Why the disparity in the .338-06 vs .35 Whelen?

[PJGunner]

It has always been a mystery to me why the .35 calibers got such little respect from the average hunter types? Oh the .35 Rem. always had it's followers but I've never figured out why the .358 and .35 Whelen never became more popular. Recoil wasn't that much greater than their parent cartridges with equivilant weight bullets. Neither are strictly woods cartridges although it seems most of he "eggspurts" of years gone by labeled them as such. Even a .358 Win. properly loaded is good to about 250 yards, possibly more with a spitzer bullet.
I do find it interesting that my Savage M99 and Browning BLR with 1 in 12" twist barrels will outshoot for accuracy two Ruger M77s I have with 1 in16" twist barrels. But then I still can't figure out why Remington went with a 1 in 16" when they went with the Whelen. I always felt it was a major screw up.
Paul B.

 

[DrMike]

Earl,

Your Oklahoma sport certainly looks pleased--and he should be. That is a fine deer he took; and he did it with a great cartridge.

 

[Silent Sam]

Another 358Win fan. I think the failure to "catch on" was due to a few factors. The belief that 200-250gr bullets have to be hard kickers. There were no loads approaching 3000fps and speed sells, then as it does now. Characterized as a "woods" caliber by all or most of the pundits. All that to the uninformed meant a hard kicking 35Rem with about the same reach. I originally learned of the 358 reading Ken Waters, and then I went looking for one. Ruger had their run of M77s that were essentially collector items, or priced that way. I am a Ruger fan by the way but I prefer the MKIIs over the tang safety models. The only other reasonable option at the time was the BLR which I had no experience with. I didn't want to order one sight unseen so I kept my eye out for a while and finally found a new one collecting dust on a rack that the dealer was ready to move on. I have never looked back. I worked up a load w/ 225gr Nosler Partitions that also groups the same at the same POI w/ 225gr Sierras @ 2450fps out of a 20" barrel. Consistently puts the first two shots touching and the third about 3/4" out. I see no need for any other load. I have taken bull moose at 20 yds w/ over three feet of penetration and bull elk at 200yds w/ complete pass through on a double lung shot which showed good expansion. The "thwack" echoed back confirming what I already knew was a solid hit. While it probably wouldn't be my first choice for a big bear hunt I have no doubt it would work and there is no whitetail alive that it couldn't take cleanly.

 

[DrMike]

All the 35s work well. I have owned several 358 Winchesters, and each shot better than it should. I've owned two 35 Whelens, and though I have taken nothing with these rifles, they will undoubtedly carry the goods. I have a 350 Remington Magnum, and it drops elk, deer and black bear more efficiently than it should. No doubt, the 33s will work just as well. However, there should be no doubt that the 35s do work.

 

[35 Whelen]

Thanks Mike, he has been here many times and actually worked for us up in Alaska years ago. He comes from a well to do family out in Western Ok and they have some oil wells if you get my drift....... you would never know it though both he and his Dad are real gentlmen and 1st Class guys.
They have been around so long it is way past the client/guide thing and are really part of the family at this point. He is same fellow I wrote about in that post consirning the big moose we never did get that day but he still wound up with a great 65"er anyway! The one he didnt get is the all time best one I ever laid eyes on and both myself and Larry Bryant [he put tons of them in the record books] agreed on that . But it just wasnt ment to be...................... the old bugger died of old age or I suspect a wolf pulled him down in the end as no one ever did get him.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Sorry, I forget sometimes, I was 27 years old in 1969 and was wing design engineer at Lockheed Aircraft in Marietta on the C-5A.

I've spent the last 29 years of my life maintaining and flying in FRED. We're retiring some birds this year and it makes me feel like part of me is dying. Many despise her but I love her. Nothing hauls trash like a Galaxy!

SJB - our BLR's may be sharing a bench at some point this winter. Not progressing with anymore load developments till I get the trigger worked.

It is nice to have someone say that. I spent 2 years designing wing center stuctures and retrodesiging the English wing to that airframe. I sure would have preferred being hauled by the Galaxy when I went to Berlin with the 4th Infantry in 1962 on C-119's and took 2 full days of flying to get there via the Azores from Fort Lewis/McCord, WA.

35 Whelen, my first .338 Min Mag was the Browning Safari that I had bought in 1968 and it did kick a little. I had no frame of reference considering the .270's, 7mm Rem Mags, .30-06's and .32 Specs that I owned up to the time when I bought this gun. I was very impressed with the accuracy (sub MOA) and mostly used it as a brush rifle for Roosevelt elk with handloaded 275 Speer bullets on the Olympic Peninsula. A year later, I bought a .375 H&H Model 70 XTR and they seemed to kick about the same. I guess that the first XTR .375 H&H's that Winchester made after 1964 were patterned after the .338 WM of the day and was not as heavy as the Safaris that Winchester sells now.

The next three .338 WM's that I owned were two Alaskan model 70's both made in the 300,000 to 350,000 S/N range and a USRAC .338 made in the mid-1990's Thinking back, I do not think that they weighed more than a half pound more than the Browning Safari did. I have to admit that I almost never weighed rifles back than and just used them as they came.

 

[tjen]

I have seen many hunter using WSM's and STW's for hunting areas I have retied my 270win from do to too much velocity resolting in exsesive meat damage. I have always had a model#14 in 35rem but start an love of 35's with the Whelen. Than bought a 336D and started handloading for it, 2180fps is not bad with a 200gr CLRN works great in thick woods. Then I had to have a 358win and rebarreled a 700 SA Classic with 20.5" barrel and walla the the gun rem should have offered in their classic line. I get 2430fps with the 225gr Partition with either TAC or H4895. That gun is so handy with the VX3 1.5-5 I may just get some QDR's and a second scope to use in more open woods. I need to up grade my old VXII 2-7 that still sits on my 270win and that 2-7 would work well for target or when shots could be out to 200 yards or so.

One thing is I hate recoil, recoil that is made by high velocity cartridges that is. My tolerance with HV recoil stops at my loved 270win. The 7mm mags are too much for me but the medium velocity whelen is just fine with 250 gr bullets and 225/200's are even easier. That slow delivery of recoil is much different than that of the HV cartridges and little to no jet effect of muzzle blast which contributes to recoil.

 

[PJGunner]

"I have retied my 270win from do to too much velocity resolting in exsesive meat damage."

That's one of the reasons I don't use my .270 much. However, at the suggestion of a friend, I tried going to 150 gr. bullets which did help some in that respect. However, this year if i can draw a tag for anything I'll probably be using my .35 Whelen, depending on the area I draw.
A couple of the areas for elk require you be ready for some very long range shooting. The last time I hunted one of those areas, I had to take a 530 yard shot on a cow elk. I got her. :grin: Not my favorite place the hunt but that's where I drew for. Not the best place to use the Whelen. I used a .300 Win. mag. on that hunt.
As I grow older though and I'm in almost the middle of my 7th decade, hard kicking rifles are no longer all that much fun. I can shoot one if I have to but would rather not. I'm happy with the recoil level of the Whelen and the big boomers will probably stay home this year.
Paul B.

 

[35 Whelen]

I was sorta surprised yesterday when a friend lent me Ken Waters "Pet Loads" and I read the 35 Whelen article .................... it was pretty obvious, that when ever he wrote that; there were probably still "Do Do birds" around. He listed the top load for 200 gr was down around 2600 and his top load for 220gr FNSP [guess thats all they made back then] was avg down around 2350 and listed 57 gr of 4320 as the "mother of all loads" for the Speer 250gr breaking 2564 fps with maximum expansion??[He listed the highest velocity of the 350 Remington Mag earlyer with the exact same load of 4320 at 2538fps] but added in that article that it was still a hundred feet a second faster than a Whelen.................. he was inhaling way to deep that evening.
Not sure what he was smokin back then. But had obviously has been fooling around with a 338/06 or similar wildcat and refered to that; as the only way to fly and almost said that the "Whelen and old Townsend himself" were both pretty much a thing of the past........................ got the impression he didnt care for the 35 caliber stuff much; at least when he typed that article, The implyed if you were to just drop down .020 in diameter; then you would be into a Disneyland of bullets; and most any powder was going to burn that much better; that you would just take your 35 Caliber stuff and throw it into the garbage can. He claimed he would be building a 338 up in future at the end of the article.
He bases this on an old rifle; that some gunsmith built up for a Ken Howell in the 1950S that weighed almost 9lbs scoped; and he claims it featured a "very stiff with a .620 diameter at the muzzle" and featured a 1/16 twist in the barrel. He quoted 'One old source' and "Townsend himself" as publishing figures that he felt were unrealistic...........and says he[Waters] struggled to see over 2600fps with a 200gr bullets?? And really wasnt impressed with the Whelen at all; as it started out shooting 2-4" groups, from this gun someone had built for Howell. The figures that the "old source had published" were 2635fps/250s and 2834fps/200gr bullets????? Who cant get those figures???? I had always thought this guy was the "cream of the crop" on loads . I am now reassesing that .....................
But instead published some good stuff on some really important and sort after calibers; like the 32/40; and .458 RCBS; and the 38/40; and the ancient .25 Remington! OMG.
So the disparity was there then same as now......... I wouldnt imagine there is really truely 5 cents worth of difference in either one; but will conceed that the smaller one has a lovely selection of bullets.

 

[nvbroncrider]

Well anyone could write that same article about the .280 vs the .270. I will give O'Connor credit though at the end he gave credit where credit was do. The .35 Whelen and .280 SAMMI is both @ 58Kpsi the .270 and 338-06 @ 65Kpsi. When starting comparisons I kinda like to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. Like 35Whelen said "The 338 has a beautiful advantage in bullet selection." Other than that the 35 has a little more energy out to 300 yards. But at 400 and 500 yards they are dead equal at the same bullet weight. I ran all the numbers myself as I'm looking at these two as possible builds on a Pre-64. Really it's just personal prefrence. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to it here in America. But when it gets down to the nitty gritty they should be called equals equivalents twins or whatever. Just my two cents.

 

[35 Whelen]

Well I think it will really never end as if you take factory milk toast loads intended to be shot in the older weak actions and the manufacturers always having liabilitys in mind. Like you have implyed we are now not comparing Apples to Apples. I have recomended a .270 to hundreds of people over the years for two reasons . It kills deer sized animals like they were hit with lightening and for most people that dont handload; and that is most of the ones, I recomended it to, I never felt you could do any better, than just regular old Win/Rem/Federals right off the shelf at Walmart. They were going to get 98.5.% of all there is, without handloading. When I was in New Zealand NONE of the culler ever shot American ammo in a 30/06! Because it was so lightly loaded compared to some of the European stuff. Handloaders of course had know for years, it could be improved noticeable with some tweakin. I used to shoot the 300 meter plate at the gunclub in Hamilton Mt with my 06 and 52 grains of 4064 and the 165gr solid base; and the rifle lined up 3" high at a hundred yards. And of course I would whack the center of the lead plate everyshot. I could reach over and take a factory Remington Corelokt 165; and hold in the same place; and it would drop right off the target just because of the 300 plus fps it was lacking.
I am going to bring this thread back to comparing a Ford F150 to a Chevy 1500 ............ everyone has a preferance' but the truth is there probably isnt as much difference as some may imply..........

 

[PJGunner]

"Well I think it will really never end as if you take factory milk toast loads intended to be shot in the older weak actions and the manufacturers always having liabilitys in mind."

Exactly! The late William Shakespeare said it very nicely in one of his plays. "Kill all the lawyers." :lol:
Seriously. Ken Waters is a pretty sharp cookie but is very conservative when it comes to handloading. He is also a gentleman of the first water based on what correspondence he and I have shared. Un fortunately he has retired due to poor health along with caring for a wife in even worse health from what i understand.
See if you can chase down a copy of the very latest (actually the very last version) of Pet Loads as Mr. Waters did an update using a Remington 700 Classic. I'm not gonna try and copy all the loads but with 200 gr. bullets, he showed 2640 tops, with 220's, 2522 tops, 225 gr. 2572 FPS 250 gr. 2505 FPS.
Those loads were written up in the October 1988 issue of Handloader. AFAIK, he never did another article on the .35 Whelen.
If you still have that Pet Loads book, read chapter one where he describes his methods of working up loads. Probably pretty much the way we do it ourselves thse days.
I'm afraid he'd have a serious heart attack if he know how much RL15 I stick in my 225 gr. Barnes TSX loads. Guess I'll never tell him. I wouldn't want to be the cause of his demise.
I have a copy of Hornady's first reloading manual and the data for the Whelen is interesting. Remember that these loads were not pressure tested other than by guess and by gosh and the quality of the tester's seat of the pants. The 200 gr. RN at 2700 FPS using 4320, 250 gr. RN at 2500 FPS using 3031 and the 275 gr. RN at 2300 FPS using 3031,4064,4895,4320,BL-C2,and H380. The load with 4350 only did 2200 FPS
Now all these powders were the IMR seroes as made by DuPont, not the current IMR versins. I'm also suspecting that the 4895 in question could be the Hodgden's milsurp version which at the time was still quite common. Lord knows I used tons of that stuff in my 30-06 way back as late as 1955. The manual has a copywrite date of 1967 BTW.
The 1961 Speer #5 manual shows a top speed with 220 gr. bullet at2740 FPS with 4320 and the 250 gr. bullet at 2575 FPS usinf 3031.
What's interesting is Speer's #2 manul covering wildcat cartridges doesn't evem mention the Whelen. :?: :?:
Methinks some of what drove Mr. Waters' first article could have been based on what was in those earlier manuals. The fact that the factories, Remington and federal have kept the round underloaded in deference to pumps, autoloader and on Springfield 1903's and a few 1895 Winchesters converted to the cartridge probably was also responsible for his "light' loads in his last article.
One thig I do know, he did an awsome amount of reloading wwork in writing those Pet Load articles. You may not agree with him on some stuff but you have to acknowlege his work.
Paul B.

 

[DrMike]

Ken Waters is certainly knowledgeable when it comes to hand loading. Time changes and methods of measuring pressure and velocity are refined, so it would not be unusual that changes in his data take place. Nevertheless, for the average hand loader, they would do well to heed Mr. Waters' advice and carefully follow his procedure until they either have the required equipment to accurately measure data or gain sufficient knowledge to avoid getting into trouble.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Well, I learned one thing today, that I had lost my copy of "Pet Loads" at least 10 years ago, when I moved here from Northern California. You have to remember that this book was written back in the days of who knows when, what country, type Mauser Miltary action conversions were being used by people every day to make bolt action hunting rifles. He is a terrific writer though.

I went out and replaced most of my older loading books, especially those from the 1960-1970's. I still keep the old books for reference value and for their information's sake but no for loads.

NVbroncrider pointed out some of the issues just with the .280 Rem, a cartridge that Has only been around sindce 1958, (not 1925). I was able to significantly boost the .280 handload 160 Partition over 100 fps just by reading Nosler Edition 4, Reloading Manual. Someone else referenced a factory load for the .35 Whelen that was nearly 400 fps off what others are loading their .35 Whelens to everyday.

Information is generally better (more accurate) than it was in Ken Water's days but you still have to verify data.

 

[taylorce1]

I've been wanting to buy the "Pet Loads" book for some time now. Thanks for the info from it. I'm hoping to hit the range tomorrow with the Whelen and 225 grain Seirra's. I'm using RL-15 and CCI 200 primers in R-P brass. I'll take my chrony and see how the thing shoots.

 

[Wincheringen]

I read this whole thread and I'm starting to think I want to dig my 350RM out. Its got a 3.00" magazine so I can actually load the longer Noslers and I have a couple of 225 grain Partitions stashed away.

 

[DrMike]

The 350 RM is a great cartridge. I've taken elk, black bear and mule deer with mine. It dropped them right smartly!

 

[SJB358]

I've been wanting to buy the "Pet Loads" book for some time now. Thanks for the info from it. I'm hoping to hit the range tomorrow with the Whelen and 225 grain Seirra's. I'm using RL-15 and CCI 200 primers in R-P brass. I'll take my chrony and see how the thing shoots.

I will just guess that combo should be a winner. I have seen it a few times now where that particular set up of components makes some tiny groups out of a good rifle.

 

[gerry]

I read this whole thread and I'm starting to think I want to dig my 350RM out. Its got a 3.00" magazine so I can actually load the longer Noslers and I have a couple of 225 grain Partitions stashed away.

With a 3.00" magazine you should be able to load any 35 cal bullet available including the Accubonds.

 

[taylorce1]

I've been wanting to buy the "Pet Loads" book for some time now. Thanks for the info from it. I'm hoping to hit the range tomorrow with the Whelen and 225 grain Seirra's. I'm using RL-15 and CCI 200 primers in R-P brass. I'll take my chrony and see how the thing shoots.

I will just guess that combo should be a winner. I have seen it a few times now where that particular set up of components makes some tiny groups out of a good rifle.

Unfortunately I didn't get to the range today as my wife is laid up with muscle spasms in her neck. I told her I was getting ready to head to the range today and she shot me the laser beams of death from the couch. I recently picked her up a new Sig Sauer Mosquito and there is no way I'm getting to the range without her to try that pistol out.

I can't complain though I was lucky enough to find a wife that likes to shoot almost as much as I do, now if only I could get her interested in loading her own ammunition. If she would maybe she would let me invest in that Hornady Ammunition Factory in the new Cabela's shooting catalog. I'm tired of keeping her 9mm's, .38/.357 and AR fed on a single stage press. That is the reason I invested in a .22 lr pistol for her, cheap to feed :grin:, that and she squealed like a school girl when I gave it to her. :wink: