Asked Nosler why their 260 ammo was so different in speed 125 gr vs 130....175fps gain with 125gr....

http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=11&b=3/&s=87

response by Nosler:

We used a 24" barrel for our 260 Remington testing. The difference in velocity comes from a few different factors which are bullet weight, powder charge and bullet type. The Partition and the AccuBond behave differently in barrels. The PT will actually swell and create a tighter seal as it travels down the barrel.
Regards,
Nosler, Inc.

SO gang, I am wondering if an AB can be DRIVEN safely to similar velocities as a 125 PT with appropriate powder charge, OR does the difference is bullets 'restrict AB's velocity potential' somewhat vs the partition?

Thoughts? The AB looks very promising for a premium 6.5 bullet, BUT my analytical mind wants to know velocity potential in safe reloads, despite factory specs on each above.

If the expected real world difference is as much as Nosler factory loads than it is very significant.....as what an AB may gain in accuracy, nothing bad has been said to my knowledge on the 125 partition, so if I have 175fps potentially MORE speed, than the PT may be the way to go......BUT, if a good handload can be safely COMPARABLE between the two, then there is no concern.

Looking for replies from those that may have experience chronographing each bullet in a given gun/cartridge.

If anyone has some info on this, I appreciate your input. Thanks as I have been short on range time lately.

I don't think the 125gr partition can be beaten so don't understand why the 130gr AB needs to exist.

The 130gr AB is longer and so takes more powder space when seated to the same COL thus increasing pressure for the same powder charge. Add in the extra weight, perhaps some extra bearing surface and you have a difference. Then add in the fact that the data would have been done at a different time to the 125gr partition and hence likely different powder lots and a barrel in a different state of wear (perhaps a different barrel) and maybe a different technician calibrating the pressure equipment differently with a different interpretation of SAAMI limits etc etc you get the picture....

So 6.5 BR..

my friend.. I don't think that the velocity difference is going to really be all that crucial...

I will try out the 130 grain AccuBond, strictly because it is a Nosler product... other than that, it wouldn't peak my interest at all..like Hornady's SSTs...

But as 1894 points out.. with the 125 partition in existance.. why try to reinvent the wheel...

In my loads, I don't redline anything, and the difference between the two is 62 fps in my 26" 6.5x30-30 IMP using N160 and 90 fps in a 26" 6.5x55 using Re-22 -- the the edge, of course, going to the Partition.

Those are the only two calibers in which I am loading both and with the same powders. Other comparisons of my loads would be meaningless as the 125 PT and 130 AB loads are using different powders.

Those differences, to me, are miniscule, and no deer would ever know the difference.

With the exception of the 6.5 AB, all of the other ABs I have used have given the same surgical accuracy as the Ballistic Tip. But the 130 grainer in 6.5 seems to be rather finicky in that department. Granted, the results are more than satisfactory but can't measure up to the other bullets I am using in those particular rifles.

Here is one data point, in a 264Win Mag.

My load for several years is a 125Partition at 3300fps...accurate, flat shooting and deadly.

Tried the 130AB, "just because". Best load was/is 3280fps with one grain less powder. AB is marginally more accurate in this rifle. No significant different in trajectory. Haven't taken any game with it.

My 6.5X57 shoots the 125 grain partition extreemly well. I have not tried the acubond.
I am sure both would be great game bullets.
And the only real advantage I would expect from the acubond is a little lower price...tj3006

Thanks to all, that tells me what I needed to know, it sounds like in a good load, moderate capacity, the difference is small, meaningless I agree with Bobby and since the accuracy edge is nil, the partition is still the one to beat if one wants a premium bullet in this weight range.

I have two AB's in my desk here from the Shot Show and it is indeed a long bullet, as are those great Javelin like missiles that come in 6.5 flavor. Increased bearing surface sets up more friction to be sure, but it hurts little once they clear the bore, love the high BC of many 6.5 bullets, they may start out moderate in speed, but downrange surpass other bullets/cal's that start at a higher MV.

TJ, I have not checked lately, thought the AB's were higher in price due to being a 'newer Latest Greatest hi tech product' .....

Unless I am after Elk or something similar I doubt I need anything tougher than a 129 sp (and would not hesitate to use the 129 on them either), the SST's look great and Midway shows a 'interbond' version coming, but the price of these premis are outrageous and I doubt I will use many of any premi bullets. Rem corelokts have worked well for me -120's on deer, and I am not shooting competition (would use target bullets if so i.e. Lapua/Sierra).

Thanks to all for the insight and experience/wisdom.

I can't argue one way or the other on if the Part seals better. I have also not tested the 130AB in a 6.5. But in dealing with other Nosler Data I found during pressure testing that the BT or AB would take a little less powder and give a couple fps less. I've always ASSUMED it was because of the length of the bullet. The BT and AB will be longer than the Part for same weight. If your OAL is the same then the longer bullet takes up powder space.

Not to wander away from your orignal question but I have been scratching my head a bit about the 130 ab. I have had 4 one shot kills with the 125 partition out of my 260 Rem and could not be more pleased with this bullet. I am thinking that some of us with a 9" twist might not get get good accuracy, 8" twist no problem. It might just be me but if a bullet in the 120-125 range is not quite enough than the 140 gets the nod. If I need more than that I go up in caliber. I would have liked to see it in a 120 for use in the .260 case. Nosler does make excellent bullets and have been doing so a long time. Hats off to them for not standing on their merits and constantly striving to offer new and better products to shooters.

I think Hipster that companies wishing to stay on top, always innovate new products, whether needed or not......I think any 9 twist 6.5mm is fine up to 129 grains based on my experience (but a 130 AB may be more like a 140 due to length and need an 8"?), its the longer heavier bullets that sometimes need a faster twist i.e. 8"....and an 8 is what I prefer, though many 260's are mfg in 9. Given the OAL in a short action, it's likely many 260 shooters are happy using up to 129's or so, and it seems many 6.5x55 supporters like the longer action's ability to house heavier bullets w/o infringing on powder capacity.

The 120-125's have such a reputation as well as the 129's that I agree, stepping up to a heavier bullet might give more, and the next jump is a larger caliber.

My choice is 6-7mm, on small to mid size game, and if I need more oomph, I want a 338 or 358 cal in North America. Many 30 cal owners are very happy, but I guess I am bored with the idea of using a say 30-06 for everything, and it WILL and DOES 'git r done' but not my cup of tea.

I prefer less recoil for a majority of my shooting needs, based on my kind of hunting.

I think Nosler is a first rate company, but also believe they charge a 'premium' on their products that is not justified in most of MY shooting needs, being completely content with other brands priced more to my budget.

I have, will perhaps will continue using Noslers in certain hunting situations, depending on the needs, but I foresee that being on game such as elk where I feel a premium bullet may give a measurable difference in field performance. On game deer and under, I am completely content using non-premi bullets.

One bullet many 6.5 users have loved is the 120 BT, but the 125 pt users have been very happy just as you have been, so yes, did we 'need a AB?' probably not, but it is a nice option.

I may try AB's someday if I can get 'seconds' reasonable. Economics come to play. Again, on truly large game, I will spring the extra bucks as one box or so here and there is not going to break the bank and is little incremental increase in the overall total cost of a hunt.

Re: 120/125 vs 140's, cannot recall where a 6.5 hunter said, gee I NEEDED 15-20gr more lead and it would have changed the outcome of the hunt.....truly.....but if after an elk, a 140 gr would ALWAYS be desired over say a 120 gr, but the 125 pt has been proven a solid killer on large game for a small bullet, as one article wrote years ago, 'it simply works.'

Re: pt's, I have heard some reports of accuracy issues in certain calibers and weights, but it seems most guns can get at or under MOA accuracy, so for hunting that will suffice normally. AB users report better accuracy, so hunters gain a confidence edge at the range, but whether it would alter the outcome in the field at normal ranges is doubtful.

That said, it's never a bad choice to use the most accurate load/bullet combo when hunting, given the bullet construction is appropriate for it's intended target.

I cannot argue that if needing more than a 120/125, a 140 makes the next sensible move up, passing up on the 130 AB. Nothing against it, but the current 140's may get things done in as good a fashion as the new AB.

Agreed, Nosler is to be commended on not sitting on their laurels.

I've been mired in the "best 6.5mm" bullet search for 35 years, so here goes.
In the .260 260 Remington I find that my first M7 rifle craved the 120 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip Remington factory load, and I could get no better performance out of my handloads or other factory ammunition. Then I bought a M7 (MS) that doesn't like the 120s or 125s, and craves Remington factory 140 grain Core-Lokts (it's a real garbage gut), but it sure kills deer
In the 6.5x54mm 6.5x54mm I've found a general preference in my three current rifles that range in age from 1923 to 1998 for the 160 grain class bullets, the best performers being the RWS H-Mantle, the Norma Vulkan, and the lowly Hornaday RN, all being capable of grouping less than an inch. In the 140 grain class I've found the Norma to perform best, followed by Hornaday and Speer.
In the 6.5x55mm, I've had little experience with handloads, after discovering that my NO model Mannlicher really liked 140 grain Federal Bonded Bear Claws.
Finally, the 6.5x57mm 6.5x57mm is a recent acquisition for which I am just now accumulating components. Meanwhile available ammo from S&B and Privi Partizan shoots into an inch at 100 yards, with bullets of 131 grains (S&B) and 139 grains (Privi) There's still room for discovery there.
In retrospect there is also the 6.5-06 6.5-06, for which I sold off my last custom rifle in 2000, and have kicked myself about ever since. The 6.5-06 seems to be the best overall experimentation platform I have ever owned. That cartridge seems at home with bullets from 100 grains to 160 grains, and in 25 years of playing with three different rifles in 6.5-06, I never really came up with a "favorite" load. Sadly, I never owned a chronograph during that time either, and I would certainly like to chrono a 120-125 grain class slug thru a 6.5-06, but I think I'd hunt with a 140 grain or even a 156/160 grain slug, just because I like heavy bullets.
I suppose I've muddied the waters a bit and bored a few of you too.
LLS

Not bored at all, thanks for the info, seems some of the older mannlichers like the heavies, perhaps the throating and high twists are conducive to shooting them well. Thanks.

Seems you pick whatever shoots best, never heard a complaint of any 6.5 bullet on game interestingly enough. Now shooting elephants with a vmax or TNT might be asking too much, but really on most game, most any bullet of reasonable weight brings success to hunters it seems.

?.....do you see any noticable pro or con with your experience in using the 120bt vs 140 corelokt? Just curious. On deer of course.

What terrain or part of the country do you hunt and what is your average shot distance? Thanks again.

Howdy 6.5BR,

I have been hunting deer in Florida and Texas. The 120 BT vs 140 CL will apply to hunting in the Texas Hill Country where the shots are basically 100-125 yards from blinds, and I could not tell a bit of difference. Well, not really, the 120 hit Axis deer ran maybe 10 yards, the 140 hit deer (3) were all splat down on the spot. Factory 140 grain CLs were down right cheap, until the latest round of price increases/gouging.

LLS

That last phrase........I feel it too, the industry needs to watch they don't overprice themselves. Just like the gas/oil companies, exploitation IMHO.

I know there are some costs increases in raw material, but let's get real. Another topic.

Anyway, I flattened 3 deer with the 120 Rem in a couple of 6.5x55's. It may not be quite as accurate as the ballistic tip, nor quite as flat, but it has worked very well for me.

What specific area of Texas if you don't mind my asking?

I've been hunting in the Rock Springs area which is west of Kerrville, two different ranches within 10 miles of each other. Typical Texas hill country, hilly, up and down, lots of small oaks, cedar, some mesquite, and very rocky. Typical shooting range are under 150 yards, although you could shoot out to 300, but why risk a shot when you can get in closer? You can also still hunt, and that can get the opportunities down to 25 yards or less, which is what I've seen the handgun hunters doing.
LLS

Thanks for the info, I agree, I like getting closer, despite having personal satisfaction when I have made longish shots, the hunt is more exciting when you get close, under 50 yds has been many of my kills, very exciting, I think the heart rate is always higher. That said, many conditions are not always conducive so one must be prepared to shoot 100-250, which has been the longest save 1 at 400, and 1 at 275 or so.