366 Alaskan and 9.3WSM

[Kabluewy]

Lester,

Among the folk who've AI'd their .35 Whelen, most agree that it really wasn't worth the effort. As far as the numbers you gave, I get 100fps more out of 250 gr bullets from standard Whelen.

As far as being an ideal Alaskan cartridge, I think so. There are a lot of folk out there who disagree with me, though, because it isn't really the cartridge for shooting more than 300 yards and they can't abide not being able to shoot into the next time zone.

RupertBear,
I really like your poem:
"He fears his fate too much or his desserts are small who fears on just one touch to win or lose it all."

Did you write that? It is something to think about. I really like my dessert, literally and metaphorically speaking. I'm not much into gambling. I'm more of a strategist. I believe fear is the antonym of carpe diem.

I had a 35 Whelen AI once, and learned that I don't want to do that again. The feeding problems turned me off, as it did with another AI in 280.

I think the standard 35 Whelen is an excellent Alaskan cartridge. 250 gr .358 bullet at 2300 fps = thump flop. No feeding problems, four in the magazine.

Regards,
KB

 

[RupertBear]

Whelen & attitude

Whelen & attitude

Kabluewy,

The sig line is something that I think I heard more than 30 years ago, and it does about the best job of summing my attitude about hunting and the outdoors.

I really do like the .35 Whelen (and I reckon that I'd like the 9.3x62 and other similar calibers, but I don't have them). It reaches out as far as I care to shoot and it puts a decent hole in the recipient of my affections But, to be totally truthful about it, excepting nothing on this continent, any cartridge with a case capacity greater than the .30-30 and .30-40 from about the .270 on up to the .338 in all their wonderful variations don’t have enough effective difference among them at distances of 200 yards and less for ANY animal to tell. I make that statement with the assumption that if the cartridge propels its bullet at faster than 3000 fps, the shooter is using a ‘premium’ bullet. At 2800 – 3000 fps, the jury is still out on whether a ‘premium’ bullet is needed.

I think there's 3 heretical statements buried in there.

The first is what about calibers larger than .338? I do believe that when you get above .338, you get a bit faster death from critters of caribou and bigger size because of the diameter hole in the animal. There is something to the ‘bigger hole’ argument. Whether that something is really significant most of the time is debatable. If your moose keels over in a minute and a half after being shot with a .28 bullet is that a less righteous kill than one that falls over in 80 seconds because it was holed with something in the .375 range?

The second question hovers around the yardage. At distances over 200 yards, the flatter trajectory and higher maintained velocities of some cartridges (usually, but not always, magnums) give you an advantage over others of equal diameter. The 7x57 versus the 7mmM is a good example of that. If you are a .30 fan, then use the .308 versus the .300 WM and make yourself equally as happy. I pretty much discount this very real effect simply because I get close to my intended prey.

The third question deals with the bears of salt water, be they white or brown. A half-ton of bear is one hell of a lot of bear. There are two aspects to shooting one; can the bullet penetrate that much bear and reach the vital organs with enough poop to do the job, and what happens if it gets angry and wants a piece of the shooter. The initial aspect of penetration is actually covered in my initial statement. Any cartridge meeting my statement’s criteria stands true as written. The other aspect is more an issue of the first question. Any attacking bear is likely to get a piece, if not all, of you if you don’t make a CNS shot. Because the rate as which critters die is directly related to the size hole in it, a .500NE is a better thing to have to whack and attacking bear with than is a .270. If shot placement is bad, then bad things happen.

How's that for attitude?

 

[Kabluewy]

attitude, fear and fate

attitude, fear and fate

Kabluewy,

The sig line is something that I think I heard more than 30 years ago, and it does about the best job of summing my attitude about hunting and the outdoors.

How's that for attitude?

He who fears his fate too much,
his desserts are small.
He who fears on just one touch,
may win or lose it all.
He who respects his fear prevail such,
carpe diem his christen call.

I like your attitude.

I have a court hearing re: petition for long term protective order re: DV to face in about two hours. Your poem is just the right thought to carry with me.

KB

 

[wsj]

Hello all, new member here and dredging up a very old thread on a topic that started an itch for me just this last week.

How'd the 366 Alaskan project come out? How has it performed?

I've got a 9.3x74R (No. 1) and it worked so well that I decided I 'needed' a 9.3x62 for the extra 100 fps and a bolt. But I also have a nice 70 Classic Super Grade 300 Win Mag that I got to thinking I should turn into something else (I've got another 300, also a Classic but stainless that really doesn't need a companion). My original thought was 9.3-338 and was surprised when I started searching around that there weren't several wildcats - just about the only thing tha tturned up was the 366 Alaskan, which of course is the same thing with a much more appropriate name.

So, here's hoping the project and cartridge lived up to expectations and that there are now a few more owners/users out there. BTW This forum seems the be THE place for 9.3 shooting and hunting experience. Thanks. -WSJ

 

[323]

Go over to accurate reloading kb posted results over there.