Is there interest in a 6.5mm 150gr Accubond?

[TaperPin]

More than just wishing Accubonds came in heavier weights, I’ve been turned off in having to go down in weight from tried and true Partition loads, so much so I’ve just gone back to Partitions. Even in a rifle that will only be used on high country mule deer, walking a ridge at timberline is likely to kick up a deer at short range and the shot might be close or clear across a big bowl. At least for my hunting ABLRs have great ballistics, but seem silly for close shots. Accubonds have been neutered by low weights as much as Partitions have been with a lack of BC.

 

[TaylorC]

More than just wishing Accubonds came in heavier weights, I’ve been turned off in having to go down in weight from tried and true Partition loads, so much so I’ve just gone back to Partitions. Even in a rifle that will only be used on high country mule deer, walking a ridge at timberline is likely to kick up a deer at short range and the shot might be close or clear across a big bowl. At least for my hunting ABLRs have great ballistics, but seem silly for close shots. Accubonds have been neutered by low weights as much as Partitions have been with a lack of BC

If there were a 150gr AB and PT I'd certainly test them both in my rifle. Three loaded of whichever shoots and two ABLR in reserve. Here in Northern CO you can go from timber in the foothills to cross-canyon glassing in an hour's hike.

 

[TaylorC]

Is someone showing the bonded accubond to have a different terminal result than the bonded accubond long range through testing?

From Nosler:
"The standard AccuBond® is designed to be a highly-accurate big game hunting bullet suitable for use on a wide variety of game. The AccuBond® Long Range is designed with the same purpose in mind, but we completely re-designed the AccuBond® Long Range to optimize Ballistic Coefficient and allow the bullet to expand over a much broader range of impact velocities than the original AccuBond®. Where the AccuBond® is designed to reliably expand at a minimum impact velocity of 1800 fps, the AccuBond® Long Range is designed to expand at a minimum impact velocity of 1300 fps. This allows the AccuBond® Long Range bullets to provide effective game-taking performance at ranges beyond which the AccuBond® would no longer reliably expand. It is important to note that the advantages of the AccuBond® Long Range don’t begin to play a role until the range begins to exceed 500 yards or impact velocity drops below 1800fps."

Doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what they're not saying. You don't get reliable expansion at almost 30% lower velocity without making the bullet softer. You don't make it sifter without sacrificing retained weight at higher velocities, and thereby penetration depth. A quartering-to shot at a bull elk still has quite a bit of work left to do once it makes it past the entrance gate.
However, to your question I'm not aware of any bench testing. Would be a useful addition to science if there were. There are few examples with matching weights for a real apples-to-appled comparison. The 7mm 150gr at 2800 and 3000fps impact velocity would be a great test.

 

[cal30_sniper]

From Nosler:
"The standard AccuBond® is designed to be a highly-accurate big game hunting bullet suitable for use on a wide variety of game. The AccuBond® Long Range is designed with the same purpose in mind, but we completely re-designed the AccuBond® Long Range to optimize Ballistic Coefficient and allow the bullet to expand over a much broader range of impact velocities than the original AccuBond®. Where the AccuBond® is designed to reliably expand at a minimum impact velocity of 1800 fps, the AccuBond® Long Range is designed to expand at a minimum impact velocity of 1300 fps. This allows the AccuBond® Long Range bullets to provide effective game-taking performance at ranges beyond which the AccuBond® would no longer reliably expand. It is important to note that the advantages of the AccuBond® Long Range don’t begin to play a role until the range begins to exceed 500 yards or impact velocity drops below 1800fps."

Doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what they're not saying. You don't get reliable expansion at almost 30% lower velocity without making the bullet softer. You don't make it sifter without sacrificing retained weight at higher velocities, and thereby penetration depth. A quartering-to shot at a bull elk still has quite a bit of work left to do once it makes it past the entrance gate.
However, to your question I'm not aware of any bench testing. Would be a useful addition to science if there were. There are few examples with matching weights for a real apples-to-appled comparison. The 7mm 150gr at 2800 and 3000fps impact velocity would be a great test.

What it also doesn't say is that ABLRs have a lower maximum impact velocity than an AB, i.e., an ABLR won't work reliably at higher velocities at close range because it's "softer".

The idea that a bullet blows up and fails to penetrate seems to be what's your whole premise is based on. TaperPin's claim that ABLR's can't be used in the timber in this thread is an example of that line of thinking. While that sounds logical at first glance, it's something a lot of people who claim it to be true have failed to substantiate in other threads on this forum.

I'm still struggling to understand what would be gained by a 160gr Accubond that a 140gr Accubond doesn't already provide. What would the extra 20gr accomplish?

 

[TaperPin]

TaperPin's claim that ABLR's can't be used in the timber in this thread is an example of that line of thinking. While that sounds logical at first glance, it's something a lot of people who claim it to be true have failed to substantiate in other threads on this forum.

My argument is much more simple than even trying to apply logic to a bullet comparison. Bonded bullet performance from the Accubond or normal Partion performance is so well known, and so consistent, there is no reason to look to anything else that “might” work as good or better. It would be trying to solve a performance problem that doesn’t exist. Simply go to the Partion Failure thread and compare that to failure threads of other bullets.



I think it’s great that so many are optimistic that their new favorite bullet is the best thing that has ever slayed a critter. You keep betting on your “new” bullets and I’ll keep betting on the old reliable ones. The biggest misconception is that today’s cup and core fragmenting bullets are anything new. Fragmenting bulllet fandom started with the 22 Savage high power over 100 years ago. It’s nothing new. High BC is new, the bullet performance isn’t. Many of us simply don’t care to hunt with bullets that make a mess out of rather simple situations. Kids we take along on hunts aren’t allowed to use fragmenting bullets because there’s just no reason to throw away an entire quarter, and that happens all the time. We get a laugh out of guys that take the same angled shots we do regularly, and they have buckets of mush to deal with. There are plenty of pics here where guys love it, like a kink. I don’t mean to kink shame anyone.

 

[sndmn11]

From Nosler:
"The standard AccuBond® is designed to be a highly-accurate big game hunting bullet suitable for use on a wide variety of game. The AccuBond® Long Range is designed with the same purpose in mind, but we completely re-designed the AccuBond® Long Range to optimize Ballistic Coefficient and allow the bullet to expand over a much broader range of impact velocities than the original AccuBond®. Where the AccuBond® is designed to reliably expand at a minimum impact velocity of 1800 fps, the AccuBond® Long Range is designed to expand at a minimum impact velocity of 1300 fps. This allows the AccuBond® Long Range bullets to provide effective game-taking performance at ranges beyond which the AccuBond® would no longer reliably expand. It is important to note that the advantages of the AccuBond® Long Range don’t begin to play a role until the range begins to exceed 500 yards or impact velocity drops below 1800fps."

Doesn't take much reading between the lines to see what they're not saying. You don't get reliable expansion at almost 30% lower velocity without making the bullet softer. You don't make it sifter without sacrificing retained weight at higher velocities, and thereby penetration depth. A quartering-to shot at a bull elk still has quite a bit of work left to do once it makes it past the entrance gate.
However, to your question I'm not aware of any bench testing. Would be a useful addition to science if there were. There are few examples with matching weights for a real apples-to-appled comparison. The 7mm 150gr at 2800 and 3000fps impact velocity would be a great test.

So, no? You haven't seen any testing? Did you at least look at the pictures of the test bullets on their site?

The bullet isn't "softer" than the regular version, it is the same materials and jacket/core are bonded the same. The only difference is LR version is elongated due to placing more gilded metal in the base allowing it to have more taper, and a greater hollow space in the tip. The former provides more structure to the base than the regular, and Nosler's white sheet photos show this. The latter allows the lower velocity threshold.

 

[Steve O]

Is someone showing the bonded accubond to have a different terminal result than the bonded accubond long range through testing?

Exactly. The longest shot I’ve taken with my .264 WM is 316 yards and the 142g LRAB have all exited and left sheer devastation in their wake. No idea what one looks like expanded because there are always two holes. I’d not hesitate to crush any elk at any range with it seeing how it works on deer and sheep.

 

[TaylorC]

So, no? You haven't seen any testing? Did you at least look at the pictures of the test bullets on their site?

The bullet isn't "softer" than the regular version, it is the same materials and jacket/core are bonded the same. The only difference is LR version is elongated due to placing more gilded metal in the base allowing it to have more taper, and a greater hollow space in the tip. The former provides more structure to the base than the regular, and Nosler's white sheet photos show this. The latter allows the lower velocity threshold.

I'd ask what you think is useful then about standard ABs. Are they obsolete?

 

[TaylorC]

What it also doesn't say is that ABLRs have a lower maximum impact velocity than an AB, i.e., an ABLR won't work reliably at higher velocities at close range because it's "softer".

The idea that a bullet blows up and fails to penetrate seems to be what's your whole premise is based on. TaperPin's claim that ABLR's can't be used in the timber in this thread is an example of that line of thinking. While that sounds logical at first glance, it's something a lot of people who claim it to be true have failed to substantiate in other threads on this forum.

I'm still struggling to understand what would be gained by a 160gr Accubond that a 140gr Accubond doesn't already provide. What would the extra 20gr accomplish?

To be clear, I'm suggesting a 150gr AB, not 160. But your question can be asked ad infinitum or at least nauseum about nearly every step up or down of virtually any bullet design in any cartridge. Why not just use a 130gr AB?

 

[sndmn11]

I'd ask what you think is useful then about standard ABs. Are they obsolete?

I don't used the ablr, however, my impression is:

1) ogive to tip dimensio/oal. In a factory rifle with common saami spec chambers there is likely instances of not-new cartridges that would have to stuff the bullet very deep to fit a magazine. Then they'd have a long jump, decreased case capacity, etc.
Ex: 7mm 150ablr is 1.400", 7mm 160ab is 1.385", 7mm 150ab is 1.290".
2) Twist rates of factory rifles may not be adequate for the elongated ablr
3) the ogive geometry of the ablr "may" be more finicky than the accubond; according to forum feedback and keeping in mind I've not used the ablr.

 

[cal30_sniper]

To be clear, I'm suggesting a 150gr AB, not 160. But your question can be asked ad infinitum or at least nauseum about nearly every step up or down of virtually any bullet design in any cartridge. Why not just use a 130gr AB?

You should use a 130gr AB if it has the same or better form factor than a 140. That’s exactly the point. Generally speaking, the highest form factor bullet wins in retained velocity and wind drift, which are exactly the two things that matter for external ballistics in a hunting bullet.

The only reason to step up in weight with the same bullet construction is to gain a decrease in form factor (lower is better). If the increase in BC of the heavier bullet isn’t proportionally better than the increase in sectional density, too much velocity is lost to justify the higher BC, and you’ve gained nothing but recoil and more expensive bullets.

You shouldn’t be seeking a heavier bullet to reduce velocity, you should be reducing charge or reducing cartridge.

And to your point of ABLRs making ABs obsolete? The answer is essentially yes, in rifles that shoot them well. Some rifles won’t like ABLRs depending on how the throat and twist rate are set up. For those rifles, there are accubonds.

 

[cal30_sniper]

My argument is much more simple than even trying to apply logic to a bullet comparison. Bonded bullet performance from the Accubond or normal Partion performance is so well known, and so consistent, there is no reason to look to anything else that “might” work as good or better. It would be trying to solve a performance problem that doesn’t exist. Simply go to the Partion Failure thread and compare that to failure threads of other bullets.

View attachment 884877View attachment 884876

I think it’s great that so many are optimistic that their new favorite bullet is the best thing that has ever slayed a critter. You keep betting on your “new” bullets and I’ll keep betting on the old reliable ones. The biggest misconception is that today’s cup and core fragmenting bullets are anything new. Fragmenting bulllet fandom started with the 22 Savage high power over 100 years ago. It’s nothing new. High BC is new, the bullet performance isn’t. Many of us simply don’t care to hunt with bullets that make a mess out of rather simple situations. Kids we take along on hunts aren’t allowed to use fragmenting bullets because there’s just no reason to throw away an entire quarter, and that happens all the time. We get a laugh out of guys that take the same angled shots we do regularly, and they have buckets of mush to deal with. There are plenty of pics here where guys love it, like a kink. I don’t mean to kink shame anyone.

The ABLR isn’t a cup and core bullet.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

The ABLR is a good bullet, I’ve seen them used at ~ 200 yards and they worked just fine. The idea that they won’t perform at closer ranges is ridiculous and something you only hear from people who havnt used them.

 

[sndmn11]

The ABLR is a good bullet, I’ve seen them used at ~ 200 yards and they worked just fine. The idea that they won’t perform at closer ranges is ridiculous and something you only hear from people who havnt used them.

Did you use a same mass AB in the same rifle before switching to the ABLR? I'm curious if it was more difficult to get the ABLR to shoot nicely.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Did you use a same mass AB in the same rifle before switching to the ABLR? I'm curious if it was more difficult to get the ABLR to shoot nicely.

I’ve loaded the ABLR 150g in my 6.5cm and the 190g in my 30-06, I just loaded them to max COAL and about .5g under book max. I saw the 190g drop a large, 60” bull moose at around 190yds and the 150g kill an aoudad at just over 100yds. In both rifles I regularly load the more common AB sizes so 180g in the 30-06 (which I have shot several animals with) and the 130/140g ABs in the creedmoor.

I didn’t have any issues with either, I’d use either of them again without hesitation. The 190 especially in the 30-06, I forget the exact numbers but even moving more slowly at the muzzle than the 180s they would get me some more distance out of my 18” barrel.

 

[TaylorC]

You should use a 130gr AB if it has the same or better form factor than a 140. That’s exactly the point. Generally speaking, the highest form factor bullet wins in retained velocity and wind drift, which are exactly the two things that matter for external ballistics in a hunting bullet.

The only reason to step up in weight with the same bullet construction is to gain a decrease in form factor (lower is better). If the increase in BC of the heavier bullet isn’t proportionally better than the increase in sectional density, too much velocity is lost to justify the higher BC, and you’ve gained nothing but recoil and more expensive bullets.

You shouldn’t be seeking a heavier bullet to reduce velocity, you should be reducing charge or reducing cartridge.

And to your point of ABLRs making ABs obsolete? The answer is essentially yes, in rifles that shoot them well. Some rifles won’t like ABLRs depending on how the throat and twist rate are set up. For those rifles, there are accubonds.

You shouldn’t be seeking a heavier bullet to reduce velocity, you should be reducing charge or reducing cartridge.
That is one sentiment. Noted.

 

[cal30_sniper]

You shouldn’t be seeking a heavier bullet to reduce velocity, you should be reducing charge or reducing cartridge.
That is one sentiment. Noted.

Not sentiment, just physics and aerodynamics.

 

[LongWayAround]

I have shot a couple of elk well inside of 100yd with the 142 ablr. The bullets did not "explode" and the animals died quickly.

I have also shot a couple from 100-350 with eld-m. Again, no "explosion" and a quickly dead animal.

A couple of deer with each, none at "long range" no explosion and dead animals in short order.

 

[TaperPin]

The ABLR isn’t a cup and core bullet.

The core is lead and it’s glued to the outer copper jacket. Whatever you call it is semantics.

 

[rabbithuntr]

I believe woodleigh make a 160 gr spire point which is bonded but might be hard to find. PPU makes a 156, it’s similar to an interlock but a little more aerodynamic I believe and dirt cheap. If you are wanting something tougher than an ablr maybe the 140 partition would be worth a try. I’ve seen a number of deer taken with a 6.5 prc using the eldx at ranges inside 100 yards. Penetrating was never an issue, in one instance it blew marble sized chunks of shoulder and rib cage completely through the chest cavity.