IMR4451 in 9.3x62 and Other Options

Sharps45-70

Sharps45-70

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Location
Edmonton
I'm loading some 9.3x62 with bullets from 225 to 320 grains. I have a bunch of 4451 on hand, but not much else. Does anyone have any load information for this cartridge and powder? I have lots of data for other powders but not these newer ones yet. It is in a Mauser 98 actioned rifle so top loads are fine. Are there any other lesser-used powders (not Varget, etc.) that also perform well in this cartridge?

Thanks!
 
4451 is a touch slow imo. I ran some data through GRT, and 60gr with 285gr bullet should be a good starting point, & work up from there.

RL15 is what I use, but anything with a similar burn rate would be as good... Varget, N203B, 4064. I've heard of guys using CFE223, but I don't have any to try. Ramshot Big Game seems to be popular as well.
 
IMR4451 would be a good choice for bullets of 285 gr and heavier, and while it won't provide top velocities for bullets lighter than that, there's no reason it can't be used - probably with a full case of powder.

H4350 data is available and approximates it. If you have a chronograph (and H4350) construct several identical loads with both powders and compare MV's to get a sense of their relative Burn Rates in the 9.3X62 with those bullet weights in your rifle. This is done all the time for powders for which there are no published loads.
 
Last edited:
I would tend to agree with what Andy has said above. I've tried IMR-4350 with 286 grain bullets in my 9.3x62, and I ran out of room long before I hit any great velocities. IIRC it was around 2,200 fps with a heavily compressed load. It shot well, but it wasn't there pressure or velocity wise. If you're okay with losing a little bit of speed off the top, I'm sure no deer/moose/bear/target will ever know.

Burn rate chart showing "relative" position in the pack
https://imrpowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2020-burn-rate-chart.pdf

vmd chart showing how fluffy or dense a powder is compared to others

https://leeprecision.com/files/instruct/VMD.pdf

literature showing 4451 is a double base powder aka a little more bang for your buck *I think*

https://imrpowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/double-base-enduron-canada.pdf

But based on density and burn rate, you're not coloring outside the lines too much here.
 
I tried IMR4350 with 286 Barnes but couldn't get any velocity out of it, no matter how much I poured into the case, even using old X Bullet data. I suspect that my rifle just doesn't make enough pressure with the Barnes to build any velocity. When I switched to RL15 and Norma bullets I got them up to 2350 where I was satisfied. They worked well enough.
 
Does anything exist for BL-C(2)? I’ve heard some people get great performance from this, but data isn’t in any of my books. Maybe I just need new books!
 
As per Post #4 and the OP request for "lesser used" powders - was no big deal, at all, to get 2,475 fps with 285 grain bullets and Big Game powder. Just follow the pressure tested developments published by John Barsness, as I did. But, as I have found out, "Big Game" powder by Ramshot is not something to come across every day. And there is a thought that 2,475 fps with 285 grain from a 9.3x62, is really just a bit too much to attempt, with most bullets.

Working up to Barsness's loads over my Shooting Chrony, I was getting closer to 2,500 fps at his published maximum, using PPU bullets - in a Husqvarna M98 rifle with 600 mm barrel - so about 23 5/8".
 
I just found 4lbs of AR Comp in the bottom of a Rubbermaid...spring cleaning haha.

Anybody used it in the 9.3? I used it a bit in 223 and 6BRA but was never better than H4895 in those rounds.
 
Potashminer said:
As per Post #4 and the OP request for "lesser used" powders - was no big deal, at all, to get 2,475 fps with 285 grain bullets and Big Game powder. Just follow the pressure tested developments published by John Barsness, as I did. But, as I have found out, "Big Game" powder by Ramshot is not something to come across every day. And there is a thought that 2,475 fps with 285 grain from a 9.3x62, is really just a bit too much to attempt, with most bullets.

Working up to Barsness's loads over my Shooting Chrony, I was getting closer to 2,500 fps at his published maximum, using PPU bullets - in a Husqvarna M98 rifle with 600 mm barrel - so about 23 5/8".
Click to expand...

I am of the understanding that Big Game is one of the preferred powders for 9.3x62, along with Varget and RL15. All are impossible to find of course, and my stockpile of Varget is almost caput.

I was able to find fairly consistent reference online to some loads that pushed 286 grain bullets to 2500-2600 FPS with various powders. That’s into 9.3x64 territory and definitely hauling. Seems like a bit much to me, but who knows.
 
Sharps45-70 said:
I am of the understanding that Big Game is one of the preferred powders for 9.3x62, along with Varget and RL15. All are impossible to find of course, and my stockpile of Varget is almost caput.

I was able to find fairly consistent reference online to some loads that pushed 286 grain bullets to 2500-2600 FPS with various powders. That’s into 9.3x64 territory and definitely hauling. Seems like a bit much to me, but who knows.
Click to expand...

The other 9.3x62 loading from Barsness that I worked up to - Varget and 250 Accubond - resulted in multiple triangular 3 shot groups at 100 yards from sand bags - about 3/4" hole to hole - so I am quite okay with that. Is actually the loading that I have in the rifle when in I am in the back yard to get black bears to move along, and to quit hassling the dog (or maybe the "hassling" is the other way around?). I have not had to fire yet, but am very confident with that loading, that it will take care of business. Other than that, simply nothing out here in Western Manitoba that warrants much more? Nearby neighbours out at the same task with 303 British and 30-06 - so all seem to be fine for that duty?

Why I liked the Barness information - he had it pressure tested at Western Powder's lab in Myles City, Montana - so he is confident he is at or slightly below 30-06 pressure levels, which is slightly more than traditional 9.3x62. If you subscribe to notion that muzzle velocity is strongly related to pressure, (adjusting for barrel length) you are not going to go past 2,500 fps with 286 bullets in 9.3x62, without going well past traditional pressure levels.
 
Potashminer said:
The other 9.3x62 loading from Barsness that I worked up to - Varget and 250 Accubond - resulted in multiple triangular 3 shot groups at 100 yards from sand bags - about 3/4" hole to hole - so I am quite okay with that. Is actually the loading that I have in the rifle when in I am in the back yard to get black bears to move along, and to quit hassling the dog (or maybe the "hassling" is the other way around?). I have not had to fire yet, but am very confident with that loading, that it will take care of business. Other than that, simply nothing out here in Western Manitoba that warrants much more? Nearby neighbours out at the same task with 303 British and 30-06 - so all seem to be fine for that duty?

Why I liked the Barness information - he had it pressure tested at Western Powder's lab in Myles City, Montana - so he is confident he is at or slightly below 30-06 pressure levels, which is slightly more than traditional 9.3x62. If you subscribe to notion that muzzle velocity is strongly related to pressure, (adjusting for barrel length) you are not going to go past 2,500 fps with 286 bullets in 9.3x62, without going well past traditional pressure levels.
Click to expand...

What is the "traditional pressure level" for the 9.3X62 and why is it important not to exceed it?
 
I think that you will find that 9.3x62 is called out by SAAMI and CIP to slightly lower peak pressures than 30-06 - so SAAMI calls out like 57,000 psi, by piezometer method, I think, and CIP calls out 50,000 CUP, by copper pellet crusher method - but you should look that up. Was exact question that Barsness guy asked - why could 9.3x62 not be bumped up to 30-06 levels, if that rifle was made commercially for either. He used a CZ of some sort - same rifle also offered in 30-06 - he asked why he could not go to that higher pressure - and tested that pressure at Western Powder lab - he was not "guessing" at that pressure that he arrived at. Apparently gets a bit more "iffy" with elderly rifles - especially those originally chambered for 9.3x57 - some years before 30-06 even invented. Or, just go with what you get - if still have both eyes and all fingers, your rifle has not blown up - yet.

Is, I think, sort of a North American thing that "faster" must be "better" - perhaps Jack O'Connor did win his 20 year argument in magazine articles over Elmer Keith - I think the 9.3x62 was designed by Otto Bock to be for German settlers in Africa colonies - had to be inexpensive - so had to fit into a standard 8x57 Mauser action. Had to work - something is out there in the night after your cows - you go out there with a rifle and a lantern - had to be able to deal with whatever Africa offered, about then. Or you find a herd of elephants is tearing apart your orchard. Or you find rhino or hippo's cleaning up your crop. I think they got to choose soft or solid bullets - was mostly all 285 grain or similar, I think - and they worked, at the 1920's velocities. So we think we can make them work "better" by going faster??
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
I think that you will find that 9.3x62 is called out by SAAMI and CIP to slightly lower peak pressures than 30-06 - so SAAMI calls out like 57,000 psi, by piezometer method, I think, and CIP calls out 50,000 CUP, by copper pellet crusher method - but you should look that up. Was exact question that Barsness guy asked - why could 9.3x62 not be bumped up to 30-06 levels, if that rifle was made commercially for either. He used a CZ of some sort - same rifle also offered in 30-06 - he asked why he could not go to that higher pressure - and tested that pressure at Western Powder lab - he was not "guessing" at that pressure that he arrived at. Apparently gets a bit more "iffy" with elderly rifles - especially those originally chambered for 9.3x57 - some years before 30-06 even invented. Or, just go with what you get - if still have both eyes and all fingers, your rifle has not blown up - yet.

Is, I think, sort of a North American thing that "faster" must be "better" - perhaps Jack O'Connor did win his 20 year argument in magazine articles over Elmer Keith - I think the 9.3x62 was designed by Otto Bock to be for German settlers in Africa colonies - had to be inexpensive - so had to fit into a standard 8x57 Mauser action. Had to work - something is out there in the night after your cows - you go out there with a rifle and a lantern - had to be able to deal with whatever Africa offered, about then. Or you find a herd of elephants is tearing apart your orchard. Or you find rhino or hippo's cleaning up your crop. I think they got to choose soft or solid bullets - was mostly all 285 grain or similar, I think - and they worked, at the 1920's velocities. So we think we can make them work "better" by going faster??
Click to expand...

While I largely agree and echo with what you're saying, there are definitely benefits to pushing bullets faster. Whether it is increased range, seeking a certain impact velocity for a specific bullet design, or just pursuing sheer stopping power, there are valid reasons. Whether they are entirely necessary is debatable, but they are goals nonetheless. What I think becomes the issue is the diminishing returns between pressure increases and velocity increases. It just gets simply too hard on brass, the stock, and the shooter at some point. There are some powders that can take advantage of longer barrels without driving pressure too high, so they are a little easier on everything, but it can be a battle trying to find the right powder/bullet combination.

I believe, and especially in this caliber, that heavy and slow is the way to go. Certainly 286's at 2400 fps will do whatever you need them to. 9.3x62 can be pushed harder now than ever before, so the options are there in the right action if the shooter feels it's necessary.
 
Is, I think what the long going argument between O'Connor and Keith was about. Jack got aligned with the 130 grain 270 - for that era, very fast and flat shooting, he said. Elmer had a velocity in mind - 2600 fps?? - if his rifle cartridge designs had more capacity, then he wanted heavier bullets, not faster. I am not sure either really did want the argument to be finished - both were causing bazillion copies of Outdoor Life and Guns & Ammo magazines to sell. Both guys pulled off hellaciously long kill shots in their day - with their "babies". Is most notable to me that Jack's wife Eleanor took many head of game when on the various trips with Jack - and she used a 7x57. So not fast like 270 Win, nor heavy hitter like Elmer's 338's. She just killed stuff - mostly very dead.

I do not have, nor will I have experience like Dr. Don Heath to drive a bullet through a 7 ton elephant's skull with 9.3x62 - but it was done - is actually pictures of that shot. From people with a LOT more experience than I will ever have - is a thing about "straight line" for penetration - drive a bullet too fast and it goes sideways on impact - not good, if you need to penetrate a couple feet of stuff to get to the vitals. But is nothing around here like that. Is an old guy I met in bush some hours from here - he thinks his 22 Magnum is about the most perfect cartridge for everything that North Sask bush has out there.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
I think that you will find that 9.3x62 is called out by SAAMI and CIP to slightly lower peak pressures than 30-06 - so SAAMI calls out like 57,000 psi, by piezometer method, I think, and CIP calls out 50,000 CUP, by copper pellet crusher method - but you should look that up. Was exact question that Barsness guy asked - why could 9.3x62 not be bumped up to 30-06 levels, if that rifle was made commercially for either. He used a CZ of some sort - same rifle also offered in 30-06 - he asked why he could not go to that higher pressure - and tested that pressure at Western Powder lab - he was not "guessing" at that pressure that he arrived at. Apparently gets a bit more "iffy" with elderly rifles - especially those originally chambered for 9.3x57 - some years before 30-06 even invented. Or, just go with what you get - if still have both eyes and all fingers, your rifle has not blown up - yet.

Is, I think, sort of a North American thing that "faster" must be "better" - perhaps Jack O'Connor did win his 20 year argument in magazine articles over Elmer Keith - I think the 9.3x62 was designed by Otto Bock to be for German settlers in Africa colonies - had to be inexpensive - so had to fit into a standard 8x57 Mauser action. Had to work - something is out there in the night after your cows - you go out there with a rifle and a lantern - had to be able to deal with whatever Africa offered, about then. Or you find a herd of elephants is tearing apart your orchard. Or you find rhino or hippo's cleaning up your crop. I think they got to choose soft or solid bullets - was mostly all 285 grain or similar, I think - and they worked, at the 1920's velocities. So we think we can make them work "better" by going faster??
Click to expand...


To summarize the above, the pressure to which you load should defer to the firearm in which it's used. No-one will disagree with that, but as this is the Reloading Forum, I'll dispense with discussions of history and tradition and how fast is too fast for hunting and the like.

Even though SAAMI pressure for the 9.3X62 is 56.5K psi, I'll shoot it at higher pressures (if I want) in an action designed for 30-06 (60K psi) or even 300 Win Mag (64K psi), and not be concerned about safety.

I shoot 45 Colt (14K psi) in my Puma M92 at 44 Mag (36K psi) and could go to 454 Casull pressures (65K psi) if I wanted, though I don't. In an old handgun, of course I'd stay at SAAMI (14K psi). Brass is made that can easily handle that.

I have shot 45 ACP (21K psi) in a strong handgun with strong brass at 44 Mag pressures as have several others here and we've shared that.

No-one with a Ruger No 1 in 45-70, would stick with 28K psi (SAAMI for 45-70), and many go much higher.

I could provide many other examples.
 
Andy said:
To summarize the above, the pressure to which you load should defer to the firearm in which it's used. No-one will disagree with that, but as this is the Reloading Forum, I'll dispense with discussions of history and tradition and how fast is too fast for hunting and the like.

Even though SAAMI pressure for the 9.3X62 is 56.5K psi, I'll shoot it at higher pressures (if I want) in an action designed for 30-06 (60K psi) or even 300 Win Mag (64K psi), and not be concerned about safety.

I shoot 45 Colt (14K psi) in my Puma M92 at 44 Mag (36K psi) and could go to 454 Casull pressures (65K psi) if I wanted, though I don't. In an old handgun, of course I'd stay at SAAMI (14K psi). Brass is made that can easily handle that.

I have shot 45 ACP (21K psi) in a strong handgun with strong brass at 44 Mag pressures as have several others here and we've shared that.

No-one with a Ruger No 1 in 45-70, would stick with 28K psi (SAAMI for 45-70), and many go much higher.

I could provide many other examples.
Click to expand...

That's some good info. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom