[9.3x57]

Yup, what are your favorites??

Make sure to mention the rifle, as I know we have some "short-96-action" HVA's represented here. If you can, give us the weight of the rifle {all up, i.e. with scope or however it is set up for hunting.}

If you don't want to state specific powder charges, give us the bullet, OAL or any other info you can, like chronographed speeds.

Also, how do you rate the recoil compared to a .30-06 for example...?

Bring 'em on...!

 

[9.3x57]

two categories of x62's

First, THANKS for the great info Bob!

Bob's note above makes me curious as to the need for two levels of 9.3x62 loads similar to the "tiers" of loads used in .45-70's.

The 96 action guns may be strong enough, I do not know, but the need to more deeply seat bullets crowds powder capacity a bit at the least.

Assuming there are some reading but not posting, I'd be interested in finding out what Swedish 9.3x62's are actually being used with what loads?

 

[9.3x57]

more questions...

Is there a standard amount needed to reduce the load when using 30-06 brass to make the cases as opposed to 'real' 9.3x62mm brass, or just load from the same charts (with suitable reduction and work up as with any new load/components)?
>
Also, (new to me, but maybe not to those who are more familiar with the round), I saw a chambering reamer offered in this caliber based on the 30-06 case head size. Rechambering or new chamberings with it would set aside any worry of the slightly undersize '06 case head causing a problem I guess. Wouldn't a new set of reloading dies also be in order?

Following on the questions here:

What MAKE is Graf's brass?? Is it merely Prvi Partizan? How does it hold up?

Has anyone miked the base of Graf's versus say, regular {Rem, Win, etc} .30-06 brass?

Bob Faucett: Have you used '06 brass? You list yourself using Graf's, but the chart shows some of the gunwriters using RP, etc brass which I assume to be '06?

As for the question above about a reamer, I personally would steer clear of any reamer that might negate the use of regular factory ammo.

Has anyone ever done a chamber cast of a HVA 9.3x62?

Finally, we read of HVA x57's being rechambered to x62. Was that done with a reamer that opened up the cartridge base area of the chamber also, or just moved the shoulder forward? Reason I ask is of course, if the case head area wasn't expanded, the same scenario would in effect exist that is referred to by ktr above.

 

[9.3x57]

Baribal, I was waiting for you to weigh in!

The trouble with this cartridge is that I hear of incredible velocities being generated, but I cannot verify them as fact, such as 2500-2600 fps with 286 grain bullets.

IF such loads are safely obtainable, which frankly, I doubt, they must be running at incredible pressures, pressures that the 96-type actions shouldn't be subjected to, at the very least because of poor gas handling features.

Baribal, what model is your Husqvarna 9.3x62? Have you got a picture of it?

 

[9.3x57]

tak so mycket!

Well, sometimes stirring the pot brings up the best chunks!

Thanks for all the posts fellows.

Much is made of the amazing killing power represented in the 6.5x55 catridge, killing power it just doesn't look like it should produce.

I am beginning to see why the same is said about the 9.3x62, a notch above, obviously.

I hunted for many years with a SAKO .375, and read of the essentially identical killing power represented in the 9.3x62 with reports from Scandinavia on elg and hjort and of course with excellent results told about use in Africa on all sorts of game. Your loads sort of take the "voodoo" out of it. A well-constructed 285 grain 9.3 bullet running at 2400-2500 is simply going to be the field equal of trditional loads in the .375.

I guess I stand corrected.

By the way, recoil of the 285/2400-2500 fps loads has got to be stiff in typical guns. Must be grim in a light HVA 98-action 640-series rifle...

 

[9.3x57]

640's, etc...

Ackely's tests certainly are interesting, instructive and entertaining, but in no way can be said to be comprehensive or even scientific. For example, loads tested among the various actions are not identical and were not even pressure tested and thus actual pressure comparisons cannot be made. In addition, due to differences in production and heat treatment used among the various makers and under varying wartime conditions, I would not personally be comfortable pushing the envelope on the basis of a couple actions blow up. For example, witness the differences between the Rem and Rem/Eddy 1917's. these were two factories making the same action. What is to say that two different production runs of Arisakas or more to the point, husky's or CG's don't possess widely divergent strengths.

When it comes to the 9.3x62, I would think prudence and the desire to preserve one's face would encourage very careful loading {read; downloading} of 640 series rifles when built on 94 actions or 94 strengthened actions. Whether FN 98's used in 640-series rifles are actually stronger is unknown to me but certainly they possess a third safety lug and vastly better gas handling features not found on a 94/640-type. I'm willing to concede that some modern actions can handle loads generating better than 2300 fps with 285 grain bullets, but if it was my rifle and my face at stake I would not push the 640.

As has been noted by Pettson regarding catastrophic destructions of 6.5 96's a while back, lug shear in a 94/96 can be devastating where the same shear in a 98 has a much better chance of not being, due to the third lug and better gas handling. Herr Mauser thought the same thing and didn't add those safety features just for smiles and giggles.

 

[9.3x57]

94. not 98

Daryl, I am not saying a 98 isn't capable of handling .308. 270, etc rounds.

To the contrary, I'm saying that I wouldn't feel comfortable feeding a 94 action type a steady diet of rounds loaded to the highest working pressures commonly used with 98's.

As for Ackely, his books are very interesting and his blowup tests were in my opinion very entertaining but I sure wish he used a "standardized" cartridge and identical load progression in demonstrating the strengths of the actions. It would have given a much better picture of just how comparable are the actions he tested and might also give a modern experimenter a procedure to follow if he cared to test other actions. this assuming pressure testing of the ammunition used.

As for HVA's, de Haas has mentioned the extreme hardness of some he tested. Whether that was merely surface carburizing or a situation of hardness all the way through the action I am not certain. If it was the latter it is possible, possible, that some might reflect similar properties to those exhibited by some Eddystone and Springfield actions. Again, if that is the case, a failure might not be noticed in lug setback but rather in catastrophic disintegration of the action without much or any warning or if only the bolt was effected, lug shear. In the case of the former, a third lug might not matter much. In the case of the latter, it might matter a lot, as mentioned a while back regarding some instances of lug shear in military 94/96/38's.

I am really not trying to paint a picture of 94 action types being smoking hand grenades, only pointing out their design antiquity and my own personal preference to hold that action type to pressures lower than what I might be comfortable shooting in a modern action. I do so with my own M46 in 9.3x57 and would do same with a 9.3x62 in the same action type. If another fellow wants to shoot heavier loads in his own 46/640 all the power to him.

 

[9.3x57]

Since Husky chambered some 96's for the '06, what pressure did they have in mind?

Seriously, this is a really good question.

Another good question is what pressure did Herr Mauser have in mind when he added a third lug and some big gaping gas ports on the bolt...?

 

[9.3x57]

There it is!!

Thanks for posting, Baribal!

I had an 8x57 in the exact same configuration. The solid wall action is really a unique action in its own right. Looks like you replaced the bead front sight with a post?

 

[9.3x57]

clips

Regular 8x57 Mauser clips work fine in my M46. The are loose and sloppy and do not fit, but feed like corn thru a goose.

I just drop them in and drive the cartridges into the magazine with four fingers of my right hand. I have found various rifle magazines take cliploaded rounds differently, some easier and some more difficultly, but my 46 with the wrong-sized clips gobble them up.