starting a custom .35 Whelen and I have seen the rates of twist vary from 1/12 in some reloading manuals to Remingtons 1/16 for their rifles. what is most common.pros/cons of one vs.other. Thanks..

There is virtually zero reason to not go with a fast twist. Talking to Swift they say get a 1 in 12 for the 280 A-frames.

Get a 1 in 12 but I don't see why a 1 in 10 would hurt.

Congrats on having good taste in the 35 Whelen.

1:12 .. 1:10 if you plan on barnes big bullets

Mine is 1-12".....nuff sed!

quote:

Originally posted by WV3568:
starting a custom .35 Whelen and I have seen the rates of twist vary from 1/12 in some reloading manuals to Remingtons 1/16 for their rifles. what is most common.pros/cons of one vs.other . Thanks..

Going with a faster twist allows you to stabilize longer bullets. But using a faster twist rate than is needed to stabilized the bullet you are using hurts accuracy.

1 in 12 was the rate recommended by Whelen because he felt it was needed to stabilize 300gr bullets.

1 in 16 is said to have killed the Whelen for Remmington because it only allowed the use of lighter bullets.

The Whelen deserves heavier bullets so you should go with a twist rate of 1 in 12. It will still shoot lighter bullets just fine for hunting if you insist on using the 225grs.

I had a very nice Whelen for a while, it had a 1 in 16 twist. It was OK accuracy wise with 250gr Nosler Partitions, IF and ONLY IF pushed to the max in velocity. My loads were hot + . It was useless with heavier, longer bullets. I tried some Barnes 250gr that a friend offered up and was lucky to keep them on the target at 100.

A 1 in 14 would probably do as that is the twist that a lot of 9.3x62 rifles run and it does well with 286gr. bullets. My 9.3x62 has a 1 in 12 and it works very well indeed.

If I were going to do the Whelen thing again, no question, 1 in 12 or forget it.

My M77 has a Shilen barrel in 1 in 14 twist.
Works exellent with both 225 grn and 250 grn.

I have three Whelens, a Ruger M77 and Remington 700 Classic with the 1 in 16" twist and a custom Oberndorf Mauser I picked up at a estate sale. It has a 1 in 14" twist. I'll be rebarreling a J.C. Higgins M50 I have to .35 Whelen and this one will have a 1 in 12" twist.
FWIW, all three will shoot 250 gt. bullets with decent accuracy but the 1 in 14" rifle is the most accurate of the bunch.
Paul B.

If you have a choice 1-12" without a doubt, my whelen has a 1-14" twist which should work for some of the heavier bullets. Soon i want to start testing the heavy weights and see, there is the 270gr North Fork, 275gr Hawk, 280gr Swift, 300gr Hawk, and 310gr Woodleigh.

Still awaiting my Stiller Predator for my 35W build. I have the barrel and went Hart 1/14.

If you're shooting bullets heavier than 250grs than you probably should be going to more case capacity like the 358 norma, or looking at a larger bore diameter. Just remember that faster twist also means higher chamber pressure. Just my opinion. Paul.

Fast twists also somewhat limit velocity by building pressure. It's just harder to push a bullet down at 1x10 vs a 1x14.

Apparently going from a slow to fast twist is less than 1% increase so not a significant factor. and going from 1 in 16 to 1 in 12 would be almost not measurable I would think.

A sideways bullet will be more troubling than 55K psi vs 55.5K psi

Why do most get a 35 whelen?
Bigger than 30-06 bullet
Power of the 338 win mag
Since this is not a target rifle and preasure increase is minimal between 1 in 16 vs 1 in 12 why limit yourself to 250 grains? 180 to 300 grains will be ok in a 1 in 12.

quote:

Originally posted by 30378:
Fast twists also somewhat limit velocity by building pressure. It's just harder to push a bullet down at 1x10 vs a 1x14.

quote:

Posted 16 March 2010 12:18 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by WV3568:
starting a custom .35 Whelen and I have seen the rates of twist vary from 1/12 in some reloading manuals to Remingtons 1/16 for their rifles. what is most common.pros/cons of one vs.other . Thanks..



Going with a faster twist allows you to stabilize longer bullets. But using a faster twist rate than is needed to stabilized the bullet you are using hurts accuracy.

1 in 12 was the rate recommended by Whelen because he felt it was needed to stabilize 300gr bullets.

My Ruger Hawkeye with a 1:16 twist seems to only like the 225-250 gr bullets. So I have had no issue stablizing heavier bullets with the slower 16 twist.

stability is important not only in air but the transition from air to game and terminal stability

I still feel that if you're shooting bullets heavier than 250gr in the 35 cal you should be looking at a larger case than the Whelen. Maybe the the 358 Norma or the 358 STA. What kind of velocity would you expect to get out of a 310gr bullet in the 35 Whelen? Maybe then you would be better off with a 7" twist and a stoudt load of Bullseye. Why don't the major bullet makers offer a heavier bullet than 250grs in 35 cal? I guess "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

quote:

Originally posted by vip:
I still feel that if you're shooting bullets heavier than 250gr in the 35 cal you should be looking at a larger case than the Whelen. Maybe the the 358 Norma or the 358 STA. What kind of velocity would you expect to get out of a 310gr bullet in the 35 Whelen? Maybe then you would be better off with a 7" twist and a stoudt load of Bullseye. Why don't the major bullet makers offer a heavier bullet than 250grs in 35 cal? I guess "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

i am in agreement. for me at least, i have no interest in weights above 250gr (if a 270 were offered that would be cool). if i need bigger slower pills im looking 45-70 or 450marlin. longer distance with a bigger pill im into a 338 not looking to the 35w to make up the difference. hence my 1/14 twist selection for mine.

The older 9.3x62 Mauser was designed around long 286gr solids and has always been 360mm (14.17") twist. It will stabilize up to 320gr bullets.

So based on that I would imagine that 1 in 16" would be fine up to 250gr in .35 Whelen and 1 in 14" would handle any .35 bullet. 1 in 12" is overkill with no advantage over 1 in 14" and higher chamber pressure, lower accuracy, increased jacket metal fouling, and lower barrel life.

Brazos_Jack

My Whelen is built on a rebored 1903 Springfield thus it has a 1-10 twist and can handle anything. Speer or Hornady (can't remember which) used to produce a 270gr RN in 35 caliber, but it did not sell very well.

I tried hunting with lighter 35 Cal bullets (185, 200, & 225gr.) and slightly more velocity, but kept going back to the 250 gr Speer spitzer. Accuracy has always been great, but because most of my 250gr Speers were purchased in the late 1960s (I bought several thousand of them) QC was less then and I had to weight and sort them into bins within 2/10th of grain. Once sorted I have always gotten 1 MOA accuracy in my Whelen from them.

I believe that at Whelen velocities you do not need premium bullets -- either lighter or heavier. Those old 250gr Speer bullets will drive right through the shoulder of an elk and exit the far side. I have never recovered a Whelen bullet in any elk or deer that I have ever shot except one. Always and entrance and an exit wound. Only exception was an Elk I took -- he was running straight at me and shot him in the brisket and recovered the bullet in his entrails near his hind quarters.

I just bought a custom (Mountain Molds) 35 cal, 285gr GC mould for my Whelen and will develop a load for it this summer to see how it does. That will be my "back up" in case commercial bullet availability becomes an issue in the future. Only have about 600 or those old Speer 250 grainers left!

Barstooler

WV3568,

You should pick the barrel twist for the bullet (length) you plan to shoot!

1 in 12 covers most of the entire range of bullets. A 1 in 10 for the real heavy (long) and the 1 in 16 for light (short).

So figure out which bullet first, then pick the twist.

The Ruger later Hawkeye rifles had 1/12 it has been reported??

Might be a good idea to match the burn rate of the powder to the bullet weight as well.

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:
WV3568,

You should pick the barrel twist for the bullet (length) you plan to shoot!

1 in 12 covers most of the entire range of bullets. A 1 in 10 for the real heavy (long) and the 1 in 16 for light (short).

So figure out which bullet first, then pick the twist.

Not specific to the 35 whelen, but I talked with a tech at Sierra recently regarding twist rates and it seems there is a much greater problem with having a twist that is too slow for longer bullets than the reverse of having too fast twist for shorter bullets. So, applied to the 35 Whelen this would mean going with the fastest twist offered.

1-10 for all my 35 rifles . At least now it is

I once walked into my friend the gunsmith's shop just in time to see him rechamber a pre-64 Model 70 Winchester in .35 Remington to .35 Whelen, thus transforming a rare and desirable collector's item into an ordinary Pre-64 Model 70. This was in the early 1960's, and no one had a clue that the classic Model 70's days were numbered.

I have no idea what the twist rate is with my Whelen, but it shoots 225 grain Barnes "X", "XLC" and "TSX" good enough that those are all I use in it.

PM sent

I don’t get going overboard on twist rates. We know that Remington’s original 1 in 16” was too slow for the heaviest (over 250 gr) bullets. But 1 in 14” will more than adequately stabilize any .35 bullet available.

1 in 14” will give:
310gr Woodleigh @ 2300fps muzzle velocity Stab Factor 2.22 (and will be adequately stable even at subsonic muzzle velocities)
275gr Woodleigh @2300fps muzzle velocity Stab Factor 2.08 (and will be adequately stable even at subsonic muzzle velocities)
250gr Nosler Partition @2300fps muzzle velocity Stab Factor 2.08 (and will be adequately stable even at subsonic muzzle velocities)
225gr Barnes TSX @2300fps muzzle velocity Stab Factor 1.71 (and will be adequately stable down to 1600 muzzle velocity)

The above examples represent the worse cases I could find. All other would result in even higher stability factors.

Higher muzzle velocities and/or lighter/shorter bullets will yield even higher stability factors

Find a convenient stability calculator here:
http://www.bergerbullets.com/twist-rate-calculator/

My 35 Whelen has a 1/14 twist. Its supposed to be good with up to 250 grain bullets but my rifle didn't like it. With 225 grains groups are all under 1 inch! The 250s shoot about 1.75 inch.

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
My 35 Whelen has a 1/14 twist. Its supposed to be good with up to 250 grain bullets but my rifle didn't like it. With 225 grains groups are all under 1 inch! The 250s shoot about 1.75 inch.

Don't confuse inaccuracy with instability.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
My 35 Whelen has a 1/14 twist. Its supposed to be good with up to 250 grain bullets but my rifle didn't like it. With 225 grains groups are all under 1 inch! The 250s shoot about 1.75 inch.

Don't confuse inaccuracy with instability.

I am not sure what you mean!!! Inaccuracy is the factor that's important to me bottom line. Other rifles maybe fine with 250 grain bullets & 1/14 twist am just reporting on my experience.

All great replies here. I had a 1/16 Classic for over 20 yrs but had it reamed tot he Ackley Improved. I was able to get great accuracy with the original 250X and later on the Woodleigh 310, "however", I was pushing them pretty fast. When you have a slow twist like that, whether its the 1/16 Remington Whelen or an older 1/38 Marlin 45-70...."speed is your friend" for accuracy. Now, I found that I killed everything just as efficiently ( downright amazingly really!) with the 200X, the 1/16 was no issue. I had that rifle rebarreld/converted to 358 Norma Mag, with a Shilen 1/14" twist, that's what they offered. Even though I had to sell a bunch of stuff ( I don't hate taxes, I hate having to pay them! ) It was fast enough to stabilize everything.
I really do think that the Whelen is a wonderful killer with the older heavy round nose and the lighter weights are more suited for the 358 Winchester, 356 Win, etc. Same with the 338 FED 160TTSX compared to the 338 WM. I have killed a lot of game using those lwt Barnes in the Whelen AI, 338WM and 340 Weatherby. However, I could have killed everything they did with a 300 Win and 180 TSX. Or 30-06! Sure, if you are a one rifle guy, you can go that route, but few folks are really in that category. Even a 250 round nose in a standard 35 Whelen ruins less meat than a bigger magnum with a lighter bullet, especially on deer. Have a ball, experiment, see what "you" like to use, but have fun!

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
My 35 Whelen has a 1/14 twist. Its supposed to be good with up to 250 grain bullets but my rifle didn't like it. With 225 grains groups are all under 1 inch! The 250s shoot about 1.75 inch.

Don't confuse inaccuracy with instability.

I am not sure what you mean!!! Inaccuracy is the factor that's important to me bottom line. Other rifles maybe fine with 250 grain bullets & 1/14 twist am just reporting on my experience.

What I mean is that just because your rifle isn't accurate with 250's doesn't mean it isn't stabilizing them.

To illustrate, I've got a 10" twist 35 Whelen that won't shoot Nosler 250 partitions into less than 1.5". It'll shoot the 225 accubonds into 1/2" groups.

I have another 16" twist Whelen that will shoot the 250's into sub-MOA groups all day long. But it doesn't care for the 225's.

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:
My Whelen is built on a rebored 1903 Springfield thus it has a 1-10 twist and can handle anything. Speer or Hornady (can't remember which) used to produce a 270gr RN in 35 caliber, but it did not sell very well.

I tried hunting with lighter 35 Cal bullets (185, 200, & 225gr.) and slightly more velocity, but kept going back to the 250 gr Speer spitzer. Accuracy has always been great, but because most of my 250gr Speers were purchased in the late 1960s (I bought several thousand of them) QC was less then and I had to weight and sort them into bins within 2/10th of grain. Once sorted I have always gotten 1 MOA accuracy in my Whelen from them.

I believe that at Whelen velocities you do not need premium bullets -- either lighter or heavier. Those old 250gr Speer bullets will drive right through the shoulder of an elk and exit the far side. I have never recovered a Whelen bullet in any elk or deer that I have ever shot except one. Always and entrance and an exit wound. Only exception was an Elk I took -- he was running straight at me and shot him in the brisket and recovered the bullet in his entrails near his hind quarters.

I just bought a custom (Mountain Molds) 35 cal, 285gr GC mould for my Whelen and will develop a load for it this summer to see how it does. That will be my "back up" in case commercial bullet availability becomes an issue in the future. Only have about 600 or those old Speer 250 grainers left!

Barstooler

With a 280 grain bullet and a 1-10" twist, you better make those cast bullets harder than woodpecker lips!

Can anyone explain Remington's long history of giving their rifles too-slow twist? I'm thinking 223, 244, 280 Rem (compared with 7x64) and the 35 Whelen.

Does the decision always fall to a benchrester who just has to get the best accuracy with medium-weight bullets?

quote:

Originally posted by ColoradoMatt:

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:
My Whelen is built on a rebored 1903 Springfield thus it has a 1-10 twist and can handle anything. Speer or Hornady (can't remember which) used to produce a 270gr RN in 35 caliber, but it did not sell very well.

I tried hunting with lighter 35 Cal bullets (185, 200, & 225gr.) and slightly more velocity, but kept going back to the 250 gr Speer spitzer. Accuracy has always been great, but because most of my 250gr Speers were purchased in the late 1960s (I bought several thousand of them) QC was less then and I had to weight and sort them into bins within 2/10th of grain. Once sorted I have always gotten 1 MOA accuracy in my Whelen from them.

I believe that at Whelen velocities you do not need premium bullets -- either lighter or heavier. Those old 250gr Speer bullets will drive right through the shoulder of an elk and exit the far side. I have never recovered a Whelen bullet in any elk or deer that I have ever shot except one. Always and entrance and an exit wound. Only exception was an Elk I took -- he was running straight at me and shot him in the brisket and recovered the bullet in his entrails near his hind quarters.

I just bought a custom (Mountain Molds) 35 cal, 285gr GC mould for my Whelen and will develop a load for it this summer to see how it does. That will be my "back up" in case commercial bullet availability becomes an issue in the future. Only have about 600 or those old Speer 250 grainers left!

Barstooler

With a 280 grain bullet and a 1-10" twist, you better make those cast bullets harder than woodpecker lips!

Always wondered about this accepted premise. I shoot 12bhn gc 220 in a 10 twist 30-06 just fine. 1900 fps or so. Why not the 280 at 10 twist in the 35? I don't have a 10 35 to try.

quote:

Originally posted by 30378:
Fast twists also somewhat limit velocity by building pressure. It's just harder to push a bullet down at 1x10 vs a 1x14.

I agree with this.

Some useless trivia that I penned in the past on this subject:

Twist rates , bullet penetration etc:

The consensus seems to be that angular velocity sets the bullet up for a specific impact yaw angle and that the size of that yaw angle determines in-target behavior ultimately then depth of penetration.

Now from this some AR experts assume, and correct me if I’m wrong that based on observation a fast twist barrel will give better impact yaw angles than slower twist barrels based on observations of deeper penetration.

In fact across the board there are participants who routinely promote, de novo that fast twist barrels be used ?

This then would imply that each and every gun barrel maker that has ever built a barrel to what can be seen as “standard” or “CIP spec “ don’t know what they are doing and are ? idiots !
Lets look at this closely:

Why is it that the faster twist barrels consistently out penetrate traditional and “CIP standard” slower twist barrels for the currently tested FN monometal bullets ?

The reason is because the faster twist barrels are actually the correct twist for these bullets.

The monometal FN made of copper or brass is consistently longer than a comparable weight lead and copper FMJ.

This has other implications such a increased barrel bullet contact stress and increased Mean Barrel Pressure.

In order to offset this some bullet manufacturers offer grooved or ribbed bullets.
Based on the Gyro theorem, or it’s simplified and oft misapplied derivative the Greenhill formula we see that the correct twist for a monometal would have to be faster than that of a standard lead and copper FMJ or soft.

That means that like weight monometal Solids if at the very heavy ends of weight may be borderline or even under stabilized when shot from standard barrels. Further this they have then larger yaw angles throughout the flight trajectory.

We must also not forget there is more to bullet stability than just gyro stability.

The stability theorem is a triangular relationship between Gyro stability, static stability and tractability assuming of course a symmetrical projectile.

All 3 need to be satisfied for the bullet to be deemed “ stable”

As it regards Gyro stability bullets are either stable or unstable, not a more or less stable. If Stable at launch it will be gyroscopically stable down range because of the drop off of linear velocity relative to rotational velocity.
There is also a limit to projectile length for a given twist angle as well as a optimal ratio of nose length to overall bullet length. ( as per Knuebeuhl on the question of optimal projectile dimension in spin stabilized flight conditions)

But this raises some interesting questions:

Does this apply if the shooter is to shoot a FN bullet made of copper and lead? Will the fast twist still give smaller yaw and thus bigger penetration? Or lets say we make our FN from a heavier metal than solid copper or brass so that it’s length is the same as the old copper and lead bullet ?

If say a 1: 10 barrel gives better penetration than say a standard 1:14 twist barrel for a monometal why not go 1:9 or even 1:7 because then you are going to get even better penetration ?????

Well not quite:

The Gyro theorem comes with caveats and an important caveat is the relationship of gyroscopic stability and the condition of tractability.

There is a direct inverse relationship between static stability and tractability.

If the angular velocity is too high the bullet becomes less tractable. Which implies that the bullets yaw angle increases.

This in turn has a significant impact on in target stability and the wounding process. ( the spinning top is sitting at an angle but is still gyroscopically stable)

The bullet will sit at an angle to it’s direction of motion as it exits the barrel, they all do but because of the high ratio of its gyroscopic moment due to the high spin rate to the overturning moment, will keep this position and take longer to damp out slow arm gyration , it also does not cone out as much as a bullet that is shot from the correct twist barrel , in fact it gets worse downrange. ( True over stabilization does not really occur in flat fire trajectories but the yaw angle is none the less quite high)

The whole issue of yaw, stability and wounding capability is best illustrated and likely the best researched in the form of the M16 rifle’s variants and their ammunition

The M16 and its ammo may very well be the most researched in this regard and serves as a very good example of theory in action.

The original M16 was designed for the M193 bullet and was made with a 1:12 Barrel.
The vital stats for this bullet is:
Mass: 3.56gm
Length: 19mm
Ja: 1.165
Jq: 0.763
Distance nose to CG: 11.3mm

The original barrel twist calculated for these vitals called for a 1:12 twist barrel and extensive testing done comparing this to a 1:14 twist barrel showed that the 1:12 would give the best performance over the whole temperature and barometric spectrum called for in a battle rifle of this nature.

The launch and flight characteristics of the M193 bullet also showed the best overall results in terms of initial Yaw, coning and overall loss of velocity over distance when compared to the 1:14 twist.

What was noted on impact of the bullet in the bullet stop in the lab at Aberdeen was that often some the bullets fired from the 1:14 would not penetrate the water saturated foam used as a bullet trap at the end of the range

But along came NATO and they chose a heavier bullet, the SS109:

The vitals for the SS109 is:
Mass: 4 gm
Length: 23.1mm
Ja: 1.096
Jq: 1.123
Distance nose to CG 14.5mm

This bullet does not stabilize in the 1: 12 inch barrel, just like the M193 in the 1:14
So NATO chose a 1:7 barrel.
The US is part of NATO and to appease the NATO STANAG regulations changed some M16’ models to a 1:7 twist.

This in practice meant that the 1:7 barrel should stabilize the SS109 bullet and would based on the commonly assume AR standard even stabilize a M193 bullet better?

Right? No Wrong !

The 1:7 “over stabilizes” the M193 bullet in as much as it leads to a larger Start yaw and the bullet remains at that large yaw way longer than when shot from a 1: 12 barrel and this lead to reports of bullet fragmentation at impact, something that was extensively researched and documented.

My point in all of this is:

Modern monometal solids are longer than their “ old” Lead and Copper FMJ’s .

Based on the gyro theorem old style FMJ ‘s and cup and core bullets are a best fit with “standrard CIP “ twist barrels

When shooting modern monometals the barrel twist will have to adapted for by shooting faster twist barrels.

It means that if the new green bullet initiative takes hold organizations like CIP would have to revise their specs in terms of twist rates for cartridges
But this does not imply that if a standard twist for a FMJ is 1: 12 and a mono shoots better from a 1:10 that a 1:7 would be best, quite the opposite may well be observed ( based on the extension of the gyro theorem in the form of the tractability condition)

And just as a sidebar:

Starting yaw is not a fixed value, it is random within a lower and upper limit, it varies from shot to shot same rifle, shot to shot different rifles.

Distance to damping of nutation is random and may vary shot to shot same rifle, shot to shot different rifles even by as much as a feet and yards

Yaw measured at different points in a trajectory same thing, loss of velocity same thing all are random between an upper and lower limit.

Yaw is also temperature and barometric pressure sensitive again within a background of randomness.

So everything we see and assume has to be given the statistical treatment.

That's an interesting treatise, ALF, and I'm not sure I understand it completely.

However, considering the increased use of monos and handloading hunters' inclination to use a variety of bullet weights, does it not make sense for commercial rifle makers to provide a twist fast enough to stabilise the longest projectiles likely to be used? If lighter bullets are made well and concentrically, are they not likely to also give satisfactory hunting accuracy in the faster twist?

In regard to the matter of fast twists giving higher pressures, as other contributors assert, does reducing powder weights to cope with this necessarily give lower velocities than would be achieved with a slightly heavier load in a rifle with a slower twist? While it seems likely that it would, I wonder if the still-quite-high pressure with the reduced load may give velocities little slower than the heavier loads fired at similar pressures in the slow-twist rifle.

I am no expert in these matters but perceive that many handloaders now use chronographs as part of their pressure evaluation. If I understand that business, it seems that if a cartridge is giving much higher velocities than listed in manuals with a certain load, it may indicate tight dimensions in the particular barrel, which are probably causing higher pressures. If this is true, I wonder if the increased resistance in a fast twist may also maintain higher pressures, even with slightly reduced loads, resulting finally in a higher than expected velocity.

Alf,
I enjoy your writing. I learn from it. So; will you explain the Greenhill formula as it relates to "Caliber" please? I am supposing that factor in the formula is there to account for the rotating mass difference between say a 30 caliber and a 35 caliber and the Gyro stability differences from that?
Can't wait to read your answer.
Thanks in advance.