I believe the best reference to the 9,3x62 and the bible of gundome is Pierre van der Walts. African Dangerous Game Cartridges. Study it and some of you 9.3x62 unbelievers would get a wake up call. It also is a reloaders dream book for loading a lot of DG calibers.

Which 338 are you guys refering to that I wore out with shots?? Huh!..

I just wore out the outside not the bore..no blue, wood like drift wood, worn out finish, checkerin worn smooth,

no target shooters allowed in this thread, you and I have a different meaning to worn out, real worn out takes place in a saddle scabbard, pickup truck, bouncing down a mountain side by accident and on and on.. Ive never come close to wearing out a bore by myself loading down of the 9.3x62 comes from using modified 06 and 06 basic brass. Use RWS, and PPU 9.3x62 brass for max loads. Loading 06 brass is pressure sensitive, hard on brass reworking that hump, and tends to split in that area after a few max loads for starters..

I have the book and have studied it.

It says nothing that has not been said here.

It is not that we do not believe. We believe it is a fine minimalist Buffalo cartridge, but no more special than the Whelen, and 2400, 300 grains is not a load you will find in this book for that cartridge.

The .366 bullet 286 or 293 grain bullet is no better than a .358 275/280 grain bullet. That is all. Both the 9.3x62 and 35 Whelen are maxed out with the best hand to get 2300 from 24 inch barrels with a 300 plus grain bullet.

Heyem
I shoot my 9,3x62 with a 250 Barnes bullet with H414 at 2702 fps, a 286 bullet at 2512 fps and the 300 swift at 2450 FPS and that great 320 Woodleigh at 2387 fps...All but this last load came out of the #2 Barnes Reloading Manuel!!contrary to your post and in fact I've gone beyond these figures after dealing with some of Africa's gun looneys, but I'm satisfied with the Barnes load...99% of Americas shooters have little hands-on knowledge of the 9,3s capabilities, they mutter BS I was told in the Dark Continent. It must be so!

I got a First Edition of Hell I was There last night from Wife.

I have read it. Very interesting.

Keith states that 10 foot was Brown Bear according to Boone and Crocket. He took the position it was a grizzly.

He stopped that bear at 12 feet with 35 Whelen after a hunting partner shot it with a 30/06 H&H to no effect. The Hunting partner is quoted as being saved by Keith and the 35 Whelen.

Keith also killed another near wounded by a female hunting partner with the 35 Whelen according to his writing.

Keith was not very enamored with the guide.

I believe you. I never said I did not, but you have to admit no one including the author of Dangerous Game Cartridges nor Dr. Robertson has ever in print loads for the 9.3x62 as fast as you. No pressure tested data will show a 8.3x62 going that fast.

That is a hint.

Within pressure tested data the 8.3x62 at best gives 2300 fps with a 300 grain bullet.

There is pressure tested data that shows maximum, top line velo of 2300 fps with a 275 grain bullet in the 35 Whelen.

That cannot be argued.

You can shoot your 9.3x62 as fast as you want, but even Dr. Robertson who tried to write it legal in Zimbabwe, and with factory ammo failed does not in writing load a 9.3x62 as fast as you.

There is no difference w distinction between the 9.3x62 and the 35 Whelen.

If we want to compare odd ball, loadings or plus loadings, or loadings that others do not advocate. I submit the Brown Whelen being a 300 grain, 2400 fps cartridge a better answer to both.

No.
Sadly

You can argue with me, but what one should not argue is math and reloading data. Yet, we are.

Here is a thinker for everyone. According to Nosler, their Norma branded brass in 35 Whelen has one more grain capacity then their 9.3x62 brass.

That is margin of error. No different with a distinction.

I believe all the medium bites from 338 to 375 pushing 250-300 gr bullets at 2500-2700 fps are for all intents and purposes equal in the field. They will effectively take large game where the small bites occasionally come up short, yet none of them are stopping rifles. I’ve had 35 whelen ackley, 350 Rigby and now a 350 rem mag. 225 @ 2700 or 250 @ 2500 it does what I need from it and as it’s a Ruger all weather it can handle my abuse.

Elmer stated he doubled lunged a coyote with an 06 and didn't kill it.

RIGHT.

Ray:

As you know, my 338-06 and 35 Whelen are on pre-64 Model 70s, with the ORIGINAL barrels and iron sights-yes indeed and accurate cut rifling...

But-its an early Model 70 in 375 H&H that goes where others fear to tread...(or a 450 Alaskan-M-71) John Taylor was right.

About 56 years ago I was going to Alaska and wanted to buy a hunting rifle. I chose the 30-06. Partly was because of the hype about all the available bullet weights. (Only hype about the 30-06--the rest of it is true). In reality I settled on liking 150 grain bullets and that's all I use. I would find it a nightmare to have to develop loads for all the different weights, sight in and remember what weight it was sighted in with and sight in again for a different weight. Really? Do any of you that shoot rifles that have several weights available use more than one weight?

quote:

Really? Do any of you that shoot rifles that have several weights available use more than one weight?

I have settled on 180's and 165's for my 30 calibers. 165's in the smaller then 06 cases 180's in the 06 and bigger cases.

I have found using different weights in one rifle is kind of like having more then one barrel for doubles and single shots.

Just never use them.

Far more simple just to have a different firearm.

I typically balance bullet weight to caliber and cartridge.

In the 358 STA I have no use for bullets lighter then 270 using 275 Woodleigh and 280 grain Aframes;

35 Whelen: 225 grain Acubond;

30/06: 180 grain Accubond;

7mm STW: 160 grain Accubond;

338 WM: Strongly prefer 250 grain bonded core bullet or a 225 Barnes.

In those cartridges I have no use for other bullet weights.

If dropping bullet weight. I dropping down cartridge and caliber.

375 Ruger/HH I have used 270 grains on deer, boar, and cow elk.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Has there ever been a 35 Whelen thread in AR that didnt end up being about the 9.3X62?

No

Now for something completely different....

I'm curious about your opinions of Elmer Keith's writings. I've heard both positive and negative views, the latter stemming mainly from his trashing of what most hunters believe to be great rifle cartridges--like the 30-06 and .270 Win.--and his pushing of .33 caliber cartridges.

Was his body of writing ultimately beneficial to the hunting community? Or perhaps a little detrimental?

Elmer Keith’s writings as it relates to the 35 Whelen I find them somewhat less credible.

I believe he killed what he said he did, but I do not think he reached the velo he says he did with powders of the day. Maybe those powders were hotter and did.

Also, I think he is the reason Col. Whelen being the designer of the 35 Whelen instead of Howe persisted.

Finally, he is the oldest source I can find for the Leslie Simpson “letter” that is often said to inspire the 35 Whelen. However, mo one seems to have this letter. Griffin and Howe does mot have it, and Col. Whelen never mentioned it in his 1923 article introducing the 35 Whelen or in his book that describes the 35 Whelen.

John Taylor in summarizing the American 35s in his book copies almost one for word Keith’s book.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Elmer stated he doubled lunged a coyote with an 06 and didn't kill it.

RIGHT.

The coyote must have known that it was only a 30-06.

quote:

Originally posted by South Pender:
Now for something completely different....

I'm curious about your opinions of Elmer Keith's writings. I've heard both positive and negative views, the latter stemming mainly from his trashing of what most hunters believe to be great rifle cartridges--like the 30-06 and .270 Win.--and his pushing of .33 caliber cartridges.

Was his body of writing ultimately beneficial to the hunting community? Or perhaps a little detrimental?

I think his writings were positive, for the game as well as hunters.

His position was really just an extension of the European outlook - that for really big ungulates and bears, bigger calibres like the 9.3x62 were indicated.

The trend to reducing calibres had been going on for decades but there's only so much higher velocities can achieve. Someone really needed to blow the whistle and that was Elmer.

There's far too much nostalgia and historic thinking about both the 9.3 x 62 and .35 Whelen. Modern bullets and powders, plus up-to-date information on psi, have radically changed the game on those two, plus some others. Who, with logic, knowledge and current experience limits either in new rifles to antiquated ballistics? I surely don't, and from what I'm reading on the Whelen in particular, even in the latest reloading manuals, when loaded to a true 62,000 psi (and why not to 64,000 ?) it's the equal of what the .338 Win Mag WAS... but it too has been "improved" in performance by "the best" components!

Regarding what Ray has said of the great 9.3 x 62 is absolutely true (and moreso) with the latest and best powders, like RL-17 and 2000 MR. Mine's a new Tikka T3 Lite with a 22.44" barrel that will easily equal some "traditional" loads for the .375 H&H! In a new rifle with new components it EASILY exceeds 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle from the 250 AB, 286 NP and 320 Woodleigh at LESS psi than the same rifle in .338 Win Mag! Mine's been tested by QuickLoad and the goodness of a friend.

Some on here are still living in the past - and I know exactly what I said, and meant every word! I'm still hunting, reloading (.35 Whelen, 9.3 x 62, .375 H&H and .458 Win Mag) and shooting at almost Ray's age! I'm 87.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Oh boy, your going to tidk ole Heym off!! just kidding, he knows his stuff and is a true gentleman with such a fondness for the 35 W that he based that love on 100FPS!!

Such threads as this defeat boredom and we get entertained, its all opine and its fun..What have I learned from this thread? that "458 ONLY" is 87 and Im 88, we are bonded by age. the rest of you are young punks!!

I’m one of those young punks Ray, at 72. And I thank you for the compliment!

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Has there ever been a 35 Whelen thread in AR that didnt end up being about the 9.3X62?

Everyone gets but hurt about the 338-06, 35 Whelan and 9.3x62. About 10 years ago on here there were a lot more 338-06 versus the other two bitch sessions.

I wonder how much Ray has written about all 3 calibers on AR.

I personally wouldn't travel via air with any rifle I can't get ammo for locally. 300 Win, 30-06, 308, 375 H&H and so on. The 9.3x62 is probably ok in Europe and Africa.

I don't know that I have read every word Keith has written in his books, but pretty close. I feel like he recycled a lot of information from previous hunts.

The Elmer Keith book called (I believe) "Rifles for Large Game". Has pretty good notes on his use of the 400 Whelan.

Not sure how much of it was recycled.

400 Whelan is interesting though.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Has there ever been a 35 Whelen thread in AR that didnt end up being about the 9.3X62?

Everyone gets but hurt about the 338-06, 35 Whelan and 9.3x62.

On the contrary, I find all the chest thumping rather entertaining. Im just a little stumped as to why a guy cant just enjoy the caliber of his choice without being belittled for not going with someone else's choice. Its like watching 80+ year old bullies acting as if they were back in the school yard.
By all means, carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
You can argue with me, but what one should not argue is math and reloading data. Yet, we are.

Here is a thinker for everyone. According to Nosler, their Norma branded brass in 35 Whelen has one more grain capacity then their 9.3x62 brass.

That is margin of error. No different with a distinction.

According to my tests of one fired case of each, without resizing and the spent primer still in each case:

Weight empty: for the Remington made .35 Whelen case = 199grs. Holds 72 grs water to mouth of case. The Hornady brass in 9.3 x 62 = 186.5 grs empty and holds 75 grs water to the mouth of the case.

If bullets are seated to Saami specs (or CIP for the 9.3 x 62), the .35 Whelen has a COL of 3.34" and the 9.3 x 62 has a COL of 3.291".

So it depends on what bullet is used in each, and the COL of each, before a judgement can be reached over powder capacity. I do know that the .35 Whelen cannot hold the amount of RL-17 as the 9.3 x 62, when a 225gr AB is seated in the Whelen to a COL of 3.45" and a 250gr AB is seated to a 3.37" COL in the 9.3 x 62. Four more grains of RL-17 can be used under the 250grAB in the 9.3 x 62 than under the 225gr AB in the .35 Whelen even with a longer COL. And four more grains of the same powder that powers a 250gr vs a 225gr is a HUGE difference, not minimal!

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

And Bob, my 35 Whelen AI 40° shoulder holds 74 gr. in a fired case. In my 24" barrel I get 2620 at the muzzle with a 250 Partition. I believe you can easily get 2700 or more with a 250 gr. in the 9.3x62. The Whelen shines in its variety of bullets that are available.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Has there ever been a 35 Whelen thread in AR that didnt end up being about the 9.3X62?

No

Did anyone mention the 358 winchester yet? Which is my fav 35. I can get exactly the federal loads of the whelen in the winchester, and not flatten primers -- bc the federal loads are underloaded