35 Whelen vs 338-06

Which cartridge should I pick to re-barrel a Remington 700?

  • 35 Whelen

    Votes: 44 63.8%
  • 338-06

    Votes: 13 18.8%
  • Something else

    Votes: 12 17.4%

  • Total voters
    69
  • Poll closed .
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! DM

I appreciate this. My main draw to the Whelen is because I think "it's cool." I also think the 338-06 is cool, but frankly less so if for no other reason than it isn't named Whelen. Some day I may use it for grizz, or at least for hunting elk where grizz lives, and I hope to get to use it to shoot something bigger than an elk some day. But in all honestly this is just a "because I want to" project. My 30-06 does everything I need a hunting rifle to do. I'm not arguing with your choice at all, as I've weighed pros and cons of these cartridges in my head for years now and at one point thought the 338-06 was the better choice. (A couple of articles on Chuck Hawks' website contributed to that in no small part). But if I needed a DG rifle, I'd probably opt for a 375 or at least the 9.3x62 (I say that without having shot either, so . . . maybe I'd reconsider after shooting them).

Thanks again for sharing your experience and input here. I've enjoyed reading everyone's contributions to this thread.
 
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!

What's your thoughts/opinions on the .350 Remington Magnum for the kind of hunting you do?
 
Having loaded for two different Whelen's, I didn't have any problems with headspace with the exception of when I fired new factory brass in the Remington; I had a few flattened primers. To mitigate this I loaded some cheap bullets, seated out so that they contacted the contacted the rifling when a round was chambered. This of course held the case firmly against the bolt face when fired. After the initial loading and firing, the sizing die was set so that it sized the neck down just to the point where the neck and shoulder met. Easy peasy.

35W
 
@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.


It is unimportant as to why I experienced misfires and hangfires, because I fixed that: “An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.”

To whit:

I fireformed lubricated cases so the cases would be a perfect fit to the chamber, and stress free. These are 30-06 cases I necked up, then annealed the shoulders, loaded full power charges, greased them up, and fired them. Greasing prevents the front of the case adhering to the front of the chamber. The case slides to the bolt face, the shoulder folds out, and I end up with a perfectly fireformed and stress free case. Annealing was critical to reducing split case necks.

Grease also prevents jacket fouling. I can't prove, but because greased and oiled bullets reduce engraving force, and should cool the gases a bit, I believe that grease will prolong throat life. I can say, pushing a bristle brush down the tube, I don't feel the sort of resistance in the throat, after firing greased bullets, as I do dry. And I don't see jacket fouling at the muzzle, if I blow plenty of grease down the tube.

oDvJYKT.jpg
bCpDrWy.jpg


After the fireformed cases were de primed, cleaned, I sized them so the “case headspace” equaled “chamber headspace”. I wanted zero clearance between the case and chamber when the bolt was closed. In fact, I was happy with the slightest case compression as the bolt was cammed shut.

I also used the most sensitive primer I could find. I reamed my primer pockets so the primer was just below the case head. I did not want any 0.006” primer seating depths.

I used stick powders, in the burn rate of IMR 3031 to IMR 4064.

I also increased firing pin protrusion in the actions which I had extra firing pins. I chose the firing pin with the most protrusion.

I made sure I had fresh mainsprings in my actions. This is not a bad practice. Mainsprings do take a set.

Primer offset cannot be fixed at home, and that is something that needs to be discussed with the gunsmith. It is best to have a perfectly centered firing pin hit on the primer, regardless of cartridge.

After that, I have taken my 35 Whelens out in freezing weather, and they all went bang with the fireformed brass.

And the fact this works is far more important on any ideas on why it works. As they said about quantum theory (which makes no sense at all): “shut up and calculate”

This is the original, early 1920’s cartridge dimensions in Townsend Whelen’s first article on the 35 Whelen.

WlMbARm.png

I have looked at pictures of the 338-06, hard to prove by looking at pictures that the shoulder is larger, obviously it is. Since I don't have one of them, I don't know if I would have a similar learning curve to make them go bang as I did with the 35 Whelen. I will say, given that someone made an "Improved Whelen" with a more abrupt shoulder, and it sure looks deliberate, maybe they did that because they wanted a stiffer case in the chamber.

I do have a couple of 375 H&H's, never shot anything but paper with them. I have fired two factory 458 Win Mag rounds, and that was enough fun for me. I believe all the butt stomping cartridges are 300 yard ish things, primarily because stout recoil is not conducive to hard holding. And velocity drops off quickly, meaning the bullets won't expand under 1800 fps. Despite all the chest thumping on long range shots, 300 yards is a long ways to keep all shots on a paper plate sized target. A 35 Whelen is a very powerful round, and really, I don't want more recoil, and I doubt I need more recoil for anything on this continent.
 
Last edited:
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.
[/USER]

The .35 Brown-Whelen is the most potent of the three, due to larger powder capacity. C. Norman Brown understood the .35 Whelen -- It can burn more power than the .30-06 because of it's much larger bore. Gas expands faster in the larger bore, so pressure is lower and drops faster. By adding powder, you add energy -- which is why a .35 Whelen can drive a heavier bullet as fast as a .30-06 can drive a lighter bullet.

The problem, as Brown saw it was the '06 case doesn't have enough capacity to take all the power the .35 caliber bore can efficiently burn, hence the .35 Brown-Whelen that increases capacity about 11%.

Fire forming is simple -- but must be done outdoors while wearing hearing protection. Charge your cases with Bullseye (start at around 5 grains) and add a quarter-sheet of toilet paper to keep the powder in position. Point in a safe direction and BANG! You can tell by the sound of the shot if you have enough Bullseye. The ejected case will look something like an acetylene cylinder -- fat, straight walls, sharp shoulder and short neck.

I true up newly-formed cases by using them first with cast bullets, then full-length resizing for jacketed bullets.
 
The .338 OKH (.338-06) back in the day had a far better selection of bullets than the .35. It will take any game in North America. It is a niche cartridge, great for moose, great bear, elk, bison.
In the 60s a working guy could buy a 03-A3 for $50 have it bored out for $100 and have a legit Alaskan rifle for $400 ( a months wages) less than a H&H or Weatherby.
 
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.

I kinda get a kick out of this sort of thought process.

For some SD matters most, while frontal diameter doesn't, but to my mind both count to some extent along with bullet construction. A high BC also matters to a lot of guys, but yet most animals are shot within distance where the delta in BC doesn't matter one bit.

Personally I don't sweat SD and depend on my bullets construction to get the job done. IMHO, since the advent of monolithic and bonded bullets a lot of the old "rules" are somewhat dated. Even some cup and core hunting bullets, Bergers for instance, are designed to penetrate a few inches and fragment, they don't even list their SDs because it really doesn't relate to how their bullets perform.

This year the last 2 animals I killed (large doe and a 140lb pig, the 3rd was a mulie with a .270Win) with my .350RM using possibly the worst bullet "SD wise", Hornady 200grn Interlock (SD .223). In both cases the animals were penetrated fully (wasted SD??). The doe was almost lengthwise quartering towards me, and the sow a neck shot that went though a vertebrae. They both reacted as animals often do.. the doe jumped, ran 20yds and fell over, the hog bang-flopped. The wounds in both were substantial, one benefit to starting with .358" and expanding to plus + .70ish.

It's been the same with every animal I've shot with the .350RM, little hole in, large hole coming out. It's overkill on deer (so's the 35W, .338-06 and a host of other cartridges), but comforting for those areas/times when I really want close to a DRT without punching shoulders. I use it for drives when shots won't be perfect as the tgt presentation "is what it is".
 
I have taken some pretty large animals with the .35 Whelen. Black bear, moose, eland, oryx, kudu and with the exception of the oryx, all were one shot kills. The oryx took 3 shots but that was due to poor placement by me on the first shot. The Whelen killed two large red hartebeest with one shot as there was an unseen animal standing behind the target animal. 250 grain Nosler Partition at 2550 fps.
 
I'm still working slowly toward this build. I have one other project to finish before this one takes priority. I've settled on the Whelen rather than the 338-06, primarily because I just want the Whelen. I'm still somewhat debating AI vs. SAAMI, but that's not my current question. Right now, I'm wrestling with two barrel related questions: (1) what contour should I order, and (2) in what twist rate?

Barrel Contour
My target weight for this rifle, scoped up, is 9 - 9 1/2 pounds (I think). It's probably going to end up in a wood or wood laminate stock, though I go back and forth on that still. I'm probalby going to put something like a Leupold VX5HD 2-10x42 on it for glass. I'm not planning to put a brake on it. I've read somewhere on the interwebs that a Remington 700 long action BDL weighs 2 pounds 7 ounces. I'm guestimating the stock at 2 pounds 13 ounces (per Boyd's website, but I'm not sure if a walnut stock will be quite that heavy). Call it 22 ounces for the scope and rings. By my math, we're up to 6 pounds 10 ounces or so before the barrel goes on. Thus, 3 pound barrel would put me right at or a little over 9 1/2 pounds.

I might elect to go a different route for the stock to potentially save a little weight, and I'm not necessarily married to a 9 1/2 pound upper end (though pretty close). Getting the barrel contour right is more important to me than pencilling out the weight based on the parameters above right now, but I included them for reference. I want the gun to balance well and shoot well. I don't have experience with anything other than factory rifles and factory barrels (except for AR barrels), so a lot of this is foreign to me.

While there's lots of information on the internet, there's also lots of different information and everyone has their own contours and it seems everyone lists different weights for apparently similar contours. Using these brands as examples for their contours only, I think I'm looking at something along the lines of a Krieger 2 or 3; Shaw 1 1/2 or 2 1/2; or Pac-Nor 2 or 3. Or maybe just a Remington magnum sporter contour. I'm thinking a 22" barrel makes sense, but am not firmly set on that either.

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to going with one of the barrel companies' numbered contours rather than ordering a barrel that mimicks the factory Remington magnum sporter contour? For example, will a Shaw #1 1/2 or #2 1/2 contour handle heat better or balance better or do anything better than a Remington magnum sporter contour? Here's the Shaw contour chart. The numbered sporter contours generally have a longer shank than a Remington sporter contour but then finish at the muzzle with a smaller diameter than the Remington, and weigh more. I'm assuming there's a reason for this, but I don't know what it is.

In any event, what barrel contour (and length) would you recommend?

Twist Rate
I've also read on the internet that a 1:12, 1:14, or 1:16 all work fine in the Whelen. My "be safe" mentality points me to the 1:14 just because it's in the middle. I'm probably going to shoot 225-250 grain bullets the most, but I do want the option to go heavier or lighter should the opportunity or itch arise. Can a 1:16 stabilize the 250 grain lead core bullets or the 225 TSX? I believe Remington chambered it's 700s in 1:16, so I'd think it would work, but it seems so slow to me. Is the 1:12 advantageous for anything the Whelen can shoot, or is just faster than needed?

Your experience and assistance are appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
I think I answered almost all the questions from your latest post in Post #16. But some more thoughts-

As to the twist, I wouldn't go as slow a 1-16", and 1-14" would probably be fine, but as you can see in my other post, I got some pretty amazing accuracy from the 1-12" twist.

If I had it to do over again I would definitely go with the A.I. The performance gain is negligible, but the more defined shoulder is an advantage over the tiny shoulder of the standard Whelen.

Although my VZ24 action is buttery smooth, I would also probably go with a Remington 700 action instead due to the slightly longer magazine.

I don't recall the contour of my Douglas barrel, but if you want to know I can sure take some measurements and figure it out and can weigh my rifle as well.

As I mentioned before, I built my rifle specifically for hunting elk and to be as simple, tough and practical as possible. I chose a synthetic stock because they're tough (I've had rifles bucked out of saddle scabbards twice) and because they're typically lighter than wood stocks.

Elk are really large animals and don't require high magnification scopes. I know they're no longer "kewl", but low powered scopes such as the 4x Burris I chose worked perfectly every time, even on a running shot at a bull at about 75 yds., but also wasn't lacking on a shot at a bit over 350 yds. Also fixed power scopes can usually be mounted lower which is important on the heavier recoiling rifles. My Pops liked variables and used either a 1-4.5X or a 2-7X.

Can't think of anything else, but here's a couple of pics of my rigs, butt-ugly as it is-

8UbsyMhl.jpg
yNbgACgl.jpg
BmEW3lrl.jpg


35W
 
I think you would be unhappy with a #3 barrel because they make a really heavy hunting rifle. If you look at the chart on your post #88 a 1 1/2 contour is .600 at the muzzle and with a scope that relates to a 8 3/4 pound rifle which is like a #2 barrel from other barrel makers. I wouldn't want a hunting rifle heavier than 8 3/4 pounds. You could shave a little weight off of that with a 22 inch barrel and the 35 caliber bore will also help. I would go with the 1 1/2 or 2 barrel contour because of the weight. My 338-06 rifles have 22 inch featherweight barrels and weigh about 8 1/3 pounds with scope and sling and they work great for hunting. You could ask 35 Whelen to measure the diameter of his muzzle and the weight of his rifle. If you're buying a new barrel right now you better get ready for the sticker shock. I just bought a Bartlein featherweight #1 barrel and getting it built, installed on the action, shipping and blued by my gunsmith will total about $900 dollars.
 
Last edited:
Talk with your smith reference the profile and what you're trying to accomplish weight-wise and barrel length. Getting the profile down is required for ordering the stock, especially for the long wait companies, although you can usually make changes until it hits production.

The build I completed last year was a 300WM, Bartlein 2B profile 24" length, with a 3/4" exposed shank on a customized Rem 700 action (trued, M16 extractor, fluted and skeletonized bolt and milled bolt stop). I had it bedded in a Manners EH3 stock (28 ounces) and the weight "all up" loaded with a Leupold VX6HD 3-18X56 is just over 8lbs. I missed my weight goal by about 4 ounces because I went with a slightly larger/heavier scope. You'll shave a little more weight due to the .35" hole.

It seems that every barrel manufacturer has their own numbering system for barrel dimensions. The Bartlein 2B is very similar to the Rem Magnum profile in weight and dimensions. It has a longer shank, but tapers down to a smaller muzzle. It really is a good compromised between portability and shootability. The shank is what you want to make with it.. your smith can easily cut it down.

I won't do another hunting rifle with a wood stock, really, really prefer synthetics due to weight savings, stability and durability.

Previous build was a 20" 2B with a 1 1/4" shank (The Manners guys call that portion "cylinder"). The longer shank was required to get it to balance with the shorter tube, so that's where the longer shank does come in handy. A barrel with a long shank and finished length of 26" can easily become a shorter tube with a shorter shank to achieve the balance and weight you want.

PacNor has a calculator that can help:

 
Well this isn’t a detailed response as some here have written great opinions. But, Years ago I had a Winchester Featherweight in a lowly 270 rebored to 35 Whelen. Simple less expensive project. I also have a 336-06 AI that I love.
For a rebore you might call JES in Oregon he does great fast work for under $300.
My main rifle is a Winchester Featherweight 30-06 which does about anything I want here in Alaska, but, I have options.
 
Well this isn’t a detailed response as some here have written great opinions. But, Years ago I had a Winchester Featherweight in a lowly 270 rebored to 35 Whelen. Simple less expensive project. I also have a 336-06 AI that I love.
For a rebore you might call JES in Oregon he does great fast work for under $300.
My main rifle is a Winchester Featherweight 30-06 which does about anything I want here in Alaska, but, I have options.
One of my 338-06 rifles was a rebore done by JES in Oregon and I am very satisfied with his work. You have to talk to him on the phone because I don't think he does eMail or even text messages. You still have to pay a gunsmith to remove the barrel from the action and then install it after the work is done.
 
JES did a 1894 30-30 out to a 38-55 in 2 weeks and I sent the complete rifle to him and he did the job for right at $300. Didn’t have to involve another gunsmith.
 
Well this isn’t a detailed response as some here have written great opinions. But, Years ago I had a Winchester Featherweight in a lowly 270 rebored to 35 Whelen. Simple less expensive project. I also have a 336-06 AI that I love.
For a rebore you might call JES in Oregon he does great fast work for under $300.
My main rifle is a Winchester Featherweight 30-06 which does about anything I want here in Alaska, but, I have options.

Just be advised, I had a Rem 7600 re-bored by Jess in NOV and the price is now $450. Still a quick turn, excellent work, but his price has gone up to just about be a new barrel.
 
I don't recall the contour of my Douglas barrel, but if you want to know I can sure take some measurements and figure it out and can weigh my rifle as well.

35W

If you don't mind, I would appreciate you measuring the muzzle of your Douglas and weighing the rifle when you get a chance. Also, do you know/remember what specific stock you have? I've reread your posts again (thanks again for all the detail!), and if you've already told me I missed it.

I appreciate everyone's continued feedback and opinions. Y'all have got me looking at synthetic stocks again . . .
 
I played around with the Pac-Nor calculator a bit. Here's a table of what I came up with comparing various manufacturers' contours using that calculator.

1705605970727.png

In general, it looks like going from a 24" barrel to a 22" barrel saves one about 2-3 ounces, and there appears to be about 2.5 - 4.5 ounce difference as you move between contours of the same manufacturer. At least looking at these few that I compared. I'm not treating any of this as gospel, but since I did this and found it interesting I thought I'd share it. I had to make some assumptions for a few dimensions on the Douglas (total neck length) and McGowen (neck diameter) contours in order to put them into the calculator, so these are still definitely in the realm of guestimates.

Additional notes: Shilen does not have a .600" muzzle contour; their #2 has a .575" muzzle and Shilen says it's only for .338" or smaller. As a result, I used contours 3 and 4 from Shilen even though Shilen's #4 doesn't really fit in with the others I selected here. With respect to the Remington contours, everyone who lists Remington replacement contours lists different dimensions for them. So ultimately I just had to pick someone's dimensions and go with that, and I picked Bartlein. Most companies list similar dimensions for the Remington contours, but there can be some pretty distinct differences in the shank length and neck length used by various companies.
 
The PacNor calculator is pretty cool I used it for both of my latest builds and it came out pretty close. Another factor is that you could look at fluting, looks cool and will shave a little weight.. not as much as dropping a contour.

You'll also potentially lose some muzzle diameter when you shave some shank. My 2B went from an expected .6300 to a .6120 by cutting the shank down.

Like I said earlier, the various manufacturer's contours, don't really coincide.. close, but not exact.
 
If you don't mind, I would appreciate you measuring the muzzle of your Douglas and weighing the rifle when you get a chance. Also, do you know/remember what specific stock you have? I've reread your posts again (thanks again for all the detail!), and if you've already told me I missed it.

I appreciate everyone's continued feedback and opinions. Y'all have got me looking at synthetic stocks again . . .

OK, here's the rifle on a scale with a good view of the rifle-

IaUzVJBl.jpg
cVcEYAbl.jpg
zwgzhULl.jpg


I was surprised by the actual weight. It felt heavier at almost 11,000'!

I didn't get a good picture of the measurement of the muzzle. When I fitted the front sightI left it flush which made it difficult to measure the muzzle diameter. But, I'd bet the farm that it's a Douglas No.2 Standard Sporter.

kXop0npl.jpg


I couldn't find a brand anywhere on the stock. Here's shot of the buttpad, maybe someone here will recognize the emblem-

JP4FcoVl.jpg


Hope this helps.

35W
 
Back
Top