Question about the low pressure of 9.3x62

bearkilr said:
My point was that you can doctor up the numbers all you like, but the x62 won't match the potential performance of the x64. Not that there's anything wrong with the 9.3x62, but don't make it out to be something it's not.
Click to expand...

Well that didnt come out the way I had written it missing a couple of sentences , my point was I am not implying its a 64, only reitterating what was stated on Bob's website by Bob and trying to clarify why. Nor did I doctor any numbers , I posted my loads ballistic data here for all to see, they are real numbers and its a real load and you are free to peruse it at your leisure and draw your own conclusions. If you want to know the gritty details PM me and I'll share it with you.
 
Last edited:
BwanaDave said:
Well that didnt come out the way I had written it missing a couple of sentences , my point was I am not implying its a 64, only reitterating what was stated on Bob's website by Bob and trying to clarify why. Nor did I doctor any numbers , I posted my loads ballistic data here for all to see, they are real numbers and its a real load and you are free to peruse it at your leisure and draw your own conclusions. If you want to know the gritty details PM me and I'll share it with you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer but I'll have to pass. I've been shooting the x62 for a good number of years and I like it just fine at the velocities I've been using and at the ranges I believe it was designed for. I have a 338 WM, 300 WM, 375 and a host of others that'll do me for when I feel like reaching out a little further. I do believe a large part of the 9.3's success stems from the performance you get at what most would call low velocities. Not every caliber and bullet does well if you push the envelope. Look at the 460 Wby. Quite a few guys report bullet disintegration when you're not using very heavily constructed ammo, yet the 458 WM and even the Lott do just fine with pretty much all bullets at lower speeds.
 
owlowl said:
http://www.hornady.com/store/9.3X62-286-gr-SP-RP/

I might be reading something wrong, but that trajectory table is quite clear.
Click to expand...

It is apparently clear for the bullet mentioned, at 2360 fps, zeroed at 100 meters. BC of .400 for that bullet. So, you would suppose that's the best performance to be expected from this cartridge??

I also wonder how the trajectory would change if the 9.3 listed at the Hornady site, was zeroed at 200 meters like the other cartridges you mentioned are?

If the 9.3x62 is turned up another 8,000 or 10,000 psi, why is it considered then to be running over pressure, when it's being brought up to the same pressure that other cartridges in the same firearm would run?
 
Last edited:
BwanaDave said:
Bob has run 286 partitions at over 2600 fps out of his 22" tikka 9.3 x62 using reloader 17 as he states and provides a picture of the chronograph on his blog. He's been around long enough to know if the recipe is safe in his own particular rifle and if you read the blog he calculates the difference between the 9.3x64 and the 9.3x62 velocity with the same projectile and COAL at 40 fps loaded to the same pressure.
It works for him,
I use about 4 grains less of the same propellant than Bob in different cases and easily exceed 2500 fps with my 23.5" barreled x62 and the 286 partition with its .405 bc making it an honest 300 + yard rifle with absolutely no more case head expansion or pressure indication than the same bullet running 2400 with RL 15, actually its probably less and brass lasts forever with primer pockets remaining tight.
Each to their own and I'm not advocating anyone do the same.

Oh it shoots damn well to boot with three usually under an inch @ 100
Click to expand...

at high pressure if i remember well the precision was not there.

John Barsness published 60000 psi data a while ago for the 9,3x62 i think it was already enough ... if there is not enough power with the published datas that has been there for a while you need a really bigger caliber but the 9,3x62 is really good already ...
 
saskgunowner101 said:
It is apparently clear for the bullet mentioned, at 2360 fps, zeroed at 100 meters. BC of .400 for that bullet. So, you would suppose that's the best performance to be expected from this cartridge??

I also wonder how the trajectory would change if the 9.3 listed at the Hornady site, was zeroed at 200 meters like the other cartridges you mentioned are?

If the 9.3x62 is turned up another 8,000 or 10,000 psi, why is it considered then to be running over pressure, when it's being brought up to the same pressure that other cartridges in the same firearm would run?
Click to expand...

The problem is, really; how can one know what's the real pressure he is dealing with without the proper instruments to measure it?
The only way an ordinary man can guestimate (and it's still an estimate) the pressure of a load is by using strain guages.... and very few around here have them.
 
We can go by published load data that includes pressure, and extrapolate, or use software like "Quickload" to estimate (and validate the extrapolation), we can observe increases in MV and infer the % pressure increase, measure casehead expansion, etc.

Fact is however, no-one really knows within much better than 20% what the actual pressure is with their components, in their gun, on the day they shot it. That's why "max loads" are usually no more than 2/3 of what the gun can handle.
 
While I agree these are all tools in our toolbag, the thing is, the "case expansion method" and even the "primer deformation method" have been known for erratic results and criticized since over 70 years - and their inaccuracy in some situations is very well documented.
Same goes with the Copper Unit of Pressure, which have been the reference for so long and now proven uneffective and inacurrate at certain ranges of pressure when compared to pressure transducers. Both methods (case expansion and CUP) do not take in count rapid pressure peaks neither.
Quickload (a great tool) does not take in count the barrel / chamber condition and can't predict, say, the drag of a very rough or dirty barrel.
While working up loads with published datas and looking for these pressure signs is good practice, this still leaves us in the guestimation area - still far from the lab.

And then, in today people's mind a 20% (more or less 10%) tolerance is huge and most don't realize how much it is.... there is kinda mentality that if a gun is proof tested at 1.25 times the MAP, then, it should take that amount of pressure on a common basis without a problem...
 
Of course a fellow can run handloads past 56 000 psi if wanted; but paying attention to the rifle your handloads are being used in is going to be critical if you start doing this.

A Ruger #1 in 9.3 x 62 would be able to swallow a steady diet of high pressure handloads that would quickly ruin a Mauser 96. So just keep in mind what rifle you are using, and don't try and turn that small ring mauser in 9.3 x 62 into a poor man's .375 H&H.
 
bearkilr said:
Thanks for the offer but I'll have to pass. I've been shooting the x62 for a good number of years and I like it just fine at the velocities I've been using and at the ranges I believe it was designed for. I have a 338 WM, 300 WM, 375 and a host of others that'll do me for when I feel like reaching out a little further. I do believe a large part of the 9.3's success stems from the performance you get at what most would call low velocities. Not every caliber and bullet does well if you push the envelope. Look at the 460 Wby. Quite a few guys report bullet disintegration when you're not using very heavily constructed ammo, yet the 458 WM and even the Lott do just fine with pretty much all bullets at lower speeds.
Click to expand...

Hey no problem, not my intent to twist your arm one way or another
Had my fair share of 458's, 375's 338's and 300's too and have been fiddling with x62's (5) since sometime in the 90's even built one over three beers in an afternoon once
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/219549-low-budget-9-3x62-ramblings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom