from a 286 Nossie Pt., the Whelen won't give you anywhere close to this. Both are FINE hunting rounds, no question and so is the .338-06 A-Square or, as we old pharts call it, the .338 OKH.

The 9.3 hits as hard as the .338WM at any reasonable range and damm near as hard as the .375H&H; this is not speculation as I have owned and do own a whack of each of those. This said, from what I saw, while working in Alberta in the bush and traveling through "Wild Rose Country" to the NWT as a kid to work in '66, I would consider a .300 mag. a somewhat better choice for most Alberta hunting.

BUT, if you get a GOOD 9.3x62 and use 286 NPs, heavy Swifts or maybe TSXs, you will have about as fine a rifle/cartridge for Moose, Elk, Grizzly as exists and they are not that bad in recoil. Probably the PERFECT Grizzly protection setup and any good Mauser 98 will take this with NO tweaking needed.

[bobinthesky]

You know Kutenay, the problem with you and Pioneer2 is that you don't give any facts to back up your claims.
I've found load data that shows 2445 fps for the .35 Whelen with a 280 grain bullet on Acurate's website. That compares quite well to your claim of 2500 fps for the 9.3x62 with a 286 grain bullet. Acurate also shows data for a 300 grain Barnes bullet at 2262 fps. Also, Double Tap Ammunition sells a .35 Whelen load with 310 grain Woodleigh Weldcore bullets at a listed muzzle velocity of 2300 fps.
So just how does this make the 9.3x62 "considerably more powerfull than any .35 Whelen variation"? :huh:

Remember, I never said the .35 Whelen was better in any way than the 9.3x62, only that the two were similar.

And speaking of old pharts, not only do I remember the .338 OKH, but the .333 OKH as well! And I still have a .333 barrel too.


typo

[Kutenay]

Actually, my real problem is that I invariably make certain that I OWN, LOAD FOR and SHOOT the rifles that I refer to on threads such as this. My data comes from chronographing my rifle with the 286 NP and that, to me, seems factual.

I do not always totally trust "data" from printed sources and especially where older cartridges in older European rifles are concerned. So, until I chronograph the loads you mention, I will go with what I posted as it is what I have seen.

As to ...facts..., which 9.3 and .35W rifles do you own, load for, shoot and chronograph?

In any case, the larger, heavier, faster 9.3 bullets are more powerful than the .35W and approach the .375H&H loadings. A good average for the .375H&H-300 NP is 2550 fps-mv, the 9.3x62-286NP goes just over 2500 fps-mv and thus the difference here is very small.

A .35W at 100 or more fps less is NOT quite in that league and I have chronoed several rifles so chambered and the average with 250s was about 2400 fps. So, hopefully, this is sufficiently factual for you.

[bobinthesky]

FWIW, my .375 H&H easily pushes a 300 grain bullet over 100 fps faster than you claim, and has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

You're right, I don't own a 9.3x62 or a 35 Whelen, and have never claimed to do so, but by you're own admission, you've never cronopaphed the 35W with heavy bullets, so that makes this argument mute. How can you be so certain of something you've never tried? At least I researched it and am giving an answer based on data, you're just giving an unfounded opinion.

I've loaded and cronograghed many different cartridges in the last 35 years and have found that for the most part, the loading data that's published by the manufacturers is fairly accurate. And I'll be the first to admit that load data is just that, data from a pressure barrel, it's not what you will neccesarily get from your store bought rifle. Some rifles reach max pressure long before the listed book max while some take max loads easily. I'm generalizing here, but the published velocities are usually pretty acurate. I'm not rying to put down you're beloved 9.3x62 here, but you're not providing a very convincing argument that it's that much more powerfull than the .35 Whelen.
Besides, I don't think that Double Tap Ammo would advertise 2300 fps with their 310 grain 35W load if it wasn't anywhere near that!

Ok, the 320 grain 9.3 is 3% heavier than the 310 grain 35 cal bullet, and 2% larger in frontal area, so you're right, even though it's not faster, it does hit harder, and boy are you splitting hairs... but if that constitutes "more powerfull" in you're books, then so be it!

[tegcont]

Hello, a buddy of mine just got a cz in this caliber. I shot a couple of weekends ago. The recoil wasn't to bad and handled nice. He found some factory ammo for it. Not positive, but I think it was norma. Contact him through his website if you want. www.airgunsonly.com

[Pioneer2]

Wow!Someone needs more bran and prune juice in their diet..........Harold

[Kutenay]

The correct term is, ...makes this arguement MOOT..., not ...mute..., which refers to ability to speak.

As it happens, I have no interest in the sort of aggressive posting involved, I merely pointed out what I have found in my rifles and those of others, so, will drop this here.

[Pioneer2]

The Christmas list grows shorter...........................Harold

[rembo]

can't be much different than other cartridges that shoot similiar weight bullets at similiar velocities...35 Whelen, 338-06, 338 Win Mag, 376 Styer etc

[Kutenay]

The 9.3x62 case has a larger capacity than the basic .30-06 case and combined with the bore-bullet weight ratio, this gives a very efficient cartridge. My loads with " Big Game" give 2500 fps-mv with the 286 NP, as posted, and this compares well with MOST .375H&H loads.

The three .35W rifles I have chrono'd averaged, IRRC, just under 2500 fps-mv with Speer, Hornady and Nosler 250 gr. bullets; some will, no doubt go faster, but, since I prefer to use actual chrono. data for my basis of opinion, this is what I have seen. It is a long time ago, nearly 20 years and I cannot remember ever testing a heavier slug as few were then available and the rifles were not mine.

The 9.3 seems to me to be roughly about the same as the .338WM in hitting power, as I said; I currently have five .338WM rifles, have owned 12 and loaded for, shot and chronon'ed a number of others. My 250 NP loads give an honest 2800 fps-mv from my rifles, except my Dakota 76 which is slower due to a shorter bbl.

I can and have loaded some of the seven .375H&H rifles I have had to 2650 fps-mv, however, MOST will give about 2550 with most hunting loads. My current .375H&Hs are P-64 Model 70s, one a pristine original in a Rimrock stock and it gives only 2540 with my "usual" load of H-4350-76.5 grs. in WW brass with a CCI 250. I like this load as it shoots "bugholes" in my custom P-64 "shorty" with a 20" sts. tube and the recoil is noticeably less than hotter loads I have used in the past.

Sure, all of these "medium bore" rounds are alike, I simply wanted to make the point that the old 9.3x62 is about as fine a one as can be had and it does give more power than the .35W can/will. The data given for various cartridges in much printed info. should, IMHO, be taken cautiously, due to the large variation in chambers among older Euro. rifles and the longterm wildcat, .35W and I have seen enough chrono'd differences to be quite wary of this.

My factory Norma 286 Oryx ammo goes about 2370 in my rifle and that is about "normal" for factory stuff; my .338WM rifles would run Federal Premium (not HE) 250NPs at 2575 and, here again, this while listed at 2660, IIRC, is what I have usually found in factory ammo and printed stats.

All in all, the old 9.3 is a FINE round, especially for handloaders and with 286 NPs it is as close to "perfect" for use among big bears as anything I can think of. It holds 4+1, was DESIGNED to fit un-altered Mauser 98 actions, which will NOT accept .30-06-based rounds without mods and is not "bad" to shoot...just a good practical cartridge.

[bobinthesky]

Wow!Someone needs more bran and prune juice in their diet..........Harold

Not much of a debater, are you?

[bobinthesky]

The Christmas list grows shorter...........................Harold



I presume that this is intended for me?
Personal attacks are often what people turn to when they can't think of anything to back up their emotion based statements.

I said "prove it", and obviously you coudn't!

[bobinthesky]

Kutenay,
I was going to end this with my last post but I will add a couple more things. It was never my intention to attack or insult you personally, and If I came across that way, then I apologise to you. As for the aggresive posting, I frequent a couple of other forums and believe me, what I've been doing is pretty civil. If someone calling you out to back up your claims is considered too aggressive for you, then I recommend that you don't post things like this on forums.

The problem with the internet is that any one can make any kind of claim and swear it's true with out ever actually proveing anything. This is why I give references to my claims for example, when I said that Double Tap makes a heavy .35 W load, that is easily confirmed by going to their website and looking at what they offer. One can also check out Woodleigh's website for heavy bullets. Same with published load data, it's easily confirmed by any one who questions it. When someone says they got such and such results by loading and cronographing a certain load, that's great, but it's not easily confirmed. We only have the poster's word that it's true. That's why I challeged you and Pioneer to back up you're claims. Pioneer responded with nothing but rubbish because his claim was based on thoughts instead of being researched and based on facts, and you responded with you're personal reloading experiences. I'm not questioning your load data and velocities you've shared with us and it shows that the 9.3x62 probably has a slight advantage over the 35 W with the light to mid weight bullets, fair enough, but so far no one claims to have had any experience with the heavy bullets in the .35 W. Remember, the the claim was that the 9.3x62 was more powerfull than the .35W, nothing was said about bullet weight. And the claim was probably true before heavy bullets were developed in .35 caliber.
So the way I see it is that we have to go with load data and ammo manufacturer's specs. Using those specs, I see no reason to believe that the 9.3x62 has any signifigant advantage over the 35W. Which is what I'm basing my opinion on.

I appreciate that you have considerable expertise with these cartridges and I value you're input and opinions, but I hope you can understand why I am disputing your claim that the 9.3x62 in more powerfull.

[Pioneer2]

I guess if you had been civil from the start you wouldn't be needing to apologize now would you?Because one doesn't own a specific caliber yet doesn't mean they are ballistically ignorant or haven't done any research.I was only poking fun at you for being rude in the first place.You don't want to debate anything you want to argue.This forum is for friendly discussion [we don't have to all agree] so when they're not this is what the Moderators are for. We're done here.....................................Harold

[bobinthesky]

The 9.3x62 may be very slightly more powerfull than the .35 Whelen...but please prove it!

I'm not trying to bust you're chops...but I do think you're splitting hairs.

Was this rude Pioneer?:huh:

Oh, and I guess I acused you of not giving any facts...

BTW, I wasn't apologising to you.

[Pioneer2]

Crawl back under your rock............................Harold

[bobinthesky]

Lets recount our conversation to see if I have this right Harold,

I said the 9.3x62 was very close in power to the .35 Whelen.
You said the 9.3x62 was more powerfull than the .35 Whelen.
I said, prove it.
You said it was because the 9.3x62 could use 286-300 grain bullets and the .35 Whelen did not have as heavy a bullet selection.
I said Woodleigh makes a 310 grain bullet for the 35W and that loaded rounds are available pushing 2300 fps, roughly the same velocity of the 9.3x62 320 grain round.
I acused you of not giving any facts to back up you're claim.
You said that some one needs more bran and prune juice.
I said that you're not much of a debater.
You said that the x-mass card list was growing shorter.
So I responded with "personal attacks are often what people turn to when they can't think of any thing to back up their emotion based statements".
Then you acuse me of not being civil and insist that you were only pokeing fun at me.
You also acuse me of just wanting to argue.
Then you tell me to crawl back under my rock.

So when you found out that you're statement was untrue, you tried to draw attention away from that fact by makeing me out to be the bad guy. You had a couple of days to think about things and say, "Gee, I didn't know that there were heavier bullets and loads for the .35 Whelen!", but you didn't do that. Instead, you started in with the prune juice and x-mass mailing list thing while saying other derogatory things to me, and now you're acting all offended.

[cody c]

Dont really care about the arguement taking place, nor am I interested in taking sides, but what is the powder capacity difference in comparison from the 30-06, 35 whelen and 9.3x62?

There has been more interest in the 9.3 lately and not being familiar with it myself I do find it intriuging. If the case capacities of the .35 and .366 were similar I would take the .366, as the wider bullet should be able to utilize the energy better to propel it, though the whelen may retain more energy past say 350-450 yards, to me the appeal of the 9.3 or whelen is shooting larger canadian game at ranges under 350 yards, in which case I see benefits to the 9.3. If it was big game past 400 yards that would change the comparison to the two and open up other options, i.e. 375 taylor chatfield or 375 WSM.

[Dean2]

Ignoring the bickering, Kutenay is very right. The 9.3x62 is an excellent all round caliber. I have hunted the 9.3x74 in double rifle and the 9.3x62 in bolt in Germany and it does an outstanding job on Elk sized and larger game. It has been heavily used for years in Africa as an all rounder in the same ball park class as the 375 H&H.

