Moki chech it this out.
http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=797628&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1&vc=1

Hey Jon, Good input, Thanks. I've seen a couple of dozen RUMs(300 & 338) at the Ranges I visit and they are indeed an amazing cartridge. Everyone I've seen is about twice as accurate as I expected them to be. Quite loud with the Brake, but it sure does work on them.

I'm kind of surprised Brent could get a shot off with all the "wires" hanging off his rifles. (We have had some heated discussions over the actual worth of Home Strain Gauge Systems, which he swears by.)

Quote:

---

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.

---

Hey Dakor, What do you think happened to the Bullets CL reportd on?

Quote:

---

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 (rest)....

---

Dakor, do not take this as critical of your Test Method. I just want to share some of my experience with you from a lot of very old Bullet Testing.

For what it is worth, I found out a very long time ago that shooting through "flat, wide, thick wood" can drastically alter the outcome of a Bullet Test from what a person might envision. And significantly different from the way it will respond in live flesh and bone.

It always seemed to me the wood "retarded radial bullet expansion" as the bullet passed through the actual wood. I would quite often find them with the tips "flat" similar to looking at the back end of a FMJ.

Kind of like pushing a Bullet through a Swaging Die(of the proper size) by hammering it with a Flat Punch. Basically rivoting the nose, without it having the ability to expand.

But, it will be nice to see your flicks. Did you see anything similar to what I described?

[image]http://[/image]

Starting from the left the first two bullets were shot at 15 yards. The 160 Accubond penetraited 15 inches and weighs 90 grains and is leaving the Muzzle at 3250 fps. The Barnes 160 TSX penetraited 19 inches (The 160 TSX out Penetraited my 375 H&H shooting a 260 Accubond and a 300 Sierra at 15 yards) and weighs 134.2 grains but it did lose it petals. The next test was at 60 yards. The 160 Accubond penetraited 25 inches and weighs 97.2 grains. The Barnes TSX penetraited 23 inches and weighs 160 grains. Now I was surprised that the Accubond was able to out penetrait the Barnes at 60 yards. I think it did because the lead allows it to change shape and slide through stuff unlike the Barnes. Now if a bullet can go through all that and hold over half of its weight I think it will go through a deers shoulder bone wich is not any thicker than a floppy disk. Even with the muscle and hide covering the bone you are talking 2 inches maybe 3 inches at max. As for using wood for testing I also had wet text books and both bullets had really nice wound channels that were so close you really could say which one was better. I will say if I was in Brown Bear country I would have the TSX's with because of how well they did at 15 yards.

Dakor, that is the performance I expect from the Accubonds, based on marketing hype, and remarks from others I have read over on longrangehunting.com. I can offer a sample of one. Last sunday I shot a cow elk at around 75 yards. The 30 cal. 200 gr Accubond, traveling at 2980 fps 10 ft from the muzzle, entered just behind the shoulder, shattering a rib, passing through the lungs just over the heart, through another rib as well as the shoulder blade, and exited. The exit wound was quarter size. A great improvement over the "standard" type 200 gr bullets I've been using.