9.3x62mm vs. .375 H&H Mag

[TOBY458]

This is all so simple...

... that I generally avoid posting on this kind of threads because I just do not understand what it is that is not understood, and it seems to me that the answer is so obvious that I must be missing something at a higher level of knowledge...

But here we go...

1 - sestoppelman is right. I am tempted to add: period. Sure, case shape, belt or no belt, shoulder shape and angle, blah blah blah all have some effect, and much is written of "efficiency", but the bottom line is that for bullets of similar caliber, similar weight, similar construction, similar BC, etc. the bottom line is case capacity.

2 - A .375 H&H case takes 95 gr of water. A 9.3x62 case takes 78.2 gr of water. My calculator says there is a 21.48% increase of case capacity going from 9.3x62 to .375 H&H.

So, what do people expect !?!?!?!?!?

3 - A .375 H&H 300 gr .398 BC slug at 2,530 fps has a plus or minus 3" MPBR of 248 yards. A 9.3x62 286 gr slug .410 BC at 2,360 fps has a plus or minus 3" MPBR of 234 yards. A 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 5.98% longer MPBR. Logical!

4 - A .375 H&H 300 gr slug at 2,530 fps has a muzzle energy of 4,262 ft./lbs. A 9.3x62 286 gr slug at 2,360 fps has a muzzle energy of 3,544 ft./lbs. A 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 20.25% higher energy. Logical! Energy does not kill, but for two bullets of comparable diameter, weight, construction, and sectional density, energy is a very good indicator of penetration potential.

5 - A 9 lbs. rifle in .375 H&H shooting a 300 gr slug at 2,530 fps has a recoil energy of 37.3 ft./lbs. A 9 lbs. rifle in 9.3x62 shooting a 286 gr slug at 2,360 fps has recoil energy of 28 ft./lbs. A 21.48% larger case capacity buys you a 33.2% higher recoil. Logical!

Anything else is purely editorial.

Now, in most cases, an increase of 6% in MPBR is purely anecdotal, but an increase of 20% in striking energy for two bullets of comparable diameter, weight, construction, and sectional density is fairly significant because it implies a significant difference in penetration, which is critical on some DG shots, and an increase of 33% in recoil can make or break the shootability of a rifle for a given shooter.

Hence you have it, the 9.3x62 developed a reputation for being just as good as the .375 H&H on PG; almost as good, but not quite, as the .375 H&H on Buffalo; underpowered for Elephant brain shots, which the .375 H&H is not, and much easier to shoot than the .375 H&H because of lower recoil.

None of this has changed today, and the data says it all

So WAB is right, "they are both great calibers" but the true "end of story" is that depending on who hunts what, they are different.

For example, the .375 H&H was a better choice for my elephant hunt with the distinct possibility of a frontal brain shot from a shooter who can take recoil; and the 9.3x62 is a better choice for my wife 2022 Buffalo hunt because 28 ft./lbs. of recoil is all she can take, and she does not need to drill through 3 feet of bones to reach a Buffalo vitals.

Great post! BTW, did you ever do a hunt report on your Elephant hunt?

 

[ChrisG]

Here’s prime example of what I’m trying to get across with the 9.3x62…

RL-17 powder, isn’t temp sensitive, like a lot of other powders are.

For what it's worth, I started working with the 9.3x62 over a dozen years ago. The pressure limit for both CIP and SAAMI is very low, due to many old rifles in the cartridge, but I did some calculating with several formulas, comparing the powder room of the 9.3x62 with both the .35 Whelen and .375 H&H.

One difference, however, between the 9.3 and those two is a very long throat, common among cartridges of that era. Many early smokeless rounds (and the 9.3x62 was designed before the .375 and .35 Whelen) used heavy-for-caliber round-nosed bullets, hence the long throat, which tends to reduce peak pressures, especially with shorter, lighter spitzers.

Anyway, I calculated what sort of velocities the 9.3x62 would be capable of compared to the .35 Whelen and .375, taking into account powder room (it has somewhat more than the .35 Whelen) and bore diameter. Then I fooled with various newer powders until getting the calculated velocities. There were NO signs of excessive pressure, whether with 250 loaded to 2650 or so with RL-15 and Varget, or 286's at around 2500 with Big Game. (RL-17 wasn't around then, or I would have it tried it too.)

But to check my results, I also had Charlie Sisk test the loads with his Pressure Trace, using Norma factory ammo to adjust the results. (The PSI pressures from strain gauges are normally lower than with piezo equipment, the reason so many home-experimenters get such high velocities when "pressure testing." Many professionals use strain gauges, especially bullet companies, but they offset the results with piezo-tested "reference ammunition" from SAAMI.)

The results indicated the 9.3x62 handloads were in the 60,000 PSI range, which happens to be the SAAMI maximum average pressure for the .30-06.


- Bob Mitchell



Hawk

Reloader 17 is an epic powder! It is all I used in the .375 H&H and all I use in my .375 Ruger. It is stable and produces excellent velocities. From what I've heard, this is due to the fact that the burn modulators (is that what they're called?) Are built into the powder grains, not just coating them, yielding a smooth pressure curve that outlasts the initial spike, limiting peak pressure but maintaining higher average pressure while the bullet traverses the bore. Its good stuff!

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Reloader 17 is an epic powder! It is all I used in the .375 H&H and all I use in my .375 Ruger. It is stable and produces excellent velocities. From what I've heard, this is due to the fact that the burn modulators (is that what they're called?) Are built into the powder grains, not just coating them, yielding a smooth pressure curve that outlasts the initial spike, limiting peak pressure but maintaining higher average pressure while the bullet traverses the bore. Its good stuff!

Yes, I believe you are correct in your terminology.

Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Pretty much the same with the 7.92x57, ancient rifles out there that can’t handle modern loading. I’ve found that at 103 degrees in the Texas hill country doesn’t have an adverse effect on 62.4 grains of Big Game nor does 64 grains. Shoots the same as it does at 40 degrees. No pressure signs. Good powder.

That is absolutely correct with Big Game powder as well.

Thank you for pointing that one out as well that isn’t temp sensitive like some of the older powders.

CFE223 is another one that isn’t temp sensitive, but can work wonders in cases like the 9.3x62, and the .35 Whelen iterations.


Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Some more loading data for the 9.3x62mm….

Barnes TSX 250gr Re15 59.0grs 2612fps 3787 ft-lbs

Barnes TSX 250grs Varget 57.0grs 2516fps 3514 ft-lbs

Barnes TSX 250grs BL-C2 61.0grs 2620 fps 3810 ft-lbs

Barnes TSX 250grs IMR4895 58.0grs 2601fps 3757 ft-lbs

Speer SP 270grs Re17 66.0grs 2629fps 4145 ft-lbs

Speer SP 270grs. Varget 61.5grs 2534fps 3851 ft-lbs

Speer SP 270grs H414 67.5grs 2589fps 4018 ft-lbs

Speer SP 270grs IMR4895 61.5grs 2599fps 4050 ft-lbs

Prvi SP 285grs Re17 65.0grs 2565fps 4165 ft-lbs

Prvi SP 285grs Varget 60.0grs 2469fps 3856 ft-lbs

Prvi SP 285grs H414 67.0grs 2550fps 4116 ft-lbs

Prvi SP 285grs RS BigGame 64.5grs 2535fps 4065 ft-lbs

Hornady SP RP 286grs Re17 63.5grs 2525fps 4049 ft-lbs

Hornady SP RP 286grs Varget 59.0grs 2445fps 3797 ft-lbs

Hornady SP RP 286grs BL-C2 61.0grs 2465fps 3858 ft-lbs

Hornady SP RP 286grs IMR 4895 59.0grs 2490fps 3937 ft-lbs

Hornady SP RP 286grs RSBigGame 63.0grs 2498fps 3962 ft-lbs

Nosler Partition 286grs RL-17 61.5grs 2501fps 3974 ft-lbs

Nosler Partition 286grs BL-C2 59.5grs 2458fps 3837 ft-lbs

Nosler Partition 286grs RSBigGame 61.0grs 2474fps 3886 ft-lbs

Nosler Partition 286grs.Win 760 62.0grs 2425fps 3734 gr-lbs

North Fork Bonded Core 286gr RL-17 61.0grs 2510fps. 4000 ft-lbs

North Fork Bonded Core 286grs BL-C2 59.0grs 2465fps 3860 ft-lbs

North Fork Bonded Core 286grs RSBigGame 60.5grs 2480fps 3905 ft-lbs

Barnes Banded Solid 286grs RL-17 59.0grs 2464fps 3855 ft-lbs

Barnes Banded Solid 286grs BL-C2 58.0grs 2459fps 3839 ft-lbs

Barnes Banded Solid 286grs IMR3031 52.0grs 2418fps 3714 ft-lbs

Barnes Banded Solid 286grs IMR4895 56.0grs 2473fps 3901 ft-lbs

Woodleigh PP SN 320grs RL-17 59.0grs 2372fps 3999 ft-lbs

Woodleigh PP SN 320grs H414 61.0grs 2366fps 3977 ft-lbs

Woodleigh PP SN 320grs RSBigGame 58.5grs 2343fps 3901 ft-lbs

Woodleigh PP SN 320grs Win 760 61.0grs. 2385fps 4042 ft-lbs

Norma Oryx 325grs RL-17 59.5grs 2353fps 3996 ft-lbs

Norma Oryx 325grs Varget 55.9grs 2266fps 3704 ft-lbs

Norma Oryx 325grs H414 62.0grs 2368fps 4046 ft-lbs

Norma Oryx 325grs IMR4895 55.0grs. 2309fps 3847 ft -lbs


Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

A lot of countries in Africa require a 5400 Joule muzzle energy minimum….
That translates to 3980 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.

The 9.3x62 fills that bill in spades!

Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Here is another Bob Mitchell load…

A "just for what it's worth" info bit:

Recently (April 27) I did my first test of the 320gr Woodleighs. I fired one of each starting at 61 to 66 grs RL-17. Up front, I'll say that all calculations had been previously done including QL. Here are the results:

1 - 61grs RL-17 = 2276 fps
2 - 62grs RL-17 = 2308 fps
3 - 63grs RL-17 = 2351 fps
4 - 64grs RL-17 = 2388 fps
5 - 65grs RL-17 = 2426 fps
6 - 66grs RL-17 = 2464 fps

*Add 10 fps for correction to muzzle.

Ambient temp was +5*C
Rifle: Tikka T3 Lite (22.4" barrel)
Primer: WLRM
Case:Hornady
COL = 3.37"

All cases were new and similar in appearance and extraction. Primer pockets were as new after cases were resized.

On May 18 three of those cartridges that had been reloaded for the second time contained 66grs RL-17 behind the 320gr Woodleigh PP. They were fired at our range and recorded: 2433, 2434 and 2428 fps. Add 10 for correction to muzzle. About 30 fps less than the first firing of a single load in new brass, on a day of slightly different ambient conditions in once fired brass is normal. But the point is that they were very consistent in MV, extraction and appearance. I then fired one containing 67grs RL-17 from new brass, all else equal. That one recorded 2475 fps (add 10). Again, all was "normal". I think any of those loads could be useful in hunting depending on range and the game. Probably the 66gr load will be my choice if I ever need or want to use it on anything.

Currently, the 250 AB is my goto load at about 2715 fps. It shoots 0.44 MOA. That's from 70grs RL-17 and is not max. Max is 71 grs at 2760 fps and MOA. On the other hand, the 286 NP is no slouch either at 2622 and MOA from RL-17.

Very good bears have been taken with each -- a single shot in Sept '13 from the 286 NP at 68 yards and one from the 250 last Oct.1st took a very nice bear at 85 yds.

The 9.3 X 62 has become my favorite medium-bore.

Bob


Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

The 320 gr Woodleigh load at 2465 fps gets 4316 ft-lbs at the muzzle.

Also, look for the late author John Barsness’ books about him hand loading his CZ550 and hunting Africa with it.

Quite eye opening stuff!


Hawk

 

[Tanks]

A lot of countries in Africa require a 5400 Joule muzzle energy minimum….
That translates to 3980 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.

The 9.3x62 fills that bill in spades!

Only when loaded hot. If an authority decides to look into it they are not going to chrono your loads. They will look at available factory ammo joules/ft-lbs and disallow it.

 

[WAB]

Only when loaded hot. If an authority decides to look into it they are not going to chrono your loads. They will look at available factory ammo joules/ft-lbs and disallow it.

I’m not sure that’s correct. Don Heath worked to modify the laws in Zim specifically to allow the 9.3x62. Their bore diameter allows it but their energy requirement would likely be higher than factory loadings. However, I truly believe that the 9.3x62 is well accepted as a legal DG cartridge in Zim by the authorities and the hunting community. Mozambique definitely allows it.

 

[Tanks]

I’m not sure that’s correct....However, I truly believe that the 9.3x62 is well accepted as a legal DG cartridge in Zim by the authorities and the hunting community. Mozambique definitely allows it.

Well, if they allow or accept it then no issue. Zim does have caliber AND the 5,300 joules rule though. That being said, I doubt anyone of the rangers that are getting paid and tipped by the clients are going to bulk if the PHs are OK with it.

 

[WAB]

Well, if they allow or accept it then no issue. Zim does have caliber AND the 5,300 joules rule though. That being said, I doubt anyone of the rangers that are getting paid and tipped by the clients are going to bulk if the PHs are OK with it.

My wife had no issues at all on our hunt with CMS in Dande. She shot well and made a one shot kill. I am very much a .458 Lott guy, but I was quite impressed with how well that little rifle handled a buffalo.

 

[geoff rath]

My only contribution to this discussion is about the words "better" and "more efficient."

Better - In too many people's mind, the word is pretty much synonym with "faster out of the muzzle." I wish they would just say "faster out of the muzzle" rather than "better," since for a cartridge to be better than another there are a myriad other considerations unrelated to muzzle velocity.

Also, we have terminal ballistics data spanning well over a century that shows that there is a magic sweet spot between sectional density and velocity--around .300 SD and 2,100-2,500 fps. Given the right bullet, the laws of terminal ballistics have not changed. When it comes to .350+" calibers, I don't see the great advantage of treating the cartridge as a long-distance number. If the game I'm hunting requires a .375 (or a 9.3mm), I don't expect--or indeed want, even if I could--to take pot shots at 350 yards. That's just me, and (as always) YMMV.

More efficient - Someone smarter than me needs to explain to me how this matters. In 25+ years in the gun and hunting business in one capacity or another, I've never understood it. Yes, it makes for great fodder for magazine writers on a deadline who have to come up with new topics about old subjects, but from a practical standpoint, discussions of cartridge efficiency have always prompted a head-scratch on my part.

OK. A shorter cartridge can achieve the same muzzle velocity as a longer one. Great. But the only practical advantage I can see is that it's cheaper to produce a rifle with a .308 Win or .30-06 Sprg action size than one with a .375 H&H-length action. In this case, then, I'd just use the words "rifle is cheaper all other things being equal" when pointing to the advantage of the former chambering over the latter.

Or there's the issue of bolt-throw. .375 H&H max cartridge OAL: 3.600"; .30-06 max cartridge OAL: 3.340". That's a difference of .260" (per the Hornady reloading manual, 9th edition). Honest question: has anyone really timed himself in a statistically-relevant way, about how much that extra .260" (let's even round it up to .300") of bolt-throw has slowed them down in follow-up shots? Put recoil and muzzle jump into the mix, since we're talking big calibers, and again I don't see how a few tenths of an inch become an objective factor.

But I still like to think of myself as a relatively young guy (inner voice: keep wishing! ) and there are scores of people here with tons more experience than me; so I'm always eager to be persuaded into more informed opinions. Honest.

So how is this relevant to this conversation? I very much agree with the OP that the 9.3x62 can be pushed to muzzle velocities comparable to a more or less standard .375 H&H, in some cases even faster. But why would you want to? Since 1905, when this cartridge was specifically created for and marketed to hunters in German East Africa (today's Tanzania), it has racked up a stellar reputation as a fantastic killer with moderate recoil.

On the other hand, if you get your kicks (no pun intended) from hot-rodding cartridges, more power to you (again, no pun intended). As long as you still shoot accurately and use bullets that hold together at the greater velocities, this goes to the very heart of our passion: do it if you love it.

Plus the PRIME factor; us putting the bullet in the right place, first time ....

 

[geoff rath]

But it’s ok to shot at zebra 350 yards away with a .375 H and H……. I think they would both farewell at ranges most people would shot at zebra from.

IF one wishes to shoot Zebra/Eland/whatever @ 350+/- , go play with a 338 Lap, or my fantasy, a 9.3 based on the 300/338 Norma mag case; CRAZY ...

 

[reineke]

#hawkeyesatx - as you - rightfully- mention Otto Bock, why does nobody in this thread talk about his last invention, the 9,3x64? As I stated on December 1st, this cartridge surely is on par with the .375, and easier to handle!

 

[Tom Leoni]

#hawkeyesatx - as you - rightfully- mention Otto Bock, why does nobody in this thread talk about his last invention, the 9,3x64? As I stated on December 1st, this cartridge surely is on par with the .375, and easier to handle!

Otto Bock, Königlich Hoflieferant, was one of the great geniuses of 20th century gunmaking and cartridge design. He deserves more posthumous recognition.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

#hawkeyesatx - as you - rightfully- mention Otto Bock, why does nobody in this thread talk about his last invention, the 9,3x64? As I stated on December 1st, this cartridge surely is on par with the .375, and easier to handle!

The 9.3x64 Brenneke is definitely a really good cartridge. It is the equal of the modern loads of the .375 H&H, no doubt.

It’s just not as plentiful as the 9.3x62, unfortunately. If it were, I would have gone with that cartridge, rifle combo.

Hawk

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Otto Bock, Königlich Hoflieferant, was one of the great geniuses of 20th century gunmaking and cartridge design. He deserves more posthumous recognition.

I fully agree with you there!

Hawk

 

[Christot]

#hawkeyesatx - as you - rightfully- mention Otto Bock, why does nobody in this thread talk about his last invention, the 9,3x64? As I stated on December 1st, this cartridge surely is on par with the .375, and easier to handle!

Otto Bock didn't invent the 9,3x64 Brennecke. This was Wilhelm Brennecke in 1927.

 

[metricman]

Here’s a little excerpt from a Bob Mitchell in Canada.

What the .375 H&H will do with a 300gr, the 9.3 x 62 will do from a 286gr, and both have the same SD. But the heavier you go the closer they get!

A 300gr from the 9.3 x 62 in a 22.5″ modern rifle will do 2550 fps/ 4331 ft-lbs at 64,000 PSI. From a 320gr it will make 2460 fps/ 4300 ft-lbs at the muzzle. A 286gr NP from mine (22.4″ barrel) makes 2630 fps/4392 ft-lbs quite easily. RL-17 is used in all those loads.

From a 320gr it will make 2460 fps/ 4300 ft-lbs at the muzzle. A 286gr NP from mine (22.4″ barrel) makes 2630 fps/4392 ft-lbs quite easily. RL-17 is used in all those loads.

Many experienced PH’s and hunters of each have testified that they have discerned no difference in their effect on mega fauna.

- Bob Mitchell

Bob’s rifle, a Tikka T3X Lite, with a 22.4 inch barrel.


Hawk

were those loads pressure tested or predicted?

metricman