Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 9.3x62 or 35 Whelen?

I have never had to shoot in order to save my life. But if I had to, I would feel safer with a x64 in my hands.
If finding ammo is a concern, the x64 is NOT the way to go!!
If 375 is the minimum cal for Africa (but the 9.3 is given a wink and a nod), why not go above the minimum, 416 Taylor has manageable recoil.

Don't know what your point is, but I have used the .416 Rigby some on both water and Cape buffalo. It's a fine round, and also doesn't kick all that much when loaded to its original ballistics.

I have killed dozens of big game animals up to well over 1000 pounds with both the 9.3x62 and .375 H&H using my handloads. The 9.3x62 loads get around 2650 for with 250-grain bullets and close to 2500 with 286's, and yes, they have been pressure-tested and get basic .30-06 pressures. My .386 handloads get around 2650-2700 with 260-270 grain bullets and 2500-2550 with 300s. Why would there be any vast difference? Another 10-15 grains of bullet weight, around 5%? Less than one 100th of an inch in bullet diameter?

😁
John,
Reading your article on the 9.3 BS round a few years ago was quite a revelation to me. Suddenly, I realized that all the deer and elk my model 7 ks 350 mag has put in the freezer was not much more than pure luck.
Why it's just amazing to me that none ever decided to just get up and walk right out of that freezer. You know with the 9.3 being so much more lethal and all. Just to be sure they don't, I've taken to padlocking it shut ..you just can't be too sure.
Don't know why anyone would ever risk a hunt on a 35 anything---Whelen or otherwise---9.3 or bust!
I'm seriously (well, almost) considering rebarrelling to your 9.3 BS round as my wife's been complaining alot more lately about that danged padlock!🤔
A little BS can go a long way.

Sorry to hijack the op's thread. It just seemed somehow appropriate.

This may astonished you, but among the hunting rifles I've owned over the decades have been quite a few .35 calibers, including two .350 Remington Magnums and three .35 Whelens. Also a couple of .35 Remingtons, three .358 Winchesters, a .358 Norma Magnum, and a .358 Shooting Times Alaskan. Still have one of the .358 Winchesters and the .358 Norma. Have hunted quite a bit with the various .35s, and of course they kill stuff.

Have also written that in my experience a real difference in "killing power" due to caliber does start at around .35. But in general .35's suffer from slow rifling twists, which generally means the heaviest lead-cored spitzers that will stabilize consistently weigh 250 grains. There are some "semie-spitzers" and roundnose bullets that stabilize in the more-or-less stand 1-16 rifling twist, but even 250's can't be driven all that fast in the .350 Remington and .35 Whelen, which in my experience are ballistically the same deal. In general around 2550 is about it, though some handloaders lean on them harder. They become more practical all-around hunting rounds with bullets around 225 grains, which can get 2650-2700 fps. Which is why some hunters step up to the .358 Norma and STA: Its pretty easy to get 2700 (or even more in the STA) with
250's.

The slow twist also doesn't stabilize monolithic .35 bullets over 225 grains--the reason that's the heaviest .35-caliber Barnes TSX. The standard 9.3 twist will stabilize the 286-grain TSX.

After considerable experience I also came to believe that heavier bullets do make a difference in "medium-bore" rounds such as the 9.3mm and .375 . I also use 250s in the .9.3s and and 260s in the .375, but generally when hunting more open country, where a somewhat flatter trajectory does help at ranges past around 250 yards. The ballistic coefficient of the 250-grain AccuBond is pretty high, so when started at 2650 (easily done at .30-06 pressures) it shoots as flat as the popular 180-grain .30-06 load, which makes hitting at 400+ relatively easy. (I know this, again, because I have also used the .30-06 quite a bit.) And those heavier 286- and 300-grain bullets in the 9.3s and .375s do seem to put bigger game down quicker than 250s from .35's, on average. (In hunting there are always individual exceptions to general rules.

This obviously doesn't mean .35s won't kill big game. As noted above, I have killed quite a bit of big game with various .35s--and will continue to do so. But my experience is that heavier, and slightly larger-diameter bullets do the job somewhat better--the reason the 9.3x62 and .375 H&H have been held in such high regard by big game hunters around the world for more than a century now. And modern powders and bullets have only made them better.

Nice to see politeness, reason, and real information as a counter to butt-hurt douchery. Maybe Mickey didn't mean to come off that way.......

It's all in jest. .the reason for the😁

In all seriousness, mostly due to the slow twist issue John mentioned, I have been contemplating rebarrelling my 350 rem mag to John's 9.3 BS.
After all, any cartridge that's named a BS anything is right up my alley.

Good deal. My apologies for assumptions.

I'm not a Mauser 98 expert, but was the 8x57 m98 an intermediate length designed action? Will a M98 action from the 1930s accept a 35 Whelen or 9.3x62?

The 9.3x62 was specifically designed to fit in the standard military K98's 3.30 inch magazine--which is why the maximum SAAMI cartridge overall length length for the 9.3x62 is 3.29 inches.

The .35 Whelen's SAAMI OAL is 3.34 inches, the same as the for the .30-06--an OAL shared by a bunch of other rounds, including the .270 Winchester.

Interestingly, the 7mm Remington Magnum has a COAL designed to fit in the standard 98 Mauser magazine, probably because when it was introduced in 1962 there were still a pile of "war surplus" Mauser military rifles available for very low prices. The long-action Remington rifles of the period, whether the 721 or 700, had a magazine long enough for the .300 H&H.

Winchester, however, designed all four of its belted magnums (.264, .300, .338 and .458) developed in the same era to fit in .30-06 length magazines, the reason quite a few surplus 1903 Springfields got rechambered to .300 Winchester Magnum.

I've encountered more in 308 Norma Magnum than 300 Win for whatever that's worth.

I'm still trying to score a 350 Rem mag to turn into some BS.

I have long been a 358 fan and at present own 6; but between these two the 9.3x62 was designed from the get-go to sling heavy bullets. Just came back from the range firing 325 Norma Orynx bullets at 2250fps with RL 17. These big fellows penetrate like crazy. For big stuff that the mid bores are designed for the 9.3 is a remarkable instrument.

Yep, and as I noted earlier a high-BC 250-grain ain't bad in open country, either!

sometimes i think people buy a certain rifle by what the name of the cartridge is, a few examples 35 Whelen,Magnums and the latest now Creedmoor. i suppose very soon we will all here about the new 35 Creedmoor " old name 35 Savage" . anyway very good replies on this post.thank you,Pete53

Mule deer.
If you load the 35 Whelen to what it is capable of you will tell the difference. A 225 grain accubond or 225 grain Woodleigh at 2,850fps to 2,950fps or a 250 grain Speer hotcore at 2,700 make the Whelen a class of its own.
These loads are using Hogdon CFE223 and are listed on the Speer reloading site.
Those speeds are chronoed from my 25 inch barrel and give 4,000 to 4,300++ for of muzzle energy.
Bob Nelson

I have been reading more and more about the new CFE223 powder and am eager to try it for my 35calibers. I tried the Barnes bullets a few years back but was not impressed by the copper fouling problems. I may try them again with this CFE223 powder.

MS 9x56.
On the African Hunting forum you will find a lot of posts on the Whelen.
Mine are under Bob Nelson 35Whelen. If you want to contact me you can n send me a personal message pm me .
Bob

Mule deer.
Have a look at the Speer reloading site with the 250grain Speer hotcore. It's showing 2,700+ fps with the 250grain.
I load the max load for it with CFE223 and get 2,700fps chronoed out of my 25 inch barrel with a 1 in 12 twist. This is without any pressure signs in my rifle. A Stevens 200 converted to 35 Whelen.
With the 225grain accubonds or Woodleigh I get 2,850 to 2,950 fps. These loads were devastating on plains game including Hartman zebra and Oryx, kudu and a large Burchells zebra.
Using newer powders gives the Whelen a big boost without straining it. A 250 grain bullet out of an 8.5 pound rifle at 2,700fps gets your attention.
Bob Nelson

Bob,

Thanks for the info--but for two reasons the 9.3x62 is capable of more velocity than the .35 Whelen with the same bullet weights. First, it has more powder room, which may seem strange but even back in 1905 Otto Bock knew that the case neck needed to be shorter, and the case body longer, if the 9.3x62 was going to provide adequate performance with heavy bullets and still fit in the standard K98 magazine.

The second reason is the larger bore also allows bullets of the same weight as in .35 to be started at higher velocity, without increasing pressure--even if the powder capacity was the same, and it isn't. I load my 9.3x62 to probably a little less than many people load the .35 Whelen (my handloads have been tested at around 60,000 PSI), yet still match .35 Whelen velocities, even in a somewhat shorter barrel.

I have used the 250-grain 9.3mm Nosler AccuBond at 2650 from the 23.6 inch barrel of my 9.3x62 on the same sort of plains game you mention, and it is also "devastating." But due to the boattail and plastic tip, the ballistic coefficient of the 9.3 AccuBond is somewhat higher than for any 250-grain .35 caliber bullet. This results in the 250 9.3 easily matching the trajectory of a typical 250-grain flat-base, .35-caliber softpoint started a little faster--and retaining more velocity at any range from 200 yards out.

Again, this because the 9.3s standard rifling twist is capable of handling longer bullets such as the 250 AccuBond and ANY 286-grain bullet available--and there is a definite difference in performance between the 250 and 286 9.3s on big game. As I pointed out earlier, the heaviest .35 caliber Barnes TSX weighs 225 grains, while the heaviest 9.3 TSX weighs 286. On really big game such monolithics provide very deep penetration--though the 286-grain Nosler Partition is one of the models with the partition moved forward to retain more weight. It penetrates very well too: I once shot a zebra stallion in the big shoulder joint with a 286 Partition, which exited and hit a good-sized tree behind the zebra, sending a bunch of dry leaves cascading to the ground.

The 286 Nosler Partition has a BC over 100 points higher than the 280-grain Swift A-Frame, the heaviest .35 caliber "spitzer" available, which is actually a sort of semi-spitzer, with a flat tip. In contrast, the heaviest semi-spitzer available in 9.3 is the 320-grain Woodleigh--which is easily started at 2350 in my rifle. Such heavier bullets are why the 9.3x62, and other 9.3s, have long been more popular than .35 calibers for bigger game, including Cape buffalo.

I am glad you're happy with the performance of your 1-12 twist .35 Whelen, But because the standard 1-16.35 caliber rifling twist can't reliably stabilize spitzers heavier than 250 grains, bullet companies don't tend to make 'em. And the heavier bullet weights are where the 9.3x62 really separates itself from .35s.

Don't get me wrong I think the 35 Whelen is a fine round but there is nothing magic about it. Most of us don't have the measuring equipment or barrel length to safely ride the pressure train to crazyville. I have also seen people write about amazing velocities with 358 Winchesters and one "wonder" powder. Then suddenly in hot weather they blow a primer and get a face full of hot gas.

I get the above velocities easily and with great accuracy and a high margin of safety with multiple powders in the 358 Norma. I guess I could ride the same train to 2900 fps with 250 grain bullets in the Norma or take the train up 200fps with the 9.3x 62 or my various 35's but Why? In any case the 9.3x62 with it's greater capacity and larger expansion chamber will always be able to match or exceed the Whelen when loaded to equal pressures. That's just physics but I'll leave it to someone else to hit 2700+ fps with 250 grain bullets.

John, that is good solid info on the 9.3x62, thanks.