270AB wrote "If you're hitting 2800 fps with 225s I might suggest you're running near a max load but either way it's prime bullet appears to be the 210s. 225s won't give you near the energy the Whelen will at "all" yardage as some have stated earlier. Stands to reason with the larger frontal diameters that expansion will be better on impact as well."
What's wrong with maximum loads, in a proven rifle that handles them easily, safely, and shoots them well?
With good bullets, your reasoning is a bit flawed.
I'm not going to knock the 35 Whelan, I like it, but Sectional Density advantages of the 338 diameter bullet, when weights are equal, make both cartridges equal.
I like heavier bullets and my 338-06, on a Ruger No1, with 26 in barrel, gets 2800fps with 225 grain bullets, without showing any pressure signs.
Is it better than the 35 Whelan, not hardly. Is it the equal of the 35 Whelan, yes.
Is there an animal out there that will notice any difference, NO.
The 35 Whelan will likely hit a bit harder at most ranges, but not to the levels you espouse.
For a shooter who doesn't hand load, the 35 Whelan is the obvious choice, because commercial ammunition is available and some companies are still chambering their rifles for it.
Finding a factory 338-06 means you have to look for a Unicorn on the used rifle market.
Finding a factory 35 Whelan is much more likely, but don't hold your breath when you walk into your favorite LGS or big box store.
Either rifle, unless you get lucky, will require some searching to acquire.
Both cartridges have morphed from what they were designed for, relatively close 100-200 yard shots too 300-400 yard shots.
Both were created by "heavy bullet enthusiasts" to shoot "heavy for caliber" bullets in the 275 grain range at appx 2400 fps, with the components readily available at the time. They did that well.
They were both intended to deliver maximum energy at closer ranges on large game animals, without breaking up, or not expanding, while penetrating deep enough, and breaking big bones along the way, which they both do very well.
Reality in the field puts them at being kissing cousins.
I've owned and used both.
On one trip for Moose, both of the rifles used were mine. They were both Mod 70 Winchesters, one 338-06, the other 35 Whelan.
We were on a hunt beside the Tuchodi River and found two animals about 50 yds apart, a small bull and a dry cow. I had a cow draw, and the 338-06.
We shot both animals within a couple of seconds of each other with loads tailored to each rifle for accuracy.
Both were shooting 225 grain bullets, with the velocity edge going to the 35Whelan in this case, but maybe only 75fps from the 22 inch bbls.
Both were shot through the boiler room section, almost broadside from about 200 yds.
Neither bullet, Hornady 225 grain, flat base, spire points, was recovered.
Both bullets went all the way through, taking out ribs on both sides, leaving a small exit hole on the skin on the far side. The rib on the exit side of one animal was cut in half the other had about half its width missing.
Both animals were browsing the brush along a gravel beach, across the river from our blind. Neither were spooked. They both ran in opposite directions for around 100 yds, before dropping. Both were expired when we got to them.
Splitting hairs on which bullet killed better at the ranges the bullets/rifle is designed for ?????????????????
There was a time when heavy bullets were required for better penetration.
Not any longer. New tech has developed some great light bullets that penetrate and expand very well, but they are LONG for caliber and weight.
The length increases the SD, which allows the bullet to penetrate, and because it doesn't break up retain its energy.
So, yes, the 185-210 grain bullets, depending on construction work very well. That wasn't the case when those cartridges were designed.
What's wrong with maximum loads, in a proven rifle that handles them easily, safely, and shoots them well?
With good bullets, your reasoning is a bit flawed.
I'm not going to knock the 35 Whelan, I like it, but Sectional Density advantages of the 338 diameter bullet, when weights are equal, make both cartridges equal.
I like heavier bullets and my 338-06, on a Ruger No1, with 26 in barrel, gets 2800fps with 225 grain bullets, without showing any pressure signs.
Is it better than the 35 Whelan, not hardly. Is it the equal of the 35 Whelan, yes.
Is there an animal out there that will notice any difference, NO.
The 35 Whelan will likely hit a bit harder at most ranges, but not to the levels you espouse.
For a shooter who doesn't hand load, the 35 Whelan is the obvious choice, because commercial ammunition is available and some companies are still chambering their rifles for it.
Finding a factory 338-06 means you have to look for a Unicorn on the used rifle market.
Finding a factory 35 Whelan is much more likely, but don't hold your breath when you walk into your favorite LGS or big box store.
Either rifle, unless you get lucky, will require some searching to acquire.
Both cartridges have morphed from what they were designed for, relatively close 100-200 yard shots too 300-400 yard shots.
Both were created by "heavy bullet enthusiasts" to shoot "heavy for caliber" bullets in the 275 grain range at appx 2400 fps, with the components readily available at the time. They did that well.
They were both intended to deliver maximum energy at closer ranges on large game animals, without breaking up, or not expanding, while penetrating deep enough, and breaking big bones along the way, which they both do very well.
Reality in the field puts them at being kissing cousins.
I've owned and used both.
On one trip for Moose, both of the rifles used were mine. They were both Mod 70 Winchesters, one 338-06, the other 35 Whelan.
We were on a hunt beside the Tuchodi River and found two animals about 50 yds apart, a small bull and a dry cow. I had a cow draw, and the 338-06.
We shot both animals within a couple of seconds of each other with loads tailored to each rifle for accuracy.
Both were shooting 225 grain bullets, with the velocity edge going to the 35Whelan in this case, but maybe only 75fps from the 22 inch bbls.
Both were shot through the boiler room section, almost broadside from about 200 yds.
Neither bullet, Hornady 225 grain, flat base, spire points, was recovered.
Both bullets went all the way through, taking out ribs on both sides, leaving a small exit hole on the skin on the far side. The rib on the exit side of one animal was cut in half the other had about half its width missing.
Both animals were browsing the brush along a gravel beach, across the river from our blind. Neither were spooked. They both ran in opposite directions for around 100 yds, before dropping. Both were expired when we got to them.
Splitting hairs on which bullet killed better at the ranges the bullets/rifle is designed for ?????????????????
There was a time when heavy bullets were required for better penetration.
Not any longer. New tech has developed some great light bullets that penetrate and expand very well, but they are LONG for caliber and weight.
The length increases the SD, which allows the bullet to penetrate, and because it doesn't break up retain its energy.
So, yes, the 185-210 grain bullets, depending on construction work very well. That wasn't the case when those cartridges were designed.
