|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
9.3 mm Rock
Posted by Kabluewy on Jan 25 2006
Thanks Steve for the great info. Previously I didn’t read carefully, and didn’t understand that your 9.3 Rock is an “improved” wildcat. The 338 Winchester brass is also “improved” from the original 300 H&H.
The barrel I plan on using is 24” long and has a 12” twist, five groove, which proved accurate in my 9.3x62 with 300 gr Swift bullets, as well as the 250 gr., and 285 gr. bullets tested.
I have a few questions, please. I remember studying the specs of this 8x68 brass some years ago, but because it is not a standard size, I pretty much forgot about it. I’m wondering if brass is scarce?
Am I correct about the head diameter being at .511? If so, I don’t understand your comment about the brass having the largest head size to fit a standard bolt face. It seems to me that a standard bolt face of .473 would have to be opened to accommodate the .511 head of the 8x68 brass. Of course, standard H&H belted magnum bolt face is .532, which is probably too large for the 8x68 brass.
I am envisioning the brass of both the necked-up 8x68 improved brass at 2.6”, with a neck length 1.3 x 9.3; and the necked-up 338 belted mag brass at 2.5”, with a neck length very close to 1.0 x 9.3. I see this 2.6” improved case as having slightly less powder capacity than the 2.5” belted Mag brass, mostly because the belted Mag brass is a little fatter, if I have my specs right. This means that the performance you mention is impressive. I’m wondering exactly what are those safe pressures from the lab results? If I get performance like you mention from my wildcat, I will be amazed indeed, but I am willing to be surprised.
Please don’t read anything into that. Just take it at face value. I don’t mean to step on your toes. I’m simply saying some facts as I know them, making observations, pondering, and asking questions. I am expecting this 366 Alaskan wildcat to match or perhaps slightly exceed the performance of the 9.3x64 Brenneke. That’s enough for me. Anything beyond that is going to be a surprise, but acceptable of course. I just wanted a 9.3 with slightly improved ballistics, easily formed from readily available brass, and work perfectly through my Ruger action, with no modifications to the action.
The SAAMI overall cartridge length for the 30-06 is 3.340”, not 3.4”. The SAAMI spec for the 338 is also 3.340”. (Info from Nosler) Of course the 366 Alaskan has no SAAMI specs, but the O.A.L. is limited by the magazine. I don’t think 6 thousandths will do any harm, but it’s a close fit in the Ruger action at standard O.A.L. I have looked at a Tikka action only once, but as I remember, it seemed a little longer inside than the actions I am accustomed to. I am probably too particular about feeding issues, and bolt faces, feed rails, etc., but I had some pretty good actions ruined by gunsmiths messing around getting “improved” cases to feed properly. Consequently, I don’t build the gun, if the intended cartridge doesn’t feed perfectly from the action in the first place, with no modifications. I wasted my money at least two times too often, and vowed that would never happen again.
Incidentally, I like the belted magnum brass, and consider it a good thing. Also, every “improved” cartridge I have worked with reduced the magazine capacity by one round. I finally concluded that four rounds are enough in hunting situations, so I don’t see a problem with just going with the standard belted magnum brass. Maybe there is something I just don’t understand, but I have not seen what others see as an advantage with the so-called non-belted magnums. To me, I don’t understand an advantage or not of either. If the cartridge feeds properly, then I don’t try to fix something that isn’t broken.
Hope you enjoy dialogue, as I do.
Previous: 9.3mm Rock steveinmi Jan 25 2006
Next: 9.3 Rock steveinmi Jan 26 2006
Message Thread:
|
