Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Compare the 35 Whelen with the 338WM and 9.3x62.

I have killed a fair bit of game with the 338-06 (elk, grizzly, nilgai and black bear), 35 Whelen (moose, elk, nilgai and black bear) and 9.3x62 (eland, kudu, gemsbuck, etc.) and have not seen one iota of difference with the critter hit properly. This with 185's, 210's and 225's in the 338-06, 225's and 250's in the Whelen and 250's (the old original X used on a 2002 African hunt) in the 9.3x62. Kind of like the 270, 280, 30-06 story it seems.

I haven't found a better powder for me in the 35 Whelen yet, at least with 225 and 250's. It's fast and always accurate. I know, it is one rifle, but quite a few others seem to get the same results. Love the stuff.

Ed,

I can see why you wouldn't see any difference between those rounds if all you've used in the 9.3x62 is the original 250 X-Bullet. I used that bullet some myself, and while it worked I didn't it to kill as quickly as lead-cored 286's in the 9.3x62, whether the Nosler Partition, Norma Oryx or Hornady Interlock. In fact several people have been so impressed with the consistently sudden results with those bullets they decided to get a 9.3x62 themselves, including my last hunting partner in Africa and a nilgai guide in Texas. There's a reason the 9.3x62 gained such a fine reputation in Africa with "conventional" 286's, and they still work great today.

I can't think of a job where I'd choose the .338 or .35 Whelen over the 9.3. The 9.3 has all of the virtues of the .338 Win Mag and none of the vices. If I were to have one rifle for Africa, it would be a 9.3.

With the 9.3x62 and the 35 Whelen, you are looking at another on of those cases where .008" is purported to make a heck of a difference but I suspect the difference would be difficult to see. Both of these cartridges have the happy capability of performing very well with conventional bullets.
The ability to use 357 pistol bullets is an important feature of the 35 and I have often loaded 158's at 1200fps in my Whelen.
If building a rifle, standard twist is meaningless since the whole idea of a custom rifle is the ability to customize specifications. My 35 Whelen is a twelve twist and my own standard twist for this chambering is a fourteen.
I am a fan of the 338 Win Mag because I think it is a great cartridge. I would build a 338 differently though to take advantage of it's long range capability. GD

Never owned a 9.3, have owned a .338 WM and a .35 Whelen. I much prefer the Whelen for the broad range of bullet choices, I more often shoot cast bullet and pistol bullet loads. 225gr. bullets work well for a whitetail load.

greydog,

In my experience the difference between the .35 Whelen and 9.3x62 doesn't really occur until bullets over 250 grains are used. Yeah, with a custom twist in a .35 Whelen you can use spitzers over 250 grains, but damn few are made, and even the heavier bullets available tend to have blunt noses so they'll stabilize in a 1-16 twist.

In contrast, the 9.3x62 was designed to shoot much heavier bullets, so there are a bunch available. And in my experience they do make a difference, especially on game larger than deer.

I can believe that. In addition, those bullets were made specifically with the 9.3x62 in mind and it is not surprising they work.
I think a nice 275 grain semi-spitzer would be great in a 35. Of course, the old 300 Hornady was also a great heavy bullet.
As has been mentioned. The beauty of these cartridges is that they work so well with conventional bullets just because the velocities are well suited to these bullets.
The load I shot in my whelen for years produced close to 2600 with 250's but I decided it was too hot so I dropped about 80 fps and feel good about it.
I have some friends and customers who are real fans of the 9.3 and it's pretty hard to argue with them. GD

Shooting pistol bullets in 9.3 bore rifles is only as difficult as locating some 9mm Makarov bullets.

Loading the Sierra or Hornady 95gr hollow points with the base forward can compensate for small dimensional variations in some funky Euro bores. An ersatz modern mini-ball that yields grouse head precision at 25 yds in my my M46 Husqvarna.

Huntington's used to offer a 200-grain cast bullet designed for the 9.3x74R, and I ordered a bunch before they were discontinued. They work pretty well in the 9.3x62 with C.E. Harris's "universal reduced rifle load" of 13.0 grains Red Dot for around 1450 fps.

Have also used the same powder in many other rifles. The only requirement is that the cartridge be of at least .300 Savage or .35 Remington capacity, and the bullet must be in the normal weight range for the cartridge. But it worked once even outside of that, with 210-grain cast .41 Magnum bullets in the .416 Remington Magnum. The bullets weren't all that hard, and bumped up enough with the fast powder to shoot into about 2" at 50 yards--at .41 Magnum velocities. I wouldn't be surprised if cast .38 Special bullets wouldn't do the same thing in the 9.3x62. Should try it sometime, because the difference in bullet/bore diameter is about the same as with the .41 and .416.

Have also been experimenting with buckshot for cheap practice/small game loads in the past year, with excellent results. Would be surprised if 0000 sized to .366" didn't work with Red Dot.

I also have a 265-grain 9.3mm mold that works very well with wheelweight metal for cheap practice loads.

Steelhead covered it perfectly.

John,

The 250 gr X worked beautifully dropping about everything right now including two kudu with one shot (oops). I recovered a few bullets and they could well be used in a Barnes ad. I just don't see how a 286 gr whatever could have performed better. My load was sailing them at 2650 fps.

I have seen the 9.3x62 with 286gr TTSX penetrate both shoulder of large cape buffalo, damage was extensive. The others would not have been legal to use.

I know you have enough good input, and have probably already made a decision, but I wanted to chime in anyway.

I like the flexibility of the 35 Whelen to shoot cheap pistol bullet loads.

And as many have said, I suspect there isn't much difference in killing power between the trio.

The only 338 I ever shot a lot was unpleasant to shoot (for me). It was a beautiful tang safety Ruger with deep blue and a beautiful dense walnut stock. I never could manage more than about 20 rounds off the bench, and then I had enough. Finally I gave up on it.

My 35 Whelens are pleasant by comparison, and my favorite is a Winchester 1895 with a crescent steel buttplate.

If I ever am lucky enough to get to Africa, I'll just buy another 375H&H. No need to plan that far ahead.

So I'd keep that Ruger of yours. It's a great choice for elk and for Alaska.

Ed,

Thanks very much for the extra info.

I had mixed results with that bullet. It would always kill stuff, but on more than one occasion they went a ways even with very well-placed shots. One was a broadside gemsbok that was staggered by the first shot, in the meat of the shoulder, but didn't fall, so I aimed for the bone of the shoulder and sent another along. Just at that instant he decided to take off, so the second bullet landed within a couple inches of the first. He went around 80 yards before running into an acacia, which finally stopped him. But then gemsbok will sometime do that.

But I also know that some batches of X-Bullets were harder than others. I seem to remember that when the TSX came out it was also redesigned slightly to open up easier.

In general I have had better luck dropping animals quickly on behind-the-shoulder shots with lead-cored bullets. When shooting for bone I haven't found much difference in performance as long as the bullet penetrated sufficiently.

Whelen,
Yes I agree with that logic at present. Further, much to my surprise, Ruger had a new tang stock available. Other than a black pad instead of red, it is a drop-in only to need a bedding job to fortify the stock.
A Ruger #1-S in 9.3x62 is enticing, but for now, the Whelen will be the workhorse.

John,

Is there anything you would take a 9.3x62 firing 286 Partitions up against where you would not use a 35 Whelen with 250 Partitions?

Not having used the 9.3 and just going by numbers, I can�t see much difference. Seems to me the difference would be much like a 280 Ackley/160 Partition vs. a 270 Win/140 Partition. Similar differences in SD, bullet weight, and bullet diameter, and both can be fired at similar speeds. Yet in the case of the 280 AI/270, I would happily carry either interchangeably for the game in which they are intended.

If a Whelen guy wanted to go heavy he could always use a 270 grain Northfork, 280 Swift, or heavy Woodleigh if his rifle would stabilize them, and be within 100 fps or so of the 9.3x62.

Bob,
Thanks for the incite. I'm angling for Varget as I an use it in my .223, .308 and 35 Whelen. Formerly I used it in the .204 and 375 H&H. One powder covering so many applications in this "era" is a distinct advantage. Hopefully I can find another 8 pounder.

Mule Der or EdM,
Do either of you know if Barnes has made their TSX style bullet more frangible due to the lower velocities it most likely will be used in?

Billy,

Aside from the legality of using a .35 Whelen on certain African animals, no, I wouldn't worry about the difference between the Whelen with a 250 and the 9.3x62 wth a 286. Though I do know the 286 will out-penetrate the .35 250 by a significant amount, partly because the 286 has the partition moved forward to retain more weight. In fact in a test in the same media the 286 Partition penetrated deeper than the 250 TSX and almost as far as the 286 TSX. The only two 286 Partitions I've recovered averaged 80% weight retention.

That doesn't mean the Whelen (or the .338 Winchester) won't do the job. I've seen both do great work, and as noted earlier still own rifles in both chamberings. But have also been impressed enough with the 9.3x62 over the past dozen years to have used it almost exclusively rather than the .338 or .35 Whelen (or even my .375 H&H) when a medium-bore seems like a good idea.