With Partitions being 20% more expensive, and performance being similar, what reason is there to choose the Partition over the Accubond?

Personally ( but only trying them in two rifles) I can't get the accuracy out of an Accubond that I can out of a Partition.

Like Ingwe, I’ve observed some guns liking NPTs better. But have some guns that prefer the NAB.

I let the gun decide. Terminal performance isn’t that different.

DF

And, the cost difference for hunting bullets is not a factor in my decision making process. Target bullets shot br the thousands, maybe. Hunting bullets, no. One can plink with cheaper bullets, hunt with the good stuff.

DF

I prefer the Partition over the Accubond if accuracy is equal. I like the explosive front of the Partition, and that it folds back to nearly a wadcutter for slightly better penetration.

But I've used plenty of Accubonds, and it's a great bullet. But I'm also not averse to hunting elk with the Ballistic Tip either.

Personally, I've found both Partitions and Accubonds to be equally picky, though that's certainly not the case with all rifles. Some prefer Accubonds, some Partitions, some neither, and occasionally both.

Ballistic Tips are generally much more accurate than either.

Partitions do as they are designed. Front half expands to twice the dia. and does damage. Rear half holds together and continues to travel through. At lower speeds/distance the two usually stay together. At higher speeds or close range the front half can come apart but the rear half continues, usually passing through..Great bullets and have solid repeatable performance for years and years..The standard...........
Accubonds expand on contact as designed and usually hold together being bonded. At fast speed/close distance they can expand quit rapidly and the earlier versions were found to be too thin of jackets and got the nickname "accubombs"

I have found both work great and have not had any horror stories with either. I have about a 90% pass through success with partitions on deer, 100% on goats. Only deer that didn't pass through were 2 angle shots on big muleys, where the bullet was found under the opposite hide after traveling 20+ inches ( 2nd to end rib enter, liver, lungs, shoulder and bullet found under hide opposite brisket). I have had 2 accubonds pass through on deer with perfect behind the shoulder broadside shots and a 1 other not pass through but was a bang flops, 2 antelope pass throughs.........

For me in 3 different rifles (tikka t3 6.5x55, rem 700 .270 and rem 700 .308) accubonds and ABLR shoot tigheter groups but partitions usually are my go to as they still shoot great and perform time and time again, especially if there is a chance for elk along with deer.

I guess I've been lucky, all the rifles I've loaded have shot Accubonds and Partitions with equal accuracy.

Finding Partitions on sale and stocking up can offset the cost difference enough that it doesn't matter.

Same as what the others have said. I’ll shoot either or and expect no difference on the animals I regularly hunt.

I have more rifles that consistently shoot the Pts. very well than I do ones which do so with Abs. Don't know why, don't really care and I have a lifetime supply of Partitions, usually bought in bulk on sale.

I still prefer a moderately heavy for caliber Partition for general BC uses, in all of my rifles, especially .270-150s. .284-160s, .308-180s/200s and my overall fave, the .338-250s. I shoot 9,3-286s and .375-300s, but, am selling my last .375 as I never shoot it anymore and really prefer the 9.3s and especially .338WMs.

I have one 7x57, a mint Brno ZG-47 carbine, which shoots the 160 Abs into dimes at 100 and I will soon try them in a gorgeous 7x57r-16 ga. O/U I recently acquired as these are my "old guy" guns for walking old roads, covered with grass and hoping for grouse and deer.

I liked what Brad had to say. However, I believe most elk, deer,etc. hunters put too much importance on which bullet is the most accurate. The question should be is it accurate enough to get the job done. In many of my rifles the NP will not be the most accurate, but in almost all cases it will be plenty accurate enough to get the job done and then some. In the field I can not see any practical difference between a rifle/load combo that'll average less than three inches at 300yards for five shots and one that'll average 4.5 inches or so for five shots. Then again, I can't recall shooting much beyond 400 yards. BTW it's my opinion choosing the Nosler Partition is never a mistake.

Yep, if you never shoot over 400 yards, small differences in accuracy aren't going to make any difference on game, and not just on elk but deer-sized animals.

Have seen Partition shoot more accurately than Accubonds in a number of rifles, which I suspect often occurs because AccuBonds can't be seated close to the lands and still fit in the magazine, due to their plastic tip, but Partitions can. But I've almost never had any problems getting Partitions to shoot well, and in fact some Partitions I expect to shoot very well. One is the 140-grain 6.5mm. I once tried just about any bullet imaginable in a very accurate 6.5-06, and while the most accurate turned out to be the 140-grain Berger VLD, the second most-accurate was the 140 Partition--and it wasn't second by much. Have seen that over and over again.

But in rifles where Accubonds can be seated close to the lands, they've usually been very accurate, though not quite as accurate as Ballistic Tips.

magnum44270,

No, the jackets on early AccuBonds weren't too thin. In fact they've been pretty much the same thickness since the beginning. I started using them the first year they appeared, in more than one caliber, and they expanded on game just like they do now.

Instead the "AccuBomb" problem was due to one person on the assembly line trying to speed up the process a year or two after the introduction. Demand was VERY high, and this guy thought he could help. His speed-up resulted in a failure to bond, and some of those bullets got out of the plant before the problem was discovered. Most were recalled but some had already been sold in retail stores, and those are the bullets that caused the problems, not thin jackets.

Thanks guys

If you are hunting white tails, all you need are ballistic tips. Bigger animals, Accubonds or Partitions. Grandkids kill deer and pigs with 243’s. It doesn’t take much to kill deer and pigs.

Front half usually comes apart and shreds. Not expand.

When it comes to terminal performance, the Accubond is not a Partition. Don't get me wrong, the AB's are good, but my observation is they don't penetrate as well on angle shots on elk and are not as consistent in their penetration.

Plus, I can buy Partition 2nds for less than Accubond 2nds, and practice with my fullhouse hunting loads. In my the rifles I've loaded AB's for I've had good luck with finding an accurate load.

I have only shot a few animals with the Accubonds so don't have the experience as others here. I will say they shoot good but so does the Partition bullet. From what I've seen a Partition will out penetrate a Accubond of the same weight and cal. Accubond usually has a better B.C for long range. I use both but my preference would be a Partition. At the end of the day they're both really good bullets. They work as Nosler designed them to. Should add not having dented points from recoil is another Accubond plus.

As I stated, at high speeds/close distance the front half can come apart and the rear keeps going.....at lower speeds/distance it expands and stays together.... Ive recovered 2 perfect mushrooms. one in .243 and one in .270

ok....either way, some of the early versions were flawed, but since then the issue has been resolved...

So I think the consensus is that performance is so similar as to not worry, and since the Accubond sells for 20% less, and it shoots for you.....it is the better value for the money.

either would be great for deer/hogs/goats. If elk is on the menu step up to partitions..............also check SPP for Nosler seconds. Partition seconds can be found cheaper than AB seconds. Have bought and shot hundreds of Nosler seconds, wtih no issues. Most times its staining or discoloration of the copper.

I'm one of those guys that hates surprises so I'd pick the Partition.

I have 50 years of experience with Partition in various calibers. I have always been pleased with them in both effects and in accuracy.
I am willing to try the bonded bullets too, and so far I have seen good results, but nothing better then any Partition I have used in the past. I hope to kill an elk with a 250 gr 9.3MM Accu-Bond in the next few weeks. But I have not killed enough game with bonded bullets (of all brands combined) to give any clear answer to the question "which is better"?

Any bullet made anywhere is going to have a very hard time surpassing the performance of the Nosler Partition. I and a friend are hopefully going to be importing some premium hunting bullets from Europe soon, and our hope is that we can match the performance of the Partitions, and sell them at a lower price. But my testing is not complete yet.

We'll have the report ready next spring.

I'll take the Partition in most situations. If I need the extra BC or if Partitions don't group well, I'll go AB.

Coincidentally, I recovered two 140 grain Nosler Accubonds from a nice 29" four point mule deer my son shot yesterday. Both bullets are fully expanded, with almost no shank left. I have photos on my phone but I don't have a clue how to post them. The bullets are from a 7mm STW., range was about 150-200yards.

Tried some factory Federal loads in the early 80's loaded with partitions. Had 3 shot pencil through a middlin-sized whitetail at 150 yards. Two through the shoulders and one through the neck. Took them home and fired the rest of the box into a pile of sand at 50 feet. Out of the 17 I shot, 12 never expanded a bit. This out of a 25-06. I swore off them from then on.
Fast forward and I tried them again in a Model 99 243 and a Wby Vanguard 243. The Wby loves them, the Savage, not so much. The Wby also loves the accubond. Depending on the stand I'm hunting, I'll load with one or the other in the Wby.
In my 25-06's and others, it's mostly the Accubonds I'm shooting. Accuracy has been better and terminal performance has definitely been there.
Shot my elk this past year with the Accubond LR in my 264. One through both shoulders passed completely through. Had to put a second one in as he decided he wasn't dead yet and nicked a twig. Penetration through the ham, hip bone and about 4-5' of elk and lodged under the hide in the off shoulder ended the discussion.

The only Partition I've recovered is a 150gr from my STW at the same range.

The partition is the benchmark for performance, that's for sure. I've killed many, many big game animals with both partitions and accubonds, and I haven't noticed a difference in killing power between them at all.

In 30+ years of seeing multiple deer and elk each year, plus other game, shot with Partitions I can't recall seeing one fail to show some kind of expansion--even on a pass through. I can also remember several deer and elk killed by clients with factory Federal Premium Partition ammo.

The other day as I was leaving camp I came across a sounder of very young pigs. Wanting one for the pot, I waited until the largest boar - 20 pounds or so - cleared the rest, and he stood facing me about 35 yards away. The load was a 160-gr Partition over 45.0 grains of Hunter, not chronographed but I'd guess somewhere between 2450 - 2500 fps. The bullet entered just below and to the right of the right ear and traveled down the spine, completely destroying the right backstrap. As a matter of fact, when I got to him his innards were coming out his back. When I was skinning the hams, I found a piece of lead about the size of a pea just under the skin. That was all that was left of the front of the bullet. The back part is probably up in Georgia someplace. In this case, the front half of the bullet definitely came apart and shredded.

I believe the " open" end and the lack of a boat tail benefits the partition to " slug" the barrel and keep the partition accurate where there maybe some crown damage or erosion in older rifles/ carbines.

The accubond having a solid boat tail base may let gasses escape as it leaves the barrel if the crown is not uniform.

Anecdotal evidence, I have two rifles that were recrowned that shot accubonds better after the work. ( but one also got a new trigger) so my observation may be biased.

Partitions all the way for this old geezer....

Is there a general rule-of-thumb for velocity to keep below so the PT front half doesn't shred? I tend to like my bullets to stay together incase I have to hit game where the meat is.

Prefer partitions, especially after I had the tips fall off of some 200 gr 30 cal ABs. Probably an isolated instance but still a pain after they were loaded.

stay behind the shoulder, take neck shots, or be willing to sacrifice the impact side shoulder. There rear half will penetrate.

Here is a recovered 6.5 140grn partition out of a Swede at 2920fps muzzle. 183 yard impact on a big mature muley..............As you can see, front peeled back to the partition, lead got ate up inside the animal, rear penetrated 20+ inches

I have fired more partitions than accubond bullets. Like others here, I seem to get a bit smaller groups with the pt compared to the ab, but definitely not enough to fret over. I do know I recovered more accubonds than partitions from dead game. I did notice accubonds sported a wider expanded 'mushrooms' compared to the partitions collected.

I saw no 'accubomb' problems with accubonds neither, just dead game with occasional busted shoulders, shattered spines or nice short blood trails if there was any..... Kinda like the partition.

Text book performance.

Magnum: What load are you shooting? I am still trying to work out max loads for the Swede with R26. Coming up with 2950 or so for 129-130s as a mild maximum load maybe nudging 3,000 but will proceed cautiously. I was concerned about the 129 LRAB being too soft for closer shots but guess I don't need to be too concerned if they are like the 140s at all.

Im using Norma MRP 51grn. and rem 9 1/2 primers with Lapua brass. 3.150oal

The front portion of Partitions don't "shred". The front portion has a relatively thin jacket and opens readily. It is not unusual to find most of the lead in the front half gone with the front jacket peeled all the way back to the partition. When hitting elk bone it's not unusual to find all the front lead gone and a few wisps of the front jacket remaining.

They're supposed to work that way............

The front core of Partitions is also a relatively soft lead alloy, with 2.5% antimony. Most cup-and-core big game bullets have lead cores with 3-4% antimony.

The rear core of Partitions is a harder lead alloy, so the rear end will retain its shape, but the exact amount of antimony varies a little depending on the specific bullet.

Apparently quite a few hunters still don't understand the Partition. John Nosler deliberately designed it as an all-around bullet for deer-sized game on up. He WANTED the front core to expand relatively easily, and fragment, because in his hunting experience (and he had a lot) bullets that fragmented at least somewhat killed deer-sized game quicker. But he also wanted a tougher rear-end of the bullet to penetrate deeper on game bigger than deer.

In recent years, however, somehow higher weight retention has become the measure of "killing power," for at least some hunters. These often complain about how the front end of Partitions performs, or even consider a "disappeared" front core a failure, like they would an empty jacket from a cup-and-core bullet.

AccuBonds were designed to replicate the basic weight retention performance of Partitions, but with a plastic tip for those who always whined about Nosler not offering a "tipped Partition." They do exactly that, but because AccuBonds don't have a Partition many hunters don't perceive the front-end weight-loss as a "failure," as they do when recovering a Partition without a front core.

Have fired factory and handloaded Partitions at the range, never in the field. AB's get used in the field quite a bit, with BTs or SSTs as stand-ins at the range.

Push come to shove, though, I'd happily use either Partitions or ABs.

Great explanation Mule Dear

MD, thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if it was directed at me or not though. I understand the reason behind the design. I just don't care for how destructive the few I've seen have been. I've used factory Fed premiums in my .257 Bob years ago and they made a complete mess of things if a shoulder was hit. My boss back then always used 150's out of his .30-06 and had the same results. I just wondered if there was a general velocity to keep below so the soft front end wouldn't be so destructive. I hunt very thick woods and don't always have the option of waiting for a double lung shot and staying away from the shoulder.
Thanks

I could not agree more. If a rifle won't shoot BT's accurately during load development, then it likely won't shoot anything else.

I agree. I've tried them in a few rifles myself and the partitions are generally much more accurate. However, I generally start and end at about .020" off the lands with all of my loads and from what I've heard, the accubonds like a little more jump to the lands... I'll try them again one of these days, as I know they have better bc's and perform just about as good as the partition and even better at long range. I also noticed a lot of guys are worried about price: One over the other. Damn you guys need to put SPS on speed dial or at least add it to your desk top so you have easy access to it. Check out the seconds and blemished bullets they have at super low prices:

Nosler blem's

Personally, I can't get the accuracy out of a Partition that I can from an Accubond.

There is a general rule for guys that don't want the front end of a partition to shred. The way it works is you shoot an A-Frame instead. Its pretty reliable that way.

You need to stay away from the Partition if that's the case. A Frame or North Fork is your huckleberry, to corroborate Model70Guy.

you can never go wrong with using partitions, but I have now switched to swift a-frames and some barnes x-bullets I seem to get just a little better accuracy and these 2 bullets do as good as job on an animal as a partition. I have plenty partitions yet and still have a soft spot for that old nosler bullet.

Agree.

I sorta like the NPT just because, but IME, the gun decides which one it likes and I go with that.

NBT's often will out group NAB's of the same weight, etc. Because the 180 NAB and 180 NBT have the same B.C., same POI in my .300 WM, I alternate depending on what I'm hunting. My .240 Wby shoots the 100 NPT tighter than any other bullet, so it's the one for that gun, an HS Precision SPL wearing a Hunters Edge handle.

So, the rule is there is no rule. You find what the gun likes and go kill stuff.

DF

Partitions are the best of both worlds. Front half is devastating, like a BT or VLD and the rear half gives the penetration like a Barnes/GMX. They down right kill............If you dont like the devastation and are worried about one bloodshot shoulder the Aframe, like suggested above, is great... However, i've never punched a shoulder, with any bullet (partition, AB,AFrame, core-loc, win. powerpoint, BT, VLD) and not lost meat.

Even a mono, like the 80 gr. TTSX at 3,600 fps out of a .240 can mess up a lot of tissue. I think it depends on the bullet and the velocity.

DF



And a hog shoulder hit by a 120 E-Tip (about the same as a TTSX) out of a 26 Nosler at 3,450 fps. Speed kills and it messes up stuff, too.

Simply put, there is nothing in North America that I would really feel like I needed either bullet to kill. Too much time has been spent trying to answer a question that was never asked.

The entire outdoor industry is still trying to find something new to sell to the American hunter and they do it by hype, rather than innovation. I am not talking about reading articles to confirm my experience, I am talking about data taken from animals I have killed or seen killed.

The newest hottest cartridge is now the 6.5 Creedmoor, and it isn't doing anything that another cartridge hasn't already done, but people are still lining up for the newest and latest craze in shooting. Cup and core bullets have been lethal for over 100 years, bonded bullets and Partitions don't bring much to the table that the old bullets haven't been capable of for many years.

Next someone will defend the Partition for it's virtues and forget that there are plenty of people right here on the Campfire that will shoot big game with a 223 and claim how lethal it is, then defend the Partition in the next breath.

I continue to hunt and kill everything with bread and butter bullets and still don't see a need for bonded or partition bullets in North America...

It's amazing, from today's perspective, how much game has been killed over the years with CoreLokts and such at 2,500-2,600 fps...

DF

I've been dinking around with several different types of bullet, but frankly don't think I like any of them any better than plain ol' Interlocks, maybe not even as well. It's hard to beat something that is inexpensive and just works.

RM

Agreed. But then they go and discontinue 2 great interlocks ( 100 and 120 gr in 257), only to introduce 2 new 110 gr Bullets, an FTX ( now seriously, how much demand can there be for a bullet for the 25-35.?) and now a 110gr ELD-X.

Accubonbs vs Partition: Accubonds have always been the easiest to find good accuracy. Not by much, but it was there. Second, Accubonds also seem to be more consistent in accuracy over the long haul. Enough to make a difference on game at the ranges I shoot? Definitely not.

Of the three Ballistic tips usually win the accuracy race for me. However, in Bob's .270W raffle rifle, so far they have came in third out of the three.

All around easiest bullet I've found to give good accuracy would be the Barnes TTSX.

I've always thought a Partition would be a hard bullet to build consistently. I would think it would be hard to get the Partition-and thus the balance point-in exactly the same place over a run of x number of bullets. Looks like they have figured out how to make it happen.

Does anybody have a preference at magnum velocities (3000fps+)if accuracy is equal? Would the accubond hold together better but loose out on penetration? I've thought the partition would make a bigger mess but could be way off.

With mag velocity from a STW. 300 338 and even 25 06 I'd choose the Partition from my experience

+1. This has been my experience as well. I find getting accuracy from Accubonds comes fairly easily. I have even better results with Gamekings.

No slouch for sure.

We've lost all .284 roundnose bullets. I've laid in a store of 154-gr SP Interlocks just in case. I've told my wife to bury me with them because I hope we are still able to hunt in the resurrected New Heaven and New Earth, but even then don't trust Hornady to keep making them.

RM

Agreed.. Partition wins for me as well

I have rifles that will support both statements.

It's hard to make a blanket statement, either-or, when both may be true.

Now that may sound like the dialectical reasoning of Eastern philosophy, "both-and" vs. the Law of Noncontradiction, "either-or".

But in this case, "it depends"...

DF

I have used Partitions in 6MM, 277, .284 and .308 diameters. The 6MM 85 grain Partiton is an OK bullet. It does give great penetration but to me the wound channel is a bit narrow. It handles bone hits very well and I like to use it for CNS shots. The 150 gr. .277 bullet is excellent in all respects. The 140 and 160 gr. Partitions in .284 are the same way, just can't ask for better performance from a bullet. Recently I have put to the test some 150 gr. .308 Partitions out of a very light 308 and this might be the best all around bullet yet. I have used the 200 and 180 gr. Partitions out of my 30-06 and a 300 Win Mag and for me I don't need any more performance than these two have to offer. I have used some Accubonds in .284 in a 7MM RM and a 280 AI, I came away liking the 150 gr. Ballistic Tips better than the 160 gr. Accubond. Might be a reflection on the cartridges as I really never reached velocities in these two I thought I should get. Meaning no real gains over the 30-06 or 270, 100 fps is a pretty small gain generally.

The last 2 Elk I shot with 150gr Nosler Partitions did not expand as much as I,d like so I,m going back to Accubonds
except in my 257 Roberts, because the Partition is more accurate in that rifle.

GunTruck50, what kind of expansion were you expecting and what did you get? Did you recover the bullets ? If so what did they(it) look like. Did the elk require tracking? Did you have to shoot them more than once? Thanks.

I totally agree with shrapnel about this. If one would study his quarry, the quarry's anatomy, and practice putting the ordinance where intended, the minutiae of Terminal Ballistic Performance variable is exactly as stated. Minuetia.

I agree for the most part with what Shrapnel has told us.. I suppose I have shot most of my elk or many for sure with cup and core bullets.. For years my standard bullet was the Sierra 165 HPBT... I still have a box loaded for my favorite .300... But I have used Part. and Accubonds, especially if I am hunting in an area where I want to make a high shoulder shot for what ever reason.. I have done that with the Sierra's but sometimes a second shot was needed to finish the animal.. I all other hunting the Sierra, Horn. or Nosler BTBT is my choice...

The Ballistic tip is a fine bullet and probably the toughest cup and core bullet made. I have ran them at high velocity from 243's to 338's and they always worked and worked well. If you can't kill an animal cleanly with a ballistic tip the problems with the Indian, not the arrow.

The majority of the elk and large axis I've taken have been taken with C-n-C bullets. My largest bodied whitetail (200+ live weight) was taken with a C-n-C 120 grain 257 caliber at 480 yards (+/-) and traveled in the shoulder closest to me and exited the off-side ham. I had some problems with .257 caliber factory stuff back in the early 80's and pretty much stick with the C-n-C bullets until I tried the Accubonds. I'm using those now in the 25-06's, 243, 308 and the two 6.5's. Took my elk last year with the 142 gr LRAB with complete pass through of both shoulder blades. I still use C-n-C bullets in 223, 7mm, 358 and .357 as well as one 30.
Put a decent bullet in the right place and let it do it's job.

Both elk were taken with a 270 Winchester with 150gr Nosler Partitions using Norma MRP. First elk was a cow at about 60 yards
hit shoulder, not much expansion going thru but nose of bullet broke off sliced heart open like a knife and came out thru the chest.
Rest of the bullet continued on thru and hit the shoulder bone on the far side it bounced off and followed the leg bone down to
where your elbow would be. Butcher dug it out their. It,s around the house here some where. back half weight about 95grains.
had to shoot cow in neck to kill it. Bull elk in 2015 in Wyoming shot it using same load as 2012 in Arizona. Shot bull in rain
and fog at about 175 yards. Bullet went thru both shoulders, Broke first shoulder but not second. Small hole coming out second
shoulder went about 50 yards. No bullet recovered. Used 140gr Accubonds with RL23 at about 3040fps or so. Only had a deer
tag for Colorado, didn't get one. Trying to decide on Barnes TTSX 110gr or 130gr in my 270 Winchester. So far RL23 is most accurate
powder in my 270 Win. RL26 and MRP give higher velocities. In my 30/06 I,m using 150gr Accubonds with RL16 powder. Still use 115gr
Partitions in my old model 70 257 Roberts. It do shoots 1 " groups with the Partitions and about 1.5" groups with the 110gr Accubonds.

Killed a lot of other animals, but NP with one shot took out 9'2" brown bear (300gr NP at 2,700 fps); big moose (225gr TTSX at 3,160f sp); small deer (168gr AB 2,600 fps). The AB exit wound on the deer was after going through about 25" of deer. It's ferocious. But I likely would prefer the NP, TTSX or Etip if hunting large dangerous things. But that moderate velocity AB was pretty ferocious to me.