I have a Shooter's Bible with ballistics tables, but I was looking for real world experience. I have heard from a lot of sources and sites on the internet that bigger heavier bullets moving slower actually kill quicker than small fast bullets.
Much depends on what is being compared – how big is “big”, how small is “small”, how slow is “slower”, how fast is “fast”, the construction of the bullets, the size of the game, bullet placement, and so on..
Slower bullets often do penetrate further than similar bullets travelling faster. For example, the deepest penetrating loads I build are 300-350g hardcast for the Marlin .45-70 moving 1167 and 1097fps respectively. In waterjug tests these loads both out-penetrate 460g hardcast at 1812fps and any other load for any rifle that I’ve tested - by a wide margin. For example, the slow 300-350g loads will penetrate 12 water jugs and keep going versus 9 for the faster 460g hardcast and 7 jugs for a 3100fps 180g MRX from the .300 Win Mag. There is, however, a very significant difference in the damage done to the water jugs. The slow, deeper penetrating 300-350g loads poke .458” holes in the jugs and cause them to leak to death. The faster loads cause most of the jugs to blow up violently and will blow a hole in the supporting 5/16” plywood under the lead jug. (In every case I’ve seen the hole in the plywood matches the base dimensions of the waterjug.)
Based on these tests, I’m once again convinced it is all about balance. Each bullet has an optimum range of velocity where it performs best. Will a slow, heavy bullet kill quicker? If well constructed for the velocity it will probably penetrate deeper but that may or may not be a good thing – deep penetration with poor energy transfer is certainly not what I want. A faster, lighter bullet, properly constructed, may actually cause a quicker death if it is more efficient in transferring energy to the animal. (I’m not arguing that energy is the end-all, be-all panacea, but do want to point out that the damage done to the vitals is positively related to the amount of energy transferred.) In other words, I’ve shot elk, deer and antelope with expanding bullets from a 7mm Rem Mag (160g Grand Slam), .300 Win Mag (bonded 180g North Fork) and .45-70 (bonded 350g North Fork) and have not noticed any difference in the quickness at which death comes. Most of my experience has been with the 7mm Rem Mag and a number of elk have dropped in their tracks – it doesn’t get much quicker than that. The one disappointing experience I had with the 7mm Rem Mag was due to the particular bullet chosen (160g XLC) rather than a shortcoming on the part of the cartridge itself. Surprisingly, neither of the animals (forkhorn mule deer and 6x6 bull elk) I’ve shot with the .45-70 dropped immediately, even though the one bullet I recovered had expanded to over .8” and in both cases hit the heart/lungs.
Again, its about balance. My choice for the .300 is a tough, bonded North Fork bullet. If I was using a standard cup-and-core bullet at the same velocities I would not expect similar performance. If I was using a .243 Win I would not expect the same performance as with a .35 Whelen, regardless of the bullets chosen. As I’ve said in the other thread on these two cartridges, if I can’t get it done with a .300 Win Mag (and say a 200g bonded bullet), a .35 Whelen with a 225-250g bullet wouldn’t give me warm fuzzies either.
I know the .300 Win Mag would be good for longer range shots on mule deer, antelope, maybe caribou and elk. But would the .35 Whelen be better for elk, moose, and even bear at closer ranges? What are the advantages, besides kick, to a non-belted cartridge like the Whelen?
The difference in kick may not be as great as you think. A .35 Whelen loaded to max with a 250g bullet can generate around 29-foot-pounds recoil, depending on the amount of powder used and rifle weight. Assuming a similar weight rifle, a .300 loaded to max with a Barnes 250g RN will generate something less than 32 foot-pounds, again depending on the specific powder charge. Compare that to a .30-30 at around 12-14fpe, a .30-06 at 22-23fpe or my .45-70 hunting loads at 43-48fpe in a Marlin and there really isn’t much difference between the .300 and .35 with such loads. When using lighter weight bullets (180g @ circa 2850fps in both) the recoil is virtually identical at 24-25fpe. The .300 Win, of course, can easily push such a bullet much faster if desired. I push the 180’s in my .300 Win to ~3040fps and find that hitting the steel at 600 yards is no big trick.
Having shot belted cartridges since I picked up my first centerfire rifle in 1982, I haven’t found the belt to be a concern – although I do believe it is a useless anachronism in modern rifles and cartridges. There is a broader selection of bullets and a much broader selection of factory ammo available for the .300 Win Mag. Factory ammo for the .300 win Mag is also more available at stores. The .35 Whelen makes a bigger hole but the advantage over a .300 with proper bullet selection is nothing I’d want to stake my life on – if it has to be put down NOW I’d choose the new .375 Ruger or my .45-70.
I just don't want to spend money on something I might not be happy with and end up selling it. I have a fairly good collection of rifles, just trying to narrow my choices down to 2-3. Thanks, I also want to say I have found a wealth of information on this website.
It sounds to me like you’re looking for an excuse to buy another rifle to play with. Nothing wrong with that and the .35 Whelen is a good cartridge. (I also like the .338-06 a lot and would prefer it for most purposes.) The only way to find out if a Whelen is right for you is to try one.
