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

If you load the 9.3x62 in a modern rifle, it will go 2470-2500 with a 286, which is exactly what a factory .375 will go. Is the 14 grains of bullet weight (less than 5%) a big difference in killing power? I would be more than surprised if anyone can tell the difference on game, which makes the 9.3x62 a great round for someone wanting a portable, light recoil big game rifle. One of my favorites is my Whitworth .375 which has always been a 'lucky' rifle for me, so I use it a lot, but don't think there is a practical difference between it and a handloaded to potential 9.3x62. The observation on the recoil difference between is just what I would expect, lighter rifle and more powder, it should kick damn near twice as hard. The 9.3x62 seems milder than that, kicks like a 180-200 grain .30-06 in a light Ruger 77 to me, as the CZ is heavier.

I am trying to think of an animal that could withstand the tap of the mild mannered ,easy shooting 9.3 x 62 and I fail at my quest.

The record is there, in Europe, Africa, Australia and now the US. This record overrides opinion to a large degree, which I state intentionally, because we all want to stay away from Bell and his elephants.

It all boils down to a very boring, repiticiously touched on subject called shot placement which is based on two factors, that being the hunters ability to hunt and get close enough to position the shot, and the shootability and manageability of the round being used in the particular terrain and conditions.

Simple really. Which do you shoot better? Which do you enjoy shooting enough in order to practice more? Which is likely to be your go to rifle? Which is least likely to fail in your hands?

Another solution, is to get both!

AGW

Unless I have to use a 375 HH for legal reasons I would much rather carry and shoot the 9.3's that I have tried.

The CZ with the full stock is cute but until I hear about their safeties I too lean towards a M70.

Hear what about their safeties? The factory safeties have a 2-position or a 2-position option, much like a Remington 700 safety in operation. There are aftermarket (VERY GOOD and reasonably priced) 3-position wing M70-style safeties available for the 550s, if that's your preference.

As I understand the CZ cf safeties they are only two position. Thats unacceptable right off.

Also the old and maybe even on the CZ's today the safety is on when its forward and off when its back. Thats no good either.



The specs I am looking at say it weighs 7.4 lbs. Suppose thats ok for a 9.3 but its way too heavy for a 7mm Mauser carbine. Whats that thing sticking out where the floor plate should be?

CZ full stock

Unless you handle one, you can't/don't know.

Do you see anything sticking out where the "floor plate should be" on the 550FS in the pics above? I don't. And, I don't on mine.

Mine has the two position safety; though 3-positions ARE available. EITHER is acceptable. "ON" is still on; "OFF" is still off. The best and most important safety is still between the ears. For those who want them, an aftermarket 3-position wing safety is still available for $100 or less.

We aren't talking about a 7x57 carbine, and it's desired weight, but the desired weight on a 9.3. I have one of those; it's a tad heavy, but carries between the hands, comes up fast, balances very well, and shoots/points beautifully.

Will I trade that safety out? Probably, but I don't have to. And, the rear sight is getting swapped for a three-leaf express Whitworth rear; just 'cause I want it to. Otherwise, I ain't changing a thing.

Geez! It's funny how we pick on stuff we know nothing about.

The safety lever on the CZ-550 rifles go forward to fire back for safe. And please tell me why we need a three position safety! What is so grand about that middle position?

The CZ's are a little heavy for any given caliber and rough around the edges but still a great buy in a bolt rifle and a helluva lot better quality all the way around than any new model 70 Winchester. I legitimate complaint could be had with the set trigger but some folks actually like it. I see no place for it on a big game rifle.

As for the recoil of the 375 Ruger it feels like a 375 H&H to me. The numbers given for the case capacity are wrong there is no way you can get 86 grains of any powder in that case. A much better comparison between the 375 Ruger and the 9.3 x64 would be more closely matched. But the Ruger is fatter than the old 9.3x64 case.

It also seems funny to me that when we favor one caliber over another we select low numbers for one (such as the 3002400fps for the H&H) and high numbers for the favorite and say no difference. B.S.

I've been loading for, shooting and hunting with the 375 H&H and the 9.3x62 since 1981. I've never seen more than 2400 fps from the 286 grain bullet in any 24" barreled 9.3x62. Furthermore the 300 grain for the 375H&H in every rifle I've chronographed (over fifty of them) has easily given 2550 fps with that bullet. I don't use factory ammo for much of anything except brass. Some of the loads for the monstrously long all copper bullets are maximum because of case volume and not pressure and for what reason would we shoot a marginally effective(at this velocity) bullet in the old H&H anyway. It is a moderate velocity cartridge, as is the 9.3 and doesn't benefit from any super-zappy bullets at all.

Brian,

Where did you get the numbers to plug into the recoil calculater for the 375 Ruger? The Hornady 375 Ruger case will hold 6 grains more than the Winchester brand 375 H&H case. That's it. It sends 300 grain bullets to 2650 fps from the Hawkeyes 23" barrel. Recoil is quite mild, like the 375 H&H. This Hawkeye weighs about 7 3/4# without scope and is not bad at all to shoot. Oh, yeah, it also has a middle position on the safety lever. Let's compare apples to apples here maybe all will get a fair shake.

I don't see what the big deal is about the CZ's safety.
So what if it is not the "hallowed" M70 style three position?
I keep my finger off of the trigger until I am ready to fire, works for me...

Ditto, Carson.

Another point about the 9.3x62. It doesn't loose much in a 20" barrel. I use RL-12 in that one also (that powder has been dropped by Alliant) and that seems to be the powder, though I've tried everything. It holds a little more powder than the Whelen (like an AI) but no big difference.

I don't know why CZ puts plastic magazine followers in the 9.3x62 rifles, I order a steel one from Kansas City and changed mine out.

In the H&H with 300 grain bullets, H4350 is a much better powder. I use RL-15 for the 250-270 grainers.

I no longer own any CZ, but I do own a Husqvarna 649 FN action 9,3X62 and a Ruger Hawkeye 375 African. Even with max loads and 320 9,3mm Woodleighs, the 9,3 is a pussycat to shoot, compared to the 375 Ruger with 300s.

If I could have only one, it would be the 375 Ruger...just more horses...

Funny, I have the same thoughts about the .375 Wby... and the ability to use .375 H&H loads in it in a pinch.

When the dust settles I think we will find the Ruger easily pushing 260 grainers to 2900 fps , which is near 300 fps faster than the old 9.3 do with like weight bullets......which puts it in a different class of flatness and horsepower as far as I'm concerned.

Yet any load the 9.3 can do could be easily dupicated with the Ruger.......the bigger boileroom is just more versitile.....the same cam be said for the H&H , still a good 200 fps ahead of the smaller case if you load them both to potential .

sdgunslinger;

I doubt anyone will disagree with you on that. Facts is facts.

Still, for all but the "you gotta have EVERYTHING - and then some - that the H&H can do"; the 9.3 excels

Did you actually hunt and kill game with a .35 Whelen, or just "review" it? I've killed game in Wyoming, Montana, Alaska and Africa with mine, and can't imagine that my 9.3x62 is going to kill anything any deader than the Whelen has. Any paper ballistic distinction is pretty marginal in the field.

My CZ 550 American 9.3x62 is very mild-recoiling. I finally put it on a scale -- just over 10 lbs with 2-7 Leuppie. It's all physics .

The test rifle was used on fallow deer which is not enough of a test for the ballistics as they are lightly framed deer.
My lack of interest was created in the ballistics falling short of what everyone else quotes.

No doubt it will do all you have done, but it still didn't impress me enough to try another one. Some cartridges do impress and are easy to load for and gain great results both in velocities and accuracy. They warrant further interest.

The Whelan has had 19 years legitimacy to impress the shooting world and has not gained much ground. I doubt it will be here in another 19 years. The jury is still out on the 9.3 and its track record is unblemished over the last 90 years.

Hope you enjoy your whelan. My opinion does not make me right.

AGW

Not to quibble or get too far off topic, but let's not forget that the .35 Whelen has been around since 1922. Griffin & Howe used to offer loaded ammo for it. Granted it wasn't a "factory cartridge" until Remington brought it in 1988 or so. But, it does have an 85 year track record.



I think the Whelen's ballistics stand up pretty well compared to some other cartridges. It's very similar to the 9x57 Mauser and the .350 Rigby Magnum, for example. And, from what I've read, the .350 Rigby Mag had a good reputation in Africa.

That said, I'm a big fan of the .338 Win Mag, the 9.3x62 and the .375 H&H also. I'm just a medium bore looney.



http://www.kynochammunition.co.uk/





[img]http://www.new-kynoch.apt-sites.com/cartridges%20named/375%20H&H%20Belted%20Magnum.jpg[/img]



-Bob F.

Actually, the Whelen has been "legitimate" in the eyes of American shooters since Howe and The Colonel developed it in 1920. It has always been a specialty round for specific uses. Depending on the tastes and purchasing practices of the general American shooting public for guidance is kind of a losing proposition, in my opinion. For one thing, it kicks a little to hard for the bulk of hunters, who think a .308 is a pretty powerful rifle.

The Whelen will be exactly where it is now 20 years from now -- popular among enough shooters to keep making brass, and for the occasional manufacturing run of new rifles. I don't expect it to ever become wildly popular, but it seems to have staying power.

I get over 2500 fps with 250 gr Woodleigh Weldcores and Hornady RN's, and sub-MOA groups at 200 yards. This is more than sufficient for all of my needs. While I have more powerful rifles, I have no great need for anything beyond the good Colonel's brainchild.

What works for me may not be right for anyone else... .

I have shot a lot of rifles and I don't know of any that I have fired that kicked worse than John Barsness' 9.3 BS which is a short action 700 with a 350 Rem Mag case necked to 9.3. I think it duplicates the 9.3x62 powder capacity. Maybe the rifle is just light, I dunno, but it was worse than his 375s that I shot the same day.

My 340 may kick harder but not by much.

AGW,
Now you've gone and done it!
Said something even remotely disparaging about the Whelan!!

But seriously, I too hope they continue making Whelan brass. I use it to form 375 Scovill.

SOS

For those that are interested, I also owned a Rigby 350 #2 which is the double rifle equivalent to the .350 Rigby Magnum and the velocities quoted in the spec's above, are what I got from a 250 grain bullet not the 225 as in the listing.

My double shot 6 rounds into 1 5/8" at 50 yards from its mint unfired bores, and I foolishly sold it. Some days we make decisions we regret.

AGW