Which is better? And why? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Do I really need a premium bullet?

The best one is the one that shoots accurately in your rifle and performs on game the way that you want it to do. I am fairly particular about both accuracy and terminal ballistics and, for those reasons, I shoot premium bullets. Over the years I have loaded some of the more pedestrian bullets for various reasons, and have rather quickly switched to one of my favorite premiums. Two to there examples:

Way back when I was a working biologist, I was shooting a lot of deer for a research project. It was on an army post and the chief of the wildlife management program was a first lieutenant from Arkansas who was a quail hunter. He was convinced that nothing short of a .308 would kill a deer humanely and insisted that we use a .30 caliber rifle. I had a pre-64 Model 70 in .30-06 that was very accurate and, since we would be shooting hundreds of rounds, I abandoned my pet load that involved a 150 grain partition and loaded up a couple of hundred rounds using inexpensive 150 grain bullets from one of the major independent makers of reloading products. Since much of the shooting would be done by my graduate students, I selected a load that my manual indicated would leave the barrel at about 2,500-2,600 fps. Our modus operandi was to shoot from a sandbag rest off the cab of a pickup at standing animals, taking neck shots only. This permitted drawing a quick blood sample in the field and guaranteed that all of the internal organs would be intact for the necropsy when we got the animals back to the lab. Terminal bullet performance was extremely erratic, to say the least. A number of bullets broke up without ever penetrating more than a few inches. I got one doe back to the lab where the scan for ectoparasites revealed several sizeable pieces of bullet jacket embedded in the ear!

For years after this, I shot almost nothing but partitions and the occasional Nosler solid base. When Nosler replaced the solid base with the Ballistic Tip, we substituted those and they shot equally well in the 7mm-08s that my kids (and now my grand-kids) shoot. When I bought my wife a .280 about ten years ago, I loaded the 140 grain BTs at about 2,950--they shot accurately and killed deer and antelope like lightning. After a few years, though, my wife complained that they were messing up too much meat and we switched to the 140 grain partitions that I was shooting in my .280 Improved. She was happier and I guess I am too.

Year before last, my brother bought a .270 WSM. He doesn't handload and bought W-W factory loads with 150 grain Power Points. His first chance to use the rifle on game was an antelope hunt that he and I went on in northern New Mexico. He shot an antelope at a measured 170 yards. The first bullet failed to penetrate much beyond the shoulder blade and the second, behind the shoulder, did a lot of damage but did not make it out of the rib cage on the far side. I didn't weight either, but neither would have retained even 50 percent of their advertised weight.

I definitely think that the premiums are worth the money. By the way, I don't just shoot partitions any more, but also use bullets by Swift (both A-Frames and Scirrocos), Barnes and Hornady.

What do you want to shoot? What caliber? What range? I've had good luck with Interlocks but have never used a bonded bullet from any rifle. I've had such good success with Partitions I've not seen the need to change. Mind you there are so many new bullets that I'm thinking I should get a new rifle just to work up some new loads. Is that wrong?

Hornady Interbond.

Emperical and anecdotal evidence indicates it will work as well as or better than the others, yet is less expensive, especially if purchased during the Midsouth Shooters Supply OEM bullet sale in the summer. I got six hundred .284" 154 grain Hornady Interbonds for $9/100 last summer. Can't tell the seconds from the retail boxed.

Depends on what you are shooting. For deer-sized game it is hard to beat the cheapest "premium" bullet of all, the Hornady Interlock.

In general, the Interbond will expand wider than either the AccuBond or Partition, everything else being equal, because it had thinner sidewalls. This will cut down on penetration a little, especially at higher impact velocities. The Partition will generally penetrate the deepest of the three--again, everything else being equal.

In a standard cartridge such as .30-06, loading 180's, you could probably spend a lifetime hunting and not notice much difference between the three. The differences show up more at higher velocity.

If I don't know what I am going to be shooting, or at what range, the Partition gets the nod. Here in Montana that means anything from doe deer to bull elk, and in African basically the same range of size, say 100-700 pounds.

Have had wonderful luck with the Partition in a various cartridges, most notably the .30-06 with 180's and .300 magnums 200's. It has performed splendidly on game from springbok/pronghorn/whitetail size and elk/kudu size, at anywhere from close up to 400 yards, at any sane angle, on "ideal" broadside lung shots and tough angling shots through heavy bone. And THAT is why hunters use premium bullets.

MD

Interbond, left; Accubond, right.
I'm sorry but I would like to see the Accubond and Interbond sectioned before saying one has a thicker jacket than the other. From all the design diagrams I've have seen, the Accubond appears to have a thinner jacket for a longer distance down the ogive to the shank than the Interbond, however the Accubond does seem thicker at near the base. Empirical tests showed the 30 caliber 165 grain Interbond penetrating almost as much as the 30 caliber 180 grain Accubond, and it retained more percentage AND absolute weight. One could infer from this that if both the Interbond and Accubond 30 caliber 180 grain bullets were tested, the Interbond would penetrate at least as deep, if not deeper than the Accubond, and would retain more weight. I don't know for sure, I would sure like to see the tests.

I do know that anecdotal evidence from JJHACK and others, including myself, indicates the Hornady Interbond is a good performer on game, particularly in "standard" cartridges.

I have had good results form Partitons and don;t really see the need for anything else, that being said my new 7Mm rem mag loves 160 gr accubonds. I will probably try them this fall. I have tried Interbonds in to different rifles, a 270 and 7mm mag and accuracy has been terrible. There must be a secret to loading them that I havent found yet.

Jackfish--

Here's the deal: Nosler designed the AccuBond to work very similarly to the Partition. This means it tends to blow off about a third of the front of the bullet, while retaining a long shank and relatively small frontal "mushroom" to keep penetrating.
This is the reason for the far heavier jacket toward the rear, to slow or stop expansion after the initial jolt. It's also the reason the AccuBond doesn't retain as great a ppercentage of its weight as some other bonded bullets.

The Interbond's jacket get thicker more quickly just behind the tip, but isn't nearly as heavy toward the base. So it doesn't lose as much weight near the tip, but CAN (notice the emphasis) spread much wider.

Retained weight has a lot less to do with how deeply a b\ullet penetrates than most shooters believe. A great many bonded bullets retain 90% of their weight but won't penetrate nearly as deeply as the average Nosler Partition. This is because they spread very widely. This big front end presents more resistance, and penetration soon stops.

If you don't believe this, I have an Interbond in my collection, a 180 from a .30-06, that is about three times as wide as it is long, plucked from the far side of a bull elk. The shot was at well under 100 yards, and the bullet expanded so wide that it wouldn't penetrate the other side of 15 inches of relatively thin skin, lungs and ribs--something a 140 Barnes X will do when shot at about same muzzle velocity from a 7x57. In fact, the X will break both shoulders of an average elk under the same circumstances.

The Interbond is a fine bullet, but it doesn't act any differentlynside game than most other bonded bullets that feature no other means of controlling expansion. If it hits something hard or close up ( gets zipped out of a speedy magnum) it will spread wide and not penetrate as deeply as it would when shot out of a lesser cartridge, or ar longer range.

In my experience, with both test media and in the field, is that the AccuBond penetrates deeper. How much deeper depends on a bunch of factors, but in general its design guarantees this. You can argue about the Nosler notion of losing some of the front third of the bullet to act as secondary "shrapnel" (and to provide quicker kills on lighter game), but the fact is that some reatined shank and a relatively smaller mushroom provide deeper penetration--on average--even if another bullet retains more weight, but expands like a daisy.

Here I must put in aside for all those who still believe that a Partition that loses the front core has "failed." This was the way John Nosler designed to bullet to act. It helps kill things. I have seen many of these "failed" Partitions in my life, and by some odd coincidence all were found on the far side of the vitals a most sincerely dead big game animal.

If you want to believe in the inherent supriority of the Interbond, feel free. I have shot animals with the Interbond, AccuBond, Core-Lokt Ultra, Scirocco, Swift A-Frame, Woodleigh, etc. etc., and seen many other animals taken will all of the above. Unless there is something to STOP the expansion of a bonded bullet beyond a certain point, such as the A-Frame's Partition or the heavy jacket of the AccuBond, any bonded bullet will expand very widely under some circumstances--and hence not penetrate as deeply as either a Nosler Partition, or a super-shanked bullet such as the Barnes X, CT Fail Safe or Trophy Bonded Bear Claw. That's because of the laws of physics. My experience with all these bullets (and some I for to list) indicates that the laws of physics do not suspend themselves even in the mystical world of bullet expansion and penetration.

This isn't to say that any of these bullets aren't great on game. They all are, but they all act a little differently. I do get a little weary of somebody using ONE of them and then declaring it the greatest ever made. ALL of them will do the job just fine, if we do ours--but I would pick some over others to do really heavy lifting.

MD

MD - the least gifted of your students checking in here. I think that I am finally catching on to what you have been trying to get across for a long time now - speed is more or less the enemy of performance in terms of "cored" bullets, whether the core is just rattling around inside the jacket or if it is glued to it. Seems as thought the answer is to load down the big boys so that they equal the performance of the standard cartridges. In other words, get and '06 and go hunting. I know that is extremely oversimplified, but it certainly works for me. Best, John

Why am I switching from the Partition to the Accubond for my 30-06 AI and 7mm Remmag big game rifles?

Because I was getting very tired of having the lead noses of the spitzer Partitions getting beat to crap while in their plastic boxes after being loaded. No, I do not want to use the Protected Point. Yes, I know a bent nose should not make any difference at less than 250-300 yards. Also, I'm getting better groups with the plastic tipped bullets.

Living only a few miles from Nosler, I have not tried the Interbond.

Thanks, MD, for the explaination.

All I have to say, after reading all of this insightful, excellent information, is after years of existence, the Nosler partition is STILL the bullet by which all others are judged by. I don't see it fallin' off it's throne any time soon--2MG

Mule Deer,

It was not my intention to claim the superiority of the Interbond. I appreciate your perspective and agree with what you say. I humbly submit that the Interbond is a good performer on game, as good, or better under some conditions, than the Noslers, and is a good option for particular hunting applications. You seemed to say the same. If maximum penetration on large animals is required from a bullet at high velocity and/or close range, then the Hornady Interbond may not be the best choice. Perhaps the .338" 225 grain Hornady Interbond at 2800 fps would be considered adequate for all North American game under all conditions, the Interlock version sure seems to be. But I think for most hunting situations, particularly in "standard" cartridges, with well-placed shots the Hornady Interbond will do just fine.

However, I would still like to see the data from head to head tests of the 180 grain 30 caliber Accubond and Interbond in current production in light of the tests of bonded bullets published last year where the 165 grain Interbond was compared to 180 grain bonded bullets from other makers.

Mule Deer, Having read your post here which I find very interesting I would like your opinion on something. A friend and I will be hunting western Alaska this September for moose, caribou, and Brown/grizzlies. The area is supposed to be full of big bears. We will both be shooting 300 Jarretts and 200 grain bullets. We both have other choices in guns and calibur but we prefer the Jarretts we have. Both our rifles shoot Accubonds extremly well with 1/2 inch groups the norm. I have been loading for both rifles and can get the Partitions close but not quite to the same accuracy or velocity as the Accubonds. I have used Partitions for many years with the standard results and have complete confidence in them. I have just started using Accubonds and taken a couple deer with different 300 magnums. Performance was excellent each time. I have recovered 1-180 grainer from a whitetail shot thru both shoulders @ 100 yards @ 3200 fps. Both front shoulders were smashed on the 255 lb. 10 pt. Dakota bruiser and he did the bang flop dance. I found the Accubond bulging under the off side hide. It retained about 60% of it weight while mushrooming out about about 2X calibur. Even with this limited expierence with the Accubond I am impressed with the on game performance I got. I'm even happier with the accuracy I can get with the Accubonds. So here is the question. With big bears and moose on the menu, would you go with a slightly more accurate 200 grain Accubond @ 3075 fps over the Partition @ 3000 fps ??? I know this is probally splitting hairs but I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks 163bc

163bc--

I would go with the 200 Partition. The Accubond is designed to perform "similarly" to the Partition, not just like it, and even Nosler says for the ultimate in penetration, pick the Partition over the Accbond.

At the velocities you'd be pushing them I would prefer the absolute reliability of the 200 Partition (which just happens to be one of my favorite bullets in any .300 from '06 up). The slight decrease in accuracy will make no difference at all on the size of game you'll be hunting, even caribou, which are far larger than the average prairie dog.

Good hunting!

MD

Mule Deer, Thanks for the reply. As usual your works are wise. I'm going to go with the Partitions for sure in my Jarrett and I hope to finish up Partition load development on my buddies rifle in a few weeks. We hope to be able to do some ballistics & terminal performance testing on the real deal in Sept. Thanks, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> 163bc

Accubonds rock!

All considered, my buddy went to the Speer Trophy Bonded for his 7mm Mag and I selected the very similar North Fork bullet for my 7mm Mag, .300 Win Mag and .45-70. So far I have only taken game with the .45-70 but bullet performance could not have been better.