Categories
Categories
Trophy Hunting in the UK
Categories
Mine? A Martini Henry 1880
This is where the idea of the Transcontinetal Highway system got started from. Grumpy
The metric system has always been poorly received here in the United States, while having been adopted nearly the worldwide. We often struggle to adopt the metric cartridges—save the 7mm Remington Magnum and the more modern 6.5 Creedmoor—sometimes renaming them to something more familiar feeling. Many of the European bores have been renamed—the 7mms are .280, .284, .275 and the 6mms are .243 and .244—and some have been shunned altogether. The 9.3mm cartridges are one example; while the .375 H&H Magnum and similar cartridges have become favorites among the American shooting populous, the majority are unfamiliar with the slightly smaller 9.3mm cartridges. From the 9.3x62mm and 9.3×64 Brenneke to the 9.3x74R, this family of cartridges is often overlooked here in America, yet they make a great choice for the hunter. When is a 9.3mm not a 9.3mm? When the name is Americanized to the .370 Sako Magnum.
The 9.3mm bore equates to .366-inch, and sitting in between the .358-inch bore—which Americans have loved for so long—and the highly wide-ranging .375-inch bore is not a bad place to be, at all. Otto Bock’s 9.3x62mm Mauser, having been released nearly a century before the .370 Sako Magnum, affords a healthy following throughout Europe, and also in those African countries which were former European colonies. Designed for use in the 98 Mauser, the 9.3x62mm works just fine in that classic bolt-action rifle. Wilhelm Brenneke introduced his 9.3x64mm Brenneke in 1927, giving a boost in velocities for those who preferred the repeating rifles, giving performance on par with the .375 H&H Magnum in a rifle with a shorter receiver.
In 2003, the Finnish firearms manufacturer Sako released their own variant of the 9.3mm rimless cartridge: the 9.3x66mm Sako, or as it is known here in America, the .370 Sako Magnum.
It is, in essence, an elongated version of the 9.3x62mm Mauser, sharing many of the same characteristics in a longer format. It has the same 0.473-inch rim diameter common to the Mauser family of cartridges (carried over to a significant number of our American cartridges, including the .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester), and uses a 17 ½-degree shoulder; the .30-06 Springfield uses the same shoulder angle, and the 9.3x62mm uses a 17-degree shoulder.
Like the 9.3x62mm, the .370 Sako Magnum has a neck length of 0.307 inches; this is less than the desired one-caliber in length, and many reloaders insist on using a stout roll crimp to keep the projectiles where they put them, instead of relying on neck tension alone. With a case length of 2.598 inches (read 66mm) the .370 Sako offers an increased powder capacity when compared to the 9.3x62mm, yet the longer case maintains the 3.340-inch cartridge overall length common to a standard, long-action receiver.
Federal Premium loads the 286-grain bullets in the .370 Sako Magnum at a muzzle velocity of 2550 fps, generating 4,129 ft.-lbs. of energy at the muzzle. Comparing this to the classic 9.3x62mm, you’ll see the shorter cartridge launching the same bullet at 2360 fps, for 3,537 ft.-lbs. The .370 Sako Magnum is often (and rightfully) compared to the .375 H&H Magnum, which uses a 300-grain bullet at velocities ranging from 2440 fps to 2530 fps, delivering 4,000 to 4,250 ft.-lbs. of energy at the muzzle.
There are some African countries which specify a minimum of .375-inch bore diameter for hunting dangerous game, but in those countries where the 9.3mm cartridges are legal, I would have no qualms using the .370 Sako Magnum. The .375s will have a slightly larger frontal diameter, but the 300-grain .375 bullet and the 286-grain 9.3mm bullet share the same sectional density (S.D.) value of 0.305; any bullet with a S.D. value over .300 is considered to be a good choice for dangerous game work.
Looking at the trajectory of the .370 Sako Magnum (in the guise of Federal’s 286-grain Swift A-Frame load), a 200-yard zero will see the bullet striking 2.5 inches high at 100 yards, 10.1 inches low at 300 yards, and 30 inches low at 400 yards. This results in a rather flexible package; while the .370 Sako Magnum might not shoot as flat as a .300 Winchester Magnum with a sleek spitzer boattail, its trajectory isn’t radically different from the .30-06 Springfield, and makes a good choice for a bull moose across the swamp, a bull elk across a canyon, a Cape buffalo in the jesse, or a kudu in the rooibos.
The 9.3x64mm Brenneke can deliver slightly higher velocities than the .370 Sako Magnum by about 50 fps but the case dimensions are unique, and will require a unique bolt face which will result in a more expensive rifle. Does the .370 Sako Magnum have a future? Well, it absolutely should, as it delivers performance on par with the beloved .375 H&H, in a package which can hold one additional round in the magazine, in a lighter rifle. I also find the recoil of the .370 Sako Magnum to have less recoil than does the .375 H&H, and not much more than that of the 9.3x62mm.
Of late it seems the popularity of the .370 Sako has all but disappeared. Federal Premium still has two loads listed (and currently available) on their website: a 286-grain Swift A-Frame and a 286-grain Woodleigh Hydrostatically Stabilized Solid, both at 2550 fps. Other than the Federal ammo, you’d have to either handload the .370 Sako or contact one of the boutique ammo shops to make your ammunition. Despite the lack of popularity, if I found a Sako Model 85 chambered for the .370 Sako Magnum and it fit me well, I wouldn’t hesitate to take that rifle for any of the bigger game species.
The law of inverse or unintended consequences refers to outcomes that are the reverse of the planned or expected results. As described in another context, “the law of unintended consequences could create a perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended and ultimately making the problem worse.”
Back in 2015, Pete Holmes, the then City Attorney, wrote about Seattle’s “inventive” new way to address violent crime. “In a Seattle summer marred by random gunfire, the City Council unanimously approved, and Mayor Ed Murray signed, the ordinance that, come January [2016], will levy a $25 tax on businesses for each firearm sold at retail within City limits to provide a sustained local revenue source for research and prevention programs.
In addition, the City will impose a 2-cent tax for every round of .22 caliber ammunition sold and a 5-cent tax for every other round of ammunition sold.” Describing this so-called “common sense step designed to reduce gun violence,” Holmes said, “This City acted to control its own destiny.”
At the time the ordinance was passed, the City Budget Office estimated that the gun tax would generate revenue of “between $300,000 and $500,000 a year.”
Seattle Police Department data on crime shows there were 3,830 violent crime incidents in 2015, of which 26 were homicides. Violent crime incidents have increased each year since, reaching 5,630 in 2022 (including 52 homicides). The department’s most recent annual report reveals that Seattle’s overall violent crime rate reached a 15-year high in 2022, with homicides up by 24% and aggravated assaults (including shots fired and non-fatal shootings) “continu[ing] to be the highest reported in the last 10 years.”
Analyzing the numbers for shootings and shots fired specifically, police data for 2015 indicates there were 54 “shots fired” incidents, 16 shootings (nonfatal) and no shooting fatalities. By 2022, this had climbed to 79 “shots fired” incidents, 34 non-fatal shootings, and six “fatal injury” shootings. So far, 2023 looks to be at least as violent, with 84 “shots fired” incidents, 15 non-fatal injury shootings, and four fatalities already, a scant three months into the year.
Residents who may have looked to console themselves with what, by now, was supposed to be a multi-million dollar stash of cash generated by the gun tax for prevention programs were in for another rude shock. According to one source, the first full year of gun tax collection yielded just $103,766, with $93,220 collected for 2017, $77,518 in 2018, and $85,352 in 2019 – a four-year total that failed to reach the midpoint, even, of the city’s predicted revenue for a single year.
To get the real financial impact of the gun tax, though, Seattle’s extreme overestimates have to be viewed in the larger context of actual lost revenues. At the time the gun tax was proposed, the proprietor of one of Seattle’s gun stores described what he called the city’s “grossly unsound” reasoning and revenue projections. Seattle, he added, had only two dedicated gun stores, plus a few big box sporting goods stores and pawnshops, but had “plenty more” located a short way out of the city. Rather than “just tighten the belt and hand over the money,” consumers would shop elsewhere and “Seattle gun stores would simply go out of business.”
The result? No gun tax income and the city would lose the sales tax, other revenue and jobs the businesses had been generating until then. In his case – because he moved his business to the suburbs outside Seattle when the gun tax was passed – Seattle lost close to $64,000 in sales taxes that his business paid in his new location in 2017.
Another large gun retailer, the owner of Seattle’s Outdoor Emporium, was interviewed in late 2016 and blamed the gun tax for his “$2 million hit” in lost sales, a 32% drop in his customer count, and an estimated $600,000 loss of potential sales tax due to his plummeting sales.
If these figures are accurate, Seattle accomplished the unbelievable financial equivalent of cutting off its nose to spite its face by collecting, in 2016, a little over $100K in gun tax revenue but losing at least seven times as much in sales tax dollars alone. Driving these figures even further into the red, in 2017 the city reportedly spent more on defending a failed lawsuit on the tax (over its refusal to disclose the 2016 revenue collected) than it obtained that year in total gun tax income.
It’s not just a case of the usual wonky progressive math. Civic politicians have hurt city taxpayers, to be sure, but taking “control” of the city’s destiny with this “inventive” ordinance has correlated with violent crime rates reaching record highs. The same ordinance has created an uncompetitive business climate for gun retailers, so residents who need the means to protect themselves and their families from the burgeoning crime wave are forced to go outside Seattle. Even apart from the gigantic question mark on how the gun tax revenues have been spent and to what end, it’s difficult to interpret these outcomes as anything other than a complete and dismal failure.
From The NRA