Regarding a 9.3x62 with a 286 grain Nosler partition vs. a 35 Whelen with a 280 grain Swift A-frame - what advantages regarding penetration and effectiveness of these cartridges' loads would there be?

I finally got a 35 Whelen - a pre-64 Winchester with an after-market barrel. I'm sort of loaded up on 35 calibers, molds, bullets etc.

Euro-trash vs red-blooded American. Take your pick. GD

Now that nailed it.

I like the 35 Whelen. With modern pressure I believe to be a better performer. Since CFE 223 and MR 2000 have been released there is now a lot of horse power added to this old timer. 225 grain bullets at 2900 fps is a deadly combination. 250 grainers as well. I have never used the Swift A-Frame in my Whelen.

There it is.

2900 fps with a 225 grain bullet from a Whelen would likely be a deadly combination.

Throw them both up in the air. Catch either one on the way down and you’ll have an outstanding big game rifle.

I've taken a number of game animals in Africa with my Dakota 35 Whelen using 250 NP & 280 SAF: Leopard, Sable, Sitatunga, Lichtenstein Hartebeest, Warthog, Bushbuck, Oribi, & Kafue Lechwe.

Two years ago I chose my Ruger Hawkeye 35 Whelen with 280 gr. SAF to take a once in a life time Colorado bull Shiras Moose.

It's my favorite medium bore, but I have also used the 9.3x62 in Africa and like it just as much. I have only used the 286 gr. in the '62, both NP & SAF.

The good thing about the 9.3x62 in Africa of course is, it is legal for DG in most countries, whereas the Whelen is not.

Incredible brass life...

I doubt the "standard" 35 caliber 16" twist would stabilize a 280 grain Swift. Haven't tried it so don't know.

The faster twist in JB's 9.3 BS would appear to be its biggest advantage over our 35s'.

Just my $.02

The standard 1:16 twist did not stabilize the 280 gr. in my old Remington 35 Whelen. I sold it and bought my Dakota Classic Deluxe Whelen with 1:12 twist and a Ruger Hawkeye SS/syn, also with the 1:12 twist, and they both stabilize the 280 gr. perfectly.

If the Swift bullet is available, I'll be trying it out and I thought that I found some - no. So far with my 600 350 Magnum. I've mostly used 250 grain bullets - Speer, Nosler partition and Hornady Interlock, which all work very well. For some reason, I've been able to easily get good groups with the 250 grain bullets and not so much with lighter bullets in my 600 350 - in fact groups went from less than 1 MOA with the 250's to often about 4+ MOA with lighter bullets that I've tested - though admittedly I have not done much testing with light bullets in the 600. One of my rifles chambered in 350 is an almost new Classic 700, the other is that 600 - which has an after market barrel. Now I have a 35 Whelen (also in an after market barrel). Hopefully it will be a bit of testing this summer for the 35's and with different twist barrels. I may throw in some tests with my 358 Win also with an after market barrel.

I think that Remington chose the slow twist in their rifles (244 and 35 Whelen come to mind) because of the belief that slow twist shoot better than fast twist, which I am convinced was true once upon a time. Perhaps another reason was that there were not many, if any, long bullets available in those calibers in those days. There was a lot of people that felt if you want to kill bigger bad animals use a bigger gun. Using premium bullets has changed a lot since then. But there still are a few old farts that still feel "get a bigger" gun is the proper way to go -- I know at least one .

I probably should get a 6.3x62 or 6.3x74R and do the comparisons that my curiosity requires. I've avoided buying a 6.3 since then I'd have to be buying more molds and the inventory of bullets would have to be increased. Sadly my testing would be at a range, rather than on game much bigger than deer or perhaps elk, which ironically, many people are using "pop guns" on these game animals, albeit more successfully than I would have believed possible a few years ago.

I am wondering if anyone has completed an in-depth comparison 6.3 vs a fast twist 35 with the best bullets available for larger tougher game and also with penetration boxes, gel, wet/dry news paper etc..

I seriously doubt there would be any difference at all in the effects on game animals between the 2 if bullets of like weight and construction were used.
I do not own a 35 Whelen but I have made a lot of them and they are well liked by the men that got them. Typically I have used 1-14 twist barrels for the 35 Whelens. To the best of my knowledge all those that own them have used bullets up to 250 grains but nothing heavier.

I also have made a bunch of 9.3X62s in the last few years, and there was a huge rush of orders starting about 5 years ago which I found odd because 7 years ago most folks around here had never heard of it.
The barrels I have used for the 9.3MMs have been 1-12 twist.
I own four 9.3MM rifles and have come to really like and admire how well they work. I have two 9.3X57s, one I made on a Mauser M98 with a 1-12 twist, one is an original Husky M46 with a 1-14" twist. The M46 has it's original iron sight and my 98 has a scope. Both shoot well, but I can't tell how well the Husky shoots because I can't shoot super tight groups with irons anymore. (old eyes) But I have killed deer and antelope with them both. My 98 is zeroed with Nosler AccuBond 250 grain bullets and the Husky is zeroed with PPU 285 grain bullets
I have a Ruger #1 in 9.3X74R and it's twisted 1-10. It's SUPER accurate with Nosler Partition 296 grain, Speer 270 grain and Hornady 286 grain bullets and hold all of them under MOA. The Speer 270 grains bullet shoot under half MOA!
And I have a 98 Mauser I made with a 1-12" twist and it shoots close to MOA with my hunting ammo. It has a 1-6 power scope on it and my average groups is giving me 3 shots at 100 yards of about 1-1/16" using Hornady 286 grain bullets and just under an inch (15/16") with Speer 270 grain bullets.

I don't think the rate of twist is as important as many other factors for accuracy. Twist needs to stabilize the bullets, but once they are stable arguing over an exact rate of twist is largely worthless. My Ruger is the most accurate of my four 9.3MM rifles, but I don't think it's because it's twisted faster. I made a 9.3X62 on a Mauser for my friend Wes, with a 1-12" ER Shaw blank and his rifle shoots as well as my Ruger using Barnes TXS bullets. 2 of my rifles have the same barrels in them (all ordered and arrived at my shop in the same shipment) yet Wes's rifle shoots his loads about 1/2" tighter then my rifles shoot my loads. Maybe I could get the same degree of accuracy with the Barnes TSX bullets but most of my experience with those types of bullets show me a lack of expansion at impacts below 2000 FPS so I wanted to stick with lead cored bullets instead of solid copper. With Muzzle velocities of about 2375 to 2400, you drop around the 2000 FPS mark at 200 yards. With my Horandys 286 grains I have made kills at close to 300 and with the Speers I have made kills on antelope past 400 and they expanded fine, (The Speers expand and break up at closer ranges too often for my liking, even on deer and antelope) so I have not bought any Barnes bullets for my guns. But in all honesty, Wes has killed 2 antelope and about 5 deer and 6 elk with his 9.3X62 using Barnes bullets, and so far having a range of "only" 200 yards has not been a problem for him. He's a good hunter.

I have killed some game with my 9.3X62 and I have seen some kills (not killed by me) with the 9.3X62s at ranges from 175 to about 450 using various bullet on antelope, elk and deer and overall the 9.3X62 is vary impressive.
I have personally seen fewer kills with 35 Whelens, (4 I can remember) but common sense says the difference would be non-existent if the same type and close to the same weights of bullets were used. .008" larger diameter is not going to be noticed by any animal.

PPU - loads for 9.3x62mm, at ~ $22/20 box, providing good quality, reloadable brass.

And the cartridge is more accepted and available in the big game fields around the world.


Other than that...?

... not much.


Although, the .358/280 gr. is a std. A-Frame bullet.

... while the 9.3mm/286 gr. is a "Heavy Rifle" A-Frame bullet, which looks to be designed for a coupla hundred fps lower impact velocities.




GR

I measured the twist rate on my 35's
The rifles with after market barrels: 1 in 14"
The rifles with factory barrels: 1 in 16"

I'll be especially interested in the 700 Classic - for sure.

I'm guessing the Swift 280 grain A-frame maybe the longest available bullet, not sure, I'll verify via. internet. But finding some of those to test may be difficult.

Where I live is nearly the lowest elevation in the state at about 1,100 feet above sea level.

