doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Double Rifles, Paradox Guns & Gauge Rifles @ doublegunshop.com A double rifle retailed by Weisgerber in 9.3x72r

I've been working on getting a double rifle I picked up in 2023 to shoot properly. It's a German double rifle, presumably from pre-1912, that was retailed by the firm Weisgerber. I've posted pictures it on other folk's threads, but couldn't find a dedicated post by me on it on this forum. Barrels are stamped for gauge at 118/35.

The biggest challenge I've had with this rifle, beyond being an idiot and not listening more attentively when warned that the bore was likely tighter than 9.3mm/0.366", was that factory brass simply wouldn't chamber, even though a chamber cast showed this to be a 9.3x72. What I learned from you all was that prior to the standardization of the 9.3x72 case, there were lots of different variations out there, plus different rim sizes (German and English). Ultimately I was able to resize brass to fit by wrapping the brass with scotch tape roughly 3/4" up from the rim and then lubing as usual with Imperial Case lube and running the case through a full length sizer. Some cases needed a second wrap of tape slightly higher up the case. But now I have more than 50 cases that easily chamber.

Because the bore is actually for 0.358" bullets, loading required a mix of my CH4D 9.3 dies and a set of 357 Mag/Max dies. The 357 dies were needed to size roughly 1/2" of the neck down so it would hold a 180gr 0.358" JHP from Remington. And expand the mouth to start the bullet. Initial results at the range were awful. I've subsequently done a deep clean on the bores using a foam cleaner called Wipe-Out. It removes copper fouling without damage to the steel barrels. Then I switched to magnum primers. Lastly I retried the 180gr JHPs I'd started with, and got some 200gr JSPs made for the 35 Remington.

Based on the results I'm getting on target, I still need to try using a filler to see if that will reduce the high variation in velocity I'm seeing. I also want to slightly increase my powder charge as my rounds are roughly 120fps slower than factory specs and the barrels are shooting a little wide. But the left barrel is shooting really (really) well.

One last observation -- my rifle has single set triggers. The kind where you push them forward to set the trigger for much lighter pull. Whomever had this before me had those set triggers set to super light weights (ounces). On a cold day with cold hands they were too light. I also learned NOT to set the rear trigger before firing the front trigger, as the gun doubled (as any thinking person would expect!) Thankfully this wasn't one of my 450 or 500BPE doubles!

Some pics from the last range session

As I'm certain you know, 4 rounds is not much data to be basing decisions on but, you id get to shoot it!!!!. With older doubles it isn't unusual for the right barrel to be more worn that the left barrel. I've had a few where the left barrel shot anywhere form about the same to significantly better than the right.

Cris,
I have a couple suggestions. The first is try sizing the cases with the expander assembly removed to see if they then hold .358" bullets (a FL sizing die sizes the neck to a smaller than required diameter and the expander then opens it back up). If you are lucky, you might be able to avoid the second sizing operation. I use this trick with several calibers. You may have to bell the cases, but a shop made button in an extra "m" die will take care of that or an extra 38 spec expander button in an "m" die will work if adjusted to just bell the cases. I made my 2 die 9.3x 72R set into a 3-die set this way. Fillers are very controversial, but I found I can get uniform velocities when using a tuft of kapok tamped down on the powder charge. You will have to decide for yourself whether to use a filler or not, but if you do, don't just add it to an established load. You need to reduce the load and work it back up with the filler. I couldn't read the bottom line in the proof load stamped on the barrel, but it will tell you what bullet it was proofed for. If you use the filler your velocity may increase to your target level.

Sharps4590 -- I am happy it's shooting now. I agree that 4 shots isn't much. I didn't save pictures of all 3 targets, but total shots, including a pair that doubled, was 14. The left barrel was consistently on the bull (+/- my errors), while the right barrel was consistently right with a much wider grouping. Before the bores got a deep cleaning (so before this target) the velocity on the right barrel was consistently much (~100fps) lower than the left. After cleaning they are closer. Hoping that another deep clean plus filler in the case will further reduce velocity variations.

Der Ami - I appreciate the reminder to reduce the charge after introducing filler (I plan on using kapok which I acquired for this purpose). The proof markings read "2,7 gG.B.P. over an "N" and "S.t.m.G."

I may have mentioned it prior, „Raschsche Karreegravierung” or „Rasch’s squares engraving”.

Too, I would like to take the liberty & copy the above image & Voluntary load data up till 1912II think on this one??) stamped on the tubes and post it to a ongoing thread:

2,7 gG.B.P. over an "N" and S.t.m.G.

2,7 grammes of Gewehr Blättchenpulver(Military Flake) (St. m. G.-StahlmantelGeschoss).

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

I don't know if 2,7 grammes of G.B.P. was paired w/ 9,3X72R or not. I will have to search that too.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Yes, 2,7 grammes of G.B.P. just may be proper.

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forum...PSESSID=917bfe9791ae4229de6172d7d6ab57c4

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Ah, here is Axel E. on the topic:

>>The quoted proofmarks point to a 9.3x72 R. 118,35 is the old gauge number for a barrel with a bore/land (not groove or bullet!) diameter up to .350”. so the gun was proofed pre-1912. It was proofed for a service charge of 2.7 gramm = 42 gr GBP = smokeless rifle flake powder. This was the contemporary smokeless load for the 9.3x72R with a 196 gr copper jacket bullet at 2020 fps. The 9.3x74R charge would be 3.5g = 54 gr. The case diameter, larger than .223 but smaller than .308, speaks for the x72R too. The scope mount bases, Albert Wilhelm Triebel’s variation of a claw mount, were added in the 1920s – 30s.<<

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

That is a lovely double and special double rifle. Are you going to bring it to the "Southern" in April--I would like to see it.

Just a bit more velocity in your loads should get you placing shots where you desire.

Kind Regards;
Stephen Howell

Hi Stephen,

I am planning on coming to the Southern, and possibly even embarrassing myself with my poor shot gunning skills. Let's exchange info beforehand. Years ago I think we may have discussed a rather special 10ga William Ford of mine. Was that you?

Chris

Chris;

I am not certain, but since William Ford is a particular Birmingham maker that I have been interested in for years, we may have.

Stephen Howell

Hi Stephen,

I shared images of both my William Fords on this site. Here’s the first and nicer one: https://doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=276052&page=all

Regards,

Chris

(Hard to think that I acquired that in 2012. Tempus fugit.)

Typical Raschsche square engraving usually has a prominent dot in the middle of each square. Here, I can't make out the dots.
Mike

I'm not really seeing dots

Well then, atypical „Raschsche Karreegravierung” or „Rasch’s squares engraving”. I will find out.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

It doesn't make much difference, only that it wasn't likely Rasche that did it.
Mike.

Rasch didn't apply adornment, but it was some contractor that has been masked by the sands of time.

But what the atypical „Raschsche Karreegravierung” or „Rasch’s squares engraving” does do is point towards the hand of Wilhelm Schilling circa 1910.

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

Quick update - had the rifle back out to the range today. Same 200gr bullets and same powder and charge, but this time added kapok fiber as a filler. Velocity increased 120fps to 2085fps and std dev decreased from 121 to 18fps for a 10 shot group. So much more consistent. Results on paper were a little bit confusing. Not awful but not really better than load w/o filler. Need to digest what I was getting. Will post pics later.

Chris;

Do you have one of the "Virtual Ballistics" software programs such as QuickLoad that allows you to enter the loading data and predict the velocities, energy and chamber pressures (and barrel pressures) of the loads you are shooting? If not and you would like to have this data send me a PM (with your email address) and I can run the data and send you a print out of the data and curves. Data required from you will be propellant, projectile diameter and weight, case length, primers, barrel length and bore diameter and so forth. I can send you the print out via your email address. The QuickLoad software that I have is produced in Germany and I just looked at the basis in it for 9.3x72R cartridges and there are two different 9.3x72R cartridges (1) 9.3x72R (.360) which has a case length of 2.835 inches or 72.01mm and (2) 9.3x72R Sauer which has a case length of 2.830 inches or 71.88mm.

Kind Regards;
Stephen Howell

Check the crown on the muzzle especially the RH bbl. Perhaps it has some damage or has been repaired from damage,isn't quite square, etc.
Also check the rifling at the muzzle in the RH bbl.See if it's been worn on one side.


Set the bbls up on a sturdy rest, with the sights right on a target dot at say 100yds.
Thensight thru the bores of each bbl. Just to see if perhaps the RH bbl is way off the mark.

I realize the bore allaignment won't be on the target mark, but it would seem if the RH bbl was set way off somewhere it might be the problem and not the load.

The 9.3x72R Sauer & Son is an entirely different class of cartridge with a head diameter close to 30-06 whereas the 9.3x72 R norm. (The one under discussion) is close to 30-30. The 9.3x72R Sauer & son is in the same class as (albeit with a lighter bullet) the 9.3x74R and is sometimes confused with it. There are no less than 3 different versions of the smaller 9.3x72R, differing mostly in case shape and all may be found with different groove diameters from .352 to .368". Luckly they all were proofed to the same pressure.
Mike

Der Ami;

Thank you for your comments on the line of 9.3x72R cartridges. I have been able to determine that the beautiful double rifle belonging to Chris is chambered for one of the smaller so called 9.3x72R cartridges from his comment on using .358" diameter projectiles--or at least is is smaller than the 9.3x72R Sauer cartridge listed in the QuickLoad data base and must be a cartridge that is the same or nearly the same as the other 9.3x72R (.360) cartridge listed in that data base.

With your knowledge of the European cartridges and your comment on the different groove diameters I hope that you can tell me what is the historical reason that these "small" cartridges that are called 9.3x72R when they are about 9mm in size; or if they are not actually 9mm in size their projectiles are clearly nearer 9mm than 9.3mm?

Further to this I was contemplating what is the most common propellant that re-loaders use for these "small 9.3x72R" cartridges and is a flat nose projectiles most commonly used?

Kind Regards;
Stephen Howell

I wonder if it was the same issue i had? My kipplauf was chambered for 360-1/4 express which has more case taper than 9.3x72rN

Stephen,
With the exception of 9.3x72R Sauer & Sohn, mentioned above, the others are basically the same and were all based on the British 360 2 1/4" case (as were other similar cartridges differing mostly by length, from 48- 85mm). There were no mandated standards when this development was happening, and it seems as though each gunmaker had its own idea as to the best shape and length (volume) as well as bullet diameter/weight. The most popular length seemed to be 72 mm, so this will only address that length, even some others have similar shape. One of the cartridges was actually called 360x72mmR. Two other main versions were the 9.3x72mm R-E (English version) another was the 9.3x72mmR- D (Deutsche version, this is the one that seems to cause the most difficulty in determining which cartridge to use. The taper seems to be a "sweep" rather than a straight taper. I think, without proof that this form may have come about by making a 9.3x57mmR chamber with an existing reamer and then extending the neck with a straight reamer until the case length was 72mm. When new reamers were required, they would have made them with the straight extension.). This caused enough confusion that one of the first attempts at standardization was for the 9.3x72R (also 8.15x46R). A standardization committee worked out a set of dimensions that would allow
most if not all the old rifles to use a common ammo. The result of the effort was the form known as 9.3x72R Normalizert (or Normal. often shown as N), this means Standardized. They standardized the rim dimensions, case shape and dimensions, and, importantly, standardized a bullet that would work with varying barrel diameters (this is the 193-grain flat nose jacketed bullet in today's commercial ammo). An examination of this bullet will show that the main diameters are for the smaller barrels but had a "driving band" to adapt it to the larger barrels while not producing undue pressures in the smaller ones. Importantly, existing rifles could be rechambered to the normal chamber dimensions by the local gunsmiths, without the necessity of resubmitting it to the proof house for a crown R repair proof. This left many rifles with different barrel diameter barrels, chambered for the normal cartridge. It wasn't until the 1939 proof law that the common name of the cartridge to be used was required to be on the rifles. By that time, there were a great many 9.3x72R normal. rifles existing, but few to none were being built (and marked) because they were prohibited for "Hochwild" (Big game). It is confusing, but it fun to work with and use.
Mike

Mike;

Thank you for the history of the small 9.3mm cartridges. Interesting comment about the sweep of the taper of the case instead of straight taper.

What time frame are you referencing as to when the standardization committee worked out a set of dimensions? It must have been before 1939.

Can one assume then that the loads for these cartridges now in 2025 would likely use such propellants as 3031, 4198 and so forth? I see on the web that Buffalo Arms has the 193g bullets;Is there another projectile maker who makes the 193-g bullet for hand loaders today? Is there any accuracy or ballistic advantage to using a 193grain bullet for the small 9.3x72R versus using say the Hawk 200 grain bullet of the same diameter?

Stephen Howell

Stephen,
Regarding the "sweep" of the case, I just figured that was the way I would do it if I had a 9.3x57R reamer already. I don't recall the approximate time the standardization was done but it was considerably before 1939. That standardization was a matter of agreement between interested parties (I don't know who they were but believe they were representives of ammo and gun manufactures and maybe hunting organizations), but the 1939 law was enforceable as a matter of law. The loads would use propellants appropriate for Proof of the gun. I don't use black powder in my guns, but 4198 is often used in NFB loads, Nitro Proofed guns could use 3031 or 4895 or similar powders very well, and Express Proofed guns could use the same powders but with different loads. Express loads are a little heavier than "nitro" but are by no means magnum level. The typical 193 grain bullet for the 9.3x72R are not only made to be safe for use in varying diameter barrels but the jackets are also made for the velocities expected. I returned from Germany with a quantity of RWS bullets, and I believe they are still made. I "fell into" a deal for some Z&B bullets for this cartridge and am sure they are still made. Since they have a "US presence now" I hope demand will be enough that they will market these and other bullets (.318"?) here. Norma has also produced these bullets in the past. I have not tried the Buffalo Arms bullets, but they look like they are re-formed from 200gr .358" RN bullets and should work fine. Members of this forum have used the 200 grain Hawk bullet made for the 9.3x72R and report satisfaction. Bullets made for 35 Remington and jacketed .38/.357(also new .350 legend, etc.) will work for those rifles with .358-.359" groove diameters. There are a lot of cast bullets that can be used without breaking the bank. The Lyman .366408 was traditional 9.3 bullet, but I'm not sure if the mold is still available, and when it was, to use it in more modern rifles required the blocks to be shortened to drop bullets of about 200 grains. Jacketed 9.3 bullets made for more powerful cartridges such as 9.3 x62/64/74R or even 57 shouldn't be used even if the barrel has .366" groove diameter.
Mike

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for the offer. I'll PM you and share an email.

My rifle is pre-standardization of the 9.3x72r cartridge. I have used 4895, without filler, and the results were not good (high variability in velocity, and poor accuracy, and velocity below factory loads.)

I switched first to H4198, without filler and that had the left barrel shooting small groups at POA, but the right barrel was off to the right and somewhat dispersed groups.) I added kapok filler to the H4198 just in time to run out of Hodgdon 4198, and switched over to IMR4198. Most recent load tested was 32grs powder and a 200gr jacketed soft point bullet by Hornady made for the 35 Remington. Bullet was 0.358" diameter. Primers looked fine after shooting. Velocity was at factory levels. Variation was greatly reduced from no-filler loads. Recoil was considerably more than the same charge and no filler. Next outing I plan to make 30 and 31 grain loads and keep everything else constant. I continue to deep clean the bore with Wipe-Out foam between outings. The bore was quite dark and is coming cleaner with each cycle. I'm not sure how good it will get.

Regards,
Chris

Do you still have the kipplauf? I have a couple of 360 2.25" express rifles, all black powder proofed. One of the appeals of having a 9.3x72r rifle is if I screw up a piece of brass, in most instances I can still cut it down to 2.25" and use it in my 360s. FWIW, the 360 Express, loaded with nitro-for-black loads, is plenty capable of taking big northern whitetail bucks.

bushveld,
In looking back over this thread, I realized that I had not addressed your question of why rifles with 9mm or near 9mm bullets are called 9.3mm. There are enough cartridges involved that I don't think just one reason will be an adequate answer. This is common with cartridges that started as black powder fueled and went to smokeless; not necessarily because of the powder itself but also because of changes (improvements?) in materials, customs, dimensions, etc. in common use at any particular time while the name of the cartridge stays the same. Muzzleloading rifles often used bullets smaller than groove diameter, even smaller than bore diameter. When someone decided to put everything together in a package (cartridge) they used the procedures they were used to. With black powder and soft lead bullets that worked, after a fashion, because of obturation. The pursuit of higher velocity and more efficient bullets have led to many changes in materials and dimensions while the name stays the same or the dimensions stay the same while the name changes. Everybody is trying to sell rifles/cartridges, and more powder, more convenience, or a better sounding name helps them do that. The nominal designation of a cartridge often no longer matches the actual dimensions, sometimes it does. The answer is: There is no enforceable rule that everyone agrees to. This applies to metric cartridges, as well as imperial and it is the same with new cartridges. A 6.5 mm bullet is not 6.5mm in diameter and a 38 caliber is not .380" in diameter, also a 350 Legend bullet and 360 Buckhammer bullet are not markedly different in diameter......That is what makes this game fun.
Mike

Beautiful double rifle!
Enjoy!
Jim