Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 9.3X62 CZ550 VS 375 Ruger Hawkeye - difference in recoil is - wow !

Like many on this list, I occasionally have an urge to own a rifle bigger than I'll ever actually "need". Why? Because.

Two rifles that have gotten a lot of favorable press lately, and that fit into the category of "bigger than I need" include the CZ 550 in 9.3x62, and the Ruger Hawkeye in .375 Ruger. I've read every magazine article and post on these two cartridge/rifles that I can get my hands on. They do interest me. I like the idea of a fairly lightweight, packable, "thumper".

At this point in my life the biggest "probable" targets that such rifles would be used on, would be grizzlies and moose. Africa is only a pipedream, at this point - still, one lives in hope that someday that dream might become a reality.

I was thinking that it was interesting that rifles firing these bigger than average bullets, were getting as much press in the magazines and interest in these postings. I guess that means I'm not alone in my being interested in such things.

I was thinking that these two rifles were quite similar in what they brought to the table. Then, this morning I punched in the figures into my favorite "recoil calculator" (Beartooth Bullets website) and lo and behold, I found that there wasn't much similarity in these two cartridge/rifles at all - at least on the way they would affect ones shoulder.

The 9.3x62 uses about 64 grains of powder to shoot 250 grain bullets at up to about 2650fps and about 57 grains of powder to shoot 286 grain bullets at up to 2500fps. The rifle weighs about 8lbs and I allowed an extra lb for the scope and rings. These loads, according to the calculator, gives about 32ft.lb recoil and have a recoil velocity of 15fps for both of them.

The 375 Ruger uses about 86 grains of powder to shoot 270 grain bullets at up to about 2850fps and about 82 grains of powder to shoot 300 grain bullets at up to 2700fps. This rifle weighs about 7.5 lbs and I allowed the same extra pound for scope and rings. Both of these loads are supposed to recoil at about 54ft.lbs of recoil and have a recoil velocity of 20fps.

Wow! I would never have believed that these two different rifle/cartridge combinations would produce such different figures. That is more than 60% more recoil - for the Ruger 375, over the CZ 9.3X62. For those that have shot both - do they really feel THAT different?

Would they be that different - on game?

I guess if a Cape Buffalo in Africa ever became a reality - only the 375 would be legal in most countires. But over here, I wonder what the practical differences would be?

What are your thoughts?

Woodleigh makes bullets up to 320 grains both in soft and solid for the 9.3 and 350 grains for the .375.

If there is another argument than can be tossed around, it will be the history of both cartridges in Africa on all sizes of game. Neither would be the preferred choice of a seasoned hunter facing a charging buffalo or elephant but both have enviable records for dispatching game adequately over a long period of time. And...in reality, most of will never face this situation.

The reason is shootability. If a rifle is easy to use and does not belt the hell out of you, you will use it more often and gain familiarity with it, also building up a portfolio of successes that will instill further faith in the round.

The CZ 550 gives you 5 round magazine capacity in both chamberings so in the end, the recoil and rifle weight are the two main factors as long as we don't go off in tangents relating to ammo availability in one horse towns, which is a separate argument.

The 9.3 X 62's I have used were mild recoiling rifles in standard weight format for .30/06 type cartridges whereby the .375's were a little heavier, as they should be.

If I wanted something in that medium bore range, I think it would be the 9.3 and I would reserve the .375 for a custom classic style sporter so that tradition is fully preserved in classic form.

I personnaly have the hots for a Winchester Featherweight in 9.3 x 62 topped off with a 2-7 Leupold. The argument against it is that I would probably forsake my other rifles.

AGW

Brian, it should come as no real suprise...the 9.3x62 is essentially a stoutly loaded 35 Whelen and the 375 Ruger is basically a 375 H+H w/respect to recoil.

Believe me, there is a difference between the 35 Whelen and 375 H+H in rifles of equal weight...2 totally different animals (although neither is unbearable)!

I thought the 9.3 better than the .35 Whelan which did not impress me when reviewed. Rather have a .338 than the Whelan and rather a .340 that the 338.

AGW

BCBrian,

I currently own a Remington 700 BDL/SS in 375 H&H, and previously owned a CZ 550FS in 9.3x62. The comparative 'feel' of the recoil is about as your calculated numbers indicate - 32 v. 54. Concerning the rifles themselves, I much prefer the Remington to the CZ. The Remington shoots larger/heavier bullets faster, it is lighter in weight and impervious to weather, and it feeds and operates much more smoothly and reliably than that CZ.
_

BC..,


I have a CZ in 9.3 and don't find the recoil objectionable at all. To my semi-insenitive shoulder a .338 Win Mag has greater recoil.

The 700 BDL/SS is pretty light for a .375 H&H, and is probably a good example of how that Ruger Hawkeye is going to kick. I have had several .375s, and my modern Model 70, with 23-inch barrel and 9.25 with iron sights, is a pleasure to shoot at about 42 ft-lbs of recoil. The lightest one I had was a SxS by H&H, with hard buttplate, but it was not bad, probably because the pitch and cast off of the stock made the gun rise a lot and swing away from your face, rather than jamming straight into your shoulder.

Just the opposite for me. My CZ 550 9.3x62 feeds and operates smoother than any Remington I have owned and way better than any I pick up off the rack these days! Remington quality control has gone downhill in my opinion, especially in the last few years.

SH

I would think that stock design and the quality of the recoil pad would make a great deal of difference. My CZ 550 FS in 9.3x62 is easier on my shoulder than my Winchester Model 70 338 because the 338 has a forty year old Pachmayr white line recoil pad and the CZ wears a decelerator. Also, the hump-back stock profile, for me, preserves the correct length of pull (for my build, 13.5") while also keeping the recoil off my cheek and controlling muzzle rise; my Winchester, a late 60s push feed with monte carlo comb, smacks my cheek bone even though it comes straight back. Recoil on the 338 is "faster" as well.

The only real answer is to buy both and have fun! Get a CZ 550 with a nice chunk of wood (they're out there) and get a Ruger Alaskan 375 for rainy days. As for ammo availability, that's what 338's and 30-06's are for! Just another excuse for a new rifle!

Here's a picture of my 9.3 to get you started on the right path

Agreed. Easily.

The 9.3, recoils like a stout '06. The ballistics, track records, and in-field performance tell you what it performs like (hint... it ain't the .35 Whelen, nor is it the .375H&H... but it performs a LOT closer to one than the other).

I like my CZ in 9.3X62 very much!
It does kick less than my Ruger 338win mag, I would say that the 338 has a quicker "impulse" than does the 9.3X62.
The 9.3X62 is a sweetheart, I wish I had discovered it years ago!

I am not sure about all country's in Africa but many if not all have made the 9.3 the minimum caliber...............

Agreed back at you. A lot more gun than it otta be.

BINGO and spot on!

It always amazes me when people talk up the 9.3x62 so much when it is basically just a 06 necked up to 9.3. Good round no doubt, but it is not in the league of the 375!

Now the 9.3x64 a round I've worked with a bit is very much so in the league of the good old 375.

There is a darn good reason why there is such a diff between the recoil and it will be there.

Mark D

It may not be in the league of the 375 H&H ..but it surely is neck n neck with the 338 wm loaded with 250 grain bullets. There won't be much contention with the abilities of 338wm and large toothsome beast here in NA.

"I personnaly have the hots for a Winchester Featherweight in 9.3 x 62 topped off with a 2-7 Leupold. The argument against it is that I would probably forsake my other rifles.

AGW"

Drooling now!

I like small light carbines in medium bores (the above if I had it would be my heaviest rifle), because you carry more than you shoot. The one negative to this preference is the recoil, but I have learned what to do to limit the "ouch".

Velocity (recoil) counts more than energy.

Powder weight effects recoil,use the fastest powder that is efficient in the cartridge.

Change recoil pads now and then,they get hard.

Don't set at the bench all day, I need the practice in various positions anyway.

In more direct responce to the question, if either is bigger than needed take the 9.3 for both the sake of both its history (the new .375 Ruger has none) and your shoulder.

Fireplug

Not much of an argument from me here, I feel the same way about my 338/06 as you do about the 9.3. Both darn good rounds and to my mind they'll do all that a good 338 will do.

Good comments.

Mark D

I remember giving the 338/06 considerable thought when Weatherby introduced their Ultralight MkV in that chambering.
Now that I have my 9.3X62, I can't see doing one,since nobody chambers one in a production rifle that I know of.

I have some observations on this issue of recoil. First of all, some factory .375 H&H rounds don't break 2400 fps in standard loads, such as PMC Barnes XLC bullets, probably "out of print" with the new triple shock bullets now made. If you handload, the maximum powder charge is 66.5 grains with RL-15 with 300 grain Sierra Game King bullets (Hodgdon 26th), giving a velocity of around 2400 fps with 20 inch barrel, mine was 2387 fps at 43 F. The CZ-550 9.3x62mm, using 20.5 inch barrel FS model uses 59.0 grains Varget for 2399 fps at 59 F for me. My Savage 116 .375 H&H weighs only 6 lbs 7 oz, with iron sights. The CZ 550 weighs 8 lbs 10 oz with a Weaver K2.5 on top. With an 8.5 pound rifle in each case, more like the Hawkeye with a scope, the recoil would be 16 fps recoil velocity, 35 ft-lb recoil energy for the 9.3x62mm and 17 fps, 39 ft-lbs for the .375 H&H or similar 375 Ruger (maybe a bit more powder and resulting recoil considering the larger case). Just a parting shot at the .35 Whelen nay-sayers. My Remington 700 Classic with a 22 inch barrel gives 250 grain Speer and Barnes X bullets at 2540 with 60.0 grains RL-12, and 2521 fps with 59.0 grains BL-C(2). In the Nov/Dec 2006 Successful Hunter magazine a .338-06, 350 Rigby Magnum (250 Woodleigh at 2500 fps) and 9.3x62mm 286 Nosler Partition at 2350fps +) were all used successfully on brown bear. Of course, the .338 Win Mag can exceed the .338-06, the 9.3x64mm exceed the 9.3x62mm and the 358 Norma Magnum the 35 Whelen in absolute ballistics. You can add weight for more magazine capacity, more barrel for velocity or sacrifice some recoil increase for weight savings. I think the 6.5 pound .375 H&H a un-pleasant little beast but no doubt a great choice for a over burdened guide or hunter, if iron sights at 150 yards or less, at least with my skill level, is in the cards. The CZ550 FS or the 24 inch American model are great rifles with 5 round magazines and Mauser type extractors. If this appeals to you like it did to me, get them. The CZ550 magnum in .375 H&H weighs close to 10 pounds without a scope, but holds 5 rounds too. I am a whimp with a 7.75 pound .338 Win Mag too. A half dozen rounds and I'm done for the day. Lots of padding are needed if I want meaningful groups from the bench. Mostly I practice off hand and get the feel of working the bolt fast and getting back on a paper plate at fifty yards. Up to now, scoped prone at 200 yards hasn't been a problem, for one or two shots. My limited experience is that I don't expect more than two shots successfully at game animals, so I keep working at the off-hand drills, less pain, more gain. Enjoy any of the rifles mentioned here, handloading adds versatility to the .338 Win Mag and .375 H&H with down loading, less recoil and more useful practice, in my mind. The .35 Whelen is an effecient, effective cartridge in my rifle, 4 rounds in the magazine and light weight, it's just that I've "discovered" the 9.3x62 tto, as an improved ".30-06" class cartridge, more capacity, more cross sectional area.

This is a fun topic. Here are some comments.

The 9.3-62's and 375 Whelan AI's that I shot were nice guns to carry as well. The recoil did not bother me.

The 375 HH, 375 AI and 378 Weath. that I have/had are all heavy guns but are fun to shoot with reduced loads and still make a nice deep hole.

My 375's are all on the heavy side, that 375 Ruger is not.

The 375 Ruger ammo is not really popular yet or available in a lot of places.

The CZ actions don't turn me on but someone mentioned that the safety now works the other way? Is it still only two position?

I am avoiding rifles with two position safeties.

My supplier has three pages of 375 bullets and only one of 9.3's.