JB, I just read your article about 33s and 35s in Handloader an have just 3 things to say

1. Thanks for writing about my beloved 338WM
2. Darn Glad to have you back in HL
3. Loved the article!

1. You're welcome.
2. I'm glad to be back myself.
3. Glad you liked the article!

I'll have to look for that, as I'm falling for the 33s and 35s pretty hard lately!

Just read the article and enjoyed it; is Wolfe going to have you write the back page article for Handloader as well?

Glda you're back Muledeer. I have'nt bought a copy since you left.

I guess I'd be willing to subscribe again, now.

- Tom

Kept the Rifle subscription. Do I have to restart Handloader?

is it this months? cause ill have to get it now that i have a 338 win. because ive missplaced my copy with the write up of john's 338win the punisher or mr misrable whatever the name was

I'm another one who is pleased to again see JB writing for Handloader magazine. I'm also a long time fan of the 35 caliber cartridges, especially the grand old 35 Whelen.

When I was a young man attending college in Colorado I roamed the peaks and canyons of the San Juan mountains in search of wapiti. My rifle of choice was a pre-'64 Winchester M/70 chambered in .338 Winchester Magnum stoked with handloaded cartridges topped with Speer 275 grain bullets. I never needed a second shot on elk or mule deer with the .338 WM it always put 'em down. Now that I've attained the age of 60 I have traded the .338 for a pre-'64 M/70 that Randall Redman rebored to .35 Whelen. I mostly pursue whitetails anymore, my handloads feature Sierra .225 grainers. Plenty adequate for whitetail and the recoil is easier on the old bones. The Whelen has worn several scopes over the years, currently it has a vintage Leupold 2-7X in a G&H mount. Next deer season it will be wearing a Lyman Alaskan with a 3 minute LEE dot.

Which issue of handloader. I let my subscriptions expire when JB left. Very glad hes back and may renew or is this a one time article.

I'm sad. My copy hasn't come yet!

Gunswizard, if you want a tad less recoil yet, I wonder if the 338/06 w/lighter similar B.C. bullets will accomplish that for you?

I will have to find a copy of that article. When I want more than a 6-7mm class, I skip 30s myself in favor of 33, 35s, and intrigued by 9.3s.......

Maybe the idiots at Wolfe finally realized what a valuable asset JB is. I'm sure their bottom line suffered after so many of us cancelled when he left.
Glad you are back JB!

Not to take anything from JB's article ( I have not got my issue yet) but you guys with the 338 WM should read the article by Glen D. Summers in one of the old Rifle Hunting Annuals. I am not sure what year but I think its around 2001 or 2002.

Dink

JB -

Which ones are they publishing your articles in - I'll need to re-subscribe, I let mine run out.

Mike aka Spot

When did you go back to Wolfe?

August-September 2010, No. 267

-Bob F.

Just finished the article, great read especially since I switched from .338 Mag to 35 Whelen this past year.

As I get older I like the fact that it weights less and kicks less than my old .338. My reloads run 2600 fps with 225 gr TSX's and keep the groups at under an inch, thats all I need!

Idiots is right with Scovill their number 1. Has anyone else noticed that his assistant Roberta Montgomery is now Roberta Scovill and he has her plugged in as managing editor of Handloader, Rifle and Successful Hunter?
Looking back over old issues published before Scovill came along their magazines have definitely gone downhill and I had finally convinced my self not to renew again and now I'm going to have to rethink this since JB is writing for them again.
I hope JB soaked it to them for the articles he writes for them from now on.
The best thing that could happen is Don Polacek dump the Scovills and offer the job the JB.
Doc

JB, great article! Have you since tried TAC in the 35 Whelen? I bought some after the great results you got with it in your 9.3s, but haven't tried it in the Whelen due to the lack of data.

Thanks,
JV

I have not read a Handloader or Rifle magazine in a number of years, in fact I only read those that are comped to my business, and only scim through them..I might have to get a subscription to Handloader if JBs going to be there often..

I love the 33s., not big on 35s as I think the 338 Win. about maxed any other caliber in that catagory. For about the last 20 years I have been an advocate of the 9.3x62 and .338 Win. still don't know which one I like best, never will..I know the 35 Whelan, 358 Norma, etc. are just as good, but just never have been of interest to me personally..

I'm curious, John, is this one time thing or are you a regular contributer to Handloader now? Any chance you'll go back to being a regular contriuter to Rifle too ?

J.B. Missed reading you. Glad you are back. Hope it is for the long haul. The magazine lost a good part of it's appeal when you left. I will resubscribe if you are part of it again.

JB: a year ago, when you left Wolfe, you mentioned that Wolfe had several articles of yours that had not been published and that they'd probably publish them sometime. The article on 33's and 35's is excellent; is it a new article or one of the previously submitted ones?

I assume that you will you now be a regular contributor to Wolfe. Will you continue to write for the other publications? If so, I only hope you don't become stretched too thin and let the quality suffer.

JB,
Article would have been perfect except for two minor points.

1. A twist of 1:16" is not traditional in 35s ... it's only traditional for the 35Rem and perhaps the 35Winchester. Otherwise how do you explain commercial production of the 275gr Hornady and 300gr Barnes projectiles at the time? I think the Griffin&Howe 35Whelens were all 1:12" ... but cant be 100% certain. Remington did the diservice of selecting a 1:16" twist. Also note the twist of the 400/350 and 350Rigby magnum ... neither are 1:16".
2. There was a bolt gun designed in 33cal to NOT shoot 300gr projectiles. Very close to the 338WinMag, it was the 33BSA which from inception was for use with a 165gr projectile. Imagine what could have been if that projectile had of had modern construction techniques.
Cheers...
Con

DocFoster: You are so correct. Drive away Barsness and Seyfried but keep Trzoniec? Publisher genius and I don't care what writing faux pas Seyfried committed.

Scroll down to page 3 of this thread:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth..._An_Ex_Post_Facto_Thanks_to_#Post4037812

I renewed my subscription to Handloader this morning via telephone. I told the lady at Wolfe that I'm pleased that JB is back and she said she'd pass the comment along. It is a good decision for all of us.

Mule Deer, are you still allowed to use the term "Rifle Looney"? Haven't gotten my issue yet; looking forward to it since I have a .338, a .350 Rem Mag and a .35 Whelen just waiting for some new loads.

I emailed Wolfe a month or so back. They said he is freelance now and they will fit in his stuff if there is room!

Hope that changes. Let them hear from you all

Thinking that Wolfe realizes now that they screwed the pooch....

I just got back from a week on the road so will reply to posts in some sort of order, starting with DocFoster:

Roberta Montgomery/Scovill has been there for 20 years, doing basically the same jobs. She didn't get the managing editor's job since she and Dave got married. She pretty much keeps track of everything, making sure articles get in, the editor reads them, and they get published on time. This is the general job description of "managing editor" at most magazines.

444afic,

I haven't tried TAC in the .35 Whelen, and prfobably should. Mostly I have tried the powders commonly used by handloaders, to see how they work.

If I were to try TAC in the .35 Whelen, I'd start with IMR4895 loading data.

kalbrecht,

No, it's not a one-time thing. Right now I am writing an article for each issue of Handloader and Rifle, and that's the plan for the immediate future. I've also done a couple for Successful Hunter, but probably won't be in every issue.

djs,

The articles that I had in at Wolfe when I left (which was actually close to 2 years ago) were all published within 3-4 months.

I did cut back on some of my writing for other places, but am still planning to write for every issue of Guns, Varmint Hunter and Sports Afield, as well as maybe half the issues of American Rifleman and occasionally for other magazines.

When I was writing full time for Wolfe (just before I became editor of Succesful Hunter) I was writing 20 feature articles and 36 columns a year. After that I was editing six magazines a year, and writing 20 features and 24 columns. I can assure you that my present work load isn't any heavier than it was then!

Con,

In general American .35's have indeed tended to have 1-16 twists. The ones that haven't have been scarce (such as the G&H .35 Whelens) or couldn't use the heavier bullets for other reasons. My own Savage 99 .358 Winchester, for instance, has a 1-12 twist, for what reason only some departed Winchester guy can tell us. My own Pachmayr custom Springfield was originally a .35 Whelen (before somebody rechambered it to .358 Norma) and has a 1-14 twist. The British .35's were never a factor here; in fact I have only seen a handful in many years of gun shows. But 1-16 twist .35's might show up anywhere.

So American bullet manufacturers had to act as if .35 caliber twists MIGHT be 1-16, the reason bullets heavier than 250 grains were scarce. The 275 Hornady and 300 Barnes were blunt-noses, designed to work in 1-16 twists--as is the 280-grain Swift today.

navlav8r,

Oh, yeah, I can still use "rifle loony." In fact I have been using it in articles for other magazines, and so far nobody has objected except one Guns magazine reader. In an article about the .300 Winchester Magnum, I mentioned that there were still some rifle loonies who firmly believe the .308 Norma is a vastly superior cartridge.

This reader took offense at this, and demanded an apology. He then went on to state that he handloads his .308 Normas (he has more than one) to faster velocities than those possible with the .300 Winchester, thereby proving my point.

So I can use the 280 Swift A-Frame in my 358 Norma, which has a 1-16 twist?

Easily, according to Sierra's bullet stability calculator.

Bullet stabilization is mostly (but not totally) dependent on bullet length, not weight. I believe the 280 Swift is a little shorter than the 225 Nosler AccuBond.

OK, in the Swift reloadig manual it has the 280 A-Frame at 1.345",so I guess I will try some in my 358 Norma then.

As John said: the 300 Barnes Original will stabilize in a 1 in 16" twist. I've used them in two Remingtons in .35 caliber: a .350RM and a .35 Whelen. Their length is 1.353".

As a matter of fact, I still have nearly a full box and will give them a try in my new Handi-Rifle in .35 Whelen. I don't know it's twist-rate yet, but it's probably 1 in 16. I'll find that out shortly.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

Just FYI: Woodleigh has a new .358 caliber 275 gr Protected Point that is 1.312" in length. I haven't tried them yet, though, in my Ruger M77 Hawkeye in .35 Whelen (which has a 1-16" twist).

http://www.woodleighbullets.com.au/

BTW: Woodleigh's web site has been totally redesigned and it's very nicely done.

Cheers!
-Bob F.

Thanks for the tip! I will take a look at that.

JV

Man, I gotta wake the mail carrier up. One week later and I still haven't received my issue of Handloader. What gives, does Wolfe mail out publications over the course of a week or two?

JB,

I have HL in front of me right now and am reading up. Love it. Got it w/ the white page over the cover "warning" me that it was my last issue. I rolled my eyes and threw it away... until I saw that you were featured in it!

Of course I got that right after my latest SA in which you list the "top 10". Love that publication even more than ever since you started contributing.

Fantastic. I'll be calling Wolfe and renewing all three and letting 'em know why.

Always satisfying to get the nod like this; even more so when a little crow is eaten by those who have 'dissed' in the past.

Well deserved.

It's curious: Remington's .35 cartridges have been introduced with 16" twists: 35 Rem, .35 Whelen, .350 Rem Mag. Winchester .35 cartridges have been in 12" twist barrels: .35 Win, .358 Win, .356 Win.

--Bob

Kimber7man I live in Missouri and get my issue 10 t 14 days after everyone on the internet starts talking about it. I called wolfe before and they said they did not know what the problem was because at the time they were being mailed from Michigan.

I have not got my issue yet either.

Dink

I think I will renew my subscription to HL/Rifle. I let it go for some reason that now escapes me a couple of years ago...

I'm in Maryland, and have not gotten mine yet either. I usually get it about the same time an article is mentioned on the Fire.

Will call Wolfe on Monday. Sure would like to read John's article.

Steve

Just a thought: I believe the electronic versions of the Wolfe magazines (downloadable pdf file) are released before the printed versions are mailed. I subscribe to the electronic versions of the magazines. That may be how most of the folks on here, that are posting about the 33/35 article, have read the current issue already.

-Bob F.

Bob,

Thanks for the info. I'm stuck in the past, and get the printed version. It did not occur to me that the electronic version was the first to get sent.

Best,

Steve

Bullshooter,

Even curiousier is the fact that none of the Winchester .35's needed a 1-12 twist. All could have gotten by quite well with a 1-16!

Marty, the obvious answer is that your mail carrier isn't finished reading it yet...

Edw

Would that we all could be so lucky as to have to "share" our shooting mail with our mail handlers.

Sure. So the question is whether the selection of a 1-12" twist was a rational decision, or if the guy running the Greenhill formula through Winchester's steam-powered computer back in 1903 happened to enter an incorrect number.

The 35 Win cartridge was maybe the first American 35. According to an old article (by Nonte?) in an early Rifle or Handloader, it was designed for the M1895. Because that rifle's action was built around the 30-40 Krag, the designers of the 35 Win necked up the 30-40 to 35 and stretched the case to be as long as possible and still work through the action. (The 405 Win was apparently designed the same way.) It doesn't seem likely that they were planning on a bullet of 300 or more grains.

--Bob

It was (in my opinion) given that the original intention of the 35Whelen was to have a domestic 375H&H equivalent, prior to the 375H&H being available in the United States. Cheaper to build too! As such it needed the potential to shoot a 300gr projectile to whatever distance the operator wanted.

Finn Aagaard in his article on the 35Whelen (1988) goes into the reasons why he selected a 1:12" for his personal 35Whelen ... when he tested the 300gr Barnes in a 350RemMag (1:16") they failed to stabilize. In a Rem700 35Whelen (1:16") they were accurate at 100 yards but there was evidence of tipping at 200yards.

I've also tested a Rem700 in 35Whelen (1:16") and sure enough, at 200 yards the 310gr Woodleigh soft is tipping ... the even longer 310gr FMJ wouldn't help the situation out any I'm sure. My Ruger 350RemMag (1:12") is happy at all distances with Woodleigh 310gr. The 1:16" ( a rebored M17 barrel) seems to have no issues with 275gr projectiles (or drawn down 286gr 9.3mm pills ) but its suitability with a 310gr FMJ is questionable ... and its original intention was to be a rifle capable of taking all big game including dangerous.

Interestingly ... from a 358Win ... 1:12" will stabilise the Woodleigh 310gr soft (just over 2000fps) ... but 1:14" definitely wont.
Cheers...
Con
PS: The 375H&Hs twist rate of 1:10" or 1:12" will stabilise a 300gr and 350gr projectile more than adequately. In the case of the 300gr projectile ... it will continue to stabilise it even when the barrel is rechambered to a 375/08.

Mean while my old "slightly tweaked" factory tang Ruger M77 RS 35 Whelen throws 225 gr TSX's very safely at 2700 fps and has killed moose, elk and black bear to date quite readily. Next year it will chase BC grizzly. RL-15 is really all that is needed gents.

I have a .358 Win, .350 Rem. mag., Whelen and Norma and have run 1 in 16, 14 and 12 barrels over the years in 35s. I certainly would not question your arithmetic and experience in this regard, but 1 in 12 barrels have always given me the most consistent results in 35s with 200-250 gr. bullets. Perhaps it is just coincidental or pure ass luck, but 1 in 12s in 35s work best for me. CP.

Chris, I remember Finn Aagaard opining the 1-14" was likely the "best" twist for the 35 Whelen. How does yours do?

When I built a wildcat forerunner to the 358STA I used a 1-12 twist Krieger. Mine shot the 225's and the 250's very accurately.

If I were building a 35 cal rifle in anything 35 Whelen or up today,I would use a 12 twist..

Brad, I have not had any really bad luck, except for a Ruger SE Whelen, with 1 in 14s or 16s. However, things always seem to run a little better for me with 1 in 12s. So except for my .358 Win, with a 1 in 14 Shilen, I am running 1 in 12 Liljas on all of the rest of my 35s. And they all shoot.

They tell me that we are really going to have a few summer days for a change. I am ready for them. CP.

Nice to hear about the 1-12".

Summer finally arrived for sure. Going to be south of Whitehall on the Jefferson... should be a pretty day.

Have a .308 to wring out this evening too... has a 1-12" twist (grin).

CP,

I'm kind of confused. Did I say here or in the article that 1-16 was best in .35's?

I have 280 grain Swift A-Frame on order,my question is,with a 26" barrel is 2650 fps possible in my .358 Norma?

I haven't tried to push one that fast from a .358 Norma, but in a 26" barrel my bet is yes, it's safely possible.

I was just commenting that 1 in 12s have worked best for me. I was sparked by this comment �Even curiousier is the fact that none of the Winchester .35's needed a 1-12 twist. All could have gotten by quite well with a 1-16!." CP.

I would put your success with 1-12 twists down to chance, then, along with the excellent balance of most of today's rifle bullets.

I've gotten excellent accuracy from 1-12, 1-14 and 1-16 twists in various .35's from .35 Remington up to .358 Shooting Times Alaskan. Unless the twist wasn't so slow that it wouldn't fully stabilize the bullet, then just about any bullet has shot well in about any twist. Some rifles preferred different bullets, but I've never seen a trend toward any twist rate. And yes, I've owned multiple .35's in all chamberings except .358 Norma and .358 STA, where I've only owned one of each.

This is also the general trend I've seen with all other bullet diameters: If the twist was adequate, then excellent accuracy could be obtained with just about any bullet weight/length. Accuracy depended more on the rifle, barrel and bullet than the twist.

When I had my 358STA made, I wanted a Shilen barrel and it only came in 1-14 twist. I really wanted a 1-12 because I thought I would want to shoot the 280-310gr bullets. I've now shot many animals with the 250gr NP and see no need to go to a heavier bullet. Maybe if I was to use it in Africa in a country that it would be legal for dangerous game, but I just don't see any need for anything heavier than the 250gr NP.

I recovered a bullet from my moose last year under the skin on the off side shoulder that weighed 227gr. Hard to beat the performance. One day I may try the 225gr TSX, but not because the NP is lacking.

My experience is that a 1-14 will work very well for any .35 cartridge made today. I did have a .358 STA barrel made with a 1-12 twist, but it was unnecessary, even with the really heavy bullets. My .358 Norma shoots very well with just about any .35 rifle bullet, and it has a 1-14 twist.

john,

I've not read the article in question, as yet, but I look forward to it. I am a confirmed medium bore lover. I've owned perhaps six .358 Win's all with 1~12" twist except one. A Ruger #3 that I specified in my innocence, 1~16. That will be the last 1~16 I will ever specify. All the 1~12's shot well.

I've owned 4 .35 Whelens, all with 1~16" and all shot well. And two .350 Rem Mags all with 1~16".

The above not-with-standing, I am going to build one more .358 Win. this one will have a 1~14". If for no other reason than I've never before tried that. I know it's an example of one, but I was greatly dis-appointed with the 1~16" in the .358.

Edwe

Well, my next 358Win will have a light barrel at 20-22" and a 1:12". It'll be on a Stevens 200, so I may have a 338Federal done at the same time just to compare. It will also have a 375/08 barrel as that wildcat was real fun to play with!
Cheers...
Con

Con-

My comment about the 1-12" twist was in reference to the .35 Winchester, which was initially chambered in the M1895. If Winchester intended the 1-12" twist to permit use of bullets longer than their 250-grain, they failed to manufacture those cartridges. Perhaps they were looking forward to chambering their M1885 single shot in .35 Winchester and did not want to set up rifling machines for more than one twist rate?

The .35 Whelen was developed a full twenty years later than the .35 Winchester. It would be interesting to know what the twist was on the early .35 Whelen rifles. In his 1940 book The Hunting Rifle, Whelen wrote as follows (p.271):

The .30-06 cartridge was necked to .35 caliber to use existing .35 caliber bullets of 200, 250, and 275 grains weight, the latter being a special bullet made by the Western Tool & Copper Works and since discontinued.

At its best, it [the .35 Whelen] is loaded with one of the 250 grain soft point or open point bullets designed for the .35 Winchester cartridge.

I'm pretty sure the .35 Whelen was not developed with the intent of making a 375 substitute. In 1922 Whelen and Howe designed the .400 Whelen cartridge as a way of putting .405 Winchester capabilities into a bolt rifle. The .405 then was only available in the M1895 and single-shot rifles, I believe. Then, the .35 Whelen was developed to solve a problem of headspacing that appeared in the .400 Whelen.

The .375 H&H was available in the US in 1922 when the Whelen cartridges appeared, but only in European and special order American rifles, which were expensive. Whelen & Howe could have necked the 30-06 to 375 rather than 35, but I'm guessing they did not consider this feasible because of the lack of 375 caliber bullers in the US. And, as you say, with the 35 Whelen, a medium rifle could be obtained for the price of rebarreling.

--Bob

Bob,
Some thoughts at random.

It's a wonderful mystery isn't it?! Unfortunately we'll probably never know the true answer but not wanting to tool up for a different twist is a credible idea.

Griffin&Howe offered both 400Whelen and 35Whelen around 1923, and the 375H&H around 1926 to match Hoffman Arms' offering ... but both would have been expensive options given the times. A Hoffman built 35Whelen from the 1920s that I found reference to on the internet certainly had a 1:12" however. I believe the first reference in print to the 35Whelen was an article dated September, 15, 1923 in The American Rifleman and titled "American Heavy Caliber Rifles for Large Game: The .35 Whelen." Note ... it was already being considered as a large game rifle.

A 38Whelen had indeed preceeded the 35Whelen, references go back as far as mid-1919 in correspondence between Whelen and Fred Adolph. It used a reshaped 275gr projectile made for the 38-72WCF and support was removed when Winchester ceased production of the projectile. No idea whether any rifles were ever built but the builder was Niedner.

To add to the 35cal mystery, author S. Truesdell (The full story of the development of the big-game rifle from 1834-1943) makes reference to an American hunter in Africa in the early 1920s suggesting that the ideal medium calibre would be a 35cal throwing from 250-275gr projectile at 2600fps ... or thereabouts. He further suggested that if not possible at safe pressures, rather than chase the velocity, bullet weight should be upped. Taylor himself later on states that he'd have preferred a 35G&H with 275gr at 2600fps rather than the 375H&H.

Whilst I agree that the 35Whelen may have been best with a 250gr for Nth American game, I have this sneaking suspicion that Africa was on the back of the mind of developers when instigated.
Cheers...
Con

If the above mentioned report was in the 1920's, one wonders why the .35 Newton was not mentioned.

If I'm not mistaken, the venerable Newton cartridge came around in about 1916. The Newton was supposed to surpass 2900 f.p.s. w/ 250 gr. bullet. But I doubt that it even came close... The Speer "Wildcat" manual #4 lists loads for the .35 Newton approaching 2900 f.p.s. But I suspect that chronographs were pretty primitive when that was printed.

ONe of these days, I'm going to sacrifice 3 rounds of my original .35 Newton ammo and see just what they do clock.

The referenced hunter mentioned above would likely have been Charles "Bwana" Cottar; who was said to have used the .35 Newton on game up to and including Rhino...

GH

Not sure ... I can't remember the Truesdale book naming the hunter ... I'm also unsure why if it was Cottar the 35Newton wasn't named outright.

There must have been some work going on in 35cal however as when I asked Dave Manson for a reamer drawing of the 35 G&H Magnum ... he sent 4 with a question of 'Which one do you want?'
Cheers...
Con

The American hunter that made the suggestion was Leslie Simpson. I have an original edition of Simpson's book.

-Bob F.

Bob,

Thanks for clearing that up. Looks to me like there was some wisdom back in the old days...

Edw

Ooops! I need to make a correction to my comments above.

Leslie Simpson IS the American hunter that suggested a .35 caliber rifle shooting a 275 gr bullet at 2500 fps. I was mistaken about having his book, however. In his book, Truesdell does identify Leslie Simpson and shows an excerpt from a letter written by Simpson where Simpson mentions the idea about the .35 caliber rifle.

Here are Leslie Simpson's comments from the Truesdell book:



These comments by Simpson inspired Griffin & Howe to bring out the .350 G&H Magnum cartridge. (A .35 caliber based on the .375 H&H case.)


A page from the 1930 Griffin & Howe catalog:



The book I have at home, and that I was thinking of when I wrote my comments above, is "An African Holiday" by Richard L. Sutton, M.D. copyright 1924 published by The C. V. Mosby Company.

I apologize for my mistake about the book.

Cheers!
-Bob F.

I had a 35 Whelen built with a 1-8" twist. It was very accurate and produced pretty much the same velocities as other Whelens. The benefit was that expanded bullets stayed point foreward (eg did not show signs of tumbling) and tended to penetrate in a straight line. Could not say the same for 1-16's. There were obvious signs tumbling. There is much too much talk about poking holes in paper instead of testing that tells what happens after the bullet impacts a real target and expands. The amount of stability need to punch a hole in paper is not the same as the stability needed to keep the nose foreward.

I sold it because I thought it kicked about like a 375 H&H.

BFaucett,
Excellent info!! Many thanks for that ... damn I'd love to build a 350 G&H. Long and tapered, it'd feed smooth as silk.
Cheers...
Con

Well, I took my 358 Norma out this morning with the 280 Swift A-Frame loaded with H-4350,CCI 250mag primer,26" barrel.

70.0 grains-2629 fps
71.0 grains-2672 fps

I did not shoot the 72.0 grain load,because I might be pushing the pressure limit. They both shot good enough for elk,but the 71.0 was just a little bit smaller.

I have a copy of Whelen's article article on the .35 Whelen from a 1923 American Rifleman. Un fortunaltely the twist rate was not mentioned. In hit book, THE HUNTINH RIFLE, again no mention of twist rate. IIRC, he did another article sometime in IIRC the 1960's whee had had another .35 Whelen made up. In this one, he stated that he wanted a 1 in 14" twist. It sure would be nice to know for sure what the original specs were but until then, I believe I will continue to believe tha a 1 in 12" is the proper twist. FWIW, I have a friend back east who has a Ruger #1B rebarreled to the .35 Whelen and he went with a 1 in 10" twist. He says it works great.
I'm gonna have to raise some serious hell with Wolfe. I still have not received my copy of that issue.
Paul B.

haven't seen my copy either...

My copy just arrived today (July 14th). I think it must have been shipped to Zimbabwe for distribution.

jim

I thought that JB's "praise" for the 33 and 35 bores was rather "faint" (e.g. feeble). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Not sure his aim was to praise them. Gave some history and info on certain calibers, and why some of us like them.

I like the 33's and 35's, but the 30's (300 Savage, 308 Win., 30-06, various 300 mags) are a very versatile lot with proper loads.

I just received my hard copy Monday...

I have read the e � version weeks ago

I used to have .33s and .35s, but I moved all the mediums out in favor of my .375 Ruger African with 270 FailSafe bullets (I laid in a store of them).

I moved the over .40 rifles out too (.416 R, .458 Win, .458 Lott, .450 Ackley). I don't notice the recoil of .375s after shooting that crowd over the years.

jim