9.3x62 vs the rest

sorry angus i cannot reach the level to understand what you wrote ... im just seeing some love to poke the bear and some others do not accept some conclusions that may differ to what they expect or want ...

it is funny most of those people did not even said a thing when i posted the results of the bullets. but life goes on.
 
I've learned not to accept the results of bullet performance on jugs of water vs real-world results on game. But this isn't a new thought for most people. There are some good bullet tests done on CGN. They are sticky's in the Reloading and Hunting and Sporting Arms sections.
 
huntingfamily said:
I've learned not to accept the results of bullet performance on jugs of water vs real-world results on game. But this isn't a new thought for most people. There are some good bullet tests done on CGN. They are sticky's in the Reloading and Hunting and Sporting Arms sections.
Click to expand...

thank you for just telling that the test we did was useless and a bad one ... funny how some cannot accept the bullet performances ... some bullets in real life did the same performance that in the water ...

of course wet paper is so accurate ....

what i posted and taken by permission from bc steve ...

...''... - Disclaimer: I know milk jug and water do not give identical result to flesh and bones, blah, blah, blah.... (stolen and adapted from BCsteve) ...''...

then at the end:

...''... the water and jug test is really traumatic for the bullets but good answer on some questions. ...''...
...''... Ps: while reading the wonderful book of Pierre van der walt on african dangerous game cartridges i found an interesting note and seems that the water as a medium test is doing to some conventionnal bullets a tendency to become unstable, lose direction etc .. worth to read the pages 74 to 77 for that matter, makes sense in the result of some bullets. ...''...
 
Last edited:
saskcop said:
Great info there. Thanks! Any leads on where a guy can find the Speer bullets?
Click to expand...

I do have a good supply of bullets that I gathered several years ago. Speer themselves are out of stock, so, no idea who may have stock in Canada these days.
 
I wouldn't say that water jug tests are worthless. The thing is that water being non compressible and it's tendency to act like a solid upon high velocity impact, the results must take it in count.
It's like when we test machines at work, we use different types of standardized tests, from soft to destructive. A bullet hitting water at high velocity is more of the "destructive" type, and the results are expected to be extreme.
You did a great job and I know what kind of hard work is needed to perform such tests.
 
Last edited:
Baribal said:
I wouldn't say that water jug tests are worthless. The thing is that water being non compressible and it's tendency to act like a solid upon high velocity impact, the results must take it in count.
It's like when we test machines at work, we use different types of standardized tests, from soft to destructive. A bullet hitting water at high velocity is more of the "destructive" type, and the results are expected to be extreme.
You did a great job and I know what kind of hard work is needed to perform such tests.
Click to expand...

I agree. I've had no worries with deep penetration on 300+ lb black bear using my 9.3x57 tossing 270 gr RNFP hardcast @ 1500 fps. I bonked one with a shot
through the shoulders at around 50 yds that anchored it well enough to sneek up for a neck breaker chop with my heavy bolo blade. I took my very last blacky
at 60 yds with the same rifle & load with a shot under the chin & between the shoulders that clipped the heart and spine further back and ran all the way to the right hip, breaking it. Cast boolits of weights suited to the intended game at close range & moderate velocities are my main choice for hunting meat critters &
plinkin' fun.

 
I bonked one with a shot
through the shoulders at around 50 yds that anchored it well enough to sneek up for a neck breaker chop with my heavy bolo blade
Click to expand...

Wow, some of us are hunting, and some of us are HUNTING
 
I appreciate the 9.3 bullet test, thank you to all who were involved. Between the results and the online discussions it spurred including experiences on game, there is a lot of good information to be gleaned here.
 
Well, Ive got 2 zastavas here in 9.3x62 that only feed the dreaded 250 grain accubond. I can shoot up to 200 yards here and have 2 mule deer hides left over from last season. Any ideas for a bullet test?
 
Are the Accubonds really a problem at 9.3x57,62,74R velocity? I've used them in 7mm and .30 cal without issue... but then again I don't mind good old Speer Hot-cors at sensible velocities.
 
SHELL SHUCKER said:
I agree. I've had no worries with deep penetration on 300+ lb black bear using my 9.3x57 tossing 270 gr RNFP hardcast @ 1500 fps. I bonked one with a shot
through the shoulders at around 50 yds that anchored it well enough to sneek up for a neck breaker chop with my heavy bolo blade. I took my very last blacky
at 60 yds with the same rifle & load with a shot under the chin & between the shoulders that clipped the heart and spine further back and ran all the way to the right hip, breaking it. Cast boolits of weights suited to the intended game at close range & moderate velocities are my main choice for hunting meat critters &
plinkin' fun.

Click to expand...

That Mythbusters video is a good visual demonstration of how hard water is on bullets.
 
bcsteve said:
That Mythbusters video is a good visual demonstration of how hard water is on bullets.
Click to expand...

water is hard on some bullets. if you look up the pictures of the test we did some bullets looks exactly like the ones found in game or wet paper ... i announced it at the first message on that specific thread and taken with your permission from your 6.5 and .375 bullet tests ...

but its funny that woodleigh rn, oryx, speer, barnes,a frame, matrix are looking exactly similar in my test, like on other tests and in real life.

i will repeat accubond is not a premium bullet but when you can find them they re sold at a premium price ... some outdoor writers are selling that bullet as the top notch like the partititon but that is not the best and it is working like any bullet in the 9.3 family nothing new there ...

i should have said it is not a real test ... only the ones done on frozen meat and bones are real for some.

as the discussion was about bullets even if bullets are killing animals and if this is the only results you re looking for, if you re trying to find the best bullet for your kind of hunt it is a good start. it is a way to compare different bullets and how they behave in the same material in the same circumstance.

as i said some will not be happy with the outcome but are showing only now many years after which i find absolutely hilarious ...
 
medvedqc said:
water is hard on some bullets. if you look up the pictures of the test we did some bullets looks exactly like the ones found in game or wet paper ... i announced it at the first message on that specific thread and taken with your permission from your 6.5 and .375 bullet tests ...

but its funny that woodleigh rn, oryx, speer, barnes,a frame, matrix are looking exactly similar in my test, like on other tests and in real life.

i will repeat accubond is not a premium bullet but when you can find them they re sold at a premium price ... some outdoor writers are selling that bullet as the top notch like the partititon but that is not the best and it is working like any bullet in the 9.3 family nothing new there ...

i should have said it is not a real test ... only the ones done on frozen meat and bones are real for some.

as the discussion was about bullets even if bullets are killing animals and if this is the only results you re looking for, if you re trying to find the best bullet for your kind of hunt it is a good start. it is a way to compare different bullets and how they behave in the same material in the same circumstance.

as i said some will not be happy with the outcome but are showing only now many years after which i find absolutely hilarious ...
Click to expand...

My comment wasn't a knock on your test. Your test and mine, as we've acknowledged, are not necessarily a demonstration of how a bullet will react on game but more of a comparison between bullets under the same stress whether water or wet newspaper. John Barness is not a fan of either of our media as he finds water too hard and wet newspaper too soft. His preferred media is is stacked dry newspaper.
 
bcsteve said:
My comment wasn't a knock on your test. Your test and mine, as we've acknowledged, are not necessarily a demonstration of how a bullet will react on game but more of a comparison between bullets under the same stress whether water or wet newspaper. John Barness is not a fan of either of our media as he finds water too hard and wet newspaper too soft. His preferred media is is stacked dry newspaper.
Click to expand...

oh Steve i know what you ve done in your tests: i did not felt an attack from you for sure. and you re right it is a picture at the t moment and a comparison in the same media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom