9.3x62

[WAB]

I was very comfortable taking a [emoji[emoji6][emoji6]].x[emoji6] with loads that did meet the minimum energy requirements for my wife’s buffalo with CMS in Zim. CMS had no issue with it, our PH, Len Taylor, had no issue with it, the Zim officials who checked the rifle
Through in Harare had no issue with it, and the buffalo had no issue with it.

 

[One Day...]

I was very comfortable taking a [emoji[emoji6][emoji6]].x[emoji6] with loads that did meet the minimum energy requirements for my wife’s buffalo with CMS in Zim. CMS had no issue with it, our PH, Len Taylor, had no issue with it, the Zim officials who checked the rifle
Through in Harare had no issue with it, and the buffalo had no issue with it.

Yep, it all works until you bump into a local with a chip on his shoulder wanting to show who is boss...

 

[375Fox]

SHOULD YOU use 9.3x62 for elephant, hippo, buffalo in Zimbabwe. Is it technically ILLEGAL?

The first response to the OP is NOT the "official" regulation.

This appears to have been copied/pasted from a commercial website selected by Google AI Overview, and they screwed the pooch...

https://gamehuntingsafaris.com/hunting-in-zimbabwe-laws-and-licenses/#:~:text=The minimum required calibers for rifle hunting in Zimbabwe&text=Hunters must use a weapon,velocity of 3909ft per second.

As already noted in several responses, the official regulation by The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority, requires the following:

>>> Minimum rifle energy requirement for big dangerous game (elephant, hippo, buffalo): 5,300 Joule. Equivalent 3,909 ft/lbs. A minimum requirement of 9.2 mm is required.​

​

>>> Minimum rifle energy requirement for very large plains game (giraffe, eland) and lion: 4,300 Joule. Equivalent 3,171 ft/lbs.​

​

>>> Minimum rifle energy requirement for large plains game (kudu, wildebeest etc) and leopard: 3,000 Joule. Equivalent 2,212 ft/lbs​

​

>>> Minimum rifle energy requirement for medium and small plains game: 850 Joule. Equivalent 627 ft/lbs.​

This mistake being corrected, what does it practically mean?

To take a few examples, the Swift High Grade Dangerous Game Hunting 9.3x62mm Mauser Ammo loaded with 286 Grain Swift A-Frame Bonded Round Nose produces 3,645 Foot Pounds at the muzzle. And a good load it is, but it is actually illegal for elephant, hippo, buffalo in Zimbabwe......

The same story goes for the Hornady Custom 9.3x62mm Mauser Ammo 286 Grain Hornady Interlock Jacketed Soft Point (3,537 ft/lbs); the Nosler Safari 9.3x62mm Mauser Ammo 286 Grain Nosler Partition Jacketed Soft Point (3,506 ft/lbs); the Federal Premium Safari 9.3x62mm Mauser Ammo Grain Jacketed Soft Point (3,537 ft/lbs); etc.

I have no doubt that one can reach and exceed 3,900 ft/lbs with responsible loads or reloads, (just crank up the speed a tad) but the question becomes: how do you demonstrate in the field that your reload meets the requirement, to a ZPWMA Game Scout who may have been instructed that 9.3x62 does not !?!?!?!?!?

Regardless of actual killing performance (as emphasized by Kevin “Doctari” Robertson, whom I speculate is doctari505 on this forum, and whom I deeply admire and respect), the classic 9.3x62 commercial loads are technically NOT legal for elephant, hippo, buffalo in Zimbabwe.

Right, wrong, or indifferent (definitely not right, definitely wrong, and far from being indifferent), hunting elephant, hippo, buffalo in Zimbabwe with a 9.3x62 exposes you to the potential furor of the law and there are enough law enforcement types with a chip on their shoulder, that it would be foolish to court safari disaster and endless legal trouble.

This is likely, I am speculating, why coreydb's PH, and some other (most?) PHs (I know at least one) decline the use of the 9.3x62 on elephant, hippo, buffalo in Zimbabwe.

To each our own, but in my opinion there are already enough opportunities for regulatory problems in flying with firearms to Africa, to not add a layer of potential trouble. My own experience with law enforcement in Zimbabwe ended up almost in jail when my PH was briefly arrested because the LED light bar at the front of his Hilux was 1 inch too high or some foolishness like that. There may (?) be a specific tolerance with ZPWMA regarding the 9.3x62, but do not count on me to volunteer for the test case

A potential answer could be to use commercial ammo like the Buffalo Bore 9.3x62mm Mauser Ammo 250 Grain Barnes TSX Hollow Point load that indicate on the box a Muzzle Energy of 3976 Foot Pounds

View attachment 674037

You’ll find many 375 H&H loads barely make the minimum as well or come slightly under it. I’ve never once been asked by a game scout what rifle I’m using and I never expect to. It’s up to the PH.

 

[375Fox]

I was very comfortable taking a [emoji[emoji6][emoji6]].x[emoji6] with loads that did meet the minimum energy requirements for my wife’s buffalo with CMS in Zim. CMS had no issue with it, our PH, Len Taylor, had no issue with it, the Zim officials who checked the rifle
Through in Harare had no issue with it, and the buffalo had no issue with it.

I think the buffalo had a very big issue with it!

 

[WAB]

Yep, it all works until you bump into a local with a chip on his shoulder wanting to show who is boss...

Not sure what the issue would be. Don Heath clearly championed cartridge and its acceptance in the regulations to ensure that it would be legal for dangerous game. It is widely regarded as legal in Zim.

 

[sgt_zim]

You’ll find many 375 H&H loads barely make the minimum as well or come slightly under it. I’ve never once been asked by a game scout what rifle I’m using and I never expect to. It’s up to the PH.

Yup. At 2400 fps, a 300 gr pill is just over 3800 ft lbs - so not legal.

Never put a factory 375 H&H over a chrony, but I imagine they're as prone to over-stating MV as every other cartridge.

 

[Frederik]

I used the 9,3 x 62 mm on Zimbabwe buffalo extensively.
My favorite load was 300-grain Stewart Hi-Performers at 2300 fps. These bullets had 2mm thick bonded jackets and a flat nose and they killed with authority.
I purchased the rifle in 1982, a Brno ZG4 from an oldtimer who had been the crop protection officer for Triangle Suger Estates and he conservatively estimated he had shot 600 buffalo with it without any problems using only solids in those times.
When I sold the rifle, it had at least 650 buffalo 'scalps' to its credit.
The 9,2 x 62 mm is a caliber/cartridge combination that punches well above its weight and when placed correctly, even its 286 grainers work well if of good quality.

From the horses mouth as they would say.
Very nice to see a post from you Kevin @doctari505 are you planning any future books?

Back to the post I would not hesitate to hunt an old buffalo bull with a 9.3x62 with proper constructed softs. There is so little difference between the 9.3 and 375 H&H.
But like the 375 H&H its not a real get yourself out of crap situation calibre.

 

[baxterb]

Yup. At 2400 fps, a 300 gr pill is just over 3800 ft lbs - so not legal.

Never put a factory 375 H&H over a chrony, but I imagine they're as prone to over-stating MV as every other cartridge.

Yup. The Federal 300gr Trophy Bonded is listed at 2400 fps.


My 9.3 shoots a 286 North Fork at 2505 - that gives 3985 fpe at the muzzle.

 

[Cheesehead]

There may (?) be a specific tolerance with ZPWMA regarding the 9.3x62, but do not count on me to volunteer for the test case

A potential answer could be to use commercial ammo like the Buffalo Bore 9.3x62mm Mauser Ammo 250 Grain Barnes TSX Hollow Point load that indicate on the box a Muzzle Energy of 3976 Foot Pounds

It may be one of those things where it isn't really enforced and no one cares, uniltil something goes seriously wrong.
If I was worried about it, I'd use that buffalo bore load so I could point to the box and say it meets the minimum, if needed. I'm not sure if the 250 grain TSX is the best choice for buffalo, but I doubt it would bounce off them.

 

[sgt_zim]

Yup. The Federal 300gr Trophy Bonded is listed at 2400 fps.


My 9.3 shoots a 286 North Fork at 2505 - that gives 3985 fpe at the muzzle.

My 286 gr A Frames are at 2475, just under the legal minimum at 3890 ft lbs. The buff I shot with it last August didn't seem to notice.

As I mentioned a page or 2 earlier, 375 Flanged doesn't come anywhere near 3900 ft lbs, more like 3300 or 3400 ft lbs.

If "your" 450/400 3" regulates below about 2100 fps, it doesn't meet the lawful minimum on energy, either.

Original 404J factory loads just barely get over the line, too.

 

[One Day...]

