35 Whelen vs 9.3x62

[K95]

Probably not but if two cartridges are putting out the same power and energy I would go for the biggest caliber. If I ran into a cranky brown bear I’d choose a 30-06 over a 270 win any day.

 

[OldnLazy]

If
you are buying a rifle in either caliber, I'd say it's a toss-up until you have to find or make ammo, at which point the .35 Whelen wins here, the 9.3x62 wins in Europe or Africa.

If you are CONVERTING a bolt action rifle to one of these, I think you'd want the .35 Whelen to go into a .30-06 length action. It seems to me that long ago, a '98 Mauser in 8x57 could be more handily converted to the 9.3x62 than .35 Whelen.

 

[John Wasmuth]

If
you are buying a rifle in either caliber, I'd say it's a toss-up until you have to find or make ammo, at which point the .35 Whelen wins here, the 9.3x62 wins in Europe or Africa.

If you are CONVERTING a bolt action rifle to one of these, I think you'd want the .35 Whelen to go into a .30-06 length action. It seems to me that long ago, a '98 Mauser in 8x57 could be more handily converted to the 9.3x62 than .35 Whelen.

I’ve done the conversation on both and happy to say I didn’t have to do anything other screw a new barrel on and adjust for head space via a reamer.

 

[K95]

Here in Australia there’s no problem with the 9.3, bullets from Atomic 29 and cases from Bertram. Always in stock.

 

[Capebuffalo]

this is an interesting thread and i will attach some more information to it. (i own neither a 35 whelen OR 9.3x62 ...yet

this is a list of cartridges and their water capacities in grains taken from 2 sources:

30-06 69 gr
35 whelen 70/71 gr
338 winchester 85/86 gr
9.3x62 77gr
9.3x74r 82gr
375 h&h 95gr

so, clearly the 9.3 has an advantage in case capacity. also as bore diameter is increased, the same weight of projectile, at the pressure...the larger the bore, the faster the larger/more energy the larger bullet will go with the same power plant. there are efficiency gains, take for instance the

7mm mag: 3000 ft lb 175 gr
338 win : 4000 ft lb 250 gr
458 win: 5000 ft lb 500 gr

3006- 3000 ft lb 180gr
35 whelen 3500 ft lb 250gr

of course this is a generalization. it would appear that a 35 whelen with less case capacity AND bore diameter, pushed to the SAME pressures would have slightly less energy with the same weight bullet.

now @Bob Nelson 35Whelen this is not me dirt shirting your favorite caliber, this is just an observation based on previous information i have seen/read i will follow this up with an article from a site called impact Dynamics

1dirthawker,

I appreciate your comparison!
All great cartridges! However, the case capacity is a huge factor when calculating killing power of each cartridge. We all have different reasons why we like a specific cartridge, but if killing power is what you are after, then your above mentioned comparison make great sense due to the fact that you need bullet weight and velocity to calculate energy....and you need the energy number to calculate killing power.....For me the formula,
Killing power to 100 yards = energy (ft/lbs) x sectional density (use reload manuals of Swift or Woodleigh's) x bullet frontal area (in square inches) is the closest you can get in calculating how powerful and effective a cartridge is.
* The result will be different at different distance....which will favor the flatter shooting cartridge with the higher BC......(If I look at the Swift and Woodleigh charts, I can not see a single bullet beating the high SD of the 275 grain (Swift) or the 300 grain (Woodleigh) 338 bullet...
So to bring all the factors in consideration we can see that each factor plays a role in calculating the killing power of each cartridge. I ran the different numbers for each cartridge with this formula on a different forum, and it was no surprise that the results were just as stated above according to case capacity. The 375 H&H scored little higher than the 338 WM, the 338 WM scored a little higher than the 9.3x62, and the 9.3x62 scored a little higher than the 35 Whelen. However, the .375 cal. rule was made long ago and bullets and gun powder improved over the years. So there is no doubt in my mind that all these cartridges can be successfully used on DG where allowed. Many Cape buffalo and other DG were killed by hunters who used 338 WM's and 35 Whelen's in the past where allowed, but ironically will not speak up due to legislation in some countries and because of other hunters who make their beloved cartridges out as too small or too slow...I can not wait for my next buffalo hunt with my 338 WM with 275 grain Swift-A-frames and 300 grain Woodleigh's!

 

[krish]

1dirthawker,

I appreciate your comparison!
All great cartridges! However, the case capacity is a huge factor when calculating killing power of each cartridge. We all have different reasons why we like a specific cartridge, but if killing power is what you are after, then your above mentioned comparison make great sense due to the fact that you need bullet weight and velocity to calculate energy....and you need the energy number to calculate killing power.....For me the formula,
Killing power to 100 yards = energy (ft/lbs) x sectional density (use reload manuals of Swift or Woodleigh's) x bullet frontal area (in square inches) is the closest you can get in calculating how powerful and effective a cartridge is.
* The result will be different at different distance....which will favor the flatter shooting cartridge with the higher BC......(If I look at the Swift and Woodleigh charts, I can not see a single bullet beating the high SD of the 275 grain (Swift) or the 300 grain (Woodleigh) 338 bullet...
So to bring all the factors in consideration we can see that each factor plays a role in calculating the killing power of each cartridge. I ran the different numbers for each cartridge with this formula on a different forum, and it was no surprise that the results were just as stated above according to case capacity. The 375 H&H scored little higher than the 338 WM, the 338 WM scored a little higher than the 9.3x62, and the 9.3x62 scored a little higher than the 35 Whelen. However, the .375 cal. rule was made long ago and bullets and gun powder improved over the years. So there is no doubt in my mind that all these cartridges can be successfully used on DG where allowed. Many Cape buffalo and other DG were killed by hunters who used 338 WM's and 35 Whelen's in the past where allowed, but ironically will not speak up due to legislation in some countries and because of other hunters who make their beloved cartridges out as too small or too slow...I can not wait for my next buffalo hunt with my 338 WM with 275 grain Swift-A-frames and 300 grain Woodleigh's!

They will for sure work. How ever they cant stop a charge. That is why they went with 375. But anything below 458 are not charge stoppers. Strange rules.
Krish

 

[Capebuffalo]

They will for sure work. How ever they cant stop a charge. That is why they went with 375. But anything below 458 are not charge stoppers. Strange rules.
Krish

I agree with you, Krish. All these popular mid bores work perfectly on most DG. The idea of a charge stopper can be confusing because where do you draw the line....but as you said everything below 458 are considered not to be charge stoppers....should we exclude everything then below 358 to be used on DG...of course not...it will be ridiculous. I would say let's be open minded about the matter, we don't live in a perfect world, same in the hunting world....you seldom get a perfect shot in the wooded/bushveld areas of southern Africa, that is a given so let's deal with that....get in close and don't shoot if you are not sure. In the more open areas it gets easier though. Since these mid bores are all popular and will be able to get the job done, I feel they should be included in all countries that have a .375 restriction currently because they are all more capable nowadays. Less perfect terrain shouldn't determine if a cartridge should be included or not....I really feel it is up to the PH and the hunter and their common sense, and if a PH feels that the terrain doesn't allow for these mid bores then I will be ok. However, I will be hard to convinced because I saw what each cartridge can do in the field. We all know what the 375 is capable for many years, and those who have a 338 WM or one of the larger 338's know what they are capable of...the 9.3x62 has a proven record, and those who tried the 35 whelen with the right bullets on some DG are not disappointed either. So I hope this .375 restriction will be reviewed soon by the various authorities. Before I forget....I do hope that everyone who owns one of these mid bore cartridges do their homework before putting the other one down....they are all good....but accept it if your cartridge has a little less killing power, without putting the little more powerful cartridges down.
Maybe the following article would be helpful to those who are still unsure about killing power:

Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List

 

[jwp475]

The only sure way to stop a charge is a CNS hit. Watch when Mark Sullivan once missed a CNS hit with a 600 Nitro that Buffalo didn't even slow down. The second barrel saved his bacon

 

[Capebuffalo]

The only sure way to stop a charge is a CNS hit. Watch when Mark Sullivan once missed a CNS hit with a 600 Nitro that Buffalo didn't even slow down. The second barrel saved his bacon

Yeh, those can be scary moments....it plays a huge role how calm the animal is before the shot...if the adrenalin is already pumping, the animal will keep coming...as of it refuse to die in such situations...

 

[Capebuffalo]

They will for sure work. How ever they cant stop a charge. That is why they went with 375. But anything below 458 are not charge stoppers. Strange rules.
Krish

My apologies...I mean everything below 458...

 

[krish]

I agree with you, Krish. All these popular mid bores work perfectly on most DG. The idea of a charge stopper can be confusing because where do you draw the line....but as you said everything below 458 are considered not to be charge stoppers....should we exclude everything then below 358 to be used on DG...of course not...it will be ridiculous. I would say let's be open minded about the matter, we don't live in a perfect world, same in the hunting world....you seldom get a perfect shot in the wooded/bushveld areas of southern Africa, that is a given so let's deal with that....get in close and don't shoot if you are not sure. In the more open areas it gets easier though. Since these mid bores are all popular and will be able to get the job done, I feel they should be included in all countries that have a .375 restriction currently because they are all more capable nowadays. Less perfect terrain shouldn't determine if a cartridge should be included or not....I really feel it is up to the PH and the hunter and their common sense, and if a PH feels that the terrain doesn't allow for these mid bores then I will be ok. However, I will be hard to convinced because I saw what each cartridge can do in the field. We all know what the 375 is capable for many years, and those who have a 338 WM or one of the larger 338's know what they are capable of...the 9.3x62 has a proven record, and those who tried the 35 whelen with the right bullets on some DG are not disappointed either. So I hope this .375 restriction will be reviewed soon by the various authorities. Before I forget....I do hope that everyone who owns one of these mid bore cartridges do their homework before putting the other one down....they are all good....but accept it if your cartridge has a little less killing power, without putting the little more powerful cartridges down.
Maybe the following article would be helpful to those who are still unsure about killing power:

Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List

Totally agree with you. Yes if you take your time and a good marksman and have an experienced PH to back you up.
Krish

 

[F. Vaccaro]

The only sure way to stop a charge is a CNS hit. Watch when Mark Sullivan once missed a CNS hit with a 600 Nitro that Buffalo didn't even slow down. The second barrel saved his bacon

Mark Sullivan takes too many chances with DG from the videos I’ve seen.

 

[Capebuffalo]

I would say that the .35 Whelen is closer to the .338 Winchester Magnum ( in terms of ballistic performance ) , than it is to the 9.3x62 mm Mauser .

Prof. Mawla
I appreciate your contributions to our forum, but I do not agree with your statement. I did the calculation in another thread for everybody to see, but if you calculate killing power (KS) and use the formula KS = Energy (ft/lbs) x Sectional density (reloading manuals) x Bullet frontal area (square inches), then you see the 338 WM lies halve way between the the 375 H&H and the 9.3x62, and the 35 Whelen trails the 9.3x62 slightly.....Which shouldn't be a surprise because performance of these 4 mid bores is greatly influenced by their case capacity, and that results in higher energy levels, of which the 375 H&H has plenty of. The extremely high sectional density and its higher case capacity leads to it that the 338 WM has an advantage above the 35 Whelen and 9.3x62 as far as killing power goes, even with a slight diameter advantage of those two calibers over the 338 WM. However, seems to me according to the numbers that the 375 cal is king of the mid bores when shooting distance is under 150 yards. From there further on the 338 cal with its high BC and SD is king. That is if killing power/performance is on the line....I know there are other factors involved too which make certain calibers more acceptable than others, such as recoil, availability of ammo and rifles, hunting area ect. How fortunate are we to have all these great cartridges available to us!

 

[John Wasmuth]

Just out of curiosity’s sake, have you hunted with a 9,3 often? If so what have you hunted and were there any failures?

 

[shootist~]

The extremely high sectional density and its higher case capacity leads to it that the 338 WM has an advantage above the 35 Whelen and 9.3x62 as far as killing power goes, even with a slight diameter advantage of those two calibers over the 338 WM.

I disagree, but I suppose it depends on what numbers you want to calculate.

My 9.3x62 300 grain A-Frame at my Actual MV of 2,316 fps: K @ 100 Yards = 99.7
Using the Swift Manual for a 338 WM 275 A-F @ MV of 2,450 fps: K @ 100Y = 97.2

The Taylor KO favors the 300 grain 9.3 as well: 36.3 to 32.5

If you run the 300 gr 9.3 Vs a 338 WM with a 250 A-F at factory advertised MV of 2,570 fps, the comparison is 99.7 to 89.2. No surprise that the heavier bullets tend to perform better, of course.

I don't have and data for the 338 / 300 gr Woodleigh and it's unlikely I'll ever see any. (I'm a recoil sissy and favor the 9.3x62 over the 338 WM - for Any bullet weight comparison, btw.)

BTW, I find the Chuck Hawks formulas, while not scientific, an interesting way to look at different loads. I run an Excel spreadsheet for most of what I load for and various cartridges of interest. Again, (IIRC), even Chuck Hawks indicated his Killing Powder formula is based more on logic than science.

Finally - Kevin Robertson favors a premium 300 grain 9.3 at 2,300 fps MV for a client load and that's good enough for me.

 

[shootist~]

Since we are comparing lengths, umm I mean K factors, I ran @Bob Nelson 35Whelen 's scrub bull load with the .358 cal 310 grain Woodleigh at 2,455 fps (SD = .346). (Not that I would try to duplicate it.)

It's above the 5,400 Joule requirement for Namibia, btw.

K Factor calculated at 100 Yds is an amazing 126.1.
This is above the 375 H&H with 300 grain bullets.

Foot pounds per Shooter Ballistics. Note that column headers do not line up correctly:

Path (in)	Path (moa)	Drift (in)	Drift (moa)	Velocity (fps)	Energy (ft-lbs)	TOF (s)
125	0.0	0	-1.2	+0.9	2254.1	3497.2	0.159
100	0.5	-0.5	-0.7	+0.7	2293.5	3620.5	0.126
75	0.6	-0.7	-0.4	+0.5	2333.4	3747.5	0.094
50	0.2	-0.4	-0.2	+0.4	2373.1	3876.1	0.062
25	-0.5	+1.9	-0.0	+0.2	2413.8	4010.4	0.031
0	-1.6	0.0	-0.0	0.0	2455.0	4148.4	0.000

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Since we are comparing lengths, umm I mean K factors, I ran @Bob Nelson 35Whelen 's scrub bull load with the .358 cal 310 grain Woodleigh at 2,455 fps (SD = .346). (Not that I would try to duplicate it.)

It's above the 5,400 Joule requirement for Namibia, btw.

K Factor calculated at 100 Yds is an amazing 126.1.
This is above the 375 H&H with 300 grain bullets.

Foot pounds per Shooter Ballistics. Note that column headers do not line up correctly:

Path (in)	Path (moa)	Drift (in)	Drift (moa)	Velocity (fps)	Energy (ft-lbs)	TOF (s)
125	0.0	0	-1.2	+0.9	2254.1	3497.2	0.159
100	0.5	-0.5	-0.7	+0.7	2293.5	3620.5	0.126
75	0.6	-0.7	-0.4	+0.5	2333.4	3747.5	0.094
50	0.2	-0.4	-0.2	+0.4	2373.1	3876.1	0.062
25	-0.5	+1.9	-0.0	+0.2	2413.8	4010.4	0.031
0	-1.6	0.0	-0.0	0.0	2455.0	4148.4	0.000

@shootist~
You should try my load but work up to it. It is still well within SAFE pressures but is a bit of a pain using a 2 foot drop tube.
It sure is on hell of a potent load with rather stout recoil but very manageable in my 9 pound rifle.
Bob

 

[Capebuffalo]

Just out of curiosity’s sake, have you hunted with a 9,3 often? If so what have you hunted and were there any failures?

Not often, but used a family member's 9.3x62 on a few occasions on larger plains game years ago. No flies on the 9.3x62, I could even shoot it as a teenage boy. No, I had no failures with the 9.3x62. My love affair with the 338 WM started later and that is what I prefer ever since. Although I like the 35 Whelen, 358 NM and 375 Ruger too, the 338 WM has a front seat in my gun safe.

 

[K95]

After reading this thread Im starting to coming to the conclusion that most of you guys have lost the plot. Everyone comparing velocity, BC, SD against the other. These paper ballistics don’t really tell us much only conjecture to differ. It’s what hits the animal that matters not what drives it . Bullet integrity gives us the final result. Some projectiles perform better and penetrate further in a straight line at slower speed than traveling hell for leather. Comparisons should not be done on paper but in the best laboratory for testing cartridge performance, the hunting fields of the world. If your favorite cartridge blows your hair back that great, use it and be happy, there’s no need to compare it with others. If you’re still unsure ask the guys that really know, the guys that live it. They see the good the bad and ugly, the PH’s and go with their recommendations.

 

[Capebuffalo]

I disagree, but I suppose it depends on what numbers you want to calculate.

My 9.3x62 300 grain A-Frame at my Actual MV of 2,316 fps: K @ 100 Yards = 99.7
Using the Swift Manual for a 338 WM 275 A-F @ MV of 2,450 fps: K @ 100Y = 97.2

The Taylor KO favors the 300 grain 9.3 as well: 36.3 to 32.5

If you run the 300 gr 9.3 Vs a 338 WM with a 250 A-F at factory advertised MV of 2,570 fps, the comparison is 99.7 to 89.2. No surprise that the heavier bullets tend to perform better, of course.

I don't have and data for the 338 / 300 gr Woodleigh and it's unlikely I'll ever see any. (I'm a recoil sissy and favor the 9.3x62 over the 338 WM - for Any bullet weight comparison, btw.)

BTW, I find the Chuck Hawks formulas, while not scientific, an interesting way to look at different loads. I run an Excel spreadsheet for most of what I load for and various cartridges of interest. Again, (IIRC), even Chuck Hawks indicated his Killing Powder formula is based more on logic than science.

Finally - Kevin Robertson favors a premium 300 grain 9.3 at 2,300 fps MV for a client load and that's good enough for me.

I disagree, but I suppose it depends on what numbers you want to calculate.

My 9.3x62 300 grain A-Frame at my Actual MV of 2,316 fps: K @ 100 Yards = 99.7
Using the Swift Manual for a 338 WM 275 A-F @ MV of 2,450 fps: K @ 100Y = 97.2

The Taylor KO favors the 300 grain 9.3 as well: 36.3 to 32.5

If you run the 300 gr 9.3 Vs a 338 WM with a 250 A-F at factory advertised MV of 2,570 fps, the comparison is 99.7 to 89.2. No surprise that the heavier bullets tend to perform better, of course.

I don't have and data for the 338 / 300 gr Woodleigh and it's unlikely I'll ever see any. (I'm a recoil sissy and favor the 9.3x62 over the 338 WM - for Any bullet weight comparison, btw.)

BTW, I find the Chuck Hawks formulas, while not scientific, an interesting way to look at different loads. I run an Excel spreadsheet for most of what I load for and various cartridges of interest. Again, (IIRC), even Chuck Hawks indicated his Killing Powder formula is based more on logic than science.

Finally - Kevin Robertson favors a premium 300 grain 9.3 at 2,300 fps MV for a client load and that's good enough for me.

shootist,

I agree, the late Chuck Hawks gave us an interesting way to look at our loads and the performance of our rifles. Although, you can push the 338 WM to energy levels a little over 4000 ft/lbs, I prefer to keep my loads under 4000ft/lbs. 300 gr at around 2400 ft/sec and 275 grain at around 2550 ft/sec...that will change your KS calculations a little I guess.

Your 9.3x62 300 grain A-Frame at my Actual MV of 2,316 fps: K @ 100 Yards = 99.7
My 338 WM 275 gr A-F @ MV of 2,550 fps: K @ 100Y = 105
My 338 WM 300 gr Wl @ MV of 2400 fps: K @ 100y = 110

You and I can change the numbers the way we like according to different hunting situations, but due to the greater case capacity of the 338 WM vs the 9.3x62 the WM will always have a 100-150 ft/lbs on the 9.3, especially when we want to stay inside safe reload boundaries when pushing closer to 4000ft/lbs. With that being said, many prefer the 9.3x62 for hunting when closer ranges in more bushveld areas in Africa, due to good penetration, lower recoil,...and other reasons, which make it an excellent cartridge, but I prefer a more all round caliber that can do both bush and semi desert hunting. I guess we all have our own preferences....which is a healthy human trait...