Has anyone used/shot the Accubonds to any extent yet? I'm interested in using the 200gr in my .308 Warbird @ ~3300fps...wondering if anyone has seen the weight retention at extreme velocities.

I've played w/ the 160gr/7mm from my .280 @ 2850fps. I did some wet phone book testing & they performed better than other cup bullets, almost as good as the NP. I am going to run some thru my 7mm Dakota @ 3250fps. I'll post results when I do.
I think the CT 180gr/.308 would withstand the higher vel. of your Warbird.

I loaded some of the 225 gr. Accubonds for my 338 WM and had to seat the bullets way too deep in order to fit the magazine box on my Model 70 Classic SS. Accuracy was 2" to 2 1/2".

Nosler says they are going to release lighter weight bullets in every caliber next year to alleviate this problem. These bullets are extremely long for weight - hence the enormous BC's.

I have shot a box full of 225 gr in my Ruger 77 338 - superb accuracy (3 shot clover leaf) with IMR 4350 - will be testing them with RL19 next time at the range - Saturday - I hope. They do seat deep and my Hornady seating die leaves a nasty ring around the bullet. Looking forward to some lighter weigh bullets that are coming out.

Thanks guys,
I'm looking forward to trying them out...I know they're long and I've heard that people are getting about 50fps less than equal weight partitions. I'm going to steer clear of the CT 180gr because it's still a standard cup and core bullet, and would be a grenade at 3500fps. I'm looking for a hard hitting elk load, and I'm trying to decide whether I'll use a 180gr XLC, or the 200gr Accubond.

Thanks again for the replies!

Oh, but aren't those higher B.C.'s awe-inspiring!!?

In my opinion these new plastic tip bonded bullets are wonderful deer and small game bullets and nothing more.

Chuck

Until someone can show me how the accubonds and interbonds perform on big game I will not be foolish enough to tell others that they won't do the job.Opinions based on real life testing or experince deserve consideration.On the other hand an opinion given with no basis is just like an a$$hole and everyone has one.

I do have basis for my arguement. I have seen the results of 150gr swift sciroccos shot from a .280 remington at an unsuspecting moose. Quartering towards the shooter the bullet struck the shoulder turned into what appeared to be a quarter and failed to penetrate the ribcage. Fortunately a quick follow up shot that found its way into the neck of the beast and ended the arguement. I will also say that the penetration on the neck shot was less than steller as well.

Granted a behind the shoulder lung shot would have gotten the job done, but a better bullet would have gotten the job done on the shot presented (with the same bullet weight and rifle). I as well as the shooter will never shoot a "do everything" bonded core bullet again on elk or moose sized game. Heavy for caliber bullets may get the job done in this type of bullet design but I am not going to be the one to experiment on game that isn't that easy to come by.

Take that for what you think it is worth but I believe that the Accubond would be a nice replacement for the abomination nosler calls a ballistic tip. And yes I have personal experience with that bullet as well (I hunted with the ballistic tip exclusively for years) that has soured me on it as well. On deer sized game I might add.

I have posted this story before. It involves a .280 remington, 140 gr ballistic tips, and a complete blowup on a large mule deers ribs.

Your experiences may differ but if someone wants opinions on a subject they better be prepared to recieve answers they may not like.

Chuck

The thread was dealing with accubonds.Have you actually tried them on game yet?How about interbonds?How about the jensen j26?All are plastic tipped bonded bullets which your blanket statement covered.You are condemning a large group of bullets when you only have experience with one particular plastic tipped bonded bullet in one caliber and one weight and only one incident.Not much of a basis for condemning every bonded bullet with a plastic tip reguardless of caliber,weight or construction.

[ 07-12-2003, 23:41: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

I agree with Stubble here-comparing the Swift/Scir. to the Noz/Accu makes no sense at all to me.

Thats kind of like saying-oh never you mind you get my drift.

But to me to make any kind of a statement about a bullet until it has been tried (on quite a few animals) is pretty silly. I've seen way to many weird things happen with bullets to judge the way a bullet performs based off of my personal thoughts,or a probelm that occured once.

I say shoot about a dozen head or so with the bullet and then you have earned the right to speak on the bullets performance.

Just my thoughts

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

One last thing, just like women we all have our opinions on bullets.

I've seen more than a fair amount of game shot with the famous and notoriuos ballistic tips. This being from fast 22's to the 340's.

Personally, and this is just me but there is not much for game in this world that I would feel comfy taking on with the bullet. I know for a fact, and from experience, if I put it where it is suppose to go they are gonna join their ancestors toot sweet.

In this world I can think of only two critters that I would not prefer to take on with my rifle and the BT's. And that would be Dumbo and M Bogo. I know that is saying that I would take on a brownie with a BT-and that is right-is it the bullet I would take prefer no-however I would use it with no fear if that is what I had when Mr Brownie showed his big snout on the beach.

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

No experience with my Accubonds on big game yet, but I have shot them through my 338 Win. Mag. and got clover leaf groups, just ask for pictures. Hopefully poke a caribou with one next month.

I will again restate what I said. I will not, will not, try them on game larger than deer. Maybe some gun writer will fling them at nilgai or something but why would someone experiment on a fleeting chance at a mature bull elk. It absolutely blows my mind.

I have also shot loads of game with ballistic tips. One failure was enough for me.

Chuck

Jon A -If everyone felt like that we would still all be using spears.Some brave soul had to try the new fangled bow and arrow,then the muzzleloader,breechloader,smokeless powder,jacketed bullets, etc.Someone had to try them all for the first time and it is sure that there have been problems with all of them along the way.

[ 07-13-2003, 03:29: Message edited by: stubblejumper ]

JonA;
You stated:
("The only bullets I've seen recovered from game so far are these")

You posted the same picture in another thread on accubonds about a month ago and another member posted a picture of the exact same bullet fired in a very similar gun at practically the same range and the picture he posted of his recovered accubond sure don't look like the pretty ones in that magazine article.
The link to the thread is below:

http://www.nookhill.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003654#000000

Uhm, what's different besides the quality of the photography? His bullet has about the same amount of shank left, retained the same amount of weight, and the expanded diameter is roughly the same (although his might be slightly smaller). When bullets hit stuff sometimes they don't turn out as pretty as you'd like. It's the above things that matter, not how photogenic the bullet is. I've recovered some pretty ugly Nosler Partitions in my day. But they always got the job done.

Maybe there is a good reason for Nosler offering these bullets as heavyweights.

Chuck

[ 07-13-2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Chuck Nelson ]

If this comes up as a repeat I am sorry.

Maybe there is a reason nosler is offering these as heavyweights.

Chuck

P.S. Stubblejumper, while I have your attention , where is the best place to get Alberta outfitter information?

The 200's shoot just fine in my 06 no problems-the 225's shoot well in my 340 and the 160's shoot great in my 7 Mashburn Super.

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

While nosler has gone heavier with the accubonds hornady has made their interbonds in standard weights.Nosler only released a few bullets as a trial to see how they sell and probably figured they will be more easily accepted by some people in the heavier weights.I am betting that if they sell well lighter weights will soon be available.The alberta outfitters website is www.apos.ab.ca

I am still hoping that nosler will make a 180gr accubond in .308".After discussing this with several others we believe that a 180gr bullet would sell very well.I personally have no use for a 200gr bullet in .308" as I do not believe the extra weight is necessary especially in a bonded bullet.

I agree a 180 will sell very well. I'd guess that's the next one they'll put on the shelves.

I also agree that the extra weight may not be needed depending upon shot selection but I don't mind it--especially when it brings a higher BC with it. I've never hunted elk in Gardiner, MT when the wind hasn't been howling. The less wind drift the better when hunting there IMHO.

A 210 would have a BC about equal to that of the 220 Matchking.... Wouldn't that be cool.

Stubble-from what I heard from John Jr they are gonna do a 150 and a 180 and then maybe a 165-in the 30's.

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

Comparing them to the Swift Scirocco's and regular ballistic tips isn't a valid argument. I read on here that someone (I can't remember who) that heard that they were designed to lose more weight than the Swift Scirocco, therefore reducing frontal diameter and increasine penetration. And without a doubt, they are much more stout than standard ballistic tipped bullets. And as for the other thread that was mentioned...if the accubonds are penetrating as far as partitions, and FARTHER than X bullets, I think I may have found a new favorite bullet...But waiting for the 180gr is appealing as well.

Shot the 30-200 with great success out of a 300 ultra and a 300WSM. Just started with the 270's and am getting pretty good results out of a WSM. I am looking for a good load with a Viht powder is anyone has one?? Shot a Interbond out of the 300 ultra, let's just say that should probably be kept out of the upper 3000fps range, my recovery in wet newspaper looked like a buffalo nickle! As soon as I figure out how to upload pics I will.
Any help with the viht powders will be appreciated.

I recovered some accubonds after shooting them into phonebooks with 7mm stw at 100 yards at 3300+ and weighed them afterwards. they retained as much weight as partitions. i will not hesitate to use them this fall on big mulies and late season cow elk. i posted pics of my test a while ago including barnes. the high bc of these bullets is hard for me to ignore, and the fact that they are incredibly accurate out of my rifle. hopefully i will have even better things to say come fall.

My opinion (which, when added to $2.50, will get you coffee in most restaurants), is that the introduction of heavyweight Accubonds was influenced by the popularity of the STW and RUM cartridges [not to mention Dakota, Lazzeroni, and Weatherby].

If you thought Joe elk hunter was going to whack a big 6x6 with your bullet at a gazillion feet per second, you'd make heavies, too.

Cheers,
BigIron

Big Iron brings up an interesting idea with his theory. The "heavy-for-caliber'" crowd should rejoice at the success of the big boom Magnums, even if they hate Magnums. If BigIron is right, the 30-06 and 308 folks have a great selection of heavy stuff to shoot.

I was becoming concerned that the 220gr .308 bullets were disappearing, but maybe the STW/RUM crowd will keep those heavy bullets in the pipeline. If that's the case, more power to 'em.

But I hope that crowd gets wise to the heavy stuff soon, because I've noticed a perverse interest in light bullets as well, like a 150, or even a 130gr in a 300 RUM. Seems like an excuse to burn powder to me.