The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Re: " UPDATE: 180gr. ACCUBONDS FAIL ON DEER (w/PICS)"Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Re: " UPDATE: 180gr. ACCUBONDS FAIL ON DEER (w/PICS)" | Login/Join |
| One Of Us |
Big thanks Canuck! I'll take the time to learn how to post someday  As you can see from the test results, IMHO, 9.5 inches of penetration at a given a muzzle (and impact) velocity of 3037fps is nothing to be proud of! Our tests on Alberta deer support Nosler's results. That would mean that anyone using 180gr. bullets and hunting with a 300 Win. Mag (about 3100fps); 300 Weatherby (about 3250fps); 300 Dakota (about 3175fps); 300 RUM (about 3350fps) or Warbird (about 3400+fps)can only expect 9.5 inches of penetration out at 50 to about 200 yards??? Bottom line may be to use Accubonds only for those rare occassions where you have a perfect broadside shot behind the shoulder where you know that the bullet will have to travel less than 9.5 inches to reach the vitals.   Nosler might have to increase their jacket thickness and give us a bullet we can use. If they cut corners to keep costs down, we might end up with continued lower Accubond penetration or several versions (remember the Ballistic Tips?)before it comes out right. In the end, it will cost them much in both dollars and brand equity. Those of you that chose the 200 AB are probably seeing slightly better results as the S.D. and initial weight is higher. Sunday is when our photos (showing similar and worse weight retention and overexpansion)will be taken. | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Me to. I've always loved Partitions. And those are exactly some of the same reasons I like the AccuBond. Very similar performance from everything I've seen. Quote: Actually, while the AccuBond does open quickly it doesn't hold a very large frontal diameter. Probably the smallest of all the common bonded bullets, allowing decent penetration. It does lose some weight in the initial destruction, though, which obviously keeps it from penetrating like an X-Bullet. But I agree--if people want Failsafe penetration (along with Failsafe-sized wound channels), use a Failsafe. Choose the right bullet and you'll likely be happy unless your expectations are clearly misguided. Personally, I like a bullet that will do some more damage along the way--even with minimal resistance--and still hold together and penetrate OK on tough shots. Despite surestrike's shrieking, I haven't yet seen a reason to doubt the AccuBond will perform as I expect it to perform. | |||
|
| one of us |
Here are some of mine from Africa. Interested in how yours performed. http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=636695&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=2&vc=1 | |||
|
| one of us |
If I was going to shoot a magnum, I would have chosen the 200 gr. Accubond bullet, particularly if I was going to shot something up the old Keyster and I do... The Texas heart shots not a high percentage shot? Now what the hell does that mean? It is probably the quickest killing shot that I know of, other than brain or spine... It tears up the heart lung area, along with whatever else that gets in its way like liver, stomach, spine or whatever.. Whatever I hunt, I pick a bullet that will penetrate that animal lengthwise, and that is usually a Nosler partition, but on side on shots the Noslers sometimes don't have big cross section and you may not get that instant kill thats so widely approved of even though they leave a good blood trail and positive kill...Nosler partitions, like a good horse or dog are dependable. | |||
|
| One of Us |
With all due respect Lefty I do not belive these bullets really failed. I admit that I would have expected a little better penetration. But still, at that kind of velocity and those shots you cannot expect super great penetration. Wonky things happen at high speeds. As far as meat dammage goes, you will always get bad dammage at that kind of velocity with any soft point lead core bullet. That is just my 2 cents (in Canadian $ so really worthless). | |||
|
| one of us |
Jon: Yup. That's it. Check page two for some recovered bullet pics from a gemsbok. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote:Quote: While I'm in a pic posting mood, here's one to expand on that point (no pun intended)  : That's a 30 cal 180 Scirocco on the left, 200 AB on the right from the same medium. This is why Sciroccos haven't penetrated well in my tests even though they retain more weight. I have never seen this "flattening like a pancake" tendency from the AB. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: No, not at all. That's why I'm so interested in getting more information about CL's experience. I would expect that bullet (although I've only used/tested the 200 and 225) to exit a deer almost always. Although as MuskegMan mentioned, if you're shooting them nearly lengthwise (as it sounds like all three of CL's descriptions were) a deer can stop a pretty big, tough bullet. But at this point I need more info before I'll get to worried about this post. If he posts pics of the bullets and they're flattened like a pancake or there's only a fragment left...then that might get my attention. Also it's hard to know exactly what the bullets did when there are anatomy inconsistancies in the descriptions. That's not to rag on CL or anything, I'm sure he's giving the descriptions as well as he remembers. It's just that I'm not going to change thoughts on what I've seen with my own eyes without some pretty compelling evidence. We aren't there yet. Pics of the bullets will help. Hopefully the factories didn't alter the design for their specific loads...or even worse--get Winchester Silver Tips mixed in where AccuBonds were supposed to go. In any case, I'll post pics of the first one I recover. Unfortunately I believe that will be a while--I like shoulder shots too. But I'll only be hunting deer this year. Maybe I'll line a couple of them up.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Hey Jon, I really don't understand how to explain what CL saw either. I've not tried any of the Accubonds, so all of this is of more interest to me (perhaps) than someone who has lots of experience with them. I have used numerous boxes of the old Solid Base bullets when they were available as components. And numerous boxes of B-Tips in at least 3 different Design Phases. All of these bullets were what I considered fragile Standard Grade bullets. But, I never had any problem getting Exits when a shoulder was encountered either going in or coming out. That is not intended in any way to denegrade what CL reported. I've no reason to think he did anything but report what he saw. But that brings me back to a question you must have missed. What do you believe the MAX Impact Velocity is for the Accubonds Design Envelope? Is it different for each caliber and weight? | |||
|
| one of us |
From Jeff: Quote:Perhaps this is a function of a couple of things on my part. Where I've been hunting the past few decades, the understory and crops can hide Game in as little as 6 feet. Real difficult to find them when they fall "between" rows of 4.5' tall Beans that grow together to completely cover the rows. Same for the Briers and underbrush. If you get the chance to hunt the South Carolina Lowcountry, it would be much easier to understand. If you ever pass through the area, just get out and ask one of the people on the land to let you walk through their woods, swamps and crops for 5 min and you will see why dropping them very quickly is a great benefit. Quote: | |||
|
| one of us |
Well I have to say something about this topic. I really dont think that a 300 WSM can make a 180gr Accubond come apart on a deers paper thin shoulder. I tested the 160gr Accubond in my 7MM STW at 15 yards and 60 yards wich are leaving the Muzzle at 3250 fps and they held up well for what I put them through. The test media was as follows. One green treated 4x4 post, Three green treated 2x6's, One 2 inch thick Wet Hard Cover text book, And one 2 inch thick Wet Phone Book and a box full of sand to catch the bullets if needed. The 4x4 was in the front with the 2x6's after that then the Hard cover book followed by the Phone book and a box of sand. I also tested the 160 Barnes TSX. I will post pics and details tonight and I think you will be surprised on the results. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: It probably is different for different calibers and weights. The way they were introduced in fairly heavy-for-caliber weights, I didn't think there were any "common" rounds capable of driving them too fast. I tested the 200 30 Cal up to over 3300 and it showed no signs of that base ever wanting to come appart. The faster I pushed them, they'd simply lose a bit more weight ending up slightly "shorter." But the base would stay intact in a very "Partition-like" manor And penetration would not suffer--they seemed to go deeper the faster they were pushed. From one extreme in velocity to the other they were much more consistent than Barnes X's (which doesn't expand enough at low velocity IMHO). I hunt with it just under 3200. My dad uses a bit more mild load at about 3100 for the 225 in his 338 RUM. In fact, some of the most glowing reports from the field I've seen have been from the RUMs. I think the very first one I saw was Brent Moffit's:    Double shoulder shot on an Alaskan Moose. That's a 200 from a 300 RUM at 3050. Broke the on-side and almost exited the far side shoulder. It looks just like the ones from my tests. Actually better than many as it seems my high-velocity tests were a little tougher on the bullets than Brent's "real" test. I would certainly do some testing of the 180s before heading afield with them at around 3400, but I'm sure they'd hold together. They'd lose more weight and wouldn't penetrate as far as the 200's but I wouldn't worry about them "blowing up." But the 200 is a better choice for me. I'm sure there's a limit. If I wanted to use a 150 or 165 at Swift-like velocities I doubt I'd use any bullet with lead in it. I used to do that (XBT's @ 3650) but decided it was a dumb practice for many reasons. So, I don't know what the limit is but I'm confident I'm below it. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Please do. Sounds very interesting. | |||
|
one of us |
I've just started loading .375 260gr Accubonds in my new 375 RUM. Does anyone have any kind of reports on this bullet? Cam | |||
|
| One Of Us |
I'm in Calgary right now. I'll try to answer some of your questions: 1. Two does were shot facing as they saw us creeping along the trail. Buck shot as he had seen the hunter and trotted off then walked away. 2. I do not have photos of the bullets but will take a photo of mine when I get back home. 3. Retained weights were: 52% (buck), 57% (large doe)and 66% (small doe) 4. The angles and shot descriptions were as I remembered them. I am trying to be as factual and unbiased as possible and just relating my experience and those of by two hunting buddies to you. Your mileage may vary. I will try them on Caribou (winter meat hunt) just to get more data points- it is a low risk hunt where I can place my shots exactly where I want to- as mentioned, I would not use them on any trophy hunt or larger game. I will check back in a week or so. Happy hunting! | |||
|
| one of us |
The loads you are using are they factory? What color is the tip on the bullet? I am just wondering if the bullets you have are new and maybe Nolser changed something from the Accubonds I have. It would not be the first time a bullet company makes a change to a bullet and then doesnt let the public know. | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: I would say that given the circumstances of the shots, the Accubonds more than lived up to their design parameters!! With 50%+ weight retention after hitting bone at somewhat short ranges, these have to be great bullets. You have to remember, there is no one perfect bullet. Any bullet with a polymer tip is designed for rapid expansion more than deep penetration. With rapid expansion comes less penetration, but a larger wound channel. In my opinion, given the conditions, you would have been far better off with Barnes X bullets or TSXs if you were looking for "end to end" penetration. | |||
|
| one of us |
Thanks for the pic, dakor. That's about what I'd expect. It looks like the TSX penetrated farther in close range test because it blew off its petals and had a small frontal diameter while it kept them in the longer range test. Interesting. While we're posting pics of tests, here's a pic I took when I got my new camera of an old test I did:  The two on the right are 225 338 cal AccuBond and Northfork both launched at 3000 fps. The one on the left is a 30 cal 200 AB. I made it tough on that one using one of my 3250 fps loads. The Northfork retained 89% of its weight, the 225 AB 75% and the 200 72%. They all penetrated exactly the same distance. The Northfork had the biggest wound channel--especially toward the end where it was noticably larger than the other two. That wasn't surprising since it expanded to a larger diameter. But even though it did, the extra weight retention allowed it to penetrate the same. Interestingly, the smaller caliber 200 made just as big a hole as the Northfork for about the first 1/3 of the penetration--the added velocity at work I guess. The front blowing off doing damage, followed by the base sticking together and penetrating--very "Partition-like." | |||
|
| one of us |
That last photo mirrors my experience with the Scirocco. A couple of years ago I had a 180 gr. .308" Scirocco fail to completely penetrate a deer that was shot in the ribs. The recovered bullet was no more than 1/4" long and had flattened out almost to the size of a silver dollar. I quit using them for that reason and because they copper fouled my bore like crazy. | |||
|
| one of us |
I can ditto that experience with the Scirrocos. I had a 150 gr. Scirrocco from my 7mm blow up into four pieces on a double lung shot at 150 yards broadside. It shredded the first lung but only penentrated the second a little ways. At 150 yards on a broadside lung shot? ........WTF? The buck died, but I lost any confidence I had in the performance of the Scirrocos. The lead actually separated from the copper base and I thought the bonding was supposed to stop that. Anyway, I have seen better performance from the old Remington Core-Lock bullets. The Sciroccos shot decently from my rifle, but expansion behavior was poor at best. I have heard many similar reports over the last 3 years describing the same thing on these Sciroccos. I still kinda surprises me that these bullets are from the same manufacturer who make the A-Frame which has one of the best, most reliable reputations for a bullet worldwide. From what I hear, I would be lead to believe it is the benchmark in Africa. -Autumn Pulse | |||
|
| one of us |
That is really interesting results. I just got back from the elk opener here in Idaho and we had a totally different experience with the 180 grain Accubond. My brother-in-law shoots a 300 Ultra Mag with these bullets chronographed at 3400+ fps. Calls in a bull that shows himself at 70 yards. The first shot hit further back than hoped for but broke the bull down. Two more quick shots through the boiler room for insurance. The first bullet struck the spine right where you would cut the elk in half to quarter him. No saw necessary! A little knife work and the bull was in half. Recovered the bullet on the offside just under the hide. Sure, the bullet was mushroomed right down to the base, but it held it's structure. I will post the weight when I have it, but I am guessing right at 50%. Pretty good performance if you ask me...that bullet was still going in excess of 3200 fps at least. The other two shots passed through the ribs and everything in between leaving mush for vitals. I for one was very impressed with the performance of the bullets. I just wish I would have had the opportunity to test the 200 grain version for myself  | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, in defense of Swift, people need to keep in mind the Sciroccos are performing exactly how they were designed. If you want a tough bullet with deep penetration for close shots on big critters, you're supposed to buy the A-Frame. But the A-Frame isn't the best choice for a shot through the lungs of an antelope at 400 yds...that's what the Scirocco is for--and I think it's a great bullet for that use. The AccuBond does seem to me to be more versitile, doing a pretty good job in both applications. That's why I use it. | |||
|
| One Of Us |
Just read your post with your hypothesis of min. R&D on the latest versions of the Accubond (i.e. the 180gr. .30 cal)contributing to their failure...interesting...It may be the case. I for one, would like to see Nosler stiffen up the jacket (increase thickness)to better enable penetration. | |||
|
| One Of Us |
Same here, but Nosler will 'retest' the Win. Factory ammo as they believe the bullet failed also. Nosler even asked for our particular lot numbers on the ammo boxes. Great to hear that they have perfected the 180gr. Ballistic Tip (judging by your great results)! Happy hunting, CL | |||
|
| 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: " UPDATE: 180gr. ACCUBONDS FAIL ON DEER (w/PICS)"
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia