Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Accubond vs ballistic tip

If you were to get similar accuracy and velocity of these two bullets, why would you choose one or the other based on terminal performance?

If it matters, both 90 grain, 243 bullets.

Only thing I can think of would be availability. Where one works the other will too.

I shoot both. .277 140 grain NBT and 140 AB's. My go to hunting bullet is the 140 AB. AB gets the hunting work just for the added penetration/weight retention. 140 NBT 2nds for practice and the occasional deer.

dassa,
I know the 95 BT has a stellar reputation on deer. I don't know if the 90 BT is as effective (or not). But I can tell you I have seen some very fine performance with the 90 AB on both Mulies and Whitetail. If cost was not an issue, and both shot as accurately, I'd choose the 90 AB over the 90 BT.
I recall reading something that there might be a little bit of jacket thickness or other design difference between the 90 and the 95 BT, and that may have something to do with the 95 BT's fine reputation. But that might just be something I imagined. Look forward to others' replies.

Rex

My thoughts as well.

What 10 gauge said. Have been loading the 90 BT for a friend and his wife. Close to 50 white tails between the two of them now. Never a problem

GreggH

So here's why I ask. Testing loads today, I have a load I'm satisfied with shooting the accubond, but the ballistic tip groups were at least 3/4" worse. I'm happy just using the accubond, unless the ballistic tip offers some advantage (like expanding better at longer ranges). If it doesn't, I don't want to waste the time trying to find a load for it.

Thanks for all the replies so far.

I have plenty of both.

The AB is, well, bonded. Hypothetically it will expand a little less, penetrate a little more than the BT.

Based on my observation, that seems to be the case with 7mm and 30 cal BT vs AB.

Have mentioned this before here, and in my publications:

When Nosler developed the AccuBond, they tested all of the Ballistic Tip bullets in media against the bonded version. If bonding made a difference in penetration, they offered an AccuBond version. If there was no substantial difference in penetration, they didn't bother bonding 'em.

Great info

I have quite a few Accubonds on the shelf in various calibres but don't tend to shoot them much except in my .35 Whelen (225gn) and 9.3x62 (250gn) for sambar. I've shot a fair few Ballistic Tips from the 6mm 95gn up to the 180gn 8mm and get good expansion and complete penetration. I'm thinking what will the Accubonds do that the Ballistic Tips won't. That's on pigs, goats and fallow/chital deer sized game. I guess elk, moose and bear sized game would be different though.

I'd choose a Partition over either if it shot accurately but given your choices, I'd choose the Accubond.

I've had a few weird things happen with BT in .270 and 7mm, the only calibers I have used them in. The 270 was a factory 130 BT Silvertip so I don't know its actual velocity, and this was ~25 years go. I shot a Muly doe at 40 yards broadside. She dropped so fast if you had blinked you would have missed it. Inside were a mess but the offside ribs weren't touched.

The 7mm were 120g shot at 3200 fps. This was 12 years ago. I had read of how tough they were, and they were very accurate in my rifle. The first deer, a mature whitetail buck, was shot at ~35 yards. It acted like it was hit but died after making a 50 yard run. Shot through the heart the bullet came apart and we found the jacket under the skin on the offside. No exit was found so I don't know what became of the lead center. The next day I shot a Muly doe at 280 yards broadside. The bullet deflected of her shoulder went up through her neck and came out her head on the offside as she was looking at me. I have been wary of BT ever since.


Sorry to say io don't have on game experience with the AB to say one way or the other, but it proved as accurate in my 270 as the BTs do.

^^^ This!

I've used the NBT in 95gr in a 2.43 win, 120 in 6.5 Grendel and 260 Rem, 140gr 7-30 Waters and 7-08 Rem, 165 and 180gr in 30-06 and the 140 Accubond in 7-08 Rem on Whitetails. My Accubond sample isn't very large but the blood trails have been heavier and shorter using the NBT vs the Accubond on whitetails on non-cns hits. I don't steer clear of shoulders with NBT's either

I've killed boatloads of big game, and more hogs than that with AB's and partitions. I don't see a nickle's worth of difference between the two on game performance or killing stuff.

For game, I'd try the Accubond first. That said, I've had Ballistic Tips shoot very well where same caliber same weight Accubonds not shoot for crap. So .. don't assume, TEST.

The jacket thickness is the variable.
Toughen that and the need for bonding is reduced. Bonding overall in my experience has a higher recording for better accuracy over CnC, but bonding with a lot of lead up front, enhances expansion thereby reducing penetration.

Always a trade off as you have to decide your accuracy requirements and penetration needs.

Agree 💯%