I agree with all the above posts (WAB, 375Fox, sgt_zim, etc.), and, to make this clear, I did not intend to indict the 9.3x62. I actually like the caliber, and it is the DG barrel on my wife's R8. What better can I say

In terms of what she shoots: Barnes 9.3x62 factory ammo. The load uses the 286 gr TSX at a stated velocity of 2,355 fps (I did not clock it), therefore it falls short of the 3,900 ft/lbs requirement but indeed Buff do not seem to mind. So, I am on board

Note: by the way, I tried to buy more Barnes 9.3x62 factory ammo last month, but Barnes does not produce it anymore...

The point that I was making is not effectiveness, it is compliance.

To make a long discussion short, yes there are a few 9.3x62 loads that meet the 3,900 ft/lbs requirement but most do not; and yes there are a few .375 H&H loads that do not meet the 3,900 ft/lbs requirement but most do. And in practicality, none of it matters in the field as the loads that meet or do not meet the requirement do not do it by large margins. As much as the 9.3x62 is legitimately too light for Elephant, it is enough for Buffalo (with proper bullets).

So, since this is not about effectiveness because we all agree that 9.3x62 is good to go on Buffalo, let us focus on the compliance issue, and I have a very specific question.

Does anyone have the actual Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) regulation?

The reason I ask is that there is a fundamental question. For Class A Game (Elephant, Hippo and Buffalo) does the regulation state "minimum of 5,300 Joule - 3,909 ft/lbs OR minimum 9.2 mm calibre"; or does it state "minimum of 3,900 ft/lbs AND minimum 9.2 mm calibre" ?

Obviously, if the regulation requires "minimum of 3,900 ft/lbs OR minimum 9.2 mm calibre", then case closed, all 9.3x62 loads comply.

By the way, the same question applies for Class B Game: (Lion, Giraffe, Eland) with a minimums of 4,300 Joule - 3,171 ft/lbs and 7.0mm calibre; and Class C Game: (Leopard, Crocodile, Kudu, Oryx / Gemsbok, Hartebeest, Wildebeest, Zebra, Nyala, Sable Antelope, Waterbuck, Tsessebe, etc.) with minimums of 3,000 Joule - 2,212 ft/lbs and 7.0mm calibre.

I have spent a few hours on the internet yesterday trying to find a PDF of the actual regulation from the ZPWMA website, but I could not find one

As to how we each position ourselves as regards compliance, this is a personal decision.

There is indeed a long history of the 9.3x62 being considered OK for Buffalo (but not for all Class A game), but there is also a more modern developing trend of local, empowered, law enforcement types with a chip on their shoulder, and looking for opportunities to show who is boss.

Not to mention that I expect that some recent US decisions regarding international aid funding may cause resentment in Africa...

So, I would really like to have, for myself, clarity on whether the regulations require minimum energy OR minimum caliber, or both.

Anyone? Please no guess or opinion, just a PDF of the actual regulation

 

[spike.t]

what are your thoughts on the 9.3x74R?

Love it...works very well...

 

[One Day...]

FYI, all I have is the 1990 regulations, located at

https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/zim203513.pdf

S.I. 362 of 1990
...

(3) Any person who hunts any animal specified in Part A
of the Third Schedule shall use a weapon having a rifled barrel
and propelling a projectile of not less than nine comma two
millimetres in diameter with not less than five comma three
kilojoules of energy at the muzzfe.

(4) Any person who hunts any animal specified in Part B
of the Third Schedule shall use a weapon having a rifled barrel
and propelling a projectile of not less than seven millimetres in
diameter with not less than four comma three kilojoules of energy
at the muzzle.

(5) Any person who hunts any animal specified in Part C
of the Third Schedule shall use a weapon having a rifled barrel
and propelling a projectile of not less than seven millimetres in
diameter with not less than three kilojoules of energy at the
muzzle.

(6) Any person who hunts any animal specified in Part D
of the Third Schedule shall use a weapon haying a rifled barrel
and propelling a projectile of not less than five comma six milli
metres in diameter with not less than eight hundred and fifty joules
of energy at the muzzle.

Unless regulations have changed since 1990, I interpret from the above that BOTH minimum energy AND minimum caliber are required.

I know that as WAB indicated "Don Heath clearly championed cartridge and its acceptance in the regulations to ensure that it would be legal for dangerous game." I just do not know whether his efforts resulted in an amendment of the regulations.

 

[sgt_zim]

I agree with all the above posts (WAB, 375Fox, sgt_zim, etc.), and, to make this clear, I did not intend to indict the 9.3x62. I actually like the caliber, and it is the DG barrel on my wife's R8. What better can I say

In terms of what she shoots: Barnes 9.3x62 factory ammo. The load uses the 286 gr TSX at a stated velocity of 2,355 fps (I did not clock it), therefore it falls short of the 3,900 ft/lbs requirement but indeed Buff do not seem to mind. So, I am on board

Note: by the way, I tried to buy more Barnes 9.3x62 factory ammo last month, but Barnes does not produce it anymore...

The point that I was making is not effectiveness, it is compliance.

To make a long discussion short, yes there are a few 9.3x62 loads that meet the 3,900 ft/lbs requirement but most do not; and yes there are a few .375 H&H loads that do not meet the 3,900 ft/lbs requirement but most do. And in practicality, none of it matters in the field as the loads that meet or do not meet the requirement do not do it by large margins. As much as the 9.3x62 is legitimately too light for Elephant, it is enough for Buffalo (with proper bullets).

So, since this is not about effectiveness because we all agree that 9.3x62 is good to go on Buffalo, let us focus on the compliance issue, and I have a very specific question.

Does anyone have the actual Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) regulation?

The reason I ask is that there is a fundamental question. For Class A Game (Elephant, Hippo and Buffalo) does the regulation state "minimum of 5,300 Joule - 3,909 ft/lbs OR minimum 9.2 mm calibre"; or does it state "minimum of 3,900 ft/lbs AND minimum 9.2 mm calibre" ?

Obviously, if the regulation requires "minimum of 3,900 ft/lbs OR minimum 9.2 mm calibre", then case closed, all 9.3x62 loads comply.

By the way, the same question applies for Class B Game: (Lion, Giraffe, Eland) with a minimums of 4,300 Joule - 3,171 ft/lbs and 7.0mm calibre; and Class C Game: (Leopard, Crocodile, Kudu, Oryx / Gemsbok, Hartebeest, Wildebeest, Zebra, Nyala, Sable Antelope, Waterbuck, Tsessebe, etc.) with minimums of 3,000 Joule - 2,212 ft/lbs and 7.0mm calibre.

I have spent a few hours on the internet yesterday trying to find a PDF of the actual regulation from the ZPWMA website, but I could not find one

As to how we each position ourselves as regards compliance, this is a personal decision.

There is indeed a long history of the 9.3x62 being considered OK for Buffalo (but not for all Class A game), but there is also a more modern developing trend of local, empowered, law enforcement types with a chip on their shoulder, and looking for opportunities to show who is boss.

Not to mention that I expect that some recent US decisions regarding international aid funding may cause resentment in Africa...

So, I would really like to have, for myself, clarity on whether the regulations require minimum energy OR minimum caliber, or both.

Anyone? Please no guess or opinion, just a PDF of the actual regulation

I've looked, too. I'm tempted to wonder if such documentation actually exists anywhere.

 

[One Day...]

I've looked, too. I'm tempted to wonder if such documentation actually exists anywhere.

I think that you might be right, and by that I mean that it looks like no documentation of an amendment of regulations seems to exist, that specifically addresses the 9.3x62.

All I could come up with, is that the only document that includes firearms regulations appears to be Statutory Instrument 362 (SI 362) Parks and WildLife (General) Regulations, 1990, also available directly from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority at:

https://www.zimparks.org.zw/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SI-362-OF-1990-PARKS-AND-WILD-LIFE-GENERAL.pdf

The regulations regarding firearms are on page 2096 and 2097 (page 32 and 33 of the PDF):

The Legislation page of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority website only offers the following links:

https://www.zimparks.org.zw/legislation/

Parks And Wildlife Act Download

Specially Protected Animals - Statutory Instrument 72 of 2020 Download

Payment for Hunting of Animals and Fish - Statutory Instrument 57 of 2012 Download

Payment for Trapping of Wild Animals - Statutory Instrument 56 of 2012 Download

Parks and Wild Life (Import and Export) (Wild Life) - Statutory Instrument 86 of 2010 Download

Import and Export Wildlife Quantities - Statutory Instrument 85 of 2010 Download

Parks and Wild Life (General) (Amendment) Regulations - Statutory Instrument 26 of 1998 Download

Parks and Wildlife (General) - Statutory Instrument 362 of 1990 Download


To the best of my knowledge, only Statutory Instrument 362 of 1990 includes the words "kilojoules" or "diameter", which means that if there has been an amendment resulting from Don Heath's work regarding the 9.3x62, it is not reflected on the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority website.


To summarize it all smp005, my own response to your question "Is the 9.3x62 legal for DG in Zim?" will be that answering your question is similar to answering the question "is it legal to drive at 5 mph over the speed limit on the Interstate in the U.S.?"
The technical answer is "no", but it is so routinely accepted that everyone does it, and you will rarely get a ticket for it. But if you bump into a cop in a foul mood, or who needs to make his quota for the month, you could get nailed.

 

[Hyde Hunter]

I think that you might be right, and by that I mean that it looks like no documentation of an amendment of regulations seems to exist, that specifically addresses the 9.3x62.

All I could come up with, is that the only document that includes firearms regulations appears to be Statutory Instrument 362 (SI 362) Parks and WildLife (General) Regulations, 1990, also available directly from the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority at:

https://www.zimparks.org.zw/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SI-362-OF-1990-PARKS-AND-WILD-LIFE-GENERAL.pdf

The regulations regarding firearms are on page 2096 and 2097 (page 32 and 33 of the PDF):

View attachment 674331
View attachment 674330

The Legislation page of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority website only offers the following links:

https://www.zimparks.org.zw/legislation/

Parks And Wildlife Act Download

Specially Protected Animals - Statutory Instrument 72 of 2020 Download

Payment for Hunting of Animals and Fish - Statutory Instrument 57 of 2012 Download

Payment for Trapping of Wild Animals - Statutory Instrument 56 of 2012 Download

Parks and Wild Life (Import and Export) (Wild Life) - Statutory Instrument 86 of 2010 Download

Import and Export Wildlife Quantities - Statutory Instrument 85 of 2010 Download

Parks and Wild Life (General) (Amendment) Regulations - Statutory Instrument 26 of 1998 Download

Parks and Wildlife (General) - Statutory Instrument 362 of 1990 Download


To the best of my knowledge, only Statutory Instrument 362 of 1990 includes the words "kilojoules" or "diameter", which means that if there has been an amendment resulting from Don Heath's work regarding the 9.3x62, it is not reflected on the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority website.


To summarize it all smp005, my own response to your question "Is the 9.3x62 legal for DG in Zim?" will be that answering your question is similar to answering the question "is it legal to drive at 5 mph over the speed limit on the Interstate in the U.S.?"
The technical answer is "no", but it is so routinely accepted that everyone does it, and you will rarely get a ticket for it. But if you bump into a cop in a foul mood, or who needs to make his quota for the month, you could get nailed.

Since Barnes has stopped 9.3 production the you should look at Buffalo Bore they have them in stock

 

[One Day...]

Since Barnes has stopped 9.3 production you should look at Buffalo Bore they have them in stock

Well... yes and no... I appreciate your desire to help, but Buffalo Bore only offers a 250 gr TSX load. Their 286 gr. load uses a "Spitzer Soft Point", and they do not specify which one.

I was looking for a 286 gr TSX load (as Barnes produced).

Interestingly, Buffalo Bore also offers a so-called 9.3 X 62 "Penetrator" load with a 300 gr. solid at 2,380 fps. It too, with 3,773 ft/lbs, does not make the book 3,909 ft/lbs requirement, but it must nonetheless do quite the job on Buffalo (assuming the solid stays together, which is highly probable at this modest velocity, if it is halfway decent).

I still have 3 boxes of the Barnes loads, so I am OK for a while (I only shoot them at game, and I use PPU 285 gr as training ammo). I will probably be looking at a pair of loads using the 286 TSX and 286 gr Banded Solid, shooting at the same point of aim...

PS: I know that the Barnes 9.3 286 gr Banded Solid has a round nose, like their .458 500 gr Banded Solid that I use in my .458 Lott (now we are talking about a proper DG caliber!), and that some folks will be hollering about how a solid that does not have a flat nose is just no good, and how stupid I am to not use one, but it does not bother me in the least. I continue to think that round nose solids make sense for feeding reliability, although, admittedly, with the Blaser R8 magazine single-stack feed it is a moot point, but more importantly, I want the TSX and solid to have the same point of impact, and the best way to do that is to use both Barnes bullets as they are designed (bearing surfaces etc.) to do precisely that.