Re: 35 whelen vs. 300 win mag

23 November 2004, 03:30

Mikey B

The Remington loads are crap. The .35 Whelen is far better served with some hot handloads, and when so loaded COULD be used for buffalo if you really had too, although it's not quite as effective as a 9.3x62 (less weight/less caliber) it still SHOULD be able to do the trick. I know I'd sure as hell rather go hunt big bears with a hot loaded .35 Whelen over a .300 Magnum any day! No replacement for displacement.

23 November 2004, 06:39

Wstrnhuntr

Quote:

I realize that ballistic charts aern't always the final word but with numbers like that I wonder is it frontal area, bullet diameter, or is Rem not loading the Whelen to its potential? Because he doesn't mention any 300 mag capable of hunting buffalo at all.

< !--color-->

Maybe a 300 WM would work for Cape Buff, I dont know, but I wouldnt want to be the one to find out. Give me the bigger heavier bullets over small and fast for DG any time..

23 November 2004, 09:13

Atkinson

"In a pinch", a 308 will work for buffalo, I have used it and several other of its class including 8x57 with military ball ammo, and my 300 H&H has killed one buff for me and several for a friend of mine...

I doubt that you would see any difference in a 250 gr. 35 Whelen or 220 gr. from a 300 magnum of anykind as far as killing power......The exception may be the 300 Wby and it may be a bit better than either of the above.

Having been there I think the 338, 9.3x62 are minimum buffalo calibers, and I would much rather have a 375 H&H, as thats where "good" bufflalo calibers start..The 416 and 404 are even better and they are great Buffalo calibers IMO.

I guess the bigger you go the better, but the 375 is certainly good enough...

23 November 2004, 12:46

Paul H

I would think with a 310 gr woodleigh @ 2200 fps, it would certainly be up to the task.

23 November 2004, 12:58

ElCaballero

Thank you Mr. Atkinson, you have answered my question, I think. From your answer and all of the rest it seems that bullet diameter is what makes the 35 whelen the killer that a 300 mag is not.

23 November 2004, 16:03

Ray, Alaska

The .300WM kills quite a lot more bears in Alaska than all the .35's put together. The .300 is not my favorite, but it's one of the tree most popular cartridges up here. These cartridges are as follows:

.30-06
.300WM
.338WM

24 November 2004, 04:51

<allen day>

Take that logic to its proper conclusion and you'll then assume that the .44-40 WCF is a better killer than the .30-06.........

AD

24 November 2004, 05:31

sdgunslinger

Yup , and if you take Ray's logic to it's proper conclution (more use on more big animals and more popular = better killing power) , then the 30/06 is a better killer than either the .338 or the .300 Win.

24 November 2004, 07:25

SmallCal

EDIT - My apologies directly to sdgunslinger. My mistake. Sorry.

24 November 2004, 07:39

sdgunslinger

SmallCal

I'm not bashing Atkinson , the other Ray , or anyone else here . Just having a friendly discussion as far as I'm concerned......

24 November 2004, 16:38

Ray, Alaska

In reality, the .30-06 with the heavier bullets does very well. The .300WM with the same "heavier bullets" is a big step over the .30-06. Years ago, the .30-06 was a big gun with Alaska hunters, along with the .375 H&H, and finally the .300 and .338WM (the later introduced as The Alaskan), became as popular as the .30-06.

This is from the NRA's January 2001 issue, American Hunter: "The Alaska Department of Fish & Game hunter safety staff in Anchorage tallied the big game rifles sighted at the Rabbit Creek rifle range for the 1999 hunting season. The top three cartridges were the .30-06 (21%), .300 Win. Magnum (19%), and the .338 Win. Magnum (18%). These were followed by the 7mm Rem. Magnum (9%), .375 H&H Magnum (6%), .270 (6%), .308 (4%), and .300 Wby. Magnum (4%), .45-70 (1%), .280 (1%), and a host of others, including many wildcats. Comparable data are not available for hunters who live in the bush."

25 November 2004, 03:55

Mikey B

Quote:

Thank you Mr. Atkinson, you have answered my question, I think. From your answer and all of the rest it seems that bullet diameter is what makes the 35 whelen the killer that a 300 mag is not.

Essentially, yes. Of course, everyone's mileage will vary with this. In mountainous and open terrain, I'd take a .300 Mag with some well-built 200 grainers over a .35 Whelen just because it is much more well-suited to long range shooting with it's big case and all. A good 200 yards out, that bullet will be humming along just nicely and if it's well-constructed, should penetrate to and through the vitals just fine.

In the alder thickets, I'd take the .35 over the .300 anyday! Especially with a stoutly-built 250 grain bullet. The lower impact velocity should keep the bullet from blowing up, and the bigger, heavier bullet should have no problems penetrating fully and smashing bones to bits at short ranges.

When it comes to hunting bears, I just wouldn't take the chance with a .300 at short range, the .35 would be my go-to gun. Actually, a .338WM or .358 Norma would be the key choice, best of both worlds, but I guess I have a bit of Keith in my blood, preferring bigger, heavier, slower bullets for game that bites back.

25 November 2004, 09:34

<eldeguello>

Well, I used to get 2420 out of a .358 Winchester from the 20" barrel of a Browning BLR. I'd be very much surprised if you cannot get over 2500 from the same bullet out of a .35 Whelen with a 24" tube. So, I think of it this way. A .375 H&H will give 2540 or so from a 300 grain bullet and a .35 Whelen will give 2500+ with a 250 grain bullet. 5 grains less bullet weight at the same velocity. But the .35 has a smaller diameter, so its' SD is comparable. If you were using bullets of identical construction, the Whelen would pentrate as deeply as the .375, and penetration is what kills stuff like Cape Buffalo. A .300 WIN. Mag. will kill buff too, if you used the right bullet. Jack O'Connor's wife killed elephant with a .30/'06 using Hornady 220-grain solids.