Just wondering, given the choice, which one would you pick and why.

Zastava m70 375 h&h or

Husqvarna Commercial FN98 9.3 x 62.

The Zastava is virtually new.

I'd choose the 9.3, all else being equal. There's not much between them but I prefer cases which aren't belted, and I've found the 9.3 x 62 (and x74) does a good job on game like our water buffalo as well as anything smaller. Less recoil in a rifle of the same weight too, compared to a .375.

Also more 9,3x62 rounds in the magazine.

Having used both extensively for a combined total of 18 years, I'd recommend the 9.3x62. It will likely be a lighter rifle that holds more ammo. And having killed various deer, mountain goats, and brown bears with both, I cannot tell a bit of difference in performance between them.

I would pick the .375 H&H.

Do you handlaoad?

If not, get the .375 H&H

If you do, then I'd recommend the 9.3 x 62. I have serval, I've taken a bunch of game with that round from impala to elk to sable to leopard to Cape buffalo without an issue. There is less felt recoil in te 9.3 x 62 than the .375 H&H, but I see no difference in performance. As mentioned, 9.3 rifles are made on standrd length actions and tend to be slimmer and lighter. Load with 250 TSX and you have the closest thing to a 1 rifle big game battery as I can imagine.

Any reason to go with the Husqvarna over the Zastava?

From my limited experience the husky will more likely be smoother and more reliable. Some of the recent zastavas I have seen and owned were a little rough and needed some love for 100% reliability and smooth operating.

Ditto. Assuming it's in good working order I'd get the Husky just for the superiority of the workmanship.

I would choose the Husqvarna.

I've owned one recent Zastava and handled a couple more and they can be great rifles but the quality control seems to be all over the place. I had to work mine over to get it to feed and while the bluing is great the wood looks like it was whittled by a parkinson's patient with a rusty butter knife. The Husqvarnas just seem much more consistent from rifle to rifle.

I tried to make a test stock for Mausers that would be drop in with steel bedding.



The Mausers that make trouble are cast receivers. The bottom of the recoil lug does not have a flat surface.

What Mausers have cast receivers? Never seen one.

Me neither!

If the Husqvarna left the factory as a 9.3x62, then I'd take it.


Okie John

If I were in that position I also would take the Husky 9.3.

I am on my 2nd barrel in my own 375H&H and I have killed more animals with that gun than I can count. I was and still am of the opinion it leaves nothing to be desired .

BUT......I became more and more familiar with the 9.3X62 (and the 9.3X74R, loaded to the same velocities as the 9.3X62 Mauser) starting about 10 years ago, and I had to admit I see no difference in how it kills game from my 375. Maybe on the largest of African game someone might see a bit of difference, but maybe not. In N. America, there is none. If I am wrong and there is some difference, I would bet anything the difference is so small as to be insignificant.

As others have said, the Zastavas are a bit rougher and in my opinion, should have about an hour of hand polishing where the Huskys are perfect as they come.
The 9.3 holds one and in some actions 2 more rounds.
The 9.3 kicks less.

If for some reason you do not and cannot ever hand load you ammo I might re-consider my advice, but even if you do not now, keep in mind you can buy a small press and a set of dies, a primer set-up, and make a powder scoop that is just right for one shell and set EVERYTHING up to load that one shell for less the then cost of 2 boxes of 375H&H factory Ammo.

I have had a 41 year long love affair with the 375H&H and I just have nothing at all bad to say about the cartridge, but I also will tell you the whole truth. If I had been introduced to the 9.3X62 back in my early 20s instead of the 375 I may have stopped right there---- and never tried a 375.

From my experience shooting game with the cartridge, and far more with the 9.3X74R loaded to the same speed, as well as now having seen about 20 head of big game killed with 9.3X62s in the hands of other hunters I have been with or guided, I have to believe the 9.3X62 is the equal of the 375H&H in killing game.
On paper the 375 beats it, but elk, moose and buffalo seem to "say" there is no difference.

Like the 9.3 X 62 over the 375 H&H for a hunting rifle.

Pappy and Butch, I think you have seen cast Mauser receivers, but may not have known it.

I could be fooled by rough machining followed with coarse sandblasting, but a Google search will turn up more.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...s/13933792/parker-hale-receiver-castings

Thanks for the input fellas. Looks like the husky and the 9.3 x 62 is favoured by a large margin. I am not one to argue and both cartridges are out of my wheelhouse. I think I will go the Husqvarna route.

Saw Dr,

I agree with above posts regarding preference of 9.3x62 after using 375s for three decades.

Canadians have access to far more of those nice Husqvarnas than we do in the US. I'm envious!

I would go with the Husky unless it has been drilled and tapped on the side of the receiver for scope mounts, many of the Huskys that I have seen are d&t there and I find they look ugly.

Ditto again. Zastava is a good gun, but the husky will likely be slicker, having had some of both in other chamberings

Put me in this camp.

Both these rifles are made on std length 98 actions.

There are at least twice as many factory loadings for the .375 H&H but there is a good selction of 9,3x62 as well. The 9,3x62 selling for a good bit less.

As with most things, condition, condition, condition. I have several of the Husky 9,3x62's. Love them, they are light, handy, riles. But, these are about 70 years old at this point so inspect carefully.

I also have a Mk X (Zastava) in .375 H&H, just in case.

I prefer the 9,3x62 for the game I am likely to hunt.

Since neither the Zastava or Husky (FN) used cast receivers, its kind of a moot point.

Husqvarna by FAR!

Unless its drilled on the side of the action or wonky drilled on top.

The Swedish gunmakers did high quality work, when quality actually mattered!

Husqvarnas look better. I only have four Husqvarnas currently but none are 9.3X62. My only 9.3X62 is a CZ; a little heavy, but a very nice rifle. My 9.3X62 has been the easiest hunting rifle to work up accurate loads for I've ever owned.

The Husqvarna you are asking about has a Commercial Large ring FN action as opposed to the actual Husqvarna action.

I would pick the FN action over the Zastava action every time. The FN action should have a FN style safety which I would pick over the trigger safety on the Zastava.

FN action will be the C ring type.

The Zastava action is probably just as durable as the FN but it's incorporates several cost cutting features including the general fit and finish. If you can find one of the old Whitworth Express Zastavas, it will be more on par with the Husqvarna / FN finish.

The FN action and Zastava actions are actually both built using the same machines.

Zastava bought all the machines from FN in the 70-80s.


The Belgians and Swedes just spent a lot more time polishing and bluing them properly.

Zastava can if they want to.. but are sadly built to a price point.

Husqvarna hands down..

If you intend to hunt Dangerous Game in Africa then .375 H&H is the answer. The .375 H&H is the legal minimum in many African countries.

If not, then 9.3x62 is plenty even for the big Brown Bears. I have loaded MD's Big-Game loads in my 9.3 and get legitimate 2,550 fps with a 286 gr. bullet with sub MOA accuracy. Pretty darn amazing!

9,3x62 is actually minimum in many African countries as well..

Between the two rifles I’d choose the Husky. Between the two calibers, I’d choose the 375.

I totally agree .