9.3x62mm vs. .375 H&H Mag

[Hunter-Habib]

Not a blanket policy throughout the entire continent of Africa. It’s legal in some countries and some provenances in SA.

Oh, yes. Very true. Like Mozambique and Zambia. But the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum is legal everywhere.

 

[John Wasmuth]

I’d still think that it’s best discussed with ones PH and take his word on what to use. I would definitely use my 9.3x62 from buffalo on down where legal. It’s a great cartridge as is the .375 h and h and also the .375 Ruger. For elephant I’d stick with the .458 Wm with some hopped up 480 grains.

 

[geoff rath]

I’ll get the popcorn.....,

An even better comparison would be 375H&H Vs 9.3X64 Brenneke; a much more rare beast, admittedly.. If one is keen enough, the uniqueness of the X64, and its shortage of reloading components CAN be overcome. And just think of the grin on your African PH's face when you first uncase it ...

 

[Cam Moon]

I'm a bit confused as to how the conversation has changed so much from what @hawkeyesatx started with, and how some are seemingly misinterpreting what he was saying/sharing with us.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

I'm a bit confused as to how the conversation has changed so much from what @hawkeyesatx started with, and how some are seemingly misinterpreting what he was saying/sharing with us.

Thank you Cam.
Just goes to show how the .375 H&H crowd gets their tidy whities in a bunch when you come up with proof that something can equal the old 1920 .375 H&H velocities.

As for pressures being too much in a 9.3x62, even in a modern action like my Sauer 100 Classic, which it has a 3 lug bolt, and a long throat, like the majority of 9.3’s do, I believe it will be just fine.

Hawk

 

[Cam Moon]

HA! I just found it funny that so many thought you were trying to out-do the mighty Three Seven Five, and were trying to say that the 9.3x62 is superior. I didn't take it as that at all! To me what you were basically saying is with the improvements in powders and projectiles, that today a 9.3x62 can pretty much duplicate what was being used "back in the day" when we are reading about African safaris and hunters using the .375H&H, I thought it was interesting and a good example of how lucky we are to benefit from these improvements. They can make all of our chosen firearms perform better than ever. Your comparison was a good indication of the performance improvements that can be achieved!

 

[BeeMaa]

@hawkeyesatx - I have your solution and I don't know why the esteemed members of AH didn't think of this sooner. You will need at least one of each caliber...done.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

HA! I just found it funny that so many thought you were trying to out-do the mighty Three Seven Five, and were trying to say that the 9.3x62 is superior. I didn't take it as that at all! To me what you were basically saying is with the improvements in powders and projectiles, that today a 9.3x62 can pretty much duplicate what was being used "back in the day" when we are reading about African safaris and hunters using the .375H&H, I thought it was interesting and a good example of how lucky we are to benefit from these improvements. They can make all of our chosen firearms perform better than ever. Your comparison was a good indication of the performance improvements that can be achieved!

Give that man a cupcake!!!

That’s exactly what I’m saying!!

Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

@hawkeyesatx - I have your solution and I don't know why the esteemed members of AH didn't think of this sooner. You will need at least one of each caliber...done.

LOL

I will take that advice!!

Now that being said…..

I will gladly take donations of said rifles if anyone chooses to get rid of theirs! JOKE PEOPLE! JOKE!

Hawk

 

[geoff rath]

LOL

I will take that advice!!

Now that being said…..

I will gladly take donations of said rifles if anyone chooses to get rid of theirs! JOKE PEOPLE! JOKE!

Hawk

I can see this thread morphing over into the "Which three rifles/calibers would you choose to hunt world-wide" thread ; and thereby hangs another tail (NOT TALE)

 

[John Wasmuth]

Yea but that’ll start another argument and ruffle all kinds of feathers

 

[Tom Leoni]

My only contribution to this discussion is about the words "better" and "more efficient."

Better - In too many people's mind, the word is pretty much synonym with "faster out of the muzzle." I wish they would just say "faster out of the muzzle" rather than "better," since for a cartridge to be better than another there are a myriad other considerations unrelated to muzzle velocity.

Also, we have terminal ballistics data spanning well over a century that shows that there is a magic sweet spot between sectional density and velocity--around .300 SD and 2,100-2,500 fps. Given the right bullet, the laws of terminal ballistics have not changed. When it comes to .350+" calibers, I don't see the great advantage of treating the cartridge as a long-distance number. If the game I'm hunting requires a .375 (or a 9.3mm), I don't expect--or indeed want, even if I could--to take pot shots at 350 yards. That's just me, and (as always) YMMV.

More efficient - Someone smarter than me needs to explain to me how this matters. In 25+ years in the gun and hunting business in one capacity or another, I've never understood it. Yes, it makes for great fodder for magazine writers on a deadline who have to come up with new topics about old subjects, but from a practical standpoint, discussions of cartridge efficiency have always prompted a head-scratch on my part.

OK. A shorter cartridge can achieve the same muzzle velocity as a longer one. Great. But the only practical advantage I can see is that it's cheaper to produce a rifle with a .308 Win or .30-06 Sprg action size than one with a .375 H&H-length action. In this case, then, I'd just use the words "rifle is cheaper all other things being equal" when pointing to the advantage of the former chambering over the latter.

Or there's the issue of bolt-throw. .375 H&H max cartridge OAL: 3.600"; .30-06 max cartridge OAL: 3.340". That's a difference of .260" (per the Hornady reloading manual, 9th edition). Honest question: has anyone really timed himself in a statistically-relevant way, about how much that extra .260" (let's even round it up to .300") of bolt-throw has slowed them down in follow-up shots? Put recoil and muzzle jump into the mix, since we're talking big calibers, and again I don't see how a few tenths of an inch become an objective factor.

But I still like to think of myself as a relatively young guy (inner voice: keep wishing! ) and there are scores of people here with tons more experience than me; so I'm always eager to be persuaded into more informed opinions. Honest.

So how is this relevant to this conversation? I very much agree with the OP that the 9.3x62 can be pushed to muzzle velocities comparable to a more or less standard .375 H&H, in some cases even faster. But why would you want to? Since 1905, when this cartridge was specifically created for and marketed to hunters in German East Africa (today's Tanzania), it has racked up a stellar reputation as a fantastic killer with moderate recoil.

On the other hand, if you get your kicks (no pun intended) from hot-rodding cartridges, more power to you (again, no pun intended). As long as you still shoot accurately and use bullets that hold together at the greater velocities, this goes to the very heart of our passion: do it if you love it.

 

[Tanks]

...

Just goes to show how the .375 H&H crowd gets their tidy whities in a bunch when you come up with proof that something can equal the old 1920 .375 H&H velocities....

What's even more funny is getting over excited over comparisons of two marginal cartridges, at best, for DG. You want to take a pot shot at a zebra with a hot 9.3 at 350 yards, be my guest. For DG I will stick to something more effective than "rat calibers".

 

[John Wasmuth]

Where was it mentioned that anyone wanted to take pot shots at zebra 350 yards away? I must have missed that part.

 

[Tanks]

Where was it mentioned that anyone wanted to take pot shots at zebra 350 yards away? I must have missed that part.

What else, a hot 9.3 would be good for? I'd admit it would also be an awesome eland gun as well at a distance, you would still have more than enough energy to bring it down.

 

[John Wasmuth]

But it’s ok to shot at zebra 350 yards away with a .375 H and H……. I think they would both farewell at ranges most people would shot at zebra from.

 

[K E Johnson]

What else, a hot 9.3 would be good for? I'd admit it would also be an awesome eland gun as well at a distance, you would still have more than enough energy to bring it down.

What else? Prairie dogs if you have a gun bearer with your double in the event of charge!

 

[Tanks]

But it’s ok to shot at zebra 350 yards away with a .375 H and H……. I think they would both farewell at ranges most people would shot at zebra from.

Agree, both are great PG cartridges for African PG distances.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Here’s prime example of what I’m trying to get across with the 9.3x62…

RL-17 powder, isn’t temp sensitive, like a lot of other powders are.

For what it's worth, I started working with the 9.3x62 over a dozen years ago. The pressure limit for both CIP and SAAMI is very low, due to many old rifles in the cartridge, but I did some calculating with several formulas, comparing the powder room of the 9.3x62 with both the .35 Whelen and .375 H&H.

One difference, however, between the 9.3 and those two is a very long throat, common among cartridges of that era. Many early smokeless rounds (and the 9.3x62 was designed before the .375 and .35 Whelen) used heavy-for-caliber round-nosed bullets, hence the long throat, which tends to reduce peak pressures, especially with shorter, lighter spitzers.

Anyway, I calculated what sort of velocities the 9.3x62 would be capable of compared to the .35 Whelen and .375, taking into account powder room (it has somewhat more than the .35 Whelen) and bore diameter. Then I fooled with various newer powders until getting the calculated velocities. There were NO signs of excessive pressure, whether with 250 loaded to 2650 or so with RL-15 and Varget, or 286's at around 2500 with Big Game. (RL-17 wasn't around then, or I would have it tried it too.)

But to check my results, I also had Charlie Sisk test the loads with his Pressure Trace, using Norma factory ammo to adjust the results. (The PSI pressures from strain gauges are normally lower than with piezo equipment, the reason so many home-experimenters get such high velocities when "pressure testing." Many professionals use strain gauges, especially bullet companies, but they offset the results with piezo-tested "reference ammunition" from SAAMI.)

The results indicated the 9.3x62 handloads were in the 60,000 PSI range, which happens to be the SAAMI maximum average pressure for the .30-06.


- Bob Mitchell



Hawk

 

[John Wasmuth]

Pretty much the same with the 7.92x57, ancient rifles out there that can’t handle modern loading. I’ve found that at 103 degrees in the Texas hill country doesn’t have an adverse effect on 62.4 grains of Big Game nor does 64 grains. Shoots the same as it does at 40 degrees. No pressure signs. Good powder.