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

Backup Rifles

There’s little doubt, in my way of thinking and experience, that a backup rifle (or shotgun) might be a game changer on certain big-game hunts. I usually keep a second BG rifle in my vehicle on a bear hunt. That rifle (or 12ga shotgun) is my second choice for a particular bear hunt but may become my first choice for a bear hunt under somewhat different physical conditions.

For example: I may very well use my Ruger No.1H “Tropical” in .458 WM for a bear hunt from a ground blind. Range from blind to bait will not usually exceed 100 yards. But IF for some reason the bear is wounded (the bear may quickly move, or be spooked) and makes it into a thick tangle of bush, then in my followup search I want a quick handling repeater, that will likely be a short n’ handy 12ga pump shotgun loaded with Challenger (Brenneke type) slugs. In the past a Marlin lever-action in .45-70 was either the main firearm or the backup. However, today I don’t have a lever-action in .45-70, so a 12ga Savage pump, tactical type, was purchased for that express purpose. It’s short, light and very fast handling… and at close range is at least as effective as a Marlin Guide Gun with its short 18.5″ barrel.

<The 12ga Savage

On moose hunts to the “True North” (of our province), I’ve always taken a second rifle in case the main rifle developed a problem like the scope being knocked off its zero by a fall (that can easily happen in rugged conditions). Or, the second rifle may be sighted differently for longer ranges in more open country. When I did four moose hunts about 100 Km (60 miles) north of Thunder Bay, I always took a spare rifle already sighted with carefully crafted handloads. On the last trip, I took the CZ550 in .458 WM loaded with the 350gr TSX at 2700 fps. That was good enough to around 400 yards. But some of those clearcuts had moose crossings at 600+ yards! As a backup, my .300 Win Mag was loaded with the 190gr Hornady BT at 3050 fps, making hits easier at 500 yards. That would have been 2170 fps/1986 ft-lbs, and borderline for a 1000 lb moose.

The .458 load for 400 yards would be right at 1600 fps, but minimum expansion if any. At 500 yards any bullet expansion would be highly doubtful. Later on I switched powders from RL-7 to H4198 with an increase of 50 fps that proved to be much more stable under diverse temperatures. RL-7 lost about 100 fps from late summer tests at home (2700 fps) to late fall conditions (just over 2600 fps). So it’s very unlikely that I’d have gotten 1600 fps at 400 yards “up north” with much cooler temperatures than near home at our range much farther south in late summer. It turned out that neither rifle was used on that moose hunt, but the latter .458 load was used to shoot a bear at my primary site an hour from home.

On a previous moose hunt to the same location as described above, my backup to the .340 Wby Mag was my Marlin .45-70 loaded with 400s at over 2000 fps. The main reason for that was a bear tag in my pocket, and my son and I had a day of scouting prior to the actual moose hunt (in which I did shoot a bull moose with the .340).

Those are merely some examples, but scores of other conditions and examples could be cited by North American hunters and/or those going to Africa on safari… or Northern Canada and Alaska. Rifles and scopes (especially scopes) can be knocked out of action by a drop on rocks, a fall, or bouncing around in trucks or boats – if not by baggage handlers!

<I adjusted the Burris fixed 4x on my son’s .356 Winchester. I donated it to “the cause” after having owned it for thirty years. It had been on a hard kicking Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (equivalent to a light .458 Win Mag) and still holds its zero. The clicks were getting not too discernible, so I did that work while in New Brunswick last September. He later shot a nice buck with that rifle. In has a 5.5″ eye relief – always a good thing for a hard kicking rifle. The point, though, is putting a good scope on a hard-kicking rifle because the abuse – even over the short term – could be far worse than dropping it on a hard surface. A fixed power on a quality scope will outlast most variables on expensive scopes! You may never need a backup rifle if the scope’s innards are as durable as that Burris 4x. In fact, I mounted another 4x Burris on my CZ550 in .458 Win Mag that also proved to be “unbreakable”!

< The CZ550 with the 4x Burris

Some recommendations:

1. Use thick padded soft cases or hard cases with adequately thick and not easily compressed foam padding.
2. Pay careful attention to where we may rest an uncased rifle. If it’s resting against a tree, fence or other object, is there a danger of it slipping off and landing on a hard irregular surface such as a jagged rock?
3. Consideration should be given to a backup scope already sighted with quick-detach rings.
4. Iron sights are rare these days except on big-bore rifles, but they should be adjusted for at least 100 yards, or more, depending on the anticipated hunt. They also could be effective, in lieu of a second scope or rifle, for those who practice or hunt with irons, and with good vision.
5. Should a backup rifle be identical to the one in service? Some maintain that strategy. Personally, I prefer something different that may be useful under diverse physical conditions, which may still be useful for the intended hunt. I’ve given a few examples above, and could share some others.
6. What about a pistol or revolver as a stand-in for a defunct rifle (whatever the cause), where legal as in the USA? That could work very well as long as the range is somewhat shorter, and it’s ballistics are appropriate for the game being hunted. Many American hunters do carry a handgun in addition to their rifle or bow.

A few other matters…

A majority of hunters/shooters these days own several or many rifles, most of which do the same things. And perhaps a majority of that majority own the most common rifles chambered for the most popular cartridges that are used on WT deer and elk: .270 Win, .308 Win and .30-06 Springfield. Basically, what one will do so will the others. They are certainly a step up on the ubiquitous .30-30, but you might get an argument from “Ron”, my oldest son’s FIL, except Ron is now in heaven! But in his day, he shot “everything” with his .30-30… including bear and moose! But then Ron grew up living and hunting in the wilds of New Brunswick, and started hunting when he was about 9, along with some brothers. When older, they gave the local “authorities” some sleepless nights! But they lived among the moose, bears and “whatnots”! There was rarely, if ever, a 100 yard shot. Most were like 25 to 30 yards without optical aid (except maybe a pair of eye glasses) but often used some extra “light”, if you know what I mean…

But if one shot didn’t get the job done, they had time for 2, 3 or 5 more using those fast lever-action carbines! After all, a moose wasn’t going anywhere fast with the thick barrier of 15″ trees blocking a quick exit!

Today’s hunting is different. Generally it’s more open, and in some places (as mentioned re my moose hunts in the “Far North”) legit shooting of big game could well be in excess of 400 yards. In the case of elk, moose, big black bears or grizzly, and some other critters like bison, we need something with effective reach “way out there”. No harm is done if we then have “too much gun” for closer ranges, such as when I shot the moose at 165 yards with my .340 Wby rather than at 500 yards!

But there are other factors to consider when choosing the “main rifle” or its backup:

1- The angle of the shot. A quartering shot, or straight-on or away may challenge bullet penetration or the ballistic capability of the firearm!

2 – The possible distance of the shot. On a recent Sportsman TV program, I witnessed a sixty-something year old man shoot a 6-point elk at 564 yards… twice. At the first shot there was no response to the hit. The elk was with a couple of his buddies and drifting towards another property line that would soon put the elk off legal limits. So he fired a second shot with his wife watching through binoculars. She thought the elk was hit but it disappeared into a gully and behind some trees. They waited for some time, and didn’t see the bull again so assumed it went down to stay. This was private land of mostly hay fields, gullies and some timber. He was set up on a ridge with a “tricked-out” rifle and scope with all the bells and whistles, plus a range finder. He took a prone position with a bipod on his rifle and had plenty of time to evaluate the situation. In fact, he knew the physical conditions very well as he’d hunted there several times previously and taken a few mature elk. His cartridge was an unfamiliar (to me) 6.5 magnum firing one of those long-range bullets.

The only time, in 60+ years of hunting, have I personally had a shot at more than 300 yards using a 6.5 X 55, was in leaning over a fence post firing at a groundhog using 85gr HP Sierras. Nothing was “tricked-out”, except I had a “spotter” with binoculars. He said the first shot was too far (we didn’t even have a range finder), the second nailed a 15″ tall groundhog that fell back into it’s hole. I’d suggest that that shot was much more challenging than shooting a mature 6-point elk at 564 yards from a prone position, using a “tricked out rifle and scope” – that was dialed in once the range was determined. And he had done the same thing on a number of previous trips on the same private property.

At 300 + yards, I’d also killed a jack rabbit with my .300 Win Mag. The only thing between me and the rabbit was a foot of snow and one lonely maple tree that I leaned against. At first I thought it was a coyote… no special range finders or optics. The Bushnell scope served that purpose. Now a woodchuck and a rabbit ain’t elk, but being of sound mind I can easily estimate the huge difference between shooting a rabbit that covered an area of 20 inches by 6 inches versus a mature bull elk that’s at least seven feet by five!

My point: Marksmanship is the main key to accuracy and success in most real life hunting situations. I’d rather have a 30-30 that does what I want within its effective range, than a 300 Super Magnum that I can’t accurately shoot… though I’m a big fan of the .300 Win Mag. It does no good to “love it” if you can’t use it’s inherent accuracy! That’s the point for the main rifle and it’s backup! The backup is not “there” because we can’t shoot the main rifle accurately! It’s there as a stand-in, not because I can shoot it more accurately. Or…. because it has less recoil!

< Three 250gr, 9.3mm AccuBonds made those two holes at 100 yards from the muzzle of my 9.3 x 62. MV was ~2700 fps. Recoil was 44 ft-lbs. Adjustments were made to center the load dead over center and 2″ high. A very nice bear was taken with that load at 85 yards. My backup was the Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT firing the 300gr TSX at 2650 fps with a recoil factor of 45 ft-lbs.

3- What kind of hunter am I? That matters much more than just generic commentary in periodicals or podcasts! I’ve had correspondence with John Wootters, Finn Aagaard, Phil Shoemaker and others, and they’ve had their own experiences that don’t always correspond with mine! And I’ve chatted on the phone with ballistic engineers, whoever they might be, and who are limited by the parameters of their job… do THEY ever get to “the field” for an education in real hunting that details near infinite variables?

Do you like getting close and personal with big game… some of which might be hazardous to one’s health? Ah yes… there’s that matter of PH’s and guides who micro-manage clients… I’ve never experienced that in 60 years, though I did hire a bear outfitter whom I never saw in the field from the time he dropped me off until he picked me up in darkness several hours later!

Or, do you prefer setting up at long ranges and waiting…?

Or perhaps you’re more like I was for much of my hunting career: a “walk-about brush hunter”.

See, there are different requirements for each and every situation and individual!

That means a backup rifle (or firearm) should suite the situation and individual!

Opinions? Yes! Preferences? Yes! But no dogmatic rules apply!

But as a basic principle regarding safety and success, my ADVICE is: Take along a suitable backup firearm.

And keep a suitable firearm within arms reach at ALL times… both for safety and success!

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

UPDATE on the Traditions OUTFITTER G3 in .35 Whelen

The .35 Whelen was at the range again today (third trip) Friday, April 22. The Tasco 2 – 7 x 32 scope gave a lot of trouble for sighting-in the 225gr AccuBonds. It seemed like every click was a full inch movement on the target when it should have been 1/8″ at 50 yards! But I did manage to get one group that was nearly six inches right and one inch high. Two went basically into the same hole and a third about 3/4″ below. On the way home from the range I stopped at a favorite gun shop and bought a new scope which is now on the Traditions OUTFITTER G3 – it will need to be sighted.

All ten loaded cartridges were fired and MV recorded at 15′. Average corrected to muzzle was 2702 fps from the 22″ barrel. I’ll be loading those 10 cases again with the same components: 225gr AccuBond, Rem cases, 66 grains of CFE 223 and WLRM primers. A max load in Speer’s manual for their 220gr is 67 grains of CFE223 at 2788 fps from a 24″. A 24hr Camp Fire member got about 2680 from a 700 Remington (22″) with the same 66 grain load behind the 225 AccuBond that I used and very mild pressures of just over 47,000 psi. 62, 000 psi is MAP. My COL is 3.45″ with that bullet, and the primer was WLRM.

The stars of the show on the previous trip were the two 225gr Nosler Partitions over 65 grains of CFE223 that went into a ragged hole at 50 yards. Unfortunately, I only had eight of those left. So I picked up two boxes of the 225gr AccuBonds in .358″ in lieu of those Nosler Partitions which are not currently available in this part of the country. My intent is to settle on these 225 AccuBonds as a “go-to” load.

My Chrony setup was different than “normal” on that former occasion as the passage of bullets over the lights was not high enough, so I didn’t get any meaningful readings. That was corrected this time. I estimated the MV for the 225 NP to be ~2700 from 65 grains of CFE223 powder. I added one grain more for the 225 AccuBond which gave an actual 2702 fps (average corrected to MV). I’m quite sure I could use more of that powder behind the 225 AccuBond, but if the accuracy proves to be good when I get to the range again with my new scope, I’ll be content with that for now as I want to use it in scouting for bear sign and a good location for bait and blind by early May.

< The new scope is a 2 – 7 x 32 CROSSFIRE 11 by Vortex. It excels in a long eye relief and a no nonsense lifetime warranty.

This OUTFITTER G3 in .35 Whelen could serve as a good backup rifle, though my intent for it is as a “walk-about” brush gun.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Improved 35 Whelen Ballistics… Why?

On Internet sporting rifle forums, frequently statements are made in the form of questions like the following: “Why try to make a 308 Winchester’s ballistics into 30-06’s ballistic capabilities? Why not just buy a .30-06 to begin with?” There are several such arguments against trying to improve on what the rifle is believed to be capable of in a traditional sense.

The suggestion is that rifle shooters should be happy with what is deemed “normal” for particular cartridges, often implying SAAMI factory ballistics, or familiar ballistics, whether handloads or factory. That should satisfy any normal thinking hunter or shooter.

Moreover, there’s more than a subtle hint that there’s something very wrong with any attempt to improve on what they believe is “normal”. They’re not only content with “normal” but see it as a perfect standard or companies wouldn’t adhere to regulated SAAMI psi! So any attempt to improve on “perfection” is abhorrent to them! “So if you think you really, truly NEED ballistics that’s more powerful than perfection, then go ahead and do whatever will cripple your shoulder and blow your ears off, while wrecking your good enough rifle as it is!” – sort of thing… a not so subtle insinuation that “you” have no right to affront their judgement as to ballistic perfection!

Why improve a rifle’s ballistics?

1> Because it’s possible: What several shooters and hunters fail to realise, or understand, is that some modern powders permit increases of around 200 fps, or more, over “old” factory ammo, or even good handloads within SAAMI standards. Perhaps that’s less so for some relatively new, “hot magnums”, but even then it’s highly possible that improvements could be made in accuracy, not only from work done on the rifle itself, but from select handloads. Then some pre-21st century rifles and cartridges have experienced significant improvements in both accuracy and downrange ballistic performance by the use of modern projectiles and powders. There’s no denying that fact!

< I don’t know of any factory load for the .458 Win Mag that has EVER produced velocities that might be expected from a .300 Win Mag. But the corrected to MV of this load from my Ruger No.1H in .458 Win Mag was 2979 fps/5911 ft-lbs from a 300gr TSX over a dose of H4198. And that was not exceptional for that particular load.

2> Because it’s practical: Any improvements in life’s experiences enhances a sense of satisfaction and joy! Why not therefore in a rifle’s ballistic potential? And it just might make a difference in field success!

3> Because it’s proper: It’s the right thing to do. None of us are driving old classic cars or trucks because they work better! Ford’s production lines has never had 1932 Ford coupes at one end and turbo-charged GT Mustangs at the other! An evolution over the past century has taken place at Ford. The same for rifles and their ballistics! If new bullets and powders safely improve results, let it be! It’s the proper thing to do. Even Col. Whelen would approve of better ballistics for the .35 Whelen if he’d had the gun powders of today, since it was his goal to get the best it could safely offer in his day. Since Remington made that “wildcat” into a legitimate cartridge in 1988 by having SAAMI adopt specs for it, pressure was set at 52,000 CUP, not like its parent cartridge (.30-06) at 50,000 CUP. Since corporations and SAAMI have gone over to PSI based on piezo, 52,000 CUP is now 62,000 PSI , the maximum average pressure (MAP) for the 35 Whelen.

<I’ve tried this (new to me) propellant in my new .35 Whelen under the 225gr Nosler Partition. Results were excellent!

4> Because it’s popular: Not much would be going on at ranges and on forums if we all were mandated to keep “the status quo”!

5> Because it’s productive: It keeps related industries humming! In addition to all that, it keeps interested people, interested!

6> Because it has new and fresh potential: Has any handloader ever been truly satisfied with just a single load for his rifle? NO! He must tinker, try new powders, primers and bullets! Then there’s this matter of bullet seating – how close to the lands for better and best accuracy. We must fiddle with 1/10th to 1/2 grains of propellant, up or down, to get that finest degree of accuracy and velocity a rifle is capable of! What better thing to do… stay home, watch TV, drink beer, get fat and lazy?

NO! It’s off to the range for endless testing of those minute improvements! And then… the final test in the hunting fields!

<Results from two 225gr Nosler Partitions over 65 grains of CFE223 in my new .35 Whelen at 50 yards. Center to center is 0.30″. MV not recorded but estimated at 2700 fps. Case head expansion was less than any of the other eight fired on the same day. I’ve now loaded ten of the 225gr AccuBonds over 66 grains of CFE223 and will report on results.

Life indeed would be boring for some of us if we thought perfection had been attained! Fresh challenges have been ordained by The Almighty for our learning and development, as well as for our humility in discovering that we are not God!

Impatience is the enemy of progress! The best bullets of today didn’t just happen overnight! Think about it! John Nosler developed the Partition bullet back in 1948 because of the failure of a typical cup-and-core bullet on a moose hunt in Canada. While the Partition bullet has experienced some upgrades since, it still remains one of the best “premium” bullets available today. Yet it too has undergone fine tuning depending on caliber and bullet weight. For example: The partition has been moved more towards the nose with sturdier jackets in the nose section for heavy and potentially dangerous game. These are in calibers usually intended for large and tougher animals that may also be hazardous and difficult to kill. But Nosler hasn’t rested on its laurels, AccuBonds with bonded lead cores in tapered gilding metal jackets with heavy boat-tailed bases, are customised for each caliber and bullet weight.

I have some 225gr Ballistic Tips in .358″ loaded in some (then) new .30-06 cases intended for my long gone .35 Whelen in a Rem 7400. There are eight of ’em setting pretty in a Remington carton originally for twenty .30-06 new cases. They’ve yet to be fired! Those 225gr BT bullets with the white poly-carbonate tips look identical to the 225gr AccuBonds in .358″ that I purchased just a few days ago… but internally they’er hugely different!

< The cartridge on the left contains a Nosler 225gr Ballistic Tip, the one on the right a Nosler 225gr AccuBond. The 225 BT bullet is seated into a new .30-06 case necked-up to .358″, with a standard 3.34″ COL. The 225gr AB is seated in a 2x used .35 Whelen case at 3.45″ COL. The slight “bump” in the neck of the 35 Whelen case is due to partial re-sizing of the case. The load for the 225 BT is over 25 years old and contains ? grains of RL-15 powder. The 225 AB load on the right is one of ten for testing in my new .35 Whelen single-shot. It contains 66 grains of CFE223 that will be ignited by a WLRM primer.The .35 Whelen case on the right is slightly longer than the necked-up .30-06 case on the left, yet still well within specs after 2x firing. There was no need for trimming.

The 225gr BT bullets will be pulled from their cases and the powder dumped, then reloaded with fresh propellant.

In my thinking, the AccuBond version is a much tougher bullet that will still kill whitetails, but not come apart on moose! If the 250gr AccuBond is any indication from my 9.3 x 62 in the killing of a six-foot black bear, then I have no reason to think that the 225gr AccuBond in .358-cal is less than an improvement on the former, non-bonded, 225gr Ballistic Tip.

In addition to Nosler’s progress from humble beginnings to its present status as one of the top innovative bullet manufacturing companies in the world, there are several others, just to name a few: Hornady, Barnes, Hammer and CEB. Monometal bullets are fast replacing lead-core bullets for a number of practical reasons: ecological and easier to manufacture in meeting the expectations of dealers and clients. In lead-core bullets, even though bonded, more is involved in the process than a simple piece of copper rod being turned into minutely machined copper bullets.

< In a tough test media, L to R, the 500gr Speer African GS retained 310 grains (62%); the 350gr Hornady FP Interloc lost its core; and the 350gr Barnes TSX on far right retained 100% – more than the 500gr Speer at 310 grains!

Today’s bullets shed little weight, or none at all, in deep penetration to vitals from small to large beasts, and often make an exit wound. Few are retrieved as examples of performance. Therefore it’s a sane practice to go lighter in bullet weight per caliber than in former generations. While I have some 250gr as well as several 300gr Barnes Originals in .35-caliber, I’m now focused on the development of a good load for those 225gr ABs as I believe they’ll perform excellently on anything I intend or happen to shoot with my .35 Whelen. Reports are out there…. all the way to 800 yards on caribou from .35 Whelens! It looks like close to 2900 fps from those 225s is possible from the Whelen… but my objective is 2700 to 2800 fps with good accuracy of MOA or better… The current load, however, may exceed 2800 fps. I’m hoping to test them before my next blog so a report can be given.

The scope has been moved forward 1″ on the Traditions OUTFITTER G3 in .35 Whelen for a better balance and appearance.

The goals for this rifle, when realised, will mean vastly improved ballistics over traditional concepts for the venerable .35 Whelen!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Barrels, Ballistics and Baloney

There are variables in handloads (and factory fodder) and in rifle barrels. Then there is unwarranted trust in what those can do under all conditions. Any one, or all of them combined, can affect what transpires when and after the trigger is squeezed. That embraces barrels, ballistics and baloney.

< That’s a 26″ barrel on my former .340 WBY MAG. That’s a normal length for the .340. A 24″ would not be much handier, and it might loose up to 50 fps per inch. Instead of 3000 fps for the 250gr Nosler Partition, it might have given about 2900 fps.

Barrels: Apart from a barrel’s basic condition and precision, there are never-ending discussions over how long, or short, a barrel should/could be for a particular rifle/cartridge combo for both satisfactory and/or optimum results. As a preference, some choose the shortest that will give satisfactory results for their style of hunting, like an 18″ for brush, tall grasses, alders or thick wooded areas in a hunt for hogs, deer or bear. But they might also choose a 20 or 22″ for a .338 Win Mag for big game in more open areas. They just like short and handy rifles for most of their hunting, irregardless of the potential loss of ballistics because they figure that loss isn’t critical to their way of thinking and hunting.

Then there’s an opposite group that want the most bang for the buck (both figuratively and factually). They know the longest barrels available is the shortest and cheapest way to best ballistics. They say that a relatively “long” 26″ barrel for a .30-06 is equal to the ballistics of a 22″ .300 magnum, with far less powder, recoil and noise! It’s going to be a pound heavier, but they don’t mind and they can manage a 26″ barrelled rifle as well as a 20″ in thick tangles… six inches more or less is insignificant to them because of THEIR preferences and style of hunting. And they of course have a valid point as well as the short-barrel group!

Which group is right? They both are! That is for themselves.

And yet a third group:  I’m glad for this third group, otherwise I wouldn’t belong to any group! I fit here. It’s the group, likely the majority, that says I’ll choose my barrel length depending on: 1) practical ballistics for the cartridge, and 2) It’s intended use.

Ballistics: Barrel length affects ballistics. As a rule of thumb, large bores shooting heavy bullets might be affected less, but nonetheless, even a loss of 20 fps per inch from a 400gr amounts to 80 fps from a 20″ vs a 24″ barrel. Some discount that, but at longer ranges on large game that could still be significant in two ways: energy/momentum and bullet expansion. At the muzzle a 400gr at 2400 fps = 5115 ft-lbs, at 2320 fps (loss of 80 fps) at the muzzle a 400gr at 2320 fps = 4780 ft-lbs. That’s 335 ft-lbs loss at the muzzle. At 250 yards that could still be a loss of 300 ft-lbs! Does that matter? Maybe so, maybe not, depending on the bullet, it’s placement and the big animal itself. But should we choose less, in a hostile environment, or more?

From a .375 H&H, the loss from cutting the barrel from a 26″ to a 22″ was about 35 fps per inch in my experience. My top load from the 26″ shooting a 300gr was slightly over 2700 fps. At 22″ it struggled (after many tries of different propellants) to make 2560 fps from the same 300gr. Now 2560 fps is still suitable from a .375 H&H for most intended game, depending on the bullet and its placement, but knowingly would you sacrifice 140 fps loss from a 300gr by lopping-off 4″? I did it for another reason. That barrel had a serious flaw – the bore was off-centered, so accuracy was very poor. It was an attempt to improve that situation not knowing the bore was off-center til 4″ was cut off. But the real point remains: How could a 22″ barrelled .375 H&H improve the quality of a hunt by being 4-inches shorter, especially at the sacrifice of 490 ft-lbs energy at the muzzle? At 200 yards, the loss is still 400 ft-lbs!

Speaking personally, I much prefer more energy/momentum at impact than just adequate or barely enough. Why? Because of variable conditions or circumstances. The game might be farther away than thought or intended, or it might move at the last split-second, or it could be a much larger, tougher specimen than average, or we might be slightly off in our marksmanship… or whatever. Ballistics should be plenty for the worst case scenario, not scanty!

The Traditions OUTFITTER G3 above has a 22″ fluted barrel, plus a 2″ muzzle brake. OL of rifle is 39 inches. Muzzle diameter where it mates with the brake is .70″. Weight as seen is 7.25 lbs. A 22″ barrel for the .35 Whelen is customary. That will give all the ballistics expected or wanted from that cartridge using handloaded bullets from 200gr to 250gr. Lighter and heavier bullets are available from pistol bullets (.357) to a 310gr rifle bullet from Woodleigh. While I have some 300gr Barnes Originals, my main interest lies with the 200gr, 225gr and 250gr projectiles. 

The scope rings are x-high to clear the hammer from the scope zoom. The hammer has extensions on each side to cock it for either a left or right-handed shooter. The scope looks too far back but it’s just right for normal eye relief when the rifle is shouldered. It has excellent balance and quick handling. A few cartridges will be added to a butt stock ammo holder on the left side of the stock away from my face.

Then… there’s baloney! Believing the unlikely! Or, “Everything is going to turn our just peachy!” Or, “A .270 is all you need for anything in North America”, Or “All you need for African plains game is a .243 Win.”, etc.

The point is, there’s a lot of baloney out there! Now baloney is edible… just! But it’s NOT recommended as a healthy daily diet! Neither is sugar-coated breakfast cereal! There’s some truth in “baloney” or none would believe it! There’s some truth in getting by with a .270 for all N.A. game…. BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH! Same goes for a .243 for African Plains game. There’s some truth in the Devil’s lies or none would be enticed by them! But WATCH OUT FOR anything that’s “a half-truth”! It’s baloney! Not something to rely on, put your dreams on or hope in!

It’s as much “baloney” to say, or believe, that we need every rifle/cartridge under the sun to be happy and/or successful as to say or believe that the 6.5 Creed (or its ilk) is all one needs for any creature under the sun. I’m sure you get my drift…

But there are a few that could do it all – from mice to moose, or gemsbok to giant elephant. And the larger the game, the larger the bore – as a common sense principle. Among the Big Bores, none surpass in overall versatility, in combination with effectiveness, the magnificent .458 Winchester Magnum -and that’s no baloney!

But “baloney” says “My dog is better than your dog”. But it’s not “baloney” to think, or say, “I like my dog best because I chose it!” The same with a rifle!

I like single-shot rifles about as much as bolt-action repeaters, and all that depends on the cartridge, purpose and functionality. I’ve had some “ugly dogs” in both! On the other hand, I’ve had some “great dogs” in both! Some of the latter I parted with too soon.

What makes a “great” rifle? To some extent, it’s in the eye of the beholder, but not entirely. Form, function and fit perhaps best describes a “great” rifle. Form is beauty and craftsmanship. Function answers to: Does it do what was intended in a graceful manner? Fit is ergonomics… it has to do with physical attributes. Is it comfortable in operation relative to my psyche and physique… does it “fit” like a glove?

And yours? Why did you choose them? All of them and reject others? Do you remember why?

As we get a couple of generations under our belt, we remember the ones that were “great”. We may still have some of those, while others got away for one reason or another.

My advice? Stick with the “great” ones – that is: In your eyes and experience. Many of those can even be improved by newer technology in gun powders. Some “new” propellants have less of a parabolic pressure curve, and a “flatter” curve from ignition to muzzle. They can safely deliver higher velocities at even lower peak pressure. CFE223 and PP2000MR are two of those, but not the only.

Then we should not discount familiar powders that have been improved! “Improved” in what way? Smaller granules for better metering and load density, such as H4831 SC. H335 was improved from being a former “dirty” military powder to a modern clean-burning and temp stable propellant manufactured at the St Marks plant in FL – the only manufacturing facility that makes ball powder in North America. I’ve been using it for many years in my .45-70s and .458 Win Mags – and it’s one of the very best for those cartridges in the heavy-weight class of projectiles. And that’s no baloney! Check recent Hornady manuals, as well as Barnes, for data relative to both the .458 Win and .458 Lott. In the Barnes’ #4, TAC is similar in results to H335, though far less common or available “North of The Border”.

I apparently discovered the greatness of H335 before Hornady or Barnes did – at least nothing prior to my use revealed any advantages in their reloading manuals. In the Hornady fourth edition, H335 shows a max of 73.2 grains for the .458 Win Mag at 2100 fps for the 500gr Hornady RN, from a Winchester M70 with a 25″ barrel”. Even IMR 3031 gives 2150 fps as max from 72.2 grains. But in their 7th Edition, they have this to say: “Most loads produced good groups, with H 335 performing exceptionally well”, and in regard to the .458 Lott: “Our choice of powder for this cartridge is Hodgdon 335.” And Hodgdon’s own manual #27 records 2163 fps for the 500gr Hornady in a 24″ barrel from 75.5 grains of H335 at 50,300 CUP (about 57,000 PSI). At the time, 53,000 CUP was considered MAP (about 60,000 PSI). MAP is “Maximum AVERAGE Pressure”, NOT as one sporting magazine Chief Editor declared it to be “maximum absolute pressure” – and he, in an editorial, made a big issue of that!

Two excellent powders for .45-70s and .458 Win Mags.

The .458 Lott’s MAP is 62, 500 psi – no reason for that other than it does no harm, and to show superiority over the .458 Win… that ALSO can be loaded to 62, 500 psi without harm!

So, the upshot of all that means it’s NOT baloney to load the GREAT .458 Win to 62,500 psi, that will, in effect, BEAT the .458 Lott at 62,500 psi with equal length barrels firing the same 500gr because of the .458 Win’s LONG THROAT!!! And that’s no baloney either! The .458 Lott, as manufactured today, has a short SAAMI throat, meaning PSI will develop much more abruptly at 3.6″ COL than the .458 Win with a “free bore” of nearly an inch! And we can seat heavy bullets as long as the Lott with still more “free bore” than the Lott! It’s pure physics! (Go to the 24hr Campfire Forums, Big Bore, and the .458 Win Mag thread for an education on this!). Two other “improved” powders from the St-Marks plant are A 2230 and A 2460 granting the very best that a .458 Win Mag is capable of.

It was the 27th Edition of the Hodgdon manual that first encouraged me to try H335 in my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (Long Throat) as it had about the same burn rate as H4895, that I had previously compressed to the limit in that Ruger No.1 LT, and from that experience to do the same in my second .458 Win, the CZ550. The reason it worked so well in my Ruger No.1 with the long throat in .45-70 was that H335 was a ball powder. I couldn’t get nearly as much H4895 or Varget into the relatively short case of only 2.1″(compared with the 2.5″, .458 WM case). But I did manage 75 grains of H335 before seating the 500gr Hornady, with only very slight compression, at 3.19″. All that was ignited by WLRM primers in the Rem nickle plated brass that lasted “forever”. PSI was less than 63,000 psi from the “short” 22″ barrel. And that’s not baloney either! MV averaged 2200 fps – almost identical to a 22″, 458 Win Mag at 60,000 psi.

< Identical to the one fired over the Chrony is the 45-70 case loaded with the 500gr Hornady RN over 75 grains of H335 at 3.19″ COL.

Yes, absolutely, there’s a lot of baloney out there, BUT there’s also a lot of GREAT news for today’s handloaders that’s NOT baloney!

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

What’s this thing called “RECOIL” all about?

“Kick” is another term, and some refer to it as “thump”! Then there are more unpleasant terms like “getting booted” by a rifle or shotgun.

This piece is reserved to centerfire medium and big game rifles, though, with absolute certainty, handguns and shotguns can dish out their own kind of “hurt”!

So the plan is to talk about it in general terms, then in specifics, and finally how it can be modified or managed so that we can learn to shoot rifles and cartridges that will hurt less than we imagined, or the media and scuttlebutt says they’re going to!

< When we’re facing a gang like this that can impost its own kind of hurt, recoil of the rifle quickly fades from memory!

There is that “equal and opposite momentum”, often referred to as “force”. Often it’s calculated as kinetic energy, which is a different formula than momentum or “force”. The rearward movement of the rifle will equal the momentum of the bullet when it leaves the muzzle. For example: a 500gr projectile leaving the muzzle at 2200 fps will have a force of 500 x 2200/7000 = 157 pounds-feet (The usual way of comparing it with any other rifle/cartridge load). For comparison’s sake, a 180gr x 2700 fps from a .30-06 = 486000/7000 = 69 pounds-feet of momentum/force, or 44 % that of the 500gr at 2200 fps. Then there are other mitigating factors as well, such as the amount of propellant used in each cartridge, the weight of the rifles and jet effect of the gases. So the speed of the rifle in recoil, and its weight, determines the amount of kinetic energy involved – the usual way of expressing “kick”. But heavy-slow bullets from a “heavy” rifle slows the momentum so that “felt recoil” often seems less than the KE number suggests it should be. Oftentimes this is expressed as the recoil effect being “heavy but slow”. That’s because the kinetic energy is spread over a longer time period – that is relatively speaking because it all happens, regardless of the KE number, in thousandths of a second.

That was a layman’s way of telling it… a true scientist would give us facts and numbers that would boggle the mind! Be all that as it may, the real hunter/shooter is concerned about the end product felt by his shoulder. That will be discussed a bit later, but for the moment we simply need to know that there are rather simple methods of calculating the energy and momentum of a particular rifle and cartridge in comparison with some others. A simple formula that I use is: 1.75 x pw x bw x fps/rw/7000/64.4 = R (pw is powder weight in grains; bw is bullet weight; rw is rifle weight in lbs; R is recoil in ft-lbs). Some formulas use 1.50 instead of 1.75 which may increase the recoil factor too much for smaller calibers.

< When I was moose hunting with my CZ550 in .458 WM in the far north of Ontario, any concern over recoil was far less than getting my next cup of hot coffee!

Starting out, we may have heard or read somewhere that a typical .375 H&H will “kick harder” than a typical .30-06. But the obvious question is: By how much? Then the formulas can give an estimate of “by how much”. Usually, however, one is instructed, or invited, to fire a few shots from a friend’s .375 H&H at the range. But that may not be factory loads from a standard-weight M70 Winchester, but reloads on the “hot” side of matters from a “worked-on” M70 (or other) to reduce it’s “natural” weight! That would obviously create more recoil – maybe a lot more – than a “natural” load from a “natural” M70 in .375 H&H. To put a face on that: A 270gr factory load from a 9.5 lb M70, in its original form, will have a recoil of about 36.5 ft-lbs of KE, whereas a 300gr from an 8.5 lb “custom” .375 H&H at 2600 fps could have a recoil of around 46 ft-lbs of KE (depending on the amount of propellant used to attain that number – especially if the barrel is shorter than 24″). But that’s 27% more recoil than a “standard load” from a usual .375 H&H. That increase from a particular .375 H&H may very well be enough to discourage the enquiring hunter/shooter from ever looking at another .375 H&H in the future, much less of ever thinking of getting into true Big Bores!

All that to point out that very light rifles, in whatever cartridge, are attractive to the presumed hunter that might spend one-half, or more, of his/her time in hunting on foot in terrain that’s not your typical local mall!

The trend to light rifles for all cartridges has arrived! So has the trend to fast but light bullets in smaller calibers with muzzle brakes. With ATVs in every other garage, nobody wants to “walk it up” anymore! So we have a generation of hunters with rooms full of these types of rifles that all do pretty-much the same thing. So discussions in chat rooms on the Internet revolve around whether to use a 120gr vs a 140gr in their 6.5s – as one example! So – in a sense – we’ve grown up hunters who dislike recoil more than a .308 Winchester, because life in general has treated them with the latest toy that’s painless for killing big game! Exceptions prevail in tough places like Alaska and the Yukon!

To be fair, I must admit that at my age less weight and recoil is attractive! But what is attractive is NOT always – and rarely is what’s best for maintenance of good health and longevity! Somehow society through politics believes it’s a God given right to protect us from any kind of pain! Yet the old adage is still true: “No pain, no gain”. That’s NOT to suggest that anyone should love pain, or want to inflict it on others, but it remains true for humans: We listen and learn best through a measure of suffering. While we may protect ourselves from most physical pain, but NEVER from all other kinds like failure, disappointment, loss, etc. All is either designed or allowed by God for our good, not our destruction!

So, back to our theme: We can only measure recoil by how it “feels” to us. And that’s dependant on a number of factors in addition to the physics of the matter.

< When I shot this moose with my .340 Wby Mag, physics said I was getting “kicked” by 54 ft-lbs of recoil… Strange, but I don’t remember anything about that! But I have fond memories of that hunt with a son!

1> The psychological aspect: People can’t all fit into the same “shoe box”. And that includes the people who call themselves “hunters”. Not only do we have distinct body styles but distinct psychological “styles”. That’s what democracies are all about, and why there is not only hot arguments and divisions over politics in democracies, but near hatred: “I’m always right, and those who agree with me are always right… and the others are just plain wrong!” So it is in the hunting and shooting world, if the Internet is any indication.

The solution to all that in politics and hunting is obviously compromise! Admitting our biases and agreeing where possible and when practical (the best for all concerned). Giving “the devil his due”, so to speak. But “sticking to our guns” if and when necessary for our “psychological factor” to remain intact!

For one shooter, they can’t tolerate recoil over 20 ft-lbs of KE, for another the limit is the .700 Overkill with only God knowing how much recoil that feels like because the shooter’s nervous system can’t tell him because it died at the mere thought of what was about to happen! When I had my motorcycle accident I lost consciousness just before (I’d committed myself to God) and regained it after, at 30 ft beyond the car in a sitting up position wondering what “that” was all about! Likewise for those who shoot the likes of a .700 Overkill! But, there is the sound notion that gradually being introduced to heavier recoil than we’re used to eventually leads to trying yet heavier recoiling rifles. I never started shooting a .458 WM, or its equivalent in recoil until I reloaded .45-70s around the age of 50! A decade earlier I owned my first magnums: 7mm, a 300 WM, a .338 WM, before I owned my first .45-70. And the poor shape of the 1895 Marlin booting me to the tune of 40 ft-lbs teaches a lot about handling 40 ft-lbs recoil from a very badly shaped stock with a rock-hard butt pad! But I came NOT to resent it, but respect it, so much so that it seemed “normal”. Almost anything after that seemed very respectable, like my .340 WBY dishing out 54 ft-lbs seemed mild by comparison with that Marlin in .45-70!

2> The physical aspect: Age may be a factor, health and physical conditioning is another. Size and weight is rarely a factor. When shooting at the range use a very good shield in a shoulder pad and/or a thick towel and jacket. And don’t slouch, as in “bench-rest” style. Sit up straight so your body will move with the recoiling rifle. That means a rifle rest that allows it. If using a scope, don’t “crawl the stock” to get closer to the eyepiece of a scope. Use scopes with long ER’s (eye-relief) of at least 4″. I’ve liked the Burris fixed 4x by 21mm with a long ER of 5.5″. I’ve never been “touched” by the scope on a hard recoiling rifle, either at the bench or in the field. Also, use excellent eye and ear protection, even in the field!

< That fixed 4x Burris on my CZ550 in .458 WM had an eye relief of over 5 inches, enduring hundreds of rounds of “hot” ammo without complaint or failure .

3> The rifle: Its ergonomics (see above) – how well it fits the shooter (most important). A good recoil pad. Change it, or have it changed if its too hard or thin. I had the pad on my Ruger No.1 in .45-70 LT (an infamous, hard, thin rubber) changed out to a thick Pachmayr due to loads that equalled a .458 WM. The rifle with ammo and scope only weighed 8.4 lbs. Also a good muzzle brake can mitigate recoil velocity by up to about 20% (or more is claimed by some companies). I now have muzzle brakes on all my big-game rifles. You don’t like the increased noise? There are ways of dealing with that too: Wear some suitable ear muffs, like any person does in factories, machine shops, or even driving heavy machinery! Uncomfortable? Do you shoot at a range? Without ear protection? Live with the pain of a busted ear drum then! AND pull the rifle tight to the shoulder, WITH BOTH HANDS, if it’s a big-bore rifle and cartridge!

4> The load: This can make a huge difference in felt recoil. The difference in felt recoil of two distinct loads from the same rifle can make one pleasant to shoot and the other “ugly”! That’s why some select a lighter bullet over the heavy one. We need to be practical about this, however, Though technically they may have differences in KE in ft-lbs of recoil that favors the lighter bullet, yet in practice the recoil of the rifle firing the lighter bullet may be quicker than the slower recoil caused by the heavier projectile. Remember: it’s the speed of the recoiling rifle that gives a sense of “felt” recoil. There are several nuances to this, but the speed the bullet must attain at the muzzle is quicker from a light bullet than a heavier bullet at a slower velocity at the muzzle.

For example: I’ve currently two loads I’m working on for my new .35 Whelen (22″): 1) a 225gr at about 2750 fps (3779 ft-lbs) over 65 grains propellant, and 2) a 250gr at 2565 fps (3653 ft-lbs) over 56 grains of a different propellant. The recoil based on physics of the 225gr is 36.7 ft-lbs from my relatively light 7.5 lb rifle with scope and ammo ready to hunt. Load 2) shows a recoil of 33.7 ft-lbs. For a big bear or moose I’d choose the second load (250gr) as it has greater momentum and higher SD. Both of those loads, by the way, will be reduced in felt recoil by up to 20% from the muzzle brake = 29.4 ft-lbs and 27 ft-lbs respectively. So a lighter, faster bullet is not always the best choice, especially if we think it will give less recoil!

My choice of the 225gr or 250gr will depend on what I’m hunting and where. The 225 obviously has a better trajectory for longer ranges, and insures adequate expansion all the way to 500 yards, whereas the 250gr will insure some expansion to 400 yards. In this case, recoil is NOT the deciding factor. I see the 225gr (Nosler Partition) as an “all-rounder”, and the 250gr (NP) as a more specialised weight for heavy game at closer ranges – though either will “geterdun” at any practical range.

This brief article surely doesn’t cover “all the bases” but, hopefully, will review some of the finer points in our choices of rifles and their loads for medium and big game based on management of their potential “felt” recoil.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Traditions…

< This photo was taken in early May, 1989 when I was fifty-three years of age. That was my first 1895 Marlin in .45-70 and my first bear.

As people age there’s a tendency to look back to “better times”, especially if things are not going well or one is nearing the end of their journey here. I’ve never been a “history buff” or a traditionalist for its own sake. I’ve always had goals and looked forward to their fulfilment, with God’s help.

I believe the Bible and take its message seriously – otherwise, I’d be denying the One who has redeemed me – Jesus Christ. He said: “I am the resurrection and the life, the one who believes (trusts) in me will never die but have eternal life – do you believe this?”, he asked a friend, Martha, who had just buried her young brother.

I don’t fear death because I know The One who has given me eternal life (a gift of grace to those who believe in Him)! Between now and then, I’ll go on living here with goals – things to do that’s current for each day.

I never thought it would happen, but I’ve purchased another rifle called “Traditions”. Another single-shot! It’s similar to an H&R I purchased in 2010 but didn’t keep. It was chambered in .35 Whelen… so is this Traditions. I didn’t keep the H&R because it wouldn’t fire new handloads I’d put together using new Remington .35 Whelen brass. I believed the new cases were at fault as it would fire both factory ammo and handloads made from old brass that I’d used in my former Rem 7400 semi dating back to 1997. Whatever the problem – it was neither discovered by the gunsmith at the shop where both rifle and brass were purchased, nor my own gunsmith. I still have those 50 new .35 Whelen cases purchased for that H&R, plus dies and a few hundred bullets from 200gr to 300gr from 1/4 of a century ago . So far, the Traditions will fire these new cases with primers only. So it appears I’ll not have to fireform them to the chamber of the Traditions .35 Whelen. That will save a lot of extra time at the range, and expense in wasted powder and bullets.

Yes, I know its ballistic potential is similar to my 9.3 x 62, but I’ve been wanting a “brush gun” for some time ever since I let my Ruger 96/44 get away when it was an even trade for the H&R. The Traditions is 39″ in length with the muzzle brake and 37″ without it. It weighs 6.1 lbs without scope and ammo, which will increase weight to about 7.5 lbs when added. It’s planned to be a “walk-about” rifle.

As such, handloads of around .358 Winchester ballistics could be effective at woods ranges. Or… it would make a nice coyote/wolf rifle to 350 +yards firing 200gr TTSX’s around 3000 fps. Yep, that’s what the 200gr Hornady SPs did from that H&R single-shot when I used old, once-fired brass from my former 7400 in .35 Whelen.

So I’m not against everything “traditional” if it works!

In speaking of the .35 Whelen, you already know, if you’ve been a reader of these blogs, that it’s one of my favorites. Using “old” brass from the former Rem 7400 semi in .35 Whelen, the first load fired from that “former” H&R made 2565 fps from a 250gr Hornady SP – and that was a starting load. I’d also loaded three more in the “new” Rem brass with increased increments of 1 grain each, which all failed to fire! The 200gr Hornady SP was loaded in the “old” cases (a load I’d previously used in the 7400) that did 2998 fps/3991 ft-lbs average corrected to MV. The powder for the 250gr Hornady was RL-15 and H4895 was used for the 200gr. A 200gr at .35 Remington speed would be ~ 2200 fps. A friend killed a 300 lb class bear using a 200gr RN (Remington or Hornady) from his .35 Rem as the bear walked under his stand. MV was 2100 – 2200 fps. That bear was DRT. The .35 Rem is the typical “Mainer” bear gun. So I could easily “make” this new .35 Whelen into a “Mainer bear gun” if wanted. Then I still have eight rounds left over from when I had the 7400 back in 1997, with the 225 Nosler NBT over 65 grains of RL-15 in new .30-06 cases. My records show that five had been fired and recorded an average of 2760 fps corrected to MV. Their COL is standard at 3.34″. Sometime they’ll be fired at the range through the Traditions. The 7400 also had a 22″ barrel. I liked that rifle a lot but sold it, along with another rifle, for some ready cash.

The Traditions will not compete with my 9.3 x 62 as it’s intent is different – as a “walk-about” rifle it is light, short and handy for a quick “one shot”, mostly when I’m just “out and about” and scouting, or in wolf hunting.

A scope is yet to be mounted. Its official name is Traditions Outfitter G3, with a Premium Cerakote finish on a fluted LOTHER WALTHER hammer forged barrel and muzzle brake. Twist rate is 1 – 14″. It has an external rebounding hammer, a transfer bar safety, a thick recoil pad, drilled and tapped for a single scope base (Weaver type on order), swivel studs, and Elite XT trigger. Made in Spain, it is imported by Traditions Performance Firearms, in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, USA.

The break-action is stiff… but will improve with some work and gun oil. Trigger pull is crisp. It has an extractor, not an ejector (which I prefer, but have experience with both).

The .35 Whelen appears to be growing in popularity again. A dozen years ago when I went looking for another to replace the 7400, none could be found in this part of the world. So I came home with the 9.3 x 62. No regrets for that. But it’s a hot theme on the forums just now, especially since a couple of new powders (CFE223 and 2000MR) have come on the scene. These are supposed to boost MVs upwards of 100 -150 fps over “older” propellants at safe psi. Maybe. But my take is that reloading manuals, factory ammo and guys who loaded them were well below 52,000 CUP! Tested loads often came in around 47,000 – 48,000 CUP! That’s not 52,000 CUP! Whatever that is in psi (62,000 psi?), much setting of standards is arbitrary at best, even by SAAMI which appears very inconsistent sometimes: i.e., SAAMI pressure for the .270 Win compared to the .280 Remington, as an example: 65000 psi for the 270 and 60,000 psi for the 280!

There’s no logic for such confusion! I’ve been a handloader for over forty years and have never had a damaged rifle or had to drive out a fired case with hammer and dowel! A few loose primers and that’s been it… even then that was after several firings.

That the .35 Whelen is capable of 2600 fps firing a 250gr from a 22″ barrel is not news, and 2650 – 2700 fps for certain 250s from particular 24″ tubes isn’t exactly news either. All at safe pressures. I’m not sure I’ll bother with the “new” propellants as I think what I have – including RL-17 – will do just fine. RL-15, RL-17 and H4895 should do anything I want or expect. Then I have some 300gr Barnes, 250gr Partitions, nearly a full box of the 225 X, 225 Partitions and nearly a box of 200gr Hornady SPs. All that in addition to nearly a box of those 250gr Hornady SPs. Dies are RCBS.

.35 Whelens have long throats, and the Outfitter G3 easily handles this cartridge with the long 225gr Barnes X at 3.5″ COL. The bullet is seated only 1/4″ into the neck and is very tight there. This allows a good deal more of an appropriate powder. I expect that with the right propellant 2800 fps is possible for that bullet from the 22″ barrel. For a single shot there’s no need for a crimp. The 225-X bullet is seated over 67 grains of RL-17 (lightly compressed) for an expected ~ 2700 fps, primed by WLRM. I’ve used 70 grains of that powder under the 250gr AB in my 9.3 x 62 at +2700 fps for several years without issues. Accuracy in that rifle is typically less than 1/2 MOA for three.

Recoil will be fast from those 200s at ~ 3000 fps for wolf, in such a light rifle! I shot a bear using the 7400 firing the 200-X at 2835 fps. I still have a handful of the 200 Xs. Recoil wasn’t noticeable since that rifle was a semi and nearly 9 lbs with scope and ammo.

What is a .35 Whelen good for? It might be simpler to answer this question: What is it NOT good for? If solids were available (super-hard cast?), and it was legal, it could certainly take any game in the world. Yet with pistol bullets, it’s not a bad varmint rifle either.

“But it’s a single-shot”?, some might argue! Since I’ve written on that theme many times over, I’ll simply reply: “SO WHAT! Do you use a BP rifle for deer, hogs or elk?” This Traditions would be much slower to reload than my former semi, on which I never pulled the trigger twice on any game, but much faster than a BP rifle for a second shot if ever needed!

It can make +4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle from several loads, so it qualifies as a MEDIUM (.338 – .375 magnums). It’s at least the equal of a .338 Win Mag in effect with its larger bullets in cross-sectional area, and depending on how each is loaded it might be more effective on particular BG at certain ranges.

Whenever I do a search for a particular rifle for “Dangerous Game” on my favorite emporium, any .338 Win Mags are always listed, while none of the 9.3 x 62s are… same with the .35 Whelen! I’m wondering… “Who is doing the listing?” Certainly not someone who’s knowledgeable!

But really, my intention is to load it from 35 Remington to .358 Winchester ballistics for relatively close ranges. If I ever loaded it for a big bear on purpose, it would get the 250 Partition at about 2400 – 2500 fps.

Hmmm… let’s see… The recoil of such a load – the 250 Partition – from a 7.5 lb rifle ready to go “bang” would be around 30 ft-lbs, minus 15% – 20% for the muzzle brake? About 25 ft-lbs… or somewhere around that. That’s standard .35 Whelen fare, but much more than a .35 Rem and somewhat more than a .358 Win. But I said “If I were preparing specifically for a big bear”, otherwise for big game at any range, it would likely be loaded with a 225 Partition or 225 Barnes X at ~ 2700 fps. For brush “busting”, a 250 Hornady around 2250 (same as a .358 Winchester).

The scope is a 2 – 8 x 32mm Tasco World Class. It’s one I had on hand… very bright and sharp. The scope and rings, plus four cartridges, weigh 22 ounces, or 1.375 lbs. Add the base, plus cartridge holder on the butt stock, a sling and total carry weight ready to hunt will be slightly in excess of 7.5 lbs. At that weight and length of 39″, it qualifies as a walk-about “brush gun”. Scope will be kept on 2x, until more is needed.

And I’ll be wearing my WALKER’S ear muffs at all times in walking about to enhance hearing of game, but shutting down when the rifle goes “KAPOW”!

Not to worry… the 9.3 x 62 will maintain its place as a “true” medium in the echelon of rifles under my care.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

Hunting in Good Times and Bad

This is a simple message to friends who read my blogs, and others who may drop in now-and-then for a “look-see”.

Because of two full years of the Covid-19 pandemic, with the possibility of more on the horizon, and now Putin’s brutal War against Ukrainians – with nobody knowing where it will end or when – most of our thoughts could be drawn away from pastimes and focused more on current world and personal issues, including safety and future well-being that includes world economics and its effects closer to home. I think we all understand that those issues are much more ponderous than “my next hunt”.

< I was toting my .458 Win Mag – I’m dreaming of getting back soon to shooting and hunting!

Yet,  we need to continue living, having certain attainable dreams and goals. Some of it will be simple daily chores, and others of a longer term that may include a next hunt, while never closing our eyes or hearts to others in desperate needy situations.

In our context, my wife and I are not housebound,  and continue with a significant range of activities. I’m now officially retired as a pastor at the age of eighty-six. But that doesn’t mean cutting myself off from friends long associated with our ministry. Then a major part of our family is within an hour or so driving distance.  We also have the Internet and phone service which keeps us in contact with family scattered as far as the East is from the West – literally – in Canada! And how could we neglect our most intimate friends – who are still living – made over the years since our marriage, soon to be sixty-five years ago this June.

Unless days are very distressing due to physical pain, or depressing due to emotional issues such as a dying partner or loved one, advanced years seem to pass more quickly than younger years. Every day, week, month and year seems to fly by! And that’s the experience of most seniors. It’s not that we are free from aches or pains, or even chronic illnesses, but there’s plenty to occupy our minds with “good stuff”, and our bodies with healthy activities!

All that was mentioned to simply encourage others to continue with or find activities that they might enjoy in a safe place outside the confines of home. I still have tentative plans for a bear hunt in May — God willing. In the meanwhile I can do some reloading at home, practice at the range and testing of bullets. And bird watching. Then I’d really like to get out the CELESTRON for a glimpse of the heavens in good weather now and again. Plus there are spring chores to be done inside and outside the house. Gardening will be less demanding as we’ll cut much of it out this year for sure.

Our hope and prayer is that life will get back to “normal” sooner than later for all concerned. If so or not so, God is still the same, “yesterday, today and forever”, and we are invited to call upon Him for help in all seasons and whatever needs or conditions that may prevail within or around us.

“It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in humans.” (Psalm 118:vs8)

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL

THREE RIFLES for All Hunting? My thinking…

From the rear-view mirror of an eighty-six year old – who’s still hunting and making handloads for rifles, and six decades of hunting experiences with over forty years in the handloading game (from .22 Hornet to the mighty .458 Win Mag) what would I keep as a three-rifle battery for all global hunting, including “dangerous game”?

The three rifles, not including a .22LR or 12ga shotgun which would be in addition to the three center fire rifles, would all be multi-purpose. That is, they would be capable of taking two classes of game in suitable contexts. So there would be some overlapping.

I’d want one of the three to be a bolt-action repeater with specific purposes. And at least one of the remaining two would be a single-shot. The one remaining could be either a repeater or a single-shot.

The three classes of game, including DG, is generally sorted as small, medium and large. However, within that broad spectrum there are several sub-classes and multiple physical conditions that must be accounted for in any planned hunt. So if we do much hunting of a variety of game in various regions, while one rifle could possibly satisfy, I’d choose three from those I’ve experience with to better suite any given game and physical location.

The FIRST: for small game, including varmints, to medium game, including wolf and WT deer.

CZ 455 in .22 LR

Though I’ve owned a number of .22LRs, and still own a couple (a Remington semi and a CZ bolt), I’d not purposely take them hunting for anything more than woodchucks, rabbits and fox – and maybe the occasional grouse. But they would not be my first choice for a variety of hunting conditions. Coyote, wolf and WT deer – a deer license is costly and includes the specifics of sex, and might go to 400 lbs in this area that requires much more than a .22LR has to offer.

So that also excludes for me the .223 Rem – of which I’ve owned a couple. And I’ve passed by the .243 Win in favor of .25s, .26s and .28s (7mm).

I was very impressed with my M70 in .25-06, so that would be my first choice of a center-fire rifle to fully meet the demands and expectations for taking, for example, a possible 150 lb wolf to 400 yards, and any whitetail to ~400 lbs. While a bolt rifle like my former M70 would be an excellent choice, so would a Ruger #1. It would get one load of a 120gr Partition at 3175 fps for coyote, wolf and WT deer.

However, in a mixed bag that might include black bear – which is often my situation in a fall hunt – I’d go with my second rifle as a bear can come in any size and I might need to stop it in it’s tracks as I’d be on the ground in a wolf or deer hunt and not in a stand. Even though a .25-06 shooting a 120gr NP from a tree stand with careful placement, is adequate for most any bear at a bait setup, yet that’s not the same thing as any bear under all conditions! My deer hunting and wolf hunts are in very mixed terrain that might involve shooting across the end of a lake or marsh. While a .25-06 has killed many bears, yet it still would not be my first choice under all conditions.

The SECOND: a rifle for medium to large game – including some DG, as in any size bear under all conditions, would be a bolt-action repeater of a medium-bore (.338 – .375) caliber in a magnum cartridge, or equivalent.

Since many of my blogs have been dedicated to this theme, I’ll spare as much repetition as possible while still giving a rational for my choice. Most of you who read my articles are already aware that I’ve chosen the 9.3 x 62 Mauser to fit that bill. It has replaced all other mediums, including: .338 magnums, .35 Whelens and .375 H&H’s. Why?

Because it can do what any of those three can, or could do! And that’s been proven too many times for well over a century in Africa – including elephant and Cape buffalo – as well as on other continents – for any realistic argument against it to have a sound footing! It’s main shortcoming is lack of awareness in North America, but that’s been changing for the past decade or so. It can, and has done anything the contemporary .375 H&H has accomplished. And that knowledge has come from renowned African PH’s as well as a famed Alaskan Master Guide for Brown Bear, Phil Shoemaker.

My experience is much more limited to three black bears, and ballistics at the muzzle that just about equal most results from the .375 H&H or .375 Ruger, using optimum handloads.

There is nothing in the world I couldn’t hunt with it. Some say it’s not legal for the DG of Africa, yet there are actually a number of countries where the historic 9.3 x 62 is legal for DG, including elephant, lion and buffalo (there are different sub-species in some countries):

Senegal

Benin

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Ethiopia

Mozambique

Namibia (5400 joules = 3982 ft-lbs) minimum for DG. With handloads the 9.3 x 62 is more than able.

Zimbabwe (5300 joules min for DG.) Minimum cal. = 9.2mm

My 9.3 x 62 in a Tikka T3 has produced 4300 ft-lbs (5830 joules) from the 320gr Woodleigh and 4427 ft-lbs (6003 joules) from the 286gr Partitions.

Just sayin’…

Having a very slick bolt-action repeater with a match grade 22.44″ barrel, it’s a go-anywhere, do-anything rifle from coyote to….?

The THIRD rifle is no surprise to anyone who is a reader of these pieces: It could be either a bolt-action repeater OR a single-shot. I’ve owned a couple as bolt-action repeaters and three as single-shots. They could shoot .458-cal bullets from 250gr all the way to 600gr!

The first was a Ruger M77 bolt-action repeater in .458 Win Mag.

The second was a single-shot Ruger #1 in .45-70.

The third was a CZ550 in .458 Win Mag.

The fourth was a single-shot Ruger #1 in .45-70 with a long throat (LT).

The fifth is my current Ruger No.1H in .458 Winchester Magnum.

All of that covers a history going back for over thirty years. Mixed in with that are several other .45-70s, some with lever-actions and others with single-shot break-actions.

It should be obvious that I’m very impressed with .458-cal rifles AND their projectiles!

That fourth single-shot Ruger with the long throat (LT) was something I had done by my gunsmith so that longer-heavier bullets could be fired at meaningful velocities. That succeeded admirably! In fact, so much so that ballistics from the heaviest bullets (450gr and 500gr) from the 22″ barrel were equal to those from a .458 Win Mag with a 22″ barrel.

I would still have that rifle if I were still sixty! But it only weighed 8.4 lbs with a scope, one in the chamber and four in a stock cartridge holder. Recoil was getting up around 80 ft-lbs with the heaviest loads! So considering eye surgery on my one good eye and arthritis in my hands and shoulders, it got traded for a 2 lb heavier Ruger No.1H in .458 Win Mag. If wanted, ballistics are, on average, about 150 fps faster than in the Ruger #1, .45-70 LT. In truth, however, I’m slowing things down rather than speeding them up. All together, with the heavier rifle (10.65 lbs ready to hunt) and reduced loads, it’s quite pleasant to shoot!

That’s current history, but all things considered and reviewed, I’d still choose the three I’ve nominated, if they’d been available thirty-five years ago… Let’s see, hmmm… I’m cogitatin’… that would make me the age of when we moved to this part of the world!

Yet going back in history with my current experience and knowledge, a .25-06, a .35 Whelen (almost a 9.3 x 62) and that first Ruger M77 in .458 Winchester Magnum would have covered all bases – wanting nothing, needing nothing more!

Afterthoughts… There was a debate in my mind between the .25-06 and the 7-08, which were both favorites. I’ve chosen the .25-06 in this classification that would make a trio of a .25, a .35 and a .45. Interesting…. The 9.3 is .36 caliber, and if I were to replace the vacancy of the .25-06 today, it would likely be with a 7-08 Rem. The .25-06 is rare today, and very costly compared to a 7-08. The 9.3 x 62 is a half-step up on the .35 Whelen which it has replaced – and I’ve never looked back!

So, after a lifetime of using rifles, the ballistics of a .25-06 (or 7-08), a 9.3 x 62 (or .35 Whelen), and a .458 Win is what I’d choose today, hunting anywhere under all conditions, for small, medium and large game.

With current new rifles and powders, plus new-premium bullets, and psi equal to so-called “magnums” – in equal length barrels – older cartridges such as the 9.3 x 62 and .35 Whelen can easily attain “magnum” status of well over 4000 ft-lbs at the muzzle! Someone from Alaska has recently reported +2800 fps from a 250gr in his .35 Whelen. It was a book load for the .350 Rem Mag using a near max load of CFE223. However, the barrel length of his rifle was 26″. Personally, if I chose the .35 Whelen it would likely have a 22″ tube, making about 100 fps short of 2800. But 2700 fps is realistic today, at safe psi, from a 22″, .35 Whelen using CFE223 or 2000MR. Then there are heavier bullets in .358″ – all the way to a 310gr! Likewise, my 9.3 x 62 at 64,000 psi (same as a .338 Win Mag) can easily make 4200 to 4400 ft-lbs from bullets of 250gr to 320gr. But it’s the one in the middle (286gr NP) that can make just over 4400 ft-lbs (2643 fps avg corrected to MV). All from a relatively new powder: RL-17.

The 250gr AB is my second choice, and it can make 2761 fps (average corrected to MV) from my 22.44″ barrel, but I’ve settled on about 2700 fps. The 320 can do 2464 fps, yet I’ve chosen 2425 fps/ 4178 ft-lbs as my accuracy load.

And what more could be said of the wonderful .458 Winchester Magnum? I really can’t add much to what I’ve written over the last year or so in these blogs – but go to 24hr campfire, “Express rifles and Big Bores Only” section, and select “The Great .458 Winchester Magnum, why everyone should own at least one”, and there you’ll find encyclopedic information not found anywhere else! Hey! What could 6000 ft-lbs from a 600gr do for ya?!

And still… it’s unbelievable that there are a few who think themselves “experts”, and write “articles” in magazine “rags”, who are really quite ignorant of the facts going all the way back to 1956! Or they are very prejudiced in favoring the .458 Lott over the .458 Win.

I say it’s “unbelievable” that today such drivel could still be spouted by those who make their living as “professional writers”! They are either very lazy or idiots! Or both! They deserve a big fat “F” on their homework! They should have known – without excuses – that the earliest tests of both Winchester factory 500gr loads and independent handloads, done by an independent lab (White’s) as reported in a LYMAN Reloading Handbook (the 2nd one from Lyman that I owned), revealed that not only were the claimed ballistics (in a 24″ barrel”) by Winchester fully met, but were EXCEEDED at less than 60, 000 psi! (The Lott is granted 62,500 PSI by SAAMI !) Yet the Win Mag is it’s equal or even better depending on how each is loaded, barrel lengths and psi! (I’ve written ALL that in my .458 Winchester Magnum manual back in 2008!)

I KNEW, from my experiences in handloading two Rugers No.1 in .45-70, that since the first (unmodified in any way) with it 22″ barrel could make over 2000 fps from the 500gr Hornady RN, at a tested safe psi, then surely a .458 Win Mag with the same length barrel could make 2200 fps from the same bullet within safe psi! And when my 2nd Ruger #1 in .45-70 with an improved throat could make 2200 fps from safe handloads of that 500gr, then surely my CZ550 in .458 Win could do 2300 fps from its 25″ barrel without undue stress, using several appropriate propellants! And not only did it accomplish that, but so will the Ruger No.1H in .458 with a 24″ barrel do the same… and a bit more!

A .25-06 (or 7-08) can make about 2700 ft-lbs from the muzzle firing a 120gr at 3200 fps. A 9.3 x 62 can make 4300 ft-lbs from a 320gr at 2460 fps from my rifle. And the .458 Win can make 5900 ft-lbs from a 500gr at 2305 fps. Those are top loads from those rifles firing those weight bullets.

< Recorded at 15 feet from the muzzle of my Ruger No.1H (24″ barrel with Mag-Na-Porting), firing the 500gr Hornady RN over 81 grains of H4895, COL @ 3.56″, WLRM primers, Win cases and 54*F/+12*C.

It’s intriguing to me that there’s exactly an increase of 1600 ft-lbs from the 25-06 to the 9.3 x 62, and another 1600 ft-lbs from the 9.3 x 62 to the .458 Win Mag. To me, that gives a balanced selection and meaningful versatility in a “THREE RIFLES for All Hunting” battery.

Til the next…

Shalom

BOB MITCHELL