Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game The official Accubond Failure Poll

WinModel70,

It is always interesting to read these threads and find out how people judge bullets. One of the people who claimed an AccuBond failure apparently simply did not like the looks of the exit holes.

Yours is another example. Yes, Interbonds (a fine bullet) do expand wider and retain more weight than AccuBonds, on average. They also do not penetrate as deeply, on average. This is because (as I have pointed out before) frontal area of an expanded bullets has more to do with how deeply they penetrates than retained weight.

This is exactly why I once witnessed a 360-grain Woodleigh fail to exit a 100 pound deer on an angling shot through the chest. It expanded to over 2.5 times its original diameter, and was about as "tall" as a stack of 4 quarters. But it did retain 90% of its weight.

The AccuBond is advertised to expand, penetrate and retain weight about like a Partition of equal weight and diameter. This is what I have seen some 75 or so do. Other bonded bullets may be "touted" to retain 90% of their weight, but that has never been claimed for the AccuBond.

It was created to be a plastic-tipped Partition, which customers had been begging for for years. It was not designed to be any other bonded bullet. If people are disappointed that AccuBonds don't act like a Norma Oryx, Woodleigh Weld-Core, Hornady Interbond, etc. etc., well then either they did not read what Nosler said about them, or they expect every bonded bullet to act exactly the same. And they do not.

The only Ballistic Tips that act anywhere close to an AccuBond are the "heavy-jacket" models, with a jacket that's about 60% of their total weight. These used to include any BT over .30 caliber, especially the 200 .338 and 260 .375, which have since been converted to AccuBonds.

I use a bunch of different bullet designs every year, and am always astonished to hear about how such-and-such design "failed" because of the size of the entry or exit hole, or how the bullet looked when they recovered it from a suddenly dead animal, or how it retained "only" so much weight. Whether the animal died quickly apparently has nothing to do with it.

It has gotten to the point where the only bullet that could satisfy all the esoteric definitions of "success" is one that would retain 100% of its weight, expand to three times its original diameter, create exactly the right size entrance and exit hole (to be determined by a certified Board of Bullet Performance), then turn around and go back through the exit hole and lodge under the skin right next to the hole, so that it could be recovered and judged on a scale of 1 to 10.

Oh, it would also only shoot up lungs, ribs, etc. and never mess up any edible meat--unless of course we wanted it to, if for instance we don't like shoulder steaks.

This may seem really strange, by the only time I ever accuse any expanding big game bullet of "failing" is if it doesn't penetrate the vitals of an animal on a reasonable chest shot.
If it does that, I don't really care what the entrance and exit holes look like, how much weight the bullet retained, or whetherthe bullet ended up in a really pretty mushroom.

In the past five years I have shot or observed several hundred big game animals being shot with quite a few expanding bullets, including the Barnes X, XLC, TSX and "tipped" TSX; Berger VLD; Hornady Interlock and Interbond; Norma Oryx; North Fork; Nosler Accbond, Ballistic Tip, Partition and E-Tip; Remington Core-Lokt and Core-Lokt Ultra; Sierra GameKing and ProHunter; Speer Hot-Cor and Grand Slam; Swift A-Frame and Scirocco (I and II); Winchester Power Point, Fail Safe, and XP3; and Woodleigh Weld-Core. In the past year alone I've seen at least 3/4 of those bullet designs at work, usually repeatedly.

The ONLY bullet I saw fail, under my criteria, was a conventional unbonded soft-point, that did not penetrate deeply enough on a zebra. Of course, all of these bullets were selected to be of more-or-less appropriate diameter and weight for the job at hand. Probably the most exaggerated ratios of bullet-to-animal, at either end of the spectrum, were a 55-grain Winchester soft-point from a .22-250 on a greater kudu, and that 360-grain .416 Woodleigh on a 100-pound fallow deer. But most were of more conventional size for the job.

From all this I have begun to conclude that actual bullet failure is a pretty rare occurence. Most of the so-called "failures" are instead judgements of things entirely unrelated to whether the bullet did its job, such as exit holes or retained weight. Hearing about such bullshit is bad enough in gun stores, but the Campfire beats all.

JB

Amen!

+2!!

The best thing about all the bullets today is that you can have whatever level of performance makes you happy. This was not always true.

The bullets of today..have come a long way

Yes bullets have indeed come a long way, but just like in everything in life you get what you pay for. Bullets do fail. A perfect and recent examples (I'll give you two) were with the Hornady Interbond and their "encapsulated" solid. The IB while being used by Steve Hornady himself either last year or in 06, failed pretty spectacularly on buffalo or aso it was reported by a reputable witness who styed and the same camp in Dande North, Zimbabwe. Craig Boddigton was there as well. The solid developed such a horrible reputation for riveting and erratic performance, Hornady eventually saw the light and went back to their original and excellnet design.

I'll be the first to admit my experience is limited compared to many here, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck to know that using one of the more softer bullets at higher velocities can at best result in a lost animal and trophy fee and at worst get you killed or seriously injured. There are some great and mediocre bullets out there and it's your choice to use what you like. jorge

I happen to (personally) prefer certain bullets based on my own tests and experiences. Some of the bullets that are not my first choice more frequently do things I don't like, like ruin more meat than I like if I don't put them exactly where I should. They are "failures" at some of the ways I've used them. They do not fail to kill though, something all hunting bullets are designed to do. Yep, failure to satisfy ________________ is often equated as "failure." I hardly think a failure to satisfy a given individual is a bullet failure though.

But I think John said it better first and, since he is JB, it means more as well.




Let it never be said that John B was afraid to call a spade "a spade."

We've used 140 gr handloaded Accubonds for the past 2 seasons on deer here in Mid-MO. These bullets had a MV of almost 3000 fps for the 7-08 to over 3250 fps with the 7wsm. 4 one shot kills, 1 recovered bullet that retained 70% of its weight after traveling through about 30" of 8 point buck. 3 were DRT, one went about 40 feet. No failures, very little bloodshot meat (shots ranged from 50 to 125 yds). In addition to that, my wife shot a coyote with a facing shot through the chest at 140 yds a couple of weeks ago during an early urban county deer season. These bullets are the most accurate in any of our rifles. Could not ask for anything else in a bullet, would not hesitate to use them on elk. I recently picked up 300 factory seconds at $12.95 per 50 and don't plan on using anything else for these guns anytime in the near future.

1) Yes 6 Whitetail 1 Black Bear 180Gn AccBound 338winmag
2) No failures, most were bang flop, only one went 25 yards

I have that ammo from federal premium and havent shot anything but paper with it yet....might try it on a deer this year

I reload mine, I believe it is (from memory no log book at hand) 72gr IMR 4350, CCI Mag primer, win case, 3100 fps at the muzzle. I love this round and the rifle combo (Winchester Mod 70) it's like using my mouse, just point and click <grin>

Jorge,

Yes, bullets do fail--but they tend to fail consistently in one of two circumstances.

The first when somebody who doesn't understand bullet construction uses, say, a standard cup-and-core bullet at excessive velocity on too-big game. There are still hunters out there, believe it or not, who think that any 180-grain .30 bullet is the same. There are also hunters who believe that any expanding bullet should be capable of Texas heart shots on any size big game. But bullet companies cannot be blamed for ignornance and mis-use.

The second happens when a bullet company is developing a new bullet and is trying them out on game. That is exactly what happened with Steve, and why the bullet design was changed (back to the old).

Happily, these days I do not know of ANY bullet company that invents a bullet in the laboratory and then introduces it to the public. This was common 20 years ago or more, but not now. I suspect it rarely happens these days because shooters in general ARE more aware of bullet design, and so demand more from bullets.

A third, but much more rare, kind of bullet failure happens with good bullets used correctly. They fail to open, or flatten to the thickness of a silver dollar, or tumble off at a strange angle. I have seen all three happen in the past five years, with supposedly "bullet-proof" bullets, but then again I see a lot more animals shot than most hunters do. This comes under the category of "stuff happens," and will always be with us. Which is why I tend to discount these happenings, though they do occur on rare occasions.

JB

I just returned from a NW Ontario deer huntign trip. I took a 180lb dressed 7 pt with one shot at 250 yards using a 200gr AB out of my 300 win mag. Like I expected the bullet was pretty tough and penatration wasnt a issue. The shot was broadside through both shoulder blades and the exit was identical to what I have seen when I used partitions.
The 165 AB might be a better choice for deer, but these 200gr AB's shot 3000fps and really well in my gun. Figure the 200gr AB will do the job for anything I plan to hunt so I might as well go with it as a all around/ get er done load.

Just bought a brand new box of Winchester Accubonds in 270. When the box was opened, two tips fell right out of the box onto the floor.

I'd call that bullet failure from the get-go.

One blackbear and one whitetail deer with 180 grain accubond out of a 30-06. Both animals taken at ~ 50 yards, the bear hit three times, all three bullets exploaded on impact, schrapnel everywhere. Deer worked fine. Results 3/4 bullets failed, not sure if it was because of the range, but I switched from them.

Expanding bullets all "explode" on impact....
I tend to agree with JB that most of these failures you hear about are BS.

John: Thanks for the "pesonal" post and I really DO enjoy the intellectual jousting on a subject we all enjoy. Your post as usual is well-reasoned and perfectly sensible and if we stop and reflect on the subject at hand (Accubonds/bonded bullets in general) I never said they were garbage, just simply I've significantly more complaints about bonded bullets (Scirocco, Interbond & Accubond & the TB Lion Load) than I ever have about TBBCs, A Frames, or the best (in my opinion) the North Fork.

I have also seen quite a few regarding the TSX and it's propensity to tumble. This I am convinced comes from length issues, easily resolved by a different twist or the more sensible solution, dropping down in weight (say 400 to 350 in the 416 to name one) as it also shortens the bullet.

On this thread and many others that unfortunately degenerate into pissing contests by the dimwits amongst us, there are quite a few (too many for me) instances of what *I* define as substandard performance from given bullets (the ones above come to mind). And this is not just from folks who I consider experienced hunters here on 24. I ahd the pleasure of sitting next to Tony Sanchez Arino on a flight back east after SCI and naturally I bent his ear (in Spanish too I might add!) about all things hunting including this very subject.

Suffice to say he waxed eloquent about the evils of not matching bullets to the task at hand and Sierras and Hornadys out of Weatherbys were foremost in his mind. He even mentions this in one of his books where a 180gr hornady out of a 300 Weatherby just belw up on a leopard's shoulder at 30 yards. To me, even if this happens one in a thousand,is one too many for me.

Accordingly, I made the decision based on my limited experiences with conventional bullets that when I'm on an expensive hunt, it just doesn't make sense to go with any of the bullets in question when there are such superb bullets out there like the ones I mentioned above.

By the same token I just find it amusing to watch all these hunting shows (and posts here) of hunters hunting whitetails with 300 RUMs and 150gr bullets. The AB, IB, Scirocco, etc., are perfectly acceptable bullets, I just choose not to use them on anything other than local hunting. Cheers, jorge

Jorge, all your points are very valid. The problem is most guys are "only hunting local". Most any bullet works well on deer/hogs/black bears, including the 100gr Hornaday out of your .257 WTBY. Course it works pretty dang good out of my 25-06 AI too...
With that said I wouldnt hesitate to use the 200gr AB out of my 300 win mag on anything in NA.

Just one animal, 180-gn thru a 30-06 at about 90 yards... medium-sized buck, perfect performance. Could not have been better, really. Deer dropped in his tracks.

I'll add to that, the big spike bull elk my buddy killed a few days ago up at elk camp. 225 factory load from a .338 WM. Complete pass-thru broadside at 290 yards, elk dropped on the spot.

I love 'em.

-jeff

Ive only shot two animals with Accubonds

1) Black bear, 7mm 160 grain, 2800 fps muzzle velocity, 130 yard shot, quartering away through lungs/offside shoulder - bear ran 10 feet and died, bullet exit

2) 6x5 bull elk, 30-06 165 grain, 2835 fps MV, 98 yard shot, full frontal through brisket into lungs - elk dropped, bullet exit after 35" of penetration