I think I'll stick with A-Frames
Honest question: In what way are they better?
They have a built in mechanical fail safe mechanism. That can matter.
Oh, really?
Have witnessed A-Frames where the "mechanical fail safe mechanism" didn't work, apparently because they were "over annealed" during the bonding process. Could provide details if you want.
Same thing happened briefly during one brief period of early AccuBond production. The difference is that Nosler reconized the problem early on, and corrected it. The head guy at Swift at the time denied it could happen--despite being sent the failed bullets.
John, by design these two bullets are different. Failure or not. ANY bullet can fail. But I’m not talking about a one time QC issue. Bonded core bullets without a partition or solid copper base can pancake. I have seen it happen more than once. This is because of design. Not in spite of it. When that happens penetration is severely compromised.
I’m not saying don’t use accubonds. But what I am doing is answering the question of why someone might prefer an A-Frame. Count me in as being in that camp.
Let me also say that the three biggest internal messes I’ve dealt with on big game were the result of Nosler Accubonds. Bar none. One of the times I was with a good friend who is a veterinarian. So a bloody expert in necropsy. We could not believe the shot placement and absolute destruction. It was ridiculous. This coming from a guy who has a dump truck full of experience with the Nosler BT on game.
