Accubond LR Comparison and G7 BC Test

MMERSS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
912
A hunting companion called me last week inquiring if I had any luck locating the Long Range AccuBonds (LRAB) for his 7 Rem Mag he recently purchased. "Not yet," I informed him. He has portrayed several times not being comfortable hunting with what he called "exploding" bullets. With the new line of LRABs advertised, he was quite interested in their performance. I informed him I had recently acquired two boxes of the 30 Cal 210 LRAB's and would be willing to test a few around 1000 yards with the results used to help him with his decision on a direction for a bullet to use in this new rifle. I also was not willing to invest more than 40 total rounds during tests to save barrel life on my rifle.

With the name Long Range, an appropriate starting point for testing would be with bullet consistency and evaluating the advertised G7 ballistics coefficient. I used the Berger 230 Grain Hybrid Tactical OTM with an advertised G7 BC of .368 for comparison to the LRAB advertised G7 BC of .366.
LRAB and Berger BC.jpg

Bullet Comparison.jpg

Pictured left to right for visual comparison are the 30 cal Berger 230gr Hybrid OTM, 30 cal Nosler 210gr LRAB, 338cal Berger 300gr Hybrid OTM, and 338 cal Nosler 300gr AccuBond.


I decided to evaluate the LRAB with comparison to the Berger OTM in four areas:
1. Base to Comparator length.
2. Weight.
3. Short range precision to include muzzle velocity variation.
4. Computer generated G7 BC drop results tested at ranges near 1000 yards specifically for the LRAB. I have shot the OTM's for the past few years and have confidence in their advertised G1 and G7 BC's.

Base to Comparator Length and Weight
Testing Equipment.jpg

Twenty bullets each were randomly selected, measured, weighed and placed back into their box. Sorting was not conducted. Length was measured using a Sinclair bullet sorting stand and quick sorting comparator. Weight was measured using a Sartorius M-prove scale.


Berger OTM
Average Weight - 230.07 grains
SD .091 grains
Average base to comparator length - .789"
SD .00074"

LRAB
Average Weight - 210.31 grains
SD .221 grains
Average base to comparator length - .766"
SD .00078"

Short Range Precision (Group Size in MOA) and Muzzle Velocity Variation
At the range.jpg

Three shot groups were taken with each bullet at 100, 200 and 300 yards. Average group size was measured in MOA. An Oehler M-35p chronograph measured the muzzle velocity of each shot. The rifle used during testing was an accurized Remington 700 LA fitted with a 30" Lilja 1-10" twist barrel chambered with a SAAMI reamer in 300 RUM and skim bedded in an HS Precision stock. A Nightforce 8-32X56 NXS scope with NP-R1 reticle topped the rifle and finished with a Sinclair bipod. Rounds were loaded three grains below estimated MAX charge with an OAL of 3.660" thus allowing just enough room for clearance in the magazine. Free bore was approaching 170 thousandths of an inch for each. Keep in mind load development was not conducted and results could have varied by conducting load development. I was more interested with the muzzle velocity standard deviation results considering the LRAB was not as precise in bullet weight as the Berger's.

Berger
Average three shot MOA .64
Average Muzzle Velocity 2960 ft/s, SD 15 ft/s

LRAB
Average three shot MOA .96
Average Muzzle Velocity 3136 ft/s, SD 11 ft/s

LRAB G7 BC

Ten additional LRAB's were loaded using an estimated MAX charge and zeroed. The four shot average zero muzzle velocity was 3222 ft/s.

The next morning a target was set up at 960 yards. Adjustments were made for wind and spin drift. Three shots were taken using the advertised G7 BC of .366 utilizing my ballistics engine. The group measured 18" low and 9" in size. 1095 yards.jpg
Note the vertical.

The target was then placed at 1095 yards for my last three shots. The first shot hit low just missing the target. I adjusted up 2.25 MOA and fired my last two rounds. The two shot group measured 12" low and was 11" in size. 960 yards.jpg
Note the vertical.

The advertised LRAB G7 BC of .366 is significantly above a corrected G7 BC required for my particular firing solution for the ranges noted above.

Of particular interest is the vertical displacement of the two groups. While two groups do not support near enough data to draw any form of validity, the results look promising. Both LRAB groups additionally measured approximately the same average MOA as in the short range testing while under slight wind and mirage changes (less than 3 MPH). The vertical displacement appears promising. I would consider the LRAB of having the potential of being a formidable long range hunting bullet compared to their current AccuBond design with further tested G7 BC validation and hand load development.
 
The advertised LRAB G7 BC of .366 is significantly above a corrected G7 BC required for my particular firing solution for the ranges noted above.

So what did you need to use for a G7 BC to get your dial ups to come out for these two distances for the LRAB 210?

Thanks and good work.

Jeff
 
So what did you need to use for a G7 BC to get your dial ups to come out for these two distances for the LRAB 210?

Thanks and good work.

Jeff

Sorry typo,

G7 BC corrected to .321 for solution.
 
Last edited:
Nice job. Can I ask what your zero was and atmospheric conditions were?

Michael,

I suppose you could say I established a zero 18" low at 960 yards with a DA of 5600. I don't take much validity with my first zero while shooting only a few rounds with groups measuring close to 1 MOA. In either case both ranges produced low shots using the advertised .366 G7 BC. Additional groups at various ranges need to be conducted to accurately predict the BC needed for a solution for my particular rifle and ammo combo. On the positive side, the LRAB's appear to be holding MVV and verticle well!:D
 
Nice work, thanks for doing it!! It looks like in this case the ALR may have similar ballistics to the Berger 210, it will be interesting to see how long range accuracy holds out over time!
 
Thank you.

So you never shot the new load and zeroed at 100 or 200? Sorry if I am missing something here.

Thanks
Jeff

Jeff,

100 yard zero with a few rounds. I would give a "gut feeling" error of +-1/2 MOA. I could have loaded more rounds to confirm however as long as I could hit paper with the first three rounds this would be a more accurate prediction of LR capability and not so much centered around an initial BC input or ballistics solution validation. Additionally, it would have been beneficial to conduct further zero validation and multiple LR drop comparisons. However, I was deliberately conscious of tube round count for what? Simply a starting point and comparison for a friend to consider or not consider the LRAB as a hunting round. I posted the results for the rest of the LR community to view as there is much talk about the LRAB as a capable LR hunting bullet. I'm patiently waiting along with many others with more complete and complex LRAB results.
 
Ok, Thanks. So for you they ran with a 210 Berger out to 1000 plus for BC. That is pretty good. I will await more results like you. But for now I am liking the 215 Hybrids with a G7 of .356 pretty good. For what it's worth I have ran them to past 1500 and checked drops. The advertised BC got me there and on drops with only one G7 entry.

Jeff
 
So for you they ran with a 210 Berger out to 1000 plus for BC.

Jeff,

So far the BC appears to be close to the Berger 210. I don't believe this would be a surprise to many if confirmed. I hope to make your shoot next Saturday and look forward to the opporltunity to formally meet. I was anticipating having to work but not the case. Now I have the perfect excuse to fire form some 308 Lapua brass for my F/TR rifle.
 
Thank you for testing the bullets long range!
If these LR Accubonds can keep up with the bc of similar weighted Berger VLDs it will be very nice. I am looking forward testing the 7mm versions when they get available.
 
Since the B.C. is close or equal to the bc of the 210 berger and 208 amax, I see no reason to pay 2x the money for these. The s.d.'s on a 30 cal 210 grain bullet are so high that (in my experience) they don't fragment and explode on contact like lighter 30 cal berger's and amax do, and therefore a bonded bullet with that high of a s.d. is not needed. However, if the 168 grain lrab's have the same b.c. as their Berger counterparts, I do think it would be a great choice for long range hunting and the cost could be justified.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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.
Top