BOTW Divorces Berger & Marries Nosler

[MontanaRifleman]

I understand your thought, but its the one that I may have a niche for. For a "pure" LRH rifle a lot of folks prefer more than the 6.5's. The overall 6.5 market that includes semi-auto (me) and short action rifles with twist rates that won't support more. It might be better described as a "medium" range bullet on this site, but in the overall market may be the most successful of them all. If the shelves are still empty when Nosler ships these could be the best received bullets of all time. LOL!

Ya know, the Swift Scirocco II is the same length (actually .007 longer) as the Nosler LR AB. From the pics of the AB, it looks like it has a longer boat tail and a shorter nose than the Scirocco. My guess is the Scirrocco has a slightly higher BC which Litz lists as .491 G1 and .257 G7. I wonder how Nosler came up with .561 and .287? In any case, the Nosler kool-aid drinkers will believe what can't be true and buy them up.

I think if I was in the market for a plastic tipped cup and core I would go with the 140 AMax and if you have a 9 twist barrel it'll work for you.

I have a box of the Scirocco's I would be willing to part with for a reasonable price

 

[Daveinjax]

One thing I'm sure of is that if you are shooting Nosler bullets you are paying way too much for bullets.

 

[cohunter14]

How do you figure? I paid $26 for 50 .308 200gr Accubonds and a box of 100 215 hybrids cost $52...?

 

[Michael Eichele]

While the 130 6.5 ALR may not be what they're cracked up to be, owning 300 of the 210 grain 30 cals I'm sure they will be on par with the 208 Amax (time and experience will tell). Still well below their published BC but I don't see it as kool-aid, I see it as a big step in the right direction. Who can argue with a bullet of this shape with a bonded core? Whether or not they work as advertised, it's a step in the right direction for us as long range hunters. At the very least the main stream bullet makers are recognizing our needs and putting some effort into delivering what we want/need. Imagine if they introduced a 140 grain 6.5mm ALR shaped like a 140 Amax or VLD. Would we be arguing about this? Sure they may be inflated BCs or maybe they just don't have access to a Doppler radar system and don't know any better but it's still a step in the right direction. I'd rather shoot an elk with a 130 grain 6.5 ALR bullet than a 140 grain Amax or VLD. 140 ALR would be even better.

If we are comparing pictures and not holding them in hand, better yet shooting them, then it is speculative at best as to whether or not they have a bc on par with the swift or the VLD.

 

[cornstalker]

Who can argue with a bullet of this shape with a bonded core? Whether or not they work as advertised, it's a step in the right direction for us as long range hunters. At the very least the main stream bullet makers are recognizing our needs and putting some effort into delivering what we want/need.

+1

The concept is long overdue. It should be developed.

 

[Kiwi Greg]

I'll speculate a little bit. First is I'm confident the bc's are over promised , second is they will not perform well at 1300 fps and will not open much at that speed , third is that they are bonded core bullets and the accuracy lot to lot will vary a lot. Fourth is that they will get away with their marketing bs and sell a bunch of bullets. Fith is that BOTW will tell you they are shooting whatever they get paid to say they are shooting and they will actually shoot what works and you will never know.

+1 Well done that man lightbulb

I have always been skeptical of the advertised BCs, quite a bit better than Berger as others have stated.

Everything in the media/ TV is able to be manipulated anyway the producers want.

Most customers rely heavily on the manufactures advertised BCs, the bigger the better.

I can remember not that long ago that most of Lapuas BCs were wound down.

 

[Broz]

I hear and realize benefits of bonding cores to jackets. But I have never seen bonded to be as consistent in grouping at long range. The benefit of BC is something we start to realize at distances past 800 and even more so at 1200+. So do we feel these bonded bullets will be able to hold the accuracy we need to be proficient at these distances? If not then I really care less about the BC they are labeled with. I also have a concern that at the extended distances and slowed impact velocities, they may or may not expand as well as a non-bonded bullet.

Am I alone in these concerns? I am in favor of the performance gains to be had at closer distances from a bonded bullet. But these are labeled as "Long Range" I seek a bullet that works best at the longest pokes where I need it to preform it's best. Closer shots are of less concern to me.

I'm just reading and thinking. Food for thought if you will. I will be watching for some reports on these. BC = less drift and drop, period. I want as much as I can get. But I demand consistency and wonder about giving up a highly expandable bullet if my point of impact is not perfect.

Jeff

 

[Shooter264]

I hear and realize benefits of bonding cores to jackets. But I have never seen bonded to be as consistent in grouping at long range. The benefit of BC is something we start to realize at distances past 800 and even more so at 1200+. So do we feel these bonded bullets will be able to hold the accuracy we need to be proficient at these distances? If not then I really care less about the BC they are labeled with. I also have a concern that at the extended distances and slowed impact velocities, they may or may not expand as well as a non-bonded bullet.

Am I alone in these concerns? I am in favor of the performance gains to be had at closer distances from a bonded bullet. But these are labeled as "Long Range" I seek a bullet that works best at the longest pokes where I need it to preform it's best. Closer shots are of less concern to me.

I'm just reading and thinking. Food for thought if you will. I will be watching for some reports on these. BC = less drift and drop, period. I want as much as I can get. But I demand consistency and wonder about giving up a highly expandable bullet if my point of impact is not perfect.

Jeff

Well said. I for one will wait and see what the tests show but Highly doubt I will ever walk away from the Vld's I am currently shooting. I've killed alot of critters near and far and have yet to see a negative result.

 

[cohunter14]

I hear and realize benefits of bonding cores to jackets. But I have never seen bonded to be as consistent in grouping at long range. The benefit of BC is something we start to realize at distances past 800 and even more so at 1200+. So do we feel these bonded bullets will be able to hold the accuracy we need to be proficient at these distances? If not then I really care less about the BC they are labeled with. I also have a concern that at the extended distances and slowed impact velocities, they may or may not expand as well as a non-bonded bullet.

Am I alone in these concerns? I am in favor of the performance gains to be had at closer distances from a bonded bullet. But these are labeled as "Long Range" I seek a bullet that works best at the longest pokes where I need it to preform it's best. Closer shots are of less concern to me.

I'm just reading and thinking. Food for thought if you will. I will be watching for some reports on these. BC = less drift and drop, period. I want as much as I can get. But I demand consistency and wonder about giving up a highly expandable bullet if my point of impact is not perfect.

Jeff

Jeff, I think we should just submit your thread on the 215's from last year's hunting season to Nosler. Get them to ship out a few hundred pills to you and we would have as thorough of an answer as we could ask for! I would volunteer, but I'd be very happy to fill only two big game tags with my rifle this year, not 19!

 

[Greyfox]

I hear and realize benefits of bonding cores to jackets. But I have never seen bonded to be as consistent in grouping at long range. The benefit of BC is something we start to realize at distances past 800 and even more so at 1200+. So do we feel these bonded bullets will be able to hold the accuracy we need to be proficient at these distances? If not then I really care less about the BC they are labeled with. I also have a concern that at the extended distances and slowed impact velocities, they may or may not expand as well as a non-bonded bullet.

Am I alone in these concerns? I am in favor of the performance gains to be had at closer distances from a bonded bullet. But these are labeled as "Long Range" I seek a bullet that works best at the longest pokes where I need it to preform it's best. Closer shots are of less concern to me.

I'm just reading and thinking. Food for thought if you will. I will be watching for some reports on these. BC = less drift and drop, period. I want as much as I can get. But I demand consistency and wonder about giving up a highly expandable bullet if my point of impact is not perfect.

Jeff

I agree with you on this Jeff. When I was first getting into long range shooting with my 270WSM and 308 I found that expansion was problematic with AB's, Game King's, etc. below 2000 FPS. I ended up going with more frangable Ballistic Tips which gave somewhat better performance when velocities were 1500-2000 FPS. My max distances were below 700 yards. Accuracy seemed to hold well at those ranges. Now. With shooting at longer ranges I have found that the Bergers perform much better for accuracy, retained velocity, and terminal performance.IMO.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

While the 130 6.5 ALR may not be what they're cracked up to be, owning 300 of the 210 grain 30 cals I'm sure they will be on par with the 208 Amax (time and experience will tell). Still well below their published BC but I don't see it as kool-aid, I see it as a big step in the right direction. Who can argue with a bullet of this shape with a bonded core? Whether or not they work as advertised, it's a step in the right direction for us as long range hunters. At the very least the main stream bullet makers are recognizing our needs and putting some effort into delivering what we want/need. Imagine if they introduced a 140 grain 6.5mm ALR shaped like a 140 Amax or VLD. Would we be arguing about this? Sure they may be inflated BCs or maybe they just don't have access to a Doppler radar system and don't know any better but it's still a step in the right direction. I'd rather shoot an elk with a 130 grain 6.5 ALR bullet than a 140 grain Amax or VLD. 140 ALR would be even better.

If we are comparing pictures and not holding them in hand, better yet shooting them, then it is speculative at best as to whether or not they have a bc on par with the swift or the VLD.

I have already said that it's a step in the right direction. That said their BC's are kool-aid. They are intentionally inflated in order to win a share of the market and sell bullets. It doesn't take a ballisitician to see that these bullets are no better than existing offerings which they claim to be. When you have info such as the bullets length that is a big clue as to it's form factor and you can easily make relative comparisons to bullets which have been tested by credible sources. I.e., there is no way that the 210 LR AB which is 1.55" long is going to have a greater BC than the 215 Hybrid which is 1.564" long with a BC of .696. It's actual BC is going to b a lot closer to existing 210 gr bullets and advertising that would not sell as many bullets. Likewise, there is no way that the shorter (by .007) 130 LR AB is going to have a greater BC than the 130 Sirocco. They are going to be very close to the same.

I find it hard to believe that a company like Nosler doesn't have the resources to conduct valid BC testing or at least have it contracted out. And if they don't, they shouldn't be just making it up.

The kool-aid is the folks who believe it in spite of the FACTs. Are they a better LR offering than the old AB's? Most certainly, but they aren't anything better than what's available by some other companies which is what they are advertising.

 

[MMERSS]

​

In the last 12 months, what was your longest rifle kill on big game?

0 to 200 yards - 25.78%

201 to 400 yards - 31.91%

401 to 600 yards - 23.30%

601 to 800 yards - 10.15%

801 to 1,000 yards - 3.96%

Over 1,000 yards - 4.91%

Total Votes: 5,381

Latest results of the longest big game kill by yardage during the past year.

Less than 10% of the respondents have reported taking game past 800 yards in the past year. Even though this a Long Range Forum, relatively few of the members have taken game past 600 yards. The LR Accubond should be a perfect candidate for the majority of those harvesting game around 700 yards and under. Velocity at these ranges shouldn't be an issue for most cartridges and calibers allowing for minimum recommended velocity expansion. Will BC numbers higher than originally posted make that much of a difference to the majority of the respondents in their bullet selection if in fact that is the case? For the current Accubond lovers I would tend to believe not. Any improvement in the current Accubond is improvement, higher claimed BC or not.

I'm anxious for the results and reports. I have used the 300 gr Berger on all my 800+ shots and assisted hunter shots the past two years. LR Accubond isn't in the market for the 338 yet. When and if I change the determining factor will be 1000 yard+ consistency first, not reported or actual BC. Size of an animal doesn't change with range, reliability with inconsistent bullet properties does.

 

[Broz]

Where was that poll? Can I vote 3 times for over 1000, 4 or 5 for 801 to 1000, and a 1/2 a dozen for 601 to 800?


The majority, in that poll, is 200 to 400 yards, so you feel this proclaimed higher BC will be an asset at these distances?

Have you ever group tested Accubonds or other bonded bullets at 1500 yards? Especially from two separate lot numbers?

I think my point was not clear. They are going for a market share related to long range and advertising very high BC's and expansion velocities below any bullet I am know of. If 500 yards is long range, and these BC's and expansion velocities are a step in the right direction for 500 yards shots, then I am out of line with my train of thought.

Jeff

 

[Michael Eichele]

Mark,

I never said the high published bc was not kool-aid. I agree 100% that they are published much higher than reality. We all have enough experience to know this. My point is that there are so many members here that have stated that they are all but worthless in every category and that is where I am having a wait and see attitude. It just blows my mind that so many would pass such negative judgements without even so much as laying their hands in them. Published bc kool-aid? Absolutely. Overall performance? Remains to be seen.

As for me, I would be happy with a 190 with near 190 VLD bc that will have more reliable expansion. Maybe these will maybe they won't, but I am excited to try them to see. Hell, 1300'sec? I'm skeptical too but I'd be very happy with 1500-1600 versus the 1800 needed for many other popular hunting bullets. It opens more doors for my 308s.

Am I drinking the bc kool-aid? He'll no. Do I believe they will be close to VLDs? I hope so. If they're not, I'd be happy if they were at least as good as the SMK with the added bonus of reliable expansion unlike the 190SMK. At least for my experiences. Am I drinking the overall performance kool-aid? **** straight I am. Tastes good too. If the kool-aid turns out to give me a stomach ache then I'll quit drinking it and go back to what I currently use.

Regards,


M