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

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!