I know this has been debated and re-debated many times and when simply compared by relative power the 9.3 wins. However, I want to look at them according to a specific need/desire. Perhaps there is a difference and perhaps not.

I am getting ready to have a Double Heat Treated Springfield 03 built into a medium bore. I have 7mm's and a 30-06.

I want a medium bore for use primarily on Elk, Moose, and Alaskan Brown bear. I also plan to take it to Africa someday after plains game and Leopard. If I decide to go after African Buffalo I will get another larger rifle. Lion is a toss up though.

I am only interested in the 35 Whelan and the 9.3X62 Mauser. The .338 Win Mag though a fine cartridge does not interest me.

I figure both will work fine for the intended animals. However, since I am not an Alaskan native I will have to hire a Guide for Bear. The Whelan seems to fit between the 300 Win Mag and the .338 for energy while the 9.3 is closer to the .338 for some bullets weights and surpassing it in others. Will they let me bring a Whelan or insist on something bigger? I suppose I could always go with a Whelan improved chambering since I will be loading my own.

I plan on using a 24-inch barrel either way. I will be loading my own and I cannot get components for either cartridge locally. I have to mail order either way so that is not an issue.

OK ... Will the Whelan be enough gun for Brown Bear? I know it is fine for all African Plains Game. Brown bear is the principle deciding animal though.

This is your chance to talk me into the Whelan.

Since you put it that way....................

On the common sense side, if I were going after a brown bear it would be with the biggest gun that I could reliably shoot. Since the 9.3 is a little larger diameter it would be my choice. Couple that with the fact that ammo would be much easier to find should you head to Africa, it looks like that would be a better choice. I've never been to Alaska so I'm not sure which would be more readily available there.

That said, a Springfield just screams 35 Whelen. I'm going through the nostalgia thing right now. Have 4 in the pipeline - 9.3x62 and 6.5x55 on Mausers and 338-06 on a Pre-war Model 70 and 358 on a MRC. If logic ruled, I'd have a 223, a 30-06 and a 12 guage. It doesn't, so I don't!

Did I help?

A Springfield deserves to have a classic like the 35 Whelen built on it. Especially since Whelen was such a huge factor in the Springfield. The two just belong together. I like the 9.2 and I am doing one myself, but on a Mauser. A 9.3 on a Springfield just seems wrong for some reason.

As far as power is concerned the 9.3 has the edge but not by a huge margin. The 35 will do the job just fine.

I have an use both, but since you have a Springfield, I'd go with the Whelen. If you had a nice mauser action, I'd say 9.3x62. I don't think you'll be noticing much power difference; this coupled with the fact that you have plans for another big bore - perhaps a 375 or 416 - makes the Whelen a nice fit into your battery.

If you go with a Whelen, get the a 1-12" twist so you can reliably stabilize the 280 A-Frame - a good choice for big bears I would bet. A 1-12" in the 9.3x62 is also a good choice.

Anyway, good luck. You really can't go wrong, both are excellent rounds.

My choice whould be the Whelen as originally designed. Several of the "egg-spurts" in the gun rags who have converted the standard Whelen to the improved version said that while it worked OK, they didn't feel there was that much over the original version, and if they had to do it over, they would stick with the original. I'm inclined to go along with that thought.
One, I do not feel the .35 Whelen is loaded to it's full potential. Why? because there are way too many old Springfields and Winchester 1895s that were either rebarrelled or rebored to the Whelen. It's the same reason that the 7x57 and 30-06 to name a couple more, are not loaded to their full potential.
Two, I think Remington made a dumbass move using a 1 in 16" rifling twist for their .35 Whelen Classic. It is my firm belief that the proper twist should be 1 in 12".
Currently, I have three rifles in .35 Whelen. The Ruger M77 and Remington 700 both have 1 in 16" twist barrels and the custom Mauser has a 1 in 14" twist. I have another Mauser in the planning stage that will have that proper (IMHO) 1 in 12" twist.
At one time, Hornady used to make a 270 gr. RN bullet. They dropped it in 1967. I found 35 of them at a gun show, not really enough to work up a serious load, but that will have to wait until I find some more.
I think that a good stout 250 gr.bullet at about 2500 FPS, or 275 gr. bullet at 2300 FPS from a .35 Whelen would definitely not make any big bear's day, if properly placed. But then, I'd say the same about using a .458 mag. as well.
I have a friend in Canada that uses the 250 gr. Speer Hot-core at about 2450 FPS from his Whelen on moose and grizzly bear. According to him, that bullet shoots clean through a moose.
I don't doubt that the 9.3 will work just as well, amd maybe even a hair better, but I'll stick with my Whelens.
Paul B.

I'd go with the 9.3x62 with a 26 inch barrel...I can get 2400 FPS with a 320 gr. solid or soft..I have never owned a Whelen that could come close to that on my chronograph...That rivals the great .375 H&H with a 300 gr. at 2500 FPS...cross section is also larger on the 9.3 at .366 as opposed to 357. The 9.3x62 case holds 7% more water volume and that is sugnificant...Finn Aagard in an article said the 9.3x62 left the 35 Whelen in the dust for whatever thats worth, but I think it does come close to that...I never use 06 brass to make 9.3x62s because you do lose some volume by doing that.

Another good option is the 338-06 which I prefer over the 35 Whelen, but went to the .338 Win. as the best of all calibers for what your wanting, and that one has no interrest to you...

The 35 caliber has never been able to cut it in the USA for some reason, and has been a financial disaster for the most part...Something I never understood.

I have shot both over the years and when I built my first 9.3x62 and used it on game, I never went back to the 35 Whelen or the 338-06 that I was so fond of, a decision I have never had any reason to regret...

A 9.3x62 in a Springfield just has a wrongness about it. I'd go .35 Whelen. It will feed perfectly and be truer to tradition.

54JNoll,

With all things being equal I would go for the 9.3 (I have owned .358 Win and .35 Whelen rifles). But things in the field are not equal. I would choose the premium bullet you are going to shoot for this application, and then chamber the rifle to suit that bullet.

For a North American, I see more good .358" than .366" bullet choices. So go with the .35 W.

jim

The first rifle I ever bought was a Springfield in .308 Norma Mag. Still have the lovely little fella and have no hang-ups about "odd" calibers on Springfield actions.

I took a 9.3x62 to Africa this year. It did a wonderful job! I really don't think you can do better.

I'd go with the nice ergonomics of the Springfield and the great performance of the 9.3x62!

As nostalgic as I am, I have to agree with Mike on this one. I would do it in 9.3X62. I have a 1903 that is chambered in 338 Win Mag and it is a very useful rifle. I won't say that I advise putting belted magnums in a Springfield, but it does work and work well in my experience. Bottom line is that using a Springfield is pleasing to me in ANY caliber. Since this will be your big rifle for quite a spell by the sounds I would make it as big as practical and it would appear that the 9.3X62 is just that.

It's an interesting thing to me that the 9.3 has become as popular in the past few years as it has. When the 35 Whelen first appeared from Remington as a factory round many in the area I lived in at the time thought it would mean the demise of all other medium bores in it's class. That hasn't happened for some reason, and probably from the sounds of other people such as Ray and Mike, it is for a very good reason.

Make it the 9.3X62 and don't look back. Shucks, even Finn Aagaard thought it was perhaps the finest medium bore there was. That is good enough for me.

Idared,

What! I thought for sure you vote for nostalgia. But that is one real pretty .338 you got there.

I posted this same question on a couple other boards and overwhelmingly the concensus is that the 35 is more than up to the task. Although, if taking it to Africa I should go with the 9.3.

Realistically though I do not know when I will get to Africa. I will get there and I want to keep those considerations in mind but it will be a while. Actually it is at least 5 years off. It is going to take me that long to save up the vacation time to swing a trip to either Alaska or Africa. I can save up funds faster than vacation time and you got to have both.

By then my oldest boy will be 10 and my youngest 7 yrs old. And my wife wants to go on a Carabou hunt. So I may have to do that first.

But yes, this will be my big rifle for, most probably, quite a while. So there is merit both ways justifying getting the Whelan now and something bigger later as well as going the 9.3 route now.

So there really is no rush to build either. However, the longer I own it the more time to work up loads and become familiar with the rifle. I do not like to hunt anything with a new rifle.

On the flip side Elk hunts may become available quicker due to a deal I can get into with my father in getting a lease in Wyoming.

Adding all that to the mix really does not make the waters less muddy. But where does it leave us?

The 35 is enough gun and the 9.3 is more yet. Components for both are available and while the 35 currently had greater variety in the US the 9.3 is getting more popular here. The 9.3 can be used for more stuff in Africa resulting in less need to go up to .375 level recoil. But when hunting dangerous stuff in Africa there is a genuine need for something bigger than the 9.3.

I guess that pretty much sums it up.

I should add that I was leaning towards the 9.3 on the belief that I could use it on both Leopard and lion in Africa. However, if I would be required to use a .375 or larger then that does tend to change things also.

54JNoll

Thanks for the kind words about my 338.

Yes, I almost always go in the direction of nostalgia, but am making this an exception. In this particular case I actually believe if I was faced with the same decision I would still go the 9.3 route and be happy it was built around my favorite action. My biggest reason is that it appears to me that the 9.3X62 is becoming more popular while the 35 Whelen actually may be in somewhat of a decline. It would be interesting to know how much 35 Whelen brass is sold by Remington at the present time. I'm not sure if there is a factory rifle made in 35 Whelen at present, and there are no other real popular 35 caliber rounds helping it out that much to keep bullet companies interested in making good 358 caliber bullets. I wouldn't be surprised that the 35 Remington is the most popular 35 caliber out there and it generally uses different bullets than one would use in the 35 Whelen. This was a problem about a decade or two ago and could return again some day.

On the flip side there are many, many rifles in 9.3 in the world. There are also some factory rifles showing up on this side of the pond in 9.3X62 and this will probably help make it more popular. It may not stay that way, but I do believe that the 9.3 has momentum on its side right now, and will stay that way for a longer period of time than the 35 Whelen has been a factory round. I also expect to see more 9.3 bullets appear in the U.S. in the future.

Lastly, I actually think the 9.3 is a little bit better designed case, although we all know the 35 Whelen works fine with good handloading practices. I also belive that the fact heavier bullets are available for it give it the edge over the 35 Whelen, as I myself can see little use of bullets lighter than 250 grains in either. Either way you will have a rifle that will be up to the task you want it to do, and it will be very user friendly.

I just may have to build a 26" barreled 35 whelen to see what it would do with 310 gr woodleighs, I'd venture to say that 2300 fps would be a resonable expectation, and that would put it within spitting difference with the 9.3X62.

I really doubt there is any difference between the two if you compare them using similar bullets, ie the 9.3X62 has proven itself with 286 gr, in the whelen you have the 270 gr Northfork and 280 gr A-frame. Velocities will be within 100 fps of eachother, that'll make trajectory and terminal performance indistinguishable, like comparing a 416 to a 404.

That said, the 250 gr has more then proven itself in the whelen over the years (84 as I believe it came out in 1920), and launched at 2500-2550 fps, you really can't choose a bad one between the hornady rn and sp, speer, nosler, barnes, swift and likely others I'm forgetting.

The 35 whelen is quite popular in Alaska, I can think of 1/2 dozen folks that have at least one, and use them in the field for moose and bears. Factory ammo is available as well. The only 9.3X62 I've seen was a CZ full stock, that was on the rack for about a year, but looks like it finally got sold. I'll admit that I'd considered buying it myself.

I'll second Paul H on the relative popularity of the .35 Whelen here in Alaska. Factory rounds are available in many shops, including here in town. I'm trying to remember if the local shop stocks 9.3x62, I sure don't know anyone here who shoots one. I do know at least 4 or 5 Whelen shooters.

The .35 does a great job on brown bear. I sold a friend a .35 Whelen Ruger and he went out a decked a brownie that squared about 8'7", dropped it with his first shot, altho like many brownies, a few finishers were added.

That being said, either cartridge will do the job, build what you really want and you'll be happy.

A Springfield action and the .35 Whelen go together like peanut butter and jelly, Like Richard Petty and a cowboy hat, like Darryl Strawberry and a crack pipe . The 9.3X62 is a nice round, but it belongs in a Mauser. You know you're gonna build another one down the road, do the 9.3 latter and show all us 62 owners up and make your's a 64

Terry

54JNoll

I am a big fan of Elmer Keith, and I have hunted with a 350 Rem Mag. However for the last 6 years I have been hunting with a 9,3x74R double rifle, which is the ballistic equivalent of the 9,3x62. My 9,3 with 286 Woodleigh Softs and 286 Nosler Partitions has killed game like the Hammer of Thor. Several head of African game as well as deer, wild pigs and a couple of bear have been taken with my 9,3.

It may be the best all round calibre for all game under 300 yards. Low recoil and killing power to spare. You cannot go wrong with the 9,3x62 in a bolt rifle.

My 9,3x74R was my lion rifle for Africa. I did not have a lion hit a bait, but I had no doubts that it could do the job.

Paul, Whitehurst, and other Alaskan folk

I have heard for many years that the Whelen is quite popular in Alaska and you both re-affirm that.

I am curious about something and hope you can enlighten me a bit. From what you remember, would you say that it became more popular in Alaska since Remington made it a factory round or was it always as popular as it is now. I honestly think I have run into fewer people who aren't gun nuts, as most of us are I might add, who hold the Whelen in as high esteem as when it first was produced by Remington. I am not trying to downgrade it in any way, we all know it will stand on its own merit anyway, just wondering if the popularity came after the start of factory ammo or was it always pretty much there.

I think it is safe to say that the Whelen is the least popular of what I would call the four main rounds Remington made factory in the lower 48, namely the 22-250, 25-06, 7mm-08, and 35 Whelen. Would you say this was true in Alaska also, or does the Whelen have a bigger following than some of the other three? I suspect it might, but have no real way of knowing. Reguardless, I am glad you say the Whelen is as popular as it is in Alaska. Although I don't own one at the present time, and probably never will again, I do have a 9X57 Mauser that can always use those good 250 grain bullets in it. The popularity of the Whelen will determinr whether we continue to see really good bullets in .358 caliber I believe, as I don't see the 35 Remington, 358 Winchester, 358 Norma, and the 358 STA being popular enough to do it, especially in the lower 48.

54JNoll,



You knew I would chime in on this one.



If one searches these forums enough it is plain to see that the 35 Whelen has considerably diminished in terms of killing power due to the 9.3X62 craze. Its ability to kill a bear is now in question even though that is "exactly" what it was originally intended for.



One poster insists that the Mauser round carries a 10% increase in powder, another that they are on a completly different plateau.



Talk you into a Whelen? Ill tell you this. Compare the case dimensions for yourself. Compare the dimensions of the Whelen "IMPROVED" with the 9.3X62! Then research the difference between IT and the standard Whelen. 10% my a$$..more like about 5 or 6% at best.



Im sorry but we are NOT talking 30-06 vs 375 H&H here. No way, no how. The 9.3 is a bit more efficent with larger bullets just like with any other chambering comparison. But theres no majic here.



Another point I would make is once again the differences in individual rifles. One of my Speer manuals concedes that the 338-06 is more effecient than the Whelen, while Ive read of other members who's experience has been the exact oppisite!



Will a 35 Whelen kill a Brownie? Ask any sourdough Alaskan. Ask Colonel Whelen or James Howe. Now I have a question for you, which box of shells do you think you would find sitting on the Alaskan shelves first?



Ive got nothing against the classic old Mauser round, but I agree that it belongs in a Mauser. In the end, the best you can do is follow your heart though. Mine told me Whelen and Im happier than a pig in.... well, you get the point. If yours is telling you 9.3 then go with it.



Best Reguards, Byren

Idared,



I think I can answer some of your questions, even though Im not an Alaskan. The Whelen failed as a commercial round because it competed with the needs/demand of the lower 48. Not an over-abundance of maneaters there.



The gunwriters and manufacturers come across like there were only two dozen total sold, but that needs to be taken into retrospect. This same problem of just not enough sales to justify mass production has effected a lot of really great rounds. The 358 win is another, but theres a reason that those who were smart enough to buy one dont want to sell them.



In its time, the Whelen was just what the Dr. ordered in Alaska, but things have changed there too. (see magnum craze).



Hope that helps. Oh, and I think your mistaken about your concern over 358 cal bullets dropping off the planet. There are still a lot of 35 Remmys being sold today. The 358 is still very much alive in many places and will continue to be for a long time to come. Although it has indeed suffered at the hands of the 338. But I wouldnt be too concerned. One good look at the plethora of 358 bullets available from a myriad of manufacturers tells a lot about its future.

9.3x62 for sure...just so you can use the woodleigh 320 gr 9.3 soft and solids !!

OK

I am definately sure I am trying to over-analyse this ... as usual.

I just checked out the post in the Alaskan forum of the boy that shot a huge bear with Savage 99 in 308 Win.

Not to mention that many other say the 300 Win Mag is plenty. Well the Whelen has both beat in the energy department.

In the Whelen, I can safely load either the 225 grain Nosler Partician or the 225 Swift A-Frame to 2600fps which should satisfy Elk, Moose, and Bear. 250 grainers can go a little over 2400 fps.

My Barnes book has not arrived yet and the only book I have that talks Barnes loads has the 225 grainer traveling around 2550 or so.

Getting closer.

A 22" barrel would be handy for either of those two mediums.

I would use the springfield for something like a 6mm and buy a 375 H&H and be done with it.

Hey Paul H,

I have a .35 Whelen with a 27" Shilen barrel that puts the 280 gr. Swift out at 2,457 fps. That was the average that was given by my beta master Chrony. I was shooting heavy loads of RL-15. The chamber was long throated to accept longer bullets and that may explain the good velocity.

I shot about a couple dozen 310 gr. Woodleighs through it and could not get anything better than 2,200+ fps. I didn't play around with the powders much so maybe the 310s could do better.

Have you tried the 270 or 280 with RL-15 in your rifle?

Good Shooting,

Smoker

OK ... did a little more research through my loading manuals.

35 W is limited to 52,000 CUP which many seem to feel is not loading this round to its full potential. THis is due to the old Springfield and such that could be chambered for this rifle. Which is exactly what I am proposing to do.

However ... the 338-06 CUP pressure limit is 53,000 and the .338 Win Mag can go 54,000 CUP. All of which can be and have been chambered in "Old Springfields"

So it would seem the Springfield can hold a bit more pressure and be fine .... which would mean I could get a little more performance from her.

but, there is a limit to case capacity. Plus my loading manuals are all listing max loads and velocities much lower than I have seen other places. We all know that every rifle is an individual and max loads are subjective and to be approached with care.

Perhaps I am giving too much weight to nostalgia. I like the idea of the 35 Whelan but feel more comfortable with the 9.3 and feel it offers more flexibility in loading without exceeding published maxes. However, the Whelen did not gain its reputation on game at high velocity.

Most of the books I have been looking at rank the 338-06, 35 Rem Mag, and 35 Whelen as sufficient for all NA Game. Some like the the 338-06 better while others say it is a minimum. Others do not recommend any of the above to include the 9.3X62 for use on bears.

It seams you either like it or not. The future availability of components may play into this. The 35's just do not have the world-wide following the 9.3 does and the 9.3 is definately getting sales in the US now.

Looks like I still got some thinking to do.

I haven't lived in Alaska long enough to know what effect Remington making the whelen a factory round had on it's popularity. Of the folks that I know that use them, most have been custom rifles built on Win M-70's or mauser 98 actions. There are also some Remington pump actions. I can't recall anyone who has one of the Rem 700's.

Look at Alliants web sight for loading data on the whelen. Of the folks I know shooting whelens, here and elsewhere, the almost universal load is 58.0 to 58.5 gr of RL 15 under a 250 gr bullet for 2500-2550 fps in 22-24" barrels. Drop down to 225 gr, and up the charge to 60.0 gr, and you get 2700 fps.

I caught your post over on 24hr, where you said the whelen was 300 fps down on the 338 win mag with 250's, actually it's only 150-200 fps down.

I honestly think you'll see more difference in performance between different bullet construction then you will between the 35 and 9.3mm, their diams only very by 0.008"! That is a difference of 2.2%.

I think there were two reasons the 35 whelen never caught on commercially. One is that the 338 win mag had been out for a couple decades before the commercial whelen, and had proven itself for the uses a whelen would be chosen for. Those uses are elk, moose and bears, and it isn't that big of a market. Those that already had 338's weren't going to give up their slight trajectory edge over the whelen. The other factor is, for a new chambering to catch on, it has to be faster or more powerful, or in a lighter gun, or something different, and the whelen didn't offer that. Sure there were the nostalgia buyers, but the whelen's nostalgiac allure is relatively limited.

The 35 whelen just plain works, which is why it is a very popular hunting rifle, and why many custom guns are built chambering it every year. Is it good enough to justify building a custom rifle for? Well, wildcats, discontinued and uncommon factory rounds have totally lost their allure to me, the 350 Rigby well and goodly cured me of that.

If I were in your spot, I'd actually choose neither of your options. I'd either go with a 338 win mag or a 375 H&H, with my preference for the 375 since you already have a 300. If you can handle a 35 whelen or 9.3X62, you can assuredly handle a 338 or 375.

Thanks for the site.

Alliant list 59.5 grain RL-15 with a 250 grain bullet at 2550 fps

Nosler says 53.0 grains RL-15 and a 250 grain Partition at 2506 fps

Speer gives it 54 grains RL-15 250 grain bullet at 2284 fps

Lyman says 54 grains RL-15 gives 2364 fps with a 250 grainer

Swift lists it at 54.5 grains RL-15 at 2413 with their 250 A-Frame

Lots of veriability in powder amount and velocity. It is interesting that Alliant lists max powder charge so much higher.

Given these other sources you see where my lower figures kind of come in.

And no I do not own any 300 Magnums. I do have a 30-06 though. So this would be a step up for me.

The same variation exists for the .338-06. 250 grainers vary from about 2350 to just shy of 2600 fps depending on whose data you look at. Starting charge weights for the same powder vary by as much as 5 grains too.

I think the Whelen has always been fairly popular up here with folks that know what's what as far as calibers go. I've only seen one guy using a Remington classic whelen, but a couple with rugers, two or three mausers, and now I recall a guy who tried to sell me a Rem semi-auto .30-06 he'd rebarrelled to Whelen. He called it a bear assault rifle.

As Paul H said, the .338 Win Mag was already here and already popular with the "one gun" crowd. And, as Paul H said, the Reloader 15 load seems to be the one most used.

The other .35 I see becoming more popular here is the .358 Norma mag. Not my thing, but then I went to the .375 H&H, skipping the .35 Whelen and .338 win mag, and have never been sorry.

As I recall with my whelen ackley improved, 60.0 gr RL 15 pushed a 250 gr hornady spitzer 2600 even, and a 250 gr swift a-frame 2700 fps even. From that limited experience, I'd expect A-frames and parititions to need a few grains less powder, as the partition does apparently raise pressures. I also fealt that the a-frame load was too hot, but the gun when from groups to patterns if I backed off so much at 1/2 gr. That is partially why it was re-chambered to a 350 Rigby, and now burns 66 gr of Varget to push a 350 gr Hornady rn 2700 fps even.

I moved from a .308 to the 35 whelen ackley. It is a jump in recoil but not an insurmountable one. Really no reason not to just go with the 375 H&H, as it'll cover all your needs, including Africa with aplomb, and with a 270 gr @ 2700 fps, has the same trajectory as the -06 w/ 180's @ 2700 fps.

If the 35 Whelen isn't enough gun then I'd just skip the 9.3x62 and go straight to the 375 H&H.
Also, what's the story with the 9.3x64 Brenneke?

Nothing really,

Just a little harder to get brass. Just did not think I wanted to go there. It would mean a little more work to fit in a Springfield.

Arguing about the .35 Whelen vs. the 9.3x62 reminds me of the old .270 Winchester vs .280 Remington debate. It's splitting hairs.

With the "standard" weight heavy bullets for each cartridge (250gr .35 vs 286gr 9.3) I think the 9.3 would have the advantage for dangerous game (like Cape Buff) due to increased bullet weight and sectional density. But, for most everything else, there's probably very little difference. And with bullets heavier than 250 grs that are now available for the Whelen, then the difference between the two should be even less.

I guess shooters and hunters just like to argue about their toys. Kind of like the ol' Chevy vs Ford pickup truck debate. IMHO, both the .35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 are two very well-balanced, practical and effective non-magnum medium bores.

[Full disclosure: I have not hunted with either the .35 Whelen or the 9.3x62. I did recently sell my .35 Whelen and I purchased a 9.3x62.]

Just my armchair musings......
-Bob F.