Just thought I'd throw in my recent hunt report with Nosler's new bullet for what it's worth.

Got back from Argentina hunting red stag last week, carried my .280, and decided to give Nosler's new bullet a try... Out of my 22 inch barrel, with 53.0 gr IMR 4831 and the 160 gr Accubond, I was getting 2700 fps out of the muzzle, a little less than I was hoping for, but that load was producing consistent 1 1/8 inch 5 shot groups at 100 yards and 2.5 inch groups at 200 yards. I could get more velocity, but started losing accuracy at the range.

I shot two stags, the first at 300 yards, the second at 100 yards. Both were one shot kills, going through the front shoulder with the bullet recovered under the skin on the opposite side. Retained weight was 103 grains and 101 grains, respectively. Both had beautiful mushrooms with the lead core fully intact. The first animal travelled 30 yards before dropping, the second dropped instantly.

I've been using ballistic tips for small whitetail and partitions for anything larger prior to Nosler's new bullet. I've had a hard time finding anything to equal the precision of the ballistic tip, but the Accubond seems to be almost as accurate.

Gonna have to try the new 140 grain bullet out of the 7mm Mag at 3300 fps this whitetail season to see how it performs. Have any of you guys tried the Accubond at higher velocities? Performance similar, or does it explode like the ballistic tips at high velocities?

Jon

Thanks for that Jon, that was useful!
- mike

Jon,
I am trying to deciede on a load for a plains game safari next year, and the accubond shoots great out of my 7mmRemMag. I am also considering the barnes TSX bullet.
The accubond sounds pretty tough Frank

Thanks for the report Jon. I also load these in my .280, I haven't taken game yet but have testd them in wetpack against the partitions. They seem to penetrate a bit less w/ a bit more expansion. I have gone to IMR7828, it gives a bit more vel. & accuracy is very good.

fredj,

How do you think 7828 would shoot out of the 22 inch barrel? In longer barrels, its great, but I was afraid with the shorter barrel I wouldn't get an adequate burn and actually lose velocity. I might give it a try anyway, it's a long time till deer season, and shooting paper is almost as much fun.

Jon

Sounds like good results.

I have had great results w/ the Ballistic Tips on Whitetail and Wild Boar.

I have also been thinking about loading some 140 Accu Bonds or 139 Interbonds @ 3300 fps in my 7mm Rem Mag.

I shot two deer last year w/ the 140 NBTs @ a MV of 3210 fps. One weighed 240# and the other 220#. On both animals the bullet was mushroomed perfectly under the hide on the opp. side. Both animals were approx. 60 yards. When using the 150s at the same velocity I get exit wounds.

I believe these Accus and Inters will give us exit holes and good internal damage also.

Good Luck!

Reloader

My .280 has a 23" PacNor. I load 57gr under any of the 160gr bullets. I get right @ 2800fps from mine & accuracy is very good.

I have not found the short barrel/slow burning powder belief to be valid..My chronograph shows the slow burners still get the most velocity in the 06 size rounds in a short barrel, and in about everything else that I have tried them in....

I have a suspecion this is one of those old fallacies that just hangs on forever and never was valid in the first place, and was surmised by some well intentional gun writer who expressed his views as fact without testing them out first, perhaps it was O'Connor...

it was o'conner-as usual giving out expert advise without any experience.

ditto,..slow powders in short barrels with heavier pills works like a charm.

I lost a lot of respect for O'Connor's ballistic "knowledge" when he talked about the "buzz saw" effect of expanded spinning bullets "slicing" through tissue.Physically impossible.

If you really think about that, the bullet would only make just over 1 revolution on it's way through the deer as they are spinning at about 1 turn in 11 inches of travel. Hardly a buzz saw, and besides that, any contact with bone would probably stop it entirely from spinning.

O'Conner was dead wrong when he overestimated how much energy was involved in the rotational speed of a bullet.

I found a definitive answer in "Understanding Firearm Ballistics" by Robert A. Rinker. I believe that the book is available from Sinclair.

If someone is really interested in all the equations let me know and I'll try to post them, but in brief let me quote from pg 140:

QUOTE:
........The spin is imperative for trajectory and accuracy but adds, on the average, only about 4/10 of 1 percent to the kinetic energy and therefore has almost no effect on tissue destruction and killing power.......

........This is a lot of mathematics and work to show and prove the the energy required in rotating the bullet is very smalll. Extremely Small!...........


Unquote:

In other words with 1/4 of 1 percent of the energy involved with rotation it's not going to be a "Buzz Saw". As far as an equal and opposite reaction does a gun torque itself out of you hands when you fire it - no..........DJ