9.3x62 or .338 WM??

Roadway

Roadway

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I've had the tremendous misfortune of adopting a Zeiss Victory Diavari 3-12x56. :rockOn:

The hunting rifle arsenal so far includes a Tikka T3 in 270 and a Sako 85 in 30-06 for mostly mulies and whitetail. While the Zeiss could get mounted on one or the other, this seems like a fabulous opportunity to "need" a new addition to the family!

While either would do for moose and/or elk (I keep dreaming about chasing more of these critters after a successful moose draw in 2012...), I'm leaning towards stepping it up in knockdown power to either a 338 WM or a 9.3x62.

Not a hand loader today, but hope to in the future.

Alternatively, could step it down to a 25-06 or .243.

What would you do?
 
Kevan said:
As nice as that fine Zeiss scope is I do think its a bit much for either a 338 Win. Mag. or a 9.3X62.
Click to expand...

x2. Personally I would sell the scope to fund the rifle purchase. I have no desire for an objective bigger than 40mm on a hunting rifle.
 
Of the above I would put it on the Sako. It seems off to me to put a heavy scope on a light weight rifle like the Tikka. I would rather something smaller and lighter on a hunting rifle though. I might be tempted to sell it and buy a Swarovski Z3 or two.

Between 9.3 and .338, I would go .338, simply because it gives you more bullet options and true long range capability. No disrespect intended towards Mr. Wagner.
 
If you're looking for a rifle to put under that scope I would recommend a 257 Wby........it's a perfect combo.
As far as 338 vs 9.3X62, I would go 9.3 every time, had several 338s and none of them impressed me at all. I far prefer the 350 RM, the 35 Whelen and the 9.3X62, all superior to the 338 in my opinion. Now if you were to ask about a 340 Wby, that's a whole new ball game.
 
funny thing , both rounds are very very similar , especially when you hand load and load them to the same pressure .


there should be more factory ammo availability with the 338 .... but outside of north America that might flip around into the 9.3x62's favor



personally I like rounds that don't have to have the word " magnum " attached to them ...... it is kind of like they are trying too hard .

so my choice would be the 9.3x62 ..... and with that said either in a browning bar , or a browning maral ( I really like how this rifle looks ) .
 
The .30/06 will do fine for moose... I would step down to a .25/06 or 6mm Rem... you might aswell keep it in the family.
 
Dedicated large game rifle, .338 for sure. More factory ammo options, better ballistic coeeficient for longer shots. Sectional density makes the .338 the large bore 6.5. Much more bullet choices and .338 really shines hand loaded as well. 165 grain to 300 grain bullet choices. Rifle choices are limitless.....need I go on. On the other hand the 9.3 will do the job really well, just not anywhere near as versatile. Personally I'd dump the .270 and go .25-06 as the .30-06 has that covered already. .25-06,.30-06,.338 sounds perfect, and all in Sako's. Sounds like my Sako collection.....weird.
 
If your deciding on a hunting rifle based around that scope, go 338win for sure. If choice was made on caliber alone, then 9.3 for sure. People always say this or that has more bullet choices. If its for moose and bear pick a bullet and stick with it. 9.3 is an amazing moose round, its easy to get within 300yds of a moose and inside 300yd 9.3 is in its element.no need to step down in caliber, everyone should have one caliber at least over 30 :)
 
338 if your not hand loading, at least you can find ammo for it, federal 225 gr tbbc took my moose down at 464 yds, right through the heart
 
Ditto on the 338 Win for a 3-12x56. I have a Tikka T3 9.3x62 and it has a Leupold 2-7x32, ample for its trajectory. The 338, loaded correctly has the capacity to put them right out there. A mate replaced his 358 Win with a new 338 Model 70 & he's mounted a similar Kahles scope on his. Realistically it's a great cartridge for North America. If you were hunting here, however, a 9.3x62 is arguably better for buffalo up north. It's all about meplat and they're hunted at ranges of 100 yds or less. But I digress.
 
I really like the 9.3 x 62, but for a higher power scope, the .338 win mag will be able to stretch its legs better. And you don't reload, so that favors the .338 win mag as well.

Interesting note; last time I checked Norma's site, their .338 win mag, 250 grain ammo, and 9.3 x 62, 250 grain ammo was loaded to identical energy levels. As a guy who loads for both of these cartridges, I know they're not quite giving the .338 its full due (the .338 case does hold 9 grains more), but still interesting to see...
 
Last edited:
The most attractive feature of most .366 Wagner's, indeed the majority of non magnum mediums, is the light and easy carrying rifles they are chambered in.
A heavier 56mm objective is not so desirable on a mid range medium bore carrying rifle, nor is it an advantage if the shot should happen in close. IMO.
The 1.5-6x range, for me it's a B&L Balvar, is much better scaled to the gun and it's purpose.

Re-reading your OP, I'd be tempted to sell the Zeiss to fund a more purpose built rig.
 
338 WM, easy decision. Nothing wrong with a 9.3, I've had one for 30 years, but for that scope and potential longer range hunting, like elk, you can't beat a 338. Rifles in the two calibers will weigh pretty much the same, so that's a moot point. You also mention that you don't reload, again a plus for choosing the 338.
I have a Zeiss Diavari 2.5-10x50 on one, so a 3-12 would work great as well. I don't find myself needing a lower power. For that, I remove the scope and use the open sights.
 
I always find it amusing when folks talk about needing really low power. Perhaps it is just because of the terrain I am used to but this year's whitetail was interesting. I was watching a bunch of does at ~300 yards and noticed a buck. I took aim - but he was quite small - and my hunting partner encouraged me to pass, so I did. I was just putting my rifle down when two does burst out of the brush in front of me - right behind them was a nice buck. I brought my rifle up and followed him as he was trotting and chasing through some fairly open area. I was just waiting for him to stop. He spun around and changed direction - my partner let out a grunt and the buck stopped. I shot him. He was at just over 40 yards and my scope was still on 12x. It didn't cause me any trouble at all. Like I said, maybe it is just because of where I hunt, but I can't see the need for less than 3x.

On the other hand, here in BC, we can shoot from 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset. I find that any really good quality scope with a 42mm obj is fine for 1/2 hour before and 1/2 hour after. But if you want to use every minute of legal shooting light you need to have high quality optics, a larger obj lens and importantly the proper reticle. As a side note the hunting partner from the above story has been using a 3-12x56 Diavari for probably close to 20 years. He loves it.
 
9.3 will give you one additional cartridge in the mag. They're both awesome calibres, however the 9.3 is available in lighter, handier rifles and the .338 Win Mag is a more 24-26" barrelled rifle. That being said, I have a .338 Win Mod 70 Extreme Weather SS on order that I'm planning on saving for my Alaskan dream hunt, some day. I have a CZ550 in 9.3 x 62 that I dumped a bear with a few years back and layed him down with authority.

I guess it boils down to what type of terrain you're hunting in. If longer shots are possible, then the .338 might be a better choice. I love hunting rifles so I'm going to own both.

I don't think your scope is ideal for either calibre, though. I wouldn't go bigger than a 2x7. But that's just me.
 
1899 said:
I always find it amusing when folks talk about needing really low power. Perhaps it is just because of the terrain I am used to but this year's whitetail was interesting. I was watching a bunch of does at ~300 yards and noticed a buck. I took aim - but he was quite small - and my hunting partner encouraged me to pass, so I did. I was just putting my rifle down when two does burst out of the brush in front of me - right behind them was a nice buck. I brought my rifle up and followed him as he was trotting and chasing through some fairly open area. I was just waiting for him to stop. He spun around and changed direction - my partner let out a grunt and the buck stopped. I shot him. He was at just over 40 yards and my scope was still on 12x. It didn't cause me any trouble at all. Like I said, maybe it is just because of where I hunt, but I can't see the need for less than 3x.

On the other hand, here in BC, we can shoot from 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset. I find that any really good quality scope with a 42mm obj is fine for 1/2 hour before and 1/2 hour after. But if you want to use every minute of legal shooting light you need to have high quality optics, a larger obj lens and importantly the proper reticle. As a side note the hunting partner from the above story has been using a 3-12x56 Diavari for probably close to 20 years. He loves it.
Click to expand...


110% agreed. I'll take the added weight of a 56 mm scope in exchange for being able to see clearly at more than 5x magnification after sundown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom