Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Whelen vs 9.3x62

Much difference? Pros/Cons?

Always liked short 35s - but had an interest in a 9.3 someday.

Do you have to get to a 286 in 9.3 to see an advantage? I am not sure what handloads can do in each so......who wants to enlighten me?

Also, I heard long ago the Whelen had a smallish shoulder and could cause misfire's - is that BS?

I've had both in AK for years, once Barsness began beating the 9.3 drum, immediately more good components became available, I favored the 9.3 for no earthly reason whatsover.

The 400 Whelen can be tricky but the 35 Whelen has plenty of shoulder.

The 286 is nice to have and it's hard to get bullets that heavy for the 35 Whelen. The 9.3x62 will also push a 250 almost as fast as a 338 with less recoil, which is nice.

Specific performance has more to do with barrel length, rate of twist, and each barrel's individual qualities than any real differences between the two cartridges.


Okie John

I’ve got two Whelen and a 9.3x62 and can’t find much difference between the two of them. I’ve not shot Bullets heavier than 250 grains in either one yet, but I’m not going to be surprised when they’re about the same.

Twist as another fella mentioned means more than much else in my book. The 9.3 is a 10 twist and the one 35 Whelen is a 14 while the other is a 16. The Whelen easily topped 2600 and change with a 250 and RL15 and the 9.3 does the same with very similar powder charges.

Components are about the same to me on many sites for availability as well. I’ve taken bear, deer, and elk with the Whelen using the 225 TSX, 250 PT, 225 Accubond, 250 Speer and 225 Sierra GameKing. My only real problem bullet was the 200 grain Remington PSP that wouldn’t make it through a broadside deer, but otherwise the rest have been great.

I expect the 9.3 to act the same when I do use it.

There are good bullets for use in both sizes, but the over-view suggests the 35 has more bullets available for easy expansion and the 9.3 has more with thicker jackets and offering and deeper pentation. But that not a limitation on either one. There are "very soft" 9.3s and some "very tough" 358s. So take your pick. Both will cover the bases just fine.

The 9.3X62 has a slight lead in power as a rule, but in the game field I doubt that an animal exists that could tell the difference between the 2. The 9.3s do have heavier bullets available and I like what I have used, but I can't say from experience that a 250 grain Partition or Solid Expanding 35 cal would not work just as well.

I own a 9.3X62, but I think all I ask of it could be done as well with a 35 Whelen. If an upgrade in power was needed I doubt a 5% or 7% upgrade would be adequate. If you need more power than you can get from a 35 Whelen you probably don't need a little more. You need a LOT more.

If I need more power then I can get from my 9.3X62 (or, if I owned one, a 35 Whelen) I think it's likely I would jump to my 404 Jeffery or even a 458 Winchester. In N. American I see no such eventuality being realistic.

About the only real advantage of the 9.3x62 is that it's the legal minimum for larger dangerous game in some (not all) African jurisdictions. Also, if you hunt in Africa, factory 9,3x62 ammo is fairly likely to be stocked in local stores, and .35 Whelen isn't--just in case you get separated from your handloads.

Have also generally found the 9.3x62 to be more accurate, but not enough to make any difference on big game shot at typical .35/9,3 ranges.

My experience is what Steve suggests, that if you need more power and bullet weight than the .35 Whelen and 9.3x62 provide (or think you do), then you need to step up to a .40+ caliber cartridge with quite a bit more bullet weight. The one I used for years was the .416 Rigby. But after buying and using my first 9.3x62 almost 20 years ago, it filled the "medium bore" slot so well that I rarely hunted with my .338 Winchester or .375 H&H.

Total BS

I have a passion for super quality brass. I mean, I built a wildcat based just on the fact I could use Lapua 8x57 brass. Lapua makes 9.3x62 brass. Not sure what high quality brass exists for the Whelen....duh, I just remembered Lapua makes 30-06. Forget I said anything. These 12 hour graveyard shifts at Barnes Bullets are quite difficult.

Alan

Yeah, you can’t beat the great Lapua brass for it. I’d think you’ll like either or if you twist them right.

Two peas in a pod for north American game..I am a 35 caliber fan but came across a CZ450 FS in 9.3x62 and being a man locker Looney I had to have it. With same weight bullets you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. I will say that CZ is the most accurate rifle I own.I do feel the 9.3 comes in better rifles but that's just my opinion.I never met a 35 I didn't like.

One big advantage they hold over the 30cal and under club is these middlebores make viable cast bullet launchers. Theres enough diameter and weight thats meaningful and effective. In this way theyre far more versatile then smaller bores.

I like the bullet selection for the .375 Ruger and love the versatility that can be had with handloading. It can do anything the 35 Whelen or 9.3 x 62 can do and more. It uses the same size standard action.

Pass me the whelen

This is interesting this 375 Ruger.

I have both a 35 and 400 Whelen. Neither have any lack of shoulder on which to headspace.

My .338 Winny and 30-06 has been doing a wonderful job on Alaska's critters for 55 years. My Marlin 45-70 and the wonderful Kodiak Bonded bullets have a great reputation in Alaska and I carry it during the "off season" for bear protection. But, by golly I have always liked the thought of medium and large bore bolt action magazine rifles with a wide V Express sight, African style like is on me short barreled shot gun. But, I owned four good Three Seven Five's and never hunted with them and gave last one to a son-in law.

If I ever head to Africa a 9.3x62 would be my choice along with a 30-06, with a Barnes X bullet of some flavor of course.

I have had good luck with Federal nickel plated .35 Whelen brass from fired factory loads. They have been without failure so I don’t even bother to count reloads. I think I had a few loose primer pockets after >10 hot workup loads. Nosler brass that I bought several years ago was a bit soft it seemed. Never met an inaccurate Whelen....

These are the jacketed rifle bullets listed on MidwayUSA (most all unavailable right now). Which list do you like better? It's that simple. Obviously in Europe you will have more readily-available options for the 9.3.


.358" bullets
Speer 180 gr Hot-Cor
Speer 220 gr Flat Nose
Speer 250 gr Hot-Cor
Remington 200 gr Core-Lokt RN
Remington 200 gr Core-Lokt PSP
Barnes 180 gr TTSX
Barnes 200 gr TSX
Barnes 200 gr TTSX
Barnes 225 gr TSX
Hornady 175 gr FTX
Hornady 200 gr FTX
Hornady 200 gr InterLock RN
Hornady 200 gr InterLock Spire Point
Hornady 250 gr InterLock Spire Point
Norma 250 gr Oryx
Nosler AccuBond 200 gr
Nosler AccuBond 225 gr
Nosler Partition 225 gr
Nosler Partition 250 gr
Sierra 200 gr RN
Sierra 225 gr GameKing
Swift 225 gr A-Frame
Swift 250 gr A-Frame
Swift 280 gr A-Frame
Woodleigh 225 gr Weldcore RN
Woodleigh 250 gr Weldcore RN
Woodleigh 310 gr Weldcore RN
Woodleigh 225 gr gr Weldcore PP
Woodleigh 250 gr Weldcore PP
Woodleigh 275 gr Weldcore PP
Woodleigh 225 gr Hydostatically Stabilized Solid

.366" bullets
Barnes 250 gr TTSX
Barnes 250 gr TSX
Barnes 286 gr TSX
Hornady 286 gr InterLock Spire Point
Hornady 300 gr DGS
Nosler 250 gr AccuBond
Nosler 286 gr solid
Nosler 286 gr Partition
Nosler 250 gr E-Tip
Speer 270 gr Hot-Cor
Swift 250 gr A-Frame
Swift 286 gr A-Frame
Swift 300 gr A-Frame
Swift 286 gr Break-Away solid
Woodleigh 250 gr Weldcore RN
Woodleigh 286 gr Weldcore RN
Woodleigh 320 gr Weldcore RN
Woodleigh 286 gr Weldcore PP
Woodleigh 250 gr Weldcore PP
Woodleigh 286 gr FMJ
Woodleigh 320 gr FMJ

I think it depends on which authors you read as a child. I grew up on books and articles about Africa so the 9.3x62 is the way I went. Looking at the above bullet list it is obvious if you want to shoot heavier bullets go with the 9.3 round. I would imagine if you want to also plink or shoot smaller game the Whelen has the advantage of pistol bullets and a better selection of bullet molds for it too. I would think if I found a rifle I like in either caliber I would go with that one

I was going to say, there isn’t a huge difference in top end bullet weights either. Thanks for posting that.

Up front, I dont have a 35 Whelen so cant compare. I do have a 9.3 that i had built (re barreled and cleaned up a little) on an Interarms X action for bears and elk and absolutely love it. I've shot and had good luck with 286g, 270g, and 250g bullets but have just stuck with the Speer 270 as they have worked well on everything they hit and are accurate in my rifle. When i had mine made, the 9.3 hadn't really caught on so was kind of an oddball (which is why i chose it over the 338-06 and Whelen) but now, it's got a solid following. Mule Deer has tons of experience with the 9.3 and has written/commented on numerous threads with great advice.

Like other have said, here in the US i seriously doubt you would notice any difference on game so it's a matter of picking the one that floats your boat. I would do a quick internet search and see which is easier to source right now...that may help you decide.

I went through a similar conundrum a few years ago. I wholeheartedly recommend both.

My buddy has a Whelen and I have a x62. I've killed with mine and he has yet to. Up to DG they are likely equal but the x62 probably ly off err s better penetration unless super heavies are used and then they probably even up again. The 286 vs 250 but the 320 and 310s probably compare favorably. I think the 9.3 250s may fly a little bett et at long distances. Who knows though I dont shoot far.
I like the 286 NP as a standard at 2450.

Get back to work Alan...LOL Just kidding.
While neither of these may meet your "super quality" brass criterion, both Hornady and Nosler make .35 Whelen brass, as well as Remington (which has performed beautifully in my rifle). I have Nosler and Hornady brass, but have not yet gotten around to using it, as the Remington is still doing well.
I love my 9.3x62 as well and use the Lapua brass with it. When both are loaded up to their potential they are mighty close. The new .35 Whelen loading data from Sierra and Speer for 225 and 250 grain bullets respectively with Power Pro 2000-MR powder is a real game changer, and you need to get the 9.3 up to Mule Deer's 60K load level to equal the Whelen (with those new data). And it's no big deal to do so, BTW.
So I agree with the others who said it's whatever you like the best. I have both, so I'm good to go!

Rex

Small note, Midway frequently has "factory 2nd 250gr .366" bonded bullets" at very cheap prices. And earlier this year a lot of 250 monometal and lead tip 286 2nds. Some with white tips, some with red... so, it can be pretty cheap to load for a 9.3 with Nosler and Hornady bullets

Here is my take, I have both
Mostly applies to hand loading

Most 35 bullets have a poor BC, most factory loaded ammo uses a bullet w a poor bC
I run 225 Nosler or 275 woodliegh in the 35
I skipped the 250’s as the BC/velocity equation didn’t suit me
2785fps on the 225’s w a BC of 0.43
2550fps on the 275’s 0.45bc
R17 powder
22” barrel
Groups less than 1” or so w hand loads
There is a ton of lead and pistol bullets available for fun


The 9.3
I have really good luck with Nosler 250’s & 286
BC’s of .497 & .48
I have really worked on the 250 AB’s and get 2700fps, clover leafs occasionally with both the 250’s & 286
20.5” barrel
Western Bullets makes gas checked 9.3 286g bullets that I shoot with trail boss for fun
Ace Dub made a chamber adapter for me to shoot 9mm Marakov rounds out of the rifle, they group spot on, 1” at 30y
PPU and S&b have every day ammo for sale at about $20/box, pre-crisis prices, whelen every day ammo is more
The 9.3 is more qualified for Africa

Summary
The 9.3 has maybe 5-7% more power if you are going all out
9.3 has higher BC bullets available
9.3 has cheap loaded ammo available
35 Whelen can shoot lighter bullets (relative) like 225g faster and better
Probably, w twist rate in mind, the 9.3 will be better w heavy bullets
9.3 is better for Africa, maybe meet a legal requirement
I am not sure if an AK grizz can distinguish between a 9.3 286g compared to a 275g 358 dia bullet traveling at the same speed, next time I see one I will shoot him with both and ask if he could tell the difference

I ended up leaning toward the 9.3, only took the 35w out 1 time in the last 4-5 yrs, I take the 9.3 out elk hunting and to the range to work out my 286g Africa loads and other ideas for the range.

I didn’t read this thread very closely before I posted

Seems I duplicated many other comments LOL

9,3x62. Classic, made for Africa, got 17 years on the Whelen.


The 35 Whelen is basiclally a poor bastardization of a classic European cartridge.
Most likely didn't want to pay royalties... since there where rife with Mauser rifles chambered in 9,3x62 to be had.
And 9,3x62 ammunition could be bought anywhere on the African continent at the time.



.

I'm firmly a Whelen guy. I have 2 of them, A Remington Classic, and a JES rebore stainless Remington. Both have done well on black bears. For the first 3 years of my life, I lived near the Frankford Arsenal and had relatives who worked there. Note that Gun Gack 1 describes the arsenal's location as "near Philadelphia". It's actually "in Philadelphia" for those interested in Whelen trivia.

I have owned a Whelen, a 350 Rem Mag and a 9.3x62. The only one I kept was the 9.3. Hard to get 35 caliber bullets heavier than 250 gr but you can get 286 gr bullets for the 9.3 from just about every maker, assuming they have them in stock of course. Of the 3 I found the 9.3 the lightest recoiling and the best handling and when you hit game with it it tends to go "flop" right there. Truly one of the world's great calibers.

I've hunted with a 35 Whelen for ~ 20 years and a 9.3 ~5 years.

The 35 with a 250gn Barnes FXB at between 2450 and 2650 ft/s is a very good performer on big animals, 15+ moose and many many black bear. Shots from 50' to 425 yards.

The 9.3mm with a 250gn Accubond.......same devastating performance.

Both rifles were hunting weight, recoil became an issue as I got older.

Today a 30-06 with a 200gn Accubond at ~2700 ft/s kills pretty much equal to the afore mentioned, it does range better though.

The 35 and 9.3 do anchor animals positively.

Also, I heard long ago the Whelen had a smallish shoulder and could cause misfire's - is that BS? [/quote]

Some of the RP brass was undersized and would not fire in Whelen chamber once fire formed it was fine. Took some Laupua 9.3 X 62 brass and oversized it once and it would not fire also.

The point is, brass, dies and chamber should all match, or you will have issues.

Great posts and info folks, appreciate them all. Thanks for sharing!

I've hunted a fair bit with 3 different .35 Whelen's. Hunting our local Canadian game bigger than deer. Using mostly 250 grain bullets at 2500 fps, I bagged a couple dozen Elk, Moose, Caribou and bears. And for a few years more recently I'd done the same with a couple of 9.3's. 9.3x62 and 9.3x74R. Using 286 gr. bullets at 2400 fps. I like the 9.3 rifles slightly better. But there is actually not much difference. I used the 9.3x62 on my last African hunt, and it did a superb job. My PH also used one. I don't think the .35 has any real presence in Africa or Europe or anywhere else actually except the USA. One of the considerations when traveling is availability of ammo. The 9.3's are certainly better in that respect.

Info to let the reader decide.


35 Whelen
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/.35+Whelen.html

9.3x62
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/9.3x62.html

buttstock,

I have read a lot of the ballisticstudies.com stuff over the years, and in smaller calibers (such as the .270 Winchester) respect his experience, partly because I have a LOT of experience with the 270 with various bullets on similar-sized game, and his agrees with mine. (Of course, this is a common reason for "agreeing" with gun writers!)

But almost all of his experience is in New Zealand, and apparently not with a wide variety of bullets in either the .35 Whelen or 9.3x62. A good example is the 286-grain Nosler Partition, which I've used on game weighing from around 125 pounds to 10 times that, from northern North America to southern Africa, handloaded to around 2450 to 2500 fps It ALWAYS expands easily even on lighter game, killing quickly, yet also penetrating very deeply on heavier game.

With all the glowing reports on the 9.3x62, I wish I had a need for one.

But you do. It kills deer and.bears with aplomb.

We try to avoid the "n-word" around here. It's just not polite.

I already had a 35 Whelen AI but still found a 9.3x62 irresistible. Of course, I took the easy way - Sent JES an old Springfield sporter and $275 and two weeks later I had my Nine-Three.
Back in the golden years only 9 months ago when cheap old 30-06s were filling the walls on every pawn shop that was (and may still be) an easy path. Find the one with the sorriest, shot-out , pitted bore you can and low-ball them.

I have a 9.3x62, an Interarms Mark X fitted with a Lothar Walther barrel that was trimmed to 20" and bedded in an Interarms Mark X mannlicher-style stock. It is half of a matched pair, the other being chambered in 7x57, that I put together for a second trip to southern Africa. It shoots good groups and isn't unpleasant to shoot with 286 grain bullets. I don't know that it is a cartridge that is necessary or even particularly useful for shooting game in the contiguous 48 States, but I like it.

I have zero experience with the 35 Whelen, having opted to go with the 338-06 in one of another match pair of rifles.

"We try to avoid the "n-word" around here. It's just not polite. wink"

Good point!

As of today there is still $20/box factory ammo for sale online for the 9.3

Plain Jane 35w Corelok is listed at $56/bx but I don’t know if you can find it

I have to agree with John here as my 9.3 x 62 has replaced all my mediums, including .338s, .35s and .375s. Where I want or need more it's my .458 Win. with handloads.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Where?

Check anmoseek. They had a few.

https://carolinamunitions.com/catal...amp;utm_medium=referral&asaid=as0004

LGS had a box of 35 Whelen 250 gr corelokts for $29 today. Scooped it up quick

I never had either one but I heard that the head diameter of the 9.3 is slightly different. Might be harder to make brass if you ever have to do that.

Personally I prefer the .375 H&H to either one because it's legal for DG everywhere in Africa.

When Col. Whelan thought up the .35 Whelan, I wonder why he didn't make it a .375-06. The shoulder would be adequate for headspacing.

Have both, taken both to Africa, shot and killed animals with both. Both killed everything they were aimed at. They were and are equal in every perceivable aspect, from recoil to drop to penetration. They are both my favorite rifle. But so are all of my others......except one.

Lots of great info folks, appreciate all. No doubt no 'need' for NA, but.......how many of us Loonies needed a good reason to experiment and enjoy a nice round?

Btw Jeff - curious what the configs are on those 338/06s you built.

I suppose the Whelen ammo may be more in demand and higher priced, as some states like mine use them for 'Primitive' season.....just a guess.

Thanks everyone, very good insight and field knowledge, always enjoy that in addition to paper stats alone.

The 9.3 will also qualify for primitive weapon season, since the law says 35 caliber or larger

The story about .35 Whelen lacking enough shoulder to headspace correctly is an old wives tale the just won't die, it's pure BS !

Not quite pure BS! I did have a box of Remington factory loaded ammo, with old style 250 gr. RN bullets that had so little shoulder and the shoulder was placed so far back that about half of cartridges in the box failed to fire in my Remington M700 .35 Whelen factory chamber. I didn't have a headspace gauge at the time but you could compare ammo form different lots and see the problem just by "eye". Simply a lack of quality control by Remington. I have never had a failure to fire or headspace issues with any other ammunition or reloads or chambers in three other .35 Whelen rifles. The shoulder dimensions / chamber design provides adequate positive headspace, if tolerances are within specifications.

I’ve never had ANY .35 Whelen misfires with tons of Remington and Federal factory ammo or my handloads. That is from a sample of several thousand dating to 1989. I do not doubt that Remington QC could be a culprit in excessive headspace. All the Remington ammo that I have fired was purchased around 1990 or so. None since Federal loaded the TBBC. HAPPY TRAILS

BINGO. I waited a long time for my 700 Classic (this is before I knew better about what POS 700 actions are) and when I got it, the bolt lug slots had been over cut so the bolt would over rotate and not pull back. That's the last time I owned a Remington although we do have one up at our place in PA (a 22-250 bull barrel) for ground hog work. I loved my 35 Wheelen Ruger although I did replace that hideous boat paddle..

Seriously, is practicality really a consideration here? Professionals have staked their lives on both rounds. The 9.3 has a distinctly African panache with a hint of Scandinavia ... the Whelan is just as wonderfully steeped in the North American west. Get both, clearly.

Interesting. I headspaced my Whelen barrel myself, so I knew exactly what the measurement was, and how much "tolerance" I had put into it. I gave it some generous tolerance, actually. And I bought two brands of brass, Hornady and Remington. What I found strange what that even with the generous tolerance, empty Remington brass from the lot I bought has a crush fit in the chamber. Not so with the Hornady. Seems like Remington's specs on their brass/ammo are lack-luster in the 35 Whelen.

Good stuff - JWP - no doubt it's too bad in LA the Regs are it must have a hammer, not sure of any 9.3 with a hammer.

Never got clarification if a TC Encore would quality, probably would need a custom barrel, but there's always the 450s....for a primitive season set up where often it's in timber.

The Encore definitely qualify as long as it is 35 caliber or larger

I bought an 1885 High Wall in 30-06 and had it rebored to 35 Whelen

My 1988 700 Classic has no such problem or any of the other POS issues discussed here and elsewhere. Nor does my 1966 700 ADL .308W. Both obviously escaped the hands of the incompetent crew and less than observant QC. From what I have seen in recent years, I’d not buy a new Remington rifle. If I run across a Weatherby Mark V 9-lug .30-06 or .270, it’s off to rebore or rebarrel to .35 Whelen. Happy Trails

Welcome to the 24hourcampfire.

Maybe because at the time .35 caliber was more prevalent in the U.S. than .375.

I would pick the 35 Whelen every time and bullets would be the main reason and blow up type bullets.

I had one of those Rem 700s when they first came out. I wanted 3 new 700s with 30/06 action and for the actions and the gun shop had one in 35 Whelen and so I got one to try out and I was very impressed. I bedded the rifle and was very accurate. Velocities were in the high 2500s with 250 grains. I found it great to reload for and perfect for powders like Varget and another Australian powder (I don't know if Hodgdon sell it) that is like 3031.

Personally, I have never been to Africa but if I were to go then a 375 H&H would have to make the trip and just because it is a 375 so a 9.3 X 62 would never apply.

However, if I was getting a rifle tomorrow that was less than the 375 and above 30 it would be the 338 Winchester. I think it just offers so much more with the 200 grain bullets over the 35 Whelen/9.3 X 62.

JWP - thanks.

Mike - had a 338 WM long ago, enjoyed my 338/06 more in the recoil department. No doubt the 200s will reach.

I had a 1988 Remington Classic in 35 Whelen. Like others have mentioned here, about half of every box of Remington Corelokt 35 Whelen ammo would not fire. Primers were dented, but no ignition. When I tried other brands of ammo, the rifle fired every time, so it was obviously the ammo. I have never bought Remington ammo again since then, which was about 25-30 years ago.

The difference betweeen the 35 Whelen (.358) and the 9.3 (.366) is .08". And the 9.3 (.366) and the .375 is .09"
Both are virtually the difference in the depth of the rifling.

So, if we loaded a 250 .358, a 286 .336, and a 300 .375 bullet and launched them all at 2400 fps into a) a non animal medium such as ballistic gel and b) a theoretical big beastie under the same conditions and into the same exact spot what do you expect the performance differences, if any, might show so far as bullet performance?

There isn't much difference in "performance," whatever that means. But then there isn't as much difference in field performance among an even wider array of big game rounds as many hunters believe--as long as the bullet expands and penetrates sufficiently.

Which brings up another point. The original factory rifling twist-rates for the 9.3x62 (@1-14) and .375 H&H (1-12) are sufficient to stabilize very long bullets. But the original twist for the .35 Whelen (which factory rifles tend to follow) was 1-16, apparently to work better with lighter cast bullets, which Col. Whelen was very fond of. But the 1-16 twist is only sufficient to for stabilizing lead-cored spitzers of about 250 grains, though it will also usually stabilize somewhat heavier "blunt spitzers" such as the 280-grain Swift A-Frame. However, it won't stabilize heavier monolithics, the reason the heaviest 35-caliber Barnes TSX weighs 225 grains, and the heaviest TTSX 200 grains.

