So, do I have this right; I assume if the accubond LR is designed to perform at extreme long distance that it is probably a little softer than the regular accubond? If so, what makes it different from the Ballistic tips that are more fragile than the accubonds (aside from being bonded).

Which one if likely more fragile up close (inside a hundred yards) the Ballistic tip or the accubond LR. Or, will the BT blow completely apart and the LR will just deform greatly....just wondering about all this.

Dan

What cartridge are you loading for, and how far do you expect to shoot?

Not loading any just yet. Will prolly load 264 win and 300 win.

Want to shoot be able to shoot up close if it happens that way. I assume the LR are softer for down range performance.

They are portrayed in their catalog as "softer" in that the jacket is designed to be less heavy at the front end, with a very different core shape that allows the bullet to open even at lower velocity.

Slidellkid, the few field reports we have where someone hit something up close our of a magnum...well...yea....they (the LRAB's) kind of made a mess of things, but since they are designed to open at 1200 fps, that's kind of to be expected.

In the .264, I'd stay away from the LRAB, since it's only offered in the 129gr flavor. I'd opt for the standard 140gr AB is close was a possibility.

In the .300 the 210's are probably worth a try. The large size will help moderate muzzle velocity, and mass provides a quality of it's own. I'd think that combination could be formidable across a wide range spectrum.

A fellow I know fire 7mm ABLR into a block of soft wood at north of 3000 ft/s and weight retention of the bullet was about 30%. Not overly scientific but gives an indication they're going to come apart some at close range.

Main diff is design the lr has a more efficient bt . a bit softer but it's a bullet design all it's own not a new copy of old tec it has a diffrent form factor than ballistic tips.