Plugging in the parameters of the Swift bullet in the Berger site at 1,100 feet it's stabile with 1 in 14"
and marginally stabile in 1 in 16" assuming 2300 fps. However, at 5,000+ feet where I'd more likely be using it, it's more stabile.

- https://bergerbullets.com/twist-rate-calculator/

Using another site

https://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmstab-5.1.cgi

It shows the bullet to be more stabile than Berger, but I may have made a mistake in loading data.

The heaviest Barnes mono bullet may be less stable, I have not run those numbers.

Got some data for that? I thought I was doing good with 225gr at 2700fps!

A 35 Whelen pushing a 225 grain bullet at 2900 fps send a chill up my spine. I guess as I get older, I like drama less and less.
Charlie

There is published data that pushes 220's to 2800 with newer powders


Speer data shows 250 grain @ 2709 FPS with 2000MR powder

They don't list any pressure data.
Charlie

No they don't but do you think they would publish data with unsafe pressures?

They wouldn't be the first to publish a loading manual with no real idea of what the pressures were.

Power pro varmint is usually used in 22-250 type cartridges and it is 100 fps faster than the other powders. Speer used it in the 35 Whelen for lighter weights up to 220 grains.

My concern is that without pressure tested data, there is a fair amount of guessing. And if you have the data, why not publish it ?

I know for a fact that Barnes pressure tests their load data on Olher equipment but do not publish the pressure data. Few do

Actually quite a few companies include pressure with their handloading data, whether paper manuals or on-line, including Accurate, Lyman, Ramshot, and Hodgdon--which also provides pressure for Winchester and IMR brand powders. Don't know why others don't.

Maybe I am the exception...but I often take a liking to a particular bullet, then go about assembling a gun/cartridge once the bullet is decided (and stock piled) Examples are the Speer 270 gr 9.3 MM. 220 grain HDY and Noslers. 75 grain Speer flat point. Any of the Sierra semi points. I almost lost all composure when Barnes dropped the 125X ( killed six deer and two bears with as many bullets) ! Nothing like confidence (experience proven) in the one component that matters most.

My .358 Norma Magnum (custom barreled by the old Montana Rifleman Company in '99) has a 1:12" twist, and is very accurate with bullets ranging from a Speer 180 grain flat nose to the 310 grain Woodleigh. My most accurate load is the 200 grain Hornady Spire Point coming out the chute just under 3,000 fps. In fact, it tends to like shorter bullet more than longer bullets, shooting the aforementioned Hornadys and 210 grain Partitions more accurately than anything else.

My .35 Whelan (barreled by the same company) has a 1:14" twist, and handles bullets from 180 through 250 grains just fine. It's most accurate load is a 250 grain Speer at 2,600 fps. It also likes the 250 grain Spire Point at a slightly lower velocity. It tends to shoot 225-250 grain bullets better than the 200-210 grainers.

So my 12" twist rifle likes short bullets, and my 14" twist rifle likes long bullets.

Ballistics......

Who makes a 210 grain 35 caliber bullet?

I have owned the 9.3X62 and the .35 Whelen as well as a .338-06. If forced to shed two of them, the .35 Whelen will be the survivor. Prejudicial?.....of course, but it's my choice and I really don't need a reason. The Whelen is a surprising performer.

I have posted on this minutiae before:

If you want a rifle that can be used with (usually) cheap and easily available handgun bullets, pick the .35 Whelen. In normal times factory ammo is usually more available in North America, though apparently no Campfire members ever use factory ammo.)

If you want a rifle that consistently handles a wide range of bullets ever 250 grains, including monolithics, pick the 9.3x62. (Oh, and it's also legal for "dangerous game" in some African countries, while the .35 Whelen isn't. That said, I have found a little bit of money usually convinced African officials to bend their rules.)

Yea, my PH referred to them as the "local taxing authorities"...

John;
Good afternoon, I hope that springs doing what it's supposed to for you folks down there and that all who matter to you are well.

I've had friends and family travel a fair bit in Africa as well as parts of Asia.

They too found that "baksheesh" carefully applied could make problems go away.

Or maybe they just heard that John, yes - perhaps that's a better way of phrasing it anymore?

Thanks for the chuckle and all the best to you and Eileen.

Dwayne

I believe there is no free lunch and 2700 with a 250, in a whelen, isn't happening without some pressure. I had an interesting session once with some leverevolution powder in a 35 Whelen. I was, of course, winging it since there is no published data. The first couple of shots registered about 2580,( then one went over 2640 and the fourth shot read 2770fps! I stopped the experiment right there. Surprisingly, there were no real pressure signs but the fast shot hit six inches high. GD

Hi Dwayne,

Glad I gave you a chuckle! I have experienced the difference a little extra "baksheesh" can make in Africa several times in various countries. In fact it has been subject to inflation, or perhaps more accurately more exposure to "rich Americans." When I hunted South Africa for the first time 30 years ago, you could tip a porter at the Johannesburg airport 20 Rand (at the time around $2.50 U.S.) and they'd be happy. The last time I went was in 2015, and they wanted $20 U.S--around 280 Rand at today exchange rate This actually wasn't a bad deal, since the Joburg airport has grown considerably, and finding the damn customs area was far more complicated!

We're doing fine down here in "southern Alberta."

Best,
John

Well, not to be flippant, but NO velocity is happening without SOME pressure. The question is how much. It's surprising how few folks know the SAAMI max for the .35 Whelen is 62K PSI. It is by no means a low pressure cartridge though many (including Remington) have loaded it as if it were for a long time. It is not good for folks who have not yet tried the "new" powders in their few really exceptional applications, to throw out unfounded comments doubting the results. An example is Reloader 26 with 150 grain bullets in the 270 Win. Another is PP 2000 MR in the 35 Whelen. Both of those add at least 100 FPS to what was previously achievable at similar or lower pressures.
I have not run RL-26 in my 270s (yet!) but have run 2000MR extensively in the Whelen with 250s and 225s, as well as Varmint for 200 Grains. I've had my rifle for 30 years, and back when it was newer I experienced the only blown primer I have ever had in 40 years of handloading, trying to hit 2600 with AA 2520 and 250s. (Hey, I was young and dumb). With PP2000MR, I stopped at 2650 with the 250 Partition (1.2 grains below Speer's max) just because that was where shooting the 7.5 pound rifle stopped being fun (and it was shooting under 0.5 MOA!)
Don't question the Partition versus HotCor comparison because I have tested them both in my rifle and they are near perfect analogs - the same charge produces the same velocity, same CHE, and same POI, so I use the 250 HotCor for initial workup when trying a new powder I eventually hope to use for the 250 Partition.
My rifle with 65 grains 2000MR gives 2650' with only .0002" initial case head expansion, and then no further expansion on subsequent loadings. I can shoot this a long, long time before I wear out a round of brass (in fact, I have yet to wear out a case since I started using 2000MR three years ago), but back in the day, I couldn't hit this speed with even the best powder without ruining the case. I have no doubt that 2700' is a perfectly reasonable max that Speer published with 66.2 gr and that brass would have quite reasonable life at that level.

I'm very interested in any experiences people that have actually tried 2000MR with 250 or 225 grain bullets in the 35 Whelen have had that are DIFFERENT than what I described above.
I found that with 225s, 2000MR is at the limit of what you can get into the case and still seat a bullet, before getting to max pressure. But, I still chose the 225 TSX and 2000MR over the 250 Partition for my coveted 2019 AZ elk hunt, and it performed great (as no doubt the 250 would have too, but I had already killed and elk with that, and we loonies love to try something new).

I had to go to Varmint to get the full value out of 200 Barnes TTSXs. Can't put enough 2000MR in the case to use its potential.

This concludes my semi-hijack of the thread...LOL. Like another posted, I have 338-06 (2), 35 Whelen, and 9.3x62. They are all just fine. I just had to respond to the nay-saying over Speer's 2000MR published Whelen data, with all the most respect to Mr. Sisk, et.al. Based on my experience, I expect it is both pressure tested and at or below 62K PSI. It would take some SERIOUS cajones in this day and time to publish data 100 FPS over anything previously published that had just been extracted from the rectal data bank.
Cheers,
Rex

I tend to do that as well. I'm building a 6.5x47 on a Remington Model 7 just so I can shoot 120gn Nosler Ballistic Tips.



[i][/i]

Should we toss our Speer manuals?

I don not know but the Speer manual is one I don't buy very often. I buy every ed'n of Nosler, the yearly Hodgon and Western Powder mags and every other Hornady manual. Can't have everything. Mb

I don't know why I still have some old Speer manuals. I have not thrown them out. But I may before my kids could get a hold of them. I suppose a "DO NOT USE" marking with a sharpy on the cover of the manual might be a good idea. Also, I've seen a manual that I have that the 358 Win loads were for the 35 Remington and the 35 Remington loads were for the 358. Manuals are not always right or proper.

In a strong action, take a 700 Remington for example, I do not see any reason why a 7mm-08, a 7x57, 30-06, 270, 243, 6mm, 8x57, 35 Whelen, and so forth can't be loaded to the same pressure, that is if using modern brass.

But, if one is a Model 54 Winchester, another is a 760 Remington, another is a 742 Remington, another is a Remington Rolling block, another is a low numbered '03 and another is a '96 Mauser or a '88 Commission Mauser, then I feel maximum loads should be for the rifle/action, rather than for the cartridge.

Barnes used to have to do corrections for their manual. Their first had loads for the .257 Roberts that when used I couldn't get all the powder in the case. I have yet to have a problem with Speer manuals, but maybe I was just lucky. One thing I read years ago was Speer tested their loads in pressure barrels and then shot them in standard actions to see what the results were. They then printed what they got in the standard actions so people would have a more consistent result with their rifles. As an example I have used 165g Speers in my 30-06 and haven't had trouble reaching their published loads, but have had a couple cartridge give me trouble trying to reach Nosler velocity loads. I'm talking 300 fps difference with the same powder and load.

That didn't work too well. They didn't retest the loads in "standard actions," but in factory rifles--which have far more variable bore dimensions than pressure barrels. As a result, in one Speer manual their factory .308 Winchester rifle got higher velocities with their pressure-tested loads than their factory .30-06 rifle. They had to print a special paragraph in that manual to explain why.

Yep, I have that manual. So, do you know how they are testing now?

The latest Speer manual, Number 15 published in 2018, apparently uses standardized SAAMI-spec pressure barrels.

Thanks very much for researching that and getting back to us on it MD!
Rex

Honest question-what is a standardized SAAMI-spec barrel?

Generally 24 inches long in most rifle cartridge, with certain exceptions. Also generally with tighter bore/groove dimensions than many factory barrels, with chamber on the smaller side of SAAMI maximums/minimums. As an example, headspace is generally allowed to vary plus/minus .007.

Thank you. I did not know there was a SAAMI spec barrel for each cartridge. Are there any general pearls of wisdom for interpreting data generated from one?

HA!

Even a "good" pressure barrel starts to wear out, especially in the throat area in front of the chamber. Which is why I'm especially suspicious about the loading data from various manuals that continue to list the same factory rifle as the "test gun" for several editions.

Then there are variations in manufacturing lots of powders, bullets and even primers.

But have noted over the past decade or two that due to more stringent standards, loading data has become far more consistent between different sources. Dedicated one entire chapter in my first BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK to that question, titled "Why Reloading Data Varies." Despite many handloaders continuing to bitch about varying handloading data, it's actually FAR more consistent than it was even 25 years ago, despite far more widely varying bullets.

My negative comments regarding loads in Speer manuals are for the early manuals. I don't have the same issue with their newer manuals.

Any more, I will check a couple of sources when venturing into new territory with a new cartridge for me. Since I like odd-ball cartridges there's, at times, further complications.

When I start developing a load, I look at the Gun Gack series, Ken Waters, and Nosler manuals. I'll also look on-line for manuals (if I don't have them) that are for powders I plan on using, bullets that I plan on using etc. On odd-ball cartridges I'll look at Load Data, Ackley, various old manuals, and old Gun Digests. Odd ball cartridges require more serious planning, I think.

I had a Democrat chronograph that was a royal pain to be around. Now I have one that is easy to use and I'll be watching velocity more closely when developing loads that are approaching near maximum. When I've reached a velocity that meets reputable sources loads, I will stop - I may stop earlier if the source is using a 26" barrel since my rifles don't often have 26" barrels. I'm not afraid to use a bigger cartridge if I feel the burning desire to increase velocity.

I firmly believe in being very careful with handloads. I likely take twice as long as the average hand loader to assemble loads, even after the load has been tested for velocity and accuracy.

As far as 35 vs. 9.3x62 goes, I am not as knowledgeable as the writers and other experts on this forum but I think there's been a lot of improvement on bullet design over the last few years (maybe more than a few years). And now, comparing the two is like comparing the 280 and the 270, I suppose, if using a fast enough twist on the 35 for stabilizing heavy bullets. Personally if I go to Africa I'll have a rifle that should work fine on game that I can afford to shoot (It has a belt and has H&H in the name). I'll be lucky at my age if I go big bear hunting though.

Apples to Apples, you'd be a lot closer trying to compare a 9.3 x 62mm to a 375 H&H. There's nothing to compare with the the 35 as stated.

Phil

.366-.358 = .008
.375-.366 = .009

Diameter of a bullet alone has little to do with a cartridge whole design and purpose. Both the 9.3x62 and 375 H&H were designed by country's colonizing Africa and for Africa, Not so with the 35, Also the 2 were designed in the same era. If you were to get specific on the 35 you'd have to wait another half century for the likes of the 358 Norma Mag, 358 STA and the likes.

Phil

Fantasy is a wonderful experience. Even African game is flesh and blood just like all game the world over

What about the .350 Rigby, .350 No2 Rigby and .350 Magnum Rigby

None of which got off the ground because of the 375 H&H...

Phil

How about the 6.5, 7X57, 318 Westley Richards? Were they all designed for 'African"? Bell killed hundreds of elephants with then as well as the 303 British.

Well, good points made by both sides in subsequent posts, but that said:

The top handloads in the 9.3x62 launch a 250 grain bullet at 2650-2700 FPS.
The top handloads in the .35 Whelen launch a 250 grain bullet 2650-2700 FPS.

And top handloads in both also do 2450-2500 with 275-286 grain bullets.

That's pretty comparable, IMO. I own both and love both.

Cheers,
Rex

I have used both cartridges, and don't want to give up either one. I use them for different purposes.
My .35 Whelen is a tried and true Sako AV Classic with custom 24" 1-14" twist barrel. It is my local elk and moose rifle. I have enjoyed a lot of success with it. Even though it is kinda big and heavy is very accurate and easy to shoot well. I can use almost any 250 grain bullet at 2500 fps with no complaints.
My 9.3x62 is a Verney-Carron Impact Plus take down bolt action. It is my travel rifle. It fits in a very compact case and is extra light, handy, and although powerful doesn't kick too much for accurate shooting. I use 286 gr. Norma or Lapua bullets at 2400 fps. It served me well in Namibia last year for Kudu, Gemsbok, and Giraffe.

TCR 83 9.3X74 SSK in the classifieds...

Hey CastnBlast,
Which specific Lapua 286 grain bullet did you use and on what game? Scoring a smoking deal on a bunch of Lapua factory ammo with their 286 Mega bullet, along with a couple hundred of the same loose bullets is what got me on the road to building my 9.3. But I haven't found too much on the field performance of those bullets and have yet to use them on game.

Thanks,
Rex

Probably, but I was responding to this not whether they could out compete the .375.

"Diameter of a bullet alone has little to do with a cartridge whole design and purpose. Both the 9.3x62 and 375 H&H were designed by country's colonizing Africa and for Africa, Not so with the 35, Also the 2 were designed in the same era. If you were to get specific on the 35 you'd have to wait another half century for the likes of the 358 Norma Mag, 358 STA and the likes."

exactly

1922 was the year of the 35 Whelen, I can't see how when and where a cartridge was developed has anything to do with comparison of the cartridges

I have used the Lapua Mega 286 gr. bullet for a couple of elk so far. Results were impressive ( but a small sample size). 100 & 150 M or so distance, tight behind the shoulder shots just missing the bone. Bullets were quick opening, gave deep penetration, and exit wounds. Short "death dash". I'd use them with confidence on moose or bears ( what they were designed for ) and African plains game.