What a difference a throat makes!

Why not?

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.8%
585   1   1
A few guys have asked about the throats in their 9.3X62 and 9.3X57 rifles. Some throats are quite deep, while others are quite shallow, and this can be a source of no small amount of misunderstanding when comparing, and sharing, load data.

IIRC, it was BUM, a very experienced reloader, who posted a few years ago that he could not seat X bullets out far enough to contact the rifling in his Husqvarna at all. Round Nose bullets were part of the answer to his situation.

Others have discovered that bullets of less pointed profiles could not be seated out to take full advantage of the magazine length.

This 285 gr 0 ogive bullet must be seated very deep in my custom pre-64 chambered in 9.3X62 (top in picture), but chambers just fine seated way out in one of my Husqvarnas (bottom). It should do great in BUMs rifle.

IMGP4426.jpg


This photo illustrates a fairly deep freebore in another 9.3X62. It was shown clearly by partially seating a bullet, upside down, and allowing the bolt to finish seating as it came into contact with the beginning of the rifling in the chamber. There is almost 1 1/4 caliber of throat before the rifling begins. The long-throated Husqvarna from the picture above has more than two calibers of freebore!

4be9efece692cbedd3db0a1733858874.jpg


The point is, that all chambers are not the same. They vary, and sometimes greatly, and hence velocities achieved safely do as well. Longer throats, or freebore, effectively increase the chamber capacity of a rifle barrel during firing, with consequently lower pressure using the same load.

Some of the Weatherby cartridges have throats that are more than two calibers in length, and use that advantage to achieve very high velocities. As well, rifles throats wear with use, and a rifle that has several thousand rounds down the tube can be getting far more velocity than when it was new. River Rat has a 358 Norma Mag that he got in 1973. When we first started loading for it, it would barely reach 2800 fps with 250 Speers. Today, it has over 2000 rounds down the tube, and he routinely loads it to over 2900 with good case life and tight primer pockets.


Note: Loads that would be perfectly safe in the deep throat of one rifle, will generate more pressure in another rifle with a very short throat. This is true of all cartridges, not just the 9.3 family.

Post away with your learning experiences, good and bad. Perhaps we can save someone a bit of grief, or at least save them some time.

Ted
 
Last edited:
You'll get no argument from me on this subject. Every chamber is different, that is one reason i don't pay much attention to published oal figures in reload books. I don't know if it is just the rifles i have bought lately or what but it seems the throats are longer. I just keep on doing what i learned many years ago and tailor the load to the rifle.
 
I also develope and designate loads to specific guns... not just to specific cartridges... I some cases, as with all of my K-Hornets and my .358 Win's, the chambers were cut with the same reamer and throated identically (for all practical purposes)... this allows swapping ammo... anyone who loads for a certain cartridge in multiple platforms knows that not all loads will function in all chambers of same caliber. Labelling well is a good part of the remedy... brass comes out of the labeled box and straight back in after firing... as you point out there is no guarantee that loads from one will achieve equal results in another... or even that fire formed brass will chamber in another gun. This why all load manuals have "starting" loads and "maximum" loads... and why the old adage is true... "start low and work up."
 
This is a very good post for new and not so new reloaders. Many times the questions is asked about the OAL for a specific cartridge when it should be how to determine it for a specific rifle.
 
So say your rifle has a long throat, do you think there is a pressure difference between seating the bullet closer to the rifling as opposed to seating the bullets deeper to fit in a magazine. I guess what i'm wondering is if the extra case capacity you gain from having a long throat would still lower the pressure if you have to seat your bullets deeper to fit in a magazine.
 
European made rifles, made under CIP, tend to show longer engaging cones, hence the longer leade, while SAAMI spec'd made chambers often show very steep angles with short cones, leading to a short leade.
 
Excellent post Ted and what you've said echoes much of what I've run into with my initial checks and reloads for my recently acquired M-70 Zastava,;)in .366 Wagner:). Thanks again.
 
Also the larger the diameter of the bullet the more case capacity you gain when seating long. A 22 cal. seated .10" longer gains almost nothing where as a 45 cal seated .10" longer gains more.

The 9.3 stands to gain a fair amount of case capacity.
 
Excellent post Ted and what you've said echoes much of what I've run into with my initial checks and reloads for my recently acquired M-70 Zastava,;)in .366 Wagner:). Thanks again.

In addition I found with the maximum possible reliable length of my magazine, 3.400" would be the longest length I could handle. Using the 285gr Prvi bullets I picked up at a recent show in Duncan I made up a dummy round with just enough interference on the neck to hold the bullet. Chambering it, the C.O.A.L. came out at 3.418" when it contacted the lands. Doing the same with a 286gr Barnes TSX FB that I picked up at the 'candy store' in Naniamo, the C.O.A.L. hitting the lands was 3.453". Anyway, bottem line, my max could be 3.400" or less. With the 285gr Prvi, I decided on or went with a max of 3.323" as I didn't like how little of bullet was being held by the neck but also at this length, I could put a light roll crimp on the bottem groove of the bullet. 1st trip to the range with some initial test rounds, then my 1st batch of reloads, I was pleasantly suprised and I've posted these results on another thread.





In the majority of cases with other rifle calibres I reload for, generally speaking, my best accuracy results are when I've minimized the freebore to 0.005" - 0.010". In my .366 Wagner, I'm about 0.077" off of the lands with the 285gr Prvi. I haven't reloaded any of the 286gr TSX Barnes yet but in their manual, the 'suggest' a maximum C.O.A.L. of 3.205". In my rifle, with the Barnes contacting the lands at 3.453" and their max 'suggestion' of 3.205" that would give me a freebore of 0.248"!! Yikes! Even with my possible max of 3.400", that's still a freebore of 0.053"! This 'seems' to go against everything I've found to work well for me in past but I can't agrue with the results I've got so far.
 
Great post Ted!

I recently had some experience with a very long throat in my Zastava 7x64. Max published loads came no where near the velocity listed and showed signs of very low pressure. I carefully worked up past published data until I was achieving the velocity that the cartridge is capable of. Below is a link with a little more info.

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...r-than-expected-velocity-from-a-7x64-Brenneke
 
Each rifle varies from another..even the same rifles. Here's one for an example : I used two k98k German mauser sporter , both made in 1944 , both made at the same company DOU. One rifle shot 100fts slow than another . Big difference for the same rifles.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, it was BUM, a very experienced reloader, who posted a few years ago that he could not seat X bullets out far enough to contact the rifling in his Husqvarna at all. Round Nose bullets were part of the answer to his situation.

Others have discovered that bullets of less pointed profiles could not be seated out to take full advantage of the magazine length.

This 285 gr 0 ogive bullet must be seated very deep in my custom pre-64 chambered in 9.3X62 (top in picture), but chambers just fine seated way out in one of my Husqvarnas (bottom). It should do great in BUMs rifle.

Ted

Actually, I think Ted is half right on this one. My complaint with the 286 TSX was that I couldn't get enough powder into the case to get the bullets over 2000 fps. My guess was that with the slightly oversized chamber in my rifle and the extreme length of the 286 TSX (they look like a plumb-bob without the string) coupled to result in the poor performance. I literally poured in so much IMR4350 that I had to seat the bullets in my 416 Rigby dies using the RN seating stem (the first bullets stuck in the spritzer stem and had to be popped out with pliers!). I was nervous to the point that I took a friend to the range with me...just in case. The load was from the Barnes manual for the old 286 X-bullet and with the added length of the TSX the case ran out of space. If memory serves I only for 1950 FPS. Barnes doesn't list very high velocities in the 9.3x62 (they insist of using the old name) with the 286 TSX so I can only deduce that they couldn't get 2400 out of their test barrels despite best efforts. That can only mean that the 286 TSX is too long for the x62. I switched to 286gr Norma RNs (thanks to Ted) and RL15 for a pleasant 2350fps. It should be noted that my loads are over maximum due to the large chamber in my rifle.

I measured the freebore in my rifle after reading through this thread. I dropped one of those blunt-ended 320 Matrix RNs (again, thanks Ted) in upside down since they have an essentially square heel. The measurement from bolt face to rifling was 2.69" with an empty case measuring 2.441". That leaves me with just about .250" freebore. Now I'm curious if I'll be able to stuff those 320 grainers far enough into the case to fit in the chamber. If winter ever stops down here (can anyone explain to me why it was -20C last night in Southern Nova Scotia?) I will take advantage of the DNR range down the road and see what a stout charge of RL15 or maybe even N550 will do with them. Then I'll shoot one of these overgrown German Shepherds they call deer down here with them.
 
Yes, I agree with Ted on his methodology as well.

I always target .005" - .010" as my initial clearance between bullet and leade.

I do not own a lot of rifles with short magazines [except the Short action 700 Remmys.]

Of course for monometal bullets, I start longer, about .050" and work from there.

I completely ignore the COL's that are used/suggested in loading manuals, and adjust as
needed for individual firearms.

For the majority of applications, the results have been gratifying.

Regards, Dave.
 
Yes, I agree with Ted on his methodology as well.

I always target .005" - .010" as my initial clearance between bullet and leade.I do not own a lot of rifles with short magazines [except the Short action 700 Remmys.]

Of course for monometal bullets, I start longer, about .050" and work from there.

I completely ignore the COL's that are used/suggested in loading manuals, and adjust as
needed for individual firearms.

For the majority of applications, the results have been gratifying.

Regards, Dave.

I agree as well. Some of my best accuracy in a number of my rifles has been when I've gone to the same 0.005" - 0.010" as you have. As a few examples.







It now appears that some of my theories on improved accuracy results as being highly influenced by minimizing freebore may have went out of the window.:confused: The results obtained with my recent acquisition and a freebore of about 0.077" with my initial reloads for it, seem to contridict my previous theories.

 
Back
Top Bottom