The Accurate Reloading Forums
Interbond Penetration Tests???

This topic can be found at:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/965107321

17 March 2004, 06:45
Thunderstick
Interbond Penetration Tests???
Has anyone media tested the Interbonds for penetration comparisons against the Partitions or A-Frames of similar weight?



Have field tests shown them the equal of other premiums (excluding the Failsafe and X) in penetration? The Scirroco is not proving to be the equal of the A-frame in this respect...but how about the Interbond?
17 March 2004, 08:36
tasunkawitko
>>>The Scirroco is not proving to be the equal of the A-frame in this respect<<<

i don't think that the scirroco is designed to perform the same as the a-frame or partition. if i remember correctly, it has a totally different application.

in that case, i wouldn't expect it to perform equally to the a-frame or partition
17 March 2004, 08:48
bowman
Interbond penetration from Hornady:
150gr. 30/06 MV 3000fps,vel 2500+ 100 yds
Interbond Barnes X Nosler PArt Swift Scirocco

18.625 in. 23 23 19
18 March 2004, 01:44
Thunderstick
Is this the correct reading of the data you posted?

Interbond-18.6"
Barnes X-23"
Partition-23"
Scirocco-19"

...all 150 grain shot at 3000 fps...?

...tests performed by Hornady...? where is this info posted?
18 March 2004, 01:49
Thunderstick
Quote:

i don't think that the scirroco is designed to perform the same as the a-frame or partition. if i remember correctly, it has a totally different application.




Very true, and field results I have read reveal that this bullet seems to over-expand on larger game. My question is whether the Interbond is showing better penetration than the Scirroco and more equal to the Partition.
18 March 2004, 03:00
Don_G
I'd like to see the Accubond added to the question.

I also think the Interbond over-expands, and I hope the Accubond might have a little better-controlled expansion.
18 March 2004, 15:23
RuffHewn
Quote:

I'd like to see the Accubond added to the question.

I also think the Interbond over-expands, and I hope the Accubond might have a little better-controlled expansion.



One of the techs at Nosler stated that in early tests the prototype Accubond performed similar to the Scirrocco and Interbond, expanded very rapidly and held a large frontal area by maintaining nearly all it's weight thus limiting penetration. This required some reengineering to allow the mushroom to shed some material.
18 March 2004, 16:47
Hunterbug
A friend of mine used the 225gr Accubond in his 338 last year to take 4 elk. One bullet was recovered just under the off side shoulder. It was a perfect mushroom and retained 80% of the origional weight.
18 March 2004, 18:15
D Hunter
I would assume that a 180 gr at 2750 would be a better all around performer. Lower speed/ less mushroom frontal area, more weight and momentum. Have not tried it but the logic seems right. "D"