zlr, FOsteology, etc.,
I have a question, which is not intended to start an argument--though I will make the observation that both your responses about preferring the 286 Partition to the 250 AccuBond resemble a lot of Campfire responses to a specific question. Somebody asks about a specific cartridge, rifle or scope, and several other people say, "Nah, don't use that," though they don't provide a specific reason--but sometimes add, "Thank me later."
Similarly, both of you failed to mention any specific reason for preferring the 286 Partition, though zlr does say if he wanted to shoot a 250 he'd use a .35 Whelen.
The reason for my question is that, due to my profession, I try as many things as possible, in order to provide a reasonably knowledgeable answer to readers who ask questions. I've been hunting with the 9.3x62 and various similar 9.3's for 15 years now, and according to my hunting notes during that period have taken 15 species of big game with them, both in North America and Africa. (That's 15 species, not 15 animals.) The game ranged from "deer-sized," including some actual deer, up to around 1200 pounds, with many in the 500-800 pound range.
Though I've used some other 9.3 bullets, including Barnes monolithics and the Hornady Interlock 286, the majority of that hunting has been with 286 Partitions and 250 AccuBonds, and in just about equal numbers. Partly this has been due to my 9.3x62 shooting both to the same point-of-impact at 100 yards, making it easy to switch between them. During those 15 years and 15 species, all but four bullets have exited. Those four were a pair of 286 Partitions and another pair of 250 AccuBonds. This doesn't mean either bullet won't penetrate well--all four instances were on larger animals, and three of the four were severely angling shots, often including heavy bone. The fourth was a broadside shot with a 286 Partition through the shoulders of a big British Columbia bull moose.
From this evidence I've come to the conclusion that the 9.3x62 and similar 9.3 rounds deserve their reputation for deep penetration, and the particular 9.3 bullet may not matter as much as some believe, probably due to the moderate muzzle velocities. Now, if you've gotten different results when using both the 286 Partition and 250 AccuBond I'd like to hear about them, because I'm always interested in more information.
The one difference I've observed in my experience is that 250-grain bullets shoot noticeably flatter than 286's over what many hunters consider "normal" big game ranges. This is understandable, since out to 300-400 yards, muzzle velocity makes more difference in trajectory than ballistic coefficient, and 250's can be driven around 200 fps faster than 286's--and about 100 fps more than 250's from the .35 Whelen. In fact, at .30-06 pressure levels 250's can be given about the same muzzle velocity as 250-grain factory loads in the .338 Winchester Magnum.
Which is why I usually choose 250's for hunting more open country with my 9.3's, and 286's for less open country, whether timber in North America or thornbush in Africa. Now, if you do have some other reason for preferring the 286 Partition to the 250 AccuBond, I'd like to hear about it. But the only significant difference I've seen is trajectory, not on-game performance.
