Thread: My 9.3x62...

Originally Posted by stug

https://youtu.be/w2uacSv1Xiw?si=B9Jw77Mf1CMkbLzk

This is our original Big Bore shoot back in 2016. You can see Owen using the 9.3 in this video.

Shooting in tee shirt must really reduce felt recoil...

Sent from my SM-A226B using Tapatalk

I had Stug's Mauser 9.3x62 before him and it is a very light rifle with open sights, I found it very mild to shoot with factory loads but I don't recall shooting it prone. I think it still had the factory horn buttplate in those days.

Were I too shoot it again I'd get someone to check my posture on the gun, I'd want my head up, cheekweld is a benchrest invention that yank gunwriters have witters endlessly about until it has become gospel, but if you watch how the Euro hunters - yes hunters, they shoot "heads up". No3 is wrong about the hogsback stocks, yes they may offend the eye, but for offhand shooting at moving targets they are very effective, and suit powerful rifles just fine.

Ya gotta be careful what you read or are influenced by in most things, shooting as well!

Originally Posted by Tentman

I had Stug's Mauser 9.3x62 before him and it is a very light rifle with open sights, I found it very mild to shoot with factory loads but I don't recall shooting it prone. I think it still had the factory horn buttplate in those days.

Were I too shoot it again I'd get someone to check my posture on the gun, I'd want my head up, cheekweld is a benchrest invention that yank gunwriters have witters endlessly about until it has become gospel, but if you watch how the Euro hunters - yes hunters, they shoot "heads up". No3 is wrong about the hogsback stocks, yes they may offend the eye, but for offhand shooting at moving targets they are very effective, and suit powerful rifles just fine.

Ya gotta be careful what you read or are influenced by in most things, shooting as well!

Actually no I'm not wrong - but equally you are correct as well the hogsback stocks are designed for offhand shooting. I probably should have been clearer that everything I was saying about stock design is in comparison to the modern type sporting rifle which could be shot from prone, kneeling, the bench or offhand. The hogsback are not intended for anything other than offhand, and that suits the purpose of the rifle ("dangerous game" standing hunting from a shorter range where you need to let a LOT of light into something).

Hogsback or dropped comb stocks from the bench or prone are just nasty, the rotation up when you are at a bench or prone means you can't move with the recoil and it just hurts. The straight stocks pushing straight back are more comfortable from these positions as you are able to absorb the recoil with more muscle groups - biology. Less of a smack to your AC and rotator cuff...

If you have to shoot one from the bench, the better options I've found are a "lead sled" followed by a shooting stick that allows you to rest the rifle in the standing position and assist you to steady the rifle to shoot accurately. The last one of these I had anything to do with was a Sako dangerous game rifle in .375 H&H (bloody beautiful rifle too with an absolutely stunning chunk of tree on it). Same issue with the stock though with quite a good drop on it. It had been set up with a set of scope mounts that were not doing the business so the scope was shifting. Ended up by the time it was sorted having to do a box and a half of ammo through it, three of us. I got the last 5 or so rounds all to myself as the booby prize, the other guys had given up (smaller framed blokes). I felt pretty bloody smashed after that, did the last three off the bench to get a good representative group target (roughly 3/4" at 50m) but to be truthful I really do not want to do that to myself again.

Originally Posted by No.3

Hogsback or dropped comb stocks from the bench or prone are just nasty, the rotation up when you are at a bench or prone means you can't move with the recoil and it just hurts. The straight stocks pushing straight back are more comfortable from these positions as you are able to absorb the recoil with more muscle groups - biology. Less of a smack to your AC and rotator cuff...

This is not really true. Modern straight stocks are straight only for scope alignment. A straight stock does not mitigate recoil in any way...if it did they would have been making them that way from the start on safari rifles and putting the open sights on islands.

I am not shooting this rifle with a straight (or straighter) stock and expecting the recoil to be lessoned. A rifle that recoils straight back hits you harder that one that rises. (I am not sure what muscle groups are meant if the rifle is held in the same place.) I have shot a lot of rifles of all kinds, and have done a lot with old and vintage rifles with stocks designed for open sights. (with scopes and without) and I can tell the difference.

I’ve shot it prone with the horn but plate, not pleasant at all. The drop in the stock lines up really well with the open sights and shooting it standing is not bad at all, especially with the slip on limbsaver.

I have a 9.5 Mannlicher Shoenauer as well, would that count too?

Will get some of these Hammers in my next order

https://hammerbullets.com/product/36...gr-hammer-hht/

Nice & light to cut recoil down in my 9.3

My 9.3 began life as a X 57 but some fine chap had it rechambered to X 62 in Canada.

Its a pre-WW2 M98 action so has a bit of heft but is still fairly light . I shoot the 285 range of projectiles and dont have any issues other than not using it enough to actually warrant owning a 9.3 x 62. It is in a Parker-Hale wooden stock.

You have to be a little bit careful with thinking lighter bullets will reduce recoil, as the tendency often is to increase velocity at the same time.

Recoil is a function of bullet weight, and velocity, but the velocity is a squared multiplier - that is, if you double the weight you double the recoil, but if you double the velocity you increase recoil by 4x (2x2).

Of course, if the velocity stays constant then the lighter projectile will recoil less than the heavier.

The biggest improvement in bench shooting I have had was via plugs under earmuffs - or a can, but that might be a bit orrible on such a classic rifle.

Recoil is a function of momentum, which is mass x velocity. The momentum of the system is conserved. Before firing the rifle and projectile have zero momentum because the velocity is zero. The momentum of the rifle recoiling is equal to the momentum of the projectile moving down the barrel.
Momentum is a vector quantity so has a direction, so the rifles change in momentum is opposite to the projectiles change in momentum.

I’ve shot that rifle, Borrowed it from Owen at the SI big bore shoot, a few years back, bought a box of Ppu 285 gr in ChCh, shot same as Owens load out to 200, it’s a 9.3 is going shove pretty hard,
You can try cutting the load back a bit, moving to the 270 gr Speer 9.3 bullet, at the same speed, 2350 ish, will reduce recoil a bit,
Light bullets are hard to source, for the 9.3, but 250 gr TSX and Accubonds are about.
I too, would love to get a steady supply, of 232 gr Norma, but I’ve only ever seen one box in last ten years,

So here goes with some physics

8.5lb rifle = 3.855kg. 286gr = 0.0185325 kg 232gr = 0.015kg
Factory velocities from Norma ammo 286gr = 670m/s 2200fps 232gr = 731 m/s 2400fps

Momentum of rifle and projectile is conserved
Mass(rifle)xVelocity(rifle) + mass(projectile)xvelocity(projectile) = 0
286gr at 2200 fps
3.855 x Velocity(rifle) + 0.0185325 x 670 = 0
Velocity = 3.22m/s

232gr at 2400fps
3.855 x Velocity(rifle) + 0.015 x 731 = 0
Velocity = 2.844 m/s

So a lighter faster projectile does recoil less

Your right though, I would make the lighter bullet go faster I wouldnt be able to help myself. Then I'd still be whinging.

Carson, John, James..
I've got a couple of lighter 9.3's in a finnlight and a 20" R8 and understand your observations. I don't really like recoil and a .300WM is about where i stop having fun when shooting over the bench.
However, you do need to spend some time at the bench, working up loads and sighting in.
Some years back i read a good book by Warren Page, The Accurate rifle. In this book Warren writes about; the bench rest, table technique and dedicates a chapter to "testing hard kickers". As you would be aware he was a gun writer and shooting rifles in all calibers, case configurations and shapes was part of his vocation.

His key points on this matter (big calibres on the bench) are...
Your shooting positing should be more facing forward and higher, shoulders parallel with target and front of the bench, the front rest should be set higher, this also makes rear higher, and allows / forces the more upright position, you may need extra support under the rear bag and front rest. Trigger hand pulling butt back in firmly to shoulder, I also like to hold the rifle forend to compliment this rearward pressure and control but not fight the lifting/pivoting forces.
The higher rifle position allows the rifle to pivot upwards reducing the recoil forces coming directly back at you.
You may now this already know all this.
Lastly, use of the Sissy bag (small bag between the but and shoulder or folded up piece of towel under tee shirt)

Other 9.3 bits.
Norma still make the 232 gn projectiles, i see it in there factory offerings. I have a box of a 100 i picked up last year but were from an estate i think.
The europeans really like the 232's for deer, boar, moose according to a Finnish hunting mate.
Woodleigh do a 232 PP but as they are still getting back to full production i only see their 250 RN available with limited searching. ($90/50).
Using 250 gn pills at factory velocities makes for a significant reduction in recoil as compared to 286's at full noise i.e driven by 58/59 grains of 2208.
250's on 56/57 or less gns of 2208 are pleasant to shoot.
Factory loaded 250/255s like Geco is similiarly ok.

Plus deer avoid 9.3s like the plague, the biggest thing I shot with my one was a very unlucky hare that got nailed at 120M with open sights, I still feel bad about it!