While of course a custom barrel with a faster twist would stabilize heavier monolithics, the predominance of 1-16 twists in .35 caliber commercial rifles (and not just Whelens) prevents major manufacturers from making such bullets. Meanwhile, the standard twist in 9.,3x and 375 caliber allows them to stabilize TSX spitzers up to 286 grains (9.3) and 300 grains (.375). Whether this makes a lot of difference might be debatable, but one of the major points of using "medium bores" is increased penetration on heavier game, which is exactly what heavier monolithics provide.

.366

Thanks, it was a typo.

Good Lawd, all this Whelen talk is making me want to load up some Partitions for elk season!

I use TBBC if I hunt elk. But I just got a box of 225 Sierra BT's to load for deer.

I've been using 60 gr REL-15 for a long time but some of the new data is intriguing. Is there any consensus on the top velocity loads?

I see some folks getting good numbers out of PP2000 in the Whelen and 9.3x62.

Let us make it simple if you do not need bullets >250gr get .35 Whelen if want heaver bullets go with 9,3x62 or kick real ass with .370 Federal (aka 9,3x66). The nice things about the .370 is now with insanity going on in US the ammo price seems quite affordable and available see Graf & Sons rifle ammo.

9.3x62mm... because it came wrapped in this:



270 gr. Hot-Cor
250 gr. TSX
285 gr. Oryx
286 gr. A-Frame

...and inexpensive and mild PPU 285 gr. for practice and brass harvesting.

Couldn't be more pleased.




GR

Have extra .358 Speer 250 GR CL & 100 Xtra 9.3 Nosler seconds 250 Gr Accubond have more than I will ever shoot. PM me if interested.

Have both the 9.3 X 62 and the 35 Whelen to me either are comparable more which rifle do I prefer?

I am not sure about consensus, but my own experience has been excellent with PP 2000-MR with 250 and 225 grain bullets in the Whelen (AI version). After a lot of testing I concluded there is no reason to doubt the previously unheard of velocities published by Speer and Sierra with PP 2000-MR and CFE223. [The following are max] Speer got 2709' with 66.2/2000-MR under their 250 HotCor and Sierra got 2900 with both 71.6/2000-MR and 70/CFE223 with their 225 SGK.

I used CCI 200 primers for everything below and had no complaints. On a whim I also tried Fed 210Match on one load but it did not shoot as well as the CCI 200.

I worked up with 250 Partitions in my 35 Whelen AI, and I stopped at 65/2000-MR for 2650' and sub-MAO. This wasn't max but seemed plenty, and was about the top end of fun in my 7.5 pound rifle.

For the 225 TSX, I stopped at 70/2000-MR for 2810' and about MOA average. I had to do some tapping the cases and use a drop tube to avoid heavy compression using Remington cases. Hornady cases weigh 19 grains less on average and would probably have more volume [EDIT: "probably" because I have not used them yet, I bought a supply but have only weighed them.] Remember this is a 35 Whelen AI.

Sierra got 3000' with their 200 grain RN and 72.9/2000-MR or 71.9/CFE223. I don't know how they got that much in a basic Whelen case, except for the fact that bullet would be seated very shallow. I wanted to do some workup with the 200 TTSX, and tried up to 71/2000-MR for 2940' but this was too compressed for my taste. I spent some time working with the faster burning PP Varmint, for which Speer had data for the 180gr and the 220gr - I just interpolated and the results indicated that 3000' should be about max. I settled on 68/Varmint (a perfect fit in the case) for 2966' and sub MOA. Unlike my 250 and 225 grain loads above, which I think are a little below max, I think this one is right about max. [EDIT: Reminder - my rifle is a long-throated 35 Whelen AI]

I used some of Mule Deer's rules of thumb for calculating loads and performance to derive 2000-MR data for the 250 NAB and 286 NPT in the 9.3x62, but I missed my predicted velocity by 50-60 FPS with both. I still need to play more with these. Mule Deer's Varget and Big Game loads for these two bullets really don't need any improvement, but I had 10 pounds of 2000-MR and the great resuts in the Whelen indicated it was worth a look. BTW, my 35 Whelen AI and my 9.3x62 have identical water capacity under their respective 250 grain bullets seated to 3.375" (both my rifles have long throats and both are limited to their 3.4" magazines).
63.5/2000-MR under the 286 Partition gave 2440' (I was expecting about 2500'), and 67.8/2000-MR under the 250 NAB gave 2621' (I was expecting about 2670')

Hope the above experience helps. My feel is using modern data in both rounds makes them awfully close in "performance" and as has been suggested - with the right bullets no animal will know the difference. Some African Game departments will though, which is a valid point.

Cheers,
Rex

FWIW,
One can buy Lapua 9.3x62mm Mauser Brass, with the proper head stamp, which is enough for me. The 286 grain Nosler Partition is another..

I have a 51' 06' Model 70, with one of D'Arcy's legend stocks, that may very well become one. Five beats three, even well put, any day... Why do I suspect that is going to be picked upon?

I sure as dickens need one...;-)

I actually could use a pre-64 9.3x62 Mauser as my M70 Stainless Classic in .375 H&H, built by John Ricks, has THE WORST trigger I have ever squeezed on a full custom rifle. Further the trigger parts are coated in Robar NP3 & Rogard. One would have thought John would have put some effort into that trigger.

Mark Penrod's take on that trigger is better, however, the cast trigger parts stink no matter how deep you polish or stone one. I find far more Pre-64 70s with a good trigger than Classics. Granted Mark says the steel is cleaner in the Classic. Give me filth and a decent trigger.

Anyone else reading D'arcy's blog on the Pre-64 70's, standard length, that he made into a .300 H&H and .375 H&H pair? Would love to be a fly on the wall...

Regards, Matt.

Not going to knock any middlebore from 338 to 375 as i like them all and have 6 of them myself but no 9.3's. Still they are all great.

I was wondering why hasnt something like a 375-06 taken off? Theres everything from 375 JDJ to the 378 WBY so bullets have been made that would work fine. It seems this would be a better (in theory) way to fly for consolidation of caliber instead of stepping in 9.3 cal. Just saying from a manufactures and ammo production side it would be easier or at least i would assume it would, or it seems practical. Is there something im missing like not enough shoulder or another technical issue? Just wondering.

I still have some Federal TBBC ammo that is very accurate at a little less than the advertised velocity of 2,600 fps. After trying a few other powders, I found that CFE223 is very accurate with 225 gr Partitions at a bit over 2,700 fps. Can’t quote the exact average velocity since I’m not at home with my load data, but I think it is like 2,724 fps. I just landed on that powder before the current shortage and had only tried a couple of other powders. I’m looking no further for a 225 Partition load. Happy Trails

That is one nice rifle!

Very little not to like on that rifle!

Thanks a lot for the real world info. I am near the end of my last batch with Rel-15. I think I will try some. I would like 2700 fps with a 22 in barrel and a 225 Partition if practical.

Thanks a lot for the real world info. I am near the end of my last batch with Rel-15. I think I will try some. I would like 2700 fps with a 22 in barrel and a 225 Partition if practical.

I get 2640 out of the Bearclaws in mine which is very accurate. but more like 2560 out of the 225 gr Sierra handload. CFE223 is made of unobtanium at the moment but I will try some when i get some.With the Bearclaw load going away I, too am headed for 225 gr Partitions. I have used one box of them just for targets and they shoot well.
Thanks, Gary

Mine are the old blue box Federal Premium loads before they nickel plated the bullets. Very accurate in my 700 Classic. Good hunting!

Nosler lists quite a few loads over 2700. I do pretty well in my Pump gun with Sierra 225’s H4895.

As it relates to my 22 in rifle I find the Nosler data pretty optomistic. I will use my newish Magnetospeed on my next batch o f loads. They were checked on a Shooting Chrony.