BOTW Divorces Berger & Marries Nosler

[barnesuser28]

I checked the website that has/had the 210s and they jacked their prices way up from last night, they were $69.99/100 and now they are $75/100. glad i got my order in but i dont think i will be doing any more business with them if they jack their prices up when they see some demand.

whoops, my bad, i meant they were $66.99/100 when i ordered them. They should be here tomorrow.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

whoops, my bad, i meant they were $66.99/100 when i ordered them. They should be here tomorrow.

Looking forward to see what you find out about them Riley

 

[bowhunter42]

Well the first reports from Africa, Joe Cunningham killed a big zebra @575.the 210 ABLR went thru a rib liquefied the lungs and went thru another rib as it exited, it was dead within a few steps.

 

[barnesuser28]

Well the first reports from Africa, Joe Cunningham killed a big zebra @575.the 210 ABLR went thru a rib liquefied the lungs and went thru another rib as it exited, it was dead within a few steps.

Exit size?

 

[bowhunter42]

Dont know I will ask.

 

[idaho elk hunter]

OK... couldn't hold back any longer... Not going to comment on BOTW, etc.

But anyone who thinks the LR AB's BC's are accurate is drinking some serious koolaid.

One example....

210 LR AB, G1 .730, G7 .366, OAL 1.550"

215 Hybrid, G1 .696, G7 .356, OAL 1.564

C'mon fellas, what does that tell ya?

That tells me either the Berger BC is underestimated or the AB BC is over inflated. Any guesses as to which knowing the competence, expertise and forthright professionalism of the Berger guys?

I'm guessing the actual 210 LR AB BC's are probably about .67 and .345. Still not bad, but I guarantee you they aren't going to ballistically out perform the 215 Hybrids. Any takers???

As for opening down to 1300 fps, I guess time will tell. That does extend their "effective range" if true, but lower velocities also result in lower momentum and energy.

All that said, when I first joined this site there were a lot of guys using the old AB's for LR shooting and hunting and doing well with them but of course not with the ballistic performance of Bergers, JLK's, SMK's, etc . These new LR bullets are a big step up for LR enthusiasts. But they are what they are and they are not what they are not.

I am finally glad to see someone else other than me figured this out. The 2 companys that really get the BC right are Berger with Bryan Litz methodology and Barnes with the doppler method. All others really are "marketing" close enough numbers. Bullet manufactures realize most shooters do not go out and check there loads and learn what there rifle/load is actually doing. So they market big numbers to sell product. Nosler has long been criticized for their load manuals being optimistic and the BC of the bullets being optimistic. They do build good bullets. But never trust a man when he is getting your money.

 

[cohunter14]

I am finally glad to see someone else other than me figured this out. The 2 companys that really get the BC right are Berger with Bryan Litz methodology and Barnes with the doppler method. All others really are "marketing" close enough numbers. Bullet manufactures realize most shooters do not go out and check there loads and learn what there rifle/load is actually doing. So they market big numbers to sell product. Nosler has long been criticized for their load manuals being optimistic and the BC of the bullets being optimistic. They do build good bullets. But never trust a man when he is getting your money.

I don't know about that. To me, the only people who care about BC's are people who are planning on shooting at long ranges. I don't think the average Joe is going to buy these 'Long Range' Accubonds because they have such a great BC, only to shoot them at 300 yards or less. I know for me, personally, I had no idea what BC even meant until I started getting in to longer range shooting.

This is why I don't see the benefit of Nosler artificially inflating their numbers because if they do, it is going to lose them a lot of credibility with the Long Range market, which is exactly who this bullet is targeted for. It would also more than likely mean that the bullet will not be successful and will tank in the marketplace. Just my thoughts, I am still very anxious to see how the BC's hold up on these...

 

[Michael Eichele]

I am finally glad to see someone else other than me figured this out. The 2 companys that really get the BC right are Berger with Bryan Litz methodology and Barnes with the doppler method. All others really are "marketing" close enough numbers. Bullet manufactures realize most shooters do not go out and check there loads and learn what there rifle/load is actually doing. So they market big numbers to sell product. Nosler has long been criticized for their load manuals being optimistic and the BC of the bullets being optimistic. They do build good bullets. But never trust a man when he is getting your money.

I don't know if Barnes and Berger are the only 2 that get it right. I have found that Hornady has done a stellar job of getting their BCs either spot on or close to it. Often they are underestimated. At the very least, out to 600 yards with average to above average velocities, they will either be spot on or higher than advertised.

You have to remember that Litz has made mistakes too. Nobody accused him of doing it for marketing hype. He's been off by 8.2% in recent times. If montanarifleman turns out right and the 210 ALR is .67 compared to the advertised .73 it is also exactly 8.2%.

I have personally tested the BC on the 208 Amax over 2 reliable chronies and confirmed the results with drop tests using reliable proven scopes and came up with .671 at 2900 FPS. Now I realize Litz states .633 but you have to remember he is using average velocities and over a long distance. If you asked him what he thought it would be at 2900 at shorter ranges, I think you'd find he'd agree that it would be right around .671. Now I realize that shorter ranges aren't what we focus on here but it illustrates how manufacturers could test a given bullet out to 300 yards and come up with a higher BC than we do because we're doing our tests at 600-1000+. With all that in mind, comparing the 208 versus the 210, they are of similar design. The boat tail of the 210 is drastically different, similar the the 190SMK while the nose profile is slightly different. The 208 is sleeker in the nose while the boat tail of the ALR is more aggressive. Add a couple more grains and....is it possible for the 208 and 210 to have the same or near the same BC? I suppose it's possible. Time will tell.

Now I don't know if its marketing hype or a mistake and I don't care. If I can get a BC on par or close to a VLD, decent accuracy and expansion at 1500-1600 FPS, then I'm happy to use it. A good product that works is a good product that works.

As far as accuracy, I have only shot a few. So far they show good potential. This is as far as I'm going to divulge any results. There is already so much hatred for them here I just don't feel like getting burned at the stake.

 

[Eaglet]

I don't know about that. To me, the only people who care about BC's are people who are planning on shooting at long ranges. I don't think the average Joe is going to buy these 'Long Range' Accubonds because they have such a great BC, only to shoot them at 300 yards or less. I know for me, personally, I had no idea what BC even meant until I started getting in to longer range shooting.

This is why I don't see the benefit of Nosler artificially inflating their numbers because if they do, it is going to lose them a lot of credibility with the Long Range market, which is exactly who this bullet is targeted for. It would also more than likely mean that the bullet will not be successful and will tank in the marketplace. Just my thoughts, I am still very anxious to see how the BC's hold up on these...

That makes a lot of sense to me!

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I don't know if Barnes and Berger are the only 2 that get it right. I have found that Hornady has done a stellar job of getting their BCs either spot on or close to it. Often they are underestimated. At the very least, out to 600 yards with average to above average velocities, they will either be spot on or higher than advertised.

You have to remember that Litz has made mistakes too. Nobody accused him of doing it for marketing hype. He's been off by 8.2% in recent times. If montanarifleman turns out right and the 210 ALR is .67 compared to the advertised .73 it is also exactly 8.2%.

I have personally tested the BC on the 208 Amax over 2 reliable chronies and confirmed the results with drop tests using reliable proven scopes and came up with .671 at 2900 FPS. Now I realize Litz states .633 but you have to remember he is using average velocities and over a long distance. If you asked him what he thought it would be at 2900 at shorter ranges, I think you'd find he'd agree that it would be right around .671. Now I realize that shorter ranges aren't what we focus on here but it illustrates how manufacturers could test a given bullet out to 300 yards and come up with a higher BC than we do because we're doing our tests at 600-1000+. With all that in mind, comparing the 208 versus the 210, they are of similar design. The boat tail of the 210 is drastically different, similar the the 190SMK while the nose profile is slightly different. The 208 is sleeker in the nose while the boat tail of the ALR is more aggressive. Add a couple more grains and....is it possible for the 208 and 210 to have the same or near the same BC? I suppose it's possible. Time will tell.

Now I don't know if its marketing hype or a mistake and I don't care. If I can get a BC on par or close to a VLD, decent accuracy and expansion at 1500-1600 FPS, then I'm happy to use it. A good product that works is a good product that works.

As far as accuracy, I have only shot a few. So far they show good potential. This is as far as I'm going to divulge any results. There is already so much hatred for them here I just don't feel like getting burned at the stake.

I believe Bryan has done his best to come up with the most accurate BC's he can with the bullets he's tested. He describes his process in detail in his Applied Ballistics book. He uses several acoustic sensors placed 200 yds apart down range to measure TOF with a high degree of accuracy. He does this with several bullets and when his results for each bullet are within +/- 1% then he feels assured he has an accurate BC to with in +/- 1%. I don't doubt your tests Micheal, but at the same time it seems to me Bryan's testing is very thorough. Measuring BC's from drops can be a tricky process. There are a number of variables which could produce inaccurate results. That said, If I were to use let's say the 208 AMax for LR, I would definitely confirm my drops just like you have and use the numbers that work for me. In fact I plan to start shooting over a 1K chrono (Accustic Suprchrono). I'll measure both the muzzle velocity and the 1K velocity as well as drops to determine as accurate a G7 BC as possible for my use out of my rifle.

I actually think the 210 LR AB is going to be much closer to the 210 Berger in G1 BC. I say this based on the length of both and the OAL's, another member's measurement of the bearing surface and pictures of their shapes. The LR AB appears to has a longer tail and shorter nose and a longer bearing surface than the Berger. It is slightly longer than the Berger but it is not as dense as it has a plastic tip and more jacket material (less lead).

I also read an article on here recently which concluded that BC's are affected by stability factor. I believe Litz was mentioned in the article if memory serves me right? If true that could account for variations in different testing results form different tubes and environmental conditions.

Bryan lists the 208 BC's to be
3000, .664
2500, .647
2000, .637
1500, .585

So the 3000 fps G1 is not too different than your 2900 fps G1

Bottom line is that i think the 215 Berger (and 230 Berger) has a significant BC advantage over the 210 LR AB which I believe is much closer to the 210 Berger. With a lower opening velocity it increase the effective range of the LR AB over the Berger. That would be great for smaller big game animals like deer and antelope but I think I would hesitate to shoot a bull elk at less than 1600 fps velocity because of diminished momentum and energy. I think overall the LR AB's are a great step in the right direction. What chaps me about it is I believe Nosler know's it BC's are way over inflated and marketing them anyway. A lot of folks are going to buy them because of those numbers. .7 in a 210 bullet is HUGE and that will catch a lot of attention.

I'll stick with the Bergers and maybe the CE bullets. The CE's don't have the BC the Bergers do, but I like their construction and have shown to be accurate pills.

 

[elkaholic]

I don't know if Barnes and Berger are the only 2 that get it right. I have found that Hornady has done a stellar job of getting their BCs either spot on or close to it. Often they are underestimated. At the very least, out to 600 yards with average to above average velocities, they will either be spot on or higher than advertised.

You have to remember that Litz has made mistakes too. Nobody accused him of doing it for marketing hype. He's been off by 8.2% in recent times. If montanarifleman turns out right and the 210 ALR is .67 compared to the advertised .73 it is also exactly 8.2%.

I have personally tested the BC on the 208 Amax over 2 reliable chronies and confirmed the results with drop tests using reliable proven scopes and came up with .671 at 2900 FPS. Now I realize Litz states .633 but you have to remember he is using average velocities and over a long distance. If you asked him what he thought it would be at 2900 at shorter ranges, I think you'd find he'd agree that it would be right around .671. Now I realize that shorter ranges aren't what we focus on here but it illustrates how manufacturers could test a given bullet out to 300 yards and come up with a higher BC than we do because we're doing our tests at 600-1000+. With all that in mind, comparing the 208 versus the 210, they are of similar design. The boat tail of the 210 is drastically different, similar the the 190SMK while the nose profile is slightly different. The 208 is sleeker in the nose while the boat tail of the ALR is more aggressive. Add a couple more grains and....is it possible for the 208 and 210 to have the same or near the same BC? I suppose it's possible. Time will tell.

Now I don't know if its marketing hype or a mistake and I don't care. If I can get a BC on par or close to a VLD, decent accuracy and expansion at 1500-1600 FPS, then I'm happy to use it. A good product that works is a good product that works.

As far as accuracy, I have only shot a few. So far they show good potential. This is as far as I'm going to divulge any results. There is already so much hatred for them here I just don't feel like getting burned at the stake.

Michael.....I think you are pretty much on the money!.......Rich

 

[Michael Eichele]

Mark,

In so many words, it appears that we are on the same page. I think the biggest difference here is that it really annoys you that the BCs are published as high as they are and I don't care. I guess if that's worst thing we disagree on then thats awesome!!

I agree with you 100% about the 215 and 230 being higher than the ALR. That said, I have drawn the line at 210 due to recoil. I have moved away from the 338 for this reason. I used a minimum of 225s all the way up to 300s. I hate brakes and I hate recoil. I'm currently using a 300WM and 208s/210s. I know 5 grains isn't much more but sooner or later I have to set a limit. The recoil while somewhat high is tolerable. I will still opt to use the 208s versus the 210 ALR for deer, sheep, antelope and such. I'll keep the 210s for the bigger stuff. Assuming they can be accurate/consistent enough and open reliably. Otherwise I'll use something else. I'd use the VLD but haven't been as impressed with their terminal performance as many others have been.

As you pointed out, the specific gravity is lower in the ALR, hence the reason they're longer than other bullets of the same weight and similar form factors. The added surface area will lower the BC a bit but will be minimal. Sierra proved years ago that stability factors have an effect on BC. It's proved very true in my experiences as well. I hate using too much twist but hate worse being borderline. That said, there is no way that even with the most optimum twist for the 210 ALR that the BC would be as high as it is published. The difference between a 1.1 factor versus a 1.5 or 2.0 won't change it from .65 to .73. BC is affected by stability but not the extreme in the above example.

Don't take any of this as disagreeing with you, just sharing my experience.

 

[bowhunter42]

I don't know if Barnes and Berger are the only 2 that get it right. I have found that Hornady has done a stellar job of getting their BCs either spot on or close to it. Often they are underestimated. At the very least, out to 600 yards with average to above average velocities, they will either be spot on or higher than advertised.

You have to remember that Litz has made mistakes too. Nobody accused him of doing it for marketing hype. He's been off by 8.2% in recent times. If montanarifleman turns out right and the 210 ALR is .67 compared to the advertised .73 it is also exactly 8.2%.

I have personally tested the BC on the 208 Amax over 2 reliable chronies and confirmed the results with drop tests using reliable proven scopes and came up with .671 at 2900 FPS. Now I realize Litz states .633 but you have to remember he is using average velocities and over a long distance. If you asked him what he thought it would be at 2900 at shorter ranges, I think you'd find he'd agree that it would be right around .671. Now I realize that shorter ranges aren't what we focus on here but it illustrates how manufacturers could test a given bullet out to 300 yards and come up with a higher BC than we do because we're doing our tests at 600-1000+. With all that in mind, comparing the 208 versus the 210, they are of similar design. The boat tail of the 210 is drastically different, similar the the 190SMK while the nose profile is slightly different. The 208 is sleeker in the nose while the boat tail of the ALR is more aggressive. Add a couple more grains and....is it possible for the 208 and 210 to have the same or near the same BC? I suppose it's possible. Time will tell.

Now I don't know if its marketing hype or a mistake and I don't care. If I can get a BC on par or close to a VLD, decent accuracy and expansion at 1500-1600 FPS, then I'm happy to use it. A good product that works is a good product that works.

As far as accuracy, I have only shot a few. So far they show good potential. This is as far as I'm going to divulge any results. There is already so much hatred for them here I just don't feel like getting burned at the stake.

I can't agree more, not sure where all the hatred comes from, but nosler AB 's have worked great for me in the past, and I'm sure the ablr we prove to be another great bullet, able to do what it was designed to do.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Mark,

In so many words, it appears that we are on the same page. I think the biggest difference here is that it really annoys you that the BCs are published as high as they are and I don't care. I guess if that's worst thing we disagree on then thats awesome!!

I agree with you 100% about the 215 and 230 being higher than the ALR. That said, I have drawn the line at 210 due to recoil. I have moved away from the 338 for this reason. I used a minimum of 225s all the way up to 300s. I hate brakes and I hate recoil. I'm currently using a 300WM and 208s/210s. I know 5 grains isn't much more but sooner or later I have to set a limit. The recoil while somewhat high is tolerable. I will still opt to use the 208s versus the 210 ALR for deer, sheep, antelope and such. I'll keep the 210s for the bigger stuff. Assuming they can be accurate/consistent enough and open reliably. Otherwise I'll use something else. I'd use the VLD but haven't been as impressed with their terminal performance as many others have been.

As you pointed out, the specific gravity is lower in the ALR, hence the reason they're longer than other bullets of the same weight and similar form factors. The added surface area will lower the BC a bit but will be minimal. Sierra proved years ago that stability factors have an effect on BC. It's proved very true in my experiences as well. I hate using too much twist but hate worse being borderline. That said, there is no way that even with the most optimum twist for the 210 ALR that the BC would be as high as it is published. The difference between a 1.1 factor versus a 1.5 or 2.0 won't change it from .65 to .73. BC is affected by stability but not the extreme in the above example.

Don't take any of this as disagreeing with you, just sharing my experience.

I agree the SF will not change the ALR BC that much. I just mentioned it as a possible explanation for the difference between you and Litz on the BC of the 208 AMax. And yes, I think we are on the same page.

As a side... I used to be a brake hater as well. But that's changed after reading a lot of posts here and actually shooting some braked rifles. Still prefer a clean muzzle and will shoot smaller cals without a brake, but most rifles here on out with the kick of a WSM or greater will get a brake, especially for LR work. Not trying to change your mind... just sayin....

Cheers