Is there interest in a 6.5mm 150gr Accubond?

[Formidilosus]

but on a mature bull slightly quartering-to with a 2" scapula to get through?

What animal has a 2” thick scapula?

 

[cal30_sniper]

10 grains, 14% more bullet on the ass end.
As I mentioned elsewhere above, your line of questioning can be as reasonably applied to virtually any single step up in any bullet weight of any cartridge.
To wit: what does the 140gr accomplish that the 130 won't?

These exact questions have already been answered in this thread with exterior ballistics explanation that you blew off as semantics.

When you run the numbers, there isn't a good reason for the 140gr Accubond to exist, other than Fudds keep them selling for Wallop and guys that look purely at BC instead of the other impacts on Ballistics. Among the 6.5mm bullet Accubond family, the ballistically superior Accubond is the 130gr, and the ABLR is the 142gr, with the lowest Form Factor in their respective branches. Ballistically, those bullets will perform the best even at fairly extended range:


To illustrate the point, here's the ballistics for a 130gr AB and 140gr AB from a 6.5 PRC with a max charge of N560 in GRT. The 130gr AB outperforms the 140gr AB ballistically all the way out to 1000yds, despite the better BC of the 140. This is how Form Factors work:

130gr AB:

140gr AB:


I'm sure you could cherry-pick velocities from some random reloading manuals that would show different results, but that's not a direct comparison. Note the above values are for my shooting elevation.

That's numbers and facts. The rebuttal may be some more handwaving and deflecting about the use of semantics or rambling about up-armored elk, but there's the answer to your question in data. Nosler makes the 140gr because it sells, not because it's a better bullet.

 

[cal30_sniper]

I think bonded bullets are a good design, but a lightly constructed bonded bullet that sheds 45% of its weight at a very slow 2400 fps isn’t anything I’m looking for.

Says the guy using unbonded Partitions that exhibit even worse weight retention?

 

[N2TRKYS]

These exact questions have already been answered in this thread with exterior ballistics explanation that you blew off as semantics.

When you run the numbers, there isn't a good reason for the 140gr Accubond to exist, other than Fudds keep them selling for Wallop and guys that look purely at BC instead of the other impacts on Ballistics. Among the 6.5mm bullet Accubond family, the ballistically superior Accubond is the 130gr, and the ABLR is the 142gr, with the lowest Form Factor in their respective branches. Ballistically, those bullets will perform the best even at fairly extended range:
View attachment 885272

To illustrate the point, here's the ballistics for a 130gr AB and 140gr AB from a 6.5 PRC with a max charge of N560 in GRT. The 130gr AB outperforms the 140gr AB ballistically all the way out to 1000yds, despite the better BC of the 140. This is how Form Factors work:

130gr AB:
View attachment 885273
140gr AB:
View attachment 885274

I'm sure you could cherry-pick velocities from some random reloading manuals that would show different results, but that's not a direct comparison. Note the above values are for my shooting elevation.

That's numbers and facts. The rebuttal may be some more handwaving and deflecting about the use of semantics or rambling about up-armored elk, but there's the answer to your question in data. Nosler makes the 140gr because it sells, not because it's a better bullet.

Which one has given you more consistent exits?

 

[cal30_sniper]

RollPin bonding partitions, circa 2025, colorized:

 

[cal30_sniper]

Which one has given you more consistent exits?

Neither. Gamekings were my 6.5mm bullet of choice. I’m planning on switching to 107 TMKs this year. I’ve carried 120 Nosler BTs, but haven’t found anything bigger than a yote to put them in.

The last animal I took with an Accubond was a cow elk. 160gr 7mm Accubond left no exit. Same story with the two 150gr .277 Accubonds I’ve put into mule deer. All shots between 300
and 400yds, none have gone further than 20ft. All three bullets were collected on the offside hide where a bulge in the skin was visible.

 

[chizelhead]

These exact questions have already been answered in this thread with exterior ballistics explanation that you blew off as semantics.

When you run the numbers, there isn't a good reason for the 140gr Accubond to exist, other than Fudds keep them selling for Wallop and guys that look purely at BC instead of the other impacts on Ballistics. Among the 6.5mm bullet Accubond family, the ballistically superior Accubond is the 130gr, and the ABLR is the 142gr, with the lowest Form Factor in their respective branches. Ballistically, those bullets will perform the best even at fairly extended range:
View attachment 885272

To illustrate the point, here's the ballistics for a 130gr AB and 140gr AB from a 6.5 PRC with a max charge of N560 in GRT. The 130gr AB outperforms the 140gr AB ballistically all the way out to 1000yds, despite the better BC of the 140. This is how Form Factors work:

130gr AB:
View attachment 885273
140gr AB:
View attachment 885274

I'm sure you could cherry-pick velocities from some random reloading manuals that would show different results, but that's not a direct comparison. Note the above values are for my shooting elevation.

That's numbers and facts. The rebuttal may be some more handwaving and deflecting about the use of semantics or rambling about up-armored elk, but there's the answer to your question in data. Nosler makes the 140gr because it sells, not because it's a better bullet.

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Can you post the 150 ABLR results? Thanks in advance.

 

[TaylorC]

Where are you finding a 2" thick scapula? I've butchered a lot of animals (wild and domestic) and never seen a scapula that was thicker than 3/4" unless you are counting the tiny scapular ridge in your measurement. Muscles on the scapula are soft and have no way of being bullet proof. The scapula in itself is a soft and brittle bone with little that would prevent penetration from a bullet above terminal velocity.

Jay

[

These exact questions have already been answered in this thread with exterior ballistics explanation that you blew off as semantics.

I'm sure you could cherry-pick velocities from some random reloading manuals that would show different results, but that's not a direct comparison. Note the above values are for my shooting elevation.

That's numbers and facts. The rebuttal may be some more handwaving and deflecting about the use of semantics or rambling about up-armored elk, but there's the answer to your question in data. Nosler makes the 140gr because it sells, not because it's a better bullet.

Gonna need you to point me to what you're referencing in the first part.
As for the ballistics calculations I haven't argued against bullet drops or retained energy or wind drift nor anything else at range. Not sure anyone else has.
However those numbers say very little about terminal performance, and sectional density does matter. As does bullet design after impact.

Not here to convince anyone what bullet to choose, but to find share interest in what I see as a hole in the AB lineup.
If your stance is that no one needs a 150gr AB precisely because no one even needs the 140, I've got you marked down as a "no."

 

[N2TRKYS]

Neither. Gamekings were my 6.5mm bullet of choice. I’m planning on switching to 107 TMKs this year. I’ve carried 120 Nosler BTs, but haven’t found anything bigger than a yote to put them in.

The last animal I took with an Accubond was a cow elk. 160gr 7mm Accubond left no exit. Same story with the two 150gr .277 Accubonds I’ve put into mule deer. All shots between 300
and 400yds, none have gone further than 20ft. All three bullets were collected on the offside hide where a bulge in the skin was visible.

So no experience with them in the 6.5. I judge bullets by whether or not they’re more apt to exit instead of numbers on a chart. I’ve found that that usually doesn’t tell the whole story.
The one elk I shot with my 160 grain AB in my 7 SAUM exited(both shots). Had exits on all three shots in my mule deer with a 140 grain AB from my 7-08. But, it was alot closer than what yours were. Lol

 

[The Guide]

The PRC adds around 300fps to that impact velocity, and would drop to 2700 at 200 yards. On a 10"-thick aoudad it would make little difference, but on a mature bull slightly quartering-to with a 2" scapula to get through? I'm sure it would kill but I'm not sure the AB of same weight wouldn't drive deeper by opening slower.

Gonna need you to point me to what you're referencing in the first part.

You stated there were 2" thick scapula. What animals do you find them on?

Jay

 

[TaperPin]

Says the guy using unbonded Partitions that exhibit even worse weight retention?

Say you don’t understand how Partitions work without saying you don’t understand.

 

[TheViking]

what would a 150 AB do that a 140 AB wont do? if you're looking to shoot these at long range, I'd highly suggest a different bullet. If you're shooting it at close range, I refer to my original question.

 

[cal30_sniper]

Say you don’t understand how Partitions work without saying you don’t understand.

Data doesn't lie. Turns out a bonded bullet retains more weight under controlled test conditions than the vaunted Partition with a front core that's free to depart the moment it gets upset. That must be some darn good glue they're bonding those Noslers with.

Since I'm sure you didn't take the time to read the paper I posted during your tirade last night, here's the relevant graphic. About 15% better weight retention on the Accubond at both ranges relative to the Partition:

 

[cal30_sniper]

So no experience with them in the 6.5. I judge bullets by whether or not they’re more apt to exit instead of numbers on a chart. I’ve found that that usually doesn’t tell the whole story.
The one elk I shot with my 160 grain AB in my 7 SAUM exited(both shots). Had exits on all three shots in my mule deer with a 140 grain AB from my 7-08. But, it was alot closer than what yours were. Lol

I know "no experience" is the answer you were probably fishing for, but crunch the numbers and you'll see both those bullets are highly relevant to this discussion.

The 140gr .277 has almost identical SD to the 130gr .264 (.261 vs .266). Ditto on the 160gr 7mm and the 140gr 6.5 (.283 vs .287). Both launched at 3000-3100fps from 24" barrel 270 and 7mm Rem Mag rifles, so about twins to what a 6.5PRC would be expected to send the 130 and 140 at.

 

[cal30_sniper]

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Can you post the 150 ABLR results? Thanks in advance.

150ABLR:


Same premise here. Though slipperier when looking at BC, the slower 150gr doesn't catch up to the faster yet slightly worse BC 142gr ABLR. Another fine example of form factor at work:

 

[chizelhead]

150ABLR:
View attachment 885321

Same premise here. Though slipperier when looking at BC, the slower 150gr doesn't catch up to the faster yet slightly worse BC 142gr ABLR. Another fine example of form factor at work:
View attachment 885322

Thanks!

 

[cal30_sniper]

[

Gonna need you to point me to what you're referencing in the first part.
As for the ballistics calculations I haven't argued against bullet drops or retained energy or wind drift nor anything else at range. Not sure anyone else has.
However those numbers say very little about terminal performance, and sectional density does matter. As does bullet design after impact.

Not here to convince anyone what bullet to choose, but to find share interest in what I see as a hole in the AB lineup.
If your stance is that no one needs a 150gr AB precisely because no one even needs the 140, I've got you marked down as a "no."

You're right, you used the word sentiment, not semantics. Sorry, I got my wires crossed with replying to RollPin.

I think the crux of disagreement here is the claim that you benefit in terminal performance with a heavier than 140gr (or even 130gr) bullet in a 6.5. All of these bonded bullets have dang good weight retention and penetration. An extra 10 or 20 grains on a bullet that's already achieving full-body pass through at extended ranges isn't going to buy you anything more than extra recoil. Add to that the fact that you're starting it slower, and it's probably never catching up, and you're likely decreasing terminal performance with the heavier bullet. A significant amount of the killing work imparted by a high velocity bullet of any construction is done by the secondary wound channel, which decreases as velocity drops off. The heavier bullet may or may not be expanding slightly larger, but primary wound channels aren't what DRT animals unless its a CNS shot.

Back to where I think this originally left the rails, the 150gr ABLR, a bonded bullet, will do everything you're asking for here. It's not clear what a 150gr or 160gr Accubond would add that the 130gr and 140gr don't already have covered. Unless you're pushing faster than the 3400fps maximum advertised expansion velocity listed for the ABLR, you shouldn't run into issues.

Is Nosler even still introducing new Accubond Bullets? Their 2025 catalogue seems to show less options in the Accubond line than 2023 (looks like they dropped 6.8mms). I'd assume any new bullets we'd see would be from the revised Accubond LR line.

 

[TaperPin]

Note: bonded bullets are not "glued" together in any case that I know of. (though some processes are proprietary, so hey, it's not impossible).

What? It’s not in your paper with all the bar charts? *chuckle*

Why do you think companies don’t brag about their special proprietary process except in cryptic pseudo technical terms? Glue doesn’t have the same ring to it does it? The lead core only has 1/6th the tensile strength of the jacket so it’s not rocket science. At one time it was no secret when bonded cores were held in with adhesive, but they are all better at marketing now.

I have been impressed Corbin the bullet swaging supplier for diy guys has flux and supplies to pour molten cores for bonded bullets. They even discus why their molten process is better than adhesives, although their biggest argument against adhesives is they bond to any oxide layer, but fresh drawn and degreased jackets aren’t going to have a lot of corrosion. Where would you think they got the impression some bonded bullets are glued? *chuckle*

http://swage.com/ftp/corebond.pdf

 

[TaperPin]

Since I'm sure you didn't take the time to read the paper I posted during your tirade last night, here's the relevant graphic. About 15% better weight retention on the Accubond at both ranges relative to the Partition:
View attachment 885319

If retained weight is the only important metric for bullet performance we’d all be shooting monos. I like the high retained weight of the Accubond since it creates a nice medium size wound cavity that’s quite uniform, but I haven’t seen that they perform any better than Partitions - I like that the front portion expands rapidly and the remaining 70% penetrates quite well. All the Partition shooters that I’ve chatted with who have switched to Accubonds say they aren’t worse and the extra BC is nice, but none give the impression they are better. My gut feeling is Accubond shooters will repeatedly bang their heads on the wall that Nosler hasn’t upped the weights and BC to match the long range version, but it will eventually happen. I started to switch to Accubonds, but I’m waiting until heavier weights come out. The ABLR is just too soft for most Partition and Accubond shooters to consider switching. In the mean time I enjoy shooting a bullet that was designed in the 1940s while constantly asking all you guys why the current bullets aren’t clearly much better. They should be better after nearly 80 years!

 

[cal30_sniper]

If retained weight is the only important metric for bullet performance we’d all be shooting monos. I like the high retained weight of the Accubond since it creates a nice medium size wound cavity that’s quite uniform, but I haven’t seen that they perform any better than Partitions - I like that the front portion expands rapidly and the remaining 70% penetrates quite well. All the Partition shooters that I’ve chatted with who have switched to Accubonds say they aren’t worse and the extra BC is nice, but none give the impression they are better. My gut feeling is Accubond shooters will repeatedly bang their heads on the wall that Nosler hasn’t upped the weights and BC to match the long range version, but it will eventually happen. I started to switch to Accubonds, but I’m waiting until heavier weights come out. The ABLR is just too soft for most Partition and Accubond shooters to consider switching. In the mean time I enjoy shooting a bullet that was designed in the 1940s while constantly asking all you guys why the current bullets aren’t clearly much better. They should be better after nearly 80 years!

View attachment 885357View attachment 885356

You’re the one that brought up retained weight, no one else.

Also good to note that you’re using manufacturer provided expansion imagery while ridiculing the reference of manufacturer’s (and independent sources) description of how modern bonded bullets are produced and the results from impact testing them.

The corebond literature you referenced is a great example describing molecular diffusion bonding, which is neither glue nor melted cores. If they’re selling 1990s DIY product for the guy at home that’s better than “glue” just imagine what the major manufacturers are doing these days.

One more time, just so we’re clear: bonded bullets aren't cup and core, cup and core bullets aren’t bonded, and neither of them use glue.