Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Accubond Long Range on Elk??

Right here is the answer to the question. Shoot ABLRs that are heavy-for-caliber and the problem is solved. I'll bet that they would be great at .308 velocities, also.

For the record I much prefer the regular Accubond it will do everything I could ever want to do. I just think some guys are being pretty unrealistic when it comes to the ABLR in order to expand at extreme range it will have to be a bit soft at closer range, I bet we will hear the exact same things this time next year about the new Hornady ELD-X bullet. Honestly there is no real good reason for shooting at extreme range anyway other than inflating someone's ego. If you bag it you have to get to the animal anyway so why not cut the distance down before you shoot?

The pictured bullets are regular AB's, I do believe, not ABLR, so have little to do with the question...

Skeezix,

I have been following the whole ABLR deal closely, and used some (not many) as well. What I’ve generally noticed is the people who’re unhappy with ABLR performance on game haven’t used them at long range. Instead they use them as an all-around bullet, often from higher velocity cartridges, like they’d use the standard AccuBond and Partition, and bitch when the ABLR’s don’t hold up as well at ranges under 400 yards.

Designed with an optimum performance window ranging from 3,200fps to 1,300 fps, the unique tapered jacket geometry and proprietary bonding process of the AccuBond®-LR allow it to expand rapidly for effective energy transfer and significant tissue damage while retaining sufficient weight to ensure deep penetration into the vitals. The AccuBond® bonding process allows the AccuBond®-LR to perform reliably on game throughout the entire velocity range, eliminating the problem of being “too close” often encountered with other high-B.C. bullets.

Thanks guys!! Y'all confirmed what I'd heard.

I've had what, to me, was surprising experience with several deer I've killed with the 200gr AB out of my .338 RCM at 2850 fps. I have yet to have an exit wound on any mature buck (240 to 330 lbs), but all my shots have been quartering or through the shoulders. And all but one have run at least 50-60 yds. I've had exit wounds and some bang/flops with does, even a couple that were just over 200 pounds. Same experience with the 200gr SST's from Hornady.

The old 210 NPT just blows right through, giving a nice big, juicy exit wound, which usually isn't needed because the deer bang/flops or falls within 20 yds or less. Same thing with the old Hornady 200gr flat base IL and the Speer 200gr HotCor, all at 2850fps out of my .338 RCM. I've gotten in a LOT more shooting than normal the last three years with this rifle because of culling requested by the Department of Conservation due to CWD in the area.

I know I was originally asking about the ABLR's out of 7mm and 300 mags, but my experience with the regular 338, 200gr AB's on big northern Missouri whitetails has me wondering about their performance on elk too.

Thanks again!

And a lot of people bitch about regular AccuBonds at closer ranges--which was my point. There's no pleasing some people, especially when one particular bullet doesn't act exactly like they expect it to. Quite often they complain about the entrance hole, exit hole, amount of meat it shot up, how far the animal went after the hit, lack of a blood trail, etc. etc. etc.

People have every right to be disappointed and voice their displeasure regarding the AccuBond LR. Nosler states explicitly that the bullet has "an optimum performance window ranging from 3,200fps to 1,300 fps" and that it will "perform reliably on game throughout the entire velocity range, eliminating the problem of being “too close”. Sounds to me like the Holy Grail of bullets or a bunch of snake oil marketing. I vote for the latter.

People spend good time and money to purchase the AccuBond LR bullets and develop loads only to find out the advertised B.C. values are grossly overstated and that in fact they don't hold up well at close range in spite of the design "eliminating the problem of being too close". Granted, just as with cup-and-core target bullets, the close range problems can be expected to diminish as bullet weights increase.

I realize B.C. values for a given bullet can vary from rifle to rifle and at different velocities. Still, I have yet to see any reports of the advertised B.C. values being too low. You suggest in your post that people shouldn't expect them to hold together as well under 400 yards, a claim that is in stark contrast to Nosler's claims to the contrary.

When the AccuBond LR came out I, too, was interested. Although I don't practice at ranges past 600 yards and wouldn't attempt a shot at game at that range unless everything was perfect, the AccuBond LR promised a flatter trajectory with less wind drift. Then reality set in.

Using Nosler's own published velocities and B.C values, the practical difference between the 7mm 168g ABLR and the standard 140g and 160g AB are vanishingly small at 600 yards. With each load MPBR zeroed for a 6" diameter target the ABLR is about an 1" higher compared to the 160g AB and about 8" lower than with the 140g AB. Retained velocity is about 16fps less (140g) to about 100fps higher (160g), and wind drift is about 4" less (~17" vs ~21" for both AB weights). Retained energy is higher by ~285fpe (140g) and ~255fpe (160g) but both standard AB bullets retain between 1550fpe and 1600fpe, more than enough to do the job cleanly.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the proven performance of the standard AccuBonds and forgo the "advantages" of the LR version. And when others voice their disappointment with the AccuBond LR when compared to Nosler's marketing claims, I won't point to the shooters and suggest they should have known better.

Your statements are negligent. For example, you claim that "... the advertised B.C. values are grossly overstated... " but failed to provide any evidence of your claim or what the "true" values are. Additional, please provide the calculations, tolerance, and uncertainty value of the measured B.C. that Nosler uses in their methods to determine B.C., that you have found to be incorrect.

Also, you dismissed the B.C values but then used them to dispute an advertising advantage by comparing various projectiles. Please explain.

Secondly, you state that "... they don't hold up well at close range in spite of the design..." But you failed explain what constitutes not "hold(ing) up well" and how that fails to adequately coincide with the claims made by Nosler.

Thirdly, you state "And when others voice their disappointment with the AccuBond LR when compared to Nosler's marketing claims, I won't point to the shooters and suggest they should have known better." You are entirely responsible for your hunt and the selection of equipment. Which includes any validation done on your own of products you selected. Noslers claims are not at all unreasonable and not all inclusive.

Ironically when you quoted John B. I felt your statements were synonymous to the point he made.

Amazing. So you look at a set of values put out by Nosler and Brian Litz without knowing how they arrived at those values, tolerance and error of the methods and equipment, and the uncertenty values and make an absolute comparison? How dumb.

Further, you back this up by saying that it must be true because he puts his professional reputation on the line, which is just a fantastic statement devoid of objectivity.

Congratulations. I know this concept might scare you $hittless but... It is entirely possible that both values are "correct" and that both Brian and Nosler most likely had to choose which value they wanted to report if they did enough testing. Please tell me you are not in a technical field. Ever thought that if you looked at the tolerances, error, sampling, and uncertainty calculations that the two values might be a statistical wash?

You make the statement that "Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes good bullet performance" but then state that Nosler is "guilty of marketing hype" and that the hype wasn't based on "personal experances" which you attribute to testing on game. Its fascinating to me that you know that Nosler never tested the LR on game. Then go on to say John is out of line for "blaming the hunters who have been disappointed after accepting Nosler's claim". Why because Nosler didn't tell them how many inches the bullet would travel In their elk at 123 yards? Again, you are responsible regardless of the claims or how disappointed you are in them.
The bottom line is that you believe Nosler's claims are unreasonable and that any dissatisfied Hunter using the LR has been done wrong. Lmao. Good god.
Btw... What "big game" does Nosler make these claims based on? Just curious

If you go back and can comprehend what you read, which I'm beginning to doubt, you will see that I acknowledge the same bullet can exhibit different B.C. values based on the rifle they are fired from and at different velocities. Brian Litz and Nosler came to some pretty different values for B.C. but Brian's numbers seem to better reflect what most people are seeing - i.e. something less than what Nosler advertises.

No, I don't know all the details on how Nosler arrived at their numbers and really don't give a damn - the numbers they advertise for the AccuBond LR and standard AccuBond are the numbers they chose, not me. I don't have any problem using them for comparison any more than I use numbers from Barnes, Hornady and others when making calculations for bullets I have not tested myself.

The bullets I take hunting get tested over a chonograph and out to 600 yards. The observed results then get plugged into a ballistic calculator. If the manufacturer's B.C. value doesn't match my experience I modify the B.C. value until it does. Then when I go hunting I take hard copy tables as well as my cell-phone with its ballistic calculator app. But until I have such experience, yes, I use the manufacturer supplied B.C. values.



Did I mention you might have a reading comprehension problem? It is showing again. I didn't say it "must be true", I said Brain Litz put his professional reputation on the line - in other words, HE believes his numbers to be accurate.



Actually I am in a technical field and have been for decades. And no, I don't believe the two values are the result of a "statistical wash". In fact, there are more than two values we are talking about - we're talking about B.C. values for eleven different bullets. If the values were a statistical wash, either Nosler or LItz could have a higher number for any given bullet. In fact, Litz's number are lower for all eleven. The chances of that happening if their values are a "statistical wash" are 1 in 2048.



Your reading comprehension problem is showing again. Nowhere did I say Nosler hadn't tested the AccuBond LR on game. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they didn't test at least some of the LR version on game before putting them on the market.

What I wrote was (pay attention here) "Nosler may well take the position that a bullet that holds together well enough to work on a broadside is good enough. Many people demand more of their bullets...". Is Nosler guilty of marketing hype? IMHO there is no question about it - most companies engage in hype to some degree or another. If Nosler really believes the AccuBond LR will behave in an "optimum" manner at both 3200fps and 1300fps they have a very different definition of "optimum" than I do.

Nosler states quite clearly that the AccuBond LR is in its "optimum performance window" at 3200fps and that the design eliminates the problem of being "too close", yet John takes hunters to task and suggests hunters shouldn't be disappointed "when the ABLR’s don’t hold up as well at ranges under 400 yards". The fastest 7mm/168g AccuBondLR load Nosler lists for the 7mm RM clocks in at 3011fps. According to Nosler, that load is in its "optimum performance window" from the muzzle to well beyond 1000 yards. I agree with John that hunters shouldn't expect the AccuBond LR to hold up as well at close range but where we disagree is at the 400 yard figure. Based on Nosler's claims I think hunters are right to expect good performance at much closer ranges.

And again, just to be perfectly clear, I believe Nosler's claims for the AccuBond LR are overblown marketing hype. I use a lot of standard AccuBond bullets and will stick with them.

Good god you're dumb. If you can't speak of how Brian or Nosler arrived at thier data including ALL uncertainty values and tolerance of all equipment used and their results, and how they CHOOSE to report the data by summary statistics and rounding, then you can't say that thier numbers are similar or dissimilar. Brian, and Nosler can both REPORT BC values of the same projectile with a discrepancy of 10% and both be right. A concept that escapes you apparently.
But I am speaking to a guy that absurdly reports his own numbers.
Also, if you didn't feel you were making an important point that substantiated your argument by saying that Brian puts his professional reputation on the line, why say it at all?

With your long winded responses and endless quotes, you argue like a butthurt employee that constantly fears for job his security.
Nosler's claims hurt hunters. Lmao.
By the way the "odds" you calculated did not account the aforementioned factors.

Good god you're dumb. If you can't speak of how Brian or Nosler arrived at thier data including ALL uncertainty values and tolerance of all equipment used and their results, and how they CHOOSE to report the data by summary statistics and rounding, then you can't say that thier numbers are similar or dissimilar. Brian, and Nosler can both REPORT BC values of the same projectile with a discrepancy of 10% and both be right. A concept that escapes you apparently.
But I am speaking to a guy that absurdly reports his own numbers.
Also, if you didn't feel you were making an important point that substantiated your argument by saying that Brian puts his professional reputation on the line, why say it at all?

With your long winded responses and endless quotes, you argue like a butthurt employee that constantly fears for job his security.
Nosler's claims hurt hunters. Lmao.
By the way the "odds" you calculated did not account the aforementioned factors.