9.3x62mm vs. .375 H&H Mag

[Wyatt Smith]

There is no way I would hunt anything dangerous with a 64,000 PSI load. It leaves too little room for error. If you want 2600 out of a 286 get the 9.3x64.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

There is no way I would hunt anything dangerous with a 64,000 PSI load. It leaves too little room for error. If you want 2600 out of a 286 get the 9.3x64.

Have you or know anyone that hunts with Weatherby firearms?

The cartridges Roy Weatherby envisioned run at 64k psi.
And that’s even the big ‘uns run at 64k psi. Ever hear of the .378 Weatherby, .416 Weatherby, .460 Weatherby?
Lots of people hunt with cartridges that run from 62k to 64k psi.

Hawk

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I am well aware of Roy’s pressures. I believe it was Don Heath who enjoyed beating the bolts of weatherby rifles open with a 2 pound hammer.
The 9.3 62 does so well at 2400 why go for more.

 

[One Day...]

Pressure...

Not to be argumentative either - this is a legitimate discussion - I am not using "old data" hawkeyesatx, Swift currently load their 286 gr to 2,396 fps; Hornady to 2,360; Federal to 2,360; Nosler to 2,400; etc. These are all current loads.

Let me add that, yes, they are likely loaded to 56,500 psi, which is the standard for the cartridge. So, let me agree that can handloading increase a 286 gr velocity another 100 fps to 2,500 fps while staying in the 62,000+ psi range? Probably. But what pressure do you get for a 286 gr with another 200 fps to 2,600 fps? I do not know...

I notice that the Swift Reloading Manual indicates a maximum load at 2,350 fps for a 300 gr. At what pressure does it operate? I do not know. Can handloads exceed maximum loads listed in the manuals? Sure! At what pressure? I do not know... Can a 300 gr be loaded to get another 200 fps to match the 375 H&H? Maybe? At what pressure? I do not know, but probably pretty high...

Your take on the shoulder shape improving markedly how powder burns has certainly been discussed for eons, going back all the way to Roy Weatherby and P.O. Ackley, and certainly, a short, fat powder column, contained by a sharp shoulder, and that burns inside the case, is preferable to a longer thinner powder column that burns in the barrel, and if you can still chamber the round - which came as a surprise to those who jumped on the Winchester Short Magnum bandwagon - there is indeed an internal ballistics advantage. So, from this perspective, does the 9.3x62 have a better shaped case than the .375 H&H? Undoubtedly.

However, in your statements, you may attribute the bulk of increased velocity to the wrong factor:

• "the .375 H&H case has been tapered less, and given a sharper shoulder, to make it a lot more efficient. Hence the .375 Weatherby, and other wildcat designs based on the case to drive velocities higher in the .375 caliber."
• "Ackley is best known for his “IMPROVED” cases, which helped to make a cartridge more efficient in the way that it burned powder, and thus increased velocities over normal cartridges."

Sure, the .375 Wby and the various Ackley improved designs likely provide some additional velocity because of their sharper shoulder, but the reality is that they mostly do so because of increased powder capacity.

Oceans of ink have been spilled over whether the Weatherby "double venturi" shoulder has any effect on velocity, and numerous tests have been conducted, and yes, there are some indications that sharper shoulders likely contribute some additional velocity, but folks who knew R. Weatherby and P.O. Ackley will tell that Roy designed his famed shoulder not for velocity - he relied on gobs more powder for that - but for marketing uniqueness and to prevent any and all local gunsmiths to grind a reamer for his cartridge so that he could sell complete rifles himself............... and that P.O. (Parker Otto) used sharp shoulders not for their shape but because they cleared up just a tad more space for still more powder...............

I do not think that I missed where you said "Did anyone miss where I said that the .375 H&H can, and does benefit from the newer powders, as well?" In fact, I wrote:

This being said, can modern propellant, modern bullet and modern loading techniques raise the 2020 9.3x62 to the level of the 1920 .375 H&H? Of course! But again, let us not be too myopic, the same components and loading techniques applied to the .375 H&H keep the 2020 .375 H&H 20% above the 2020 9.3x62.

But you may have missed what followed:

BOTH can be made faster if one does not mind pressure and sticky extraction
Sort of the same discussion as between the .416 Rem and .416 Rigby. Can the Rem run up the Rigby at max load? Sure! Have you tried to extract one of these loads in the hot sun of Africa?

I confess that I entirely miss the passionate argument about a 2020 9.3x62 load equating a 1920 .375 H&H load performance. This may be because I do not shoot many 1920 .375 H&H loads, and also because this seems entirely obvious to me. Of course, powders have evolved over the last century, I do not think many would argue over this one.

As to going to estimated 64,000 PSI (key word: estimated, what would actually be the measured pressure on the load?) and above (how far above?) IN THE US, it brings to mind a study that Sierra conducted a few years ago. If memory serves, their conclusion was that .308 ammo at 130°F shot ~100 fps faster than ammo at 70° F. I remember being surprised because I had thought that temperature issues were obsoleted with the shift from cordite to modern powders - and this is generally true enough for normal pressure loads - but the reality is that Africa's sun is still an issue with loads pushed to the pressure edge in the US.

What pressure does a 9.3x62 load that runs 64,000 psi? 66,000 psi? 68,000 psi? IN THE US reach by the time it cooks in the sun on your belt for 5 hours walking after DG in 110°F African weather? I do not know...

What I know is that these types of loads STILL cause problems. Please do not take my limited experience for it, but regal yourself reading the following extract from Kevin "Doctari" Robertson's Africa's Most Dangerous:

Please observe that the .416 Rem operates at 62,000 PSI, so it actually develops LESS pressure than the 64,000 PSI you estimate (key word: estimate) for a 286 gr load, and the what? 66,000 psi? 68,000 psi? a 9.3x62 300 gr load at 2,550 fps (the true equivalent of a .375 H&H load) would develop.

Your comment about the 9.3x62 headspacing thankfully on the shoulder hints at case stretching, a sure sign of generous pressures...

I guess that in all logic, you could push your point to its logical conclusion and argue that the 9.3x57 is an even more efficient cartridge than the 9.3x62 over the .375 H&H because it takes even less powder, and that at XX,000 psi the 9.3x57 would do it all.

This is a wonderful free world, and you are welcome to try it, and it may actually work, but not for me thank you very much

In the end, I think Tra3 captures it well:

... “there is no replacement for displacement”.

Sure there are some efficiencies, in internal combustion engines as well as cartridges, but when the same technology is deployed, it is hard to overcome 20% more powder capacity. Who was it who said "there ain't no free lunch..."

I will continue to love the 9.3x62 as the best medium bore caliber for my recoil sensitive wife to hunt Buffalo, and I will continue to love the .375 H&H as the best medium bore to take a frontal brain shot on elephant, both with loads that allow opening the action in December in Zimbabwe, Botswana or Tanzania.

 

[ldmay375]

Pressure...

Not to be argumentative either - this is a legitimate discussion - I am not using "old data" hawkeyesatx, Swift currently load their 286 gr to 2,396 fps; Hornady to 2,360; Federal to 2,360; Nosler to 2,400; etc. These are all current loads.

Let me add that, yes, they are likely loaded to 56,500 psi, which is the standard for the cartridge. So, let me agree that can handloading increase a 286 gr velocity another 100 fps to 2,500 fps while staying in the 62,000+ psi range? Probably. But what pressure do you get for a 286 gr with another 200 fps to 2,600 fps? I do not know...

I notice that the Swift Reloading Manual indicates a maximum load at 2,350 fps for a 300 gr. At what pressure does it operate? I do not know. Can handloads exceed maximum loads listed in the manuals? Sure! At what pressure? I do not know... Can a 300 gr be loaded to get another 200 fps to match the 375 H&H? Maybe? At what pressure? I do not know, but probably pretty high...

Your take on the shoulder shape improving markedly how powder burns has certainly been discussed for eons, going back all the way to Roy Weatherby and P.O. Ackley, and certainly, a short, fat powder column, contained by a sharp shoulder, and that burns inside the case, is preferable to a longer thinner powder column that burns in the barrel, and if you can still chamber the round - which came as a surprise to those who jumped on the Winchester Short Magnum bandwagon - there is indeed an internal ballistics advantage. So, from this perspective, does the 9.3x62 have a better shaped case than the .375 H&H? Undoubtedly.

However, in your statements, you may attribute the bulk of increased velocity to the wrong factor:

• "the .375 H&H case has been tapered less, and given a sharper shoulder, to make it a lot more efficient. Hence the .375 Weatherby, and other wildcat designs based on the case to drive velocities higher in the .375 caliber."
• "Ackley is best known for his “IMPROVED” cases, which helped to make a cartridge more efficient in the way that it burned powder, and thus increased velocities over normal cartridges."

Sure, the .375 Wby and the various Ackley improved designs likely provide some additional velocity because of their sharper shoulder, but the reality is that they mostly do so because of increased powder capacity.

Oceans of ink have been spilled over whether the Weatherby "double venturi" shoulder has any effect on velocity, and numerous tests have been conducted, and yes, there are some indications that sharper shoulders likely contribute some additional velocity, but folks who knew R. Weatherby and P.O. Ackley will tell that Roy designed his famed shoulder not for velocity - he relied on gobs more powder for that - but for marketing uniqueness and to prevent any and all local gunsmiths to grind a reamer for his cartridge so that he could sell complete rifles himself............... and that P.O. (Parker Otto) used sharp shoulders not for their shape but because they cleared up just a tad more space for still more powder...............

I do not think that I missed where you said "Did anyone miss where I said that the .375 H&H can, and does benefit from the newer powders, as well?" In fact, I wrote:


But you may have missed what followed:


I confess that I entirely miss the passionate argument about a 2020 9.3x62 load equating a 1920 .375 H&H load performance. This may be because I do not shoot many 1920 .375 H&H loads, and also because this seems entirely obvious to me. Of course, powders have evolved over the last century, I do not think many would argue over this one.

As to going to estimated 64,000 PSI (key word: estimated, what would actually be the measured pressure on the load?) and above (how far above?) IN THE US, it brings to mind a study that Sierra conducted a few years ago. If memory serves, their conclusion was that .308 ammo at 130°F shot ~100 fps faster than ammo at 70° F. I remember being surprised because I had thought that temperature issues were obsoleted with the shift from cordite to modern powders - and this is generally true enough for normal pressure loads - but the reality is that Africa's sun is still an issue with loads pushed to the pressure edge in the US.

What pressure does a 9.3x62 load that runs 64,000 psi? 66,000 psi? 68,000 psi? IN THE US reach by the time it cooks in the sun on your belt for 5 hours walking after DG in 110°F African weather? I do not know...

What I know is that these types of loads STILL cause problems. Please do not take my limited experience for it, but regal yourself reading the following extract from Kevin "Doctari" Robertson's Africa's Most Dangerous:

View attachment 445221
View attachment 445222
View attachment 445224

Please observe that the .416 Rem operates at 62,000 PSI, so it actually develops LESS pressure than the 64,000 PSI you estimate (key word: estimate) for a 286 gr load, and the what? 66,000 psi? 68,000 psi? a 9.3x62 300 gr load at 2,550 fps (the true equivalent of a .375 H&H load) would develop.

Your comment about the 9.3x62 headspacing thankfully on the shoulder hints at case stretching, a sure sign of generous pressures...

I guess that in all logic, you could push your point to its logical conclusion and argue that the 9.3x57 is an even more efficient cartridge than the 9.3x62 over the .375 H&H because it takes even less powder, and that at XX,000 psi the 9.3x57 would do it all.

This is a wonderful free world, and you are welcome to try it, and it may actually work, but not for me thank you very much

In the end, I think Tra3 captures it well:


Sure there are some efficiencies, in internal combustion engines as well as cartridges, but when the same technology is deployed, it is hard to overcome 20% more powder capacity. Who was it who said "there ain't no free lunch..."

I will continue to love the 9.3x62 as the best medium bore caliber for my recoil sensitive wife to hunt Buffalo, and I will continue to love the .375 H&H as the best medium bore to take a frontal brain shot on elephant, both with loads that allow opening the action in December in Zimbabwe, Botswana or Tanzania.

The 416 Ruger, SAAMI max is 62,000 psi.
The 416 Remington SAAMI is still 65,000, even if ammunition manufacturers have backed off.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

The 9.3x62 still is regarded by South African hunters as generally satisfactory for any dangerous game in Africa.

The 9.3x62 has killed so many elephant, Cape buffalo, rhino, and the big cats that one could quote reports from old writings and from as recent as the last hunting season - that describe the exact same way it penetrated and killed whatever was hunted (mostly Cape buffalo). It is an established elephant and buffalo killer. If the hunter has the knowledge of the animal's anatomy - as every hunter should have of every animal he plans to kill from small to big - a 286 gr solid bullet from the 9.3x62 at impact velocity of 2,300+ ft/sec at 30-40 yards will penetrate the heavy shoulder bone of buffalo and elephant and kill it. A soft bullet with large frontal area expansion will not - which is also true for the .375 H&H, or .416 Rigby, etc.

This is how John "Pondoro" Taylor sums up the 9.3x62 in his classic "African Rifles and Cartridges". The majority of posters on rifle forums can learn from this sober viewpoint that Africa professionals had as was expressed by Taylor. If a cartridge is generally satisfactory, and if another cartridge (or a few others, as is often the case) are also generally satisfactory there is absolutely no need for the mostly boring and invariably less than psychologically adult bickering and inconsequential hair splitting just to defend the writer's biased opinion.

Hawk

 

[Wyatt Smith]

The 9.3x62 still is regarded by South African hunters as generally satisfactory for any dangerous game in Africa.

The 9.3x62 has killed so many elephant, Cape buffalo, rhino, and the big cats that one could quote reports from old writings and from as recent as the last hunting season - that describe the exact same way it penetrated and killed whatever was hunted (mostly Cape buffalo). It is an established elephant and buffalo killer. If the hunter has the knowledge of the animal's anatomy - as every hunter should have of every animal he plans to kill from small to big - a 286 gr solid bullet from the 9.3x62 at impact velocity of 2,300+ ft/sec at 30-40 yards will penetrate the heavy shoulder bone of buffalo and elephant and kill it. A soft bullet with large frontal area expansion will not - which is also true for the .375 H&H, or .416 Rigby, etc.

This is how John "Pondoro" Taylor sums up the 9.3x62 in his classic "African Rifles and Cartridges". The majority of posters on rifle forums can learn from this sober viewpoint that Africa professionals had as was expressed by Taylor. If a cartridge is generally satisfactory, and if another cartridge (or a few others, as is often the case) are also generally satisfactory there is absolutely no need for the mostly boring and invariably less than psychologically adult bickering and inconsequential hair splitting just to defend the writer's biased opinion.

Hawk

This is all true. One might say it is almost as good as a 375H&H.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

Though much of Africa has adopted the .375-inch bore diameter as the minimum allowed for dangerous game, a few countries—Mozambique for one—allows the 9.3mm to be used on buffalo and elephant, and it works well.

- Philip Massoro

The CIP established a Maximum Average Pressure of 56,500 psi. In modern strong rifles, there is no reason that it could not be safely loaded to 60,000 psi, providing around 2500 fps, if such was deemed desirable. The cartridge became exceeding popular in Europe and in Africa, and still is today.

Even old John “Pondoro” Taylor, Anglophil that he was, even had good things to say about the 9.3×62 cartridge. He wrote in African Rifles and Cartridges, “I have never heard any complaints about the 9.3mm. Its penetration is adequate for anything. It has never had the write-up that certain other calibers received from time to time. Men just take it for granted and it goes steadily on its way like some honest old farm horse. In spite of all the more modern magnums and ‘supers,' the 9.3mm still remains the favorite medium bore of many experienced hunters.”

As Pondoro Taylor put it, it's just a workhorse of cartridges, effective and useful on about anything.

- Tom Turpin


Hawk

 

[Tanks]

If you are going to quote Taylor he also said:

Long years of experience have shown that the various weapons in the .450-.500 group have all the power necessary to enable you to safely tackle any animal anywhere.

He also said:

In thick cover you cannot pick your shot; you must take what the gods offer you and be darned glad to get a shot at all. A small bore is no use for those conditions—it cannot be relied upon to smash massive shoulders and hips. It's no good drilling a neat little hole thru the shoulder-blade if you want to anchor your elephant with certainty; you've gotta bust it.

...All hunters know by this time that the shoulder-shot is the best where all other animals are concerned, since it's the biggest, steadiest, and most vulnerable target; then why not in the case of elephant? Anyway, I always use it when the conditions permit; and prefer it for elephant just as I do for any other beast. The 480 and 500-gr. slugs are fine for this.

I have actually done this on an elephant with my .500 MDM shooting a 500 grain CEB solid at 2,350 fps. Elephant after being shot on the right shoulder, laid down after a while and I finished it off with a heart/lung shot. With a 9.3 or a .375 that first shot would not have done anything.

I like 9.3 caliber, it worked great on my recent Leopard hunt for bait and Leopard. However, I would not use anything under .400 caliber for buffalo or elephant. Though, I have taken all with much larger calibers to date.

My point is "horse for the courses". Instead of trying to load a 9.3 caliber hot and hope it performs without malfunctions I'd rather move up a few calibers and "Use Enough Gun" for thick skinned dangerous game.

 

[hawkeyesatx]

If you are going to quote Taylor he also said:


He also said:




I have actually done this on an elephant with my .500 MDM shooting a 500 grain CEB solid at 2,350 fps. Elephant after being shot on the right shoulder, laid down after a while and I finished it off with a heart/lung shot. With a 9.3 or a .375 that first shot would not have done anything.

I like 9.3 caliber, it worked great on my recent Leopard hunt for bait and Leopard. However, I would not use anything under .400 caliber for buffalo or elephant. Though, I have taken all with much larger calibers to date.

My point is "horse for the courses". Instead of trying to load a 9.3 caliber hot and hope it performs without malfunctions I'd rather move up a few calibers and "Use Enough Gun" for thick skinned dangerous game.

Thank you for your opinion. I do appreciate it.

Those of us who are only able to afford one rifle, and cartridge that can hunt Africa, we can use the 9.3x62.

If I were independently wealthy, or had a job that I make 6+ figures, then I would have battery of African rifles of larger caliber, and hunt there every six months. But as I am not, then I will use my 9.3x62, and use my hand loads to great effect.

Hawk

 

[Tanks]

...
Those of us who are only able to afford one rifle, and cartridge that can hunt Africa, we can use the 9.3x62.

If I were independently wealthy, or had a job that I make 6+ figures, then I would have battery of African rifles of larger caliber, and hunt there every six months. But as I am not, then I will use my 9.3x62, and use my hand loads to great effect.
...

9.3 can NOT hunt all of Africa unless you limit it to PG and cats. If you are going to hunt elephant, or even cape buffalo then cost of the hunt in a free range country is such that a few thousand dollars extra for a true big bore is a rounding error for the most part.

If limited to one true rifle with 9.3 ballistics in regards to trajectory for Africa and no belt then a .404J could be an option as it has the same range but hits much harder. Various .4XX magnums will do the job as well.

 

[Aaron N]

9.3 can NOT hunt all of Africa unless you limit it to PG and cats. If you are going to hunt elephant, or even cape buffalo then cost of the hunt in a free range country is such that a few thousand dollars extra for a true big bore is a rounding error for the most part.

If limited to one true rifle with 9.3 ballistics in regards to trajectory for Africa and no belt then a .404J could be an option as it has the same range but hits much harder. Various .4XX magnums will do the job as well.

If someone is going on a full bag hunt in Tanzania, or an elephant in Botswana, then an upgrade to a .4XX may very well be a rounding error. And if you can afford those hunts, you can afford the 4-5k minimum round up for a fail safe dg gun.

But then there is the average joe demographic that may be able to scrape together enough scratch over ten years for a $15k 7 day Buffalo or tusk less in Zim. This is the CZ550 or Model 70 crowd. They might also have an $800 Zastava in 9.3 and can’t afford or don’t want to buy another gun.

“Rounding up” can make or break a lot of peoples dream hunt.

 

[One Day...]

"There is nothing spectacular about it: it's just a sound, reliable, general purpose cartridge" John Taylor

I totally agree hawk that in his book African Rifles & Cartridges John "Pondoro" Taylor found the 9.3x62 a "splendid general purpose cartridge" (p.139); that its energy "has always been reckoned the minimum energy for general African hunting" (p.139); that "its penetration is adequate" (p. 139); etc.

I also note that Taylor insists several times in the couples pages he dedicates to the 9.3x62 on the fact that it is "the most popular and most widely used medium bore in Africa" (p. 139), "of course, because being German, it could be sold very much more cheaply than could a similar Mauser-actioned weapon of British manufacture" (p.138) and that consequently "its shell could be bought in almost any store through the length and breadth of Africa; this being a most definite recommendation for any cartridge" (p. 139).

It is my understanding indeed, based on a lot of Africana, that the price and availability of the 9.3x62 had at least as much, if not a lot more, to do with its wide distribution, as its qualities, not to forget too that Tanganyika was a German colony...

I am not sure where this thread is going, but agreeing with Taylor, as a lot of us do, that "there is nothing spectacular about it; it's just a sound, reliable, general purpose cartridge" (p. 140) does not mean that we do not recognize its qualities.

As to make it the equivalent to the .375 H&H (or 9.3x64, to broaden a bit the discussion), is a different matter. Once again, regardless of shoulder shape, 21% increased powder capacity is hard to overcome, with either 1920 powders or 2020 powders, and the resulting higher velocity, higher energy and higher penetration at similar pressure are just factual. This seems to be something about which reasonable people could agree.

The more interesting question maybe, could be not so much about efficiency but sufficiency.

Was the 9.3x62 enough for Taylor and his pre-World War Two hunting? Clearly, the answer is yes.

But one can also note that the 7x57 was enough for Bell and his pre-World War One hunting.

And one must also note that as Tanks hints, there were also a lot of caveats about "minimum energy" and only "adequate penetration" in Taylor's writings. It seems that he saw a level of safety in going above "minimum" and "adequate".

This prompts a few thoughts:

It seems that there is general agreement about the fact that game was a lot more conscious of non-native "modern" hunters in the 1930's (Taylor) than in the 1900'ths (Bell), and that this evolution has only accelerated in the 1950's, 1970's, etc. up to this day in the 2020's.

It also seems that as game became more conscious, it also became both more difficult to approach very close, more often agitated, hence making pin-point bullet placement more difficult, and more aggressive.

It seems too, reading the same Africana, that the number of wounded and lost animals, and the tolerance for it, were infinitely higher until after World War Two, when stricter licenses became much more common.

Does this render cartridges that were sufficient in the past insufficient today?

Everyone will bring their own answer, but the growing difficulty in finding good heads; the growing immediate aggressivity of the some game (e.g. "Zambesi Ladies" tuskless female elephant); the constant reduction of hunting areas; the inviolability of constantly multiplying reserves, parks, sanctuaries, etc. to the follow up of wounded animals; etc. may raise the bar on the demand placed on cartridges...

So, no one is saying that the 9.3x62 is not a good cartridge - that seems to be a sore point - and I have mentioned twice that I find it ideal for my wife, but this does not necessarily mean that it is as good as others. Objective data say that the 9.3x64 or .375 H&H offer more of the same. Whether one needs it or not is anyone's judgement, but denying it seems a little off

I might add that each will also decide for themselves on which side of the discussion the "mostly boring and invariably less than psychologically adult bickering and inconsequential hair splitting just to defend the writer's biased opinion" resides

As to my own choice, hunting in the 2020's; having stood my ground in front of elephants expressing displeasure at my close presence; and having paid elephant trophy fee and daily rate where a wounded escape to the nearby Park was always a possibility, I personally prefer a bit more than "minimum energy" and "adequate penetration" and I fall on the side summarized by contemporary author, talking about contemporary hunting, Kevin "Doctari" Robertson in another of his books: The Perfect Shot II.

PS: When he writes "the 9.3mms" Robertson refers (previous page) to the rimless 9.3x62 and the rimmed 9.3x74R, its ballistic equivalent.

To each their own

The 416 Remington SAAMI is still 65,000, even if ammunition manufacturers have backed off.

Yes indeed, they have backed off, as a consequence no doubt of the pressure and extraction issues I indicated and Robertson documents, and those who continue to handload at high pressure in the US continue to face these issues in the heat of Africa. That was my point entirely

 

[John Wasmuth]

The solution to the question would be to ask your PH what he suggests and go from there. Debating the subject on the Internet forum is great but a solid answer would come from your PH.

 

[Tanks]

...

But then there is the average joe demographic that may be able to scrape together enough scratch over ten years for a $15k 7 day Buffalo or tusk less in Zim. This is the CZ550 or Model 70 crowd. They might also have an $800 Zastava in 9.3 and can’t afford or don’t want to buy another gun.

“Rounding up” can make or break a lot of peoples dream hunt.

9.3 does NOT make the minimum 5,300 joules (3909 ft-lbs) for buffalo and tuskless in Zim, falls short by almost 700 ft-lbs. I'd also submit that if one is going to an Elephant hunt the firearm effectiveness and quality is not something one should skimp on. Maybe scratch for 11 years instead of 10 and get an effective gun. Remember trophy fees are paid the moment one wounds an animal whether it is recovered or not.

 

[K E Johnson]

I have trouble seeing enough economic deference between reloading the the 9.3 x62 and the 375 H&H to make enough significant difference to be life changing.
I looked at a couple sites for brass. PPU brass at Graf and son is $.76 for 9.3 and $1.24 each for the H&H if either were available. They are not. Depending on brass brand, 375 H&H was cheaper on some brands, ie, Norma.
Component Swift A Frames are the same price for either. We are talking possibly for Africa, correct?
Is a few grains of powder a deal breaker? I use IMR 4350 in my .375. Some powders are definitely more expensive per pound.
How many rounds are we loading that a few grains of powder or a few cents per round of brass make the .375 H&H too expensive?
Earlier in this thread, I saw it asserted that a rifle in .375 H&H could be purchased at a reasonable price. I agree, my first was a lightly used Whitworth at the going rate of any other used bolt action at the time.
Yes, I fell in love with the round after reading Capstick and have been shooting and reloading the .375 H&H for well over 30 years. Had I chosen the 9.3 would my life been any different?
I have not yet gotten to Africa, but that is coming, good Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.
I am fortunately at a point in my life where I can plan for Africa and will decide what rifle / rifles I will take. At least 1 and if 2 maybe, both will start with a .4xx.

 

[Aaron N]

9.3 does NOT make the minimum 5,300 joules (3909 ft-lbs) for buffalo and tuskless in Zim, falls short by almost 700 ft-lbs. I'd also submit that if one is going to an Elephant hunt the firearm effectiveness and quality is not something one should skimp on. Maybe scratch for 11 years instead of 10 and get an effective gun. Remember trophy fees are paid the moment one wounds an animal whether it is recovered or not.

You got me there. In all honesty I don’t know all the energy requirements because I bought a 375 which is universally allowed. We can swap out Zim for Moz then.

I agree with you that bigger is better when animals on the other end can stomp you. But as a rule, rifles that start with a 4 don’t come cheap. A new gun isn’t in the majority of peoples budgets. (I’m speaking from experience)

 

[BeeMaa]

But as a rule, rifles that start with a 4 don’t come cheap. A new gun isn’t in the majority of peoples budgets. (I’m speaking from experience)

Hunting animals that require a caliber that starts with a 4 isn't cheap either. If one can afford one...they should be able to cover the other.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Well, the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum is legal for dangerous game in pretty much all of Africa. The 9.3x62 mm Mauser isn’t. So …

Step 1: Buy a .375 Holland & Holland Magnum

step 2: Buy a 9.3x62 mm Mauser

 

[John Wasmuth]

Not a blanket policy throughout the entire continent of Africa. It’s legal in some countries and some provenances in SA.