quote:

The x62 is everything the whelen is, and a fair measure more.

The fair measure more is ... when the 9,3x62 mm is loaded with 300 grainers and 320 grainers. Of cause we know how many buffalo and elephant fell to Wdl's 320 grain FMJ.

The 9,3x62 mm is arguably the most forgiving caliber when it comes to reloading.

Warrior.

For no other reason, my 9.3x62 just got here. Haven't shot it but It has to be the best.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
For no other reason, my 9.3x62 just got here. Haven't shot it but It has to be the best.
Butch

Lol, now that's logic at it's best.

Enjoy!

-M

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

The x62 is everything the whelen is, and a fair measure more.

The fair measure more is ... when the 9,3x62 mm is loaded with 300 grainers and 320 grainers. Of cause we know how many buffalo and elephant fell to Wdl's 320 grain FMJ.

The 9,3x62 mm is arguably the most forgiving caliber when it comes to reloading.

Warrior.

Which proves it is now illegal to hunt them with a 35 Whelen, but proves nothing about taking elephants with somehting less than a 9.3

W.D.M. Bell shot exactly 1,011 elephants with a series of six Rigby-made 7x57mm (.275 Rigby) rifles with 173 grain military ammo.
He shot 300 elephants with a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5x54mm carbine using the long 159 grain FMJ bullets.
He shot 200 odd with the .303 and the 215 grain army bullet.
He went to a .318 Westley Richards for a while, which is a cartridge firing a 250 grain bullet at about 2400 fps, but found the ammunition unreliable and returned to the 7mm.
He also recorded that one of the reasons why he favored the 7x57 was that the ammunition was more reliable and he could not recall ever having a fault with it. Whereas British sporting ammunition, apart from the .303 military ammo, gave him endless trouble with splitting cases.
The balance of his elephants were shot with this .318 and his .450/400 Jeffrey double rifle.

How about a .375 Whelen or .375 Scovill?

quote:

Originally posted by Demonical:
How about a .375 Whelen or .375 Scovill?

Why?

^ Why not... ?

I have owned both these calibres and for me its the 9.3x62 hands down,i have found it so much better using 286grn bullets

9.3x62

Putting a barrel on a 1903 Springfield? 35 Whelen. Mauser? 9.3x62!

Wow, I never realized 3/10ths of a millimeter made that much difference... I thought these two were basically twins. One Yankee, and one Euro. Can anybody post a side by side photo of the two cartridges?

quote:

3/10ths of a millimeter

actually it's 2/10ths of a millimeter but no one is actually counting.....and yes I can post the photo but just trust me....one coundn't likely tell the difference.....

Having chambering reamers for both however I can tell you that there's quite a difference in the standard throating. I ordered standard reamers and the 9.3 X 62 came with a substantial amount of freebore and that might account for some of the advantage the 9.3 has.

The diff is not just in the diameter of the bore, but the extra bullet weight that can be stabilized by virtue of a faster twist rate (14.2 vs 16.0) for the 9,3. Then the 9,3 has a longer throat length as well. Chamber pressure dissipates to the square of bore size for a lower chamber pressure. All these small differences add up to a bigger whole.

Pushing any caliber to the limit or beyond with heavier bullets only push peak pressure up and is not ideal - yes it can be done, but any caliber has its ideal band in terms of bullet weight and length.

Nothing wrong with a .35 Whelen, it is just a notch lower than a 9,3.
Bullet integrity today is more important than marginal differences in caliber.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
The diff is not just in the diameter of the bore, but the extra bullet weight that can be stabilized by virtue of a faster twist rate (14.2 vs 16.0) for the 9,3. Then the 9,3 has a longer throat length as well. Chamber pressure dissipates to the square of bore size for a lower chamber pressure. All these small differences add up to a bigger whole.

Pushing any caliber to the limit or beyond with heavier bullets only push peak pressure up and is not ideal - yes it can be done, but any caliber has its ideal band in terms of bullet weight and length.

Nothing wrong with a .35 Whelen, it is just a notch lower than a 9,3.
Bullet integrity today is more important than marginal differences in caliber.

Warrior

My whelen was built as a wild cat before tamed by Remington and has a 1-10 twist, so most of the bad-mouthin you are doing does not apply. As too "bullet integrity" I have had a lot of problems with those Woodleigh 275s and Swift A-Frame 280s.

Get real. Your rifle suits you in Africa, mine suits me in Colorado. For elk or bear here there is not a nat's ass differece between the two in killing power.

Barstooler

There is no bad-mouthing, that is your perception. Facts rule, most 35 Whelen's have the standard slow twist rate, yours is the exception. Let us not make the exception the rule.

Warrior

quote:

My whelen was built as a wild cat before tamed by Remington and has a 1-10 twist,

quote:

most 35 Whelen's have the standard slow twist rate,

I wouldn't bet on the latter statement as the .35 Whelen was being built as a custom many many years prior to Remington standardizing it and a very large number of them such as mine (1-12" Twist) have been built since.

While it's no proof, every 35 Whelen I've ever seen was a custom!!!!

quote:

Let us not make the exception the rule.

I'd say....let us not jump to unproven conclusions!

quote:

The x62 is everything the whelen is, and a fair measure more.

Sounds like we are debating less about differences between the two cartridges, and more about rifles based on those cartridges. Twist rate and throating are external variables.

Take two rifles with the same twist and throating, load a cartridge for each with the same powder charge, to the same pressure with the same weight bullet and no critter will ever know the difference.

quote:

Take two rifles with the same twist and throating, load a cartridge for each with the same powder charge, to the same pressure with the same weight bullet and no critter will ever know the difference.

This is a theoretical proposition and rarely happens if ever. The 9,3 simply has more power than the 35 Whelen; just like the 375 H&H has more power than the 9,3.

But as I alluded to .... the bullet is more important than caliber. A good 250 gr bullet in a 35 Whelen is by far better than a frangible 286 gr bullet in a 9,3 ... this should be as clear as daylight, and vice versa .... the bullet is doing the killing !!!

Example ... the .366"/270 gr Speer bullet is perhaps the most frangible bullet made on the planet for the .366" caliber and I much rather prefer to shoot a lighter bullet, such as a 250 gr Swift A-Frame bullet in the same caliber or even in a smaller caliber such as the 35 Whelen. The Speer bullet is so frail that it shatters and lose more than 60% of its weight on impact ... it just makes a mess and the result is shallow penetration. It is actually much better to use a 30-06 with a 180 gr Barnes TSX bullet as you can rely far more on its integrity than a thin-jacketed unbonded bullet that fragements. The latter combo gives awesome penetration from any angle and reliability is is as good as one can get vis-a-vis frail conventional bullets dating back more than a 100 years in technology.

Warrior

Just a few observations:

I did go through the decision process in 2003 when I was made aware of the 9,3x62. Both the 35 Whelen and the 9,3x62 are excellent mediums. I don't really think you can go wrong with either of them.

I have found that this power range is superbly effective. Rifles can be relatively light and very handy. Beats waggin' a magnum action around!

The 9,3x62 does have the advantage that it is widely available in southern Africa. Was of value to me when the airlines left my ammo in Amsterdam last May ... I could buy 9,3x62 ammo. (Airlines eventually did get mine to me ... but that was lucky!)

Do I like my choice (the 9,3x62)? I got the first one from FourTails on ARbay ... at a terrific price. Price aside, it has impressed the hell out of me! So much so that I built another one on a VZ.24 action just to make sure that I'd have a weather appropriate rifle as the new build is in a sturdy synthetic stock.

Your choice is your choice ... and I can't imagine that you'll be too unhappy with either one once you've made your choice!

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
There is no bad-mouthing, that is your perception. Facts rule, most 35 Whelen's have the standard slow twist rate, yours is the exception. Let us not make the exception the rule.

Warrior

When you make absurd statements about 35 caliber “bullet integrity” – what ever that is supposed to mean – and make all your comparisons based on one production rifle instead of the bulk of rifles and actual characteristics/capabilities of the cartridge then you are selectively bad mouthing that cartridge.

It has become my impression that the 9.3 X62 “support group” here at AR suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder. They obsess on the caliber and they feel compelled to spread the “gospel” of the 9.3 X 62 like a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses constantly knocking on the door.

I generally don’t even bother to open or read a thread if it is focused on the 9.3 X 62 – not that I don’t appreciate the caliber, I’m just not interested in owning it because it is so close to a caliber I already have and use. By the same token, I rarely go out of my way to post in a 9.3 X 62 thread – and I notice that most 35 Whelen fans also avoid that temptation to post about one caliber in a thread focused on an entirely different caliber.

What annoys the shit out of me, however, is no thread can appear hear on the AR about the 338-06 or the 35 Whelen without some 9.3 nut jumping in and trying to convert others and “spread the good word.” I’m sorry, but that rubs me as being wrong and I view it the same way as some missionary knocking on my door with unwanted information. I believe the 9.3 X 62 is a great caliber, but the largest detraction from me ever buying one is rapidly becoming the nature of the “true believers” here who insist that it is god’s gift to riflemen and argue over trivial ballistic performance differences.

Barstooler

quote:

When you make absurd statements about 35 caliber “bullet integrity” – what ever that is supposed to mean

Bullet integrity does not refer to the 35 Whelen exclusively .... I repeat ... bullet integrity refers to all calibers .... and can effect all calibers. Did I not site an example how it can effect the 9,3, huh?

I repeat again .... "there is no bad-mouthing" (of the 35 Whelen)

Do you have a reading or a comprehension problem?

It seems convincing you of any virtue of a 9,3 is like throwing electrons at a negatively charged plate; it will never connect.

Warrior

No. Like I explained....can't you read or comprehend?? It is the 9.3 zealots here that keep throwing anti-matter in the direction of any Whelen owner that has turned me off to the caliber.

Barstooler

This quotation comes from Chuck Hawks ... "a maximum load of 57.0 grains of W748 powder gives the 250 grain bullet a MV of 2,350 fps. These Speer loads were developed in R-P cases and used CCI 250 primers. The test rifle was a Remington Model 700 with a 22" barrel."

So here is the summary then that we deal with 2 calibers at different positions in the ranking:

35 Whelen ......... 250 gr bullet @ 2,350 fps (Mo = 83.9)
9,3x62 mm ......... 286 gr bullet @ 2,350 fps (Mo = 96.0)(even though it can be pushed further)
9,3x62 mm ......... 300 gr bullet @ 2,275 fps (Mo = 97.5)
9,3x62 mm ......... 320 gr bullet @ 2,200 fps (Mo = 100.6)

In addition, if needed for a special purpose, the 9,3 can shoot a 320 gr bullet bullet such as the Wdl FMJ that offers a fantastic penetration ability, which is used on elephants. Because of the weight advantage (ie momentum) it elevates the caliber to be used sucessfully with great reliabilty on dangerous game.

The 9,3 occupies a middle position as a medium bore, and a good one at that.
Just a little bit more versatile than a 35 Whelen; that is all.

The 35 Whelen just occupies a different position on the scale.
And that is no critizism at all .... it is what it is; that is all.

Warrior

Most Whelen owners who reload are pushing 250 gr bullets at least 2,500 fps.

Both the 35 Whelen and the 338-06 are based upon the .30-06 parent cartridge case. The original 30-06 max pressure (of 50,000 C.U.P.) was essentially established for the 1903 Springfield and remained at that level until new SAAMI specs for the 30-06 were established at 60,000 P.S.I. By contrast, when the 270 Win was introduced, it’s max pressure was established at 65,000 P.S.I.

The SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure for the .35 Whelen is 52,000 C.U.P. reflecting its close wildcat origin to the 30-06 and the fact that many of the 35 Whelen rifles were originally build on sporterized 1903 Springfields. When Remington commercialized the 35 Whelen they kept the lower pressure limits and ammunition and reloading manuals reflect this, with the 35 Whelen typically loaded to a max pressure of 52,000 C.U.P often not exceeding 55,000 P.S.I. you see in most reloading manuals.

As a wildcat the 338-06 originally had no established SAAMI Maximum Average Pressure for the .338-06, but when commercialized by A-Square I believe they set it at 65,000 P.S.I.

There is no reason why a 35 Whelen in a modern action could not be loaded to pressures equal to the 338-06 and why handloaders typically push it above the current factory level velocities. The same argument can be made for the 9.3 X 62.

So it is what it is. But proof positive of what I have been talking about and you have been ignoring is in a related thread on this very forum. "338/06 vs 35 Whelen by Austin Hunter started on 20 May. The thread is obviously on the 338-06 and the 35 Whelen, but guess what. At least three 9.3 zealots are already there advocating that everybody's problems and world hunger would be solved by adopting the 9.3 X 62. You guys are your own worst enemies.

Barstooler

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
The 35 Whelen should never had been invented. It followed the 9.3 x 62 by 16 years, has 10% less powder capacity and shoots a smaller bullet.

The choice is easy.

(note: I am a reformed 35 whelen owner and now I have 9.3s instead.)

Just wanted to quote 500grains since we haven't seen him in a coon's age. Oh yeah...and cast another vote for the 9.3x62!

quote:

Just wanted to quote 500grains

Well this was 500 Grains contribution on testing some 9,3 bullets ....

http://bigfivehq.com/softs.pdf

Warrior

And by that argument everybody would be shooting it eh??

I am in my 60s and been shooting the Whelen for over 44 years. Don't see a reason to switch...not from you guys and not from 500 grains.


Barstooler

Barstooler,

Wrong on both counts ...

1) There is no suggestion that everyone is shooting a 9,3 - not even remotely so.

2) Nobody is suggesting that you must make a switch in caliber - it is good enough for anything in America - no dire need to change.

I can understand that you like the 35 Whelen, as it served you well.
Likewise, many will claim that the 9,3 served them well.
To each their own.

Warrior

I'll vote for the 9.3x62. It works well and easy to handload 286 gr Partitions over 2500 fps with a 24” barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Pegleg:
Got a Mauser action ready for a new barrel. Can't decide between the 35 Whelen vs. the 9.3 X 62. Which would you do?

Given the choice I would pick .35 Whelen. Few months back Dick's had closeout sale for ammo in this caliber at $15.97 per pack. Local shop has some for $39.
I used to own very nice and accurate CZ550 in 9,3x62, but traded it away for light Remington carabine in cal. .350Magnum. Having no need for slugs heaver then 225gr it's short XP-100 action and magazine serves me just fine. I'm glad local nimrods are not into Art Deco or Pablo Picasso. Poor laddies just didn't know what to make of that laminated shock, plastic trigger guard and contorted bolt handle. They have my sincere thanks.
PS. If you can't decide between Bock and Whalen just flip a coin and you
will be just fine.

"Lighten up, Francis!"

Your bottle of 'Weed needs refilling! Then again, maybe it is that cough syrup concoction that is making you so grumpy. I don't think anyone is calling your .35 baby ugly, just that they like their 9.3 better.

Isn't splitting hairs in good humor what being a gun-nut is all about? You want to start a real fight? Go to a 1911 forum and tell them that a .40 S&W Glock is as good as a .45ACP 1911 and watch the fur fly!

Is there a running tally re: Whelen or 9.3x62?

