Whelen history

[Marlin Junky]

Back in the early days of the .35 Whelen what was the favorite bullet for hunting heavy N. American game? It seems the .33's and .375's have always overshadowed the .35's popularity for hunting game larger than deer and I'm curious about which big game bullets were available for the Whelen fan back in it's heyday. Were the bullets used for the .35 Newton circa 1920 available as components from The Western Cartridge Co.?

MJ

[monadnock#5]

My 1981 NRA Handloading book gives a little info. The text says that the Whelen performs well with bullet weights from 200 to 300 grains, although .35 bullets heavier than 250 grains are no longer widely available. It then goes on to list (3) 200 and (3) 250 grain bullet loads, all J-word.

[NVcurmudgeon]

There was an article in the 1950's by Col. Whelen in the American Rifleman on the .35 Whelen. The rifle was a custom Springfield with Douglas barrel (24", 1:14 twist IIRC.)
I don't have the original article, but here is a partial quote by the Colonel from "Mister Rifleman," a book published in 1961, soon after Col. Whelen's death:

...."The best loads I have found for it, and the ones I would recommend are the 275-grain Hornady bullet with a charge of 61 grains of 4350 powder, giving a muzzle velocity of 2,375 f.p.s., and the 300-grain Barnes soft point bullet with a charge of 60 grains of 4350 powder, givng a muzzle velocity of 2,350 f.ps.....

Both bullets mentioned were RNSP. "4350 powder" means the original Du Pont 4350, the only 4350 available at that time.

Rifles of .33 caliber were few and far between until about 1959 when the .338 Winchester Magnum was introduced. There was the old .33 Winchester in the Model 86 rifle, the .333 Jeffrey, a custom English rifle, and the early post WWII .333 and .334 wildcats which depended on imported English bullets until Speer came out with their .333 275 grain bullet. There just wasn't much easily available between .300 H&H and .375 H&H until Winchester's .338, which doomed the .333 wildcats.

[NVcurmudgeon]

The heyday of the .35 Whelen was in the 1920's and 1930's. The M70 Winchester rifle in .375 H&H made a reasonably priced medium bore rifle available to the American hunter in 1937. Old stuff I have read mentioned loading .35 Remington 200 gr. and .35 Winchester M1895 bullets in the Whelen.

[Dale53]

The only advantage of the .35 Whelen was it could be used in standard length actions and was an easy conversion in the stronger military actions. That would have been a particular advantage right after WW II, with all of the "converting" going on at that time. Now, we have many more choices for that purpose.

I really cannot compare this cartridge, except on paper, to the .375 H&H Magnum. I have a Model 70 .375 H&H and have shot it a LOT with full house loads and a bit with cast bullets (Lyman 375449 GC). It is easy to arrive at both an accurate load with bullets AND boolits. I have shot exactly ONE head of game with the .375 H&H (a adult black bear of no more than average size). The single shot was made at 25 yards. The bear was facing me at an angle. My shot was at the bulge of the shoulder. The bear was dead before it hit the ground. The shot shattered the large joint of the femur putting a fist size hole there with bone shards driven through the lungs and heart. The bullet was recovered under the hide with a picture perfect mushroom after traversing 30" of bone and meat ending up on the outside of the hip (diagonally thru the full length of the body).

I shot the bear from a "blind" that I built on site in the wilderness of Canada (merely a slight screen of brush to break up my outline without limiting my scope of vision. I was asked afterwards what I would do if a bear walked into my blind. I told the feller that I would smile... I really felt that way as I had/have great confidence in my rifle. I also had fired about 1000 rounds in practice with that rifle and full loads the summer before that trip (from bench, offhand, sitting, and rapid fire). That tends to give you great confidence in your equipment.

Dale53

[Marlin Junky]

Rifles of .33 caliber were few and far between until about 1959 when the .338 Winchester Magnum was introduced. There was the old .33 Winchester in the Model 86 rifle, the .333 Jeffrey, a custom English rifle, and the early post WWII .333 and .334 wildcats which depended on imported English bullets until Speer came out with their .333 275 grain bullet. There just wasn't much easily available between .300 H&H and .375 H&H until Winchester's .338, which doomed the .333 wildcats.

NVcurmudgeon,

That's right, the 333 and 334 OKH's weren't developed until the '40's but I'm wondering why Elmer felt the need for the .33's if good bullets and powder existed for the .35 Whelen.

MJ

[NVcurmudgeon]

Marlin Junky, I much admire Elmer Keith, especially when he wrote about revolvers. But the .333 and .334 O.K.H. (O'Neil, KEITH, and Hopkins) wildcat cartridges may have impressed Elmer more than did the .35 Whelen and .35 Griffin and Hoe Magnum, just as I always thought my son, who looked like a clone of me, was the best looking boy around.

[Marlin Junky]

Well, I guess the .33's shot a little flatter and stepped a bit faster if the only .35 fodder around at the time were round noses.

I'm under the impression the .35 Whelen had a good reputation in the game fields during the 20's and 30's but I think back in those days the most successful large game rifles were built around the best bullets available. I seem to recall that Elmer didn't have much use for the 30-06 during this time period but that was more a fault of bullet construction than the cartridge.

MJ

P.S. Was Lyman 3589 designed as a hunting boolit for the .35 Whelen?

[Paul B]

Elmer Keith in his 1936 book BIG GAME RIFLES state that if he was restricted to one gun only for the rest of his life, that he would be perfectly happy with the .35 Whelen. That's high praise, considering the source. later, when he started playing with the OKH series of cartidges, then the Whelen didn't look so good to him. FWIW, I see trhe same ballyhoo between the the .338-06 and the .35 Whelen. The .338-06 is really nothing more than the .333 OKH with a bullet .005" wider.
It's strange, but in his book I just mentioned, the 30-06 was a good cartridge. In his later 1946 book KEITH'S RIFLES FOR LARGE GAME the 30-06 was garbage. Go figure.
I'm trying to figure out just when the Lyman #3589 came out. it is not mentioned in Lyman's first all cast bullet loading manual. In the second manual, they show a picture of the bullet but no detail as to what it was supposed to be used for. Nothing in the third manual. The only data I could find was in the 47th ed. loading manual. Then, in the 48th ed. manual, it's disappeared again. You almost get the impression Lyman would like to forget it even existed.
My best guess is it probably was intended to be a hunting bullet. That's what I'll be using mine, and the David Mos copy of that bullet in my Whelens, once I find a load that satisfies me.
Before I forget, the .333 bullet that Keith used was a 300 gr. round nose IIRC. I also remember that he used that bullet on his 1957 African safari and that it failed miserably even on small antelope due to a bad batch with bum jackets.
Paul B.

[Bass Ackward]

The only advantage of the .35 Whelen was it could be used in standard length actions and was an easy conversion in the stronger military actions. That would have been a particular advantage right after WW II, with all of the "converting" going on at that time. Now, we have many more choices for that purpose.

I really cannot compare this cartridge, except on paper, to the .375 H&H Magnum. Dale53


Dale,

I don't know if you really meant it they you wrote it but there were a TON of reasons the 35 Whelen had advantages over the 375H&H. Action availability was one. Then eventually popularity also offered advantages of familiarity as guys could actually "see" one and not worry about finding ammo. Almost no one reloaded.

Then there was gun weight differences. Remember, guys tended to prefer heavier guns back then, but a 375 H&H was still considerably heavier. Back then the 375H&H was pretty much the 460 WBY of it's day. And finally, the need simply wasn't there for a "magnum" caliber on this continent.

Remember, these were "one gun men". Their thought patterns and values were much different. They did not compare power levels on paper, but to something else that they "knew". Or in the field using either range or killing power depending on what they "saw" they needed. Quite honestly, most guys never saw a 375H&H and after using a 35 Whelen on game, their opinion was what in the hell would you "need" a 375H&H for anyway? That was an African gun.

American gun men were still disciples of larger bores and big bullets in the 20s and 30s for hunting and the smaller bores were almost a joke. Why the 250 Savage was thought to be a barrel burner. 3000 fps huh!

And while you might want to know what caused the demise of the Whelen, well it was the same for all large(r) bores, unless there was a niche like the 375 H&H had, as a African gun.

The rise of gun magazines and experts was one. Guys started to believe that they could trust what someone else said. Surely a gun guy wouldn't steer us wrong. And the success of smaller bore / higher velocity cartridges as they invented slower powders that made over bores like the 270 actually reach their potential. This allowed gun men of their day to use their guns year round to shoot varmints and such. And since they could only afford one gun .................

Why I can remember my grandad telling me he thought buying a rifle for use two weeks a year was foolish. So multipurpose guns became the rage.

Guys back then thought entirely differently than we do today as to what .... advantages were.

[floodgate]

Paul B:

On the Lyman #3589, it was introduced - without other comment or explanation - in the 1962 Annual Product Catalog #44, and was carried into the period (1969 - 1978) when Lyman was owned by the Leisure Products Group, from 1972 to 1978 as a special-order item. It was dropped when J. Mace Thompson took Lyman "private" again in 1978. The low cherry number xxx9 was taken from a defunct original #3089, a hollow-base 100-gr. short range bullet for the .30-30 that was offered by the original Ideal Mfg. Co. 1896 - 1904. I got my #3599 for use with my custom .358 Norma Magnum, but never used it much.

floodgate

[Paul B]

Floodgate. That's interesting info. Thanks. I'll be playing with my two molds, (3589 and the David Mos) a little later on this year. Right now, I'm trying to get the scratch up to build another rifle in .35 Whelen. This time, with a proper 1 in12" twist.

According to an article in the American Rifleman sometime in the 1970s by Ed Harris, whelen and Howe designed the .35 Whelen to shoot bullets ranging from 250 to 300 grains. The fact that it also shot well with 200 gr. bullets was considered serendipity.

I have 35 each of those 275 gr. Hornady round nose bullets in my possession. I also have the first edition Hornady loading manual which gives data for that bullet. In the introductory comments on the Whelen in that book, they state that the data was for the discontinued 275 gr. bullet which some might still have on hand. As near as I can tell, Hornady has no intentions of bringing that bullet back on the market. I'll bet that in big bear country, those 275 gr. bullets were real thumpers. Hornady shows a max velocity of 2300 FPS with those bullets. I'd be willing to bet that with today's powders, 2400 FPS could easily be attained, if only Hornady would bring that bullet back, even if only on a limited basis.

I have 50 bullets from an NEI mold that a friend sent me that weigh close to 300 grains. I haven't loaded them up yet as I feel they probably will not shoot well even in the 14" twist on my Mauser, and definitely not in the 16" twist of the Remington and Ruger rifles.

I also have the 200 gr. and 250 gr. RCBS molds for .35 Caliber. I'm saving the 200 gr. mold for the .358 Win. and what little shooting I have done with the 250 shows promise.
Paul B.

[Lumpie]

I am new to the block, so look over me if I make any comments that are not fovorable to all. First thing I have to say on the subject is that I doubt very seriously that Col. Whelen Invented this cartrige in the first place. My Father was a P47 thunderbolt pilot in north Africa during Wll. He was shot down and taken prisoner by the Germans, and taken back to Germany. He stayed a prisoner for 18 months. When the war was over, the commander of the German war camp gave him a custom built Oberndorf mauser. This rifle is marked under the stock near the reciever ring 9x63. If you do the math you will find that this is the 35 Whelen. The papers with this rifle say it was made in 1918. Now I don!t know what they shot in it for bullets, but It probably was Jacketed. I own a custom P17 in 35 whelen, and I shoot the same ammunition in both rifles. I use the old Lyman 358318 which is a 250gr. gas check design.The german gun slugs out .3575 , and the P17 custom 3585. I size the bullets .360, and they both will shoot lights out

[Bret4207]

The 35 Whelen, IIRC, was designed by gunsmith James Howe for, and named in honor of, Col Whelen. I'm sure there are a variety of similar cartridges. Keith was one of the guys who popularized the round starting in the 20's. as I recall his favorite bullets were Western Tool and Copper Works 250 and 275 gr desings. His complaint with the '06 was due to bullet contruction more than the cartridge itself. He wasn't alone in his thinking. Read Crossman or any of the other writers of that period and you'll hear of failures in bullet performance. It was commonplace into the 60's at least to make it clear in hunting tomes that 220 gr '06 ammo was NOT intended for deer sized game. So apparetnly failures were a problem.

[NVcurmudgeon]

The naming of the .35 Whelen has been so murky that the truth will never be known for sure. Even during the lifetime of Col. Whelen, who died abut 1960, there were at least two stories. One is the oft repeated version that James V. Howe invented the cartridge and named it for Townsend Whelen. Another is based on a written statement of TW that he had enjoyed developing "these cartridges," the .400 and .45 Whelen. Still another bit of evidence is that Howe worked for Whelen at Springfield Armory.

Remember that we have much more information available than in the 1920's, and more leisure time and money for hobbies. Even sixty years ago when I began to learn about firearms, it was remarkable for most hunters to own more than one centerfire rifle. The sophistification and variety of German ammunition was probably a great revelation to American ordnance experts after the surrender of 1918. There was a lot of "liberation" going on, not least of which was in the small arms area. And remember that nobody on the American side was much interested in giving a lot of credit to the evil Hun. (Having started school in 1942, I was given a legend of a Dutch origin of our family name. It was not until 1980 or so that my father confessed that we were Pennsylvania DEUTSCH.) Certainly the 9X63 is older than the .35 Whelen, just as the 6x57 was about about sixty years before the identical .244 Remington. The .30/06 looks like it was derived from the 8X57 Mauser, the 9X63 looks like it could have been inspired by the .30/06, etc. Piracy goes both ways, and the winners write the history books. Who knows?

[RBak]

As a long time fan of the Whelen, and the fact it took me over 20 years to find, and own a 358009, I am of the opinion the heavier boolits/bullets best describe the Whelen, and are possibly more in line with the original designers thoughts, whoever he was.

BTW, I do like NVC's thoughts on the Whelen, and the other spin off's and similarities.
I somehow prefer the story where James Howe did all the grunt work in it's development/invention and named it for his boss....perhaps in order to gain a few brownies in the form of a promotion, or perhaps it was simply because he admired the Colonel, who just happened to be the OIC of the Springfield Armory where he worked.

Either way, the Whelen is certainly a fine cartridge.

Russ...

[madcaster]

Waa!You guys have me wanting a .375 Whelen again!:(

[Bass Ackward]

Waa!You guys have me wanting a .375 Whelen again!:(


In this area above all else, I say yield to your desires.

I had wanted a Whelen for decades but couldn't justify a cast only gun for hunting in my mind. I was used to being pumped up and then let down with every new idea / gun, so wasting money on a cast launcher wasn't going to happen.

All I can say is that if you enjoy hunting and cast, this is the bore diameter area where it makes everything easy to achieve and effective to longer ranges without punishing recoil to do it. I kick myself for waiting so long to do it. I like the 35 bore because of twist rate advantages, but if you are going for a 12, then you can go anywhere in here and make it work.

If you REALLY want it and you enjoy cast, then do yourself a favor, do what ever it takes to get one in a quality level that you can be satisfied with. Then watch other things become safe queens. :grin: