Nosler Revises ABLR BC's

[COBrad]

That 155 sounds like a lot of potential for the .284 I have coming.

 

[Varminator 911]

Not possible to do that and achieve the desired BC and low velocity terminal performance. The Federal Edge lists minimum velocity in the 1850 fps range which is about a 40% increase over the 1300 for the ABLR.

Look at the video above. The TLR is said to expand down to 1350 fps. And the bottom half is solid copper. There is no reason you can't have a tough base on the bottom part of a bullet and a nose that readily expands.

Seems to me that Nosler at one time made what they called a solid base bullet. I don't think it was bonded but did have some section of solid copper at the base. Maybe they'll get it right eventually.

As a matter of fact they still have a solid base bullet. Several weights including a 64 gn 224 for deer size game and a 168 gn 308. Not long range they clearly know how to improve close range bullet performance. No reason they couldn't build the ABLR the same way on the back end.
https://www.nosler.com/bonded-solid-base-bullet/

 

[WildRose]

Seems fudging the BC's on a new product launch is standard Nosler protocol.

Yep. Part and parcel of what they've been doing since first releasing the Accubond LR.

 

[Mike 338]

Yep. Part and parcel of what they've been doing since first releasing the Accubond LR.

I have a difficult time believing this was just a simple math error, given that scads of shooters almost immediately recognizing the significant discrepancies in BC that they were getting as compared to the "extreme" published BC's Nosler was claiming. Then of course, a guy with credentials, Brian Litz, outed them and it still took years to come clean. It's like a guy claiming he was breaking the 3 minute mile when everyone else was at 4 and still beating him. Pretty much anybody with access to a online ballistic calculator was calling BS from the get go but Nosler just kept selling them as is. As a company, you gotta wonder when they're telling the truth. Oh well, I guess I tip my hat to somebody in the organization figuring out that they better come clean and let the chips fall. In 15 or 20 years, nobody will remember.

 

[trhall]

Look at the video above. The TLR is said to expand down to 1350 fps. And the bottom half is solid copper. There is no reason you can't have a tough base on the bottom part of a bullet and a nose that readily expands.

Seems to me that Nosler at one time made what they called a solid base bullet. I don't think it was bonded but did have some section of solid copper at the base. Maybe they'll get it right eventually.

As a matter of fact they still have a solid base bullet. Several weights including a 64 gn 224 for deer size game and a 168 gn 308. Not long range they clearly know how to improve close range bullet performance. No reason they couldn't build the ABLR the same way on the back end.
https://www.nosler.com/bonded-solid-base-bullet/

Technology keeps advancing although the commercial aspects never seem to move as fast as we'd like. Thanks for finding the 1350 detail. I just didn't look deep enough.

 

[DENWA]

I have a difficult time believing this was just a simple math error, given that scads of shooters almost immediately recognizing the significant discrepancies in BC that they were getting as compared to the "extreme" published BC's Nosler was claiming. Then of course, a guy with credentials, Brian Litz, outed them and it still took years to come clean. It's like a guy claiming he was breaking the 3 minute mile when everyone else was at 4 and still beating him. Pretty much anybody with access to a online ballistic calculator was calling BS from the get go but Nosler just kept selling them as is. As a company, you gotta wonder when they're telling the truth. Oh well, I guess I tip my hat to somebody in the organization figuring out that they better come clean and let the chips fall. In 15 or 20 years, nobody will remember.

Nope.

Up until a few years ago BC was a set of measurements and engineering level calculations.

Then computers modeled them starting in the 2000's.

Then a few years ago smart guys shrunk Doppler radar and advanced computer models etc etc.

In the last few years think of the advancements we've seen in Chronograph technology?

If I used some of my drop data from (my younger days) you'd think my 308 175's had a BC of .900!

Too many folks think these companies are so evil and just trying to rip people off.

I work at one of the most advanced technology companies in all the world, Engineer and now Business Development.

Mistakes happen and are very hard to course correct. Especially when corporate culture is ruled by "this is the way we've always done it!"

NO ONE wants mistakes like this.

Young folks make all their purchasing decisions based on online feedback from YELP and Google. --Think about that for a minute.

 

[Hand Skills]

All coincident with the passing of John Nosler. This could be as large a factor as any... A perfect storm perhaps.

 

[Mike 338]

Nope.

Up until a few years ago BC was a set of measurements and engineering level calculations.

Then computers modeled them starting in the 2000's.

Then a few years ago smart guys shrunk Doppler radar and advanced computer models etc etc.

In the last few years think of the advancements we've seen in Chronograph technology?

If I used some of my drop data from (my younger days) you'd think my 308 175's had a BC of .900!

Too many folks think these companies are so evil and just trying to rip people off.

I work at one of the most advanced technology companies in all the world, Engineer and now Business Development.

Mistakes happen and are very hard to course correct. Especially when corporate culture is ruled by "this is the way we've always done it!"

NO ONE wants mistakes like this.

Young folks make all their purchasing decisions based on online feedback from YELP and Google. --Think about that for a minute.

Well, I'm sure that in hindsight, nobody nobody wants "mistakes" like this. Funny, I remember when they came out with pictures of the bullet and published BC's. I thought, "Humf... that's amazing. They don't look all that much sleeker compared to other bullets on the market".

 

[alf]

And people doubted my results.......

Testing the 142 LR Accubond

 

[Akhunting]

I had one of the early boxes of .284 175 ABLRs and the BC on the box was different than the later boxes I bought. I'll have to see if I still have it around.

 

[jlreff]

That's why I won't use noslers products anymore. Especially when they got rid of my solid base boat tails. That's why I like the Barnes I shoot they don't overstate there bc's, plus they focus on the terminal end first then b c.

 

[Akhunting]

I had one of the early boxes of .284 175 ABLRs and the BC on the box was different than the later boxes I bought. I'll have to see if I still have it around.

My bad, it was Hornady ELD-X. Early BC was listed at .675 and later dropped to .660

 

[Caveman0101]

I've been shooting them since they became available, spent a whole summer figuring out why the downrange results on paper were different than the ballistic program. But when I shot the first elk with one at 630 yards and it didn't take a step I was sold. Killed 18 more with it since then and countless deer from 50- 617 yards and they are the best hunting bullet I've shot. Never had to track an animal with them all DRT. Yep, it is crappy that they published the wrong BC, but it is a great hunting bullet.

 

[Idaho Lefty]

Agree with caveman,
EVERY Bullet chosen, should be, tested and VALIDATED, thru-out the "ranges" being used ! Unfortunately, Nosler made, a huge mistake/ blunder or, flat out lied about, the ABLR. I'm completely sold, on BOTH of them, DEPENDING on the Range being used at. I won't shoot Elk at, extreme LR ( past 650 yd's ) so I use, the tougher one, the Reg. AB, a very good Bullet, IMO. My Dad, Friend's and myself, have killed, a lot of Big Game with, the old 165/180 Partitions, in a .30-06 Spfld. It, was and still IS,.. DEADLY !