.375 H&H Mag vs. 9.3x62mm

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
Hello all!

I’ve been doing some homework into the whole .375 H&H Mag vs 9.3x62mm business.
Now, what I have to say on the matter is this….
The .375 H&H has a decided advantage over the the 9.3x62mm only when the 9.3x62 is loaded to original pressures.
Now, with that being said, once you start loading the 9.3x62 to 64k psi, the same pressure the .375 H&H runs at, they are pretty much equal.
Yes, I can hear the gasps, and the snorts of derision already coming about from what I just said, from the die hard .375 H&H fans.
But, I am not just callously saying that to stir the pot, so to say, nor am I trying to cause a fight.
I do have data to back up what I’ve said, and will post said data in pic form after I am done writing here.

I also want to let everyone know that, the data for the .375 H&H is with a standard 24 inch barrel, whereas the 9.3x62mm data is with a 22 inch barrel.
If given the 9.3x62mm is given a 24 inch barrel, and a modern, strong bolt action, there isn’t any reason to not load it to such pressures, except for maybe one, and that’s free recoil.

I hope to open a few eyes to those who may be on the fence about getting a 9.3x62mm, and hopefully opening the eyes of those who are objective .375 H&H aficionado’s too.

So, enough of me blabbering, I will post the pics I have.


Hawk
34ee1ce73b59e061d6f98a304e79129d.png

13fb8d7bcfc8e8bbb49c098978e8ec5a.png

1665cc98e3972d8b69396e4a8272c3ed.png

cb0835f9c9dfcdafd7f8ef034ce83146.png

42972b75a14a17ffc597b59064293fd3.png

32e85b1ecf2db2d88cbb76ec015f4924.png

34f6d5afe6f45ffaf2fbe65cb410aa97.jpg

36e1315c04afc36b9d677c4078950f3e.jpg
 

gbflyer

Handloader
Mar 28, 2017
888
50
X62 is a fine cartridge. Do you have any data across a chronograph or are you using Quickload and the Hornady manual exclusively? I think you’ll find the gap will widen significantly with larger (heavier) bullets. It’s a matter of case capacity. That being said, the X62 is a very efficient cartridge and one I would prefer for NA.

I am the caretaker of a 9.3x64 Brenneke. Now there is one that the H&H lovers don’t want to talk about. [emoji1]
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
gbflyer":16gi7p2q said:
X62 is a fine cartridge. Do you have any data across a chronograph or are you using Quickload and the Hornady manual exclusively? I think you’ll find the gap will widen significantly with larger (heavier) bullets. It’s a matter of case capacity. That being said, the X62 is a very efficient cartridge and one I would prefer for NA.

I am the caretaker of a 9.3x64 Brenneke. Now there is one that the H&H lovers don’t want to talk about. [emoji1]
I am, for the time being, just using QL data and the Hornady manual.

I do know, from a gun writer by the name of Bob Mitchell, that he has been able to push a 300 gr bullet to 2600 fps, chronographed out of his Tikka T3 with a 22.4 inch barrel.
His technique is seating the bullet as far out as his magazine will allow, and his rifle still has enough leade to help with keeping pressures in check.

Man!!! I wish the 9.3x64mm were a lot more popular, I would go with one myself.

Hawk
 

gbflyer

Handloader
Mar 28, 2017
888
50
HAWKEYESATX":bm30e1hu said:
gbflyer":bm30e1hu said:
X62 is a fine cartridge. Do you have any data across a chronograph or are you using Quickload and the Hornady manual exclusively? I think you’ll find the gap will widen significantly with larger (heavier) bullets. It’s a matter of case capacity. That being said, the X62 is a very efficient cartridge and one I would prefer for NA.

I am the caretaker of a 9.3x64 Brenneke. Now there is one that the H&H lovers don’t want to talk about. [emoji1]
I am, for the time being, just using QL data and the Hornady manual.

I do know, from a gun writer by the name of Bob Mitchell, that he has been able to push a 300 gr bullet to 2600 fps, chronographed out of his Tikka T3 with a 22.4 inch barrel.
His technique is seating the bullet as far out as his magazine will allow, and his rifle still has enough leade to help with keeping pressures in check.

Man!!! I wish the 9.3x64mm were a lot more popular, I would go with one myself.

Hawk
The x64 is not difficult to supply right now. There is all kinds of Russian ammo less than $1 apiece. Good brass is available too but more expensive. Mine is chambered in a Ruger 77 mk2. I think it’s an old Lothar Walther barrel, old friend of mine built it 30 years ago.
 

JD338

Range Officer
Staff member
Nov 4, 2004
21,725
994
Hawk,
I thought you were going to build a 9.3?

JD338
 

lefty315

Handloader
Sep 29, 2004
799
5
I was able to make a trip to Africa in 2012 where I used my .35 Whelen on 4 of the 8 animals I took. The PH I was with toted a Husqvarna 9.3x62. We compared the merits of the 2 cartridges and at the time a .35 made more sense for me due to the availability of bullets. The 9.3 seems to have taken off a bit since then and sometimes I think about grabbing one.

A few years before that I was able to talk to Chub Eastman, who wrote for some magazines on hunting cartridges. When my .35 Whelen came up, he immediately asked if I’d ever thought about the 9.3x62. At the time I had never heard of it but he had apparently seen how capable it was over in Africa.

I have all the guns I’ll ever need but you guys keep talking about the 9.3 and I may dip into my daughters inheritance!!!
 

Thebear_78

Handloader
Sep 30, 2004
2,892
161
I’m also a big fan of the 9.3x62. When combined with 286gr nosler Partition it is one of the most effective big game hunting rounds you can fit in a standard action.

One of the major benefits of the 9.3x62 is that it does a lot of heavy lifting with out being flashy or pushy. I really wouldn’t try to push it for those extra few feet per second. All you will get is more wear and tear on your gun and shoulders. No game will ever notice the difference.

If I wasn’t having a 35 whelen built on a Winchester 1895 I would consider it one of the best 9.3x62 hosts out there.

102d66200215286a069b9d8bea4c1e42.jpg



My personal 9.3x62 is built on a P17 infield scout. 23” barrel, iron’s and leupold scout scope. It feeds off stripper clips and hold 6 down in the magazine.

2f651b1b88a5f6a3e7d43afa86c54225.jpg


I’m running 286gr partitions at 2460fps. I could possibly run it a little faster but It works fine as it is and is nice and mild to shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
lefty315":3rc5v288 said:
I was able to make a trip to Africa in 2012 where I used my .35 Whelen on 4 of the 8 animals I took. The PH I was with toted a Husqvarna 9.3x62. We compared the merits of the 2 cartridges and at the time a .35 made more sense for me due to the availability of bullets. The 9.3 seems to have taken off a bit since then and sometimes I think about grabbing one.

A few years before that I was able to talk to Chub Eastman, who wrote for some magazines on hunting cartridges. When my .35 Whelen came up, he immediately asked if I’d ever thought about the 9.3x62. At the time I had never heard of it but he had apparently seen how capable it was over in Africa.

I have all the guns I’ll ever need but you guys keep talking about the 9.3 and I may dip into my daughters inheritance!!!
I have both, the .35 Whelen, and a 9.3x62.
For all intents and purposes, they are ballistic equals.
The only advantage goes to the 9.3 and the higher ballistic coefficient bullets it has.


Hawk
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
Thebear_78":2ekeqab0 said:
I’m also a big fan of the 9.3x62. When combined with 286gr nosler Partition it is one of the most effective big game hunting rounds you can fit in a standard action.

One of the major benefits of the 9.3x62 is that it does a lot of heavy lifting with out being flashy or pushy. I really wouldn’t try to push it for those extra few feet per second. All you will get is more wear and tear on your gun and shoulders. No game will ever notice the difference.

If I wasn’t having a 35 whelen built on a Winchester 1895 I would consider it one of the best 9.3x62 hosts out there.

102d66200215286a069b9d8bea4c1e42.jpg



My personal 9.3x62 is built on a P17 infield scout. 23” barrel, iron’s and leupold scout scope. It feeds off stripper clips and hold 6 down in the magazine.

2f651b1b88a5f6a3e7d43afa86c54225.jpg


I’m running 286gr partitions at 2460fps. I could possibly run it a little faster but It works fine as it is and is nice and mild to shoot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely beautiful rifles you have!!
Nothing wrong with pumping those 286 gr bullets out at 2460 fps. That’s what made the 9.3 a legend. And that’s why it’s still around today.


Hawk
 

Thebear_78

Handloader
Sep 30, 2004
2,892
161
The 9.3 definitely handles the heavier weights better.

My opinion is 250 and under goes to whelen, over 250 goes to 9.3x62. I have a few hundred 275 RN .358s to play with in the 1895.

I’ve used the 9.3x62 to take moose out to 300 yards. The 286gr Partition has been the perfect bullet. I would caution you on the 270gr Speer. It shot very accurately for me but was way too soft. I shout a spike moose in the neck at 15 yards and the bullet completely came apart. Basically disintegrated in 6-8” of moose neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
Thebear_78":y9522vel said:
The 9.3 definitely handles the heavier weights better.

My opinion is 250 and under goes to whelen, over 250 goes to 9.3x62. I have a few hundred 275 RN .358s to play with in the 1895.

I’ve used the 9.3x62 to take moose out to 300 yards. The 286gr Partition has been the perfect bullet. I would caution you on the 270gr Speer. It shot very accurately for me but was way too soft. I shout a spike moose in the neck at 15 yards and the bullet completely came apart. Basically disintegrated in 6-8” of moose neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re not the first to mention staying away from the Speer 270 gr. 9.3 bullets. They are too soft, as you mentioned.

I believe you’re right about the lighter to mid bullet weights going to the Whelen, and the heavier bullets of 286 gr and heavier going to the 9.3x62!

Thank you for your input, it’s always welcomed.

Hawk
 

Guy Miner

Master Loader
Apr 6, 2006
16,540
1,039
Thebear_78

I always enjoy seeing that 9.3x62 1917 you have. Six of those powerful cartridges in the magazine is a good thing indeed!

And everytime I think about turning my 30-06 1917 into a 9.3... I end up shrugging my shoulders and asking "why?" It's such a cool thing, but the 30-06 is fine for what I hunt, no need to spend money on the barrel, dies, brass & bullets for a new cartridge. Dang.

My 375 H&H has been great, but in the field I doubt it makes any difference at all 375 vs 9.3... Pretty close to the same ballistics. At the "Safari Rifle Championship" Libby Montana, the lightest cartridges permitted are the 9.3 and the 375 - they treat 'em the same.

Guy
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
Guy Miner":1l6kjndn said:
Thebear_78

I always enjoy seeing that 9.3x62 1917 you have. Six of those powerful cartridges in the magazine is a good thing indeed!

And everytime I think about turning my 30-06 1917 into a 9.3... I end up shrugging my shoulders and asking "why?" It's such a cool thing, but the 30-06 is fine for what I hunt, no need to spend money on the barrel, dies, brass & bullets for a new cartridge. Dang.

My 375 H&H has been great, but in the field I doubt it makes any difference at all 375 vs 9.3... Pretty close to the same ballistics. At the "Safari Rifle Championship" Libby Montana, the lightest cartridges permitted are the 9.3 and the 375 - they treat 'em the same.

Guy
@Guy Miner

Thank you Guy!

I should’ve started my post off by saying that the upped psi for the 9.3x62mm equals old manual loadings of the .375 H&H! Not the newer loadings of the .375 H&H.

I know you’re pretty happy with your .375 H&H, and when I started this post, you were the first I thought of as being experienced with a .375 H&H, and also that you can, and do look objectively at both cartridges.

I, also, owned a .375 H&H Mag way back in the late 80’s, early 90’s, and know the ballistics of the round quite well, from back then.
But, to have a cartridge that isn’t a magnum, per se, and not have to use as much powder, along with not having to have a magnum length action, and the expense of buying one, is a relief, to us normal guys.

Thank you for being level headed, too!

Hawk
 

Blkram

Handloader
Nov 25, 2013
1,865
283
While I do not, or ever have, owned a 375 H&H, I have shot them, as well as the 375 H&H Improved. Fine cartridges indeed.

When I finally made the plunge into the 375 caliber pool (larger than my beloved 375 Win), I chose the slightly less powerful 376 Steyr. I use the 260 gr AccuBond in it, and it produces 1/2" groups @ 2632 fps out of my 21" barrel. It has taken elk and bison to date. And it is a pussycat to shoot, even off the bench, and is a blast to shoot and hunt with!

My 9.3x62 is a Sako 85 with the 24.3" barrel, and shoots the Nosler 250 gr AccuBond factory ammunition into just a hair over 1/2" groups. Sorry, haven't chronied yet, but it too is a pleasure to shoot and hunt with! And has accounted for a moose so far.

Both great cartridges and performers on big game, and I am looking forward to many more years of hunting with both. Regardless of actual velocities, both cartridges have, and will, put meat on the table!

What more can we ask for?
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
Blkram":1uhrxnni said:
While I do not, or ever have, owned a 375 H&H, I have shot them, as well as the 375 H&H Improved. Fine cartridges indeed.

When I finally made the plunge into the 375 caliber pool (larger than my beloved 375 Win), I chose the slightly less powerful 376 Steyr. I use the 260 gr AccuBond in it, and it produces 1/2" groups @ 2632 fps out of my 21" barrel. It has taken elk and bison to date. And it is a pussycat to shoot, even off the bench, and is a blast to shoot and hunt with!

My 9.3x62 is a Sako 85 with the 24.3" barrel, and shoots the Nosler 250 gr AccuBond factory ammunition into just a hair over 1/2" groups. Sorry, haven't chronied yet, but it too is a pleasure to shoot and hunt with! And has accounted for a moose so far.

Both great cartridges and performers on big game, and I am looking forward to many more years of hunting with both. Regardless of actual velocities, both cartridges have, and will, out meat on the table!

What more can we ask for?
I agree with you there!

Hawk
 

clearwater

Handloader
Feb 5, 2005
324
23
Have a 375 Ruger in Mossberg Patriot. similar ballistics, but the thing is too light for the heavier loads. Scoped about 7 lbs even. So 300 grain at 2600 hurts. The rifle is a joy to carry and is the synthetic stock so is used is heavy weather and rough bushwhacking and as the deer camp backup gun incase someone damages theirs. thankfully I reload, so a lighter bullet makes all the difference. Besides it would be kinda silly to shoot $100 a box ammo in a $300 gun. Cast bullets are a lot of fun. Big heavy 280 grain at about 1800 fps still hits about the same spot at 100 yards as the jacketed load.
 

HAWKEYESATX

Handloader
Aug 15, 2016
1,806
56
clearwater":236m1924 said:
Have a 375 Ruger in Mossberg Patriot. similar ballistics, but the thing is too light for the heavier loads. Scoped about 7 lbs even. So 300 grain at 2600 hurts. The rifle is a joy to carry and is the synthetic stock so is used is heavy weather and rough bushwhacking and as the deer camp backup gun incase someone damages theirs. thankfully I reload, so a lighter bullet makes all the difference. Besides it would be kinda silly to shoot $100 a box ammo in a $300 gun. Cast bullets are a lot of fun. Big heavy 280 grain at about 1800 fps still hits about the same spot at 100 yards as the jacketed load.
I had been looking at the Mossberg Patriot, too, in .375 Ruger.
But, as you said, the ammo price was out of this world![emoji2962][emoji51][emoji20]
Hand loading a 250 gr AccuBond to just a little over 2600 fps in the 9.3 should be able to take care of anything on this continent, I would think, and not be too strenuous on the shoulder.


Hawk

Sent from my REVVLRY+ using Tapatalk
 

SJB358

Ballistician
Dec 24, 2006
31,304
564
I have a couple of Whelens, a 9.3x62 and a 375 Improved. My Whelens are loaded towards the lighter end of the spectrum with 220 Hammers in the bolt gun at 2800, 225 Sierras in the pump at 2675. The 9.3x62 uses 250 Accubonds and 250 Swift A-Frames at 2750. My 375 Improved has an easy shooting load of IMR4350 with 300 grain Partitions and Sierras at 2400 and a little warmer load of 250 TTSX's at 2950.

I think Bear nailed it though, the 9.3 can be loaded pretty similar to the 375 with the heavier bullets, in an overall lighter rifle with an extra round in the magazine, or two with some rifles. I will say I can run 300's out to 2700-2800 pretty easily with the 375 which will run away from the rest, but you'll pay the price in recoil, cause even in an excellent Legend, it has some serious whompum!
 
Top