The 9x63 (M/88) is definitely the more stylish and more elegant cartridge - but the 9,3x62 is plainly more practical. Packs a bit more power, uses a more common bullet size, and has a ton of factory loads available.

Pardon me - what did you say ? .35 Whelen ? Sorry, I don't speak foreignish.

Carcano

I think the American manufacturers made a mistake when they standardized the .35 Whelen's twist rate at 1-16". I think 1-14" would have been better to handle bullets weights over 250 grains (in order to get sectional densities greater than .300). If I'm not mistaken, I think the standard twist rate for the 9.3x62 is 1-14" (or whatever is close to that in metric).

The case capacity of the .35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 is very close with a slight edge going to the 9.3x62. But not enough difference to matter that much. A 275gr bullet at even just 2300 fps in the .35 Whelen would make a potent load. Remember that the 9.3x62 made it's reputation with muzzle velocities of 2250 fps (original Kynoch specs) to 2360 fps with a 286 gr bullet. The .35 Whelen can certainly come very close to that. But, again, I think it is the factory standard twist rate of 1-16" that limits the .35 Whelen's ability to handle bullets heavier than 250 grs.

I owned a .35 Whelen (1-16" twist) until recently but I never tried anything heavier than 250 gr bullets. I would imagine that some Whelens (with 1-16" twists) might handle 275 gr bullets just fine while some others might not. Would probably depend on the gun / barrel. I just think the Whelen would have been better off with a faster twist than 1-16". I do note that Finn Aagard, when he had a .35 Whelen built, went for a faster twist than 1-16". I think he used 1-12" or maybe 1-14" but I can't remember exactly which right now.

But, I've never hunted anything with either the .35 Whelen or the 9.3x62 (which I now own) so I might just be full of hooey. Hopefully, the 9.3x62 will be going to South Africa next year.

Just my thoughts....
-Bob F.

I have to say I favour the 9.3x62 at the same time I own a 9.3 and have had nothing to do with the whelen...although I have often thought about the rem pumps in .35 whelen and thought they'd make a great pig rifle.

Around Okiehoma I call my 9.3x62 a "36 Whelen Improved" - get's me Redneck Bush Cred.........DJ

Having used both, I'd say that with most bullet weights, you'll likely see more difference in rifles than in rounds. If you need bullets over 250 grains, the 9.3 has more choices. If you need lighter bullets, the 35 Whelen has more choices.

You could also choose based on logistics. 9.3 ammo and components are scarce in the US, though that is improving. 35 Whelen ammo is more common, though Remington seems intent on ruining that, and 35 Whelen components will probably always be available. So if you're going to hunt in North America, the Whelen probably gets the nod. If you're going overseas, maybe the 9.3 is a better call.

Yes, the twist rate can be important, but I've found that the faster you run 250-gr. bullets in a 1:16 barrel, the better they shoot. Probably the best choice is one of each, though I'm seriously considering a switch-barrel rig.

I doubt this helped at all, but there it is. Okie John

Howday Max and Guys:

Whats all this talk about twist rate and heavy bullets? I have a 1in16 Whelen that shoots 250 grain Speers into .750 groups. Isn't that good enough for elk or eland, sable, moose etc? I shoot the 250's out of my Whelen at 2625fps+, plenty for the above mentioned game, and competitive with most other non magnum rounds. If one neeeds a 300 grain bullet at 2600fps+ a 375H&H is they way to go. Why try to make the Whelen or the 9.3X62 something they are not.

Jerry

Hey Maxman,

I had a .35 Whelen built about 3 years ago. I had it long throated to handle longer bullets. It has a 27", #4 Shilen barrel and is mounted on a VZ 24 action. Over my Chrony Beta Master I recorded 2,547 with 280 gr. Swift A-Frames and 2,3-- with Woodleigh's 310 gr. bullet.

The rifle feels like a canon to carry around but I was getting sub .5" groups with the Swift. (I really messed up my back a year ago last May and haven't taken the opportunity to take the Whelen to the range since.)

The 9.3x62 has a larger case capacity than the standard Whelen and, therefore, if loaded to its max. would always out shoot the Whelen. However, both loaded to their max., the difference would be negligible - at least to anything you would shoot with either!

The 9.3x62 has a more romantic past but the Whelen no longer requires forming brass and is quite plentiful, which is the reason I selected the Whelen.

Since I like to brag about this rifle...here's some pictures...

Good Shooting,

Smoker

http://www.hunt101.com/showphoto.php?photo=63937&sort=7&thecat=544&password=

http://www.hunt101.com/showphoto.php?photo=63940&sort=7&thecat=544&password=

http://www.hunt101.com/showphoto.php?photo=63942&sort=7&thecat=998&password=

http://www.hunt101.com/showphoto.php?photo=63941&sort=7&thecat=998&password=

I have both, shoot both and would willingly give up neither. One cow elk with .35 Whelen using 250 grain Barnes X at 2450 fps and one black bear with 9.3x62 286 grain Nosler Partition. Obviously, the metric round is nore common in Europe and the .30-06 blown out to .358 is more popular here. There are both premium bullets in several brands and several standard bullets available for reloading. Superior Ammunition and others produce reloads if you don't make them, with premium bullets. I think both are nearly the same with similar construction and sectional density bullets. The .366 is obviously bigger, with more sectional density and more energy. The only slight other advantage of the 9.3x62 is an Africa hunt where it is legal for dangerous game. I'm a nistalgia nut. Elmer Keith's memory is called up when bears and elk are taken with the .35 Whelen, not to mention the good Colonel Whelen and Mr. Howe and others who enjoyed the first affordable medium "magnum", 250 at 2500 fps. The bullet selection is more the issue. I felt the Nosler did a better lung shot than the Whelen Barnes. If lots of penetration is the issue, and well as lots of spilt blood and a big hole, pay your money and get your choice, or don't choose and get both.

Wstrnhntr, The one really good thing about 9,3 brass that makes it better than 35 Whelen brass is that Lapua makes 9,3 brass. I've found Lapua brass to be simply the best available and they don't make 35 Whelen. Not that great a difference between good enough and the best but there is a difference.......DJ

The 9.3 x 62 has 10% more case capacity than the 35 whelen.

The 9.3 shoots a 286 grain bullet standard, compared to a 250 grain for the 35 whelen.

The 9.3 can shoot a 320 grain bullet compaerd to a 300 grain for the 35 whelen.

Personally I prefer the 9.3.

Right on about the over loading thing. That's why I plunked some $ down on a CZ 550 in 375 H&H the other day There is no substitute for more powder and bigger bullets.

To me, there is no true performance difference in these two cartridges - it's all about which one 'speaks' to you on a personal level. And there's nothing wrong with that!! I was just trying to see why you all would pick one over the other. I'd go for the Whelen myself, if I didn't already have a 338-06. Of course, I do have the Whelen dies already....

maxman

Which do you like, the 30-06 or 8mm Mauser? The 7-08 or 7X57? 338 WM or the 358 Norma? Fact is whatever your hunting with these isnt going to notice the difference, and the 9.3X62 vs the Whelen is the same story. Oh there are those who will tell you that the contrast is like night and day, that one is a juggernaut and the other is an abysmal overrated waste. Dont you believe it! Remember that every rifle is an individual and the differences in velocities obtained can vary quite a bit. In comparing those two chamberings, all you really need to do is look at the powder capacities and bore sizes and its plain to see that they are quite similar.



I think your right about the 9.3X62 gaining favor in the publics eyes and the 35 falling from grace though. Fickle people.



As far as Im concerned though, those who think that the 9.3 has a better bullet selection than the 35's are up in the night, or they havent been looking at the same bullet manuals as me. I look at it as one of those trendy things that I never really cared much about. The Whelen suits me just fine and "I" like its bullet selecting MUCH better than the 9.3's. Brass availability too.