Pretty much the same experience with Accubonds across the board (except for this 700 Classic .264). Struggling with them (and accumulating partial boxes), and nearly WITHOUT exception finding Ballistic Tips to be the always answer for accuracy, I scrutinized Nosler's promotions toward each bullet.
Accuracy is presented foremost toward Ballistic Tips.
Accubonds? Not so much.
Sometimes "reading between the lines" saves a lot of trouble.
I also noticed a small but measurable drop-off in accuracy when Nosler re-vamped the Ballistic Tips (big game application versions) toward thicker side walls, as a result of the original version receiving complaints about integrity.
I surmise that the Accubond was in response to continuing complaints about integrity with an accompanying compromise in the accuracy department. I never had any complaints about Ballistic Tips to start with. If I want unquestionable integrity from a Nosler bullet I reach for the original product.
The biggest elk I ever killed took a 150gr Ballistic Tip from my .270 in the BALL of the shoulder and that bullet still had enough integrity (or length) to allow at least a portion of that bullet to exit beyond the far shoulder blade. At a dead run at 175 yards, he nose-dived into 12 inches of Bob Marshall snow.
Last edited by Tahnka; 01/23/20.
