Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Nosler Accubonds

Has anyone used 160 gr Nosler Accubonds out of a 7 mag on elk? If so how did they perform?

Thanks Tom

Once
elk died

Quickly?......no strangling involved? 😁

One of my elk hunting pards uses them exclusively in his 7mag. He loves them, the elk hate em. They work very well. I used them on elk in a 300 RUM @ 200 grains with very good results. Just a hair less weight retention than a partition, but similar performance in my statistically small observation.

I'll be following this thread, same bullet I shoot in my 7mm Mashburn, have thought about it for elk too.

Not elk exactly, but elk sized animals anyway. These animals were shot at a max distance of 125 yards, and I had these 160's running 3150 fps at muzzle (Retumbo). IMO this is why retention wasn't quite as high as some would anticipate. I intentionally shot through low shoulders trying for heart shots, and they worked like a champ. Farthest one ran was one wildebeest which made it about 40 yards. I was impressed.

Boring. Just my style.

Damn good stuff JG, thanks for posting those results, zebra and wildebeest are especially tough hardy animals.

160 Accubond out of a 7 Mashburn. I think 415 yards. Dropped at the shot; Scotty put another in him because he was still breathing when we got to him but he wasn't going anywhere.

Not a 7mm, but I've shot a number of elk with them in 165 and 180 gr from a 300WSM and a 30-06. They're very accurate and they do kill quickly but I think the meat waste is excessive. They tend to blow up on impact.

If you call shedding 40% of their weight "blowing up", you're right. I don't, not even close.

Not a 7mm, but I have shot elk with several wts. mostly .30 cal.. 150, 165 & 200,.. Also a couple in .338 cal.. 200 & 225.. Those were out of a .340 and the others out various .300 mags..
Good performance all...

Like Ulvejaeger, I've only used a 160 Accubond from my 7 RM once on an elk, and it was a bang-flop kill.

I've also used them on a half dozen South African plains game animals, three Canadian caribou, and a musk ox. The 160 grain Accubonds worked fine on all of them.

Shoulder shots or heart/lung shots?

Son in law used that one about 10 years ago on a good sized raghorn. Broadside, the bull made it about 50 yards and piled up in a blowdown, of course. Don’t remember if there was an exit or not.
The next year he used the same combo on a nice antelope at about 200 yards. That one exited, but no excessive damage

Both. The bullet almost explodes on impact leaving a 12" wide area of bloodshot mush. It still penetrates for the kill but you leave a lot of meat on the hill. If it's the ribs there isn't a lot of meat there to lose but if you hit the shoulder, you can mess up quite a few steaks.

I have found the meat damage about like Partitions of the same diameter and velocity. Have used, and been standing next to other hunters who used, various AccuBonds from 6.5mm up to .375, and in general they have performed exactly how Nosler designed them to work from the beginning: retaining about as much weight as Partitions of the same caliber/weight. In general, this means around 60-70% in calibers from .30 down, and 80%+ in larger, heavier bullets.

That said, there is apparently still some residual tribal memory of a FEW AccuBonds that weren't properly bonded. This happened a couple years after they were introduced, when they'd become so popular one of the Nosler workers decided to "help" by speeding up his particular job. This results in soft, unbonded bullets that came apart very easily. Since they frequently test bullets for both accuracy and expansion, this was discovered quickly, but some bullets had been shipped. They recalled as many as possible, but some did end up being used on game.

There weren't all that many, and in fact I've been using AccuBonds since they were introduced (in fact, probably a little earlier) and never encountered any of those. But like other bullets that didn't work exactly as intended, some hunters tend to remember the failures more--especially if they happened to them. Which is understandable.

Since have shot a pile of big game with AB's since 2003, about the time they were introduced, including North American and Africa animals from 100 to 750 pounds. The vast majority have exited, but have recovered a few. The retained weight varied from about 60-80%. They do expand a little wider than Partitions, as do most bonded bullets, but haven't seen a vast difference in penetration depth. The last one I recovered was a 150 from a .308, which went into the left shoulder of a whitetail doe at about 75 yards, as she stood facing me almost directly. It did do some meat damage to the shoulder, but have seen plenty of bullets (including several monolithics) damage considerable meat when they hit a shoulder. Found it under the hide of the right ham.

I have shot quite a bit of game with various Accubonds, ranging from pronghorns and Coues whitetails up to and including large bull elk, kudu, oryx, waterbuck and eland (as well as a few of the smaller African antelopes). I have used a variety of rifles ranging from a .257 AI up to and including a .375 H&H. I don't remember any excessive meat damage, and the capes that I have had mounted are all intact without much in the way of entrance and exit holes. I have a shoulder mount of my best impala on my wall that was taken with the .375 H&H and a 260-grain AB--a one-shot kill at an estimated 300 meters--looks like he must have died of natural causes.

Yep, they work!

That said, there is apparently still some residual tribal memory of a FEW AccuBonds that weren't properly bonded. This happened a couple years after they were introduced, when they'd become so popular one of the Nosler workers decided to "help" by speeding up his particular job. This results in soft, unbonded bullets that came apart very easily. Since they frequently test bullets for both accuracy and expansion, this was discovered quickly, but some bullets had been shipped. They recalled as many as possible, but some did end up being used on game.

That's interesting.

I worked up a 140gr AB load in my 7x57 with great accuracy at 2,800fps. In 2007/08 I shot a roe deer - about 50lbs - and the damage was truly incredible. The exit basically removed all ribs and flesh between the sternum and spine. Previously those bullets had caused very little damage. I put it down to one of those things.

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.

I've used them on 3 critters. The .308 / 165 was a head shot .. not much to learn from that. Lights out .. duh. The .257 / 110 out of the Roberts was a disaster x 2. 2 shots, 2 deer in 2 minutes. Both broadside, neither exited, both blew up on the way through the lungs and peppered the inside of the off-side shoulder with tiny fragments that poked through the rib cage wall and stopped under the off-side shoulder blade. Identical performance and the worst I've had from any bullet in a couple decades.

I don't think those bullets were old enough to have been from the time of those "residual memories" but I don't know that for sure. A friend of mine hand loads commercially and says his customers shooting the various .25 calibers had similar results at that same time. Others using other Accubonds at the same time had no issues. It was something specific to the .257 110 grain.

I don't know if it is solved or not. Don't care. I only used them because I couldn't get 120 grain partitions at the time and I've since stocked up on those. That's how I solved it for me.

Tom

I find it amusing that so many claiming a huge exit wound rate have significant numbers of retained weights on bullets "caught" while ignoring the obvious bloodshot meat and such.

Rave on...

About a dozen kills with either a 180gr in the-06 or a 140gr in a .260. Never recovered one. Their performance was very similar to a Nosler Partition.

Art,

I tend to rely on the hunting notes I've been keeping for several now when any questions of bullet performance come up, partly because have found that memories of individual instances tend to distort long-term statistics.

Have been using X-Bullets since around 2000, before the TSX appeared, because about that time Barnes had pretty much solved the accuracy problems of early X's--though not the fouling problems. (Throughout the 1990's both my wife and I used Fail Safes when desiring deep-penetetrating, petal-type performance, because they shot more accurately than X-Bullets.) We started using TSX's the first year they appeared, and in fact Eileen was the first person to provide Coni Brooks with a field report on a bull elk. We both mostly switched to Tipped TSX's when they appeared a few years later.

Have been using AccuBonds since they appeared as well, which was around the same time as TSX's, but have also witnessed a bunch of TSX's and AB's used by other hunters. By "witnessed" I was standing, sitting or lying next to those hunters when they shot the animal.

The biggest single test was during a month-long meat-cull in South Africa in 2007, when both the TSX and the AccuBond were still hot new bullets, so the American hunters who took part used more TSX's and AB's than other bullets. A total of 185 animals were taken, ranging in size up to 1500+ pounds. But that was just one instance that provided a lot of info on the performance of both bullets--and yes, a number of both were recovered.

As a result of that month, and a bunch of other experiences with both bullets right up to the present, I believe the percentage of recovered Barnes X's and AccuBonds recorded in my notes might be fairly valid. They show a recovery rate of 18.7% for Barnes X's of all types, and 20% for AccuBonds. With either bullet, I would say it would be accurate to claim the "vast majority" exited.

Now, I should also comment that in general the X's used were probably smaller for the size of game. Plenty of both in calibers above .30 were used, but at the smaller end no AccuBonds below 6.5mm were used, while plenty of .25 caliber X's were. A couple of Tipped TSX's that were recovered were 100-grain .25's from Eileen's .257 Roberts--from angling shots on consecutive animals, a cow elk and a doe pronghorn. But overall the numbers of both bullets provide a pretty good comparison.

Facts obviously confuse some people.

Oh, I see how it works now. If you have a good experience, you can put up photos, set off fireworks, and bring in a marching band. But, if I have a bad experience, I'm a simperer and a whimperer.
The OP asked for objective experience with the AB's and I posted exactly what my experiences have been, both from some years ago when it was speculated that the AB's had a defect, and from a few months ago when one blew up entering a ribcage. If The bad experiences aren't allowed to be told, what's the point of the OP even asking?

Now you can cry about that all you want to. I'm leaving for a few days to go fishing.

The only Accubonds I've used were the 260 gr version, from my 375 H&H. Shot three black bears with it, from a bit over 300 yards, down to 15 feet or so. The short range kill was while tracking a bear wounded by another hunter. It had gone into the thick brush. My shot came at very close range, and the bullet above was recovered from the off-side hide, hanging backwards in the skin, with the tail of the bullet poking through. This is the only one I recovered, the others passed through, killing quickly.

The accuracy of these Accubonds impressed me, I was seeing 3/4" to 1" groups at 100 yards from the Ruger Number One rifle. Accuracy and excellent performance on game.

I was pleased to see one guide on my grizzly hunt was using 260 gr Accubonds from his 375 H&H as well.

I know that the OP asked about 7mm Accubonds, but the 260 gr .375" is the only Accubond I've used. Thought I'd toss in my experience for consideration.

Regards, Guy

Those numbers are so wildly different from my direct experience I am forced to wonder how none have ever exited. The hunters I know that have used Accubonds have mostly quit them due to excessive meat loss, failure to exit, and the occasional weird tumbling, failure to track straight issue.

It is easy to remember how many exited when the answer is none. It is plenty easy to remember how many Xs exited when they can be easily counted on a hand or two..

No claim to extensive experience but on four elk (two bulls and two cows) at ranges of ~100 to ranged 300-340 all exited for me fired from a 7MM STW with muzzle velos of right around 3,300. I have shot numerous Kansas deer at 75-300 as well with all exiting. I would never have any doubts that they will get the job done and like mentioned before I don't see any more drastic damage than with most bullets fired at fairly high velocities. YMMV

We've had a good showing for the Accubond in elk camp for many years. Mostly 180's for the '06, 300WM and 300WSM. But I hasten to add a couple youngsters did very well with Ruger boat paddle .270's and 150gr Power Points. Sometimes we over analyze this stuff.

That's a consideration I hadn't thought of before.

Thanks for that.

Art,

Do you tent to shoulder shoot? Break a critter down?

Thanks

Yes, with Barnes I shoot for shoulders. For non-monos I do not look for shoulders but will shoot for the offside shoulder if it presents itself.

There's a question that's never been posted before.

Why do you need a tent to shoot 'em in the shoulder?

Rave on indeed. Blood shot meat is rarely discussed on this forum with the same fervor of other subjects. Accubond kills were my first exposure to it. That little anomaly will surely teach you bullet placement in a hurry if you intend to eat.

Meanwhile, we keep chasing the elusive “perfect bullet” all the while ignoring performance of unspectacular bullets that have worked for decades. I doubt many have killed, or will kill as many elk with an Accubond that I have seen killed with a 30-06 and a Hornady 165 grain spire point bullet...

They've worked EXACTLY like Partitions for me the last ten years or so. They penetrate real well and will expand at distance. We have run quite a few into elk and deer and have had 0 issues with them. The 160 Accubond from a fast 7mm is a deadly combo and probably my favorite fall back bullet to be quite honest.

I've heard about them blowing up and even some penciling through and believe it, just haven't seen it personally yet. They've done much to well for myself and my hunting partners to think they are doing poorly.

If killing was the only requirement few bullets would actually fail. That fact allows many to opine on short data. Start including extra criteria and cup and core bullets of old start losing their luster. That Hornady SP has ruined a lot of caribou and moose meat for me.

Accubonds have become the go to bullet, in our family, for the last 10-12 years. In my 7mm, I've run 140's at 3300 fps for whitetail. These are longer shots, in hay fields and clear cuts. It shoots like a laser and stones deer. I usually heart/lung them or head shoot the does, inside of 200 yards. These are meat hunts for the freezer, so I avoid the front shoulders.

Our 300 winchesters shoot 200 gr a/b's. A great all around cartridge for "open" shots, here in Idaho. Last year, my dedicated long range rifle (browning xbolt/hells canyon, with a nxs nightforce), took antelope, elk, multiple deer, and a WSMR oryx bull (the wife's). The only recovered bullets came from the oryx, 3 of them, at 528 yards. They were perfect mushrooms, and weighed 156, 146, and 125 grains. 78-62% retained weight.

Out of our 338 rum rifles, we shoot 225s and 250s. My WSMR oryx bull, a few years ago, was shot with a 225 going 3050 fps, at 67 yards. Broadside, dead center in the front leg (their vitals sit a little further forward, than our "native" animals). I remember thinking "this is gonna test this bullet, for sure!". The bull died with the one shot, and the recovered bullet weighed 143 grains (63+%), again the perfect mushroom shape.....after breaking down both sides of the front end. I couldn't believe how well it held together, AND that bull stopped it! My dad used the 250's, on plains game, in Zimbabwe. He killed a sable, 2 kudu, and an impala.....with 5 shots. All animals fell within sight....no bullets recovered.

While these may not be the exact caliber/weight the OP was asking about, AND the 338's may have a thicker jacket (I don't know for sure?).......it shows how consistent they are. Near or far, they work....if you are concerned about meat loss, keep the bullets in the ribs (or head). Otherwise, bust the front shoulders......I'd rather lose some shoulder meat, than risk losing the whole animal, or having it run off, down a deep canyon!

Unless they change them, they will be our "standard" thin skinned bullet, from now on.

Andy3

Your awesomeness deserves a great bullet...

He is to Accubond's what Swifty is to Dyna Bore Coat.

The critters do...

Careful there Uncle Rico...

I am stating simple facts and you seem to have issues with that.

I question how so many sycophants say they have never caught an Accubond and I have never seen one make an exit hole and across a broad range of bullet weights and diameters, ranges and velocities.

I also question the fact they claim a similar exit hole performance for TSX and TTSX. I have shot a bunch of critters using a number of them and have seen very few caught and have never personally caught one. The hunters I know using them have very similar results to mine. Some of them are laughing right now at the claims.

My Accubond experience is thin, but if only one in five get stopped on average I need to see nearly 150 exits in a row to come back to even. That includes four 300gr 375s failing to exit a broadside bear when a 270gr TTSX had just gone full length through the same bear. That is supposed to be a tough bullet.

And for the record, they are not "bad" bullets any more than Partitions are bad bullets. I simply think if killing is the only goal most bullets are equal. If the other parameters make a difference it is easy to do better.

