Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska 9.3x62 vs 375h&h

S : show some leadership, and do a 9.3 X 66 / 370 Sako ;-)

Hey Aces, you can make up for the "3/10mm short" angst with the knowledge that you actually have a whole extra mm of case length. The Whelen would actually be a 9x63, just as the 30-06 is with its Euro alias of 7.62x63.
Those 280gr A-Frames ought to do the trick, that's for sure, though I've not used them. The 225 TSX and 250 partition have performed great for me in my "9x63" AI.

Cheers,
Rex

I believe the x62 case holds about 10% more powder than the 06 case but I think the Whelen neck looks good.

While I'm a big Nine-Three fan, I think 10% over the Whelen is on the high side. My two respective rifles are magazine, not throat-limited, so I seat my bullets to 3.375 for them both. Comparing 250 grain bullets for apples-to-apples fairness:
My 35 WAI holds 65.7 grains of water underneath a 250 Partition seated to 3.375" in a once fired case.
My 9.3x62 holds 65.2 grains of water underneath a 250 Nosler AB seated to 3.375" in a once fired case.

My Whelen is an AI so it picks up a little more case capacity over the basic, but not nearly enough to give the 9.3 a 10% advantage over the basic Whelen. As Mule Deer wrote, "The .35 Whelen Ackley Improved, for instance, gains almost nothing in case capacity over the standard .35 Whelen, simply because there isn’t much shoulder to blow out." (and he's right, of course).

Nosler publishes water capacity for all the loads in their last couple manuals and here's what they say about the 9.3x62 and the basic 35 Whelen:
9.3x62, 250 NAB, 3.230" COAL = 62.5 grains H2O capacity
9.3x62, 286 NPT, 3.220" COAL = 60.4 grains H2O capacity
35 Whelen, 250 NPT, 3.330" COAL = 62.2 grains H2O capacity

Since virtually all 9.3x62 have very long throats, not sure why they loaded theirs so short. Clearly the 0.10" difference in COAL between the 9.3 and the 35 costs some H2O capacity, but not nearly enough to equate to a 10% advantage to the 9.3.

One more consideration is the pressure limits. The Whelen is 62K SAAMI and both Sierra and Speer are now publishing data that are taking advantage of that. The original 9.3x62 is much less. I think Mule Deer is wise to publish 9.3x62 loads that are approaching the 60K limit of the 30-06, but I've not read anybody advocating exceeding that in the 9.3x62, though certainly the Lapua brass and modern actions would handle it. There's just little need to.

I love both these chamberings.
I just started shooting the .375 H&H and haven't hunted it yet so can't speak to that aspect of the OP question.

Cheers,
Rex

The 9.3x62's overall cartridge length is so short because it was designed specifically to fit in the 3.30 inch magazine of 98 Mauser military actions, at least partly to make inexpensive yet powerful rifle was available to German settlers in Africa.

The long, tapered throat was common during that era, due to being designed to accommodate the long, heavy-for-caliber round-nosed bullets used in many early military and hunting rounds--such as the 285-grain (18.5 gram) bullet the 9.3x62 was also designed around. The conflict between magazine length and "reaching the lands" only occurred when hunters started using spitzers in the 9.3x62.

Thanks John! I just measured several Lapua factory loads and they go no more than 3.265", perfect for the magazines you mentioned.
Don't think you listed a COAL for your 9.3x62 loads in your "Medium Mediums" article. Do you keep yours to less than 3.3" or load them out a bit more given the longer magazine in your CZ?
Thanks again,
Rex

Great thread with a lot of information. Thanks to everyone 👍

Sourcing brass would be a pain in the butt,
just to gain 4mm longer case lenth & 75 fps over the 9.3x62 .... not worth the time, effort & cash $$

now that I think about all this, it doesn't have the capacity that I require, much like the other 65-68 gr cases,

I'm just going to neck my Razor brass to 9.3 and end up with around 115 gr h20, already have a bunch of custom brass made that I can neck and the 416 Razor project is underway on a Win 70 Classic stainless donor I have in 300 Win Mag, can just add an additional barrel to the build in 9.3 Razor or 370 Razor, whichever name sounds cooler, lol

With the case capacity it opens up a bunch more powders for max power loads or can be toned down to whatever the comfort level is, bullets used and game persued

...

If I recall correctly the OAL possible in my CZ 550 is close to 3.35", maybe 3.4", because it's designed to handle standard .30-06-length rounds.

Same with the magazines on my commercial Mauser .35WAI and Springfield 9.3x62. Both are 3.4". Even at 3.375" OAL, both cartridges have about .200" jump to the lands. They feed great at that length and have plenty of bullet shank in the neck, so I have just been seating all bullets 3.375". And happily, both shoot consistently sub-MOA.

EDIT: One exception is the 225 Sierra GK in the 35 Whelen. It is a stubby little thing and I needed 3.335" to get what I thought was enough bullet shank in the neck. I only used that bullet on Pronghorn back in '94. All the other .358 bullet types of 225gr and up have fit fine at 3.37-ish. Even the 200 TTSX was fine at 3.375.

This is the best comment on the whole thread. ;-)

I have never owned a 375 H and H. I have guided with a 375 Ruger, a 45-70, and now bounce back and fourth between the 45-70 and a Husky 9.3x62.
So having said that my opinion only means so much, but I can say that since I’ve been using the 9.3, have wondered why it’s not more popular in Alaska.
The 375 Ruger was adequate for what I needed it for but was terribly loud, like permanent hearing damage loud, and the recoil was “sharp” for lack of a better word, compared to the 375 H and Hs I’d shot. I just never really clicked with it. 45-70 is proven and works well, and in the short barreled Marlin with the octagonal barrel and straight stock makes a really attractive little lever gun to tote around. But it’s limited as we all know in terms of range.
The 9.3 is a pretty neat medium bore in my opinion, seems like it’s just enough to do some heavy backing up roles and not quite overkill enough to not use on a caribou or sitka blacktail if you’re just out hunting for your self. So for that I like it, very versatile.
I bought an old husqvarna from Simpson Ltd for $450, had it rechambered from 9.3x57 to 9.3x62, cut and recrowned barrel to 21”, glass bedded it and slapped a Leupold 1-5 with the qd rings. Have a XS rear peep I can pop on if pursuing bear or whatever in thick stuff. So for about $800 have a unique and very nice rifle. It’s worked out pretty slick so far. Plus there’s the whole appeal, to me at least, of the FN 98 action, schnable forend, barrel band sling mount etc.
No hard data here, and I realize the original question was comparing the 375 H and H and the 9.3, but from my experiences with a similar bullet in the 375 Ruger, and my relatively new experience with the 9.3, I certainly wouldn’t hesitate using the 9.3 in a client backup situation that more traditionally would’ve been a 375 H and H, 45-70 and so on

an anti gun pro Biden cuck posting on a hunting forum


[img][img]https://i.imgur.com/PWjRBEc.jpg[/img][/img]

For all of you 9.3x62 fans... have you tried CFE223 yet?
I recently tried it in my Husky 350 Rem Mag and got 250s past 2800fps in the 26" barrel. I was still .6gn below max Alliant published load for the 35 Whelen.

I have to agree with that.... There's plenty of brush in Ontario and Maine (I grew up in New Brunswick alongside Maine) where we hunt big moose and bear!

My 9.3 x 62 (Tikka T3 Lite) sports a 22.44" (Sako) barrel, which I find perfect for the job, whether for long range shooting in clear cuts, marshes or at the end of lakes. And also in thick woods or brush. My favorite loads are the 250 AB and 286 Partition, though I'm wanting to try the 320 Woodleigh PP on a bear. It leaves the muzzle at +2400 over a dose of RL-17.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

And "them" Bronze Points were made by Hornady for Remington. Almost from the horse's mouth. It's the same bullet Hornady makes in 9.3 x 62/ 286gr. RP (Recoil Proof) These were the first bullets fired in my Tikka 9.3 x 62, as handloads. One bear finally killed by the Hornady 286gr after having been wounded by a young friend. It's a very good bullet for deer, black bear, and likely elk and moose. It went through the bear from right flank to take out three vertebrae before going off somewhere into never, never land! MV was +2400 from close range.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

I was with him when he shot this nice caribou a few years ago. The rifle was a 9.3x62 and did a fine job.

Those who favor the 9.3 over the .375 for Alaska, would that change if lion and buffalo entered the equation?

Ted's influence on my shooting goes back 25yrs. Thanks to him, I've had three 375H&Hs, a 375CT, four or five 35Whelens, a 358NM and two or three 358Winchesters.

Oddly, I never did buy a 9.3x62. I'm away from the med bores now and the largest I shoot is a 30cal now.

I think if hunting in Alaska and lion and Buffalo suddenly entered the equation there’d be a lot of re-evaluating happening. 😂

Personally if I’m hunting brown bear or if I’m hunting in brown bear country the rifle I’m carrying would be sized accordingly and I’d likely be carrying the .338 or .35 Whelen, both of which are capable of taking any lion or buffalo in Alaska. 😉. If it’s adequate for brown bear it’s adequate for lion or buffalo imho. A big brown bear is as formidable of an animal as anything out there.