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.
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.
That’s kind of where I’m at with this argument. I’m going to have to at least see some drawings of this action that is stronger, more accurate, more intuitive and overall better than the bolt action.
I've shot three deer in a minute or so. They taste great.Why would you need a magazine to shoot a deer? How many deer are you going to shoot? A repeater isn't useful, and its features introduce a number of drawbacks to the rifle's design.
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.
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.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
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.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.
Where is that guy hunting elephant that a sidearm can be carried? I thought that was a no no in Africa.
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.