I have a nice late 50's -early 60's sporterized 1917 Enfield .30/06 that isn't getting used anymore. So, since I don't have a medium bore rifle at the moment, I am strongly considering a rebarrel project.

Now the question is: .338/06, .35 Whelen, or 9.3 x 62?

What say the Rifle Looney Cognoscenti?

I have a feeling that that American rifle would request to be chambered in the equally American .35 Whelen. For a while I've had an idea to build a rifle in 9mm Mauser (9x57) but a Whelen is definitely a more sensible choice.

How about the best of both? I've got a reamer in 9x57 with a .358 pilot...I'd be willing to part with it for what I have in it.

I have never owned a 9.3 (yet) but I have owned Whelens and currently own a sweet 338-06. I think it hits the sweet spot in the 06 case. Mine is a very accurate round too, actually the whelen was very a accurate round for me too. I just beleive the bullet selection in 338 is hands down better than the 358's. YMMV.

I agree there are more bullets available in .338 than .358, but there are a good many bullets available for the .35's. If one cannot find a suitable bullet in .358, they're being extremely picky.

If your not put off be a wildcat, how about the 375 Whelen. Brass is easy to make, no shortage of bullets and would be a great match up for the Enfield.

Never said that 358 bullets won't work. There is a waaaay better bullet selection for 338 than 358 that is a fact.

I solved that itch with a JC Higgings FN based 270. Jkob rebarreled it with a Shilen #3 chambered in 9.3x62, added a Timney triger and a side swing safety. Charley Santoni Cerrakoted it and Mcmillan stocked it. Nosler 250 Accubonds at 2650 are the bomb.

A .375 Whelen is another one to consider for sure.

.375 Whelen.

9.3x62. Lots of history with that round.

.35 Whelen would be my choice, I had a pre'64 M/70 rebored/rechambered to .35 Whelen nearly 25 yrs. ago and have never regretted that decision. My Whelen shoots jacketed, cast and pistol bullets very well.

Here is another variable for the equation. Provided the rifle likes/will shoot heavier bullets (i.e. 220 grain) How about just loading up some .30/06 heavyweights and hit the thickets?

I assume they're using the term "medium bore" in the same context as John Taylor ... Africa. If I recall correctly, his dividing line was .318 making the '06 a small bore. In some other context, what you're suggesting might make sense although with today's bullets I would take a good 180 over any 220. There's simply nothing an '06 has any business doing that I wouldn't rather do with a 180 grain partition.

Tom

And if it does not shoot the 220 gr bullet,then what? I say re-barrel it.

Ultimately,it's your money and choice.

Another "I could do this",the 1917 Enfield is a big action and you could re-barrel it to the .375 H&H,.358 Norma,.338 Win,.340 Wby.....

I have owned and hunted all three for many years and really have not observed a difference in "killing power". Kind of like the 270, 280, 30-06 argument IME.

There is that too. The 1917 action is cavernous.

I agree with Ken Waters who said the best way to improve the .35 Whelen was to make a .338-06, which is the modern form of the .333 O"Neill-Keith-Hopkins (another all-American cartridge). Advantages include sectional density, ballistic coefficients, variety of available projectiles.

Right now I am leaning toward a reboring of the barrel and rechamber to .338/06

Having owned 30-06, 338-06, and 35 Whelen I came to the conclusion that 338-06 and 35 Whelen gave 300 WM recoil and were a step down from a 30-06 loaded with 200 gr or heavier bullets. If I'm going to get hit with 300 WM recoil, why not shoot 300 WM. I've never fooled with a 9.3, but since it is typically loaded with bullets approaching 300 gr it does appear to separate from the 30-06 on really big stuff at close range. I suppose the 35 Whelen could do the same thing if loaded with the heavier bullets.

But that is the problem. Almost everyone who hunts with a 338-06 or 35 Whelen shoots 200-225 gr bullets. You can shoot those bullet weights in a 30-06 with less recoil or a 300 WM with about the same recoil. Muzzle velocity and energy looks good compared to 30-06 shooting 180-220 gr bullets, but no one shoots stuff at the muzzle. The better SD's of the similar weight 30 caliber bullets mean better penetration at all ranges, and the better BC's mean they catch up in speed down range. Sometimes in as little as 100 yards depending on the exact loads. There isn't enough difference in 30 caliber and 33 caliber to make any difference.

That said, a hunter using either the 338-06, 35 Whelen, or 9.3 isn't at any real disadvantage either. They all kill stuff, they all shoot flat enough to be used at reasonable ranges, and they are all unique and different from the masses using 30-06 or similar rounds. If you're just looking for something out of the mainstream they all work and the 338-06 would be my pick if I decided to go back to one. Just don't do this expecting any gains in performance.

See how that 1917 handles 200gr NPT's or 220 gr RN's from Sierra, Hornady or Rem if available. It will give you the experimenting and bench time before you may screw up a good thing as is. I have a 35 Whelen, 338-06, 338 Win Mag and a 375 H& H so I base this from some actual shooting time with all. MB

I think I would go old school and do a .318 WR, or a 333 Jeffrey but with .338 bore or a 350 Nitro Express. Brass is available though expensive but it is a one time expense.
Anything from 8mm to .40 on the 06 case would be a good one. Probably go AI on the 400 Whelen just to get more shoulder. But I think the 9.3 or 35 Whelen would be the most practical. I would also go British express rifle for the stock like a Gibbs, H&H or Jeffrey with short stalking rifle fore end and Whelen or pancake cheek piece and then I would agonize on whether to Schnabel or not to Schnabel the fore end. The .375 Whelen is also a versatile choice.

I will probably do this before totally committing to the redo project.

I owned a 338-06. It's about the simplest round to form brass for out there. Sexy round, and one that works great with a 22" bbl.

I've had a few medium bores, 338-06, 338 WM, 35 Rem, 358 Win, 350 RM, and 375 H&H.

Though some will disagree, I just don't think most of the lesser mediums do that much more (or as much) as a 30-06 loaded "right."

But "want" is not the same as "need," and the real-world has little to do with want.

Were I considering a medium anymore I'd go right back to the 375 H&H, or perhaps the 9.3x62. To me those offering something real over the 30-06, unless you get into the 338 WBY, RUM, Lapua, and other high capacity, high velocity magnums (no thanks).

I've spent quality time with two 338-06's, two 35 Whelens, one 9.3x62, one 338 WM, one 375 H&H, and more 308's and 30-06's than I can count. Some of them hit harder (whatever that means) than others, but I think that if I need more than a 30-06, then I need a LOT more. That starts with the 375 and might actually be a 416. Frankly, I'm less concerned with terminal ballistics than I am with finding ammo if an airline loses mine for some reason. So If I were hunting North America, then I'd go 30-06, 338 WM, and 375 H&H in that order. If I were headed to Africa, then I'd still make sure that I had a good 30-06, then I'd get a Model 70 or CZ 550 in 375 H&H because they're cheaper than properly converting an 1917 Enfield.


Okie John

I agree on the big magnums like the RUM and Lapua. They are just too much of a good thing. But, I do have a soft spot for the .340 Wby.

WHAT??? That sounds way to practical.... Since your last visit I have gotten some trees down to open up a 400 Yard shooting lane. Stop by if you like, I'm sure both Jayne AND Max would love to see you....

Based on the size of that action, I would look at the 350 G&H. 375H&H necked to 35cal with no other changes. Easy as pie.

It will give you a 35cal, some extra FPS over the Whelen, be more suited to that action and offer a bit of cool to boot.

Max needs some Shake N Bake.

There is a very easy answer to this question. First, skip the .35 Whelen. I have never understood that one when you could have a .338 or 9.3 with a better selection of bullets. Secondly, turn your Enfield into a .338-06 because it is a great cartridge. Third, start searching for a 9.3x62 because everyone that has one will tell you how good it is and how you should have made your Enfield into a 9.3. Fourth, find a .375 because like a .30-06, every serious student of hunting rifles should always have one.

Alternatively, you could just turn your Enfield into a 9.3 or .375 and be done with it.

If anyone has a problem finding bullets for a 35cal, in any chamber, they have problems. The old bullet selection argument is a bit thin these days.

I've had all three, still have one 338-06 and one 9.3x62.

Since I settle on one bullet/one load for each rifle, having a wide variety of different bullet makes, styles, and weights isn't important to me as long as the specific bullet make, style, and weight that I want to shoot is available. I shoot the 210 grain Partitions in the 338-06 and the 286 grain Partitions in the 9.3x62. If I had to choose between the two, I'd probably go with the 338-06 if I was planning to shoot deer. If not, I'd pick the 9.3x62.

I would argue that the .35 has a better selection of bullets. If you are looking for premium hunting bullets, they are available in either caliber but you can buy heavier bullets for the .35. The .35 cal also gives you the ability to load down with softer 150 and 200 gr bullets designed for the .35 rem and to load even softer rounds with .357 pistol bullets for plinking or taking small game.

Most .338 bullets are designed to work at .338 win mag velocities. There are .35 cal bullets designed to work at a broad range of velocities.

.338/06 , 35 whelen or 9.3x62 would be a simple re-bore by Jess. .375 H&H or other belted magnum would require the bolt face to be opened and probably some work on the rails to get it to feed smoothly.

Maybe I should rephrase: .35s have generally been saddled with slower twists, which thereby limit bullet selection because of length. Though, you may be right, it seems Northfork or Swift or somebody is making some heavier weights.

There are plenty of .338 bullets that are designed for expansion at relatively lower speeds, such as the ones used with the .338 Sabi in Africa. For example, a regular NOS Partition (not the Gold), Woodleigh, Hornady, and Speer, all the way to 300 grains. One old have to choose the right bullet for the slower .33's, of course.

For example:
http://www.sabirifles.co.za/338sabi.htm

That is true about the slow twist .35's, but with a Jess rebore you can have him it twist it the way you want.

I've even got some .35 cal plastic shot cups (for 38 spec snake shot) that can be loaded in a .35 cal. for a make shift rat shot / snake shot / garden gun.

I just checked Midway and in .35 they have 36 bullet choices, but only two are above 250 grains (.279 sec density)-- a 280 grain Swift and a 300ish grain solid round nose from Woodleigh. Both are over .300 sec density. Alternatively, Midway has 86 .338 bullets with many 250 and heavier(greater than .300 Sectional Density) and 9.3 has 29 with a good many around 285 grains (.305 sectional density) and a much larger selection of premium makers in the heavier range.

For me a medium should use tough, heavy bullets. Otherwise, why not use a .300 Mag or .30-06? Tough, heavy bullets continues to be an area that seems limited for .35 caliber rifles.

The problem remains limited bullet selection for your fast twist because most bullets are made for traditional twists.

How many heavy bullets does a man need? Midway lists 4 bullets over 250 grains. Woodleigh makes a .358 bullet at 275 grains and 2 at 310 grains (RN and solid), Swift makes their A-Frame in a 280 grain .358. Besides these, Hawk Bullets makes a 265 grain, 275 grain and a 300 grain bullet in various profiles and jacket thickness and Northfork makes a 270 grain bullet as well. There's a host of makers at 250 grains for .358 caliber rifles. I've seen the 250 Partition and A-Frame from a Whelen penetrate enough moose (and mature brown bears) that I know heavier bullets of similar construction offer no advantage when fired from the Whelen. I once thought that the .358 Norma would be a noticeable improvement, as compared to the Whelen. I twisted mine 1:12 and I've used the "bigger" bullets enough to know that the only measurable difference in the field is increased recoil. If limited to standard cup & core bullets, maybe there are some advantages to heavier bullets on large animals, but I've zero interest in them for hunting moose and brown bear with a Whelen.

I find myself agreeing with Brad above. If you need something more than a 30/06, get a .375. Somewhat lacking from this thread is why a medium is needed.

Most mediums, IMO, have very little to no advantage over 30/06 class cartridges today simply because of today's better bullets. I love the .338, as an example, but it simply isn't needed today. It came about as an answer to reliable terminal effects in the cup and core bullet era. Lighter calibers simply didn't work so well on larger game; now they do.

I'm separating need from want. If a person is filled with euphoria with the thought of a medium bore, I'm all for 'em. Get one. I just don't need one any more. But I do have a nice .375 H&H that they will put in my coffin with me!

I'd go 9.3x62.

I shoot a 9.3x62 which seems to have the advantage because it was once an '06, so it carries like one, but hits stuff like the .375 that weighs about 3 pounds more and has been retired from hunting since the 9.3 arrived. I have yet to see a .308 180 or 220 grain partition act like a 286 grain 9.3 partition. Yet strangely the 286 grain 9.3 does the exact same job the 300 grain .375 partition does. At least on the deer, mountain goats, and brown bears around here.

I think that you've made a good argument for the 9.3x62 over the 375 H&H.

My 375 is a post-'64 Model 70 that is a little longer and heavier than I'd prefer to carry very far, but whenever I fire it, I appreciate the extra weight. OTOH, my 9.3x62 is a mannlicher stocked carbine that is light, handier, much more pleasant to carry, and not at all unpleasant to shoot. The 286 grain Partition seems like a winner for thin-skinned game and Nosler's 286 grain solid might be equally good for thick-skinned game, but I've never loaded or shot any of them, so I don't know that they are.

You're right about slow twist. Remington has been stubborn to keep their slow twists in a lot of chamberings, incl the 35Whelen which remains 1:16". I've had several 7600s in 35W and all would shoot 250s w/o problems but I would prefer a 1:12" for good measure. I just had a M700 re-tubed with a Lilja 1:12". For most NA hunting, a 250gr bullet is plenty heavy in a 35cal. Between NPs and TSX/TTSX, one could do ok finding a good 250gr bullet. If I wanted heavier, I'd get a 375magnum.

Here is my .02 on the matter.

The 338-06 is a great round but I would rather have a 30-06 loaded with 200 gr + bullets, I just am not sure it is much more gun than a 30-06. If I wanted to 338 I would look at the 338 Win Mag and use something like RL 15, Varget or H 4895 for performance a bit better than the 338-06 plus the ability to buy factory ammo if necessary.

To me it comes down to the 35 Whelen or 9.3x62, if you are a heavy bullet type of guy then the 9.3x62 is the one you want. For running 200-250's then the Whelen is the one you want. I realise you can get light bullets for the 9.3x62 and heavy bullets for the 35 Whelen but I'm just talking in general terms. I had my Whelen built with a 1 in 12 twist so I could shoot the heavy bullets but in the end decided that for a heavy bullet 250's are more than enough for anything here. I will say the 275 gr Woodleigh is an impressive bullet and was accurate.

The 35 Whelen shoots a bit flatter with something like a 225 gr Accubond and is excellent on game but the 9.3x62 with it's long heavy bullets would be a hammer. Like someone said earlier it would be like comparing a 270 Winchester to a 280 Remington, there are differences but in the real world there is no difference on how well the work on game. Unlike the 338-06 you can find ammo for the 35 Whelen and 9.3x62 if you ever needed to.

I haven't owned the 9.3 but have the other two (both Improved models). I've had this conversation with hunting buddies ad nauseum. Although I LOVE my 338-06AI and hunt with it a lot, I'd remove it from your choice. Others have talked about an '06 with a 200 grain bullet, and I agree--it flat works. From my perspective, a medium bore should legitimately handle a 250 grain bullet. As an example, I don't shoot anything above a 215 grain in my 338 (right now, I'm using the 210 NPT), but I know many others do (especially 225's). I experimented with the 230 Fail Safes when they were being closed out by Midway, and they worked alright but the velocities were wanting.

My 35 Whelen AI shoots bugeyes with the 225 SGK over Reloder 12 & 15, and I think most owners would argue the Whelen earned its stripes as a 250 grain rifle.

I have thought long & hard about the 9.3--the energy from the 286 grain offerings is awfully compelling. That said, I own .375 caliber rifles and am happy with the 270/300 grain selection there. Plus, .366/.375 is big bore to me, but we're splitting hairs.

Enjoy the decision!

Exactamundo. I was also thinking this. One of my favorite m1917's was a 300wby, but 338wm would get my vote...

Found those pics ....... perfect for this project

I don't need 36 bullets, or 197, or 13. I need one good bullet. Construction trumps sectional density.

I'd like to know what I couldn't kill cleanly in North America with a 225gr Barnes or a 250gr Nosler Partition from a Whelen that a 9.3x62 will flatten because of a magical .02 increase in sectional density.

If the biggest consideration was bullet selection, we'd only shoot 30cal. There's enough out there now to keep any shooter happy.

A few years back I too was considering what to do with my old, sporterized 1917 30-06 rifle... 338-06, 35 Whelen, 9.3, 375...

Tried some 220 and 200 gr bullets in it, left it as a 30-06, and now my son uses it regularly to take bucks 'n bear.

Simple, effective, easy. However, it's not a "medium bore." Just a great old rifle still working well, 100 years later!

Regards, Guy

Note that .35 Whelen and 9.3x62 have a lot more options in loaded factory ammo according to Midway. I admit I'm a Whelen fan, but someday might like a 9.3x62.
I've had good results with the Whelen with 225 gr Accubonds.

If the donor action were a standard length and weight (eg, Win M-70 or Rem M-700), I'd consider either the 35 Whelen or the 9.3x62 depending on whether you want a bit lighter bullet (225 gr, .358") or heavier bullets (eg 286 gr, .366"), as the terminal ballistics are indistinguishable from each other. Modern bullet construction makes the exact choice largely moot, as once you find a bullet weight and type, you're likely to settle on it - mediums tend to be specialist rifles for a specific range of hunting situations, like Africa - at least IME. Additionally, if you choose to rebore, the chances are high that if it's doable for one, either bore would work, provided your current barrel is not a very light contour.

However, you're starting with a pretty hefty action in the Enfield, so it makes little sense to me to go with a 338-06 or even a 35 Whelen. If you're leaning to a metric, I'd go with the 9x64 Brenneke, even though it'll need opening the bolt face, it's a step up from the 9.3x62 - heavier bullets can be pushed faster - and knocking on the door of the 375 H&H.

I consider typical mediums to be true mediums starting with the .375 and better yet, the .416s and 404s (.423"). Depending what use you have in mind, with your 1917 action and your stated intent to re-barrel, I'd choose a medium medium bore (.375") or a heavy medium (.416 or .423"). OTW, a good heavy bullet in the -06, or a rechamber to a 300 H&H or 300 WM, would seem to make sense.

Guess it depends on the level of lunacy you're ready to entertain. If you've truly been afflicted by medium bore fever, you're entering a world of incurable possibilities - medium bore mania.