Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Accubond Long Range on Elk??

This started out about how ABLRs work on elk. BC doesn't have a damn thing to do with how a bullet behaves when it hits a critter does it? Who cares if Nosler lied or not? If you shoot them, you figured that part out anyway. If you're worried about short range hits, use the white tipped ones. mtmuley

smallfry -

I've decided it may not be a reading comprehension problem you have, but simply a comprehension problem.

Ballisticians, including Nosler, are very capable of measuring B.C. values to 3 significant digits within their test environments. If for some reason they are not doing so, then they should not be reporting them as such.

In any case, it doesn't matter HOW Nosler and Brian arrived at their numbers. What matters is the numbers they chose to report. Further, I've never stated Nosler's numbers are wrong or that Brian's are right, only that if I was betting my life I'd go with Brian's. I believe Brian IS pretty competent when it comes to ballistic measurements, something even you doubt about Nosler.

The thing about significant digits is that they are significant. When Nosler reports a .652 B.C value for the 7mm 168g AccuBond LR either it means they have measured it to that level of precision or they are blowing smoke. Take your pick.

You seem to be really focused on the B.C. values. I don't know if Nosler's numbers are right or not and don't really care. The preponderance of evidence available to me suggests they are, to be kind, "optimistic". In any case the construction of the AccuBond LR bullets doesn't give me the confidence I want to try them on game, knowing from experience that close-range shot opportunities occur even when I expect only long-range opportunities. I'll stick with Nosler's standard AccuBond bullets as well as Barnes TTSX, North Fork SS and FP and Swift A-Frame.

When a manufacturer intentionally sets a level of expectation around their product with their advertising claims, they damage their reputation if those claims turn out to be overblown marketing hype. There are several companies I refuse to patronize for exactly that reason. As far as I'm concerned, Nosler's claims for the AccuBond LR, which include eliminating the problem of "being too close" even at 3200fps are just that - overblown hype.

"How" they arrived at their numbers is irrelevant. Just like "how" I arrive at the conclusion that the diameter of Earth is 1,023 miles doesn't matter- the only thing that matters is that I'm dead wrong when compared to more credible sources of the Earth's diameter. LR shooters and hunters don't care how Nosler or Litz, or anyone else, arrives at their numbers if the predicted drop and drift using those BC numbers line up with real-world observations. If the results don't line up with Nosler's published numbers, again, people don't care how Nosler came to a wrong conclusion, only that it's wrong (doesn't represent real results). Especially when Litz empirically tested the bullets and his published numbers match the real-world observations of many users.

Ya, but it seems they have a "truthiness" problem with the terminal ballistics as well.

To your second point, if I'm switching bullets for close vs. long range, then what's the point of the LRAB, again?

This isn't academic for me. I built a really accurate heavy 7 WSM, primarily for LR deer and antelope. This year up elk hunting (with a spike tag) I found a bull hangout. Between my buddy and I we saw as many as (5) 6x6 class bulls in one morning. I could've easily killed two of them at about 200 yards. It also happens to be a spot with very good glassing visibility, and therefore LR hunting opportunities. So, a bullet that I could stick in that rifle and shoot an elk near to far suddenly has great utility for in a year or three when I draw a bull tag for that unit. I had high hopes for the 7mm LRAB.

I didn't have a problem with the terminal ballistics of the 210 LRAB. Since they are harder to get and I don't gain anything over the "regular" 200 grainer in elk killing, I'm not gonna use them exclusively. Stuff your WSM with white tipped 160's and kill stuff. mtmuley

You are a very optimistic, kind hearted, and ignorant person when it comes to manufactures. Congratulations.

I will accept the fact that you refuse to respond to the validity of my arguments as your tacit admission that you cannot defend your arguments with facts.

To plagiarize Ronald Reagan, it isn't so much that you are ignorant. It's just that you know so many things that aren't so.

Naa buddy, historicaly you say this when people grow tired of talking to you. I don't feel I need to respond to your arguments, you have defined yourself adequately.

You have been wrong on so many of your claims I lost count long ago. The reason you don't defend your claims with reason, logic and facts is that you can't do so.

Instead you resort to the common tactic of people in your position and attempt to change the subject.

You know it, I know it and everyone reading this thread knows it.

I am afraid you just don't have the background or education or something to understand where I feel it's worth going into detail. I am not a very long winded person on these forums and havent seen any reason to defend my claims. I am not like you, I make statements and may go back in greater detail but I don't generally defend them. Not "defending" my statements means I stand by them. You constantly argue and "defend" on these forums because at the end of the day you are afraid of being wrong. You have what a lot of people call The God complex. This is in generally indicative a very controlling person. Your use of the word "chance" and "1 in 2048" was a real eye opener for me lol. Reading back to some of your other threads how you use and report numbers explained a lot.

More than welcome to PM me but at the risk of sounding like you, I don't have anything else to say on this thread specifically to you.

If you found 1 in 2048 to be a "real eye opener" for you then you don't understand much about statistics. Not that I find that surprising as you dont seem to understand a lot of things.


Do you know what an "Idiot's Hole" is? If not, let me give you a clue - put the shovel down.

Skeezix –

How long is the “long” you mention? I hunt elk in open country quite a bit but my longest open country shot to date has been 487 yards with the next longest t 411. You certainly don’t need the ABLR for those ranges.

Most of my elk have been taken at closer ranges, even when I was expecting only longer range opportunities. (Granted, I have passed on a lot of long range opportunities as well because I wasn’t prepared to take them.)

The photo below was taken in an area where we have taken several elk, the longest being at 350 yards.



Here is a picture of Dave, my hunting partner since 1999, at the hide we used this year. I’ve taken three elk from here at 487, 411 and 262 yards. This year’s 411 yard shot was taken after one at under 100 disappeared when I had the wrong ammo in my rifle. Had to borrow Dave’s rifle.



I took a cow here at 400 yards in 2012. My first shot opportunity was at ~125 yards but I waited for the three cows to stop walking and present a broadside.


My son-in-law took his first elk here, under 400 yards (I think it was about 365). The elk is down on the far peak just above the left edge of the aspens.



Another area where we expected long shots. Killed my cow at 125 yards and passed on filling my second tag at the same range.


How is this for a long range opportunity? We fully expected our closest shot opportunity would be 400 yards. Instead we watched the elk come in from over a mile away. They got below the crest of the hill and my first good opportunity was when they popped up over the near horizon – at about 25 feet. I had to let the elk move on so I could get a clear shot at about 40 yards.

Skeezix -

Too many photos for one post, so continuing on:


This was the scene of my longest shot, 487 yards. The red arrow marks the sage brush blind where I took the shot.


The point is I wouldn’t get too excited about “long range” opportunities. Sure, you can snipe an elk as far out as you are capable of hitting them, but at that range you can usually get a lot closer, too. I’ve taken 14 elk since 2000, most of them in open country, all under 500 yards and only one over 411. Pick Nosler’s standard AccuBond or any one of a variety of proven bullets, including Nosler Partition, North Fork SS, Barnes TTSX, Swift A-Frame or Scirocco II or Speer Grand Slam. Practice with your chosen bullet and if you are good to go at 500 yards you will be good to go for almost every situation you will encounter.

I used a 7mm RM and Speer 160g Grand Slams for 20+ years and didn’t have any problems. My hunting buddy has used the same load in his 7mm RM for 17 years, also with no problems. This year I ended up using his rifle to take my cow at 411 yards. For my own rifles I now use North Fork SS, Barnes TTSX (and what few remaining MRX I have on hand), Nosler AccuBond and Swift A-Frame. With these bullets I don’t worry about how they will perform and concentrate developing the skills to place them properly.

Coyote Hunter- Think a higher BC bullet would have helped you last year?

Along those lines, CH you've mentioned that last years was not the only elk that you have left wounded in the field.

It seems like these long winded lectures of shooting advice to others are preposterous given your own sad history.

Get your facts right. Last year was the first and ***only*** time I've wounded and lost an elk and I’ve never lost a deer or antelope.

That elk was at 400 yards and left the largest blood trail I’ve ever seen, starting with several thick, dark ribbons 2-3 inches wide and 2 feet or more in length. Evidence from brush on both sides of the trail indicated a pass through high but under the spine and the dark color of the blood suggested a liver hit. While I wasn’t happy about it then and still am not, losing one animal since I started hunting big game in 1982 is not a perfect record but it isn’t half bad, either.

A higher B.C. bullet might have helped. I calculate that a 168g ABLR (.652 B.C.)at the same velocity (3048fps) as the 160g North Fork SS I used (~.400 B.C.) would have had 1-2” less drop but more importantly about 5-6 inches less drift. That means the bullet ***might*** have hit higher enough to hit the spine or, more likely, pulled the POI to the left far enough to get into the lungs or perhaps just more solidly into the liver. I’d have been happy in either case if it meant dropping the cow in short order.

I am sorry this stuff is just too rich !
Coyote_Hunter just basically said the ABLR might have helped... It might have accidentaly killed his elk had he used it! LMAO He aimed for the lungs on a broadside shot and believes he made a high liver shot "just under the spine" ( as opposed to those liver shots above the spine) in a previous thread and believed a bigger gun might have made a difference. Now he believes the ABLR might have made a difference by hitting in another, 3rd, and completely different unintended spot but on the same hold, thereby accidently killing his elk! I guess he never thought what might have killed his elk is hitting it in the first place and not a "bigger gun" or navigating through trajectories by fantasizing which one would have "fixed" his poor shooting to begin with.
Ironically he then goes on to say
13 days later he shoots a 280 Rem cartridge in his 338 win mag, but only before saying he isn't sure which one is going to grab opening morning and that he is sure it doesn't make a difference. I guess he meant this literaly. Later explains he also shot a 375 Win in a 45-70.

GOOD GOD what a mess. Dangerous and dumb for a guy who criticizes a lot of people on the fire.
Anyways, I am sure his paranoid and controlling righteousness will paint a more clear, longer winded narrative of what he really meant.

What is rich is that you apparently have nothing better to do than dig through my old posts. I'm in your brain and apparently I own it.



Anyone who has never placed a shot someplace other than intended has been very, very, very good, very lucky or hasn't hunted much. The comment about "just under the spine was not, as you claim, in contrast to "above the spine" but rather to a spot lower down on the animal. In other words, for simpletons, the blood we found on the brush was chest high rather than closer to waist high.

Maybe this picture will give you a clue:




The operative word here is "might". No one, including you, knows whether or not a fatter bullet, say from my .338 WM instead of my 7mm RM, would have caused more damage and resulted in the elk dropping. What is funny here is that, not knowing exactly where the bullet hit, either a) you foolishly believe that a larger bullet absolutely could not have made a difference, as seems to be the case, or b) you agree with me.

The same thing is true with regard to the ABLR, which, given similar velocities has a demonstrably flatter trajectory and less wind drift. Either a) you foolishly believe that a slightly different point of impact absolutely could not have made a difference, or b) you again agree with me.

Let me summarize the above. Either you agree with me or you are a fool. Take your pick.



They say there is no fix for stupid so I guess you there is little hope in your case. Just for the record, "bigger gun" and "fixed" are your choice of words, not words I used. I practice out to 600 yards with all my big game rifles except my lever guns and .257 Roberts. My favorite targets at 500 and 600 yards are the steel plates, which I hit on a pretty regular basis when the wind cooperates, and clay pigeons, which I hit often enough to keep me interested. The whole point is to be able to place my bullets where I want them. Being human, I don't always succeed.

As to whether a "bigger gun" or higher B.C. bullet would have made a difference, see above.

Every year I see people come to the range for sight-in that haven't fired a shot in months or even years. When I ask hunters in the field what load they are using, many cannot tell me. I've seen people that have gone elk hunting with rifles they've never fired, rifles that have only been bore-sighted when the scope was mounted, and people that can't keep their bullets in a 12" target at 100 yards. People on this forum and regulars at the range tend to have more interest in shooting and I think most are considerably better at it than Joe Average, but they don't represent the general public. I think I'll stand by my statement that most people have no business shooting past 200 yards.



I'll also stand by the statement that it wouldn't have mattered whether I used the .338WM or .280 Rem. Both shot very well and I was banging steel at 600 with both of them at the last trip to the range. The rifle wasn't the problem, loading the wrong ammo was - which I'm man enough to admit and did.

I made another mistake, too, when I said I fired a .375 Win in my Marlin .45-70. I have the case on my desk as a reminder and just checked the headstamp. It wasn't a cartridge for my Marlin .375 Win but rather one for my Marlin .30-30.



In both cases pressures were so low there really wasn't much danger - probably less than when firing a full pressure load. Not so much dumb as inattentive on my part, but use whatever word you want.

Once again to set the record straight, I rarely criticize people on this or any other forum. What I often do is disagree and I'm not at all bashful about providing the reasons why. Further, unlike you, I'm willing to support my reasons with facts and logic.

Priceless