I see the .400 Whelen continues to come up in conversation, the cartridge may be dead but it seems that the interest in it is not. I’m not trying to bring the .400 Whelen back to life so no need for everyone to take up sides ;-). I am however trying to cast a little light on the history of the cartridge. With that in mind I’d like to post a few pictures from the past. These pictures are from an article published by Townsend Whelen (no surprise there) in 1924.

Michael,

I'll let you know how my 400 Whelen (Improved) does in Africa this September.

My ticket has buffalo, lion, hippo, and some plainsgame.

It should be an interesting test of soft-points and solids.

Thanks for the material you have already published on this rifle. It helped in getting me there.

Garrett

quote:

Originally posted by N. Garrett:
Michael,

I'll let you know how my 400 Whelen (Improved) does in Africa this September.

My ticket has buffalo, lion, hippo, and some plainsgame.

It should be an interesting test of soft-points and solids.

Thanks for the material you have already published on this rifle. It helped in getting me there.

Garrett

Garrett, Glad I could help, I'll look forward to your report.

Good Luck, MP

Either the .400Whelen Improoved, .400BrownWhelen or the .411Hawk are exellent little powerhouses, giving ballistics equal to the famous 450-400 NE, so highly praised by John Taylor. With todays bullets, even further improoved.

In a M98 it would be a cheep, superb rifle with 5 down and one in the chamber, and a fairly light rifle. Why this one has not become more popular is a mysteria to me.

.

I too wonder why the 400 on 30-06 case has not a larger following. With my very positive experience with the 450-400 it just seems that it would be a wonderful general purpose rifle. By general purpose I mean from 41 pistol bullets to woodleigh 400 solids. You could hunt the world with it. Oh no stop thinking that way! Hide the check book! Not another rifle project!!
E.S.

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6521043/m/802104434

or this!

a bit better

What are the stats on that cartridge? Is it a .416 bullets? 400 grains? MV? Energy? And , the obvious question, what about the shoulder? Enough to secure headspace?

Rich Elliott

.

I have one (the 40 degree shoulder, improved version).

The ballistics are identical to the 450-400: 400 grain bullet at 2100 fps.

The 300 grain soft-points are 2400 fps in my rifle, although others shoot them at 2500 fps.

I haven't finished working up loads for the North Fork 330 grain cup-point solids. I'll post here when that's complete.
My rifle is at the stock makers getting it's final fitting.
Should have it back by April.

Garrett

The .400 Whelen
by Michael Petrov
http://www.z-hat.com/smashing_the_headspace_myth.htm
Excerpted from... Precision Shooting, Magazine, Feb. 2001

An interesting article.

-Bob F.

Michael,

Thanks for sharing the photos with us. Very interesting.

-Bob F.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
How fickle is the world of internet hunting

...but when Holland and Holland takes their H&H blows it out and sticks the same 40 cal bullet in it it's no good?

I don't think people believe that round is "no good"...only redundant.

JMHO,

John

The game taken in the pictures was by Dr. A. P. Chesterfield. Whelen wrote what other experienced African hunters had to say about the .400 Whelen needing a heaver, pointed bullet.

“When I designed the .400 cartridge I wanted such a bullet. But we were not in production on the rifle. No firm had then been formed for it’s manufacture, and it’s popularity and success were problematical. Under the circumstances it was of course impossible to interest an ammunition company in the production of a distinctly new bullet. I therefore had to do the best I could under the circumstances by adopting the .405 W.C.F. bullet, and constructing the cartridge so that it would be easy to adopt the ideal bullet later. I am happy to say that that time is almost here. The success of the rifle has been so great that there is every likelihood that before the next hunting season its makers will be able to announce a heavier bullet, about 350 grains, and less lead exposed at the point.â€

This is about the time that Western Tool and Copper Works started making bullets for the .400 Whelen.

Whelen also goes on and makes it clear that this rifle should not be depended on to stop dangerous game in thick cover.

The article also contains a letter from Mr. Leslie Simpson with the same criticisms.

“I think you will be greatly improving the .400 by adapting a 350-grain bullet, even at the expensive of velocity, in both soft and full jacket. In the case of the latter I would advise a round nose heavy jacket as I have found the pointed solids somewhat erratic in course after entry, sometimes turning over and lacking penetration when they do so.â€

quote:

Originally posted by BFaucett:
The .400 Whelen
by Michael Petrov
http://www.z-hat.com/smashing_the_headspace_myth.htm
Excerpted from... Precision Shooting, Magazine, Feb. 2001

An interesting article.



-Bob F.

Bob,
Thank you so much for that article! Interesting, is an understatement!
To think that the .400 Whelen originated as what we today call the .400 Whelen Ackley Improoved....!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
...but when Holland and Holland takes their H&H blows it out and sticks the same 40 cal bullet in it it's no good?

Well, it can hardly be called "blown out"?
.375, .400 and .465 H&H

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

If we accept it to be adequate and enough gun for large game than we have to accept that any of the current commercial 40 calibers at low velocity should also be adequate, as such then Messrs. H&H's 400 H&H should be as efficient as say a 416 Rigby or Remington?

Alf,

Yea, I think you got it right there, adequate and enough. But, the thing is, inside what range? If ranges are streched, 2400f/s gives quite an edge to 2100 f/s. Which is why the .400H&H never can be as potent as the .416 Remington, or Rigby. Then, if the .400H&H does not give anything more than a .400 Whelen, why bother with the extra length and diameter - reduced magazine capacity?

If one is happy with 400 grs at 2100, as I am, the .400 Whelen is a better choise, IMO.
But that the .400 H&H is adequate for DG?
Well, 400/2100 was adequate for John Taylor!
Who am I to argue?

.

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:

quote:

Originally posted by BFaucett:
The .400 Whelen
by Michael Petrov
http://www.z-hat.com/smashing_the_headspace_myth.htm
Excerpted from... Precision Shooting, Magazine, Feb. 2001

An interesting article.

-Bob F.

Bob,
Thank you so much for that article! Interesting, is an understatement!
To think that the .400 Whelen originated as what we today call the .400 Whelen Ackley Improoved....!!!!

Bent,

I'm glad you liked the article. BTW: Did you happen to notice that the article is by the same Michael Petrov that is posting here? Yep, one of "our own" here at AR. BTW, Michael has a book out: Custom Gunmakers of the 20th Century by Michael Petrov.



If you're interested in the American custom rifle makers from the first half of the 20th century, then you'll enjoy this book. I sure did. Lots of photographs of custom Springfield rifles. Book description from MidwayUSA's web site: "This collection of articles from Precision Shooting Magazine highlights some of the finest gunbuilders of the last century including Griffin & Howe, Ludwig Wundhammer, Hoffman Arms Company, Neidner Rifle Corporation, Fred Adolph, Harvey W. Rodgers and more. These articles were published between 1996 and 2004 and are accompanied by dozens of original black and white photographs. Published in 2005. 168 Pages - Hardcover."

Michael is too much of a gentleman to brag so I thought I would mention it.

-Bob F.

Thaks again, Bob, and kudos to Mr.Petrov!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Bent:

It also raises the question: Do we really need velocity to kill effectively? There are many who would argue no and their arguement based on experience. There is enough evidence historically to show that a low velocity heavy projectile will do just fine !

Myself, I am also a believer in heavy for caliber, slow bullets. At impact. If 150yards is the limit, Vo=2100f/s is just fine, but if same energy is to be had at 300 yards, Vo had to be higher, or what?