What would be best of these choices for an expanding bullet in a 9.3x62 for Cape Buffalo?
286g Nosler partition
320g Woodliegh
325g Norma Oryx

Heavy ones running at about 2370fps, 286 running just over 2500fps

So all at Namibia minimum 5400 joules or just a hair over

I have got partitions running great w 1” or less groups, but wondering if one of the “heavy” bullets would better

In general, the Partition tends to penetrate at least as deeply as the Woodleigh and Oryx, and often deeper, because it doesn't expand as widely.

Personally, I'd use a SAF, but I see it's not on your list.

I have used SAF and TBBC on (7) Buffalo in Africa so far, and like them both.

Sorry, I have no experience to help you with your list.

I've used the Nosler on feral cattle, but I suspect that a load pushing it to 2,500 fps might be unsafe.


Okie John

Nope, it's not. The load I use in mine (CZ 550 with 23.6 inch barrel) with 286's is 66 grains of Ramshot Big Game gets just about that, and I had it pressure-tested. Turns out its right around .30-06 factory pressures, which aren't very hot at all. Have used it in Africa at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit with no issues.

I used the Woodleigh bullets on plains game and they dropped everything quickly, the largest being a Kudu. I think they would do fine on a buffalo.

SAF generates higher pressures, per QL
TBBC isn’t available

JB, do u think I am good to stay with the Partitions?
They do shoot straight

Maybe over my head here. What about barnes X or similar offerings?

Haven't used them, but have hunted Africa three times, everything from hippo down to steenbok, the 320gr Woodleigh PP's from my 9.3x62mm at 2400 fps wouldn't worry me in the least with all game animals anyone would ever fire a soft point bullet at, to me that means all game short of Ele head shots, were that needed, the 320gr Woodleigh or 280gr BBW #13 solids would penetrate to next week.

Good luck and have fun, it's a hell of an accurate cartridge, hunting to a full 300 yards would be a cake walk with the pointed 320gr Woodleigh softs at 2400 fps.

This entire discussion is kind of like trying to choose between several excellent kinds of ice cream. I know you are good staying with the Partitions, as I have been taking big game with them for close to 20 years now, ranging up to around 1500 pounds, using the Big Game load mentioned earlier. They not only penetrate very deeply (they're one of the heavier Nosler Partition that have the partition moved forward to retain more weight) but also knock the snot out of African game. In fact, when I used my 9.3x62 as my "light" rifle on a safari a few years ago, my hunting partner used a .300 Winchester Magnum with 180-grain bullets, and was so impressed with how the 9.3x62 worked that he bought one himself after returning from the hunt. (The PH was also so impressed that he wanted me to take my second buffalo with the 9.3 rather then the .416 Rigby I used on my first, but we did not find a "better" buffalo when hunting with the 9.3. I think he was more disappointed than I was.)

That said, one of the virtues of the 9.3x62 is itsmoderate velocity with 286s, even when increased somewhat with modern powders, results in very good terminal performance with most bullets, including cup-and-cores like the Hornady Interlock. This is a big part of the reason the 9.3x62 is still around after more than century. You're not going to have "problems" with the 286 Partition, any more than you would with any of the other bullets mentioned so far. It works very well.

Dre,

I have used 250 and 286-grain Barnes Xs in my 9.3x62, both the grooveless "pre-TSX" and TSX, and they work. But in my experience they do not kill as quickly as lead-cores at the moderate velocities of the 9.3x62, and the deep penetration result in problems when hunting buffalo in herds, due to exiting more often. In fact, I know more than one African PH who recommends TSXs in the .375 H&H for buffalo--but advises using the 270-grain (or even the 250-grain TTSX) instead of the 300-grain, because the 270 is less likely to exit when hunting buffalo in herds, possibly wounding another buffalo. My preference would be for the 250-grain TTSX, since it can be driven faster, and in my experience more velocity results in quicker kills with monolithic bullets of any brand. But even with 250s the 9.3x62 isn't a speed demon. About 2650-2700 fps is top end.

Also, the 9.3x62 doesn't have as much powder room as the .375 H&H, and loading the very long 286 TSXs can be a problem, even with very dense Big Game powder. I was able to use Big Game with the original 286-grain X-Bullet, but the powder charge was heavily compressed. The 286 TSX is a little longer, and didn't want to stay in place over Big Game.

All of those would not be a bad choice. Take the Nosler's but ask your PH what he recommends, this is rarely a bad idea. Most will recommend the Swift A Frame and the Barnes TSX for follow up shots, the Nosler, Woodleigh's and maybe the Oryx will get mentioned by some PH's too. Rhino Bullets are designed for Buffalo but I don't know how the availability is right now, it was good a year or so ago. Which ever gives you and your PH the most confidence is the one to go with.

Tejano,

I would not change a good load with a good bullet just because the PH suggests another bullet. There are too many good bullets out there these days--and I have also found more PHs think highly of Partitions (especially the heavier models designed to retain more weight) than you would imagine from Internet posts from safari hunters.

I once hunted with Luke Samaras, one of the older, legendary PHs who started in Kenya, and then when they closed big game huntinf down in 1977, switched to Tanzania. (There was also a period where Tanzania closed down as well, which Luke spent working for Rigby in England.) Like Harry Selby, Luke is a big fan of the .416 Rigby, and since I brought a .416 Rigby we had a pretty good talk about why.

During that talk he found I'd brought ammo loaded with 400-grain Partitions, and said, "I didn't know Nosler made .416 bullets! If I did, I would load them instead the ---- I've been using."

Luke Samaras?

Love to sit around his campfire!

I’m a 9.3 x 62 nut.

John “Pondoro” Taylor summed it up by saying to the effect that nobody argues about it because it works so well.

I have taken a half a dozen Buffalo with it and loaded cartridges for hunters that have taken another half dozen plus.

250 TSX works every time.

It works on eland, kudu, sable, elk, and even impala and Nyala.

My other favorite is the now unobtainable RWS H-Mantle- which is a fancy Partition.

Go with one of those and never look back.
9.3 x 62 is easy on the shoulder and kills far above what paper ballistics would lead you to believe.

John, would you mind listing those bullets?

As far as I personally know from field experience resulting in far more than the "standard" 65-70% weight retention, they include bullets from the 225-grain .338 on up. The few I've recovered from that on up through 400-grain .416s have averaged around 90% weight retention.

MD, good to hear, Thanks, have Partitions in 250gr 338, 250gr 358, 300gr 375, 400gr 416 and 500gr 458 at 2750, 2800, 2680, 2400 and 2150 fps in that order, can't get my head around on why they wouldn't work very well on 'any' game animal anywhere that requires a soft point bullet.

The 320 Woodlieghs penetrate and expand very well from a 9.3X74

Nice, I have heard good things about the 320gr Woodleigh solids as well, they go deep and straight.

RE: Noslers
I think the 200 and 220 30 caliber have the partition farther forward and the old 175 gr. 7mm semi spitzer did too, not sure about the current 175s. The LRAB if anything has the partition further back. One PH did not like Noslers, he claimed that the straight line penetration was not as good as some other bullets, but this may be based on a single bad experience with a giraffe rodeo.

The 320 grain Woodleigh solid is the best penetrator of all the Woodleigh round nose solids in any caliber according to penetration tests by Micheal McCurry

No, the 200 and 220 .30 caliber Partitions do not have the partition moved forward. That said, they still penetrate great--and in my experience straight. One my own examples was a 6x6 elk I shot at 75 yards with a .300 Winchester Magnum and the 200. He stood quartering toward me, and the bullet landed where I aimed, in the big joint of the left shoulder--and exited toward the rear of the ribs on the right side. In a penetration test a few years ago Phil Shoemaker found the 220 Partition to penetrate deeper than any other .30 caliber bullet he tried--and he's tried a bunch.

The LRAB does not HAVE a partition, nor does the standard AccuBond. Instead the rear end of the jacket is bonded to the core. The jacket is also much lighter than standard AccuBonds, and I suspect the core might be a little softer as well. The LRABs are designed to expand all the way down to 1300 fps, the reason less of the core is bonded. In my experience they retain about as much weight as Hunting Ballistic Tips at closer ranges, around 50% give or take a little--which is also about like Hornady Interlocks.

in the standard AccuBonds enough of the core is to approximate the weight retention of Partitions of the same weight and caliber.Thus the heavier, larger AccuBonds are designed to retain a higher percentage of weight than the smaller ones. Of the few I've recovered of the larger AccuBonds, average weight retention has been in the 80-90% range, while smaller AccuBonds retain the typical 65-70% of smaller Partitions.

Good to hear, Thanks, I remember that AR thread, but haven't the i.t. talent to look through 4 or 500 pages of testing data.

I've hunted more with the 9,3x62 than any other cartridge and have had excellent results with 250gr. TSX and 286gr. NP. I've never slayed a cape buff, but wouldn't hesitate using either bullet.

Personally, my rifle loves the 286gr. NP so I've settled on.

MD - This is the first time I've seen anything written on any construction differences between the LRABs and the standard ABs, so I greatly appreciate the information.

I do have some questions, if you wouldn't mind? Because of the lighter jacket and potentially softer core of the LRABs, what would be your opinion of using the 129gr. .264 LRAB in a 264 Win Mag for elk? Would you be more inclined to use the heavier 140gr LRAB or just simply default to the standard AB or even the Partition?

I've been working up some handloads with the 129gr. LRAB, but have had these questions running through my head of if I would really trust this bullet on elk and your comments made me question them even more. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Unless you're planning to only shoot elk at longer ranges, I'd be more included to use the heavier LRAB (which which weighs 142 grains) or the standard 140 AccuBond in the .264. How far do you usually shoot?

I have used the 129 LRAB on deer, but so far from milder 6.5s than the .264, the biggest my 6.5 PRC. But I am just as likely to shoot deer relatively close as at longer ranges--the mule deer buck I killed a couple years ago with the PRC was only 159 yards away.

Thanks for your response, MD. I don't usually shoot all that far. With this rifle and scope combo, I like to keep shots within 300 yards, although I may push it to 400 if all is perfect. However, like you, I'm just as likely to encounter them close as I am far. This year's bull was shot at just a bit over 200 yards, with 100 to 225 yards being about the norm. I actually have not shot an elk with the .264 WM and was just messing around with different bullets and loads and considering the possibilities. The 129's shoot really well, which is why I was considering that bullet, but as a guy that tends to lean toward using heavier bullets in all calibers, the 129 just seems too light to me, which is why I was questioning it. I believe I'll move towards the heavier bullets for an elk load, based on your information and response. Much appreciated.

I have only used the 128s LRAB in the 6.5x55 for deer. No question that it is as good or better than cup and core 130s in the 270 Winchester but I would be inclined to go with the 142s as well for less than perfect angles. The 129s did fine at closer ranges not unlike a BT, at longer ranges it acts more like a partition.

Comments on the partition, had a brain lapse on the accubond and on the 175, 200, & 220 I was thinking of the old screw machine models as pictured in Bob Hagel's books. Not the newer ones.

Given your range parameters, I'd probably choose a tougher bullet, regardless of weight. The weight of the 129 AccuBond Long range isn't a problem, but it's designed for long-range performance--which means beyond 400 yards.

Elk are big animals, and despite the obsession with tiny groups these days, at the ranges you shoot 1.5" 3-shot groups at 100 yards are more than sufficient for hitting them in the right place. I know a lot people recommend "whatever shoots best," but at your ranges bullet construction is more important than either pin-point accuracy or weight. As an example, the 127-grain Barnes LRX would work fine.

Among the many bullets I'd recommend would be 120-130 monometal bullets, or tougher bonded/partitioned bullets from 125-140 grains.

Close to 20 years ago, not long after Barnes and Nosler started making 9.3mm bullets, I attended a hunt/event at a Texas ranch, which included my friend Richard Mann's demonstration of a new kind of bullet-test media he'd developed, using wax which retained the shape of the bullet channel. Among other bullets, we planned to test some of the 250 and 286 Barnes X's, and the 286 Partitions.

I bet Richard that the 286 Partition would penetrate somewhere between the 250 and 286 Xs, due to being a "partition forward" design. He looked doubtful, but wouldn't put money on it. But that's exactly what happened....

You will never be disappointed!

What powder?

Whatever the Nosler Custom ammo shop used. Bought a couple boxes years ago and it shot lights out in my rifle, so bought several more boxes in the same lot for under 40 bucks a box. I'm set for life...