Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 338-06 vs. 9.3x62

CRS,

The difference between the 180's and 200/220's in the .30-06 lies in penetration--but unless you're shooting something REALLY big you'll never know the difference.

I tend to think that the easiest solution to this "problem" (if you really want to think of it that way) is to have one of each.

I'm working on that...

I have a Springfield 1903A3 that has a VERY long throat and is delivering extremely anemic velocities as a result. I can't think of anything that screams " REBORE TO WHELEN!!!!!!!!!!" louder than a Springfield.

The 9.3x62 will have to be a fine Mauser, of course... most likely a Husky...

One of the things that often gets tossed around in these discussions is bullet selection. Aside from the fact that we can only shoot animals with one bullet at at time, unless we like to fill them really full of holes (or feel the need for a soft and a solid), bullet selection should be adequate for the purpose of the cartridge chosen.

I just looked through the latest Midway catalog, at the A-Square, Barnes, Hornady, Lapua, Nosler, Norma, Swift, Sierra, Speer and Woodleigh bullets that can be ordered in .338, .358 and 9.3mm. I broke them down into weights, without trying to further break down the types of expanding bullets, only noting those companies that made solids.

I also didn't count handgun bullets in .35. That advantage of .35's has always escaped me, since I prefer to shoot handgun bullets out of handguns, but here we are talking about big game anyway.

The leader, of course, is .338 caliber, with 34 weights of rifle bullets available from 160 to 300 grains.

There were only 18 weights of .35's, partly because two companies (the European firms of Lapua and Norma) don't make any. Weighst ranged from 180 to 310 grains.

There were 15 weights of 9.3's. Here Sierra doesn't make one. They ranged from 232 to 320 grains.

But now let's look at this a little differently. Generally we want a necked-up .30-06 because we want to shoot heavier bullets.

In .338 caliber there are 4 bullets of 270 grains and over,
but half of those are match bullets, which some hunters may or may not want to use (or might not be able to, because they're both very long 300's). There's only one solid, the 250-grain A-Square. On the other hand, everybody makes a 250-grain except Norma.

In .35 there are 2 bullets of 270 grains or more, one a solid, the 275-grain A-Square. Only 5 of the 10 companies even make a 250-grain, though A-Square makes a 275, Swift a 280, and Woodleigh a 310.

In 9.3 there are 9 bullets of over 270 grains available, including 7 286's. There are also 4 solids, all 286's except the 320 Woodleigh. Four companies also make a 250, but only one makes any bullet under 250 grains, the Norma 232 Oryx.

In general, the .338-06 gets the least velocity in any given bullet weight, by reason of it's smaller bore. On the other hand, .338 bullets also tend to have the highest BC's of any of the three diameters.

The .35 Whelen can get a little more zip out of the same bullet weights, but in the lighter weights (under 225 grains) BC is so poor that none of the bullet have any advantage for longer-range shooting.

The 9.3x62 gains about 5% over the .338-06 with the same weight bullets, and 2% over the .35 Whelen. This is both because of the extra diameter of the bullets and because the 9.3 case has a little more powder room, since the shoulder is further forward than on the .30-06 case. This doesn't show up in manual data because of the lower factory pressures, but the 9.3 will safely get 2700+ fps out of a 250-grain bullet, and 2500 fps or so out of a 286.

So if we get rational about all this, here's what we find:

1) The .338-06 is the best choice for somebody who wants to use both .30-06-weight and heavier bullets.

2) The .35 Whelen is the least versatile big game cartridge of the three, since it's lighter bullets simply don't keep up. However, handgun bullets can also be used, if that's important to you.

3) The 9.3 has a far greater selection of truly heavy bullets, but almost nothing under 250 grains. The selection of 286's is quite varied, with something in every price and performance range. It's ballistics are are also the "biggest," and there are far more solids available.

So the 3 rounds cover very similar territory, but there are differences. Somebody who really like to use really cheap bullets for practice would go for the .35 Whelen. Somebody who wants one rifle to span the widest variety of performance in North America would probably go for the .338-06. Somebody who hunts really large or dangerous game, especially in Africa, would probably go for the 9.3. But to try to prove that one is vastly superior than the other two is very much like arguing over the .270, .280 and .30-06. Most of us could hunt the rest of our lives with any of the three and not notice all that much difference.

Norma makes a 250gr Oryx in 35 caliber, I have several boxes cuzz I love the Oryx so.

The .338-06 fairly duplicates the old .333 Jefferies and that was considered a fine "medium" round for elephant. Given that, plus modern bullets and a touch more velocity, I doubt theres any large game in the US that the .338-06 wouldn't cope with..

That said, I went with the 9.3x62mm as it seemed to be more available this side of the Atlantic, and after taking a dozen critters with it, I couldn't be happier...

One has to wonder if the 30-06 hadn't show up what we'd be shooting... some say the 06 came from the 9.3x62.

Now that I'm not so scared of shooting heavys I may have to try a hornady 9.3 given Sierra won't give in and make'em.

I don't think the '06 came from the 9.3x62.
I think rather that both the Americans and Otto Bock were looking at the longest possible cartridge which could fit in a standard Mauser action and ended up with cases that were almost identical.
Hardly suprising.
And the 9.3 has it over the 35 Whelen because it has a shorter neck and slightly more powder space.
The Whelen's shortcomings as an African cartridge stem from the fact it was designed with Nth America in mind, much as American hunters probably feel the heavy 9.3mm bullets limit the '62.
As to the comments on the heavier 338 pills, especially the 300 grainers, remember that bullets that heavy are designed for long range shooting using rounds like 338 Win, 338 RUM, 340 Wby and 338 Lapua.
Even if they are hunting bullet they are not likely to expand as happily at the velocities the 338-06 can push them.
The 9.3x62 OTOH is the most prevalent cartridge in .366" cal and so bullets in this cal are designed with its ballistics in mind.

Actually, at its inception, the 35 Whelen used bullets of 300 grains regularly. Elmer used 300 gr. WTC bullets (It may have even been a 350? I can't recall).

I believe Ken Howell used 275 gr. Hornadys in his Whelen for many years.

Its shortcomings in Africa is that it wasn't used in Africa. Elmer did use the 333 OKH, but had he gone prior to WWII he would have used a 35 or 400 Whelen, perhaps. When Americans went to Africa they generally didn't take 9.3's either.

Of course over recent years bullets for the 338 and 358 have gotten lighter and lighter. The 9.3 offerings really haven't changed since its inception.

Most guys using 338's are using 225 or lighter bullets today.

The Whelens shortcomings are only what we have given it; with modern, lighter bullets that's not much at hunting ranges.

Anyone worried about longer range or lack of power would be carrying a belted magnum of some sort or its equivalent.

JB,
Thanks for the reply.

I agree 100% with your above post. You always have a way of putting things down on paper that make sense.

CRS

Hawk1,

Elmer Keith used the 275-grain Western Tool & Copper Works bullet in the .35 Whelen. Or at least that's what he states in his books BIG GAME RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES (1936) and RIFLES FOR LARGE GAME (1946).

He says in the second book that he asked Fred Barnes--the originator of Barnes bullets--to make a 300-grain .35 but even by then Elmer had moved on to the .333 OKH. After World War two he pretty much abandoned the .35's for the .33's, because the grester sectional density of the .33's provided better penetration at close range and better ballistics at longer ranges.

One of the problems with the .35's has always been the 1-16 twist common to so many older rifles, and still found in some factory rifles. This is what allows .35's to shoot cast handgun bullets so well, but few bullet companies are going to come out with a spitzer over 250 grains when it might not stabilize in many rifles. So the very versatility of the .35's is one of its downfalls, one of the reasons for the limited bullet selection.

Are Barnes Banded 338/250gr considered solids?

Yes

I think it a fair assumption that Otto Bock designed his cartridge to meet the requirements of dropping large African animals. In particular predators after farm animals and herbivores grazing off farmer's crops.

Are the 338-06 or the 35 Whelan up to that requirement? I invite anyone who has used those cartridges in Africa, or seen them used in Africa, to post their observations and opinions.

I'm betting old Otto didn't have the bullets we have today.

Personally I was thinking about an elk rifle so if anyone's got experience with elk & the 9.3x62 that would be interesting as well.

My 06 kill's em so I'm thinking it couldn't do worse that the 06.

Thanks.

I was only going from memory, which stinks, and I don't have my copy of Hell....
I definitely didn't want to glean my old G&A's for such info.

Of note as well, Townsend Whelen found gallery loads/light handgun bullets a tool for shooting grouse at close range when on one of his long hunting excursions.

We generally don't spend a month on a trip today.



Most heavy 35 Whelen bullets are/were round nose in shape, which Dr. Howell and Elmer, for a time, found totally adequate.

Today's hunters find it as inferior, but the Whelen was developed along the same vein as the 9.3, of which now has spitzer bullets like the Partition, but I suspect it earned most of its pedigree with RN or semi-spitzer bullets with similar SD's and BC's of the Whelen bullets of old.

Steelhead,

Of course he didn't.

Probably the North American popular equivalent cartridge for the 1900s into 1950s would the ever popular 30-30 Winchester. To compare the 9.3x62 too the 30-30 would be comparing apples too oranges.

We're trying to compare apples too apples here. Using African hunting as the standard.

What

I'm thinking you need to say 303 Brit v. 30-30....

I like your ability to break things down and give a common sense assessment of the situation.

It's worth mentioning that the 9.3s can be loaded w/ Makorov (.365 cal) pistol bullets... I haven't tried this in my x57, but intend to. Ain't it a shame that we don't "need" this option for "camp meat loads" like they used to on extended excursions? Most of the time I do a hunting trip I'm just finally getting "off the clock" fully (psychologically anyway) when its time to get "back to the grind"!

I still say the Loony answer is to buy all four... although I'd hesitate to suggest that any man ought to limit himself to only one '06... .