Many speak highly of both bullets. I've only used the Interbonds is 25, 270, and 30 cal. They worked great on deer.

What is the difference betwene the 2 bullets??? Besides cost

The interlock is a standard cup and core bullet while the interbond is a bonded bullet.....the core is (somehow) bonded to the jacket to prevent separation upon impact.

The interlock however is mechanically attached to the jacket by an inner ring and also the cannelure, that serves a dual function, as a place to crimp the bullet to the case. That said the interlock can at times become separated during impact but IMO much less than the bullets by Sierra and Speer.

IMO both are very excellent bullets and for deer there is little to no advantage of the more costly bullet.

I have killed more deer with the Hornady 139 BTSP Interlock than any other bullet in my .280, though not as many as I would have liked. And I've done some none scientific experimentation with deer shoulders and pine stumps at long and close range. I can not see any reason to use a more expensive/stronger bullet for deer/antelope sized game animals. The two deer I shot with 150 Partitions didn't go down any faster. They also work wonderfully for ground squirrels. My Rem 700 Mountain Rifle in .280 will put ten of them in a one inch or less group at 100yds, year after year and that's all I need to be happy.

The Hornady Interbond is a much tougher bullet.I've used 139gr out of my 7STW and 7mag and 165gr out of my 300 WSM.Every deer I've shot with them has been a complete pass throughs.The Interlock on the other hand,sheds weight much faster and failed to give me complete pass through on deer with the 300 WSM.The Interlocks shoot well out of my rifles and yes they did kill dead,but I prefer my bullets exit.

I'm a big Hornady fan so if they say the Interbond is a better bullet I believe em. That said my .300 Win Mag is a big fan of the 190 grain Interlock and after more dead deer, antelope and elk than I've kept track of I've never had a failure for it to do exactly what it's supposed to, kill em DRT. I see no reason whatsoever to:
A) experiment or
B)pay more money.
Ain't no way for em to be any deader than what they have all been .

I've also Hornady Interlocks on many difference deer, elk and other game with complete success. The are my prefered "go to" bullet regardless of caliber if the velocity is 2900 fps or less. They are marveless in all standard and magnum cartridges that keep the velocity at or under that. If using a magnum with a velocity at or over 3000 fps I would use a "premium" bullet with the InterBond getting a good look see.

Larry Gibson

+1 on not needing that stout of construction for deer sized game. The old interlocks, game kings and ballistic tips are all thin jacketed lead core bullets that work better, IMO, on thinned skinned game such as antelope, whitetail, goat, sheep, mule deer. Before premium bullets all you had were interlocks type bullets so you just used the larger ones.

I used the 139 grain Interlock back in the sixties and seventys in a 7mm mag. Best deer killing bullet I've ever used. I used the flat based version. The load, while within bounds of the Lyman manual I was using at the time, definitely exceeded loads listed in today's manuals.

The Hornady Interlock brings back fond memories.

Joe A.

I've used Interbonds (139-grain mm and both 165- and 180-grain .308's) on springbuck, impala, blesbuck, kudu, blue and black wildebeest, gemsbuck and red hartebeest. It offers FANTASTIC value for money, in my opinion. You have a hard time recovering a bullet as they penetrate like crazy. Those that I've managed to recover weighed in at 90% plus of unfired weight every time.

That said, I've also used a fair amount of 180-grain Interlocks in my .30-06, mainly on impala and wildebeest. Never had any reason to complain and it's a fine bullet as well.

I've used the Interlocs for many years and have never had a failure. The bonded bullets are fine, but are not necessary for deer-size game. If you are shooting extreme velocity rounds, there may be an edge as far as integrity, but for the average velocity rounds, I believe they are a waste of money.

If you are loading that 280 HOT, say 3000 fps or higher, I would recommend going to the Interbond.

There is a small, shallow, rock bottom pond behind where I sometimes place my target that has a high bank behind it for a backstop.
It is about 70yds from my deck. I sometimes use that target placement to check out zero or get the gun on paper.

I load my 280 HOT, 3150fps or more. I have found separated jackets from 139gr .284 Interlocks lying on the rock bottom of that pond. They appeared to have separated from impact W/nothing harder than the water, sinking to the bottom after separation.

The 139gr .284 Interbonds however, are IMO the best terminal performance expanding bullet out there. Better by far than the Nosler Accubond IMO.

Back when I could get Norma MRP up here on the Tundra, I was loading that bullet to 3250fps. W/RL22 I can only get to 3150fps.

Here is a bullet from an MRP 3250fps Mv load that impacted a very large 164# dressed weight Whitetail doe on the scapula quartering on @ 25-30 yds.



The bullet penetrated the scapula, stomach, liver, intestines & rear ham coming to rest under the hide next to the femur. The bullet only nicked the lung.

It retained over 86% of it's weight (119.8gr) & expanded over 3X it original diameter @ .808" across the widest portion. As you can see by the base on photo, the core tried to suck out of the jacket as evidenced by the deeply concave base.

I do not think an Interlock would have performed that well.

Nosler's claim is that a large mushroom shape impedes penetration so the Accubond is designed to shed the nose allowing deep penetration. That Interbond penetrated over 36" after impacting bone. If that huge mushroom shape severely impedes penetration, you can't prove it by this particular instance.

I have used the 140gr .284 Accubond & even though it is slightly more accurate than the Interbond, it's terminal performance, while adequate, is not as spectacular as the Interbond.

That bullet in the PIX made a believer out of me. So much so, it's my avatar.

I have only recovered 1 other 139gr .284 Interbond.

From 3150fps Mv, it impacted a medium sized Whiletail buck quartering on @ about 190 yds. The bullet impacted the spine just ahead of the shoulder. That particular bullet expanded to .770" & retained 75% of it's weight @ 104.1gr.

Like you said Accubond is made to shed more weight but I would be willing to bet your animals would be just as dead with a Accubond or Interlock.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
Like you said Accubond is made to shed more weight but I would be willing to bet your animals would be just as dead with a Accubond or Interlock.

Maybe, but the 2 I shot W/the Accubond (both broadside heart lung hits) ran & left no blood trail. True they ran a short distance, less than 20 yds, but both were hard to find in the thick, knee high ferns & brush due to no blood. I hate to think what a marginal hit would produce.

Most of the Interbond hits, all that were broadside heart lung, & 1 spine shot, were DRT. 2 that were quartering on went a ways, but they both bleed enough to trail.

Besides, the Accubonds are even more expensive than the Interbonds...In my mind, the Interbond does more damage & makes a larger exit wound & therefore would be more dependable on marginal hits.

Some years ago I shot a big black wildebeest bull with a 180-grain Accubond in my .30-06 from about 200 metres, quartering towards me. The bullet hit where I aimed and penetrated into the rumen. That bull took off like crazy, however, and I whacked it twice more through the lungs before it went down.

Do I blame the bullet? Well, not really, but I've shot enough similar-sized animals with the Interbond equivalent in just about the same place the meantime to realize that the Interbond is a vastly superior bullet with better or the same penetration characteristics but much, much better weight retention, in spite of what the Nosler catalogue may claim.

Where I live here in the bad old RSA, Accubonds (and Partitions, for that matter) are double the price of Interbonds, so there's no choice. As far as I'm concerned there's not much to choose between the Accubond and the Partition. I try to avoid any bullet deliberately designed to lose its petals - a "bad news" design as far as I'm concerned.

My opinion, for what it's worth.