Look very very closely...the Accubond is ever so slightly thicker in the jacket material. Also, the bonding, as you noted, is the kicker. Nice bullet on deer, but I did not like the way it performed on my elk this year.
Take care!
Posts: 373 | Location: Leesburg, GA | Registered: 22 October 2005
It really makes it easy to see just how much the 180gr ballistic tip has been strengthened over the original ballistic tips.It really is much tougher than people realize.The biggest difference between it and the accubond in the bonded core.
Posts: 3104 | Location: alberta,canada | Registered: 28 January 2002
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill
Posts: 28849 | Location: western Nebraska | Registered: 27 May 2003
A year or so ago I talked with the technicians at Nosler in depth about the Ballistic Tips and Accubonds. I was told with absolute certainty that the bullets are identical in every way except the bonding process that bonds the lead to the copper in the Accubonds. I was assured by Nosler that the bullets are so identical that you could interchange Accubonds for Ballistic tips and they will shoot to the exact point of impact. I happily tested this and found it to be true. I've only taken one elk with the accubonds and it performed well, not astounding just good performance. 180 accubond, 2800 FPS, impacted large bull elk broadside at 180 yards, penetrated both shoulders and found under hide on far side, recovered bullet weighed 114 grains.
Posts: 5604 | Location: Eastern plains of Colorado | Registered: 31 October 2005
They look close enough to believe they are the same, but what about the CT ballistic silvertip, I would have thought it to be the same as well. Not so it looks a lot less substantial.
Posts: 153 | Location: Omaha, NE | Registered: 06 December 2004
Look very very closely...the Accubond is ever so slightly thicker in the jacket material.
I see what you are talking about. I think, however, that it might be an artifact...I don't think the cutaways are at exactly the same depth, so the jacket thickness looks a bit off. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me though.
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Posts: 1780 | Location: South Texas, U. S. A. | Registered: 22 January 2004
I think the pictures "lay to rest" the old story about how "my partition zipped right throug the animal but was to tough to open up"! The front of the partition is just as thin as any bullet there. That's the end of that silly rumor in my book!
Posts: 2002 | Location: central wi | Registered: 13 September 2002
