Anybody else wonder why Nosler doesn't make a 270 cal,150g Accubond? Yeah, I do know they have a 150g LRAB. Any ideas why no regular Accubond in the 277, 150g? I know there is a 150g Partition that works great, but the same could be said for other common calibers and weights are available in both the Partition and Accubond. It just seems like there are enough 270s out there that there would be plenty of demand.

Just guessing but probably because the 130 grain seems to be the most popular in the 270, and those who want heavier go to 140's. Maybe the demand just isn't there for the 150's? They do make 150 grain Ballistic Tips too, in addition to the Partitions, and for years that's all I used. It's a good question though, maybe you ought to ask Nosler and see what they say.

I think they came out with the 140gr NAB first, as kind of a split-the-difference option to catch both the 130gr and 150gr crowds. Then there was demand for the traditional 130gr weight from those that wanted speed, but likely not enough clamor over a 150gr version to warrant making all three weights.

Same with the 7mm. They go from 140 to 160.

Rumour has it that nosler doesn't bring out an accubond in a particular weight if it offers no performance increase over a ballistic tip.

The added length over a ballistic tip might struggle with 1-10 twist in most .270 rifles?

If that were the case, then there would be no 30 cal 165 and 180

I thought BT and Accubonds came out of the same dies for the most part. My WAG is the Partition already meets the need for the 150s so an Accubond would just cut into sales of these.

^^^ this

Accubonds are usually the same profile as ballistic tips, or very close. So, if a 150 BT is fine in a 1-10", I would think 150 AB would be fine, too. Especially considering the even longer 150 ABLR is supposed to be fine in a 1-10".

130s and 150s seem to be the most common weights used in the 270, so I just found it odd. Maybe there just isn't a good reason, other than that is just what Nosler decided to do.

[/quote]

Especially considering the even longer 150 ABLR is supposed to be fine in a 1-10".

.[/quote]

Doh, forgot about the ABLR and I have several hundred of them waiting to be tested out. The 129gr. 6.5s did what I wanted them to do so the 270 should be even better since they are heavier per caliber. Bet they put some Cahones on my 270 WSM.

You have the 13- 140 AB and 150 ABLR....wonderful bullet!

It's my understanding that when Nosler tested the 150AB vs the NBT, the AB produced no performance advantage over the NBT. The 150gr NBT is tougher than you might think.

That was my understanding. It may be coincidence but there are no AB in 100 grain .257, 120 or 150 .284 either and all those have a reputation for being pretty tough.

I'm not so sure about the toughness of the 150 grain Ballistic Tips. I shot an antelope at a little over 300 yards with my 270 Win. The shot was broadside, hit him behind the shoulder, the bullet nicked a rib going in and destroyed the lungs but didn't touch the far side of the body cavity. That's not very tough in my opinion. I would have thought it would have penetrated completely in that scenario.

How long ago was that? I only ask because Nosler has beefed up the jackets on many, if not all, ballistic tip hunting bullet over the years. They were pretty fragile for years to the extent that was their reputation. I don't know the timeline for when they did this. I do recall Mule Deer touching on this numerous times in his articles.

For what it's worth, I would have guessed the reason it doesn't exist is that the 150 BT is tough enough for typical impact velocities of the majority of 270 cartridges.

Yep.

They are only on at least the 4th iteration on the NBT.

I think it was 2001, the bullets may have been purchased 3 or 4 years prior to that.

Been redesigned with ticker jackets twice since then.

Well that's good to know. Maybe I'll use them again sometime. Probably would even work for elk. But I do have a bunch of 140 grain Accubonds to use up first.