SwampWolf
Member
To my eyes too. A beautiful rifle that kicks dirt in the eyes of boring black plastic stocks.
35 Whelen vs 338-06
- Thread starter Okie_Poke
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 338-06 35 whelen custom rifle
To my eyes too. A beautiful rifle that kicks dirt in the eyes of boring black plastic stocks.
WisBorn
Contributing Member
I would go with and voted for the 35 Whelen. I have never owned one, but remember reading all the gun rags when Remington brought it out in their Classic 700 and later in the 760.
I dreamed of a big game trio including a 25-06, 30-06, & 35 Whelen.
I dreamed of a big game trio including a 25-06, 30-06, & 35 Whelen.
Litetrigger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2023
- Messages
- 192
This is getting a bit off the subject, but in discussions of the .35 Whelen I've been surprised and perhaps a bit disappointed that there is seldom any mention of the Improved Whelen. Which is actually a double improvement because it increases powder capacity and the sharper, better defined shoulder contour greatly reduces the headspace issues that plague some .35 Whelen rifles and ammo. It's an easy conversion and of course standard .35 Whelen ammo can be fired in improved chambers. This .35 Imp. Whelen was built on a 1909 Argentine Mauser action.
Last edited:
I'm in the process of building a 338-06 on a 700 action.The barrel is 19 inches long and it's going to weigh about 7 pounds ready to walk in the woods.I had a 35 Whelen a few years ago,but one of the local bear hunters fell in love with it and offered me a good sum of money for it.I'm thinking the 338 will be a nice woods rifle,especially with the short barrel.Of all the popular cartridges that are based on the 30-06,the only one I've not tried yet is the 6.5-06.Crazy thing is that I've never owned a 30-06,but I've owned a lot of its offspring.Of all of them,I like the 280AI the most.Bigger bores are more tolerant of barrel length and I'm all for shorter and lighter.The 270,280,280AI,25-06 and 6.5-06 are all great rounds,but they like longer barrels than the larger bore sizes.
35 Whelen
Member
Several years ago I was sore tempted to build a saddle carbine lever rifle based on a 99 Savage and chambered in .338 Federal.
I think it would've been a great stalking rifle for elk that would worked out to 250 yds. or so.
35W
I think it would've been a great stalking rifle for elk that would worked out to 250 yds. or so.
35W
I wanted a Whelen from back in my College days. The College Library had original bound volumes of the American Rifleman, so I was able to read the original 1920's articles by Townsend Whelen on the 35 Whelen and 400 Whelen cartridges. And then I had Elmer Keith's book :Big Game Guns and Cartridges. Elmer praised the 35 and 400 Whelen cartridges.
I have only hit paper with mine, but I have learned a couple of things.
Headspacing is critical with the 35 Whelen in three of my rifles. The 35 Whelen has a shallow shoulder and that cushions the firing pin blow. I went to sizing cases to exactly chamber headspace and to using Federal primers, which are the most sensitive primers, when I reloaded 35 Whelen cartridges. For my Mauser, I found a firing pin with greater protrusion. And in everything old, I installed new mainsprings. I think the sharper shoulder versions of the cartridge will probably have more reliable ignition, especially in cold weather.Don't know why, but my Rem 700 never had an ignition issue.
The 35 Whelen kicks like a mule off the bench! I removed this big scope as the bell kept on smacking me right in the eye.
The mount and bell clearance would not allow me to move the rings further forward, so I found a smaller scope that went about a half inch further forward. This is a lightweight rifle and it really kicks with 225 and 250 grain bullets. It is painful! I don't know why anyone wants to shoot the same bullets faster as flinches do not improve grouping ability.
My Mauser, I made sure I had 14 inches of trigger pull, to get away from that scope, and I added a heavier barrel. While it is not a "pleasant" rifle to shoot, it is not as painful as my Ruger #1, or my custom M1903.
The Custom M1903 was built for a much shorter shooter (the 86 year old ex Gun Club President)
and has a pencil thin barrel, and kicks like a mule! I think the 1:10 barrel adds to the recoil.
Something that is not addressed ever, is the realistic range of this cartridge, and probably also, the 338/06. I found my 200 gr round nose bullets tumbled past the 300 yard target at CMP Talladega. I don't recall trying the boat tailed 225 gr bullets at 600 yards, and I did not shoot 250's. They hurt too much. Anyone who thinks they are going to be whacking things at 500, 600, 700, 800 yards with a 35 Whelen or 338/06 needs to go out and shoot their loads at distance. They might be surprised to find their bullets are tumbling well before their long range dream. My 200 grain bullets would not group on the 600 yard targets. Many were not on the target. I have no idea when they were tumbling, but the 300 yard groups were round.
Might be a good idea to shoot on paper at 300 yards, and not assume the bullets will be stable at that distance till proven innocent. Three hundred yards is a long way, lots of trees and underbrush, even out West.
I did determine the cartridge likes faster powders over slower. Powders in the range of IMR 3031 to IMR 4064 did best.
I have only hit paper with mine, but I have learned a couple of things.
Headspacing is critical with the 35 Whelen in three of my rifles. The 35 Whelen has a shallow shoulder and that cushions the firing pin blow. I went to sizing cases to exactly chamber headspace and to using Federal primers, which are the most sensitive primers, when I reloaded 35 Whelen cartridges. For my Mauser, I found a firing pin with greater protrusion. And in everything old, I installed new mainsprings. I think the sharper shoulder versions of the cartridge will probably have more reliable ignition, especially in cold weather.Don't know why, but my Rem 700 never had an ignition issue.
The 35 Whelen kicks like a mule off the bench! I removed this big scope as the bell kept on smacking me right in the eye.
The mount and bell clearance would not allow me to move the rings further forward, so I found a smaller scope that went about a half inch further forward. This is a lightweight rifle and it really kicks with 225 and 250 grain bullets. It is painful! I don't know why anyone wants to shoot the same bullets faster as flinches do not improve grouping ability.
My Mauser, I made sure I had 14 inches of trigger pull, to get away from that scope, and I added a heavier barrel. While it is not a "pleasant" rifle to shoot, it is not as painful as my Ruger #1, or my custom M1903.
The Custom M1903 was built for a much shorter shooter (the 86 year old ex Gun Club President)
and has a pencil thin barrel, and kicks like a mule! I think the 1:10 barrel adds to the recoil.
Something that is not addressed ever, is the realistic range of this cartridge, and probably also, the 338/06. I found my 200 gr round nose bullets tumbled past the 300 yard target at CMP Talladega. I don't recall trying the boat tailed 225 gr bullets at 600 yards, and I did not shoot 250's. They hurt too much. Anyone who thinks they are going to be whacking things at 500, 600, 700, 800 yards with a 35 Whelen or 338/06 needs to go out and shoot their loads at distance. They might be surprised to find their bullets are tumbling well before their long range dream. My 200 grain bullets would not group on the 600 yard targets. Many were not on the target. I have no idea when they were tumbling, but the 300 yard groups were round.
Might be a good idea to shoot on paper at 300 yards, and not assume the bullets will be stable at that distance till proven innocent. Three hundred yards is a long way, lots of trees and underbrush, even out West.
I did determine the cartridge likes faster powders over slower. Powders in the range of IMR 3031 to IMR 4064 did best.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I shoot a .35 Brown-Whelen -- which has more powder capacity than the Improved Whelen. I'm driving 225-grain Nosler Partition Jackets an honest 2800 fps. It's one hell of an elk rifle!
Chuck R.
Member
I think it's going to depend a lot of how you stock it, your barrel profile and your optic.
My M7 in .350RM with 20" barrel, Manners EC-H8 carbon fiber stock, Leupold 2.5-8x36 scope in lightweight Tally's weighs in at 7lbs, 7 ounces with 4 rds of 225s and a sling. The rifle stripped is 5lbs 12.4 ounces. Honestly that's about as light as I'd care to go.
It gets 2730 with Nolser 225 Partitions, and 2870 with 200s, but it's not exactly a joy off the bench.
Vern Humphrey
Member
A couple of keys to stocking a hard-kicking rifle are evident in my custom '03 Brown-Whelen. First of all, the comb of the stock should slope DOWN from rear to front -- so the stock recoils AWAY from your cheek bone. Next, the butt should be broad and with a good recoil pad.
SwampWolf
Member
Not quite as flat shooting as the Federal load but my Model 99 chambered in .358 Winchester is good for whitetails (and probably elk, though I have never shot one) out to 150 yards or so.
35 Whelen
Member
Your 99 Savage in .358 is worth a small fortune! Handloaded with a 225 gr. or 250 gr. Nosler Partition it ought to be plenty good to at least 250 yds.
35W
35 Whelen
Member
The reality is that with most any cartridge, hitting something even the size of a bull elk at 500 yds. and beyond is dicey. There are no wind flags, no sturdy benches with sandbags from which to shoot, and no limitless time to make ones shot. I have a 600 yd. range here at my house and what I learned right away is that a misjudgment of the wind by as little as 5 mph would be disastrous when hunting.
On one of my hunts these two fellas walked out across the canyon from me at a lasered 610 yds. Attempting that shot with any rifle and cartridge, in my opinion, is careless. I passed and was later rewarded with another bull that was a mere 360 yds. away.
35W
sage5907
Member
I also agree with what Slamfire says about shooting long distance with a 35 Whelen or a 338-06, and the same thing can be said about a 30-06. The first thing I do when I walk up to a 200 yard or 300 yard target is to look and see if the holes are perfectly round. I have never seen any sign of bullets starting to tumble in my 338-06 rifles but my longest target distance is 300 yards.
Last edited:
Something I have learned, is that bullets tumble and this is not addressed in the inprint periodicals. You can be confident that your bullets will be stable at 300 yards, because bullet makers claim they have 300 yard wind tunnels to test their bullets. Beyond that, I really doubt bullet makers have ever tested their bullets. And they don't need to test at distance to sell bullets. Instead, they contract out the promotion to in print authors. For periods measuring in more than half centuries, I read material about bullet performance at 400, 500 yards, and now, out to 1200 yards. Article authors go to the range, shoot a rifle anywhere from 25 yards to 100 yards, very rarely 200 yards. They typically shoot three shot groups, maybe 18 to 32 rounds total, and then write an article extrapolating their sub MOA three shot groups out to 1000 yards, and now, further. Sometimes they have computer models to use to predict velocity, I think they have been usually provided data by the Marketing Department of the bullet maker. The in print guys get a flat fee, D Pris said $400.00. Powder is expensive, bullets are expensive, time is expensive, so what we all read is "cheerful and cheap" opinions, based on wishes and hopes.
I was gobsmacked when I first encountered bullet tumbling at CMP Talledega. I knew of it, had been told 168's would tumble before they received the 1000 yard target, and experienced in a match. But, more or less, that was considered just a 168 thing. So when I was shooting .277 130 grain Fed Fusion , 150 grain Federal fusion and Speer bullets at CMP Talladega, I never expected my inability to hit the 600 yard target was due to bullet tumbling.
Firstly 300 yards
600 yards
I took the picture because I assumed the bullets were awful, not that they were tumbling. Then I went to 150 gr Fed Fusions. This load held the ten ring at 300 yards.
but when I shot it at 600 yards, it was all over the place, exactly as the Speer bullets. I did not take a picture because I was disgusted, and thought something was wrong with rifle, scope or bullets. But before packing and leaving, I decided to shoot up my ammunition and used the next lot of ammunition, which differed in that the powder charge was a half grain more. It shot well.
then I went to 600 yards, and it grouped! I am sure if there was a 700 yard target, those bullets would have been tumbling a 100 yards beyond 600 yards. I think those bullets, boat tailed though they were, are unstable once they drop below 1000 fps.
so this was a lesson learned. The next surprise with 190 SMK bullets in the 308 Win rifle.
shot well at 300 yards
all over the place at 600 yards
The velocities on the 190's were the velocities the bullets were going during these strings. I talked to Sierra and the Technical Expert told me keep the velocities above 2500 fps and the bullet will be going 1200 fps at distance. The bullets were not stable at 600 yards, and I was pushing them above 2500 fps. I am of the opinion the bullets were dropping to sub sonic and tumbling in the transition.
Now, its not the gun. Same rifle, shot prone with sling, with 155 Noslers going 2400 fps ish at the muzzle, the bullets are stable at 600 yards
Based on my experience, if you have not shot your loads at distance, any claims of accuracy, ballistic stability, at distance, are based on wishes. Particularly with centerfire rounds just at the point the bullet goes sub sonic. You loads are probably going to be stable out to 300 yards (my 30-30 loads were not!) but beyond that, you don't know. And based on my experience, claims of 1200 yard and more accuracy are not credible if not backed up with groups, and not the three shot groups so beloved by the inprint guys.
Last edited:
I agree that the .35 Whelen is not real long range affair, it can certainly handle some distance if you have taken the time to practice. My farthest shots with the Whelen is with the 225 grain TBBC that Federal used to load. A greater kudu in Zimbabwe at laser measured 278 yards and a bull moose in Alberta at a measured 410 yards
KansasTrapper77
Member
This is my favorite question! One I’ve daydreamed about before. While I can’t speak to performance like some of these gentlemen can, the more I read the more I leaned to .338-06 simply on bullet availability I’ve noticed online. I understand casting your own solves alot of those problems but I always thought .338s were easier to find. But .35 Whelen just sounds cooler than .338-06.
One day when I have money to waste on toys I figure a stainless Ruger Guide Gun in .338-06 with a 20” barrel would be quite the bush rifle. Capable of hammering anything inside of 400 yards while still being wieldy in alder choked hell holes.
One day when I have money to waste on toys I figure a stainless Ruger Guide Gun in .338-06 with a 20” barrel would be quite the bush rifle. Capable of hammering anything inside of 400 yards while still being wieldy in alder choked hell holes.
Litetrigger
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2023
- Messages
- 192
A main reason for the success of the wildcat .35 Whelen is the relative ease for which milsurps could be converted by simply replacing the barrel or even reboring existing barrel. Otherwise little or no further work or alterations were necessary for actions and magazines of '03 Springsfields, M-1917 US Enfields and type '98 Mausers. Which in turn created a golden bread and butter era not only for custom rifle makers like Griffin & Howe but also also do-it-yourself amateurs who turned out thousands of "Custom" .35 Whelens from basements and garage workbenches. Bruce Russell, a master of wood and metal created this classic style .35 Whelen around a type 98 Mauser action.
Last edited:
Chuck R.
Member
I hear ya, but there's just something about a 225grn at 2730FPS from a short action, through a short barrel, with a rifle (carbine) weighing at just over 7lbs "all up" that floats my boat!
While I appreciate wood, I really appreciate carbon fiber when it comes to weight and maintaining zero.
The 350RM and 35Whelen are both capable to 400+ yards, too much further and I'd worry about expansion as the velocity is dropping pretty quick.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
If a .338 or .35 are no better than an `06, then why not a .270 or .280? Why n ot a 6.5 or .257? Where does it end? Sorry but after 35yrs of hunting with handguns, this idea that diameter and mass don't matter just ain't gonna fly. Diameter and mass count for more than velocity ever did.
Okay, so let me get this straight. A .35 is no better than a .30 but a .36 gets you all the way to elephant? The logic here, ain't. Oh, I forgot, this is from the same person that says the .45/70 is less effective than the .30-30.
OP here. Your feedback on this question has been incredible. Thank you all very much. I love the pictures of the rifles.
I've seen several mentions of the Brown-Whelen, a wildcat I'm not terribly familiar with. A bit of google-fu gave me the picture below, depicting the cases of a 35 Whelen vs a 35 Whelen AI vs the 35 Brown-Whelen. I gather that the Brown-Whelen has a 35 degree shoulder (the Whelen has a 17 degree, 30' shoulder and the AI has a 40 degree sholder), and the Brown-Whelen pushes the shoulder forward and shortens the neck to (slightly?) increase powder capacity.
First question: How much of a problem is the slight shoulder on the 35 Whelen? That shoulder angle is the same as the shoulder angle on 30-06, with which I have never had nor heard of folks having headspacing issues due to the shoulder angle. Why does it present a problem for the 35? Is it simply because the shoulder is shorter due to the bullet being larger diameter? I'll admit that doesn't make sense to me since the angle is still the same. Please educate me on this.
Second question: If I decide to go with an "improved" chambering, why go to the Brown-Whelen instead of the AI? I can see there appears to be an increase in powder capacity, but does it really matter? It is my understanding I can still fire factory 35 Whelen in the AI chamber, but the Brown-Whelen appears to require a more involved/dedicated fire-forming operation since the shoulder is in a different place. What does that process look like? Also, the Brown-Whelen appears to have a less-than-caliber-length neck (< 0.358" in this instance). I've read that's a sin in cartridge design but don't know how much it really matters.
Your continued feedback is appreciated. If you are aware of resources already written that answer my questions, please feel free to direct me to those as well. Thank you!
Edit to @ the folks who have mentioned one or the other in this thread: @Roverguy @Vern Humphrey @Litetrigger
I've seen several mentions of the Brown-Whelen, a wildcat I'm not terribly familiar with. A bit of google-fu gave me the picture below, depicting the cases of a 35 Whelen vs a 35 Whelen AI vs the 35 Brown-Whelen. I gather that the Brown-Whelen has a 35 degree shoulder (the Whelen has a 17 degree, 30' shoulder and the AI has a 40 degree sholder), and the Brown-Whelen pushes the shoulder forward and shortens the neck to (slightly?) increase powder capacity.
First question: How much of a problem is the slight shoulder on the 35 Whelen? That shoulder angle is the same as the shoulder angle on 30-06, with which I have never had nor heard of folks having headspacing issues due to the shoulder angle. Why does it present a problem for the 35? Is it simply because the shoulder is shorter due to the bullet being larger diameter? I'll admit that doesn't make sense to me since the angle is still the same. Please educate me on this.
Second question: If I decide to go with an "improved" chambering, why go to the Brown-Whelen instead of the AI? I can see there appears to be an increase in powder capacity, but does it really matter? It is my understanding I can still fire factory 35 Whelen in the AI chamber, but the Brown-Whelen appears to require a more involved/dedicated fire-forming operation since the shoulder is in a different place. What does that process look like? Also, the Brown-Whelen appears to have a less-than-caliber-length neck (< 0.358" in this instance). I've read that's a sin in cartridge design but don't know how much it really matters.
Your continued feedback is appreciated. If you are aware of resources already written that answer my questions, please feel free to direct me to those as well. Thank you!
Edit to @ the folks who have mentioned one or the other in this thread: @Roverguy @Vern Humphrey @Litetrigger
Last edited:
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,258
I was wondering this too. I’ve not encountered an issue with my .358 win, which shares the same shoulder as its .308 parent
I don’t like the short neck on the Brown-Whelen
I would go with the 35 Whelan improved. Three out of four of my 35 Whelen rifles had misfires or hangfires due to the shallow shoulder. I think the case is being sized, or is flexing, when the firing pin hits the primer. Cushioning of the blow of the firing pin on the primer leads to weak ignition or no ignition. I never experienced this problem before till I shot the M1903 actioned rifle for the first time in cold weather. Cold weather is a great test of the energy delivery of an ignition system. Greases and oils are thick, retarding hammers and strikers. Primers and powders are already cold, and like us humans, are not interested in moving. The US military uses magnum level primers in service ammunition where the flame out is long and hot, so gunpowder in cold weather will ignite. I had all sorts of weird hangfires with ball powders. Stick powders tended to ignite better. I am pretty sure I had installed a new Wolff mainspring, might have installed a heavier one for the next trip to the range. I also made sure that the case was zero headspace or a slight crush fit. And I played around with strikers, and found the one with the most protrusion. I made sure to use Federal primers, which are the most sensitive primers on the market, and I stopped using ball powders. Ignition became reliable in the M1903. I did not like hangfires, they were spooky. I did experience a long and increasing recoil a couple of times. Felt like I was shooting a rocket, where the thrust kept increasing with time. I did not like that either as I don't know if that would lead to powder detonation. In certain specialized circumstances, there is a transition from deflagration to detonation. You can see from the citations, that this is of particular importance to LEO's in the study of improvised munitions. If you want to see the papers,you will have to pay money $$$.
Ignition was not reliable in my Ruger #1, hits on the primer were offset. I had other centerfire rifles with similar offset and they all went bang, but with this cartridge, in this rifle, I had misfires in decent weather. I did install an extra heavy Wolff mainspring, which did nothing.
This ought to be of interest to those who wonder what firing pin offset is acceptable in a small arm:
Report No. R-462 Primer Sensitivity vs. Firing Pin eccentricity
Frankford Arsenal Dec 1943
Object: To determine the effect of firing pin eccentricity on the sensitivity of small arms primers
Summary: Retaining firing pin plates were constructed for the drop test machine that have blows eccentric by .00”, .02” and 0.04”. Drop tests were made on cal.30, .20 carbine, cal 0.45, and cal .50 primed cases (in cases) with sharp anvils, and on cal .30 primers (H-4 in cases) with flat cups.
Very little, if any, changes in sensitivity occurs with blows of 0.02” eccentricity; large differences occur with blows of 0.04”.
“H bar” H̅ is the mean critical firing height. (approximately the 50% ignition point)
From Percussion Primers, Design Requirements , McDonnell Douglas 1970: “Primer manufacturers in their data sheets customarily provide the 100% “all fire” level of their products. This is essentially the same as the mean firing height plus five standard deviations.”
The 1943 report shows for the Cal 0.45 H̅ with a four ounce weight is 3.70” for 0.0” eccentricity, 3.70” for 0.02” eccentricity, and 5.11” for 0.04” eccentricity.
George Frost, in his book Making Ammunition, shows data that the further the firing pin hits, the more energy it takes to ignite the primer. At some level of firing pin offset, the primer is not going to go bang. Maybe a torch will make it ignite, none of my weapons has that option.
I sent the Ruger #1 back to the factory as I had done everything I could do, and only Ruger had the capability to center the firing pin hit. My phone notes with Ruger:
Telephone Notes Ruger Customer Service, Ruger #1 in 35 Whelen
Headspace within Go and No Go
Ruger firing pin offset criteria:
Reject at 40 thousandths (0.04 inches)
My rifle: 25-30 thousandths (0.025-0.030 inches)
Ruger sometimes rebuilds at 35 thousandths.
SAAMI copper indent standard 17 thousandths (Note: copper crush depth a measure of firing pin energy) My rifle: 23 thousandths.
Note: I installed a Wolff extra power mainspring and did not remove it when sending the rifle to Ruger.
A Ruger M77 will give 19-20 thousandths copper crush, so my #1 has more powerful ignition
A source of unreliability is the shallow shoulder of the 35 Whelen, they have similar misfire issues with 7.62 X 38 ammunition, misfires due to shallow cartridge shoulder.
7.62 X 38R picture from Wiki
I was surprised at how much firing pin offset Ruger allows before they do anything. I was pleased the technician used coppers to test ignition system energy. I think he was surprised that I knew what he was talking about. The technician installed a part which lifted the breech block up, and that fixed it. He would not install a longer firing pin. This whole episode reinforced my belief that centered firing pin hits on the primer are critical to good and positive ignition, and that there is very little margin of error, either mechanically, or with powders and primer choices, for reliable ignition in the 35 Whelen cartridge.
If you notice, the current crop of long range cartridges have very steep shoulders. This is not great for feeding, sharp shoulders bump and deflect during the feed cycle. Perhaps the smoothest feeding cartridge I have is the 300 H&H which looks like a dart. That cartridge headspaces on the belt, not the shoulder. The 303 Brit is particularly smooth in feed, very shallow shoulders, but headspaces on the rim. However the military rimless cartridges have much more shoulder and steeper angles. I don't think that is by accident. When the average shooter was a hunter, feed and extraction reliability was of more importance than today. Now the long range guys fire single shot and may not have ejectors in their rifles! The ones I know tip the empty out with a forefinger. To the ultimate in accuracy shooters, positive, reliable, powerful ignition is extremely important. I was also told, by a Cartridge Manufacturing Engineer at a Regional, that these new, straight, sharp shouldered cartridges produce localized 80 Kpsia just at the shoulders during combustion. That was a mind blower, as everyone used to assume that pressures were always uniform throughout the case as pressures rose. Apparently not! I assume these localized, transient, high pressures create more complete, and more uniform burning of the powder.
I can say, Townsend Whelen was 100 years too early for the type of pressure transducers that could measure pressure transients.
My Mauser, I had misfires until I found an old WW1 firing pin with a lot more protrustion than the factory firing pin, and all things
are good.
M700 worked since day one. I don't know why, and I am not going to monkey around with something that works.
Last edited:
DM~
Member
After reading several of the above post, I thought I'd add a few things.
Keep in mind, back when I was shooting all of these cartridges a LOT, I was sorting out a rifle that I would be using a LOT in brown bear country and also for hunting brown bear regularly, so I had some different needs than what I'm reading in many of the post here.
I didn't care if it was "cool", or held that tiny bit more of powder, I needed something totally reliable, with enough power/penetration to be 100% reliable on DG, not something to impress my friends. My life could be on the line and my friends who were with me, lives would be on the line too, I wasn't looking for something to shoot a deer or elk, I needed something that would penetrate corner to corner of a big animal, breaking bone and no 35 cal bullet that was less that 275 or 300 grains would do that. That meant I had to use a long action, otherwise the bullets would have to be seated too deep. this wasn't a "short action turns me on" kind of deal!
I really disliked hunting stocks made from other than wood, (for several reasons) so I knew that if I was going to use wood it had to be the lightest of the most stable woods and straight grained English fills that bill in spades. Sure, others look "cooler", but once again, I didn't care about that.
Bottom line is, there's NO WAY I was going to take a chance on the Whelen, let alone the Brn. Whelen, as even back then some were having ignition and head space issues. The .338-06 fixes ALL of those issues, has the best DG bullets (at that time) and had plenty of power/penetration to get the job done EVERY time, I made that choice and I still think it was the best choice between the two.
All of these cartridges are more power/penetration than needed for deer, so for that purpose they all work just fine.
DM
Keep in mind, back when I was shooting all of these cartridges a LOT, I was sorting out a rifle that I would be using a LOT in brown bear country and also for hunting brown bear regularly, so I had some different needs than what I'm reading in many of the post here.
I didn't care if it was "cool", or held that tiny bit more of powder, I needed something totally reliable, with enough power/penetration to be 100% reliable on DG, not something to impress my friends. My life could be on the line and my friends who were with me, lives would be on the line too, I wasn't looking for something to shoot a deer or elk, I needed something that would penetrate corner to corner of a big animal, breaking bone and no 35 cal bullet that was less that 275 or 300 grains would do that. That meant I had to use a long action, otherwise the bullets would have to be seated too deep. this wasn't a "short action turns me on" kind of deal!
I really disliked hunting stocks made from other than wood, (for several reasons) so I knew that if I was going to use wood it had to be the lightest of the most stable woods and straight grained English fills that bill in spades. Sure, others look "cooler", but once again, I didn't care about that.
Bottom line is, there's NO WAY I was going to take a chance on the Whelen, let alone the Brn. Whelen, as even back then some were having ignition and head space issues. The .338-06 fixes ALL of those issues, has the best DG bullets (at that time) and had plenty of power/penetration to get the job done EVERY time, I made that choice and I still think it was the best choice between the two.
All of these cartridges are more power/penetration than needed for deer, so for that purpose they all work just fine.
DM
@Slamfire Thank you for the detailed response. That's quite interesting. I don't doubt your experience at all, but I'm still puzzled as to why the 35 Whelen would be more prone to poor ignition due to an offset firing pin than the 30-06 with the same shoulder angle. Perhaps with the shoulder being both slight and short the headspacing could be less positive than when you have either a longer shoulder of the same angle (30-06) or a sharper shoulder of the same length (35 Whelen Imp). But I'd think once you've got your brass fireformed and dies set up correctly that issue would go away, which was not your experience. Weird.
