The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Re: From Alberta: 180gr. ACCUBONDS FAIL ON DEERGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: From Alberta: 180gr. ACCUBONDS FAIL ON DEER | Login/Join |
| one of us |
Actually Turok, I was thinking small deer, and tough shots on all of them, were they also running?....... | ||
|
| one of us |
Alot of us have reached for the Accubond, including me, loading a 140 grain in my 7mag. But, if we all will remember, I think it was John Barnessis,s (sorry for my spelling) test of the bonded bullets, the Scirocco had best weight retention, then the Interbond (but it was a 165 grain bullet as I remember, and the others were 180's), and the Accubond had the least, but still good penetration. I would say stay with the partition, or what ever earlier bullet you were using. I probably will stay with the accubond, but I have had good luck with 150 grain Scirocco's in my 7 mag in the past. I have the 150 scirocco's and 139 grain Interbonds in 7 cal, just been too busy to load them up and try them. I sure like the accuracy of the accubond, and I actually believe it's a good deer bullet. No elk experience, | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: You can send me the pics if you want. I'll post them. jonaadland@verizon.net | |||
|
| One Of Us |
Thanks Jon. I am seeing my friend (who has a digital camera) on Sunday for a lunch BBQ with his family. I will send you the pics Sunday evening. In the meantime, I sent Saeed and Canuck a couple of pics directly from Nosler (showing the 180gr. Accubond only getting 9.5" of penetration at 3037fps) and Hornady (showing the Interbond and Scirocco 150gr. at about 2500 fps getting over double (18+") the penetration) for us to see. | |||
|
One of Us |
I use plain vanilla BT's on deer and am satisfied with the results. But I wouldnt use either the BT's or accubonds for shoulder shots or texas heart shots even before reading this thread. Those type of shots and bullets are a poor match and therin lies the failure irreguardless of what the Nosler hype says. For that type of shot I would choose a grand slam or interlock at the very least, preferably an X or failsafe though. Why anyone who takes such shots would go to ANY polymer tipped bullet I dont understand, its just asking for trouble IMO. | |||
|
| one of us |
From my experience, and many others that have used them in 300 ultra mags, I hope they don't modify the 200 grain version one bit. I couldn't be happier with it! | |||
|
Moderator |
"From CanadianLefty: Please find attached three more photos, these of two of the actual Accubonds that we recovered from our deer.    Bullet on left (with two pieces of schrapnel) is the one that struck the young mule deer with a THS that destroyed the pelvis but failed to go much further, resulting in a wounded deer that was killed with a knife. If I remember correctly, recovered weight was about 52%. Bullet on right was the one that struck the larger doe in the shoulder with a facing shot that killed the deer but had shallow penetration. I think recovered weight was about 57% (check my earlier posts for correct %). What concerns me, is the amount of lead (hence low weight retention) that was cast off the bullet and the fact that one actually lost pieces of jacket found in the meat-bone mush. If you look closely, you will see that much of what remains is only jacket and it is peeled way back." | |||
|
| One Of Us |
Nosler claims that the Accubonds were designed for any shot angle at any velocity. Their advertising further claims 60-70% weight retention. Quote: Our results were very different. I would love it to be another way, but three game animals tell a different tale. Weight loss was over 40% in two cases and penetration on all three shots was not good at all coming from a premium bullet-- and heck, these were just deer, not 600 pound elk! Angled shots should be a major consideration when designing a bullet. Almost any bullet, even a ballistic tip  , will usually penetrate enough on a perfectly broadside, behind the shoulder shot.Given our current experiences, we would not use the 180gr. Accubonds unless a change to the bullet was made to make them tougher. While accuracy is great, the Accubonds still need testing in my opinion and will probably need a stronger, thicker jacket and or a tougher bonded core to assist in greater penetration. | |||
|
| One Of Us |
It may be the peel back factor and or just not enough jacket thickness causing shallow penetration. You will see from the photos that I will post. I will try to get Saeed or one of the moderators or regulars to post the pics as I have no idea how to do that. By the way, Nosler wrote that there were too many variables left unsaid: Quote: Here is my response: Quote: | |||
|
| new member |
Looks to me like it says nosler shot the accubond at point blank range at over 3000 fps and Hornady tested their's at 100yds at almost 500 fps less impact velocity. That not a fair comparison at all. My dad just used my rifle to kill a large bodied mule deer this past weekend. 300 win mag, 180 grn. accubond and a muzzle velocity of 3148. It crushed the shoulder, through the chest and kept going. I hope Nosler doesn't change a thing with these bullets. | |||
|
| One Of Us |
I mentioned that that was not an apples to apples comparison. But a 180gr. Accubond bullet giving 9.5" penetration from any 300 mag from 50-200yards sucks!Think about angled or through bone shots on larger deer, sheep, elk, moose etc. Poor results. As I mentioned in the other thread from Doc, my motivation in posting this info is purely to share first-hand experiences and share latest facts and results with the 180gr. Accubond bullets. If you had different experiences first-hand, post them... As mentioned 300 winnie, I do believe that the 200gr. Accubonds are getting better results from what people are posting and I hope that I did not indirectly offend you (or anyone) in your bullet choices when I posted our results. I do not doubt that the 180gr. AB would work some of the time on angled shots or most of the time on broadside, behind the shoulder type hits. But test results on game and directly from Nosler put the 180gr. Accubond in my "wait and see, do not use" category for the time being. Happy Hunting, CL | |||
|
| one of us |
CL, No offense taken on my part. Just wanting to show the free world what my experience has been However, since I am back to writing again I might as well voice some of the thoughts I have had since this thread got started. 1) Isn't the Winchester loaded ammunition with the combined technology version with the lubalox and red tip? If so, is it possible that the manufacturing process is different than the uncoated "Nosler" version? Probably not much to this theory, but something to think about. 2) In my mind this theory is more likely the case. It is my understanding that Nosler spent several years in R&D on the initial offerings of the Accubond (140 grain .277, 160 grain .284, 200 grain .308, 225 grain .338 and 260 grain .375) In my opinion they offered heavy for caliber bullets first because they knew what the shooting/hunting world (us  ) would put them through. Not only did they insure themselves from failure in that regard, but they made sure the design on those offerings was just exactly what they wanted in performance. Well, they offer those and without a lull the shooting world wants x grain in x caliber and they want it now!!!!!!! Nosler tries to satisfy the demand (read $$$$$$$$$$ here) and they don't have the time in research and development to make sure the new offerings are exactly what they want. In this case the 180 grain version in .308 is the most suseptible to scrutiny because it is probably what most people want to use. (I use the 200 grain version because it came out first and I have the time, money and effort in to my own R&D to make it work. Had the 180 grain version hit the shelves first, I would likely be using them). I am guessing that due to their lack of time to test this bullet appropriately, they have some design issues that will have to be worked out, but I am sure they will get there.3) I am not a metallurgist but maybe something in the bonding process went haywire while they were doing a batch or two of the new bullet. Who knows the answer, but those are some of the things I have thought about. | |||
|
| one of us |
CL, For the life of me I can't see where it states those two tests were conducted in the same type of media, much less the same media. Why on Earth would you think you could compare the two? | |||
|
| one of us |
The more I think about it, the more shocked I am that you would compare these two vastly different tests and try to make any sort of comparison. Ever hear of the Scientific Method? For all you know, Nosler's "test medium" may have been animal glue to give the bullets a hard test and Hornady's may have been ballistic gellatin. Not to mention the 500 fps difference. The only conclusions that can be made from the tests you posted: Nosler grabbed a box of ammo and gave the bullet a tough test to see if what you're saying is true. The bullet performed to their satisfaction, as advertised. You view this same performance as failure. Tell them to put a Partition through the same test and I'll guarantee you you'll think it "failed" too. Hornady's much easier test--what strikes my interest here is how the Nosler Partion (Hornady certainly wouldn't fudge the test in its favor) looses much more weight than the Interbond and Scirocco and yet penetrates much farther. Obviously due to its smaller expanded diameter. At the same velocity, in the same medium, during the same test. Both its weight retention and expanded diameter are exactly what I would expect from an AccuBond had it been included in the test. If it wasn't for the lack of a boattail, the pictured Partition might be mistaken for an AccuBond as it looks about exactly like the ones I've recovered from tests. "Failure" indeed.  | |||
|
| one of us |
For those that haven't looked at the post titled "Accubonds failed??????????????????" here is the information from my fall worth of hunting experience with the 200 grain accubond. Sorry for the duplication if you have seen it elsewhere. I shoot a Browning A-Bolt in .300 Winchester Magnum. My pet load is the 200 grain version of the Nosler Accubond propelled by 80.5 grains of H1000 for a mv of 3000 fps. I was fortunate to have a couple of real on game experiences with the bullet as well. 1. 4x4 Mule deer buck at approximately 75 yards. Hit him right where the head meets the neck. Obviously (maybe not obvious after this thread ) full penetration. Exit hole about the size of a half dollar. Spine where impacted was crushed and pulverized. 2. 5x5 Bull elk. Approximately 50 yards quartering towards me. Hit him right on the ball joint on the onside shoulder. Bullet crushed the shoulder leaving bone pulp and fragments. Bullet continued in through the rib cage leaving a hole about the size of a quarter, and took out one lung. I found the bullet in the body cavity while dressing it out. It weighed 114 grains for a retained percentage of 57%. A little lower than what Nosler advertises but not at all disappointing considering the test it was put through. Here is the recovered bullet next to the bullet it used to be.  Here are the two bullets above with a couple of 180 Nosler Partitions thrown in for comparison. Both of these came out of elk and were fired from the same gun. Muzzle velocity of approx. 3150 fps. The one on the far left was recovered after taking the spine out of spike at about 450 yards. The one next to is was recovered from a cow after going through the spine, body cavity and coming to rest in the brisket (she was running up a steep hillside straight across from me). That shot was about 30 yards.  Here is a shot from the top for diameter comparisons with the partitons of equal caliber. Notice how similar the Accubond looks (far left).  Needless to say, I am seriously impressed for the test this bullet was put through. I also do not believe the good people at Nosler are misleading people when they say it was designed to perform like a partition. I realize that this thread is focused more the 180 grain version, but I think Accubonds in general have been questioned. Since we have addressed the 180 grain subject I will update you on what my brother-in-laws bullet weighed (I posted that he had shot a bull with a 300 RUM with 180 Accubonds up the thread a ways). I will also post a pic when I get hold of that bullet. Anyway, it weighed 92 grains for a retained percentage of 51%. Once again, not what Nosler advertises, but considering what that bullet went through it is just plain awesome. Just my .02, and maybe a little more  | |||
|
| one of us |
This is a recoevered bullet from about a 350 pound blackie. The shot broke the on shoulder and traveled over 30 inches. It was found just under the hide on the off side at the back of the paunch. Retained weight was 209 grains. These bullet are a bonded ML bullet from my TC Omega with three Triple Seven pellets.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shot a 30" moose on saturday using my 338 shooting 225 gr Accubonds-quarting towards my it went through the top of the heart, through 1 lung and out the side. Didn't think there was a lot of blood shot but there was some. Bullet not recovered but it seemed to perform the way is was meant to. | |||
|
| One Of Us |
I am back and unpacked. I brought with me two of the three bullets ecovered from those deer (one of my friends wanted to keep his). I will borrow a digital camera this weekend and send someone the pick to post up here for us to see. Happy Hunting, CL | |||
|
| one of us |
I have a hard time believing that a bullet at that speed and distance and retaining 1/2 to 2/3rds of its weight wouldn't do more damage. I definitely think its the peel back factor working against you. Once there is no shank left, there is no mass working to push the bullet, and the resistance quickly slows it down. I think we need a A-frame bullet with a polymer tip. If this bullet was supposed to be as good as a partition, then Nosler would charge accordingly. But they are charging a lot less for the Accubond than for the partition. Maybe this is why. | |||
|
| One of Us |
300 Winnie You brought up some excellant points with the combined technology bullets and I tend to agree with you. This past weekend I shot a moose with a handloaded 225 gr accubond in 338 mag. and it performed flawlessly. It did not strike bone going in but it travelled over 24" and out the side. I also shot a 7mm ultra mag with 140 accubonds and hopefully this weekeng I will get to use it on 1 of our big alberta whitetails and se how it performs. Shootist-(another Canadian lefty) | |||
|
| One Of Us |
Hi Jon, I sent the photos to Canuck for sake of simplicity, though thanks for your photo offer. You should be able to see them soon. As mentioned, the other comparison is not apples to apples- just representative given the context that I framed it in. cheers, CL | |||
|
| one of us |
Very interesting pics. It is too bad you do not have a picture of the accubond from the federal load for comparison. My initial reaction to these pictures is that these bullets look more like the Swift Scirocco or the Hornady Interbond than they do a typical accubond. However, they don't even fall into that category because they typically would retain much more of their weight as a percentage. I can definitely see where your disappointment has come from, and I for one would be disappointed and dis-enchanted as well, especially knowing what I know of the accubonds I have tested. Did the Federal loaded one look this bad, or are these worse? If these are worse I am holding tighter to my theory of the combined technology bullets being manufactured differently. If my calculations are right those bullets weren't going any faster than about 2850 fps when they hit. I think you would have had better looking bullets out of a Nosler Ballistic Tip, Hornady Interbond or similar bullets. As far as finding fragments in the bone mush, that doesn't surprize me as the accubond is designed to smear off the front half or so as expansion and penetration take place, much the same as the partition. That being the case, you can expect to find some fragmentation. | |||
|
one of us |
Let me ask a question here. Don't ALL Accubonds have a whit tip??? If so , then these are not Accubonds. Just a thought. | |||
|
| one of us |
Supposedly all of them have white tips except for the ones produced under the guise of "combined technology". These have black lubalox coating and a red tip. This is a joint venture between Nosler and Winchester. Who makes em'? Probably Nosler, but who knows for sure. One thing is for certain, based on the pictures by Canuck, Nosler isn't gonna be real happy putting their name on em'  | |||
|
| One Of Us |
Quote: The Federal load looked a little better but had shot a small doe in the shoulder (smaller bones), instead of a buck or large doe with more bone mass. Weight retention, without checking my original post, was 66%. IMHO, the Federal Acubond bullet also failed to penetrate adequately. A picture is worth 1000 words, now maybe more people will understand why I was so motivated to get the word out about our experiences. Cheers, CL | |||
|
| One Of Us |
300 winnie is right, these are Nosler Accubonds in Winchester factory ammo. You can even see some of the black lubalox coating remaining on the shank. | |||
|
| one of us |
Thanks for posting those. They have expanded to a larger diameter than any others I've seen. It's understandable they didn't penetrate as far as one would expect. And the one on the left is peeled back surprisingly far. I also wonder if these are a different "flavor" of the bullet sold to reloaders. It's not uncommon at all for the bullets in factory loaded rounds to differ slightly from those sold as components (cannelures, crimping grooves, coatings, etc). I wonder if Winchester wanted a softer version for the WSM? Interesting. | |||
|
one of us |
I was hoping that the Accubonds would give better performance than this. Sounds like some fragile bullet construction because any .300 should penetrate through a Whitetail.Take a look at this 160gr .284 Nosler Partition.  I had written on another post that I thought the Partitions occasionally failed because the "EXIT" hole was about the size of the caliber. I have never lost a deer using a partition and have confidence in their performance. This bullet was recovered from a Whitetail doe that was shot head on through the chest. The bullet penetrated through the length of the deer and stopped in the hide on a hind-quarter. She weighed about 120lbs. You can clearly see how the top half got wiped off but the partition stayed intact. This is the only bullet I have ever recovered from my 7mm Mag with over 50 deer killed with this rifle. The three bullets I have used are Nosler Partition, Trophy Bonded Bear Claw and Hornady Spire Point. All three have performed with deadly precision and I was hoping the Accubond would follow in their footsteps.  This is a picture of the recovered 160gr Nos Par with a complete 160gr Nosler Partition next to it. The bullet on the right is a 162gr Hornady Spire Point. | |||
|
| one of us |
I am surprised.I just returned fron an elk hunt where a 180gr ballistic tip out of a 300ultramag passed through both shoulders of a mature elk then lodged in the hide.I weighed the remaining bullet and it came out at 111.7gr or about 62% retained weight.I would have thought that the accubond would have done better. | |||
|
one of us |
I would be willing to bet that there is a difference in the Combined Technology Accubonds in the Winchester ammo, and the Nosler Accubonds sold loose in the box. I know they are both Accubonds but I would be willing to bet there are construction differences. Just the look of the jacket seperation in those bullets looks much different than the look of the true accubonds pictures posted on this thread. Only experiance I have had with them has been great. Shot a Nilgai Bull at 80 yards right behind the shoulder broadside with a .300 RUM and he ran about 80 yards and dropped. Never recovered the bullet, but if anyone here knows anything about Nilgai, they are one TOUGH animal to bring down. I've seen them shot multiple times with anything from a 30-06 to a 378 weatherby and run for a couple thousand yards into trees never to be recovered. SO I guess in my experiance, it did the job. | |||
|
| one of us |
The only difference between the Combined Technology and the regular Accubond is the CT's are treated with lubolux (sp) or whatever the bullet coating is, that's it, same bullet, so I dont think that is the issue. I think it is the angle entering the animal, and alot of bone was involved. When lead bullets are involved, they are going to shed some weight, bonded or not. Maybe take a good look at the Barnes bullet, TSX, and move on. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I thought this quote from another thread would make an interesting addition here: Quote: | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Re: From Alberta: 180gr. ACCUBONDS FAIL ON DEER
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia