Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters NEW 9.3x62 Article

JB pretty well nailed this topic back in '08.

Other than some new powders that may be interesting to check out, not much else to add.

Get a copy of this issue.

DF

Add the 300 grain A-Frame to the updated tests.

Just sayin ...

Here's a link to some 9.3x62 load data with heavier bullets.

Good sources of info from those guys.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...ch/true/re-9-3x62-vs-375h-h#Post16841276

DF

Cutting edge and hammer both make a 9.3 as well. I’d be interested.

Thats pretty much my load with 280 Swift A Frames in my 35 Gibbs.

I'm going to point out that in THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK I list about twice as many loads for the 9.3x62 as were listed in the magazine article, including one for the 210 Cutting Edge Raptor, and at the other end of the weight-scale, one for the 320-grain Woodleigh.

Hi John:

I have a 9.3x62 handloading question. I have Hornady dies, and have handloaded the Speer 270-grain without issue. However, the bullet seating stem is such a precise fit on the nose of the Hornady 286-grain bullet, that after it is fully seated, when I lower the ram the seating stem pulls the bullet back out of the case. I then have to pry the bullet loose from the seating stem. Any suggestions for an easy fix?

Thanks,

Greg Perry

Color me interested also.

Hmm. Haven't seen that problem before, that I can recall.

Can you see any marks on the bullets indicating which part is sticking? It might be due to a slight ring left during machining, which you might be able to remove.

Or you might contact Hornady.

If that was my die, I’d chuck the seating stem in a drill and polish the inside until a bullet won’t stick.

DF

TTT !

Hip

Will keep reposting this until more people notice.

I noticed, I noticed! And I don't even have a 9.3 rifle!

But keep posting. Some folks don't get it.

Regards, Guy

There's even a 200-grain cast-bullet reduced load....

Might also do an article in RLN on how somebody could do their own research on appropriate 9.3x62 powders by looking at the present published data--and then using that lower-pressure data to extrapolate what might work well in modern rifles.

That would be great.

I don't know how well they work on game first hand but the sure don't feed worth a crap off the left side of my mag box in my sporterized ce43 mauser. The dummy rds I made up with 250 accubonds work fine. Mb

There's actually quite a bit of proven data out there.

No need to be beating up on JB to produce a sequel to his great '08 article and the info he's already published in GG I....

The link I posted also has a bunch of good stuff, including heavy bullet loads.

It's a great round with lots of options.

DF

There's more published loading data for the 9.3x62 than there was in 2008--and far more on the Internet, where most bullet and powder companies also publish data, instead of only paper manuals.

The method I generally use for picking new loads to try, in any rifle cartridge, is look at all the available data and see which powders result in the high publish velocities. Then I try the top 2-3 powders--and with a "modern" 9.3x62 would probably begin with "starting" loads, because industry pressure standards are low, due to the age of the round. The SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) for the 9.3x62 is only 57,500 PSI, 2500 PSI less than the MAP for the .30-06, which itself is far lower than for newer rounds, such as the 65,000 PSI of the .270 Winchester, which is now approaching it's 100th birthday.

It would also be more practical for today's 9.3x62 users to find their own data, due to the present component- buying panic, which makes it likely they couldn't even find many of the powders I'd try. Instead they could search for data for powders they actually have on hand.

MD,

Which GG edition?