Quote:

---

Utter hog shit. Yes the 9.3X62 is a fine cartridge but it is not a 375H&H. The calibre difference is .009" the calibre difference between a 35Whelen and 9.3X62 is .009". Other differences (Velocity, energy etc)between the X62 and Whelen are less than between the X62 and 375H&H. So using their reasoning the 35Whelen is as good as the 9.3X62 so the Whelen is as good as the 375H&H.

Now if people want to say a properly loaded 9.3X64 is as good as a 375H&H then I would say they are correct.

---

Quote:

---

All these reasonably close calibre and cartridge choices come down to a few things,

Ballistic science.

Given an equally good well constructed bullet, of the same section density, driven at the same speed it should penetrate equally. A wider calibre bullet will kill better in these circumstances Fact.

Whether a .358 or .366 or .375 or .416.

Of course for the same SD the bullet weight must be more in larger calibres.

So a 9.3x62 in .366 pushing a lighter bullet say in the same SD maybe 286gr, as a .375 pushing a 300 gr same SD (?) bullet faster is an inferior ballistic science choice. Because velocity is less and calibre and wound channel is less. Fact. Simple.

Does it mean anything less or different for an animal? If you are already overkilling an animal probably not. If the cartridge is marginal already, probably yes in some cases.

Does it mean anything to rifle design and useability? Yes,. a shorter cartridge can be used in a shorter more usable rifle. A big difference? Not really unless a different rifle design is available, eg a semi auto, lever action, shorter rifle etc.

Note I have assumed such things as equally effective bullet construction. Not always a given.

Availability of components? A completely different scenario.

All this is on the margins. A step by step marginality. Not a big difference between a 9.3x64 and .375 H&H. A small but practical difference between a 9.3x62 and .375. A bigger difference to a .358 and .375. A large difference between a .375 and .338 etc.

The main choices here are legality, history, what you like for some reason, rifle design etc. I prefer the .375 for its British history and vintage. It is effective. I have one, a big consideration. It is very very accurate. A classic design. A bit unusal, it is a standard action, so does need experience in loading the magazine. The narrel was an odd one as previously detailed. But it all works.

I have thought of a 9.3x62 but really do I need one if I have a .375? No. The .375 is better anyway. Why not actually use the existing rifle more and actually hunt with it more! A .375 bolt action makes a wonderful second rifle to my .450 double rifle.

However these sorts of articles give us an opportunity to argue so are good value.

---

John
Your last point is one reason I posted this.. KNEW it would draw some crossfire.. keeps the site "lively"..

Quote:

---

All these comments and no one has mentioned that 375 H&H is the minimum legal cartridge for Dangerous Game in RSA (and I think Zim).

I love my 35 Whelen but theres no way Id ever compare it to my 375 H&H. Both are great cartridges just not in the same class. Someone once told me "375 H&H One Planet One Cartridge"

Then theres the 9.3x74R....and if you really wanna get salty, the 375 Ruger (palm on face). I think most of us have been around long enough to read these articles and just smile, happy that the writer made another rent payment

---

Quote:

---

Yep just another "pay the rent" article to us. However as younger people join the ranks information/knowledge needs to be passed on and this is one one of education those. Hopefully it will inspire a few to do their own research.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However these sorts of articles give us an opportunity to argue so are good value.

---

John
Your last point is one reason I posted this.. KNEW it would draw some crossfire.. keeps the site "lively"..

---

Quote:

---

John
Your last point is one reason I posted this.. KNEW it would draw some crossfire.. keeps the site "lively"..

---

Your posts are appreciated. Someone has to post stuff and start up new threads

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

John
Your last point is one reason I posted this.. KNEW it would draw some crossfire.. keeps the site "lively"..

---

Your posts are appreciated. Someone has to post stuff and start up new threads

---

MY critical elemant right now is TIME.. NOT enough hours in the day..BUT, was around and in the office this week.. so, I take a few minutes through the day reading up on guns, hunting, etc..as it is drawing near here.. Pronghorn and pheasant opens in a month.. two weeks later its deer, elk, etc season..

My wife and I were out chasing some cattle from one pasture to the other on Sunday night with our horses.. a smaller black bear come out of the brush by her... she got quite concerned.. He took off running up the mtn by the time I rode over to her.. was a juvenile bear...

Quote:

---

are both quite capable in the hands of men who can shoot.

---

Using that criteria a .264 will work fine. 95% of the time anyway, the other 5% you get killed.

A 6.5 mm has been used to shoot thousands of moose. I used a 7 mm. They have been used to shoot elk in the USA.

The .318 WR with 250 gr bullets will kill buffalo fine. Have done for again thousands of buffalo.

I'be shot 14 or so water buffalo with a 9.3x74R, none were full sized bulls though, cows and younger animals. ONE cape buff with a .375 H&H. Other bovines with a 9.3x74R. A whole bunch of other bovines with a .450.

So as you say, few people actually have enough experience these days to say from actual use. I must say the 9.3x74R in my limited opinion was not s preferable as my favourite, the .450. Obvious difference of course. Can't say much about use of the .375. One shot into a cape buffalo, it ran stopped after a while appeared to look better, shot it with a FMJ, it zipped right through. It ran and died.

In the future I want to try out my .404 and 10-bore on water buffalo. For fun.

Quote:

---

are both quite capable in the hands of men who can shoot.

---

Using that criteria a .264 will work fine. 95% of the time anyway, the other 5% you get killed.

A 6.5 mm has been used to shoot thousands of moose. I used a 7 mm. They have been used to shoot elk in the USA.

The .318 WR with 250 gr bullets will kill buffalo fine. Have done for again thousands of buffalo.

I'be shot 14 or so water buffalo with a 9.3x74R, none were full sized bulls though, cows and younger animals. A mixture of brain shots, or one to three body shots each.

ONE cape buff with a .375 H&H. Other bovines with a 9.3x74R.

A whole bunch of bovines with a .450. Water buffalo, banteng, scrub bulls. Plus elephant.

So as you say, few people actually have enough experience these days to say from actual use. I must say the 9.3x74R in my limited opinion was not s preferable as my favourite, the .450. Obvious difference of course. Can't say much about use of the .375. One shot into a cape buffalo, it ran stopped after a while appeared to look better, shot it with a FMJ, it zipped right through. It ran and died.

In the future I want to try out my .404 and 10-bore on water buffalo. For fun.

Quote:

---

Nothing wrong with trivia debates such as this. As previously stated, when “over killing”, it doesn’t make a hill of beans difference. When the game gets more serious, I believe in stepping up the power rather than show boating with an inadequate or marginal cartridge. Funny thing though….. how many people these days actually have the depth of field experience to discern the minutia between cartridges that are somewhat similar?

---

Quote:

---

The reason for the growing popularity of the 9.3x62 in Canada are the very affordable rifles chambered in that calibre flooding in from Sweden. Most are some variant of Husqvarna (FN M-98, M-96, Model 1600, etc.). A good used 9.3x62 can be picked up for around $400.(U.S., including all taxes and shipping) For Canadian big game hunting (moose, elk, bear) the calibre is useful.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The reason for the growing popularity of the 9.3x62 in Canada are the very affordable rifles chambered in that calibre flooding in from Sweden. Most are some variant of Husqvarna (FN M-98, M-96, Model 1600, etc.). A good used 9.3x62 can be picked up for around $400.(U.S., including all taxes and shipping) For Canadian big game hunting (moose, elk, bear) the calibre is useful.

---

THAT is a nice looking rifle for $400.. Wonder if we can grab them down here somewhere?? Will have to look around..

---

I agree. Forget what I said earlier I want one of those.

Quote:

---

The reason for the growing popularity of the 9.3x62 in Canada are the very affordable rifles chambered in that calibre flooding in from Sweden. Most are some variant of Husqvarna (FN M-98, M-96, Model 1600, etc.). A good used 9.3x62 can be picked up for around $400.(U.S., including all taxes and shipping) For Canadian big game hunting (moose, elk, bear) the calibre is useful.

---

Quote:

---

The Surprising 9.3x62 Rifle Cartridge..

https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/the-surprising-93x62-rifle-cartridge

---

Quote:

---

Rifles built on the dependable Mauser controlled-round-feed bolt action were home to most of the early 9.3x62 cartridges. This rifle is the superb 416 Rigby on a magnum action. One chambered for 9.3x62 would be slightly trimmer.

---

Huh? Why not put up a photo of himself shooting a 9.3x62? What on Earth does a Magnum actioned .416 got to do with this subject?

Quote:

---

Despite its low pressure rating, the 9.3x62 holds its own ballistically, spitting 232-gr. Norma Vulcan bullets 2,690 fps ahead of 59.7 grains of Norma 201 powder, according to Norma Reloading Manual 2013. (Trajectory table below.)

Both Hornady and Nosler handloading recipes show 286-gr. bullets from 24” barrels hitting 2,400 fps or slightly faster. This bullet size down to 250-grains appears to be the sweet spot for the 9.3x62, balancing muzzle velocity and energy for peak performance. The 300-grain A-Frame load at 2,350 fps shown in Swift Reloading Manual Number One doesn’t appear to offer significant advantages, as the accompanying chart shows, although momentum and penetration potential would be better.

---

Quote:

---

But we can’t leave this “poor man’s 375 H&H” without pushing bullet mass limits. With a 300-grain Swift A-Frame aboard, SD rises to .320 and muzzle energy to 3,679 f-p. To me this suggest we’re running out of steam, yet Norma offers a 325-grain bullet option. Call that one Penetration Station. The 286-gr. bullet comes within 20 f-p of the 300-grain’s muzzle energy, but hangs onto more of it downrange; 84 f-p more at 100 yards. By 200 yards this climbs to a 156 f-p advantage. Unless one desires the higher SD for deeper penetration and/or plans to engage dangerous game inside of 100 yards, I see little reason to shoot the 300-gr.

---

Huh? Its interesting the author doesn't mentioned the 320 gr Woodleigh offering. Perhaps because no one loads it in factory loaded ammo, which he is probably pushing sales for? Also no published ballistics to use for an article?

I have some on hand, but have not used them yet. I want to give them a try in the 74R. Seeing my 286 gr loads are a bit slow at around or below 2,200 fps, I suspect the 320's will be too slow. BUT, I believe many 9.3x62 and certainly 9.3x64 users use them successfully on buffalo for which they are probably designed. A 286 gr FMJ will no doubt kill elephant as well. A 320 gr FMJ at sufficient velocity would be a great choice.

"Down range" ballistics is not really an important thing with actual big and dangerous game bullets. Elephant normally at less than 25 yards, and buffalo at less than a hundred. Often closer in the thick stuff, and that is when these marginal choices are lesser choices to the good old larger big bores.

I'll have to watch the video. Hopefullly there is lots of talk about actual use of the cartridge and hunting stories about it!

Interesting I never knew the 9.3x62 preceded the .30-06, by a couple of years. Would have been sure the 9.3x62 was a necked up .30-06. But evidently not. But the .30-03 predecessor of the .30-06 was earlier than the 9.3x62. So perhaps it influenced the length of the 9.3x62? Who knows? It could also be the 61/62m/63 mm length was an ideal longer case length for the standard Mauser bolt actions? These cartidges using 8x57 and 7x57 cartridges as parent designs, lengthening the case for added velocity.

While I have a .375 H&H Magnum and it is actually in a standard length M98 action. Is a little tricky for others to load the magazine in a hurry, must always tell people how to if borrowing my rifle. And I load the 300 gr Wooudleigh RNs to the cannelure and also double check they will fit in the magazine. While I have a .375 and it outperforms the 9.3x62 in every way, the 9.3x62 is a great non nonsense cartridge choice. Should be far more popular. Far better than a .35 Whelan. A 9.3x62 in a standard action in a handy length and weight rifle would be a wonderful choice for brush hunting of sambar deer, driven game boar and deer, no doubt a choice for bear, moose, elk, African plains game and certainly able to take buffalo. Within the minimum requirements for buffalo and elephant.

Legalities aside in some jurisdictions. Just like the .375 H&H Mag, makes a useful "one gun, one world" hunting rifle and cartridge choice.

My rifles in the 9.3x62 range include my Whitworth M98 .375 H&H Mag, my Tikka 512SD U/O double rifle in 9.3x74R. Both of these I have used a fair amount. Haven't shot "600 buffalo" with them like some of the commenters to the article. My Mannlicher 9.5x57 stutzen stocked rifle, wil be interesting to see how performs when I get to try it out. Even though stutzen stocked they are quite long.

PS I think the article misses dealing with the 9.3x64, which is the true comaprison cartridge to a .375 H&H Mag.

On a different note, the 62 mm or similar length cartridge of the 7mm/8mm x57 original cartridge seems to peter out with the 9.3/.366 calibre. Everything from .25 to .366 seems to work well. The .270, 7mm, .30, 8mm, .338, .35 and finally the 9.3mm seems good caalibre options. When we get to the .375/06 it seems to have run out of popularity? No doubt some will post and disagree? Certainly the .400's and above, seem finished.

Quote:

---

Otto Bock designed the largest caliber round one could stuff 5 down in a standard M98.
The bullets have also been good, for the velocity one where getting..
It was the most and widest used big game caliber in Africa for decades.. few complaints it seems.

The 375H&H needed a Magnum action.. making everything more expensive and heavier. You know.. exclusive and expensive.
Its also a waste of space.. when you have a Magnum action, you step up in bore, not speed.


9,3x62 = 308
375H&H = 300WM

Yeah.. it got a bigger boiler room.. but not really needed.
Unless you constantly shoot big game at 3-400m.

---

Quote:

---

Reading the comments section in that article it is pointed out that somebody came up with the 9.3X57 based on the 8X57 and Bock lengthened the case to 62mm to get decent performance from the 9.3. Later he made it a true 375 H&H performer by going with the 64mm case.

What Spooner forgets/doesn't know is the 8X57 was the parent case for the 30-03/30-06. The US studied the 8X57 and used it's dimensions but lengthened for greater powder capacity and hence greater velocity.

---

Now that you point it out, pretty obvious, the 9.3x57 if older is the parent design.

Which is older, the 9.5x57 or the 9.3x57? Amd what do people think is the origins or reasons behind the 9.5x57? Who designed it?

Of course the 8x57 is the basis for the case. Perhaps an attempt to duplicate older (?) rimmed .375 cartridge(s) for a bolt action Mannlicher Schoenauer?

Ron Spooner says he hadn't heard of the .366 bore or 9.3mm I think in the video. Doesn't know a single Ameican cartridge with the .366 bore. Hope that is an old video!

Perhaps Remchester could put a .36 bore on a .30-06 case and call it the .365 Remchester? "Invent" something "new". Or a .366 bore on a .308 case and call it the .36 Remchester/ New idea for a 9.3x51mm.

Just making some fun, not poking at the American cartridge "invention" industry. Rarely nothing actually new under the modern sun, which hasn't been done pretty closely before.

Myself, I am going to neck up the 8x68S to 9.3mm and call my "invention" the 9.3x68 Super Express von Hahn.

If I get a Blaster where custom barrels might be possible, I could get all sorts of SEvHahn barrels.

Which has the greater case capacity, the 9.3x68 or the 9.3x64?

Quote:

---

That video came up.on my YouTube feed yesterday, I got a couple of minutes in and stopped watching cause he started annoying me,

---

I think I had the same feeling, perhaps five minutes in ??? But forced myself to continue watching. I thought the video was pretty crap.

Complete and utter armchair discussion with his boxes of loaded ammunition and not even a rifle ...

I would be embarrassed ...

I hope he is not on NE as a member. Ha ha ha.

Quote:

---

Hi Rule303,

Sorry for this rather off topic.
I must disagree about the statement "...US studied the 8X57 and used it's dimensions but lengthened for greater powder capacity and hence greater velocity."

At that times, the 30-03/30-06 size was a mistake, a waste of material, and innecesarily large capacity. With the powders available then, the 8x57 and, specially, the 7,65x53 (the first truly Mauser designed cartridge), were a lot more efficient and rational designs.
The 30-06 never achieved the ballistic efficiency and performance of the German military 8x57 IS. Or the 7,65x53 one, by the way.

Today, with the actual powders, the thing is, somewhat, different of course!

Best regards

PH

---

Quote:

---

Hi Rule303,

Sorry for this rather off topic.
I must disagree about the statement "...US studied the 8X57 and used it's dimensions but lengthened for greater powder capacity and hence greater velocity."

At that times, the 30-03/30-06 size was a mistake, a waste of material, and innecesarily large capacity. With the powders available then, the 8x57 and, specially, the 7,65x53 (the first truly Mauser designed cartridge), were a lot more efficient and rational designs.
The 30-06 never achieved the ballistic efficiency and performance of the German military 8x57 IS. Or the 7,65x53 one, by the way.

Today, with the actual powders, the thing is, somewhat, different of course!

Best regards

PH

---

Quote:

---

Hi Patagon,

As far as I know the muzzle Velocity of the 06 with a 150 grain bullet was around the 2700 fps and shortly afterwards 2800 fps. So not slower than the 8x57 by any worthwhile amount.

I do not know why the US did not develop a more efficient cartridge, however the 06 did give birth to some very worth while cartridges like the 270Win, 280Rem (and the other 7mms) and 35Whelen.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nothing wrong with trivia debates such as this. As previously stated, when “over killing”, it doesn’t make a hill of beans difference. When the game gets more serious, I believe in stepping up the power rather than show boating with an inadequate or marginal cartridge. Funny thing though….. how many people these days actually have the depth of field experience to discern the minutia between cartridges that are somewhat similar?

---

Exactly... getting to be fewer and fewer..

---

Quote:

---

Hi Patagon,

As far as I know the muzzle Velocity of the 06 with a 150 grain bullet was around the 2700 fps and shortly afterwards 2800 fps. So not slower than the 8x57 by any worthwhile amount.

I do not know why the US did not develop a more efficient cartridge, however the 06 did give birth to some very worth while cartridges like the 270Win, 280Rem (and the other 7mms) and 35Whelen.

---

Well... the 9,3x62 and 7x64 Brenneke where decades ahead of those "improvements" based on the 30-06 case..

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The reason for the growing popularity of the 9.3x62 in Canada are the very affordable rifles chambered in that calibre flooding in from Sweden. Most are some variant of Husqvarna (FN M-98, M-96, Model 1600, etc.). A good used 9.3x62 can be picked up for around $400.(U.S., including all taxes and shipping) For Canadian big game hunting (moose, elk, bear) the calibre is useful.

---

THAT is a nice looking rifle for $400.. Wonder if we can grab them down here somewhere?? Will have to look around..

---

I agree. Forget what I said earlier I want one of those.

---

Cleaned up the Husqvarna (FN 98) 9.3x62 carbine. Rust blued it. Ditched scope in favor of Talley peep. Removed side safety. Weighs 7.5 lb. Less is more.