Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles 6.5mm 120 bt vs 129 ablr???

ok fellas whats the consensus here between these particular 2 bullets fired from a 260 rem at approx 2,900 fps?? has anybody tested the 2 head to head in test media to see which is "harder" and holds together better? my tikka t3 sl in 260 rem loves the 120 bt and i have absolutely no complaints with on game performance but the bullet loonie in me....................well he has questions and is never satisfied. its said the 129 ablr isn't as "hard" as the 130 ab but what about the 129 ablr as compared to the excellent 120 bt??? inquiring minds wanna know............ya know.
thanks,
Big Ed

Here's a 120 gr BT shot from a 6.5CM at 2900 fps ... 100 yd shot at a quartering deer lodged in his right shoulder.
Bullet did not fragment into pieces. No experience with 129 ABLR.

thats what i like to see rem 280. woulda been better had you just had a hole and not a recovered bullet though...........but its nice to see the core still in the cup/jacket.
thanks,
Big Ed

My Fieldcraft puts the 120 gr Ballistic Tip, at 2900 fps, into dime sized three shot groups at 100 yds. I have no reason to try anything else.

That pretty much echos my groups with the 120 BT from my 6.5CM

300 yard group 120 grain BT 1" group.

I will speculate the 129 ABCD what ever... is probably a better performing bullet, especially with a larger bodied animal...

but as hinted at above....the 120 grain Ballistic Tip has NEVER let me down...

and I am not a person who rides the Newer is Better Train...

if it works, I keep letting old choices continue to do their jobs..if they are still available...

If I could still get the old Hornady 6.5 mm 129 grain and 140 grain Round Nose bullets, I'd probably be going afield with those..

Yeah, about anything I take in the field is under 200 to 250 yds...and Round Noses will work just fine out to that distance...

You summed it up. If it isn't broke...….
but a looney will be a looney

But reading with interest as I have a new Swede to play with.

The 129 ABLR is a very thinly constructed bullet and won’t hold together as well as the 120 BT. I quit using them because they came apart more than I liked out of my 6.5x47.

I mainly use 3 bullets in the couple of Swedes that reside around here...for deer hunting..

100 grain Ballistic Tip...

120 grain Ballistic Tip..

140 grain Ballistic Tip...

although it is discontinued, several of those Swedes, have seen a lot of 100 grain Hornadys down the barrel...a fast load..

and also the 129 grain SP and 140 grain SP from Hornady....

and because I got 1500 or so of them for like $75 back when they could be had for that little... the 140 grain Corelokt..
which is probably the best corelokt bullet and weight in any caliber ever made... accurate as hell and lethal as hell also..

interesting crow. so, you are saying the ablr isn't as stoutly constructed as the 6.5mm 120 bt?? i always figured any ab or ablr would be a step up in construction than a bt..... the 7mm 120 bt not counted here as we all know how stoutly contructed that lil pill is. guess i didn't figure the 6.5mm 120 bt version to be as stoutly contructed as the 7mm version of the 120 grain bullet.........
thanks,
Big Ed

The hint is in the name - Accubond Long Range. It's made to expand easier at lower velocity, which is what happens at longer ranges.

If you're not shooting long range or starting it at a low muzzle velocity, why would you choose the "Long Range" version? Use the regular Accubond for normal hunting ranges and typical hunting rifle velocity.

Bingo.

Or if you are launching at 3k or less, the NBT will do just fine.

I used the Nosler 120 BT and the 125PT in a 6.5/284. Both were going right at 3200fps and they were wicked killers on deer, antelope, and exotics in Texas! 120 NBT is waaay plenty!

I think the 120 BT is tougher. I used the 129 ABLR on a couple of deer and they expanded too quickly. The deer died but all I recovered was a tiny portion of the base and I didn't get a pass through on either. I personally think Nosler missed the mark with the ABLR. The regular accubonds are a fine bullet but in the interest of making them expand well at long range they made the ABLR too fragile, bonded core or not. I'm not impressed with their performance in my admittedly limited experience with them.

Have used both and both have worked well but I have not recovered a bullet yet after around six deer. I would agree the 129 ABLR may be softer and may expand more but hard to say with no recovered bullets. I would use either with no hesitation but I caught a good sale of blems of the 129s and got several bags of them so unless something changes it will be the one I use. The ABLR may be softer but it is nothing like a Berger which I am dubbing the Ham-Berger bullet after the last one. High shoulder shot blew out three ribs with a grapefruit size hole then deflected upwards and broke the spine. There was shrapnel several inches away from the point of entry and about a 20-30 grain piece of jacket and core on the far side hide. I will use the 130s again but will be cautious on shot placement, as in don't hit anything you want to eat. This was at 88 yards so really not a fair test of a long range bullet.

Trying to wrap my mind around this way of thinking.

OBVIOUSLY the ABLR is softer - that's the point. It's a "Long Range" bullet, intended to work well at lower velocity - that means it has to be softer and open up easier.

I don't really understand why so many people have trouble understanding this, or why they think a specialty "Long Range" bullet is an all-purpose bullet, and then act disappointed when it didn't perform as they expected. Long Range does not mean "general purpose" or "bad-azz", it means specifically long range. If that's not what you need it for, don't use it; that's why they also make the regular Accubond.

Yondering

You're correct..but from what I gather from reading everyone's post they're just trying to compare it to other bullets they've shot or killed with.

What does Nosler consider long range? Just trying to understand why Nosler developed it when the BT has performed well for me.

Do you have experience with the LRAB at long ranges?

Rem280 - I have experience with the ABLR at low velocity, which is really the point of the ABLR (long range results in low velocity, or use them in a low velocity cartridge to start with).

I don't know what Nosler considers long range, but they will tell you the minimum expansion velocity for their bullets. IIRC the 129 ABLR was good down to about 1400 fps, while the regular BT and AB are more like 1800-2000 fps min. (Check Nosler for exact numbers, I'm going by memory here and might be off a bit, but the general point is correct.)

I use the 129 ABLR in my short (12.5") barrel 6.5 Grendel at only 2200 fps muzzle velocity; that wouldn't leave much working room with the 130 AB but the softer 129 ABLR extends the performance envelope significantly.

As to why they developed the ABLR when they have the AB and BT - the answer is in the name. The ABLR is a special purpose bullet for the lower velocity ranges that occur at long range. The fact that Nosler sells both the AB and ABLR in similar weights is also a pretty strong clue that they are intended for two different purposes. For what the OP and others here have mentioned, the 130 AB would be a much smarter choice than the 129 ABLR.

It does seem though that "Long Range" just sounds so cool that people are buying them anyway instead of considering the application.

If you're wondering why Nosler produces two similar products, the two to wonder about are the BT vs the AB. One of the Nosler people told me a number of years ago that their AB line was the BT with a bonded core; I'm sure at least some of those have diverged from that since then, but they are still similar bullets for similar applications, and they could drop the BT line completely in cases where the AB exists (they did do that with the 225gr .358 bullet, for example). I think the answer in most cases is just that the BT is a little cheaper than the AB and more product lines results in better sales.

The 260's COAL isn't limited by the action or magazine length in a Tikka so why not just use the 130 grain AB for all of your medium game hunting?

I've shot a whitetails with the 260 and a variety of component bullets and while I've never use the 129 grain ABLR, I have used the 1OO grain BT and Partition, 120 grain BT, 123 grain SST, 125 grain Partition, 129 grain Spirepoint, 130 grain AB, and 140 grain Partition. I don't recall getting many exit wound from the BTs, while always getting them with the AB and Partitions.

I've settled on the 130 grain AB in my 260s and find that it provides a nice balance of accuracy, velocity, and penetration.

I am not a long range hunter, a quarter mile being close to the range limit that I feel confident shooting game, unless the animal is an exceptional trophy.

Yondering what a foolish suggestions less bullets to go Looney over? As far as deer and like sized game all of the bullets mentioned will work just fine.

I picked the ABLR as I got them cheap and I wanted a more frangible bullet for South Texas brush hunting where you want them DRT or close to it or face a really nasty tracking job in heavy, belly crawling, possibly snakey, cover. Not to mention the chance of cumming nose to nose with a feral hog or javelina.

Some locations have the visibility for a long shot as a deer quickly crosses a sendero, so any added point blank range is a plus and the wind can really kick up too. Last trip our shade shelter almost went into lunar orbit during the gusts of 35+ mph.