The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles why 35 Whelen fails and 9.3x62 is a winner ??Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| why 35 Whelen fails and 9.3x62 is a winner ?? | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
I'm going to take the side of those that believe there are more custom Whelens than production built Whelens in the USA. I only know of three .35 Whelens and all three of them are custom made by private smiths. They are not had to make at all. | |||
|
One of Us |
Let's see here, according to my vastly out of date Barnes Number 3 Reloading Manual, I notice the following infor mation: 35 Whelen = .358 diameter - 250 grain "X" Flat Base - Sec. Den. .279 Bal. Coe. .458. 9.3 x 62 mm = .366 diameter - 250 grain "X" Flat Base - Sec. den. .267 Bal. Coe. .428. Everyone with me so far? Now instead of listing the "Recommended Powder" for BOTH rounds, I am going to list the loads using the exact same powder. In this case, IMR 4064, which by the way is the "Recommended Powder" for the 9.3. Continueing forward, for the bullet listed above, the starting load for the Whelen is 50.0 grains of 4064 for a listed velocity of 2322, the Maximum load listed is 54.0 grains of 4064 for a listed velocity of 2508. Now for the competition, for the bullet listed, and with the "Recommended Powder" 4064, the starting load listed is an amazing 53.0 grains of powder, which gives a listed velocity of an astonishing 2377 fps. That translates to an astounding 55 fps more than the Whelen load with only 3 more grains of powder required, an unbelievable increase of about 18 fps per grain of powder. Then going on to the really amazing figures, with the shockingly maximum load of 57.0 grains of 4064, we achieve a listed velocity of 2556 fps., this with tthat 3 extra grains of powder, gives us an earth shattering, beast destroying 48 more fps over the maximum load in the Whelen. Now, instead of gaining the incredible 18 fps we got from the "Starting" load, and the increase of 3 grains of powder, we get an unimpressive, in my book at least, slightly over 15 fps gain. In looking at ALL of the powders listed for both cartridges, the fastest velocity obtained for the 250 grain bullet out of the Whelen, using starting loads, is listed at 2411 fps., at the same time, for the 9.3, the best velocity obtained with starting loads is listed as 2468. That is an earth shattering improvement of 51 fps. Looking at the Maximum loads side of the chart, the fastest load listed for the Whelen is 2586 fps., while the Maximum for the 9.3 is a whopping 2644 fps. Folks, that is a huge 58 fps difference between the two. Someone please explain to me, after looking at the above facts, just exactly HOW .008 inch difference in diameter, makes one round a miracle worker and the other a dud? I can pretty well guarantee, that any critter hit properly with a shot from EITHR gun will not care nor will it be able to tell you which cartridge killed it. Use whatever you want to, but to proclaim that one is better than the other in any real-tangible manner is  in its smelliest and greasiest form.Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I just looked among my rifles and saw a 9.3x62. Its just sitting there, for now. It is sighted in with a 4x nikon monarch and has loaded rounds ready to go. I shot my last buck with it. Overkill? maybe but it was DRT and did not destroy any meat. I have a matching 30-06 and 375HH. But the 9.3 is my current favorite. Just because, and Just Because is reason enough for me. No stirring of the pot here, just my observations. Les | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are picking a fight where this is none. Why would you do that? The whole premise is we have two identical rounds. The question is why , in the USA, one old standby, would remain obscure, while the other, a relative newcomer to these shores, is going gang busters. CZ carbine, Ruger African, lot of good 285gr loads readily available. I think a careful read of the last 2 pages offers some viable explanations. At least for me. | |||
|
One of Us |
 Kinda nice having a thread with friendly but spirited discussion and quality prose.   roger  Old age is a high price to pay for maturity!!! Some never pay and some pay and never reap the reward. Wisdom comes with age! Sometimes age comes alone.. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Four Bore, show me just exactly where I am trying to start a fight! I listed Published Data, from a realiable source, Barnes, I assume they are realiable, concerning loading data for similar weight bullets. I can not see from that data where the 9.3 has any real tangible advantage over the Whelen. What I see, is that the various manufacturers are using standard marketing technology, by offering consumers new and exciting products, that while interesting, offer no real advantage in any way over older calibers. The problem I see, is that folks that like the 9.3, can't seem to stay out of conversations where people are discussing the Whelen, and just so you can comprehend it, Whelen lovers do the same damn thing from time to time. If you believe I am starting a fight, that is your business. All I am pointiong out is that from a Performance level under Actual field conditions few if any hunters will be able to discern a clear cut advantage of one round over the other. You nor anyone else can give any real/factual/tangible proof that .008 difference in diameter and less than 100 fps increase in velocity, makes one round the savior of the shooting world and the other a P.O.S. Have a good day. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
+1  We are all in agreement that the two rounds are similar but its the differences that are being contested. It appears as though the 9.3 attractors prefer the 286 grain bullet which is the group I support and the 338-06 offers better trajectory with the 250 grainers leaving the 35 Whelen squarely between the two and without a bullet that it can call its own. If were talking the 250 grain bullet only I would opt for the 35 over the 9.3 but would take the 338 over the 35. This holds true of the 286 grainer and because one is not offered for the 35 it might have something to do with its waning popularity. Captain Finlander | |||
|
| One of Us |
It's not accurate that the Whelen doesn't have a bullet that it can call its own. Most of the 225 and 250 grain .358 bullets on the market were designed primarily to supply the Whelen. Of course those bullets will also work well in the 358 Norma and other 358 cartridges, but the Whelen was the target market. You are correct that 250 grain bullets also work well in the 338-06, but those bullets were designed primarily for 338 WM and the high velocity of that cartridge. Obviously those bullets still are good in the 338-06 and its different initial velocity, but you can't hang your hat on the 338-06 somehow having an advantage in 250 gr bullet selection. It's also not true that the Whelen somehow is suffering from a lack of selection of heavier bullets. Heavier bullets are available, but are not in such demand as the 250 grainers because the 250 grainers perform superbly with the Whelen. Does anyone doubt that a 250 grain bullet from a Whelen is perfectly capable on any animal short of the African big 5? I have yet to meet anybody who thinks that. And the 338-06 250 gr. trajectory advantage over the Whelen is meaningless within 300 yards. If I liked shooting past that distance on large game, I wouldn't choose the 338-06, the Whelen, or the 9.3x62. | |||
|
| One of Us |
No. Why, cry, would you load a 9,3mm with a 250gr bullet?
Certainly. That's what I've been asking regarding the 9,3mm (.366") viz the .375. Granted, that's .009" i.e. 12.5% bigger a difference than there is between the 9,3 and the .35. - Lars/Finland A.k.a. Bwana One-Shot | |||
|
| one of us |
I have not had either of these cartridges. But I have had a 350 Rem Mag, shot deer and turkeys with it, and I have used a 9,3x74R for a bunch of game from deer and pigs to black bear to zebras [several] a bunch of other African Plains game, as well as giraffe, cape buff and elephant. IMHO for North America, with proper bullets there is no difference between the 35 Whelen and the 9,3's. For Africa the 9,3's are the better choice. The 9,3x62 for Bolt Guns, and the 9,3x74R for Double Rifles, are two of the best hunting calibres on the Planet. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| One of Us |
The point some of you are missing completely, has to do with the group that are in love with the 9.3, barging in on threads that are supposed to be about the 35 Whelen. How many of you are idiots? You don't like the Whelen and think the 9.3 is better, Hurray For You. Why do you feel that it is neccessary, to try and convince the lovers of the Whelen that they are wrong, Answer That!!!!! You can't. Why try. Each round has earned its place in the hunting field, what the hell is wrong with that??????? How about, instead of all the B.S. someone sets down and works with both cartridges with identical weight bullets, and I believe there are custom bullet makers out there offering bullets in the same grain weights for the Whelen as for the 9.3, and get back to us with some real tangible evidence, that the 9.3 is that much superior to the Whelen. You Can Not Do It, End of Story. The hype/hyperbole, is all based on the fact that more European made firearms are being imported into the states than in the past, consequentely, the arms and ammunition manufacturers are offering guns and ammo, that were not available in this country 10 years ago A 7 year old half wit knows that a 286 grain .366 diameter bullet will give better performance than a 250 grain .358 bullet, but what if someone offered a 286 grain .358 bullet, how superior would the performance be????? How about 300 grain .358 and .366 bullets, how much difference would there be? Point is,. WHY, do 9.3 lovers feel the need to jump in on a discussion about the Whelen and try to trash it, when not pone of you can show that the 9.3 offers any signifigant advantage over the Whelen with bullets of the same weight. Try to answer that with out running off on a tangent! Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