My AB experience isn't "thin", and mirrors what MD says, and his experience is as far from "thin" as it gets. I have never said they mirrored TTX/TTSX penetration characteristics that I'm aware of. AB:s are killing machines, whether they exit or not and to say otherwise shows a complete lack of knowledge and/or experience.

For sure. I still love my .284 150 CoreLokts, have killed three times the animals with them than all others combined. I understand Hornady makes those for..........what once was .......Remington. Don’t know who they are now.

The last elk I killed was at 450 yds with a 280ai. pushing a 160gr accu bond. Ran 20 yards and fell over dead. I know it wasn't a max load. Exit hole was a little larger then a half dollar.

I'm currently running a 150gr TTSX in an -06 at just over 3000 fps. Ain't noting in NA gonna stop it I swear to god. But I did hit a whitetail doe this fall in the ass and holy [bleep] it removed the phuzy, the chiit condom, and half of both hind quarters. It's still chucking going. Caused way more damage than I've ever seen a partition or accubond cause. But I'm mostly hunting Hells Canyon Country and that TTSX is gonna anchor anything period. Not even a discussion. It's the most wicked combo I've ever seen. I'd run a 165TTsx in a 300wsm or win mag. And a 180 TTSX in any bigger .30 cal like a RUM or a Bee. Again all my Accubond kills were Identical to Partition. kills. Nothing goes very far, the entrance, the exit, and everything in between VERY Partition like. Used to be which ever shot better was my choice. Not doubting your experience at all. Don't even get me started on Ballistic Tip Failures...

A bunch of folks are laughing right now... claims of near equal exit wound percentages between X and ABs is beyond laughable.

The differences in the amount of meat lost to each is very obvious if you have a large enough sample. There are the occasional anomalies but it does not take a huge number of samples to show the obvious.

Your fantasies are your own and I will happily stand on whatever metric you think you stand a chance of competing on. Disabusal will be harsh.

I have been running the 168gr TTSX in a 30-06 for about six years while doing all my hunting with either a 30-06 or a 375AI. It has been an amazing bullet.

I run 168 TTSX in my .300 Wby and 165 TTSX in my .30-06 and 100 gr TTSX in .257 Roberts. Never could get the AB to shoot well in the Roberts.

You need to read slower and talk less sometimes.

So you agree 20% retention for both bullets is clearly outside your experience?

And you agree Accubonds exit far less frequently than TSX or TTSX?

I agree that monos will out penetrate c&c's most every time, and that AB/Partitions will shed more weight and sometimes the exit and sometimes they don't. Never said different. I also have seen from my own and the hunters we have in camp, which once again mirrors what MD has said, is that AB's/Partiions/ C&C's in general kill quicker than monos. Never said monos weren't efficient killers, ever. I also KNOW that AB"s are very, very effective and efficient killers on game up to and including large African sized animals.

Art,

I never said that AccuBonds penetrate as well as Barnes X, or other monolithics. I merely pointed out the statistics derived from my hunting notes, which include a LOT more AccuBonds than five, and not only at least as many Barnes X's of various sorts but Nosler E-Tips and Hornady GMX's.

I also pointed out that the Barnes X's tended to be smaller and lighter than the AccuBonds for the same size of game, and the reason is (of course) is that smaller, lighter monolithics (along with similar-acting bullets like the late Fail Safe) tend to out-penetrate just about all lead-cored bullets--"just about all" because some lead-cores, such as the North Fork, penetrate very similarly to monos. But Noryh Forks only have a little sliver of lead in the tip. (The Fail Safe had a lead core in the rear, but the front end opened just like X's, E-Tips, etc.

In general, for a certain job I tend to pick AccuBonds of the same weight and caliber as Partitions, but expect a slightly smaller percentage to exit, because AccuBonds usually end up expanding into a wider, more rounded mushroom. But when I do pick an AccuBond of the same weight and caliber as a Partition, I still expect it to exit on broadside shots, though sometimes they don't when going through both shoulders and spine, But then the animal is down anyway. Oh, and sometimes they don't exit animals in the 1000+ pound size-range on broadside shots, but then neither do all monolithics.

Damn if I an't interested in a .375. In your experience has the AI actually been worth it? Or in all honesty would a .375 Ruger or HH be just fine... You live there. You've BTDT....

The AI is worth it only because of case life. The H&H is a beautiful cartridge, but my experience has been limited case life and constant trimming.

The little increase in velocity is mostly moot. I have had several H&H versions and aside from trimming they were great beyond the nostalgia. My AI has a 20" #5 Pac-Nor and the stock has a little cast on. It is a real kitten.

The Accubond is a very fine bullet. It does well at a wide range of impact velocities. The 50yard timber elk is DRT and the 800 yard cross canyon bull is a ten step and down. Impact velocity has a great deal of influence on a bullets performance. The accubond covers the curve of caliber and ranger as well as any product on the market.

Anyone that cares if a bullet exits blank percent of the time spend far more time BULLSHïTTiNG than killing. If the hide on the far side catches a bullet the said bullet did a perfectly fine job. To add a TSX in the same conversation is the equivalent of telling everyone in the discussion (well guys I’m full of shït BUT the meat loss is _________ ).

For about two solid months a year my cooler looks like this and 75% of the victims are accubond deaths.

It’s all meat loss if the critter runs off. I have just developed a preference for Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets based on my experience with them. I have recovered every animal I ever shot with one within 15 yards or less and have never recovered a bullet, just exited. An entrance wound and exit wound forward of the diaphragm usually lets the air out of the critter. Nothing wrong with Accubonds either. Several hunters in our camp shoot them well with good results on the meat pole. Less filling, Tastes great....Happy Trails

I'll take the opinion of a guy who has lots of experience with a bullet over someone with virtually none but has strong opinions.

Reading comprehension is a gift. Everything I have been saying is verified in this thread by others arguing with my points. Critical readers are very clearly seeing my points.

LOL. Talking out both sides of your mouth.
Integrity is where you lack congrats on the reading.

The answer to the bullet?? accubond 100-1 over tsx on anything that requires shots over 400. Those accubonds win. In side 400 as well but I’m not starving or desperately need rib meat.

PS I have fired more TSX’s and Accubond in a week than you have ever. 😉 Alaska must be the IQ state.

Remember heavywalker selling 20,000+. 85grain TSX’s. Wonder where little brother got those.

Poor Sitka dummy....

Well not piss on the tsx train gang. My buddy shot a spike fork moose with a 375 RUM with a 270gr tsx. Guess what he recovered the bullet. These were chrono by me doing 2900 plus fps. Moose was about 100yds away. I like the accubonds I seen what they do to moose, caribou and bear. I also like the good ol partition, moose, deer, elk with them for me.

Killing is a messy business 😉.
2900 those hides will stretch and catch just about anything short of fmj.

I’ve been running lots of eld ‘S and the off rib cage catches them.
I can live with dead is dead.

79S,

I know more than one African PH who prefers his Cape buffalo clients to use 270-grain .375 TSX's rather than 300's, BECAUSE they tend to stop under the hide, while the 300's tend to exit. Buffalo usually live in herds, either a small herd with a few other bulls, or a bigger herd including cows and calves--and they're often in pretty thick cover, where not all of the other members of the herd can be seen. PH's prefer not to shoot two buffalo with one bullet.

I’d like to find an old test that gave exit velocities of various bullets. I was shocked at how slow most were going and how the hide catches most of them.

Argumentum ad absurdum. There is nothing in North America close to Cape Buffalo in hardness and showing they are caught at that extreme end says nothing about the vast majority of use.

It also shows their tremendous respect for the penetration of the TSX. It is easily supported by empirical evidence that X bullets penetrate more. And not just a little more.

Art,

I wasn't arguing ANYTHING. Was just stating an interesting fact about PH preferences to 79S, who brought up 270 TSX's stopping in moose.