Caliber is a 7mm Remington Magnum.

What if any are the major advantages of using the 150AB over the 150BT? Species include Deer, Elk, Bear, Antelope.

Thanks!

The only thing I see different is the AB is bonded the BT is not. It'll be a little "tougher" bullet and will probably penetrate a skosh better due to holding it's weight a little a better but to be honest the 150 gr 7mm BT is a TOUGH bullet. I wouldn't hesitate to use it on most anything! As with anything I would see what shot the best and go from there but I can't imagine the BT not shooting well. EVERYTHING Ive ever tried them in has shot excellent. They are "lights out" in my 7-08...Good luck

Shooters had been clamoring for that 150 Accubond for a while.

Mule Deer has hinted at the reason it wasn't produced was due to the toughness of the 150 BT, therefore essentially duplicating the BT.

Back a few years ago, I was working with the 180 NBT and 180 NAB in my .300 WM. I found the NBT to be slightly more accurate than the NAB in that setting.

In the 7RM, the 160 NAB is stellar, haven't tried the 150. My bud took his 7RM Sendero on an African PG hunt, was pleased with the rifle and the load, 160 NAB over 67.5 gr. RL-26 at around 3K fps. (Sendero is 26"). Mostly one shot kills, DRT or didn't go far. Fellow hunter borrowed it for a 300 yd. Impala shot. Boom, flop... PH was impressed with gun and load. Fellow hunters were, too.

DF

I had similar experiences as DF in both the 300 WM and 300 RUM with the the 180’s also. The accuracy is stellar with both bullets in both guns. I haven’t noticed any difference in the performance otherwise.

I have had such success with the 160 NAB that I can’t justify trying a 150 either BT or AB, one bullet I swear by

I've shot the 150gr Ballistic Tip and the 160gr Accubond.Both bullets performed well but I think the 150gr gives a little bigger wound channel because it's not bonded.I have not been able to recover either one.All deer I shot were one shot kills.I just started shooting Ballistic Tip again in the last eight years.I was turned off by the early versions because they were very explosive.The ones I shoot these days are built just like the Accubond,they are just not bonded.I get more DRT kills with them than any bullet I've used.

Like you, I was off NBT's back in the day, due to their explosive terminal performance. Our deer camp quit using them.

After reading recent accounts of the "new" NBT, I started back using them and found them to be great. They've always been accurate, even the older ones. The latest version has very good terminal performance, penetration with adequate tissue destruction.

DF

May be Mule Deer can enlighten us on why Nosler does that without informing their users. Seems that would be a smart business decision.

I don't think they figure they owe us an explanation. At least that's the feeling I get.

No one knows exactly when the exploding NBT's morphed into the nice hunting bullets we use today. If it wasn't for info here on the Fire, I doubt I would have ever used them again.

I guess they'd have to admit things weren't Kosher if they announced an upgrade. Like an upgrade from what...?

DF

I have been plenty happy with the 150 gr. Ballistic Tips myself, they have always worked perfectly for me.

I like the 160s+ for 7RM but with the 150s I would work up a load with the BT and use it on deer & antelope and then switch to the AB for bear, elk and larger. It would not make much difference if you accidentally substituted one for the other but especially for elk and a mid to light for caliber bullet the AB would give more confidence. Since we are in Texas Nilgai is one I would switch to the bonded bullet definitely. For just about every thing else in Texas short of bovines the BT will work well.

Jack OConner said the early 150s killed faster than the 175s in 7RM.

That was in a different century, and has no relevance in this day and age
I have nothing against the 150’s but the 160-180gr Bullets from this era are awesome!!

I’ve killed one old bull elk with the 150 Ballistic Tip from a 7-08. My first choice was the 140 Accubond, but my rifle shot the 150 NBT significantly better. Had the 150 NAB been available I would have been happy with that too. I really can’t see a need for anything heavier than a 150 in the 7-08/7x57. My friend Dober who used to post here liked the 150 NBT from the 7RM and Mashburn for everything, including elk. I believe he took his biggest bull with the 150 NBT from the 7 Mashburn. It works.

The Remington Core Locks have not changed that much although they have been modified about three or four times since JOC wrote that. I think it still has some relevance based on my own experience.

With that logic there are still some that use a round ball in muzzleloader's and that is fine if it is what you want.
I just prefer a more modern bullet and would never use a round ball or Remington Core-Lokt bullets ever.
The OP was asking about 150 BT's and AB's, they are far superior to a round ball or Core-Lokt's
My point was that JOC's statement might have been true in his era but not anymore, the heavies work just as good or better.

I suspect the reason for the 150gn 7mm Accubond is that there are very few gaps left to fill in Nosler's line up. They have to come up with something new so are filling a few gaps. I suspect there might be a 6.5mm 130gn Ballisitic Tip soon.

The reason for the 150gr NAB is the 7mm STW, 7mmRUM and other new 7mm Super Magnums.

With all due respect "modification" is the definition of change.

Any recollection of the changes? I was digging for info on older styles some time back...
Couldn't find much....

I wonder if anyone has looked into core separation in relation to weight diameter.

It seems to me that smaller cores would have a lower tendency to separate..