Dang if I can figure out some of the heated
discussion going on several boards?

Interbond, accubond, grand slam, etc.

Here's what I've gleaned:

1. The accubond is supposed to be a replacement for the old solid base spitzer
according to Nosler. Like many others, I found
the solid base too frangible, thus a slightly
thicker jacket and poly tip would be a great
improvement.

Somehow we now have an arguement over how this
bullet is not a replacement for the partition?
It wasn't supposed to be a replacement for the
partition! Or even similar.

What happened? Of course this bullet would fail
if expected to do partition duty? Duh?

2. The interbond? Still not a partition, but
certainly an improvement over the interlock?
Besides, I like poly tips. They don't batter
up like soft lead in the magazine! And by the
way, I've used interlocks exclusively for decades and have never had bullet failure?

3. The speer grand slam. My hunting partner has used the 145 gr. exclusively in a 280 remington since they arrived. Has never had a bullet failure either.

Now we hear they have become inferior because there is no longer a two metal core? Doesn't
common sense dictate that a single poured core
would be better?

I don't understand when experienced people use
deer bullets in Africa, Alaska and Canada on
very large game and are surprised they fail?

I think there are many useful bullets on the
market. Each have been designed for particular
circumstances and work very, very well within
their design parameters.

I simply don't get all the hub bub? I don't
get debates over 50fps or less either? It seems
to me that if one wants more velocity, a move to
a cartridge with a larger case would be in order.

Why do we find the need to live at MAXIMUMS?

Don: It's a long time between hunting seasons and we gotta have SOMETHIN" to talk about!

Really good post! I just wonder what design is going to put the TSX in the trash with all the cup and core bullet's? I used Speer hot core's years ago and never had one fail. Now I've been using Hornady since they were simply called "Spire Points" and again never had one fail. Do I think there might be a place for tuffer bullet's, maybe but not on deer. In fact not even on elk if you choose a decent cartridge and bullet in the first place.

I've read of far to many people that because of bullet's like the TSX go down not only in weight but also in caliber. I believe that the reason for this is so they can, in they're own minds, hit better at long range due to increased velocity. Yet some other's seem to think they'll gain some advantage with a tuffer bullet at long range because it surely won't fail. The standard cup and core bullet's hold together much better at reduced velocity and the need for something tuffer doesn't exist.

I know of one fellow that thinks his 7mm rem mag is awsome to 600 yds with the 160 TSX, but just with the TSX. I'd suggest that at 20yds the TSX may give some advantage but at 600yds the advantage is more imagined than real. Then too I also wonder just how often these guy's that make these clains have shot at those ranges.

One more story that's hard to except. A guy shot a deer at 450 yds using his 25-06 and a 120 partition. The bullet entered just back of the ribs, penertated thru the chest cavity, exited the chest then re-entered the bottom of the neck, broke the neck and exited the top of the neck. WOW, I asked for an explaination of that and was told the deer haad it's head down eating. I doubt that guy ever saw a deer with it's head down eating. Anyway his story was to show how well the 25-06 would penetrate with the proper bullet. I have to admit, a core-lock could not have done that.

I think we get carried away with all the cartridges and componet's avaliable to us. Some seem to forget that if Barnes didn't tell you how great that TSX is and convince you to use it, they'd be out of business. Not to say it's not a good bullet, but there is no magic in any bullet, just some tuffer than others.

Then the velocity thing. Many people have been convinced that if they just get the latest magnum they'll be better at long range. It doesn't seem to occur to then that relatively few deer are killed at over 200 yds, most much less. It also never occur's that hitting at say 500 yds is a matter of profeciencyn not velocity. Then with these 3000+ fps cartridges they go out and shoot a few deer at 50yds and proclam the cup and core bullet failed. DUH! Most of them have absolutey no idea how much difference there is between say a 7mm rem mag and a 7x57 at 300 yds, they know only that the 7mm rem mag is flatter. Most of us mortal's can't shoot well enough from field position's ti take advantage of the difference even if it ment much!

I think the bad thing of this whole thing, including cartridge choices, is that some of this stuff sounds good to the un-knowing and a lot of bad information fly's around. Then the purevayors of miss-information or gee-wiz information get to tell them they need to practice more to be as good as they are!

For a guy that doesn't understand what all the hub-bub is about bullets and cartridges you've poured a lot of gasoline on the fire!

quote:

Originally posted by brassbender:
For a guy that doesn't understand what all the hub-bub is about bullets and cartridges you've poured a lot of gasoline on the fire!

Whatever do you mean, brassbender?

Hey Don

The Accubond is supposed to be a replacement for the Nosler Partition. It is supposed to be more accurate, have a higher BC and have that plastic tip. The Accubond is bonded unlike the Ballistic Tip or the Solid Base Spitzer you mentioned.

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."

As you can see the Accubond was designed to act like a Partition in weight retention and penetration. It is not considered a "deer bullet", at least not in the heavier weights like a 225 gr 338 win mag.

Most are working up loads in 300 win mag and 338 win mags with the Accubonds to use on Elk, Bears, Moose and such and the bullet is not supposed to blow up and is supposed to penetrate to the max.

When it doesn't do it, people question it. Should be done.

Mr. Woods,

I don't know where you ontained your info,
but I just revisited the Nosler site, and NOWHERE do they compare the accubond with the partition! They do, however, state that the
new accubond is the measuring stick for BONDED
bullets! Partitions use a different technology.

Maybe some of the current gun scribes have read
more into the statement about better penetration than a standard core bullet than they should have? ASSUME = makes an ass out of u and me?

http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=3&bullet=5

Notice their choice of words? Solid base boat
tail design! Also notice the meager goal of 60-70% weight retention. Deeper penetration? Yeah, when compared to the solid base, which is the foundation of this new bullet.


I find it funny that Nosler claims the accubond to be the bonded bullet benchmark, but that the Trophy Bearclaw shoots for 90-95% weight retention? That sounds more like a partition
replacement to me. And I'm old enough to remember the gun scribes touting this bullet
as the end all arguements bullet. What has
changed since then? The need for scribes to "hawk" the new wares of their real employers and sell more product?

Personally, I would think someone looking for a
partition replacement would have tried the
failsafe or the partition gold? But then again,
what do I know? I've never been to Africa.

Don;
Couldn't resist.

quote:

Originally posted by brassbender:
Don;
Couldn't resist.

Me neither!

Don

The Nosler website lists the following for info on the Accubond

• "controlled expansion, deep penetration and a 60 - 70% weight retention"

for the Partition

• "Enclosed rear core retains more than half the original bullet weight"

Now I don't believe the Accubond is supposed to be a replacement for the Partition as much as it is supposed to be an alternative. The Partition has always been an excellent performer and if they were more accurate and had a higher BC there would be no Accubond.

Certainly I would say that the Accubond's performance is engineered to be much much more close to the performance of the Partition than close to the Ballistic Tip or Solid Base.

So, the reloader's who have taken Accubonds to Africa and expected 60 - 70% weight retention and deep penetration (according to the Nosler website) and gotten much less, have useful information and a right to bitch.

Mr. Woods,

Sounds to me like your whole arguement stems from two simple statements. 1. The accubond
shoots for 60-70% weight retention, 2. The
partition shoots for a little over half of its
weight retention.(So does the Hornady interlock!)

Pretty thin arguement about simularities for me, but I'm hardheaded!

If the partition is such a good bullet as some claim, why use something else? And why not the partition gold or failsafe. Personally, if
I were an African hunter desiring a partition
"alternative", it would not be the accubond.

I believe the Barnes TSX would be a better choice because it would be closer to a solid!
Even the Bearclaw would be better.

But then again, I've never been to Africa. Neither do I have any desire to go there.

I've got no real quarrel with you, or your opinion, I just don't understand your side of the arguement.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Slater:
Mr. Woods,

Sounds to me like your whole arguement stems from two simple statements. 1. The accubond
shoots for 60-70% weight retention, 2. The
partition shoots for a little over half of its
weight retention.(So does the Hornady interlock!)

Pretty thin arguement about simularities for me, but I'm hardheaded!

I forgot to mention that they are both Noslers, too.

If the partition is such a good bullet as some claim, why use something else? And why not the partition gold or failsafe. As I've said, for increased accuracy and BC. Personally, if
I were an African hunter desiring a partition
"alternative", it would not be the accubond.

I believe the Barnes TSX would be a better choice because it would be closer to a solid!
Even the Bearclaw would be better.

But then again, I've never been to Africa. Neither do I have any desire to go there.

I've got no real quarrel with you, or your opinion, I just don't understand your side of the arguement.

I shoot mostly TSX's and 100% weight retention is not close to 60 - 70%.

quote:

I believe the Barnes TSX would be a better choice because it would be closer to a solid!

Hey, you're right, you can't get much closer to being a solid than being a solid.

Here's how I would rank the bullets mentioned according to their weight retention

TSX
Fail Safe
Partition Gold
Trophy Bonded Bear Claw
Accubond
Partition
Interlock (if you say so)
Solid Base
Ballistic Tip

Here's how I see the bullets ranked according to penetration

TSX
Partition
Accubond
Fail Safe
Partition Gold
Interlock (not sure, never shot one)
Trophy Bonded Bear Claw
Solid Base
Ballistic Tip

The Bear Claw is an excellent bullet but like the Scirrocco and the A Frame, the large mushroom will impede penetration. Now on a deer sized game you may not want the high weight retention or the deep penetration. Then the Ballistic Tip would be an excellent bullet.

IMO, IME

Here's some interesting reading with some charts about a third of the way down (it's a long article)

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html

I know all about bullets on ground squirells, but I don't shoot that many elk.

SO I read this forum from one end to the other, and came away buying Barnes Tripple Shock bullets.

It is going to cost me thousands of dollars to get a shot off at an elk, so I will probably have to continue to use internet folklore for the basis of my beliefs.

Mr. Woods,

I don't think of the Barnes as a solid because of the hole in the front. True solids don't have those. And NO, I would not opt for the interlock on elk. That was a sarcastic point
made on advertising of bullet weight retention,
which I think is only a small point in the overall bullet performance design.

By the way, anyone who uses a .280 can't be
that unknowledgeable!

From the look of your chart, seems the whole
shebang is about jots and tittles? I guess
it's what's important to each hunter...penetration or weight retention.

The TSX looks like the winner in both categories. Makes one wonder why all those
African experts wasted time with the accubond
to begin with? Maybe they are not as experienced as they trhink they are? Shoulda used the TSX!

Like brassbender said, you started pouring the gasoline, now let's see if we can learn something.

When these charts were made, the Accubond was not in existence. My contention is that where you see Partition on these charts, Nosler is telling us that you can substitute Accubond







The spikes at low velocity in penetration are because the bullet was going too slow to open up and acted like a full metal jacket.

Here's a chart of wound channel configuarations





Now we can talk!

quote:

And by the
way, I've used interlocks exclusively for decades and have never had bullet failure?

I shot a boar (female, ~250 lbs) through the lower jaw with a 350gr 458 hornady interlock at about 2000 fps. The bullet completely shed the copper jacket leaving only the lead core. The failure is probably why I had to use a follow up shot. Give me a chance and I'll post the picture of the core.

quote:

Originally posted by akalinin:

quote:

And by the
way, I've used interlocks exclusively for decades and have never had bullet failure?

I shot a boar (female, ~250 lbs) through the lower jaw with a 350gr 458 hornady interlock at about 2000 fps. The bullet completely shed the copper jacket leaving only the lead core. The failure is probably why I had to use a follow up shot. Give me a chance and I'll post the picture of the core.

Ah,,,,,,,ya probally had to use a follow up shot because you shot her in the jaw!

Mr. Woods,

If you've never shot a Hornady spire point then why are they on your list and why not at the bottom? Just courious!

quote:

Originally posted by Don Fischer:


Mr. Woods,

If you've never shot a Hornady spire point then why are they on your list and why not at the bottom? Just courious!

Cause you mentioned them when you were filling up your gas can.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Fischer:

quote:

Originally posted by akalinin:

quote:

And by the
way, I've used interlocks exclusively for decades and have never had bullet failure?

I shot a boar (female, ~250 lbs) through the lower jaw with a 350gr 458 hornady interlock at about 2000 fps. The bullet completely shed the copper jacket leaving only the lead core. The failure is probably why I had to use a follow up shot. Give me a chance and I'll post the picture of the core.

Ah,,,,,,,ya probally had to use a follow up shot because you shot her in the jaw!

You think that, after getting shot with a 458 win mag at about 50 yards, even a jaw shot would have been devastating; the boar 'shook off' the shot, and proceded to head to the deep woods. The second bullet, hitting it in the ribs just behind the heart, functioned properly. It stopped just under the hide on the opposite side , kept about 95% of its weight and expanded almost all the way to the base of the bullet.

I know shot placement wasn't perfect on the first one, but I've never seen a jacketed bullet shot at a moderate velocity fail like that. And for what it's worth, I like Hornady's bullets - I really have never used anything else.

What a bunch of missinformation! The accubond a replacement for the nosler solid base? What a quantum leap!

The accubond isn't a replacement for anything, it's new technology at work. The bonding principle has been used for a long time. But it was real expensive to do. Swift, Nosler, Hornady have found a way to do it quicker and cheaper, allowing them to offer bullets at a fraction of the cost of bearclaws, woodleigh, or bitterroots. They work as well for most game here in America. The African game must wear armour, according to the post on failures of the accubond over there.

I tested the Hornady interbond in water when it first came out. The when the accubond came out in 30 cal 180 and so did the interbond, I tested both side by side. The weight retention was as predicted by nosler and Hornady, so was expanded frontal size.




Top pic is the 180 accubond, bottom pic is the 180 interbond. The accubonds were all around 65% weight retention, the interbond was at 87% Fontal expansion was a lot less for the AB than the IB.

Well I am still usually a non premium bullet user....

They have their value in super fast magnums to eliminate blow ups... but a good high sectional density bullet will do the same thing...

I just don't think you need the expense... most people are just buying extra marketing hype and appeasing their own confidence doubts...

sure the premiums will work.... but so will a lot of other bullets that have been doing the job, long before premiums became trendy... and still work very well for a lot of hunters that just go down to Wally World or equivalent and buy a box of ammo once a year to go deer hunting....

I still bet the of all the game killed each season in this country, 85 to 90 % are taken with non premium bullets..... regardless of the type of game...

As long as the bullet is matched to the game.. like don't go bear hunting with a 223 using 40 grain ballistic tips.... sure it will probably work.. but I think your chances of being bear poop in the morning are probably greater if you try it...

cheers
seafire