Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters AccuBonds vs. A-Frames in Africa............

I'd subscribe to a magazine like that. Especially if there was a story each month/bi-monthly of a real good hunting story that wasn't trying to sell me the latest fad.

test, that's a very fair question to ask, and I ask myself that same question to this day.

My rifle shoots a variety of loads very well. I had 210 and 250 gr. Nosler Partition loads ready to go, as well as a 225 gr. Barnes TSX load. I used the TSX load for elk hunting last year, and it was phenomenally accurate and absolutely hammered elk.

Toward the end of my prep time, I was ready to go with my 250 gr. Nosler Partition handload, which produces 2702 fps. out of my rifle, and I was ready to go with it because of the possibility of getting into it with a lion, as well as for hunting 2000 lb. eland in mopane forests. The 250 gr. Partition is a very special bullet in my experience (I shot my first elk with it 23 years ago), because it opens up very well on all sizes of game, and under all conditions, plus it penetrates on and on and on. It's a real killer, and it's just possibly the all-time best 338 Win. Mag. bullet ever developed. It's not too tough for the small stuff, and it'll stay together enough to handle any of the big stuff.

But stupidly, I became overtly fascinated by the perfect, round little sub-1/2" five-shot groups my rifle was producing with the 225 ABs. That, plus the drive to experiment with yet another premium bullet influence my decision.

AD

Great post, allenday.

Your experience with the Swift A-Frame mirrors my own.

The A in A-Frame should stand for Africa!

One thing that nobody has mentioned so far is that it's a good idea to TEST any new bullet before taking it on a critical hunting trip.

I learned this lesson many years ago when Speer Grand Slams first appeared. About the only "premium" expanding bullets available back then were Nosler Partitions (easy to find) and Botterroot Bonded Cores (hard to find). Most write-ups of the Grand Slam gave glowing reports, so when I needed some more elk bullets for my .270 and found GS's to be about 3/4 the price of Partitions I bought some. They shot well and I was pretty pleased until I got an angling shot on a cow and the bullet only penetrated a few inches. (Speer fixed the bullet after the first year or two, and it started working much like the Partition, but has recently "streamlined" the manufacturing process....)

In my job I have to test new big game bullets about every year. I start by shooting media. Have used a bunch of different stuff but mostly have used dry newspaper for the past 10 years or so, which is tough enough to show up any potential problems but not so tough as to unrealistic, and in the past year or so the Test Tube, which gives a better idea of how quickly a bullet is opening.

Then I start shooting smaller animals with it, 100 pounds or so, increasing the angle and/or shooting for bone if initial kills are OK. Only if those results are OK do I try it on bigger game.

Now, of course it's impossible for most hunters to do ALL of this, but just testing some bullets in media is a big first step. You will often be surprised by those results--both ways. It also helps guard against a box of bad bullets.

MD

Ah, yes, testing bullets by controlled use of terminal ballistic test media before hunting, because hunting is not testing. I think that concept was widely hooted at in this website, but now that Mule Deer has said it, let's see if the same people call him an idiot.

I was always a user of Speer (dad started me with them) until I also got bit (sort of) by the first Grand Slams and I have never went back. Partitions all the way..... or if plain bullets are used I use Hornady Interlocks.

MD, I'd never try to argue with you over any of those points......... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />!

AD

Good to have you back Allen. I hoped you were out blasting big game and you were!

Testing bullets is hard work. I don't have a place I can do it here in CT and I have to drive to the camp in VT for the testing. Even then it's comparative only. I would have just used the 225 AB's like Allen did. There may be something off on that specific bullet as there have been good reports on the Accubond and in fact I find that they do penetrate deeper than Ballistic Tips. Suppose thats faint praise.

Maybe we should use AB's just like we use other cup and cores and keep the weight up and velocity down. Someone already said that before. Not that a 225 from a 338 is going all that fast.

I would agree that testing out a new box of bullets at home might be a good idea...if one has the time, knows how to set up the test and knows how to correctly interpret the results. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But, if one happens onto a "bad" box or three of bullets as I apparently did, like AD, does one scrap that bullet and move on or buy a few more boxes in hopes of finding the "good" one? In my case, I would just move to another bullet. Another way to get a feel for how bullets are performing is reading forums such as this and reading the feedback others have posted. In the end, the BEST way to see what a bullet will do for you is to shoot game with it...the more the better.
An African safari has been a wonderful test for me, as it has allowed me to use several different bullets on many sizes and types of animals. If I get consistently good performance there, plus whatever I gleaned from hunts in NA, I can feel confident that bullet will perform as desired each and every time. Fortunately, we have a wealth of very dependable bullets to pick from today and inconsistent results like the ABs seem prone to deliver are just not worth my time and trouble.

Good point and glad to see you on the Campfire; the testing can be fun, OR, it can be a serious interference in one's mandatory daily routine, depending on career, family or other important factors.

Here in B.C., you NEED good bullets more than almost all other hunting fields, yet, the situation does NOT allow for testing bullets on numerous smaller animals in any given year. So, an honest report from one of the most experienced hunters we have here is, IMO, of very great value to almost all of us as a mistake in bullet selection can have REALLY BAD consequences here.

I just prefer to "err on the side of caution" and have not had any experiences which would make me choose anything over the NP or AF, my choice in my 45-70s in bear country.

John, those are good points!

Africa's the best testing ground for rifles, cartridges, and bullets in the world. You can get at least 10 year's worth of "testing" on one good safari, and on a far wider diversity of animals (in terms of size and toughness) than you ever could here. Whatever works over there will work over here, and for the whole shootin' match..........

AD

Some folks continue to have issues with the concept of "consistency." I find it a rather easy theory to grasp. There are a whole host of good, consistantly reliable bullets out there to select from, yet some dogmatically hang on to the theory of well, if it works for most hunting situations, I'll just adjust my tactics to fit the bullet's performance envelope.

That is precisely backwards and flawed logic. I just pick a bullet that shoots reasonably accurate and I can apply it at any range, from spitting distance to a few hundred yards and the AB ain't it. jorge

Most people i talked with are having trouble with all bonded bullets.The fellow at the gunshop told me simillar stories about the Accubond so I tried the Hornady Interbond.The results much the same.Maybe with standard cartridge's they might be good.

But from what i've read here been told and my personal opinion I think they're are no better than the run of the mill soft points.

After last weeks bear incident I now call the Hornady offering the 154 grain INTERBOMB.

MD
I don't mean impute to you something you don't believe, but I get the impression that you think the problem was probably a bad batch of bullets. But, even if this is true, isn't the whole AB line suspect if they can't detect such problems in quality control?

I'm not a bullet maker, so I don't know how the manufacturer would detect such problems without firing into media and it would seem that the frequncy of picking specimens to test could be raised to a level where all one would do is test. (Not a good sentence, but I presume you will understand what I'm asking about.)

In other words, even if it is just a bad bunch, isn't that disqualifying because the consumer is not going to test each box (nor should he have to)? I'm seriously asking your opinion, not trying to get you to say something negative about Nosler. As you know, I'm in the group that is quite confident using NPs, as well as a few others.

T

.....and it may indeed be a bad batch of bullets.

I'm headed to Bend on 08-31-06, and maybe we'll make some sense out of all this when all is said and done.

I know this much: I bought my first box of Nosler Partitions some thirty years ago (I just turned 49 years old), and I haven't had a bad batch yet. The Partition's likely my favorite all-around big game bullet of all time. I've NEVER had them not work perfectly, and to kill decisively.............

AD

Define "consistency". I had ONE fail safe come apart while hunting "little southeast" deer! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Does that mean everyone should stop using them?

Mark, I'll let Jorge speak for himself, but for me, "consistency" means thirty years of using Nosler Partitions, without one single failure in terms of terminal performance................

AD

well, I think Allen's post above pretty well covers it don't you? I'll also add my experiences with the Swift A Frame. NEVER. Now it's your turn, define "come apart." how can that be given the FS's construction?

My money's with Allen & John55s experiences. jorge

Since Bill Steiger started bonding bullets with his BBC, all of the "imitators" (for lack of a better word, no disrespect intended) have tried to do the bonding more cheaply, as Bill's method was very labor intensive and therefor expensive. I don't think any of them have worked as well. The state of the art at the time meant you couldn't put five of his bullets into one hole, but by the same token you didn't need to put five into one buffalo, for example. As a result I was more comfortable using them in larger calibers, while using NPs in the smaller (under.30) cartridges, although Bill did not agree with this point of departure.

I'm not rying to take this in a new direction. My point is I don't think these alternative bondings are as reliable, with the caveat that I haven't tried Woodleigh or North Fork which I think are close to BBC construction, though I could be wrong. If someone knows, I would appreciate the information.

T

toltegriz: Overall Woodleighs are well-liked by the double rifle crowd, but I have seen some that in my view, overexpanded. The North Forks are an entirely different and superior animal. I sure hope they stay in business as the bullets are a work of art but expensive. Haven't hunted with them yet, but a few of my friends have with superb results. So far my load testing shows them to be a very consistently accurate bullet, superior to the A Frame in that regard. I developed a load for my 340 Weatherby using their 240gr and boy do they shoot! Also, they attain velocities with less powder than other bullets of comparable weight. If I didn't have a "lifetime supply" of A-Frames and TSXs for my 416 Rigby, the NF would be my bullet of choice. jorge