I was wondering if anyone has had good luck completing load developement with the ballistic tip and then substituting the accubond for hunting?

not how I would do it..

I was just thinking I'd save $7 bucks a box but in reality I guess it really only amounts to $14-21 for load developement. Maybe even less if it goes well.

I do just that in two rifles. A Rem700 in 7mmSTW and a .270Win. with their respective 140gr. bullets. If there's any difference in pressure or point of impact I have yet to see it.

In general my exprience is that any load developed with a BT will work just as well with an AccuBond of the same weight--but there have been occasional exceptions.

Most AccuBonds appear to be bonded versions of the same-size Ballistic Tip, or at least that's what I've seen when sectioning them. But there are sometimes slight differences, which may (or may not) account for the occasional exceptions.
Also, AccuBonds tend to have slightly softer jackets, due to the bonding process. This may also have an effect when working up loads for the two bullets.

OK I am not a Gun Writer...

But in my middle son's New Win Mod 70 (30-06), 150g Accubonds and Ballistic Tip bullets shot to just about the same POI (as far as I can tell).

We shot some (side by side) before his most recent hunt just to be sure...

We did not run them through the Coronagraph� we should do that sometime this quarter

They shoot the same in my 270. Have tried 130gr Ballistic tips, Accubonds and Partitions with same loads. The only difference I saw was that Partitions were about 30 fps slower.
John

In my .30-06 the 165 BTs and 165 ABs shoot to the same POI with 57 gr. IMR 4350 or 56.5 gr. H380. Works for me.

Hi JB.

I thought the AB had a thicker jacket than the BT.

Is it true only the lower portion of the bullet and core are bonded?

Thanks
JM

They "pencil" on through.....

... but only when shot through Brownings.

I have only compared using the 7mm 140AB and the 140 BT, same load did not work. In what chamberings were they interchangable for you?

.270 140 gr here, same same. Both are sub inch but the BT are more accurate for me.

Bigbuck,

I wouldn't approach a load workup that way, but where the NBT/NAB "synergy" really shines is in practicing with the NBT but hunting with the NAB. If you shoot a lot, it's a real bonus, and to that end I use NBT's in my 7-08 and 30-06 but switch to the Accubond for hunting. POI is verified as the same out to 500 yards (for practical purposes), and the load is identical.

I sure wish there was a 7mm 160-gn NBT...

Can't imagine it would be a real problem.....the Nosler Manual lists all their bullets of the same weight but different styles together(BT,AB,and Partition).

If there were a universe of difference in load data for the three I'm certain they would mention it.

I'd work up with the BT;develop the load,then back off and come up again with the AB.I suspect you will wind up pretty much the same place.

Use the chronograph as you go;watch for pressure signs.You should be fine.

EddyBo,

Damned if I can remember all of them, but it's been quite a few. The .270 Winchester with 140's is one, for sure.

In my .300 Win Mag, the BT and AB 180's shoot to same POI, although the BT's slightly edge the AB's in accuracy, as I recall. Would like to hear other comparisons of the two.

DF

In my .338-06, 200 grain BTs and 200 grain ABs essentially shoot to the same POI at 100 yds. With 130s in my .270s, the BTs shoot about 1/2"-3/4" higher at 100 yds in a Custom Mauser with a Shilen barrel. They shoot to essentially the same POI in both of my pre-64 Models 70s, one a Fwt and the other a Std weight.

Mudhen,

Are they making the 200-gn NBT in .33 caliber again? I loved that bullet in my .338 and was bummed when they discontinued it.

Hard to beat the 225 Jeff, I reckon they figured that out.

I don't know--I still have five or six boxes in my bullet cabinet, so haven't paid any attention to availability...

I was just wondering because I worked up a load with 140 NBTs for a 280. When I switched to 140 ABs darn thing opened up to 1 1/2 MOA groups. I attributed the change to the AB being harder even if it has the same bearing surface. I assumed that that it would be an across the board change due to what I would guess would be engraving pressure or maybe it would be obuteration (sp). I am glad to hear my assumption was mistaken. IIRC there was a 2gr difference in sweet spots. They did shoot very close to same POA, just bigger groups. Once the load was sorted out the ABs shot just as well as the NBTs

mudhen and Jeff O.--

The 200-grain .338 Ballistic Silvertip is still offered as a component bullet. It's exactly the same as the 200 .338 BT except for the black coating on the jacket and the silver plastic tip.

EddyBo,

That's pretty much what I've found when the same load hasn't worked with BT's and AB's of the same weight: A little tweaking of the powder charge will do the job.

Actually, AccuBonds are a little softer than Ballistic Tips, due to the bonding process, even though the gilding metal of the jacket is the same alloy.

I am confused, because the illustration in the Nosler manual (No. 6) shows a rather more complex cross-section compared to the traditional BT and the AB. Going back to No. 5 (which includes data for both the Ballistic Tip and Ballistic Silvertip), the exterior shape and the jacket in the illustrations, as well as the internals, look quite different.

The illustration of the Ballistic Silvertip in the No. 6 manual isn't a cross-section. It's a drawing of the exterior of the bullet. Inside it's a Ballistic Tip.

Thanks. But when I look at p. 400 in No. 5 and p. 477 in No.6, the internals still look different. Did they just not bother to change those diagrams?

Some of the illustrations Nosler uses are generic, and so not intended to be a precise representation of a specific bullet.

OK, I can understand that. However, I can honestly say that I have never tried a Ballistic Silvertip largely because it looked like they took a well-respected brand name and applied it to something that looks to be very differently constructed according to the diagrams in their Reloading Manual. Well, that and the fact that I was never very impressed with the original Silvertip in anything but the .30-30.

Both your decisions involved flawed assumptions. But that's often the way of life!

Man, those original Winchester Sivertips were magic in my eyes.

When i turned 12, back in the day, my father bought me an '06, which was akin to religion in Pa. The bullet of choice were those magic Winchester Silvertips. Mine were 180's.

I still have a few in those old, yellow Winchester boxes......

Tony

Yeah, certainly in mine more than most!

I don't think they still make .338 Ballistic Tips. I use Combined Technologies black colored 200 gr. polymer tipped bullets. I think they're essentially Ballistic Tips with a coating. Could be wrong. They shoot really well in my .338-284.

DF

what is the coating on the ballistic silvertips? moly?

Lubalox. IMO/E nothing like moly. It just looks pretty...

Winchester claims that Lubalox lessens friction and reduces fouling, but I have never been able to see a significant difference between Lubaloxed and bare bullets, whether in the bore or on the chronograph.

That said, they certainly work just as well as the same bullets uncoated.

I would be willing to bet that the thin layer starts getting wiped off by the lands the minute the bullet starts down the barrel.

They should have named it Lube-a-load.

JohnMoses,

It's not too unlike the fishing lure manufacturers, they actually don't have to catch a fish, just a fisherman...

DF