View Full Version : 9.3x62mm in a 1917 Enfield

January 4, 2009, 03:23 PM
Hey all,

I currently have a bubba 1917 Enfield that I am looking to make into something new. I have contemplated the gamut of cartridges available for this beefy action and lean toward the big bores like .495 A-Square, 500 Jeffery and .577 T-Rex. I work in close proximity with coastal brown bears so these cartridges would not be totally wasted and relegated to the shooting range. But, since I am working on a .458 Lott already I am thinking of going with something a little more middle of the road. Strong contenders are 35 Whelen, 416 Taylor and 9.3x62mm Mauser.

What are others thoughts on this project? They all seem to have pros and cons and would be interested in others opinions.

Also I am trying to take the barrel off the 1917 Eddystone action and so far have had no luck. I have heard that these some of these actions were tightened hydraulically and require a small cut around the barrel where it meets the action to remove. Is this correct?

Jim Watson
January 4, 2009, 04:36 PM
I don't know about hydraulically tightened but they are tight and I have read many times of making a relief cut just ahead of the shoulder to relieve the tension and alow the barrel to be unscrewed without torquing the receiver.

James K
January 4, 2009, 08:16 PM
Just MHO, but I have never been able to see much difference between the 9.3x62 and the .35 Whelan and ammo is more likely to be available for the latter.

If you don't plan to use that .30 barrel, definitely make the relief cut; too much force on the receiver wrench could crack the receiver, which would be "ungood."


January 4, 2009, 09:58 PM
Well I made the relief cut this evening and the barrel popped off no sweat. The old barrel was slightly pitted and although I never fired it I don't think it would have won any accuracy competitions. I will hold on to it though because I have a tendency to do that; who knows when I might need a good?

Now I will do some clean-up work on it, level the back bridge, try and get full bearing of the lugs and try and decide that I want to do with it.

The 9.3 has slightly more case capacity and a bit more power than the .35 and has the added cool factor, but as pointed out a bit harder to come by.

Any other caliber thoughts out there?

James K
January 5, 2009, 08:49 PM
I am not sure a bear would know the difference between a 9.3x72 and a .35 Whelen, but he would sure appreciate that "cool factor." :cool:


January 5, 2009, 09:05 PM
I would like to have a 35 Whelen someday because as a kid I used to read those backcountry books by Bradford Angier and Col. Townsend Whelen and they went a long way towards putting the outdoorsman/hunting bug in my head.

I was under the impression that the 35 Whelen wasn't actually developed by Whelen, but named in his honor. I also read somewhere else that it was developed by him and his friends. I don't know which is true, but I still think it would be cool to own and shoot "The Whelen".

I wonder, though, between the 9.3x62mm and 35 Whelen which one the man himself would choose?

"Only accurate rifles are interesting"

January 5, 2009, 11:09 PM
The bears I have "talked" to aren't that particular with anything over an '06.

Its kind of like a 1965 Mustang vs. a 1965 Aston Martin DB5; both classic cars, but how many DB5s have you seen? Bears would probably like the Mustang better though.

January 5, 2009, 11:22 PM
The bears I have "talked" to aren't that particular with anything over an '06.

Its kind of like a 1965 Mustang vs. a 1965 Aston Martin DB5; both classic cars, but how many DB5s have you seen? Bears would probably like the Mustang better though.

January 8, 2009, 10:32 AM
Ithink its a great ideal, the 9.3X62.

You're correct about the 1917 action being great for the heavy, "differant" stuff. After reading Jim Carmichael about building a 416 Rigby on the 1917 action I decided I needed one. A friend gave me the action and I went to work. Actually it was the first rifle I ever built.

The only problem I had, was not with the rifle, but with the ammo, at the time, (mid 70s) you couldnt get brass except from the loaded rounds from Rigby. I had to take 460 Wheatherby, cut the belts off and run it through the 416 sizer die. Another problem is I made the rifle a bit too light, it kicks but its a shooter.

I'm looking for another 1917 action, thinking about a 450/400, I saw a box of that ammo and figured, wow, I dont have one of those (also dont know anything about it, but what the heck).

I vote, GO FOR IT (as if my vote counts). Anyone can have a 1917 action in '06. HAVE FUN.

January 31, 2009, 01:26 PM
For different, 'cool' and big There are a few that come to mind. There's always the .375 H&H, .458 Win Mag, etc. Then there's the truly beefy stuff. .500 A-Square, 550 Express, .600 Overkill. Really big, really cool, really different. This site should give you some ideas:


Myself, if I were building a 1917 in a biggun, I would throw my hat to the .470 Capstick. I have a 1917 in .375 H&H, the Capstick would make a nice big brother to it.