quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
JG, Have you used any other bullets for comparison?

Most definitely, and on the same subjects: whitetail and mule deer, antelope, aoudad sheep, hogs, and elk or two, African plains game (AB's and partitions). Just my experience, others may vary:


7mm Rem Mag and 7mm-08:
Original Barnes X-great weight retention, horrid barrel fouler, sometimes I got no expansion, but very dead animals.

Hornady Interlokt-sheds app 50% of it's weight.

Berger VLDH--much too fragile for shots up to 100 yds IME.

Nosler ballistic tips- original BT's from lat 1980"s were much too fragile. Not exactly sure when, but Nosler toughened them up with thicker jackets and now they perform great on deer, antelope, hogs. The 7mm 150gr and 120 gr are very tough, and you're likely to find the jacket and lead core separate after impact because they are not bonded like the accubond. Very efficient killer.

Nosler partition-the bullet that I predominately used since 1971. Once again, it is designed by Nosler to shed it's front 40%, leaving the lead behind the partition in the jacket to push through and penetrate. 60-65% retention is normal. I consider them the finest hunting bullet ever designed and the standard by which all other hunting bullets are judged, for over 65 years.

Hornady Interbond--I only managed to kill a couple of deer with them and they are very effective. They are so innacurate though in my rifles I quite messing with them.


Barnes TTSX-only killed about 20 hogs with them, and never recovered any. Always an exit.

Yes, that Barns X was nasty.
Interesting info. Thanks, Brian

Here is a good wet newspaper COMPARATIVE test from 24 Hour Campfire. "bobmm" posted it in the "350 Reminton Magnum" thread on Africa Big Game Hunting, here on AR. Please have a look.

You will see that the Swift is at the top and the Nosler accubond and Partition are down near the bottom. This is a compararative test not a live tissue test. Very practical info.

I'm just trying to get good info out there on bullet performance for all the unwashed.
Cheers, Brian

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/...hp/topics/10853251/1

Unwashed?

Funny

I'll keep shooting Accubonds.....but thanks for your concern

Have been since 2008 when I switched from Sierra GK's and Pro Hunters

18 different species of game from small to big and tough

I have no reason to switch.

Sorry but I don't shoot newspaper

As I have stated before I have been shooting Nosler bullets since the mid 1950s. I have never experienced a terminal ballistics failure with a Nosler bullet.

They are not "Super Bullets". However, when driven within their design parameters, they will do what they say they will do! Every time!

Bullet placement is paramount! Bullet design will not save poor marksmanship.

My only regret with Nosler is that they do not make a .423 or .408 caliber bullet!

Brian Canada seems to equate some arbitrary amount of bullet weight loss with the most lethality. Why is 30% weight loss more lethal than 40% weight loss? Particularly since weight loss will vary depending with what it is that a given the bullet strikes.

Less weight loss often means deeper penetration, but deeper penetration doesn't necessarily mean greater lethality (shooting a hole in the air or a tree on the offside of a game animal typically doesn't add to the bullet's lethality ).

Perhaps Brian likes to shoot the tree first, and the animal behind it second. In that case, he is well-advised to use a bullet which "sheds less weight".

Well certainly better than those junk ballistic tips for hunting they are not better than partitions or x-bullets IMO....the only failures that I've seen or heard from friends happen with close highvelocity impacts, like 3000+ fps hits at 20 yards in thickbrush. Had a friend tat hit a 500 lb blac bear 5 times in thick mountain laurel out of a .300 wm...the bullets simply exploded at less than 20 yard shots and another who had to have multiple hits on a whitetail at 50 yards, both said never again !

Congratulations Brian the cannuck. I believe you have given the first less than satisfactory opinion of Accubonds I have ever seen. Personally I would consider any "expanding" bullet that retains over 90% of its weight to be a failure and substandard performance, and that JGR's bullets pictured performed exactly as they were intended to. Grenades kill better than darts.

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Had a friend tat hit a 500 lb blac bear 5 times in thick mountain laurel out of a .300 wm...the bullets simply exploded at less than 20 yard shots and another who had to have multiple hits on a whitetail at 50 yards, both said never again !

There are them bad ass whitetails again shrugging off more than what it takes to kill a Zebra. Perhaps they should be classified as dangerous game.. Scary sh!t..

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
JGRaider, I don't doubt that you are happy with accubond. I repect your opinion/experience.
As I said, I don't think that they are the best choice. That's all.

You have posted pictures of recovered accubond bullets. ( you are better at this posting than I am - I still have not figured out how to do that.)
The bullets you show have about 50%- 65% weight retention. For me, that is bullet failure; substandard performance. The first thing I would do is look for a better bullet. I would not defend the poor performance.
That is my opinion only.

You like Accubonds and you have killed loads of animals with them. Great! You're happy and having a good hunt. That all anyone wants.

I was just speaking to the original posters question. Having used different bullets in Africa and consulted with other experienced hunters, I would offer that Accubonds are not the best choice.
Your photo of recovered bullets is very helpful proof for others. Cheers, Brian

PS. The farmers and biltong hunters in Africa kill loads of wildebeest and zebra very well with 243's. Whatever blows your hair back, right?

I'm very interested in your opinion on how weight loss in a bullet is somehow bullet failure?

My opinion is that you either have very little on game experience and are touting what you have read online or in hunting magazines.
What you are referring to is HYPE put out by bullet manufacturers, not HUNTERS.

A bullet kills by destroying tissue, not weight retention.

The thread near this one,"Love the Barnes 300 gn TSX". show what I like in a bullet including expansion, penetration and weight retention. Please click on the links for photos.

Other good examples are the Swift A Frame and the NorthFork. Weight retention is an important factor. I was simply saying that if a bullet looses up to half of it's weight it's not the best bullet.

This is not esoteric information. It's pretty common knowledge.
It seems that I touched a sore spot with you ladies. I didn't mean to. Brian

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
I was simply saying that if a bullet looses up to half of it's weight it's not the best bullet.

That may be strictly your opinion, and that is fine, but that is when you proved you have no idea what you're talking about. There have been several studies, one by prolific outdoor writer John Barsness, that has documented hundreds upon hundred of kills, with every bullet type imaginable.

He concluded that fragmenting bullets of some sort kill quicker than monos. That's obviously NOT saying monos don't kill, just not as quickly.

OK. Got it. Brian

I have read much about retained weight, jacket separation, terminal performance and etc. That being said...I have taken, to this point, 13 African animals, 4 New Zealand animals, 3 exotics in TX and many CONUS animals with my 300WSM and hand loaded 180 grain Accubonds. Of course shot placement is the key. Taking low percentage shots will not, cannot, is not the answer of course. I have had to pass on good animals due to low percentage opportunities. Yet, I have full confidence in Nosler Accubonds. Now, I still employ Nosler Ballistic tips in my 260AI hand loaded with 120 gr. BT. Shoot straight my friend. MTG

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Congratulations Brian the cannuck. I believe you have given the first less than satisfactory opinion of Accubonds I have ever seen. Personally I would consider any "expanding" bullet that retains over 90% of its weight to be a failure and substandard performance, and that JGR's bullets pictured performed exactly as they were intended to. Grenades kill better than darts.

Well...here's one of those "darts".

I guess it's a failure, since it started out at 160 gr at 3100 fps,from behind and above into the neck of a Wyoming 6x6 and was found under his chin. Lots of destruction to neck and vertebrae along the way but no fragmenting since it weighs 158 gr and is expanded to over .65 caliber.

The elk expired very quickly.

Incidents like this have convinced me that a bullet does not have to fragment to produce quick kills, although I understand the theory.If the retained weight was any sort of impediment to the performance of this bullet I would be curious to know what it is.

Its easier to find bullets that fragment than it is to find bullets that behave like this.

quote:

Originally posted by Eastcoaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Congratulations Brian the cannuck. I believe you have given the first less than satisfactory opinion of Accubonds I have ever seen. Personally I would consider any "expanding" bullet that retains over 90% of its weight to be a failure and substandard performance, and that JGR's bullets pictured performed exactly as they were intended to. Grenades kill better than darts.

Well...here's one of those "darts".

I guess it's a failure, since it started out at 160 gr at 3100 fps,from behind and above into the neck of a Wyoming 6x6 and was found under his chin. Lots of destruction to neck and vertebrae along the way but no fragmenting since it weighs 158 gr and is expanded to over .65 caliber.

The elk expired very quickly.

Incidents like this have convinced me that a bullet does not have to fragment to produce quick kills, although I understand the theory.If the retained weight was any sort of impediment to the performance of this bullet I would be curious to know what it is.

Its easier to find bullets that fragment than it is to find bullets that behave like this.

What kind of bullet is in the picture

Here's some more "failures"...

The two on the right and middle are 140 gr 7mm bullets recovered from animals with starting velocities of 3100-3250 fps. They weigh about 137 gr and have expanded diameters well over .60 caliber.

The animals hit with them were dead so instantly I lost them both in recoil.



The bullet on the left is a 140 gr 7mm Accubond started from a 7 Rem Mag at 3200 fps. and into the shoulder of a large mule deer. The bullet was recovered way back against the off side hide in the last ribs. The bullet still did a good job and weighs 58 gr but did not kill as quickly as the other two bullets,as the buck staggered off a few yards and collapsed from blood loss.

The bullet certainly fragmented and lost plenty of weight.

My own personal view is that the bullet fragment thing is a red herring...the actual killing and major trauma is caused by a rapidly created frontal area while the bullet self destructs. The fragmenting is caused by brittle alloys used in the core and jacket construction. I see little virtue there but they work well enough in most circumstances.

Bullets like the Accubond and Partition are both fragmenting designs with either bonding or mechanical means of arresting expansion. If I were picking an Accubond to use in a magnum cartridge I'd pick the heavier weights in a given caliber. YMMV.

Since Hornady Interbonds are no longer available, I have switched to Nosler Ballistic Tips 2 years back for shooting the gun in and the Accubonds for hunting. Mainly used on Impala, Waterbuck and Kudu and Blue Wilde Bees. All of them were instant kills. Unfortunately all bullets went right through.

You can kill deer sheep, elk and most plains game pretty well with any bullet on the market in cartridges from 243 to 308. It is done all the time.

The seasoned/experienced hunters who hunt tough animals including dangerous game use the "BEST" bullet, not just a "PRETTY GOOD" bullet, if they can. The list of "BEST" bullets is short.

The "Fragmenting Bullet" theory is not new and it has always been controversial. I think it has some merit. (My first big game hunt was for Pronhorn Antelope in southern Alberta, with my dad, in 1958. I had a 30-30 carbine and he had an '06. We used what we are now calling "fragmenting" bullets. We just called them cheap bullets back then.)

A fragmenting bullet that is in the 'BEST' category is the Cutting Edge Raptor bullet. I have never tried it but I will. The folks at B&M kill cape buffalo with it very successfully.


I don't usually get involved in these rhetorical bullet debates unless I am responding to someone's honest inquiry about the performance of some product. That's how I got into this conversation.

You guys who don't agree with me are still going to go out and have great, successful hunts that include humane kills and that's what it's about. Cheers, Brian

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
The thread near this one,"Love the Barnes 300 gn TSX". show what I like in a bullet including expansion, penetration and weight retention. Please click on the links for photos.

Other good examples are the Swift A Frame and the NorthFork. Weight retention is an important factor. I was simply saying that if a bullet looses up to half of it's weight it's not the best bullet.

This is not esoteric information. It's pretty common knowledge.
It seems that I touched a sore spot with you ladies. I didn't mean to. Brian

Resorting to name calling and NOT answering the question prove to me you have killed very few animals.
You still have NOT offered your theory as to how bullet retention kills far better then bullets that lose weight. You also stated that you could somehow SEE from photos that certain bullets had only retained 50-60% of their original weight. WOW! You must be some kind of profit, cause until I ACTUALLY weigh a recovered bullet, I have NO idea how much weight it retained.
In my own experience, Accubonds are one of the better penetrating bullets of a bonded core type. I use them in 25 cal, 26 cal, 27 cal, 30 cal, 338 cal and 375 cal. In every case, they are seldom in the animal. I have shot dozens of Sambar stags and hinds with the 225gr Accubond out of 3 different cartridges, 338-06, 338WM and 338 Edge. I have only recovered ONE bullet from a spiker with a frontal shot with the 338WM. The bullet was found an inch from exiting the rear ham after it had smashed the femur and had bulged skin in front of it.
Absolutely stellar performance in my book.

In fact, I think a bullet has failed if it's still in the animal if the cal is larger than 25. I have recovered the most bullets in 25 cal, but, still no Accubonds.

Cheers.

Ted Thorn,
I would hazard an educated guess that that bullet in your photo is a Woodleigh Weldcore RN or PP.

How did I do?

Cheers.

416: They are Bitterroot Bonded Cores.

Like a Northfork or TBBC in performance but built a bit differently.

"certain bullets had only retained 50-60% of their original weight. WOW! You must be some kind of profit,"

RGRaider posted a picture above, of the AB bullets with the retained weights written beside them.
Also, as I mentioned, the post near this one on TSX bullets is quite helpful too. Each to his own.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
"certain bullets had only retained 50-60% of their original weight. WOW! You must be some kind of profit,"

RGRaider posted a picture above, of the AB bullets with the retained weights written beside them.
Also, as I mentioned, the post near this one on TSX bullets is quite helpful too. Each to his own.

You still haven't offered up your theory as to how weight retention, or lack thereof, results in bullet failure or bullet success.
I have fired hundreds of bullets in cals from 17 to 50 in my bullet boxes.
The number one observation I have seen that determines good to great penetration is how BIG the expansion is and whether the expanded jacket folds over close to the bullet shank or not. For instance, Woodleigh SP or PP retain more weight than equal weight Accubonds in 30, 33 and 37 cal, but, the Accubond out penetrates them due to it's jacket folding over close to the shank, whereas the Woodleigh stays wider, this is known in the bullet industry as the 'parachute effect'. It slows the bullet down.
This observation alone disproves your theory that weight retention is superior.
In fact, my own testing proved that Accubonds and Barnes TSX, penetrated about the same most of the time, although there was evidence that either had a tendency to tumble as they slowed almost to a stop. not in every case, but some circumstances where bone was hit just as the bullet had slowed enough to have it tip.

So Brian, can you please inform the forum on how and what basis you have used to come to this arbitrary conclusion.

Weight retention in some monolithic bullets is near 100%, but I have found them to be so hard that they tend to go right through the buck without causing enough secondary damage. Barnes TSX bullets had given me a mushroom width of .12mm in my .270 which is a 6.8mm bullet. With a Hornady Interbond I recovered from a Kudu the width of the mushroom was 16.8mm - nearly double the bullet diameter and the weight retention was 84%. It was an instant drop. What I am trying to say is that the bonded bullets gives a larger wound channel and the little bullet fragmentation give you an extra kinetic killing power over the monolithic bullets. I had shot many Kudu with Barnes TSX bullets and have never recovered one bullet. They all went right through and the Kudu's ran a minimum of 50 meters thereafter. I like my bonded bullets and I do not belief someone would convince me otherwise.

Many of my over 300 whitetail were taken here in Texas. Not the largest of a 'plains-type' animal unless you count the dozen or so taken in the midwest. Largest I've taken with the AB has been an Axis buck that live-weighed 265 lbs.
Many of those were taken with a 25-06 and 110 AB's.
I've yet to recover one.
Prior to this I ran TTSX's in 100 gr out of both of my 25's. After having 3 or 4 pencil through causing a lost animal in 2 of the cases, I switched.
I tried the ballistic tips but, though accurate, I wasn't confident that they would do what I asked, so, without even shooting anything (other than one 75 lb feral pig) I tried the Partition. I did use them to take my first two elk at the whopping long range of 42 and 50 paces.
Neither rifle liked them with trying 6 or so different loads.
Enter the Accubond 110's. 5 shot groups with 7977 are running .5-.6" at 100 yards. I've used them to whack deer from 40 yards out to just under 600 (Texas hill country whitetail as well as the aforementioned midwest whitetail).
I've shot maybe 75 - 100 whitetails and axis with the 110's and have never recovered one.
This past year I loaded the 90 gr AB in my 243 and shot a 2" group @ 500 yards. I took 3 whitetail this past fall with that 243 from 40 yards to about 150-175 yards. Again, nothing but pass throughs.
I load my 30-06 and 7mm-08 both with ballistic tips but, my 6.5x55 SE and 264 WM both are very accurate with the 142 gr ABLR. I'll be taking those two with me to Colorado this year.
In short, they work and work well if I do my part.
I've only taken one shot that ran the body length of a deer, that one was a sandhills Mule Deer of about 140 lbs field dressed that I shot at approximately 350 yards w/ one of 110's. The bullet entered the right side of the chest, passed completely through to the back hip and exited the right hip leaving a 2" exit. The deer walked about 10' before dropping.
I've tried some of the others, I'll keep using the AB's.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
Has anybody used Accubonds to kill Cape buffalo and water buffalo?

I shot a water buffalo and scrub bull with 180 Accu-Bonds out of .300 RUM at close range. By my reckoning, it would be difficult to stress a bullet much more than that. Both animals died in the approved fashion.

Weight retention and penetration are over rated. Solids max out in both categories and are dismal performers.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
Has anybody used Accubonds to kill Cape buffalo and water buffalo?

I shot a water buffalo and scrub bull with 180 Accu-Bonds out of .300 RUM at close range. By my reckoning, it would be difficult to stress a bullet much more than that. Both animals died in the approved fashion.

Weight retention and penetration are over rated. Solids max out in both categories and are dismal performers.

The reason I asked is that I'll be going back to Africa for Cape buffalo next year, and I'm thinking about using one bullet and on load for everything I hunt - that is, 300 gr Accubonds shot at 2825 fps from my 375 Ackley Improved.

I think they'll work just fine. I find them accurate and flat shooting.

Recent Accubond experience: Just got back from an elk hunt where companion was using a .30 caliber 180 grain Accubond at 2900 fps. He took an elk through the body at 80 yards with a single shot, elk fell virtually in its tracks. The bullet was recovered in a bulge in the offside skin after penetrating the thorax at an angle. Bullet was nicely mushroomed and weighed 126.1 grains, retaining just over 70% of weight (or had just over than 29% weight loss).

This experience seems to corroborate the performance noted two years ago when I used a .30/180 Accubond at 2960 fps MV to take an elk (which happened to be within steps of where my companion took his this year). In that instance the elk was just over 200 yards and did walk in a small circle for five seconds before keeling over dead. The bullet, again recovered in a knot in the offside hide, weighed about 70% of initial weight.

Whether you define this as "good" or "poor" performance, here are the important facts: (1) Bullet accurate enough to hit elk, (2) elk recovered without tracking, (3) elk meat now in freezer.

Recently killed a bull elk in Colorado using a 200gr, .338 accubond bullet in my 338-06ai... MV was 2800fps and impact velocity at 200yd was about 2400fps from the chart. The bull piled up after about 3 steps, bullet was recovered under the skin on the off side and weighed 153gr, a hair over 75% weight retention.

Have shot elk, deer, hogs and red stag with 180gr .338 accubonds in the past and never recovered a bullet ...

Accubonds work great for me...

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackley Improved User:
Has anybody used Accubonds to kill Cape buffalo and water buffalo?

I shot a water buffalo and scrub bull with 180 Accu-Bonds out of .300 RUM at close range. By my reckoning, it would be difficult to stress a bullet much more than that. Both animals died in the approved fashion.

Weight retention and penetration are over rated. Solids max out in both categories and are dismal performers.

The reason I asked is that I'll be going back to Africa for Cape buffalo next year, and I'm thinking about using one bullet and on load for everything I hunt - that is, 300 gr Accubonds shot at 2825 fps from my 375 Ackley Improved.

I think they'll work just fine. I find them accurate and flat shooting.

I'm sure you'll do fine. From everything I've seen with Accubonds I expect them to perform about the same as partitions as far as penetration, wound channel, and visible indicators of the hit.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

quote:

Originally posted by Eastcoaster:

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:
Congratulations Brian the cannuck. I believe you have given the first less than satisfactory opinion of Accubonds I have ever seen. Personally I would consider any "expanding" bullet that retains over 90% of its weight to be a failure and substandard performance, and that JGR's bullets pictured performed exactly as they were intended to. Grenades kill better than darts.

Well...here's one of those "darts".

I guess it's a failure, since it started out at 160 gr at 3100 fps,from behind and above into the neck of a Wyoming 6x6 and was found under his chin. Lots of destruction to neck and vertebrae along the way but no fragmenting since it weighs 158 gr and is expanded to over .65 caliber.

The elk expired very quickly.

Incidents like this have convinced me that a bullet does not have to fragment to produce quick kills, although I understand the theory.If the retained weight was any sort of impediment to the performance of this bullet I would be curious to know what it is.

Its easier to find bullets that fragment than it is to find bullets that behave like this.

What kind of bullet is in the picture

That's not a dart, that's a hammer! I like bonded core bullets, just not a fan of monolithics.

quote:

into the neck of a Wyoming 6x6 and was found under his chin. Lots of destruction to neck and vertebrae along the way

Wow! I had no idea that shooting an animal in the neck vertebrae could result in its instant incapacitation. If that doesn't prove what a great killer any bullet is then nothing will.

Quoting from NRA's American Rifleman from their May, 2004 issue:

"While other bulletmakers tout 90 percent weight retention from their bonded bullets, Nosler took a different approach. Its goal is deeper penetration, even at the sacrifice of weight retention. The problem with bonded bullets that are designed for high weight retention is that they quickly form a large frontal area that impedes penetration. Nosler designed its bullet to have about 60 to 70 percent weight retention. That obviously means that it will lose some weight. That's because it's designed to shed some of the expanded bullet material to keep the frontal area of the Accubond bullet a little smaller than some other bonded bullets. Accubond is designed for early expansion, but rather than tear completely apart as a Ballistic Tip often will, the Accubond's petals are designed to fold back tighter against the bullet shank. This makes a slightly smaller diameter mushroom to allow deeper penetration."

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
Quoting from NRA's American Rifleman from their May, 2004 issue:

"While other bulletmakers tout 90 percent weight retention from their bonded bullets, Nosler took a different approach. Its goal is deeper penetration, even at the sacrifice of weight retention. The problem with bonded bullets that are designed for high weight retention is that they quickly form a large frontal area that impedes penetration. Nosler designed its bullet to have about 60 to 70 percent weight retention. That obviously means that it will lose some weight. That's because it's designed to shed some of the expanded bullet material to keep the frontal area of the Accubond bullet a little smaller than some other bonded bullets. Accubond is designed for early expansion, but rather than tear completely apart as a Ballistic Tip often will, the Accubond's petals are designed to fold back tighter against the bullet shank. This makes a slightly smaller diameter mushroom to allow deeper penetration."

Generalization. The part about the large frontal area being a flawed design and impeding penetration is BS.

I could show you recovered 200 gr AB's from bull elk that mushroomed and did not make it all the way through.

If high weight retention and large frontal area were such handicaps and impediments to penetrate, we would not see designs like AFrames, NF, and TBBC used and trusted on heavy game like Cape Buffalo and brown bear.

....actually none that I can recall.You don't see too many fragmenting designs used and trusted on those animals.

So far, sample size of only one and that was 109 yards on a 120 (est) pound axis doe right behind the shoulder. Complete pass-through. Total destruction inside the chest, .3 or so entrance with about 1" of blood-shot meat and a 1" exit with about 2" of blood-shot meat. DRT. Hope to try it out on a few more including elk.
This with the 142 ABLR at a muzzle of 2794.

quote:

Originally posted by Eastcoaster:

Generalization. The part about the large frontal area being a flawed design and impeding penetration is BS.

So you're saying a 300 gr 375 caliber A-Frame will penetrate as far as a 300 gr 375 caliber solid?


Hmmmmm.......

I've only recovered 2 from several kills

200 gr AB from 30-06 at 2725 MV at 150 yds recovered from hide on far side of Elk, DRT





160 gr AB from 280AI at 3050 fps MV at 100 yds from front of hog to under skin at rear ham





Seems like a perfect combination of weight retention and penetration to me

quote:

Originally posted by woods:

quote:

Originally posted by Eastcoaster:

Generalization. The part about the large frontal area being a flawed design and impeding penetration is BS.

So you're saying a 300 gr 375 caliber A-Frame will penetrate as far as a 300 gr 375 caliber solid?


Hmmmmm.......

I've only recovered 2 from several kills

200 gr AB from 30-06 at 2725 MV at 150 yds recovered from hide on far side of Elk, DRT





160 gr AB from 280AI at 3050 fps MV at 100 yds from front of hog to under skin at rear ham





Seems like a perfect combination of weight retention and penetration to me

If you want to compare non expanding solid bullets to expanding bullets to try and prove your point, have at it. Most hunters are smarter than that.

Those AB's you showed retained some weight, set up enough frontal area that they were stopped. I thought the press release said they were supposed to penetrate further?

I would not call them perfect....retained weight was really not all that great,and neither one will penetrate as deeply, day and day out, as a 160 7mm Partition or a 200 gr 30 cal Partition.

The Bitterroots shown in my posts above penetrated fully as far in animals as the Accubonds you showed,yet had greater retained weight(well over 90%),and probably larger frontal areas as well.

Contrast the 2 140's on the right with the 140 AB that was ground up from 140 to 59 gr. nothing there to write home about.The two BBC's weighed 138-139 gr on recovery.

The 160 7mm started at higher velocity (3100 fps)than your 200 gr AB,and dealt with a full grown bull elk as well; that 160 7mm BBC has more retained weight (159 gr)and as much or more frontal area than your 200 gr 30 caliber AB, and probably penetrated as far, being as how it went almost the full length of the bull's neck and was recovered under his chin. Tell me how th expansion "impeded" penetration? Seems to me it had more than enough penetration.

By any measure an AB is a decent bullet second tier to a NF, Aframe,TTSX, TBBC,Partition or Bitterroot. The AB is a partially bonded (glued) bullet, more like a reinforced Ballistic Tip. It can't hang with the other bullets I listed above.


So Im still wrapping my head around how weight loss and fragmentation enhances penetration yet retained weight and frontal area prevents it? Not to mention the damage that large frontal area does on its passage through the animal.

Forget the solid bullet analogy... that's a parlor trick.

Eastcoaster, most hunters that have experience with premium bullets such as the accubond know that they perform extremely well on game. Maybe not buffalo,etc, but on game up and through zebra sized game they are a fantastic performer.

Retained weight is another of those talking points that is often argued. It is a proven fact that bullets that shed some weight upon impact, and terminally, kill quicker than solids, monos, etc.

Accubonds perform as they are designed, to shed 40%, penetrate, and kill, and they do an exceptional job of it.

Accubonds perform on Buffalo as well as any other bullet on the market..Several of my hunters last year used them and sent pics..

This last week, I recovered three accubonds, two 225 Accubonds from cow elk with the .338 Win and one 100 gr. 257 Wby all from cow elk..they were all perfect mushrooms.

As much of a fan as I am of the partition, the Accubonds are competitive to to that great bullet...The partition will out penetrate the Accubond, but the accubond expands larger and does a bit more damage, or so it seems so far.

If I have a complaint against the Accubonds its bloodshot shoulders and ribs. Its extensive. this of course is the reason it won't penetrate like a partition.

I am hard pressed to choose between Accubonds and partitions, both work the same regardless of the minor differences..