Any comments on the 9.2x62 cartridge/rifles?

Northman999 said:
Hmm, never heard of this, do expand on the wisdom for this!

What I did forget to mention in my post is that I always anneal necks when doing any resizing.
Why not? said:
And, don't forget to neck that '06 brass up to 40 cal before sizing it to chamber in your 9.3 rifles. :)

Ted
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here's a picture that clearly shows how much longer the 9.3 case is in the body, and shorter in neck length; far left 9.3, 30-06, 8X57, 6.5X55, 308.

800px-9.3X62-30-06-8X57-6.5X55-308.JPG



If you don't neck the '06 brass well beyond 9.3 (.366") cal first, you basically end up with very excessive headspace, more than 40 thousandths on an inch.

Having said that, there is so much good 9.3X62 brass around now, it is easy to find the factory stuff. Great cartridge!

Ted
 
Last edited:
saskcop said:
BUG, what about dropping down a little in bullet weight with the TSX's to achieve better velocity, or is that blasphemy not using a 286 grainer in that caliber. I understand the nostalgia of using the 286's in that caliber ...
Click to expand...

I think that the 250 TSX would probably work nicely. I believe that John Barsness has used them with Varget with some success. Probably a good combination of penetration and trajectory. Blasphemous - probably, but these days rifle-heresy is less frowned upon than it used to be. Next thing archie-james will have an x62 in a McSwirley and we'll have to beat him with a half-frozen fish as punishment!:D

Gatehouse said:
I like the 9.3x62, it's pretty cool. If I didn't have the better .375 Ruger, I'd probably have a 9.3x62.:)
Click to expand...

Imagine how much better the New King would be if you used .366" bullets?

Usurper in the house!:D
 
Ah! Ah! Ted, that's my picrture from Wiki....

I killed Lord Moose, Bears (plenty) and even a mad cow through one eye with the 9.3X62. None ever needed a second shot.

But, I have to disagree with the use of '06 brass for the 9.3X62. The Max base diameter of the '06 is the min base diameter for the 9.3X62. Any '06 brass resized for the X62 will show a bulge about .200 above the head. In my opinion, X62 brass is plenty and not expensive enough to worth spending time in working undersize '06 brass.
 
Baribal said:
Ah! Ah! Ted, that's my picrture from Wiki....

I killed Lord Moose, Bears (plenty) and even a mad cow through one eye with the 9.3X62. None ever needed a second shot.

But, I have to disagree with the use of '06 brass for the 9.3X62. The Max base diameter of the '06 is the min base diameter for the 9.3X62. Any '06 brass resized for the X62 will show a bulge about .200 above the head. In my opinion, X62 brass is plenty and not expensive enough to worth spending time in working undersize '06 brass.
Click to expand...

Yes Sir! Was travelling, and just grabbed it off the 'net.

And, congratulations, the ultimate cure for Mad Cow Disease......... :D

I agree for the most part, and mentioned in the same post, that today there is plenty of good factory brass around. However, I have formed, loaded, and shot hundreds of rounds of 9X62 formed from 30-06 brass over the past 30 some years, as have hundreds of other guys, without any problems whatsoever.

For those who want to do it, I will post some pictures of the '06 to 9.3 process a bit later, rather than hijack this thread any further. :)

Ted
 
BigUglyMan said:
I'll trade you most of a box of 286 TSXs for most of a box of 286 Partitions. I couldn't drive 'em over 2000FPS in my Husky, no matter how much 4350 I jammed in the case.

I always use Lapua 9.3x62 brass in my Husky as well. I have 2 30-06s that want use of all my 30-06 brass.
Click to expand...

I'd think 4350 powder is probably too slow for the 9.3x62. I've had best results with IMR4895 and W748.
 
Yes, Ted, I understand. Same thing when there was nothing better than belted brass to make the .280 Ross. With the coming of the .375 Ruger, the bulged case days are now gone and we can safely reload for the .280

Still, if we compare the '06 tolerances when used in the X62, the play is still twice the normal play for the '06 at the base...

Why not (lol!) posting both the bulged '06 case and the real X62 case for people to see the difference?
 
Whelen B said:
You meant 105% I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected again. 114% of what the Whelen can do. 286 grainers are 114% the size of 250's (given the two most common "heavy bullets" for comparison). 286's also have 110% the SD 250 grainers in the 35 cal and 108% of the BC of the 250's.

Just accept how much better the 9.3 is already!

:D
 
Baribal said:
Yes, Ted, I understand. Same thing when there was nothing better than belted brass to make the .280 Ross. With the coming of the .375 Ruger, the bulged case days are now gone and we can safely reload for the .280

Still, if we compare the '06 tolerances when used in the X62, the play is still twice the normal play for the '06 at the base...

Why not (lol!) posting both the bulged '06 case and the real X62 case for people to see the difference?
Click to expand...

I will do that in the new thread, and post the link here. Actually the bulge is barely noticeable, certainly not anything near the 20 thousandths sometimes posted about.

Curious if you have ever actually fired any, or seen a fired 9.3X62 case made from '06 brass?

Edit: Back home, formed five brass today, loaded them up and went to the range. Here's the new thread, http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=663917

Best,
Ted
 
Last edited:
Just accept how much better the 9.3 is already!
Click to expand...

OK it's better - by "some". It's a GREAT cartridge IMO though I've not YET owned one. I have a 35AI which will be pretty much a close case capacity and case shape too - so I know it's "some" better.

I can see why you would compare 9.3 286s to 358 250s. But like the Colonel himself, I sometimes shoot/hunt heavier bullets - 286gr, 300gr and 310gr - from my standard 35Whelens. But that is no longer "common" to use your word. Point taken. But that has not always been the norm. It's reported the Colonel favoured loading IMR4350 behind a 275gr Hornady for 2375MV and behind a 300 Barnes for 2350MV. Both bullets he used are discontinued now (I have a stash of 300s he liked). Also there are better powders now to up that somewhat. Woodleigh 310s can be launched between 2300MV (Double Tap) and 2400MV (HOT I think - from Geoff of Woodleigh Bullets) from a 35 Whelen with a 24" tube. I've never tried to reach those levels myself but I could I think - maybe. But just knowing what those SD rich missiles will do just cruising along anywhere around 2000, I've not bothered yet.

My starting load with sized down 286s went 2320MV from only a 22" tube (16twist) - never got back to trying for more velocity - 200yd target here http://35cal.com/images/targ286gr_200yd.jpg

BTW sizing down the 9.3 286gr pills betters the SD from .305 to .319 - almost 5% better for the 35 Whelen - since we are splitting hairs here anyway:D Oh - and no one NEEDS more than good 250s in their 35whelen in N. America IMO.

35s are my thing but I could easily become a 9.3x62 devotee. Wouldn't take much of a nudge at all.

Best Regards,

Whelen B

PS - bullets on right of box are all sized to .358 - seated in cutaway 35Whelen and 350WSM

366to358_resizing_1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom