9.3x62mm vs. .375 H&H Mag

[Rule 303]

I own both, and also the 9.3x57 I load to pre-1930 9,3x62 velocities.

I like all of them, but the .375 H/H has the greatest recoil.

As for performance, on game, I can't see any difference, tho the greater velocity of the .375 H/H offers slightly flatter trajectories in my gun over my shorter barreled 9.3x62.

As for performance at common game shooting ranges, I see no difference.

Robertson claims he has seen superior performance from the x62 on buffalo and down loads his .375 to meet 9.3x62 specs.

Robertson must also love the 35Whelen.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

These last few post are what I meant by mental gymnastics... everyone uses examples whereby they maximize the parameters for the 9.3X62 and minimize the parameters for the .375 H&H... I have seen this play out countless times and I firmly believe that it is rooted in a fear of recoil... those with that little voice in the back of their heads that tells them "this is gonna hurt," when they squeeze a trigger are always the champions of the lesser recoiling cartridge. If you equalize the parameters as much as is conceivably possible, the capacity of the H&H stomps the X62. Some folks need to get off kale and eat a pot roast.

@hoytcanon
Love pot roast and hate kale.
Have a read of the 9.3x62 Journal by Hendrik Van Der Shyff.
It contains a myriad of information comparing the 9.3x62 to the 375H&H and a host of other calibers as well as personal experiences of PHs that have used both cartridges in real world scenarios. It's quite an eye opener.
I'm not saying that the 375H&H is a bad cartridge but the 9.3x62 earnt its stripes before the 375H&H was around and continues to do so.
The conclusion in the book is the 375H&H any better than the 9.3x62. In some case yes in some cases no and the consensus of these gentlemen is that with the same shot placement with either cartridge, with the right projectile, you will end up with a very dead animal whether dik dik or elephant .
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

There ya' go... that's some "pot roast!" Lol

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Robertson must also love the 35Whelen.

@Rule 303
The Whelen will do all the 9.3x62 with do with bullets of equal sd and velocities. 8 thou ain't gunna make no difference.
Bob

 

[WAB]

These last few post are what I meant by mental gymnastics... everyone uses examples whereby they maximize the parameters for the 9.3X62 and minimize the parameters for the .375 H&H... I have seen this play out countless times and I firmly believe that it is rooted in a fear of recoil... those with that little voice in the back of their heads that tells them "this is gonna hurt," when they squeeze a trigger are always the champions of the lesser recoiling cartridge. If you equalize the parameters as much as is conceivably possible, the capacity of the H&H stomps the X62. Some folks need to get off kale and eat a pot roast.

Absolutely not. I own both and believe that they are both great cartridges. I’ve stoned a big bull elephant with my .375 using 350 gr solids, and watched my wife flatten an old dugga boy with our 9.3x62 shooting 286 gr A-Frames. They both work exceptionally well, performance is more than a paper exercise in ballistics. In my case, the 9.3 is a lighter, handier rifle so it tends to get the nod. However, I don’t denigrate one to prefer the other. Neither is for sale!

 

[Rule 303]

@Rule 303
The Whelen will do all the 9.3x62 with do with bullets of equal sd and velocities. 8 thou ain't gunna make no difference.
Bob

Thats my point Bob. The difference between the 35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 is the same as the difference between the 9.3x62 and the 375H&H. So if the 9.3x62 is as good as a 375H&H then so must the 35Whelen as it is as good as a 9.3x62.

Like I have said I know a bloke up the cape that has shot more horse, scrub cattle and pigs than most with both a 375H&H and a 9.3x62, and he contended you can pick the difference between the 9.3x62 and the 375H&H.

I would be happy to go after Ele with my 358RUM and the right bullets if going for a brain shot but this can not be guaranteed so next preference would be my 375H&H (7lbs) but my preferred is my 416 Rigby.

 

[Bush Buck]

Hi Rule 303,

I appreciate you sharing your friend's experience but I am not sure what your comment actually means "...he contended you can pick the difference between 9.3x62 and the 375 H&H."

I would love to know his thoughts regarding these two cartridges when used on large game like wild cattle and horses.

Thanks,
Bush Buck

 

[hoytcanon]

This is a classic scenario in hunting circles, history, reputation, word of mouth, tall tales from magazine writers, lucky shots, your brother-in-laws opinions, Teddy Roosevelt, Ruark, Carmichael, Capstick, all this non-scientific, non-physics based data goes into people's perceptions.and opinions... some of which are deeply rooted and are hard to dislodge with facts and data. It might destroy some talking points on gun forums, but we really should stop trying to make lesser cartridges perform like greater cartridges and just appreciate them for what they offer. Let's just consider case capacity and the optimal performance characteristics for each... this age old argument is seen in sharper light with the .308 vs .30/06 debate.... the /06 is the greater cartridge and yet so many .308 proponents will go to great lengths with heavy bullets and hot loads to achieve mediocre /06 numbers and then say "See! It is just as good!" No, it is not, but it is still a great cartridge and has other desirable attributes... same goes for the 9.3X62 vs .375 H&H.

 

[EfRed]

It's the 7mm STW all over again. No pressure signs amazing velocity for case size no pressure signs. Then they get pressure tested under lab conditions and they are all over 72k psi! Even worse for the 9.3 x 62 as load manual data is at very low pressure and we all know that our modern actions can take more. But really we dont have reliable pressure data. Just internet data!

Remember the claims of the 370 Sako or 9.3 x 66 Sako? H&H performance "nearly" and then a couple of years later published velocities were reduced by about 125fps!

They are both great calibres but why try to make the 9.3 a 375H&H? You negate any of the advantages which is 5 in the mag, reasonable recoil in a lighter weight rifle? If you want H&H performance get one!

Yes. Visible pressure signs often arise at 80,000 psi or so. No pressure signs doesn't mean you're within a pressure standard or a safety standard. Most modern actions and barrels will withstand 80,000 psi, but designers have put that pressure margin in for a reason: absolute, not occasional, safety. Rifle to rifle variability in the cartridge can be considerable wrt pressure. Finally, all other factors equal, muzzle velocity is directly related to force exerted on the bullet, which is effective pressure times bullet cross-sectional area. So a larger diameter bullet at given effective pressure gets greater velocity. At equal effective pressure, the .375 has greater velocity than the 9.3. By effective pressure, i mean a sort of "average" driving pressure over the time the bullet is in the barrel, which is not the peak pressure on which design limits are laid.

Getting past the snow, all you know when you reload is that the load you are using is within the design peak pressure limit on the test gun used in developing the load data. You extrapolate across unknown territory when you assume the test gun produces the same pressures as your gun. Without staying within published load data, though, we have no inkling as to peak pressure for a given load. Best to not exceed the load manual data, ever. You then maintain the designer's safety margins, which are intended to account for factors that we haven't even dreampt of.

I inherited from my cousin some handloaded 300 Weatherby rounds with a piece of paper citing the load used. Checking this load against a reloading manual, I found the load to be 15% over the loading manual's maximum. He had gone up 'til he saw visible pressure signs, then backed off a bit. What effect this overcharge had on pressure, I don't know. What I do know is that my cousin had to twice replace the beautiful Weatherby stock because it cracked at the tang. Of course the Weatherby metalwork will withstand drastic overcharges, but apparently the stocks won't.

To repeat: this is a warning against exceeding book load values and a warning against relying on "pressure signs". The fact that many before you have done so without a known problem won't neccessarily save you.

As for the 9.3 vs .375 argument, the proof is in the field performance, which by report is that either works.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Walley Johnson preferred the 375 over 9.3 on big bull elephants. He also used the 9.3 quite a bit because he could buy 3-5 9.3 cartridges for the price of one 375.
But he could notice a difference.

 

[EfRed]

Walley Johnson preferred the 375 over 9.3 on big bull elephants. He also used the 9.3 quite a bit because he could buy 3-5 9.3 cartridges for the price of one 375.
But he could notice a difference.

Friends of mine decided to roast a pig outdoors for the 4th of July. Having never done that before, they were a bit uncertian about the processes and sought advice from a Hawaian acquaintance, who had on-islands experience with roasting pigs.

The first question that arose was, "How do we kill the pig ?" The Hawaian advised that what he'd done was to get 5 other beefy friends together with the pig and an 8 ft length of 2" schedule 40 steel pipe. Four guys hold the pig down while 2 place the pipe over the pig's throat and stand on either end 'til the pig expires of hypoxia. Some of those Polynesians can be pretty big.

My friends were dubious, wondering whether they could even wrestle down a 500 lb hog, much less choke him to death. So one asked the Hawaian, "Couldn't you just use a gun?" The Hawaian guy, being a real expert, said, "Oh! Hell yeah, if you got a gun!"

Which I throw in just because I think it's an amusing story! It also makes the importance of the 375 vs 9.3 debate fade a bit, in the face of real contrasts in killing performance.

 

[hoytcanon]

As for the 9.3 vs .375 argument, the proof is in the field performance, which by report is that either works.

That is just it... the "proof" is NOT in the field... the "perception" is in the field... the proof is in the data and over the chronograph.


There are a wide range of Cartridges, bullets and loads that "work in the field." For each of these, there is no conceivable way to quantify the minutiae of actual ballistics... there are too many variables in shot placement, body anatomy, body posture, target animal demeanor, distance to target, wind and obstructions etc... etc... even a professional hunter with hundreds of witnessed kills can only say "well that worked good," or "that didn't work out so well." Most of these scenarios are not analyzed and broken down for contributing factors... they just go into cranial Grey filing cabinet as; ".375 good" or ".308 bad." That is neither proof of a particular cartridges capabilities or lack thereof. If you shot a buff with a .416 Rigby and it ran 50 yards and then shot another with the 9.3X62 and it ran 40 yards... is the 9.3 20% better than the .416? Hardly... a range of cartridges work in the field for any given species, but if we are going to debate which is superior, we can't base that on "it worked." Any legitimate discussion has to include controlled variables and actual numbers. Statistical analysis is only as good as the data... only anecdotal data can be found in the field.


Having said that, it is a good thing to have realistic minimums for various game and scenarios... which should also include distance limitations on the basis of equipment and the lump of meat wielding the equipment.

 

[EfRed]

That is just it... the "proof" is NOT in the field... the "perception" is in the field... the proof is in the data and over the chronograph.


There are a wide range of Cartridges, bullets and loads that "work in the field." For each of these, there is no conceivable way to quantify the minutiae of actual ballistics... there are too many variables in shot placement, body anatomy, body posture, target animal demeanor, distance to target, wind and obstructions etc... etc... even a professional hunter with hundreds of witnessed kills can only say "well that worked good," or "that didn't work out so well." Most of these scenarios are not analyzed and broken down for contributing factors... they just go into cranial Grey filing cabinet as; ".375 good" or ".308 bad." That is neither proof of a particular cartridges capabilities or lack thereof. If you shot a buff with a .416 Rigby and it ran 50 yards and then shot another with the 9.3X62 and it ran 40 yards... is the 9.3 20% better than the .416? Hardly... a range of cartridges work in the field for any given species, but if we are going to debate which is superior, we can't base that on "it worked." Any legitimate discussion has to include controlled variables and actual numbers. Statistical analysis is only as good as the data... only anecdotal data can be found in the field.


Having said that, it is a good thing to have realistic minimums for various game and scenarios... which should also include distance limitations on the basis of equipment and the lump of meat wielding the equipment.

Nope. The only factor that enters into it is whether the dam thing kills the animal effectively. Both cartridges have accumulated much real life data showing that they do. You can argue ballistics and debate stats all you want, they aren't a real test of performance. In field performance is the only measure that matters, and it isn't 'til the cartridge/rifle combo is shown to perform adequately in the field that it becomes acceptable.

 

[EfRed]

That is just it... the "proof" is NOT in the field... the "perception" is in the field... the proof is in the data and over the chronograph.


There are a wide range of Cartridges, bullets and loads that "work in the field." For each of these, there is no conceivable way to quantify the minutiae of actual ballistics... there are too many variables in shot placement, body anatomy, body posture, target animal demeanor, distance to target, wind and obstructions etc... etc... even a professional hunter with hundreds of witnessed kills can only say "well that worked good," or "that didn't work out so well." Most of these scenarios are not analyzed and broken down for contributing factors... they just go into cranial Grey filing cabinet as; ".375 good" or ".308 bad." That is neither proof of a particular cartridges capabilities or lack thereof. If you shot a buff with a .416 Rigby and it ran 50 yards and then shot another with the 9.3X62 and it ran 40 yards... is the 9.3 20% better than the .416? Hardly... a range of cartridges work in the field for any given species, but if we are going to debate which is superior, we can't base that on "it worked." Any legitimate discussion has to include controlled variables and actual numbers. Statistical analysis is only as good as the data... only anecdotal data can be found in the field.


Having said that, it is a good thing to have realistic minimums for various game and scenarios... which should also include distance limitations on the basis of equipment and the lump of meat wielding the equipment.

Too bad you couldn't have enjoyed a laugh at my story about the pig rather than persisting in this stupid argument.

 

[Rick HOlbert]

Hello all!

I’ve been doing some homework into the whole .375 H&H Mag vs 9.3x62mm business.
Now, what I have to say on the matter is this….

The .375 H&H has a decided advantage over the the 9.3x62mm only when the 9.3x62 is loaded to original pressures.

Now, with that being said, once you start loading the 9.3x62 to 64k psi, the same pressure the .375 H&H runs at, they are pretty much equal.

Yes, I can hear the gasps, and the snorts of derision already coming about from what I just said, from the die hard .375 H&H fans.

But, I am not just callously saying that to stir the pot, so to say, nor am I trying to cause a fight.
I do have data to back up what I’ve said, and will post said data in pic form after I am done writing here.

I also want to let everyone know that, the data for the .375 H&H is with a standard 24 inch barrel, whereas the 9.3x62mm data is with a 22 inch barrel.

If the 9.3x62mm is given a 24 inch barrel, and a modern, strong bolt action, there isn’t any reason to not load it to such pressures, except for maybe one, and that’s free recoil.

I hope to open a few eyes to those who may be on the fence about getting a 9.3x62mm, and hopefully opening the eyes of those who are objective .375 H&H aficionado’s too.

@Bob Nelson 35Whelen
I’ve been taking a play out of your playbook, and have applied it to the good Ol’ 9.3x62mm.
Plus, there is another gentleman by the name of Bob Mitchell here in the states, who has done the same thing.


Hawk

View attachment 439077

View attachment 439078
View attachment 439079
View attachment 439080
View attachment 439081
View attachment 439082
View attachment 439083
View attachment 439084

Hawkeye you are so correct! As a handloader OF 59+ years I fully agree. I own and shoot both calibers and with modern powders the 9.3X62 comes damn close to matching the 375 H&H. Sectional density is better also. I would not hesitate to drop the hammer on a buff if armed with a 9.3

 

[Softballdad]

Is this a case of 9.3 = dead and 3.75 = dead +

 

[hoytcanon]

Nope. The only factor that enters into it is whether the dam thing kills the animal effectively. Both cartridges have accumulated much real life data showing that they do. You can argue ballistics and debate stats all you want, they aren't a real test of performance. In field performance is the only measure that matters, and it isn't 'til the cartridge/rifle combo is shown to perform adequately in the field that it becomes acceptable.

Then the 9.3X62 is equal to the .416 Rigby and .450 Nitro....it is also equal to the .338 WM and the .30/06... they all kill Buffalo equally dead... your argument is illogical and flawed with flowery sentimentality.

 

[WAB]

That is just it... the "proof" is NOT in the field... the "perception" is in the field... the proof is in the data and over the chronograph.


There are a wide range of Cartridges, bullets and loads that "work in the field." For each of these, there is no conceivable way to quantify the minutiae of actual ballistics... there are too many variables in shot placement, body anatomy, body posture, target animal demeanor, distance to target, wind and obstructions etc... etc... even a professional hunter with hundreds of witnessed kills can only say "well that worked good," or "that didn't work out so well." Most of these scenarios are not analyzed and broken down for contributing factors... they just go into cranial Grey filing cabinet as; ".375 good" or ".308 bad." That is neither proof of a particular cartridges capabilities or lack thereof. If you shot a buff with a .416 Rigby and it ran 50 yards and then shot another with the 9.3X62 and it ran 40 yards... is the 9.3 20% better than the .416? Hardly... a range of cartridges work in the field for any given species, but if we are going to debate which is superior, we can't base that on "it worked." Any legitimate discussion has to include controlled variables and actual numbers. Statistical analysis is only as good as the data... only anecdotal data can be found in the field.


Having said that, it is a good thing to have realistic minimums for various game and scenarios... which should also include distance limitations on the basis of equipment and the lump of meat wielding the equipment.

You stick with the computer, I’ll stick with what works for me on game. Bigger does not equal better. If it did everyone would aspire to a .700.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Hawkeye you are so correct! As a handloader OF 59+ years I fully agree. I own and shoot both calibers and with modern powders the 9.3X62 comes damn close to matching the 375 H&H. Sectional density is better also. I would not hesitate to drop the hammer on a buff if armed with a 9.3

@Rick HOlbert
I would have no hesitation using the 35 Whelen on buff with 310gn sifts and solids at 2,350fps
A bullet with the same sd as a 350gn 375 and not much slower.
Sure not the same energy but will still do the job with projectiles placed in the same heart lung area.
I will still result in on very dead buff.
Ted Mitchell swears by his 358 Mitchell Express ( not quite as good as the Whelen) for dropping big water buffalo and scrub bulls.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Then the 9.3X62 is equal to the .416 Rigby and .450 Nitro....it is also equal to the .338 WM and the .30/06... they all kill Buffalo equally dead... your argument is illogical and flawed with flowery sentimentality.

@hoytcanon
Flowery sentiment or not the 9.3x62 has proven time and time again in the field. Paper ballistics don't always tell the full story, writers lie as well BUT real world evaluation on 1,000s of animals ove a century of field evaluation tells a more complete and reliable story.
A few thousand dead animals by a few thousand hunters using the 9.3x62 should be enough proof to anyone with more than an small amount of grey matter ( I'm not implying you are not intelligent) should provide enough real data that cartridge X works and works well.
Bob