Last week I committed to a comparison between my 9.3 X 62 and the .338 Winchester Magnum. Why “my” 9.3 X 62? Because that’s the only one I have a few hundred hours with in developing handloads for, shooting it at our range and toting it afield during the months of September, October and part of November. On the other hand, I have had more than 1000 hrs in working with three .338 Win Mags. Of course, I’m not speaking of having these rifles in my gun cabinet for that many hours, because in the case of the .338s it would amount to several years, and as to the 9.3 it’s a matter of six months, not years. No, the hours mentioned has reference to time spent in actually working with those rifles in the manner mentioned above: adding things, adjusting things, developing handloads, shooting them, and time spent in actual hunting.
So I believe I’m qualified to make an assessment of the two cartridges in a comparative way. Last week I presented a couple of top-end loads for the 9.3 X 62 Mauser. That’s not to infer that they are the only loads or the best loads… or even the ultimate that I will discover for myself. But they do represent loads that are accurate and near the top end of things. The operative word here is “near”, not ultimate! In other words, I believe they can be “improved”… slightly.
The bullet weight in the 9.3 Mauser that interests me most is the one that has set the standard for that cartridge… the 286gr. It’s something like a 180gr in a 300 magnum, or a 300gr in the .375 H&H. In fact, it has the identical sectional density as a 300gr in .375-inch.
I’m using the 286gr Hornady Interloc bullet as my “go-to” projectile. It’s very, very accurate in my rifle at top velocity whether using Reloader 15 or Reloader 17. And that, my friends, brings up the topic of which powder, or powders, work best in this TIKKA rifle chambered in the famed 9.3 X 62.
From the get-go, I started with RL-15 as, from experience with it in both the .35 Whelen and .350 Rem Mag, it seemed the most logical choice. And, I had some on hand from loading those two cartridges and a .375 H&H as well as a couple of .458 Winchester Magnums.
It works very well for me in the 9.3 X 62 and, to keep things simple, I could easily get by with this one powder being as happy as a haddock in the Atlantic. But, never being one to “leave well enough alone”, I had to experiment… (past tense), and will experiment again! 
So, that brings up (again) the topic of RL-17 in the 9.3 X 62. How good is it, and does it work as well, or better than it’s older, faster brother, RL-15? Well, here’s the answer… in short form: No and yes! Or, yes and no… let me explain.
On the 28th of October I loaded up several cases with RL-17 and capped them with that 286 Hornady. The results were very disappointing. The top load was with 64grs, with erratic, comparatively low velocities. I gave up on it thinking that would be a near max load with that powder according to a respected source. I was content to stay with RL-15 as it gave just about everything I was looking for.
I was looking for good accuracy and a muzzle velocity somewhere between 2400 and 2450 fps. That’s about 100 fps more than factory specs. But, just like the old .30-06, pressures are kept modest in the 9.3 Mauser due to old and worn rifles that are still in use. And, just as in a modern bolt-rifle chambered in .30-06, pressures can be “upped” to reflect modern technology in both powder development and metallurgy. In other words, just as a .338 Winchester Magnum can be safely loaded to 64,000 psi, so can a late model bolt-action in .30-06 or 9.3 X 62 Mauser. That’s 8,000 more psi than the original 9.3 X 62 born in 1905.
Plus, there are current powders that work MUCH better than anything produced in 1905! In the .30-06, literature and SAAMI hold the pressure to traditional levels in deference to rifles with a lot of wear ‘n tear, and poorer metals. As well, standards for the 9.3 X 62 do not reflect the vast improvements in technology over the past century. Ergo: you will hear of factory loads, and see loads in manuals, that manifest trepidation to go where one can safely venture with new bolt-actions in 9.3 X 62.
My intention is to go there. And I will… and have.
On Tuesday, of this past week, another trek was made to the range. This time with a handful of new cases loaded with the 286 Hornady, ignited with WLRM primers and 67grs of RL-17!
And here’s the miracle, or Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” result: It shot the loads using RL-17 into the EXACT SAME GROUP as my hunting load using RL-15 AT THE SAME MUZZLE VELOCITY WITH THE SAME SUB-MOA!!! And that’s a TRUE truth! I lie not!
The only thing was, it took 7grs more powder to do it! But, likely at LESS psi. At least, signs would suggest that, and so does math.
Therefore, a modern bolt-action repeater — such as a Ruger Hawkeye African, a CZ 550, or a TIKKA T3 in 9.3 X 62 can safely be loaded to the same psi as any modern bolt-action repeater in .338 Winchester Magnum. And the brass cases are just as strong. So there’s no reason not to venture there. That means it’s possible to add about 150 fps to the traditional load of 286grs at 2360 fps. As before stated: New loads for this famed cartridge, which are made in the USA by Remington, Hornady et al, reflect this conservative stance at 2360 fps for their 286gr loadings.
I understand their reasoning, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t, or shouldn’t, go where this TIKKA rifle can safely take me with today’s reloading components.
My current top-end load using RL-15 behind the 286gr Hornady, gives a consistent 2460 to 2472 fps. At MOA. Absolute max with that powder is 2482 fps average. But accuracy was not quite as good, so I backed off 1/2 grain for sub-MOA, and a loss of a mere 15 – 20 fps.
As mentioned, RL-17 was a discouragement first time out, at 64grs pushing the 286 Hornady. Last week, I upped the charge by 3 grains and voila, 2468 fps (avg), .886″ MOA, and impact at the exact point as the RL-15 hunting load. That means I could use either powder and get the same results. RL-15 is more efficient and RL-17 means lower pressure, longer case life but slightly heavier recoil. Choose your medicine.
Now, as to the .338 Winchester Magnum:
1) A SAKO 20″ carbine gave around factory specs for velocity, but case life was not too good: 250s @ 2675 fps (avg.); 225s @ 2800 fps.
2) My son’s 24″ Remington: 2735 fps from 250s and around 2875 from 225s. These loads were not absolute max, but near top-end.
3) My 26″ Browning A-Bolt: 2840 from 250s and over 2900 from 225s.
Those are data points. Your experience may differ somewhat, but in general one can expect these results safely from the average 24″ .338 Win Mag:
210s @ 2900+ fps
225s @ 2850+ fps
250s @ 2800 (barely, in some rifles; less in others)
Now to make things even with my 22.4″ TIKKA, the .338 WM will loose about 35 – 50 fps. That means, in general, that from a 22.5″ .338 Win Mag one could expect these numbers: 2735 fps from 250s; 2820 fps from 225s and 2900 fps from 210s.
If we use my formula (several blogs ago), or a momentum number, the TIKKA T3 in 9.3 X 62 is slightly better.
Example from momentum (Keith’s formula):
9.3 X 62: 286gr @ 2468 fps = 100.8 ft-sec momentum
.338 Win Mag: 250gr at 2735 fps = 97.7 ft-sec momentum.
The .338 Win Mag load would have to leave the muzzle at 2823 fps to match the 9.3 X 62 in momentum. Sectional density is near even, but the 9.3 has a 16.7% larger cross-sectional area — which means something.
Bottom line: The .338 shoots a bit flatter and the 9.3 X 62 hits harder and makes a bit larger hole. So, all things considered, the 9.3 X 62 is at least the equal of the .338 WM, and no doubt better for the larger and more dangerous game. Recoil from the two rifles would be too similar to notice any difference. Yet, “felt recoil” might be dissimilar for a number of reasons that we’ll not get into here. However, we live in free countries (at least for the present)and can choose our medicine… I’ve chosen mine.
NOTE: the above loads for the 9.3 X 62 are MY LOADS, not yours! You really should choose your own… It’s safer and more satisfying.
‘Til next time when we compare with the famous .375 H&H.
Shalom
BOB MITCHELL
0 Responses to “more about the 9.3 X 62 Mauser — page 3”