Quote:

---

Lighter (225s) at higher velocity and/or higher BCs for longer range is the only place .35s outshine 9.3s in near sized cases. Much, most, hunting does not require this capacity. A 35 may make a better "allarounder" kinda tough to envision a good pronghorn or sheep load for my 9.3x57, but one of my 350s with 225s at 2700.

---

Landy, good point.

Taking, say, a modern Remington or Ruger and building up two rifles with identical barrel length's, I wonder what top-end velocities could be obtained with the resized Hornady 225 in the 9.3 versus the same weight in the .35 Whelen at identical pressures. The lack of case volume in the x57 might be made up for by expansion ratio advantage, but the external ballistic advantage would be to the .35 with its better sectional density. All small advantages, but at the velocities you are quoting, 225/2700 I wonder; could a 9.3x57 safely reach that speed?

The problem with the 9.3x57 is that it is something of a "mysterious" caliber. Sort of semi-wildcat, quasi-factory. There is no extensive development work to look at, no large number of modern rifles to use for load development, etc and on other forums I've read lots of opinion that seems based on just looking at it and reading the Norma factory load data. That picture makes it look old, weak, wornout and obsolete. Folks on this forum and on the Swede forum seem to see it quite differently.

The .35 Whelen has both the history of wildcatting and of course now 25 years of modern-rifle legitimacy. Of course, for some the mystery is always interesting in and of itself. A modern rifle in 9.3x57 would be fun to work with. IIRC, there was a fellow on this forum who had one built up but I can't remember the action make.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras