9.3X62 for Cape Buffalo?

[TokkieM]

It is actually what is called a Scandinavian slip on bolt knob. It is a rubber cup type cover that makes it easier to grab the bolt with thick gloves, but I have used it in Africa for a fee years too, makes grabbing and operating the bolt much earier and comes to hand quicker than the standard bolt knob, great for when your hands are sweaty after hours of hunting

 

[Russel. G. Keith]

Hi Guys
I have used and carried a 9.3x62 in Africa for more years than I care to remember.
A Sauer and Son with 1/2 octagon 1/2 round barrel and the slimmest stock imaginable cracked at the hand but beautifully repaird Just short of 7lbs all up.
In the end I loaded her with 270grn Monometal Dual diameter solids with a sharp cutting shoulder. This bullet I found so effective I used it for all my shooting with the 9.3 (I used a 6.5x55 more when I was forced to move to more "civilised" climes.)
Not my first choice for Buff but the 9.3x62 will do the job if you do yours.
Any shot you would take with the 300grn 375 you can take with the 9.3 but over penetration can be a problem with both kalibers so take care with broad side shots .
A suggestion find a good monometal solid (preferably with a cutting shoulder) and stick to that. The old trick of loading soft solid soft solid is a good idea in principle.............................But experience has taught me that that $%$$% Murphy has a habit of pitching up when least expected/wanted.
Be safe
Russel

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

I am all for the 9,3x62 on any game, sure there are better options, but in the right hands it gets the job done just as well as the 375 H&H,recently sold my 375H&H and now have 2 9,3x62's. One in the safe and one very special Original Mauser Oberndorff that is being re-built for me. 9,3x62 has a few advantages for me that gives it an edge over the 375H&H, not ballisticly, just in general design and use. Less recoil,shorter case for standard action,faster reload due to this and a more compact rifle in general compared to magnum actioned rifles. My other 9,3 is a sweet little Husqvarna, buildt on the FN action she is a joy to shoot and butter smooth,56 years old and totally original. Must also admit we have a Pre64 375 in the safe.View attachment 33601View attachment 33601View attachment 33602

I agree with Hunthardsafaris. Beautiful rifle in my favorite caliber. Congrats.
Witold

 

[8x68]

I have a CZ 550 in 9.3x62 and would have no problem taking a Cape Buffalo with it. It's more than capable as long as you do your part.

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

I think that 9,3 x 62 is forgotten caliber for dangerous game. This caliber is a sensible alternative to 375 H&H.
9,3 x 62 slowly but steadily recovers its rightful place among the calibers for dangerous game.
9,3 x 62 is my favorite caliber.
Witold

 

[stug]

I'm pretty sure this Mauser 9.3x62 will have shot Buffalo. It came from a farming family in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. There were some Kynoch solids thay came with it. If only the scars could talk!

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

Pictures old Mauser,I like it stug.
Thank you Mike.
Witold

 

[bebo]

@enysse
hello, when you indicate the minimum energy (Zimbabwe), it's @the impact or @the muzzle?

 

[enysse]

It's muzzle.

 

[bebo]

Ok. Thanks.

 

[Scrumbag]

I have a lot of faith in Norma ammo for various things. I'd love to put the 9.3x62 325gr Oryx to use on something. (Maybe Aussie buff...)

 

[Milan]

You might consider a 375 Ruger in a Ruger Hawkeye as an inexpensive upgrade to a 9.3 or 375. Then you can have a smaller, lighter rifle that is legal everywhere.
The CZ is a great practical rifle but it is big and a tad heavy, so better suited to a 416Rigby or 458Lott.

The CZ in 9.3x62 is the medium/long action. Not a magnum action. It is just like a Mauser 98 or like Brno ZKK 600. So I would imagine same size and weight roughly as the M77 Hawkey Standard.

 

[Wayne t]

enysse they are great rifles, I know of one that has dropped a few elephant and buff. Pitty the factory shut down, many very good Husqvarnas still being used in Sweden, many being bought up for the custom gun makers in Europe too.View attachment 33684

Hmmmmm. I've just given my husqvarna 6.5 to the girlfriend bugger may need a quick rethink on it

 

[Rule 303]

I have a lot of faith in Norma ammo for various things. I'd love to put the 9.3x62 325gr Oryx to use on something. (Maybe Aussie buff...)

More than a few Aussie Buff have been taken with the 9.3X62. One bloke I know just stuff them with Woodleigh Hydrostatic bullets for any DG.

 

[ve7poi]

Wow 4100 ft/lbs of energy, that would mean you are pushing a 286 grain projectile at a minimum of 2550 fps. Would really like to know your load data since the maximum I could ever squeeze out of this cartridge was about 2400 fps for about 3659 ft/lbs before the brass started showing signs of excessive pressure. Aside from the obvious, not something that would be desirable in a hot climate.

I am not saying that this cartridge will not kill a buff, because it will. Hell, here in Australian there is more water buff shot with the 30-06 then with anything else. And to be honest I would be comfortable using a 338 Win Mag with 300gn bullets if it was legal.

That's where the 9.3x66 aka 370 Sako comes in lol

 

[Rule 303]

That's where the 9.3x66 aka 370 Sako comes in lol

I wonder if richteb meant the 9.3X64. Load that up and you could achieve those velocities.

 

[Shootist43]

Interesting. Maybe I've been underselling this round? I've always looked at it as a slightly more potent .35 Whelen and I wouldn't want no parts of a Cape Buffalo with a .35 Whelen. But it may be that there is a lot more difference between these two cartridges than I thought?

Please, PLEASE take a look an any ballistics chart for a 35 Whelen pushing a 225 Gr bullet at 2700 fps compared to a 9.3 x 62 or a 9.3 x 74R with their 286 Gr. bullets. The 35 Whelen has them both beat. It's not that I dislike or disrespect the 9.3(s) I just don't like seeing the Whelen rated second best. Maybe that is because I own a couple of Whelens and not any rifles in 9.3.

 

[Red Leg]

Please, PLEASE take a look an any ballistics chart for a 35 Whelen pushing a 225 Gr bullet at 2700 fps compared to a 9.3 x 62 or a 9.3 x 74R with their 286 Gr. bullets. The 35 Whelen has them both beat. It's not that I dislike or disrespect the 9.3(s) I just don't like seeing the Whelen rated second best. Maybe that is because I own a couple of Whelens and not any rifles in 9.3.

I love the 35 Whelen, but those 286's should out penetrate your 225's on anything big and tough. For the same reason I prefer the 250 gr .338 over a 225 in 35 Whelen if I know I have to really drive through something tough or carry that penetration out there a ways.

 

[Longwalker]

I've shot a bunch of elk with three different .35 Whelens over the past 25 years or so, and my experience indicates that 225 grain bullets from a Whelen kill elk just fine, but they do not penetrate as well as 250's, and the longer, slower 250s are more reliable when they hit heavy bone.

The suggestion is that a 225 gr. .35 Whelen beats a similar construction 9.3x62 286 grain? Sorry I don't buy that. Calculated energy figures do not translate exactly to game killing performance in the field. In my experience, a bullet with greater sectional density, and diameter, and weight going just slightly slower will penetrate further, in a straighter line, than a lighter, shorter, faster bullet of similar construction. Big critters are not as succespable to foot pounds of energy as they are to destruction of major organs and bones.

Nosler's published ammunition data:
9.3 x 62 / 286 Partition: MUZ: 2,350fps 3506ft/lb.

35 Whelen, / 225 partition, MUZ: 2,750fps 3777ft/lb.

The Whelen is one of my all time favourites, and it's not "second best" but it shoots lighter bullets faster than the 9.3, which I feel makes it slightly more suitable for smaller animals farther away, and the 9.3's bigger heavier bullets are slightly more suitable for larger or nasty critters not quite so far away.

Most hunters would never notice a difference on any moderate size animal at moderate range. The Whelen might even be superior on medium game like kudu. On real big stuff like buffalo, I'd certainly feel happier with a 9.3/286 gr. and not worry about the "inferior" foot pounds of energy at all.

I recently took delivery of my first 9.3x62, after observing my brother in action for a few years with his. I might soon sell my last .35 Whelen, too much overlap.

 

[Shootist43]

I've never shot anything larger than an Eland with my 35 Whelen. Both bullets were pass throughs. I guess I could concede the penetration argument between a 225 Gr Whelen and a 286 Gr 9.3. However if we up the anti on the Whelen to a 250 Gr Bullet the energy at 100 yards is 3088 lbs vs 2953lbs for the 9.3. At 200 yards the Whelen yields 2619 lbs vs 2462 for the 9.3. At what point does a slight difference in bullet weight become a non factor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that IF a 9.3 x 62 is adequate for buffalo than a 35 Whelen should be adequate also.

A couple of days ago I asked if a 400 Gr Hornady InterBond bullet (90 + percent retention) in a 416 Rigby could be used for Buffalo. The consensus boiled down to (probably not) citing that Swift A Frames would be significantly better. Given good shot placement, how much gun does it take to "drop" one of these things?