Please school me on 35 Whelan!
- Thread starter Potshot21
- Start date
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Back in the early '70s before I knew very much I became much taken with the idea of a .35 Whelen, although it was a wildcat in those days, and my desire for a suitable rifle was not matched by an income that would allow me to consider the cost of a fine custom rifle. The next best thing was the Whelen's ballistic twin, the .350 Magnum, which I acquired in a 700 Remington. The slim factory stock of the day wouldn't tolerate the modest recoil of the cartridge, and split from the checking in the forend, back through the action and into the pistol grip. That custom rifle was looking more reasonable all the time.
Had I known then about the 9.3X62, I could of saved myself much frustration by acquiring a Brno ZG-47 so chambered, and could have enjoyed a rifle and cartridge combination vastly superior to the Whelen or the .350 in a Remington. Of course had I done that, no further experimenting would have been necessary . . . ever, and my interest in all things gunny might have never fully developed.
Last edited:
My first hint that was such a thing as a .35 Whelen was from reading my "read-to-destruction" copy of Jack O'Connor's Complete book of the rifle and shotgun as a gun crazed youngster.
He was talking about bullet performance, and how when he had at one time loaded up the bullets designed for the .35 Rem to Whelen speed he would basically blow off the far side of a deer. Naturally that made me want one all the more, which was the exact opposite of the point he was trying to make.
He was talking about bullet performance, and how when he had at one time loaded up the bullets designed for the .35 Rem to Whelen speed he would basically blow off the far side of a deer. Naturally that made me want one all the more, which was the exact opposite of the point he was trying to make.
Ah yes Boomer but back then you couldn't beg, borrow or steal 9.3 bullets.........the only ones I saw back then were some bulk Norma 286 gn Plastic tips semi round nose.....no Parts, no Barnes, no Sierras, no Horn...........Might not have been as wonderful as you envision it today.
However, those Norma 286 gr Plastic Point Dual-Cores at 23-2400 fps killed everything from gophers to grizzlies, as evidenced by a couple of dozen recovered ones in my expanded bullets bottle.
And, they shot flat enough to do the job with a dead on hold out to 250 yd on big game, and past 300 on moose.
Ted
And, they shot flat enough to do the job with a dead on hold out to 250 yd on big game, and past 300 on moose.
Ted
Last edited:
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
"Vastly superior" might be a bit of a stretch, yes/no/maybe?
Goodness no!
I always thought the 35 Whelen was the solution designed for a guy who couldnt afford a .375H&H (and maybe didnt need this much power for NA game) ... but seems to me if you wanted to step up from 35 Whelen (these days - given availability of .375H&H rifles AND factory ammo) it would make more sense to just go to the H&H ... they can do pretty much everything, are wonderfully accurate, seem to behave in extreme cold and hot weather conditions ... and have a pretty strong following and resale ...maybe not as exotic (or erotic?) as a 9.3x62, 64 etc ...but pretty functional.
"Vastly superior" might be a bit of a stretch, yes/no/maybe?
I have all three.... " vastly superior " is a bit of a stretch, " vastly similar " is more like it.
Actually I'm considering parting with the 338-06 and the 9.3 and keeping the Whelen.
That's the way I see it now. The poorman's H&H is the hard way and the real H&H is the easy way. The biggest hurdle was getting over the idea that the H&H was some sort of violent shoulder pounding monster slayer when it is actually a mild mannered do almost everything cartridge.
The biggest issue holding the "mediums" back for North American hunting is that we don't really need them at all except for some specialized situations. The "do everything mediums" lose much of their appeal when we don't have to do everything. Some of the "lights" are better suited for what we really do.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
True enough, and I don't recall if Ammo Mart back in the day would have been particularly helpful finding quality 286 gr 9.3s. But the 9.3X62's enviable reputation earned in Africa, predates the current version of the .375 H&H by several years. In the early '70s Euro bullets might have been available, perhaps from SAKO, or RWS, or maybe from PMP in South Africa. Ordering components from outside of our borders in those days was not as onerous as it has become today, but in those days I didn't know enough to ask.
"Vastly superior" might be a bit of a stretch, yes/no/maybe?
I thought that might raise an eyebrow, but you don't often see a .358 heavier than a 250, with the exception of the 270 gr Speer; never mind heavier than 300 grs. A 9.3X62 rifle with a long throat that allows one to keep the bullet out of the cartridge's powder space, has a powder capacity advantage over cartridges based on the .30/06. Its a combination of the little things that add up to the vastness.
Interestingly, Finn Aagaard wrote that despite the theoretical advantage of the .375 H&H, when shooting game of all sizes with a 9.3X62, no obvious advantage could be attributed to the H&H.Today, with the CNC manufacturing processes that statement could be true of many rifle cartridge combos.
IMHO, for many shooters the 375 H&H has far more recoil than many can handle. Factory fodder isn't as hot as hand loads in most cases and surprisingly, seems to be mostly loaded with lighter bullets for caliber to alleviate the recoil situation.
With the larger diameter of the .375 trajectories tend to be exaggerated with lighter bullets. Same goes for the 338 and 35 magnums as well.
Like you, I am a true admirer of the 375 H&H but like many cartridges designed for Africa, they are loaded for the extreme temps in those locations. As far as extreme cold behavior here, that again depends on the loading.
With poorly designed or to light rifles, stock damage can be a problem and the felt recoil brutal.
I've heard the heavy push, rather than kick story before. I will no longer work on such rifles because of the felt recoil. Last fall I bedded and repaired the split stock on an older 375 Weatherby Magnum. It was a very nice custom rifle with very fancy Walnut and personalized checkering. For some reason, the builder hadn't installed cross bolts. We inletted it in the milling machine for some aftermarket cross bolts, installed them and glass bedded them as well as the action. I refused to sight it in after the scope was mounted. He went to the range with it and tried to sight it in. What a joke. He was terrified by the recoil after the first shot. The rifle was his father's and he was under the mistaken impression that his father used to shoot it regularly, like a 22rf.
For some reason he forgot that his father had put it away about 30 years ago and went to a 338OKH. He just didn't bother to have it repaired after the stock split. He also found three original boxes of ammunition for it. Only 25 rounds had been fired, all over open sights.
I will readily admit this is an extreme example but it is an indication of the recoil generated by this round. Admittedly, there was IMHO way to much drop in the comb to accommodate the open iron sights which were excellent and built by Parker Hale.
Agreed! I also note Bearhunters comments -- wrt to recoil .. and will say that my ZKk 602 is a fairly heavy rifle that has a well designed stock and doesnt seem that bad to me. Never tried a Weatherby. But even my Sako carbine in 375 is not bad with factory 270gr loads. I have not tried 300gr in it yet - no need to.
I believe that some people experience brutal recoil (me included) when they attempt to fire a .375H&H rifle:
a) with a poorly designed stock, and/or
b) a light hold
b) from the prone position, or
c) adopt a very low sitting position,at the bench
that places their body (and face closer to the scope) AND in a fashion that does not allow them to "roll" with the recoil.
That can make for some very nasty experiences. But once I got past the first few clenched teeth & eyes shut shots with my ZKK ... I realized I have been beaten up worse with an C1 as far as facial bruises and pain were concerned....its really not that bad -- when kneeling, sitting or standing ... just watch out for prone --- or when you get flat behind it on a bench! And be careful not to hold it to loosely!
"Vastly superior" might be a bit of a stretch, yes/no/maybe?
Well, there is no question that a ZG47 is vastly superior to a Remington, and the 9.3X62 ammo can be purchased in factory loadings all the way up to 320 grains,......
So, Yes, vastly superior for truly big game hunting.
Ted
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Personally, I think too much is made of recoil from the various .375s. There is little reason for a well designed and correctly bedded and cross bolted stock to fail under the recoil of even a .378 Weatherby. Will this level of recoil be beyond the comfort level of a casual shooter, or someone who is physically impaired or injured, or a once a year hunter? Certainly, but if you're fit enough to play and enjoy contact sports, the only requirement necessary to dominating such rifles, is the desire to do so. This is not necessarily true of big bores that fling an ounce or more of lead, without the use of ear splitting gimmicks to moderate the recoil, although a true big bore usually fills a different niche. However, if the LOP is correct for the shooter, and the scope is mounted much behind the cocking piece, anyone but a fool would be afraid to shoot it. Getting cut by the scope on a hard kicking rifle is no joke, and if you think getting tagged with a scope mounted on your .30/06 stings a bit, you haven't lived until you've taken a hit from the ocular of a scope mounted on a enthusiastic kicker. This is the reason I went to the expense to have custom quarter ribs made for both my .375 Ultra and my .416 Rigby; so the scopes could be mounted far enough forward so I couldn't be hit regardless of the position I chose to shoot from.
Modern stocks do not accommodate shooting with irons particularly well. While the height of the comb enables the shooter to establish a good cheek weld while sighting through a scope mounted high above the bore, its generally too high to acquire a reasonable sight picture with irons. Shooting with irons will force you to mash your cheek down hard on the comb, and the sensation you experience upon firing while memorable, will not be pleasant.
But attempting to evade the effects of recoil by going to a .35 Whelen, a .338-06, or a 9.3X62 will only be marginally effective. As a rule, these cartridges are chambered in lighter rifles, so despite the smaller powder charge under that 270 gr bullet, the recoil velocity and subsequent energy will still be significant to someone who is recoil sensitive. The best reason there is to going to one of these cartridges is so you can acquire a rifle that is light enough to carry all day in difficult terrain without being unduly fatiguing.
The importance of such a rifle became clear to me when I left the cold and thick sea level air of coastal Hudson Bay to wander about in the warm thin mountain air in the Yukon. After a bit of that, I came home with an idea for a .350 mag or a .35-284 on a short barreled M-7 or a M-700 Remington fitted with a fly weight Kevlar stock. C-FBMI's M-7 KS in .350 magnum was a joy to carry on last summer's adventure, and the idea of a flyweight powerhouse took hold. After some discussion with the gunsmith, the original concept morphed into a switch barrel, the primary of which will be a .375 Scovile, (a 9.3X62 with a .375 bore) with a #3 contour barrel attached to a M-700. At first I was just going to go with the 9.3X62, but I badly wanted another Ron Smith barrel, and unfortunately he doesn't make a 9.3. Anyway, I expect that the velocity I got for any given bullet weight in the 9.3X62 will be mirrored in the Scovile, with a bit more recoil due to the lighter rifle. That rifle will be finished soon, and I hope to be shooting it and reporting (read bragging) on it in the near future.
While I will readily concede that the 9.3 is superior to the 35Whelen, it's the "vastly" part of the description that I question.
A 35W can be long throated as well to increase volume/velocity and with today's better bullets such as the TSX/TTSX the weight advantage is diminished. Factory ammo is available for both as is a full range of reloading supplies.
As for the ZG47, it may only be somewhat superior to the Remington 700 but most big game will never notice.
A 35W can be long throated as well to increase volume/velocity and with today's better bullets such as the TSX/TTSX the weight advantage is diminished. Factory ammo is available for both as is a full range of reloading supplies.
As for the ZG47, it may only be somewhat superior to the Remington 700 but most big game will never notice.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
While I will readily concede that the 9.3 is superior to the 35Whelen, it's the "vastly" part of the description that I question.
A 35W can be long throated as well to increase volume/velocity and with today's better bullets such as the TSX/TTSX the weight advantage is diminished. Factory ammo is available for both as is a full range of reloading supplies.
As for the ZG47, it may only be somewhat superior to the Remington 700 but most big game will never notice.
It comes down to perception. The ZG-47 is a reasonable example of old world rifle making, and those brought up on round action push feed rifles might not fully appreciate it. For them a .35 Whelen chambered 700 or 110 is state of the art at an affordable price, where square bridge CRFs are expensive, if interesting, artifacts of a bygone era. One reason I first became enamored with the Whelen was that the rifle's long throat and the cartridge's long neck, allowed the full potential of the long bullets of the day, like the 270 gr Speer, to be realized, and this certainly applies to today's mono-metal bullets. The .350 Magnum, while a ballistic twin of the Whelen, is only equal when loaded with short bullets. That condition could be remedied by chambering the .350 in a long action rifle, but if you did that, why wouldn't you just choose the slick feeding Whelen, and have the best features of both?
On the other hand, those who appreciate CRF rifles, tend to gravitate towards them for their serious rifles. North American hunters seldom encounter game where the performance of the 9.3, never mind a .375, can be appreciated over what they observe with the .35 Whelen. Part of this is due to the density of our game animals compared to the heavy game encountered in Africa, Australia, and Asia; the only critter we have that comes close is the woods bison. If the density of the game doesn't cause a 225 gr .358 to fail, how can a 286 gr 9.3 be better? This question of game density caught Norma's attention, and they now make a 286 gr Alaskan which expands faster than the traditional 286 gr Oryx. Load a strong bullet intended for African buffalo in your 9.3 and bang a moose, you might be sufficiently disillusioned that you swap it off for a .270. Bullets designed to work within a wider velocity spectrum, like the TSXs, should perform well in either genre; they'll expand in a pronghorn or caribou, yet hold together and penetrate well in a buff, if my observations hold up to scrutiny.
Last edited:
And well you should - however it's merely a literary device called hyperbole - used to grab attention - quite common.
I liked the "vastly similar" description though - IMO it fits the comparison better regarding the Bock/Whelen cartridges anyway.
Last edited:
