Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer's 9.3x62 data

So are you saying we shouldn't be loading our 9.3s up to modern pressures and reaping the benefits? Go shoot some big critters and you'll come to appreciate the 286 grainers.

Yep, like this bull moose taken in northern British Columbia. My guide was very impressed with how fast it went down from a behind-the-shoulder shot--and yet ruined little meat. (He was also comforted by having the rifle handy when a big grizzly tried to come in on us when we were taking the bull apart.)

But 250-grain bullets at 2650 or so are also very useful, especially in open country--including in Africa, which was what the 9.3x62 was developed for, and not just "plains game" like this kudu, but lion, Cape buffalo and even elephant.

Not at all. But do so safely and only in newer more robust (better steel) rifles that can withstand the increased pressures required. A long range 500+yards it will never be. Just remember with more speed comes more recoil. As far as performance on game it is really not required. Just one old hunters opinion. Enjoy your gun as you see fit.

Gee, I never would have guessed that "with more speed comes more recoil."

I started hunting with the 9.3x62 over 20 years ago, and have never owned one that wasn't made of "newer more robust (better steel)". But the original rifles were also made of pretty good steel, as Otto Bock didn't introduce it until 1905.

Just a guess, but maybe you don't know it was specifically designed for use in the standard K98 Mauser action, which was always made of the best steels--and even back then the German steels were very good. While the original factory ammunition got a claimed 2150 fps with 286-grain bullets, that relatively slow velocity was mostly due to the existing powders, which were all relatively fast-burning and temperature sensitive. It wasn't until after World War I that, thanks to better powders, the factory 286-grain velocity was increased to around 2360 fps--which is where it remains today, despite even better powders.

The loads I developed were pressure-tested at around 60,000 PSI (electronic PSI, NOT copper-crusher pressure), which is the same maximum average pressure of the .30-06--still well short of the maximum 65,000 PSI the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) assigns to any cartridge.

So do you load your 9.3x62 ammo to the pre-WWI velocities? Or the post WWI velocities? Or what?

But my major point is the 9.3x62 was not designed for deer and pig hunting. It was designed to be an affordable cartridge for German settlers in Africa, who might have to deal with much larger (and more dangerous) animals which ate their crops or livestock.

With modern powders it steps up a notch in ballistic performance, but still doesn't recoil as much as the .338 Winchester or .375 H&H Magnums. In fact has worked just as well as either round on the dozens of big game animals I've taken with it from Alaska to Africa since 2002, without as much recoil, even though my custom-stocked CZ 550 rifle only weighs 8 pounds with scope. And with 250-grain spitzers the trajectory is very similar to the .30-06 with 180-grain bullets, so is quite capable at 400+ yards.

I load Nosler 286 partitions with RL-17 to 2450 fps in my 20" barrel Mauser
I load 250 ttsx with Rl-15 to 2600 fps, seems to work well

Curious how you got the weight down that much?

The custom stock was made by the company then named Serengeti Rifles, and is now Kilimanjaro Rifles, using one of their fancy-wood laminated blanks that don't look laminated. It's a LOT slimmer than the factory stock (which is the one in the moose and kudu photos. If I recall correctly it weighs 7 ounces less than the factory stock.

The rifle still has the same 4x33 M8 Leupold in Talley detachable steel rings--and in over 15 years hasn't changed point of impact.

Will post a photo of the rifle with the custom stock a little later.

What's the biggest critter you've seen taken with a 9.3x62? My PH told me that it was common for European hunters to bring it as their only rifle for plains game and cape buffalo.

I asked him if I could shoot a Cape Buffalo with my 9.3x62, and he said "Yes it will work".

I used a 416 Remington,but I might use it on a future hunt if I get more recoil sensitive.

Used my 9.3x62mm on Cape Buffalo for the first time this season. Handloaded 300 grain A-Frames. No drama ensued.

Probably that British Columbia moose. It was taken only about 100 miles south of the Yukon border, and while the moose in that area aren't quite as big as Alaska/Yukon moose in either body size or antlers, they're not much smaller. Per usual I measured its body, both the chest depth and overall length, and it was bigger than some Cape buffalo--which can also vary considerably in size from region to region.

The only time I had a chance to take a buffalo with the 9.3 was in 2011 in southern Tanzania. It's a very hot area, and Bergmann's Rule (which I've mentioned before) is that animals in warmer climates don't grow as large as the same animals in cooler climates, either higher in elevation or farther from the equator.

I could have taken three buffalo on that trip, and had already taken a very good bull with my .416 Rigby. But my PH, the late Paddy Curtis, was also very impressed with the way my 9.3x62 put plains game down, so arranged with the government game scout to allow me to use the 9.3 on a bull.

But the next herd (four bulls) we got up on was in pretty thick stuff, and the one viable shot was on the biggest bull--which had one broken horn. We decided to pass it up, a decision I now regret because we'd already run into the same bull once before, and it would have been helpful to take him out.

But even if we had, the buffalo in that area weren't as big as that BC moose--or bigger-bodied buffalo in other parts of Africa, including northern Tanzania. Took my first in Botswana, which measured 10 feet from the front of the chest to the back of the butt, and the mature bulls my hunting companions and I took in that part of Tanzania ran around eight feet from chest to butt.

Here are a couple photos my CZ with the custom stock:

I stand corrected. Actually John I use your loads. Just seeing if I could get a rise. With your loads who needs a 338 win mag.

Forum member cz550 would agree.

John,

Is Kilimanjaro Rifles still in business? If so, do they sell the CZ 550 stocks or do they only install them on their rifles?

Kilimanjaro Rifles website apparently no longer exists, so would assume the company doesn't either.

B - I've taken a number of both Cape and NW Red buffalo with the 9.3 x 62. Works just fine. Furthermore, same performance and less recoil than the .375 H&H. You'l here that again and again because its true.

I've made previous comments here on the "Fire" but far more details in several past blogs.

My rifle is nothing fancy but very light. It's a Tikka T3 Lite with a Sako match-grade barrel. It replaced all my mediums for quite a few years, though I've added another .35 Whelen and a .375 H&H (my 3rd) over the past 18 months.

My Tikka with a 3 - 9 x 40 scope weighs 7.47 lbs, and with 3 in the clip magazine (286gr NPs) comes in at 7.7 lbs. With a 286 Partition leaving the muzzle at +2600 fps, recoil was more than my current .375 H&H that weighs 10 lbs with 3 in the magazi.ne.

Due to my age (88 next month) and bouts of arthritis, I've had a muzzle brake installed on the 6.3 x 62, which is much handier to tote in rough terrain that the heavier .375 H&H -which, btw, is a left-handed bolt-action. The Tikka is RH and very smooth. I've always shot from my left side due to a childhood accident to my right eye causing blindness to it.

I muchly appreciate John's responses.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Bob,

That Tikka sounds just about perfect--hopefully the brake will help!

I also ended up with a .375 H&H after not owning one for a few years, a pre-'64 Winchester Model 70 that weigh 1-3/4 pounds more bare than my CZ does with its scope. Haven't fired it yet....

Good hunting,
John

Thanks John,

I've a longtime friend in Ohio, who, in his last trip to Africa took a new M70 in .375 H&H, and it worked as well as his previous trip on everything using his M70 .458. But he said it was too heavy, being actually heavier than the .458 because the .458 had the same conture barrel but with less metal due the the larger hole in it.

This .375 H&H is my third, because I "always wanted one" but the first two didn't pan out as wanted or expected. The first was an M70 Winchester PF (which didn't concern me), but was indeed too heavy for my liking at the time and it never gave the expected results in ballistics, which I think was a feature of that particular barrel, and the "right" powders weren't available. Later, in a trade, I got a new Browning A-Bolt in LH, SS with a 26" barrel. The ballistics were outstanding but accuracy was poor after working with it for several months until I had my gunsmith chop 4" from the barrel, thinking that might make a stiffer barrel with better accuracy. In doing so, it was obvious the bore was off-center. The smith said by .008", which could clearly be seen. So it got traded at the same store for the same rifle in .338 Win Mag, that eventually became a .340 Wby at the hands of the same smith. The .338, a .300 Win and the .340 Wby were all stellar in performance.

Anyway, as I said, I always wanted a .375 H&H that worked as expected. So far, this one does, though heavy. But it has a 22" barrel and fits like a glove, so it went bear hunting in the Spring and this past Fall. No bear the size I wanted hunting solo, but a sub-monster was hitring the bait regularly. Next May, God willing, I'll be at it again with the .375 H&KH.

I always appreciate hearing your experiences.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

I have used the 9.3X62 along with the 358 Norma Magnum and 375 H&H for more than fifty years. Got my first 9.3 in late 1970s or early 80s. It was an ugly old 98 with a cracked stock and twisted front sight, but it worked.

Got my first 358 in 1968, a Husqvarna that carried nicely but could have been a bit heavier. Have had several since, including one custom rifle. Great hunting cartridge!

Guiding, I carried a 20 inch 375 that was terribly noisy, as you can imagine. Deafened me one time when I fired it beside a huge black spruce. Was quite impressed and pleased to discover that a 30-06 full of 220 gr Partitions did just as well, so that 375 left the ranch.

The past 15 years or so, have used a 9.3X62 with a 21 inch barrel that a friend of mine built. I had Bill Leeper install a NECG banded front sight and fit an old Redfield flip up aperture sight to the rear scope base.



Essentially, the 9.3X 62 is a 375 with five in the magazine. This one swings and points like an extension of your arm. It has been used on everything we hunt here, including grizzlies and woods bison. Oops, haven’t used this one on sheep. Turned 80 this past July, and haven’t hunted them for a while. The 270 still gets the nod for that.

The 9.3 is plenty and much easier to handle than any 375 I have had. As well, it easily cleans the 300 meter rail of pigs when fired from the bench at our silhouette range.

Sold both 375s and the 358 a few years ago. Sacrilege, I know, but managing to get along without them.

Ted