Nosler Accubond Long Range problem

[elkaholic]

I had tremendous success with 140 partitions on elk with a mv of 3130' in my 6.5 but no experience above that.
The bonding agent is indeed VERY corrosive and if it isn't thourougly cleaned before the point forming process, it will eat up the tip AND the jacket mouth.......Rich

 

[Pdvdh]

And Paul has said he will not use the Amax anymore on large game because he had one evaporate on a moose's shoulder.

Mark,
I believe it was Michael Eichele that vaporized a 208gr Amax on a bull's leg bone. I've never used an Amax on moose before. Shot a bull with a Hornady .284 154gr Interbond once. Moose was about 90yds and shot broadside into the middle of the ribs. Basically all the game animals I shoot are broadside - middle of the ribs - just behind the front shoulder muscles. Unless I mess up...

That Hornady bullet performed fine. Fired from a 7mm Rem Mag. Moose ran 40 yds and collapsed.

 

[Pdvdh]

Yep, You can crack one but it takes a load of velocity and very hard impact. In all reality, in the field fired from pretty much any conventional shoulder fired weapon on big game, they will survive. MUCH stronger then partitions.

Thanks Kirby. What I was hoping to hear. Will give me full confidence for close range bear defense.

I went with the 180gr A-Frame in .308 to maximize the close range shock effect on grizzly/brown bear, knowing that the A-Frames generally retain about 90% or more of their weight. I'll still have more than 160grs after expansion and a greater shock effect with the higher MV. Swift bonds the nose of their A-Frames. If Nosler did this with their partitions, they'd probably fare better in your high velocity testing.

 

[DZelenka]

Have tried the 150s out of a 280 and 284 and they certainly like a lot of jump. The 280 shot a ragged one hole group with .128" of jump.

What load were you using in the .280? OAL? Velocity?

Thanks

Dan

 

[Fiftydriver]

I had tremendous success with 140 partitions on elk with a mv of 3130' in my 6.5 but no experience above that.
The bonding agent is indeed VERY corrosive and if it isn't thourougly cleaned before the point forming process, it will eat up the tip AND the jacket mouth.......Rich

Did you do any hydro expansion testing with that bullet at that speed at ranges unside 300 yards. As mentioned, on soft impacts, never saw much of a problem. On hard impacts in that velocity range, I saw ruptured partitions about 50% of the time.

I did find that the smaller partitions held up to velocity a bit better then larger diameter partitions, but bullets of similar sectional density had similar results on impact and failure % which makes sense. If you look at a 140 gr 6.5mm partition, there is a higher % of guilding metal compared to lead core. IF you look at a 338 cal partition, much more lead involved. Push a 6.5mm partition to 3150 fps compared to a 338 cal partition to 3150 fps and the smaller caliber will have a higher chance of surviving impact with partition intact.

 

[Fiftydriver]

Thanks Kirby. What I was hoping to hear. Will give me full confidence for close range bear defense.

I went with the 180gr A-Frame in .308 to maximize the close range shock effect on grizzly/brown bear, knowing that the A-Frames generally retain about 90% or more of their weight. I'll still have more than 160grs after expansion and a greater shock effect with the higher MV. Swift bonds the nose of their A-Frames. If Nosler did this with their partitions, they'd probably fare better in your high velocity testing.

As with anything, I recommend using the heaviest A-Frame you can get in the caliber your using just for added insurance. No such thing as dead, deader and deadest!!! Overkill is meaningless in my opinion!!!

 

[elkaholic]

Did you do any hydro expansion testing with that bullet at that speed at ranges unside 300 yards. As mentioned, on soft impacts, never saw much of a problem. On hard impacts in that velocity range, I saw ruptured partitions about 50% of the time.

I did find that the smaller partitions held up to velocity a bit better then larger diameter partitions, but bullets of similar sectional density had similar results on impact and failure % which makes sense. If you look at a 140 gr 6.5mm partition, there is a higher % of guilding metal compared to lead core. IF you look at a 338 cal partition, much more lead involved. Push a 6.5mm partition to 3150 fps compared to a 338 cal partition to 3150 fps and the smaller caliber will have a higher chance of surviving impact with partition intact.

I agree with your assessment of the smaller calibers being tougher because of the ratios that you mentioned. I never did any hydro testing with that bullet at the time because I successfully tested it on over 20 bull elk I only quit using the partitions when I started the extreme range game (because of b.c.). They do expand very well at lower velocity though.......Rich

 

[HARPERC]

- Thicken the jacket slightly for more integrity. Retain the aggressive ogive design.

- Fill the hollow cavity under the tip so there is lead supporting the tip.

- Increase the size of the tip slightly and possibly add a bit more wedge design to the base of the tip to promote expansion at longer range. That combined with the aggressive ogive should retain fine expansion at long range.

I'm not a bullet maker either, but like others have been trying to understand the tip for a long time. Remington Bronze Point, Lost River Ballistics being a couple of examples that have been tried. The standard Accubond works fairly well, but expansion at lower velocities is a worthwhile goal.

I'd like to hear Kirby, and Rich's thought's on 1) The difference, if any tip material makes. 2) The difference the length of the tips "stem" might make.

It would seem to me the standard Accubond expansion threshold would lower with just the stem being longer. The Barnes tipped line might benefit from both a longer, and harder stem. ????

Your thoughts please.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Mark,
I believe it was Michael Eichele that vaporized a 208gr Amax on a bull's leg bone. I've never used an Amax on moose before. Shot a bull with a Hornady .284 154gr Interbond once. Moose was about 90yds and shot broadside into the middle of the ribs. Basically all the game animals I shoot are broadside - middle of the ribs - just behind the front shoulder muscles. Unless I mess up...

That Hornady bullet performed fine. Fired from a 7mm Rem Mag. Moose ran 40 yds and collapsed.

Paul,

My bad, I believe it was Michael. I also always go for the rib shot as well unless I have no choice which is very rare and when shooting into the ribs I think the Bergers are about as good a destructive bullet as there is. It would be nice to have a bullet that was a little tougher for the quartering shots if needed.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

When the Partition was designed, 3000 fps at the muzzle was a pretty serious load, today, that is not the case. Your results at 3000 fps are what I have seen to. Again, anything over this to around 3200 fps you start to see problems come up. Again, this depends on range and type of impact. Soft impacts, less chance of a problem, hard impact, more chance of problem.

What happens when the partition cracks is that the rear core is just blown out the rear of the bullet as there is really nothing keeping it in place other then the crimp on the base core which is not overly strong.

When the base core is blown out, penetration stops. So, with the partition, if the partition holds solid, good performing bullet, when it ruptures, terrible performance. This is not the fault of the bullet design, again, when it was designed, the chamberings used were a perfect match for its design, today, the design has been far outgrown by the velocity potential of todays chamberings, even commercial chamberings.

Not sure what batch of Accubonds you were using that blew up but early 30 cals did have some problems. From what I have learned, the flux compound used in some early lots of bullets caused corrosion between the jacket and core and also caused some tips to dissolve and fall out. IT was reported this problem caused jacket core separation and as a result dramatic bullet weight loss. Since then, I have not heard of any legit issues with the Accubond in any caliber but I fully admit, there were some lots of 30 cal bullets that had serious problems but that problems seems to be well in the past.

The A-Max is a great bullet but its not a big game bullet. They work great in lighter big game, pronghorns and lighter deer species, especially at longer ranges but anyone that would intentionally point one into the shoulder of a bull moose really needs to reevaluate their process for choosing a big game bullet.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I think Nosler should adapt to changing times. I actually like the A-Frames better, but point is that Nosler, or whoever, could develop a very tough, VLD, high BC bullet that can also expand at lower velocities.

The AB I used was factory Federal premium ammo. This happened about 4-5 years ago. The shot was a poor one as the POI was probably over 2' away from the intended POA. Never the less, that's what happened to the bullet. If it was a bad batch or abnormality, that's good to hear. But after that experience I was thinking the AB's were not much tougher than Ballistic Tips.

 

[elkaholic]

I'm not a bullet maker either, but like others have been trying to understand the tip for a long time. Remington Bronze Point, Lost River Ballistics being a couple of examples that have been tried. The standard Accubond works fairly well, but expansion at lower velocities is a worthwhile goal.

I'd like to hear Kirby, and Rich's thought's on 1) The difference, if any tip material makes. 2) The difference the length of the tips "stem" might make.

It would seem to me the standard Accubond expansion threshold would lower with just the stem being longer. The Barnes tipped line might benefit from both a longer, and harder stem. ????

Your thoughts please.

I don't think the TYPE of material makes much difference when it comes to expansion providing it is tough enough to begin with. It does make a difference as far as size at the meplat and the weight up front can affect balance. A tapered base stem, like my brass variety, can help to wedge the jacket mouth open. The stem length makes a little difference, not because of the stem itself, but because of the hollow point depth needed to accomodate it. i.e. you could have the same affect with a shorter stem with a void beneath it. All you have to do is "get the expansion started" and then the natural flattening at the tip puts pressure on the jacket and core to continue. Serrating the tip is also beneficial. It only takes .020"-.030" to get the jacket opening evenly. This also helps to keep mushrooming more uniform and predictable which helps keep the forward progress of the bullet on course (rather than tumble). I have noticed that bullets tested with and without a small serration act differently. As most of you have experienced, recovered bullets are often asymmetrical in appearance and sometimes deformed (torn off) on one side. The serrated ones are more often likely to be peeled back in a symmetrical pattern and have greater frontal area..........Rich

 

[Fiftydriver]

I'm not a bullet maker either, but like others have been trying to understand the tip for a long time. Remington Bronze Point, Lost River Ballistics being a couple of examples that have been tried. The standard Accubond works fairly well, but expansion at lower velocities is a worthwhile goal.

I'd like to hear Kirby, and Rich's thought's on 1) The difference, if any tip material makes. 2) The difference the length of the tips "stem" might make.

It would seem to me the standard Accubond expansion threshold would lower with just the stem being longer. The Barnes tipped line might benefit from both a longer, and harder stem. ????

Your thoughts please.

I believe the main difference in different tip materials would be balance and weight displacement. Also, length to weight ratio.

 

[HARPERC]

Thanks guys!

 

[Chesapeake]

I feel the .277 140 AB's were the weakest of the lot. They didn't seem nearly so tough as the 7mm 160's or the 30 cal. 180's. Doesn't surprise me the ABLR looks to follow suit.

Only maybe 1/16" pocket below the poly on the 7mm 150 pictured.