200g Accubond and what powder?

Brent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2001
Messages
2,537
Location
Palmer, Alaska
I've tested 90gr Retumbo in my 300 Ultra and accuracy is great for this rifle, MV is only a tad over 3000 fps tho...

I had to make the first load I tested at lower MV work as I was in a hurry too, the accuracy was holding under .75 MOA and often "much" better so I went with it.

I'll be looking for accuracy at 3200 fps soon as I get a chance to play with the load more.
 
I'm getting an average/uncorrected 3199fps MV from the 200 gr Accubond and 95.5 gr of Retumbo, lit with a Federal 210m primer. It is shooting an honest .75" and sometimes does better. My dad used my rifle with this load two weeks ago to take a Wyoming Antelope at a laser ranged 852 yds.
 
Chris,

Are you against the lands or away from it aways with that load? I seated some about .180" deeper to get ready to hunt with and lost about 70 fps from the ones touching the lands that I tested PSI and MV on in the beginning. I'm guessing now my load is just above 55K PSI with them seated deeper.
 
I am away from the lands a good bit as they won't fit in the magazine seated out. This particular load is .096" off the lands. I haven't tried them seated out as it would make the rifle a single shot...
grin.gif
 
Remingtonman, the 200g Accubonds worked just great for us at 3100fps. We took 2 mullies and 2 elk with it last week. Both elk were shot in the spine, about 7" was destroyed. The mullies were shot quartering away, one at 100yrds, the other at 240yrds. Both bullets entered just infront of the hindquarters, exited just behind the front shoulder. Two ribs were destroyed on the entrance, on my mullie there was a hole thru one lung I could put my small finger thru (7/16"). All critters were one shot stops.

Forgot to mention, I'm using IMR7828. Load woun't do you much good-rifle has a tight neck/short throat.

[ 10-28-2003: Message edited by: Al Walewski ]
 
I bought a box of the 200g Accubonds the other day and tested 3 loads. I used H-1000, Fed 215's, Rem Cases, and different OAL's for each charge/load. Here was the results.

90g H-1000, 3.620"
3001 fps
3019 fps
3031 fps
3 inch group at 100 yards

92g H-1000, 3.640"
3096 fps
3090 fps
3127 fps
.6" at 100 yards, 2 shots were basically 1 hole going under .25" with the 3rd shot, 3127fps being a bit of a flyer

94g H-1000, 3.660"
3155 fps
3144 fps
3171 fps
1.5" at 100 yards

It looks like 92g is by far the best for accuracy, but is not as fast as I would like the 200g to be going accurately. 3100fps isn't bad, but I am looking more at 3200fps and good groups. Maybe H-1000 just wont do it. Is there anybody using the 200g Accubond at 3200fps and getting .5-.75" groups? I was thinking of using Retumbo or RL-25. I am wanting to throw a quick elk load together with the 200g Accubond because I am having second thoughts about using the 200g SMK on elk. The recovered bullet from the bear I shot at 250 yards weighed a mere 20 grains and about all that was left was the base of the bullet. Thanks for any replys.
 
I worked up a load for my buddies ( Steve ) 300RUM and 200 gr accubond.

I used 4831sc 80.6 grs and was getting 2900fps and true .5" accuracy. The rifle was a stock Sendero!!
 
My load is very close to Chris'. 95 grains of Retumbo, 3177 fps, Fed 215 primer. Velocity is very consistent and the load is very accurate. Come to think of it, it's mild enough I could go to 95.5 grains...hmmm.
grin.gif
I'm also a mile away from the lands to get the rounds to fit into the magazine COL = 3.60".

Al, did the bullets exit from the elk?

[ 11-01-2003: Message edited by: Jon A ]
 
Jon, no and yes. My son first shot a bull that another hunter in our crew had hit twice in the rump. We got kinda lucky on that one cause Steve shot the bull in the neck. We couldn't find where he was hit till we removed the hide. The guy wants to do a shoulder mount, the hide wasn't danaged. On the secound elk, Steve shot a cow in the spine just aft of the shoulders. Exit wound was aprox 2", blew the fur off aprox 6" of hide.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 22 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top