I got a box of 7mm / 160gr NAB last week. I loaded some up in the .280 & off to the range. I am happy to report that they are slightly more accurate than my usual 160grNP load, hitting right at the 1MOA mark.
After reading Expresses post about his "bullet failure", I thought I would test various 160gr bullets in wet phone books to compare the results. Impact velocity was app. 2775fps. Here are the results:

160gr Noler Part. - 19" pen. / .580 exp. / 116gr

160gr Nosler AB - 17" pen. / .610 exp. / 108gr

160gr Speer HC - 15 1/2" pen. / .585 exp./ 99gr

160gr Speer GS - 16 1/2" pen. /.575 exp./ 102gr

160gr Comb. Tech. - 17 1/2" pen. /.595 exp./ 141gr

140gr Nosler BT - 13 1/2" pen./ .530 exp./ 77gr

I fired (2) shots each & averaged the measurements. All bullets performed very consistently w/ good exp. & keeping their cores. I threw in the 140BT ( approx. 2950fps impact) because so many guys like to use them for deer. I wasn't surprised that it lost all of it's nose & there was only a small amount of lead left in the jacket base. The wound channel was very abrupt w/ the 140BT. This has got to be a grenade @ 3200-3300fps. The NP also had a large wound channel early on but penetrated the most. The nose was still intact. The 160CT kept the most weight & looks like a toadstool mushroom. The jacket appears to be very thick & would probably be a good choice for the Dakota/STW shooter looking for a tough bullet up close.
Just food for thought. I know it doesn't equate to real game performance, but It gives you a comparison of different manuf. bullets. I may switch to the 160NAB @ 2850fps for my allround .280 bullet.

[ 05-14-2003, 07:06: Message edited by: fredj338 ]

Very interesting Fred, I had been thinking of running the same test. I hope to try Hornady's Interbond also, to see where it fits in this equation.

I have a box of 154gr HIB but forgot to load a couple for my little test. Maybe next time.

This is great stuff Fred, thanks for sharing it with us! The AccuBonds do indeed seem to loose quite a bit of weight - more so than the Partitions, and naturally more so than the Fail Safe (I assume this is the Combined Technology bullet you tested?). Penetration is good with the AccuBond, though not as good as the Partition - not surprisingly, Did the AccuBond expand to a larger diameter than the Partition - as one would expect???

According to "The Mechanics of Terminal Ballistics", what is importent is the creation of a large wound cavity, something which seems to be associated with bullets of large expanded diameter, given equal penetration depth. It would therefore be interesting to know how the cavities created by the different bullets actually compared. I don't suppose you have that data??

Having seen your data - with a somewhat higher weight loss for the AccuBond - my immediate reaction would be that the AB should be an excellent choice for "standard" cartridges, but I'd probably stay away from it at magnum velocities. In a way that is not surprising - given past experience with similar bullets such as Swift Scirocco.

- mike

All of the bullets seemed to reach max. exp. early, within the 1st 8"-10". I didn't try to measure cavity size as the wet paper distorts & stretches quite a bit when you pull it apart.
I think the NAB would be a great bullet for the big mags on distant shots. The CT bullet is very tough, a good choice for the mag. rounds where you might get those under 100yd shots.
AS you can see, the NAB held together better than the std. Speer HC(my deer bullet)& had the greatest exp.
I would hunt elk w/ any of the 160's but I would be hesitent to try a bad angled shot w/ anything but the NP or CT (the 160Swift would probably be even better as the nose is bonded). As far as the vaunted NBT, I would save them for large varmint hunting or small deer/antelope far off so that expansion is slowed down. This bullet just gives up to quick under 100yds.

Fred, typical of me, I had missed that you already had the expansion diameters in your original post - must have something to do with getting old

The problem with using a particular bullet for long distance shooting only: when did one last encounter a hunt where a long shot was guaranteed?? Essentially, we are saying the same thing: AccuBond look as if they'll perform best at not too extreme velocities - whether we describe this as "non-magnum speeds" or "magnum at long range", same thing really

In any event, your data is excellent, and you deserve a medal (or whatever reward suitable) for publishing this stuff! Before one sees data like this, all one has to go on is the sales hype from the manufacturers, and try choosing a bullet using that data!

Good on you Fred! - mike