;
:9.3 - that indeed is my point exactly. The larger bullet diameter makes up virtually equally for the lower case capacity, as I indicated in the post above. Sorry if it was not clear what I meant.
: It is apples to oranges to compare the .35 Whelen with the 9.3x62, due to the 62's much larger case capacity as well as greater expansion ratio. The 62mm case must be compared to the .35 Whelen Improved or the .375/06 Ack.Improved to compare apples with apples, which would bracket the 9.3x62mm perfectly - one slower and one faster with same bullet weights.
: Thus, given same actions, the 9.3x57 would make about 2,700fps with the same 225gr. bullet although the BC would be lower at something just over .320. Therefore, given it's .375" BC of .320 and set 3" high @ 100yards, it would have a 228yard zero and be a whole 6.9" low at 300yards.
: Given a ballistic coefficient of .380 for the .358 335gr., @ the bullet set 3" high at 100yards, it would be zero'd at 234yards and only 6.0" low at 300yards.
Why THAT's almost a whole inch. I'd not call that enough to even ponder about.
: I should add to this, that with similar weight bullets, the 9.3x57 is slightly inferior to the .35 Whelen, when the '57' is used in a 96-type action, but not in a 98. This inferiority amounts to only about 100fps, perhaps 150fps with mighter bullets, but not at all with 300gr. ones. Since game results do not differ with 100fps to 200fps impact speeds in most cases, I'd say they're about equal on game. The even smaller .358 Wincester, with chosen loads and lighter bullets also equates quite nicely but it's about done at around 2,250fps with 250's.