Some datas and readings about the 9,3x62

M

medvedqc

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
266   0   2
Location
Whitehorse, YT
after some exchanges i propose to all of you to includes all the datas,links and readings on the lovely 9,3x62.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/Copper_Manual4/9-3x62mm.pdf
http://www.barnesbullets.com/copper_manual/93x62mm.pdf
 
great idea. I am going to buy some bullets from Matrix, 270 grn, if Ted can share his data,that will be very helpful as I will be in a very dangerous situation while grizzly hunting this spring.
 
This one has been making the rounds for some time but the information is still valid and the sources cited are a who's who of gunwriting. It was based on this data that I developed my 9.3x62 load with 186gr Norma RN.
93x62-RL15-loads.jpg
 
elker said:
I will be in a very dangerous situation while grizzly hunting this spring.
Click to expand...

Walking through thick brush with a dead beaver tied to your leg?


BUM - Good loads there with RL15. Have you played around with RL17?
 
My two favorite powders in my '62 are RL15 and Varget with the accuracy and velocity edge going to Varget. With both I use 58-59 grs. Velocities are 2350-2400 fps out of a 21" barrel.

This target was shot a few years ago. Except for powder, the loads were identical. Norma brass, CCI200 primers, COAL.

P8140009Labeled.jpg


Varget is also good behind the Speer 270 bullets. Unfortunately I haven't been able to duplicate the event.

200metergroup.jpg
 
1899 said:
BUM - Good loads there with RL15. Have you played around with RL17?
Click to expand...

Haven't tried it at all. I know there were good results acheived with it and it could probably offer another hundred or so FPS but I'm not sure that I'd want to have that much fun with my rifle weighing 7lb 11oz. I would be willing to bet that it could make the 250 Accubond trot right along and flatten the trajectory out a fair amount. Could be a good open country loading.
 
BUM - yes, it might make for a good open country load. Lapua data shows just over 2600 fps with the 250gr Accubond and the new(ish) N540. That would give you a PBR ( +/- 3") of almost 275 yards. Not bad at all for an old "short range" chambering. ;)
 
The thing with RL17 is that there is no reliable book data for its use with the '62 so folks may be reluctant to experiment. My research told me that burning rate is very similar to H4350. So I tried that. Started at 64 gr and went to 67. No conventional pressure sign(primers still rounded and tight, easy extraction, no extracter marks on the brass). But I've also read that pressures can go from ok to 'holy s___" with a small increase and with no warning.

At 67 gr, my velocity was 2454 fps out of a 21" barrel. Recoil was brisk with my 8 lb rifle.
 
Those Vihtavuori powder numbers make my teeth hurt just looking at them. 2300 fps with a 320gr Woodleigh? I bet it would hit like a runaway truck though.

I have some N540, now that I think about it. Hmm...
 
BUM - I had a T3 Lite in .338 WM and with a Leupold 2.5x Compact it weighed 6.5lbs on my kitchen scale. With the hockey puck recoil pad the 250gr Partitions were not really fun at the bench. Compared side by side with a Ruger Alaskan in .375 Ruger, the felt recoil was pretty close to equal. But part of the issue, I think, is that the T3 moves back really quickly due to the light weight and relatively fast muzzle velocity. Having said that, your 9.3 should have just under 40ft-lbs of recoil with that 320gr load - the .338 WM had about 45 ft-lbs. So, I suspect that the 9.3 with that load would, depending on the stock design, have noticeable recoil at the bench.
 
Worst kicking rifle I ever fired was a 300 WSM custom build, had a synthetic stock,(don't remember the make), carbon fibre 20" barrel, lightweight everything. Weighed 5.6 lbs with a full magazine. That thing tried to leap out of your hands when fired, I hated it. Never will I own a rifle too light for caliber.

I seriously want a 9.3 but when I do I want it 9lbs plus with scope and sling.
 
Cleftwynd said:
Worst kicking rifle I ever fired was a 300 WSM custom build, had a synthetic stock,(don't remember the make), carbon fibre 20" barrel, lightweight everything. Weighed 5.6 lbs with a full magazine. That thing tried to leap out of your hands when fired, I hated it. Never will I own a rifle too light for caliber.

I seriously want a 9.3 but when I do I want it 9lbs plus with scope and sling.
Click to expand...

From the bench my 9.3 does want you to be sitting up and holding the forend, not cradling the butt with your off hand but it's not really that bad. When you're shooting offhand or kneeling it hardly moves due to the stock shape. I think that 9lbs+ would be heavier than necessary. 8.5lbs would be plenty, I'm sure. Add a Leupold 2.5-8x to my rifle and you're at 8lb 10oz fully loaded. I bet it'd hunt like a dream. Maybe for my next 9.3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom