Got a new to me 9.3x62. It's an early 1950s Commercial FN 98 Mauser. I've purchased some Hornady brass, a can of Varget, and a box of Nosler 250g Accubonds. Plowing through a bit of Campfire history, I dug up the threads which contain the 60.5g of Varget along with the Accubond that seems to be a favorite, though you note it is well beyond the Nosler listed max of 56.5g.

Any suggestions where to start with my load development? I'd like to think the FN should be good for the 60.5g, but recognize the foolhardines of of a starting load beyond the listed max. Advice would be much appreciated.

Nice rifle!

You might want to be start around 55 grains. Haven't found a commercial 9,3x62 yet with a "modern" short throat, but you never know. They've all had the typical long throats of older cartridges developed around heavy, round-nosed bullets.

That said, have seen the charge of Varget required to get to 2600+ with 250's vary somewhat in different rifles, and with different bullets, cases, primers and even the particular lot of Varget. But can't imagine 55 not being a safe starting load.

My only load for my 9.3x62 is a 270 grain Speer Hotcore over 59 grains of IMR 4895. I think it's around 2500 FPS. It's accurate but it rock's my bones pretty good>

That's JB's loads that I have used when I first got a CZ 550 in 9.3X62. Never had to look any further.

Thanks John, and much appreciate the others who joined in as well. I'll hang on to all that info.

Will start at 55, and work my way up a bit at a time. May not get all the way to 60.5, but I'm not greatly concerned about hitting the 2600 fps mark. Just looking to get minute of moose/deer/bear kill zone to a touch over 200 yds. Anything further than that goes free unless it's giving me an absolutely irresistable full side view!

<^>

All my reloading books are old and out of date. All but a couple are pre Varget. I use Varget in my .223s but never had a clue that it could work so well something like a 9.3x62. That's what I get for being so cheap and failing to up grade my library. I can hardly believe a powder so versatile that it works so good in a 9.3x62 as well as in a lowly .223. Now THAT'S what I call a versatile propellant.

John's loads I posted were pressure tested and have stood the test of time. When I had my 9.3x62, I used those loads with good success.

DF

John saved me money and time by publishing that data......60 grs of Varget and the 250 TSX works just fine.

Varget works well in my 9.3 as well as in two 22-250s with heavier bullets.

Yep, John saved me money, too

But, this Fire business in general has cost me more than I've saved...



DF

+1

This is my favorite JB article of all time, I've read it a 1000 times!

I agree. I've printed this page and it is the first page to my loading notes for my 9.3x62. I also have a CZ 550 and his info made it so easy to find an accurate load. I load both 250 gr AccuBond and 286 gr NP's and both were within .5 grains of his published data. Also, I use his load info for my .358 Win using TAC. What a great resource!

I be used them in my REMINGTON 03A3 ser # 4,000,000 plus, does fine!

Norma 232 grain Vulcan with 15 grains Trail Boss is a good no recoil practice load in my 9.3x62 rifles. A lot of fun.

62g of H414 with Barnes 250 TSX and Fed 215 primers has been my go to for twenty years. R-15 is a great powder, and maybe produces slightly smaller groups in my rifles.

I load the 232gn Oryx and Vulcan for deer (fallow) and pigs in my No,1S. No need for anything heavier with that size game. I use H4895 powder.

When I traded for my 98 actioned Husky last year, I was given a baggie of 232 gr bullets. I posted a pic of one here trying to get an ID on them, and the consensus was that they were older Normas, either Vulcans or Oryx. I've read that one of them, Vulcan I think, might be a little fragile at X62 velocities, but figured either would be fine for our whitetail deer. With my moderate load of RL15, they shoot very well, have a great trajectory, and surprisingly have the same POI as my 270 gr loads at 100 yds. Haven't had a chance to test them on a deer as yet, however.

Elvis, I would love to hear a little more detail on your experience with them. If you're willing, I would also like to get more detail on your loads, via PM if you'd like to not broadcast them.

Works pretty good in the 375 H&H Mag with 250g Barnes TTSX as well. Very accurate in my experience.

I would love to hear more experiences with the 232 Vulkans on game as well. The 232 oryx too for that matter. Thanks for all the great posts and information on the 9.3x62mm to all.

Haven't used the Vulkan, but the Oryx tends to expand very widely at modern 9.3x62 velocities, so doesn't penetrate all that deeply. This is no big deal on deer-sized game, in fact sometimes helps kill quicker.

In fact Oryx bullets tend to expand widely in ALL calibers, so even though they typically retain around 90% of their weight, don't penetrate as deeply as most other controlled-expanding bullets.

John,

Looking at the above list from the Handloader article, I'm guessing the 250gr "Barnes X-Bullet" is the old version of the "X"?

I'll be looking for a load for an upcoming fall cow elk hunt and want to try the newer X bullets. Is it safe to assume that the newer versions will produce a bit less pressure due to the grooves on the shank now?

And, any idea what a good overall length might be for a CZ as used above?

I may try the GMX and possibly some other brands of "non-toxic" bullets if available. I may want to use the rifle here in Cali if I should be so lucky as to draw here.

As always, thanks for your input on this site.

Geno

icedog,

Have you considered a 280-300 grain .366 or .367 inch GCCB in front of that Varget powder, at about 2000FPS??
(Any Western Hemisphere game animal won't care that it was quickly killed by a cheap/hard-hitting cast bullet.)

I suspect that that load would take ANY dangerous game out to 200M, with the possible exception of elephant, which I'll never hunt.

An old boarding school chum of mine has taken SEVERAL moose with his 290 grain homebrewed bullets. = Raney calls his cast handload, "THE BONEBREAKER".

yours, tex

Geno,

Yep, that was the original 250-grain Barnes X, and yes, you should be able to use a little more powder safely with the TSX.

In my CZ 9,3x62, I generally seat all spitzers just shy of magazine length. So far they've all shot well.

I have shot 12+ deer with the Norma Oyrx 232, in a CZ 550. RL-15 load from JB. MOA at 100 yards and a bit better. Never had a deer go more than 10 yards usually less. Hammer of Thor perhaps. One I hit in the shoulder, the bullet did expanded and break apart. Deer did a little circle and fell. Buddy's in the woods said they always knew when I shot. Called it a Cannon? Works well for me. JB's 250g loads also shot to about the same point of impact. Not really a rifle or load for more than abut 250 yards, but when you want them down, NOW, it works very well.

Thanks John, I'll try that length.

You and Eileen enjoy your spring.

Geno

For some reason, My CZ550 never did like the Barnes bullets. About 2" at 100 yards. Also a lot of copper fouling in the bore. Mine has a long throat, unless beyond 250g never could reach the land before the magazine limit.

Have not found reaching the lands necessary in several 9.3x62's. The CZ's (and most others) have very long throats, since like many early smokeless cartridges the 9.3 was developed around heavy, round-nosed bullets, which required a long throat.

When I have problems getting bullets to shoot well in long-throated chambers anymore, I try seating them deeper. Often up to .10 inch deeper results in much better accuracy. (This also applies even with "standard" throated chambers and longer bullets.)

With the Norma Oryx 232's, I seated them about a caliber into the case, no way they would hit the lands. Way to short. No where near the mag limit either.

Mule Deer; All,

Inasmuch as 'ole Otto Bock designed his 9.3x62mm specifically for hunting moose, reindeer, Red Deer & wild boar in the forests of Europe. - The caliber worked so well on large European game that German colonists in Africa started using the caliber for dangerous game there, where it proved to be very suitable for farmers/ranchers there in much the same role that the Winchester & other makers (mostly) LA rifles served in the USA/Canada. = A rifle that was suitable for taking the game that was native to that area & that could easily be carried by a horseman.

For farmers/ranchers, the BIG double rifles were too heavy & clumsy to carry easily across the pommel of a saddle AND those double-rifles were VERY expensive when compared to the Mauser-based BA.. - Also, a BA rifle of the sort that Mauser made did not require a gunbearer to hunt with when afoot..

I don't know about the rest of the 9.3x62 "addicts" like me, but I don't even consider the old 9.3x62 as a rifle for long range & consider as it as a "powerhouse" at 200M or less for ANY big game, Worldwide.
(Many rhino, Cape Buffalo, lion, large antelope, zebra & elephant were efficiently taken with the 9.3x62 using LONG, heavy for caliber, round-nose bullets of 270 grains or more.)

Personally, I use only TWO sorts of bullets in my 9.3x62.: The 286 grain JSP/solid or my homebrew about 280 grain GCCB. - BOTH bullets work well at the range & for hunting the game animals for which the so-called "Big Mauser" was designed.
(I really don't see a real need for a <250 grain bullet in the 9.3x62, though obviously everyone is free to use whatever weapon that they choose.)

just my OPINION, tex

Tex,

I have read a LOT about the history of the 9.3x62, and have yet to find a reference that suggests Otto Bock designed it primarily for larger European game. Instead all the histories of the cartridge I've found state that it was primarily designed for German settlers in Africa, as a round suitable for anything there that would fit and function in the standard K98 action. If you have original sources that suggest otherwise, would like to hear about them.

Dunno why somebody would refuse to use modern powders and bullets in an older cartridge, just because that's not the way it was originally designed. Otherwise the .30-06 would be stuck with 150-grain spitzers at 2700 fps and 220 roundnoses at 2400. Using higher ballistic coefficient, controlled-expansion 250's at 2650 fps makes the 9.3x62 much more versatile. Have used it quite handily to 300+ yards, and also up close, on a LOT of big game in both North America and Africa with fine results.

Mule Deer,

QUESTION: Have you had problems with "disappearing posts"?? - I just posted a comment (that I'm repeating here) that is evidently GONE altogether, though I got a notice on-screen that said that the comment had been posted.

What I said in that post was: Check out the 9.3x62mm chapter in the book BIG BORE RIFLES. = When I locate my copy, I'll PM you the page number
I further suspect that there are other similar comments in books & magazine articles, as I remember a somewhat similar comment in (I think) an old issue of SHOOTING TIMES.. Also possibly in one of the GUN DIGEST books.

In any case, I ended my original comments with:: "in my OPINION, tex". = NUFF said.


ADDENDA: In the event that I'm planning to hunt an animal larger/tougher than WT deer/feral pigs, it's the reformatted, by JES, Remington Model 760 in 9.3x62mm that I automatically reach for, I load it with 286 grain JHP or my "homebrewed" GGCB at about 2000FPS. = Either load kills WELL & without excessive use of power, muzzle blast or "kicking my shoulder off". - It's one of my two favorite calibers for hunting.
(My "pet" rifle is a Model 760 in .300SAV from 1954.)

NOTE: As I'm in the process of "transitioning to" ALL pump long-guns, I have a "near new" Model 7400 , with Remington factory engraving that I'd sell CHEAP. - It's in .243WCF & wears a nice scope.
(I would also happily trade it for an "old school" Model 760 in .256 Roberts or .35REM.)


yours, tex

So is BIG BORE RIFLES the book by Michael McIntosh? Or somebody else?

Am a little puzzled by your last paragraph. Do you mean you've killed a bunch of game larger than deer and pugs with a "286 JHP" or your "homebrewed" GGCB? Or that you've killed a bunch of deer and pigs with them?

Yours,
John

Mule Deer,

I just looked it up. - The actual name of the book is BIG BORE RIFLES & CARTRIDGES. - I don't see an authors name in the cover-photo on amazon.com

YEP, I've killed a GREAT MANY feral pigs over the years with a number of different weapons including a Model 1911A! in .45ACP.

I've similarly taken more than my fair share of WT deer.

SO FAR, my largest/toughest takes have been WILD/FERAL bulls in the far south TX brush & thickets. = SOME of those feral bulls weigh about 1500#. - IF you know a rancher, who has a "wild bull" problem (They tear down fences, very efficiently, breed expensive/registered cows & damage other ranch equipment/property, too.), that's EXCITING hunting for sure & DEFINITELY a job for a BIG BORE rifle.
(In 1984 I was asked by as local OK sheriff to hunt down & KILL a "gone wild & DANGEROUS as H", HUGE gray/black Brahma-cross bull. - After several days of hunting, I finally a got a shot at him with a borrowed .416 Rigby Magnum ======> He was converted into hamburger meat at our local Scout Camp & fed a great many Boy Scouts/adults that year.)

yours, tex

So what company published your BIG BORE RIFLES AND CARTRIDGES?

Mule deer,

I cannot answer that question, as I looked & can't find my copy. (I'm having to move residences & am packing stuff up. My copy's in one of the cartons of books.) = I looked the book up on www.amazon.com & found a photo of the book's cover on the site but with no author's name visible.

CHECK YOUR MAIL.

ADDENDA: Found the publisher on amazon.com: WOLFE PUBLISHING CO, from 1991 The website under "author" says: Compilation/Various

yours, tex

Mule Deer,

Btw, the MOST DANGEROUS animal that I ever "hunted" was about 73" tall & weighed 140#.

She finally caught me in 1976 & in 1983 she tried to shoot me with my own S&W .45ACP revolver. = Thanks be to Heaven, she MISSED but did hit/damage my 1976 MB ragtop.
(That was one "lovely to look upon" & 100% CRAZY lady. = It cost me 60,000.oo to get her out of Dallas, forever. - CHEAP at 10X the price.)

yours, tex

satx has a "thing" about revealing his sources...

JB

there's a book titled Big Bore Rifles and Cartridges
published in 1991 by Wolfe
in it is a chapter titiled "The Indomitable 9.3x62" written by al miller

mudhen,

The reason that members don't like posting sources is:

1. Many people, who request "sources", want to waste the person's time looking for exact sources.
(Frankly, I used to go do the sort of searching to prove a point but QUIT, when I figured out how few people really needed/wanted the information.)
2. SOME "requesters" just want to argue about something OR they are just trolling.
3. SOME "requesters" want the requested information but are too slothful to do their own research & would prefer that someone else go do the work for them..
4. SOME "requesters" ask for sources just to try to avoid revealing that their opinion just might be incorrect.
or
5. Any number of other possibilities.

It's my OPINION that BEFORE a member asks for sources that they should do their own research & see if the original commenter is correct.

yours, tex

My copy of Big Bore Rifles and Cartridges was published in 1991 by Wolfe. It covers a lot of loading data and author's experience with the cartridges and bullets used on big game. Bob Hagel has numerous articles in it.. I think a lot of the articles were published in Handloader. I can't figure out how attach pics from my computer to my reply, but I can email pics of the cover.

[email protected]

Somehow, I suspect that Mule Deer has spent considerably more time than you have researching the history of cartridge development.

When a member states a "fact" that is at odds with the results of another member's research and personal experience, that member is certainly entitled to ask for source(s) that identify the origin of the conflicting statement as well as sources that support the conflicting statement.

It's not a matter of being lazy or argumentative--it's an attempt to nail down pertinent information. It's called learning.

gumfighter,

THANKS for trying.

Fwiw, I was once privileged to meet Mr. Hagel, when he was a lecturer at the MP Field Grade Officer's Refresher Course in 1981 at Ft. McClellan, AL. = NICE guy, was he. - After his presentation was completed, he insisted on taking the ones of us who were his escorts out for supper, which is unusual.
(Most VIPs treat escorts/LEO/security personnel as if we are "invisible", "beneath them" & "unimportant")..
IF memory serves correctly, Mr.Hagel passed away about 15 years ago.

Note: The NICEST people that I ever had to provide security for were US Senator John Warner & his then wife, Elizabeth Taylor-Warren, who spent a weekend at our post on a Congressional "fact-finding trip". = A TRUE Virginia, of the old school, gentleman was the Senator & she was not only polite/friendly but tried to make our mission easier. - NOT what I expected a major Hollywood star to act like..

yours, tex

A quick thanks to everyone who provided their experiences with the lighter weight Norma bullets. I appreciate it!

mudhen,

FYI, I was NOT talking about "Mule Deer" (in my post to you, as I suspect that you knew), who is a nice guy, but rather about several members here on the forum, who fit what I said to a tee. = I remember one "requester" in my early days on the forum, who kept insisting that I go find the original sources, to include the exact quotes, that I had mentioned in passing in a comment.

When I did post the sources (I looked them up in our college library), the member then said, "I don't agree with those sources. Go find other sources.". When I looked for/found/posted other sources, he then demanded more & different sources. = Like I said, some people just want to be argumentative & are happy to waste everyone else's time, refuse to believe that they just might be wrong on any subject OR they want to start "a flame war".
(One of the gun forums, that I've belonged to for over 13 years, has finally lost patience with & banned numerous such haters, "keyboard commandos" & trolls.).

In case you haven't noticed, we have our ration of TROLLS on this forum, as well as some "who know NOT & know NOT that they know NOT". . Thankfully those drones are far outnumbered by many GREAT/helpful members.

yours, tex

I would also like to thank those who shared their experiences using the lighter bullets in this caliber. I love these older calibers and try to use the traditional bullets types that they made their reputations with. When it comes to the 9.3X62 though, I was given a bag of 232 gr bullets along with it and I'm just too cheap to not use them up. Fortunately, they shoot to about the same POI at 100 yards as the 270 and 286 bullets I've tried, so I can pretty much use them all interchangeably for hunting.

Tex, I am also starting the process of working a load for some 280 gr gas checked cast bullets. First outing was using 5744 and reduced H4895 loads. They were midrange loads, probably in the 1600 fps range, and were in 3-4 MOA. I would love to hear about the loads you have for this caliber. If you prefer not to share your loads out on the open net, feel free to pm me. If I can come up with something that shoots really well, the jacketed bullets may get awful lonely sitting on the shelf....

After screwing up the accuracy for the 250 AccuBond and 286 Partitions in my beloved custom Pre 64 M70, I tried the 250 E-tips which helped but the 250 TTSX put the "A" back in accuracy for my rifle, running 2550 fps. Headed out for elk in less than 2 weeks.



Alan

Hey Mule Deer,

How far out, impact velocity wise, would you take the 250 TTSX?

Thank you,

Alan

Alan, if I remember right it's 1600 fps, but I can't find my notes so I'd recommend calling Barnes to make sure. Each bullet they make seems to have specific and varied minimum expansion velocities. I found this out while researching what bullet to use for reduced loads for my son's 9.3.

I seat them about half a calibre deep but my 9.3x62 is a single shot so the rounds aren't subject to recoil.

I used the 232gr Vulkan at 2,600fps on some deer and a moose calf - worked well

I then changed to the 232gr Oryx at same velocity and shot 2 bulls and a cow moose over 2 years. The oryx was OK but on the last bull I overstretched it shooting a hard angling bull at a full run because I thought I had wounded it (actually I clean missed). The bullet penetrated the left ham, excited, entered the abdomen and stopped against the diaphragm. The bull was shot an hour later. The recovered oryx was virtually a disc and had lost very little weight.

It was an unfair test but I'm not convinced that in this weight bonded is better. Sure it loses less weight but the frontal area means that penetration is no better than the vulkan which by shedding weight as the jacket peels back reduces frontal area. Some supposition but I did test in paper and observed this

Applies to many of us l'm sure. Varget rocks in my 308 Win also.

IIRC Mauser claimed the 9.3x62 was their own invention; they did refer to it as "our 9.3x62" in pre WW II catalogs. Again IIRC, the tradition of Otto Bock being given credit for it started with Frank Barnes and his first edition of Cartridges of the World. One of the other forums, possibly African Hunting, had quite a discussion several years ago on who came up with the round, and it ended with Mauser as the winner.

this is only in North America about 9.3x62 mauser in europe they say 9.3x62 with development done by a gunsmith with the name of Otto Bock.

in the time of our gun registry i had a rifle registered with 9.3x62 mauser for caliber i tried to explain to the shop where i buy there is no such a thing. useless needless to say lol.