While thinking about buying a Remington 700 in .35 Whelen I started pondering the possibility of buying an older Savage 111 chambered in .270 Win and rebarreling with a Shilen match barrel. Good idea? Is there a better donor rifle to start with? Main reason for going with the Shilen is to get a faster twist than the standard Rem 700 offering. Thanks in advance for your input.
Rebarreling Savage 111 to .35 Whelen
- Thread starter 22BR
- Start date
- Status
Just shot my M700 in 35 Whelen at CMP Talladega this weekend
I only shot 225 grain bullets but, still lots of recoil. No joke, I had to quit after a while. I had been shooting 6.5 Swedes and 30-06's for hours, but I left the big boomer till the end. Notice the big recoil pad Remington put on? After about 30 minutes of fun, I had to stop. I could not physically continue testing different bullet and powder combinations. Have to try that sometime else in the future, though I have some loads that are real promising out to 300 yards. The more I shoot the 35 Whelen, the more I am impressed with its potential accuracy and power. I have absolutely no doubt that a 35 caliber 225 grain bullet moving 2650 fps will put a world of hurt on anything on the Northern Continent. And, you can shoot 250's for even more fun! Try to find a barrel contour that gives you a barrel just at or above 3 pounds, to cut the recoil. I do not see any reason why a Savage 110 or 111 long action would not make for a fine 35 Whelen. Just bed the action and free float the barrel.
adcoch1
Member
I am in the beginning stages of this project as we speak. Barrel shopping for my Savage 110. Really looking forward to a "big" rifle again since I sold my 338 a while back.
I think the 35 whelen would be a great choice for a savage long action.
Depending on the donor caliber, expected weight of the rifle, and possible uses, you might also consider the .358 Norma.
I took a hard look at the whelen on my Arisaka build, and the .358 my current Abolt build. I ended up going with different cartridges, but the med/heavy .35S (i also looked at the .358 STA), KEEP popping into my head.
If your looking at a lower cost option for a barrel you may want to consider an ERshaw tube. The savage prefits in carbon run 190ish, and can be had cheaper if ordered thru a shop. Their .35s are 1-14, which should stabilize anything.
Perhaps the one downside to the .35s is that they fall into the same category as the .25s, and untill recently the .277s, in that the original twist rate was rather slow. This means even for the relatively "pointy" bullets BCs are kinda low. Still tho trajectory with any of them should be fairly similar to their .30 cal counterparts tossing hunting bullets 20-30grains lighter.
Depending on the donor caliber, expected weight of the rifle, and possible uses, you might also consider the .358 Norma.
I took a hard look at the whelen on my Arisaka build, and the .358 my current Abolt build. I ended up going with different cartridges, but the med/heavy .35S (i also looked at the .358 STA), KEEP popping into my head.
If your looking at a lower cost option for a barrel you may want to consider an ERshaw tube. The savage prefits in carbon run 190ish, and can be had cheaper if ordered thru a shop. Their .35s are 1-14, which should stabilize anything.
Perhaps the one downside to the .35s is that they fall into the same category as the .25s, and untill recently the .277s, in that the original twist rate was rather slow. This means even for the relatively "pointy" bullets BCs are kinda low. Still tho trajectory with any of them should be fairly similar to their .30 cal counterparts tossing hunting bullets 20-30grains lighter.
I had a Whelen for a while and I'm not a fan. It shoots the same bullet weights as a 300 WM (180-220) to the same speeds for the same recoil. For some reason people forget that you can shoot 200-230 gr bullets in a 30-06 too, and only 100-150 fps slower at the muzzle than the Whelen. But the same bullet weights fired from a 30-06 rifle are faster, and hit harder within about 100-150 yards. When fired from a 300 magnum (with the same recoil) they hit a LOT harder down range. You can kill most anything in NA with a 30-30 at the muzzle. It is beyond about 200 yards where retained energy starts to become important.
Finn Aagard, a noted gun writer and African hunting guide spent a lot of time testing various rifles and calibers for larger African game and wrote several articles about his findings and observations after years of guiding hunters in Africa. He found that shooting the 200 gr and heavier bullets from 30-06 or 300 WM out penetrated and out performed everything in 33 and 35 caliber. This included rounds like 338 WM, 338/06, 35 Whelen, 45-70, and 12 ga slugs. It was only after he moved up to 375 magnum and the larger caliber magnums that he saw any improvement over 30-06. The 300 WM by the way tied 30-06 in penetration. The 300 offered a little more range, but no advantage up close.
The Alaskan Fish and Game Dept. conducted a similar test more recently to determine which rifle to recommend for large bear protection. They came to the same conclusion. Their #1 pick was 375 mag. But #2 was a tie between 30-06 and 300 WM loaded with 200-220 gr bullets. Once again in their tests that caliber/bullet combo out performed everything in 33 and 35 calibers.
Phil Shoemaker, a current Alaskan bear hunting guide says pretty much the same thing. I've read his comments several times saying that a 220 gr 30-06 bullet is a great option for hunters. He usually carries a 458 for back up if things go wrong, but he says he has never noted any difference between anything bigger than 30-06 loaded heavy up to the big bore magnums.
Finn Aagard, a noted gun writer and African hunting guide spent a lot of time testing various rifles and calibers for larger African game and wrote several articles about his findings and observations after years of guiding hunters in Africa. He found that shooting the 200 gr and heavier bullets from 30-06 or 300 WM out penetrated and out performed everything in 33 and 35 caliber. This included rounds like 338 WM, 338/06, 35 Whelen, 45-70, and 12 ga slugs. It was only after he moved up to 375 magnum and the larger caliber magnums that he saw any improvement over 30-06. The 300 WM by the way tied 30-06 in penetration. The 300 offered a little more range, but no advantage up close.
The Alaskan Fish and Game Dept. conducted a similar test more recently to determine which rifle to recommend for large bear protection. They came to the same conclusion. Their #1 pick was 375 mag. But #2 was a tie between 30-06 and 300 WM loaded with 200-220 gr bullets. Once again in their tests that caliber/bullet combo out performed everything in 33 and 35 calibers.
Phil Shoemaker, a current Alaskan bear hunting guide says pretty much the same thing. I've read his comments several times saying that a 220 gr 30-06 bullet is a great option for hunters. He usually carries a 458 for back up if things go wrong, but he says he has never noted any difference between anything bigger than 30-06 loaded heavy up to the big bore magnums.
That's interesting. I would've thought that 280gr A-Frame or 310gr Woodleigh would outperform ~200gr .30-cal bullets of similar sectional density, in spite of the velocity disadvantage. A few years ago the results of a survey researching running distances of moose after the first shot was published, based on fairly extensive collection of data gathered in Scandinavian countries, and the shortest averages were recorded with .45-70 and .458WM. Not quite comparable to African game, but interesting nevertheless.
Hodgdon shows top speeds for 200s in the 06 to be about 2600fps-2700. Hodgdon data selection is small ut most 35 wheelen loads beat that by 50fps, with one hitting 2800. The loads for the 250s run slightly faster than 2500.
I dont disagree on penetration or down range performance tho.
Still if nothing else the .35s are cool, and the extra 20-50grns of bullet weight are appealing to me.
I looked at my Hodgdon loading manual and the 300 Win Mag is operating at 4,000 psia above the 35 Whelen. None of the 35 Whelen loads exceed 50,000 cup, all the 300 Win Mag loads do. Of course with higher pressure, you can push a bullet faster. However the 300 Win Mag sort of peaks out at 220 grain bullets, the 35 Whelen is just getting started. The 220 to 225 grain bullet is a good "mid range" bullet, the cartridge was originally designed with a 250 as the base. Col Whelen wanted a 250 grain bullet at 2500 fps. In days past, it was common to use 275 grain bullets. These bullets are no longer on the market. As Townsend Whelen says in his 1920's American Rifleman article: "As a result we standardized on the load for the 200 grain bullet at 60 grains of Du Pont IMR Powder No 6, giving a muzzle velocity of 2834 fps.......For the 250 grain bullet we standardized on the charge of 62 grains of Dupont IMR No 45 giving a muzzle velocity of 2635 fps. " Obviously the loads back in those days were a bit more stout than what the manuals allow now. I have to believe that a 250 grain bullet moving at 2635 fps would be a very powerful thing indeed, on both ends!
The guys at http Accurate Reloading.com http://forums.accuratereloading.com/groupee are not only very positive about the 35 Whelen, they are also fans of the 9.3 mm cartridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9.3×62mm which use a .366 diameter bullets. Lots of words have flown whether the 35 Whelen is a better game getter than 9.3 X 62 mm. The only real consensus is that a .366 cartridge can take even heavier bullets than a 358 cartridge.
As to whether the 300 Win Mag "hits harder" than a 358 Whelen, that is a topic well fitted for hundreds of psuedo science posts. I also have not seen any calibrated test data showing that one penetrates better than another.
What I can say, is that fitting a 300 Win Mag cartridge to a bolt face already cut for a 270 Winchester is going to be a lot of work. And regardless of the feelings about the superiority of belted magnums, I would not recommend this cartridge conversion on an existing action not already set up for belted magnums.
The 35 Whelen is an excellent cartridge, as Townsend Whelen wrote "While the 35 Whelen is not a world beater in any single respect, yet when it comes to that most to be desired combination of killing power, accuracy, flat trajectory, reliability, there is not another cartridge which can stand up against it for a minute." That was written in the early 1920's, well before the Weatherby magnums, but the cartridge is still an excellent round which is why it is still around.
Thanks to all for your input and comments. I had considered the option of using 250 grain and heavier bullets as an advantage of the .35 caliber vs. the .30. Nostalgia for a classic round and the opportunity to put together a relatively inexpensive rifle with good performance on large game are parts of the equation also.
Driftertank
Member
My research into .35 caliber loadings while planning my build, seemed to incicate that, while there's little in the specs to recommend the caliber, which may be a major contributor to their relative lack of popularity, those who use .35's to hunt find their effect on game to be far better than any of the specs suggest.
The velocities, sectional densities, trajectories, nothing about any of the .35's jumps out as being fantastic. And when one considers the recoil penalty compared to similar .25-30 offerings, they seem pretty lackluster.
But i read a lot of reports of game gotten with .35's, lung shots on deer, shoulder and spine hits on elk and moose, adverse-angle shots on black bear and hogs, they just seem to be dependable killers. And, apart from the hottest magnum versions, they seem to be pretty forgiving about ruining meat.
Mind you, this is all hearsay from me. I haven't had the chance to hunt game with my carbine yet.
But i say, if you're intrigued with a .35 Whelen rifle, do it.
The velocities, sectional densities, trajectories, nothing about any of the .35's jumps out as being fantastic. And when one considers the recoil penalty compared to similar .25-30 offerings, they seem pretty lackluster.
But i read a lot of reports of game gotten with .35's, lung shots on deer, shoulder and spine hits on elk and moose, adverse-angle shots on black bear and hogs, they just seem to be dependable killers. And, apart from the hottest magnum versions, they seem to be pretty forgiving about ruining meat.
Mind you, this is all hearsay from me. I haven't had the chance to hunt game with my carbine yet.
But i say, if you're intrigued with a .35 Whelen rifle, do it.
Oh, Lord. That's an understatement. I was initially hellbent on rebarreling mine to 9.3x62 but after realizing how close they are in practise, it now feels like splitting hairs. Maybe for an African safari later on due to legislative anomalies (.375 minimum for DG, 9.3x62 excepted) and local ammo availability if the airlines [honk] up with luggage again, but otherwise the Whelen is a great substitute.
- Status
