Eight Practical Loads for the .458 Winchester Magnum

The following eight loads consist of seven handloads I’ve developed for my rifle, which worked ideally, plus one Hornady Factory load.

My rifle is pictured on the header and is a Ruger No.1H in .458 Win Mag. The Hornady load hasn’t been fired from my rifle, but I chose it because it appears to be a decent load that actually fulfils its purpose.

Some have complained about the poor performance from factory products. However, some tests of those products do confirm their manufacturer’s claims. Likely, what happened in the past is that some factory .458 Winchester Magnum ammo wasn’t tested before it went to market, and was simply assumed to be both safe and adequate based on the amount of a particular powder loaded before seating bullets. It was also probably assumed that hunters would never notice any differences in effect from a 500gr at 1900 fps or at 2125 fps. In fact, recent tests of some vintage factory ammo, as well as some of more recent manufacture, by Ron Berry (Riflecrank) and “Jerry” (gunner500) on the 24hr Campfire, leaves no doubt that the fired factory products lived up to manufacturers’ claims – and is good ammo.

However, I’ve yet to fire a single factory product in any of my three .458 Win Mag rifles. I’m not adverse to that, but it has to do with the fact that I’m an inveterate handloader, and have no need to purchase factory fodder, or any interest in doing so.

<Some of the bullets I’ve handloaded for my .458s and .45-70s: L to R – 480 DGX, 465 hardcast, 450 Swift AF, 450 Barnes X, 405 Rem, 405 Win, 400 Hawk, 400 Barnes Buster, 350 Hornady RN, 350 Speer, 350 TSX, 350 Hornady with double cannelure, 330 Barnes brass solid, 325 Hornady FTX, 300 Hornady and 300 Sierra. This isn’t a full list.

Here are some others not included in the above:< L to R: a 600 Barnes Original, a 500 Hornady FMJ, 500 Hornady RN, 9th from L, a 400 Barnes Original, and 2nd to right of the 400 Barnes O, a 300 X.

And more: <These are 450gr TSX’s

The following seven handloads fired in my Ruger No.1H reflect something of the excellence of this cartridge in a suitable rifle – primarily its great versatility:

A 500gr at 2300 fps

A 450gr at 2400 fps

A 400gr at 2600 fps

A 350gr at 2780 fps

A 300gr at 2975 fps

A 250gr at 2700 fps

A 550gr at 1650 fps

And a 500gr Hornady factory DGX/DGS at 2140 fps

The last two handloads are reduced loads, and any above those could also be reduced by 25% to bring them in line with the potential of an 1895 Marlin in .45-70 shooting top handloads.

Following are some details of the selected loads presented above (there are several others that could have been chosen):

The 500gr Hornady RN (or DGX/DGS) – often this is selected for developing handloads and their accuracy, and for sighting-in a .458-cal rifle. Sometimes it has been used for hunting (I killed a bear with one), but often a “better bullet” is chosen for the actual hunt that involves DG. But it did give 20 fps higher velocity than a 500gr Speer AGS from an identical load of 81 grains of H4895 in Remington brass, ignited by WLRM primers and 3.58″ COL. Corrected to MV = 2297 fps for the 500 Speer AGS, and 2317 fps, corrected to MV for the 500gr Hornady.

< At 5 yards from the muzzle. Add 14 fps for correction to MV.

Since Hornady lists the same results for the 500gr RN and 500gr DGX/DGS employing the same powder and amount, I’d assume 2300 fps would be close enough for the 500gr DGX as for the 500gr RN from my test results, having yet to fire one (or more) from my new box of 500gr DGX’s.

The DGX bullets are excellent in my view, based on a test of their 480gr DGX that went completely through 15.5 inches of very tough media, impacting a ledge behind the setup, leaving a perfect imprint of the nose of that 480 DGX. By comparison, the 500gr Speer AGS was defeated at 6.5 inches into the media and lost its front core with 62% remaining (310 grains).

< The 500gr Speer AGS is on the far left. The one in the center was a 350gr Hornady RN, and on the right is a 350gr TSX that retained 350 grains after having penetrated 15.5 inches of the media and stopped just inside the last panel of the second box. It retained more weight than the 500gr Speer at 310 grains, and outpenetrated it by nine inches.

I only have 1/2 dozen of those 480s left so went looking for more without success, and came home with a box of the 500 DGX’s. These are bonded and the 480s were not. Since the unbonded penetrated the full test media without expansion, what could we expect from the 500s that are bonded? The Cape buffs should head for cover…

2300 fps from a 500 = 5872 ft-lbs KE at the muzzle.

The 450gr Swift A-Frame at 2403 fps: COL @ 3.53″; 84 grains H335; WLRM primers; Remington brass. This load hasn’t been tested in media (yet), but I’ve no doubts of its utility on large game – it simply doesn’t need more tests to prove itself based on feedback from African safaris, including PH’s. This is presented to show what’s possible from a Ruger No.1H, or a magazine rifle like the CZ550. Of course, in the CZ a second cannelure must be created midway between the manufactured cannelure and the bullet base. Or, because the 450 AF’s jacket is relatively “soft”, one could use a LEE crimp die that will make a groove for crimping, and/or a tool that makes cannelures wherever we need ’em. Though not specifically called for in a single-shot, I use my LEE crimp die anyway for those 450gr Swifts (under the 550gr Woodleigh box above).

A 400gr Barnes X-Bullet at 2590 fps: I still have eight of those, and saving them if ever I should do another moose hunt… which is unlikely. However, I’m still in the game for a possible big bruin! I already know the load I’d use, so I’d practice with a bunch of other 400s (Speer, Remington, Barnes, etc), use a couple for sight in and reserve the rest for the hunt.

This bullet had, and has, such a reputation that is was pronounced “the best” for all-around hunting of BG from a .458 Win Mag by none others than Finn Aagaard and Phil Shoemaker! And I would add my vote to theirs.

Just do the math! At nearly 2600 fps and a B.C. of .457, and a sectional density of .272, we have an energyof ~3300 ft-lbs at 400 yards!

So, I’ll hang onto mine until I sense I’ll need ’em for a bear or moose… or until I can get my hands on some of those new 404gr Hammers that have replaced the long-gone 400 X’s… Thanks to Sir Ron on the 24hr campfire!

COL for the 400gr X-Bullet at 2590 fps from my 24″ Ruger No.1H barrel was 3.61″. Powder was a “max load” (for my rifle) of H4198. I’ll not give the load as it may be too much for some rifles, especially if they use a shorter COL. I’ll simply say: “It was borrowed”, wiith some extrapolation on my part. The primer was what I always use in my .458 (WLRM).

The 350gr TSX: Don’t discount this bullet as a bit light for dangerous game like lion or large buffalo! It has been very effective on both! I know of one cull of Australian water buffalo that took over 100 by a Canadian, and he pronounced the 350gr TSX at about 2650 fps MV as effective as a 450 AF and better than the 420gr CE at max ranges to around 200 yards. Close in, the 450 Swift was best, followed by the TSX and CE (the 420 CE was no better than the 350 TSX at close range, he said). I killed one bear using this bullet at 2750 fps. It zipped through from frontal chest to right flank so quickly that it didn’t have time to expand much. And the young bear didn’t know it was dead until nothing worked anymore.

< I load the 350gr TSX to a COL of 3.44″

The 300gr TSX: And don’t discount this one either! It’s one of my all-time favorites! With the increased scarceness of component bullets these days, if all I had left were some 300gr TSX’s, I certainly would’t feel forsaken or undergunned! At up to nearly 3000 fps it can take anything coming it’s way, including buffalo, lion, the big bears and giant moose, etc! It’s main fault, of course, is a rather poor profile for long-range shooting. But at 2975 fps from the muzzle, it’s still going over 1600 fps at 400 yards. Nearly1800 ft-lbs (whatever we might think about KE) from a .458-cal bullet that will still expand and retain near 100% of its unfired weight, isn’t going to be laughed at by a mature elk or moose! It has been successfully used on grizzly at “in your face” range, and DRT!

The 250gr MonoFlex: In my rifle it is sighted dead-on at 150 yards. As said already, it’s a reduced load at about 2680 fps. It could be pushed out the muzzzle at over 3000 fps. But the purpose of the load is for bear and deer where I mostly hunt these days around an hour’s drive from my house.

It’s a mono bullet without lead, and has a smallish cavity with a red-pointed poly tip for slightly improved ballistics at range. Yet, it’s also a very tough bullet, made especially for lever-action Marlins in 450 Marlin and .45-70. Said to be by Hornady “made for large game like moose and elk”, and big bears. I’m pushing it quite a bit faster than a Marlin lever-action could make – that’s obvious. From bench tests that I’ve recently done on a bunch of .458-cal bullets, it’s as tough as the best! Obviously, despite the pointy tip, it has a very poor B.C. of only .175 – but even then it’s BC is better than a shotgun slug! For my intentions, it’s perfect!

The 550gr Woodleigh: I didn’t need a bullet this heavy with a bonded core. Yet, I wanted to test its potential in media at a variety of speeds, and at the current load’s velocity it could be useful on bear at the ranges I hunt them – 50 to 150 yards.

The 500gr Hornady factory DGX/DGS: Dr Ron Berry has done tests that reveal Hornady’s claims are exact: 2140 fps/5084 ft-lbs KE. There’s really no need for anything else if an African safari for elephant, rhino, hippo or Cape buffalo is on the agenda.

RECOIL of the various loads above from my 10.6 lb rifle (with a few cartridges in a stock ammo holder). My rifle has Mag-Na-Porting so I’ll put those approximate results in brackets:

The 500gr Hornady handload = 66 ft-lbs (56 ft-lbs)

The 450gr Swift AF handload = 61 ft-lbs (52 ft-lbs)

The 400gr Barnes X handload = 57.5 ft-lbs (49 ft-lbs)

The 350gr TSX handload = 55.6 ft-lbs (47 ft-lbs)

The 300gr TSX handload = 51.4 ft-lbs (44 ft-lbs)

The 250gr MonoFlex handload = 28.4 ft-lbs (24 ft-lbs)

The 550gr Woodleigh handload = 32.9 ft-lbs (28 ft-lbs)

About recoil: Many factors influence “felt” recoil: The above numbers can only be compared with one another because they are all from the same rifle, same basic weight for all loads, and how I hold it.

<This was my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag. The Burris fixed 4x scope had a long eye relief of 5″, and often for a relative long shot the sling went over my right elbow, acting as a brace for increased steadyness.

Generally, the physics of these loads is adjusted to the ballistics. A relatively “slow” moving projectile will give a sense of a heavy push from a heavy rifle, whereas a “fast” relatively light bullet from a “light” rifle will give a quicker – sharper recoil effect even though the numbers say the recoil should be less than a “big bore” shooting a heavy bullet. The difference in “felt” recoil? The recoil from a heavy big-bore rifle shooting a relatively “heavy” bullet is spread over more time.

Hoping this provides some insights into the exceptional serviceability of the grand .458 Winchester Magnum.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Single-Shot big-bore rifles for dangerous game?

Dangerous Game… How shall we identify and describe them? Some identify the “Big Five” of Africa and the Big Bears of Alaska as DG, but surely there are others! What about muskox, bison, wolves, mountain lion, moose and elk… and the North American black bear in particular? It’s apparent from records, plus uncounted incidents, that the black bear is potentially a very dangerous animal not to be taken lightly! As to size, many not only exceed the weight of leopards, but lions as well! 250 lbs might be average for a not yet fully mature young adult male, but many seven to ten year olds have surpassed 500 lbs and others 700 lbs.

< This one was well over 500 lbs with guts out!

Some think that such heavy black bears are toting too much blubber, but I’ve witnessed some heavy bears “move out” from a bait site and in two bounds were hitting about 30 mph. One behemoth that was regularly hitting my primary bear bait site kept all other creatures at bay – nothing else, small, medium or large, came within sight or hunting range. He came at night and left lots of markings that this was his turf, and for no others! But the bait disappeared on a regular basis. He left claw markings on trees that my tall partner (over 6′) couldn’t reach by stretching on tip toes. But, without explanation, he appeared to have left the country. Shortly thereafter, I was at a local gun shop where a large man was telling the shop owner of a very large bruin that was killed by some local hound hunters in the vicinity of my bait setup. I asked a few questions and he said the bear was weighed with guts out at 567 lbs – which means: that bear’s live weight exceeded 600 lbs!

Then, Bill Vaznis’ book: Successful BLACK BEAR Hunting, on page 8, gives the following description of a New Brunswick black bear (my home province): “According to the third edition of The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats, Joseph Allen killed a nightmare of a bruin near Millstream in 1976 after it killed his pet German shepherd. The bear measured seven feet eleven inches from nose to base of tail and tipped the scales dressed at 902 lbs. Its live weight was later estimated to be 1100 pounds!” There’s no mention of how the bear was killed by Mr. Allen, but it’s assumed he used a rifle or shotgun. Millstream is a little more than an hour’s drive from where I was born and grew up.

The point of this is to define and identify dangerous game. Even a cow moose can be very aggressive and dangerous in the protection of a calf… except they seem to know better when a bear is involved! And a bull moose is notorious for attacking anything, and I mean anything, during the rut, even automobiles, transport trucks and trains!

Several years ago, on a major highway north of Superior, a married couple had been driving their motor home all day and decided to pull over for a rest as darkness fell. Sometime before daybreak they were jarred awake by something crashing into their RV. This continued for some time from various angles, while they tried to discern what was ramming them! They attempted to turn on some lights but nothing was working, including the motor! Finally, as daylight started to emerge, the wrecking stopped. With a lot of trepidation, they went outside and could hardly believe the wreckage on their motor home… headlights were missing, dents, scratches, holes and other pieces missing! But the moose tracks all around the vehicle was unmistakable. Finally, a police cruiser stopped and they were rescued!

So, what then is a “dangerous animal”? In my strong opinion, it’s any creature that could kill me! Or you.

Now, as to our question: Are single-shot, big-bore rifles suitable for hunting dangerous game?<This was my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT. As seen here, it weighed a little over 8 lbs, and just over 38 inches in length. It would fire a 500gr Hornady RN at 2200 +fps and a 450gr Swift A-Frame at 2300 +fps. So it wasn’t lacking power for any living creature, including elephant with a solid 450 or 500gr making upwards of 5430 ft-lbs. But the issue is: Would it have been suitable?

The best document I’ve read on this issue was written by Randy D. Smith. In fact, I read it at least twice a few year ago, and, then again recently. In my view, it addresses every possible concern. And, I must add this: His favorite single-shots are Rugers in No.1. Additionally, his favorite among them is a Ruger No.1H TROPICAL in .458 Winchester Magnum, which he uses for multiple North American BG, downloaded to equivalent “hot” .45-70 loads. And he amply describes why he chooses that particular rifle and cartridge. (Pic of mine on the header.)

He does not recommend them for dangerous WOUNDED game if followup in thick bush is involved, especially if hunting solo. But then, he points out the several fallacies involved in putting full trust in a repeating magazine rifle, which I recently addressed as well.

It’s a good read, and I think you’ll not find better anywhere on this subject.

To summerize:

1) The Farquharson falling-block type action is the strongest of any because of that solid block of steel in the breech – the type adopted in the No.1 Rugers. More metal is involved than in the bolt-action type.

2) Because of the above, the largest bores and pressures can easily be handled.

3) Doubles (break action) can’t safely handle the pressure that the falling-block type can, nor the number of shots longterm without issues.

4) Even bolt-actions may begin to develop some weaknesses from “over abuse”.

5) The Rugers have been chambered in several Big Bores, including the formidable .458 Winchester Magnum that with its extra-long “freebore” allows seating of bullets as far as possible depending on their lengths and weights, with about .25″ to .30″ seated in the case. There’s obviously no magazine constraint to COL. That means it can easily match or exceed the ballistics of the Lott – upwards of 6000 +ft-lbs at the muzzle!

But then, as with Smith, others and myself, it’s often useful and easy – for several reasons – to download ballistics to the level of factory .45-70 loads. For example: a 300gr at ~1886 fps, or 400gr at 2000 fps or even 1330 fps. In a Ruger No.1 (or any .45-70), at 2000 fps/3552 ft-lbs, given a well constructed bullet like the 404gr Shock Hammer, or even a 405gr Remington (if you have some) can do the job on anything in N.A. within 150 yards or so. Of course, the 404gr Hammer bullet can also make upwards of 2600 fps/6064 ft-lbs from the muzzle of a 24″ barrelled .458 Win Mag – with some knowhow.

If I could have only one bullet for my Ruger No.1H, it would be the 404gr by Hammer. Started at 2000 fps, at 150 yards it still has around 1780 fps/2814 ft-lbs – plenty for the largest moose at that range. If a big bear might be met, and on agenda, I’d up the MV to around 2400 – 2600 and fear nothing within range.

In practice, if we get’em here in Canada, I’d load ’em to about 2250 fps for bears or lesser game. That will still give over 1800 fps at 250 yards/~3000 ft-lbs, more than enough for anything I’ll hunt from now on to eternity.

In practice, and Smith concurs, using ballistics like that, rarely is a second shot ever needed as we become more conscientious in the use of the first shot. Also, the number of times I’ve fired a second shot at a game animal was rare indeed. We develop a mindset akin to bow hunters and those who use BP. Though, reloading a Ruger No.1 can be relatively “fast” compared to those. And with practice, in keeping a second round “at hand” (different methods for that), one can load a Ruger No.1 by feel and not by sight.

You know the arguments for loading followup rounds: a semi is the fastest, a lever is second, a bolt is third, and a single-shot the slowest. Yet all of it can be, and has been, debated. Some claim they are as fast with a bolt-action in an aimed second shot as a semi, and others claim a lever-action has no advantage over a bolt-action, and so on it goes… Some claims are stunning indeed… until faced with a bull elephant charge, or a grizzly in your face! Emotions play a much larger role in reloading a rifle than most understand. I’ve watched at least one professional fumble his ammo, dropping it on the ground after firing three at, or into a “dugga boy” from a bolt-action repeater. Later he pulled the trigger on an empty chamber as a result of too much emotion in running after the wounded buff. And all that in the presence of his PH and assistants. But he’s still a TV personality!

Then other “stuff” happens: floor plates open (that happened to me on a bear hunt that dumped the load on the ground after bouncing off the lip of the plastic chair I was seated on with a loud “racketty -tak – tak” that would awaken any sound-sleeping bear a mile away!), sights fall off, cross-hairs disappear; then the forbotten JAM!!! That also happened to our “TV personality” – all from an M70 Winchester!

Sooo… it’s true after all is said and done, that the ultimate safety for the hunter of DG, and any entourage, is between his/her ears, not what he’s holding between his hands!

No rifle is perfect. Any can fail – and have! I was unloading my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag at the end of hunting light. There was one in the chamber, and three in the magazine. It was getting dark and I was backup for my partner, Ken. There was also another observer. I pointed the rifle at an embankment a few feet away, and had to move the “safety” forward to release the bolt for opening to extract the one in the chamber. When I thumbed the safety “off” the rifle went “BOOM!” What if…? <This is a different time and location, but the same rifle that went “BOOM” when the safety was pushed “off”! The problem was the set trigger that when adjusted to remove the “set” feature, according to book instructions, made the rifle vunerable to fire when the safety was pushed off. It had never previously malfunctioned. So, with additional “work” I insured that would never happen again… but who knows? NEVER PUT FULL TRUST IN ANY “SAFETY”, NO MATTER ITS MAKE OR MODEL!

A lightweight Big Bore sporting rifle (.40-cal to .577-cal) is an anomaly! That means at least two obvious and serious faults if ballistic potential is also the goal:

1) Physical abuse of the shooter.

2) Weakness in the structure of the rifle.

3) Period.

There’s simply NO WAY to make such a rifle comfortable to shoot, and there’s NO WAY that such a rifle can be as strong as it needs to be if shot regularly in the long haul at its full potential!

And there is some ambivalence and hypocrisy in the industry. As more demand (lust?) has developed for light rifles, so has complaints over recoil. The result? Smaller bores and sleeker bullets that are purported to do the same jobs that were formerly assigned to even .30-06’s, 300 magnums, etc. Now, I’m reading on the Internet things like: “Which has the most recoil, the .243 Win or .260 Rem?”. And this is common, and growing! And the market provides (and often is dominated by) what shooters and hunters seem to think is adequate or even “best”. And, in my view, it’s the result of an overindulgent generation who “want their cake and eat it too”! They want the “biggest and best” with bragging rights but without the pain!

But in life, pain is unavoidable! And I’m not necessarily speaking only of physical pain. There is pain from loss: of a job, of abilities (as we age), of a family member or loved ones, of respect that we may have enjoyed at other times and circumstances. There are aspects of pain that’s healthy and for our good to keep us from living undiciplined and ungrateful lives, or becoming narcissists!

<I had full confidence in using the single-shot Ruger No 1 in .45-70 LR when hunting the bruin that did this to the blind. That bear was a brute, mean, ruthless and crafty. He came in behind the green chair, unheard, when I was seated in it. The bush that hid him was about ten feet from the chair, and I was alone. When I stood to take the pic, he chrashed through the brush as though it wasn’t there. And that was calculated to frighten me! He did the same act the week prior when I had a partner beside me! A week later, I did get a shot on him but he was on the move. In a followup the following day I found where he’d spent the night watching his back trail. There was matted down grass with a patch of blood about a foot wide. My friend, Ken, followed pin pricks of blood through thick briars on hands and knees while I stood guard with my 1895 Marlin in .45-70. The spoor petered out in thick tangles that made further progress impossible. All evidence suggested that he survived.

So learning to shoot a Big Bore in a single-shot might move us out of “our comfort zone”, but so what? There are a lot of things in life that “make us uncomfortable”: getting a degree or three, raising children, overcoming a disability (I lost sight in my right eye at age six, and I became somewhat shy of other kids and meeting new people. I worried over meeting a beautiful gal that would love and accept me, or becoming a public figure, playing sports, etc. All of that was overcome despite the physical loss – and, actually, it helped develop me into a stronger, somewhat fearless person, by the grace of God.)

Taking on the challenge of a single-shot Ruger No.1 in a Big Bore, such as a 450/400, 404, etc, might very well be good for an otherwise awkward or somewhat shy person if they’re not a cripple or have a debilatating disease: a) It’s a fresh challenge, b) Learning something new about ballistics can raise their confidence, c) It disciplines mind and body, d) It opens up new possibilities, etc.

Why is it that current culture believes that when “I’m not comfortable with that”, it should be rejected as bad or unhealthy – as in a request, a change from the familiar, or any other challenge to present circumstances or thinking?

One challenge overcome or defeated trains us to face others, and so on.

Walking alone in the bush with a single-shot rifle was the experience of many who conquered their fears and developed “The New World”.

At the age of 86, I’m facing challenges that nobody wrote a book on “How to face life at age 86″… neither did they when I was 6, having just lost an eye. And nobody is going to feel sorry for you/us! So let’s get up, get dressed and go on with living… Life is tough sometimes, for everybody. So, lets grow up and stop complaining over “small stuff”!

Say, is there a growing pandemic of “every man for his own interests and not those of others”? (2 Timothy 3: 1 – 5)

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Does Accuracy Matter in a Hunting Rifle?

That’s a very broad question that invites multiple answers, depending on what is intended by the question and the perspective of those who might attempt an answer.

First of importance is what is intended by the question. It might be interpreted by some as: “Inherent accuracy” of the rifle employing factory ammo. On the other hand, is it asking about the best handloads regardless of muzzle velocity – as in what many reloading manuals cite as the most accurate load for a particular bullet even though it might be 150 fps slower than the best in muzzle velocity. Then, to others they might be thinking 3″ – 4″ groups at 100 yards because they never shoot beyond that! So their answer might be: “As long as it kills deer at a hundred, I don’t care what the MOA is!”

And so on…

In my view it does matter for the following reasons, and this will likely be the opinion of at least a majority:

1) The accuracy of rifle loads – factory or handloads – that are intended for game from small to large, at ranges to 400 yards or so, must be consistently accurate enough to hit within the vitals of the intended game with the rifle zeroed appropriately.

> This whitetail buck was shot by our son, Brent, last fall (Brent is 6′ tall without boots). The .356 Winchester was zeroed at 100 yards and he shot it at 70 yards. The load was a 220gr Speer that I handloaded and zeroed for the Winchester M94 XTR. The bullet went through both shoulders and made exit. They were shooting MOA, so that part of the hunt was without angst.

< Zeroing the rifle at 100 yards.

If the rifle load chosen can only make 3 to 5 shots within a 2″ circle at 100 yards from a bench rest, then at 400 yards that would be approximately an 8″ circle. Given the possibility of some difficulty in having or finding a solid/stable rest, a wounding shot or miss is highly probable. On the other hand, 3 to 5 shots into a 1″ circle or less, has a much higher potential, under field conditions, of hitting vitals at 400 yards – depending, of course, on the class of animal. On a mature moose, for example, the vital area is at least a 12″ circle. On a 200 lb whitetail it might only be 6-inches.

In other words, using a rifle load that’s incapable of MOA for long-range shooting of game becomes a wild-guessing game. In Toronto there was a particular gun shop that I and a son used to visit on a semi-regular basis. The owner did his moose hunt annually in Northern Ontario. At the end of one such hunt, my son and I paid a visit, and I asked about his hunt – was it successful? He told us in his own Italian way ,with gestures and humour, that he took a very long shot on a moose with his “300 magume”, and it disappeared into some timber. “Did you hit it?”, I asked…. “Don’t know!”, was the reply. “Did you go after it?” – “No, it was too far!”. “How far?” “Far, far away!” was the only answer we got! Then: “My 300 is very good for long shots, you know.”. End of that discussion – except on the way home we had a good laugh, but also pondered the matter of irresponsible shooting at game animals.

To my way of thinking, not knowing the ballistics of my rifle, including its accuracy, is tantamount to criminal behaviour if I go afield to kill game.

2) Good accuracy – or the best possible – breeds confidence in the field so that becomes a matter of NO concern! I can then focus on making the shot!

3) There’s a real sense of satisfaction in owning an inherently accurate rifle, and in making handloads that complement its accuracy.

I’ve owned several of that nature, and there was real joy in producing ammo that brought the best from them. One was a single-shot NEF in .45-70 with a very stout barrel. It would shoot almost any load into MOA or better. That gave real confidence in sitting in a tree stand and firing a single 465gr semi-hardcast into the frontal chest of a trophy black bear at seventy yards. DRT! It never moved so much as an inch!

Another is my Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62. All loads shoot sub-MOA. And the best is the 250gr AB into sub- 1/2 MOA at +2700 fps.

Still another was a .300 Win Mag… and so on.

And these were not loads tuned for accuracy, but for performance on game… like that 465gr at 1900 fps from a “cheap” rifle that would be despised by the “elite”.

Another rifle that was extremely accurate – more than I was – a Rem M673 in .350 Rem Mag, and that was after my gunsmith resolved some serious issues. It would shoot 3 of the 250gr Speer GS’s into a tiny cloverleaf of .375″ at a hundred – at OVER 2700 fps from it’s very stiff 22″ barrel.

4) Usually I like to settle on one load for hunting purposes from each rifle. It doesn’t always work out that way because I like to fiddle with different components, but in the case of my new .35 Whelen that’s exactly what I’ve been doing – one accurate load for “come what may” in a light-‘n-handy rifle. In the past, that was generally a .300 Win Mag but I sold or traded them all in favor of “mediums”. A .300 Win is very versatile, something like a .30-06, only more so in my view. A good 180gr is all one really needs in either of those two.

My 9.3 x 62 was intended to replace all mediums and sub-mediums. Replacing all mediums it has admirably succeeded in doing. But as an “all-purpose” rifle, quality lighter bullets are lacking. The lightest bullet I use in that rifle is the 250gr AccuBond – and it’s superbly accurate at 2600 – 2700 fps, but that doesn’t make it as versatile as a .35 Whelen on the “low end” where bullets of relatively high BCs and modest weight exist. The main problem with lighter bullets in 9.3 is relatively blunt shapes that come out of Europe. What is needed for the 9.3 x 62 is an American made 200gr “premium” with a sharp, polycarbonate tip, something like a 200gr in .358. Alas, that doesn’t appear to be on the horizon. GS did make a 195 bonded-core with a BT and pointed nose but they’ve moved to another continent.

So, a light-‘n-handy .35 Whelen appeared “out of nowhere” in a single-shot at a decent price, and it has taken a month of concentrated work to come up with a single, all-purpose load in a walkabout rifle for “come what may”.

The load: a 225gr AccuBond at 2850 fps that shoots three into .65″ at a hundred yards. That’s good enough for anything I might encounter that’s in season and for which I’m licensed to shoot, from 5 yards to 400 yards. That’s about as versatile as a .300 Win or .338 Win, with recoil in the same ballpark.

An inherently accurate rifle firing a consistently accurate load gives confidence and pleasure, but effectively using all that potential accuracy in harvesting game is the greater challenge that involves the shooter and his/her use of other support systems:

Shooting offhand (either standing or kneeling): Usually, this is less than 100 yards, but from a steady, standing position may be much longer, assuming the shooter is confident based on practice. I shot my moose from a standing-offhand position at 165 yards and both bullets went where aimed. On a more uneven ground I would have knelt or found a tree to lean against.

Another “trick” is using the sling as a support over the elbow of the offside – the one away from the shooting side. Go online and you can find the details if uninformed.

In kneeling, depending on whether the shooter is left-handed or right-handed, one knee is on the ground and the other is bent with the foot on the ground. The bent knee becomes the rest for the elbow of the hand that grips the forearm of the rifle, and the other becomes the arm and hand that controls the fire mechanism. Armies have used this style of rest in long-range exchanges of fire in open areas where cover or trenches were not available in an extreme and immediate situation.

Also, shooting offhand often involves close quarters and brush where an animal appears suddenly, jumps up or even charges within a few yards. The hunter’s only option is to instinctively “shoot now!” without any concerns other than hitting the animal “in the big middle”. In brush hunting where dangerous game might appear suddenly at relatively short range, I won’t be carrying less than a medium to big bore that can deal death and destruction with a single-shot, because that’s all I’ll get, one way or another! Either the animal’s dead, crippled or fled! Or I am!

Shooting prone: The support for accuracy is the shoulder, elbows and hands. There are various nuances to this, but open and flat terrain is assumed. But, I’ll not be shooting my .458 from prone, but maybe from:

A Sitting position: Again, there are a few nuances to this, but the deal is to find as much balance and comfort as possible. This position is often used with the back against a solid support, like a large boulder or stout tree. Often, this style is used in lieu of a tree stand or blind in areas of known wildlife activity.

African type sticks, bipods, tripods and permanent rests: No doubt we’ve all used various means for resting the forearm of a rifle for steadiness in shooting game. Even for relatively short range shooting. The reason isn’t complicated. If unsteadiness is removed, we can then focus the reticle on the spot we want to hit, knowing our next job will be field dressing the animal. A solid rest can practically eliminate shakiness and the effects of extreme emotion from excitement or nervousness.

< There’s a bear bait setup on the far side of this field. The range is 135 yards. The rifle is my Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62. It’s accuracy gave calm assurance, but it’s also resting on an inherent rest of the ladder stand.

I’ve found solid rests to be very important in hunting bear, whether at relatively close ranges or longer ones. There is (for me at least) the excitement factor, and I don’t want to misplace a bullet as the result may become a tracking job in nasty places to find a bear that’s still alive seeking revenge – and that’s neither myth nor hype. And, very likely darkness has settled in! Tracking down a wounded dangerous black creature with sharp fangs and long claws that may outweigh me by a hundred pounds or more, and that extra poundage in the form of muscles, certainly can cause excitement that’s not of the pleasant kind! So I use rifle rests in blinds and tree stands when bruins with coats as black as coal is the pursuit.

Accurate rifles deserve accurate shooting! Otherwise, it’s a waste!

Til the next… Single-Shot Big Bore Rifles for Dangerous Game?

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

+ + + + + + + + +

“Truth forever on the scaffold,

Wrong forever on the throne,

Yet the scaffold sways the future,

and behind the dim unknown

Stands God within the shadow,

Keeping watch above His own”

James Russel Lowell 1844

“the Present Crisis”

The .300 and .338 Winchester Magnums Compared – Which is better?

Winchester came out with the .458 in 1956, the .338 in 1958 and the .300 in 1963. Over time I’ve owned and used all three. But at one time I thought I’d like to own their complete series of four, including the .264, at the same time and all in the M70. That is a set I could have lived with throughout my hunting life — I’m sure there are those who have done just that!

There’s little doubt that the most common and popular of those four is the .300 followed by the .338. Both are still widely embraced, if the sale of rifles, ammo, dies, bullets and discussions are indicative of their use. At one time – near it’s beginning in 1958 – the .264 was quite popular, then some problems developed, real or imagined. With such a large case for a relatively small bore, large doses of powder tended to create a lot of heat with the unhappy result of throat erosion. Then an ideal slow-burning propellant was difficult to find – either they were too slow or too fast for a maximum-efficient burn. Some claimed the .270 Win was better overall. Then Remington created the 7mm Remington Magnum based on the same case as the .264 with improved ballistics. Potential buyers of the .264 Win saw the 7 Rem Mag as a more favorable choice.

Yet with the current fad and resurrection of 6.5s as “wonder cartridges”, it appears a resurrection of the .264 Winchester Magnum is due – especially with more modern and appropriate powders. If I were younger, I could “dig” that one shooting a 140gr Partition at 3200 fps without fear of a “burnt-out” barrel in less than a thousand rounds! But it needs a full dose of “the right” modern powder – like 72 – 75 grains in a 26″ barrel and some “free bore”. Nosler’s #6 manual uses a 24″ test barrel and a max load of 57.5 grains of RL-19 for 3021 fps… about the same as a .270 Win! That’s scandalous for a cartridge like the .264 that can hold 84 grains H2O compared to the .270’s 67 ! Even I could do better having never owned a .264 Win! From a 26″ barrel and a 140gr NP or AccuBond, it should go not a hair under 3200 fps! Even a 7-08 can make 3000 fps from a 139gr and a 24″ tube using 48 grains of powder! Some of the results in manuals are void of making much sense – not all, but some…

Of course, Nosler now has their own magnum in 6.5 that is not under-loaded with a 140gr advertised at 3300 fps from a 26″ barrel…

Back to our theme: The .300 and .338 Win Mags… Which is better?

<This rifle was chambered in .338 Winchester Magnum when bought new. It’s a Browning A-Bolt SS in left-hand with a 26″ barrel. In that form it gave up to 2842 fps from a book load of RL-19 and a 250gr Hornady SP. Sometime within it’s first year I had it re-chambered to a .340 Wby Mag that shot the 250gr Partition to 3000 fps. That became my moose hunting load.

Having considerable experience with each in thousands of rounds of handloads, there is quite a bit of overlap with the .338 coming out on top in sheer energy numbers, while the .300 has slightly less recoil and flatter shooting for smaller big game. I’ve tended to favor the .300 as being slightly more versatile. But with the multiplicity of component bullets for each, the handloader can tailor ballistics for anything from bambi to brown bear. Though when it concerns a hunt for the likes of large moose and bear, under all conditions, I’d choose the .338 over the .300. In such a case, there’s no substitute for bullet weight, sectional density and energy, assuming the “best” bullets in each.

To get the best all-around results from each, a 26″ barrel is mandated. I fail to understand why a majority of hunters seem to prefer 24″ barrels. I’ve owned each in Browning A-Bolts with 26″ barrels and I defy anyone to prove why a 24″ is better in any sense. 26″ tubes do give increased velocities over 24s, all else equal. From my 26″, .300 I could quite easily get 3000 fps from the 200gr Partition, and 2840 fps from a 250gr in the 26″, .338 Win Mag, using RL-22 in the former and RL-19 in the latter, using a near identical amount in each.

At one time I was faced with a choice of either one in the same make and model rifle: the Ruger SS, M77 with the “boat paddle” stock. After some dithering, I chose the .300 as I already had a “heavy hitter” that filled that niche. Today, I’d lean toward the .338. Both had 24″ barrels.

While, as suggested, there are more than enough bullets of different types and weights for each, this is how I might load them today:

< A selection of .338″ sectioned bullets from L to R: 275gr Speer, 250gr Sierra, 225gr NP, 250gr NP, 250gr Speer GS, 250gr Hornady SP Int., and 225gr Hornady SP Int. (The bullet on far left is a .264″, 140gr NP for comparison). Today, there are many others, such as Barnes TSX and TTSX’s.

The .300 Winchester Magnum (26″)

Bullet: 200gr Nosler Partition

SD = .301

BC = .481

Powder: 73 grains of RL-22

MV = 3000 fps/3996 ft-lbs

300 yards = 2436 fps/2635 ft-lbs

500 yards = 2098 fps/1954 ft-lbs

The .338 Winchester Magnum (26″)

Bullet: 250gr Nosler Partition

SD = .313

BC = .473

Powder: 74 grains of Rl-19

MV = 2840 fps/4477 ft-lbs

300 yards = 2280 fps/2885 ft-lbs

500 yards = 1860 fps/1920 ft-lbs

Analysis of results:

1) Recoil: I’ve owned identical rifles in each with 26″ barrels, so the weight was similar at around 8.75 lbs with scope and ammo. The load for the .300 WM in a 8.75 lb rifle would be approximately 35 ft-lbs recoil. The load for the .338 WM would develop about 42 ft-lbs.

2) The .300 has a flatter trajectory but not enough to make a significant difference on large game such as moose or elk. However, for small deer, wolf or coyote, the .300 has an advantage at long range. But both are adequate for moose or elk to 500 yards at least.

3) In a choice for dangerous game like large grizzle or brown bear, and large Alaskan/Yukon moose, the .338 has a distinct advantage as most will be shot much closer than 500 yards. And the .338 has greater momentum from its 250gr even at 500 yards, as well as a higher SD and larger bore by 21% in cross-sectional area at any range from muzzle to terminal ballistics. So today (If I didn’t already have the 9.3 x 62) I’d choose the .338 over the .300 if given a choice between two otherwise identical rifles.

Then, there is the matter of 20% greater recoil from the .338 (depending on how each is loaded). If someone can’t be comfortable with the “kick” of a .300 Winchester Magnum (or other .300 magnums) then I’d certainly not recommend a .338. My .340 Wby produced 54 ft-lbs of recoil from it’s hunting load and I really couldn’t say it was punishing in the least. That’s considerably more than the typical .375 H&H. But with time and experience in shooting such rifles, blindfolded, it would be difficult to discern the difference between any of them. For a time I used a local smith for some work, who formerly worked for the Canadian military as a smith. He told me: “I did so much testing that they were all just another firearm. I couldn’t honestly tell you the difference between a .458 or .30-06, they are all just another firearm to me”.

I pretty much came to that same conclusion. The biggest difference in “felt” recoil was the rifle itself – its form and did it “fit”? Weight was also a major factor. Then, how I held it in bench shooting. I learned early on to pull it tight to the shoulder WITH BOTH HANDS! And don’t slouch – sit up straight allowing the body to move with the recoil as in shooting offhand in hunting.

If one only learns to shoot small bores as in benchrest style, they’re gonna get whacked in the chops real hard if they use that “style” for a .338 Win Mag, and maybe from a .300 too!

In my view, Winchester did a great job in producing that series of four in the late ’50s and early ’60s, that have really never been improved on by their “Short Magnums”, nor other brands and iterations. The .458 is still a factory standard for African DG firing a 500gr at 2130 to 2150 fps (over 5000 ft-lbs), and handloads that equal or surpass the Lott (to 6000 ft-lbs); the 300 is a world class cartridge for big game at any realistic range as well as a favorite for target shooting. The .338 is still a serious choice in Alaska for its overgrown moose and bears, and the .264, despite a lot of negative press and more than enough competition, is still alive and capable of “getting the job done” on anything to meet Winchester’s intentions – at stretched ranges.

Long may they live!

< Three heavyweights loaded for my Ruger No.1 Tropical in .458 Winchester Magnum. L to R: a 600gr Barnes Original, a 550gr Woodleigh Weldcore and a 500gr Hornady DGX. The one in the middle was fired today (Friday, June 10/22) along with several 250gr MonoFlex’s. The rifle is sighted for those 250s at 2686 fps MV/4005 ft-lbs that cluster into a tight group at 50 yards. A .458 WM can shoot that bullet to 3000 fps with ease! The 550 Woodleigh registered 1657 fps, and corrected to MV = 1666/3389 ft-lbs, which is adequate for anything short of elephant. That’s a greatly reduced load, but within range is more than adequate for the largest and most dangerous game Alaska can throw in its direction! That bullet at “full bore” can easily register 2200 fps from a 24″ barrel at the COL presented above.

(A couple points of interest for the curious: 1) Though the 250gr MonoFlex at 2686/4005 ft-lbs appears more suitable for big bear than the slow 550gr Woodleigh at 1666/3389 ft-lbs, the 250gr would have to make 3665 fps to equal the momentum of the “slow moving” 550gr, and 2) The 550gr actually retains its velocity-momentum much better down range than the 250gr due to a significantly higher B.C. So, the effective range of the 550 on large game is better than the 250gr, though compensation for a meaningful disparity in trajectory would have to be made. Another note: Felt recoil from the 550 was noticeably more than from the 250gr – 34 ft-lbs for the 550 vs. 29 ft-lbs for the 250 – all within the range of our two main subjects, the .300 and .338 Winchesters.)

And despite its critics, the father of them all – the .458 is not only able to fulfil its promises, but is better than ever!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

What’s wrong with the .458 Winchester Magnum?

“Wonderful” is an adjective to describe how full of wonder and amazement something is. It has been applied to music, art and creation itself, plus a myriade of other objects and even to some persons: “She’s a wonderful person!”, it has been said of some mothers, for example – certainly true of my mom.

Lots of positive adjectives could rightfully be applied to the .458 Winchester Magnum when used in a rifle that complements its character and attributes. Currently, a thread on the 24hr Campfire forum is titled: “The great .458 Winchester Magnum. Everyone should own at least one!”. It’s now at 111 pages and contains encyclopedic information and knowledge… if you can also appreciate some lighthearted jesting.

But there are some professional writers for outdoor-sporting type magazines who still appear to be in the dark of the .458 Winchester Magnum’s true capabilities — or wilfully blind! According to them, the .458 Lott has filled the void of what the .458 Winchester Magnum should have been from its beginning in 1956. “So, today, there’s really no need for a .458 Winchester that falls short on its promises and can’t possibly keep up with a much better creation in the Lott”, or so that has been the spewed propaganda for a potential gullible, wannabe hunter of large and dangerous game!

I’m not sure when or how I first learned about the .458 Winchester Magnum. When my good friend, Glendon Rae, said he was going to Kenya as a missionary and would be taking a .458 Winchester Magnum for big game hunting, I thought that was awesome! That was in 1960 or ’61, and I was already aware of the cartridge, but unsure of how that came about. Anyway, for years to come, when they returned from Kenya on furlough every fourth year, they visited us in Quebec and he gave details, with 35mm slide shows, of his hunting ventures until it was shut down in 1977.

<A Winchester M70 in .458 Winchester Magnum

His rifle was a Winchester M70 African in .458 – one of the originals – and his ammo was Winchester’s own, softs and solids, that worked as they were supposed to on everything he shot, including elephant and Cape buffalo — he’d shot many of each over a period of several years — never a squib load or misfire. A .300 magnum – perhaps the H&H – was used on plains game with equal success — keeping in mind that he wasn’t a handloader.

I’ve yet to fire a factory round in any of the three .458s I’ve owned: my first a Ruger M77 with a 22″ barrel and tang safety – which I much prefer to any other type. My current No.1 Ruger Tropical in .458 Win also has a tang safety. That may have something to do with the fact of my blind right eye that has forced me to shoot from my left side since I started shooting a BB gun as a youngster having had an accident to my right eye at age six. Whatever the reason, I much prefer an ambidextrous tang safety. Additionally, I have relatively small hands that makes it difficult to hold onto the pistol-grip of a rifle with my left hand and reach the safety on the wrong side (for me) in a right-handed bolt action.

My handloads for that first .458 were for a moose hunt using the 500gr Hornady RNs at about 2000 fps – obviously not a max load. The propellant was H4895, 69 grains ignited by F215 M primers. They shot 1-hole groups of three at 100 yards. But I didn’t get a chance on a moose that season – in part due to the remnants of a hurricane that went through our hunting area. The next spring I did shoot a young bear at 75 yards using the 350gr Speer at around 2345 fps/ 4273 ft-lbs. It was a going-away shot that took the bear behind the short ribs and came out behind the head, removing several inches of spine and the back of its head. But that young bear was tough! It still had enough spunk left to clamp its jaws on a 3″ exposed root of a tree and we literally had to pry it off – when it was stone-cold dead!

My next .458 Win Mag was the CZ 550 with a true Magnum Mauser-length action and box, and a 25″ barrel. It was long and heavy compared to the compact and stout Ruger M77. BUT! It taught me how capable and “wonderful” a .458 Winchester Magnum could be when given its due respect! Its balance belied it’s weight, its accuracy superb and it’s versatility and power unmatched by anything I’d previously or later owned – including my .340 Wea. Mag. On June 30/08, Temp +20C, elevation 900 ft, three 500gr Hornady RNs averaged 2286 fps/5801 ft-lbs (corrected MV) over 80 grains of H4895, ignited by WLRM primers in Winchester cases. COL was 3.53″. That CZ550 taught me what a .458 Win IS, not “wants to be”!

Since that experience, the Ruger No.1 in .458 (my 3rd .458) has shot that same bullet to 2317 fps/5960 ft-lbs using 81 grains of H4895 (1 grain more), same primers and brass and COL. That was in May, 2019, eleven years later from a 24″ ported barrel! And it has made OVER 6000 ft/lbs energy from particular loads since.

< From my Ruger No.1 Tropical in 2020: (Pic on the header) Instrumental reading at 15′ from the muzzle. Corrected to MV = 2787 fps/6036 ft-lbs from a 350gr TSX.

But now it’s time to slow things down as it’s been awhile since I’ve seen another elephant in our back yard. But one morning this past week, at 6 a.m., there was the biggest-fattest coon on our back deck I’ve ever seen anywhere! And that’s no hyperbole! When I stepped out and confronted it, it backed into a corner of the deck, stood up with eyes large and glaring, and snarled at me! He was two-feet tall (later I measured where the top of his head was)! I took a step in its direction and growled back! At that, he decided I might be meaner than he was, so swung around and had real difficulty escaping by squeezing between the spokes of the railing, then waddled across the back yard to the chain-link fence, climbed over and down the other side to disappear in the trees of a neighbour’s property… man, was it ever lucky that I didn’t have my .458 Win in hand! That thing must have weighed 25 lbs at least! Have you ever confronted a coon that big without a .458 Win? Even a 5 lb coon can be dangerous if cornered… and you try to pick it up!

Back to sanity… almost!

In reading, listening to, and watching some videos — articles, stories and videos alike would make all gun stuff pretty serious! And if you are at the right end of a big boomer, and confronting a real hairy monster, like a 700 lb grizzly, then matters tend to get more than a little tense! What would you – in real time – prefer to have between your hands as a rifle? Think about that in palpable terms – if you haven’t! And let’s say you’re hunting elk… and have one on the ground with the guts out… and alone!

I’ve thought about that sort of thing quite a bit – we don’t have grizzly in these parts (that we know of) but we do have some pretty aggressive bears that might covet your deer, bunny or grouse!

Have you ever used your Big Bore for deer, bunny or grouse? It makes for good practice! Once on a bear hunt with a friend my age – who was a novice hunter – I’d shot a medium bear with my Ruger #1 in .45-70 LT. The load was a 500gr Hornady RN at ~2200 fps, about the same as a max load from a .458 Win with a 22″ barrel. My British friend was a witness to all that and wanted a chance at a bear for himself. A week later we were at the same location and a family of coons went grocery shopping at our bait setup! I instructed him to start shooting as they would clean out the store before another bear got a smell of anything. He was shooting .308 Win handloads of 165s I’d put together for him. With a British military background, he opened fire knocking off two while three others took off for cover in the surrounding trees. My friend weighed in excess of 300 lbs, so was not the most mobile citizen in Canada, so I ran after the largest remaining and caught up to within 35 yards or so, and let loose with the same load I’d used on the bear the previous week… that coon literally exploded with fur and guts adorning branches of the surrounding trees! Yup! .458 ballistics will work on coons too!

< Uninvited guests to a party for bears!

There are two typical reasons (excuses?) why many hunters say they don’t need or want something as ferocious as a .458 WM: 1) They don’t need it for hunting, and 2) They don’t want the expense. Yet: 1) They use “ridiculous” cartridges for hunting bambi anyway!, and, 2) There’s no end of expense they go to, to have three more 6.5 Creeds!

So my take is: 1) They’re afraid of “the pain”, imagined or real, and 2) They don’t want to be criticised (or laughed at, ridiculed?) by friends or others for showing up at the range or hunting camp with something that doesn’t “fit” the occasion. We’re going to be criticised by some regardless of intent, but “be true to thyself” – meaning: we must maintain “self respect” in all decisions and choices.

So, go ahead and try that BIG BORE, not because I said so, but because you want to! If you really don’t want to, don’t let me or anyone else make you feel guilty or inferior.

Me? I’ll tote my .458 Winchester Magnum to the range and to the woods, not conscious of the feelings or thoughts of others, but only aware that if I meet up with a 25 lb coon, it’ll be in big trouble!

I might even test one of those 550gr Woodleighs… or better yet, a 600gr Barnes Original! Do ya think that’ll be “enough gun”? One gun and one load for coons and big bears! Say…. aren’t they related?

< “Whacha doin’ up there, son?”

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Analysis of Rifle Ballistics

Much has been written and stated on this theme and much more could be, though it probably wouldn’t add much to our way of thinking … because “we know it all” anyway. Right? According to “some” that appears to be the attitude.

Several of my “early years” were invested in the formal study of the entire Bible, Theology, Christian Education and Practical Ministries (Pastoral, Missions and Evangelism), but it wasn’t until I engaged in those activities, and made practical application of those “tools”, that my true understanding and maturity developed exponentially. The same method applies to most professional work and activities. Because I was fascinated with the heavens, I wanted to see what was “up there”! That resulted in intense study of manuals on how to build your own telescope… that actually resulted in building four reflecting Newtonians (mirror type): three 10″ diameter parabolic mirrors, and finished a fourth 10″ for a friend, a 4.25″ RFT, and finally, a 12.5″ compound Dall-Kirkham (modified Cassegrain). The first 10″ was made from a 1″ thick porthole glass that worked but was not a resounding success because it wasn’t made of Pyrex and not thick enough to be stable under extreme temperatures. The others worked fine and actually gave better viewing than my current commercial 8″ Celestron Cassegrain because they gathered much more light and gave better resolution. But I didn’t learn “all that” on day one! It was a process, but I set the standards high and went for “big bore” mirrors! Newtonian and Cassegrains are mirror-type telescopes just like the biggest in professional observatories. Usually, beginners of telescope making start with a 6″ Pyrex blank.

< The 8″ commercial Celestron has a combination of optics involving an 8″ front lens, an 8″ front surface concave mirror at the back end, another convex mirror attached to the front lens on the inside which magnifies the image sent back through a hole in the center of the main mirror that in turn is reflected by a prism or flat mirror at 90 degrees to the eyepiece(s) at the back for viewing. The main front lens and two optical mirrors must have a total optical correction of better than 1/8th wavelength for all light rays gathered by the 8″ optical front lens and mirrors to form a sharp image that can be magnified by up to 400 x without distortion. Of course, much depends on the lack of turbulence in the atmosphere (which is also a lens) on a given night. But on rare occasions I’ve been able to use my own home-built 10″ telescopes to 600x in the observation of Saturns rings and Jupiter’s belts, spots and moons casting their shadows on the surface of its “clouds”.

Applying that methodology to analysis of rifle ballistics, it’s plain that levels of knowledge and experience prevail. And it’s also plain that the degree of precision in the analysis of ballistics doesn’t compare with that called for in optics, astronomical or otherwise. The astro mirrors I made – all six of them – had to be ground to a perfect concave sphere, polished and corrected to a perfect parabolic form – within a minimum of 1/8 wavelength of light throughout their entire surfaces, to bring all light collected to a sharp focus of an image. Eyepieces of various magnifications were then used for viewing. Mine, on average, were better than 1/10 wavelength. There are instruments and methodology for doing that. 1/10 wavelength of yellow light is: 1/10th of about 580 nonometers, or 58 nanometers. A nonometer is 1 billionth of a meter (American sp.).

I mention this to say that whether it be biblical knowledge and application, telescope knowledge and application or rifle ballistics and application, I have used the same methodology, and then ask the question: “DOES IT WORK?” For example: “Did God really answer prayer given by faith in HIM?” – as per biblical instructions. Did the instructions I received in manuals for the construction of reflecting telescopes actually get the job done – DID IT WORK?

Directions and instructions given (M.div. in theology for example) are “tools” that are “interpreted” through application! So the application of a “tool” causes maturity in understanding, and is a PROCESS!

For some it’s a looooong process, for others: much shorter! It’s been said: “It’s better to sharpen the axe before you cut the wood!”, or words to the same effect.

By nature, I’m an analyst – so “they” tell me…

So, I started with Lyman as my first book on reloading, and Speer my second (which I still have). Lyman was used for my first handloading exparience – a .30-06, and Speer # 11 (Omark Industries, Inc. 1987) for my first .45-70 – a load right from page 316, and 56 grains of H322 (as in telescope making – I started “big”, with large aspirations). So that didn’t give me their results (1886 fps from an 1895 Marlin, 22″), so I added one grain more and got an average of 1865 fps that became my load… I killed my first bear with that “almost” book load! And I used the Speer 400gr bullet!

My method was: Instructions and experience. Then: “Did it work?” < The proof!

When we find out what “works”, and why, we mature from childhood to adolesence, then on to young adulthood, etc. I don’t read my bibles much anymore because I know too much already! Two exceptions being: when I want to hear directly “from above” a message for the day, or future, and reminders of biblical truth because I’m forgetful of lessons learned! Same with reloading manuals. It’s been a few years since I’ve bought one… but the new Speer interests me for the sake of the .35 Whelen and “new” powders, so I go online for that.

But God has given us a gift of eternal life through His SON, Jesus Christ. BUT… we only know the TRUTH about that through “the manual” he has also given… the BIBLE! And today, a vast majority of the “western world” don’t know what’s in it because it’s been “put down” by so-called “well educated” people who, themselves, don’t know what’s in it!

The BIBLE is a good manual for life and eternity, but it does no good it it only collects dust! Much the same as anyone reading Hornady’s manual when they don’t even own a rifle, and are negative about that!

I read the Bible through from the first verse to the last when I was 12 years old. And that was in the King James Version. And that wasn’t the last time I read it through.I believed it then and I’m more convinced than ever “that it works”, from experience over 3/4s of a century!

< That’s my wife, Adrienne, on the left of a couple I united in marriage in 1965. We visited with them in the Montreal area on our return trip from the celebration of our 60th anniversary in New Brunswick in the summer of 2017. He became pastor of the French congregation in Montreal when we moved to Ontario in 1975. When he retired a few years ago, they moved north of Montreal where we visited them. They remained faithful to each other, and in love until she died of cancer late last year. She was always a great support to Pierre and a very positive person due to her faith in the LORD. And Pierre also, he misses her greatly but is thankful for their many years together – and one day soon they’ll be together again! DOES IT WORK?

Anyone, whatever their credentials, who wants to debate “signs” of pressure in stating “It ain’t possible” – after handloading for 43 years a good variety of cartridges, and several rifles in many of those cartridges, I will say “signs” are VERY important!

Currently, after five firings of the same cases in .35 Whelen using increased loads of CFE 223 from 65 grains to 69 grains, I’ve measured the heads and length of those cases after each firing. There has been slight growth in the brass but still within specs without trimming, and CHE is still slightly less than a max load of RL-17, which in itself is a safe load. These are the same cases, starting from new, never previously fired. All fired primers look identical, no soot blowing back around case necks, etc. I could safely use these same cases for another three to five firings with the same load. How do I know that? From experience!< .35 Whelen “stuff”! On the left – those were new cases, now fired five times. They will be used again. On the right – in the back corner are six reloads reserved for hunting. That will be their second firing. They are loaded with the 225gr AccuBonds over 69 grains of CFE 223. They are primed by WLRM. COL is 3.45″, and expected MV should be the same as when previously tested at 2835 fps MV. In the front right are three once fired, and three loaded with the 225gr Nosler Partitions. That will be their second firing at about 2770 fps MV.

How do I know my Father in Heaven answers my prayers/ hears me when I talk with Him? From experience! As someone responded to the query: “How do you know God exists?” Immediate response: “I talked with Him this morning!”

And as I responded to an atheist who challenged a small group of Christian men with:”God doesn’t answer prayer because he doesn’t exist!” My immediate reply: “You would have to be God to know that he doesn’t exist!” Obviously, an impossible proposition!

So, which is more important: Knowing a rifles ballistics or personally knowing God? Wanting empirical evidence for the existence of God is both normal and available to those who are genuine in their search. And equally so for those who want empirical evidence that a particular load from a manual is fully trustworthy in a new rifle-cartridge project.

How would you determine each?

My methodology (again): First: Instruction, Second: experience, then: “DOES IT WORK?”<It worked for him – son Brent. My handloads in his .356 Winchester .

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Why HUNTERS Choose Particular Rifles

The emphasis here is on HUNTERS, not necessarily shooters, though being a hunter that uses a rifle as his/her tool for the job doesn’t exclude him/her from also becoming a “shooter”.

A majority of the men I encounter at the rifle range would mostly be “shooters”, and perhaps less than 50% are also hunters. I don’t know the total current membership, but it’s well over a thousand. The OSHAWA CLUB and TARGET RANGE has been around, at the same location, for 100 years and incorporated in 1939. Back in the day, most were hunters. When I joined the club in 1988, membership was about 350, of which the vast majority of rifle shooters were also hunters, and a goodly number of the 350 was due to the shotgun sports “up top” where the clubhouse was, and still is. While any member can be involved with the shotgun sports (and there is international competition scheduled from time to time): skeet, trap and sporting clays, it appears a vast majority are elite business men, or retired as such if their equipment and vehicles are any indication. I don’t participate, not because I’m negative about it, but since it holds little personal interest.

< I shoot at the 50 yd, 100, 200 and 300 yd berms. To the left is a pistol range, and further left a range for bow hunters. In the upper right-hand corner of the pic, over the trees is the clubhouse and shotgun sports. I’ve been a member here for over thirty years. That’s my .458 Win Mag ready to shoot over the Chrony.

How things have changed in the last fifteen years or so – hundreds have joined as shooters, not hunters! Then some “old timers” no longer hunt but enjoy bringing out some of their vintage rifles just to shoot them… or have added something new for fun!

Politics has also stuck its nose in by passing laws that force shooters and hunters to practice at Federally authorised ranges. Of course, there are rifle and shotgun hunters and shooters (the hunter being also a shooter) who have built their own “ranges” on their private properties, mostly farm land. I’ve a former hunting associate who does that very thing. But since he’s a sheep farmer, and also works for the Provincial Government as an assessor of damage to livestock by predators (fox, coyote, wolves and bears), he totes a .243 Win on his own property of several hundred acres in protection of his sheep. He also has a private range where he practices with his .243 Win and .50-cal BP.

< Brian, the owner of the sheep farm, is doing the skinning. Ken, my partner, is holding the leg as an assistant. That was a bear I’d shot the day before with my 9.3 x 62. Brian auctioned the hide and that was his “payment” for his share in the matter. On this farm there is a personal range.

So, basically, many handloading hunters join ranges for development of hunting loads, practice, sight-in, and some “fun”. Unless a hunter is somewhat reclusive, he will enjoy the comradeship at a range where hunting stories are free – they don’t have to be “the whole truth and nothing but” – something like “fishing” tales, and information is shared about “loads” – but few will give “all the details” – like a secret recipe in cooking where a necessary ingredient is conveniently forgotten or left out!

In talking with a fellow hunter-shooter “the other day” at the range before shooting could commence at 9:30 a.m. , we discussed his .375 H&H with which he’d shot a Cape Buff. I asked about his bullet and load since I’d owned a couple of .375 H&H’s. He rambled on a bit about what he was currently shooting, mentioning IMR 4064 and RL-15, but never did answer my question! Hunters will gladly describe what they successfully used (if they remember or know!) Shooters often won’t!

That’s a preamble to our question: Why do HUNTERS choose the rifles (or rifle) they do in actual hunting, or in planning for a hunt? In my last blog, I suggested several possible influences to that choice.

A generic single rifle choice, such as a .30-06, .270 Win or .308 could be common for an adult North American hunter for most game starting out. That would involve some knowledge of their ballistics and application.

But for a young hunter of 12 or so, who is under the supervision of a licensed parent or “guardian”, the recommended choice will likely be different. There are several good choices available for youth: If there’s a family heritage of hunting and shooting, it could be something with about 1800 – 2000 ft-lbs energy at the muzzle: a 25-3000 Savage; .30-30; .257 Roberts, etc. Today, a common cartridge for youth is the .243 Winchester. Then again, far more depends on that young person themselves: Their background, likes, strength, intelligence, adaptability, etc.

As concerns the “fairer sex”: Again, there are many variables: Interest level, experience, age, adaptability, intelligence and physical strength.

There was a time in which history records that every family member from youth to grandparent was expected to be physically able, and know how, to use the family firearms to put meat on the table, and for personal and family protection. In many instances that was not “firearms” but “firearm”, singular.

In today’s world of hunting, rarely is a firearm necessary “to put meat on the table”. It is generally considered for “recreation” or “sport”. Of course, in most (not all) hunting scenarios the meat must be consumed by the hunter and his family, or friends and associates, or given to a local “food bank” (with legal permission). Even in most parts of Africa, the meat belongs to “the community”. And Alaska: While the major towns and cities (Few there are!) have markets where fish, pork and beef are sold, yet most in the “outback” must forage protein using a firearm. Also, since Alaska and the Canadian Yukon have the largest ungulates and bears, it behoves them to own the most suitable weapons for both defensive and offensive purposes.

< A typical African village in the area I visited in early 2000.

< No mater the rifle-cartridge used, it can’t do this job!

In the world of hunting today, Africa, Alaska, the American Northwest, and the Canadian North have kept the production of medium and big-bore rifles alive! Of course, beyond that necessity, many shooters want to experience that kind of power! It’s like wanting to own a twin-turbo sport Mustang instead of a utility four-banger with 150 hp. As an enthusiast myself, I find it very intriguing that more and more of the Sport SUVs are turbo-charged V6’s with around 400 hp! Yet they still give better mpg than some of the older V8s of the the late past century that produced less than half of 400 hp! Around here there are more late model pickup trucks than any other type of private vehicle. At around $65,000 average per pickup, that’s well beyond my reach, but not to say I wouldn’t like one, and the excuse would be “for hunting”!

So you don’t “see the need” for 400 hp, while 1/2 of that is more than sufficient? Are you then as “efficient” in all other choices of life? Whether we like it or not, our choices are a reflection of who we are and what matters to us… assuming we’re not going head-over-heels into debt! Cars, trucks and SUVs may be just a “tool” to some, while house, furnishings, electronics, gadgets, clothes and investments must be the “best” – no expense considered too much. It’s a reflection of who they are… and who we are!

Same with rifles for hunting: I’m not making a fashion statement, but for security and success while hunting anything, anywhere under all conditions, I choose rifles and their cartridges based on what I consider “best” , not just “good enough”! I don’t need a .458 Win Mag for black bear hunting, but through experience I’ve learned that a “hot” loaded .45-70 will drop ’em “right there” without a CNS hit! It’s easy work to load a .458 Win like a “hot” .45-70! I like the .458 Win because it’s more flexible than any other, and due to it’s versatility in bullets from 250gr to 600gr, it’s straightforward in making equivalent black powder loads of less than 2000 ft-lbs at the muzzle all the way to 6000 ft-lbs from particular propellants and 450gr to 500gr projectiles. It’s a lifetime of work and experience to accomplish all that one rifle in .458 Winchester Magnum is capable of! But to use that as a justification – no matter it’s truth – still falls far short of making it a choice strictly based on need – unless one lives in remote Alaska, the Yukon, or spends scores of thousands of dollars in hunting Africa’s DG. But even then there are other choices. My honest rationale for owning a .458 Win Mag is because I like Big Bores, and in my thinking, it’s the best of it’s class!

< Mine doesn’t get lonely, like a hunting dog left behind when need or companionship calls for it!

So, a mammoth amount of time in research, analysis, work and experience is involved at home, the range and the field to bring it all together in deciding on a rifle and load for anything, anywhere, and under all conditions.

After a full month of “mammoth” commitment and work with one rifle – the G3 in .35 Whelen – I’ve finally found rest with the results. Working with two propellants – RL-17 and CFE 223; a full box of 225gr AccuBonds, plus a few others; four trips to the range and two in hunting; and three rifle scopes! Results: an accurate load of 69 grains of CFE 223 under the 225gr AccuBonds, in Rem .35 Whelen brass, 3.45″ COL, ignited by WLRM primers for a corrected average of 2835 fps/4015 ft-lbs, sighted dead-on at 100 yards.

Or, we can read the opinions of fifty-two others on the Internet who are keyboard “experts”… ! Yet… a handful of intrepid handloaders are! Thank you!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The .35 Whelen and 9.3 x 62 Compared

I have both, and have enough experience with each in handloading and hunting to make some unbiased comparisons and contrasts.

<.35 Whelen on left and 9.3 x 62 on right. Both are real loads not mock-ups. Both loads have been made from virgin brass – never reloaded. The Whelen case is Remington and the 9.3 x 62 is Hornady. In H2O, the Whelen brass holds 72 grains and the Hornady case holds 77 grains. By way of comparison the .350 Rem Mag case holds 74.

The .35 Whelen is loaded with a 225gr AccuBond over 67 grains of RL-17 (a compressed load), and the 9.3 x 62 is loaded with 68 grains of the same powder (not max) under the 286gr Partition. My “normal” load is 70 grains of RL-17 for that bullet which is also a compressed load. Both cases are primed with WLRM primers. COL for the .35 Whelen is 3.45″, and for the 9.3 x 62, COL is 3.37″ (constrained by the clip magazine, whereas the .35 Whelen is loaded for my single-shot). The Whelen case is longer in the neck, reducing capacity compared to the 9.3 x 62 which has a shorter and wider neck. The case body of the 9.3 x 62 is both longer and slightly “fatter” than the Whelen, explaining the differences in case capacity.

I’ve found, by experience in reloading each with the same RL-17 powder, that the 9.3 x 62 will hold a maximum of 4 grains more of the same RL-17 powder than the .35 Whelen to a point at 3/16″ below the case mouth of each for seating a compressed load of the 286gr NP or 250gr AB in the 9.3 x 62, and a 225gr AB and 250gr NP in the .35 Whelen, without undue pressure or bulging the respective cases.

Therefore, any potential advantages of one over the other for large game goes in favour of the 9.3 x 62 due to better case capacity and improved efficiency in the use of the same powder due to its slightly larger bore. The long and the short of this means that, generally, the 9.3 x 62 can shoot a 286gr at nearly the same MV as the .35 Whelen can fire a 250gr, with the sectional density favouring the 286gr at .305 vs .279 for the 250gr in .358 cal. Though appearances can deceive, yet expansion ratio rules. 358 is one of the best, but 9.3 (.366) is slightly better. The G3 in .35 Whelen has a 22″ barrel and the Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62 sports a 22.44″ barrel. I’m expecting 2650 fps from a 250gr from the G3 in .35 Whelen, and I’m getting 2640 fps from the 286gr Partition in my Tika T3 in 9.3 x 62.

Those are facts of physics, but it remains for the handloader to exploit the best from each depending on his/her temperament, aspirations, knowledge and components used in propellants and projectiles.

If I wanted, I could make my .35 Whelen superior in ballistics to my 9.3 x 62 Mauser by loading the Whelen to a SAAMI standard of 62K psi for a 250gr and the 9.3 x 62 to a CIP standard of about 57K psi for a 250gr. But I couldn’t live with my conscience if I promoted the Whelen as superior to the Mauser in shooting 250gr bullets! I’m a “hot-rodder”! I want the most from whatever “it” can give, within safety bounds! You know, I’ve never (yet) had to use a mallet to open a bolt-action rifle! But at this stage of life I’m willing to go a wee-bit less than full throttle! But any “loads” I share here are less than that new .338 RPM cal Weatherby at a SAAMI approved 65K psi!

Here’s some interesting data I’ve uncovered in using something other than the latest “news” for the .35 Whelen: RL-17 is listed quite a bit “slower” than CFE 223 in the HORNADY Handbook of Cartridge Reloading, 9th Edition, page 38 of POWDER BURNING RATES: CFE 223 is at 99 with RL-17 at 116 (slower than IMR4350 and A4350! CFE 223 is just ahead of BL(C)2 at 98.

YET!!! 67 grains of RL-17 in the Whelen under the 225gr AccuBond (max compressed load) gave slightly higher velocity than 68 grains of CFE 223 motivating that same bullet!

RL-17 = 2811 fps corrected to MV from 67 grains. ES = 5 fps. Accuracy at 100 = 0.76 (3/4″)

CFE 223= 2799 fps corrected to MV from 68 grains. ES = 6 fps. Accuracy at 100 yds = 1.4″

Since RL-17 is MY powder for the 9.3 x 62 Mauser, I’ll stay with that for the Whelen as well. (Anyone want a 2/3 can of CFE 223?)

But, in all fairness, I might be able to use 70 grains of CFE 223 for the 225 AB, as it’s a ball powder that takes less space in the cartridge than RL-17, and it seems to work better (more consistent and better accuracy) the “hotter” it gets! Also: it shows far less CHE than any other powder, including RL-17! That’s in the same batch of .35 Whelen cases that was being used for the 4th time in each.

So, I’m really not ready to sell CFE 223 just yet without trying 70 grains under the 225 AccuBond. That might improve ES and accuracy, which currently lags behind RL-17. Two grains more of CFE 223 should increase MV to near 2900 fps for the 225gr AB, though that will not be needed – only if accuracy and ES improves as a result.

CHE = Case head expansion. Hornady recommends it as a technique for keeping watch on excessive pressure when a strain gauge or lab test isn’t available, but only with the same once fired brass and variable loads to detect differences in pressure between loads in the same cases. I’ve used it for many years and find it very helpful when increasing the same powder under the same bullet, or changes in propellant and bullets . It does correlate with pressure increases… though it doesn’t, obviously, tell us the actual PSI. And every reloading manual gives warning signs of “excessive pressure” even though some “gurus” poo-poo it!

Those same .35 Whelen cases I’m currently using are now loaded for the 5th time for developing a hunting load (that will be used in fresh brass or 1x fired brass). Seating primers have been like virgin brass and they’ve never needed trimming! And I’ve only given them partial resizing resulting in normal loading in the chamber and extraction after firing.

“Doing your own thing…” is an expression that does NOT encourage one to break “the law”! But even in law courts, some “laws” are not interpreted legalistically, but by its “spirit”, or intention. For example: In Ontario the “usual” speed limit on non-major highways is 80 km (about 50 mph), whereas major 4 + lane highways, such as the 401 that traverses Ontario from Manitoba to Quebec (as part of the Trans Canada Highway system from the west coast to the east coast) the limit posted is 100 Km (Other Provinces may vary up to 110 or even 120 Km). 100 Km is legally 62 mph, but “mostly” considered 60 mph. Some Americans who drive in Ontario on the 401 are often confused by the posted speed limit as most Ontario drivers are casually driving at 115 to120 Km (close to 75 mph). As far as the cops are concerned, if the traffic is moving steadily at that pace then that’s considered “safe” except in major population areas with several exits and entry ramps. In other words, it’s a safety-first issue, not a legalistic one. In fact, someone may be pulled over for going too slow, causing a jam behind them that results in anger on the part of others who must “get there on time”! And THAT often causes accidents more so than the traffic moving steadily at 120 KM (about 75 mph). AND… of course, driving conditions are a factor. At times, with heavy fog, driving rain or slippery and blustery winter conditions it may well be UNSAFE to drive the posted limit.

Five years ago, this coming July, my wife and I were travelling east on the 401, with a stop-over in Montreal, to visit our home Province of New Brunswick to celebrate our 60th Anniversary. About half-way to Quebec we ran into a vicious wind and rain storm that slowed traffic to a crawl on both sides of the 4-lane highway. In fact, I could only see the taillights of the vehicle in front of me, and it was too dangerous to pull over as the one behind me might follow and ram us in the rear! After at least 45 minutes of that, the weather cleared, but no traffic was showing on the opposite side going west… I said to my wife, “There’s been an accident on the other side”. Then we saw an ambulance going west. Shortly we came upon a pileup of cars, pickup trucks, vans and transport trucks scattered across the highway going west, with ambulances and police in attendance. Some vehicles were on their roofs, others wrecked well off the highway! What happened? Well, some were “obeying the law” of still trying to go 100 Km, while others were “poking along” at less speed than necessary! On our side going east, we had the same weather conditions – with no pileup with traffic moving steadily at 50 to 60 Km (30 – 35 mph)! Frustrating for some perhaps, but they “obeyed the law of common sense”!

All that serves as an example of “doing your own thing” as it concerns handloading. Just as some auto drivers will maintain the legal limit (or usually 5 mph below that, causing frustration to other drivers who understand that driving conditions mandate the “spirit of the law”), but a majority of drivers understand the “spirit” of 80 Km on a country highway will permit them in certain stretches of excellent conditions (little traffic in mostly “North Country” and farm land) to safely exceed 80 KM all the way to 95 Km. As a matter of fact, I’ve met police cruisers on some of those stretches, doing 100 Km and they never stopped me! (62 mph). Fortunately, in open highways, we can safely pass the “slow movers” who insist that they are the righteous “who keep the law”!

Of course, you might think that I’m encouraging the “unlawful” to break “rules” concerning reloading manuals! Yet, I’ve had correspondence and conversations with head ballisticians over these issues, and they have admitted that the only RULE is safety first! And so, just like lawmakers and traffic cops who also know it’s SAFE to go beyond certain posted limits on particular stretches of highways, under certain conditions, they impose a limit anyway for the generic “good”.

A few days ago I got behind an SUV towing a low trailer with a box on it. At first, I thought of passing it but soon recognised it as one of the local police vehicles. It was a major highway going north from where I was returning from shooting at the range. I didn’t pass as that might have provoked a bit of anger on their part, but it was keeping just a hair under 90 Km on a posted 80 Km highway. Why? I think we know the answer.

How could Weatherby have SAAMI approve their “new” .338 magnum at 65K psi? And Winchester’s famed .270 at that same PSI while keeping “others”, at least as “strong”, at 60K psi? Methinks there’s more than just a little politickin’ goin’ on! “Years ago”, Weatherby’s ammo was generally acknowledged to be”hot loaded” by Norma to at least 66,000 psi, and some tested OVER 70,000 psi! Were there any MK V Weatherby rifles that got blown up?

Methinks also that litigation fears puts on the brakes in a litigeous climate! So I give “safe, efficient and excellent results” from some of my published material, without undue concern over what so-and-so thinks!

“+ P” is wanted by some over published results… My question is “By whom?”, and “Who says so?”, and “For what reason?”, “SAMMI says so!” is a likely response. And who is SAAMI? The police of psi? And how do YOU know when you’ve “broken the law” according to SAAMI? You are bound up to the “spirit of the law” – SAFETY FIRST – as I am! And I alone am the judge of that after 40+ years of SAFE handloading! Not according to Saami, whom I don’t know, and can’t possibly know my psi, but according to the language of common sense and “PRESSURE SIGNS”! Some published book loads for handloaders have proved UNSAFE in particular rifles! One max published load of AA2230 for a 500gr has locked the bolt (that had to be opened with a mallet!) on one M70 in the great .458 Winchester Magnum. Hornady still publishes that load in subsequent manuals!

After many years of loading my Marlins in .45-70 to over 2000 fps from 400s, did Hodgdon finally publish a single load from a 400gr barely over 2000 fps! Then… time passed and a writer felt secure enough to publish a few more loads of 400s from Marlins a wee-bit over 2000 fps!

Of course… had they never heard of ELMER KEITH who was doing that “way back when…”, I took my cue from him, who was obviously “doing his own thing... !

And… I’m currently “doing my own thing” for the .35 Whelen… with a little encouragement from SPEER and a scanty number on “The Fire”.

< My bear bait site in Haliburton Highlands. Molasses and gummies on the cover (that’s open a wee bit to let some smell escape) and raw oats and molasses with more gummies inside! And, of course, that’s the weapon – the G3 in .35 Whelen stoked with a fresh new cartridge, home made, with Rem brass, WLRM primer, 67 grains of RL-17 under the 225gr AccuBond that will leave the muzzle at ~ 2811 fps/3947 ft-lbs.

“In what book did you find that load?” – some might demand an answer! In the book of ten years experience in using that powder in my Tikka T3 in 9.3 x 62! And in using “common sense” in using that powder, and that amount, after CHE said “Go ahead Bob, that’s a “safe load” IN THAT RIFLE at 3.45″ COL”! And the primer pockets were as tight as new, and case length was the SAME as when shiny new!

##################################################################

Til the next: Why hunter-shooters choose certain cartridges and rifles based on the limit of their knowledge and understanding. Not long ago, when I mentioned to a fellow shooter at the range that the rifle I was shooting was chambered for the .35 Whelen, he wanted to know what that was! Then, the manager of a shop where I’ve done a lot of business, asked “What rifle is this scope going on for your bear hunt?” When I told him: “A .35 Whelen”, his immediate response was: “That’s different!”. The same type of thing has happened on occasion when I had to make clear what a 9.3 x 62 is!

Some suggestions as to “WHY”? That will be explored next time: but age; intelligence; exposure to other ideas and experiences; who they know and are influenced by; education; ability to think for themselves; economics; etc. are all factors.

I’ve never felt compelled to own six of anything: cars, homes, wives, hammers, pants, shotguns, or rifles chambered for the same cartridge at the same time… though I have owned a total of ten (over my hunting career) in .45-70 and eight in a .300 magnum (six in .300 Win) over my hunting life of 60+years. Handloads have been used in all for hunting purposes after “best” loads were settled on. The most rifles owned for the same cartridge at the same time were three in .45-70: a Marlin, an NEF and a Ruger No.1.

I don’t buy riffles for any other reason than hunting. If I were not a hunter, I’d not own a single rifle!<Wolf hunting in January using my (then) short-n-handy NEF in .45-70 loaded with these:< 325gr FTX at 2350 fps.

Some of that was due to economics, other responsibilities, other interests, and introduction of other rifles chambered for different cartridges. I didn’t need more that one, or two, at most to teach me all I needed to know about handloading a particular rifle-cartridge. As stated several times, I’ve developed many and various handloads for the same rifles from the .22 Hornet to the mighty .458 Winchester Magnum, including the majority of the then familiar and popular cartridges. Over time, my interest and experience moved toward and settled on MEDIUMS (.338 Win Mag, .340 WBY, .35 Whelen, .350 Rem Mag, 9.3 x 62 and .375 H&H) and BIG BORES (.45-70s, .45-70LT and .458 Win Mags.). Today, I have no interest in varmint cartridges or those for small game, other than keeping aware of developments in that genre, and sharing personal perspectives, and experiences I’ve had in the past.

So… don’t be surprised if what you read on these pages is unique in essence, aimed at hunting game denoted as “BIG”! But I’m also attracted to predator hunting, which by its usual inference includes the Eastern coyote that may turn out to be an Eastern wolf – quite a bit larger than the western creature of the same nomenclature. Hence, the .35 Whelen with fast, and light-for-caliber bullets: 200gr at 3000 fps! Surely, enough for bambi on the wide-open plains, and wolf-coyote in our rugged-eastern landscapes. Then, there’s that “other” predator… the one I mostly have interest in hunting these days… the BLACK BEAR! So, in thoughtful consideration of all predators, from wolf-coyote to black bear (any size), they’ll get the same treatment from the .35 Whelen (when using it for general hunting): a 225gr AccuBond leaving the muzzle of my G3 at 2800 +fps. Then, if chosen, that will be “better than enough”, come Fall season for the monstrous WT of …

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Some say… “It doesn’t matter WHAT you shoot…”

… as long as you use the right bullet and put it in “the boiler room”… Huh? Some, even from Alaska, are claiming a .243 Winchester is enough for moose! Now such a statement leaves me with too many unanswered questions to lean upon a strategy involving a .243 Winchester and adult moose. Under exactly what conditions were those moose terminated? How close were the hunters to the moose? How far did the moose travel after ” the right .243 cal bullet” disrupted his boiler room?

And the hunter… what was his/her status? Walking, running, sitting, chewing gum? How many shots fired? Any hungry bears (the BIG ones!) in the area? A backup pistol in a pocket? Why must we believe such drivel…. because so and so said so?

How many among you have hunted moose, North America’s largest game animal? Would you choose a .243 Win as your primary firearm… under any and all conditions?

I’ve hunted moose quite a few times in my home Province of Ontario, in various areas and typical unpleasant conditions – and without a guide or outfitter… there’s no way I’d choose a .243 Winchester for such a hunt! For the kind of hunt I’d anticipate, a .300 Winchester Magnum would be minimum. Yes, and with “premium bullets”. Recoil wouldn’t even be a consideration. Offhand shooting to 150 + yards is a given, beyond that African style sticks could be used or finding a natural rest for the rifle.

I don’t believe in “stunt shooting” any animal, big or small. I create my own ammo and put in lots of practice time with each. In all, I’ve fired my new .35 Whelen forty-four times at the range, and of those, three were from offhand at 50 yards, all hitting the target. This rifle is new to me, with a new scope and load. On Sunday, May 1st, that rifle was taken to a new bear hunting area, for locating a bait station. Four cartridges were in my left jacket pocket and one in the chamber: 225gr Nosler Partitions over 65 grains of CFE-223 for about 2770 fps. The bait was placed and I chose a spot for the blind, did some scouting and came home. The bait will be checked in about a week for any activity. If none, I’ll give it another week after refreshing the bait setup.

In the meanwhile, I’ll not be buying a .243 Winchester with wrong motivations to prove something to myself!

The smallest caliber I’d use in that situation is 7mm, and perhaps, based on the same parent case as the .243 – the honorable .308 Winchester, a cartridge in ballistics superior to its little offspring, and overall a better choice than .284-caliber, another offspring of the world renowned .308 Winchester.

I’d never recommend a cartridge similar to a .243 in ballistics for such a bear hunt as I’ve planned because:

1>Bear sizes are too variable. A 500+ lb bear isn’t out of the question.

2>A bear’s nature is too unpredictable. It’s possible to encounter an aggressive bear in approaching the bait for refreshing it. In such a scenario, I want a powerful, quick-handling rifle that will stop a bear with a single shot. And I’ll not have an entourage of a guide or other hunters and friends with rifles!

3>At any age, but especially now as a great-grandfather, I don’t want to have to followup a bear in blowdowns and thick bush. It may rot before I get it out! I want it dead right there in the open where I can see it and field dress it!

4>And I’ve had enough experience in killing bears to know, without any argument to the contrary, that bigger and more powerful cartridges work best! That’s without further discussion as far as I’m concerned!

<Should Ted have hunted this Yukon grizzly with a 6.5 x 55 instead of his 9.3 x 62? He was his own guide with his wife as companion. The bullet was a 270gr bonded custom – he took only one shot!

Using small bores to prove a point is an unnecessary risk added to the usual ones, and stupid in my view as the hunt is NOT to prove a bear can be killed with a .223 or .243, but to cleanly harvest a dangerous game animal with a sane choice of cartridge/rifle that doesn’t need to finesse anything!

It seems there’s an obsession these days with certain men of advancing years to prove they can manage as well in using “small bores” as they did when using “powerful magnums” in their younger years! As we advance in years and experience, there should be better wisdom in our choices, but that in NO WAY mandates that small or smaller bore rifles are better choices, per se, than larger and more powerful mediums and large bore rifles. I judge it’s rather a statement over age diminishing abilities rather than enhancing them! In short: It’s a statement of inability to do what they formerly could do with powerful magnums! That is completely understandable. But to claim that a .223 or .243, or a .30-30 can now do what they used to do with a .”338 magnum”, as one example, without telling the whole truth, is sheer deception in my view.

Sure, even I could manage to kill a bull moose at 25 – 30 yards with a hit to the brain or spine using a .30-30, or even a .243! That would likely get it on the ground where it could be finished with a single shot or three more! But in the many seasons of hunting moose, I only saw one bull that was legal, and that was at 165 yards which was cleanly taken without drama by my .340 Wby. Sure (again), it could have been ultimately killed using a 7-08 with appropriate bullets… but of this I’m certain: It would have taken several hits through the lungs on a running moose after getting hit with the first… unless that moose were much closer and I made a mistake in hitting its CNS!

There was another season, spring season, when I was bear hunting over bait when a big bull showed up about 35 yards behind me as I was seated behind a deadfall watching a bear bait in the opposite direction. I was toting my 1895 Marlin with stiff handloads of a 400gr at ~ 2100 fps. I turned and looked over my shoulder, “for no reason”, and there he was, a mature bull with huge antlers, staring at me. I stood, facing him without any fear whatsoever, and shouted “Get of of here!” I’d been far less courageous if toting a .243 Win, or even a 7-08 Rem! The bull was facing me! It turned slowly and walked to a ridge about fifty yards away, started to climb and halfway up stopped and looked back at me. I raised the Marlin in .45-70, pointed it in his direction and he took off over the ridge like a bulldozer knocking over trees as though they weren’t there! He was intimidated… I wonder why? Well, I faced him down without fear and he recognised that! That happened – facing him down – due to my full confidence in my use of that .45-70. I’d have been FAR LESS confident had that rifle been a bolt-action repeater chambered in anything less than a .338 Win Mag!

That bull was about 1200 lbs of raw muscle and bone, and had me in his sights and resented my presence! That was obvious. This was his territory. Had he charged, I’d have fired straight into its chest. That 400gr at an impact of at least 2000 fps, which was not a too-soft Speer, but with a 0.35″ jacket and minimum lead exposed would have stopped the bull, and perhaps finished it on the spot. Out of season? Yes! But personal safety trumps legal seasons, even in court! And I didn’t have an outfitter or guide present to back me up… I was my own guide in that critical situation.

< Not the scene, but similar. That rifle was an 1895 Marlin Guide Gun with a 18.5″ ported barrel in .45-70.

On May 1st (Sunday), of the past week, I put in a bear bait in a new area. Moose had travelled through there last Fall, so I kept watch for any sign of them. One was a big bull and also signs of a cow and calf. A cow with a calf is potentially very dangerous! I toted my new .35 Whelen loaded with 225gr Nosler Partitions at around 2770 fps/3833 ft-lbs, sighted dead on at 100 yards. It would have been illegal to tote a loaded firearm out of season, but I had a bear tag because May 1st was the opener. For confidence? Yes! That rifle – a single-shot – is relatively light, short and handy. And the new scope is bright, clear and sharp. It was kept on 2X which was plenty for the immediate area of my work.

<This pic was taken in early October, 2021, and in the recently logged out area of my planned bear hunt. The bait has been placed at the far end and about 80 yards to the right of the those trees at the end in a pile of logs .

Let’s compare a .243’s ballistics with my current new load for the .35 Whelen, which weighs no more than an average .243 Win in a bolt-action repeater at 7.25 lbs with scope and ammo. And, I’d NEVER replace the .35 Whelen with a .243 Win due to its recoil being twice that of the .243! The recoil I experienced at the range in shooting three 225 AccuBonds at a 50 yard target from an offhand stance wasn’t a surprise, I’d experienced that and more over many years – 38 ft-lbs, less whatever effect the brake has… probably -7 ft-lbs.

First up, the .243 Win.

.243 Winchester

100gr Nosler Partition (for moose) ZERO @ 200 yds.

SD = .242

BC = .384

MV = 3144 fps/2195 ft-lbs (from a Lilja 24″ test barrel, the most accurate from a max 44.5 grains of N560)

50 = 3021 fps/2027 ft-lbs/ +0.32″ (Adequate for a calf moose with a normal hit from a good bullet.)

100=2903 fps/1871 ft-lbs/ +1.28″

150=2787 fps/1725 ft-lbs/ +1.20″

200=2675 fps/1588 ft-lbs/ +0.01″

250=2565 fps/1461 ft-lbs/ -2.40″

300=2458 fps/1341 ft-lbs/ -6.13″

350=2353 fps/1230 ft-lbs/ -11.3″

400=2251 fps/1125 ft-lbs/ -18.0″ (Adequate for a 200 – 250 lb whitetail.)

Next: The .35 Whelen

Bullet: 225gr AccuBond/ZERO @ 250 yds

BC = .430

SD = .251

MV= 2811 fps/3947 ft-lbs (Actual, corrected to MV) Same ambient conditions as for the .243 Win.

50 = 2710 fps/3669 ft-lbs/ -1.19″

100=2610 fps/3403 ft-lbs/ +2.91″

150=2514 fps/3157 ft-lbs/ +3.36″

200=2420 fps/2925 ft-lbs/ +2.42″

250=2329 fps/2710 ft-lbs/ +0.01″

300=2238 fps/2502 ft-lbs/ -4.04″

350=2140 fps/2288 ft-lbs -9.85″

400=2060 fps/2120 ft-lbs -17.6″ (Adequate for a 1000 – 1200 lb bull moose)

*About the same in energy at 400 yards as the .243 Win at the muzzle!

The point: Is NOT to put the excellent .243 Winchester in a bad light in comparison with cartridges intended for large and dangerous game, but to show it was NEVER INTENDED to be a cartridge for such game, while being excellent within its INTENDED purposes – varmints, small game and some medium game like whitetailed deer.

The .35 Whelen, on the other hand was created to excel in use on the largest of North American big game, including Alaskan moose and brown bear. And due to excellent big game bullets from 180gr to 310gr, it can also be appropriate for predators, hogs and whitetails. Then with pistol bullets, it doesn’t make a bad varmint cartridge either. My purpose for it is as a general purpose walk-about rifle for scouting and come what may. The .243, as good as it is, can’t play that game. “Come what may” for me means: any creature – small to large – under any and all conditions. And the .35 Whelen is not alone in that genre, but it is one of the best.

Til the next… Best results from my .35 Whelen in handloading components.

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

The 35 Whelen is…? 100 Years Old in 2022!

Yep, this year is the centennial of Col. Whelen’s creation! And it’s better today than ever… at least as good as a .338 Winchester Magnum when equivalent loads are used in each. That’s the consensus of those who have experience with each in hunting identical game or those similar.

From strictly a modern handloader’s perspective, ballistics are too similar with equal-length barrels and pressures to tell if there’s any meaningful advantage of one over the other.

Because the .338 Win Mag was a creation by Winchester in 1958 as one of a series of three, starting with the formidable .458 Winchester Magnum in 1956, and legitimised by SAAMI, it gained status immediately and acceptance by hunters in filling a niche for large and dangerous North American game – Alaskan in particular. It didn’t happen overnight, but steadily for many hunters it replaced their .30-06s for moose and big bears. Also, with time and more loads available from factories and a greater variety of bullets from their various sources, it’s popularity spread worldwide to include particular African fauna, including lion.

Much more could be said and written, but that already has been well documented. The fact that several more .338 magnums have since appeared on the scene is really a complement to Winchester’s creation. And there are dozens of excellent premium bullets now available for the handloader, and in factory products, that serve well for anything from WT deer to the largest Alaskan moose within hunting ranges – and any other legal wildlife worldwide that fit within those general parameters.

The two main criticisms against the .338 Win Mag, and its peers, is too much recoil and lesser cartridges will do the same things. This essay isn’t to debunk those perceived negatives by a minority, but simply to point out that the .338 Win Mag has grown far too much in popularity and usefulness over the ensuing sixty-four years to simply lay down and die because of a few critics. I’ve owned a couple, and a son another, for which I did extensive handloads in each for hunting purposes. .338 magnums filled a niche that ultimately culminated in a .340 Weatherby Magnum for myself. I’ve no regrets and have no criticisms. I took a mature bull moose with the Weatherby – the moose travelled four feet in reverse and four feet forward before it fell in its own tracks after two shots to the lungs from two 250gr Partitions. Range was 165 yards,

Then within the past few weeks, Weatherby has announced the .338 RPM, based on the 6.5 RPM, but production will not start on rifles or ammo until they catch up on a backlog of demand for ammo production for their traditional cartridges. The new .338 RPM has been approved by SAAMI at 65,000 PSI. A 225gr makes 2800 fps/65K pressure. It has sparked a lot of interest for a few. It’s not quite a .338 Win Mag in ballistics, but will come in a VERY light rifle of less than 6 lbs, short magazine and relatively short barrel. As one forum member put it, “It will be a beast in recoil”, without a brake! Or even with one! Recoil has been mapped at 60 ft/lbs from the proposed rifle without a brake!

I’ll stick with the .35 Whelen that will do the same things with far less recoil, as will my 9.3 x 62, either of which can use .30-06 brass, necked-up in a pinch, but the .35 Whelen case is much preferred in reforming for the 9.3 x 62.

The history of the .35 Whelen is somewhat different: It started life in about 1922 as a wildcat and continued as such until Remington legitimised it in 1988 at SAAMI. The specs were .30-06 with the neck enlarged to .358-caliber. No other changes were made as none were deemed necessary from Col. Whelen’s (and friends) creation, as after trying several different calibers based on the .30-06 cartridge case, .358″ seemed the most practical for the intended use of a cartridge more powerful than the .30-06 itself, and nearly that of the .375 H&H. It was often termed “The poor man’s .375 H&H”!

At that time, no “premium” bullets were available, as they are in abundance today, so heavier bullets with relatively thick copper jackets were employed for large and tough game. 250gr RN and spitzers were considered best for the intended game at about 2500 fps MV from suitable powders of the era. Large bear and moose were easily taken with that combination of bullet weight, velocity and sectional density (SD). Not much had changed over the ensuing years. A few bullet companies provided some 250s for large game and 200s for lighter game like WT deer. Barnes made its reputation by producing bullets with thick copper jackets and pure lead cores, and usually one true “heavy weight”, a 300gr for the Whelen with a .050″ jacket. I still have some of those.

Though languishing as a “wildcat”, there was a loyal following of this cartridge, usually in bolt-action repeaters. Since it’s been adopted by Remington, the company has produced several of its rifles chambered for this cartridge, including: M700s, 7600s, 7400s, 750s, plus a Classic and some CDLs in the M700 bolt-action. Interest in mass-produced rifles has grown steadily as a few other manufacturers have included the .35 Whelen in their inventory. Ruger has in their limited No.1s. Some others have also made them in single-shots like CVA, NEF and Traditions. And it has always been a favorite for reboring a barrel to .358″ from a worn-out .30-06 barrel, or simply replacing the worn-out one with a new, chambered in .35 Whelen.

Though a Rem 750, it’s identical externally to my first .35 Whelen in a Remington 7400

There’s little doubt that “fads” happen in rifle/cartridge buying as in many other consumer products. I well recall when the 9.3 x 62 Mauser was “discovered” in North America about fifteen years ago. It soon became one of the main topics on “the forums”. Well… today, if not a “fad”, certainly the .35 Whelen is being “rediscovered”, and revived discussions on forums have revealed lively interest by both owners and those keen on a fresh experience with medium-bore rifles. Especially is this so since new powders seemingly have “transformed” it into a cartridge worthy of some notice! If I must add anything to this discussion, it’s that I’ve recognised it’s potential from the first time I came to know anything about it! And that was not in recent years, but at least three decades ago when I purchased my first in a handsome Rem 7400. Then, after some handloading experience, I recommended a .35 Whelen to a friend who had decided to build his first rifle on a ’98 Mauser action ( http://www.35cal.com ).

First of all, it’s a true medium bore (4000 ft-lbs KE at the muzzle), which I’ve adopted as a “go to” rifle cartridge. The reason for that is quite simple: Power in reserve for anything legal and within reach – that translated means: not lacking due to surroundings or posture of the animal. And with today’s premium bullets in anything from 180gr to 310gr, there’s little to worry about in reaching vitals if the right bullet is chosen for the task.

< My second .35 Whelen in a New England Firearms single-shot. It had a heavy barrel. In external appearance identical to one I’d owned in .45-70 that was superbly accurate and very powerful with handloads.

For example, I’ve selected the 225gr AccuBond as my go-to projectile for the .35 Whelen. From research, I’ve discovered that bullet will punch through a tough bull moose from stern to stem while breaking big bone (back bone) in the process while remaining intact with a nice mushroom under the hide between the shoulders. The range wasn’t given, but it was a going-away shot where the bull would have gotten into a nasty place. MV was 2850 fps from a .358 Norma and the bull dropped at the shot.

Among those who’ve adopted it as their main firearm for large, and sometimes dangerous game, the simple 250gr Speer SP HotCor has proven effective on large moose and grizzly. It’s still a favorite of several Whelen hunters at around 2500 fps. Yet, there are now several proven premiums available from 200gr to 280gr, and one 310gr from Woodleigh.

Depending on barrel length and PSI, potential velocities from the best of today’s propellants and 22 – 24″ barrels are:

200gr @ up to 3000 fps/3996 ft-lbs

225gr @ up to 2850 fps/4057 ft-lbs

250gr @ up to 2700 fps/4046 ft-lbs

280gr @ up to 2500 fps/3885 ft-lbs

310gr @ up to 2400 fps/3964 ft-lbs

Those results basically correspond to .338 Win Mag results from a 24″ barrel. And the .338 Win uses 15% more powder on average, at higher PSI (64,000 vs 62,000 for the Whelen), and therefore more recoil in a same weight rifle. Or, we can have a lighter weight rifle at the same recoil of a “normal” .338 Win Mag.

The efficiency of the .35 Whelen is due to a larger cross-sectional area of a bullet by 12.6% over .338-caliber. More or less, the same deal as for the 9.3 (.366″) which has a cross-sectional area of 17% greater than a .338-caliber, making both the .35 Whelen and 9.3 x 62 more efficient in the use of gun powder than any .338 magnum. It’s called “Expansion Ratio”, meaning that the column of gas created and it’s PSI has a 12.6% larger area at the base of the bullet to push on than a .338 caliber. Also, a faster burning-rate powder works best as caliber increases: Again, meaning less powder can be used to produce similar effects. Example: Rl-19 is one of the very best for a .338 Winchester Magnum, whereas it’s too slow in burn-rate for best ballistics in the .35 Whelen. A powder slightly slower in burn rate than RL-15 is best in the Whelen for heavier bullets. Also, new ball powders made for the .223 Remington are excelling in the Whelen. Traditionally, powders made specifically for small bores, as in .223, work really well in .45-70s and the .458 Winchester Magnum for heavy bullets as well. H335 being a prime example of that.

Therefore, the .35 Whelen is favored over the .338-06 for the reason that it has the same bore size of the larger cased .338 Win Mag. There was a time when the .338-06 was the darling of some gun smiths and a few “experts” – because of its efficiency. But that was before PSI was measured. Like many “wildcats”, specious claims were made, making it the near equal of the .338 Win Mag. But 2400 fps was real enough from a 250gr in a 24″ barrel. When Remington quoted 2400 fps for their initial 250gr ammo for the .35 Whelen, that was at least 100 fps slower than Col. Whelen’s experience from the powders of the day. I was getting 2600 fps from my 22″ Rem 7400 using 60 grains of RL-15, just as did Finn AAgaard! That was the accepted max load at the time in the early ’90s. That load has been greatly reduced since then, but I saw no evidence of “over pressure” in its use. That was from the Hornady 250gr SP. From my short-lived NEF single-shot, 56 grains gave an instrumental 2565 fps, again with no signs of being too hot! Today’s max is listed at 54 grains under a 250gr by Speer… Has that powder been changed, who knows the whole truth?

But there’s no doubt that a .35 Whelen’s potential can play ball where the .338 Win Mag plays. There are excellent bullets made in .358 caliber these days (If you can find them!). And, like all others, they are very costly! The prices of the .358-cal bullets I purchased thirty years ago are still attached to some of those boxes: $38.95 for a box of 100, 250gr SP Interlocks from Hornady in .358 caliber. Today, the same box of 100 runs about $100. Anything “premium” is at least 2x that!

When I view costs of factory ammo, here at our local Canadian Tire store, a box of 20 cartridges loaded with Partitions, or any premium bullet, for most common cartridges will run from $75 to $100, plus taxes (In Ontario, which also charges the Federal tax = 13%). So a 20 count box of premium .308 Winchester 150gr will cost about $80 plus 13% =$90.40 out the door! Little wonder that new hunters are becoming scarcer than the proverbial “hen’s teeth”!

So, in a sense, I’m preaching to the choir!

But because of it’s efficiency, handloaders can now make the 1922 creation of Col. Whelen (and cohorts) better than ever! And it’s the equal of more modern “magnum” creations that burn more powder, need longer barrels and create more recoil while accomplishing nothing more than Col. Whelen’s really simple work of expanding the .30-06’s neck from .308 to .358 with no other changes, except SAAMI upping the PSI to 62,000.

It has lived a long and productive life of a century, at 100 years! Long may it continue to live!

If we can’t find some fresh .35 Whelen brass, then just find some new or used .30-06 cases and cause magic to happen!

Potential ballistics from a 22″ barrel of a .35 Whelen (Propellants would be either CFE-223 or PP2000MR)

Bullet: 225gr AccuBond

SD = .251

BC = .430 (From Nosler’s website, not the book. And it’s variable depending on the rifle, climate and elevation).

Average physical conditions for my hunting areas in May and September: Elev. @ 1150 ft; Temps @ 65*F/18C; RH @ 56%.

MV= 2800 fps/3916 ft-lbs/ -1.75″

50 = 2699 fps/3699 ft-lbs/ +1.19″

100=2601 fps/3378 ft-lbs/ +2.92″

150=2504 fps/3132 ft-lbs/ +3.37″

200=2410 fps/2901 ft-lbs/ +2.43″

250=2318 fps/2683 ft-lbs/ 0.00″

300=2227 fps/2478 ft-lbs/ -4.06″

350=2139 fps/2285 ft-lbs/ -9.87″

400=2052 fps/2104 ft-lbs/ -17.6″ (With proper placement, should be adequate for a mature bull moose of this area/ 1000 to 1200 lbs).

Actual from yesterday’s trial (Saturday, April 29/22). I estimated 2742 fps for seven shots. Corrected to MV = 2738 fps for the seven. With a new scope that had to be sighted in and three fired offhand at 50 yards (not over the Chrony), the remaining five went into 2″. Good enough for hunting bear, but I’m working on loads to reduce that to three at MOA. Let’s keep in mind that 5 at 100 in 2″ might be 5 at 50 in 1″.

Load data: 67 grains of CFE-223, WLRM primers, Rem cases, 4x firing, 3.45″ COL, Chrony @ 15′. Ambient conditions: 6*C/43*F, 900′ elevation, RH about 50%.

There are few cartridges that can efficiently and effectively be used on all game, from small to large and dangerous on this Continent, and the .35 Whelen is among them! That makes it special in my view.

<My most recent edition… a single-shot from Traditions.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL