|
Post by bushog on Feb 19, 2019 17:58:36 GMT -5
As long as you don't try and make a .375 H&H out of a 9.3x62 or 9.3x74 you'll be OK.
There is the 9.3x64 also that has a little more power.
I've got Blaser barrels for all 3 and love them....
Wonder if Zeus still has my .375....
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Feb 19, 2019 18:00:22 GMT -5
which one? I have a couple of 375s from NM
|
|
|
Post by singleaction on Feb 19, 2019 20:45:13 GMT -5
As long as you don't try and make a .375 H&H out of a 9.3x62 or 9.3x74 you'll be OK. There is the 9.3x64 also that has a little more power. I've got Blaser barrels for all 3 and love them.... Wonder if Zeus still has my .375.... At ‘06 presure (60k psi), the 9.3x62 can do 2500fps with 286 grain bullets. Nothing sacrilegious about going there. Not even breathing hard. Since it was introduced in 1905 pressures were kept low in deference to the pack hardened steel actions of the time. Pressures were not “Normalized” until a few years later. Mauser was quite anul retentive with keeping the OAL quite short. All of this applies to the 10.75x68, as well (1908 introduction, contrary to what you may have read in “Cartridges of the Word” and those who have referenced it.). I find it interesting that the 9.3x62 and the the 308 share very similar expansion and bore/case capacity ratio’s. The 9.3x62 is known for good accuracy, but it is especially true loaded to 60k psi with same powders that make the 308 shine (RL-15, Varget, and CFE-223, for example. Just to name a few.). All that being said, if I can scrape the funds together to buy one, I’ll be keeping performance to SAAMI spec in this Ruger African. It is so light, and the super thin barrel may not like the heavy loads, accuracy wise.
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 19, 2019 20:57:30 GMT -5
You might be right....
I'd be interested in how long the magazine box is....
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 19, 2019 20:59:06 GMT -5
which one? I have a couple of 375s from NM Dag...that's right! You've got the "porno" .375 and the Dakota with the trap.... I wish I had them both back....
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Feb 19, 2019 21:31:29 GMT -5
As long as you don't try and make a .375 H&H out of a 9.3x62 or 9.3x74 you'll be OK. There is the 9.3x64 also that has a little more power. I've got Blaser barrels for all 3 and love them.... Wonder if Zeus still has my .375.... At ‘06 presure (60k psi), the 9.3x62 can do 2500fps with 286 grain bullets. Nothing sacrilegious about going there. Not even breathing hard. Since it was introduced in 1905 pressures were kept low in deference to the pack hardened steel actions of the time. Pressures were not “Normalized” until a few years later. Mauser was quite anul retentive with keeping the OAL quite short. All of this applies to the 10.75x68, as well (1908 introduction, contrary to what you may have read in “Cartridges of the Word” and those who have referenced it.). I find it interesting that the 9.3x62 and the the 308 share very similar expansion and bore/case capacity ratio’s. The 9.3x62 is known for good accuracy, but it is especially true loaded to 60k psi with same powders that make the 308 shine (RL-15, Varget, and CFE-223, for example. Just to name a few.). All that being said, if I can scrape the funds together to buy one, I’ll be keeping performance to SAAMI spec in this Ruger African. It is so light, and the super thin barrel may not like the heavy loads, accuracy wise. That works out to over 3900 ft/lbs of energy. Its going to be breathing hard to manage that, it will be a max load. I love the 9.3's and have taken a 62 to Africa twice, its a great round. But it hasn't the capability of the .375 H&H, too much difference in powder capacity. A 9.3x62 case holds 78 grs of ball powder stuffed to the brim. I filled three different brands of .375 cases and the average of the same powder to the top is right at 102 grs. That's nearly a 24 percent difference in boiler room, which is substantial. Love the 9.3x62, but it isn't now and never will be the equal of the .375, just doesn't have it.
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 19, 2019 23:37:08 GMT -5
5.71ml for a 9.3x64 vs 6.18ml for a .375 for case capacity...that's about 8% difference.
I love those 250gn accubonds...
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Feb 19, 2019 23:56:53 GMT -5
I used both the 250 Accubonds and the Barnes Triple Shock in mine, both loaded with 61.grs of IMR4064 which leaves some room for bullet. Velocity was 2520fps over the clock. Very accurate load with either bullet.
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Feb 20, 2019 0:04:29 GMT -5
I run the 270 Barnes about 2700 from my 375. Extremely accurate and hits HARD!
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Feb 20, 2019 14:10:09 GMT -5
At ‘06 presure (60k psi), the 9.3x62 can do 2500fps with 286 grain bullets. Nothing sacrilegious about going there. Not even breathing hard. Since it was introduced in 1905 pressures were kept low in deference to the pack hardened steel actions of the time. Pressures were not “Normalized” until a few years later. Mauser was quite anul retentive with keeping the OAL quite short. All of this applies to the 10.75x68, as well (1908 introduction, contrary to what you may have read in “Cartridges of the Word” and those who have referenced it.). I find it interesting that the 9.3x62 and the the 308 share very similar expansion and bore/case capacity ratio’s. The 9.3x62 is known for good accuracy, but it is especially true loaded to 60k psi with same powders that make the 308 shine (RL-15, Varget, and CFE-223, for example. Just to name a few.). All that being said, if I can scrape the funds together to buy one, I’ll be keeping performance to SAAMI spec in this Ruger African. It is so light, and the super thin barrel may not like the heavy loads, accuracy wise. That works out to over 3900 ft/lbs of energy. Its going to be breathing hard to manage that, it will be a max load. I love the 9.3's and have taken a 62 to Africa twice, its a great round. But it hasn't the capability of the .375 H&H, too much difference in powder capacity. A 9.3x62 case holds 78 grs of ball powder stuffed to the brim. I filled three different brands of .375 cases and the average of the same powder to the top is right at 102 grs. That's nearly a 24 percent difference in boiler room, which is substantial. Love the 9.3x62, but it isn't now and never will be the equal of the .375, just doesn't have it. For what it's worth, given modern powders and pressures in modern bolt actions, the 9.3x62 gets much closer to the .375 H&H today than it used to. For example, using RL-17 powder, as Bob Mitchell (and Ray Atkinson) have shown, a 286 @ 2610, a 300 @ 2550, and a 320 @ 2450 are possible from a 23" barrel. 2000-MR powder doesn't lag far behind in performance, and CFE-223 is a close third. I have done my own loading and verified the safety of loads similar to these. My CZ550fs with a 20.5" barrel gets within 50-60 fps of the velocities listed above, since I can load to a COL of 3.45". These all use slightly compressed powder, and pressures approaching 64k psi (under the SAAMI 65k psi of the .270 Winchester and other cartridges with similar head sizes). Judicious use of annealed and inspected Lapua and the inexpensive Prvi brass work exceptionally well without undue case head expansion or overly flattened primers. The 9.3x62 cartridge is capable of much more than it used to be with better powders and bullets, but it really doesn't need to be run to the max to have great results unless using bullets that won't open well at lower velocities. And in hot places like Africa, though it isn't always smart to run pressures this high, one can still beat historic velocities by at least 100 fps at much lower pressures, as singleaction stated previously. Having said all that, while the x62 is a much more efficient case design than the .375 H&H, one can also choose slower than historically used powders in the H&H and raise its performance as well, beating the x62 by the same historic amount. The summary is that today's 9.3x62 is just about the equal of the historic .375 H&H; and today's .375 H&H has considerably more to offer if more performance is desired. There are tradeoffs...the 9.3x62 is chambered in a light rifle, and 4000 ft/lbs of energy can be painful! Capacity is typically greater--my CZ holds 5 down... Most .375s usually hold 3 down, but recoil is less in the heavier rifle. Also, reloads can increase the .375's performance, especially with heavy for caliber bullets. Lest this all sounds a bit too much, I link below Bob Mitchell's work. For those who don't know him, he is a meticulous and scrupulously honest reloader and hunter, and has maxed out the .45-70 and .458 Win Mag cartridges (including writing a manual on the .458). I don't know anyone who has bettered his results with those two or the 9.3x62. But some of us have reproduced them! bigborefan.wordpress.com/2018/01/29/the-9-3-x-62-mauser-supreme-loads-part-1/bigborefan.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/bullets-for-big-bore-rifles-the-competition-2/bigborefan.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/the-9-3-x-62-seventh-anniversary-in-retrospect-first-part/
|
|
|
Post by nolongcolt on Feb 20, 2019 14:27:02 GMT -5
By the same token, when used with modern powders and pressures the .375 continues to excel. Look at a Barnes manual. I have also conversed with Ray A about this on another forum. As Jack O'Conner used to say, "there aint no free lunch". Given the substantial difference in capacity, the .375 will continue to be the more powerful round regardless all the other stuff which will depend largely on how an individual rifle is built as per weight and mag capacity etc. Do I think an animal hit by either could tell the difference? Probably not until you get to the big stuff. I do believe the .375 will hit a bit harder and be noticeable on larger game. Just as a PH told me once when I asked about his .458 mag. He said the difference on most game between the .375 and .458 was negligible, but on elephant he could see the .458 hit harder. And his loads at the time were likely not much more powerful on paper than my .375 handloads, which were 300grs at over 2600 fps.
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Feb 20, 2019 15:50:44 GMT -5
By the same token, when used with modern powders and pressures the .375 continues to excel. Look at a Barnes manual. I have also conversed with Ray A about this on another forum. As Jack O'Conner used to say, "there aint no free lunch". Given the substantial difference in capacity, the .375 will continue to be the more powerful round regardless all the other stuff which will depend largely on how an individual rifle is built as per weight and mag capacity etc. Do I think an animal hit by either could tell the difference? Probably not until you get to the big stuff. I do believe the .375 will hit a bit harder and be noticeable on larger game. Just as a PH told me once when I asked about his .458 mag. He said the difference on most game between the .375 and .458 was negligible, but on elephant he could see the .458 hit harder. And his loads at the time were likely not much more powerful on paper than my .375 handloads, which were 300grs at over 2600 fps. Totally agree with everything you just said. I tried to say something similar in my last post. The .375 H&H is without a doubt the worldwide standard as a do-everything cartridge, and there is no replacement for displacement. Within that context, my small point was that run hard, the x62 is pretty much the equal of the historic H&H, but the potential of the modern H&H is better yet. Every cartridge developed decades ago can be substantially better today with more modern components. As to the advantages of more speed with respect to killing effectiveness... That's a multi variable problem that others who hunt more than I are certainly more qualified to debate.
|
|
|
Post by singleaction on Feb 20, 2019 18:03:24 GMT -5
At ‘06 presure (60k psi), the 9.3x62 can do 2500fps with 286 grain bullets. Nothing sacrilegious about going there. Not even breathing hard. Since it was introduced in 1905 pressures were kept low in deference to the pack hardened steel actions of the time. Pressures were not “Normalized” until a few years later. Mauser was quite anul retentive with keeping the OAL quite short. All of this applies to the 10.75x68, as well (1908 introduction, contrary to what you may have read in “Cartridges of the Word” and those who have referenced it.). I find it interesting that the 9.3x62 and the the 308 share very similar expansion and bore/case capacity ratio’s. The 9.3x62 is known for good accuracy, but it is especially true loaded to 60k psi with same powders that make the 308 shine (RL-15, Varget, and CFE-223, for example. Just to name a few.). All that being said, if I can scrape the funds together to buy one, I’ll be keeping performance to SAAMI spec in this Ruger African. It is so light, and the super thin barrel may not like the heavy loads, accuracy wise. That works out to over 3900 ft/lbs of energy. Its going to be breathing hard to manage that, it will be a max load. I love the 9.3's and have taken a 62 to Africa twice, its a great round. But it hasn't the capability of the .375 H&H, too much difference in powder capacity. A 9.3x62 case holds 78 grs of ball powder stuffed to the brim. I filled three different brands of .375 cases and the average of the same powder to the top is right at 102 grs. That's nearly a 24 percent difference in boiler room, which is substantial. Love the 9.3x62, but it isn't now and never will be the equal of the .375, just doesn't have it. Depending on various brass manufacturers, you get between about 22% to 28% difference in case capacity between the 9.3x62 and the 375. Using Barsness’ ballistic 4/1 rule, where every 4% gain in case capacity nets a 1% velocity increase, we see that the 375 has about a 5% to 6% potential velocity advantage when loaded to equal pressures with optimal powders. My previous post was not to say that the 9.3 can equal the 375, but just to point out that you can get darn close (within rock throwing distance in performance). The typical standard bullet weights of 286gr and 300gr for the 9.3 and 375, respectively, have identical sectional densities. Yes, the 375 “Rules”, so to speak, but not nearly as much one might think when you let the 9.3 stretch it’s legs a bit. BTW, in my view, 60k psi is not “magnum” pressure, hence my statement that the 9.3 was not breathing hard. I, personally, would not load it to 64k psi, but that’s just me. That’s where I would step up to a 375, or since the 9.3 and 375 are so close, I might move up to a .4-something”
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Feb 20, 2019 18:15:52 GMT -5
I run the 270 Barnes about 2700 from my 375. Extremely accurate and hits HARD! That's about what I run the 250 Accubonds out of my 9.3x64. I do like those 270gn Barnes bullets from the porno .375......
|
|
|
Post by zeus on Feb 20, 2019 18:22:02 GMT -5
I run the 270 Barnes about 2700 from my 375. Extremely accurate and hits HARD! That's about what I run the 250 Accubonds out of my 9.3x64. I do like those 270gn Barnes bullets from the porno .375...... I don’t know which one is which I guess. They are both Dakota 76 actions. Your names you give MY guns are disturbing 😂
|
|