9.3x62 question

Status
Not open for further replies.
This isn't about my fantasy. This is about the fact that the 9.3x62 popularized the magazine-fed repeater for hunting even in situations where we don't mow down herds of deer or mag dump into an Elk.
 
This isn't about my fantasy. This is about the fact that the 9.3x62 popularized the magazine-fed repeater for hunting even in situations where we don't mow down herds of deer or mag dump into an Elk.

Well in all my years of hunting I've had to take that second shot exactly three times, but it both cases I was darn sure glad I had it and didn't have to fumble around for another cartridge. I am a single shot enthusiast myself, but I don't see what the problem is with having multiple rounds in the gun either.
 
I'm all for having a magazine on a hunting rifle because you never know what other animal is out there, hunting the same grounds.

I still remember the sound of a cougar and a black bear arguing about which one was going to eat the deer that I had killed and couldn't retrieve in time... .
 
This isn't about my fantasy. This is about the fact that the 9.3x62 popularized the magazine-fed repeater for hunting even in situations where we don't mow down herds of deer or mag dump into an Elk.

I suppose we are living on two different planets here. I can not see where anyone can honestly argue that a repeating rifle is a bad thing in ANY situation. I can understand the argument that it may not be completely necessary in every situation, but to argue that it makes a poor choice for a hunting rifle just doesn’t follow logic.
 
I never wrote it was a poor choice. I wrote it was the best choice. Don't mischaracterize my comments. I wrote it is poorly suited and poorly adapted. It is still the best choice. That is the legacy the 9.3x62 left us. Instead of trying to disagree with something I didn't write, people would gain more insight from the story of how military bolt-action repeaters came to be the defacto hunting rifle for sport in spite of not being designed for that purpose simply because they were an inexpensive alternative to redundant doubles where quick follow-up shots could be needed. Despite these circumstances being exceedingly rare, the adoption of the repeater for hunting is overwhelmingly widespread. There is no reason to be offended by these facts.

To put it into a political context, most North American hunters are using a military-grade battle rifle to attack deer, and they're doing it because this type of rifle was originally adopted by people legitimately concerned that the game would charge them with lethal consequences, and after that it was more widely accepted for all types of hunting.
 
I never wrote it was a poor choice. I wrote it was the best choice. Don't mischaracterize my comments. I wrote it is poorly suited and poorly adapted. It is still the best choice. That is the legacy the 9.3x62 left us. Instead of trying to disagree with something I didn't write, people would gain more insight from the story of how military bolt-action repeaters came to be the defacto hunting rifle for sport in spite of not being designed for that purpose simply because they were an inexpensive alternative to redundant doubles where quick follow-up shots could be needed. Despite these circumstances being exceedingly rare, the adoption of the repeater for hunting is overwhelmingly widespread. There is no reason to be offended by these facts.

To put it into a political context, most North American hunters are using a military-grade battle rifle to attack deer, and they're doing it because this type of rifle was originally adopted by people legitimately concerned that the game would charge them with lethal consequences, and after that it was more widely accepted for all types of hunting.

I don't think most people are offended, they just don't agree with your assertions and feel that bolt actions and semi-autos are quite well suited and adapted for hunting situations. I'd agree.

The history lesson isn't big news to most people and also isn't really very related to the core question of the OP.
 
the GI,s of ww-1 came home knowing what they saw and what rifles they used in the mud-crap that work in conditions that 99 percent of the hunters of the world would never face and they liked what they saw and that ended the era of the lever action-pump and most arms makers of the time turned out bolt action rifles and still do. a rifle I like and shoot is a ww-2 bring back Japanese t-99 in 7.7, the bolt has bolt body-extractor- extractor ring- safety knob-fireing pin-firing pin spring , a total of six parts. hows that for simple.
 
I never wrote it was a poor choice. I wrote it was the best choice. Don't mischaracterize my comments. I wrote it is poorly suited and poorly adapted. It is still the best choice. That is the legacy the 9.3x62 left us. Instead of trying to disagree with something I didn't write, people would gain more insight from the story of how military bolt-action repeaters came to be the defacto hunting rifle for sport in spite of not being designed for that purpose simply because they were an inexpensive alternative to redundant doubles where quick follow-up shots could be needed. Despite these circumstances being exceedingly rare, the adoption of the repeater for hunting is overwhelmingly widespread. There is no reason to be offended by these facts.

To put it into a political context, most North American hunters are using a military-grade battle rifle to attack deer, and they're doing it because this type of rifle was originally adopted by people legitimately concerned that the game would charge them with lethal consequences, and after that it was more widely accepted for all types of hunting.

You keep saying that a “military repeater” is not the best choice for a hunting rifle action, but you also fail to offer up your definition of a “better” hunting rifle action. I’m not offended by your comments. I just think you are wrong and have failed to back up your argument. You fail to take into account that hunting is a diverse sport. You have to remember also, that hunting with deer dogs was much more popular in the past than it is today. A repeater makes a lot of sense in that situation. I hunt pigs as often as I do deer. A semi-auto makes the most sense in that situation due to the fact that, more often than not, we happen upon multiple pigs. It also helps to have rapid follow up shots when the game you are hunting can kill you back. Your argument is based more on opinion than fact and you’ve tried to paint a wide range of hunters with too broad of a brush. Don’t be offended when people disagree with you.
 

Next question

I’d like to put my hands on one, but I see nothing there that makes that more effective or more practical than a semi auto or standard bolt action. First glance says it’s more cumbersome and clunky than either with that oversized handle hanging off the side. My experience with straight pull actions has also been that that tend to get knocked out of battery much more easily than any other action I have used. I’ll never buy another Browning T-Bolt for that reason. I can see where that concept would have some appeal in locations where semi auto rifles are banned, but nothing about that rifle makes me believe it is better than either a semi auto or standard bolt action.
 
I’d like to put my hands on one, but I see nothing there that makes that more effective or more practical than a semi auto or standard bolt action. First glance says it’s more cumbersome and clunky than either with that oversized handle hanging off the side. My experience with straight pull actions has also been that that tend to get knocked out of battery much more easily than any other action I have used. I’ll never buy another Browning T-Bolt for that reason. I can see where that concept would have some appeal in locations where semi auto rifles are banned, but nothing about that rifle makes me believe it is better than either a semi auto or standard bolt action.

No real disagreement with you. It's also basically a magazine fed bolt action repeater. I just enjoy reminding people this exists once in a while in the hope Browning might bring em stateside. Btw they're available in 9.3x62 :thumbup:
 
No real disagreement with you. It's also basically a magazine fed bolt action repeater. I just enjoy reminding people this exists once in a while in the hope Browning might bring em stateside. Btw they're available in 9.3x62 :thumbup:
Definitely a cool concept. I can absolutely see the appeal for countries with a semi auto ban. I think that T-Bolt just left a bad taste in my mouth in terms of a straight pull bolt action.
 
Back to the OP 9.3x62 would be more than adequate for Elk, larger verities of Bears, Bison. It can be used and is popular in Africa. It is not a common round in the States, but ammo, brass and bullets are available. I suggest that if you get a good deal buy it otherwise pass as it is more powerful than you need for a main hunting rifle, but it will certainly kill everything in the USA and Canada.

Good Luck

Jerry
 
I have never owned one but my father in law has 2, one that I have shot a few times. A Cz 550 I believe that he cut down the barrel and slimmed the stock on. He frequently tells me how awesome it is on big game.
 
I'm not saying there is a rifle action that's better for hunting medium game. That's the problem. Nearly the whole market is focused on the bolt-action repeater. The alternatives are antiquated or at least as ill suited. I can't recommend any of them more. But that doesn't justify the near universal adoption of a magazine-fed repeater for hunting medium game. Why would you need a magazine to shoot a deer? How many deer are you going to shoot? Who shoots a deer more than once without giving the first shot time to take effect? A repeater isn't useful, and its features introduce a number of drawbacks to the rifle's design. No, I am not advocating any extant single-shot designs because their development has been neglected as a result of the market overwhelmingly adopting the magazine-fed bolt-action repeater derived from a military repeater. There's not much difference in that from hunting deer with an AR-15 -- not something I'm opposed to, but hardly an ideally suited weapon for the task. Do hunt with a bolt-action. Do hunt with a AR-15. Because there's nothing better. But that's a pity.
My opinion is that a single shot is irresponsible and vain. A bolt action repeater is an excellent choice for hunting. It is slimmer, lighter and better pointing than a semi auto and is a stronger action that a lever action. I find after over 50 years of hunting a bolt action is not only suitable but superior to any other as a hunting rifle.
 
Where is that guy hunting elephant that a sidearm can be carried? I thought that was a no no in Africa.

The only country you’ll see that in is South Africa possibly Namibia. South Africa is purely a “ranch” and on occasion a park hunting country. In all of the other hunting countries on the continent of Africa hand guns are an extreme rarity.
 
Historically, it's a very significant cartridge in that it could be fit into a mass-produced, military, bolt-action repeater (the Mauser 98 action), while still being suitable for large African game, particuarly dangerous game. Prior to Mausers chambered in 9.3x62, the rifle preferred wherever there was dangerous game was a double rifle. Understandably, nobody wanted to load loose rounds into a rifle under duress. They appreciated the total redundancy of a double, but the cost of a British-made double was untenable for many. The military, bolt-action repeater of Mauser's design promised reliable extraction and feeding from a magazine, but the popular military cartridges like 7x57 or 8x57 or 6.5x55 were not up to the task of the largest or dangerous game. The 9.3x62 came to be trusted for those purposes and because of the much lower cost, it was wildly popular in Africa.

Of course, the British double rifle makers didn't stay idle. Most significantly, they produced the 375 H&H for bolt-action rifles, though it required a "Magnum" length action (and therefore still expensive custom rifles, though not as expensive as doubles). The H&H Magnum did offer superior ballistics to the 9.3x62, but it's not clear to me that it enhanced performance enough that one could do something with a 375 that they couldn't do with a 9.3x62.

The comparison to a 35 Whelen is a good one. They are very much alike in that both enabled large game performance from a standard military length bolt-action -- what we would call today a "long-action." The 35 Whelen is like the American 9.3x62, and very much a good substitute for a costlier 375 H&H on a magnum-length action. Similarly, the 375 Ruger accomplishes something similar, but without any decrease in ballistic performance numbers.

Here is the most enduring thing about the 9.3x62. It ushered in the bolt-action rifle as the hunting rifle of choice, even where game hunting does not meaningfully require a "dangerous game rifle." The adoption of the bolt-action rifle by hunters cemented it as the most popular rifle action in the world. And it was all percipitated by the 9.3x62.

Had this cartridge not come about, the bolt-action would have remained primarily of interest to the military and would have eventually been replaced by semi-automatic rifles. European and American deer hunters would not have seen the point of a magazine-fed repeater. But it's popularity in Africa and its low cost cemented its acceptance.

Personally, I find the bolt-action rifle ill-suited to hunting large and medium sized non-dangerous game, and I blame the 9.3x62 and the Mauser for why most hunting rifles are based on this military repeater or derivatives thereof inspite of their illsuitedness.

But the cartridge does have its place and I would not say it is illsuited for its purpose at all. I do not have any personal experience with the 9.3 or similar cartridges on game but I am interested in them. I am unlikely to hunt the large or dangerous game they are normally recognized for. I could use such a cartridge but only for Mule Deer and Black Bear (300 pound bears, and probably not much larger ones that occur rarely). Many people would think they are too much cartridge for that size game, but I frequently hear from users of such cartridges that the lower bullet velocities result in less meat damage. So the cartridge may be even more versatile than its commonly accepted purpose. But the rifle, the bolt-action, I still decry as poorly-adapted for hunting the game most people hunt.

I’m going to take exception to this post. The 9.3 was wildly popular in all of the non British African colonies. The .404 Jeffery was the first of the British rounds that was specifically built to fit in a standard length action bolt gun. The bore diameter of a ,404 is .411,.419 or .423 depending on the maker. The term .404 stood for, .40 diameter and 4 rounds. .40 used to be the minimum diameter for thick skinned dangerous game hunting in some British colonies namely Kenya.

While the 9.3 was the “.30-06” of African rifles for the German colonies the .375 H&H was the common carry rifle for the British colonies. The .404 was the common parks rifle for a good part of the 1900’s. Many thousands of elephant and rhinos were culled with that caliber. The 9.3 was not even legal for DG hunting in any British ruled countries until recently. The minimum was generally a .375 bore diameter in most British colonies except for Kenya which was .40 and I believe that was true in the Sudan and Uganda too.

So while the 9.3 was a popular rifle and has bagged thousands of heavy thick skinned critters in Africa that was only the case in non British colonies for the most part.
 
I can't speak to the relative popularity of the 9.3 and 404 in different colonies or former colonies. I just don't know that much about it. But the 375 didn't come until about 7 years after the 9.3. What's more, even Rigby themselves were using the Mauser actions. If they were using 404 instead of 9.3, there certainly was an unmet demand that wasn't fulfilled until the 375.
 
The British had a background in singles and doubles. There were some efforts to get more power out of Lees and Mannlichers, but if you wanted buffalo bumping power, you took a double if you could afford it, a single if you couldn't. (I once read of a speedloading technique for a Farquharson and tried it with a Ruger No 1. It worked pretty well, if you kept your wits about you.)
The British sporting rifles built on German Mauser actions were late to the game, but became popular because of lower cost and magazine capacity.
John Taylor suggested that game law require Mausers to be plugged to two shots, that it would enforce marksmanship and discourage blazing away "into the brown."

The Continentals had less tradition of heavy calibers until Mausers were a standard. Mr Taylor had little to say in favor of German bullets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top