Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 7mm Accubond Long Range choices

Any feedback about the 150/168/175 ABLR in a 1:9.5 barreled 7mm Rem. Mag? Does the 175 stabilize at normal "book" velocities? Any advantages to the 168 over the 175?

Only advantage 168 over 175 is that I got the 168's to shoot in two 7 rem mags , both with 7828 powder. Both guns shoot -.5 moa. The 175 DIDNT group with 5 powders and differant seating . I'm trying the 175's in my RUM this weekend. Good luck

175's shoot good in mine with rl33

There is nothing good about these ABLR bullets. End of discussion. Nosler should be ashamed for the outright false BCs they list and they are tough to get to shoot compared to Bergers.

They're that bad? I haven't heard a whole lot of first hand experience about the ABLR but I don't think the Bergers are what I'm looking for either.

My tikka will do 1.5 MOA at best with the 168 LRABs, but will routinely do .75 or less with the 168 VLD "hunting" Bergers.

I killed a bull at 480ish a few weeks ago with the Berger, but only got 38 grains of the bullet back (what was left of the jacket sans any lead) which is what made me try some of the LRABs upon my return.

Dead is dead and he didn't go anywhere when hit with the Berger, but it just left me with an uneasy feeling with so little weight retention...at that distance especially.

I really wanted the LRABs to work, but my rifle says otherwise and it wasn't even a close race.

Dave

I think they will expand at low velocities better than most anything else but they have a much inflated BC and the jackets are so thin that you have to watch your neck tension or you will deform the jackets. They haven't proven to be very accurate in several rifles. I have personally never shot the 7mm version but my buddy tried them and they shot poorly in his two 7mms.

I have some 175's but haven't tried them yet but have worked up loads for three of my 7 Mags with the 168 LRAB.

The first is a 40-XB that I use if hunting over a cut-over bought used off of GB. Two series with Retumbo and H-4831.

Retumbo gave four shot groups were as follows: 0.85, 0.8, 0.95, 1.2 and 0.6. Later, five shots with the best load were in 0.45. Another five shot group at a later date was 0.6. Three shots on another day were 0.55 and three shots at 200 yds were 0.3.

H-4831SC gave four shot groups of: 1.3, 0.85, 0.4, 1.3, 1.1. Later, five shots of the best load were in 1.2. Another five shot group later was 0.75.

A 700 CDL with a 26" fluted barrel hasn't done as well. First four shot groups with Retumbo were 2.8, 3.0, 1.25, 2.1, 3.05. In a seating depth test, I got 2.9, 0.75, 2.35, 2.35, 2.25 and 1.8. I tried another seating depth trial to confirm the earlier results of the best and four shot groups were in 2.5, 1.7 and 0.75.

The last rifle is 700 African Plains Rifle from the Custom Shop bought used off of GB. First attempts were with Retumbo based on results with the 40-XB. Four shot groups were 0.65, 0.6, 0.8 and 0.8. Later, three shot groups were in 0.35, 0.45, 0.25, 0.5, 0.4 and at 280 yards in 1.4 and 2.1. A couple of weeks ago I was doing some last minute sight checking before an elk hunt and got the following: at 100 yards, three in 0.6 and three in 1.1 at 280 yards. The following week, at 100 yards three in 1.0 and at 280 yards four were in 2.0.

As to the ballistic coefficients I can't answer but based simply on "Ballistic" I-pad app my point of impacts at 100 and 280 yards they were right. I KNOW....280 yards is not a really a valid test but that's what I got and haven't been able to stretch 'em out.

As with any other components, you never know 'til you try them yourself but two out of three of my 7Mags like 'em a lot.

I'll be giving them a run later this winter -

We'll see if they cut the mustard...

Is that a Ruger or what rifle do you have with a 9.5 twist? I'd have to try a 168 berger hybrid in that.

I tried the 142 6.5s and they were like .050 or more off on BC. I shot them out to 800 yards.

Tips probably melted...



David

If you check out www.longrangehunting.com, Bryan Litz gives tested BC's with two twist rates vs advertised of all the LRAB's. His tests show that the tested BC's vs advertised are between 88% and 99% of the advertised.

I think I'll try some 168's. The rifle is a Sako A7 Big Game from Cabelas. Not trying to shoot them real far for hunting but would like to stretch out to 1000 on steel. I've seen some of Litz's testing and I can live with lower than advertised BC if they'll shoot decent.

That table does not have the new 142 .264 caliber bullet.

My limited testing showed that it was about 90% of advertised. Pretty piss poor in my book.





You want to take a bullet designed to expand at low velocities and comes to pieces at high velocities which is harder to load, more expensive, has a melting tip and stretch it out to 1000 on PAPER- makes complete sense!

You do know that the Berger bullets are not designed for weight retention, right?

I think I got the info I need. Thanks

The 168's absolutely bughole in my heavy 7 WSM with 7828 SSC. I just did the 100-yd load workup but haven't shot them yet at LR; waiting for the fog to lift from the hills. They were very easy to load for, though that is likely due to the rifle as much as anything. It shoots everything I put in it, so far. I'm also hoping to load them for my Kimber, so, fingers crossed that they cooperate there as well.

As Dennis says, (hey Dennis! How goes sir?) Litz has seen some discrepancy between reported v. field-tested BC's. Worth noting is that the 168 is pretty close to advertised BC, and is very good in that regard.

I'm interested in them as a LR game (elk mainly) bullet. Field reports are variable as to terminal performance, but a theme is that they are quite soft up front. Still, there's not a LR game bullet in 7mm that ISN'T soft, so.... worth a try. I'll definitely shoot a deer or three with them before launching one at an elk.

To the OP- if banging steel is your intended use, try the 162 Amax. Much cheaper, easy to get to shoot, very accurate. Availability can be spotty. I bought 1000 this spring when they were around. Hopefully they still are.

I bought a lifetime supply of Nos LRAB 6.5mm 142 gr. based on advertised ballistic coefficient.
I could not get them to work in an 8" twist ratchet rifling 6.5-06.
The ballistic coefficient does not matter if I can't get them to work.

I had to hunt with 120 gr Nos Bal Tips.
They worked well enough to hunt. Typically:
1" group at 100y
12" group at 600y