400 Whelen???????????

[seekersoftheredmist]

Ive got a 98 mauser action ive prepped and squared and ive been thinking on what caliber to chamber it in. Ive been reading up on the 400 Whelen. anybody in here had any dealings with this "little" round?

[Nobade]

The main thing is to make sure the reamer and dies are spec'ed properly and it works great. The shoulder needs to be the same size as an Ackley cartridge, or .458". If you make it the same size as a normal 30-06 it will have problems.

Another thing to think about is the caliber. Normally they are made with 405 Winchester barrels, but if you use a 40 caliber BPCR barrel you have a much larger choice of boolit moulds to work with and barrels are a lot cheaper and easier to get.

Just make sure your chamber reamer maker and your die maker are communicating and you'll love it!

-Nobade

[Stephen Cohen]

I have a 375 Improved with 40deg shoulder, the reason its not a 40 is barrels were not available at time. As Nobade said, Reamer and Dies must be in spec. I sent chamber casts and fired shells to have custom dies made, 11mths and 3 returns to finally get the manufacturer to do as I asked and relieve the neck area of sizing die to what I asked. If the dies overwork the neck area you can and will push shoulder back and loose head space. It is very important to get good head space when forming shells, and in my case I have found in beneficial to back sizing die off a tad and leave a small amount of neck in shoulder area unsized, your results may differ but this has worked for me. I look forward to seeing and hearing how your project goes, I think it will be a winner.

[Nobade]

Oh, another thought - if you come up with a good way to make 30-06 cylindrical cases you are ahead in the game. Neck them up with successive expander mandrels, anneal, and fireform in a fixture that allows the case to be blown out straight. Then neck it back down with your full length die that matches your chamber, set for a light crush fit when you close the bolt. Fire with full loads and your cases will last a long time. I have even been known to make a deal that allows you to fire cases in your seating or sizing die to form them. That works well - use a c clip or something else to keep the case from moving forward when it fires.

-Nobade

[W.R.Buchanan]

Here is a link to an excellent article which debunks all of myths about this cartridge.

http://www.z-hat.com/smashing_the_headspace_myth.htm

It seems that Howe and Whelan got it right the first time. Others created the problems.

He also states he started with Cylindrical Cases and necked them down while keeping the .458 shoulder dia. as opposed to the .441 shoulder dia. of formed .30-06 cases.

Apparently the problems came from improperly dimensioned reloading dies which resized your nicely fire formed cases back down to .441 which caused the headspacing problems. Various fixes followed as a result of people not researching the correct case dimensions from the source. If they would have just consulted Whelan or Howe or several others in the know these problems would have never happened and the cartridge would have been more popular.

I find this caliber interesting, and as originally intended a great conversion for a surplus Springfield.

Apparently the first four rifles made were two Springfields and two Mausers.

The guy who wrote this has one of the two original Springfields. And his research was exhaustive to say the least. He even had Whelan's own reloading tools for the caliber loaned to him for a period of time!

There is a picture of the chamber cast of the gun as well.

This article puts together all of the bits and pieces in the above posts, however it is a perfect example of how word of mouth, and lack of understanding can taint something into oblivion. I tend to listen very carefully when people like Whelan and Elmer Keith speak since IME they had forgotten more about the subject of firearms before they passed into history, than most who came later will ever know. Luckily they were all prolific writers and much of what they knew has been published, so all is not lost.

One quote from Keith pretty much says it all,,, "Hell,,, I was there!"

Randy

[mikeym1a]

Here is a link to an excellent article which debunks all of myths about this cartridge.

http://www.z-hat.com/smashing_the_headspace_myth.htm

It seems that Howe and Whelan got it right the first time. Others created the problems.

He also states he started with Cylindrical Cases and necked them down.

I find this caliber interesting, and as originally intended a great conversion for a surplus Springfield.

Apparently the first four rifles made were two Springfields and two Mausers.

The guy who wrote this has one of the two original Springfields. And his research was exhaustive to say the least. He even had Whelan's own reloading tools for the caliber loaned to him for a period of time!

There is a picture of the chamber cast of the gun as well.

This article puts together all of the bits and pieces in the above posts, however it is a perfect example of how word of mouth, and lack of understanding can taint something into oblivion. I tend to listen very carefully when people like Whelan and Elmer Keith speak since IME they had forgotten more about the subject of firearms than most who came later will ever know.

One quote from Keith pretty much says it all,,, "Hell,,, I was there!"

Randy

This is really neat. I came into some receiver castings, and I was wondering what to make with them. I don't want the 'same ol', same ol''. I want something distinctive. I already have a .35 Whelen, so, this might do the trick for one of them. Thanks!!!:bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

[seekersoftheredmist]

fellers yall have helped a bunch! looking for to getting this project going soon!

[lmcollins]

Someplace I read the horror story of trying to get dies to match reamer specs from CH4D. I wonder if since you are going to do a wildcat if you would not be better off to do the 400 Hawk. It is a newer round (almost current via ZHat, and there are no questions about die and reamer specs.

I think Dave Manson has all of the reamer specs, and someone should be able to tell you who made dies for ZHat. Check Huntingtons, and Hornady. I now from talking to the custom die man at Hornady that the still do custom dies, and will make you a hydro expander. If you have a chamber reamer I should think that you should be able to get your smith to make a hydro expander one out of bar stock for use with a mallet and chunk of fire wood in the driveway.

If you read the ZHat site the 375Hawk/Scovill and the 400 Hawk are both to be made out of the same 35 Whelen cases and use the same headspace gages. The internal case capacity of the two rounds should be about the same, and the performance about the same.

"Heaven is right here on earth for those who look and know it."

[seekersoftheredmist]

Who makes decent dies for this that doesnt break the bank? also, what twist barrel were they running ? if i missed this and it was covered already i apologize. i have several big bore critters in the corner but nothing in the .40 cal. ive got to bridge this gap from .358 cal and .458 and id like to do this .400 whelen ( or hawk) instead of a 416 taylor. ( of course later down the line , ill have to have the latter as well! lol)

[Cosmiceyes]

Here is a link to an excellent article which debunks all of myths about this cartridge.

It seems that Howe and Whelan got it right the first time. Others created the problems.

Randy

In Ken Waters"Pet Loads"volume II 2nd page first column.
The more recent publications appear to have followed one another in claiming James V.Howe of the famous gunmaking firm of Griffin & Howe,developed the 35 Whelen and merely named it in honor of Townsend Whelen.Going back thirty to thirty five years we find references asserting that it was a joint development by the two men.One source,whose author should have known better,went so far as to declare that the 35 Whelen was"developed by Griffon & Howe."
But myths are poor substitutes for facts,so let's go all the way back to 1922 and 1923.Now we find that(1)at that time,Colonel Townsend Whelen was the commanding officer of the Frankford Arsenal,and James V.Howe was a toolmaker in the same establishment.(2)the wildcat .400 Whelen came first,and the old but still interesting pages of a 1923 issue of The American Rifleman,Colonel Whelen referred to is as"the first cartridge I designed"and in that same article stated that"Mr.James V.Howe undertook this work of making dies,reamers,chambering tools,and of chambering the rifles,all in accordance with my design."(the emphasis is mine)This pretty well establishes Whelen as the designer,I think,and Howe as the gunsmith.Now lets go over the second development,the.35 Whelen.
In the very next issue of The American Rifleman,Whelen told of his motivations for developing a .35 cartridge on the 30-06 case.While not mentioning Howe by name in this follow up report,he frequently used the pronoun we,evidently in a generous desire to share much of the credit for the new cartridge.Yet in his final paragraph he said"I have had lots of pleasure in developing these two cartridges and the rifles for them."
So I think it's pretty clear that Whelen was the designer of the cartridge and Howe the maker of the rifles.As such,each played a important role,but their roles should be kept separate,the credit properly assigned.So to set the record straight:Colonel Townsend Whelen actually designed the .35 Whelen;it wasn't just named for him.

I brought this up for one reason that your reference to them was Howe first,and Whelen second"AND"misspelled! :)'s

[W.R.Buchanan]

I stand corrected. :holysheep

But your addition to this tale is just reinforces the point of "deviation from the original source" when it comes to anything technical. Or anything else for that matter.

It also confirms from Whelen's original writings,(source) that him and Howe were in fact responsible for the original guns. And thus their efforts were correct, and those who subsequently tried to "fix" this cartridge only succeeded in screwing it up and causing confusion and ultimately a significant and underserved loss of popularity, simply because they didn't understand what they were doing.

My vote goes for them not understanding that the cartridge was a necked down cylindrical case, instead of a 'necked up' .30-06 case. This would easily account for the undersized shoulders and subsequent incorrectly dimensioned loading dies.

I have been pretty adamant about this point for most of my adult life. More BS is propagated as a result of someone thinking he knows what the originator meant than any other single issue. I find that no matter the subject, very few actually know what they are talking about. Seeking the truth has been a lifelong pursuit.

It kind of comes under the heading of "understanding all you know about a certain subject." I personally take offense at people who change things, "so they will work," when they don't understand why those things were made the way they were, in the first place.

Oh they just magically stopped working after so many years of working just fine? DUH ?!

I make a real good living correcting these exact types of mistakes everyday, and believe me,,, Business is good!

I am getting really good at figuring out who the idiots are. Plenty to choose from!

Randy