My vote is for the 35 whelen, mine is a 1-14" twist rate and there are plenty of bullets up to 310grs(woodleigh) anyone who argues that the 9.3x62 is leaps and bounds better is drinking the cool aid. No animal on the planet would know the difference and i really dont give a crap about some cartridge limitation placed in Africa. If im going for DG it aint gonna be with a whelen or 9.3

quote:

Originally posted by A7Dave:
"Lighten up, Francis!"

Your bottle of 'Weed needs refilling! Then again, maybe it is that cough syrup concoction that is making you so grumpy. I don't think anyone is calling your .35 baby ugly, just that they like their 9.3 better.

Isn't splitting hairs in good humor what being a gun-nut is all about? You want to start a real fight? Go to a 1911 forum and tell them that a .40 S&W Glock is as good as a .45ACP 1911 and watch the fur fly!

I stand by my statements. You are right that I need to lighten up and I am definitely running low on Weed and on Single Malt Scotch.

But what the hell do you expect from an old A-10 Fighter Pilot.

They can argue about Glocks and 45 ACPs and about Whelens and 9.3s, but no body better bad mouth the the A-10 GAU-8 30mm.

Barstooler

Sorry, Man,

Mine just had a weenie 20mm Vulcan! I'll never bad-mouth short, ugly, and loud!

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

The x62 is everything the whelen is, and a fair measure more.

The fair measure more is ... when the 9,3x62 mm is loaded with 300 grainers and 320 grainers. Of cause we know how many buffalo and elephant fell to Wdl's 320 grain FMJ.

The 9,3x62 mm is arguably the most forgiving caliber when it comes to reloading.

Warrior.

.....but certain Ken Waters in .35 Whelen article lists 300 Barnes RNSP load>>>58.0 grains IMR-4350 2,232fps case W-W primer CCI 250 length 3.28" 'maximum compressed load; accurate". This
is not good performance out of old Iver Henriksen custom Sauer Mauser?

quote:

Originally posted by A7Dave:
Sorry, Man,

Mine just had a weenie 20mm Vulcan! I'll never bad-mouth short, ugly, and loud!

Spoken like a true SLUF driver.

Barstooler, you can keep the weed, but oh the single malt scotch, preferably Islay Malt, Lagavulin, Laphroaig, etc.

You know on this 9.3 thing, most of the ZEALOTS, like to talk about the caliber being legal in Africa, and the 300 grain bullets. Well here's a senario that I imagine happens all the time in Africa: There are a couple rifles sitting in the rack, a 9.3X62, and a 375 H&H, the professional hunter says we are going after buffalo today. The hunter grabs the 9.2, the PM says, no I prefer you shoot the 375, just for safety you understand, and since I am the PM, that is the way we will do it. Happens all the time.

Jerry

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Eden:
Barstooler, you can keep the weed, but oh the single malt scotch, preferably Islay Malt, Lagavulin, Laphroaig, etc.

Jerry

I agree with your tastes regarding Single Malt especially the Lagavulin and 15 year Laphroaig. I also like a good 14 year old Oban. There are some good highland malts also. My family originated from northern Scotland and the Orkney Islands. I was stationed in the UK for 6 years and really grew to appreciate a good whiskey. Weed is not a good anything...its just an old fighter pilot thing that displaced tequilla for drinking toasts to fallen comrads in the 1980s.

Never hunted Africa and have no plans to do so, but if I were to go after truely dangerous game it would be with at least a 40 caliber something.

Barstooler

Barstooler:

The other night I was watching the history channel and they were doing a thing on Scotland, and in particular Laphroaig Scotch. Some fellow in Kilts was profondly telling the tv people how to drink Laphroaig. He said "ya hav ta put a lil wee bit of spring water in the wiskey to let it breath and bring out the flavors". You know, I never add anything to good scotch, I tried his recipe, and I felt it diminished my pleasure and satisfaction. Guess I am a purest after all, LOL!

Jerry