|
Post by bigbrowndog on Sept 2, 2020 21:58:55 GMT -5
BC, are you sure you’re not thinking of the 9.3x64, getting 2600fps with a 286gr.
Trapr
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Sept 2, 2020 22:06:12 GMT -5
That's 4300 ft/lbs of energy, or about the same as a .375 Hollands which holds quite a bit more powder. But heck, I know a guy on another forum who claims that much energy with a .35 Whelen using 225 gr bullets! Yeah, but he is giving up penetration with those 225's. You can drive the 232's in the 9,3 very fast as well. The 250 AB is a nice compromise.
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Sept 2, 2020 22:09:52 GMT -5
That's 4300 ft/lbs of energy, or about the same as a .375 Hollands which holds quite a bit more powder. But heck, I know a guy on another forum who claims that much energy with a .35 Whelen using 225 gr bullets! Yeah, but he is giving up penetration with those 225's. You can drive the 232's in the 9,3 very fast as well. The 250 AB is a nice compromise.[/quote Those 250gn Accubonds are big elk medicine!
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Sept 3, 2020 2:22:52 GMT -5
That's 4300 ft/lbs of energy, or about the same as a .375 Hollands which holds quite a bit more powder. But heck, I know a guy on another forum who claims that much energy with a .35 Whelen using 225 gr bullets! If you look at modern powder performance in legacy cartridges, you can often get anywhere from 150-200 fps greater velocities at reasonable pressures than were possible 40 or 80 years ago. As examples, look at RL-17 in 9.3x62, RL-26 in 6.5x55/.270 and LEVERevolution in .30-30. Hornady gained a temporary market advantage by using new powders in their Superperformance line for a while. In addition, there is no reason that in modern strong brass and bolt rifle actions, pressure should be limited to 51k or 55k psi. With careful handloading, watching pressure signs with your rifle, brass, primers, or additionally directly measuring pressure/sending handloads to labs for pressure testing, some surprising results can be had. Bob Mitchell (Lovin' the Big Bang blog) has done almost exhaustive work with both the .458 Win Mag and the 9.3x62, and was the first to publish startling results online using RL-17 in the 9.3x62. Many others (including some notable hunters and rifle experts, and lastly, myself) have experimented with powders like 2000-MR and RL-17 in the 9.3x62 and have come to the same conclusion as Bob Mitchell--that safe loads that exceed the standard 286 grain bullet at 2350 fps are easily attainable. By the way, with my short 20.5" CZ barrel, I can approach 2400 fps with a 320 grain Woodleigh PP bullet safely, at least in my rifle--very close to .375 performance. Programs like QuickLoad, though not perfect, can act as aids for load development if calibrated with the exact rifle, barrel length, and brass capacity for measured velocities with different handloads, and can then show when one is close to dangerous pressures. So yes, the 9.3x62 with modern powders and careful loading, can tread on the heels of the excellent .375 H&H and the 9.3x64 Brenneke. Some other reasons: the 9.3x62, though introduced in 1905, is almost a modern improved case design, with minimal taper and short neck; the smaller expansion ratio yields more efficient powder burn; and very importantly, the long, leade-only chamber throat greatly reduces pressure while acting effectively as a larger case capacity. I will add as well, though, that .375 and 9.3x64 performance can also be improved over historical numbers with modern powders, and when done properly, can again pull away from these 9.3x62 modern loads. Even though I was talking here about the 9.3x62, not the 9.3x64, I have to admit that I really, really like the x64 case the best. Its case design is nearly perfect/modern, and I wish more cartridges were based on its case head size. It's like a belted magnum without the belt.
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Sept 3, 2020 9:12:54 GMT -5
BC, I own or have owned all three of the popular 9.3’s and really like their performance. However where does one find actual data, tested and proved data for RL17 and the 9.3’s. I found a forum post on RL17 in AR forum that referenced BOOK data and then couldn’t produce said data or an “article” on the subject. So where is this RL17 data you say is available??? I’m curious because I do like the 9.3’s and would love to up performance on my 9.3x64.
Trapr
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Sept 3, 2020 9:29:48 GMT -5
That's 4300 ft/lbs of energy, or about the same as a .375 Hollands which holds quite a bit more powder. But heck, I know a guy on another forum who claims that much energy with a .35 Whelen using 225 gr bullets! If you look at modern powder performance in legacy cartridges, you can often get anywhere from 150-200 fps greater velocities at reasonable pressures than were possible 40 or 80 years ago. As examples, look at RL-17 in 9.3x62, RL-26 in 6.5x55/.270 and LEVERevolution in .30-30. Hornady gained a temporary market advantage by using new powders in their Superperformance line for a while. In addition, there is no reason that in modern strong brass and bolt rifle actions, pressure should be limited to 51k or 55k psi. With careful handloading, watching pressure signs with your rifle, brass, primers, or additionally directly measuring pressure/sending handloads to labs for pressure testing, some surprising results can be had. Bob Mitchell (Lovin' the Big Bang blog) has done almost exhaustive work with both the .458 Win Mag and the 9.3x62, and was the first to publish startling results online using RL-17 in the 9.3x62. Many others (including some notable hunters and rifle experts, and lastly, myself) have experimented with powders like 2000-MR and RL-17 in the 9.3x62 and have come to the same conclusion as Bob Mitchell--that safe loads that exceed the standard 286 grain bullet at 2350 fps are easily attainable. By the way, with my short 20.5" CZ barrel, I can approach 2400 fps with a 320 grain Woodleigh PP bullet safely, at least in my rifle--very close to .375 performance. Programs like QuickLoad, though not perfect, can act as aids for load development if calibrated with the exact rifle, barrel length, and brass capacity for measured velocities with different handloads, and can then show when one is close to dangerous pressures. So yes, the 9.3x62 with modern powders and careful loading, can tread on the heels of the excellent .375 H&H and the 9.3x64 Brenneke. Some other reasons: the 9.3x62, though introduced in 1905, is almost a modern improved case design, with minimal taper and short neck; the smaller expansion ratio yields more efficient powder burn; and very importantly, the long, leade-only chamber throat greatly reduces pressure while acting effectively as a larger case capacity. I will add as well, though, that .375 and 9.3x64 performance can also be improved over historical numbers with modern powders, and when done properly, can again pull away from these 9.3x62 modern loads. Even though I was talking here about the 9.3x62, not the 9.3x64, I have to admit that I really, really like the x64 case the best. Its case design is nearly perfect/modern, and I wish more cartridges were based on its case head size. It's like a belted magnum without the belt. Can you post a link to Bob Mitchell's blog that lists this info? I've got a 9.3x64 too... I can get almost 2800fps from my 9.3x64 with the 250gn Accubond.
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Sept 3, 2020 13:02:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Sept 3, 2020 20:40:00 GMT -5
These first two links below are just to show a little background discussion on the use of RL-17. The poster named ".458 Only" is Bob Mitchell. forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/7631006591forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/9191063612?r=4791093612#4791093612Bob Mitchell's blog is bigbores.ca Taken from the blog post entitled "Killing Shots - P3" on December 14, 2019: "However, my choice today (and has been for the past 20 years or so) would be a medium as a second rifle. I have a true Big Bore, so a medium seems “normal” as a second firearm. I’ve owned most of what is offered from factories, have handloaded one and all, so have a pretty good idea of what to expect from them with the best they can offer. For the past decade (no surprise to anyone who reads these blogs) mine has been a handloaded 9.3 x 62. It’s the basic equivalent of a .375 H&H on the upper end and a .338 Win Mag on the lower. It has done, and can do, whatever those numbers have done or can. I enjoy using my computer programs to compare numbers. There’s an old sayin’, “Numbers don’t lie.” But sometimes liars do use numbers! Yet in studying and comparing ballistics from similar, yet different, rifle cartridges based on available data relating to the various bullets employed in them, it’s very hard NOT to come to some firm conclusions. For some concrete examples, I’ve compared known handloads from my Tikka in 9.3 x 62 with others recorded for the .338 Win, .375 Ruger and H&H, to conclusively verify that one would have to choose the best numbers available, with longer barrels than my 9.3 x 62, to see minimum ballistic improvement over my results from the 22.4″ barrel of my Tikka. Barrels of equal or less than 22.5″ sees no improvement, and often less depending on components used. I’ve provided detailed examples of that in the past, so will only do so again in providing one: That being a well-tested and used hunting load, suitable for any big-game animal in North America, including Alaska-Yukon moose and brown bear. Cartridge: 9.3 x 62 (cases= Hornady) Primer: WLRM Powder: RL-17 Bullet: 286gr Nosler Partition(SD = .305; BC = .482) COL = 3.37″ Rifle: Tikka T3 Lite (22.44″ barrel) MV = 2631 fps/4395 ft-lbs (average of two year’s shooting the same load) 100 yds= 2457 fps// 3832 ft-lbs// 123 TE 200 yds = 2289 fps/3327 ft-lbs// 107 TE 300 yds = 2128 fps/2876 ft-lbs// 92 TE 400 yds = 1974 fps/2474 ft-lbs// 79 TE (same result as .375 H&H w. 300 Nos.) 500 yds = 1827 fps/2119 ft-lbs// 68 TE" I don't have time at the moment, but one can also find recipes for 232, 250, 300, and 320 grain bullets using RL-17 in other posts on Bob's blog.
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Sept 3, 2020 20:48:11 GMT -5
I calibrated my QuickLoad program with Bob's loads (other handloads not shown here but referenced in various posts on his blog) with measured pressure values using different powders and bullet weights and his rifle specs while he was developing certain loads in his 9.3x62 Tikka and showed that his unmeasured compressed loads were safe and pressures reasonable.
Please note that Bob's rifle allows a longer COL over the book value of 3.29". My CZ allows me to load to a COL of 3.45" and so I can get in a bit more powder, but my barrel is about two inches shorter, so my RL-17 loads lose anywhere from about 40-70 fps when compared with Bob's, depending upon bullet weight--less loss with heavier bullets. Other obvious notes are that powder capacity varies quite a bit between Hornady (what Bob uses), Lapua, and Prvi brass, and that primer type matters quite a bit!
One final point: These top-end loads are not pleasant to shoot out of a relatively light rifle, so most of my practicing is done with backed-off velocities. However, it's nice to have a rifle much smaller and lighter than a typical .375 H&H that is able to get close to H&H ballistics with 5 down in the magazine.
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Sept 3, 2020 21:24:23 GMT -5
BC, I own or have owned all three of the popular 9.3’s and really like their performance. However where does one find actual data, tested and proved data for RL17 and the 9.3’s. I found a forum post on RL17 in AR forum that referenced BOOK data and then couldn’t produce said data or an “article” on the subject. So where is this RL17 data you say is available??? I’m curious because I do like the 9.3’s and would love to up performance on my 9.3x64. Trapr I don't know of any published data for the 9.3x64 using RL-17 powder. However, a good starting load for the 286 Partition is around 69-70 grains, which should yield in the ballpark of 2600 fps with a 24" barrel and 53-55k psi pressure. Max pressure loads will be somewhere around 73 grains of powder, yielding over 2700 fps. For the 250 grain Accubond, a starting load around 71 grains will send it out around 2700 fps, and a max load (slightly compressed) around 75 grains will get that bullet approaching 2900 fps. I don't much like loading the 300 grain A-frame...it's tough and a great bullet, but pressure rises fast due to its alloy. Loads for the 320 Woodleigh PP start around 66 grains of RL-17 for around 2400 fps, and max loads around 69 grains will yield over 2500 fps.
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Sept 3, 2020 22:05:33 GMT -5
Thanks, BC. I’ll look into finding some R17 and trying your start loads. I have no need for anything heavier or tougher than a 286tsx, and Nosler Partitions are my favorites for all around use.
Trapr
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Sept 4, 2020 0:20:13 GMT -5
I just realized that the quote from Bob's blog didn't actually list the powder weight. I don't feel as if I should give the exact amount lest someone start with it, but a good starting load in Hornady brass is around 64 grains of RL-17 to be worked up from there.
|
|
cdf41
.30 Stingray
Posts: 415
|
Post by cdf41 on Sept 5, 2020 15:23:47 GMT -5
I've been reading Bobs articles for years! Makes me want to hunt bears with a big bore.
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Sept 5, 2020 20:03:23 GMT -5
I've been reading Bobs articles for years! Makes me want to hunt bears with a big bore. Nice thing about the 9,3x62, it doesn't feel like a big bore when you touch one off. If I had to, I could do all my big game hunting with only a 6,5x55 and a 9,3x62.
|
|
|
Post by bcelliott on Sept 5, 2020 20:53:11 GMT -5
I've been reading Bobs articles for years! Makes me want to hunt bears with a big bore. Nice thing about the 9,3x62, it doesn't feel like a big bore when you touch one off. If I had to, I could do all my big game hunting with only a 6,5x55 and a 9,3x62. I'm in good company! My two most-used hunting rifles are CZs in 6.5x55 and 9.3x62.
|
|