If the 9.3x62 became the new legal minimum?

[WAB]

@Randy Bo
The type of steel doesn't matter but iron sights tend to stop the ties sliding down the barrels. Dang I dislike that little cartridge. Attached is an excerpt from another post that agrees with the wise.
Bob
View attachment 384461

A caliber that has always intrigued me. Maybe one day...

 

[John458Lott]

Even if the 9.3 x 62 was the legal minimum I'd still prefer my 375 H&H. I don't have a 9.3 x 62 but have its ballistic equivalent the 9.3 x 66 Sako and those who say the 9.3 are nicer to shoot have not shot one in a rifle weighing 8lb 4oz (Sako 85 Hunter with Zeiss Conquest 4x scope). The recoil (286gr Woodleigh @ $2400fps) is brutal! But that rifle was scary accurate and a dream to carry.

I much preferred shooting my 10lb 375 H&H Custom though.

I just listened to Ken Robertson's podcast and he's a big proponent of the 9.3 but his was a rifle that weighed 10 1/2 lbs. So yeah that would be nice to shoot but how many 9.3 x 62's out there are that heavy? They are generally much lighter than their 375 counterparts so I'd rate recoil about the same or worse in case of my Sako.

 

[Christot]

Typical weight should be somewhere between 9 and 10 pounds with scope. Felt recoil is in many cases a stock issue but not a weight issue. Recoil is not really different to a 300 winmag with 200gr bullets.

 

[Pondoro]

I would choose the .375H&H over 9.3x62 simply because it is more versatile in Africa..I have had wonderful results on PG with 235 Barnes X, 260 Nosler Accubond, 270 Rem. core loct.. And you can easily take up to and including elephant with a .375 with modern bullets...300/350/380 grainers..

 

[Roseman]

My neighbor has hunted Africa and other counties for big game. He uses a Sako 9.3 x 66 exclusively.
No elephant though.

 

[WAB]

Dropped a whitetail with Sue’s highland stalker in 9.3 last night (yes I am allowed to use it!). It definitely has less felt recoil than my .375 H&H (10# custom M70). Both are great rifles.

 

[Oelof]

shark,
giving a 286 gn swift aframe 2500 to 2600 is very productive.
same for a 300 gn swift at 2500 to 2550.
just that you need the 9.3x64 case capacity to do it safely.
and the speeds this case will give 250 gn bullets brings lighter game into a new perspective as well.
bruce.

I agree that getting a 286gr bullet 2500fps is productive, I disagree that 9.3x64 case capacity is needed.

I am heading to the Caprivi region in about a months time to hunt Cape Buffalo. It has long been a dream to take one with my 9.3x62. Namibian law however stipulates that only calibers producing 5400 joules of enerygy or more may be used on dangerous game. About two years ago I started doing research on how to get my rifle legal to hunt buffalo. Its quite simple... RL-17 powder. I was able to load 286gr Swift A Frames as well as Woodleig hydro solids over 2505fps which exceeds the minimum energy requirements. The A-Frame's are not at all a hot load, they are actually below max suggested psi pressure. The 286gr hydro is a bit of a hotter load due to it being longer than the A-Frame and thus taking up more space in the case. I have tested 286gr A-Frames at 2520fps vs 2420 fps to see if 100fps would equal more penetration. Both penetraded almost exactly the same distance. The faster bullet went about 1" deeper. My point being that chasing speed in the 9.3x62 might be counter productive from a "effective killing" perspective. I don't think a well constructed bullet traveling 2520fps would be more effective at killing buffalo than the same bullet travelling say 2350fps. I however think enabling the 9.3x62 to reach minimum requirements for dangerous game is very productive. I have to mention that if ever given the opportunity to hunt hippo or elephant, I wouldn't hesitate to use my 9.3x62 with 286gr Woodleigh Hydro solids traveling 2510fps. The penetration and wound channel is something that will surprise most. Coming back to the title, I think depending on which country your hunting the 9.3x62 might already be seen as the legal minimum.

Out of interest, attached is a photo of the two Swift A Frames traveling 2420fps and 2520fps. Both expanded way more than double caliber.

Oelof

 

[PerH]

I think if 9,3 became the new limit. Knowing my self i think a bunch of .404 brass ,and a 9.3 in those necked down cases would be my choice to up the scale. But depending on area of game and terrain for it .

But if i had to use 9,3x62 or x64 for much big game use, TUG and TOG ,and a good Solid would be option for it.



( there was one nagging guy over here some years ago eho said 9,3x62 was the new standard and .375s would in 2 or 3 years be gone. Needless to say that dude had only shot a few 232 Jaktmstch in his rifle. When he got some 293 Tug to try, he quickly sold his rifle and never dabbled with large bores ever again.)

 

[Newboomer]

I've had a 9.3x62 and have a 375HH. I like that little something extra in the 375 when there are critters out there who want to romp and stomp, claw and chew on me. I don't mind a little more weight for the satisfaction of knowing I'm on more even footing with the baddies.

 

[Tanks]

... I have to mention that if ever given the opportunity to hunt hippo or elephant, I wouldn't hesitate to use my 9.3x62 with 286gr Woodleigh Hydro solids traveling 2510fps. The penetration and wound channel is something that will surprise most.

First off the wound channel would still be 9.3mm as solids do not expand. My .300 RUM pushing a 200 grain bullet at 3,110 ft./s generates generates 5,821 joules, quite a bit over the minimum energy required today.

However, caliber matters. I would not use my .300 RUM on an elephant or a hippo. Heck, my personal opinion is that even a .375 H&H is marginal at best for an elephant.

I have nothing against the 9.3 variants, my 9.3x74R from Heym is getting shipped from Dallas to my FFL tomorrow. However, I will not be using it for an elephant, I have a multitude of .4xx and .500 caliber firearms for that. Horses for the courses.

 

[Graham Hunter]

perhaps the 9.3x64 should be included in this debate.
bruce.

No that wasn't the question. Let's try and stay on the topic.

 

[bruce moulds]

but it is a really good question.
bruce.

 

[Oelof]

First off the wound channel would still be 9.3mm as solids do not expand.

First off, do some research on how woodleigh hydro solids work before just commenting. In the tests that I did they left a bigger wound channel than the A-Frames and penetrated about 4 times as far.

I will not be using it for an elephant, I have a multitude of .4xx and .500 caliber firearms for that. Horses for the courses.

As mentioned earlier in the thread bigger calibers tend to wound more. I have to also mention that the test was done on buffalo and as you pointed out that the the author of the article mentions to use as much gun as you can handle. (Important bit of info, as mentioned in the article alot of hunters flinch with the large calibers because of anticipated recoil) I believe the same principle is applicable on a hippo hunt for example, where in most cases a precision brain shot is required. I haven't tested what my recoil threshold is, but I know I can put precision shots in with my 9.3. It has more than enough penetration to shoot a hippo or elephant. So as mentioned, if I ever get the opportunity I will go with that thanks.

 

[bruce moulds]

oelof,
we would need to know the specifics of your tests to understand how hydro leaves a wider wound channel than a swift.
certainly one would expect a longer deeper wound, but diameter of wound could be a different thing.
in my mind the two bullets are meant for different things.
bruce.

 

[Oelof]

oelof,
we would need to know the specifics of your tests to understand how hydro leaves a wider wound channel than a swift.
certainly one would expect a longer deeper wound, but diameter of wound could be a different thing.
in my mind the two bullets are meant for different things.
bruce.

Hi Bruce,

The Woodleigh Hydros are designed with a percussion cup in the front. It leaves a wide perminent wound channel due to hydrostatic shock caused by the cup design. They are meant to be and marketed as the best of both worlds, whether thats true needs to still be tested and proven I suppose. I was hesitant about the concept, but saw the damage it does with my own eye's. Its difficult to explain the concept, anyone interested would have to google it for a proper explanation. There is also a YouTube channel called African Sportsman Show where they have been testing these Hydros with unbelievable results. I would have used it for my buffalo for the initial shot, but I am concerned about wounding a second baffalo because it will over penetrate on buff. So using Swift for the first shot and Hydro's for the follow up shots. Here is a picture of the Swift/Hydro wound channels, Hydro solid being the bigger of the two.

 

[WAB]

Oelof is correct, it has been well documented that the hydros create a concentric hydrostatic wave at their nose. This accomplishes two things; it causes the bullet to track straighter, and it creates a larger wound channel than a conventional solid. As an engineer, I can get my head around this. However, what I struggle to understand is why they appear to out penetrate conventional solids. I would have expected penetration to be reduced by the dissipation of energy in the larger wound channel.

 

[sgt_zim]

Oelof is correct, it has been well documented that the hydros create a concentric hydrostatic wave at their nose. This accomplishes two things; it causes the bullet to track straighter, and it creates a larger wound channel than a conventional solid. As an engineer, I can get my head around this. However, what I struggle to understand is why they appear to out penetrate conventional solids. I would have expected penetration to be reduced by the dissipation of energy in the larger wound channel.

Perhaps the hydros cause some sort of cavitation. Assuming that's true, wouldn't that lower resistance and assist in a deeper penetration? If the meplat liquefies or gassifies what is in front of it the moment before it reaches it, should be a smoother ride for the bullet.

Garrison Cartridge (and Beartooth bullets, I believe) contend this is why their heavy lead-alloy bullets with the giant meplats (principally for 45-70) penetrate so well, even at modest velocity of 1500-1600 fps.

 

[WAB]

Perhaps the hydros cause some sort of cavitation. Assuming that's true, wouldn't that lower resistance and assist in a deeper penetration?

Garrison Cartridge (and Beartooth bullets, I believe) contend this is why their heavy lead-alloy bullets (principally for 45-70) penetrate so well, even at modest velocity of 1500-1600 fps.

That's good point. They call it a pressure wave and that was my assumption looking at the high speed photos. However a localized zone of low pressure would look the same.

 

[Oelof]

Oelof is correct, it has been well documented that the hydros create a concentric hydrostatic wave at their nose. This accomplishes two things; it causes the bullet to track straighter, and it creates a larger wound channel than a conventional solid. As an engineer, I can get my head around this. However, what I struggle to understand is why they appear to out penetrate conventional solids. I would have expected penetration to be reduced by the dissipation of energy in the larger wound channel.

They do indeed penetrate deeper than conventional solids, by quite a large margin. Something I also tested and wondered what causes the extra penetration. Its quite remarkable. Its quite an expensive bullet, I guess you pay for the technology behind the bullet. I still believe the bullet is the least expensive component of the hunt. So I don’t mind spending a bit more for quality.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I wonder how the hydros compare to the CEB safari solid?