9.3x62 Hunting/ RN/ SP Big Game

WhelanLad

WhelanLad

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Australia AU
Gday gurus,
Winters nearing down under and I'm getting the big 9.3 Ready for some Sambar deer action.

With the 9.3 I know it is best off with the big heavies however I will be given some Woodleighs to test out in the lighter end of the Scale, 232 and 250 grain weights to report on their field capabilities on our big sambar.

I am wondering what would your choice be for a 250gr in the 9.3 , would it be Round Nose or a Pointed traditional projectile? What would it matter, some might ask and some may know?


How far out does the RN begin to drop in terms of trajectory? where it would be too much margin for error from normal sight in an hunting ranges? (ill be testing this to 300m in comin weeks)

Would like to hear some views or preferences

I will be loading with Varget in the 20 GECO cases I currently have. will try find a neck sizer only.

cheers!
WL
 
Ran some numbers; using a nominal velocity of 2600 fps and a 200 yd zero for both, the RN has 1/2" more drop at 250, and 1 1/4" more at 300. From what I've been able to gather the RN has a thinner jacket and will give more expansion, while the PP is tougher for deeper penetration. Be sure to come back and post the results of your testing.
 
BigUglyMan said:
I'd be looking at a 250 Accubond or Scirocco.
Click to expand...

No way!
Strayan made mate! Act on the same Par as Noslers Accubond, Holds together aswell as the Scirocco and down here, Costs a good 1/3rd cheaper .

I wonder if 9.3 Mauser ran the numbers of the Accubond V PPSN , would there be any much more difference compared to the RN PP comparison !!

:)
WL
 
WL............I have found there to be no significant difference between RN bullets and SP bullets in trajectory over the first 300 mtrs, in any medium velocity cartridge. I have found this in the 9.3X62, the 358 Win and the 35 Whelen.
I guess I should add the caveat, when using the same bullet weights and fired at the same muzzle velocity from the same rifle. As 9.3mausers numbers point out, the difference is quite likely smaller than the group size........hence insignificant.
 
Last edited:
Just run the calc's. Need to see the numbers. Example: 35 caliber Hornady compared, 200gr RN vs. 200gr SP, 2500 fps MV and both sighted-in 2" high at 100 yards. Beyond 250 yards the RN trajectory begins to drop off more steeply than the SP, and the RN has less downrange energy.

RN bullets likely expand more reliably over a broader range of impact speeds compared to SP bullets.

The SP-shoots-flatter argument is less relevant with the advent of ballistic reticles.

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

40861024411_2eca96e9c0_b.jpg


26990819048_e65828c137_b.jpg
 
WL, I'm shooting 250 Accubonds over 55.5 grains of IMR 4064. It holds about MOA at 100 yards...not sure of the velocity, haven't put them over a chronograph. They work well on moose.
MS
 
Got 286gr NP's (0.482 b.c.:)) loaded for my 9.3 (x74R) at 2400 fps MV for the upcoming season. Might load the 320gr RN Woodleigh's instead because these should out-penetrate/smash through heavy shoulder bone better than the NP's.

24876940028_7e70f60cb3_z.jpg
39995730921_2471d3f2ce_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
WhelanLad said:
I wonder if 9.3 Mauser ran the numbers of the Accubond V PPSN , would there be any much more difference compared to the RN PP comparison !!

:)
WL
Click to expand...

Roughly the same difference, 1/2" at 250 and 1" less at 300, with a 200 yd zero @ 2600 fps. I would pick the bullet most likely to give the best terminal performance.
 
my favourite: 250gr AB 2625fps, .30 @ 100yds

2nd is 286gr Partition 2450fps, .42 @ 100yds or 285gr PPU same as 286.......

250gr: 59.5grs 4320
286gr: 58.5grs RL15

My main moose gun: Tikka T3 + Trijicon 3x9x40 green dot crosshair.

Below is a pic of a recovered 250gr AB from a 3 yr old or so bull shot at about 80yds on the run quartering...... in high shoulder, found between hide on opposite side, dropped and didnt move.

yes my favourite moose gun.
 
Schit yeah! Awesome Thread discussion fellas!!

got a wild hot wind swinging around today and a big dust storm is blowin around the hills, so I'm back indoors after a brief hunt this morning with the 9.3, whaled one an took the hair off anothers back with the 2nd :D
geco 255s RN both under 100 meters...


This has me thinkin about 9.3x62 today, with the Woodleighs on their way I have 5 factorys left (which I will loose over the next two weeks pretty easily ) then I have 19 cases to load some up, wont be aiming for max accuracy, will let the tikka look after that but will load mid range to start as I do want the fps an ok accuracy :D

I will be loading with Varget........... only ADI info I have is for Barnes TTSX at 57gr 2206H Compressed Max & 58gr Compressed Varget Max, I don't like the idea of Compressed so assuming 56 an 57 respectively..... it says I might be only getting 2450fps in a 24 barrel?

might load my buddies T3 with 2206H and Mine with Varget for stihs an giggles for in field on game reports?


What yas thinking for Load Data and those figures??

is 2600 obtainable with Varget ?? unlike that AB load at 2600 odd FPS, it looks perfect!

Thanks
WL
 
BTW FYI- I'm havin trouble wacking my forehead on the Scope with the Geco factories :S evenwith a limbsaver, I must be creepin a little an generally notice its when I look up too quick :D
not so much a recoil drama..yet :p
 
The TTSX is long for it's weight. A normal lead/copper bullet won't take up so much space. Varget has a similar burn rate to RL 15, so I would think 2600 fps is quite do-able. The Woodleigh manual lists 56 gr as a start load with 61 as max, and a velocity of 2520.

The max loads in the manual match up well with what I shoot in mine, but the velocities listed are much lower; they list a max of 60/RL 15 & a 285 gr. bullet for a velocity of 2380, but I get 2450 with the same load. Likewise, the RL 15 load for 250's is 62 gr. Velocity in the manual is 2540, while I get over 2600 with the same load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom