gordief,
The US had to pay Mauser patent royalties for each one of those M1903 rifles.
Hold your head high, it is a CRF, with a slick feeding cone breech that Winchester later incorporated into the M70.

If Grandpa owned that rifle before he was killed in 1925, who made it besides G&H? G&H started building them in 1923. Four were made that year?
Two M98's and two M1903's right?
Michael Petrov has the second of the M1903's,
so you must have the original that used to be owned by Townsend Whelen. Right?
Michael Petrov, help us out here.

And, Mart and Michael Petrov:

From whence did those pictures of the 400 Whelen on safari come?
Is there anymore text to go with those pictures?
Who is the 'oke sitting on the dead buffalo?
Thanks

I'll have to defer to Michael on the photos. I've only seen those photos in conjunction with Michael's articles and research. I would also love to know more about the photos and the stories behind them.

I would love to get to Africa with my 400 and take some similar photos. I have my doubts about that ever happening but will keep after the Alaskan critters with mine. My wife did use mine this year to take her caribou.

Mart

I'll go back and look some of this stuff up if need be but as I remember things Whelen built four rifles (Niedner did the barrels and Howe the metal work) two Mausers and two 1903.

Remember this was before Griffin & Howe was a company.

Other gunmakers chambered their rifles in .400 Whelen caliber.

The pictures are from an article in the American Rifleman June 15th 1924 by Townsend Whelen "An Analysis of Game Bullets" Part V .350 and .400 Bullets on Big Game. The man in Africa was Dr. A.P. Chesterfield.

Townsend Whelen's .400-Whelen was a 1903 Springfield that was late re-barreled to .35-Whelen.

One of the pitfalls about publishing on something like the .400-Whelen is I have a paper file that weights several pounds and had to reduce that to two-thousand words for the article.

When I moved into town about twenty-three years ago I lost about one year of my Arms & The Man magazines and only recently replaced them.
I'm finding new information all the time but do not plan to write anything more on the .400. I think someone else should using more modern powders.

I'm debating if I should ever write anything more on the .400-Niedner, it's tempting now that Hornady is making the Ruger (Newton) Brass.
Remember the .400-Niedner uses the same 300gr .411" diameter bullets at 2750fps in a standard length action. One reason I don't need to hot-rod the .400-Whelen.

Michael Petrov,
I am not ready for the .400 Niedner just yet,
thanks anyway.
I have a mission to search the stacks of libraries: American Rifleman June 15th 1924
I also need to get off this dang 'puter now and go weigh some 400 Whelen powder charges, in case the weather breaks this weekend.
And I need to take some 500 Bateleur parts to Rusty McGee at 8AM tomorrow.
I blame you first and Rusty McGee, Gunsmith second, for my 400 Whelen obsession,
and Mart third ...

Is there still an "antique shop" in downtown Anchorage, near Cook Inlet, with a gunroom?
I used to drool over antiques there, 1985-1994.

RIP,

Michael is the one who started me down the 400 trail. I had always had an interest in it and his research only confirmed that I had to build one. I am happy to have other 400 Whelen fans sharing the trail.

I am hoping to get some time this winter to try some other powders. H4895 and IMR 3031 have proven to be great performers. I need to do more work with RL15 and would like to try RL10 as well.

Mart

Mart, When is this BS about the "headspace issue" going to die ? IF the poster had read Mike's chapter in WILDCAT CARTRIDGES, he would know that chambers cut to the correct specification NEVER had any headspace issues. Perhaps some other half-assed "gunsmiths" never bothered to do anything but cut a reamer for a necked up 30-06 with no change in case's body shape, but that in no way supports the tired old, inaccurate crap about "headspace issues". It's a wonderful cartridge that duplicates the classic 450/400 that has killed more big game than any of us will see in a lifetime.
The thread topic is "new thoughts", not totally discredited information written long ago by some uninformed "expert" and repeated ever since by other "experts" whom I doubt ever saw, not to mention owned a 400 Whelen. It's a great magazine rifle cartridge ..... try it you'll love it.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Mart, When is this BS about the "headspace issue" going to die ? IF the poster had read Mike's chapter in WILDCAT CARTRIDGES, he would know that chambers cut to the correct specification NEVER had any headspace issues. Perhaps some other half-assed "gunsmiths" never bothered to do anything but cut a reamer for a necked up 30-06 with no change in case's body shape, but that in no way supports the tired old, inaccurate crap about "headspace issues". It's a wonderful cartridge that duplicates the classic 450/400 that has killed more big game than any of us will see in a lifetime.

Larry,

No one is more aware of the fact that the 400 Whelen does not have a headspace issue than I. The smilie at the end of that comment should have clued you in that the comment was tongue in cheek.

Any recent thread here or on 24HRCF regarding the 400 Whelen most likely has a post, or many, by me in support of this grand old cartridge. I have a little over 1000 rounds down range in load development with this cartridge in the last two years and my rifle has one caribou to it's credit so far. Not bad for a two year old rifle.

I am not the expert that several of the 400 Whelen fans who post here are, but have a solid understanding to the cartridge and it's capabilities. It is capable of duplicating the 450-400 NE and does so in a standard action bolt gun. Kudos to the Colonel.

I hope you are not holding me to task for a comment that was meant and I'm sure understood by all (or at least by most) to be tongue in cheek. I think we have done a pretty fair job in this thread of dispelling any issues of headspace and demonstrating the efficiency and effectiveness of the 400 Whelen.

Mart

Sorry I misread your post. Guess I am a bit sensitive on the issue after decades of BS from "expert" gunwriters.
Probably the same idiots who think a 275 Rigby is a 7x57 and a 244 H&H a 6mm !
Either Mike or Fred once said: "you can't push a tube inside a tube." Think that sums up headspace very well.

BTW the NEI cast bullet #225a .411-350-GC when ordered with their unique front driving band called a DD model (It bites into the rifling an old Scheutzen trick) is a great shooter (1.5 moa), can be pushed to 16-1700 fps if oven hardened #2 Lyman metal, lubed with SPG and will kill anything you can hit with it. .416 gas checks work fine in my SAECO lube sizer

Gets the cost/round under 5 cents and just polishes the bore.

NEI link:

http://www.neihandtools.com/catalog/index.html

Good shooting

actually a 275 Rigby is interchangeable with a 7x57 mauser

Actually if you looked at the Woodleigh bullet catalog, you would see that they (who know a helluva lot more about British cartridges than Ruger or others over here, who claim to make a 275 Rigby rifle) lists a 160 gr and 175 gr for the 275 Rigby that are .287 not .284. Ruger is not making a 275 Rigby, they are making a 7x57 with 275 Rigby stamped on the barrel. Rather like my "244 H&H magnum" I built that did not use the correct .240 bullets but instead .243-4 bullets.
I did not stamp the barrel 244 H&H as that would be incorrect. It still worked very well with strong (Barnes) 6mm bullets that could handle 3700 fps. probably would not have worked wirh .240 bullets anymore than a real 275 Rigby would do as well with .284s rather than .287s.
Interesting that the cool factor is higher for the Rigby than the 7x57 which probably killed 100s times more game and people around the world.
As with the 400 Whelen, one scribe writes it down and all the others repeat it absent any fact checking. Even Wikipedia has it wrong although they do list the bullet diameter for the 7x57 as .285 !

Sorry for wandering off the central topic.

The following was extracted from the John Rigby and Company website:

quote:

The .275 Rigby, also known as a 7mm Mauser and 7x57, has been one of Rigby's most popular calibers for over 100 years. Originally designed by Mauser in 1892, it offers both accuracy and performance, while remaining soft on recoil. John Rigby & Co. adopted the caliber in 1907, which coincided with the time we held the Mauser agency in the UK. British calibers of the time were measured using the imperial system and as such the little German cartridge was renamed .275 Rigby.

Originally many Rigby .275s were built and regulated for the 173gr bullet at 2300 fps and then the 140gr “high velocity” round at 2800fps, designed for deer stalking. Today it is perfectly suited for all deer hunting and can handle all but the largest of African antelope. Cartridge manufacturers offer a wide and varied selection of loads for the .275, meaning the user can tailor their rifle and bullet to tackle most non-dangerous game animals.
http://www.johnrigbyandco.com/275Development.htm

Perhaps someone responsible for maintaining the Woodleigh website has forgotten that the .287 caliber bullets were used in the 1906 Canadian designed .280 Ross (aka: 280 Flanged Nitro Express in Britain).

Of course, as the 7x57 was originally designed with a .275" bore/.285" groove specification shooting a C&C bullet that is 0.002" larger in diameter would not cause excessive pressure.

Interesting but nowhere does the "Rigby" website state the bore/grove/bullet diameter.
The Rigby website, you cite is actually no longer the "real" Rigby company that built the 275s used "back in the day"
" In 1997, Roberts sold Rigby to Texas businessman Neil Gibson, who licensed the manufacture of Rigby rifles in California and London. Today, under current ownership, Rigby rifles are manufactured in London through its relationship with J. Roberts. & Son."
The whole issue of who is Rigby and who is not is a battle royal and I would be hesitant to place too much faith in information taken from the california based company's website.
See: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...tle-for-rigbys-name/


Of course you can shoot the 7x57 in a real 275 Rigby just as you can shoot a .308 bullet in a 303 British or a .318 bullet in an 8x57 set up for .323 bullets.

I rather doubt (happy to be proven wrong) that Woodleigh would "forget" the correct bullet diameter for the 275 Rigby as well as expose themselves to the product liability issues involved.

Wonder how Ross settled on .287 bullets for his 280 (no news to me) ? Could it be the easy availability of bullets made for the 275 Rigby ?
Also ties into the complaints about Ross bullets not penetrating if one considers the lighter construction of a bullet designed for used at 2200-2300 fps fired from a 280 Ross at 2700-2800 fps. (or more as many "stalking models" carried a 28" barrel)

On the "oversize" subject, it's accepted fact that early Savage 1899s in 303 Savage used a .311 jacketed bullet in a nominal .308 (they varied quite a bit) bore, that many 98 Mausers were switched from .318 to .323 by only cutting the grooves deeper and that the 8x60 was designed to shoot .323 bullets in a deep grooved .318 bore. Unless you are shooting solid, H mantle or monometal bullet two thou will not take apart any well constructed rifle.

We're way off the 400 Whelen, but perhaps there is a member who owns a genuine early London made 275 Rigby who could slug the bore and share the results with us.

Woodleigh would not be considered an authority on cartridge case designations--in fact they have nothing to do with them--they just make old fashioned bullets. They are neither a cartridge company nor a rifle company----




And yes I am willing to take Rigby"s word for the fact that it is the same cartridge as the 7x57

You know what, you are 100% right ! I looked at their current online bullet list and the .287 is for the 275 H&H. The old paper list I had is wrong. I get to eat raw crow for New year's eve feast.

Think I should stick with the 400 Whelen ......
at least I own one.

My apologies, have a Happy New Year !

I wish all a Blessed New Year!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acxnmaVTlZA

AHR Howell Basic brass:
If a piece of it starts off 2.745" long,
it grows to 2.765" long when necked down in a 400 Whelen FL die with the expander/decapper removed.
Then you trim it down to 2.490" long.
Then you are ready to go.
It might shorten a few thou on firing and sharpening the shoulder.
Then it might grow back those few thou on FL resizing.
There should not be much case stretching going on after that.
Max brass length: 2.490"
Trim-to length: 2.490"
(Minimum chamber length on reamer is 2.501".)









Rusty McGee, Gunsmith fired the brass shown.
It is 2.496" long, the one with the sharp shoulder.
A person who can chew gum and walk at the same time ought to be able to turn 50 pieces of AHR Howell Basic
into 50 pieces of 400 Whelen brass in about a half hour.
I have been weathered in long enough to now have some AHR brass to try,
along with the shorter Remington 35 Whelen fire-formed brass.

We shall soon see how long the Quality Cartridge 400 Whelen brass is, in length, as well as in length of time to get here.

quote:

AHR Howell Basic brass:
If a piece of it starts off 2.745" long,
it grows to 2.765" long when necked down in a 400 Whelen FL die with the expander/decapper removed.

Just found almost 400 of those cases in the cabinet yesterday. Guess I'm set for a month or two.

Fifty pieces of "this" and four hundred pieces of "that," sounds like a plan.
I love winter except for my lack of an indoor rifle range.

2 or 3 weeks ago I submitted the 400 Whelen to www.ammoguide.com

Today I remembered to check for it, for the umpteenth time, and found this:

http://ammoguide.com/?catid=863

That's the free demo.
Members can sign in and see more.
I did not write that, and I don't agree with all the specs shown.
Different from what I submitted.

It seems that management decided to take over this glaring omission from the Cartridge Master List.

It is now not my submission, but it is nice anyway.

Email Mike with your edits, likely he didn't post the erroneous data.

quote:

Originally posted by H2CO3:
Email Mike with your edits, likely he didn't post the erroneous data.

I will not ... edit ... or maybe I will: Edit the editor.

The editor of the cartridge description used what I submitted and they did a good job on the write-up,
with some additional well written verbiage and dimensional adjustments,
with proper credit to Michael Petrov and a link to his web pages, his 400 Whelen articles.
They did get in the necessity of using the PT&G/Dave Kiff/Michael Petrov reamer specs,
and proper reloading dies from CH4D or RCBS.
That is what counts.

The cartridge drawing shows a 17*30' shoulder.
We all know that the reamer shoulder angle is 23*0'0".
The shoulder diameter of the reamer minimum is 0.458".
I suppose the brass maximum might also be the same 0.458" diameter.
Maybe that is why the cartridge headspaces so positively.


Those who want to have the proper cartridge and chamber dimensions may find it here at accuratereloading.com,
Certified by Riflecrank Internationale Permanente.

I did however get credit as the submitter of the first load listed for the 400 Whelen.
That is the one that Rusty McGee developed.
I gave Rusty credit for that in my comments on the load.
See below: My handle at ammoguide.com is "ripr."

Y'all feel free to post some loads there if you are members of ammoguide .com
Range time with the 400 whelen is top priority now.

Not sure why all the hububba regarding headspacing. Does not the 10.75 X 68 have similar proportions? Who complains about that noovoh fossil headspacing unreliably?

H2CO3,

You talked me into it.

I will try to get the ammoguide.com drawing corrected.

The first time I submitted it, I did screw up, and made the shoulder .458" on the brass, did email Mike, and asked him to correct it to .454".

That is the only thing that works with all the numbers between the proper reamer drawing and accepted practices on brass maximums for a given reamer minimum.:



Above is what I need to resubmit, I do believe.

Note if the shoulder diameter was .458" instead of .454", it would make the shoulder angle greater than 23 degrees, not smaller, as shown at ammoguide.
Mike is also off by 0.001" on the base to shoulder distance.

Do we have any other inputs from the gallery before I try again at ammoguide.com?

Mr. Petrov?

Hey, if the handloader bulges his shoulder diameter by four thou in the reload,
that might be just fine.

I always have comments.

You guys are doing a great job.

To bad it wasn't done about 90 years ago.

I avoided cartridge measurements and stuck with the chamber measurements. I debated this for some time and then decided to only publish the most common (Griffin & Howe) chamber measurements.

As for the measurements on a loaded cartridge mine are .456" at the shoulder.

Townsend Whelen called for .455" shoulder and I can't remember offhand the different measurements I have taken on loaded G&H .400-Whelen ammo.

I have tons of information and for the most part all are different so I stuck with the original chamber. Does this make sense or even answer any of your questions?

After I published the two articles I got a call from someone from "Cartridges of the World" I talked at length with them and the last COTW that I saw has the same old information.

Michael Petrov,

That makes perfect sense.
I have been struggling with the same thing.
It is very difficult to measure a shoulder precisely with caliper in hand. Shoulders of brass cartridges are not perfectly sharp,
and it is hard to get it precisely on the shoulder line, so you usually end up measuring it slightly below the shoulder, where it is slightly bigger.

It may also be that the dies are not reducing the fired brass much at the shoulder,
but it is working perfectly as is.

So, if Townsend Whelen called for a cartridge shoulder diameter of 0.455", then that is what it shall be.
Thanks for the help.

About that change from 2.001" to 2.000" in the brass length from base to shoulder, by ammoguide:
I am going to ask Mike Haas to change it back to 2.001".
0.000" tolerance on that headspace, please,
same brass maximum as chamber minimum.

If we change the shoulder diameter to 0.455", then the brass shoulder angle becomes 24*15'.

It is a trigonometric fact that the shoulder angle for the cartridge shown at ammoguide.com cannot be 17*30'.
If the shoulder diameter is 0.458", the shoulder angle MUST be 27*40'.

So with the .455" diameter cartridge shoulder, that is .003" less than chamber shoulder diameter.
That is good, just a little tighter than the commonly specified .004" tolerance of many hunting rifles.

The brass shoulder of 24*15' angle will fit well in the chamber shoulder angle of 23*0' when both are at the same headspace datum line.
Keeping the headspace distance tolerance zero will work well with the slop caused by the shoulder angle.

Cartridges specs and chamber specs often differ slightly on the shoulder angle.

Keeping the headspace distance of the brass and the chamber exactly the same is common too.





Reported by Ness in his circa 1948 book PRACTICAL DOPE ON THE BIG BORES,
the COL of the 400 Whelen was 3.30", and I have yet to find a bullet that needs longer COL than that.

Leave the COL 3.340"?
No foul, no harm done.

BTW, Ness liked the 400 Niedner better than the 400 Whelen.
He estimated practical 300-grain bullet loads to do about 2650-2700 fps in the 400 Niedner.
He has a brass cartridge spec drawing of it on page 273 of his book.

Michael Petrov,

Do you approve of getting this pinned down with the brass dimensions shown in the drawing above?

The reamer specs are chiseled in stone.

Actual brass specs and reloading die specs can vary slightly from the exact specification.
In fact they always do!

I would just like to see a best guess at a cartridge drawing.
A hat hook.

You are light years ahead of me on this. As I said before I have avoided the subject because of all the variables such as spring-back, different brass, different dies and all the things that you made mention of.

I think there should be a record of measurements of the .400-Whelen case.

I have, on purpose, not shared all the different measurements that I have on file for the .400 (some of them by Whelen) becasue like everything, it evolved into what was turned out by G&H. There are more G&H 400's than by anyone else and now the standard reamer was made using these measurements.

Go for it, I'll look forward to seeing this done.

OK!

Here is the final perfection.
Use the 0.001" shorter distance to start shoulder like Mike Haas did,
but leave the end of shoulder where I had it for zero tolerance at the end of shoulder(neck-1).

This changes the shoulder angle of the brass to 23*10'.
Shoulder angle of the chamber is 23*0'.

This is more in line with the usual differences found in brass and chamber shoulder angles.

So we now have 0.001" of slop in length at the start of the shoulder: Brass 0.001" shorter than chamber.
And zero slop in length at the end of the shoulder: Brass and chamber have same length from base to end of shoulder/neck-1.
The brass and chamber shoulder angles are only 10 minutes of angle different.



I'll send this on to Mike Haas and thank him for his help in getting this right.
You too, Michael Petrov.

The cartridge specs are only a guideline.
One can always bulge a shoulder or back off the reloading die for a tighter fit of brass in chamber.

I have messaged "Support" Mike Haas at www.ammoguide.com.
Will post corrections when they happen.

Mr. RIP, obsessive reviver of deader than door nail cartridges. History books will praise thee, Sir, as will brass manufacturers.

Good job Ron. Looks like you nailed it pretty well.

Thanks Carbonic Acid and Jim,

The 400 Whelen entry at www.ammoguide.com is correct!

http://ammoguide.com/?catid=863



That was quick!
I can quit obsessing with this now.

Wait a minute ... look at the taper from Neck-1 (.437") to Neck-2 (.433") ...
This is about the same taper as in the case body.
Just an extension of case body taper on into the neck of about 0.0085" to 0.0090" delta diameter for each inch of delta length,
with a shoulder step interposed.

This is a sure way to have no "dreaded donut" problems.
It is also conducive to feeding ease.
This is a great cartridge.

OK, I gotta go obsess about something else now.

Reformed 35 Whelen brass has a neck wall thickness of .009".
Ahr Howell Basic has a formed and trimmed neck wall thickness of .0075".
If the case neck OD is .433", the bullet has negative neck tension. Ask me how I know.
Also, even though I was assured that the CH dies were according the Mr. Petrov's print, they went back to CH today because trying to bump the shoulder disclosed a 17.5 degree anomoly. I am assured that the proper dies will be forwarded, eventually.
Stuff happens.
Rusty

quote:

Originally posted by roughone:
Reformed 35 Whelen brass has a neck wall thickness of .009".
Ahr Howell Basic has a formed and trimmed neck wall thickness of .0075".
If the case neck OD is .433", the bullet has negative neck tension. Ask me how I know.
Also, even though I was assured that the CH dies were according the Mr. Petrov's print, they went back to CH today because trying to bump the shoulder disclosed a 17.5 degree anomoly. I am assured that the proper dies will be forwarded, eventually.
Stuff happens.
Rusty

roughone (Rusty McGee, Gunsmith):

Live and learn!
Good that you are getting CH4D straightened out on this,
so that the www.ammoguide.com comments won't be wrong in recommending them for dies.

Hopefully RCBS dies have it right, Michael Petrov used those. I will have to get some of those to check them out too.

Could you agree that the ammoguide.com drawing is good?
How about showing that to CH4D to see if they will make dies to fit that?
That is a good fit to the Dave Kiff/MichaelPetrov reamer you have.

I will be talking to you more about the CH4D reloading dies, to see how the modification goes, maybe get mine done too,
after you check it out.

The 400 Whelen works even with wrong dies.
It keeps getting better.

roughone,

I just noticed that the Howell basic brass sized in your dies is a loose fit in the neck for Barnes TSX .411-caliber bullets.
The bullets drop right into the case.

Nothing that a compressed charge of powder won't fix. That will keep the bullet from falling into the case,
even if the bullet spins freely in the neck after a crimp!!!

Looks like I prefer the blown out Remington 35 Whelen brass over the Howell Basic that has such thin neck wall.
Here's hoping the Quality Cartridge 400 Whelen brass has a thicker neck wall than the AHR Howell Basic.