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.

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 300@2400fps 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

OUCH

Let me introduce you to a new word seldom used, frowned upon in modern society and claimed to be the downfall of modern society. If you take a look under "D" in the dictionary, you will see a wonderful word called "Discrimination".

It is the most natural trait in all animals, of which we are one, classified as a mammal.

When you walk into a supermarket, you discriminate against all the breakfast cereals you don't like and buy what pleases you. When you bought your car, you discriminated against all the makes and models that you do not like or do not prefer and heaven forbid, you even discriminated against all the colors that were not pleasing to your eye.

When you went out "tom catting" as a mere lad, you discriminated against all the female forms that displeased you. Alchohol is known to permit a widening of tastes, but it is still discrimination in its purest form.

In the animal kingdom, it is socially acceptable, in our subspecies, which does not, nor ever did mean lesser, (a bear is not lesser a bear, nor a caribou lesser a caribou)it has become politically correct, a social disease more common to the US than overseas I can assure you, we are more secretive about our natural instinct, to discriminate.

Well, I am guilty as sin of discrimination against the .35 Whelen. Not because there is anything wrong with it, because there is not, It just does not please me enough, to want one or explore its potential further.

Ever gone on a blind date to find more acne and plastic clothing in one pile than you ever saw in a shopping isle? Guilty. I discriminated against that thereafter too.

Oh, the ultimate discrimination?? Go to the thread on beer.

AGW

Aussie..,

Good to see one thing holds true. Alcohol works the same way 'down under' as it does in the States

One of natures blessings to be sure.

There is an Aussie Wine company called Linderman's. The company slogun is; "The one purpose of wine is to bring happiness to man".

After that little diversion for which I most humbly apologise, I like the 9.3X62 over the .338 and prefer the .458's over the .375's. If I need a heavy hitter, I want a heavy hitter. If it can be handloaded with structuraly sound bullets offering lighter bullet weight and recoil with flatter trajectory, so much the better.

I still like the .375's but have no place in my battery for them though a classic custom Model 70 in .375 H&H will still turn my head as much as yours. See, there is always room to move.

AGW

There are some persistant rumors about CZ's that keep cropping up in this forum which are, in my experience ,wrong.

The centerfire,big bore rifles 550's DO NOT have plastic followers or anything else for that matter. I own two and have seen or shot a dozen others. Their Varmint model MIGHT but I haven't seen one.

The saftey on the big bore 550's works JUST LIKE the Remington 700 safety ... it IS NOT reversed.

The small bore centerfire action is not the same as the 550 action and the saftey on them IS reversed for some weird reason. I don't have a 527 but my hunting pard has two (.223&.204) and, I believe the detachable mags ARE plastic.

Regarding the 9.3X62 vs the 9.3X74R, every thing I've read and every load manual I have, show identacle balistics for the two rounds. The idea being the 9.3X74 is a rimmed version of the 9.3X62 for use in double rifles. The slightly larger case providing lower pressures for hinged rifles.

Further the .375H&H shoots the same weight bullets as the 9.3 roughly 200fps faster in most cases.

If someone has opposing experience I welcome their response.

a brand new CZ550 in 9.3 x 62 at a gun shop in Tucker GA that I looked at two weeks ago had a black plastic magazine follower, I called the company CZ USA and asked if I buy it will you replace this with a metal follower, the answer was "sorry we cannot get the metal ones anymore". I had my credit card out ready to buy the rifle but a 3% charge on credit purchases and the plastic follwer gave me pause. The other thing that caused me to walk away as the gun store guy insisted that the target in the box was shot at 100 meters, when it was clearly marked 50 meters, I asked CZ about this too and they confirmed 50 meters. I still plan on getting a 9.3 x 62 as it makes more sense to me than a 338WM for my frame and recoil tolerance, but I am still puzzling on what to purchase. If I buy the CZ I will not buy it from the first dealer even if I have to pay more.

jim..,

Interesting. I have a 9.3 and an '06, my pard has a .270 and a .458 ......no plastic anywhere. Nor on the several I've seen offered for sale. Maybe it's a recent thing. Brownells probably has metal followers, expect any mauser follower will work.

Most credit card companies charge 2% and if a dealer is getting down to low figures he takes that into account. Pretty much a common practice at any place that dickers on price ... not just gun dealers.

Yes I was surprised as well as I had a CZ550 full stock 2-3 years ago with a metal follower. There was no question that it was plastic and there was no question that the guys at CZ USA were not happy about it. 3% extra was a bit more than I wanted to pay this guy anyway. Still want the 9.3 x 62, and the CZ550 is not a bad rifle.

Polymer followers and if fact entire magazines are pretty common now. I suppose they work. I still prefer real metal and real wood.

Back in 1976 I bought a Steyr Mannlicer Mod M Professional, One of the first fiberglass stocked rifles. The magazines are Polymer and I never had a bit of trouble or breakage to to wear or what have you. I would not have a problem with the follower in the CZ 9.3 x62. The Polymer they use in firearms in general is very strong and durable. Since its a 98 action or a copy of one, Brownells will be able to fix you up with a follower in metal if it keeps you awake at night.

OK I buy rifles with "polymer stocks" as well. I was not sure how the "polymer" follower would work in a pinch. I know how the metal one works as I had one. Just guilty of discrimination.

I don't feel a lot of difference in the 9.3x62, 338 Win or the .375. Recoil is a personal thing, some folks can take a lot and others cannot. My tolerances stop at the 40 calibers or perhaps a .458. Not to say that I cannot shoot a .470, 500 or .577 but it takes my concentration not to flinch and that is not a good thing.

BTW the 9.3x62 is legal about everywhere but a few places in RSA. Tanzania has a .375 limit but nobody cares, checks, or even has the ability to tell the difference.

Ray,

Good to see you posting here again.

John

I'm not particularly recoil sensitive. The .338 has more felt recoil -for me- than the 9.3X62. The 9.3 is a bit like my .300H&H with 180gr bullets ... a bit more muzzle rise maybe, but doesn't back up any worse. Shooting off hand the .458 isn't bad either. Speaking of RSA ... all the PH's I met there loved BRNO or CZ rifles ......amazingly none of them were familar with the 9.3X62. Go figger.

The nastiest kicking thing I've ever shot is my 8lb o/u with 3" Winchester High Velocity Turkey loads.

You really oughta try a Mossberg 835, unported, with 3.5" 12 gauge full-house turkey loads...

heres one that gets your attention, at one time there were a few were made in 10 ga 3.5 inch chambering and had a weight in the stock that could be removed,getting the weight down around 7.3 lbs

http://www.richmondsportinggoods.com/new_england_ultra_slug_hunter.htm

I have. Also an H&R single barrel 3.5" 10 ga. with standard loads. Will hold to my opinion that Winchester 3"mag HIGH VELOCITY loads are the baddest things I've ever shot. By mistake I picked up some Win HV 3.5" mags. They never got shot...gave'em away... so I'll never know how bad they are.and that's O.K. with me!!!!

Ouch!

I shot some turkey loads in my Rem SP-10, these were 3 1/2" full power and that gun is around 9#. To me it's worse than my M-70 Super Express in .375 H&H. I shot a buddy's Merkel .500 NE, 570 gr. bullets at 2,150 fps. Big push back, but less slap than the SP-10 with those turkey loads. Only the 10 ga. gave me a headache...

DF

Wow, 2007....

BCBrian, in my house we have a CZ550 FS in 9.3x62 and a left handed 375 Ruger Hawkeye. Both rifles were bought at the same time. The CZ is mine and the 375 is my son's (he is left handed).

He so far has only shot 235 g. bullets at 2800 fps + (if I remember correctly) and I shoot 286 g. bullets at just over 2400 fps out of my 20.5" barrel. My load is close to maximun, his is not. He has more velocity potential in his rifle.

Because of stock shape and recoil pad differences there is a difference in recoil if you shoot one rifle and then the other.

For me the Bavarian stock on the CZ gives more muzzle rise, while the much straighter stock on the Ruger has less. But felt recoil is about the same to both me and my son, they just come back differently.

The CZ came with a thick soft pad and the Ruger has the classic Ruger hard pad. We use a slip on pad for the Ruger, I replaced the CZ pad with a 0.6" Decelerator in part to shorten the LOP without cutting the wood. My son expects to replace his pad.

He can load his rifle to higher velocities -- with greater recoil -- and mine carries 5 in the magazine to 3 for his. It depends on what your preference is.

My CZ has a 3 position safety that you push forward to fire. I consider it every bit as good as the M70 type safeties that I've paid gunsmiths good money to put on a couple of Mauser actions so the rants about the CZ safeties leave me scratching my head. My follower is metal and came that way.

I like my son's Ruger a lot, I like my CZ a lot also but a straighter stock would give me a better cheek weld with a scope. But with the NECG peep sight the CZ stock is perfect. My CZ is very accurate but we haven't shot the Ruger enough to know. (my son is in another state going to school so rarely has time to shoot).

My rifle weighs less than his with scopes of about the same weight but only about 4-5 oz.

I like to shoot the 9.3x62 in part because shooting it makes a 7.5 lb. 30-06 seem pleasant. I am a recoil wuss and while you know when it goes off it is not especially punishing, but it helps to stay in practice to deal with over 30 ft. lbs. of recoil. In my opinion either rifle is an excellent choice, just decide on which factor (higher velocity potential, or greater magazine capacity) is more important to you.

My CZ

I have a 527 Carbine .223 and the magazines are steel and not plastic.

Craig

Take this for its worth (very little), I suspect that anywhere under 200 yards the critter hit in the boiler room by a 286 grain 9.3 bullet and 300 grain 375 bullet is not going to know the difference. 200fps difference in muzzle velocity is neither here nor there. Too much ballistic gack and not enough stalking time I suspect ;-)

The 9.3x62 gets a lot of press here and in print. I believe that is why so many people dote on it so. The 375 H&H is a larger, more powerful rifle, period. Always will be. The 35 Whelen is a slightly smaller, slightly less powerful rifle, period. Always will be. There is no magic. One either wants a 9.3x62 or they want a rifle that's a bit more powerful or a rifle that's a bit less powerful. It isn't all that difficult to understand.

I have a 35 Whelen, 9.3x66 Sako and have owned and hunted with a 375HH. The 9.3 is the best of all worlds, recoil is similar to a hot loaded Whelen and thumps like a 375, actually "on target results' are the same as with the 375. With the 9.3 x66 the factory powder is VV-550 and uses 71gr with the 286gr and 73 gr powder with the 250gr bullet, with regular powder i am hoping to get like results with around 66gr powder , lowering recoil a bit more.

Couldn't agree more. Thus my Pre 64 M70 in 9.3x62, built by our own Redneck and finished by Charley Santoni in one of D'Arcy Echols Legend, Edge filled, stocks topped with a VX3 1.75-6.





Recoils is VERY tolerable; akin to a heavily loaded 220 gr 30-06.

Alan

Nice...!

Need info loads and groups as you gather data.

DF

Very little difference will be seen on game. I base this on my use of the 9.3 X 62 on Cape buffalo compared to other who have used the .375 H&H. Dead buffalo are still dead, and they never go far.

60% more recoil does not make them 60% deader!

As mentioned by Oregon45 - you guys know that this thread got brought back from the dead, from 2007 ?

Then again, cussin' & discussin' powerful rifles never really gets old...

Guy

GSSP,

That is a fine rifle you have there. Congratulations. May all your hunts bring success.

Would a hot loaded 9.3x62 approach the factory .375's? Just curious. I have a Mauser that I was thinking of putting a 9.3 x 62 barrel on.

Not sure what a factory .375 can do but a 250 Accubond can be run 2650 fps and a 286 Partition, 2550 fps; 24" barrel.

Alan

Check John Barsness' writings on that subject. From what I gather, he's killed a bunch of stuff with that round and has pet loads for the 250 gr. NAB and 286 gr. NPT. Performance with those enhanced loads gets pretty close to .375 H&H performance. Now, I guess one could push the H&H and widen the gap.

I'm building a 9.3x62 on an FN military Mauser action using a #3 contour CM Shilen at 22". Jim Kobe is working on it as we speak. I also have a Winchester Super Express in .375 H&H and some would think that would be a duplication. The Mauser will be a full pound or more lighter, all up, reportedly kicking less and killing stuff about as dead.

I'll post info comparing the two.

DF

If you want 375 H&H 300gr velocity from a 286 Nosler Partition in a modern 9.3 X 62, try RL-17. I did last week and I'm getting 100 fps more than with RL-15.

As to recoil? Well, my 7.2 lb (with scope) Tikka (22.4") at those top velocities is more than either a 7.5 lb 338 WM (250gr at 2750) or a 8.5 lb 375 H&H (300gr at 2550), barrel lengths equal!

Getting pretty close to 50 ft-lbs! But I'm used to 60+, so it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned.

But contrary to much of what's posted on this thread, the 286 NP passes the 300gr NP from the H&H at 200 yards in both momentum and kinetic energy. Also ahead of the .338 WM and it's 250 NP at all ranges in momentum, except in trajectory the 338 is slightly flatter.

I'll not vouch for the same results in anyone else's rifle... just in mine.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

How much RL-17?

Ok, guys if your going to do these comparisons then do them at the same pressures. The .375 H&H will give you over 2600 fps. at 60 K psi. that being the quote from both the A Square book and the Lee book. Does anyone have any pressure data, theirs or manuals, for the 9.62 ?

A lot of this argument seems pretty pointless.

Sure you can load a .375 H&H to 2600 but why bother? I killed elephant and buffalo with a 300 grain bullet at 2500 last year. As near as I can tell, it killed 'em just as dead as my .458 a few years earlier.

I think the 9.3x62 would do just about the same with 286 grain bullets, even though I think the practical velocity is about 2400. Kevin "Doctari" Robertson has a 9.3 which has accounted for 600 cape buffalo. The nice part about the 9.3 is it mostly comes in lighter rifles.

A good read is "Heat, Thirst, and Ivory" by Fred Everett. The author poached dozens of elephant when he was a teenager. Each kill is described in detail. As near as I can tell, there was very little difference between his 7mm Mauser and his 9.3x62.

Perhaps someone should come out with a .375-06, or .375 Whelen. That would be something I'd like to see.

Its been done. There is loading data at reloadersnest: http://www.reloadersnest.com/frontpage.asp?CaliberID=193

It's not hard to jack up the pressure and make a smaller cartridge perform like a larger one. I see people use this method on here all the time to justify their personal preferences in cartridges. People compare their pet AI rounds loaded at high pressure to mild factory rounds in the parent case. The 280AI is one example. It's laughable.

There is a .375-06 and it is called the .375 Hawk. 300 gr. at 2425 by my chrono. and I have mine on Rem.760 pump.

Must have a very small shoulder. How about a photo of that round.

I would think that would be a hoot to shoot in a 760 pump.

DF

I don't have any photos but Google foo it. Fred Zeiglen builds bolt rifles for it. Anyone can rebarrel a Rem. pump and you get .375 H&H performance in a pump. You could also put a 9.62x62 in the same foot print and have a lot of fun. I had mine built before the 9.62 became widely available. Al to of fun hog hunting or dark timber game hunting. You can run a 235 gr.375 at about 2,800 fps. and rock on.

For more fun you could do a .411 Hawk and get a clone of the 450/400 3" or 400 gr. at 2150 fps. from a pump gun.

The only fly in the pump gun tea is that COL is limited to 3.25" because of the ejection port on the gun.

But ALSO same barrel length! I had a 22" .375 H&H and no matter what I put into it, or how much, it wouldn't get anywhere near 2600. About 2530 to 2550 fps was absolute max, and I'm sure that was at much more than 60,000.

My Tikka has a 22.4" tube. I'll not vouch for pressure as I have no way of measuring it other than a computer program. There's no data that I could find for RL-17 in a 9.3 X 62 other than RealGuns, and their data gave the best results of ANY powder overall for accuracy and velocity, from a Ruger African (23" barrel).

It was that info that got me trying RL-17. At first I was not happy with it as I was not getting near the results suggested by that source. After all the burning rate is supposed to be equivalent to IMR4350, which I knew would be too slow. However a friend encouraged me to give it another try using more of it. Since I can seat the N.P. to magazine length, I can crowd in another 4 or 5 grains. All I'll say is if you want the data go to my website and read the disclaimer as well as the data.

It APPEARS to be safe in MY rifle. But more testing is required. Another poster mentions 2550 from the 286 NP in a 24". From my initial trial, I'd say that's easily possible using RL-17... IN MY GUN!!! He didn't mention what powder he was using.

All I'm saying, and I've done the profiles using 2 different ballistics software, is that the 9.3 X 62 is in the same ballpark as the 375 H&H, when each is loaded with the best NP available for each, barrel lengths equal.

I did get 2700 fps from a 26" .375 H&H using a 300 NP, but the rifle was so inaccurate I gave up on it for a 340 WBY. The M70 I had in .375 H&H (24") wouldn't make 2600 fps from several 300s no matter what I did to obtain that MV. As we all know, rifles are individuals... that's why I emphasize "IN MY RIFLE"

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

That statement is loaded with assumptions, but I'll not take the time to point them out as they should be obvious to any experienced handloader.

I spent over two decades working with one ancient cartridge with modern components in modern rifles. The results I obtained were being overlooked and/or denied by some authors, manuals and others "in the know". That is until just a few years ago.

When I sent my data to a well-known and respected powder company in the USA (I couldn't get loaded ammo across the border into the USA)they tested it for me. The chief ballistics engineer was amazed, if not shocked, by the results, as I was using one of their powders! When he phoned me with the results, a few weeks later, the first words out of his mouth were: "You have just reinvented the 458 Winchester Magnum!"

The cartridge, of course, was the .45-70 firing a 500gr Hornady from two 22" barreled single-shot Rugers; a No.1 and a No. 3. They gave identical results (within 10 fps), at just over 2000 fps. PSI (not CUP) was 63, 200 in their setup (machine rest - 24")at 4 fps less than 2100 fps! More than SAAMI! You betcha! But safe in the Ruger without qualms from the chief ballistics guy. I'll not mention names as that's inappropriate here.

Since then, I've long-throated (by .30") a new Ruger #1 in .45-70 and it is fully equal to a 22" .458 Win Mag with best handloads in each. 2 hrs ago, I sent off another manual on .45-70 supreme loads to a fellow in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, there is still great interest in the .45-70, as I receive requests from Australia, Europe, USA and Canada.

My next project just might be the 9.3 X 62...

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

it seems that you've just proven the Redhead's point...

Seems that way to me as well.

I agree with RH on the 280 AI. I own both a 280 Rem and several 7RM, plus a 7WSM, and have had 7x57, and 7 SAUM. I've loaded for a 7mm-08, 7 STW, 284 win. I'm well acquanted with 7mm's. For giggles, I ran my 7 SAUM with the same bullets as my 2 7RM's and they kind of close - within ~ 75 ft/sec - but I see 280 AI vels that exceed my 26" barrel 7RM loads. Ain't happening at 63k psi................

I've also considered the 9.3x62 based on MD's writing and loads. At the end of the day, a 286 gr bullet moving 2450 is pretty darn close in the recoil department to an H+H running a 300 at 2450 given like length barrel and gun weight. In fact, the 375 can recoil less if the gun weighs the typical 9 - 9.5 lbs and loads are kept on the lower side of the spectrum. I bought a 375 Ruger instead of buying a 9.3. I can download the Ruger to 9.3 speeds or run it faster. In a 9.25 lb rifle, the 375 can be loaded to 35-38 ft/lbs of recoil. Calculated recoil on an 8.5lb 9.3x62 running a 286 at 2450 is almost identical. The difference being the 375 can be run higher if so desired.

Running the 375 up to max loads is a whole nother kettle of fish. A 9.25 lb 375 running max 270/300's recoils 45+ ft/lbs. I'm not sure a guy needs 2650 from a 300 gr bullet to kill anything that needs killing with a bigger hammer.

[quote=Big_Redhead)

...not hard to jack up the pressure... I see people use this method on here all the time to justify their personal preferences in cartridges. ... It's laughable.
[/quote]

So, I guess I'm gonna have to point out some assumptions after all:

1) "not hard to jack up pressure" -- Really? What is your experience on that? And what were the results?

Elmer Keith did that back in his day with the .45-70. It was HIS article in a 1951 GUN DIGEST that got me thinking. NOT... I repeat, NOT some desire on my part to justify a preference for the .45-70! What did Keith promote in that article? That the .45-70 was capable of slinging a 400gr at 2000 fps @ 40,000 "psi", as he called it. It turns out he was right, yet NO writer (to my knowledge), or manual picked up on it! Yet 60 years later it's fairly common knowledge among aficionados of the .45-70! However, I started doing it back in the '80's, and so did Brian Pearce... and yet I never saw an article by him on it until about 10 years ago. I wonder why? Did he "jack up pressure" to 40,000 psi to justify his use and promotion of the .45-70?

So, my motive was what? My motive was a very simple one: to get the best from a rifle and cartridge of which it was safely possible! That's it! The same holds true for the 9.3 X 62. In fact, I was not looking for a 9.3 X 62... I didn't even like 'em because they were "foreign"! I was actually looking for another .35 Whelen. And, I came across an article or two by JB that got me thinking (as Elmer did back in the '80s). Then, I came across an exceptional buy in a new Tikka 9.3 X 62, and I bought it.

Like everyone else, I expected something between 2400 and 2500 fps. That's what I was getting from RL-15, about 2465 max, with good accuracy from 286gr Hornadys. I used that in hunting last year. No disappointment there. But then I found info on the RealGuns site that showed RL-17 giving over 2500 fps for all 285 -286grainers with exceptional accuracy. I thought I'd give it a try as a number of users of RL-17 were suggesting they were getting 100 fps over "normal" powders. I really didn't expect much advantage in the 9.3 for the reasons already mentioned... and I'd given up on it, as mentioned, until a friend encouraged to continue with it. I did. Therefore, I've posted ONLY to encourage others to give it a try.

2) "It's laughable". It's laughable that pioneers and experimenters have pushed parameters? That they don't accept the status quo? Or that they don't always go "by the book"?
Maybe America should get back to some of that! I guess I'm just one of those "laughable" guys! The rest can take the road to "snoozeville", if that's what they prefer.

I'm not offended, but I'll stick to what I'm learning about the 9.3 X 62, because I don't think the last chapter has been written yet, anymore that it was on the .45-70 when it was "replaced" by "modern era" .30-caliber, high velocity cartridges.

Yes, it works well enough at 2400... but just maybe it'll work better at .... ? I'm curious enough to have to find out for myself... that's just who I am, and have been all of my 76 years.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Could you post the pressure curves for each? I'm curious how a cartridge with less capacity, by almost 25%, can run with a larger capacity case given same barrel length and pressures.

The key to all miraculous velocities is always contained in the phrase "in my rifle". Physics usually don't apply when that phrase is utterred. I think the phrase is magic.

the term "best NP available" must be the secret

I am interested in CZ550's loads simply because we don't get ramshot powders here in Australia but I can get RL17 no probs. However, how do you know whether something is safe given there is no reloading data for it. This is not to [bleep] CZ, it is a genuine question. I have been to his site, read the loads and wonder what the pressure being generated is.

I am often cautious of using internet loads but appreciate that there are times when limited loading data is available, as is the case here. I also like the fact that people pioneer and experiment, otherwise improvements are often missed...however when things go bang close to my eyes and face, I like to know the testing has been "proofed" prior to pulling the trigger.

(No offence meant CZ550 if any was taken)

Find a guy from Houston named "BFaucett" I think it is, either here on the 'fire or over at AR. When I first started reloading for my 2002 edition CZ American 9.3 some 5 years ago, I used Bob's info sheet he had assembled from Handloader as a guide, and settled on a successful WTail round for me anyway... a very stiff load of RL15, in a Graf/Privi case with a WLR torch under a Speer 270gr SP (ie...the Finn Aagaard load from Handloader #199 7/99 @ 2483fps out of a CZ 550 rifle length barrel only in RP brass)...that gives me sub moa groups with a Burris FF II 3x9BPlex in BSquare rings on top as many times as I want to pull the out of the box trigger.

Good bullet performance out of the old Speers so far with 4 down and only one of 'em ran about 25-30 yards with no working main pump or HVAC...but these were lil 90-140lb Texas WTails hit at 125-250 yards too and NOT the 300lb+ porkers I was hunting last couple trips out. 1st lil guy, a 3 yr old with 9" spikes on both sides, got a 35' ride back up the game trail and left a 6'x12' spray pattern behind at the POI ...that only left a 50 cent piece sized exit wound outta of the center of the off shoulder ...and impressed me to no end!with NO meat loss.

I found some old Nosler 250grBT's that I've begun to play with and the faster I run them with RL 15 the better they shoot it seems....but we ain't done yet at MOA +/- and still mebbe 2+ gr's under the heavier Speer loads max max...sure would like to see some Nosler 250gr AB blems sometimes soon and I'd just almost forget the load workup needed for the couple hunnert Privi 285gr SP's on hand and call it done.

OBTW I set the Burris BPlex up so's I can get 425 yards dead nutz on the bottom step according to the drop chart, with a 165 yard Zero, @ an easy mini scootch under +2"s at 100 yards, that has proven to be pretty much dead on accurate. I ain't gonna change it anyhow. Hope this helps.

IMO if I needed a SHTF shooter to feed & defend myself with this'n would be the doall anywhere one ...to go along with a CZ 452 22lr.
Ron

Now, let's be polite, TOAD

The best, as I assume "everyone" discussing this subject with a sarcastic tone, would know is the 300gr Nosler Partition in the .375 H&H and the 286gr Nosler Partition in the 9.3 X 62.

GSSP (above) said he was getting 2550 fps from the 286 Partition.
That's in the ball park with the 300gr NP at 2550, but the 286 has a BC of .482 whereas the 300 has a BC of .398. At 25 yards the 286 has passed the 300 in speed and at 200 yards in momentum and energy. So, I'd say they're in the same ball park!

It would seem to me that some have not read, or taken seriously, my post about my experience with .375 H&H's. I've done exactly the same with those as I'm doing with the 9.3 X 62... trying to get the best performance within SAFE pressure!

To reiterate: I got 2700 fps from the 300gr NP from a 26" barrel. From a 24" M70, I reach a max of 2560 fps -- never made 2600 with the powders available at the time. I know that today with the best powders that 2600 is doable with 300s, and perhaps 2650 in certain 24" barrels. In my 22" .375 H&H, I made 2550 from RL-15, and that was REALLY pushing things -- MORE THAN WHAT I'M NOW DOING WITH RL-17 IN THE 9.3 x 62! (As mentioned, my barrel length is 22.4")

Apart from my experience, what is yours and bwinters in .375 H&H's? And, a 9.3 X 62 using RL-17?

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

And oh... it's an interesting concept, but how does a .300 WSM get the same velocity from the same 180gr bullet in equal length barrels from 68grs powder when it takes 75grs in a .300 Win Mag?

An interesting study, but there's little doubt that modern powders, case geometry and loading to max psi in modern barrels are the main features.

Now... could it be that these same features contribute to adding 100 fps to modern rifles in 9.3 X 62? Naw, that's not possible. We must keep it in it's place... traditional ballistics is where it's at! After all, if we want more than traditional, then get a REAL modern rifle like a .375 RUM!!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I have a Rem. M700 in 35 Whelen and it is a real pussycat off the bench. Nice rifle.

We same similar taste in rifles! I think that either of these would be an excellent intro into the big bore world. For me, it is a question of nostalgia/class vs. performance/weather-resistance. With respect to terminal performance, I don't expect an overwhelming advantage to the .375 Ruger, but there is some. On the other hand, heavy-for-caliber bullets in the 9.3 have a history of efficacy.

I'll post my supporting arguments and would hope you do the same.

300 WSM v 300 WM - the 300 WM needs more powder to get the same pressure/velocity because it is a bigger case. When run at like pressures with optimal powders the WM outruns the WSM. Have had and loaded for several examples of both.

Ex/ 180 gr boolits: Nosler WSM 3082, WM 3160; Sierra WSM 3000, WM 3100; Hodgdon WSM 2991, WM 3042

I have a bit of experience with the 375 but have only owned 1 - although this isn't about experience with ABC cartridge. Its about reloading acumen and knowing what is happening inside the case when the primer ignites the powder. The Ideal Gas law is as close as I know of explaining what happens inside the case. The simple answer is that bigger cases win the velocity race when like geometry and conditions are used.

For the 9.3 using a 286 and 375 using a 300:
Nosler 9.3, 2414; 375, 2600
Hodgdon 9.3, 2407; 375 2645

More case capcity means more velocity.

I'll assume Nosler used SAAMI/CIP pressure specs to arrive at their data (375 - 62.0k psi)(9.3 - 57.0k psi). I will note that the Hodgdon was run at 46.3 CUP for the 9.3, 49.5 CUP for the 375. Even though the 9.3 could be gased a bit more, it isn't going to overcome the 200+ ft/sec between them.

Powder ignition isn't linear but a close approximation is 1 gr of powder equals 2500 psi and 35-40 ft/sec derived from 180 gr bullets from a 30-06 using pressure tested data and 6 powders. I would not use that relationship when working at top end loads - in general pressure rises faster than the linear relationship suggests at 63-70k psi.

Re 17 - I've used a good bit of Re 17. I believe it to be faster than either 4350. I can make my WSM's run faster using Re17 but not by 100 ft/sec. It is a good powder and does add a bit as Alliant's own website indicates - even though they used some rather generic velocities for the cartridge/bullet combos. In fact, I can pick alot of non Re17 powders to reach and exceed the vels quoted in the Re 17 literature. It ain't magic.

i've dabbled with RE17 in various .375s for about a year now. it is pretty good in the .375 AI, but it is not a miracle worker. 7828 can best it by ~50 fps with the 270 gr. TSX. it produces the best speeds in my .376 Steyr, but H495 makes it group like a bench gun and only gives up ~30 fps. it's too fast for max efforts from the RUM

seriously, if smaller case capacity/smaller bore was the ticket, the .22 Hornet would rule the world.

bwinters and toad;

Because it's very late and a long day ahead, I'll not respond in detail just now.

You both make some valid points... up to a point. I'm in no way talking about small cases "beating" larger cases. Or even promoting it. That's not what this is about.

It's not about "magic" either... that's insulting.

I've been a hunter for about 60 years, but I started handloading something over 30 years ago. In that time I've loaded many well-known cartridges from the 22 Hornet to the 458 WM. I think a total of 2 primers were blown, and that was due to a book load for a 35 Whelen.

Two other book loads: one in 375 H&H gave me 2700+ fps from a 300gr in a 26" barrel. Another gave me 2842 fps from a 250gr in a 338 Win Mag with a 26" tube. No apparent problems with either. No cup or psi numbers were given by the books.

Re: the 500gr Hor from 53.1 grs IMR 3031 in a Ruger No.1 45-70:

Hornady says: 1800 fps @ 50,000 cup.

Lyman says: 1879 fps (26") at 39,000 cup.

I'm not questioning your book knowledge, but frankly the books don't often agree, and sometimes that disagreement is pronounced. I make it a point of talking directly to chief ballistic engineers whenever possible, and what I've found from my personal experience and those conversations is that there are too many variables and anomalies to predict what is happening, or going to happen, in any given series of tests. One reason being that they don't have the time or resources to test everything, so projections are given.

I mentioned that the head ballistics guy was surprised by the results from a load they tested for me. But, in fact they had to seat the 500gr Hor 1/10" deeper than my specs because of a shorter throat. Everything else was the same except for 2 factors: their COL was 2.83" and mine was 2.93". They used a 24" test barrel and I was using a 22" Ruger barrel. They got 2100 fps and I was getting just a tad over 2000. Their psi was 63,200 avg and he said mine would be less, and safe! Extreme spread was less than 10 fps. I checked with a Ruger rep, asking about the strength of that rifle (No.1 in 45-70)and he said, quote: "It can be compared to our .458 Win Mag".

Some of the things you didn't address: barrel length and COL. I've read Hodgdon's numbers, and as many others as I could locate, including Nosler. That doesn't mean too much as they HAVE to respect the strength of old rifles and brass made for CIP specs. You know, I believe, that 50,000 cup for a 30-06 doesn't represent it's full potential with modern components and metallurgy. You also know that 57,000 cup doesn't represent the full potential of the 9.3 X 62 in modern rifles with the best modern components. When you quote 2600 fps for the 375 H&H... that's not news! But that's from a 24" barrel.

In your estimation, what would you get from a 22.4". I got 2530 to 2550 (pushing it) with the best powder of the day from a 22". You are addressing me as though I'm some kind of irresponsible person! There are others on here, and elsewhere, who freely admit they are getting OVER 2500 fps from 286s. Check, please, RealGuns, where they received OVER 2500 fps for 285s and 286s using RL-17.

I've nowhere implied my tests were final, au contraire mon ami, I've stated on my blog that MORE testing has to be done.

Nonetheless, I'll stand by the notion that there is little difference between a 300gr/.375"/.305sd at 2550 and a 286gr/.366/.305sd at 2500+ fps! If RealGuns is free to publish their findings without giving cup/psi, then so will I!

In 32 years of handloading, 2 primers blown and no guns wrecked or people hurt (except for the animals)

I think I'll just carry on...

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

That should have been 47,000 cup for the 9.3 not 57,000.

It was 2am and I needed some sleep!

Sorry about that.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca