Over the course of the last couple of years (last year for the accubond) I have worked up loads for my .300 Winchester Mag. that are very acceptable (ie. minute of angle accuracy and plenty of speed) using the Swift Scirocco and the new Nosler Accubond. What I would like to get are peoples opinions on which one to use. Here are the parameters. I have already shot my moose so my hunting is predominantly elk and mule deer. Shots at elk are quite typically 3-400 yards across canyons, deer not usually that far. My load with the 200 grain accubond avg's 3038 fps and my load with the 180 grain Scirocco avg's around 3180 fps. Which one would you guys use?

I'd probably flip a coin.

A Nosler spokesman was quoted in The American Rifleman as saying the Accubond was designed to peel back to a smaller diameter than most bondeds, to gain penetration. I'm all for that, and when they release the weights I want, I'm going to try them out, as they may give slightly better accuracy than the Partition; though with the Partitions doing MOA in most of my hunting rifles it won't be significant I guess.

ACCUBOND!!!!!!!!!

For me, that would be too close to call. It would come down to personal brand preference, or if they both shoot the same, I'd buy the one that was more affordable. On the game you're talking about the perfomance is going to be virtually the same.

some people on this board have complained of pancaking with the Scirocco. and also aren't they like way more expensive anyways. If both shoot just as good use the accubond, I personally have had excellant results with the interbond

If I'm lucky enough to get drawn for Wyoming next year, I'll be using the one on the right.



Both should get the job done but I have confidence in the AccuBond to penetrate farther as it has in all my tests.

I finally got a decent camera....

Accubond all the way. I am not a scirocco fan. I would however suggest you use a little tougher bullet for elk. cheers and good luck drawing !

I would place the Scirocco well above the Nosler Ballistic Tip in toughness but well below the Accubond! It expands way too much. Believe me I have used it on game.

I've used both on deer sized game and the Accubond performed much better. The Scirocco expanded all the way down to the base of the bullet and did not penetrate nearly as well.

I have had the same question, but involving a switch from Ballistic Tip's and SST's. I gather from these posts the Scirocco is similar to these in expansion. I am considering the switch after finally recovering 2 180 grain BT's from deer ('light' load in 300WSM). They did penetrate from chest to ham, but one was recovered sans core, the other had a tiny smear of lead in the base left and weighed about 50 grains.

Have any of you recovered Accubonds from game? How was the penetration, expansion, and weight retention?

I'd use the Accubond

My take would be the scirocco is a great mule deer or whitetail bullet, far better than the Nosler ballistic tip hunting bullet, which is why Nosler came out with the accubond bullet. Plus maybe they heard Hornady's footsteps with their interbond bullet. I suppose you might argue for a crossover bullet on mule deer and elk, the accubond may be better, I say may, because frankly, none of us know much hunting wise yet on the accubond. I'm struggling with these bullets also. For an elk load, I am opting to explore the Barnes Triple Shock X bullet first.

The projected shooting distance is 300-400 yards. Velocities will be a fair amount lower that MV, I doubt it makes substantial difference. Swift will be the first to tell you that the Scirocco was not intended for point blank Mach 3 impact, but that is NOT the scenario envisioned here. Other points noted. I really doubt there is a significant difference.

Barnes 180 gr. Triple Shock!

Scirocco


165 grs cal. 30 (one from a moose, 2 tested in ice), right 180 grs Norma Oryx cal. 30. (moose)

That Oryx looks as though it would have an awesome BC lol

Yes, the Scirocco seems to be a fairly good bullet, but I think there is more to say in favour of the AccuBond. The ogive is very slight and regular, the ballistic coefficient is better and the accuracy of its own is outstanding, in my opinion. In wet paper the AB holds together better than the Scirocco.
In my Remington Sendero .270 my best fiveshot groups with the 130-grainers Scirocco were between 2.5 to 3 MOA, for the AB (140 grain) this was regularly about 0.4 MOA, a few groups not worse than 0.85 MOA. At 200 to 300 yards this accuracy between the AB and Scirocco means the difference between a good hit or just missing or crippling.

I'm not sure why there is so much concern with penetration when talking about elk and deer with a .300 Win Mag. I have never gotten a bullet to stay in an elk, bear or mule deer with my .300 RUM shooting Scirocco's or Nosler partition's. Nothing wrong with a bullet staying in an animal as long as they bullet holds together and expands properly in my opinion.

Have found that Scirocco's do not expand properly (or at all) at ranges under 50 yards.

quote:

A Nosler spokesman was quoted in The American Rifleman as saying the Accubond was designed to peel back to a smaller diameter than most bondeds, to gain penetration.

That's certainly consistent with the results I've seen in bullet tests while the Scirocco seems to expand much wider. The pictures posted here seem to agree. Also, I have read complaints about the Scirocco's being harder to get to shoot accurately than the Accubond. But I did not have any problems with this.

Recently, I've been trying TSXs but decided to try something different in my .243. I figured that I wouldn't be shooting anything bigger than a north central Texas whitetail so I didn't figure I needed TSX penetration. My first load with 90 grain Sciroccos put three into .6" so I didn't have any problem getting them to shoot! But we'll have to wait a few months to see how they work on deer.

For elk though, the apparent better penetration of the Accubond would tip the scales that way for me. Also, the 200 grain Accubond has a .588 b.c., which could be helpful for the longer shots mentioned.

LWD

this is a three year old thread.....and I think the Sciroccos have been reintroduced since then....changed I mean!

I used the 180 grain Accubond on 2 Bull Elk and I'm switching. I use a 30/06 which launches the 180 Accubonds at nearly 2800 fps. First Bull I took was an enormous Elk ( my largest) at 180 yards the bullet took him high in the shoulder and just traumatized the bottom of the spine dropping him in his tracks, I walked up and finished him. The bullet did not exit which surprised me and was found just under the offside skin and weighed 114 grains.
Last year my son shot his first Bull which we followed up on after his initial shot and jumped him, I took at steeply angled shot at 35 yards that entered at the second rib and travelled up into the base of his neck, Bull stumbled and my son neck shot him and put him down. That 180 grain Accubond was found in the base of his neck and had shed nearly all its lead I didn't weigh it but it was un-impressive to say the least maybe weighed 40 grains.
This is not a testimony for another bullet but shooting the same load with a Sierra 180 grain bullet I've had similar shots with much better results, complete pass thru's at 175 yards, 425 yards and 55 yards that were far more impressive than my Accubond results.
I've heard great praise for these bullets but I've not experienced the joy first hand.
I will be switching bullets for my 30/06.