Yep in a heart beat.
In fact if the rifle was built as you describe there is no contest regardless of chamberings. A Custom rifle on a commercial FN action is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than a Remington 700.
Now as to chamberings, the 35 Wheelan of course has a largfer diameter bullet and to my mind therefore delivers greater initial shock and also leaves a larger permanant would channel. It's a more effiecient cartridge than the .300 Win Mag having a better expansion ratio just like the 8x57 has a better expansion ration than the 30-06. I don't actually have a .35 Wheelan as I already have a 9.3x57mm which although has a slightly lower velocites still has plenty of velocity and power for anything I require.
I’m not going to argue about an FN custom (which I would love to have) versus a Remington factory rifle except to say the devil is in the details. In general I agree a FN would be nicer but its up to the individual rifles in the end. A nice looking custom that shoots for crap isn’t worth anything to me. Neither is a new factory rifle that shoots the same. But I’ll take a factory job that shoots over a custom that doesn’t. We don’t know how either of the two rifles in question shoot.
As to the chamberings…
1. Yes, the .35 Whelen has a larger diameter bullet. A 250g is also heavier than a .300 win can shoot. No argument there.
2. I’m not sure what you mean when you say the .35 has a “better expansion ratio” than a .300. If we assume a 2x expansion for both the ratio is the same, but the .35 will have a larger diameter and more frontal area. Are you suggesting the .35 will expand 2.5x (or whatever) and the .300 will do something less than that? If so, what are you basing your argument on? Doesn’t bullet construction and impact velocity play a big role here or are you contending it’s simply a matter of starting diameter?
3. As to delivering “greater initial shock”, that shock is a function of retained energy and how that energy is transferred to the animal. One incontrovertible truth is that a bullet cannot transfer more energy than it starts with. Here’s some energy figures for Remington .35 Whelen loads and Federal .300 Win Mag loads:
Bullet FPE@Muzzle FPE@100 FPE@200 FPE@300 FPE@400
.35 Whelen (REM) 200g PSP 3177 2510 1958 1506 1145
.35 Whelen (REM) 250g PSP 3197 2680 2230 1844 1515
.300 WM (Fed) 180g Partition 3502 3042 2642 2280 1959
.300 WM (Fed) 180g MRX 3502 3108 2752 2429 2136
.300 WM (Fed) 200g Trophy Bonded 3237 2422 2273 1884 1549
There are several points I’d like to make here.
First, there is a better selection of factory ammo for the .300 Win Mag than there is for the .35 Whelen. Remington is the only member of the Big Three (Remington, Federal, Winchester) that even makes ammo for the Whelen.
Second, and therefore not surprising, is the bullet selection for the .300 in factory ammo is much better – Trophy Bonded, Partition, TSX, MRX, Accubond, InterBond, FailSafe, and XP3 are all available for the .300 Win.
Third, the .300 Win Mag with a 200g load is very close to a .35 Whelen 250g load in terms of downrange energy. Given that a bullet cannot transfer more energy than it starts with, the “initial shock” delivered depends on bullet design and weight, impact velocity and the efficiency of the transfer – n other words, how the bullet performs. I think there are too many variables to simply say a .35 will outperform a .300 simply because of the initial diameter or bullet weight. In fact, using the available factory ammo, I’d rather bet my life on the .300 Win Mag and the TSX, MRX, Trophy Bonded, XP3 or Partition over Remington’s .35 Whelen PSP bullets.
Fourth, the .300 Win Mag 180g loads easily exceed the .35 Whelen in terms of initial and downrange energy. Once again bullet design, weight and impact velocity determine how the energy is transferred. At bear charge stopping distances is a .35 Whelen with a 3197fpe/250g PSP load really better than a .300 Win with a 3502fpe/180g MRX or Partition load? Again, using factory ammo, I’d rather bet my life on the .300 Win.
Fifth, handloading the .35 Whelen opens up a new world in terms of bullet selection and makes the .35 Whelen really shine. Even with MRX, TSX, Trophy Bonded, A-Frame or Partition bullets, however, the .35 Whelen starts out at a disadvantage in the area of available energy, both at the muzzle and downrange, when compared to the .300 Win Mag. It seems reasonable to expect the .300 and .35 bullets of similar design to perform in about the same manner, so the question is does the larger starting diameter and additional frontal area of the expanded .35 overcome the disadvantage in energy? And the difference between a .35 and a .300 with a 220g Partition? I think this would be really hard to prove one way or another.
Sixth, if we’re comparing the .35 with PSP bullets to the .300 with PSP bullets, I’d probably prefer the .35 with a 250g PSP for stopping a bear charge. That comparison is rather silly for me, however, as I’d never use PSP or other cup-and-core bullets in my .300. The .35’s starting velocities (2675fps and 2400fps for the 200g and 250g respectively) are much more conducive to good performance with cup-and-core bullets than are .300 Win Mag velocities for 180g and 200g bullets.
Finally, is the .35 Whelen a good choice for big bears and moose? Of course it is. Is the .300 Win Mag a good choice? Ask the many that have fallen to it or the .30-06, which is still reportedly the #1 choice for Alaska’s hunting guides. If Dixie Dude wants to trade, it should be on the basis that he favors the particular .35 Whelen rifle rather than some perceived, perhaps mythical, and certainly no more than marginal advantage in its stopping abilities.
If stopping ability is the only important issue, a .338 or .375 Magnum (including the .375 Ruger) or a properly loaded Marlin in .45-70 Government or 450 Marlin or even .444 Marlin would be my hands-down choice over either the .35 Whelen or .300 Win. If versatility is the issue, I’ll take the .300 Win.
But that's just my choice.
