I just returned from a very productive and unforgetable 14-day plainsgame safari with Roger Whittal Safaris, hunting the Humani safari area on the Turwi and Save rivers, about 40 miles from the Mozambique border, taking 18 big game animals, including an incredible 30" nyala, which certainly ranks as one of my all-time greatest Africa trophy animals. I could write a lengthy post about the many positive aspects of this safari, including the fact that it was my distinct honor to have, as my Professional hunter, 72 year-old William Finaughty, grandson of THE William Finaughty who wrote the classic African hunting book, "Recollections of William Finaughty, Elephant Hunter, 1864-1875".

But for the sake of brevity, I'd like to talk about the bullets I used on this safari, which included the 225 gr. Nosler AccuBond, as well as the 225 gr. Swift A-Frame. The only rifle I used was my favorite, ultra-reliable, time-proven Echols-built custom Model 70 in 338 Win. Mag., topped with a Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8x scope.

When we arrived in Harare, everything showed up except for my duffle bag, which contained most of my clothes, all of my ammunition, and all of my gear except for camera and binoculars. I had one change of clothes to go on from my carry-on, and since my hunting partner also brought a 338 Win. Mag., I borrowed a box of Remington 225 gr. Swift A-Frame factory loads from him to hunt with, at least until my duffle showed up, which it did some four days later, when it was then flown out to camp with some newly-arriving clients.

On paper, the Remington Swift ammo didn't hit exactly to the same point-of-impact as my AccuBond load, but they were printing close enough to hunt with, and for the 100-150 yd. opportunities I was presented with, they went where they needed to go and absolutely hammered everything stone-dead, including the previously mentioned nyala as well as a 150 yd. running shot on a huge bushpig, both of which were taken the first morning of the safari.

But when my duffle finally arrived, I dug into it like a kid would his presents on Christmas morning, and I immediately switched to my AccuBond loads. And I immediately began to have problems with bullet blow-ups and extremely poor penetration. I shot a pair of big zebra stallions with the Accubonds, and in both cases those bullets barely got inside on solid chest shots, where they simply disintegrated, and follow-up shots were required to finish things.

On another occasion, I had a chance at a huge and ancient Limpopo bushbuck, which we spotted across the Turwi river. After a careful stalk, we came within 200 yds. of the bushbuck, and I shot him off the sticks, at the point of the right shoulder. At the shot, the bushbuck nearly went down, then recovered enough to run into the brush on his side of the river. This greatly surprised me, as I saw the bullet hit him when the rifle went off, and the shot felt good anyway. After some four hours of wading through riverine brush, we finally recovered the bushbuck, which was running around on three legs. As it turns out, the first shot hit him exactly where I was aiming, but it blew up without getting inside. In contrast to this frustrating episode, my hunting partner had a 230 yd. shot at another stupendous old bushbuck along the same river, and his Swift load simply blew him to the ground and exited.

Big warthog were a bit tough to find in our hunting area, but finally I had the chance at a big old boar, which was a running away shot at about sixty yards. I hit him in the back with a 225 AccuBond and he kept on going. I finished him with a shot right behind the shoulder, but discovered (once again) that the first shot blew up without getting inside, creating one heck of an ugly mess.

At this point, I was extremely sour on those AccuBonds, as was my PH, who advised me to dump the rest of my ammo in the river and go back to my borrowed box of Swift A-Frames.

Which is exactly what I did for the rest of the tough stuff I had left to hunt, including Greater kudu, Livingston's eland, and a pair of Blue wildebeest, one of which was an absolute monster that scored 91 SCI points, 70 points being required to make the book. In ever case, those Swift A-Frame loads did stellar, deadly work, hammering everything in a most decisive manner that left absolutely no doubt about the efficiency and sufficiency of the 338 Win. Mag. for any and all African plainsgame IF.............you feed it good bullets that stay together!

All told I recovered six Swift A-Frames from various animals, and two AccuBonds. The AccuBonds I recovered looked pretty good, but the real story lies with the unrecovered ABs that blew up and didn't get inside. The recovered Swifts were beautifully mushroomed and uniform in their performance. They couldn't be faulted in any way..........

I don't have time to elaborate more at this time, but I'll say this: I've used some fabulous bullets in Africa over the last eleven years on over 200 big game animals on the Dark Continent, including the Nosler Partition, Winchester Fail-Safe, Trophy Bonded solids and softs, North Fork solids and softs, and Swift A-Frames.

After this safari, I came to two conclusions: The Swift A-Frame is just as good and effective as any bullet I've ever used for anything in Africa or anywhere else, and I'm a confirmed fan. My second conclusion is that the Nosler AccuBond is the absolute worst bullet I've ever used on safari. As far as I'm concerned, Nosler has produced a bullet that is in no way as good as their own fine Partition, and I will personally never use the AccuBond again for any hunting, anywhere. We called them "baboon bullets" mid-way through the hunt.

If anyone thinks that bullet construction doesn't matter, they had better guess again.................

AD

Great Post Allen,
thanks!

Welcome home Allen, and great report. I'd like to say I'm suprised by the result, but can't.

Chuck

Allen,

Thanks for the report, and I see Africa is still Africa.

Also "almost as good" works in marketing, but not necessarily elsewhere.

Finaughty! Wow, that is a great connection to the Old Days.

jim

Never really cared for them from the start.... TSX's and Interlocks cover a wiiiide window... 721

Allen,
Good report! Glad to see you back, though I would imagine that you would't mind a few more weeks in the bush! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Sounds like you had a good experience, and came away with some useful info.
Later.

Allen, welcome home and a happy belated birthday!

Not suprised about the AB's... have heard many similar reports. My 300 WSM shoots them superbly but I'll stick with the Partition thank you.

Allen,

Welcome back and glad to hear you had a good trip.

Would love to see some pictures, including that mega-wildebeest!

John

Greart report. Your mention of traveling with a gun in the same caliber as a hunting partner was equally important. You could have lost 4 days of hunting. I lost a couple of days due to this once. Never again though.

Allen, good report. It confirms some of my own results using
338 AB's on Mule deer. Hope you don't mind me adding this attachment. It shows mule deer hit with a 338/180 AB and no
exit hole and no bullet to recover. It shattered inside the deer. web page

I keep hearing that the AB's are supposed to behave like Partitions. Not so in my small experience.

Hope you will add to your post here and we can hear more about your hunt. Sounds like you had a great time in spite of
the bullets.

AD-good to hear from you again, glad you had a good hunt.

Sounds like D'Arcy's rifle worked as planned as did the SAF's, nice to use rigs that give you now suprises eh.

I've shot the Accu's a bit in a few rigs but never used them on game as something inside always told me to not trust them. Thanks for the report as it confirms my suspicions.

Thanks again for sharing, if you can get some pics up for us. I'd love to see that Limpopo Bushbuck as that is one cool lil critter.

Mark D

AD- great post and read - could go to a magazine IMO.

Interesting results on the AB - the only african hunting I am familiar with is the DVD "Boddington on Buffalo" and they too (Craig and the PH's at Chifuti Safaris) are very high on the Swift A-frame.

Welcome home and I hope you do get more time to share your African trip with us.

Teal, agreed on Allen's writing ability - he's one of the finest writers I've come accross on these forums in the years I've participated on them. IMO, he's quite ahead of many so-called gunwriters (not speaking of any who post here tho!).

AD,
A great story and well done. While I was reading I kept wondering if there was a possibility Nosler had a packaging problem? Could they have put white tips into Ballistic Tip bullets rather than Accubonds because it sounds like the performance of Ballistic Tips.

AD good story and a eye opener
I have a 154 grain 7mm IB load for my STW.Last night I got a nice bear right at dark.First shot at roughly 400 yds stopped the bear but took another much closer shot to finish the bear.I firmly believe if I was using my Partition load there wouldn't of needed a second stopper shot and it would of fell on the spot.

Another campfire member Peppersmoke who was there couldn't believe the bear would of took off after hit so squarely.Both shots were front shoulder.I'm believeing this bonded bullet business isn't what it cracked up to be.I'm going back to the Partition.The more i use parts the more I like thier design.

I don't understand why people are always fooling around with these new and experimental bullets. I have killed 11 animals bigger than deer with 180 grain Nosler Partitions. They just work--with boring monotony. Out of 11 animals, only one bullet failed to exit. The Partition seems to have none of the problems which plague Accubonds or which cause TSXs to be redesigned there times.

I don't think there is any non-dangerous game that cannot be killed with a .300 Magnum and a 180 grain partition, or that any other cartridge or bullet is any more effective on such game.

AD,

Good to have you back and congratulations on a great safari. I guess I'll go ahead and stick my neck out here and be the first to say that I'm very surprised to hear about your Accubond experience. I've used the 225gr AB out of a 338 Win. Mag. on a few elk and a caribou over the last few years and have been mightily impressed with its performance. I also used a 140gr. Accubond on a Dall Sheep from a 270 Win. that performed flawlessly, although I think its a given that Dall sheep are thin skinned animals that are fairly easy to kill with most bullets. Nonetheless, I appreciate your report and experience since I have been planning on using my 338 as my light rifle in Africa next year and had been comptemplating using the 225gr AB's. However, I have already ordered some Northforks for it since I had some lingering doubts in the back of my mind on the AB's performance on African game and your report just tipped the scales for me.
Best regards,
Test

You sure had a great hunt. Glad you took the time to share the bullet experiences.

I am curious now. If you have any Accubonds left it might be worth sending some back to Nosler with a full report. Perhaps the other poster is correct and they weren't accubonds or didn't get bonded properly. I would certainly be curious enough to talk to Nosler. If you do please share your findings.

Welcome back my friend. You were missed! Your experiences with Accubonds don't surprise me as our mutual friend John S also had horrible experiences with the AB. In fact, the "other" bonded bullet, the Hornady Interbond also received bad reviews in another forum, that bullet was a 400gr 416 Rigby.

It failed miserably on buffalo on none other than Steve Hornady himself. As you know, I've used A Frames and Partitions exclusively on my last two safaris and with equally superb performance, particularly the A Frame out of my 416 Rigby. Also, my friend used A Frames in his 375 to take everything from buffalo at 25 yards to a kudu at over 350. I'm willing to stick my neck ut and try the TSXs next time, but after this, NEVER an Accubond or an Interbond. Well, I hope to hear more about your trip, maybe we can coordinate a phone call when you have time. jorge

jorgeI
I don't have too much good to say about the Horny IB.jmo. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

They were hard to make shoot and thier performance on game was just as dismall.

Allen,
Great report on what sounds like a fantastic hunt. I would love to pictures of the Nyala, Bushbuck and Bushpig. Specifically hunting the Nyala by still-hunting through the reeds and mopani thickets was one of the toughest and most enjoyable hunts I've ever done. Absolutely love hunting the Nyala.

I've had good luck making them shoot, but haven't shot too much game with them yet, one mature WT doe and one calf moose.

What didn't you like about their terminal performance?

Mauser 96.
Don't get me wrong they kill.I just perfer the secondary descrution the partition makes.I feel it kills quickier.It's the only time i recovered a bullet from my STW.It didn't drive straight defected off bone and made a big nasty hole in the hide.
When my friend come's up with his digital camera i will show some photo's.It peeled to the heel and yes there is not much bullet left.I will clean it up and weigh it and post a photo when i can.
It reminded me of a Mule deer i shot several years back with a Nosler BT and my 270 win.And i didn't care how that performed also.

The problem with bonded bullets with no special expansion stop mechanism is that they hang together as a unit and at high speed they turn into a flat disk and so lack sectional density and penetrating power.

I have played with the interbond from Hornady I find that regular interlocks will often out penetrate them as the unsupported jacket will break limiting expansion diameter and stress on the bullet.

A recent bullet test with my wifes bolt action 30-30 had the 150 Interbonds at 2300 expanding to 75 caliber and penetrating only as well as 125 Sierra Spitzers. The 130 Speer FN outpenetrated the 150 Interbond by a fair margin and the 170 Interlock left it in the dust..

In my 308 and faster I am sold on partitions. Accubonds need not apply.

So after all these posts since last winter about the new bullets we're right back where we started with old reliables like NP and Swift.

I'm shocked.

Sorry it happened to you, Allen, as it must have left a bad taste in your mouth, but at least it happened to someone with enough experience to deal with it.

Thanks for the report on what was obviously a great hunt in spite of things. I'm also forced to observe that such failures might have been worse in something less than a .338.

T

Allen,

Thank you for sharing your experience with the Accubonds. I am sorry to hear failed, as they were showing great accuracy potential in my .338 Win Mag. Time to start again, I suppose.

Thought I had that book somewhere.

What cal, grain, impact velocities are we talking?

Yes, thanks, Allen. Great info.

It reminds me of my old signature file I used to use on forums:

"Real bullets don't wear plastic tips!!!"

I dropped it, not wanting to come off too curmudgeonly to folks that get jazzed about such things. But, InterLocks, Partitions, A-Frames, etc. have never let me down.

scott

Mauser96
1.....7mmSTW
2......154 Hornady IB
3......Who the hell knows?

Allen--

As somebody else on thirs thread suggested, I am sure Nosler would like to hear of your results. So far I have seen nothing like that with several weights and calibers of AccuBonds.

MD

Interesting results Allen. I too have an incredibly accurate load with the 225 Nosler AB. I might just shoot them up and not use them on game.

I'm planning a Grizzly hunt next year with my brother and was considering the Nosler Accubond as the bullet of choice. Looks like it's time to start working with the Barnes 210gr. TSX. Or just use the old standby 210 Nosler.

Thanks for the excellent field report.

AD-

Thanks for the interesting report. It's interesting that for my planned PG hunt for next year, among others, I selected the AB to try in my .375 but discarded them when I found my H&H just didn't care for them. Gladly, I found a 270-gr TSX load that shoots lights out.

Also, what a "bit" of interesting family history you found yourself involved with. Amazing!

Are any pic's coming?
Regards,
George

I can't think of one single, solitary reason to go with AccuBonds for ANY big game hunting, and I'd no more it consider for a serious bear hunt than I would a Sierra Match King. In the 338 Win. Mag., life begins with 210 Nosler Partitions, and improves with 225s, becoming totally optimal with premium 250s. That's my opinion, anyway!

There are simply too many better-built premium bullets to choose from these days, rather than ABs, such as those superb Swift A-Frames, Nosler's own fine Partition, North Fork, Barnes TSX, Trophy Bonded, etc. If you can't find at lease ONE of these to produce satisfactory accuracy (1 MOA or less), there's likely something wrong with your rifle. Heck, I've had better performance over the years from regular old Hornady Interlocks than I have ABs, although I've had those come apart on occasion as well.

You can quote me on this any time you want to, but as far as I'm concerned, accuracy for its own sake can become a very, very bitter bargain if the structural integrity of the bullet itself is such that reliable, bet-your-life-on-it terminal performance is compromised to the point of failure. That's a no-win deal any way you'd care to cut it, and from any logical standpoint of consideration. Quite honestly, I think a lot of guys have varmint hunting requirements and statistical gratification confused with optimum hunting performance.

African professional hunters are, to a man, vitally concerned with bullet performance, and their list of acceptable hunting bullets is comparatively short. They are a totally no-nonsense collection of players who literally see and shoot hundreds of big game animals every year under just about every conceivable set of circumstances, and they don't have time for tin-foil bullet performance, nor do they care if a bullet will "ONLY" produce 1" groups rather than 1/2" groups off the bench at 100 yds. They've been around way too much to be hoodwinked by that sort of theoretical nonsense. In a nutshell, I've found that whatever works optimally over there, for the full gamut of plainsgame plus cats, will work optimally over here for everything you'll ever hunt. It's all pretty simple, really, and only becomes as complex as you care to make it.

MD, I am going to be in Bend around the 1st. of Sept, and I intend to visit Nosler when I'm over there. I'll take bullet and ammunition samples, and they can take my testimony for whatever they think it's worth. I'll also furnish the names of every PH we had in camp, including William Finaughty, Peter Wood, Collin Vanderlinden, and Richard Tabera, as well as my local hunting partner who, in a very big way, helped me out of the mess I created for myself by trusting in ABs to begin with, and who witnessed the results of some of these abysmal blowups first-hand. In fact, I'll glady introduce them to some of these PHs at SCI, as well as my hunting partner, and they can judge for themselves if I'm making up stories or not.

I love Nosler as a company, and I respect the Nosler family greatly and especially consider the Partition to be one of the world's greatest hunting bullets.

But I don't owe 'em feel good testimony on some good ol' boy basis, that's for darned sure.............

AD

That is one of the BEST posts I have ever read on any gun forum and I, for what it's worth,totally agree. I have found that a 250 NP from a .338 Mag. works so well for ANY game here in western Canada that I seldom use any other cartridge and I have quite a few. The very real chance of an aggressive Grizzly encounter while solo, backpack hunting has brought me to the use of the .338, the 9.3-286 NP and I doubt that, ecept in late season deer hunting, I will ever change, a famous gunwriter once said something about "cocktail time cartridges" and that made a lot of sense to me.

A very enjoyable report and very well written posts, glad to have the chance to learn from a guy who does NOT BS or boast, just goes out and does it.

Allen;

Sorry to hear of your troubles in Africa, but I'm very glad that your trip was a success nonetheless.

Likewise, I'll second Kutenay's sentiments to the "T". Truly one of the best posts on a forum I've yet to see.

The old standards are there for a reason and very damned hard to beat. The X variations on bullets have done so, and as such have become standards themselves. Between the A-frames, the NPs, and the X/TSX routes, there's very little need for much else, and very little reason to deviate.

I wish you luck on your trip to Nosler, and hopefully they will listen and learn.

Until then, it's back to basics for most of us.

The question arises: Why did was the Accubond so unsatisfactory on this hunt, and so wonderful on other hunts? What was different?

True enough Allen. I've been chasin around up there looking for a book bear and have yet to have the opportunity to put a bullet in one. I'm surely not going to take a chance with a bullet that won't completely pulverize the shoulder of a 7 and half foot, to 8 foot Grizzly.

My last Grizzly was taken with my 300 Weatherby and 200 grain Partitions. Performance was perfect with complete penetration.

I have a 338 210 Nosler load that has worked fantastic on a few Elk and I'm confident that it will do fine on Bear.

I just got a 300 Win Mag barrel for my other 338. I've wanted a 300 Win Mag for awhile, and now will have one shortly. Not sure which will go with me, but they won't be shooting Accubonds!

And I agree with the others, an outstanding field report. That's what makes this forum and others like it so unique. Plus it's free!

Take care,
Joel

I'm scratching my head wondering how the Accubond could compete with the A-Frame, anyways. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

2 Phenominal posts in a row AD!!

I am curious as to what Nosler might also say. Seems to me for a bullet to consistantly be bad while being used as designed, like your expirence - there must have been something weird with your particular lot? Perhaps like another poster remarked - BT's accidentaly mixed into a AB box? Or the bonding process was not completed correctly. Either way I hope Nosler looks at your situation and tries to figgure it out. Seems the right thing to do from a company standpoint.

The problem with ABs is starting out with a bad design in the first place. If you have a thin jacket to start out with and no internal design to hold the lead in place, then all you will have is a pile of lead and copper than overexpands and fails to penetrate. Swift tried this angle with the Scirocco and had to replace it with the Scirocco II, which has a much heavier jacket. All the Accubond appears to be is an old version of the Ballistic Tip with a bonded core. A recipe for failure to be sure. jorge

There does seem to be a discrepancy between Allen's usage and other credible observers. I'll be interested to see if bad components played a part, or maybe the AB design just works best at 30-cal and below. The "bond" affects only the surface of the lead core, and as the diameter grows there's progressively more lead not in contact with either bond or jacket.

Jaywalker

I don't discount AD's description of things in the least; yet there is MD's experience - and others? - that has him comparing ABs to the Partition in performance. One would wonder about certain lots where a fly got into the soup or something that would account for such bad performance on AD's trip.

At any rate, I will detour around them and feel secure with the TSX and the Partition, both of which perform from adequate to very well in my rifles.

Jaywalker, fundamentally, I think the AB, in and of itself, represents solid evidence that the Ballistic Tip that it sprang from is fundamentally a lousy hunting bullet for anything but varmints and scrawny southern whitetails. If it wasn't a lousy and inconsistent bullet, why would Nosler take the next step and invest their hard-earned money in a bonded version of same? Talk about taking the 5th...........! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I know this much: I've used the Partition on scores and scores of big game animals in many states and several foreign countries, and this experience goes back nearly thirty years. To this very day, I cannot site one single, solitary episode that would indicate that the Partition is anything less than a superb, deadly, and ultra-reliable big game bullet, and in a good rifle, accuracy is usually superb.

Yet, on ONE African safari, on the very FIRST hunt that I've actually used them on, the ABs proved inconsistent and generally unsatisfactory. That's a huge and glaring disparity of experience as far as I'm concerned..........

The bullet to keep an eye on is the Barnes TSX. It's accurate -- about as accurate as the BT/AB -- and it's totally reliable in terms of terminal performance. I used 225 TSXs last year in this same 338, and I'm going to use them yet again this season for elk hunting.

One of the hunters in our Humani camp showed me some recovered 270 gr. TSXs from his 375 H&H, and performance was phenomenal, to say the very least. It just doesn't get any better...............

AD

I've used the Accubonds in both .270 and .308 diameters and found them to be the poorest examples of a Nosler product I have ever used. Three mule deer taken, all at a range of 200-250yds and all shot broadside. Not a single bullet made it completely through the chest cavity w/o coming to pieces, and nothing broke the hide on the off side. The heaviest piece that I recovered came from a 30cal 200gr example that was fired out of my 300Wby. It came to rest in the far side of the chest cavity of a decently large mule deer, shot from 225yds. That piece weighed a bit over 60grs. When a 200gr BONDED CORE bullet will not exit a mule deer on a broadside chest shot on two separate occasions, and a third example in 270-140gr won't either, I don't need any further convincing about how this bullet compares to the partition...it just doesn't!

Sorry to hear of your bad experience but appreciate you taking the time to report on bullet performance. Thankfully you had another option....

I spent a good bit of time testing bullets over the past three years and have settled on North Forks and TSX's for all my hunting, both are proven to be excellant in terms of penetration and accuracy...from Bobcats to Cape Buffalo.

As much as I can respect Nosler, as a company and their Partition design, they are being left behind......

Allen, Please let us know what Nosler says, if anything, about the your AB's performance.

I'm questioning my use of AB's now.

The only thing is that so far the AccuBonds have performed well. Of the four elk killed using the 270 Win and 140 AB's, three got complete penetration and the other was recovered and retained 77% of it original weight after roughly 3 feet of penetration. All four elk were killed with a single shot.

I ran into a guy at the range who was cussing the AB's out of his 7mm Mag. His experience was that the AB's were failing to even exit on deer. He said after talking with Nosler and sending the bullets back for inspection, Nosler said there might have been a "hiccup" in the process.

This is not the first bad experience that I have heard of with the Accubonds. Last year a poster on Precieion Long Range hunting had the same experience of bullet disintegration with a 30 cal. bullet on Elk. I have seen the tips fall off of some Accubonds as well, in both handloads and Winchester factory loads.
I agree with Allens statement that the TSX performance on game is simple outatanding............

Gents: Poor design cuts across all bullet maufacturers. Over on another forum, there is an equally abysmal report on the Hornady Interbond out of a 458 Lott on Cape Buffalo by none other than Steve Hornady himself. The thread's author is a very respectable source and he was there to witness the Hornady's poor performance. I have no doubt there are plenty of examples of GOOD performance from these bullets, but the key here is consistency. That's the bottom line and in that regard both bonded bullets are failures. jorge

Jorge, your last two posts are spot on dead right. And quite frankly the bottom line.

Chuck

Hate to hear this.... I just finished sighting in my rifle and loading some ABs for my caribou hunt. On the other hand we've been using bonded bullets for the last couple of years, 130 IBs in LaRitas 270win and 140 ABs in my 270win. So far we've taken about a dozen deer and two antelope with those 2 rifles and those two bullets without any problems. Shots have ranged from 30 to 250+ yards and we only recovered one bullet. It was a 120 pound deer I shot last fall that was quartering to me a bit more than I thought. The shot was at about 100 yards, I hit him behind the left front shoulder and found the bullet in the right rear ham bone! Still got the bullet here somewhere but haven't weighed it.

Allen it'll be interesting to hear what Nosler has to say, please keep us posted!

Jorge, every word of that you've stated here weighs a pound.

CONSISTENCY is the watchword when it comes to bullet performance. And that seems to be the very issue that creates conflicting testimony as to the suitability of the AB as a hunting bullet......

In the Humani area we hunted, lions were all over the place, and there was a new lion kill in evidence just about every day of the safari. I've had enough run-ins and showdowns before with lions to have a very healthy respect for them, and I want my rifle and ammo, regardless of caliber, to be able to perform on the big cats when necessary. I would NOT bet my life on AB performance on lions for ANY amount of money, but if someone's willing to go down in flames over some pet "benchrest-accuracy" (man, I hate that iconic BS!!!!) theory, they may have at it..............

My hunting partner, with his 225 Swift A-Frame load, did simply phenomenal work on everything, and for two fundamental reasons: He's a great shot and a cool, experienced hand in the presence of game, and the Swift loads he used were totally consistent and reliable. For example, he had a going-away shot at a 2200 lb., ancient eland "blue bull" at over 200 yds., and his single 225 A-Frame entered the short ribs on the left side and was found just under the hide, just behind right shoulder, for some 50 inches of penetration, and his one shot laid that eland out deader'n a doornail, within just a few paces of where it took the bullet...................

AD

Thats the kind of penetration that makes the .338 bore size such a killer on game, providing the bullet has the integrity to get to the other side.

Allen, your post has convinced me to use either the 225 Nosler Partition or the Swift 225 A-Frame for next years Grizzly hunt.

Unless I take the 300 Win Mag... if so, it will be loaded with 200 gr. Noslers.

If nosler does the Partition so well and BT's do have their place, why do they try and do anything else? I understand that growth is necessary but why not stick with bread and butter? They now do bullets, brass, loaded ammo, and rifles. I would think they could have stepped away from the bonded market and been ok. IIRC Nosler says the AB is for hunters who like the acuracy of a Ballistic Tip design but need a stronger design for larger game or cartridges that drive the bullet harder. OK - fine -- but I don't remember anyone saying that is what they wanted -- most who decided they wanted something tought already went Partition and its not like partitions don't group.

I can understand their thinking and seeing the TSX grow in popularity - maybe Nosler thought they had to try and compete in a market for accurate, tough bullets and hunters being the type that love new things - often forgetting old things - they thought a bonded bullet would compete for the TSX market. That would put them in the same field but without the R&D needed for a mono metal type of bullet.

I an not knocking Nosler - I have used them in the past - Fail safes in 30-06 and 300 WM with the BT in 22-250. I like their bullets but I think if this report of the AB's performance is the rule and not the exception - I would hate to see them slide back and be hurt financialy due to a poor product roll out. We need all the firearms companies we can get.

How does the jacket thickness compare between the AccuBonds and the big-caliber Ballistic Tips? I've only heard good about the latter (.338/200, .35/225, .375/260), and wonder if Nosler made the jackets thinner when they went to the bonded design.

Thank you Allen and great post! You have a way with words that I wish I had. I have had the tips of the Accubonds break off just unloading my Rem 700 ADL..
Randy..

If the tsx were the end all bullet for barnes,they sure as hell wouldn't have introduced MRX with a poly tip. Poly tips sell,they don't deform as easily and they help increase BC. Its the same reason the AB was introduced. Nosler needs to place a poly tip in the partition and be done with it. They tried bonding the partition and it failed. The ballistic tip isn't nearly as frangible as most would have you believe. The original was junk,just like the original barnes x was junk.

Like MD and others have said, most of the reports of the Accubond have been good. Knowing how thoroughly MD tests products in different calibers and weights, you would think a design problem would have surfaced. As Teal stated, looking at a problem with a particular lot makes sense. I know the deer I shot in the neck/spine area with the 140g Accubond from my .270W was DRT, and the bullet went through a lot of bone and exited as you would expect a partitiion to do.

Was this the Partition Gold? What about it failed?

Allen
What was the impact hole like.What i mean do you think right on impact they broke-up?Or was bone encountered.

I have several un-opened boxes of Accubonds for sale; 225-338s and some 30 cals...

Really

Nolser wouldn't elaborate on the bonding. Their response was don't even ask for a bonded partition,we tried it and it was a disaster. They responded to the poly tipped partition idea as being financially unfeasable at the time,but were definately interested. I believe the poly tip would be a money issue,you'd have to continue to build the standard partition plus the poly tipped and it would cost you extra to produce the poly tipped version. I believe that nosler originally looked at putting a poly tip on the partition,but knew it would just add cost to an already spendy bullet,plus add more steps to the manufacturing process. Hence the accubond. Cheaper to build and still petains 60% weight retention like the partition.

I just tried a small test of the 140 .277 Accubond and 150 Partition in the same .270 Win. Now before anyone jumps to conclusions, I'm not doubting Allen or anyone else who's had trouble with the Accubond. I just had time to kill and curiosity about the bullet. I set a gallon plastic jug in front of a 5 gal. bucket of wet packed sand with a 4x6 oak beam behind that. Theory was that the water jug would initiate expansion, the sand slow or stop the bullet and the oak would get it stopped if it made it out of the sand. Now I know wet sand isn't an ideal medium, but it's what I could get my hands on quickly. Shot one shot each, max loads of H4831 out of my M700 with Pac-Nor 22" barrel at 100 yards off the backyard bench. Neither bullet made it out of the sand and I have no way of knowing if one out penetrated the other. The bucket was poured out in the driveway and sifted through looking for the bullets. Found them both and washed and cleaned them up.
As expected the Pt. lost it's front core just as it's designed to do. There is no sign of any loosening of the rear core or of tumbleing. The petals are folded back along the shank uniformly.
The Accubond mushroomed down the shank to just about the same length as the Partition. A thin layer of lead still sticking to the jacket material on the folded area. No hint of blowup, or tumbleing with a slightly larger frontal area.
Remaining weight
Accubond= 102 gr. for 72.8%
Partition= 93 gr. for 62% about what we've all come to expect from this bullet.
One bullet apiece means next to nothing, and the reports of failures in the field are disturbing. As Jorge said consistancy is the key, and it's starting to look like the AB is having trouble in that regard.
Still trying to make up my mind which to take on the cow hunt this fall.
YMMV

Allen,
Thanks for an awesome thread! Finally, a thread that was/is both informative AND civil!

Welcome home and congrat's on a wonderful safari! I have a friend here that just came back from SA, where he took his 3 grandson's on their first SA safari. I believe over 20 head of game were taken....all with the TSX out of .243, 30-06, 416 Rem. including an awesome lion! He said his PH asks every client to bring rifles sighted with TSX's....

Ole 270,

I shot an Elk a few years ago with my 270. I used a 140 Trophy Bonded. Weight from the recovered bullet was 138 grains.

I personally wasn't impressed with killing power of the 270 for Elk, but know that it's used every year and I won't criticise those who use it.

Bonded bullets with no way to limit expansion support a very wide mushroom that limits penetration. When the bullets failed did they simply not penetrate deep enough?

An example is here where I tested some bullets out of a bolt action 30-30 and a 223. The bullet at the bottom right with the X shaped profile was a Hornady Interbond. It was only going 2300ft/sec and yet it expanded so greatly that it was beat by every other bullet except the 125 Sierra Spitz which is a varmint type bullet and even here penetration was close



Bullet at Top Right is a 225 Sierra 225 grain bullet used as control

I always assumed the lack of bonding in the front section of the Partition was more a legal than a technical diffculty. Speculatively, a two-lead-section, front-bonded bullet sounds like an A-Frame to me, and possibly also to Swift's lawyers. I have no factual knowledge of this, however.

Jaywalker

Because the front of the partition is not bonded it has limited expansion capability. Bits of copper and lead break off and do not support each other to make a large mushroom.

Because of this the Partition will penetrate deeply as it doesn't reach a huge diameter. It might not be as pretty a mushroom in the magazine add but it sure is effective.

I agree with those observations. The Partition may not retain as much weight or look as pretty when recovered as some of the other premium bonded bullets, such as North Fork, but it surely does kill well, and in may cases the smaller frontal area allows the Partition to penetrate deeper than some of the others.

There's really no point in wishing that Nosler would offer a bonded version of the Partition, since the Swift A-Frame fills that role very well indeed, while the Partition or Partition Gold is good enough as-is.

Beginning with the old Remington Bronze Point, I haven't yet found a tipped bullet that I really trust as a hunting bullet, and I have my suspicions that the polymer tip may just be the culprit in terms of inconsistent performance with the AccuBond. A bonded version of Nosler's Solid Base, however, might just prove to be a better bullet.

It'll be interesting to hear the reports on the new Winchester and Barnes tipped hunting bullets. They may prove to be absolutely outstanding.......

I don't want to give the impression that those AccuBonds were nothing more than a complete failure. They didn't always fail, especially on lung shots on stuff like impala. But they were not at all optimal on the bigger stuff, and performance was a grab-bag of results. Any time a bullet blows up without getting inside on an animals the size of bushbuck at something over 200 yds., something is seriously wrong.

Someone can try to rationalize it any way they want to, but on this safari those Swifts totally and completely out-performed the AccuBonds, and that disparity was simply too great to sweep under the rug or to somehow wish away.

I asked a Nosler rep at a hunting convention a few years ago as to why I'd ever want to go with the Ballistic Tip over the Partition as a hunting bullet, and I didn't get back an answer. That lack of response didn't exactly surprise me.............

AD

Hmmm.... an interesting point. Several of the new American-made bonded core bullets (cup and core bonded) have plastic tips; the Accubond, Interbond, and Scirocco as examples. I find it interesting that Woodleigh Weldcores don't have a plastic tip. I believe Woodleighs have an excellent reputation, in general, in the game fields. Hmmmmm..... something to ponder...

I have used the following handloads on plains game in South Africa and had excellent results:

.30-06 -- 220 gr Woodleigh RN at 2460 fps
8x57JS -- 220 gr Woodleigh RN at 2400 fps
9.3x62 -- 286 gr Woodleigh RN at 2390 fps

http://www.woodleighbullets.com.au/

My two cents.....
-Bob F.

The Partition Gold wasn't bonded, as I recall.

You're right, the Partition Gold wasn't bonded. It had the partition further forward for more weight retained when the front core was lost.

Great article Allen but some what troubling for me as one
of my favorite rifles a weatherbu ultralight in .280 rem is
very fond of the federal accubond my job and obligations
prevent me at this time from reloading. so are there any
factory loads in swift A-frame for .280 rem available.
I have had great accuracy and performance on whitetails
with the above mentioned accubonds in .280rem &270wsm
and they where large whitetails but I have elk hunts in
the up coming months and now I am concerned. My .280
also shot the trophy bonded bearclaw 140gr very well but
I believe they are only available in 160 gr now which is ok
for elk but I would prefer the 140gr for deer. Thanks again
for sharing some great and very usefull information.

The partition gold also has a metal liner/insert in the lower half in addition to lead.

I have only shot 2 deer and a bear with the Accubond. All three were pass throughs that left pencil size holes. The deer were smallish blacktails at 50 and 125yds. The bear was at 200 yds. The bear was shot in the head. In the ear out the off side eye. Nothing solid was hit but the intire skull was smashes into guarter and nickle sized bits. One of the deer shot was hit in the spine. Bullet hole in , bullet hole out. With baseball sized damage to spine area. My son shot a buck in the same spot with a partition out of an 7-08. Bullet hole in, half dollor size hole out with baseball size damage to spine area. The accubond and partition did the same exact amount of damage once inside. But for some reason the AB is leaving pencil size exit wounds?? I had been pretty impressed with the AB.
But after hearing all this I will be hitting the range with some partitions for my -06. I put way to much time, money and effort into scouting and hunting to even take a chance. I'm not a big gambler. I've talked my partner into shooting AB'S out of his 7mag and now I gotta call him and let him know to bag the AB's. Thanks to the original poster on this one. Cdeath

Mark, it's hard to say what Nosler's reaction will be, but I suspect they'll point to all of the wonderful successes that other hunters have enjoyed with the AccuBond, the superlative accuracy it provides, and they might even state that they've not heard of such failures as I've described, etc.......

We'll see! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

AD

Well this subject's generated quite a few responses as I expected it would. For most of us, we took it as a "Lesson Learned" and move on, but it is not surprising to see the usual volley "well it works for me" posts and I'm not going to let facts get in my way.

Forget the notion the original poster is arguably the most experienced big game hunter here. I have no doubt folks who posted success with ABs are truthful, but often-times people fail to see the forests for the trees. The locus of this whole thread is CONSISTENCY, and while your AB use on your local game met with success, the fact that ABs FAILED on a diminutive animal like a bushbuck in an area where LIONS, LEOPARDS and Buffalo make *YOU* part of the food chain should serve as an express train in the night coming straight at you kind of warning and if you can't see that, well I guess it's Social Darwinism at work. jorge

Jorge, the thing that your posts fail to realize is that maybe Allen's reports are the exception rather than the rule. True Allen is one of the most repected people on this forum and I don't doubt the veracity of his reports, but perhaps he had a bad lot of bullets etc.. Yes consistancy if critical but maybe this is a rare exception, maybe not. IMHO a definate conclusion is not yet ready to be reached. There are African reports on another forum that gave an exemplary report on Accubonds. I tend wo weight Allen's report ahead of most but think that it's best to look at as many reports as possible before reaching an overall conclusion, your "facts getting in the way" may be the dozens of factual reports of good performance!
I've shot 2 Elk with Accubonds including 1 with 225gr 338 Accubonds and they performed perfectly. Am I supposed to completely reject my personal experiences because of Allen's report?
I won't quit using Accubonds for much of my hunting, but if I was headed for Africa tommorow it would be with TSX's or Swifts, especially in 338 caliber................DJ

The fact his bullets failed to perform even 5% of the time DEFINES consitency or a lack thereof.

Further, lots of other posters piped up with AB issues and over on AR, JohnS, yet another extremely experienced world-wide hunter also had abysmal performance from the ABs.

There's an old saying that goes like this: "Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance but thrice is ENEMY ACTION." I thnk with the ABs we are way beyond that. jorge

The TSX, Partition, and whatever junkies are eager to believe anything bad about any other bullet, and to discount the "failures" of their current favorite. Allen offers a good report, of comparisons between two bullets in the same environment with different performance. As noted, others have found the Accubond (and almost every other bullet) to work just great on their safari.

The unanswered question is why the Accubond performed this way or that way, good and bad. I don't think anyone is going to be disappointed with the Swift A-Frame or Trophy Bonded on any big, tough animals.

Never mind. I'm trying hard not to get sucked into another meaningless discussion without end with the usual suspects. jorge

It's quite possible that my experiences have just been atypical and abysmal exceptions to normal AccuBond performance, but I don't think so. Not when I've had such consistent, solid performance from so many other excellent bullets over the years. Personally, I don't give a rusty as to what sort of testimony has been glowingly presented here over AB performance in the past. I trust my own experiences best, as well as the experiences of those guys I've know for many years.

Many guys here don't know him, but John55, who's is a trusted friend of Jorge's as well as mine, (and I've hunted with him before and surely will again) is a man of vast, vast hunting experience, from East Africa to Alaska, and he's tried just about every bullet make there is on game, and he hasn't exactly had much luck with ABs, either, as his testimony would indicate.

While I was in Zimbabwe, D'Arcy Echols was in the Yukon hunting Fannin sheep, and he had TWO 140 gr. ABs out of his 270 Win. blow up with solid chest hits on the same ram. He had a hard time even finding pieces of those bullets.

One of the PHs in our camp had another client who came this year armed with ABs, and that client also experience some catastrophic blowups. This PH called them "$hit bullets". Those are his words, not mine, but that statement reflects the common hatered that African PHs have for bullets that come apart on game. These guys are usually much more worried about what bullet a client employs, rather than the exact caliber his rifle is chambered for.

Based on some of the responses here, I'm not exactly sure why there are those who are somehow trying to still whitewash AB performance. What's at stake here, anyway? There are so many better-built, more consistent bullets on the market, that you can basically forget ABs and never look back, which is what I personally intend to do.

As usual, it all will get back to a cluster of holes on a piece of paper, fired off of a benchrest someplace. Terminal performance is a lot harder concept to warm up to (and sell! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />) than holes on paper, but it's a far, far bigger deal in the real world than that Great Blessed Icon, "benchrest accuracy"...........

AD

But to each his own. If anyone wants to discount what I've shared and risk an expensive safari in lion-infested, deep-bush hunting country, and risk expensive trophies fees for the sake of using ABs, they may have at it. Performance talks and theory walks every time.........

All we REALLY know is AD had one box of consistantly bad AB's. As you have said - others have used AB's and had no problems.

IF Nosler looks at his bullets and says they are in spec and not some foul up either in mfg or packaging (which is a resonable possability) then you can make a decision on the AB design.

1 box isn't a large enough number to say ALL AB's are junk.

I have no horse in the race - I do not use AB's in any shape or fashion and I currently do not use the TSX so it is not a case of me trying to burn the AB.

All I know is a guy with a bunch of hunting expirence used AB's in Africa and they were crap. I also know by Allen's reputation that I can discount him trying to make an AB do something it was not supposed to and that his rounds were loaded all alike, with care. Should every report of AB's had been bad - ok - but all we have is this one from Allen. (I know others have had problems but others haven't had problems too).

Were I suddenly rich and going to Africa -- I would be loaded with Partitions, A-Frames or the TSX. Not because the AB expirence of AD scared me off - but because I have too much respect for the capabilities of the TSX, Partition and A-Frame - I can't see much doing it better han those.

Very good stuff! Thanks for posting. I'm starting to wonder if I should go with something else in my 338-06 which I just took to the range yesterday and finalized a 200gr Accubond load for... CRAP!!!

I've had wonderful luck with 160's out of both my 280 and 7mm. I didn't however have to spectacular of performance with the one and only deer I shot with the 140's out of said 280.

The shot was a broadside lung shot on a respectable muley buck. Distance was around 85 yards give or take and the load was not hot, 2950FPS at the muzzle.

The bullet was found in a crater about the size of a softball just under the hide on the opposite side of the ribcage. The retained weight was 100gr even and looked perfect. I was happy that the deer was dead but the performance left me scratching my head. How could a bullet fail to penetrate on a lung shot deer at that range?




On the same trip I also killed an average sized cow elk with the same rifle, but this time had switched to 160gr AB's, which happened to shoot same POI. The shot on her was a high lung/spine shot from 335 yards away. She dropped on the spot as expected. The bullet 'mashed' the spine and exited leaving a quarter size hole.

I've since switched to 160'sAB out of both my 7mag, and 280. I�ve had great luck with them accuracy wise too. Although I must say I've not killed all that many animals but enough to make me think that work and work pretty well.

Last fall I went to RSA on my first safari. Along for the trip was my 'trusty' M700 mountain rifle in 280REM for the little critters and for my wife to shoot if she decided to enter into the brotherhood. The second rifle was a 375H&H loaded with 300gr Partitions. I shot a gemsbok and kudu with the 375, with mixed result, IMO can be attributed to less than steller shooting on my part, but the bullet performace wasn�t all that increadible either�

Back to the Accubonds... My wife shot a big blue wildebeest bull using my 280. The shot was 125yards quartering away. The bullet entered at about the 3rd to last rib and was found under the hide on the point of the shoulder. The upper leg bone was broken on the opposite side. The bull ran about 60-70 yards and was found quite dead with a good blood trail the whole way.

I shot a warthog from roughly 40 yards at last light. The pig was standing quartering towards us, I put the crosshair on this facing armpit/chest area and pulled the trigger... He spun in a could of dust and was found about 40 yards away with a quarter size exit hole on the point of the opposite rear hip/flank.

I shot an impala in almost the exact same spot on the chest. Result was identical to the pig.

The final animal killed was a very nice bushbuck. We spotted him half asleep under a small mopone tree along the Limpopo. He was lying down looking the opposite direction and had no idea we were there. My PH mentioned that they had been after this ram for a couple years and that he was a monster. I couldn�t argue with him and quickly made the shot. The impact was a little high in the ribs due to not having much of a target with him laying down. At the shot he dropped his head and that was that. The distance was roughly 50 yards. No bullet was recovered but that doesn't surprise me given the size of the animal on a broadside lung shot.

I was so impressed with the performance I decided to try them out in my 7mag for the 4th season bull tag I had for CO. My father and I spotted a couple bulls with the spotting scope in the morning of the second day, the plan was to slip in that afternoon and kill one� so in the midst of a blizzard we were able to sneak within 60 yards of the bulls. I fired 3 shots thinking I missed each time, until he whirled and ran down hill out of site, his buddies soon showed up on the opposite hill side and he was no where to be found. We scrambled around the rockslide I was shooting across and there he lay. Upon inspection, there was one bullet that went all the way through the ribs, double lung, another that was found in the off side shoulder, another double lung, but farther forward and the final shot, into the chest as he spun to look right at me. I dug it out of a sirloin steak about a month ago. I figured full length penetration on a bull elk was �decent� for any bullet. Maybe since I�ve only had experience with the higher SD bullets of the .284 flavor I�m a little biased. The other two 160gr AB�s that I�ve recovered look very similar to the 140 above that I recovered from the deer, the shank is slightly longer though.

Your post does make me second guess my pick for an elk bullet for my 338-06� Thanks a lot... :-p

I appreciate AD taking the time to share his experiences with the accubond. My hunting partner and I are looking at a plains game trip in 2009. As you might guess, this post was of considerable interest to me.

I also appreciate everyone else's comments, and the civilized debate which ensued. This is the way I've learned and made decisions over the past few years, reading both sides of the debates, and making my personal decision based on these arguments. I spend lot's of time lurking and reading, learning as much as possible, especially from the experienced hunters on the forum. It isn't that diffucult to ascertain who are the knowledgeable hunters and shooters are on any forum. Again, I appreciate everyone who chimed in on this topic.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and post my decision, after following this thread for a couple of days. Generally, I don't do this, but many have said recently that they would like to hear more from the lurkers...........like me.

Last fall I handloaded some 180 AB's in my '06, in hopes of trying them on some aoudad and pigs. The intention was to determine if I wanted to use them on elk this year. Admittedly I was captivated by the accuracy, but was concerned about some of the negative reports I had seen on this very board. It kind of reminded me of another bullet experience I had several years ago. Some friends (?) urged me to try a particular brand of bullet because it was famous for accuracy. Unfortunately, it had VERY inconsistent terminal effects. I was not ready to go down that road again.

I managed to take some aoudad with the 180 AB, all with positive results. Still, other posters on this forum, who I respect, had unfavorable reports. As a result of this report, I've decided to use the 200 Partition, or possibly some other proven bullet this year, such as the A frame or the North Fork.

To me, what's going to make or break me on the accubond, is how Nosler responds to this problem. No matter which side someone wants to take, there definitely seems to be a problem. This issue has become very polarizing, to say the least. I think Nosler needs to address this issue with their customers. I guess we'll see if they do or not. I'm looking forward to see how they respond to AD, when he meets with them.

Good Hunting,
Steve

Allen may have had one flawed box of ABs, but then I guess I had two because in my 270 and 300Wby they failed miserably. So, are he and I the only ones to have bought a bad box of ABs? I think not. And I seriously doubt Nosler is too concerned about a few failures they've likely heard about during the past three years or so since these bullets hit the market.

That's just it! And, if there just happens to be these random boxes of crappy Accubonds floating around, who wants to roll the dice?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. These bullets are flawed by their very design.

Chuck

The way I see it, its like a lot of things in life, this boils down to your experience. What does or doesn�t work for you. Ford vs Chevy, a couple of guys here at work have well over 200k miles on a couple of Toyotas with very little problems. The only two we�ve owned cost us a small fortune in repairs. This past May we hunted with a PH who everyone raved about. I couldn't stand the guy, the way he "hunted" and if I could have talked LaRita into it we would have left after the 4th day... As to bullets, a guy here at work only shoots ballistic tips, I won�t use them. The local gunsmith swears by fail safes but years ago I had �ONE� come apart and now I wouldn�t think of using a fail safe. I on the other hand have used X bullets for years and neither of them would touch an X bullet�.. Think about it, we could all name one bullet that has failed us at some point. If we all stoped using bullets based on that we'd soon be back to arrows. So at this point I'm still willing to give Accubonds a try. Now if they ever fail me then will I curse them to high heaven and Allen can say I told you so. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

If I were going to hunt DG, I think it would be with fail safes, Northforks, A-Frames or partitions--whichever shot better in my rifle. For our half starved Texas deer, I think the Accubonds and the Interlocks will be fine.

mark65x55 -
Exactly right! If you live enough, everything and everybody is going to turn out to not be perfect every time.

I don't think anyone is "discounting" Allen's experience. It is a good one, where he tried different bullets and made thoughtful observations. I thought the whole idea of the Accubond was a bullet with the accuracy of the Ballistic Tip but a bonded core to be a little bit tougher. The Partition loses lots of its weight and lots of people love the way it kills game. So maybe the Accubond falls in between the BT and the NP.

Another extrapolation people shouldn't make is that all bullets of a design do so-and-so. A .338 Accubond blowing up at close range on a thick-skinned 800 lb animal doesn't mean that a .257 Accubond won't perform spendidly on a mule deer at 300 yards.

In my mind, when it comes to the partition, weight loss or retention is moot. It's the fact that 65% of it remains intact in the same general shape it started out as that is appealing. It has been built with a "fail safe" partition to retard destruction. There is nothing "fail safe" about the Accubond.

Chuck

As it concerns me, you're preaching to the choir. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I don't intend to find out whether or not I got a "good" box of AB's, or a "bad" box, by experimenting on a 6x6, or on plains game in a couple of years. The way I figure, there are enough different proven bullets out there to not take a chance. At the ranges I hunt, anything that shoots 2" or less will work for me. Besides, many of the "sure thing" bullets shoot much better. I don't intend to gamble on this issue. I'm going for a sure thing, not matter what it costs.

Steve

This thread has me remembering that "Trophy Bonded" was a popular bullet for Africa a few years ago. Were bullet failures experienced with these?

I've used Trophy Bonded 'Bear Claw' soft points as well as 'Sledgehammer Solids' in Africa with superb results out of the 375 H&H as well as the 458 Win. Mag., and I've also used 180 gr. 'Bear Claws' in the 300 Winchester.

I've experienced superb, reliable results every time from them. They're a great and classic projectile that you can trust 100%.............

AD

AD,
One question that I don't recall you addressing is why you decided to go with the Accubonds in the first place on this hunt? Since you say you should go with a tried and true bullet and not take a chance on them not performing, why didn't you use a Swift A-frame, Partition, or North Fork bullet in the first place? Did you have previous experience that led you to believe the ABs would perform well? I mean no disrespect here by asking this, I'm just wondering why you went with this bullet and if you had any doubt that they would work, why did you not have another load with a bullet you knew would work?
Test

The 338 Win is desighed for big, tough game and in my opion any bullet that does not penetrate is useless period.....

This reminds me of the story that Phil Shoemaker told of shooting an Alaskan Brown bear with his 505 Gibbs and the bullets opend so much that penetration was totaly inadequate. I have always wonderd why a company would make a bullet (for a large caliber rifle designed for shooting dangerous game) that is so soft as to not penetrate.

I think I know how. Here's how they responded to a similar complaint a year and a half ago on thier own forum. Believe me, they know about it. http://www.noslerreloading.com/phpbb2/vi...ure&start=0

I'll jump on the bashing bandwagon too. While testing loads this spring I dug a half-dozen or so .308 150s out of the backstop and five looked like the pic Bambistew posted. Right down to the lead coloration on the jacket where the core had been wiped off. The other, however, had expanded to the base and there was no lead coloring on the jacket. This lack of lead on the jacket made me think this bullet somehow missed the bonding process. FWIW I talked to Mike at Nosler and he wouldn't even consider that it didn't get bonded. Never mind the fact that every pic of a bonded bullet I've seen has the grey color on the inside of the jacket where the core was bonded. This bullet looked like BTs I've seen after they ran into rocks in the backstop.

What irks me is that I paid for ABs, not BTs, and the indifference of Nosler to the possibility that something's not quite right with their bonding process. I'll use the rest of this box for paper punching and hunting situations where it doesn't matter if the bullet's bonded or not. But I think I'll wait 'til they get the bugs worked out before buying any more.

To me, it's very simple. Allen is far more experienced at actually killing large game than almost any of us and he is a bluntly spoken, honest guy whose expertise is very obvious, to me, anyway. I have yet to see him post here or on that other forum, AR, when he did not say things that my experience has demonstrated on similar or the same game.

The Nosler Partition is an icon in the sport, because it just works and, I see no reason to change since my regular hunting rifles all shoot it very well. I has worked for me since 1968 and I wouldn't change, especially in my .338s.

This year, I loaded some ABs in a 7STW built on a sts Classic-Mod. 70 by the late Dana Campbell of Alaska and in a .300 Roy Fibremark; I really worked on this ammo for my buddy and the accuracy was mediocre, for those two rifles. I was not impressed and loaded some PTs for him and they did quite a lot better. So, for varmints, targets, broadside "plantation" Whitetails, fine, but, for hunting trophy Elk in dense cover where Grizzlies are quite commonplace, the plain old PT has been and will remain my pick.

I wish AD would start a hunting/shooting mag., himself, Jim Carmichel, Ross Seyfried and John Barness as staff writers. No handguns, tough-dude blackguns, shotguns, JUST serious hunting with serious rifles, doubles, singles, bolts and whatever......I would pay SERIOUS coin for a subscription to that!

Bigfoot,
Thanks for the link. Actually, I'm not surprised by their response.

Steve

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

It was in the mid 90s hunting "small southeast" deer in Alabama. The rifle was a 7mm remington mag., the bullet was a factory loaded 160gr fail safe, loaded by who I don't remember. The shot was about a 150 yards or so across an open food plot. At the shot the deer ran off. 2 hours later I found the deer with 4 entry holes in it and no exit holes. And that was the last fail safe I've used hunting, so I know where Allens coming from. However does one bullet failure mean people doesn�t use fail safes? Sure they do and they take lots of game each year with fail safes. For that matter I've had Nosler Partitions that didn't exit on southeast deer, did they fail? I'm just saying my experience with fail safes hasn't been everyone elses and Allens with Accubonds hasn't been mine and I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath just yet. Will I use Accubonds in Africa or for anything bigger than Caribou? Most likely not, but at this point I�ll keep using them for deer.

Sounds like the bullet either broke up in flight or hit something before the deer. That's the first EVER report like that on a Failsafe, yet at last count, there are at least two dozen independently confirmed AB FAILURE TO PENETRATE or overexpansion and another dozen or so over on the other forum. Not a valid measure of effectivess for comparison Mark. In any event, for deer any bullet will suffice, but I have to tell you, I'd be pissed if I had a bullet fail like that on a skinny old bushbuck. Pick your poison. jorge

jorge1,
Here is a photo of a great Hartmann's mountain zebra stallion, taken in Namibia, with a Wby. Mk.V. in 300 Wby, with a 200 gr. Swift A-Frame.
Shot was around 200 yards, and the zebra ended up on his back with all four feet in the air, graveyard dead. Bullet ended up just under the skin on the far shoulder.
Btw- zebra have great shoulder aim points, with those chevrons!

Any factory loaded Fail Safe would have been done by Winchester at that time as they were intro'd to market in late fall '94, IIRC. That bullet almost surely hit something enroute to the target, given there were four entrance holes. I've used Fail Safes since they were developed, and like a partition, they have never failed to perform as advertised for me. They are still the bullet I judge all else by when it comes to deep penetration. They did get some bad PR off and on about failure to expand, or lack of expansion on light game, and IMO that was not the bullet's fault, but rather the user's because they were not designed to open up on 100 pound deer. I'm not one to keep using something that fails to work properly, but even I will give a bullet more than one chance before quitting it.

I have no idea what happened with Allen's AccuBonds, and wouldn't even presume to hazard a guess. I have used them on game in various calibers from .257 to .30, and seen them used in calibers up to .375. The game ranged in size from feral pigs to Cape buffalo. Have also shot a lot into media of various sorts. I have yet to see anything like what he describes, so something obviously went wrong, but guessing what it might be from this distance is not a good idea. Taking them to Nosler is.

Part of the reason I can't even hazard a guess is that the AccuBonds basically are "heavy-jacket" Ballistic Tips with bonded cores. I have shot a LOT of animals with the 200-grain .338 Ballistic Tip and it holds up wonderfully on game up to 500+ pounds. In fact I have only recovered one, taken from a bull gomsbok, shot at aboyt 150-175 yards with a .338 Winchester as it quartered toward me. The bullet hit where I aimed, the point of the shoulder, shattered the underside of the spine, and went through the body diagonally. It was recovered under the skin alongside the opposite hindquarter, retaining 60-something percent of its weight, if I recall correctly.

The reason the heaver Ballistic Tips perform like that is that the jacket is at least 60% of the bullet's weight, so even if the core separates they retain a majority of their weight. I can't understand how bonding essentially the same bullet would cause it to be weaker--which I am very interested in Nosler's response to all this.

By the way, I have had one real bad experience with a bonded bullet, though, and it was the one that "solved" Allen's African problem: the Swift A-Frame. Saw several 300-grain 9.3's fail to penetrate a water buffalo that a friend shot. (I was right beside him and one of the autopsiers.) The first bullet took the bull on the point of the shoulder, and didn't get into the ribcage. It flattened out like a half-dollar, the front core was gone, and the rear core punched through the partition in the middle. Retained weight was a fraction over 50%. Others shattered into tiny pieces on the spine. I showed the remainders of the flattened bullet from the shoulder to Swift and they said it looked like a defective bullet to them as well.

MD

PS--The glowing original write-ups of the Speer Grand Slam when it appeared in the 1970's were almost all by people who read the Speer press release about the construction--but hadn't tested the bullet at all. I know, I went back and read them later, after my sad encounter with the cow elk. Which I why I make it a point to test new bullets on both media and game before writing about them.

OK Picture time and I'llleave it to the forty pound heads to crop it down to size. You are looking at three 300gr Swift A Frames recovered from an eland (175 yards), Zebra (125 yards), and wildebeest (60 yards) respectively. The fourth bullet is a 180gr Hornady recovered from an impala at 80 yards out of my 300 Weatherby. The first two A Frames retained about 98% of their weight and the one out of the wildebeest weighed in at 265gr. I shot him right in the chest. The 180gr bullet, weighed all of 77grs. Now had I shot that eland at the same distance and in the same place (point of the shoulder) what would the results have been?

One or maybe two bullet failures is not an indictment of a particular bullet, but between this site and others there are literally scores of documented AB failures as well as Hornady IBs as well. I'm not that smart, but I don't need a 2X4 to hit me between the eyes to figure out those ABs need some work. jorge

Experiences with bullets vary a great deal, no question about it.

I still don't see one single, solitary, honest, practical, legitimate reason to go with BTs or ABs over Partitions as a big game bullet. Not one. If someone can answer that question satisfactorily, or make a solid point to the contrary, I'd surely love to hear about it. Accuracy surely isn't a good reason in my book, at least out of any rifle I've hunted with, since Partitions have almost always shot into an inch or so (sometimes much less) out of the majority of my hunting rifles, both tuned factory guns and custom jobs.

All I know is, Swift A-Frames totally out-performed Nosler ABs on this safari, and for me Partitions have been totally trouble-free in my experience for some some three decades. And I think that Winchester really blew it by discontinuing the Fail-Safe, which has, in many ways, been the best-performing big game bullet I have EVER used.

Before I ever announce the bullets I'm using, I make it a habit of asking any PH who might be in an African camp as to what bullets he prefers. Almost like a refrain, from Tanzania to Namibia, the answer is Swift A-Frame, Barnes X (or TSX), Woodleigh, Trophy Bonded, Nosler Partition, Fail-Safe, and (increasingly) North Fork. That's a pretty short list, and most PHs I've hunted with have had negative things to say about just about everything else.

Now, I suppose that if Sierra -- out of shear benevolence -- decided to sponsor a safari for the edification and enjoyment of of their own marketing folks and honored guests, the PHs might keep their comments about bullet performance to themselves, but they'd have to bite down hard to stay silent, I'd wager........... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

AD

Awhile back I fired a couple of 180 grain factory "Federal" Accubonds and 180 grain Fusions into an alternating mix of 2-3 inches of wet magazine/ 2-3 inches dry magazine, out of a .300 WSM at 10 yards. The Accubonds made it through about 15 inches and held together fairly well, expanding to just under twice their size. The Fusions traveled about a foot and were quite wider in diameter and looked more disfigured.
I am going to make a new bullet testing contraption (perhaps a 2X10 for the bone and wet newsprint for tissue) this weekend and will pit the "Winchester CT" Accubonds against the Winchester XP3s. I will post results and pictures of recovered bullets this weekend. Sam

One may recall that Keith, Seyfreid and others have been suspicious of boattail bullets on big game. Some of us may have thought that bonding could cure that, but perhaps it doesn't. I am aware some are perfectly happy with boattails. Simple physics would indicate that problems are more likely with boattails.
T

MD,
You mentioned that you couldn't see how bonding would make the AB bullet weaker. Bonding is done with heat and it softens the jacket. At least this what most of us make our own bonded core bullets believe.
John

Depends on the bonding process, not all bonding is done by useing heat.

Guys it was an open food plot. The only thing between the deer and me was AIR.

Allen--

I'm totally with you in many ways on this.

The reasons Nosler brought out the AccuBond are:
1) Many shooters are demanding plastic-tip bullets.
2) Many shooters are demanding boattail bullets.
3) Many shooters are demanding bonded bullets.

Now, from both your experience and mine, all three of those factors are overrated, especially the first two. Right here on the Campfire, some guy recently stated that the "recent" introduction of bonded bullets (he apparently was unaware of their several-decades history) was what made it possible to use smaller rifles on bigger game. He was also apparently unaware of the 60-year history of the Nosler Partition, and the fact that many recent and even "old" bonded bullets (such as the Bitterroot) do not penetrate as deeply as the boring old Partition, which in my tests normally comes in a close second in penetration to the Barnes X.

But that is the way of the world. We have a bunch of hunters out there who firmly believe that plastic tips, boattails and bonding give them a big edge in the field. You and I know this isn't so, especially on the bigger animals where premium bullets are especially useful, but there it is.

I don't know how Nosler bonds the AccuBond, because they won't tell anybody.

MD

Designing a rifle or bullet based on the superstitions of customers about visible features is a recipe for delivering something which works some of the time and displeases a lot of people.

It's a lot easier to make money by selling people what they want to buy. Even if what they want isn't always what they really need!........................DJ

Thank god we have the Nosler Partition.Wasn't a huge fan of parts a couple of years ago.Due to my own ignorance and other peoples here-say.
Now the more I use them the more i like thier design.Big or small it cover's them all.

It's is the "sizzle" as they say in marketing, and make no doubt about it there has been a lot of sizzle about bonded bullets in the last couple of years.

IMO it is the same sizzle that sells the short mags.

For me I've not changed my mind, was always leary about the new bonded bullets.

I've been a partition man since I started loading about 1970 or so and since the TSX came out I gravitated to that brand.

I'll gladly take a NPT,TSX,TB and or SAF or NF and hunt the world. Which of those means little to me, as I have complete confidence in all of them.

Mark D

MD, all of what you've stated sounds about right to me.

I hate to be a harping critic, and the truth is, I'd love to see Nosler succeed in a big way with the AccuBond. The concept is good, and I can only hope that the AB will be perfected in the months and years to come. Knowing Nosler, I just can't help but think that they will get everything right in the future.

I'm not exactly sure who came up with the first successful bonded hunting bullet, but it may well have been Bill Steigers with his Bitterroots.

Bonding bullets so that they stay together and don't shatter CAN work, as evidenced by Swift, Trophy Bonded, Woodleigh, and North Fork projectiles, so I'm certain that the AB can be perfected.

On one of these posts you mentioned Speer Grand Slams. To date, I've taken exactly one animal with the GS (150 gr./ 270 Win.), which was a fork-horn mule deer buck here in OR back in 1979. I shot him from about a 100 yds. out, and he then ran in a 50 yd. circle and folded up. We found the jacket just inside on the entrance side, with the core going clear through. That was my only effort with GSs, and I'v mostly stuck with 130 gr. Nosler Partitions in the 270 Win. ever since.

The Grand Slam has to be one of the biggest bullet disappointments of all time, and it doesn't seem as though Speer has ever made a real concerted effort to perfect it. Why, I'm not sure.........

AD

I will read whatever I can on how bullets work for others as there is no way I can do enough shooting to try everything. There are bullets I loved to use but stopped for various reasons. While I was on the 7STW kick I was impressd at how the 140 gr Swift worked at close range shoting of pigs. I was able to shoot a very large sow through the bottom of the chest bone going through both leg bones with no deviation from path. If you want to test a bullet this area at close range is tough on bullets (it will break down the pig but a finisher will be needed). But I felt I needed more bullet so I went with the FailSafe. It worked great. But I had an elk that I had shot broadside in the chest and put another in the back hip a it was going away. The damage looked suspect in the hip. I could not figure out what happend. It looked like it tumbled but I could not believe it. Then I shot a waterbuck with the FailSafe that entered in front of the on shoulder and exited tight behind the off shoulder. When I got to him he was sitting upright and I shot him again. The first bullet was protruding with the base of the bullet out of the skin with the mushroom holding it in the animal. I stopped useing the 160 grain Fail Safe because of a confience issue. It stopped the animal but I lost conidence in it. It could have had something to do with rifle twist or the bullet. Who knows.
The FailSafe never let me down and its not a bad bullet but I lost confidence in it. I told myself it had to do with the steel insert in back. It had shot alot of stuff with it but I could not try it again. The bullet went through a hell of alot of tough stuff. I was being tough on that bullet

Where I am going is that we ask alot of the bullets at the speeds and bullet weights we want to use. When a large diameter bullet is offered by he factory it is usually the light bullet load that makes it. On the 7mm and 30 cal we try and make rocket ships out of them. These bullets have to work up close to the other side of the moon. They must work on game from little deer to eland and everything that lies between. Kevin Robertson who wrote "The Perfect Shot" a book on shot placement on african animals goes into great detail on calibers and performance. An example he gives is reducing the speed of the 300 grain 375 bulltes to 2400 fps. This was mainly done to make the solids perform better by keeping them from exiting. The softs also worked better because penatration was better. This was an example on buffalo.
What this illustates is by matching the cartridge speed, bullet style, bullet type to a particular animal to get the proper results.
I am a gun looney and I like to use different combos of guns and cartridges on game and the situations that are presented. Sometimes I think we make it difficult by trying to make the bullet the scapegoat.

Why a solid would perform better by not exiting totally eludes me.
Explain, please.
T

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

Thanks for doing the testing and reporting back the results. Interesting stuff.

How compressed is your dry newsprint that you fire your bullets into? I want to test some 140 AB's out of a .270 Win. Thanks

MD

I knew you would do the work.

But seriously, I hate to be the dumbest guy on the post (sometimes it can't be helped). If Nosler builds the AB for terminal performance on game like their NP, why not shoot the NP. As you've pointed out, the trajectory is not that different. I'm not going to speak for AD, but I think that's his point. My point is even if it is a batch problem (and we can hope for an answer to that), why take a chance if your main interest is putting game in the bag?

T <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Also MD, I sort of posed this question before. If it's not a fair question to ask of you, never mind.

T

Compressed dry newspaper, phone books and magazines are more dense and harder than wood. That is why I don't use them for testing bullets, except to compare against other such tests.

All bullet manufacturers use a standard ballistic gelatin, at the same temperature, indoors.

I make my own media, which is an artificial clay, and is not very sensitive to temperature, so I can use it for long sessions outside, even in hot, muggy weather.

Lonny--

I stack newspapers into standard paper grocery sacks, which results in a 6" thickness inside the stack. Then I fit three of these sacks tightly into a 12x18 cardboard box, and shoot the newspapers around the middle. They are pretty tightly stacked but not compressed.

Over decades of experiments I have found this pretty well simulates the results from a bullet that encounters heavy bone. But you need to shoot several bullets into the paper to get a fair idea of what they will do on game. One of the advantages of this setup is that you can shoot several bullets into the same batch of paper. I have shot up to 5 into the same stack, as one is not enough. In my last test with the new Speer Grand Slams, for instance, 5 of the 200-grainers shot from a .300 Winchester into the paper at close range resulted in 3 "perfect" bullets--and two that shucked their cores.

MD

toltegriz--

No, it's a perfectly fair question. But I believe I already answered it in a previous post on this thread--but will do so again.

Nosler built the AccuBond because customers were clamoring for a stouter plastic-tipped Nosler bullet than the Ballistic Tip--but they also wanted the boattail and fine accuracy of the Ballistic Tip. So Nosler built a bullet that in many ways is a cross between the performance of the BT and Partition.

It is selling like crazy, apparently--but the odd thing is that at the same time Partition sales have also shot up, concurrently with the introduction of the AB. The boys at Nosler guess this is because so many of the reviews of the AB mentioned approximating the terminal performance of the Partition, so many hunters who had never tried the Partition before did so, and liked it.

MD

Indeed, wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a manufacturer 'fess up and tell us that somehow a bad batch got out the door, rather than spin it as somebody else's fault?

Well it don't surprise me much, the partition is a very very good bullet with almost a 60 year track record of such. My guess its not cheap to bring a new bullet like the AB to market in the first place, while boat tails were never my cup of tea, they do have there place I guess and well the customer likes them. In the end it forced all the bullets we shoot to get better. Now if only just maybe we will see a 6.5 mm Nosler Partition in the 156 to 160 gr range, Oh well you can have every thing. Good to hear Nosler is having strong sales, a good indicator on how heathy the ecomomy is, people do have money to spend and shooting more is a good indication of that.

MD
I had read the earlier post. I guess I was really wondering why people would use..., not why a manufacturer would make... In retrospect I guess I was indirectly asking you to explain human nature. Not fair, so consequently, never mind

T <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Why can"t they make partitions like the BT or AB, just modify the jacket and tip with the same partition innards that make the partition what it is?

Because the plastic tip would replace most the lead innards in the nose of the Partition, and the purpose of the plastic tip is to
* give a better aerodynamic shape for longer shots
* give better weight distribution for flight stability for longer shots
* no deform in the magazine under recoil
* upset the lead beneath it to initiate rapid expansion at lower impact velocities on game at long ranges

But Winchester and Barnes are working on something like that with their new polymer tipped bullets.

And I picked up Winchester Supreme Ballistic Silvertip and Accubond ammo at Wal-Mart for $9.00 a box yesterday.

Just to throw a few more data points on the fire, I talked on the phone a couple hours ago to a colleague who just returned from Namibia.

He and his wife shot AccuBonds (Federal factory loads) in both a .375 H&H and a .270 Win. He got "death ray" performance (his words) on everything he shot with the .375, and had no complaints about the .270 either. Game included several springbok, impala, steenbok and warthogs (trophies and leopard bait), a great hartebeest, a gemsbok, a kudu, and a leopard.

On quartering-on shoulder shots, he says ABs from the .375 penetrated well into the innards of both a leopard and a gemsbok. They didn't have to shoot anything twice, and only recovered one or two bullets from about 10-11 animals.

From his description, the performance he got with the .375 was a lot like I got from mine with TSXs last month. (I tried the ABs but the TSX was more accurate in my rifle.)

John

Here is a link to a simular Accubond performance on Elk last year. Misserable penetration from a 200 grain Accubond on a cow Elk

http://longrangehunting.com/ubbthreads/s...part=1&vc=1

Allen, great to hear that you had a fantastic hunt. Super to have you back here posting on this forum and looking forward to catching up on your posts after a long and needed vacation in Portugal.

I also had stupendous failures (so did my buddies) but using .30 cal 180gr. Accubonds and I understand your frustration.

I must say though, that I did comment on AR, 24hr and Nosler Reloading forums about my experiences with Accubonds failing as early as 2003 and 2004. I pulled up a couple of those threads/posts that you can view on the Ask the Gunwriters thread.

Not to say that I told you so (because the .225gr .338 cal should have been built more solidly and it has a slightly greater SD etc.), but hopefully our comments will reinforce to others to rethink about using them on high expense trophy hunts.

Recovered from small, meat deer in norther Alberta: IIRC, penetration on that hunt among the three of us ranged from 10-14" max and were either all shoulder shots or a Pelvis shot where the bullet failed most miserably. That deer was finished of with a knife. Avg. FPS 3000fps, out of 300WSMs and ranges from 60-130yards.





Cheers,
CL

To those that think it's a mix-up of ballistic tips or a bad lot or quality control- BS!!! Nosler had my experience, bullet failures and lot numbers since 2004 and they haven't done anything!! You can't fix something that was poorly designed/bad to begin with - not without some radical changes in the bullet design (thicker jacket, partition in the Accubond) that would then force Nosler to acknowledge their mistake in the first place.

Mule Deer- see my response to your post where I gave all the info to Nosler for testing. Two years later, they're still producing them the same way.

I'll throw this picture up as anecdotal evidence that there may be a problem with quality control. These two 150 gr. .308" Accubonds were from the same box, same load, same yardage, same backstop. What bothers me is the lack of grey coloration on the expanded jacket of the pancaked one. All other bonded bullets I've seen have had this coloration, even though the lead has been wiped away, indicating the core had indeed been bonded to the jacket. Looking at this jacket I see no evidence that the core was bonded. I dug about half a dozen out of the backstop and the rest looked like the one on the left.

I'll throw out these disclaimers too. I realize this is a VERY small sample. I also realize backstops are tough on bullets and do not necessarily indicate bullet performance on animals. My main point of contention is not the fact that the bullet pancaked or that there is no core left; it's that there is no evidence of bonding (i.e. no thin layer of lead left on the jacket). These bullets will work fine for the broadside shots on deer and antelope that I usually take. However, I will not be buying Accubonds in the near future. If I pay for bonded bullets, doggone it I want them ALL to be bonded.

I called Nosler and talked to Mike about my concern. He blamed it on hitting a rock in the backstop. I do not discount that possibility but to my eye there should still be some evidence of bonding. Mike would not entertain the notion that a bullet made it out of the plant without bonding.

Has anybody seen expanded bonded bullets that didn't have a thin layer of lead still attached to the jacket?

That is all I need to know. I will be switching to TSX, Trophy Bonded, or XP3.
From this point Accubonds = Ballistic Tips to me.

I agree, I see no evidence of a bond............ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Excellent postings by Allen, good information, and even better observations.

Randy, I appreciate your comments.........

I have found, to a man, that African PHs are more concerned with bullet construction than just about anything else, along with 100% perfect feeding and reliable rifle function. Iconic ideas such as "benchrest accuracy" mean almost nothing to them, and exact caliber selection doesn't to seem to be all that critical in their eyes, either.

And that's fundamentally been my own experience over the years, and Wayne Van Zwoll was absolutely right when he said, "if it doesn't feed, it's junk!" For hunting, perfect feeding and function is absolutely, 100% more important than "benchrest-acuracy", and bullet construction is far more important than a 1/2" or so difference in group size.

The average hunter these days just can't get past a cluster of holes on a piece of paper. He doesn't know how to evaluate a rifle or a bullet any other way, at least so it would seem, and I think some of these AB threads would demonstrate that to be true.

But there are much more important considerations that warrant serious consideration, within reason, or course.........

AD

I suspect the unbonded Accubonds getting out of the shop may turn out to be something like illlegal alien labor, or maybe non hunter labor who just don't relate to the importance of it.

I suspect the accubond isnt even on the same page as partitions and a frames. Let's just get real, Nosler got outclassed by Swift with the Scirocco, and the ballistic tip was the reason. They responded with the AB and a boat load of Seconds, I found pretty amusing, they had an unlimited supply of 2nds when the danged thing first hit the market. Come on, sales and marketing 101, we bought the name, Nosler, and that's all it was. Frankly, it really doesnt surprize me at all, I can't believe so many others don't understand what took place. Unlimited 2nd's, hum...........on intro, mind you.

Yup...

Factory seconds are those with cosmetic deficiencies, while substantively defective bullets are destroyed. I would expect to see a large number of seconds (and also destroyed bullets) as a factory sets up its manufacturing stages and learns what has to be done differently from other products in its line.

Still, there are certainly unanswered questions with the reported recent failures, though I don't think it's enough to condemn the whole line of bullets. Finding the cause of the problem is likely to be more difficult than we might expect in Nosler's current environment, however.

From a tour there last week, I learned the production line is working 24 hours/ five days. The only engineers I met were tasked to recondition and upgrade the used, but newly-purchased, screw presses to expand the plant capacity. If there are no other production engineers available to review the samples, then the review won't be as complete as otherwise possible. Their tasking is subject to what priority Nosler management assigns the issue.

Jaywalker

I've got a lot of questions about these failures myself. I'm now scheduled to be in Bend after 9/23, so maybe I'll get some of them answered at that time.

I know this much:

I've bought my first box of Nosler Partitions over 25 years ago, and I got into them after I had Sierra and Speer bullets blow-up on mule deer, and after reading about Jack O'Connor's and Bob Hagel's positive experiences with Partitions. I've hunted extensively with them (off and on) ever since, particularly in the 270 Win., 300 Win., and 338 Win.

To date, I have never, EVER had a Nosler Partition fail in any way, or not perform according to script, often exceeding my fondest expectations in terms of accuracy as well as terminal performance. I've not had a failure with the Partition in some 25 years........ yet, on the very first hunt I use them on, the AccuBond failed miserably.

I don't believe in coincidences; I never have and I never will, especially when trusted friends who I've know for years have also reported similar failures.

I've even heard one report that someone in the industry has made the comment that the 225 gr. AB will sure-'nough "out-penetrate" the 250 gr. Partition. Now, I find that outlandish claim (if true) to be very, very hard to swallow, especially considering what my experiences on game have been with both bullets. I do intend to take my 250 gr. Partition handloads to Bend as well, on the off-chance that we'll get to test them side-by-side with the ABs. At least with my rifle, side-by-side accuracy tests with both loads will be a wash, since both bullets will shoot under .500" on a good day, if I'm holding my mouth right..............

AD

Allen, I was told flat out by Nosler tech's that the Accubond was designed to perform like a partition. Twice. And I dug deep on the subject with them. I even mentioned the Scirocco, the likes of which I've known failed to penetrate the rib cage of a shoulder shot bull Moose. They assured me that their bullet would never do such a thing, and once again would act "like" a partition. I'm not sure what "like" means in Oregon (maybe you'll know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), but it must mean something different than it does here. Do you think the Accubond acts "like" a partition? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Chuck

Allen,

Sorry I missed you in Bend.

I doubt you need my advice on handling corporations, but I'd try hard to get management buy-in on this as a serious problem that needs engineering review and support. Even at best (!) case - a bad lot of bullets - something in the system failed, suppliers, process, whatever. At worst - bad design - would certainly need engineering review. Maybe Kyle Hopp can help you get this the attention it deserves.

Jaywalker

I've been to Africa exactly once, this year-- which makes me an absolute novice. However, I do try to learn whatever I can from native S. African PH's with (in this case) more than 14 years experience each.

Reasonably heavy for caliber A-Frames, Nosler Partitions, and TBBC's along with Barnes TSX's seem to be universally embraced, at reasonable velocities with reasonable shot placement.

I guess I found their experiences to be "quite reasonable." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Still true today. I've had Accubonds fail on me again this season (after wrongly hearing that they've been improved upon! ha!) on a hunt in Namibia for Kudu and Mountain Zebra. Nosler really needs to just make their ABs more like NorthFork bullets with a tip in construction.

What bullet, round/MV, impact speed/distance, animal and shot placement and angle?

Ive used Accubonds in a variety of calibers & bullet weights in North America and Africa. I've used them on a fairly significant amount of game from Springbok to Eland. They have NEVER failed to perform exactly as advertized. The Accubond is my go to bullet for all big game hunting except for dangerous game. When hunting dangerous game Partition, TSX, & Northfork for me. 163bc

John,
thank you for reporting to us mere mortals who can't seem to line up a small trailer load of game animals to use as test media before a big hunt, a way to measure with a repeatable process how a bullet works.
It just also happens to be one fine use for the new york times. Im sure glad my neighbors still take the paper gray lady and even stack it in the paper grocery bags for use as a bullet catcher.....

You don't need to worry at all about any of this stuff. Just shoot a Partition.

Refreshing to readAllen's stuff on here again.

Now that this thread has been resurrected, I'll provide what I can of "the rest of the story."

I've mentioned on the Campfire a few times that some AccuBonds made after they became very popular were defective, because one guy on the assembly line decided to speed up his job. As a result some AccuBonds didn't bond, and were also very soft. Nosler caught the problem pretty quickly, but some did make it out to hunters.

Maybe Allen got some of those as part of his batch of .338 225's, but when he visited Nosler in Bend (as he mentioned he was about to in this thread) they shot some into Nosler's test media, which they use for day-to-day testing for all their bullets. The batch Allen brought to the plant that day performed exactly like other 225 .338's right off the assembly line, and about like 225 .338 Partitions.

The very next year, 2007, I went to South Africa for a month on a big culling deal. During that month two groups of other U.S. hunters came and went, and I got to go along with most of them while they hunted. All together 185 animals were taken, and I got to personally witness about 1/3, and took as many notes as possible from the other hunters during evenings.

That was back when both the AccuBond and Barnes TSX were still hot new bullets, and of the two dozen hunters who took part the vast majority used either Accubond's or TSX's, in calibers from .270 up to .375. None of either failed to kill animals hit correctly, and the animals were the typical African range from springbok and impala up through gemsbok, wildbeest, kudu and zebra. There were also one eland and a couple of Cape buffalo, but the buffalo were taken with Trophy Bonded and Swift A-Frame bullets.

The guy who was the star of the deal, however, was a first-time big game hunter, though his mentor (a long-time hunter) was also along. This guy had wanted an all-around big game rifle, so after working his way up through a .22 rimfire and several of his mentor's rifle, bought a .338 Winchester Magnum--and on the safari used 225-grain AccuBonds.

He killed his first dozen animals with one shot each, and they included the typical range from springbok to blue wildebeest, considered one of the toughest of African animals. Then he decided to get fancy, and tried to take a blue wildebeest with a head-shot, because he wanted a rug without any bullet holes. He pulled that one a little, and as a result his rug ended up with several holes.

But it wasn't the bullet's fault, and ALL his 225-grain AccuBonds performed perfectly. And I was right beside him for some of the animals.

Nobody else had any trouble with Accubonds on that trip, either, including one guy I was also standing next to when he shot a blue wildebeest with a 140 from a 7mm-08. The bull ran 50-some yards and piled up dead, with a typical shot tight behind the shoulder. Other animals taken with them were the lone eland (200-grain AB's from a .300 Winchester Magnum), an animals weighing close to a ton, several wildebeest/zebra/gemsbok (about the size of elk) with 160 AccuBonds from a 7mm Dakota, and 260 Accubond's from a .375 H&H. NONE of the bullets came apart or failed to penetrate sufficiently, and only a few were recovered.

I had taken a few animals with AccuBonds before that trip, with no problems, and afterward used them quite a bit more, partly because I also used AccuBonds in one of my rifles on the safari, 250's at about 2650 fps from my 9.3x62. Used them to not only take "deer-sized" animals such as springbok and blesbok out to over 300 yards, but gemsbok and my biggest kudu ever. Only one stayed inside an animal, from a frontal shot on a gemsbok, though it penetrated on into the intestines and was never found.

From that I had enough confidence to use the 250 9.3 on my only grizzly bear two years later. Shot it twice, once broadside just behind one shoulder and out the other, and then angling away as it whirled and ran. Recovered the second bullet, which hit the rear right right ribs and was found under skin of the neck on the left side, retaining over 80% of its weight. (And yes, Nosler does construct bigger AB's to retain more weight, just like it does Partitions.)

Recovered another AccuBond just a few weeks ago, when I shot a doe whitetail as it faced me. The rifle was a .308 Winchester and muzzle velocity around 2850, the range 70 yards. The bullet broke a shoulder going in and was found when I was slicing round steaks from the hindquarter on the opposite side, retaining around 65% of its weight.

Dunno what happened with Allen's 225 .338 AccuBonds, but have never seen anything like it in over a dozen years of both using them myself, and seeing a bunch of other people take a bunch of other animals in the field.

In the intervening years, I've used quite a few NAB's, all either 165 or 180 30 cal. Results have been stellar. Have also recovered a couple of the 180's from a friends 300 WM on two different cow elk that look like they came from the advertising literature.

I don't think they penetrate quite as much as a Partition, but they're close for sure.

Same results as Brad. Took my largest bull elk to date, a heavy old Idaho 5x6 with the 140 Accubond from my 270 WSM. I had that bullet for a long time, but a couple of Military moves have lost it. It broke both front leg bones and was in the broken up mess on the far side. That was 2005 I think. I kinda judged that bullet a little hard as from what I can remember it weighed about 50% or so from starting weight and looked pretty beat up. I thought it should've blown through but that was before I'd killed or seen a lot of other elk killed with other bullets.

Fast forward to today and I've seen 160 ABs from 7mm's, 165's, 180's and 200's from a few 30 calibers and the 200 and 225 AB from 338's all work great, killing elk fast and usually caught in the hide, if they don't punch thru.

For the majority of my hunting I shoot a Partition or Accubond. Usually whichever shoots best.

I had a bad batch of 30/200's that Mule Deer is talking about and they cost me a bear in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, WA.

Nosler made it right with me and its taking me a few years to gain confidence again in the AB. I'm back to using them.


Worth mentioning again,




Allen Day is still missed here.....one of the very best.

I agree with SU35.


As to gaining confidence in them I don't see the point in bothering when the Partition is already there.

I would take an AB over a BT though.....

Wow, this is a really old post, but is a very good read. Thanks to AD and MD and all for the reports.

I stop using a bullet as soon as I think it has failed, period. It is hard for me to follow advice if the bullet blows up on the ribs for me or if the bullet travels through the animal leaving a pencil size exit wound and requires multiple shots. For example, I used Speer's premium bullet - Grand Slam - the first year it came out and I found it wanting. I heard/read that it got better, but I still have that original box of bullets and have bought no more. I planned on using it on rocks.
Now, I have Nosler Partitions in most calibers from 6mm to 338. I started buying them in the 60's when I had a 264 and didn't find a different bullet that worked like I thought it should. Never ever have Partitions failed. I might be just as happy with A-frames or others of similar build -- H-mantel perhaps, but never see them for sale around here.
I have several boxes of mono bullets, but never trust them enough to use them on game because I don't want/need to experiment when I am confident that the Partitions will always work. I will probably sell them soon, unless the EPA or some other government agency says that we have to use them. As I recall the early results were not perfect with the monos.
The other bullet that I trust for game when under 3,000 fps is the Hornady Interlocks. I've used these bullets faster and they killed like lightning, but the damage was too much for me.
A friend uses a certain brand of bullets that are known for accuracy and rarely known for their hunting bullets, because he can shoot 1/2 MOA groups with them. A couple of years ago, he shot a deer and then again and again, after 6 shots the deer went down and the gore was horrendous. But as he said, "It shoots so accurately, it shoots half the group size as the bullets you prefer." Besides it has a very high BC. -- That deer never made it to 100 yards away, but the bullet did have a high BC. He says that sometimes the deer drop like the hammer of Thor hit them and he's satisfied.

I'm glad this old post was resurrected!

I like the Jack Carter bear claws, I used to go in Jacks shop. I enjoyed hearing him talk about bullet performance. He liked the partition as well as his own. I still have a bunch of his bullets.

Timely thread! I opened a box of 300 H&H ammo I loaded with 200 gr Accubonds about the time the thread was going. out of the 40 rounds in the box 3 were missing the plastic tips. Looks like a good reason to go shoot the 300 H&H and load up some new stuff.

I could have written that myself. I have other bullets in the cabinet and other bullets loaded, but when it comes time to pull the trigger on an animal, the Partition gives me confidence the others never will. It's never my most accurate bullet, but it's always accurate and tough enough to do the job. I have some Accubonds in 6.5 and am willing to try them on animals. They'd have to perform flawlessly over time for me to trust them like I do Partitions, and I am just not likely to turn to them often enough to build that relationship.

If the Accubond hopefully, usually, generally works as well as the Partition, why would one not be wiser to simply use the Partition in the first place???

I still remember my buddy opening the first box of Accubond factory ammo from Winchester also--nothing but loose tips came spilling out of the box. He turned to me (the supposed local "expert") and asked "Are they supposed to do that?"

Sometimes one will shoot better than the other... have to shoot them both to know. My first choice is always the Partition. But I never feel disappointed if the Accubond shoots better.

These are my thoughts as well.

I wonder if the Nosler employee that shortcut the bullet bonding process is still with Nosler???

I have been following this thread off and on since it was brought back up. All I can add is that I have shot just about everything I have taken for the last 11 or 12 years with AccuBonds. Without consulting my hunting notebooks, there were at least six bull elk, three pronghorns, three desert mule deer and a half-dozen or so Coues whitetails here in the states, and one impala, one oryx, two kudu, one waterbuck and one eland in Namibia. All were one-shot kills and I have recovered only three bullets.

Retained weights ranged from 63 percent with the .375 260-grain AB (shown here on the left) up to 69 percent in the .257 110- grain AB (right), with the 9.3 250-grain AB falling somewhere in between:


If I were going after dangerous game, I would probably choose Partitions or A-Frames, both of which have performed admirably for me in the past, but today it's mostly ABs for everything I hunt.

Manager Bob. ?

That is my experience too. I seem to recover them more often. But they'll break elk bones if need be. Even if pushed at high (7STW/300 WBY) velocity. No complaints.

Brad,

I test bullets in several ways, including a "soft" media, a "hard" media and animals. The hard media is stacks of dry newspaper, because after some experimentation I found it simulates hitting larger bones pretty well.

Can't remember when I tested some 200-grain .30 caliber AccuBonds against some 200 Partitions, but it was a while back, because newspapers were still large enough to shoot several bullets into the same stack, rather than 2-3. But I do remember using the the .300 Winchester Magnum as the cartridge.

Shot some of both bullets into the same stack of newspaper, and the AB's slightly outpenetrated the Partitions. That was just one of many instances that eliminated any concerns about the penetrating abilities of AccuBonds.

Interesting John.

I've never kept a 165 NAB in an elk from the lowly 308, but my friend has 3 180 NAB's caught in cow elk on broadside shots like those with my 308. I was there for two. I shot a cow with his of nearly identical size, and nearly identical shot placement, and my 150 Ballistic Tip from a 270 sailed on through. His 180 was under the offside hide. Purely anecdotal for sure, as I've never tested any of them in media. On that day I'd have said the 270 was the better elk rifle!

I always liked Aagaard's test, wet phone books with a piece of 1/2" plywood sandwiched below the top book. But phone books are going the way of the dodo.

But as you say, nothing really compares to shooting animals.

Damm glad I read this thread. Just worked up loads for my Remington 700 in 7-08 using 140 gr AccuBonds. Had Great results. Going to send Leupold my info for my VX-2 CDS calibrated dial, and read some less than stellar opinions of Nozler Accubonds. This puts my mind at ease. Not opinion, just facts.
John, appreciate your input. Thanks

All sorts of things can go into bullets getting caught under the hide on the far side, but don't have much bearing on the bullet's overall penetrating capability.

One example is .270 150 Partitions. Have seen a bunch of game killed with them over the years, and they only normally kill quickly but penetrate very well. We found one in the far shoulder of the Shiras bull moose my wife killed; it had stood quartering away and Eileen put the bullet in the rear of the ribs, aiming at the far shoulder. That sort of penetration would seem to guarantee broadside penetration on smaller animals, but Eileen used the same load to shoot a spike elk through the ribs behind the shoulders. Found the bullet under the hide on the far side. But she also put the same load through both shoulders and the spine of a big mule deer buck weighing almost 200 pounds field-dressed, standing broadside at only 100 yards--and that bullet exited.

Due to those and other experiences with various bullets, have come to the conclusion that whether a bullet exits or not depends more on the conformation of the mushroom rather than on how deeply it penetrates. Am pretty convinced the sharp petals of bullets like the Barnes X's, the old Fail Safes, Nosler E-Tips and Hornady GMX's actually cut the hide, rather than pushing it away like more rounded mushrooms, such as those from AccuBonds and A-Frames. Partly this comes from a fair numbers of the X's, Fail Safes, etc. that I've recovered having lost most or all of their petals, thus ending up with a more rounded front end.

But it also depends on the hide. Some animals have thicker, tougher hides than others, especially over the shoulders, which definitely has an effect.

But some of it also has to do with luck. In South Africa about 15 years ago I shot a big gemsbok, about the size of a 5-point bull elk but with even thicker hide, through the flesh of the shoulder just behind the big joint with a 260-grain .375 H&H bullet. The bullet was recovered from basically the same place on the opposite side, just under the hide. Less than an hour later my hunting partner used the same rifle and load to break both shoulders of a similar-sized gemsbok bull--and that bullet exited. The range was a little different but not enough to matter.

Oh, and the bullet used on the two gemsbok was the short-lived 260-grain Ballistic Tip, one of the heavy-jacketed models were the jacket itself is about 2/3 of the bullet's weight. It was only around for a year or two before Nosler turned it into an AccuBond, but it penetrated plenty. On that same safari I also put one lengthwise through a springbok. They're only about the size of a pronghorn, but that's still at least three feet of penetration, from one of those lousy Ballistic Tips. Have mentioned before doing the same thing with a 200 .338 BT on another gemsbok bull, though that one stopped under the hide of the rump.

John,

Thanks for adding the follow-up information concerning the original post.

The majority of my experience with AB's is with the 140 .277. Nothing but great performance so far.

That was after using 150 Partitions for many years which never caused me any problems.

I do agree with Brad, the AB's might not penetrate quite as deep as a Partition when comparing the 140 AB to the 150 PT. But it is darn close. From bullets I have recovered though, retained weight edge goes to the AB along with a wider frontal profile. Probably the reason they might penetrate just a tab less?

Part of my reason for trying the AB was cost. At the time, 10 plus years ago The AB's were cheaper for practicing with what you hunt with. Another benefit was 140 NBT's shot exactly like 140 AB's in my rifle. Practice with second grade NBT's, hunt with AB's

My dad's best bull so far.

A single 140 AccuBond, 7mm-08, my handloads, 2850 fps MV, tight behind the shoulder.





My dad shot him at 225 yards. He staggered about 90 feet and fell over. The bullet exited. Lungs were destroyed.





P

There's very good arguments for the accubonds. But what about the bullets with the tips falling out?
Have the failures posted over a decade ago been completely addressed?

Not being in the business of having to try new things makes one have a little different perspective I suppose.

Ad nauseam

You said it. A fox smells his own first.


So, why ignore the issues stated? Why not address the issues? I'm a big fan of MD's writing. These issues seem to be real.

They've been addressed many, many times.

There was an issue. It was isolated, brief, and corrected.

Now there is no issue.

Carry on.





P

I've never had the tip fall off of a Partition. :-)

Recently used some Speer hot core .277-130 on plains game.
Shot placement made more difference than bullet construction provided the bullet wasn't totally unsuitable.

Reason: delayed arrive of ammunition. That is why I travel with a rifle chambered for cartridges that are available everywhere.

Good point, Rick. I've taken African plains game with probably a dozen dozen different brands of bullets, partly because of what I do for a living, and my hunting partners have used a few more, some of which would be sneered at by the bullet experts on the Campfire. In fact I've taken plenty with "non-premium" bullets, including (gasp!) Sierra GameKings--and may again.

I'd like to hear that story.

It may be that shots on the African game are predicated to be in the very front of the animal, likely intersecting bone, while most in NA shoot behind the shoulder?

I'll be doing a Springbok slam in my near future with either a .25 or .26. For once I'll be leaving at home my much loved A-Frames and loading up either NABs or NBTs.

Did you actually read the entire thread, instead of just the original post?

Are you 'sposed to actually READ the whole thing.....?


Schitt...I got some catching up to do.....

Well, I generally don't if the thread's over a decade old--and this one started in 2007!

Oh, in that case..I'm semi-good!

And for the OP my vote goes to A-Frames

Whatever--but the original poster who started this thread passed away in 2010....

I have not been on the fire long enough to see/appreciate his writings. But this thread makes me think that he was a solid contributor here. Sadly men of his caliber seem not to post much here these days...all that aside, I actually read through the thread and enjoyed it!

Then you encountered where it was "revived" the first time, in 2017--where I was able to add quite a bit more information, starting on 1/06-2017 with post # 11714325.

As did a lot of other people.

I finally read the entire post, admittedly skimming some replies.
One thing I didn’t do see here:

A hunter has bad luck with a bullet. Reports his bad luck with documentation. People reading his report reply, “You’re wrong, because that bullet worked well for me.”

I have had tips fall out of bullets, yet I am told that that doesn’t happen, move on. I bought some new bullets in the last couple of years with the tips bent or falling out. Since I’ve seen and experienced it along with one of my hunting partners, we are clearly both WRONG. Admittedly they were not Accubonds, but some varmint bullets. Varmint bullets having a much softer tip and thinner gilding metal to hold the tip I can see a reason for it happening with varmint bullets. It’s sort of disconcerting when someone tells you that what you experience is wrong, it never happened.

I have had bad experiences with several bullets’ performances, three that were mentioned in this thread. I’ve seen and read where others have too. It takes me a very long time if ever for me to trust that bullet again. I see that my brother-in-law uses a bullet I abandoned years ago. Each year he uses that bullet and has good luck with it. Another hunter I hunt with annually same story. That bullet was also mentioned in this thread.

At the start of this thread, I believe the word ‘consistent’ was used a lot. To me once I see what I believe to be a failure I don’t want to repeat the happening. One failure is enough for me and I prefer not to make the mistake again.

Since this thread is old and apparently most of the issues with Accubonds were reported more than a decade ago, and since I have not heard or read of problems with Accubonds, I wonder if or what Nosler did to improve the bullets? BTW: I don’t care about bullets having plastic tips or boat-tails or bonding. Except I am getting to like TTSX.

The good thing about this forum is that a person can read of a lot of professionals’ experiences.

The bad thing is having to put up with people that tell you your experiences are not true.

Bugger,

Yes, you apparently did skim some replies. Here's a shorter version of what happened with AccuBonds, along with some of my experiences:

They were introduced in 2003, and immediately became popular, because they did perform much like Partitions on game. Nosler made sure of that by field-testing them before introduction. (They'd gotten burned by introducing "hunting" Ballistic Tips without much if any field-testing, assuming they'd perform like the Solid Base softpoints they were based on--and they didn't.)

About 1-1/2 years later AccuBonds were even more popular, and demand was so high one of Nosler's employees tried to speed up his particular station in the assembly line. This resulted not only in bullets not bonding, but annealing and becoming softer. Nosler discovered this relatively soon, as they periodically test samples of all their production lots, both for accuracy and in expansion media. But some still left the factory.
Those were the AccuBonds that "blew up."

Nosler corrected this, and AccuBonds started performing like they had when introduced--retaining about the same amount of weight as the same caliber/weight of Partition.

I'd used my first on game in 2004, where they performed as designed, but by chaNCE didn't use anymore until after the problem was corrected, so never encountered any of the bad ones. Among other things, I took part of month-long on huge ranch in South Africa in mid-2007, where almost 20 American hunters took a total of 180-some animals. The two "new" and popular bullets at the time were AccuBonds and Barnes TSXs (this was a year before Tipped TSXs appeared) and many of the guys were using them. I took two rifles, a 7x57 and 9.3x62, and among other bullets used 160-grain TSX's in the 7x57 and 250-grain AccuBonds in the 9.3. Both bullets performed very well, whether in my rifles or the other guys'.

I have never heard of any troubles with AccuBonds since then, and might suggest that if they continued to act like the defective batches, hunters wouldn't still be buying and using them TODAY--which they do.

The last one I used was a 150-grain from my Merkel single-shot .308, on a whitetail doe on a friend's ranch maybe 3 years ago. (I'd already taken game up to 400 pounds with the load, with no problems.) The doe was almost directly facing me about 80 yards away, so I aimed just inside the near shoulder, and at the shot she dropped. I recovered the bullet from the opposite ham, retaining 70.5% of its weight.

In an earlier thread, Big Stick said Accubonds were junk. But that was just a quick turd drop with no further explanation. Maybe BS can elaborate on that a bit.

Tony

MD

Having worked at a John Deere factory while going to school, I witnessed a fellow cutting corners. It was something the fellow was doing aside from his normal duties. He was getting paid extra for the work on a number of pieces done per hour. The engineers came down to watch the fellow performing his work to see what the cause of a problem was. The guy was clever enough not to cut corners then or ever again. Bottom line, the companies will often pay extra for above normal performance, often measured by pieces per hour.

I can assume this fellow at Nosler was making more money by cutting corners.

Of course this is just an assumption.

Bugger

Yes, I am familiar with that--partly because I have also been informed by other bullet companies that they've had the same problem. Dunno if that's applicable here or not.

Do know that if AccuBonds "blew up" Nosler wouldn't still be selling a bunch of them 20 years later.

I really liked the 225 Accubond in my 35 Whelen, very accurate and effective on game

I read the whole thing, having forgotten I posted in the thread.

Twice.




P

Accubonds that I have used successfully are the 25 cal 110 gr, 7mm 160 gr, 308 180, 358 200 gr and the 358 225 gr. No complaints and the ones I’ve recovered look like those in an ad.

Many years ago I bought some seconds from SPS and there were 3 or 4 that were missing their tips. When I fired them they were right in the group with those that had their tips. That’s the only time I’ve seen anything like missing tips.

Didn’t some a-hole take a 7mm Rem Mag loaded with 160 gr AccuBonds to Africa a few years ago?





P

I did read it, sir, but admittedly the date of the post escaped me until after I posted.
Being a recent 9.3 convert, I switched from shooting behind the shoulder to in-line with the leg and this made a tremendous difference in the results. This and your great Accubond loading recipe.

Thank you for the history in what happened with Nosler’s falling tips. I still have a box of them in 30cal 165gr. (Got them in 2007)

Good to hear the 9.3x62 AccuBond load worked for you! Have heard from quite a few people that it does...which is one reason my latest book is about handloads that tend to work well in various rifles chambered for the same round.

Pro tip: Whatever "stick" uses of professes, do the exact opposite...

I'm an assswhole, and that would be me. 11 animals, these were the only one's "caught", intentionally shot through shoulders/heart shots. These were running almost 3100 at the muzzle, impacts from 90 to 150 yards.

JG,

Gee, those don't look like they exploded! Also have a couple that look like that, from a friend who was along on a month-long safari in 2007. He used his in a 7mm Dakota, among other things shooting a wildbeest through the shoulders.

Have never recovered one of the aforementioned 9.3mm 250-grain ABs from an African animal, and that includes my biggest kudu and a frontally-shot gemsbok. In fact, the only one that's stayed inside an animal was from a rear-angling shot on my only grizzly, a 7-1/2 foot boar taken in central Alaska. The bullet entered the middle of the right ribs and was found under the hide on the left side of the neck, retaining 81% of its weight. (Nosler designs the heavier, larger-caliber ABs to retain a higher percentage of their weight, like they started doing with the Partitions in the 1990s.)

I've observed that in the 9.3x62 the 250gr Accubond penetrates much better than the ttsx. The barnes seems to open too wide for great penetration.

Interesting!

Have never used the 250 9.3 TTSX, only the TSX--which often doesn't expand as much as the tipped version.

Dear sir, where would such book be available?
I tracked down your article in Handloader and bought it along with others ($5/year stack of magazines).

Here's the website where you can find the informative books written by Mule Deer (aka John Barsness): https://www.riflesandrecipes.com/
I recommend all of his books since IMO, they are excellent sources of high quality information.

I've used a lot of Accubonds, mostly in 6.5mm, 7mm, .308 and .338 and have always had good results from them on deer, bear, antelope, elk and pigs. But I've never used them in Africa as I used TSX/TTSX on those hunts. Still, I think Accubonds would do just fine in Africa based on what I've seen in North America.

My friend Bob--MT DD MAN--just posted the website where you can buy my books. (Thanks Bob!)

Will also mention the The Big Book of Gun Gack III contains an entire chapter on pre-testing hunting bullets.

Oh, and the prices on the website include media-mail shipping in the U.S.

John

(Correction: My memory was faulty. The first Big Book of Gun Gack has the chapter on pre-testing hunting bullets. GGIII has a chapter on pre-testing hunting RIFLES. Sorry!)

Have never had a bad experience with Accubonds. Always get quick kills and the ones I've recovered have looked like perfect mushrooms. The retained weight has also been very consistent as a percentage of the original weight. Accuracy has usually been excellent as well.

Thanks! Ordered the GG IV.

I loaded some 200 ABs for a friend's 300 WM when he drew for an elk tag in New Mexico, but was having trouble finding ammo. He shot a bull quartering away a little over 300 yards, then on another hunt a nice whitetail buck head on. He recovered the elk bullet in the opposite shoulder and the buck bullet after it ran down the spine. He's sold on the ABs.

Thought some might like to see the 9.3 250-grain AccuBond recovered from my Alaskan grizzly, after it angled from the rear of the right ribs to under the hide on the left side of the neck. As I mentioned, this is the only 250 9.3 AB I've recovered, and have used it not just in North Ameria but quite a bit in Africa.

In Africa I used it in my CZ 550 9.3x62, but on the grizzly was using my custom 9.3 Barsness-Sisk that Charlie built, if I recall correctly in 2004. The 9.3 B-S wildcat, as many call it, is the .350 Remington Magnum necked up, and gets the same velocities as the 9.3x62 loaded to .30-06 pressures--around 2650 fps. As noted in one of my earlier posts on this thread, it retained 81% of its weight.

I've taken two bull moose with the 250gr Accubond from a 338RUM. The first bull was taken at 315yds and was hit twice broadside in the lungs. Both bullets passed through and the bull dropped in about 40yds. The second bull walked out of the timber at 54yds looking for the origin of my cow call. I hit him directly on the shoulder and watched him flip over backwards like he stepped on a land mine. The bull never even twitched after he hit the ground. The bullet passed through both shoulders and was caught under the skin on the far side. The Accubond was fully expanded and weighed 140gr after passing through a considerable amount of bone.

I've shot a load of whitetails with the 160gr (7mm) Accubond from a 7WSM. Results were always as expected.

Interesting read: hopefully we can all glean something from this thread.

I too am surprised at the OP's experience with Accubonds. I have a buddy that has literally killed a semi load of elk, deer and various other critters with accubonds and has never had a bad experience? He was a died in the wool partition guy but has switched to accubonds because they are very accurate and always worked?

jmp,

If you read ALL of this thread you'll find out the reason the OP had problems. Maybe you have--but it was a one-time, brief problem with one worker at the Nosler plant, a year or two after ABs appeared. Before then they worked fine, and after the problem was corrected they worked fine--yet some Campfire members here started to doubt that after this thread was recently resurrected.

Which demonstrates, once again, what people are willing to believe after they read it on the Internet....

Never knew anyone was actually comparing Accubonds to the Partitions or the A-Frames...

Phil

Guilty. Magazine articles too. Present company excluded.

Yep read it all. Thanks very much for the explanation of the past issues. I use them in a few rifles and have had good luck and will continue to do so. LONG BUT GOOD thread!

JB, your post underscores a couple of problems with internet discussion boards and us rifle/hunting looneys.

First, far too many of us don't read the entire thread, especially when it gets long. Instead, folks just jump in and post their "I-have-zero experience-on-this topic-but-this-is-what-I think-anyway" stuff and we end up with about 1.5 pages of information scattered among 15 pages of drivel.

Second, far too many people don't actually test their ammunition. Sure, everyone takes their hunting rifle and ammo to the range and fires a group or two before going, just to be sure the scope didn't grow demons over the past few months/years it was sitting unused in the safe, but few internet rifle/hunting looneys actually test their equipment. Which, if you're looking at spending well north of $10K on a hunting trip, you should invest in, in my humble opinion. By testing equipment, I mean really practice with your hunting rifle... multiple range sessions with practice ammo AND your high-dollar hunting ammo. And it really makes sense to actually make sure your bullets are going to perform as advertised, if you're able. Consider the fact that a block of Clear Ballistics gel will cost you only about $100, and you can melt it down and reuse it to test your bullets in it over and over again if you need to. (Or you may develop an addiction to shooting the ballistics gel just because!)

My dos centavos this morning. Have a good one.

Ballistic Gel is useless. All it does is compare bullets reacting to Ballistic Gel. Shoot x brand bullet into gel five times and you get the same result five times.

Game on the other hand is a very broad spectrum medium. Bullets do weird things in that medium based on angles, shot placement, animal structure etc. Animals are extremely hard on bullets.

Bullets are pretty hard on animals, too.

Which is why I use DRY newspaper to pre-test bullets. It simulates hitting animals that are hard on bullets better than anything else I've tried--and I've tried a bunch of different kinds of "media," including ballistic gel. (Wet newspaper isn't any better than ballistic gelatin.)

Posted this once already in this thread, but there's an entire chapter on pre-testing big game bullets in the first Big Book of Gun Gack, including the reasons I finally settled on dry newspaper.

Interesting.

I remember wet newspapers and phone books being the go to test medium back in the 80’s prior to ballistic gelatin. It’s not something that I’ve ever experimented with or given much thought to but I can see where dry paper would be a better test of bullet toughness.

The problem with both ballistic gelatin and wet newspaper is neither really stresses big game bullets--which is why many bullet manufacturers used something called "wet lap," which is basically "raw" wet newspaper: Bullets shot into wet lap tended to come out as "perfect mushrooms," which looked really good in magazine advertisements. But it didn't indicate how they'd react to various amounts of bone.

Same deal with ballistic gelatin. While there are different "hardnesses," none contain anything resembling bone. Instead they're designed so simulate "soft tissue," meaning muscle and internal organs.

Both can demonstrate how deeply bullets will penetrate compared to other bullets, and clear ballistic gelatin can show through slow-motion video HOW bullets expand in soft tissue (which most hunters don't understand), neither indicates much about how relatively tough big game various big game bullets are when the going gets tough.

The book chapter explains stuff like that--and the rest of the book explains a lot of other stuff that most hunters (and hunting handloaders) don't really understand, partly because so much "common knowledge" is wrong, including a lot of stuff that's been repeated over and over in over the decades--without any real evidence.(Or they started with an incomplete understanding of whatever they "discussed," a good example being annealing brass.)

after reading and using Gun Gack IV The little Book of Rifle Loads That Work i see no reason to argue with anyone ,its almost like cheating when loading ammo. Thanks John

Thanks, Steve! Glad you're getting some good use out of the book....

John

I received mine a couple of days ago and I am enjoying it a lot.

I've seen those 200 grain Nosler Partition's shoot very well too. I think they shoot better than the lesser Partition's
Not taking anything away from it's brother and sisters under the same brand name.

It might also depend on whos pulling the trigger.

Great conversation and nice to have unbiased real world results shared. Thank you.

I am also trying to pick a bullet for my 338 Win mag and Swift is moving up the chart. I know high BC is all the rage but if the bullet doesn’t do it’s job then the advantage of wind drift and drop is a moot point. You still have a wounded animal. Thanks to everyone for contributing to this post!

That's been my general experience as well--though the 165s have also been very accurate in several rifles as well, especially in .308s and .30-06s.

Also my 300 WSM.

Rug3,

One of the more interesting experiences I've had with the 165-grain Partition occurred when I used one of the late Verne Juenke's internal-concentricity bullet-testing machines for a couple of years, around 20 years ago. The machine used ultra-sound to test the consistency of jacket thickness in lead-cored bullets, and had a dial indicator to indicate how concentric each bullet was. It worked very well, and in fact a number of bullet companies used one to improve their manufacturing techniques--and some competitive shooters used them as well.

One thing I discovered during my experiments was that one particular lot of 165-grain Partitions tested just about as well as some "match" bullets. I then went back and looked through my handloading notes that that batch had grouped VERY well in every rifle I tried 'em in, whether a .300 Savage 99 or several .300 magnums, including a WSM, Winchester and Weatherby.

But other batches of 165 Partitions have tended to group better in milder .30s, especially .300 Savages, .308 Winchesters and .30-06s. My guess is they were more "average" in concentricity than that one lot--and since the milder rounds don't spin 'em as fast, that's why they tend to shoot better.

Sometimes I still miss having the Juenke machine, but the guy who loaned it to me was Dave Scovill, the long-time editor of Rifle and Handloader magazines. After two years he asked me to send it to Barnes Bullets, so I did. (This was something of a mystery, because the machine didn't work on monolithic bullets, whether copper or cast, because they don't have jackets. But I did as Dave asked.)

After my article on the machine appeared in Handloader, Verne said he'd build me one for a very favorable price--but unfortunately passed away before that occurred, in 2018. But if I did have one, would be tempted to ask you to send me a few of the 165s that shoot so well in you .300 WSM, just to see how well they test!

This is the mind-numbing reminder of the potential for infinite rabbit-holing opportunities in reloading.
Change primer
Change powder
Change powder charge
Change seating depth
Change bullet
Change neck tension
Change brass
Etc.


Now we can evaluate each freaking bullet for internal concentricity?





P

I have a Juenke machine.
It doesnt matter which of those you change^^^^^^, if your bullet isnt concentric, none of those changes will make a difference.
You will have fliers...Do you have to have it...No....but it can help eliminate one variable..The most important variable...Pretty basic really

Yep!

And there are relatively few bullet companies that make bullets that don't vary somewhat in concentricity.

Whether that matters for hunters depends on the hunting they do.

Take me to Tanzania...

Could not then, and cannot now comment on how Accubonds or A-Frames perform in Africa, as I've not been to Africa.

I also cannot comment on how they perform on game above 300 lbs.

Were I to comment on how they perform when perforating porkers in the Texas Hill Country, I would say out of the 1,000 plus Sus Scrofa I have dispatched along with a goodly number of white-tail deer, IIRC I have only recovered two bullets in calibers from .25 through .375.

I started shooting Ballistic Tips in the mid 90's. After a few years I switched to Partitons as I wanted two leaky holes in case the critter was not DRT and I had to track. When Accubonds came out I tried them and have had most excellent results when they were employed across the caliber spectrum listed above.

My thoughts are that they fly like a ballistic tip and penetrate like a partition.

Having said that and pretty much read through this thread (as I did not get here till some time in 2008 after Stick blew up Accurate Reloading) the first thing that came to my mind was how many of the folks that contributed to the original thread are no longer posting on threads, be they have assumed room temperature or just faded away.

We are diminished.

Best,

GWB

I have a Juenke machine also. Its amazing what you see sometimes.
Charlie