>35 Whelen versus. 338 Win Mag TKO values (modified)

[CZDiesel]

Bob and I have been going back and forth over the clearly superior 9.3x62 v 35W for some time.

Well you clearly have him on that one

 

[CZDiesel]

Yeah, but you won't be allowed to hunt them.

Probably right…

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Bob and I have been going back and forth over the clearly superior 9.3x62 v 35W for some time.

@sgt_zim
Only superior because legal for DG. Legal doesn't equate to better.
The 350 Rigby was considered good enough for elephants years ago. The Whelen equals and surpases it but for some strange reason not legal now.
Bib

 

[CZDiesel]

@sgt_zim
Only superior because legal for DG. Legal doesn't equate to better.
The 350 Rigby was considered good enough for elephants years ago. The Whelen equals and surpases it but for some strange reason not legal now.
Bib

So what you are saying is the 338WinMag is a great elephant cartridge?

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

So what you are saying is the 338WinMag is a great elephant cartridge?

@CZDiesel
No but then again neither is the Whelen, but both will do the job under IDEAL CONDITIONS with the right projectiles.
Would I use either DEFINITELY NOT unless I didn't have any other choice
Bob

 

[Flewis]

Good natured and respectful hair splitting.

 

[cajunchefray]

I shoot a 245gr Hammer from my 35 Whelen at 2812fps quite safely, energy is 4300!

I need to get some Hammers! What powder are you using?

 

[cajunchefray]

I'll have to disagree on what PH's (at least some, anyway) say about the current Barnes crop of bullets - especially for heavy thick skinned animals.

My outfitter for an upcoming Naigai hunt in S. Texas recommends Barnes over anything else - based on years of experience. Nilgai bulls are big (up to 600 lbs), thick skinned, and very hard to put down. Plus shots can be on the long side.

I'm loading a 338 210 grain Barnes TTSX at 2,900 fps and hoping it does not open too quickly!

My DG PH in Africa also preferred Barnes - at least for the 9.3 and 375 calibers. (I used Swift A-Frames, but would choose Barnes if I have another opportunity).

But regardless of bullet type, if shooting the same weight (225 grains in this case), every 338 bullet I've referenced has a higher BC and SD than the corresponding 358 bullet.

The updated TKO math used by the OP is at the muzzle, btw with no regards to retained energy at some normal distance. Also it has no allowance for SD.

Also, my understanding of TKO is it was used primarily to compare different bullet weights of the same caliber. I read that on the internet so it must be true.

But sure, if hunting smaller thin skinned animals, the bullet choice should be matched up accordingly. Likewise for the anticipated distance.

Very true regarding Velocity is at the muzzle. We can calculate, measure actual, at range, with the right equipment.
Regarding SD ( sectional density), I have come to understand further discussions on this, at the muzzle 9 or bullet in the air) at the actual SD in a solid medium, with a completely different density as in flesh versus air. The physics change dramatically. The SD/Velocity in the target medium varies quite a bit based upon density.
Pierre van der Walt's excellent reference book "Dangerous Game Cartridges" explains the physics properly. It is a rational, scientific explanation as to why hydrostatic solids, and to me, pistol SWC bullets work better, obtaining adequate penetration in muscle. SD, stable straight-line penetration in the target medium is what matters.

The .308 200 grain, .338 250 grain bullets, and .358 280 grain bullets, still work.

 

[Deepfork]

I need to get some Hammers! What powder are you using?

Alliant 2000-MR which can be hard to come by. CFE223 gives very close to the same results.

 

[RedTag]

I’m a little perplexed by these arguments. We’re talking about two cartridges that propel projectiles of similar mass at similar velocity and achieve similar results. I’ve owned and used both. With regards to factory loaded ammunition, the .338 Winchester Magnum is most certainly more powerful than the .35 Whelen. Note that more powerful isn’t necessarily more effective. Something seems to happen when moving up from .338” to .358” diameter; the velocity window for proper bullet expansion lowers. The .338” bullets generally perform best at or above 2,400 fps (preferably 2,600) whereas the .358” bullets generally perform best at or above 2,200 fps (preferably 2,400) which is significant when discussing cartridges with a velocity difference of 100 to 150 fps with comparable bullet weights at ordinary hunting ranges. The added frontal area seems to account for this, allowing the .35 Whelen to rival a cartridge with significantly greater case capacity. The .35 Whelen is certainly the more efficient of the two cartridges. If we cherry pick the data we can find overlapping velocity and energy figures, but at the end of the day the Magnum will always have a higher ceiling, albeit less efficient in achieving its advantages. The major drawback to anything in the .358” diameter is a lack of industry support for long range projectiles; as this is given much greater attention in the .338” diameter projectiles. If I planned on consistently shooting over 300 yards I would consider the .338 Winchester Magnum the better option but for general purpose hunting inside 300 yards it’ll be the .35 Whelen for me.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I’m a little perplexed by these arguments. We’re talking about two cartridges that propel projectiles of similar mass at similar velocity and achieve similar results. I’ve owned and used both. With regards to factory loaded ammunition, the .338 Winchester Magnum is most certainly more powerful than the .35 Whelen. Note that more powerful isn’t necessarily more effective. Something seems to happen when moving up from .338” to .358” diameter; the velocity window for proper bullet expansion lowers. The .338” bullets generally perform best at or above 2,400 fps (preferably 2,600) whereas the .358” bullets generally perform best at or above 2,200 fps (preferably 2,400) which is significant when discussing cartridges with a velocity difference of 100 to 150 fps with comparable bullet weights at ordinary hunting ranges. The added frontal area seems to account for this, allowing the .35 Whelen to rival a cartridge with significantly greater case capacity. The .35 Whelen is certainly the more efficient of the two cartridges. If we cherry pick the data we can find overlapping velocity and energy figures, but at the end of the day the Magnum will always have a higher ceiling, albeit less efficient in achieving its advantages. The major drawback to anything in the .358” diameter is a lack of industry support for long range projectiles; as this is given much greater attention in the .338” diameter projectiles. If I planned on consistently shooting over 300 yards I would consider the .338 Winchester Magnum the better option but for general purpose hunting inside 300 yards it’ll be the .35 Whelen for me.

@RedTag
Unfortunately you have to loaded the Whelen to its potential. Remington strangled it with lower pressure loads.
A heavy, streamlined bullet in 35 would be good but there's no flies in the 225gn accubond @2,900 fps out of the Whelen for those 409 yard plus shots
Bob

 

[VINOYASADO]

35 Whelen the cousin of the 30-06 spg...is good for rabits!!!

Long life to the three three eight !!!!