9.3 vs. .358 bulet selection

[vzerone]

I'm not likely to ever go to Africa, so for me it doesn't really matter. I have nothing against the 9.3, but I surely don't buy into the argument that it is head and shoulders above the 35 Whelen. In fact, if you look at the Nosler load data, the Whelen bests the 9.3 (with a 250grn bullet), while using 1grn less powder. I am sure that it is just anecdotal, but a 0.04% increase in cross sectional area and equal velocity certainly doesn't make one a killer and the other an honorable mention.

Bullet selection here in the US is better for the Whelen, and it will kill anything in NA. If I was going to Africa, I would definitely get a 9.3, but there is no way you can convince me it is a superior round.

I don't disagree with you at all. The .358 and 9.3 are in my opinion far above the smaller calibers. By that I mean 7's and 30's. The 35 Remington is an excellent deer cartridge.

One thing you can do with that 35 is shoot pistol bullets for plinking or varmints and you can't do that with a 9.3 that I know of.

Now there is another cartridge that has quite a following, and it is a good one, and that is the 338-06. Long ago I was torn between the 35 Whelen and the 338-06. I also like that the 358 Winchester is an excellent cartridge and you can have it on a shorter action and lighter rifle.

[lucifers]

As I also said this is "an internet discussion". No experienced hunter would waste his/her time around the campfire putting down a fellow hunter who carried either.

The 35W and 9.3x62 are essentially ballistic twins.

Once you move up to the 64/77/74 9.3s the 35W is eclipsed.

But if you love 35s, you can always have a 350 G&H Magnum or 35 AI Long built on your square bridge magnum mauser action.

With a 250 @3100 you would have bragging rights !

[vzerone]

As I also said this is "an internet discussion". No experienced hunter would waste his/her time around the campfire putting down a fellow hunter who carried either.

The 35W and 9.3x62 are essentially ballistic twins.

Once you move up to the 64/77/74 9.3s the 35W is eclipsed.

But if you love 35s, you can always have a 350 G&H Magnum or 35 AI Long built on your square bridge magnum mauser action.

With a 250 @3100 you would have bragging rights !

Al Gore created the internet thus enabling us to have this 35/9.3 discussion!

[Eutectic]

The 35W and 9.3x62 are essentially ballistic twins.

I wish you'd 'spell' that out...... Some of us here are old enough to think maybe you meant the .35 Winchester!

Joking aside and un-like many I've shot both quite extensively. They are very close to each other pretty much across the board unless your .35 Whelen is a 1 in 16" twist. In this case the 9.3 x 62 is the winner.

Eutectic

[sharps4590]

A closer comparison would be the 9mm's to the 35's. There's only .003 difference between them as compared to the immense gulf of .008 between 35's and 9.3's. Basically it ends up a popularity contest as most comparisons do.

[vzerone]

I wish you'd 'spell' that out...... Some of us here are old enough to think maybe you meant the .35 Winchester!

Joking aside and un-like many I've shot both quite extensively. They are very close to each other pretty much across the board unless your .35 Whelen is a 1 in 16" twist. In this case the 9.3 x 62 is the winner.

Eutectic

That's very true about the twist. Some forget that if they don't have the proper twist for those long heavy bullets they won't shoot quite as well. Was on another forum and a gentleman had a 35 Whelen with a very slow twist and he was shooting some of the longer heavier bullets and was getting oblong holes at 100 yards and he was wanting to shoot further then that.

I believe the 9.3x62 was developed around 1905. Lot's of experience with that cartridge.

[5Shot]

My first 35 Whelen AI has a 1:12, but I wanted to shoot lots of cast with the new one, so I went with a 1:14. Thought it might do better with cast without having to water drop them. Not sure how the 1:16 became the factory standard, but it really seems like a waste of a good tube (along with the enormous throats that some rifles have).

[vzerone]

My first 35 Whelen AI has a 1:12, but I wanted to shoot lots of cast with the new one, so I went with a 1:14. Thought it might do better with cast without having to water drop them. Not sure how the 1:16 became the factory standard, but it really seems like a waste of a good tube (along with the enormous throats that some rifles have).

I'd have to say it was the narrowed minded about the myths that fast twists are horribly inaccurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. It appears more people became aware of the fast twists when Colt chambered their 5.56 NATO rifles with the seven twist for the military.

[dh2]

I don't disagree with you at all. The .358 and 9.3 are in my opinion far above the smaller calibers. By that I mean 7's and 30's. The 35 Remington is an excellent deer cartridge.

One thing you can do with that 35 is shoot pistol bullets for plinking or varmints and you can't do that with a 9.3 that I know of.

Now there is another cartridge that has quite a following, and it is a good one, and that is the 338-06. Long ago I was torn between the 35 Whelen and the 338-06. I also like that the 358 Winchester is an excellent cartridge and you can have it on a shorter action and lighter rifle.

the older speer manuals do show load data using the 9mm Makarov (.365) bullet in the 9.3x62mm Mauser , I shoot a lot of cast boolits in mine so I have had no reason to try this.

The .338-06 was the first 98 Mauser I ever built I did it because there is a lot of good .338 bullets out there, and it gives up much to the .338 Win. mag. but recoil.

I am not much in to fussing about which one is better, to me all of us may have a different reason for picking one over the other.
Now one of my projects going at the time is am 8mm-06 beside the fact of all the parts coming along cheap, I have no reason for building it. I in no way feel that it with gain any thing over my .338-06 or 9.3x62mm Mauser.

[vzerone]

the older speer manuals do show load data using the 9mm Makarov (.365) bullet in the 9.3x62mm Mauser , I shoot a lot of cast boolits in mine so I have had no reason to try this.

The .338-06 was the first 98 Mauser I ever built I did it because there is a lot of good .338 bullets out there, and it gives up much to the .338 Win. mag. but recoil.

I am not much in to fussing about which one is better, to me all of us may have a different reason for picking one over the other.
Now one of my projects going at the time is am 8mm-06 beside the fact of all the parts coming along cheap, I have no reason for building it. I in no way feel that it with gain any thing over my .338-06 or 9.3x62mm Mauser.

Hey thanks, I forgot about the Makarov. Cast would be cool as you could load it fatter. Just make sure when you're shooting a grizzly not to have the Makarov loads!!

[Texas by God]

When I owned a 9.3x62, I came very close to buying a Lee mould for the 9mm Mak. A man needs squirrel loads you know.

[vzerone]

When I owned a 9.3x62, I came very close to buying a Lee mould for the 9mm Mak. A man needs squirrel loads you know.

Gosh, you mean you sold it? Why?

[Texas by God]

Vince- a buddy waved a Sako 22-250 at me; knowing my weaknesses. A trade was made.
My .358 Rem 700 has helped me get over the 9.3 loss- chunking chunky boolits at moderate velocity with amazing accuracy- the same thing I was doing with the CZ 9.3x62mm.

[vzerone]

Vince- a buddy waved a Sako 22-250 at me; knowing my weaknesses. A trade was made.
My .358 Rem 700 has helped me get over the 9.3 loss- chunking chunky boolits at moderate velocity with amazing accuracy- the same thing I was doing with the CZ 9.3x62mm.

Yeah, when Beretta bought Sako I think they went to hell. I miss those old original actions. I don't like the Tikkas at all. Hey no flys on a 358W.

VZ

[nicholst55]

Someone mentioned the 370 Sako, which is more comparable to the .358 Shooting Times Alaskan than the .35 Whelen - and just about as common in the US. If I felt the need for a long magnum in a medium bore (and didn't want a .375 H&H), I believe I'd look long and hard at the .358 STA.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/...358sta_201008/

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Kno...s+Alaskan.html