9.3 x 64 pre-Brenneke

mapsjanhere · August 26, 2009, 03:43 PM

My Mauser is chambered in 9.3 x 64, but it predates the Brenneke cartridge of the same name. The dimensions seem to be those of the 8 x 64 S cartridge, necked up to 9.3. The previous owner has a custom die made for it and formed cartridges from 30.06 brass, which is nearly identical in diameter, only the shoulder is a couple milimeter set back (and gets blown out when fireforming).
My questions are:
Does anyone have load info/dimensions/max pressure on the cartridge? It's described in "European Sporting Cartridges", but that book is out of print.
Shouldn't 35 Whelen be the better starting brass, and can I simply fireform the brass by shooting the slightly undersized 358 from the 366 barrel?
And the big one, how do you develop load data from scratch? Is it save to use 35.Whelen starting values?

GeauxTide · August 26, 2009, 08:24 PM

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazin...=1379&magid=95

Google is your friend.

mapsjanhere · August 27, 2009, 08:53 AM

It is? That article is about the 9.3 x 64 Brenneke. My rifle predates that round, which wasn't created until 1927. The 9.3 x 64 has a .507 base diameter, the 8 x 64 is .470. NOT the same cartridge.

GeauxTide · August 27, 2009, 11:31 AM

35 Whelen is based on the 30-06 and has a .473 head. If you're forming cartridges from the 06, then a .034 difference in head size will surely give you major problems.

mapsjanhere · August 27, 2009, 12:46 PM

That's what the current cartridges I have are made from, 30.06, according to the stamp, and they fit with a measured head of 465. The real issue is that I don't have the true dimensions other than from fired brass, and taking dimensions from that to even with a decent micrometer is guess work once you get into the 1/1000".

Scorch · August 28, 2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

The real issue is that I don't have the true dimensions other than from fired brass, and taking dimensions from that to even with a decent micrometer is guess work once you get into the 1/1000"

So, do a chamber cast, then you will have the true dimensions of the chamber.

I have seen 30-06 brass that varies from .465" to .478". A few thousandths od an inch is not a big deal. So yes, you may be better off using 35 Whelen brass to reduce the possibility of neck splits when expanding the necks.

mapsjanhere · August 28, 2009, 08:05 AM

Well, the die I have lists "cast" as source of the dimensions. What's odd is that the literature calls the cartridge a 9.3x64 (465 head) but list a 470 head diameter. But it's a derivative of the old M88 - 8x57I cartridge, and they all have that common shape.
I found a hint on determining a charge for this: It lists 2.76 g of GBP (Gewehr Blatt/Ball Pulver) in a small stamp on the rifle, so all I need to find now is the modern equivalent for German GBP and use 42 grains of it

Scorch · August 28, 2009, 02:31 PM

Well, sounds like you have a really neat rifle. As far as developing loads, I would follow 35 Whelen loads for the same bullet weight if it were mine. .008" in bore diameter is about the only difference I hear you describing (I assume you have slugged the bore, right? If not, do so.). If so, develop the loads using the 35 Whelen info with the proper diameter bullets for your rifle, and work up to reasonable levels as you go. I would not exceed 35 Whelen loads, just to be safe, and there should be no need to.

Gun 4 Fun · August 28, 2009, 06:15 PM

It sounds to me like you may have a 9.3x62, not the 9.3x64. The 9.3x62 has the same dimensions at the head as the 30-06 does, and brass can be, and is easily made from 30-06 cases. A chamber cast using kero-safe would really be the proper way of determinming things.

BTW, the 9.3x64 came out approximately 1910, not 1927.

mapsjanhere · August 28, 2009, 10:11 PM

wikipedia lists the dimensions for the cartridges in question, the 9.3 x 62 has a .48 head, and doesn't fit. And the 9.3 x 64 Brenneke at .507, and it's is listed as developed 1927, similar to other sources. The dimensions of my cartridge are identical to the 8x64 S, which in turn is based on the 8x57.
My gun also has the powder charge stamp, what according to my research point to a pre-1912 origin, when that stamp was abandoned.

Gun 4 Fun · August 28, 2009, 11:41 PM

Wikopedia is wrong on the born on date for the 9.3x64. I have articles here by Chub Eastman of Nosler bullets, who is a big fan and user of that round. Articles by Craig Boddington, and Cartridges of the world list it the same as the link posted above in Rifle magazine.

Any Shot You Want, the reloading manual by A-Squre rifles and ammunition, also says about 1910. That is the time frame that Brenneke designed all his rounds. The A-Squre manual is much more than a reloading manual. It is an extreme technical manual, with more ballistic info than you can find in any one source anywhere else. It was writen by a bunch of Phd's in physics etc., and has all sorts of dates, dimensional drawings taken from the originals rather than some reproduction drawings that may be inaccurate. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.

mapsjanhere · August 29, 2009, 07:50 AM

You should really inform the Brenneke company of your insight, they stubbornly claim it was 1927 on their website

Scorch · August 29, 2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

they stubbornly claim it was 1927 on their website

Oh, those stubborn Germans!!!

Quote:

A chamber cast using kero-safe would really be the proper way of determinming things.

I'm not too sure what kero-safe is. I usually use Cerro-Safe.

Gun 4 Fun · August 29, 2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

I'm not too sure what kero-safe is. I usually use Cerro-Safe.

Ah, let me guess. You're one of those guys who never made a mistake.

I couldn't recall the proper name right off the top of my head, but I'll bet he gets the idea.

GeauxTide · August 29, 2009, 09:54 PM

Amazing how some people ask your opinion and then argue with you about your input. Maybe I need another 40 years of experience to come up to speed.

mapsjanhere · August 29, 2009, 10:19 PM

Maybe, but some basic math would help to in the meantime. The difference between .465 and .473 is .008, not .034. Thanks for trying so.

GeauxTide · August 30, 2009, 04:08 PM

I will look forward to your articles in Handloader and Rifle Magazine. John Barnsess left a few months ago, so I'm sure you'd be the man. Wolfe Publishing......

August 26, 2009, 03:43 PM	#1
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	9.3 x 64 pre-Brenneke My Mauser is chambered in 9.3 x 64, but it predates the Brenneke cartridge of the same name. The dimensions seem to be those of the 8 x 64 S cartridge, necked up to 9.3. The previous owner has a custom die made for it and formed cartridges from 30.06 brass, which is nearly identical in diameter, only the shoulder is a couple milimeter set back (and gets blown out when fireforming). My questions are: Does anyone have load info/dimensions/max pressure on the cartridge? It's described in "European Sporting Cartridges", but that book is out of print. Shouldn't 35 Whelen be the better starting brass, and can I simply fireform the brass by shooting the slightly undersized 358 from the 366 barrel? And the big one, how do you develop load data from scratch? Is it save to use 35.Whelen starting values?

August 26, 2009, 08:24 PM	#2
GeauxTide Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Helena, AL Posts: 4,424	Rifle Mag Article http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazin...=1379&magid=95 Google is your friend.

August 28, 2009, 02:31 PM	#8
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	Well, sounds like you have a really neat rifle. As far as developing loads, I would follow 35 Whelen loads for the same bullet weight if it were mine. .008" in bore diameter is about the only difference I hear you describing (I assume you have slugged the bore, right? If not, do so.). If so, develop the loads using the 35 Whelen info with the proper diameter bullets for your rifle, and work up to reasonable levels as you go. I would not exceed 35 Whelen loads, just to be safe, and there should be no need to. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

August 28, 2009, 06:15 PM	#9
Gun 4 Fun Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2008 Posts: 956	It sounds to me like you may have a 9.3x62, not the 9.3x64. The 9.3x62 has the same dimensions at the head as the 30-06 does, and brass can be, and is easily made from 30-06 cases. A chamber cast using kero-safe would really be the proper way of determinming things. BTW, the 9.3x64 came out approximately 1910, not 1927. __________________ S&WCA member NRA member NAHC Life member

August 28, 2009, 11:41 PM	#11
Gun 4 Fun Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2008 Posts: 956	Wikopedia is wrong on the born on date for the 9.3x64. I have articles here by Chub Eastman of Nosler bullets, who is a big fan and user of that round. Articles by Craig Boddington, and Cartridges of the world list it the same as the link posted above in Rifle magazine. Any Shot You Want, the reloading manual by A-Squre rifles and ammunition, also says about 1910. That is the time frame that Brenneke designed all his rounds. The A-Squre manual is much more than a reloading manual. It is an extreme technical manual, with more ballistic info than you can find in any one source anywhere else. It was writen by a bunch of Phd's in physics etc., and has all sorts of dates, dimensional drawings taken from the originals rather than some reproduction drawings that may be inaccurate. Check it out, you won't be disappointed. __________________ S&WCA member NRA member NAHC Life member

August 27, 2009, 08:53 AM	#3
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	It is? That article is about the 9.3 x 64 Brenneke. My rifle predates that round, which wasn't created until 1927. The 9.3 x 64 has a .507 base diameter, the 8 x 64 is .470. NOT the same cartridge.

August 27, 2009, 11:31 AM	#4
GeauxTide Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Helena, AL Posts: 4,424	35 Whelen is based on the 30-06 and has a .473 head. If you're forming cartridges from the 06, then a .034 difference in head size will surely give you major problems.

August 27, 2009, 12:46 PM	#5
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	That's what the current cartridges I have are made from, 30.06, according to the stamp, and they fit with a measured head of 465. The real issue is that I don't have the true dimensions other than from fired brass, and taking dimensions from that to even with a decent micrometer is guess work once you get into the 1/1000".

August 28, 2009, 08:05 AM	#7
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	Well, the die I have lists "cast" as source of the dimensions. What's odd is that the literature calls the cartridge a 9.3x64 (465 head) but list a 470 head diameter. But it's a derivative of the old M88 - 8x57I cartridge, and they all have that common shape. I found a hint on determining a charge for this: It lists 2.76 g of GBP (Gewehr Blatt/Ball Pulver) in a small stamp on the rifle, so all I need to find now is the modern equivalent for German GBP and use 42 grains of it

August 28, 2009, 10:11 PM	#10
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	wikipedia lists the dimensions for the cartridges in question, the 9.3 x 62 has a .48 head, and doesn't fit. And the 9.3 x 64 Brenneke at .507, and it's is listed as developed 1927, similar to other sources. The dimensions of my cartridge are identical to the 8x64 S, which in turn is based on the 8x57. My gun also has the powder charge stamp, what according to my research point to a pre-1912 origin, when that stamp was abandoned.

August 29, 2009, 07:50 AM	#12
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	You should really inform the Brenneke company of your insight, they stubbornly claim it was 1927 on their website

August 29, 2009, 09:54 PM	#15
GeauxTide Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Helena, AL Posts: 4,424	Amazing how some people ask your opinion and then argue with you about your input. Maybe I need another 40 years of experience to come up to speed.

August 29, 2009, 10:19 PM	#16
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	Maybe, but some basic math would help to in the meantime. The difference between .465 and .473 is .008, not .034. Thanks for trying so.

August 30, 2009, 04:08 PM	#17
GeauxTide Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2009 Location: Helena, AL Posts: 4,424	I will look forward to your articles in Handloader and Rifle Magazine. John Barnsess left a few months ago, so I'm sure you'd be the man. Wolfe Publishing......