Starting a project to have a Browning 1885 06 rebored/chambered to 35 whelen or 35 whelen AI. Considered the 9.3x62 but its abit much for a deer hunter and of course so is the Whelen. What is the differience between the two in terms of performance? Any clear advantage of one over the other besides factory ammo?
Posts: 148 | Location: behind a cabbage plant on a hot August Day | Registered: 29 October 2003
Just my opinion but of all of the AI cartridges, the .35 Whelen is probably the least improved. Add the extra expense of special dies and for maybe 5% more capacity, it doesn't seem worth it to me. Now if having everything Ackley Improved in your gun safe does it for you then by all mean go for it.
Personally I feel the 9.3x62 is a better proposition than the whelen...you have slighlty more punch than the whelen, therefore it is a little more versatile than the whelen IMHO.
Posts: 7505 | Location: Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
Have you considered the 375 Whelen? I've got this caliber in a Mauser, right potent round. I'm considering do the same to Browning 95 that is currently 30-06. I've never fired a jacketed bullet through the 375 Mauser! Cast bullets are plenty for deer and most anything that I would hunt. I'd bet the 300 grain cast bullet would perform well on moose, elk and most plains game in Africa, excepting the Cape Buff. Jim
Posts: 6173 | Location: Richmond, Virginia | Registered: 17 September 2000
I do love my 35 Whelen. It's accurate, plenty of punch out to 200 yds, easy to reload, managable recoil, and factory ammo is available. For Pennsylvania big game, it is an excellent match. If I lived in one of the western states, I would want something that could reach out a little farther.
Posts: 8421 | Location: adamstown, pa | Registered: 16 December 2003
I'm not that familiar with the 1885 but you may want to look into feeding issues and make sure the sharp AI shoulder doesn't hang before you consider it.
Posts: 11142 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
I have the 35 Ackley Whelen on a Springfield action but when it came time to rebore the old M70 30/06, I went with a 9.3 x64. Plenty of meat on the bbl. Danny Pedersen down in Prescott is doing the rebore. It will be the twin to my 300 H&H
Posts: 371 | Location: Florida | Registered: 25 April 2003
Quote: I'm not that familiar with the 1885 but you may want to look into feeding issues and make sure the sharp AI shoulder doesn't hang before you consider it.
tiggertate,
The Winchester 1885 (and the Browning reproduction of it) is a falling block single shot rifle.
Yep, the 1895 is a lever action repeater. Of course, I'm assuming that CARNE meant 1885 in his original post and that it wasn't a typo. It would be easy to type 1885 by mistake instead of 1895. Browning made both the 1885 and the 1895 in .30-06. I think Browning made the 1895 in .30-06 in only one year. 1984? I own one. I also have an 1885 in .45-70.
I have a regular .35 Whelen and have no desire to go for the AI reaming.
Even the standard Whelen is too much gun for Texas whitetails with the normal bullets available in factory loads. Why would I want more velocity?
Handloaders can load special rounds with bullets all the way down to 110 gr or up to 320 gr, with the majority of those bullets being readily available pistol bullets or cast bullets. I don't believe that is something that is available with the 9.3's.
I have some 158 gr cast pistol bullets loaded with 7 gr Bullseye that are very accurate at 25 yards. They don't kick nor burst your ear drums. They are perfect for practice and cheap to shoot. Everytime I pull the trigger it doesn't have to kick the snot out of me. There are other options available.
Posts: 151 | Location: Texas | Registered: 18 November 2003
I have improved Whelen I get 2830fps average with safe loads in my gun with 225gr Noslers. No trimming for my cases as of 6 reloads. I think the " improved" shape is why this is. It has lots of punch, and with the 225 gr partition and BT avalible, why look any more? They are great in the Whelen, and it will serve you well.
Posts: 134 | Location: North Dakota | Registered: 21 December 2003
Thanks to all that replied. It is an 1885 Browning single shot. Sort of a kneejerk after a bad relationship with a 742 over several years. Using a single shot avoids all those feeding or magazine issues. Is there any disadvantage shoing factory ammo in a AI chamber?
Posts: 148 | Location: behind a cabbage plant on a hot August Day | Registered: 29 October 2003
Between the regular Whelen and the AI , I think 50 fps is about it . My 24 inch standard Whelen will push 225 s to 2780 fps and 250 s to 2600+ .
Between the .35 bore and the 9.3 , there is no contest for an American shooter. There are .35 caliber bullets on nearly every shelf , and none for the 9.3 .
Posts: 1660 | Location: Gary , SD | Registered: 05 March 2001
For a single shot, I think you will be happier with the Ackley Improved version of the 35 Whelen.
The sharper shoulder improves chambering of the cartridge.
When I was building my 35 Whelen single shot (Model 10 Dakota), it was the gunsmiths at Dakota Arms that recommended the Improved version, as having more reliable ignition.
The advantage of the 35 caliber rifles is the wide selection of bullets at your local sporting goods store, and the pleasure of using .357 pistol bullets for plinking.
The 35 Whelen is a FAR superior choice, than a 9.3x62 for America! More bullets choices, more ammo available, cheaper dies available, cheaper brass. I stayed with the standard Whelen, plenty of performance, never thought I needed more power.
Posts: 3097 | Location: Louisiana | Registered: 28 November 2001
IF you ever elect to build any of the Whelens over the .35 caliber one, use ol' Townie's original shoulder diameter for the .400 - 0.454". This provides positive headspacing for the .375 and .400 .... You only get into trouble with the big ones if you try to use the standard .30/'06 shoulder diameter.
The Ackley-Improved version cures what some perceive as an inherent problem with the .35 Whelen as originally designed. The Whelen's small shoulder combined with the standard sloping shoulder angle of the .30-06 parent case simply doesn't provide enough "edge" to yield sufficient headspacing function in all situations. Strong force from the rear, such as from a powerful firing pin or forceful chambering could drive the cartridge far forward into the chamber. Upon firing, the 'setback' caused by chamber pressure expanding the shoulder outward can them forcefully 'cam' the case rearward with a ram effect, possibly damaging rifle and shooter.
The increased angle of the Ackley-modified shoulder solved the issue by providing enough bearing surface for effective headspacing.
The Ackley-Improved version cures what some perceive as an inherent problem with the .35 Whelen as originally designed. The Whelen's small shoulder combined with the standard sloping shoulder angle of the .30-06 parent case simply doesn't provide enough "edge" to yield sufficient headspacing function in all situations. Strong force from the rear, such as from a powerful firing pin or forceful chambering could drive the cartridge far forward into the chamber. Upon firing, the 'setback' caused by chamber pressure expanding the shoulder outward can them forcefully 'cam' the case rearward with a ram effect, possibly damaging rifle and shooter.
The increased angle of the Ackley-modified shoulder solved the issue by providing enough bearing surface for effective headspacing.
I had a 35 whelen AI before having it re-chambered to a 350 Rigby. I concur with others that the Ackley is no improvement at all.
I call bs on the previous quote, and IMHO, the AI causes problems it does not cure. The only reason there were problems with the std whelen is sloppy chambers were cut. Remember, the whelen came out in the 20's, and the average smith wasn't using headspace gauges to chamber with. He used a dummy round, if it chambered, it was good. No micrometer depth gauges being used to measure headspace to the thousandth. The problem with the AI is, one can easily have the shoulder set back on fireforming, and from then on, that case will have excess headspace and case head seperations, been there, done that. I see no reason to go to the trouble and expense of fireforming brass to gain 50 fps.
250 grains @ 2500 fps or 225 gr @ 2700 fps is a good combination, which the std whelen easily achieves. If you really want a bigger round, then get one! Get a 358 Norma, or if you want something really esoteric, have the chamber cut for the 350 Rigby, but form brass from 375 flanged brass, so you'll have nice rimmed case for your single shot. This isn't the same as a 350 Rigby NE, but it would be a fine round indeed.
Posts: 7213 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 27 February 2001
Statrting over...what is the final goal? Is this for more killing power or a project to tickle the fancy? If killing power is the issue a 30-06 AI with 200 and 220 grain bullets will do what you want and probably penetrate better than the 225 gr .358 bullets. If you want a tickle, check out the Hawk calibers or the Scovilles (might be identical) or the Gibbs line of '06 based wildcats. If "period" is the issue I think the Gibbs have a little more provenance than any but the Ackleys.
Posts: 11142 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
Cartridges of the World is a piss poor reference book, frought with errors and written by those with more opinion than experience of what they right. Yes, I'm slightly opinated on that issue, but I believe far from alone.
What is your experience of the 35 whelen, and 35 whelen improved?
Posts: 7213 | Location: Alaska | Registered: 27 February 2001
I wouldnt bother with the Whelen AI. If the standard Whelen had such drastic inherint headspace problems it never would have been made a standard chambering, it would have remained a wildcat. If I wanted a bit more Id go with the 35 Gibbs. I think the Gibbs line is highly underrated, they'll do anything a WSM will do.
Posts: 10188 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001
Quote: I stand corrected and will update AmmoGuide.com accordingly. This has been an exceptionally productive thread. Thank you all.
Mike
Interesting indeed! Thanks for the blueprints Mike. Looking at those dimensions I can see why the Whelen AI would have the problem Paul mentioned of not fireforming properly, the Whelen AI doesnt appear to share the simplicity of other AI chamberings, meaning that the "entire shoulder" is moved forward on the Whelen AI. As such, one cannot simply chamber a factory round, get a crush fit and fireform. To be done properly the bullets would need to be seated into the lands or better yet, a false shoulder needs to be made with a larger expander before fireforming.
Someone correct me if Im wrong but that certianly appears to be the case. I plan on ordering a Whelen bbl for a Mauser in the morning and will have the option of going with an AI. This has definatley got my intrest.
I also went to the Ammoguide and looked at the Gibbs version, I never realized it had such a short neck, shorter than the 9.3X62.
Posts: 10188 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001
My whelan is being built on a millitary mauser action. Seems to me the problem of driving the case forward and pushing the shoulder back would be much more prevelent in push feed rifles. Not to say the need for proper head space is not there of corse it is. As I recal remington did a run of Whelens in the 7400 auto. If it worked it would have been a hell of a brush gun for big critters. But I was leary of the slim shoulder in either that action or the 7600 slide. In a sigle shot I might even go for the brown Whelen. But the dies are spendy. If you chamber is cut with a good reamer you should be in good shape ! I have never herd of this common topic comming up when discusing the .358 winchester. I allways thought the .284 case would be the way to go just for the longer and steper shoulder. Of corse the .350 remington mag Would probbly be great in a lever, or mabye a slide action...tj3006
I have been reloading for my 35 Whelen for about 8 years now, and I have never experienced problems with head spacing. The case life is very good compared to Magnums because the obvious difference in pressures. I often wondered why the Whelen never really rose beyond "cult" status. It is an exceptionally accurate and manageable round for the "one gun does all" crowd, at least in North America. The only drawback is that past 250 yds, energy begins to fall off sharply. I wouldn't consider it a beanfield gun.
I love my Whelen.
Posts: 8421 | Location: adamstown, pa | Registered: 16 December 2003
I would concur with 35whelan. I have nothing but great success with my 35 WI. I get about 2850fps from a 225gr Nosler BT. I have never had any problems with head space problems or brass life. I pole axed a Caribou at 380 yds with that 225gr BT and dropped it in its tracks.
As for VMR my next project is a Ruger #1 in 9.3x64. I was wondering about the availability of 9.3x64 brass.
Thats all.
Posts: 53 | Location: International Falls,MN | Registered: 11 January 2001
A very few rounds and reloading components do have special constraints or design factors that one really needs to be aware of if they are going to be reloading for/with. Unfortunately, sometimes mythology rears it's ugly head, maybe even serving as the tool of parties who wish a certain round to develop a bad reputation in deference to some other.
Both the .220 Swift, and to a greater degree, the .264 Winchester Magnum suffered from gun writers fears (and sometimes even claims) of barrels wearing out unreasonably quickly. Ironically, the .264 would suffer the most from this false perception, and today one can easily see how such a charge was specious. The .264 WM is only moderately powered (140 gr at maybe 3200 fps max) and less overbored than many rounds developed since, but it would always carry that cloud in magnum circles. Meanwhile, Weatherby rounds, always noted for being overbored and correspondingly rather high on the performance curve for their time (certainly much higher than Winchester offerings) frequently escaped all such notion.
On the other hand, one who considers buying a used .357 Remington Maximum handgun should be aware that shortly after production, manufacturers were astonished to see how fast their barrels deteriorated - an unfortunate side-effect of ultra-high-pressure cartridges and the forcing cones employed in revolvers. Some barrels were said to be ruined in as little as 1000 rounds! One can quickly surmise this is not folklore when one learns that at least one maker, Dan Wesson, offered free replacement barrels to .357 Maximum purchasers. Luckily, Maximum revolvers can shoot .357 Magnum ammunition too, but it would be a bit of a letdown, eh?
The thing about the .35 Whelen/headspace folklore is that it sounds plausible - with a cartridge with marginal headspacing capability, one would logically expect the problem to only arise when a chamber was bored at the high limit of tolerance - a fat chamber. So many owners would not see the issue.
So the described symptoms make sense with a round having an inadequate shoulder. The error is in claiming that the .35 Whelen is such a round.
On reflection, it's likely an accomplished developer like Howe had his Whelen barrels bored at various tolerances to make sure such a problem didn't exist. In any event, postumous thanks to Parker O. Ackley for documenting his design thoughts for us to sort out such issues in his absence.
I had a 35 Whelan AI built about 20 years ago. I did have problems fire forming new 35 cases in the AI chamber. My firing pin drove the new cases in so hard that the primer ignited and it blew back about 1/3 of a primer length out of the case. Investigation revealed there was a tooling and gaging problem that was caused by a lack of commonality among 35 AI tool makers. It was, at that time, the only cartridge that had the problem. My gunsmith fired off a letter to the reamer/gage maker who researched the answer, and sent a letter, which I have somewhere, explaining the problem. My fire forming loads were right on as far as amount of powder and bullet seating depth. The problem was with the gaging, somehow. I need to see if I can find that letter from Clymer as I don't remember all the details.
Anyway, the solution was to cut a thread off the barrel, and cut a new, tighter chamber. That solved the problem.
I liked the AI, but saw little improvement over the standard 35 Whelen. It was a very mild shooting rifle and I'm sorry I sold it. If I had it to over again, I'd probably stick with the standard 35, and not go to the AI. Not worth the cost of the new chamber, etc.
Carne... Before I had my Whelen built two years ago I gave lots of thought to the same question. Couldn't come up with an answer that made it worth the while to go AI on the Whelen.
Posts: 733 | Location: N. Illinois | Registered: 21 July 2002
Thanks to all. Because the gun will be sent to a smith for reboring, I had this question about rechambing at the same time. This thread has convinced me to remain with the standard Whelen as well as getting rid of any thoughts about the 9.3x62.
Posts: 148 | Location: behind a cabbage plant on a hot August Day | Registered: 29 October 2003
