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

AD
As far as I know, Bill was the first, around 1966, which I guess is why we've been talking about 40 years of bonded bullets.
T

Allen--

From what Nosler has told me, they did not release the AccuBond until they'd shot a bunch of media AND animals with the AccuBonds over a period of couple of years before deciding it was ready to go. (They had videos of some of the animals being shot.) Adding this to my own personal results with the bullet over the past couple of years is what puzzles me.

One thing I did realize during all this discussion, however: The one caliber I have not used (or seen used) in the AccuBond lineup is the .338. I am driving in to the "big city" (Helena) this afternoon and while there will buy a box of .338's and test them myself in various ways (sectioning, hardness-testing of jacket and core, media shooting).

Speer did make some pretty good Grand Slams ffrom the late 80's up until they revised the bullet again a couple of years ago. These bullets did indeed have a dual-hardness core (unlike the latest GS's) as well as a partial partition, something like a heavier Interlock ring. Both friends and I used them on a number of animals in calibers from .270 to .375, from deer up to big grizzlies, and they worked fine, much like a Nosler Partition. The only problem was iffy accuracy. Some lots shot incredibly well, while others were hard to get inside 1.5 inches. (I still have some of those "good Grand Slams" but am tied up testing new bullets too much to use them much anymore. Hard to justify a gun writer using a bullet that is for all practical purposes obsolete).

The other reason many hunters go for the plastic/boattail/ etc. bullets is accuracy. Somehow any rifle that won't shoot into 1/2" at 100 yards isn't accurate enough for deer anymore. Ran into a guy a few months ago who was going to take a .300 RUM to Africa on his first plains game hunt, loaded with 200 Speer Grand Slams at 3100 fps. He was unaware of the recent change in the bullets, and was extremely disappointed to hear about them--mostly because his load shot into less than 1/2".

This was during a get-together with a Namibian PH who was over here booking hunts. There were four or five guys at the get-together, and to a man they planned to bring .300 magnums with loads that had apparently been worked up solely on the basis of tiny groups and high muzzle velocity, with little regard for bullet construction or weight. This was for a hunt in typical thornbush country where you'll never get a shot much over 200 yards. They were somewhat put out that when they asked the PH's opinion of a good plains game rifle, his favorite was the .30-06 with 180-grain bullets....

MD

Allen, Mule Deer, and any others with experience:

You mentioned that you haven't shot the 338 in Accubond and therefore wish to test it. I know the jacket thickness may change a bit from caliber to caliber but is it standard operating procedure to change the hardness of the jacket or lead core with caliber as well? Is this something usually reserved for the biggest of magnums or is it seldom done at all?

Thanks,
Will

Some years ago I asked that question of Nosler in regard to the Partition. They use the same lead for the cores and gilding metal for the jackets in all Partitions, but change the thickness, angles, Partition location, etc. of the jacket depending on caliber. Don't know about the AccuBond but expect the same thing.

Some other companies tend to tweak the core alloy depending on the bullet.

MD

Toltecgriz- the article theory is as follows:

"I think that the 9.3x62 solid with a 286 grain solid bullet performs better on buffalo than the 375 H&H with a 300 gr solid bullet, actually killing them faster with side on shoulder shots. I believe the reason for this is that the 286 grain 9.3 solids do not usually exit on such shots. Consequently, as the bullets energy is liberated inside the chest cavity. This is why I have been downloading the 375 H&H with 300 grain bullets to a muzzle velocity of around 2400 fps for a number of years. A number of one shots kills this past hunting season with these reduced loads has convinced me that this is the way for the ineperienced first time buffalo hunter to go."
from The Perfect Shot,Kevin Robertson

He stated that he thought more shooters would have a better chance of shooting this load in a 8-1/2 to 9 pound gun and making the first shot count. He also dose not like the pass through shot in heards.

This leaves us with the argument as to whether energy from a bullet is absorbed into an animal or not or is part waste on exit. I like exit holes as I am not a great tracker.

I believe this is an attempt to optimize a load for a specific use.

I try and keep an open mind to what works for others in how i can make it work for me.

blaser

Thanks for the response. I was prepared to reject the concept as a silly idea and after reading Mr. Robertson's expanation, I think I'll stick with my first impression, mainly for the reasons you suggest. Now watch somebody that me apart for that, but, as you say, I don't think it would work for me. Much prefer controlled expansion, deep penetating bullet. The whole premise of a lighter, slower, smaller diameter bullet leaving more "energy" in the critter than a heavier, faster, larger diameter bullet, whether it exits or not, seems as much a WAG as anything.

Better bullet placement for the recoil sensitive is, however, a possibility. On the other hand I don't think I ever noticed recoil when shooting buffalo.

Anyway, thanks again for following up. Always good to consider ideas from someone who might know something different.

T

Allen - thanks for the great report. Posts like this are exactly why I read these forums. I had prepared a load for my .338 Magnum using the 225g Accbond. The old reliable Partition is looking a heck of a lot more appealing now!

I was one of those that originally desired the bonded plastic tipped bullets because of the claims of toughness and accuracy, but also due to the higher (in some cases significantly higher) BCs. I have used 140 gr Accubonds in my 7WSM on whitetails with no failures to date. But when I go elk hunting in 2007, I will probably be using 140 or 150 gr TSX in my 7mm-08 and the 7WSM. This thread as well as a couple others that I have seen lately have caused me to rethink my priorities. I do think the Swift Scirrocco II is a tough High BC bonded bullet, and because of the greater down range energy, could still be an option for those of us that like that type of bullet. Has anyone experienced any similar type failures as those listed in this thread with the newer Scirrocco?

I have only used the 260 gr Accubond once in a 375 and it worked fine but this is not much to draw on. It is that in this caliber I prefer 300 grain bullets and the Swift AFrame and Hornady solids shoot to point of aim. I have used the Ballistic Tip and have an observation to throw in.
I have had a situation on a 260 Remington in a pistol showing signs of bullet being redirected from its original path. Once was on a shot where the leg bones and chest come together. The ballistic tip redirected down inside the skin along the leg. Another time a shot to the junction of neck to shoulder angleing in from front showed similar signs of redirecting. I have been able to only get this to happen on 6.5 and smaller bullets and not on 7mm and 30 cal.
What I am wondering can the pointed plastic tip cause the bullet to be "steered off course around tough bones.
I do not have enough instances that I can state that this is the case. The two examples Allen has given were shot into the back of one animal and the other animal was stated as being on 3 legs when found.
I am throwing this out for possible thought.

For another thread on the 'African" forum, I ran some 7mm numbers this morning, comparing the 160 gr. Nosler AccuBond (BC .531) versus the 160 gr. Nosler Partition (BC .475).

If you launch both bullets at (lets say) 3000 fps. MV and zero both for 250 yds., the AB will shoot exactly 1/2" flatter at 400 yds. and drift exactly 1.2" less at 400 yds. than the Partition.

If you're hunting small varmints, that difference might mean something, but for any big game hunting, those differences mean absolutely nothing, even on Coues deer in Sonora.

Never, EVER trade a bullet's structural integrity for petty differences in trajectory downrange, especially in Africa, where most shots are at 200 yds. or less -- usually way less.

The man behind the rifle is a far bigger variable and is far more subject to "drift" than 'sectional density' or 'ballistic coefficient' are in terms of hitting what you're aiming at..........

AD

Mule Deer: Thanks. I've wondered about that. One thing I am gaining is an understanding of why some of the oldsters I kid about sticking to the old stuff act as they do. Once a bullet gains your trust, why take a risk on something that is already a copper riveted cinch.

Allen: Have you thought of running a few of these things over some of the penetration tests like soaked newspaper or gellatin? Not very often that a man can positively point to a bullet which is shown to be deficient, compared to advertised claims, and test it. Be a very good way to know if any of these tests are real world valid.

Thanks,
Will

The only "real world" bullet performance test I trust is to shoot bullets into big game animals. That's the only true test that means anything, anyway.

When I grew up as a hunter in the early 1970s, all of the bullet manufacturers showed photos of their bullets that were absolutely picture-perfect, textbook mushrooms, and most of those bullets, as it turns out, were fired into artificial medium.

But the more I hunted, the more I sobered up to the hard realities of bullet construction, and my results often didn't mesh with all of the pretty pictures. I've had Speer, Sierra, Hornady, Ballistic Tip, and AccuBond bullets blow up on me on various occasions over the years, and penetrate poorly in most cases. My A-Number ONE pet-peeve when it comes to hunting big game is a bullet that comes apart and does not penetrate well. I've felt this way for years, and this AB episode is just another verse of a sad old song for me. I care way more about bullet performance that I do about the exact cartridge or rifle I'm hunting with, in fact.

And it's an EASY, EASY problem to solve, for Pete's sake!

But let's just say I took some of the same exact loads I used on this last safari, and shot them into ballistic geletin (or whatever), and all of those bullets came out just as pretty as a picture. They might even closely resemble the two recovered ABs that I brougth home with me from Africa.

And you know what those results would me to me?

Nothing...........absolutely nothing...........

AD

Good enough, thanks. I am not a bullet nut myself. But I always wondered accurate these tests were. I have a curious streak, maybe a suspicious one as well, about tests that are so far removed from application.

Like you with inadequate penetration, my pet peeve is bullets that substantially change direction in an animal. Had a bullet pull an almost perfect U-turn last year and come right out the side of the animal I shot. All it touched were ribs.

Many thanks,
Will

Penguin
Not implying I doubt you, but I would really like to see that. Anyone else have a bullet do a 180 on game?
T

First one I'd ever seen. Didn't notice till I was skinning it. Broadside went in maybe 2/3s of the way back on the ribcage. Broke a rib and then skirted along forward along the inside of the ribs until it caught one fore of the shoulder. It broke this rib and bounced off it. Exiting this time, but heading out towards where I had shot it from.

It was a real puzzler to figure out since I had never seen deflection of this magnitude.

150 core-lokt out of a 30-06 at about 15 yards.

Toltecgriz and Penguin,

I have seen that happen but I've heard of it happening.

When the chips are down I would rather depend on a bullet with a stellar mechanical design (limiting expansion via bulkhead) than a chemical process. I would think that there would be far less chance of error with a good mechanical design than a chemical process which is much more difficult to implement a quality control process.

This is the same reason why in standard bullets I prefer a Hornady with an "interlocking ring" than a Speer with "hot cor."

In my mind all truly premium bullets have mechanical bulkheads to absolutely limit expansion in order to ensure penetration (North forks, Partitions, TSX, Failsafe etc.). A bonded bullet without a bulkhead does not ensure penetration only the pancake effect.

Also, the reason why the Partitions are so good, is that the shedding of lead from the nose portion many times creates a larger wound channel in the vitals than a large fixed mushroom; and additionally the bulkhead limits expansion and guarantees penentration. The advantage of a larger mushroom comes with a potentially greater exit hole ... if it exits.........

"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."

Seduced by the dark side have we Allen? Or were you thinking of following in George Gray's foot steps? Just pulling your chain. You owe your buddy big time, maybe a bottle of two of his favorite single malt. As for the bullet in question, never shot them. My guess its either a bad lot of .338 bullets or they are just not quite right in that caliber. It costs to much to put up with in the end, hunting time is to short, and well hunting is not cheap.

A friend was in Africa this summer, and yesterday showed me a picture of the base of a .30-cal. 180-gr. X-bullet sticking out of an exit hole. Obviously it worked, but was quite a strange sight nonetheless.

Just got back from testing some .338 AccuBonds. As Allen points out, this is by no means definitive, but the big problem with much testing by bullet manufacturers is that for years they use dnothing but "wet lap," essentially wet newspaper, which will make any bullet look stellar.

I have tried a bunch of test media over the years, but eventually settled on dry newspaper for a hard-core test. This will rip the cores out of many cup-and-core bullets, and even some tougher ones. It requires a few shots into the same pile of newspaper, however, to get an overall result. I also use the new Test Tube, a wax material that is also harder on bullets than wet newspaper, but so consistent that one shot will give a reliable result.

First, I tested the hardness of the jacket on two different lots of 225 AccuBonds, some I got when they first started making them, and some I bought in a local store yesterday. This was a "punch" type test, and I also compared the two different lots of AB's to a 200-grain .338 Ballistic Tip (from the box I took to Africa and killed the gemsbok mentioned earlier in this thread--close to 30" of penetration through bone and flesh.) All appeared to have the same jacket hardness.

Then I sectioned each bullet lengthwise and found the jackets of the AccuBonds to essentially be of identical thickness to those of the BT. But I could easy pry the core out of the BT. I could also separate the core at THE VERY FRONT of the AccuBonds (just behind the plastic tip) from the jacket, but not without leaving some lead attached. I could not separate the lead from the heavy-jacketed rear of the bullet.

All this corresponds to what Nosler claims about the AccuBond: that the front end is designed to disinegrate like that of the Partitiuon.

Then I shot three into newspaper at 20 yards. The load was 73 grains of H4831 in the .338 Winchester, which probably got about 2750 fps at the muzzle, and not much less when it hit the newspaper. The three bullets all survived intact, and averaged 12" of penetration. This is what I would expect of a hard-core elk bullet.

Then I shot one into the Test Tube and got 18.5" of penetration.

All four bullets retained from 144 to 156 grains of weight, for an average of 67.2%. This pretty well correlates to what I have seen from AccuBonds shot both into various media and animals.

I also talked to the guys at the store where I bought the bullets. They report that they sell a lot of them, and the guys who shoot animals all report AccuBonds acting about like Partitions when they hit.

Now, please note that I am not saying that Allen didn't have troubles. I am just reporting what my experience has been. All of this is why I am VERY curious about what Nosler will say about Allen's batch of 225 .338's.

MD