One of Us |
Well if it were me, and it isn't as I'll be getting a 375, I would be drawn to the 9.3 because I can get a box 286 grain bullets as well as the 250 grainers off the shelf whereas one runs out of luck trying to find anything heavier off the shelf in the .358. Admittedly I live in the UK where things are much harder than in the US but the standard for the 9.3s are the heavier bullets, putting them in the 375 class if you like, but that of the 358s are in the order of the 338 class. Given that I'm be shooting a 250 grain bullet, I'd rather do it out a 338 (for the same reason as using the heavy bullet in the 9.3). IF one loads them up to the same sort of specs then of course there is bugger all difference, however I think the argument is that one is always loaded heavy and the otehr light. Relatively speaking, of course. | |||
|
| one of us |
African legalities aside... IF you load the 35 Whelen with 300 grain bullets at 2150fs you have a modern .350 Rigby [400/.350]. Frank Meland shot several elehants with his 350 Rigby Double... John Taylor liked it as well... DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
One of Us |
Take a look at the 9th page down. This should stir the pot a little more. During my communications with Barnes, they say the new 250 gr TTSX should be shipping around April. http://www.barnesbullets.com/w...ucts-release-PDF.pdf Oh, and I choose/chose the 9.3x62  Alan  | |||
|
| One of Us |
That is the best point brought up to date, the ammo companies are offering loads for the 9.3 that work best, simply due to its history in Africa. The biggest draw back to the various .358 chamberings is first, a lack of quality loadings in the Whelen from the factories, and second quality rifles chambered for the round. The 9.3 is as accepted in Africa, as the 30-06 used to be here in America. Way before all of the B.S. about the superiority of the 9.3 over the Whelen or ANY of the other .358 chamberings, U.S. gun and ammo manufacturers never really offered rifles or loadings to take advantage of the .358's potential. Who out there can show proof, that a 286 grain bullet out of a 9.3 would be that superior to a 286 grain .358 loading? I do not believe anyone can. Who out there can show proof that a CZ 550 in 35 Whelen, built to the same specifacations, with proper loadings available, be not just as popular as the 9.3? I don't think anyone can. Going back to my questionable information source, the Third Edition of the Barnes Reloading Manual, there are loading tables for 4-FOUR different weight bullets for the Whelen, 180, 200, 225 and 250. For the 9.3, there are 2-TWO, 250 and 286. As I listed earlier, the Whelen and the 9.3 both shoot 250 grain bullets. If loading data for a 286 grain .358 bullet were given for the Whelen, I would be willing to bet, that such data would be similar to the listed 250 grain loadings as far as velocities and powder charges are concerned. Can anyone prove me wrong on that? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are still right. Agreed. Repeat it again and you be right again. The two are basically the same. Identical. So what is different? The very Barnes manual you quote tells the tale. The 35 Whelen loads: 180 to 250 grain MAXIMUM. And for the 9.3 250 is the MINIMUM up to 285gr. You see.... Hornady ONLY loads a 200 grain bullet in the Whelen. Sure, if Hornady offered a 285gr load in the Whelen that would be nice. But it probably would not sell. The American hunters and shooters do not want heavy bullets, or at least not for the Whelen. To quote from another responce in this thread. "We dont need anything over 250gr" OK. So; those of us who favor heavy bullets are forced to go metric. American hunters may eventually get light wt bullets loaded for the 9.3. But they cannot ruin that ctg, because there will always be a global demand for the heavy bullets. Oh and yea, I bet we see superformance / hot rod version of the 9.3 too. Ruger went another way. They introduced the new high recoil Superformance-only 375Ruger ctg in a light weight rifle. A lot of once fired rifles traded in for re-sale and others with broken stocks. The 9.3 is a middle way. A balanced way. Old and proven way. Less power than the 375H&H not more, but heavy bullets. The result in lighter faster gun, more fun to practice and lots of killing power. Or at least thats the claim. Rings true to me. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As I said, I am not trying to start a fight, the point remains however, WHY do 9.3 lovers, feel the need to jump in on discussions started about the Whelen with their rhetoric about the 9.3, when clearly, with bullets of the same weight, the 9.3 does not offer that much of an advantage over the Whelen. Yes, the Whelen, as far as the various manufacturers are concerned is a dead issue. I have no problem with that. My problem lies with the folks that seem to think all of us that like and shoot the Whelen are either mental deviates are pathetic excuses as hunters/gun owners. When all is said and done and everyone that is reading this discussion is dead and gone, the Whelen, the 30-06, the 257 Roberts, the 7x57 Mauser, the 9.3, and that classic dinosaur the 375 H&H will still be around and being used for hunting. In all of this diatribe that is being put forth however, there is still NO evidense, of any kind, that with bullets of the same weight and construction, the 9.3 is a completely superior cartridge to the 35 Whelen. I like the Whelen, and were it not for all this B.S. being thrown around, would probably like the 9.3x62. In fact I often contemplate getting a 9.3x74R, made up on a Ruger No.1 action, and the 9.3x74 offers nothing over my 375 H&H. I just feel that calling the Whelen a Failure, whether you like the round or hate it is B.S.. No one is going to go wrong picking either the Whelen or the 9.3 as a hunting round, except, 9.3 ammo can be bought and 35 Whelen may not be available. Both are good rounds, but neither has a clear/tangible advantage over the other in my opinion. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
9,3*57 is a typical doghandler cal. in Sweden most old husqvarna for moose ,boar or bear at close range. The only modern rifle camberd in it are Blaser r93. (also popular among doghandlers) | |||
|
| One of Us |
Undoubtedly. But where the heck are you going to find such bullets? (Woodleigh aside and, of course, you only need one bullet.) Glancing at the ballistic data the .358 Norma Magnum with a 270gr bullet would outgun the .375 H&H with the same bullet weight, leaving the H&H with a larger diameter only (in so saying and not making a claim that the .358 NM would be equal of the H&H). If I were after a .35, the Norma would probably be my choice due to its flexibility. The same applies for the 9,3x62 viz. the .35 Whelen: from my perspective it's a more flexible all-rounder. However, I do find it odd that especially the American hunters don't use the Whelen more extensively: it's a domestic development, there is today quite a nice bullet selection, you get plenty of punch with mild recoil, using a tad lighter bullets you get quite a flat trajectory. Especially with the modern bullets it's all the old .350's used to be and then some. I have a very hard time believing that anyone shooting a .35 Whelen would be disappointed with the performance. My bet as to the non-popularity is simple: speed. Some also maintain that there have always been a fairly limited selection of rifles and factory ammo. Factors that certainly do not work in favor of the popularity of any caliber. - Lars/Finland A.k.a. Bwana One-Shot | |||
|
| One of Us |
I am sorry but your reading into the statements and taking much of the negativity out of context. I haven't interpreted any such terminology or intent that didn't tag it with humor. We seem to all be in agreement that the Whelen is getting shafted in the deal but, like you just stated, it has more to do with the bullet and gun manufacturers than the shooters. There is also no argument that when using the same bullet weights the two are essentially equal and have not read anything to dispute it. The manufacturers have already covered the lighter bullet spectrum and could breath new life into the Whelen by offering a 275 grain varient and then the 9.3 fans would have a real chip on their shoulders. So, the tangible advantage is the 36 is competing up rather than the 35 competing down which helps the one but hurts the other. Just like the 244 rem. vs the 243 win, Remington missed the boat by not building their rifles with a dual purpose twist and slowly lost favor. The 6mm is still a faster round but this critical error in the beginning totally changed its future. Similarly, the Whelen saw tremendous popularity when it was first conceived but has lost favor because manufactures billed down against the 06 rather than let it compete up as a light 375 H&H and this is reflective of the 9.3's growing popularity. It is my staunch belief that the Whelen would be more popular today if this foresight had been followed and this represents the context of the original post with no bias preference to either one. Captain Finlander | |||
|
| one of us |
If one look trough the bullet list on Midway, there are truckloads of bullets in the 200 - 250 grn segment for the 358 cal. I guess the reason is the 1-16 twist on factory rifles from Remington. Which twist Ruger or other offered I don´t know. At the time I can´t find any rifles on the Ruger site chambered for the 35 Whelen There are heavier bullets from Woodleigh, Swift and A-Square on the Midway list. If one compare two bullets from Woodleigh (the 275 grn PP in 35 , and the 286 PP in 9,3) which might be more identical than the two 250 grn Barnes that Crazyhorse compared, there is some interesting details. The 275 grn PP in 358 has SD 307 and BC .450 The 286 grn PP in 9,3 has SD 305 and BC .396 The 275 grn 358 bullet leaves nothing to the 286 grn bullet for the 9,3 in terms of technical spec. (I have not found any loading data for the 35 / 275 Woodleigh, and the 9,3 / 286 might be driven a fraction faster) The 286 is the most used bullet weight in 9,3x62 and with a proper twist, the 275 should perhaps be the same in 35 Whelen. But alas it isn´t. Most bullets in 35 Whelen is likely in the 225 - 250 class, and again, the barrel twist is to blame imo. In my rifle with a 1-14 Shilen barrel, I use the 250 grn Woodleig RN, becuse of exellent accuracy, and drt effect on deer. But I will buy a box of those 275 Woodleigh PP and test them out. Gonna be interesting to see if 1-14 will stabelize them. Swift also have a 280 grn A-Frame in 358 cal, but I guess that one is ment for the 358 Norma or other faster wildcats? Here in Norway there is actually a few 35 Whelens around used for red deer and moose, but we owners are a strange breed, and devoted handloaders. Arild Iversen. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Captain Finlander, I am not reading anything into any of the comments or out of context either, whether they are made tongue in cheek or not. My point is, no one is going to change anyone's mind on the qualities, be they good or bad on ANY caliber, if the person in question likes or dislikes the caliber, so why try, even tongue in cheek. It gets old, when a person is trying to start a discussion, that to them may be important, and have the Peanut Gallery jump in an start firing wise cracks about the issue. The only thing I am pointing out, is that with same weight bullets and under field conditions, the 9.3, does not completely overshadow the Whelen performance wise. Where the various 9.3's were readily accepted by the European and African hunting public, none of the American made 35's have had high popularity levels with hunters here, due mainly to the lack of real effort on the part of the arms and ammunition manufacturers to work up proper guns and ammo for them. It is like the comparison that was made about the 6mm/244 Remington and the 243 Winchester. One company decided that the caliber could be loaded up for deer and antelope, while the other decided it was a varmit only proposition. Had the various companies worked with 250 grain and larger, and tried to compete with the 375 H&H, instead of down loaing the round, things might have been different. All JMO. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Didn't think this was a bashing thread, I thought this was a thread about thoughts on why the 9.3x62 was successful in the gun market while the 35Whelen was not. I think the below quote from John Barsness sums up the differences between the two cartridges well: "The 9.3x62 has some slight ballistic advantages over the .35 Whelen that some people find useful. It has about a 3-4% advantage in velocity when using the same bullet weights, due to the slightly larger powder space and bore diameter. This depends to a certain extent on magazine length. The standard 9.3x62 throat is very long, so a longer (say 3.6", like the one in my CZ) magazine allows for more powder space. This results in about a 100 fps advantage to the 9.3x62 when loaded to modern pressures of 60,000 psi. Thus 250-grain bullets can be loaded to around 2650-2700 fps in the 9.3, which makes it the equal of the standard 250-grain factory load in the .338. When used with a ballistically efficient bullet like the 250 AccuBond, this turns the old round into a pretty long-ranged cartridge. At the same time, there are a bunch of 286-grain bullets available in 9.3, most spitzers with pretty high BC's. The 286's can be started at 2500 fps or so at 60,000 psi. The standard 9.3 twist of 1-14 is plenty for stabilizing even the longest of these, such as the TSX. Many if not most .35 Whelens have a 1-16 twist. This barely stabilizes a 250-grain spitzer, which is why very few manufacturers make bullets heavier than 250 grains in .35. Those that doairly blunt bullets, short enough to stabilize n a 1-16 twist. The 280-grain Swift A-Frame, for instance, is technically spitzer, but has a very blun, flat tip on the point which results in a rather low BC. Top velocity in the Whelen is also about 100 fps less than with 286's in the 9.3x62. All of this is the typical rifle-loony minutiae-meandering, but it does add up to something near the .375 H&H, usually in a slimmer, lighter package. My own custom-stocked 9.3x62 weighs 8 pounds exactly with a 4x33 Leupold, and doesn't seem to kick as much as either a .338 or .375." - John Barsness Going back to the title of this thread, I think it fair to say that a whole bunch of small advantages add up in favor of the 9.3x62 which have resulted in its popularity over the 35Whelen. Better manufacturer support of bullets, ammunition, rifles, world-wide support, along with better exterior ballistics and overall performance add up. I just don't see anything changing within the market place anytime in the foreseeable future that will elevate the popularity of a 35Whelen. Best | |||
|
Moderator |
i repeat opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
one of us |
Excellent Point. As usual just my $.02 Paul K | |||
|
one of us |
Comparing 250 grain bullets is silly. Compare the the performance of a .366" 286 grainer to teh .358" 250. Then throw away the book. Books don't kill animals. As for constantly getting heavier, well the 9,3 will come out ahead. Sweems silly to me that people need to start a thread to justify to the world the cartridge they favor. if it works, who cares, use it. I knew an old Texas rancher that had killed hundreds if not thousands of whitetail. His prefered weapon was an old worn well used Winchester 94. On paper that cartridge won't poke holes in paper. he didn;t care one bit that my .30-30 was far superior and I din't waste my time trying to convince hil it was. We enjoyed killing deer together.  Aut vincere aut mori | |||
|
| new member |
The tongue-in-cheek jabs at one or the other chambering will always pop up in long threads - get used to it. The technical and performance differences are slight, but they are there and cannot be denied. There are enough bullets on the market to make either chambering perform to its greatest potential, so whichever one you have, make it work for you. I have two 9.3x62's that I like very much, but I am currently building a .35 Whelan to take advantage of the availability of lighter, flatter-shooting bullets in .358. | |||
|
| One of Us |
See ZIR, you missed the point entirely, went way over your head. Why not get some 300 grain bullets for both, or possible swage down some .366 286 grainers to .358, and then see how bad ass the 9.3 is compared to the Whelen. With similar weight bullets, regardless of the weight, the 9.3 does not have that big an edge over the Whelen. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have a .35 whelen ruger #1, 22 inch barrel. I have a sauer 202 take down 9.3x 62 23.5 inch barrel. Both shoot under 2 inches at 100 yards. That is 20 rounds, over a range of conditions from 30 to 90 degrees, gusty winds to calm. .35 whelen shoots 225 barnes tsx around 2550, 9.3 does 2400 max with 250 tsx. When I do the math, I don't see much difference under 300 yards. I wouldn't use either for longer distance, or for cape buffalo. Here at home it is just about which rifle I want to carry. I am sure that some have rifles that do different, but that is what mine do. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have em both. Having said that, Being from Texas I don't have the problem of facing charging Rhino's or monster Grizz. I'm not a ballistician, just a meat hunter. It has been my experience that a 225 gr. accubond at 2600 fps will allow you to eat right up to the bullet hole. Also, I don't use the Whelen exclusively, as there is so little time and so many rifles. However the hogs and deer that I have actually pointed my 35 Whelen at and pulled the trigger, well, lets say they were DRT. A couple of examples. GWB   | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gary, I think you nailed it here ... this is essentially the difference between the two cartridges and barrel twists that rifle manufacturers picked for the 2 cartridges. The twist rate on the 35 Whelen is rather low, and so bcomes a limiting factor to shoot heavier bullets adequately stabilized, and let us assume we take a base of SF=1.4 as an average catering for all climatic conditions. However, factories could have fixed the Whelen by also giving it a faster twist rate, but they opted not to do so, and this is probably so because the 35 Whelen was designed for America and not for Africa to shoot buffalos with. In its intended role it is more than adequate and would it would be competing with the revered 30-06 Spr (also an American design), and beat the 30-06 in terms of bullet performance at a lower striking velocity, but with more bullet weight. The 9,3 was up untill recently a non event for Americans and as such never competed with the Whelen. If we want to compare BC's, then it is only equitable if we use the same type of bullet, and not one fragible bullet with a high BC in the Whelen and a low BC in the 9,3. Make the comparison equitable, and take for example a proper hunting bullet for shooting big game like a Swift A-Frame in both calibers. The 9,3 will show a slight edge, remembering that it was designed for Africa to be used in German East Africa way back in 1905 before Mr Whelen decided to "upgrade" the 30-06 for use on larger and heavier game, essentially using the same cartridge case! With traditional weights of 250 gr for the Whelen and the 286 gr bullet for the 9,3 we are essentially targeting both cartridges at the same medium range for larger game, not withstanding the fact that the 9,3 has been accepted as the minimum base caliber for use on African buffalo. So the BC argument at short range is a non event for me, as the Zero range is what is important. Again we can ask how many Bison have fallen to the 35 Whelen with equal effectiveness. But this brings in other factors such as good shot placement and the appropriateness of the bullet, which stands separate from the differences that we observe in the potential of the cartridge and the rifle's twist rate. Seen this way, the 9,3 has the edge however small we would like to make it, but it is there. My take on it is .... pick a premium hunting bullet, sight-in for the terrain, and go. Don't let the caliber bother you, the bullet is doing the killing. Practise fast field shooting to become a better hunter. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
And one more daft thing to add to the pot. Most common 'medium bore' I saw as a kid was a 9mm mauser or 9mm Mannlicher. Both use .356 bullets!! and 1:14 Twist Both are better with heavy bullets than the whelen. Pitty the different bore sizes came into beeing. a standard .356 bore would have allowed a greater range of bullet weights plus the ability to use .357 pistol bullets (Which I do in my 9mm Mauser) Also in a modern rifle and loaded to the same pressure the 9,3 pushes adead of the Whelen by quite a bit more than crazy horse lists...why The 9,3 case holds more (it is marginally fatter and shoulder is further forward) but Whelen loads are listed at 56k PSI and 9,3 is held down to 49k PSI. I persaonlly do not chose to load my 9,3 up For Elephant I use the 286grn Woodleigh at 2380fps, Buff, Stuart softs at the same speed and lion the Norma Oryx going a little faster on average,. For everything else I shoot cheap speer 270grn loaded to 2300fps...that includes eland and girrafe and Zebra...my usual lion bait animals. | |||
|
one of us |
How are you going to fire cheap and quiet 380 and 9mm rounds through an insert, or use cheap 357 pistol bullets, in that 9.3 "Euro-trash" - as my son refers to it. Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Also in a modern rifle and loaded to the same pressure the 9,3 pushes adead of the Whelen by quite a bit more than crazy horse lists...why The 9,3 case holds more (it is marginally fatter and shoulder is further forward) but Whelen loads are listed at 56k PSI and 9,3 is held down to 49k PSI. Can you post figures on that statement? I am not talking about one rifle using a heavier bullet than the other, I am talking about same weight bullets. Not a 286 in the 9.3 and a 250 in the Whelen, and I am fairly sure that the barnes No. 3 manual is fairly up to date. If all things were equal between the two rifles, proper twist for the bullets designed for them, same weight bullets, 250/286/300, whatever, but the SAME weight, and the best powder, the differences would not be great enough to perceive under normal hunting conditions. The 9.3 is riding a wave of popularity that it fully deserves, but, that does not mean by any standard that the Whelen kis not a good cartridge in its own right, now does it? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x57mm_Mauser An old boy at the club has an ancient mauser sporter in one of these and for a light short barreled rifle it's not too bad on the shoulder at all. The ballistics seem to make for an excellent short range heavy game cartridge. If the licencing laws weren't such a pain I would be sorely tempted by an nice old mauser like that for woodland stalking over here. | |||
|
One of Us |
I think it is because it is different and when the new following started not so many used it in USA. I have a Whelen for the same reason, over here there is a lot more 9,3's than 35's. And the other argument: If the 9,3 is better than the 35 Whelen, then the Whelen is better than the 338-06, 30-06, 270 win, 6,5x55 and so on. Its all in the last three lines of Warriors post. A decent handloader can make a lot out of most standard calibers. A 9,3 will do a lot of what a 6,5 does plus a few extras. The opposite is also true. To find any meaningful differences between the 9,3x62 and 35 Whelen you need to stay inside and online. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I find it interesting that guys that argue the 35 Whelen is as good as the 9.3X62 tend to get worked up argueing, and the 9.3 advocates don't seem to give a damn, one way or another. I think the 35 Whelen advocates are just just intimidated by the 9.3 shooters good attitudes, and their comfort level with their preferred round. | |||
|
One of Us |
Interesting in that of the posts here I read a lot of owners of the .35 Whelen also own a 9.3 X 62......and apparently I'm missing something as I didn't read any posts here of anger or irritated posters over the banter of the two rounds. It seems to me this thread has been all in good discussion and even joshing. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
I agree, you are apparently missing something. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You set up a "straw man" argument that cannot be proved or disproved and then get glib with your "I agree, you are apparently missing something," insinuating that Vapordog is somehow handicapped in his perception. There are no fleas on the 9.3 because fleas eat meat. There are however a ton of flies on the 9.3s because flies know bull shit when they see see it. Have a good evening. Barstooler | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles why 35 Whelen fails and 9.3x62 is a winner ??
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia