Which is the most popular in the US? Which has the most ammo sale?

Same question for world wide?

I have a 35 Whelen but am considering converting an 8mm Mauser to 9.3, but it was made in the late 1930's.

Am pretty sure the 9.3x62 is more popular world-wide, due to Africa, where quite a few hunters still use it, as do a lot of European hunters.

In North America the .35 Whelen is more popular, but not like it was when Remington first turned it into a factory round. What I heard through the business is they sold around 20,000 Whelens the first year, and then sales dropped considerably.

Well you already have a .35 Whelan, so why not the 9.3x62? It definitely would be a better choice if Africa is in your future! Unfortunately Africa won't happen for me, but if it did I would get a CZ rifle in 9.3x62.

Would you convert the Mauser to 9.3x62 or just buy a new one. If new, then why not buy a Ruger 375 African?

You clearly need all three.

i89nteresting as I just happen to have a 9.3 X 62 barrel for sale.....it's Douglas ultra rifled and I'm rebarreling the action to .35 Whelen

It's threaded and chambered for a large ring Mauser 98 and fired less than fifty rounds.

I have a .375 H&H for Africa should I make a third trip but want the Whelen as it can shoot lighter bullets for less recoil. We all have our weaknesses it seems.

I've never owned either one. Are they pretty much equal in performance?

The Mauser donor would be a great candidate for this rebarrel. And should be much cheaper than the Ruger African. But then again maybe you want a .375. All I can say is that for the U.S. the 9.3 is looked at by some as over kill, but I just love the way it knocks game down for the count wihtout killing the shooter. And as for weight, my 8x57 is heavier. And it's pretty accurate. Hard hitting, not excessve recoiling, not too heavy, and pretty damn accurate. What's not to love?

I doubt if any game in America would be able to tell the difference in the 9.3 and the .35, What's the difference,...8 or 9 thousands of an inch? Even so, personally I would rather have a 9.3 than an 8mm to go with my .35 Whelen. Nazis shot at my Dad with an 8mm!

In my experience, yes, and I'll throw in the 338-06 too.

Make the 8mm an 8x68 and never look back!

The 9.3x62 is becoming more popular here in Australia. It is available in the Tikka which is light, affordable and widely available. Apart from a run that Ruger did a few years ago in the Hawkeye and Remington too in the CDL, new Whelen rifles are a thing of the past now. A lot of the 9.3s are being bought for sambar deer.

I figured 9.3 is becoming more popular in North America and ammo can probably more easily be found in Africa than 35 Whelen. I make 35 Whelen brass out of 30-06. Don't know if I could do that converting 30-06 to 9.3 or not. 9.3 x 62 may need a little longer brass than the 30-06 cartridge can resize to.

...why not buy a Ruger 375 African?
The 375 Ruger is a great round. However in Africa the ammo is difficult to find but the 9.3x62 is way more available. The other advantage for the 9.3x62 is magazine capacity.

You can make 9.3 brass from 30-06, though not quite as easily as converting to 35 Whelen. It comes out a hair short too, but still usable. With Privi and Hornady brass available, along with Norma, I don't bother anymore.

Pluses for the 9.3 over the 35 are heavier bullets and it's legal for dangerous game in a lot of African countries. I love my Ruger Hawkeye African. It does everything I need it to do with a lot less recoil than the 375 Ruger.

If you are gonna go with a 9.3 why not the x64 Brenneke?? More juice, a TRUE dangerous game round, short enough to fit in a standard 98

I defy anyone to tell me they can see a difference in effect on at least NA big game animals under normal hunting conditions out to say, 300 yards.

I have yet to detect any difference in results on big game, whether in North America or Africa, between the 9.3x62 and .375 H&H.

Better yet is the 375 Ruger. It's what H&H would have developed, had they brought out the "H&H" today.

I love my 9,3X62 and haven't shot any of my three 375s in anger for ten years...2 ea H&H and 375 Wby. I've owned several 375 Rugers and find no fault with them, none. The Brenneke was a very good round and still is, but try in a pinch to find ammo and brass, especially at any kind of price that's at or below the platinum melt value.

The 115 year old Otto Bock is just perfect for my medium bore needs, especially with the great new powders and bullets.

Not long ago winter flights to Stockholm were stupid cheap. Like under $300. I considered going over there, because Tikka's website said the 9.3 x 62 was available in the T3 Stainless LH. But, the dealer listed in Tikka's info did not have the gun in hand. Probably a good thing.

I have never had to shoot in order to save my life. But if I had to, I would feel safer with a x64 in my hands.
If finding ammo is a concern, the x64 is NOT the way to go!!
If 375 is the minimum cal for Africa (but the 9.3 is given a wink and a nod), why not go above the minimum, 416 Taylor has manageable recoil.

Don't know what your point is, but I have used the .416 Rigby some on both water and Cape buffalo. It's a fine round, and also doesn't kick all that much when loaded to its original ballistics.

I have killed dozens of big game animals up to well over 1000 pounds with both the 9.3x62 and .375 H&H using my handloads. The 9.3x62 loads get around 2650 for with 250-grain bullets and close to 2500 with 286's, and yes, they have been pressure-tested and get basic .30-06 pressures. My .386 handloads get around 2650-2700 with 260-270 grain bullets and 2500-2550 with 300s. Why would there be any vast difference? Another 10-15 grains of bullet weight, around 5%? Less than one 100th of an inch in bullet diameter?

😁
John,
Reading your article on the 9.3 BS round a few years ago was quite a revelation to me. Suddenly, I realized that all the deer and elk my model 7 ks 350 mag has put in the freezer was not much more than pure luck.
Why it's just amazing to me that none ever decided to just get up and walk right out of that freezer. You know with the 9.3 being so much more lethal and all. Just to be sure they don't, I've taken to padlocking it shut ..you just can't be too sure.
Don't know why anyone would ever risk a hunt on a 35 anything---Whelen or otherwise---9.3 or bust!
I'm seriously (well, almost) considering rebarrelling to your 9.3 BS round as my wife's been complaining alot more lately about that danged padlock!🤔
A little BS can go a long way.

Sorry to hijack the op's thread. It just seemed somehow appropriate.

This may astonished you, but among the hunting rifles I've owned over the decades have been quite a few .35 calibers, including two .350 Remington Magnums and three .35 Whelens. Also a couple of .35 Remingtons, three .358 Winchesters, a .358 Norma Magnum, and a .358 Shooting Times Alaskan. Still have one of the .358 Winchesters and the .358 Norma. Have hunted quite a bit with the various .35s, and of course they kill stuff.

Have also written that in my experience a real difference in "killing power" due to caliber does start at around .35. But in general .35's suffer from slow rifling twists, which generally means the heaviest lead-cored spitzers that will stabilize consistently weigh 250 grains. There are some "semie-spitzers" and roundnose bullets that stabilize in the more-or-less stand 1-16 rifling twist, but even 250's can't be driven all that fast in the .350 Remington and .35 Whelen, which in my experience are ballistically the same deal. In general around 2550 is about it, though some handloaders lean on them harder. They become more practical all-around hunting rounds with bullets around 225 grains, which can get 2650-2700 fps. Which is why some hunters step up to the .358 Norma and STA: Its pretty easy to get 2700 (or even more in the STA) with
250's.

The slow twist also doesn't stabilize monolithic .35 bullets over 225 grains--the reason that's the heaviest .35-caliber Barnes TSX. The standard 9.3 twist will stabilize the 286-grain TSX.

After considerable experience I also came to believe that heavier bullets do make a difference in "medium-bore" rounds such as the 9.3mm and .375 . I also use 250s in the .9.3s and and 260s in the .375, but generally when hunting more open country, where a somewhat flatter trajectory does help at ranges past around 250 yards. The ballistic coefficient of the 250-grain AccuBond is pretty high, so when started at 2650 (easily done at .30-06 pressures) it shoots as flat as the popular 180-grain .30-06 load, which makes hitting at 400+ relatively easy. (I know this, again, because I have also used the .30-06 quite a bit.) And those heavier 286- and 300-grain bullets in the 9.3s and .375s do seem to put bigger game down quicker than 250s from .35's, on average. (In hunting there are always individual exceptions to general rules.

This obviously doesn't mean .35s won't kill big game. As noted above, I have killed quite a bit of big game with various .35s--and will continue to do so. But my experience is that heavier, and slightly larger-diameter bullets do the job somewhat better--the reason the 9.3x62 and .375 H&H have been held in such high regard by big game hunters around the world for more than a century now. And modern powders and bullets have only made them better.

Nice to see politeness, reason, and real information as a counter to butt-hurt douchery. Maybe Mickey didn't mean to come off that way.......

It's all in jest. .the reason for the😁

In all seriousness, mostly due to the slow twist issue John mentioned, I have been contemplating rebarrelling my 350 rem mag to John's 9.3 BS.
After all, any cartridge that's named a BS anything is right up my alley.

Good deal. My apologies for assumptions.

I'm not a Mauser 98 expert, but was the 8x57 m98 an intermediate length designed action? Will a M98 action from the 1930s accept a 35 Whelen or 9.3x62?

The 9.3x62 was specifically designed to fit in the standard military K98's 3.30 inch magazine--which is why the maximum SAAMI cartridge overall length length for the 9.3x62 is 3.29 inches.

The .35 Whelen's SAAMI OAL is 3.34 inches, the same as the for the .30-06--an OAL shared by a bunch of other rounds, including the .270 Winchester.

Interestingly, the 7mm Remington Magnum has a COAL designed to fit in the standard 98 Mauser magazine, probably because when it was introduced in 1962 there were still a pile of "war surplus" Mauser military rifles available for very low prices. The long-action Remington rifles of the period, whether the 721 or 700, had a magazine long enough for the .300 H&H.

Winchester, however, designed all four of its belted magnums (.264, .300, .338 and .458) developed in the same era to fit in .30-06 length magazines, the reason quite a few surplus 1903 Springfields got rechambered to .300 Winchester Magnum.

I've encountered more in 308 Norma Magnum than 300 Win for whatever that's worth.

I'm still trying to score a 350 Rem mag to turn into some BS.

I have long been a 358 fan and at present own 6; but between these two the 9.3x62 was designed from the get-go to sling heavy bullets. Just came back from the range firing 325 Norma Orynx bullets at 2250fps with RL 17. These big fellows penetrate like crazy. For big stuff that the mid bores are designed for the 9.3 is a remarkable instrument.

Yep, and as I noted earlier a high-BC 250-grain ain't bad in open country, either!

sometimes i think people buy a certain rifle by what the name of the cartridge is, a few examples 35 Whelen,Magnums and the latest now Creedmoor. i suppose very soon we will all here about the new 35 Creedmoor " old name 35 Savage" . anyway very good replies on this post.thank you,Pete53

Mule deer.
If you load the 35 Whelen to what it is capable of you will tell the difference. A 225 grain accubond or 225 grain Woodleigh at 2,850fps to 2,950fps or a 250 grain Speer hotcore at 2,700 make the Whelen a class of its own.
These loads are using Hogdon CFE223 and are listed on the Speer reloading site.
Those speeds are chronoed from my 25 inch barrel and give 4,000 to 4,300++ for of muzzle energy.
Bob Nelson

I have been reading more and more about the new CFE223 powder and am eager to try it for my 35calibers. I tried the Barnes bullets a few years back but was not impressed by the copper fouling problems. I may try them again with this CFE223 powder.

MS 9x56.
On the African Hunting forum you will find a lot of posts on the Whelen.
Mine are under Bob Nelson 35Whelen. If you want to contact me you can n send me a personal message pm me .
Bob

Mule deer.
Have a look at the Speer reloading site with the 250grain Speer hotcore. It's showing 2,700+ fps with the 250grain.
I load the max load for it with CFE223 and get 2,700fps chronoed out of my 25 inch barrel with a 1 in 12 twist. This is without any pressure signs in my rifle. A Stevens 200 converted to 35 Whelen.
With the 225grain accubonds or Woodleigh I get 2,850 to 2,950 fps. These loads were devastating on plains game including Hartman zebra and Oryx, kudu and a large Burchells zebra.
Using newer powders gives the Whelen a big boost without straining it. A 250 grain bullet out of an 8.5 pound rifle at 2,700fps gets your attention.
Bob Nelson

Bob,

Thanks for the info--but for two reasons the 9.3x62 is capable of more velocity than the .35 Whelen with the same bullet weights. First, it has more powder room, which may seem strange but even back in 1905 Otto Bock knew that the case neck needed to be shorter, and the case body longer, if the 9.3x62 was going to provide adequate performance with heavy bullets and still fit in the standard K98 magazine.

The second reason is the larger bore also allows bullets of the same weight as in .35 to be started at higher velocity, without increasing pressure--even if the powder capacity was the same, and it isn't. I load my 9.3x62 to probably a little less than many people load the .35 Whelen (my handloads have been tested at around 60,000 PSI), yet still match .35 Whelen velocities, even in a somewhat shorter barrel.

I have used the 250-grain 9.3mm Nosler AccuBond at 2650 from the 23.6 inch barrel of my 9.3x62 on the same sort of plains game you mention, and it is also "devastating." But due to the boattail and plastic tip, the ballistic coefficient of the 9.3 AccuBond is somewhat higher than for any 250-grain .35 caliber bullet. This results in the 250 9.3 easily matching the trajectory of a typical 250-grain flat-base, .35-caliber softpoint started a little faster--and retaining more velocity at any range from 200 yards out.

Again, this because the 9.3s standard rifling twist is capable of handling longer bullets such as the 250 AccuBond and ANY 286-grain bullet available--and there is a definite difference in performance between the 250 and 286 9.3s on big game. As I pointed out earlier, the heaviest .35 caliber Barnes TSX weighs 225 grains, while the heaviest 9.3 TSX weighs 286. On really big game such monolithics provide very deep penetration--though the 286-grain Nosler Partition is one of the models with the partition moved forward to retain more weight. It penetrates very well too: I once shot a zebra stallion in the big shoulder joint with a 286 Partition, which exited and hit a good-sized tree behind the zebra, sending a bunch of dry leaves cascading to the ground.

The 286 Nosler Partition has a BC over 100 points higher than the 280-grain Swift A-Frame, the heaviest .35 caliber "spitzer" available, which is actually a sort of semi-spitzer, with a flat tip. In contrast, the heaviest semi-spitzer available in 9.3 is the 320-grain Woodleigh--which is easily started at 2350 in my rifle. Such heavier bullets are why the 9.3x62, and other 9.3s, have long been more popular than .35 calibers for bigger game, including Cape buffalo.

I am glad you're happy with the performance of your 1-12 twist .35 Whelen, But because the standard 1-16.35 caliber rifling twist can't reliably stabilize spitzers heavier than 250 grains, bullet companies don't tend to make 'em. And the heavier bullet weights are where the 9.3x62 really separates itself from .35s.

Don't get me wrong I think the 35 Whelen is a fine round but there is nothing magic about it. Most of us don't have the measuring equipment or barrel length to safely ride the pressure train to crazyville. I have also seen people write about amazing velocities with 358 Winchesters and one "wonder" powder. Then suddenly in hot weather they blow a primer and get a face full of hot gas.

I get the above velocities easily and with great accuracy and a high margin of safety with multiple powders in the 358 Norma. I guess I could ride the same train to 2900 fps with 250 grain bullets in the Norma or take the train up 200fps with the 9.3x 62 or my various 35's but Why? In any case the 9.3x62 with it's greater capacity and larger expansion chamber will always be able to match or exceed the Whelen when loaded to equal pressures. That's just physics but I'll leave it to someone else to hit 2700+ fps with 250 grain bullets.

John, that is good solid info on the 9.3x62, thanks.

John makes a good solid case for the 9.3 and I cannot refute any of his points. The ONLY valid benefit of the Whelen is for the American hunter who does not reload. Whelen ammo is a little bit more available, though that is changing in recent years. The Whelen also has a better selection of bullets and ammunition suited to North American hunting. The 9.3 is undoubtedly a better (very slightly) cartridge with better bullet and ammo selection for heavy game. But most American hunters - myself included and I am an Alaskan hunting guide - will shoot a lot more deer and elk sized game than over 1000lb game. Of course a 3006 or 270 works as well or better for small and medium game, but for the hunter who wants one big game rifle for any purpose and will occasionally hunt very large game, the Whelen is a very good option. Basically a modern 350 Rigby, which is exactly the niche it was intended for.

It's a pretty nifty round. Mine weighs 8 pounds exactly with scope, and since I got it in 2002 it has just about turned my .338 Winchester and .375 H&H Magnums into safe queens--and I hunted a LOT with both during the previous decade. The 9.3x62's recoil is noticeably less, and with 250-grain bullets it's more effective than the .338, and with 286s I can't tell the difference between the 9.3 and the .375 with 300s.

The .35 Whelen has been my go to rifle for North American hunting for the last 30 yrs., bullet selection and the ease of making cases from .30-06 brass were key factors in making my decision. I have taken whitetails with 200 & 225gr. jacketed bullets, always excellent accuracy and terminal bullet performance. Powders that give the best accuracy in my .35 Whelen are IMR 3031 and IMR 4064 though I'm sure there are several others.

Mule deer
Woodleigh Australia makes 275 grain PPSP and 310 grain round nose and solids for the Whelen.
It's a pity that Remington made a 1 in 16 twist instead of a 1 in 12.
I dabbled with the Whelen AI and agree whole heartedly with you as blind the most useless AI around. Looks pretty b it doesn't do much better than the standard and needs more powder to do it.

I'm very happy with the Whelen and have had great fun developing loads for it with newer powders that bring it kicking and screaming into the 21st century..
For general use I use either the 225grain accubonds with your load of 60.5 grains of Varget for 2,850fps or the 225grain woodleigh PPSP with a healthy dose of cfe223 for 2,950fps. Both shoot flat and hit hard out to as far as I need.
This puts it up in 338 win mag territory and no one complains about the 338. The Ads between the 338, the 35 and 9.3 for the same weights don't overly concerned me as I don't hunt dangerous game and every thing I hit with the Whelen falls down if I do my part.
BOB

North 61
I've used my Whelen in Australia in temps from minus 5 celcieus to 42 degrees Celsius without the slightest hint of pressure problem. I Namibia the daily temp was 34 degrees Celsius and the same thing no problems with pressure.
I can assure you if ther was I would immediately back off the load. I did my load development in the middle of an Australian summer and I can assure you it was bloody hot.
Bob

Good to know....stay safe.

Hi John, can you share the details on your 9.3x62? I have an 84L and older 51L that I'm thinking about re-boring to this fine caliber.

Thank you, Scott

I've found that with best handloads, I'm in the ballpark with .375 H&H factory ammo and can duplicate the 9.3 x 64 factory ammo. I have to agree with the late Don Heath (African PH and wildlife biologist), Phil Shoemaker, Master Guide in Alaska, and JB that no observable distinctions of any of those over best premium loads in the 9.3 x 62 has been made.

I like both of Nosler's bullets (250 AB and 286 Partition) in my Tikka. They each shoot sub- MOA with the 250 AB into less than 1/2 MOA. Over 4000 ft-lbs from each is mundane using RL-17. With the heavy 286 Nosler and 320gr Woodleigh it surpasses the .338 Win Mag in KE and momentum. A 320gr at +2400 fps is easy using RL-17 in Hornady brass.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

In my view the two are close enough in performance that the tie breaker would come down to one thing and one thing only....... which one has the larger selection of factory ammo. That alone would answer my final question ,in my view.

PPU - loads inexpensive and mild 9.3x62mm/285 gr. SP.

Makes both a good transition and woods round, and produces good quality re-loadable brass for higher performance hand-loads.






