Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters A-frames as opposed to Partitions

I have not used the A-Frame, but am curious about them... their BCs appear to be significantly less than Partitions across the various calibers and bullet weights, and from what I have read they perform similarly on game, although perhaps the A-Frame opens a little more and penetrates a little less....?

So, for what applications would someone choose an A-Frame over a Partition? (Other than the obvious reason if it shoots better in my rifle)?

thanks for the insights here...

Your assessment is virtually spot on in my experience anyway, the A-Frame retains more weight but with that big mushroom it is fair to say it penetrates less than the Partition, especially if the Partition sheds all of it's front core. I killed eland, zebra, wildebeest, kudu and Tsesebee with the 300gr A Frame in the 375, all shot basically in the same place, point of the shoulder and I only obtained through and through penetration on the Kudu and Tsesebee.

I used a 180gr Partition out of my 300 Weatherby on warties, bushpig, impala etc and granted much smaller animals but all went right on through. I know shoot TTSXs and North Forks almost exclusively, but I have a 210 338 Partition "wired" for leopard. Bottom line pick the one your rifle likes best. jorge

I have experience with both A-Frames and partitions.....and will take the A-Frames for larger animals such as Eland, Kudu and Zebra.... but I've made one shot kills on bull elk at 300 yards with a partition.....

It's always bothered me that the partition frequently sheds the front core....but read the testimonials again and again....no one ever bad mouths the partition.....reason?....they simply work regardless of the front core issues.....and do so consistently.....

Probably no other bullet has the history and hence, track record to prove it's worth as the Nosler Partition....it's as good as that....

vapodog, that is the way a partition is designed. Front expands giving a good wound channel, from the partition back it penetrates. The A-Frame has a bonded front section which gives a larger mushroom but with less penetration.
Worked up loads for two 375H&Hs a few years back for two buddies going on a cape buffalo hunt. Used the 300gr A-Frames and partitions. Both shot very well but their PH suggested they use the A-Frame. He didn't want a pass through from the partition hitting another buffalo.Rick.

Are we saying the partition is designed (intended) to shed the front core?

Yes

That is my understanding.

I prefer partitions.

I've read this several times on the internet.....and have never had anyone find anything to confirm this statement.....

The Partition was designed "IN CASE" the core separated...and of course the rear section was encased and would stay put.

At the time the biggest complaint of bullets was the separation of the core and jacket....bonding technology wasn't known then so John Nosler did the next best thing.....ala the partition.

For anyone to say that the front care is intended to shed is just plain missing the point.....and in many cases the front core does not shed from the jacket.....are we then saying that these instances are a failure of the bullet design?

Don't get me wrong here....I'm not knocking the partition.....but to say that John Nosler intended for the front core to be shed from the jacket at the time of expansion is more urban legend.....Please find anything from the Nosler website to confirm this statement.

In my experience the Partition where the front half is designed to expand quickly (and is often shed) is at it's best when used on lighter big game (deer, pronghorn) or on broadside lung shots on larger game.

When used in situations requiring the breaking of heavy bones, particularly against dangerous game, the A-Frame seems to have a slight advantage due to it's bonded front core.

The tendency of the Partition to shed it's front core is slightly less effective in these situations. The heavier retained weight of the A-Frame just seems to me to do a bit more damage when the going gets tough.

Not to say the Partition is "ineffective" against heavy bone as the rear core tends to penetrate quite well and thus is quite deadly. However, the heavier A-Frame tends to break bone better and penetrate "enough" (though slightly less than the Partition's rear core). Sometimes "enough" penetration, coupled with maximum break-down ability beats maximum penetration, but less "damage" to stop the game.

This is among the best posts on the subject!

Well done Rick

All these posts pretty well tie in with my experience as well...I REALLY like Swift A-Frames...one of the easier "super" premiums to get to shoot well, and yes, they have a lower BC than some others, but at the ranges they will normally be used ( under 300 yds) its inconsequential, and for most shooting in the African bush,( usually under 125 yds) it is of no consequence at all...
I like the extra weight A frames retain, and their penetration IME is like the porridge in the story " just right "..

Thats exactly what is stated in John Nosler: Going Ballistic book. It also states that Mr. Nosler said "Do whatever you like with other bullets but we wont be changing the partition"

I've recovered a fair number of Partitions here and there....heavy going through bone and muscle will sometimes stop them on the offside.....sometimes....

These have been from some real close to fairly far (450-475 yards or so). What is interesting is that they all look pretty much the same....mostly peeled back to the Partition;sometimes with a bit of lead left but mostly without ..

This seems to indicate that they both expand at low impact velocity,yet have enough weight behind the Partition to penetrate reliably.

Frontal area is generally small IME.

Have not used the Swift Aframe but have used the Bitterroot Bonded Core a fair amount....this is the bullet that gave rise to things like the Aframe and the original TBBC. They all behave in a somewhat similar fashion even though their constructions vary a bit.

Frontal areas are substantially larger than what you generally see with a Partition;in general the Partition might penetrate deeper but the BBC(and I am sure the Aframe) will penetrate more than enough for any use I can think of....

Actually, IME, once velocity falls off at about the 300 yard mark,the BBC is hard to keep in an animal,and many will exit. I bet the Aframe might be inclined to do the same things....but I'm not sure.Anectdotal, but one pal stuck a 130 SAF into the shoulder of a zebra stallion, quartering on, and recovered it back behind the off side ribs...that is a pretty fair amount of penetration for a dinky 130 gr 270 bullet.

I have 500 130 gr SAF's tucked away for when I run outta BBC's,whenever that is...

Somebody learned something today...

I've yet to find a Partition in an elk, even those shot lengthwise.

vapodog,

John Nosler definitely designed the Nosler Partition to lose all or part of the front core. He wanted a bullet that partially fragmented to kill deer-sized game quickly, yet retain enough weight to penetrate deeply.

Personally, I tend to prefer the Partition, even on really big game over 1000 pounds, because it pretty much acts the same way every time. The A-Frame doesn't, mostly because the rear core isn't bonded. If it hits really big bone, the rear core tends to shift forward, expanding the rear half of the bullet as well. This really cuts down on penetration, due to the bullet turning more or less into a blob. And yes, I've shot a number of animals weighing over 1000 pounds with various Partitions, and a lot more weighing from 500-800 pounds, including elk, moose, and all the common African plains game animals of that size--kudu, gemsbok, zebra, blue wildebeest, etc.

At last! Something we can disagree on (with the possible exception of blondes versus redheads). I don't have the experience you do with A-Frames, but I rank the Partition right up there with (equivalent grain weights of) the True Cross.

Romney,
Can you can you state Mr. Nosler's words verbatum for us to clear up this issue.....does he say that the partition was designed to solve the bullet core separating from the jacket by insuring that half the core cannot separate or to intentionally wanting the front core to shed in the impact....

He wanted the front core to fragment, whether or not it separated. That's a matter of record, and the reason the Nosler Partition is still made with a front core that's softer than most expanding bullets to this day, despite all the changes that have taken place in its manufacture over the years.

John Nosler had wide experience hunting both deer and western Canadian moose when he designed the Partition. He knew that deer die more quickly when the bullet fragments, but that too much fragmentation limited penetration. So he decided to design an all-around bullet.

The history is well documented in his biography--and the effectiveness of the Partition is well proven in the field. I can look up the exact quotes in his biography, but that's pointless.

Nosler Partitions kill really well partly BECAUSE they lose all or part of the front core. This is apparent to anybody who's used them enough, and anybody who judges bullets on how they kill animals, not how much weight they retain or any other statistic.

OMG, judge bullets on how they kill animals. do you think it will ever catch on????

No these days!