9.3x62 vs 9.3x64

[Brown Dog]

Some of you may remember that a few months ago I posted a few questions about my proposed spec for a 9.3x62 project.

I have just received my updated license. It authorises me to buy one '9.3mm rifle'.
This ,of course, frees me up to buy any 9.3 calibre rifle.

......my thoughts have turned to 9.3x64.

Read an old Boddington article that rates it as a 375 equivalent; but I'm not clear what action size / bolt face it would require.

The 9.3x62 is virtually a necked up 30-06 and therefore comparatively simple to sort on a standard action.

Does a change to 9.3x64 introduce a host of problems (not just in terms of the rifle itself, but also in terms of ammo and reloading eqpt availability.)

- and one further bit of nitty-gritty- I was planning a 22" barrel on a 9.3x62 -presumably a 9.3x64 would benefit from a longer barrel)?

Any advice gratefully received!

Thanks in advance.

 

[nowler]

*** are you gonna shoot with that beige poodle? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Brown Dog]

Rabbits.

 

[7ultra]

Brown Dog,
Just off hand the rim diameter of the 64 is .492 vs .470 on the 62. Base diameter is .504 vs .473. Case length is 2.52 vs 2.42, making a COL of 3.43 vs 3.29 (for 9.3x64 vs 62). Pretty much what you are looking at is some minor adjustments on a standard long action for the 64. Personally my preference would be for the 9.3 x 62. I don't know how indepth you are looking at for a project gun, but you can buy the 62 from the factory (CZ 550 American). Plus, reloading will be, as you said much simpler. Just running a quick comparison, just looking at midway, you can't even buy 64 brass. Both norma and lapua offer brass for the 62, but as you said, the conversion fo '06 brass is an option. For dies, the 62 has every has several manufacturers of dies, running from lyman, to rcbs, to redding. Now maybe midway just doesn't carry 64 supplies, but I think that given the fairly obscure nature of the cartridge, you are going to pay a premium and run into scarcity issues anywhere you go with the 64. Now this is not to say that the 64 is a bad cartridge, it certainly has the edge on the 62, but the inherent costs associated with it would steer me clear. On a side note, what are you looking to do with this number. While the 64 will deliver 375 like ballistics, the 62 will give you 35 Whelen plus ballistics. Unless you are going after something real big, the animal ain't going to know the difference. There is a reason why the 9.3x62 almost universally escaped the minimum cartridge laws imposed by African governments. It is no wimp when it comes to knockdown.

 

[Brown Dog]

7ultra,

Many thanks for that very clear answer. You have reinforced my gut feel that the 9.3x64 may create logistic 'difficulties'- frustrating because I think it would match my spec slightly better than the 9.3x62;

My original idea was this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to specify a rifle with short range 'grunt' but capable of reaching out a bit.

Grateful for any thoughts on the following rifle spec:

Requirement:---------- Plains game rifle, comfortable to 250m, capable of 400m. Good stopping power.

Barrel / Calibre:-------- 22" heavy fluted 9.3 x 62

------------------- Or 24" heavier than standard 300/325WSM or 30.06.

Weight:-------------- Reasonably manoeuverable at 8-9lbs sans scope

Stock:--------------- McMillan A5

Action: --------------- Win or Rem or other (eg CZ)


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that the 9.3x64 would do that rather better than the x62, but –as you point out- it doesn't seem to show in many ammo catalogs!
If you're interested (or bored!) my original question got some useful answers:

http://longrangehunting.com/ubbthreads/s...=true#Post63706

 

[7ultra]

Brown Dog,
here is a ballistic comparison for you

Bullet: 250 Gr. Nosler Ballistic tip

Cartridge: 9.3x62

Muzzle Velocity: 2600 fps (pretty high)

Chart :Range Velocity Energy Momentum Drop Windage Lead Time
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (lbs-sec) (inches) (inches) (inches) (sec)
0 2606.1 3770.0 2.89 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.000
100 2426.8 3269.0 2.69 -0.0 0.7 21.0 0.119
200 2255.3 2823.4 2.50 -4.4 3.1 43.6 0.248
300 2090.3 2425.5 2.32 -15.7 7.1 67.9 0.386
400 1932.3 2072.5 2.15 -34.9 13.1 94.2 0.535
500 1782.2 1763.1 1.98 -63.5 21.4 122.6 0.697
600 1640.8 1494.4 1.82 -103.0 32.0 153.5 0.872
700 1508.8 1263.7 1.68 -155.5 45.3 187.1 1.063
800 1388.2 1069.7 1.54 -223.3 61.6 223.6 1.270
900 1281.3 911.3 1.42 -309.2 80.9 263.2 1.495
1000 1188.7 784.4 1.32 -416.3 103.5 306.0 1.739


Here is the same for 9.3 x64, same bullet, driven at 2760 (as per RWS factory)
Range Velocity Energy Momentum Drop Windage Lead Time
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (lbs-sec) (inches) (inches) (inches) (sec)
0 2766.3 4247.9 3.07 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.000
100 2580.0 3694.9 2.86 -0.0 0.7 19.8 0.112
200 2401.8 3202.1 2.67 -3.7 2.8 41.0 0.233
300 2231.5 2764.1 2.48 -13.5 6.5 63.8 0.362
400 2067.3 2372.3 2.30 -30.3 12.1 88.4 0.502
500 1910.3 2025.7 2.12 -55.2 19.5 114.9 0.653
600 1761.5 1722.3 1.96 -89.7 29.3 143.7 0.817
700 1621.3 1459.2 1.80 -135.4 41.4 175.0 0.994
800 1490.9 1233.8 1.66 -194.3 56.3 209.0 1.187
900 1372.1 1045.0 1.52 -269.0 74.2 245.9 1.397
1000 1267.3 891.4 1.41 -362.1 95.2 286.0 1.625

So what your looking at is both cartridges will deliver 2000 footpounds out to 400 (the 64 carrying it to 500), with the 64 dropping a little under 4 inches less. Granted this is comparing a hot handload to a factory load, but I don't know if the ballistic gains are enough to monkey around with all that excess work. Now you may be on to something with that 325 WSM, or 338 WSM. The action would undoubtedly cost more than a comparative standard, but it definately would offer some punch.

 

[wilsondoctor]

I own and shoot a Mauser built 9.3x64. Huntington has loads of brass and Barnes has a good supply of bullets. RL-15 is my best powder to use, and it is a hoot to shoot. Many one shot kills on deer and elk, and do not feel under/over gunned when in the field.
Thanks
JL

 

[FEENIX]

05-14-2005 01:16 PM Brown Dog

lightbulb

+1 on another zombie thread!

Welcome to LRH nonetheless and enjoy. Cheers!