For the money, I have always considered Hornady bullets a great value and a quality product.

For example, Mr. Kleinguenther, who founded Kleinguenther Distinctive Firearms, the pre-cursor to KDF, used Hornady bullets in all of his handloads.

I have always felt that they have a good product. The Interbond, seems to be Hornady's answer to Nosler's Accubond, albeit with more practical bullet weights on the part of Hornady.

I have done some searches on the forum and the general impression I get is favorable.

What are your thoughts; do you like them or not?

And, most importantly, do they group well?

Thanks in advance.

Works for me! They shoot 1" five-shot 100-yard groups in my Weatherby Mark V Lightweight Synthetic in 280 Remington Ackley Improved.

They seem to shoot okay for me.

The Interbonds prove as accurate in my guns as the Nosler Accubonds, however, the Accubonds are clearly tougher bullets (so they are theoretically tougher on game). Just section one of each and you will see a huge difference in the jacket thickness towards the base of the Nosler as compared to the Hornady. In my opinion the Interbonds probably won't offer me a whole lot of value over the Hornady Interlock's that I am currently using. And if I need additional toughness I will probably bypass the Accubond as well and go straight to the tried and true Partition. Just my 2 cents. I used to jump on every new bullet as being heaven sent, but am finding in my old age that some of the mainstays (i.e. Partitions, Interlocks, Gamekings, etc.) are truly great bullets and good enough for just about anything.

The early results are that the Hornady and the Nosler bonded bullets are both fine products.

Nosler started the .30 cal production with the bullet I thought should have been first...the 200 grain while Hornady started their production with the 150 and 165 Grain.

In my view the bonded bullet was for big game and deer are not really big game, hense the need for "long for caliber" bullets first.

It'll be interesting to see if Hornady beefs up their jackets as the weights get bigger.

They work really well in my 300 Win Mag. I get groups well under an inch with a few approaching 1/2". The 165 grain bullet performed exactly as advertised when I shot my elk this year. Good expansion and weight retention.

they are all i will ever shoot until 1) when and if a better bullet comes out and 2) maybe if nosler ever starts making them in more common weights that i like to shoot i will give them a try and if they shoot better i will go with nosler, although the interbonds average about .75 in my gun so they are gonna be tough to beat

I have an accubond and an interbond sectioned here in front of me and have had the pictures posted for me here before. The interbond jacket is about as thick as the Accubond but it remains thicker farther up the jacket than the Accubond, if anything the innerbond if they were available in the same weight slug would probably be the stouter bullet. The accubond has a much thinner jacket toward the nose of the bullet. That said the metallurgy composition of the jacket may well differ and the core hardness may differ also but from viewing the cross sections the hornady would appear to be the tougher bullet. I don't know how to post pictures but could send pictures to someone who can.

Hey there Mule S. Better switch the 2 bullets around, to which one is better, Hornady Interbond first, Accubond comes in second,,, Old age has got to you...

Always been a Hornady fan

Guy's I may be old, but I am not BS'ing you. I sectioned both the Interbond and the Accubond, The examples I have show the Nosler being much thicker at the base and about the same thickness towards the nose. I don't know if I have early bullets or what, but I know what I see. I will try and get some pictures posted as well. Anyway, with all that said, I am a big Hornady fan and love there bullets.

Regards,

MS

Well Oscar, 2 against 1 on for the Interbonds on cutting bullets in half.

Accubonds 60 to 70% Retained mass

Interbonds in the 90%'''''''''''''''''''

We have a Winner

The actual base at the bottom is heavier in the accubond but the sides are about the same but the interbond is way thicker toward the nose, at least on the ones I have here. Can i send some one a pic to post of these ones.

4bambam,

Interbonds with 90% retained mass? This is very hard to believe. I bet Hornady wouldn't even agree to this. It usually takes a bullet like the Barnes-X or Fail Safe to produce this kind of retained weight. How did you derive at these numbers?

MS

They group well in my 7RM, but I gave the rest of my box to a fellow hunter with a 7x57R, this cart. probably suits the bullet better.

I shot two small reindeer with them this season and didn�t like the results at all, big wounds but the animals still trotted of the usual 20-30 meters. I found one of the bullets and the expansion was horrific, the "mushroom" must have measured 3/4 inch. I am back with the Nosler PT and I am also checking some loads for vel. and accuracy with the barnes TSX and XLC.

Tron

I think people have to cautious in their characterization of Hornady Interbond bullets. As with many new Hornady bullets the Interbond has gone through a couple iterations. The current production of Hornady Interbonds have a much different jacket than the initial runs. The jacket was changed to prevent undue rapid expansion at high velocity yet adequate expansion at longer ranges. Get a hold of Lonnie Hummel at Hornady and he can give you the history and particulars of the Interbond's development and its current status. By the way, Hornady does claim 90% weight retention. http://www.hornady.com/interbond.html

Retained weight doesn't necessarily equal penetration. I have no experience with the Interbond, but I do with the Scirocco and Accubond. The Scirocco will almost always retain more weight, but it doesn't penetrate as far because it expands to such a large diameter. I've recovered .270 cal Sciroccos from tests that had mushrooms nearly the same diameter as a recovered .338 cal Northfork (which also expands to a larger diameter than the AccuBond but not by as much). Also, when comparing jacket thickness, the alloy must be taken into account. The Scirocco has a thicker jacket than the Accubond and yet it will keep expanding all the way to the base of the bullet when fired at high velocity while the expansion of the Accubond basically stops when it hits the thick jacket about 1/2 way down the bullet no matter how fast you shoot it. The Sciroccos' jacket is soft pure copper and the Accubonds' is a fairly hard guilding metal. I don't know how the hardness of the Interbond jacket would compare.

Oscar, email me the pics and I'll put them up for you.

Thanks Jon, the pics are sent as bitmaps, my scanner downloads to my computer in those and can't seem to get it to shift to j-pegs.
On close inspection the interbond has a number of serrations on the inside of the jacket at the tip to initiate expansion. The polymer tips were lost during the cross sectioning. I agree with you that the metallurgy is very important part of bullet construction and I have no way of testing that, so it remains an unknown factor.

I'm going away for a week or so, so Merry Christmas to everyone. Santa has some steelhead waiting in my favorite creekmouth.

Thanks Oscar. Here it is:



As you can see, two pretty different design philosophies. The IB keeps a nearly constant thickness for the majority of its length. I would assume this means the faster you shoot it, or the harder whatever it hits is the farther back it's going to expand. Nosler was obviously trying to mimic the performance of the Partition with the AB. The very thin jacket in the nose allows quick expansion even with minimal resistance but expansion basically stops when it hits the thick part of the jacket, even at high velocity:



I would guess the jacket on the AB is a bit harder than that of the IB or I don't think it would expand very much even with serrations.

But like I said, I have no experience with the IB, I'm just theorizing about it. Maybe when they finally make them in the same caliber/weight we can get some meaningful side-by-side comparisons.

Mulie,JonA, expecially you Trb-reindeer man=-what bullet was you shooting, and what did you hit to recover this so called 3/4in. bullet?? 3 of you are real jokers, after the Interbond milk jug tests with Grizz, And JJHacks 2nd fun filled trip to africa and discussing the Interbond's success and comparing other bullets to the Interbond. Do we need to bring this all to life again. I to have shot 4 elk-JonA with the scirocco and a 7stw, I know what that bullet does. Plus last Sat-13, killed an elk with the 139gr Interbond with 7stw 3530fps and to compare the Scirocco to the Interbond is a whole different BALL GAME. And I also have an article on the Scirocco and how it did not perform on African plains Game. Not to mention Kudu Bulls and the success with the Interbonds, and not to mention they were only 165 gr bullets with JJHack trip. You sound just like EO, a know it all on bullets that has not even used the Interbond..And also using 2 different Bullets not even the same in weight for comparison. The Interbond will be out in 30 cal. 180 gr-Late Dec-Jan, than next the 338 cal-225gr. And the bigger the bullet in weight, the difference in structure.

trb-reindeer man, is that you're name JonA?? The dash mark was pointed after him [[trb-reindeerman]]not you As you can see Wake up Big Bad JonA . And as far as EO, you said you was the first to correct his mistake, You are so full of s---. I ask JJhack to come back to the forum and Say a few words to EO. And you can see what become of that matter of EO's B.S. After JJhack got in to him twice. And you said you know about the scirocco and accubond--What do you know,, Plain stupidy to say the scirocco [[will almost]] will retain more weight. The scirocco is in the 70% retained weight class also,just like the accubond.

And you stated [[retained weight doesn't necessarily equal penetration]] That is what these polymer-tip bonded bullets are for, CONTROLLED EXPANSION AND DEEP PENERATION ON MEDIUM TO LARGE GAME. Well you put you're foot in you're mouth saying the scirocco will no penetrate very far cause it mushrooms out to fast. And just like you Mulie Shinner, facts are from the makers of the bullets, stating what retained weight they are suppost to have, not me making it up. Maybe you are to S.O.B old to learn new tricks. Maybe you do need a vacation, and Santa might bring you some X- bullets and some Nosler Partions also..

You started not only that sentence, but the same phrase of that sentence with all of our names. You later called the three of us "jokers."

Learn how to write coherently and more people will be "awake" when they read your posts.

4bambam - Reading your posts is painful. You need to go back to school to get more edubication and you also need to get your mouth off of the Whiskey bottle.

Bite Me- BIG Bad JON.A Like I mentioned earlier "Ya Dink" Accubond 60-70%,Scirocco 70% Interbond 90% Shoot what you want, facts are there.

Plain and simple,You're best test's are on animals and nothing else. Just like the Info-JJHack had to say about the Interbonds and also relating to there performance to other bullets. I do not care about you're way of running tests for expansion and penatration. Fact's are there in the bullets them self. And again,I was the first one to say some thing to EO in a e-mail- and then he stated --Well I have stepped on some toes and it really does not matter, or something to that effect. Then I posted a remark after he said that. I ALL SO KNOW LONNIE H, FOR JUST ABOUT 11 MONTH'S NOW, Feb when I got my 600 165gr Interbonds for my 300wby. And he was the first one at Hornady that I got to ask about my not being able to get my other 600 139 gr IBs for my 7stw and wifes 7mag. And after talking with him I knew EO had nothing to do with Hornady or Nosler like he said. Again that is why I ask JJ to help with the Dink. And that he very well did.

Holy crap, could I please click on this thread just once without seeing your posts have changed? Have you not the balls to stick by your original words? You know, if you want to correct an error, add an additional thought or change what you said completely, you can do so with another reply or by marking the changes as edited like a real man as I and many others here do. What you're doing just makes you look like you're trying to be sneaky.

Quote:

---

Like I mentioned earlier "Ya Dink" Accubond 60-70%,Scirocco 70% Interbond 90% Shoot what you want, facts are there.

---

No, the Scirocco averages more like 80%.

Quote:

---

Plain and simple,You're best test's are on animals and nothing else.

---

Yeah. I am best test that owns what? Grammar asside, you see the problem is being able to shoot the same animal in exactly the same spot at exactly the same time with two different bullets. I've never figured out how to do this. How do you do it? You might want to tell all the major bullet manufacturers (including Hornady) how as they test in other mediums just like I do. Testing in a medium may not be exactly like an animal but it does allow you to compare bullets to each other.

Quote:

---

I do not care about you're way of running tests for expansion and penatration.

---

So, you'd rather guess than use the "I am way of running tests?"

Quote:

---

Fact's are there in the bullets them self.

---

Really? You can cut one open (or do you just put it up to your ear?) and it will tell you how it's going to perform?

May I remind you again that I never said anything bad about the IB's? I just pointed out the difference in their construction. I never said anything bad about the Sciroccos either. I have said before I think they're a good bullet in their own right. Just different. They retain weight, expand more but penetrate less. That's not bad (it is even better for some situations) just different. It's all a tradeoff.

I never stated the exact same things applied to the IB's for sure. I just pointed out the differences in the construction. The main point was that greater weight retention doesn't necessarily mean a bullet is tougher or will penetrate farther. My evidence is numerous Sciroccos retaining more weight but penetrating much less than AccuBonds. I've tested the AccuBond in the same weight side-by-side with the Northfork. They penetrated exactly the same (but the Northfork did make a slightly bigger wound channel, especially toward the end of the wound channel).

I never stated I knew if any of that directly applied to the IB. I simply said, weight retention does not necessarily mean penetration.

Have you ever used Nosler Partitions? They'll out-penetrate many bullets that retain more weight.

Wow, we're all doing a lot of guessing right now. My expansion/penetration tests, though limited, told me the IB would be a good bullet for deer sized game. I was concerned about it not opening quick enough to shock a small deer. Opinions expressed on my original post, about too much expansion,(pancaking), were pretty much dispelled by JJHack with his African game tests. It appears that more weight retention DOES equal more penetration! The extra weight/enertia overcomes the larger frontal area.

My original intent was to FINALLY pick one bullet that could be used for anything I might encounter in north America. I think right now that I have! Those 165's shoot VERY well in my 300 WSM.



This group measured .467
With chrongraph reading thus;
AV 3043
Hi 3049
LO 3037
ES 11.6
SD 5.3
One thing that keeps popping up is that Hornady seems to have changed the jacket construction during developement. The posts by EO may have been correct. Others have gotten the interBOND confused with the interLOCK. Cabellas didn't help by calling them the SST interbond either. The drawing on the Hornady site shows the jacket is MUCH thicker than the pic of the sectioned bullet shown on this thread earlier.

Mikea recovered a 150 interbond from a .308 that almost made it full length on a buck whitetail. It was stopped by the rear leg bone,(femur?). Nicely expanded, but still penetrated.

In another year we should all have a better handle on what to expect from the new interbond. By then we should have some new calibers and different weights for the existing ones. There will still be arguments about witch is better, we can't get away from that!

Jon, the point I was so feebly trying to make is that the heavier weight bullets will no longer be needed. Because the IB retains weight so well, it will penetrate the same as a heavier non-bonded bullet would. The reason hunters went with heavy for caliber weight bullets in the past, was because so much weight was lost during penetration, there was less than half left to make an exit hole. Also the lighter bullets being faster might fragment, not penetrating deep enough to cause the needed trauma. One such was the Rem. bronze point, known for blowing up on a rib, never making it into the lungs.

I may experiment with the 150 IB this next summer. It should still go clear through a whitetail from any direction while doing a number on the vitals. I better get through foolin with loads before I burn the barrel out of my 300!

The pics I've seen of the accubond does not show very good adhesion of the lead to the jacket. Yes it does stop mushrooming sooner, but the folded back jacket has almost no lead left on it. Much different than these IB's of mine.


These were at 2967, impacting at 100 yds.,not the load I ended up with at 3043.

I sure can see a lot of difference in the Accurbonds and the interlokts....Jacket thickness in the least important, so maybe some don't know what they see....That thick heavy base of the Accubond is the driving force behind that bullet....give a choice on heavy game I would pick the accubond every time...

I like the Hornady bullets, but I never hunt with them anymore unless its deer then any bullet is fine...but if I want to bust bone and go through a belly full of grass then I want a premium bullet like a Nosler Partition, Northfork Woodleigh, or Swift...

A $1.00 premium bullet is the cheapest insurance I know of not to ruin a good hunt...

I have seen Hornady, Sierras, Speer and Hawk fail more than once over the last decade or two...

I just got a trashing email at home from some idiot that informs me that a thick base means nothing and proved it by asking me which is heavier lead or copper and so forth...and refuting my "driving force statement"

To answer that question, not to him, but to any that might want to broaden thier scope of bullet knowledge...It is well established that a thick base is one way to control bullet integrity, as it will not let lead squeeze out the rear of the bullet and is a foundation for a good bullet..It is a means that has been used for many years and is nothing new and most here are aware of that.

Ray/If I was seeking knowledge, it would not be from you. Drive the lead out the rear of the of the bullet. I'd better have some toilet paper with with me or clean up you're B.S.,If that was even so, the comparison between the cut a way picture of the 2 different bullets, the Accubond and Interbond, than I am sure that Hornady would have the same thickness in the base of there Interbond. Not to mention you can not even compare the right bullet to one another. You mentioned interlock, nice in you're spelling of it. The bullet was Interbond, or are you like some other big game hunter that did not know what he was talking about either. Or do you have 2 names on this forum? Like I mentioned in the E-mail-B.S. but look what you sent back in name calling to me! Same to You. Hornady has been around longer than you, of course you mentioned 1 or 2 decades. May be you are 10 or 20 yrs old as much as you pretend to know about bullets. 34 yrs now using the 139gr Hornady bullet, that was even some time before the Interlock came out. My reloads- 3250fps-7mag and 3530av.fps in a 7stw, have never seen what you have just claimed. Not even a bonded bullet either,the interlock. I have hit just about any thick bone on a elk 19 now, or deer from brisket to spine. Even lenght wise, have recovered some bullets peeled back perfect and some mushroomed about all the way back and some with the lead out of the jacket, but the jacket still had a base to it. You mentioned Belly full of grass, never gut shot and elk yet. I have gut shot a few deer, and seen you're so called N-partition pop elk in the guts and nothing happened. But to lose the animal or trail them to wait for a better shot. My friends thought they were the best thing out there until bad shot were made. The partition drilled right through with out any blood trails on those animal's expecially the elk. In some ways there are good bullet, if you like to blow away both shoulders, if you take shoulder shots. But I would take a Swift Aframe over a partition for Grizz or Browns. Like I mentioned in the E-mail, you had better stay with you're 2700-2800fps bullets that you have posted on so many times on good penetration. And also may be you better stay a way from the Heavy Magnum Stuff That Is Here Now-The Future, Not decades ago.

Big JonA, 3530fps with my 7stw a week ago to day with the 139gr Interbond 320 yds. Hit my elk right behind the shoulder's. Complete pass through shot. Have done that same shot at least 3 times with the 139 gr Hornady at 3250fps with my 7mag with in inches or even an inch. Only one pass through with the 7mag and have the other 2 bullets in my closet. 1 bullet stuck in the hide oppsite entry side, the other in the busted rib bone oppsite the entry side. There was less blood shot with interbond. It hit the rib bone on the entry side and left a hole between 2 rib bones when it exited. One way that you mentioned about how do you test 2 different bullets shooting an animal. That was my test of three Hornady interlocks and one Interbond. When you hunt elk in the same spot every year you are likely to have the same shots at the same distance. Elk have habit's every year in the winter, and where I hunt they are there or on a Posted Unit near by were I can not hunt. I posted that last hunt Dec-13 in the under the Big Game Hunting Section under Interbond and another mercy killing.

4bambam,
Well you finally came out from under your rock didn't you, now you are posting instead of emailing me direct...Well I will tell you something you jerkwater, you got some mental problems and should be visiting a shrink....

You also smell a lot like one of our frequent trolls that visit on ocassion, I suspect your none other than either Mike Boyd or William Tibbe from the way your posts read...and your certainly not worth another minute of my time.

Jerk you're self Ray, Just cause I sent you and E-mail- a picture of a woodleigh bullet, one you said you would use rather than a Hornady that they had built up the side's and top of the jacket that you said was not important. They did nothing with the base the driving force you say that was so important. The change in the bullets jacket was in 2001, not a decade or 2 ago. And you can not handle facts or how you you're self make mistakes on writing things down on you're post's. And what do you mean visit on ocassion, I've been posting here quite frequently. Just cause some goes against you're thinking they are a Troll. Whats that suppost to mean. You are so much like E.O. or so called ED you scare me with you're know it all about bullet B.S. I also E-mailed you a month ago about some thing I disagreed with you on also and in doing so tried to keep it off the forum. Just like eailer I mentioned B.S. In the E-Mail you say F_ _ _ Y_ _ Real nice of you.

Looks like it's time for everybody to put Bam Bam on their "ignore lists." Yeah, Ray's a 20 year old with no experience alright....