There has been alot of flack about the338/06.
Some of that is misdirected.
The real carcuss that needs burying is the 35 Whelen. What need is there for it? People claim they can get the Whelen to shoot same weight bullets as the 33806 to a higher velocity and at a lower pressure.And that the difference is SD is not that important,and that the larger dia. is better,and that the .358cal has agood selection of bullets avail. Well not so fast

Well hell I believe the 9.3x62 did that(and better) long before the whelen. So what was the Whelen guy thinking.
Then the whelen freaks decide to give it the Ackley treatment to show us how even more efficient it is. Well Look at the the dimensions of the 9.3x62 case. Mr Mauser left no room for improvement by doing it right the first time.
Lets face it the 35W against the 9.3x62 is apoor attempt. As much as the Model 70 is against the Mauser98.

As a Roman Emperor would signal: Let its head roll and the spectators will cheer!!!

You're spot-on about the 9.3, however, everything you said about the Whelen applies equally to the less popular 338-06 when directly compared to the 9.3X62.
Arguably, the original model 70 was an improvement over the 98. A bead front sight, horizontal safety, adjustable trigger; all were more than mere embellishments, they were functional improvements the mauser didn't have.

Well, the obvious answer is the non-magnum medium's don't do anything the 375 H&H doesn't do better, including the 9.3x62.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Well hell I believe the 9.3x62 did that(and better) long before the whelen. So what was the Whelen guy thinking.

"The Whelen Guy" was thinking of a round that could work through the Springfield action without any alteration, that could easily be made from the plentiful GI .30/'06 cases then available, utilize bullets which were already being made in this country, and give American shooters a cartridge that ALMOST equalled the .375 H&H Magnum ballistically.

The .35 Whelen round achieved all those goals.

But when Winchetster introduced the Model 70 in .375 H&H, any real need for the .35 Whelen went out the window.

Please note it was nearly half a centruy between the origin of the .35 Whelen and the introduction of this round as a factory offering by Remington. Why Reminton decided to introduce it is a mystery, as it has never been particlarly popular - the .35 Remington is the ONLY .35 caliber to become wildly popular in the U.S. Even the great .358 Norma Magnum has pretty much disappeared, and how many of the outstanding .358 STA's have you seen in use??

You know? I've always wondered why the pissant .35 Rem. was so popular and much better .358 Win. and .35 Whelens just barely hang on? I've had all three cartridges in various rifle, and the .35 Rem. went down the road, but I kept the .358s and .35 Whelens.
Of course, both the .358 and 35 Whelen have been handicapped by the gun companies. Originally, both the .358 and Whelen were designed with a 1 in 12" twist rate to be able to use heavier bullets. Col. Whelen and James Howe envisioned the .35 Whelen for use against larger game and using 250 to 275 gr. bullets.
Why in bloody hell both Ruger and Remington went to a 1 in 16" twist for the Whelen is way beyond me, but in my not very humble opinion, they fucked up! A .35 Whelen loaded to full potential with a 275 gr. bullet won't be that far behind a 9.3x62. The .35 Whelen is also deliberately underloaded by the factories, most likely because of the old Springfields that were converted. I've even seen an 1895 Winchester lever action that had been rebored to .35 Whelen. Nothing like bringing out a cartridge and castrating it.
The .358 was also originally designed with a 1 in 12" twist, and my Browning BLR and Savage 99 both have a 1 in 12" twist barrel. My Ruger 77 tang safety model has a 1 in 16" twist as does a Kodiak Mauser in .358 I found at a gun show.
Personally, I don't think it would make much difference what you shot you game with. A properly hit animal with either the .338-06, .35 Whelen or 9.3x62 will be a dead animal. Just pick the one you lie best and put the bullet in the right place. They'll all do the job.
Paul B.

Comparing the .35 Whelen to the 9.3x62 is no different than comparing it to the .416 Rigby or the .500NE - it isn't what Whelen and Howe were approximating. For a valid comparison, look at the .350 Rigby which is what they were looking at. You know, they did a fine job of coming up with a round that has plentiful easily convertible brass and performs about the same.

Hello Woodjack,
the 9,3 X 62 was not developed by Mr. Mauser.
The 9,3 was developed 1905 by Otto Bock a
gunsmith in Berlin.

Jaeger Jockel

With my tongue wholly in cheek, if anyone has 35 Whelen rifles that they want to bury, would they please send them to me instead? Thanks in advance.

quote:

Originally posted by mehulkamdar:
With my tongue wholly in cheek, if anyone has 35 Whelen rifles that they want to bury, would they please send them to me instead? Thanks in advance.

I'll take a few as well, as I have tons of 30-06 brass lying around.

Since your giving them away I'll take one in left hand, please

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
The real carcuss that needs burying is the 35 Whelen. What need is there for it?

Why that is a very interesting analogy. Carried to its most beneficial extreme we would only have to be concerned about one cartridge in small bore ,one in medium bore, one in medium large bore and one in super bore. Four cartridges would cover the gambit and we wouldn't have to worry about making just the right choice. Wow what a great thought roger

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Well hell I believe the 9.3x62 did that(and better) long before the whelen. So what was the Whelen guy thinking.

He was thinking to build an almost exact copy of the renowned German-Austrian 9x63 M/88 for domestic US use - and he succeeded.

quote:

Well Look at the the dimensions of the 9.3x62 case. Mr Mauser left no room for improvement by doing it right the first time.

True, because Mr. Mauser never did it at all. Period.

C.

The 35 Whelen is a ridiculous cartridge. Inferior in every way to the 9.3 x 62, with 10% less powder capacity and fitting into the same action, yet the inferior Whelen was invented 20 years after the 9.3 x 62. Not too impressive. If you are going to reinvent the wheel, at least make it a better wheel, not an inferior wheel.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
The 35 Whelen is a ridiculous cartridge. Inferior in every way to the 9.3 x 62, with 10% less powder capacity and fitting into the same action, yet the inferior Whelen was invented 20 years after the 9.3 x 62. Not too impressive. If you are going to reinvent the wheel, at least make it a better wheel, not an inferior wheel.

I have the impression when having this debat
about cartridges like this thread, that things is really about an old controversy... is the american cartridges better or the the european? To narrow things down to the ground..two continents: one verus the other in cartridges:!.
Some americans(not all) regardless of what they see just dislike anything that comes from europe!. So even, if it was better to have a 9,3x62 mauser(or Otto Bock) for Dino shooting, some would rather choose a .44WCF because their
patriotic sense is bigger then their practical sense!. The 35 Whelen is an ok cartridge for me, but if I were optioned to choose, natually I would take the 9,3 at anytime!. I was looking
last year for a longrange rifle and my choices was narrowed down to two calibers...7x66 vom SE or .270 weatherby. The weatherby won because it iis better but the Vom Hofe came close, but not close enough!

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
The 35 Whelen is a ridiculous cartridge. Inferior in every way to the 9.3 x 62, with 10% less powder capacity and fitting into the same action, yet the inferior Whelen was invented 20 years after the 9.3 x 62. Not too impressive. If you are going to reinvent the wheel, at least make it a better wheel, not an inferior wheel.

What I think everyone is overlooking is we are talking early twentieth century for development of two different cartridges on two different continents. Think about it, there was no internet, no television and even telephones were not in widespread use yet. I seriously doubt either one was aware of the other at the time. Even with our huge advances with communications today most shooters aren't aware of very many European cartridges on this side of the Atlantic.

Say what you all may............but I LOVE my 35 Whelens. As did Elmer Kieth. His articles are what may me buy my first one (A remington 7600) in the early 90s. It has proven fast handling & accurate. Downing game much better (faster)than my 06. And I am having a mauser hunter built in 35 Whelen as well. I hope to have it completed & back before fall

As for the metric calibers.........aside from a gun nut site like this I NEVER even hear about them here in the states. I am sure they work great (As do 100s of catridges). But the 35 Welen is an all American classic hunting round.

quote:

Originally posted by cobra:

What I think everyone is overlooking is we are talking early twentieth century for development of two different cartridges on two different continents. Think about it, there was no internet, no television and even telephones were not in widespread use yet. I seriously doubt either one was aware of the other at the time. Even with our huge advances with communications today most shooters aren't aware of very many European cartridges on this side of the Atlantic.

Well put roger

quote:

Originally posted by jens poulsen:
I have the impression when having this debat
about cartridges like this thread, that things is really about an old controversy... is the american cartridges better or the the european? To narrow things down to the ground..two continents: one verus the other in cartridges:!.
Some americans(not all) regardless of what they see just dislike anything that comes from europe!.

Considering when the cartridge was designed this is probably very close to the mark. Not too much love for the Europeans after the World Wars and the rank and file shooters buy the rifles and beer. German varieties of either weren't too popular in the US for years. Also, it's not just US vs Europe, look at what the Brits did to the 7x57 (275 Rigby).

FWIW, I never met a cartridge I didn't like.

Seeing as how the '06 is about the most popular hunting round ever, and has been necked up, down and sideways, the 35 Whelen was a natural occurence. How anyone would want to do away with such a classic is kind of, well, sickening. All I know is I just loaded up some 250gr partitions and I wouldn't want to be any North American game species when the colonel comes a callin'!--2MG

I didn't even bother to read the other replies, anybody so bored all they can do is try and find fault with good rounds.....well.......

Read the article "cartridge efficiency" recently in Rifle magazine. There are always chamberings that will put bullets out faster, this and that different blah blah blah. how much powder does it take to do it?

heck, I even went in the shop and dug up the numbers from when I was working up my loads with my whelen. (please people don't try this load, always work up. this is hot and I am going to back the load down 5%)

Remington 1917 in 35 whelen a.i. w/26" douglas barrel. Remington 35 whelen brass fire formed.

250g Speers
55g of IMR 4064 = @2610fps (all chrono'd, no guessing or computing)
59g of RL15 = 2676-2689fps

Even backing the RL15 load down, switching to Northfork bullets for actual hunting, should still be throwing it at 2600fps.

Red

I buried my 35 whelen in the gun safe because everytime I pointed it at something and pressed the trigger said critter developed a large hole that went frome on side to the other or one end to the other. It then laid down and died. Reloading was easy components always available and cheap. I got bored and burried it in the gun safe. This thread made me thing I should get it out this hunting season tho.

I have no intention of burying my 35 Whelen..it serves my purposes well...I agree with what Red sez..there is no reason to fault a cartridge just because it doesn't suit your taste.

If the Whelen is such a poor cartridge, then probably a lot of other cartridges ought to get tossed in the hole with it...including the 350 Rem magnum..the Whelen's ballistic twin...

Woodjack is entitled to his opinion...(and that is all it is). Myself, I will go on using my 35 Whelen, and my worthless 338-06AI, and they will both work well for my purposes...but I will be disappointed in them now that I have been enlightened....

Zeeriverrat1

quote:

Originally posted by zeeriverrat1:
I have no intention of burying my 35 Whelen..it serves my purposes well...I agree with what Red sez..there is no reason to fault a cartridge just because it doesn't suit your taste.
Zeeriverrat1

This discussion reminds me of the time the late, unlamented COL Charles Askins wrote one of those "hack" articles for one of the gun rags-don't remember which, entitled "Let's Scrap Yesterday's Cartridges.

In it he listed all the "old" rounds that needed to be scrapped, and the"new" ones which should be kept.

On his list of those to be ditched was the 6mm Remington; yet, he voted to keep the .243 Winchester. Since both were introduced on about the same day, how could one be dumped as being "old" and the other retained? Particularly in view of the fact that, when handloaded, the 6mm Remington is superior?

I personally think ALL cartridges are good for their particular application, which oftentimes is just to give us gun nuts something different to fiddle with!

The problem with the 35 whelen is that it was already obsolete and inferior when it was invented, compared to the 9.3 x 62.

500--I'll guarantee nearly none of the riflemen of the time the 35 colonel was invented knew anything of the 9.3x62, as nearly none of them in America know anything about it now to this day. Who cares if they both exist. The 280Rem is superoir to the 270Win, should we scrap it also? No, because it is an awesome cartridge and a classic, just like the Whelen. Plus, if anything, the whelen is a hair faster than the 9.3 with 250grainers, and it's AMERICAN dammit--2MG

500grains has a phobia about the 35 Whelen............and sock puppets HA!

Terry

I think you have to bury the POS 338-06, and the 9.3X62 right after that. Whats all the hub bub about? The Whelen was designed to shoot a bullet up to about 250 grains, any argument that says heavier bullets are needed, well, then you need a 375 H&H.
Jerry

els!
My Whelen does the same thing! One shot, two big holes, dead elk/deer/hog.
Sako

Woodjack! Shame on you, trying to be a are we? Some of us saw through it. Some bit on it in a big way.

I wonder how many 9.3 mausers were in the us way back then, i also wonder if you can make the 9.3 buy simply necking up the 30,06 ?
as for need thats, got little to do with anything , seeing as I started my collection with the 30,06 why would I need any of my other 12 rifels, I just like them, and if take my nice old whelen elk hunting this year what do you think is going to happen if I place a 250 grain bullet behind the shoulder of an elk ? that old Elmer Kieth , should have known how stupid it was to kill all those animals with a stupid cartridge. By the way even though I have and like hell out of my whelen, I would love to get my hands on a CZ 550 in 9.3x62, ...tj3006

The 35 whelen was designed around existing brass and bullets in the 1920's in the US.

Suitable .338" componet bullets weren't available until the devolopment of the .338 win mag, and those bullets really aren't designed for the more sedate velocities of the .338-06.

I don't believe US componet manufacturers started offering 9.3mm bullets until the 80's or 90's. European componets have always had problems with consistant supplies in the US.

Pick whichever one tickles your fancy, but any of the three can take any NA species out to 250-300 yds. If the chambering you use fails, look in the mirror for the source of the failure.

If you need to bash well established chamberings on the internet, I think you have emotional problems

I love reading all this drivell about how the 338/06 is superior, the 9.3X62 renders the Whelen obsolete. What a joke. There is not enough ballistic difference between the three of them to frighten a gnat.

What was Whelen guy thinking? This one was looking at the overwhelmig 9.3 bullet supply for one thing, one from Speer (1!), a whopping two (2!) from Nosler (we're rolling in um now!), NONE from either Sierra or Hornady! that is ZERO! ZIP, ZILCH, NATHA!

Combine that with the fact that you can buy the obsolete POS Whelen ammo over the counter along with an easy supply of properly headstamped, preformed brass and the fact that Whelen dies are about half the cost of 338/06 or 9.3 dies.

Your right, the Whelen makes no sense..

Fact is that for someone who lives stateside the 9.3X62 is the one that is rediculous. It makes no more sense than going out of your way to get a 405 Winchester.

That being said though, I still agree with Rick R;

"FWIW, I never met a cartridge I didn't like."

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
The 35 Whelen is a ridiculous cartridge. Inferior in every way to the 9.3 x 62, with 10% less powder capacity and fitting into the same action, yet the inferior Whelen was invented 20 years after the 9.3 x 62. Not too impressive. If you are going to reinvent the wheel, at least make it a better wheel, not an inferior wheel.

HORSESHIT! While digging through some of my American Rifleman Magazines for something else, I came across a short article by C.E. "Ed" Harris on the .35 Whelen. he confirmed something I've been saying for sometime now; that the Whelen was supposed to have a 1 in 12" twist rate for 250, 275 and 300 gr. bullets. He specially praised the long discontinued Hornady 275 gr. bullets for their accuracy and deep penetration. FWIW, Hornady dropped them in 1967 IIRC.
I'm perfectly willing to bet that either a good 275 gr. or 300 gr. bullet from the .35 Whelen will kill anything just as dead as the 9.3x62 will, provided the rifle has the proper twist rate in the barrel, and not that jackass 1 in 16" twist Remington and Ruger decided to use.
Paul B.

Well, all the pro Whelen guys have said about all I would have said. The bury the Whelen group, I hope that whatever you shoot has served you half as well as my 35 Whelen has served me.

Works well in Montana, worked very well in Africa. No problems. Puts big holes in big animals and they fall down dead, rather quickly I might ad. Also, I don't have to throw away a whole shoulder if I hit bone. I love my 270 also, but make a real effort to take only pure lung shots because I love venison too.

I'm building a 9.3x62 because I like rifles and I want a new toy. I thought about just rebarreling my 35 to a 1 in 12 twist, has the cursed 1 in 16, but hay, why pass up a new rifle in a caliber I haven't worked with before. To close preformance wise? Maybe, but I try to put some prespective on this, it's my hobby, I do this for fun. After all, a realist might say 22LR, 30-06, 375 and 458 are all you really need for anything. Where is the fun in that!

Once again, write 338-06, 35 whelen, 9.3x62 on pieces of paper. Put them in a hat, draw one out and go hunting. The critters are not going to know the difference. All are solid cartridges.

I wanted a different elk rifle awhile back, I studied the 8mm-06 up through the 9.3x64 Brenneke.

When the smoke cleared, I had two 338-06's. After playing with them for about 4 years now. You couldn't get me to trade them for anything.
BUT, that's just my own opinion and personal experience. Nothing magical just solid functional cartridges.

See paragraph one.

If I was limited to a minimalist rifle inventory. I would own a 22LR, 22-250, 270 Win, 338-06, and a 416 Taylor. With that list you would not be seriously over/under gunned for anything in the world.

IN a world of supershort mags not being trendy, I would not want to get rid of ANY caliber that has been around for a long time.....

Heck I wish things like the 348, the 40/65, 40/82, 30/03, 32/40 etc were still around and readily available....

Just because a cartridge may be inferior to another cartridge is no need to give it a death warrant.. if so we would all be hunting with 300 mags and 458 mags etc.....Personally, I'd take a 35 Whelan over a 300 Weatherby any day.....

We don't need to crapcan the old stuff to make way for all of these new "bright ideas" in cartridge design coming out now.....Even they work in their intended use tho... taking down game.....

Heck if efficiency or lack of it, or power vs the lack of it, were the standards for being alive or buried.... half of us old guys in here would have been pushing up daisies a long time ago.....

personally that would suck!


cheers
seafire

I would sooner have a sister working the street than sound the call to bury a cartridge. Certainly one that will handle most anything on the planet, probably all given proper bullets.

Somebody was bored I think.

180-250s in my Whelens and 250-300s in my 9.3x62s. They coexist very nicely...

I started this post because I was bored and to take the unfair pressure off the 338/06 in this forum. It has all gone to show that the 338/06,35W,9.3x62 are all fine cartridges

Woodjack:

Now listen, Don't be to quick to call the 338-06 a fine cartridge. LOL

Jerry