375HH vs 9.3x62 Bullet Drop

[Randy Bo]

Anytime you read of the 375 H&H one of the many excellent qualities that will be exclaimed is that it's a "flat shooter". The following tables (uploaded from Swift's website) would seem to indicate that the 9.3x62 is equally as flat shooting (although a quality not seemingly associated with the 9.3x62) with nearly the same energy (7% diff. @200 yds.) and with 36% less recoil.

 

[WAB]

Agreed. Having both, I find them very similar in hunting situations.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

@Randy Bo if you want to look at another comparison, the 338 WM with a 225 gr SAF at 2750 fps. Energy falls in between the 9.3 and the 375 in the first 200 yards and exceeds both beyond 200. Drop at 300 yards is 3 inches less. All are great calibers and will do the job.

 

[112Savage]

And… if you look at the 250 gr bullets and their comparable SD mates in 0.375” of 270gr the 9.3x62 starts looking even better at long distance. But all-in-all neither are really meant for longer than 300yds.
I killed a 6x6 bull elk at 394yds with a 9.3x62 and 250gr Accubond. The problem was the wind pushed my bullet significantly further back than intended and he needed a finishing shot. For long range there are better options.

 

[mark-hunter]

Most frequent description of 375 H&H external ballistic is that it has a trajectory comparable to 30-06, at hunting distances.

Another peculiarity for 375 H&H, again frequently quoted, is that it has similar point of impact for bullets of different weights 235 grains, 270 grains, 300 grains. But it was never defined up to which distances, although reasonable to suspect is to usual hunting distances, up to two hundred meters. Most probably this was copied from old magazines and catalogs from Victorian era, and copied again.
(it is catchy, and easy to be remembered by many gun writers)

On the other hand, 9.3x62 in great majority of cases, will have only one bullet weight and that will be 286 grains, and in start it did not have a chance for such advertising.
But if somebody tried such diversity of bullet weights 9.3 mm, it may get to very similar results, that would be my guess.

I have both calibers but have no chance to test in such way. But I did notice that my 9.3 has same point of impact with 286 grain bullets - cartridges of different lots, and different makers. No need to re-zero.

 

[shootist~]

There appears to be an error in the 375's recoil energy number in the table.

Backing in to the numbers using the JBM Ballistics calculator
The 300 H&H would have to weigh only 7.83 pounds to create 46.0 pounds of recoil energy.
(300 grain bullet and 67 grains of powder are the other two inputs I used.)

A10.5 pound 375 H&H rifle would calculate as only 34.3 Pounds of recoil energy.

The 9.3x62 numbers look appear to be a little light unless you allow for a heavy rifle.
Based on my 9.3's weight of 9.5 pounds (probably heavier that most) and an estimated 62 grains of RL17, a 286 grain bullet at 2,396 fps calculates 31.8 pounds of recoil energy.

JBM - Calculations - Recoil

www.jbmballistics.com

Edit: Being an old retired bean counter, my guess is someone came up with 36.7 pounds energy for the 375 H&H and typed it in incorrectly as 46.7.

 

[Randy Bo]

There appears to be an error in the 375's recoil energy number in the table.

Backing in to the numbers using the JBM Ballistics calculator
The 300 H&H would have to weigh only 7.83 pounds to create 46.0 pounds of recoil energy.
(300 grain bullet and 67 grains of powder are the other two inputs I used.)

A10.5 pound 375 H&H rifle would calculate as only 34.3 Pounds of recoil energy.

The 9.3x62 numbers look appear to be a little light unless you allow for a heavy rifle.
Based on my 9.3's weight of 9.5 pounds (probably heavier that most) and an estimated 62 grains of RL17, a 286 grain bullet at 2,396 fps calculates 31.8 pounds of recoil energy.

JBM - Calculations - Recoil

www.jbmballistics.com

Edit: Being an old retired bean counter, my guess is someone came up with 36.7 pounds energy for the 375 H&H and typed it in incorrectly as 46.7.

@shootist~ I absolutely agree with you and I should have done a little homework before posting...But, I went back to Swift's website to look at the 375 Ruger (300 grain A-Frame) thinking it should be very close to the 375 H&H and it certainly is but, either the same type of mistake was made when entering the recoil value or, as you pointed out, they are using a similarly light weight rifle.

 

[shootist~]

@Randy Bo

It's almost like someone wanted to prove a point or something. Not sure what, though.

Being a recoil wuss, I've looked at recoil energy and done comparative calculations quite a bit. So it was pretty strange to see such a difference in recoil energy, especially since you pointed out the small difference in muzzle energy.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I can tell you that my 375 is easier to shoot than my 9.3x62. It is heavier, but not much.

 

[WAB]

I can tell you that my 375 is easier to shoot than my 9.3x62. It is heavier, but not much.

So interesting, I have found the opposite with mine. Neither is difficult, but the .375 recoil is definitely a little heavier. Not what I would expect as it is 1 1/2# heavier than the 9.3. You wouldn’t expect any significant difference in a 286 gr bullet at 2,400 and a 300 gr bullet at 2550 so stock configuration has to be driving it.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

@WAB I would say you are right. The LOP is a bit short for me, and the pad is pretty hard. My 375 has a McMillan that fits me well and a brand new decelerator. All things being equal, the 375 might kick worse, but they are not.

 

[Sarg]

Recoil can be savage on the 9.3X62 more so with souped up loads as many (if not all) are on the standard 06 size & weight rifle, stock shape must be a factor to I think as my first 9.3 was a Zastava with a plastic stock & a barrel as thin as a 410 Shotgun so super light, with mega loads was still Ok to shoot !

Then bought a light weight Husky with only a few rounds fired by a couple of owners as recoil was too much (I thought pussies) then I shot it & Holy Cow kicked like a Mule & I to sold it lol !

Then shot a Tikka T3 light weight that scoped half our Big Bore Club, it was savage & then I bought one of them, again near new with only 4-6 shots out of the box, I added a heavier stock & suppressor & it is just right now, so much so I have a hunt in a West African country semi guided & not sure what to take my 9.3 - 458 or a Win Pre 64 in 375H&H that is on its way , because of the conditions & game with only a small chance at a Forest Buff, I think the rough & tumble (possible being separated from the rifle as in lost or stolen) the Tikka might be the right rifle !

 

[Randy Bo]

@Sarg
What would you guess the difference in weight would be between your Husky vs the Tikka (after the modifications you made).
Reason for asking…I have considered picking up a Husqvarna 143 as a “fairly” inexpensive way to get into a 9.3x62.

 

[Sarg]

@Randy Bo it was one of those Feather Weight later models, not sure now on the numbers (of the Husky Model) but was same or similar weight to my Zastava & I was surprised by the recoil & I think the muzzle lift, you were most differently going to be scoped sooner or later, same with the Tikka, the suppressor does nice job of that on the Tikka, couldn't do that to nice old Husky !!

 

[Randy Bo]

So interesting, I have found the opposite with mine. Neither is difficult, but the .375 recoil is definitely a little heavier. Not what I would expect as it is 1 1/2# heavier than the 9.3. You wouldn’t expect any significant difference in a 286 gr bullet at 2,400 and a 300 gr bullet at 2550 so stock configuration has to be driving it.

@WAB
You stated that your 375 is 1.5# heavier than your 9.3. May I ask what your 9.3 weighs?
I will use this as a possible minimum weight, not to drop below, for my future 9.3x62 purchase.

 

[Randy Bo]

@Randy Bo it was one of those Feather Weight later models, not sure now on the numbers (of the Husky Model) but was same or similar weight to my Zastava & I was surprised by the recoil & I think the muzzle lift, you were most differently going to be scoped sooner or later, same with the Tikka, the suppressor does nice job of that on the Tikka, couldn't do that to nice old Husky !!

@Sarg
What minimum weight would you recommend for a nice shooting 9.3x62?

 

[Sarg]

I don't mind light weight on bigger rifles, I just don't like the scope in my eye/head as it puts me off in a tight spot, my .458Win is 8.5lbs & I had a Weatherby Ultra Light barreled to .375H&H again only the muzzle lift worries me.

The Husky's stock shape was the factor I believe, I will see if I have any photos of it .

 

[WAB]

@WAB
You stated that your 375 is 1.5# heavier than your 9.3. May I ask what your 9.3 weighs?
I will use this as a possible minimum weight, not to drop below, for my future 9.3x62 purchase.

It’s a Rigby Highland Stalker. The website lists it at 7.8# bare rifle. Add in the scope and mounts and it is very close to 9#. It is easy to shoot. My wife used it for her buffalo in Zim with no issues.

 

[TroyF]

What's a good barrel contour for the 9.3, I am starting a 9.3x62 project on a 09 Argentine mauser. Looking at the lothar walther not sure which one yet.

 

[112Savage]

If this helps, my 9.3 is a zastava left hand with wooden stock and 22” barrel. The barrel measures 0.565” at the muzzle and with Talley lightweight ring mounts and a leupold VX-R 3-9x40 is weights 8.25#.
250’s at 2600 are what I would call sporty
286’s at 2500 are sporty+
286’s at 2550 are too hot and too much recoil.
All of these have been shot from prone close to 100x’s. I did switch the factory pad to a decelerorator