I find them very accurate and recoil is not anywhere near some of the big guns I shoot. There are other cartridge choices as good, but Tika, Winchester, Ruger, CZ, Sako, used Huskys and numerous others, as well as Zastava ( they make a really pretty full stocked rifle as well as a sporter in 9.3x62) all sell very nice riffles in this caliber. Between Africa nd Europe there are a ton of these being used so don't listen to the narrow minded North American viewpoints.

Tradex and Rainershine can easily supply factory ammo in this cartridge if you don't hand load. Don't know about you but I enjoy owning and shooting cartridges that are a little different than what everyone else carries. Get one and try it, I think you will like it and if you don't, they can always be sold.

[Lotep]

There are defiantly more options in the 9.3x62 now in 2013 than when the original post occurred in 2008.

[1100winger]

http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/a-most-marvelous-metric
I have not shot the 9.3 x 62 but do own a 9.3 x 64. And I have tested the 250 barnes, 270 speer, 286 partition on deer and moose - all were one shot kills. I was able to buy brass from Huntingdons in Oregon. There is now a huge selection of bullets for the 9.3; and with handloading gives the shooter/hunter many opportunities. Once you own a 9.3 - the love affairs begins.

[stob]

Brilliant round

Flattened a 47" Moose at Wainwright with a 286gr Interlock over 57 gr of Varget at 230 meters

1.1-5x24 leupold on a Husky

That round shot .835" for 3 x 3shot groups

My friend could not believe it an bought the rifle off me then and there

Now trying to decide on which Sako to keep / a Sako AV hunter of the very pretty Sako Finnbear deluxe-Safari

[Rigby shooter]

As much as I like to watch the fur fly over the argued advantages of either the 35 Whalen or the 9.3, for all practical purposes, they are the same. The only advantage I can see rests with the 9.3. Because of it's recognition in Africa, it could serve you as a one gun battery on plains ad Dangerous game, where as the 35 could not ( legally).

And by the way, quit arguing over cartridges and what your perceived advantages of one over the other is. Honestly, some of you guys act as though you designed the cartridge yourselves! There,,, that should be good for some cyber-venom.

Regards, Cory

[Leeper]

35 Whelen= Classic round designed and used by an American hunter.
9.3x62= European classic which was likely the inspiration for the 35 Whelen. The choice is yours.
I like the ability to use pistol bullets for light loads in the 35 calibers.
All three cartridges work well because they can drive conventional bullets at the medium velocities they are designed for. I have a 35 Whelen I've carried for over 25 years. I like it well enough that I have no desire to change it. Leeper

[stob]

that Frans guys has a lot of experience with the 9.3

I sold all my .35's after seeing what the 9.3 can do

a 9.3 is essentially a .35 with big shoulders

it can do most anything with authority, sure their are better DG rounds but the 9.3 can do it

[Bolete]

Ignoring the bickering, Kutenay is very right. The 9.3x62 is an excellent all round caliber. I have hunted the 9.3x74 in double rifle and the 9.3x62 in bolt in Germany and it does an outstanding job on Elk sized and larger game. It has been heavily used for years in Africa as an all rounder in the same ball park class as the 375 H&H.

I find them very accurate and recoil is not anywhere near some of the big guns I shoot. There are other cartridge choices as good, but Tika, Winchester, Ruger, CZ, Sako, used Huskys and numerous others, as well as Zastava ( they make a really pretty full stocked rifle as well as a sporter in 9.3x62) all sell very nice riffles in this caliber. Between Africa nd Europe there are a ton of these being used so don't listen to the narrow minded North American viewpoints.

Tradex and Rainershine can easily supply factory ammo in this cartridge if you don't hand load. Don't know about you but I enjoy owning and shooting cartridges that are a little different than what everyone else carries. Get one and try it, I think you will like it and if you don't, they can always be sold.

I don't think anyone suggested that the 9.3 wasn't an excellent round - which it is.

What was being argued was Kutenay's claim that the 9.3 is "considerably more powerful than any .35 Whelen variation". Bobinthesky showed that that claim was false, and some people got butthurt. At most, the 9.3 may be marginally more powerful than the 35W, but certainly not "considerably", especially if loaded to published specifications.