GR

Question? Is CZ still offering a 9.3 cal gun but in the new 527 model? The 550 action is gone. I ask as I could get one to come up on their web site. Thanks Blue

The 527 is the 223 length straight stack Mauser they make. The 557 is the new one which is their attempt to replace the 550 ( a large step backwards in my opinion)
But I can't say if they chamber a 9.3X62 in the 557 for the American market of not.

Mule Deer's 9.3x62 2650 fps 250 Nosler Accubond shoots amazing out of my 1st Gen Ruger African, no experience on game.

Sako,

Always good to hear.

Am going to start on the next Gun Gack book next winter. (At first we weren't going to call it part of the Gun Gack series, but then Eileen--the CEO of our publishing company) realized how Gun Gack has become a "signature line." This one's going to be The Little Book of Gun Gack: Rifle Handloads that Work. Or something like that.

Have known some gun writers who claim there's no such thing as a handload that will work in most rifles in a certain chambering, but that has not been my experience. Have made many load suggestions to readers who were having problems getting a rifle to shoot, and most of the time they've worked. One recent example was a guy with a .22 Hornet who tried one of the ancient Hornet powders, if I recall H110, with 40-grain bullets, and accuracy was mediocre, certainly not what I've come to expect of several .22 Hornets. I suggested he switch to Hodgdon Li'l Gun instead, and a couple days later he reported his rifle now shot sub-inch groups.

That said, I have found H110 to work very well with lighter bullets in the .22 Hornet, from 30-35 grains. I suspect the difference is in case-fill.

I was checking out the CZ web page only yesterday. All the timber 557 models have the horrible hog back butt. No American classic model any more.

I whole-heartedly agree that some loads just seem to work in different rifles.

Examples:

When working up loads, the first places I look is Gun Gacks. I'll often look at the Nosler manuals next. The loads shown in those sources are usually good in my rifles.

All loads shown below were shot at 100 meters.

In my two 7mm RM's the most accurate load is 140 Grain Nosler Partition with magnum primers (WLRM or 9 1/2M) & 72 grains of RE 26. <.4 MOA in my 700 and <.6 MOA in my 77. (Not sure what I'd shoot the 7mm RM's that would require that accuracy though, haha). But that is the best load for accuracy in those rifles.

In my 700 25-06's 100 grain Hornady with 9 1/2 primers and 56.7 grains of H4831sc shoots the best - in both rifles. ~ .8 MOA or less

In my 300 Weatherby's 200 grain Nosler Partition with 215 primers and 78.2 grains of RE 26 will shoot under .75 MOA (4 shot groups).

I was discussing what was the best load with another shooter for the 204 and we happen to come to the same bullet, powder etc. as the most accurate -- 40 gr V-max, 27 to 27.2 grains of IMR 4895.

Indeed. I had been hanging out with a new friend for a while before we learned, while talking guns, that we both shot .257 Roberts (his a M77, mine a 722). And we both used the identical loads, powder and bullet! Of course, we'd arrived at them independently, but they shot best in both our rifles.
Rex

I feel more comfortable stretching the .358 bore to 400-500 yards (on game) than I do the 9.3.

To me the slick 9.3 bullets seem hard, and the soft 9.3 bullets are not slick.

The 250 9.3 accubond (which shoots into tiny groups and flies very straight)...seems to be a fairly tough bullet. I have not shot anything larger than deer or pigs with it, but below 2000 fps it seemed to only expand *somewhat* in those animals, and expansion is definitely delayed and damage is very underwhelming. Might be a different story on something like a grizz bear that offered a lot of resistance to the bullet.

The "slick" .358 bullets in my experience are a lot softer. The 225gr .358 accubonds seem way softer than the .366 version, and will give a bit of expansion below what Nosler rates them to, down to 1700 fps. At 1700 it is nothing dramatic, but they quickly blow the nose off and you get a jagged 35-40 cal projectile plowing through. The 250 35 cal partitions also seem to have a nice soft front end.

To me this pushes the slider toward the Whelen, at least on game up to elk.