New rifle? 9.3x74 O/U Kipplaufbüchse

[Tod1d]

Absolutely. But ingame, this 225gr. bullet is travelling at an insane 3,260 fps,

That "3260" on the box is either being misread, or it's just way off.

According to Rifle Shooter Mag , a Lapua 220gr with max load is 2610 fps.
I bet it says, "2260" on the box, and that is even more argument for keeping the permitted list as is.

[pirahna590]

Unfortunately what many forget is that EW is NOT using real world data for our ingame ammunition, and " BALANCE " the ingame ammunition based purely on a SALES perspective. This being said, real world data information is useless as we arent going by real world ballistics. I wish EW would use real world data and not handicap ammunition, but for now, this is what we are stuck with.

[gas56]

Unfortunately what many forget is that EW is NOT using real world data for our ingame ammunition, and " BALANCE " the ingame ammunition based purely on a SALES perspective. This being said, real world data information is useless as we arent going by real world ballistics. I wish EW would use real world data and not handicap ammunition, but for now, this is what we are stuck with.

I whole heartedly agree with what you are saying... but....
I don't think we are forgetting about real world data, just trying to make sense out of way off the board scrutiny they use sometimes.
And we know their handicap phrase of "GAME BALANCE" to justify there applied reasoning to sell their guns.
There is no harm debating the facts because this is an interesting subject even if "game balance" wins over real world facts.
"Quote earlier post.......
The game box show a 225 gr bullet on the 64 which is pretty much not adequate for Buffalo, and the 74R is standard with a 286 gr bullet.
Now granted bullet weights can be reduced to produce even more speed on both bullets, but simply put, you wouldn't really want to reduce bullet size weight(length) to hunt Water Buffalo.
I want that heavier bullet to do as much damage as it can possibly produce with the powder load that it can handle for the capable rifle that is used with it.
I wouldn't want shrapnel blowing up in my face from an incapable rifle/gun,...
but really we don't have to worry about that in this game,.. so enjoy what we can have and play along with there allowable guns without all the details and everything will turn
out peachy keen in the scheme of things. ......End Quote"
So for game balance,.. and the games sake... nothing needs changed in the permitted list as they are within the boundaries of what they control,..
and always have...............

[Gewehrwolf]

That "3260" on the box is either being misread, or it's just way off.

According to Rifle Shooter Mag , a Lapua 220gr with max load is 2610 fps.
I bet it says, "2260" on the box, and that is even more argument for keeping the permitted list as is.

Very good point. My opinion on this based on the assumption that both calibers irl are ethical on these kinds of game and the ingame cartrige is featuring a fantasy load anyway. So it might as well be permitted on werewolf, unicorn, water buffalo or whatever.

But giving the picture in the other thread a closer look, you might be right. It's hard to tell because the v0 is printed where the box meets the lid, but it might as well be 2260. If that's the case, then it indeed is reasonable the way it is now. And it might be explaining why the 9.3x62 is underperforming below and overperforming above 150m compared to it's rl counterpart.
And doesn't feel like a high velocity round at all.

And although I'm happy with the changes (realy looking forward to buying that rifle), I didn't think they would change it in the first place. Because it makes the rifle a little overpowered compared to other weapons. It's THE universal gun, capable of taking anything except fox and small game. After the .30R Blaser was permitted neither on coyote nor on bison, I thought they wanted us to use 'varmint' or 'big game' grade calibers on these kinds of game.

Sincerely,
Wehrwolf.

[JamboWhoDat]

Absolutely. But ingame, this 225gr. bullet is travelling at an insane 3,260 fps,

That "3260" on the box is either being misread, or it's just way off.

According to Rifle Shooter Mag , a Lapua 220gr with max load is 2610 fps.
I bet it says, "2260" on the box, and that is even more argument for keeping the permitted list as is.

I'm with Tod1d on this one. I'm pretty sure it says 2260 too. You can see the ballistics for this round in action and judge for yourself. You can go to south lodge on loggers and shoot the big rock outside the east gate of the lodge. If you go just North of the shooting platform at the gun range, you can have a clean line of site to the rock at 300m prone on flat ground without grass and 315m with the shooting tripod rest in the grass. Using the 12x scope with both the 7mm and the 9.3x62, you can compare the impact time and bullet drop, and see for yourself the 9.3x62 slower. There is about a half sec delay between impact times and larger bullet drop between bullets.
Note: Although Max render distance is 220m for animals and small objects, that rock is one of those large static objects that is part of the map and can be seen at all renders, so you are able to see your bullets hit it. It is best to aim for the dark area of the rock since the bullet impact can be seen easier.

[gas56]

Absolutely. But ingame, this 225gr. bullet is travelling at an insane 3,260 fps,

That "3260" on the box is either being misread, or it's just way off.

According to Rifle Shooter Mag , a Lapua 220gr with max load is 2610 fps.
I bet it says, "2260" on the box, and that is even more argument for keeping the permitted list as is.

Most manufactured standard 220gr - 231gr bullets would fall into the 2550 - 2630 fps range with standard powder loads.
So it is just game balance and a number means nothing more than what they make of it!

[Tod1d]

You can go to south lodge on loggers and shoot the big rock outside the east gate of the lodge. If you go just North of the shooting platform at the gun range, you can have a clean line of site to the rock at 300m prone on flat ground without grass and 315m with the shooting tripod rest in the grass. Using the 12x scope with both the 7mm and the 9.3x62, you can compare the impact time and bullet drop, and see for yourself the 9.3x62 slower. There is about a half sec delay between impact times and larger bullet drop between bullets.
Note: Although Max render distance is 220m for animals and small objects, that rock is one of those large static objects that is part of the map and can be seen at all renders, so you are able to see your bullets hit it. It is best to aim for the dark area of the rock since the bullet impact can be seen easier.

That is precisely how I get data for longer distances.
Up to 100m, at the Field Lodge Range, the target bullseye is 2", meaning the first ring is +1" from center, the 2nd ring is +2", the 3rd ring +4", etc..
Beyond 100m, shooting at "Sniper's Rock", I have calculated the distance between the ticks on the spotting scope at different distances.
100m: 92.3mm (3.6") per tick
200m: 184.6mm (7.25")
300m: 276.9mm (10.9")

From the many weapons I've tested, the external ballistics in-game are actually very accurate. The in-game tests match the data on the ballistics calculator very closely.
The trick is determining the input values to enter in the calculator.
And I'd be the first to agree that the cartridge choice isn't always representative of a typical real world load, and is based largely on what they refer to as "Game Balance".
But it's a game, and we get one choice of ammo per weapon, and we have plenty of weapons to hunt every species in the EHR. And I have to keep reminding myself that the developers need to eat too.

[Ringolf]

Thanks to all of you for the explanation about the balistics.
Please forgive me if I am still not fully convinced about this.

If the two cartridges perform differently, shouldn't that also be reflected at the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. Coyote or Roe Deer?
Otherwise, is this not what is commonly referred to as "power creep"?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with EW making sales and will probably buy the damn thing, anyway.
Also, I am aware of the fact that regardless of real life performance, EW choses what is permitted for a weapon and what is not.

[Sherab86]

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with EW making sales and will probably buy the damn thing, anyway.
Also, I am aware of the fact that regardless of real life performance, EW choses what is permitted for a weapon and what is not.

And this sum up the case, I believe.

As many know, I'm only theorethician, but I agree, that 225 gr. is rather at the lower spectrum of aviable weights for 9.3x62. Coupled with quite reallistic velocity of about 2260 fps it might be to weak to do the job with the buffalo in reliably.

Btw. IRL this is not that much about velocity, when it comes to penetration and deforming bullets (expanding ones). According to some data, penetration even drops with velocity grow after some optimal value (usually midrange of about 1600-1800 fps). But weight helps indeed.

[Terzi1985]

The 9.3 x 62 and the 9.3 74R are very comparable if loads are comparable also for hunting as most people will attend to this.
Lets get something straight about bullet knowledge of the 9.3 x 62 and the 93. x 74R cartridges.
So far everybody acknowledges that the x 9.3 x 62 cartridge is used in bolt action rifles that are rimless,
and the 9.3 x 74R cartridges is used in single shots, and doubles.
Now there may be speculations about the 9.3 x 62 being faster with the slightly smaller gr bullets that are loaded max up,
But that's where it ends with the 9.3 x 74R that factory loads are not max up and therefor produces the slower bigger gr bullets.
On the other hand when custom loads can be max up for the 9.3 x 74R hotter powder loads, we will now see a more tremendous impact above what the 9.3 x 62 can produce at its performance in the game.
The 9.3 x 74R shell has more room for powder then the 9.3 x 62 and when you have more you get more speed simply put for non-gunners understanding of how it works.
There's really no argument if you understand the differences of bullet loads.
The game box show a 225 gr bullet on the 64 which is pretty much not adequate for Buffalo, and the 74R is standard with a 286 gr bullet.
Now granted bullet weights can be reduced to produce even more speed on both bullets, but simply put, you wouldn't really want to reduce bullet size weight(length) to hunt Water Buffalo.
I want that heavier bullet to do as much damage as it can possibly produce with the powder load that it can handle for the capable rifle that is used with it.
I wouldn't want shrapnel blowing up in my face from an incapable rifle/gun,...
but really we don't have to worry about that in this game,.. so enjoy what we can have and play along with there allowable guns without all the details and everything will turn
out peachy keen in the scheme of things.
Everyone have a great 2018 year, and we've just begun!

Here's a good read on the 74R
http://www.chuckhawks.com/hornady_9-3x74R.htm

compare the bullet loads yourself which are pretty comparable...

I have to disagree a bit on the 62 vs. 74r and which one is more potential, when I browse my reloading manual and compare the 9.3x63 and 9.3x74r, no matter what powders are used, they both are very comparable up to 250grain bullet weights, BUT going for 270grain and 286grain bullet weights, the 9.3x62 ALWAYS produce even up to 55m/s faster muzzle velocities at max loads, no matter what powder brand or type is used the 62 seems to be more potential. Most distinctive is the 286grain bullet weight and Vihtavuori N540 powder, 9.3x62 can be loaded to 754m/s with max load of 3,85g(59,4grains) of N540 powder, while the rimmed 9.3x74r with the same 286grain Nosler Partition and same Vihtavuori N540 produces only 698m/s and max load is 3,63g(56,0grains) of N540, that would be 2474fps vs. 2290fps, or 184fps faster for the 9.3x62. Both were also tested with 610mm lenght barrel and same primers so the difference does not come from barrel lenght diffence either. Also in the pictures you shared, I see the 9.3x62 pushing the 286grain bullet with max loads slightly faster than the 9.3x74r, the difference is much smaller than what my manual says for different Vihtavuori and Norma powders but still, 9.3x62 always comes out faster on 286grain bullet weights and max loads. Up to +50m/s difference with the N540 can be considered as quite a clear advantage on the 62. Even if I pick the N540 load for the 9.3x62 with 754m/s (2474fps) and the fastest 9.3x74r load on your picture, the IMR4350 with max load and producing 730m/s (2398fps), the 9.3x62 still has the edge over the 9.3x74r, and max loads are max loads.

Bigger case volume does not always straight forward mean that you can showel more powder in it especially when it's rimmed vs rimless cartridge, on those 2 calibers it is seemingly obvious that the lower max pressure of the 74r is the limiting factor, not so much the case volymem, when comparing the two with same powders, the 74r can't really be loaded with more of same powder than the 62, for example the RL15 powder, the max load on 62 is a tad bit bigger with the RL15 and it has 101% load volume whereas the max load with RL15 on the 74r is little less, and giving only 91% density, I think it's the pressure again what limit's the 74r to be loaded any hotter than that. It is many times possible to go over 100% load density and press more powder on the smaller 62mm casing but if the limiting factor is pressure levels there's not much you can do, when you start to get the clear signs of overpressure you've found the limit. In this light the rimless 62 can be pushed much hotter than the 74r. On lighter bullet weights they are very close but heavier the bullet weight, more obvious it seems that the 9.3x62 has more potential when handloaded close to max pressure levels, 74r may have slightly more case volume but the lower max pressure seems to tip the balance for the 62. I'd still say that the difference is so small that it doesn't really matter, both of the calibers do the same job just as good, so in my opinion it is sad that the ethical lists are the way they currently are, it's wrong to make two almost identical calibers to perform so differently.

I agree that in the game that 9.3x62 load is loaded with very light 225grain bullet weight with super weak load of 2260fps(if that is correct on the virtual cartridge box on the store), for crying out loud, in my reloading manual the starting loads for 232grain bullets produce faster muzzle velocities what the load in this game is, so honestly that 9.3x62 load in this game is quite ridiculously weak! It would definitely not be suited for any big and dangerous game like buffalo BUT, it's a game, and in this game many other loads are also not well suitable for the allowed species to shoot with. Perhaps they should wipe off that 225grain nosler partition part of the 9.3x62 package and make it like it should be, just for the sake of realism. IF we are not provided with the luxury of choosing between different loads on the game, they should at least have somekind of logic on what the calibers are cabaple of, not making perhaps a more potential caliber much weaker just because well, "we decided to load the other one with a super light light load and super light bullet, yet we decided to load the other one with a decent big game bullet and a normally performing load". Ehhh, how about just getting rid of any particular bullet or bullet weight then and just make those guns and calibers to work how they would be cabaple of? Or simply overhaul the 9.3x62 and let it have the 286grain bullet with a decent load too?! I'd be happy with that.

I will still buy the new 9.3x74r when it comes out but I hate to see the devs making stuff so ****ed up just in the name of "game balance", and to boost sales on new items. I'd like to see those guns and caliber the way what they really are capable of, not just how the devs decided to make them without better knowledge or in this case I think that the 9.3x62 in the game would need and overhaul to put it where it needs to be. It does not take more than fix the permitted animals list and wipe off that 225gr and 2260 from the ammo box on the store and make them two perform the same, that would be the ultimate fix to make them both work the way they should in relation to each others.