Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Nosler Accubonds

I heard all about the improper bonding from some years ago when I was having problems with them. Well, now that the problem's been fixed, I shot an elk with one this last Nov that was from a fresh batch. It still splattered on the ribs and left a mess of bloodshot meat.

You need to try a different bullet. Your problem seems to be much like Swifty's Dyna Bore coat problem. You're jinxed, and one of a very small, small minority of people who can't make it work. I've killed at least 150 big game animals with an accubond, either 140 or 160 7mm's. My buddy killed a big mule deer buck with his 7STW launching 140's at 3300fps at a whopping 30 yards and he didn't even get explosions. I never have either whether it was 40 yards or 400.

Interesting thread, I have never tried AB's as when they first came out Allen Day used them in Africa and swore them off. I believe his term was Accubombs.

I did use some Interbonds on a couple of deer one year, and they seemed to perform much like the old Interlocks we had been using for years, so I thought why go to the extra expense.

I guess I am too much of a mono-metal (E-Tips, GMX, TSX, and TTSX) fan to mess around with "high" tech lead bullets.

I currently use them in several calibers: 243, 6.5, 7mm and 30. To date, the most blood-shot meat I have had around the wound has been about 2" on the exit side. In comparison, the few times I used mono-metal I had the same results - about 2" of lost meat around the exit. The largest loss of meat came from an elk that had two go through the same hole. First shot through both shoulders and down. Then he got back up and faced almost straight away. Second round in through the rear of the on-side ribs and through the entrance shoulder. Penetrating about 3' of elk, I found that bullet under the hide on the off-side shoulder (which was the entrance wound of shot #1). That is the only one I've ever caught. It still retained 40% mass. I'm perfectly satisfied with them and find them to be excellent at what they were designed to do - take game by expanding and penetrating.

My issue with accubonds isn't their on game performance, as that has been great, but I can't get them to group worth a darn at extended ranges.

If you're only planning to shoot to say, 300 or so yards, then I am sure accubonds would be an awesome choice. In my main hunting rifles I am always prepared for 500+ yard shots, and the accuracy with accubonds just isn't there, and neither is my confidence in them.

I think Nosler accomplished their goal to equal or exceed the partition. This and to have the BC and accuracy of the ballistic tip. Any bullet fired into a shoulder and especially if bone is shattered will destroy some meat, even solids. This is especially true for higher velocity rounds but even a muzzle loader can make some blood shot meat.

I am still trying out the ABLR but on the four deer I have shot with them they worked great. No bullets recovered yet. I think some initial bad reports were either from the suspect no bond bullets or that people are using the wrong seating stem and loosening the jackets when the reload them. A VLD type seater avoids this potential problem.

Talk is cheap, and I've never experienced anything close to what Rockchuck constantly whimpers about every time a discussion on accubonds is had.

Here's some reality...not a bunch of gum flapping.

I shot this bull at 25 yards with a 7mm rem mag and a 160 accubond, first animal I shot with them. I had heard all the BS about them "splattering on the ribs" and all that crap.

Well, here you go:

entrance side, caught part of the shoulder blade:



Exit side, right behind the off-side leg...notice how it "splattered":



Another example of the "explosive rib splattering" this one a 140 grain AB moving at 2850 at the muzzle from a 7-08, shot was about 230 yards on a mature cow elk:

Entrance:





Exit:

Just absolutely made a splattered mess of this bull, 7 RM with a 160 AB, 200 yards or so:



My oh my...all blown to pieces, barely salvageable, exit side:





Shot this bull bedded at 170 yards, behind the shoulder on the entrance, busted the off-side shoulder and found the bullet just under the hide of the broken shoulder:



Notice all the "splattering" and "blood shot" on the busted shoulder:

Bottom line, some people form a bias for all kinds of unfounded reasons on bullets.

I've personally shot 25 elk with 7mm accubonds, 14 with 140's from a 7-08, another 11 with the 160 AB from a 7 RM. Killed lots of pronghorn and deer with them too perform the same on those animals.

I've busted shoulders on a few but nothing excessive damage wise, about what you would expect when you bust one of the biggest bones in an elk. There's going to be some damage, its just the way it is.

I honestly think the AB's do less meat damage than a partition, which I have also shot a lot of animals with. I didn't find partitions explosive and I don't find accubonds to be either.

I'll continue to use them, see no good reason not to.

I've read where you had problems with them at extended range and don't doubt it.

I haven't had that problem.

300 yards:




550 yards, 5 shots:




440 6 shots:



620:



629:

Buzz, you are one spectacular SOB just ask yourself.

Buzz......"textbook performance" is what comes to mind. Not surprised in the least, mirrors my experience.

Well, I may have to give them another shot sometime.

They have killed really well for me, on the 3-4 elk and 10-12 deer/antelope I have shot with them.

Welcome back buddy, where have you been? I wrongly figured it would be a Creedmoor or Custer thread that got you posting again.

They work just fine. 7mm mag, 160 grain AB.

T Inman,

Have mentioned this before, several times, on the Campfire, but if a bullet groups well at 100 yards it will group well at longer ranges, because contrary to popular belief they do not "destabilize" at normal hunting ranges (even, say, beyond 400 yards) just because velocity drops.

But there are other reasons they can shoot less accurately. First (and probably foremost) is wind-drift, which increases at about twice the rate of range.In other words, if a bullet drifts two inches at 200 yards in a certain wind condition, it will drift about 8 inches at 400 in the same conditions.

Another reason is parallax in the scope, combined with inconsistent head position behind the scope.

Yet another is inconsistent shooting.

But there is NO ballistic reason for a certain bullet to group "bigger" at longer ranges other than wind or parallax.

There was recently a long thread on "Ask the Gunwriters" about this, where a guy was shooting sub-inch groups at 100 and 3-5" groups at 200. He could not figure it out, until somebody suggested one of the sling swivel studs might be hitting the sandbags during recoil. Which turned out the be exactly the case, after hundreds of posts and lots of suggestions.

I am no ballistics expert, nor a physicist, no doubt. I'll take your word for what you wrote, and I do appreciate the response.

Maybe I got into some bad lots, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's bad luck...I dunno but one rifle in particular that I was having these fits with the accubonds, shot the ELD-M awesome at distance, so I can't totally believe parallax or my head position was the issue. The bullets were the only variable, besides small variations in powder charge to keep within book loads. Maybe that had something to do with it? This wasn't the only rifle I had this issue with...

I think I'll give the accubonds another try, just for the hell of it. I do know that when my stash of old style 200 grain grand slams is out, I plan to use the 200 grain accubonds in my .300 H&H. I have it scoped with a standard duplex and no turrets so I have no intention of shooting it at longer ranges. I fully expect the 200 grain accubond to be superb in that rifle, if it isn't too long to fit in the magazine when seated where it needs to be.

The only comment I can make is that if the AB's didn't shoot very well at longer ranges, they were not going to shoot very well at shorter ranges either.

Another possibility is that you got a good 3-shot group at 100 yards with the AB's, and assumed that was enough of a test to guess what 3-shot groups would do at longer ranges. A single 3-shot group at 100 yards is about as statistically reliable as one bite off a corner of a burrito.

That actually made me laugh out loud!

My whole point is that they did consistently shoot what I consider good at closer ranges...that being 200 yards, which is where I sight most of my rifles in at. I did not assume or guess that a 3 shot group at 100 yards would be an indication of what they would do at longer ranges. I put them on paper at 500 and 600 too, measured groups and was consistently disappointed. I shot the same ranges with the AMAX and ELD-M, which held their same proportional accuracy at the 5 and 6 as they did the 2. I did this with .243", .264" and .308" accubonds, not .284 though so this is kind of getting off the OP's topic.

Like I said, I may just have bad luck with them...I don't know...but my confidence in them went down the drain so I quit using them.

Then it would have to be wind-drift.

It doesn't take much to open up groups at longer ranges with bullets that have lower BC's. And standard Accubonds down have comnsiderably lower BC's compared to A-Maxes or ELD-Ms--or Accubond Long Range bullets.Yet many shooters assume some bullets shoot larger groups at longer ranges because of some inherent flaw in the bullet, or "destabilizing" because of the lower velocity.

Instead it's simply more wind-drift. Just a 2-3 mph mildly switching breeze (which many shooters would consider just about calm) will open up groups 3-4 inches at 500 yards due to differences in BC compared to a high-BC bullet like an A-Max or ELD-M.