9.3x62mm vs. .375 H&H Mag

[sestoppelman]

I guess the thing that annoys me about these silly positions guys take is that they seem to always want to discount powder capacity which logically is the single most important thing assuming similar diameter of course.
We are not talking about how well they kill large game, but making the case so to speak for one round over the other. Most of the medium rounds will kill the intended game about the same.
I dont understand this desire however, to always want to take a smaller case and not only equal but surpass a much larger case. Trying to compare the 9.3x62 to the .375 is a joke.
Look at a Barnes manual, they have loads in there that put the .375 over the .458 Win in energy!

 

[John Wasmuth]

What I find interesting about these discussions about to rounds that have killed more than their share of dangerous game is the interjection of calibers that have not nor ever will be on par with either one of the cartridges involved in the discussion to begin with. Just an observation.

On the merits of case capacity the 9.3x62 can achieve matching, or close to it, the .375 h/h with less powder making it more efficient. Either one will do what the other will do which has been proven time and time again and both will more than likely continue to do so as long as dangerous game hunting continues.

 

[WAB]

I’m amused by the thought that one has to be better than the other. Just because the .375 is a great caliber does not mean the 9.3 is not. I own rifles in both calibers. They are both great calibers, end of story.

 

[John Wasmuth]

I’m amused by the thought that one has to be better than the other. Just because the .375 is a great caliber does not mean the 9.3 is not. I own rifles in both calibers. They are both great calibers, end of story.

Exactly.

 

[One Day...]

This is all so simple...

... that I generally avoid posting on this kind of threads because I just do not understand what it is that is not understood, and it seems to me that the answer is so obvious that I must be missing something at a higher level of knowledge...

But here we go...

1 - sestoppelman is right. I am tempted to add: period. Sure, case shape, belt or no belt, shoulder shape and angle, blah blah blah all have some effect, and much is written of "efficiency", but the bottom line is that for bullets of similar caliber, similar weight, similar construction, similar BC, etc. the bottom line is case capacity.

2 - A .375 H&H case takes 95 gr of water. A 9.3x62 case takes 78.2 gr of water. My calculator says there is a 21.48% increase of case capacity going from 9.3x62 to .375 H&H.

So, what do people expect !?!?!?!?!?

3 - A .375 H&H 300 gr .398 BC slug at 2,530 fps has a plus or minus 3" MPBR of 248 yards. A 9.3x62 286 gr slug .410 BC at 2,360 fps has a plus or minus 3" MPBR of 234 yards. A 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 5.98% longer MPBR. Logical!

4 - A .375 H&H 300 gr slug at 2,530 fps has a muzzle energy of 4,262 ft./lbs. A 9.3x62 286 gr slug at 2,360 fps has a muzzle energy of 3,544 ft./lbs. A 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 20.25% higher energy. Logical! Energy does not kill, but for two bullets of comparable diameter, weight, construction, and sectional density, energy is a very good indicator of penetration potential.

5 - A 9 lbs. rifle in .375 H&H shooting a 300 gr slug at 2,530 fps has a recoil energy of 37.3 ft./lbs. A 9 lbs. rifle in 9.3x62 shooting a 286 gr slug at 2,360 fps has recoil energy of 28 ft./lbs. A 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 33.2% higher recoil. Logical!

Anything else is purely editorial.

Now, in most cases, an increase of 6% in MPBR is purely anecdotal, but an increase of 20% in striking energy for two bullets of comparable diameter, weight, construction, and sectional density is fairly significant because it implies a significant difference in penetration, which is critical on some DG shots, and an increase of 33% in recoil can make or break the shootability of a rifle for a given shooter.

Hence you have it, the 9.3x62 developed a reputation for being just as good as the .375 H&H on PG; almost as good, but not quite, as the .375 H&H on Buffalo; underpowered for Elephant brain shots, which the .375 H&H is not, and much easier to shoot than the .375 H&H because of lower recoil.

None of this has changed today, and the data says it all

So WAB is right, "they are both great calibers" but the true "end of story" is that depending on who hunts what, they are different.

For example, the .375 H&H was a better choice for my elephant hunt with the distinct possibility of a frontal brain shot from a shooter who can take recoil; and the 9.3x62 is a better choice for my wife 2022 Buffalo hunt because 28 ft./lbs. of recoil is all she can take, and she does not need to drill through 3 feet of bones to reach a Buffalo vitals.

 

[sestoppelman]

What I find interesting about these discussions about to rounds that have killed more than their share of dangerous game is the interjection of calibers that have not nor ever will be on par with either one of the cartridges involved in the discussion to begin with. Just an observation.

On the merits of case capacity the 9.3x62 can achieve matching, or close to it, the .375 h/h with less powder making it more efficient. Either one will do what the other will do which has been proven time and time again and both will more than likely continue to do so as long as dangerous game hunting continues.

Smaller cases are always more efficient, they do more with less, but along with that comes increased pressure to make those goals. Bigger case takes more to do it, but it can do it and in the end do it better than the smaller case.

 

[Cam Moon]

A few comments on this thread indicate to me that perhaps some feathers got ruffled.
I would ask that if that's the case, perhaps go back and re-read the OP's posts. I don't believe the intention @hawkeyesatx had was to say that the 9.3x62 out performs the .375. I took it as him saying that with the advances in technology the 9.3x62 can now be loaded up to perform at the level that the .375 was in it's original configuration. That's impressive.
He certainly wasn't saying that the 9.3 is more gun, more capable, or can de-throne the .375! Obviously if you can use new, more efficient powders and projectiles in the 9.3 you can do the same in the .375 and the gap between the two calibers remains the same.
Imagine if you would, Bob planning a DG hunting trip, and his favorite hunting rifle just isn't quite enough. So he 'has' to buy a new rifle for the hunt. His wife is super impressed!
Years later he is going with Chris, who is in a similar situation, but they find out that thanks to more efficient powders, they can just handload their existing rifle to a higher capacity and they will have virtually the same load as Bob went with years ago.
Let's hope Bob's wife doesn't find out!

 

[Tra3]

It is too bad we cannot “test drive” more rifles and calibers before buying. After reading about the 9.3x62 I expected it to be a cigar-like case. It’s recognition as the smallest caliber for DG made me expect something substantial. I was surprised when the ammo arrived and I first held one of the rounds, it is simply a heavy .30-06. It recoils like a muzzleloader (more push than punch). I agree with @sestoppelman and @One Day... it boils down to the concept that “there is no replacement for displacement”. The .375 will always be better, bigger.
Well, except in accuracy; for my daughter I suspect the 9.3x62 will be the upper end of recoil, that she can accurately shoot, for her 115 lbs.
Kinda like the .375 is the upper end for me. Well, unless I can test drive something bigger.

 

[Cam Moon]

If anyone lives nearby and wants to test drive one of mine, I would be willing.

 

[HWL]

If anyone lives nearby and wants to test drive one of mine, I would be willing.

For a real test drive you also need some cape buffalo....



HWL

 

[hawkeyesatx]

A few comments on this thread indicate to me that perhaps some feathers got ruffled.
I would ask that if that's the case, perhaps go back and re-read the OP's posts. I don't believe the intention @hawkeyesatx had was to say that the 9.3x62 out performs the .375. I took it as him saying that with the advances in technology the 9.3x62 can now be loaded up to perform at the level that the .375 was in it's original configuration. That's impressive.
He certainly wasn't saying that the 9.3 is more gun, more capable, or can de-throne the .375! Obviously if you can use new, more efficient powders and projectiles in the 9.3 you can do the same in the .375 and the gap between the two calibers remains the same.
Imagine if you would, Bob planning a DG hunting trip, and his favorite hunting rifle just isn't quite enough. So he 'has' to buy a new rifle for the hunt. His wife is super impressed!
Years later he is going with Chris, who is in a similar situation, but they find out that thanks to more efficient powders, they can just handload their existing rifle to a higher capacity and they will have virtually the same load as Bob went with years ago.
Let's hope Bob's wife doesn't find out!

Thank you Cam for reiterating exactly what I was imploring about the 9.3x62!
I wasn’t trying to ruffle anyones feathers by saying that the 9.3x62 is better than the .375 H&H.
I stated that given the new powders, and bullet technology, the 9.3x62 can equal the old ballistics of the .375!
Now with that being said, the .375 H&H can benefit from said newer powders as well, and its performance is equally upped.

Also, with such performance in the .375, there are those that can manage heavier recoiling rifles, but they are few.

I was saying as well, that the cost of buying a .375 H&H in any given rifle, is more than a 9.3x62.
Yes, the .375 burns more powder, and has more expensive brass, and bullets, and isn’t quite as an efficient cartridge as the 9.3x62 case is.

For me, and my hunting needs, all I will need is a 9.3x62 in North America.
Having a rifle that is more compact, and having a shorter barrel, and a cartridge that can EQUAL THE OLD BALLISTICS of the .375 H&H, in a less expensive way, suits me perfectly. I can go into Grizz country, hunting elk, or moose, and not have to worry if my cartridge is capable enough to stop a charging Grizz, coming out of an alder thicket. Plus, I have an advantage of having a rifle that holds 1 or 2 more rounds in it than a .375 H&H can. Maybe I will need that extra capacity, maybe. But I hope I don’t.
I do know, that with the 9.3x62, I have bullets that will penetrate, plus give copious amounts of hydrostatic shock, to defend life and limb. I know, that when I put shot placement correctly, that the cartridge will serve me extremely well.

Also, just for gee whiz purposes, I owned a .375 H&H in the past. It was an outstanding rifle and cartridge. It was heavy, and long.
Now, could I foresee myself lugging it up and down mountains to hunt elk? Maybe. But I would rather have my lighter Sauer 100 Classic, in 9.3x62, with a 22 inch barrel.

Hawk

 

[ChrisG]

Thank you Cam for reiterating exactly what I was imploring about the 9.3x62!
I wasn’t trying to ruffle anyones feathers by saying that the 9.3x62 is better than the .375 H&H.
I stated that given the new powders, and bullet technology, the 9.3x62 can equal the old ballistics of the .375!
Now with that being said, the .375 H&H can benefit from said newer powders as well, and its performance is equally upped.

Also, with such performance in the .375, there are those that can manage heavier recoiling rifles, but they are few.

I was saying as well, that the cost of buying a .375 H&H in any given rifle, is more than a 9.3x62.
Yes, the .375 burns more powder, and has more expensive brass, and bullets, and isn’t quite as an efficient cartridge as the 9.3x62 case is.

For me, and my hunting needs, all I will need is a 9.3x62 in North America.
Having a rifle that is more compact, and having a shorter barrel, and a cartridge that can EQUAL THE OLD BALLISTICS of the .375 H&H, in a less expensive way, suits me perfectly. I can go into Grizz country, hunting elk, or moose, and not have to worry if my cartridge is capable enough to stop a charging Grizz, coming out of an alder thicket. Plus, I have an advantage of having a rifle that holds 1 or 2 more rounds in it than a .375 H&H can. Maybe I will need that extra capacity, maybe. But I hope I don’t.
I do know, that with the 9.3x62, I have bullets that will penetrate, plus give copious amounts of hydrostatic shock, to defend life and limb. I know, that when I put shot placement correctly, that the cartridge will serve me extremely well.

Also, just for gee whiz purposes, I owned a .375 H&H in the past. It was an outstanding rifle and cartridge. It was heavy, and long.
Now, could I foresee myself lugging it up and down mountains to hunt elk? Maybe. But I would rather have my lighter Sauer 100 Classic, in 9.3x62, with a 22 inch barrel.

Hawk

Theres always the .375 Ruger too! My guide gun is stainless, laminate, sports a 20" barrel and after some adjustments, feeds flawlessly and shoots like a dream. It weighs 8.5 lbs with a scope and I don't mind carrying it all day. Those limbsaver pads Ruger provides really dampen the recoil too. Just another thought for anyone in the "predicament" of figuring out which medium bore to buy.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Theres always the .375 Ruger too! My guide gun is stainless, laminate, sports a 20" barrel and after some adjustments, feeds flawlessly and shoots like a dream. It weighs 8.5 lbs with a scope and I don't mind carrying it all day. Those limbsaver pads Ruger provides really dampen the recoil too. Just another thought for anyone in the "predicament" of figuring out which medium bore to buy.

I’m not too familiar with the .375 Ruger.

How affordable are the components to make your own cartridges?
How expensive is the store bought ammo?

I do know that the .375 Ruger equals the .375 H&H as well, and is maybe a little better.

Please enlighten us on this cartridge.

Hawk

 

[ChrisG]

I’m not too familiar with the .375 Ruger.

How affordable are the components to make your own cartridges?
How expensive is the store bought ammo?

I do know that the .375 Ruger equals the .375 H&H as well, and is maybe a little better.

Please enlighten us on this cartridge.

Hawk

All the components are going to be roughly the same as .375 H&H, same powders and bullets work well in each. The only thing is brass. I haven't bought brass for mine in years, but for a long time, Hornady was the only game in town. I believe (dont quote me on this) that Nosler makes brass for it as well. The hornady brass isnt bad and is about the same price as H&H, or you can buy once-fired on gunbroker.

As to factory ammo, I don't know for sure who makes what. Mine has never had a factory load through it. 2-3 years ago a box of hornady was around $80. Swift is selling their dangerous game ammo for around $120 a box, but that is with their A-frame and well worth the upcharge. There are likely more, but I can't name them off the top of my head.

 

[sgt_zim]

I’m not too familiar with the .375 Ruger.

How affordable are the components to make your own cartridges?
How expensive is the store bought ammo?

I do know that the .375 Ruger equals the .375 H&H as well, and is maybe a little better.

Please enlighten us on this cartridge.

Hawk

It is "better" from the perspective that you get about the same velocity out of a 20" 375 Ruger that you get out of a 24" Holland and Holland. Also, Ruger has a standard length action, as opposed to magnum length like H&H. Brass is not belted in 375R, so it head spaces on the shoulder rather than the belt.

 

[BeeMaa]

It is too bad we cannot “test drive” more rifles and calibers before buying. After reading about the 9.3x62 I expected it to be a cigar-like case. It’s recognition as the smallest caliber for DG made me expect something substantial. I was surprised when the ammo arrived and I first held one of the rounds, it is simply a heavy .30-06. It recoils like a muzzleloader (more push than punch). I agree with @sestoppelman and @One Day... it boils down to the concept that “there is no replacement for displacement”. The .375 will always be better, bigger.
Well, except in accuracy; for my daughter I suspect the 9.3x62 will be the upper end of recoil, that she can accurately shoot, for her 115 lbs.
Kinda like the .375 is the upper end for me. Well, unless I can test drive something bigger.

I test drove the R8 416RM for about a year or so. Great caliber and right at the top end of my recoil limit. However I didn't see myself using it much, and it was very heavy. The whole experience made me more tolerant to recoil so I consider it a learning experience. Then I was then able to step back to my current lightweight 375H&H that has less felt recoil and a pleasure to carry.

I suspect you will be testing your own R8 without the kickstop to see how you like it. You can test drive your own rifle all over again.

 

[BeeMaa]

It is "better" from the perspective that you get about the same velocity out of a 20" 375 Ruger that you get out of a 24" Holland and Holland. Also, Ruger has a standard length action, as opposed to magnum length like H&H. Brass is not belted in 375R, so it head spaces on the shoulder rather than the belt.

+1 @sgt_zim

@hawkeyesatx - Check out this thread...lots of good info on the 375RUGER.

The .375 Ruger is 13 y/o now. A look back at people's early opinions

Funny that people thought it was based on the .300 Win Mag, and saying it would never make it in the long run. The .375 Ruger is an answer to a question no one's asking... although it'd be a dandy elk round What Africa/dangerous game capable cartridge will fit a std. length action, and...

www.africahunting.com

 

[One Day...]

What does "efficient" mean?

I do have a bit of an issue, in general, with this notion that a cartridge is more efficient than another, and in particular that the 9.3x62 is more efficient than the .375 H&H.

Let me hasten to add that I am not one whose feather are ruffled because I like them both equally and consider them both ideal. The .375 H&H for me and the 9.3x62 for my wife, per my previous post, based on our different needs.

But back to the "efficient" concept.

Sure, if one focuses on the MPBR, a .375 H&H 300 gr .398 BC slug at 2,530 fps has a plus or minus 3" MPBR of 248 yards and a 9.3x62 286 gr slug .410 BC at 2,360 fps has a plus or minus 3" MPBR of 234 yards, hence a 21.48% larger case capacity buys you only a 5.98% longer MPBR. I can see where one would think the 9.3x62 is more efficient.

But this is a very myopic view of the true purpose of the two cartridges since neither is designed to be a long-range PG cartridge, hence MPBR is rather irrelevant.

In truth, when looking at DG use, a .375 H&H 300 gr slug at 2,530 fps has a muzzle energy of 4,262 ft./lbs. and a 9.3x62 286 gr slug at 2,360 fps has a muzzle energy of 3,544 ft./lbs. hence a 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 20.25% higher energy, which for two bullets of comparable diameter, weight, construction, and sectional density, is a very good predictor of penetration, which is a much more appropriate criteria to compare the two cartridges than MPBR.

From this perspective, 20% additional energy and resulting increased penetration for 21% more powder does not seem so inefficient to me.

So, no, sorry to say, the 9.3x62 is not "more efficient" than the .375 H&H; it is simply providing ~20% less DG killing power for 21% less powder burnt, which, when one thinks about it, is not entirely illogical.

If the 9.3x62 provided the same DG performance as the .375 H&H with 21% less powder, then sure, it would be more efficient, but in fact it provides 20% less DG performance, therefore it is not more efficient.

Whether this efficiency myth is based on the fact that the 9.3x62 kills as well as the .375 H&H is also flawed reasoning. Sure, they both kill PG dead, but on the DG heavies they are simply not in the same league. No one in their right mind would recommend the 9.3x62 for a frontal elephant brain shot. The fact that the 9.3x62 is still OK for Buff does not change anything to that reality.

So, more efficient on PG, sure! More efficient on Buff, well ... not quite on backup shots up the rear end and trying to reach the vitals up front, even though still OK on broadside shots. More efficient on the heavies? You have got to be kidding!

As I said above, this is no case of feather ruffling, and I still like them both equally and consider them both ideal (the .375 H&H for me and the 9.3x62 for my wife), but let us not take leave of our senses in these discussions about "efficiency"

This being said, can modern propellant, modern bullet and modern loading techniques raise the 2020 9.3x62 to the level of the 1920 .375 H&H? Of course! But again, let us not be too myopic, the same components and loading techniques applied to the .375 H&H keep the 2020 .375 H&H 20% above the 2020 9.3x62. BOTH can be made faster if one does not mind pressure and sticky extraction

Sort of the same discussion as between the .416 Rem and .416 Rigby. Can the Rem run up the Rigby at max load? Sure! Have you tried to extract one of these loads in the hot sun of Africa?

 

[John Wasmuth]

Loading with the right powder you can get a 286 grain bullet going 2610 out of a 24 inch barrel with a 1:12 twist with 64 grains of that right powder. That makes it pretty efficient if your having to use more powder in a 375 to do the same thing. So yea it’s pretty efficient for a non magnum cartridge.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Not to be argumentative, but why are you using old data for the 9.3x62, when we have shown that a 286 gr bullet can be pushed to upwards of 2600 + fps? A 300 gr bullet in 9.3x62 can be pushed up to 2500 + fps. A 320 gr 9.3x62 bullet can be loaded to deliver over 2450 fps.
Yes, I get that original factory ammo is loaded to 2360 fps, and the MPBR is less.
But when one loads the 9.3x62 to 62k psi, or even 64k psi, the MPBR is extended, to equal the original loadings of the .375 H&H!

Did anyone miss where I said that the .375 H&H can, and does benefit from the newer powders, as well?

The case of the .375 H&H isn’t quite as efficient as the 9.3x62, because it doesn’t quite have the shoulder angle to headspace on like the 9.3.
The case was meant to use the old, and long strands of cordite that the British used to love to use.
Now, thanks to people who were adventurous, the .375 H&H case has been tapered less, and given a sharper shoulder, to make it a lot more efficient. Hence the .375 Weatherby, and other wildcat designs based on the case to drive velocities higher in the .375 caliber.
Otto Bock, back in 1905, was way ahead of his time, when he lengthened, and moved the shoulder forward, and took out the body taper of an 8x57mm case. He was a forerunner of such men, such as P.O. Ackley.
Ackley is best known for his “IMPROVED” cases, which helped to make a cartridge more efficient in the way that it burned powder, and thus increased velocities over normal cartridges.
So, yes, the 9.3x62 is a lot more efficient in the way it burns its powder charge, and still equal the old 1912 ballistics of the .375 H&H mag.
Is it correct in saying that the 9.3x62 is better than the .375 H&H? Unequivocally, with a resounding NO.
Can it equal the 1912 ballistics of the .375 H&H in a modern, stronger bolt action? Without a doubt, YES!
I doubt, that in the game fields, that any game animal will notice a difference when hit by modern hand loads of the 9.3, than that of a factory loaded, 1912, old tried and true .375 H&H!
The difference of .009 inch is negligible, at that point.

Hawk