The 9.3 Dollar Question: Ruger or CZ?

[Googleplex]

I'm curious to see how all goes with it. I'm officially leaning more to the ruger, but I'm still not set on anything quite yet. The springfield has my attention, but I don't know how long it will be up there or just what kind of condition it's in, so at this point I'm not counting on it.

The loaded Cartridges look to be pretty uniform and high quality. I think this rifle is going to be a hoot to shoot, the bullets themselves are quite hossly, and the bag of bullets alone weighs over 4 lbs .

That sounds pretty good. Low cost is always a concern to me when it come to ammo quality, but I know better than take that as a rule. Keep me posted on how it goes.

 

[Hizzie]

My bad. The range reports I was reading on them are from guys in Australia. Try BigFiveHQ. They build a muaser based rifle and 9.3x62 is an option.

 

[Googleplex]

My bad. The range reports I was reading on them are from guys in Australia. Try BigFiveHQ. They build a muaser based rifle and 9.3x62 is an option.

I'll take a look.

 

[Googleplex]

I see kits, and that's cool, but I don't want a light weight synthetic stock- especially on a cartridge with that much oomf. Of course, I can always buy a new stock and bed and float the barrel, but by the time that's all done on initially $675 kit gun, I might as well have ust bought the ruger. Plus I'm not sure of my abilities to peice a rifle together when it comes to fine details like installing sight blocks for irons and etc. I don't want to accidentally mess up the barrel in the process. I'm glad I saw that, though. That's a very neat proposition.

 

[Googleplex]

Actually, reviews of the stock seems to suggest that it dampens recoil... Anybody have any experience with hogue overmold stocks in heavier calibers?

 

[Maverick223]

You're probably right, there. For $325 I could put the savings into a new recoil pad should I be dissatisfied by the stock one. A new stock could even be feasable should the old one be less than satisfactory. About how much would I expect to pay for a glass bedding job?

Exactly; I would estimate about $75.00-$100.00 (more for pillar bedding) for a competent smith to do the job, or about $30USD for a DIY.

Really? By who, and for how much?

IIRC they are being imported by EAA, but I don't believe they are importing any chambered for 9.3x62mmMauser. Not sure of price, but if the Remington imported models (which are no more) are any indication it should be in the neighborhood of about $700.00 for the larger calibers.

Actually, reviews of the stock seems to suggest that it dampens recoil... Anybody have any experience with hogue overmold stocks in heavier calibers?

Haven't shot one chambered for a cartridge larger than .30-06Spd., but I didn't like it. It was too tacky in general and worse yet tends to grab the cheek making it particularly uncomfortable. That said, some folks love 'em (but the ones that don't tend to hate them).

 

[Maverick223]

Quick question that I don't believe has been brought up (or explicitly stated)...what led you to the choice of 9.3x62mmMauser in the first place? Not that it is a poor choice by any means, but not one that most folks consider or even have much use for. There are other chamberings that will perform similarly (a few that come to mind are the .338-06A-Square, .35Whelen, .338WM, & .375H&H), and have various advantages (like better component, ammunition, and rifle availability, amongst other things), depending upon the task at hand. Again, it isn't a bad cartridge and I don't mean to talk you out of it, but it is good to know the intended use and such, so as to potentially broaden the choices.

 

[Googleplex]

It was too tacky in general and worse yet tends to grab the cheek making it particularly uncomfortable. That said, some folks love 'em (but the ones that don't tend to hate them).

I see. With that in mind, I probably wouldn't go for it. It seems that the rifle kit in BigFiveHQ actually doesn't come in 9.3 anywase, ruling it out.

Exactly; I would estimate about $75.00-$100.00 (more for pillar bedding) for a competent smith to do the job, or about $30USD for a DIY.

That's not bad, a DIY is probably how I'd do it.

IIRC they are being imported by EAA, but I don't believe they are importing any chambered for 9.3x62mmMauser. Not sure of price, but if the Remington imported models (which are no more) are any indication it should be in the neighborhood of about $700.00 for the larger calibers.

Hmmm. If they aren't importing the 9.3 version, then that option is out.

 

[Googleplex]

Quick question that I don't believe has been brought up (or explicitly stated)...what led you to the choice of 9.3x62mmMauser in the first place? Not that it is a poor choice by any means, but not one that most folks consider or even have much use for. There are other chamberings that will perform similarly (a few that come to mind are the .338-06A-Square, .35Whelen, .338WM, & .375H&H), and have various advantages (like better component, ammunition, and rifle availability, amongst other things), depending upon the task at hand. Again, it isn't a bad cartridge and I don't mean to talk you out of it, but it is good to know the intended use and such, so as to potentially broaden the choices.

At first I was looking at a BLR in .358 Winchester. I noticed, however, that overall cartidge length would be a significant factor. I still intend to own a BLR in .358 someday, but I feel that it can wait. I read several articles about this cartidge after hearing about australian and new zealand sambar deer hunters prefering this cartidge. I also read many outstanding things about it for african plains game, as well as heavier north american game. All in all, it sounds like a fantastic cartidge capable of matching a .375 H&H at significantly less recoil. From what I hear, 9.3x62 recoil is more of a firm push than a painful jolt- an advantage over .338 WM, from what I understand, due to the .338's supposedly snappy, sudden nature. I have found about the same amount of reloading supplies for 9.3 and .358, and believe it or not more factory ammo for the 9.3, oddly enough. If all these are true, and I have yet to hear otherwise, than I am set.

Also, I like the oddness of it.

 

[Maverick223]

Nothing at all wrong with that. BTW, I completely agree with your assessment of the .338WM, it is a bit too snappy for my taste. By far my favorite medium-large bore (greater than .325cal./8mm, but smaller than .400cal./10mm) cartridges are the .375H&H, and the 9.3x64mmBrenneke (along with the .35Whelen), neither of which are a big departure from the 9.3x62mmMauser (though both have a bit more thump, that goes for both ends of the stick). For the stated purpose, there are far worse choices. Carry on...

 

[benzy2]

I know the hog back stock doesn't look typical to most American's, but it's a design that has been used for years on iron sighted rifles from light rimfires to the heaviest dangerous game rifles. If the CZ version fits you or not is no different than if any other stock fits, but the hogback design is a good one for low mounted iron sights. I prefer it to a straight stock that falls away in the comb to get your eye down.

Realistically, no stock that gets your eye level in line with low receiver iron sights is going to be a great fit for mounting a scope. They are two different eye levels that require two different stock designs. The more typical straight stocks we are familiar with are great to get your eye up off the rifle to be positioned behind a scope.

While it may be tough to find both a CZ 550 and Ruger in 9.3 in person to handle, you can certainly grab a few rimfire options to understand what the different stock designs are doing. The stock design on a CZ 452 lux/trainer is similar to that of the 550. The stock of the typical 10-22 carbine is similar to that of the Alaskan. Neither are identical replications, but a decent understanding. Both put your eye level in line with the iron sights and both require you to get off the stock a bit to use a scope.

Stocks aside, I have been very happy with the quality of the CZ firearms I've used and owned. I have not had a 550 though, but I have/do own two 452s, one 527, and shot a few of their pistols. All have had good fit and finish. Not top tier custom finish work, but certainly better than most in their price point. Can't say if the 550 is the black sheep in that regard as I haven't used one. While some stocks are pretty plain, others are very attractive. Plain or fancy, they all have been finished rather blandly but have been as durable as any other wood stock out there.

I'm probably biased towards the CZ. I've seen too many negative results with Ruger centerfire rifles to be willing to send my money that way. I've seen plenty of great results with CZ rifles to consider them for most purchases. I wouldn't doubt that Ruger has stepped their accuracy up since moving barrel production in house. Even so, I've seen what they have let out the door in the past and it scares me.

In the end, both are built to a price and it will show in certain areas. You get quite a rifle for your money from both companies. You won't get the refinement and all the bells and whistles of the much more expensive options, but these two cost a fraction of what the top tier rifles run. I think I'd be more worried about my ability to use either rifle, especially if the game had big teeth or claws, than which of the two brands I was to pick.

 

[Googleplex]

I think I'd be more worried about my ability to use either rifle, especially if the game had big teeth or claws, than which of the two brands I was to pick.

.

You're exactly right there. All I have experience with are normal American style stocks, although my Handi-Rifle 7mm-08 is a little more hog-backed than the rest of the rifles I've handled. To tell you the truth, the stock on the 7mm-08 is not as comfortable, but that's only because of the grip shape. Something about is slightly awkward. I think either way will be absolutely fine for me, provided the grip shapes are comfortable. If it's like a remington 700 in shape, then I will have no problem with it, I'm sure. I have noticed the CZ recoil pad looks better.

By far my favorite medium-large bore (greater than .325cal./8mm, but smaller than .400cal./10mm) cartridges are the .375H&H, and the 9.3x64mmBrenneke (along with the .35Whelen), neither of which are a big departure from the 9.3x62mmMauser (though both have a bit more thump, that goes for both ends of the stick).

I've read a lot about the Brenneke as well. It's interesting, but It seems to be rarer than the 9.3x62. How does the brenneke handle?



I found a few vids on youtube. Are these accurate representations of the rifle and cartridge? (Don't worry, I already know the CZ guy has some of his facts off on his 9.3 - .30-06 comparison )

Ruger review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnU3zPJ-RlY

CZ 550 FS review (I've seen this rifle just above my price range, surely somebody has one for under $800. The shorter barrel concerns me, though.) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSH2-3kYyXg&feature=related

What do you guys think? I think it's come down to these specific models.

 

[Maverick223]

I've read a lot about the Brenneke as well. It's interesting, but It seems to be rarer than the 9.3x62. How does the brenneke handle?

The Brenneke is quite a bit more powerful, though it will generally fit in the same length action as the 9.3x62mmMauser, mostly due to the larger case diameter (which hasn't a belt unlike the .375H&H and the like). Unlike many of the modern magnum cartridges (see various Remington designs for instruction on what to avoid) designed for large and/or dangerous game it affords a gently sloping shoulder that aides in feeding and eases extraction even in hot, humid environments. The only practical downfall is popularity of the cartridge, as both cartridges and rifles chambered for it are somewhat difficult to procure. As far as performance, it is a near ballistic twin of the .375H&H and handles very similarly albeit in a slightly shorter action with a scant smaller projectile. Blindfolded, one would have extreme difficulty discerning the difference between the two. It goes without saying that it would perform admirably for all large/dangerous NA game and all but the very largest found on the dark continent (though some areas forbid the use of a cartridge smaller/weaker than the .375H&H, many make an exception for the large 9.3s).

 

[Hizzie]

It seems that the rifle kit in BigFiveHQ actually doesn't come in 9.3 anywase, ruling it out.

They do. Web site is not the best. http://www.gunsinternational.com/-Bad-Boy-Custom-Dangerous-Game-Rifle-EZ-Kit-375-Ruger-9-3x62.cfm?gun_id=100057772

The 9.3x64 Brenneke is a bit more powerful. Brass availability issues and same, limited bullet selection as the other 9.3's.

You could Find a CZ550 Safari in 375H&H used for around $800. CZ lists the 550 Safari at 9.9lbs in 375H&H and has very good sights. The Remington 798 can still be found NIB for under $800 and they have sights. Factory ammo can be found for as little at $36/box. Huge bullet selection (235gr-380gr) and plenty of sources for brass. The .375 Holland & Holland Belted Magnum has got nostalgia on par with the 9.3x62.

 

[Googleplex]

The only practical downfall is popularity of the cartridge, as both cartridges and rifles chambered for it are somewhat difficult to procure. As far as performance, it is a near ballistic twin of the .375H&H and handles very similarly albeit in a slightly shorter action with a scant smaller projectile. Blindfolded, one would have extreme difficulty discerning the difference between the two.

Interesting. I don't think it would be a viable option for me, at least not at this point, but that is pretty neat.

It goes without saying that it would perform admirably for all large/dangerous NA game and all but the very largest found on the dark continent (though some areas forbid the use of a cartridge smaller/weaker than the .375H&H, many make an exception for the large 9.3s).

I've heard about that. I don't think a 9.3 of any form would be my first bet for a cape buffalo, but I've heard of people making some very clean kills with them. Obviously elephants are out of the equation .

You could Find a CZ550 Safari in 375H&H used for around $800. CZ lists the 550 Safari at 9.9lbs in 375H&H and has very good sights. The Remington 798 can still be found NIB for under $800 and they have sights. Factory ammo can be found for as little at $36/box. Huge bullet selection (235gr-380gr) and plenty of sources for brass. The .375 Holland & Holland Belted Magnum has got nostalgia on par with the 9.3x62.

Yeah, but I feel like the .375 isn't quite as versatile. Granted, it would be great for bear and moose, as well as african and australian game, but think it would be a little much for elk sized game. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but a 9.3x62 seems to combine all the best attributes of .338 WM (granted, with a shorter effective range), a .35 Whelan, and a .375 H&H. Also,the 9.3 sounds more pleasurable to shoot recoilwise.


I do have a question about the 550 FS- How much will the shorter barrel affect the effective range of the rifle, as well as ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle? Would that 3 missing inches make a huge difference?

 

[Googleplex]

They do. Web site is not the best. http://www.gunsinternational.com/-Ba...n_id=100057772

That could be a viable option, then. Of course I'd have to buy a laminate stock (I don't like the idea of a lightweight composite stock on a caliber of this, erm, caliber) float, and bed it. I'm guessing by the time it's all said and done, conservatively, $750-$800 would have been spent on the rifle. For that much I could get a new CZ or Ruger, but then again there is the pride of having built the gun. Viable option, but may not be my first bet. Definately a probable second.

 

[Maverick223]

I've heard about that. I don't think a 9.3 of any form would be my first bet for a cape buffalo, but I've heard of people making some very clean kills with them. Obviously elephants are out of the equation.

The 9.3x64mmBrenneke would do fine on Cape Buff, as does the .375H&H. Both should do fine for elephant as well, but neither make for a good stopping rifle, which is something that I would want for Elephant.

Yeah, but I feel like the .375 isn't quite as versatile.

Crazy talk! It is one of my pet rounds, but justifiably so. The .375H&H can be loaded for anything from deer & elk to moose & kodiak all the way up to the biggest the dark continent has to offer. With bullets ranging from light soft points in the 200-235gr. range to 250-260gr. boat-tailed ballistic tips with a high BC all the way to heavily constructed A-Frames/Partitions/Solids in the 300-350gr. range there is almost nothing that you can't do with the proper load and projectile. The .30-06Spd. claims to be versatile...I argue that the .375H&H is even more capable! Recoil, whilst being quite manageable, is a noticeable step up from the 9.3x62mmMauser.

I do have a question about the 550 FS- How much will the shorter barrel affect the effective range of the rifle, as well as ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle? Would that 3 missing inches make a huge difference?

I am a big proponent of using enough barrel, but chambered for cartridges such as these, the added length will do little for performance, and add a bit of unnecessary weight.

 

[Googleplex]

The 9.3x64mmBrenneke would do fine on Cape Buff, as does the .375H&H. Both should do fine for elephant as well, but neither make for a good stopping rifle, which is something that I would want for Elephant.

I would figure as much. How does the brenneke disperse recoil?

Crazy talk! It is one of my pet rounds, but justifiably so. The .375H&H can be loaded for anything from deer & elk to moose & kodiak all the way up to the biggest the dark continent has to offer. With bullets ranging from light soft points in the 200-235gr. range to 250-260gr. boat-tailed ballistic tips with a high BC all the way to heavily constructed A-Frames/Partitions/Solids in the 300-350gr. range there is almost nothing that you can't do with the proper load and projectile. The .30-06Spd. claims to be versatile...I argue that the .375H&H is even more capable! Recoil, whilst being quite manageable, is a noticeable step up from the 9.3x62mmMauser.

I knew I was probably a little off. Ignorance is infectious . At any rate, I feel there is something to be said for lighter recoil with similar performance. A 9.3, though not as common, seems somewhat more a logical choice for someone just getting into larger bore rifles. With the rising popularity of the round, I predict that in a few years 9.3x62 ammo will begin to accomodate space on the shelves of sporting goods stores, rather than just online bargain hunting.

I am a big proponent of using enough barrel, but chambered for cartridges such as these, the added length will do little for performance, and add a bit of unnecessary weight.

So any difference performance wise from the shorter barrel of the CZ shouldn't necessarily affect the effective range of the rifle all that much?
Wouldn't it lose a significant amount velocity?
This is the only concern I have with the CZ FS. Are there any graphs or charts displaying each barrel length's performance?

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Both are very good shooters rifles.

The issue to my mind is handling. They both feel different in the hand and on the shoulder.

I have played with them both, and I think the CZ looks nicer, and would probably carry a bit better - but the Ruger would likely shoot better on the shoulder, and I like the Rugers Irons over the CZ.

Coin toss for me, but If I had to pick I would say Ruger. You really couldn't go wrong with either though.

 

[Maverick223]

How does the brenneke disperse recoil?

Very similarly to the .375H&H, which is a bit more than the 9.3x62mmMauser, but not at all hard to tame.

At any rate, I feel there is something to be said for lighter recoil with similar performance. A 9.3, though not as common, seems somewhat more a logical choice for someone just getting into larger bore rifles.

Nothing at all wrong with the 9.3s or their performance (particularly within the confines of the Americas), but honestly I see the .45-70Govt. as the best starter big bore, as the handloader can load it all the way from mild to wild with the right rifle (I load mine, chambered in a very stout falling block action, on the heels of the .458WM). No reason you couldn't do the same with the 9.3x62mmMauser, but there is far less load data (and no factory light loaded cartridges that I am aware of).

 

[p5200]

Myself, I'll take a CZ over a Ruger any day I've found Ruger's accuracy to be hit and miss (no pun intended) but, the CZ's seem to be pretty consistent in the accuracy department. I have a CZ527 in .204 that puts factory ammo 5 shot groups around 3/4" and my hand loads under 1/2" quite often. My 452 rimfire is also a tack driver.

 

[Googleplex]

Very similarly to the .375H&H, which is a bit more than the 9.3x62mmMauser, but not at all hard to tame.

Interesting.

Nothing at all wrong with the 9.3s or their performance (particularly within the confines of the Americas), but honestly I see the .45-70Govt. as the best starter big bore, as the handloader can load it all the way from mild to wild with the right rifle (I load mine, chambered in a very stout falling block action, on the heels of the .458WM). No reason you couldn't do the same with the 9.3x62mmMauser, but there is far less load data (and no factory light loaded cartridges that I am aware of).

I can see using the 45-70 as a starting place. It would be a nice cartridge in a rolling block, high wall, wharps, etc., but that's not what I'm looking for at the moment (although a rolling block is on my distant future wishlist). I feel I'd have more use for something like a 9.3. I find the 550 FS more and more intriguiging as time progresses as I learn more about these cartridges. If that shorter barrel length truly has a minimal effect (Which I'm sure I would found evidence by now if it is a hinderance, I've looked at a lot of different threads and reviews on these rifles as well as others) and I can find one for under $800 (surely SOMEBODY has that kind of deal. Most of the ones I've found have been slightly over, though.)-preferably around $750 (I think I saw them that price somewhere, If only I could remember where. It was an actual store or for sale by owner, not an auction site.)- than that's the way I'll go. Does anyone have a personal testimony with this rifle in this cartridge?

 

[Googleplex]

Here's a link to a range report on a different site- looks promising.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=103073

 

[Maverick223]

The added bbl length is of little utility (probably on the order of a 50fps loss, which is often less than the difference between different bbl manufacturers)...in the new market I would hands down choose that 550FS solely due to the stock configuration.

 

[Googleplex]

The added bbl length is of little utility (probably on the order of a 50fps loss, which is often less than the difference between different bbl manufacturers)...in the new market I would hands down choose that 550FS solely due to the stock configuration.

Then that settles it. In that range report, Prvi ammo provided a 1/2 inch group. That's a big +1. If the loss is only around 50 FPS, than that's no difference to me. The gun sure is purty. +1. Bud's has it for under $800. +1. Good recoil pad +5000 (It sure looks nicer to me than the M77's. The pad issue is a biggy for me, I like knowing there's a slab of good soft rubber, irregardless of what the caliber is (except for .22 LR and my mosin nagant. That's staying military style.) Other than length of pull, I'm sure it's purely psychological, but hey. I like it .). Irons +1. Floated, I don't think so- but who cares? A 1/2 inch at 50 is a 1/2 inch at 50. My 7mm-08 won't do that. All in all, I think it's a win. However, I still wanna read Gtscotty's reaction to his M77, just to see what that rifle is like. Even if there is only $5 difference that I've found.