issues with 9.3x57 article in handloader

[hornsurgeon]

i picked up the latest handloader while at the news stand the other day and was amazed to find an article on the 9.3x57. i paid for the mag and brought it home to read. i was greatly dissapointed to find that there was no loading info anywhere in the article. i emailed handloader about this. below is the chain of emails. i ask that if anyone else would like to see a load data article written, please email handloader and put a little pressure on them.

================================================== =======

i just purchased the august edition of handloader magazine because i saw there was an article about the 9.3x57. i naturally assumed there would be information on reloading for the 9.3x57 in the article as this is a reloading magazine. i was greatly dissapointed. this article should have been placed in rifle magazine instead. i truely hope you plan on having an article in the next edition on loading for this wonderful round. there has been quite a resurgance in this round, especially with cast bullets. many custom mold makers have been producing beautiful molds for 9.3 lately. please check out the castboolits and gunboards websites, and others, you will see there is a great interest.



mark steenis

menasha, wi

.................................................. ....


Dear Mr. Steenis,

In the 30 years or so that “Cartridge Board” has been in Handloader, it has never been an article about reloading. That column is a review of the development and history of the cartridge that is featured. If you want a feature story on the 9.3x57, please see the January-February 1987 article by Dieter Sturm (Handloader No. 125). If there is some sort of renewed interest in the 9.3x57, we may follow-up at some future date. In the 22 years I have been at the helm of Rifle and Handloader, you are the first person to express any interest in that cartridge.

Thanks for taking the time to write.



Dave Scovill, Editor in Chief

Wolfe Publishing Co.

Handloader, Rifle & Successful Hunter magazines

.................................................. ..............

you may want to check out the sweedish rifles section on gunboards, and the castboolits website. there have even been a few group buys lately for custom bullet molds on castboolits. perhaps an article on loading various 9.3's using modern powders and also with cast bullets? several of the major manufactures are producing 9.3's including ruger and cz. sabattii is bringing in 9.3 double rifles as well that are being marketed by cabelas. cabelas also has had a large shipment of sweedish mauser sporters in 9.3x57's they have been selling. sporter express stocks replacement mauser barrels in 9.3. i think there is quite an underground cult following that you may not be aware of.

.................................................. ..............

no additional replies received

[Potsy]

I've been reading Rifle & Handloader for about 16 years. In that time, the only author to do much writing on any 9.3's has been John Barsness. Even then, his writing has centered around the 9.3x62, 9.3x74, and 9.3BS wildcat.
Barsness does hang out on 24Hr. Campfire. You might dig around over there.
No, come to think of it, in my 3' tall stack of Rifle and Handloader there has never been any loading data in "Cartridge Board".
I don't think Scovill does much dinkin' around on the 'net. As a result he stays kinda uninformed about the latest and greatest trends and this week's fashions. Probably too busy shootin' and huntin'; dad gum him.

[acsteve]

I too am a fan of the 9.3x62. but because of an series of mentions in the Hatari Times which where taken from period journal entries of residents of colonial Africa. For load data I sometimes refer to 35 Whelan data, I believe COW lists loads with 3031 for the x57. don't have book handy though.
I wonder if Handloader thinks about the mountains of data already out there 4 the 06 or 270 when they publish loads?[/I][/I]

[nilz]

Here are some loads,

http://norma.cc/en/Ammunition-Academy/Loading-Data/93x57/

[redneckdan]

Mr. Scovill and most of his crew don't seem to have much good to say about internet forums and us in particular, Mr Venturio being the only exception I can think of off hand. The article about expanding lead bullets had several thinly veiled jabs at a contributor here if I remember correctly.

It seems to me that his magazine is obsolete as far as most tinkering types in the reloading world are concerned. I've learned more in 10 minutes of browsing here then in a whole years worth of Handloader. I have a digital subscription that I will print out and use as bathroom reading. If I want solid technical information I look here.

[x101airborne]

redneckdan is absolutely right. If I want outdated and incomplete information without any thought or foresight into the possible, I will read Handloader. I would rather have a thousand tinkerers, expiramenters, garage gunsmiths, and people who have actually lived the information they share giving me advice and calling me on what "I thought" I knew than any ten "experts" regurgitating information that is sometimes 20 years old. Lets bring back some of those old or obsolete cartriges like the 9.3x57!!!! I like hearing my dad's stories, but I want to live them for myself.

[x101airborne]

PS.... Mike Venturino is still my cast boolit hero. Larry Gibson is a close second.

[Potsy]

I have learned more here in 2 years than in 16 reading Rifle and Handloader; but I've got to give them a little credit; if it hadn't been for reading the likes of Seyfried, Pearce, Venturino, and, yes, even Scovill, I'd have never gotten started casting and would have probably given up on handloading altogether.
The internet, however, is a vastly larger place to learn.

[redneckdan]

found the article in question today. Handloader #260, pg 49 at the bottom of the first column. Writer is Mr. Haviland.

[9.3X62AL]

"Handloader" isn't the high-end publication it once was, but is still among the best available for our hobby field. Mainstream media is having a tough time keeping up with online information sources--their world is in flux.

Mr. Scovill sounds almost arrogant when he mentions that Hornsurgeon's comment concerning the 9.3 x 57 is the first he has heard in his 22 years at the magazine. He needs to get out more, or cancel his membership with the Flat Earth Society. In fact--his tone and commentary sounds a lot like those we receive from non-casters when we detail our uses of the poured projectiles in centerfire rifles--confusion, followed by derision. Zumbo-esque.

[Baron von Trollwhack]

IMO, Handloader and Rifle have been superseded by internet resources of great variety, including Cast Boolits.

BvT

[olafhardt]

l like Scoville and I think he knows his stuff.

[skeet1]

Years ago I wrote a letter to Mr. Scoville about the sagging quality of their magazine and got a poison pen letter in reply, that I wish I had kept. Over the years of receiving Handloader I had observed the quality suffering to the point that it looked like almost any other magazine on the magazine rack. I was hoping that the quality would return but has not. When you look at the magazines of the 70's and 80's it is obvious.

Ken

[roysha]

skeet1

"Over the years of receiving Handloader I had observed the quality suffering to the point that it looked like almost any other magazine on the magazine rack. I was hoping that the quality would return but has not. When you look at the magazines of the 70's and 80's it is obvious."

Double YUP!! and let me add "Rifle" also. When I quit "Rifle" and "Handloader" their articles had deteriorated to the point where it was who could spend the most money on the latest gimmick.

I have #1 through #100 or so of both. "Handloader" was a major factor in my love affair with the 17s. Still infatuated.

[nanuk]

I read those mags and the ONLY writers I find that seem to NOT have an agenda is Scoville and Barsness.

as to the arrogance... I dunno, but I did get a reply to my letter regarding a photo of one of the contributing editors on a WhiteTail hunt in Saskatchewan with a downed animal that was obviously a mule deer.

the response was that it had WT horns so it was probably a cross breed.

I replied again saying that in Sk, where I live and hunt and read the regulations and laws and have a good relationship with the Conservation Officers, that CrossBreed deer are NOT legal to shoot at any time of year, so regardless, they had published pictures of an illegal deer.

that was a few years ago.... I no longer look in my email inbox for a reply

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

Just like me, not what they were forty years ago...

Rich

[9.3X62AL]

Just like me, not what they were forty years ago...

Rich

OK, THAT prompted a smile. It might be good to keep in mind that most of us know a great deal more now than we did at the time we started reading "Handloader"--1981, in my case. Just being fair to the magazine, that's all. I keep buying it, and Mike V's contributions are a large reason for that.

[sundog]

nfg, could not help but notice the tone of your post. Are you angry about something or at someone? Around here, it is usually okay to share experiences and make personal observations..., usually. Or did I read it wrong?

[9.3X62AL]

Corky, that sort of text is de rigeur over in P & R, AKA "Land Of The Perpetually Indignant". It can't help leaking out and fouling the general board from time to time.

[Fishman]

Well it looks like one of the cranky old gun writers have made an appearance. :)

For the record, I like cranky old gun writers, but all things in moderation.

[hornsurgeon]

EDIT - the post i was responding to here has been deleted by the mod.


nfg, if you had taken the time to fully read my original post, you would understand that i in no way belittled anyone. i seen ABSOLUTELY no reason for your tone and rant. gun writers have the unique priviledge of having at their disposal inside help and info from manufacurers. they also have access to pressure testing and other things important to developing safe data. the rest of us do not have access to these resources. i would never blindly accept any info posted on the net. to do so is to invite danger, maybe even death.

all i ask is that if you would like to see info in the 9.3's, email those that put out the magazines and show your support for a caliber that the gun writers frankly ignore.

if all you are trying to do is to bash people with out being constructive PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST ON SOME OTHER BOARD, YOU MAY BE WELCOME THERE!

:killingpc[smilie=b:

[9.3X62AL]

A thought occurred to me just now......apart from Ruger's No. 1 variant in 9.3 x 74R, the 9.3mm cartridges have largely been the province of European gunmakers. Perhaps North American gunscribes are far more influenced by "on-continent" manufacturers than by makers overseas. Unduly influenced, I might add. There's no reason on earth that Ruger or Remington couldn't make 9.3 x 62 rifles, they just don't. The Rem 700 Classic in 8 x 57 kind of surprised me when it was issued, but it proves my point--USA makers choose to not make many metrics, so buyers have to rely on Old World makers like CZ--SAKO--Tikka--Steyr Mannlicher--etc.

No surprise, really--the 9 x 19 Luger was in existence for 52 years before an American maker of any size chose to chamber it (S&W, 1954). With a few exceptions, USA gunwriters are spokesholes for USA gunmakers. That's cool, I'm all about cheering for the home team--but when the home team isn't in the game, I'll buy tickets elsewhere.

[hornsurgeon]

you are correct, but that is also old world thinking of the market. we live in a global market. id doesn't really matter as much where something is developed or made. all of the "foreign" manufacturers you list are marketed here almost as much as our "domestic" brands. what i find really funny is that quite a few of the firearms marketed by our "domestic" brands are actually imported from other contries. in the woods or at the range i personally see cz, tikka, sako, etc nearly as often as i see remington, winchester, savage, etc.

your observations on the 9x19 illustrate exactly how out of touch our "gun experts" are here in the USA.

[robertbank]

A thought occurred to me just now......apart from Ruger's No. 1 variant in 9.3 x 74R, the 9.3mm cartridges have largely been the province of European gunmakers. Perhaps North American gunscribes are far more influenced by "on-continent" manufacturers than by makers overseas. Unduly influenced, I might add. There's no reason on earth that Ruger or Remington couldn't make 9.3 x 62 rifles, they just don't. The Rem 700 Classic in 8 x 57 kind of surprised me when it was issued, but it proves my point--USA makers choose to not make many metrics, so buyers have to rely on Old World makers like CZ--SAKO--Tikka--Steyr Mannlicher--etc.

No surprise, really--the 9 x 19 Luger was in existence for 52 years before an American maker of any size chose to chamber it (S&W, 1954). With a few exceptions, USA gunwriters are spokesholes for USA gunmakers. That's cool, I'm all about cheering for the home team--but when the home team isn't in the game, I'll buy tickets elsewhere.

Al would I be out of line in saying perhaps the reason some of those great European Cartridges never caught on in N.A. was due to the fact they are metric described. I wonder if the N.A. shooting community just wasn't about to embrace the metric nomenclature.

Take Care

Bob

[9.3X62AL]

Surgeon--

No doubt about it, a wider world view would benefit the shooting community at large, and the gunscribes should lead the way--not restrict info. I've burned up a lot of bandwidth here harping on the CZ-550 in 9.3 x 62, and won't go into depth other than to say that the rifle and caliber are a very fine game-harvesting system.

Bob--

One of the traits of your neighbors to the south is strident provincialism--rejection of the metric system, resistance to any second language, etc. I suppose that's charming and quaint, but a bit short-sighted in many ways. The 30-06 isn't the ONLY cartridge in existence, even if a hunter could get by very well with just that chambering. Even lobster for dinner every night would get old in a hurry.

[izzyjoe]

well i will say that i've only been casting and reloading for three years now, and i've learned more on this fourm than any other place. i was excited when bought my first Handloader mag. and then i got a sub. to it. but i'm thinking about letting it lapse, but the trouble with info, it all gets pretty stale after awile. but the only reason that i might keep my sub. is because of Mike V. i have talked to many older shooter/ reloader's that have nothing to do with the net, and they have same mindset, you can't do that, or do this only if you do that, blah blah blah. it seems that they never tried certain things, they where told not that. and never leard for them selfves. i've been told not shoot lead boolits past 1600fs, and i don't, i shoot them faster, more like 2000fs. the thing is, if you never try somthing you never know, some may try and have bad results and give up, and say you can't do that. but there is alot of thing i've learned not to do from the net, and i'm not gona try. but that because i value my healt, and my rifles. :cbpour:

[9.3X62AL]

Gunmakers and their allied ammo/component/tool makers clearly have a "comfort zone" in many respects, and don't want to be driven or forced out of same.

I'll cite two examples of this tendency that negatively impact cast boolit shooters, and I wonder if these traits aren't fostered to frustrate new casters and oblige them back to factory ammo or at least jacketed bullets.

1) 9mm and 40 S&W twist rates. Most pistols in these calibers use 1-10" or 4 turns/meter twist rate that is insanely fast for bullets of the lengths used in these calibers. This is an aggravating factor in an already none-too-friendly ballistic environment for castings in these calibers.

2) 45-70 throat/groove dimensions vs. most commercial mould dimensions. Lyman and RCBS slavishly stick to cavity specs that produce .457"-.458" boolits, and I doubt that 10% of existing 45-70s have dimensions that small. This isn't a state secret, but nothing changes. THANKFULLY, there is a cottage industry out there devoted to producing moulds and tooling designed for real-world utility.

I'm becoming a real curmudgeon as I get older, it appears.

[Nueces]

I remember all the grousing back in the '70s about Lyman moulds casting oversize. Had to crank a 30 caliber bullet down to 308 from 312 or so. I read from Skeeter Skelton, no less (may peace be upon him), that he sized his 44 Special bullets to "the correct 0.429." Well, the mould makers listened, it seems. Now, we know better.

I say now, but Keith knew better in the '30s and Harvey Donaldson before that. The loudest are not always the rightest. And this glorious internet has connected us like joining with another brain lobe.

Ain't it cool?

Mark