Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Partition over accubond?

With Partitions being 20% more expensive, and performance being similar, what reason is there to choose the Partition over the Accubond?

Personally ( but only trying them in two rifles) I can't get the accuracy out of an Accubond that I can out of a Partition.

Like Ingwe, I’ve observed some guns liking NPTs better. But have some guns that prefer the NAB.

I let the gun decide. Terminal performance isn’t that different.

DF

And, the cost difference for hunting bullets is not a factor in my decision making process. Target bullets shot br the thousands, maybe. Hunting bullets, no. One can plink with cheaper bullets, hunt with the good stuff.

DF

I prefer the Partition over the Accubond if accuracy is equal. I like the explosive front of the Partition, and that it folds back to nearly a wadcutter for slightly better penetration.

But I've used plenty of Accubonds, and it's a great bullet. But I'm also not averse to hunting elk with the Ballistic Tip either.

Personally, I've found both Partitions and Accubonds to be equally picky, though that's certainly not the case with all rifles. Some prefer Accubonds, some Partitions, some neither, and occasionally both.

Ballistic Tips are generally much more accurate than either.

Partitions do as they are designed. Front half expands to twice the dia. and does damage. Rear half holds together and continues to travel through. At lower speeds/distance the two usually stay together. At higher speeds or close range the front half can come apart but the rear half continues, usually passing through..Great bullets and have solid repeatable performance for years and years..The standard...........
Accubonds expand on contact as designed and usually hold together being bonded. At fast speed/close distance they can expand quit rapidly and the earlier versions were found to be too thin of jackets and got the nickname "accubombs"

I have found both work great and have not had any horror stories with either. I have about a 90% pass through success with partitions on deer, 100% on goats. Only deer that didn't pass through were 2 angle shots on big muleys, where the bullet was found under the opposite hide after traveling 20+ inches ( 2nd to end rib enter, liver, lungs, shoulder and bullet found under hide opposite brisket). I have had 2 accubonds pass through on deer with perfect behind the shoulder broadside shots and a 1 other not pass through but was a bang flops, 2 antelope pass throughs.........

For me in 3 different rifles (tikka t3 6.5x55, rem 700 .270 and rem 700 .308) accubonds and ABLR shoot tigheter groups but partitions usually are my go to as they still shoot great and perform time and time again, especially if there is a chance for elk along with deer.

I guess I've been lucky, all the rifles I've loaded have shot Accubonds and Partitions with equal accuracy.

Finding Partitions on sale and stocking up can offset the cost difference enough that it doesn't matter.

Same as what the others have said. I’ll shoot either or and expect no difference on the animals I regularly hunt.

I have more rifles that consistently shoot the Pts. very well than I do ones which do so with Abs. Don't know why, don't really care and I have a lifetime supply of Partitions, usually bought in bulk on sale.

I still prefer a moderately heavy for caliber Partition for general BC uses, in all of my rifles, especially .270-150s. .284-160s, .308-180s/200s and my overall fave, the .338-250s. I shoot 9,3-286s and .375-300s, but, am selling my last .375 as I never shoot it anymore and really prefer the 9.3s and especially .338WMs.

I have one 7x57, a mint Brno ZG-47 carbine, which shoots the 160 Abs into dimes at 100 and I will soon try them in a gorgeous 7x57r-16 ga. O/U I recently acquired as these are my "old guy" guns for walking old roads, covered with grass and hoping for grouse and deer.

I liked what Brad had to say. However, I believe most elk, deer,etc. hunters put too much importance on which bullet is the most accurate. The question should be is it accurate enough to get the job done. In many of my rifles the NP will not be the most accurate, but in almost all cases it will be plenty accurate enough to get the job done and then some. In the field I can not see any practical difference between a rifle/load combo that'll average less than three inches at 300yards for five shots and one that'll average 4.5 inches or so for five shots. Then again, I can't recall shooting much beyond 400 yards. BTW it's my opinion choosing the Nosler Partition is never a mistake.

Yep, if you never shoot over 400 yards, small differences in accuracy aren't going to make any difference on game, and not just on elk but deer-sized animals.

Have seen Partition shoot more accurately than Accubonds in a number of rifles, which I suspect often occurs because AccuBonds can't be seated close to the lands and still fit in the magazine, due to their plastic tip, but Partitions can. But I've almost never had any problems getting Partitions to shoot well, and in fact some Partitions I expect to shoot very well. One is the 140-grain 6.5mm. I once tried just about any bullet imaginable in a very accurate 6.5-06, and while the most accurate turned out to be the 140-grain Berger VLD, the second most-accurate was the 140 Partition--and it wasn't second by much. Have seen that over and over again.

But in rifles where Accubonds can be seated close to the lands, they've usually been very accurate, though not quite as accurate as Ballistic Tips.

magnum44270,

No, the jackets on early AccuBonds weren't too thin. In fact they've been pretty much the same thickness since the beginning. I started using them the first year they appeared, in more than one caliber, and they expanded on game just like they do now.

Instead the "AccuBomb" problem was due to one person on the assembly line trying to speed up the process a year or two after the introduction. Demand was VERY high, and this guy thought he could help. His speed-up resulted in a failure to bond, and some of those bullets got out of the plant before the problem was discovered. Most were recalled but some had already been sold in retail stores, and those are the bullets that caused the problems, not thin jackets.

Thanks guys

If you are hunting white tails, all you need are ballistic tips. Bigger animals, Accubonds or Partitions. Grandkids kill deer and pigs with 243’s. It doesn’t take much to kill deer and pigs.

Front half usually comes apart and shreds. Not expand.

When it comes to terminal performance, the Accubond is not a Partition. Don't get me wrong, the AB's are good, but my observation is they don't penetrate as well on angle shots on elk and are not as consistent in their penetration.

Plus, I can buy Partition 2nds for less than Accubond 2nds, and practice with my fullhouse hunting loads. In my the rifles I've loaded AB's for I've had good luck with finding an accurate load.

I have only shot a few animals with the Accubonds so don't have the experience as others here. I will say they shoot good but so does the Partition bullet. From what I've seen a Partition will out penetrate a Accubond of the same weight and cal. Accubond usually has a better B.C for long range. I use both but my preference would be a Partition. At the end of the day they're both really good bullets. They work as Nosler designed them to. Should add not having dented points from recoil is another Accubond plus.

As I stated, at high speeds/close distance the front half can come apart and the rear keeps going.....at lower speeds/distance it expands and stays together.... Ive recovered 2 perfect mushrooms. one in .243 and one in .270

ok....either way, some of the early versions were flawed, but since then the issue has been resolved...

So I think the consensus is that performance is so similar as to not worry, and since the Accubond sells for 20% less, and it shoots for you.....it is the better value for the money.