24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Brad Offline OP
Campfire 'Bwana
OP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Howdy Ken.<p>I didn't see your letter in the American Rifleman, but I've been contemplating cobbling-up a Whelen on a Win 70 (crf) action. I've got an old article by Ken Waters on the Whelen in which he worked up loads in a rifle that apparently belonged to you at one time.<p>What do you think of this non-magnum medium?<p>What were your experiences with the round?<p>I've played around a bit with a 338-06, but was thinking of a dedicated elk buster in 35 Whelen using 250 grainers with a 20" tube.<p>Thoughts and opinions welcome.<p>PS... enjoyed your bear tales... well-told hunting yarns are becoming a thing of the past... more's the pity.<p>Brad Amundson


“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
BP-B2

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
I've LONG been a fan of the .35 Whelen, although it wouldn't be my first choice of an elk cartridge today. The quick way to give you something of my opinion of the Whelen, here's what I wrote for the next Nosler manual's blurb on the Whelen. It may turn out to be shorter in the manual -- this is my full text:<p>.35 Whelen<p>A custom Mauser was a huge investment for a young forester in 1955, but dissatisfaction with factory rifles demanded one. The cartridge had to be carefully chosen for "the only big-game rifle I'll ever own." There weren't many good big-game cartridges to choose from. Careful comparisons narrowed the pickings to three: .333 OKH, .35 Whelen, and .375 H&H Magnum. The .375 lost out first -- cases were more expensive and less plentiful. For the otherwise highly desirable .333, there was only one bullet. A fellow with a .35 could choose among sixteen bullets. The Whelen virtually chose itself. Even friend and adviser Elmer Keith approved.<p>A 250-grain bullet for a .30-06 would be a giant-killer. A bullet 0.358 inch in diameter is in effect a .30-06 bullet "preexpanded" by just over 16 percent. With this weight and diameter, the .35 Whelen is still a great big-game cartridge at any practical velocity. Writers who hadn't tried it wrote that its shoulder was too slight for reliable headspacing. Its users found otherwise.<p>We had to load our own -- no problem. No factory .35 Whelen brass -- no problem. The .35 Whelen's only blemish was the absence of a Nosler .35 Partition bullet. Many of its fans pestered John Nosler for a .35 Partition, but God bless him, John couldn't afford the equipment to feed a potential market no larger than .35 shooters could offer. So we got along well with another company's heavy .35 bullets. In Alaska and Montana, my Whelen used only a 275-grain round-nose. Not considered a long-range bullet, it brought down two caribou with one shot at more hundred yards than I dare tell you. The 250-grains my .35 Whelen friends used in tamer states were more accurate than my 275-grain and equally deadly on their smaller big game.<p>Now we have the Nosler .35 Partition bullet that we used to wish we could get, and it's even better than the .35 Partitions that John could've made for us on the machinery in use from the late Fifties through the Seventies. At 250 grains, it's excellent for both accuracy and delivered energy at all the velocities listed in the load data.<p>Some assume that Colonel Townsend Whelen designed this cartridge, because his name's on it. The rest of us remember that (as Colonel Whelen wrote) "This cartridge was developed by James V. Howe in 1922, and was named for the writer....."


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Brad Offline OP
Campfire 'Bwana
OP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Ken, some nice writing there. You DO have a way with the language.<p>OK, I'll bite. If selecting a cartridge primarily for elk today what would you choose?<p>I've generally used a 338 Win Mag, and just recently got a 300 WSM (very nice... seems to live up to its hype). I do, however, have a "thing" for carbines.<p>Hope you're feeling better these days... thanks for any input...<p>Brad


“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
If I could hunt elk today, I'd prefer either<p>(a) my .338 RCBS (Fred Huntington's .280 RCBS necked-out), which I already have in a super-nice custom Mauser,<p>or<p>(b) my .340 Howell (a factory cartridge using "'06" brass factory-made a bit longer than '06 brass -- 2.600 instead of 2.494 inches), which I don't have a rifle for.<p>There's no need for the fatter case or the belt on a good elk cartridge. Some loads in my .340 Howell, I'm told, match the factory ballistics of the .338 Winchester Magnum -- on a slightly stretched '06 case, which reduces case length and the bolt thrust of the .338 Winchester Magnum while increasing the magazine capacity and the thickness of the steel over the chamber.<p>The Whelen is not a bad choice, especially considering the availability of factory cases and loads for those who value these points. If you prefer the .358 bullets to the .338 bullets, the Whelen is an excellent choice. Even better in some ways is my longer, more capacious, more powerful .350 Howell (like the .340 Howell, 2.600 inches case length, with body substantially longer than the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen).<p>You've a lot more good (and better) options than
I had in 1955.


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Brad Offline OP
Campfire 'Bwana
OP Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Ken, while I'm familiar with your 340 Howell (nice... would work perfectly in a Win 70 LA sans magazine block), I'm not familiar with the 338 RCBS... is it essentially the 338-06? What are the differences?<p>With the 338-06 I had I was getting 2,700 fps (22" bbl.) with 225's and 2,550 fps with 250's and H4350.<p>I agree, fat cases and belts are "tits on a boar" useless. The 338-06 I had built to replace the 338 Win Mag ended up too heavy. I may go that route again in a more reasonable contour.<p>Best Regards,<p>Brad<p>PS... thought of a good bear story my dad related to me. In the late 40's and early 50's he drove a sight-seeing bus in Yellowstone (in between college and the Korea thing). Anyway, he was driving back to Gardiner late one night when he surprised a bear in the middle of a bridge over the Yellowstone. The bear, confused and unsure what to do, frantically looked one way, then the other in a desperate attempt to escape. Exhausting its mental capacity, it jumped over the edge to its death several hundred feet below in the Yellowstone river! Apparently not the brightest apple in the barrel... "natural selection" may work even in the "automobile age!"


“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
IC B2

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
The neck of the .338-06 is unnecessarily long, the shoulder angle is too low, and the case is too short. The .338 RCBS is longer (same as the .270 and .280, which are a tad longer than the '06), with a longer body and sharper (30-degree) shoulder. With 250-grain and lighter bullets, its ballistics are right up there with the .338 Winchester Magnum. The heaviest .338 bullets need the greater capacity of the .338 Winchester Magnum.


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,465
S
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
S
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,465
Ken-<p>What are your thoughts on an Ultramag case shortened to -06 length (or 2.6") and necked up or down, depending on parent case, to .338 with 30 degree shoulder? Any advantages or drawbacks to anything already out there?

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,155
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,155
Ken... Where or how does one obtain this 2.6 inch 06 type brass?
I've got a 375 Whln AI being made(which should be done in another week or two).
Do you have a 375 Howell based on this 2.6 inch case?
It(375 Howell, if you got one) sounds like the Hawk wildcats, which I found out about too late to make, so I settled on the Whln AI version. I'm not totally dis-satisfied, as i'm sure i'll enjoy it, but had I known of the Hawk, or the 375 Howell(if you got one), I'd got with it instead.
Also, do you have a 400 Howell, based on the 2,6 inch case?
Last question... will these 2.6 inch wildcats work in a standard Mauser action? Thanks. ~~~Suluuq

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr><strong> -- A -- Where or how does one obtain this 2.6 inch 06 type brass?
-- B -- Do you have a 375 Howell based on this 2.6 inch case?
-- C -- Also, do you have a 400 Howell, based on the 2,6 inch case?
-- D -- Last question... will these 2.6 inch wildcats work in a standard Mauser action? Thanks. ~~~Suluuq</strong><hr></blockquote><p>A -- You'll find answers to most of your questions at http://www.hunting-rifles.com. The owner is still away for the holidays, I think, but his site should be open anyway.<p>B -- The .380 Howell (above web site)<p>C -- Yes. On the above web site, notice the Howell Basic cylindrical case -- '06 head, 2.7 inches long -- which you'd use to make .400 Howell cases.<p>American Hunting Rifles (AHR) doesn't make ammo or rifles for the .400 Howell, but the AHR web site has a dimensioned drawing of the case, I think. Manson Reamers also has the drawing.<p>D -- Yes, if you don't seat too-long bullets too shallow.


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr><strong> ... the AHR web site has a dimensioned drawing of the [.400 Howell] case, I think.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>No (sorry!) it doesn't. I just checked.<p>The shoulder diameter of the .400 Howell is 0.4450 inch at 2.2 inches from the breech face. The shoulder angle is 25�.<p>The neck -- 0.375 inch long -- is 0.4310 inch in diameter, from 2.225 to 2.600 inches ahead of the breech face.<p>I apologize for giving erroneous information in the above post. Should've checked first. I provided the information on all the "stretched '06" Howell cartridges to AHR and just assumed that AHR put it ALL on the web site. My advice re the .400 Howell was to make it available as a handloader special -- no formed brass, just Howell Basic brass and a set of dies. The sizer die would easily form the Basic case to .400 Howell in one pass.<p>If I could make the new version of AutoCAD print, I'd be happy to send you a drawing. Can't even e-mail it. (Yeah, rats!) Just one more reason I'm going back to the old AutoCAD version that I used for the more than a thousand drawings in my book. At least that "obsolete" version made nice prints on my H-P LaserJet.


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















IC B3

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,645
BW Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,645
Ken,<p>The 375 Howell discussed above, sounds different from the "375 Howell" you designed based on the 404 Jeffery case. <p>If you recall, you sent me the data for your .375 and .416 Howell cartridges. I put that data on my website...<p>link to Ken Howells 375 and 416 Howell data<p>Of course, I could be way off base here, please let me know. What concerns me, is that someone will use the data on my page, for a 30-06 based 375 Howell, when it was intended for a larger cased cartridge. <p>On a seperate note, I've never seen data for your 450 Howell. I've read in "Cartridges of the World" that it should exceed the 458 Win Mag, but only slightly. What's your thought on the potential for that cartridge? <p>Thanks!


Brian

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr><strong>The 375 Howell discussed above, sounds different from the "375 Howell" you designed based on the 404 Jeffery case.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>Of course it is. That's why it's the .380 Howell, not "another .375 Howell."<p>Here's one more reason it's just good sense to pay close attention to letters (spelling, designations) and numbers. Different strings of letters and numbers stand for different things. Anybody who can't (or doesn't bother to) distinguish between ".375" and ".380" is sure to run into trouble, sooner or later, with ".270" and ".280," not to mention ".243" and ".244" and Vihtavuori N550 and N560 powders. A friend of mine didn't distinguish between two powders with designations that weren't this easily confused and blew a nice custom FN Mauser to itty-bitty pieces.


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr><strong>I didn't see your letter in the American Rifleman, but I've been contemplating cobbling-up a Whelen on a Win 70 (crf) action.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>Lest anyone think you've missed (in that letter) some kind of useful information on the .35 Whelen, here's the letter as I wrote it. (It may be a bit shorter in the magazine -- I haven't compared.) If you didn't see the letter there, you didn't miss much -- as you'll see.
___________________________________________<p>My friend Bryce Towsley ("From the Loading Bench," October 2001) is but the latest of a long line of fellows who've wondered whether James V Howe or Colonel Townsend Whelen developed the .35 Whelen. As well as I've been able to figure it, the question originated with some earlier writer's erroneous assumption that wildcats tagged with men's names always bear the names of the men who develop them, and the further assumption that the tag "Whelen" on this great cartridge indicates that the colonel designed it.

No less an authority on the .35 Whelen than Colonel Townsend Whelen himself settled the question many years ago. He wrote about it (page 185 in his book Why Not Load Your Own):<p>"This cartridge was developed by James V. Howe in 1922, and was named for the writer, the idea being a cartridge, more powerful than the .30-06, that could be used in any bolt action suitable for the latter cartridge without alteration."<p>The colonel also wrote essentially the same sentence in another place -- I don't remember where -- in a little more detail. The only Whelen sentence that I know of, that would seem to indicate otherwise, was a single phrase where the colonel rather casually referred to the .35 Whelen as [approximately] "this cartridge of mine" -- an allusion fully consistent with the fact that Howe had originated it and had named it for the colonel as a tribute and honor, not an indelible claim that he had developed it himself. I know of no such claim by Colonel Whelen.
_________________________________<p>I did notice that for some mysterious reason the Editor deleted "Director, International Cartridge Archives" from below my name when he printed my letter in the magazine.


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348


"Good enough" isn't.

Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.



















Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,004
S
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
S
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,004
Brad , if you really want a 20 inch barreled elk gun , you may just find the .35 bore to perform some better than the .33 . The bigger bore is just going to work better with powders on the faster side than the smaller bore , no way around it .

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,718
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,718
I was on another web search and found this exchange, and felt compelled to bring it forward. How an '06 or Jeffrey's based cartridge with these ballistic potentials - but designed for a standard length action - never made it commercially, I'll never know.

Last edited by Mako25; 01/05/10.

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
278 members (007FJ, 160user, 222Sako, 22250rem, 1Longbow, 12344mag, 29 invisible), 1,974 guests, and 917 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,728
Posts18,400,812
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.076s Queries: 14 (0.003s) Memory: 0.8734 MB (Peak: 1.0069 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 11:00:09 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS