Does anyone know if these are just regular Nosler Partitions under the Combined Tech name?
Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by teesh:
Does anyone know if these are just regular Nosler Partitions under the Combined Tech name?
Thanks

According to Nosler there are some differences...

The Forward jacket is thicker at the base
and has a different jacket taper.

The Nose of the CT bullet is also skeived.

The partition "bulkhead" between the two cores is thicker on the CT version of the bullet.

And the CT version has a steel inner cup for the rear core.
Allegedly the rear core jacket is thicker.

Lastly, there is a different crimp to retain the rear core.

That enough for you?

That all being said, I doubt the differences
between the two could be described as "profound"

There are differences, and I think it likely that a particular barrel might prefer one over the other, but I doubt that any game animal would ever know the difference.

AllanD

The bullets look sim. but are actually quite diff. as Allen points out. Go to the web site & look @ the cross sections:
http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=3&bullet=12
In tests I have found the CT a bit tougher than the partition, needs a little more vel. for sim. expansion, penetratees a bit more in wetpack. I would use them in magnum rounds if I wanted something a bit "harder" than a std. partition.

Thanks. Sounds like I wouldn't want them then for anything I would shoot with a 25/06 or .308.

Depends on the weight bullet. I would use them in the 25-06 for close shots, a 165gr in .308 for the same. I believe Nosler is discontinuing the CT partition line. You don't see them cataloged @ the Nosler site & few suppliers carry any.

As mentioned above, there are some real differences between the Nosler Partition and the Combined Technology Partition Gold.

All of this is mute at this point now as the Partition Gold is as dead as the Fail Safe. They were both manufactured by Winchester and were terribly expensive to make with the steel cup in the rear, etc. Both bullets are discontinued.

Unless you find a store with a stash of either of those bullets there will be no more.

CT Partition Gold
see: http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=3&bullet=12



Nosler Partition
see: http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=3&bullet=3

I picked up a big "stash" of the moly gold .308/150's when midway had them on sale for about $4.99/50. Turns out my .308 bar loves them and I think they will be great for our close up wisconsin whitetail season. I should be able to shoot towards the heart from any angle of the deer and not worry about a good chunk of the bullet getting there!! AND and tough bullet should work great as most our shots are 50-100 yds max.
I also found a slow shooting load for my 300 win mag that can use the same bullet. (for the same purpose)
By the way....do a search at Midway.....I think they have these on sale now for about $7.99/50.

Allan, excellent description of the differences, you covered it well. The Partition gold was designed to retain 80% weight while the standard Partition was designed to retain 66% weight.
One other thing, the partition separating the cores is a little farther forward on the Partition Gold than the standard version. It was an excellent bullet but was, unfortunately, more complex than necessary and was improperly marketed.

It was produced at Nosler while the Failsafe was made by Winchester.

The Partition Gold was designed to begin expansion at around 1600-1800fps while the standard Partition begins right around 2000fps.
The Partition Gold is indeed a slightly better choice for higher velocity impacts like from a magnum at close range, due to the tougher construction and the higher retained weight. But it would also function well from a standard velocity cartridge like a 308. In the 308 I would use the 150gr PG since it would have similar retained weight to a 165gr Partition. I'm not saying retained weight is good, bad or otherwise but it can certainly help with penetration.

I put a lot of work into the design of the tooling for the Partition Gold line and it is a shame it will no longer be produced. It was a great bullet that never really had a chance.

Hello Randy, I didn't know you played here.
Joe

Hey Joe, how are you doing? Great shooting with you and Chris last week. I come to this forum a lot.

I guess I was misinformed. I thought that the Partition Gold was made by Nosler, but Kyle at the Shooters Pro Shop told me last week that Winchester made them. You just never know about things that get said in gun shops!!

The Partition Gold was made at Nosler and Kyle is an idiot. He has no business working in the Pro Shop!! I had to sugar coat that because I'd get thrown off the board if I really said what I think about him. I guess it really is WHO you know rather than what you know.
It was great to see you again, glad you made it home in one peice.
Take care
Joe

The CT partition doesn't open up at a lower velocity then the standard partition. Thats simply bullshit. The whole idea of the ct partition was 90% weight retention,while the original usually retains 60% or less.

I talked to chub eastman in person,when the ct partition was released. He claimed it was Noslers attempt to cater to the crowd of shooters who want barnes x type weight retention. All partitions are designed to expand reliably down to 1900fps.

The ct line never did well and the only consistant seller was the fail safe. Now winchester has their own replacement for that bulllet.

My hunting buddy and I used the 180gr. PG's for years in our Sako m75 SS 300WM. Great bullet/performance/expansion. Shooting everything from large Canadian moose, thru elk, B&C whitetails and mulies. Mostly all 1 shot kills.

At the range, the PG's would go thru 3/4" steel @ 300 yrds.

The only reason I switched in 2004 was b/c I was tired of the nose of the bullet getting squared being cycled from the clip to the chamber after a while, plus I wanted to try the Accubonds. Ands thats all I shoot now is Accubonds, in all my rifles. I still like the PG's but now prefer the Accubonds. And maybe now the new XP3 bullet if its released so I can reload it only.

I went from the Failsafes to the PG's and now Accubonds. I personally never had any problems with the Failsafes either, as others say they had.

Sledder, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree with you on this statement.

"The CT partition doesn't open up at a lower velocity then the standard partition. Thats simply bullshit. The whole idea of the ct partition was 90% weight retention,while the original usually retains 60% or less."

I designed the tooling for the entire Partition Gold line and worked directly with the designer who was my boss at the time. The target retained weight was 80% and the initial expansion velocity was lower than the standard Partition initial expansion velocity. The very top edge of the front cavity jacket on the PG is thinner than the standard partition and is heavily skived to initiate tear lines.
I cannot comment on what you heard from Chub, only on my experience with the design of the product.
The standard Partition has a target retained weight of 66%. It may be higher or lower in any individual situation but it is designed to be an average of 66%.
The expansion velocities I mentioned are approximate, as I stated, by saying "around", or by giving a range. There are too many factors to put a single number on that kind of an attribute. They will fall into a range when tested.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Joe

Hell if thats the case.I designed the original partition.

Well then, hello John R. Nosler, I have not seen you for a couple of months, I hope you are doing well. I will have to drop by the plant one of these days and say hello.
I know it was a few years ago but I'm sure that you remember that I worked for you for a little over 6 years as a tooling engineer.
If you recall, one of my first major projects was to design the tooling for the Partition Gold line of bullets. It was a real challange to design each and every piece of tooling required to make those bullets. But it was a huge success and I am very proud that I had the opportunity to be the first engineer at Nosler to apply 3-D solid modeling to the progression of the copper jacket and lead cores as they moved through the various production forming steps.
My legacy will live on through the many thousands of tooling drawings and bullet forming lay-outs I created in those 6 years.
They will always be fond memories.

sledder, you obviously know way more than I do about Nosler products, specifications, and performance characteristics. I seriously apologize for sharing first hand knowledge and experience.

For all of the people that ever called the Nosler customer service phone line while I was working with Mike Harris, please disregard any reloading advice I may ever have given. In the future please direct any questions about anything to sledder (the Expert)
Joe