Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only 9.3x62 Mauser or .35 Whelen? Which do you prefer? Why?

Likely a Swedish for the 6.5; TBD for the big boomer.

...Foreigner....??????

PIFFLE!!!!!!!!

muledeer is right, build a .35 W on the P-64 AND a 9.3 on the Husky; this simply goes to show the superior intellects and general wisdom of those of us who live in the north-western quarter of the N.A. continent. So, build 'em both and relieve
the awful mental strain associated with making crucial decisions such as this......

But if I build them both, that would leave me without a scopable .30-06, and that's unthinkable. I have a nice Mauser sporter in 06, but it has one of those stocks manufactured before anyone much thought of putting scopes on a hunting rifle, i.e., the shoulder stock slopes dramatically down to put your eye right at the Lyman 48 aperture sight. So, either the Husky or the Winnie has to stay in 06.

I hate to interject a minor piece of practicality here, but the 9.3x62 is legal in SOME (not all) African countries for dangerous game, while the .35 Whelen is not. And dangerous game aside, you have a better than even chance of finding 9.3x62 ammo over there, while .35 Whelen is probably non-existent.

So if you ever decide to travel to Africa with your obscure medium-bore, there it is.

On an impracticla note, my personal vote is for the 9.3, which has a longer, richer world history than the .35 Whelen, and a better selection of really heavy bullets. (Somebody pointed out you can get .35 310-grain Woodleighs. Well you can get 320 Woodleighs in 9.3....)

The Other Mule Deer

Since I already have a Mauser sporter in 9.3 Mauser (not to mention a .416 Rem Mag and a .375 H&H Mag), I will make the Winchester a .35 Whelen for North America.

I'd do a 375 H&H over the 9.3x62 for African use. For NA I'd do a 338-06 over the 9.3x62 and 35 Whelen! I've never liked the 35 Whelen's shoulder! BFaucett rated the 35 Whelen and 338-06 with 250's in the 2400's... that's not been my experience at all. My 338-06 (22" bbl) pushed the 250's at 2,550 with H4350 and my 22" bbl'd 350 RM pushed the 250's just over 2,600 with RL15. The 350 RM is, for all purposes, the clone of the Whelen, but I like it better.

Brad,

I was really basing my comparison between the .35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 upon Remington's 250 gr .35 Whelen load that's rated at 2400 fps. That compares closely with the traditional, standard 9.3x62 load which is a 286 gr bullet at 2360 fps.

Hodgdon is showing data where both the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen will safely exceed 2400 fps with a 250 gr bullet. Nosler Ammunition is also showing that they load their .35 Whelen 250 gr ammo to a stated 2550 fps. And their .338-06 250 gr ammo is loaded to a stated 2475 fps. But, Nosler Ammuntion loads their 286 gr 9.3x62 ammo to a stated 2430 fps so that slightly exceeds the traditional 9.3x62 load at 2360.

In summary, both the .35 Whelen and the 9.3x62 can be loaded to slightly exceed their stated factory ammo standard ballistics. (If Remington's 250 gr load is considered the standard for the .35 Whelen.) I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just wanted to explain the reasoning I had used in my initial comparison.

Cheers,
-Bob F.

http://www.noslerammunition.com/

Thank's for clarifying Bob!

I didn't take your post as argumentative at all and certainly hope you didn't take mine as such!

Best (and cheers!),

Brad

No problem.... I didn't take yours as argumentative either. We're just a group of hunters sitting around the ol' campfire having a friendly chat about cartridges. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-Bob F.

The "reality" of it, to follow My Other Brother Darrel's lead and interject some, is that no animal on Earth will ever be able to tell the difference between being struck in a vital zone with a .358 diameter 250 gr bullet at 2500+ fps and a .366 diameter 286 gr bullet at 2400+ fps. They will just be suddenly dead.

That being said, I've used the Whelen since 1993 and I like it a lot. When I go to Africa next August, it will partner with my .404 Jeffery to handle the "small stuff" like kudu. My PH thinks it's a really good plan.

If I had bought a 9.3x62 a dozen years ago, I'm betting I would like it equally well.

About the Whelen's shoulder -- I hope I never own a rifle with a chamber sloppy enough that the Whelen's shoulder is an issue! That would be a rifle salvageable only be rebarrelling.
Tales of Whelen headspacing issues are mythic, I think, and if they exist, stem from bad chambering, not any inherent flaw in the cartridge design.

Those tales go hand in hand with the stories that insist the .35 is a 200-yard cartridge, at best. Humbug <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />.

I still think you need them both, regardless of who the donor action is... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Very true, but if you are going on a moose hunt in Alaska, you have a pretty good chance of finding 35 Whelen ammo on the shelf and not 9.3x62, or deer hunting in Florida or......


You get the picture. I would assume the average joe does 1000 days of hunting in the US for every one day abroad, so I would hedge my bets for what you can find here and not on the shelfs in Zimbabwe.

Downunder I would take the 9.3x62 any day. Woodleigh makes a full range of projectiles from 250 to 320 gns, solids or softs, brass is no problem and factroy ammo is available. How versatile is that?!

But in NA I can see a practicle point for the 35 Whelan. Not as versatile though in my books.

I really enjoy the theoretical blather about versatility because of the different kinds and weights of projectiles available in .35 vs .36 and so on. Unfortunately, I occasionally wake up and admit that it is exactly that, theoretical blather, and that in actual hunting use, it only takes 2 or maybe 3 different bullets to get about all the versatility out of any caliber that a hunter needs. Will a 250 grain .35 bullet bounce off an animal where a 286 .36 caliber bullet will whack it dead? If the 250 kills the animal dead, then is the 225 really necessary to ensure some idea of versatility?

I enjoy the mental masturbation, but when it really comes down to making a live animal into a dead animal, there's no significant difference between the two calibers, and the range of available bullets is wider for either than any single individual will use over the course of a dozen years.

Party pooper <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I just read that Speer has recently released a 225 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw in .358 caliber with the .35 Whelen in mind.

Yep <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have four .35 Whelens and no 9.3, so you can figure out my preference. (1) Al Biesen Mauser (2) Townsend Whelen's Springfield 1903 that was built by Jim Howe originally in .400 Whelen and later rebarreled by Culver (3) Remington 7600 pump (4) 1903 Springfield by L.R. Wallack with 19" barrel, have not yet got my nerve up to shoot it.

If you have used both, I think you would go with the 9.3.

I have and I know others who have and only one friend now used the Whelan and only because he regrets selling his Mannlicher Steyer Luxus chambered in 9.3X62. "Regrets" is very understated.

Thats what these forums are all about!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Toss a coin! They are both excellent cartridges and ballistic twins. I guess that, in the final analysis, it will come down to which is easier to buy ammo/components for and, I would suspect, that in the US that would be the Whelan.

I have a .35 Whelan, with a 9.3x62 underconstruction and, when it is finished, the Whelan will be up for sale but only because the Whelan was only ever a 'rough' gun while my 9.3 will be quite 'pretty'. But I know that feeding my 9.3 will be a little harder here in Oz.