swagger700
Well-Known Member
Any body using these or experience with them
Thanks Jon
Thanks Jon
Nosler LR accubond
- Thread starter swagger700
- Start date
I have used the 129gr ablr in my 6.5x55 and they are very good and seem to be on par with the 120b/t which I use now, the ablr are accurate and do as nosler say.i found them very good on fallow and roe but a little damaging on muntjac. muzzle velocity from my tikka 20" was 2640fps so not fast but did the job
A Nosler rep that I know said that up 600yds the standard Accubond are fine but any thing over that then the Accubond LR would be better.
swagger700
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your info
Jon
Jon
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Interesting. What game are they shooting at over 500 metres?
@swagger700, get in touch with @NigelM who uses the Accubond LR on British species with great success.
I'm looking at them to, mainly on muntjac, but don't want to be blowing them up
Very minimal meat damage on fallow in all calibres Ive shot this season (200+) ..Good exit and knockdown power.
Weird as I have heard these are a hard bullet, they are bonded after all, are you not confusing them with something else?
swagger700
Well-Known Member
Any body using 7mm ?
Deutsch - Drahthaar
Well-Known Member
Yep, I have used Accubond in a 7mm08 with max load and were very accurate and very good on the deer. Clean kills with little damage compared to Nosler ballistic tip same 140g weight. Only shot roe and red up to 200 meter and all performed well. However, I personally know of a 6.5x55 Accubond LR user that lost a few big red stags with them. I understand that they were shots taken up to and slightly above 400 meters. Same person retrieved a bullet from a red hind shot at similar distance and the bullet had only just started to mushroom slightly down one side. I believe they are hard and have to be driven at high speed for them to mushroom effectively at extended distances. From memory his 6.5 was doing about the 2670 mark so possibly this was the expansion issue. I suppose it could have been his bullet placement wasn't quite right too.
That is quite slow, I’m looking at 3000+ with a 129 out of the creed, if they work I’ll probably switch in the swede too
Personally I think someone is mixing up their Accubonds. The LR is not a “hard bullet” in the sense that it has a massive cavity within the core and they open up readily at very low velocity. Yes that Swede is pushing them slow but they will still be striking well in excess of what is required to make them work.
I like posting this picture because it is rare that an objective test on expansion is done with a consistent approach across the board. (That said these are all heavy .30 cal bullets, which most of us won’t shoot, but in my experience the results are reasonably consistent with smaller bullets of the same make and construction.)
This from Field & Stream.
1. Hornady ELD-X
2. Accubond LR
3. Barnes LRX
4. Berger VLD Hunting
5. Hornady SST
This from Field & Stream.
1. Hornady ELD-X
2. Accubond LR
3. Barnes LRX
4. Berger VLD Hunting
5. Hornady SST
Last edited:
CarlW
Well-Known Member
The Barnes, in particular, is appalling.
I think you guys know that I don’t much like monolithic bullets and @Edinburgh Rifles will get shirty with me for criticising them in blanket terms, which is fair enough. My experiences were based on early efforts in the early 2000s and I fully recognise that there are numerous monolithic products that have seriously improved terminal performance since then.
But what really annoys me about Barnes is that they have had the temerity and gall to market a “long range” bullet. What a complete load of bollocks! Pure BS.
This is perhaps the worst case of jumping on the long-range bandwagon I have seen. It deserves to be demolished at every opportunity. It also undermines the case for monolithic bullets because numpties like me will take this as evidence that all monolithic bullets are rubbish at all ranges and generally use non-expansion out of context.
Look at the performance of the Barnes at 150 yards. WOW. That is one of the best advertisements for monolithic hunting bullets you will see!
But, no, they had to call it “Long Range Hunting”. And look what happens when you use it at proper long range...
Incredible.
But what really annoys me about Barnes is that they have had the temerity and gall to market a “long range” bullet. What a complete load of bollocks! Pure BS.
This is perhaps the worst case of jumping on the long-range bandwagon I have seen. It deserves to be demolished at every opportunity. It also undermines the case for monolithic bullets because numpties like me will take this as evidence that all monolithic bullets are rubbish at all ranges and generally use non-expansion out of context.
Look at the performance of the Barnes at 150 yards. WOW. That is one of the best advertisements for monolithic hunting bullets you will see!
But, no, they had to call it “Long Range Hunting”. And look what happens when you use it at proper long range...
Incredible.
Spellchecker error? Surely you meant appealing
My own experience with Barnes is very good: one and done on Roe and Fallow domestically [6.5mm, 2700fps,sub 160m]. I have never retrieved a bullet from those species as it always results in pass-through but...
The same bullet design in .375 did mortal damage to a buffalo I shot last year. That bullet was found under the skin on the far side of the beast's chest and had performed brilliantly:
Barnes techs declare that for expansion to take place fully, terminal velocity needs to be 2000fps. It is up to the shooter/reloader to work out at what distance their round will run out of puff.
Of equal interest in this test is the Berger outcome. If there is one “marmite” bullet out there in New Zealand, it’s the Berger VLD. It generates quite a lot of highly polarised opinion!
I have written about this before on here, how the Berger in 7mm pencilled through smallish fallow at medium range with (based on carcass examination) very little expansion.
Yes I am dragging this off topic again but coming back to your original post @swagger700, I think some of the advice in this thread so far is a little bit confused between the regular Accubond and the Accubond LR. I have just the one shooting buddy who uses them (in 7mm which is helpful) and I have spotted for him as he poleaxed red deer with his Remington Model 7 7mm SAUM at anything between 100 and 600yds. I think I have a video of a couple of these somewhere? Bottom line is that I have no evidence or reasoning at all to suggest they aren’t an effective bullet, and no they do not need to be shot at warp speed to work.
I have written about this before on here, how the Berger in 7mm pencilled through smallish fallow at medium range with (based on carcass examination) very little expansion.
Yes I am dragging this off topic again but coming back to your original post @swagger700, I think some of the advice in this thread so far is a little bit confused between the regular Accubond and the Accubond LR. I have just the one shooting buddy who uses them (in 7mm which is helpful) and I have spotted for him as he poleaxed red deer with his Remington Model 7 7mm SAUM at anything between 100 and 600yds. I think I have a video of a couple of these somewhere? Bottom line is that I have no evidence or reasoning at all to suggest they aren’t an effective bullet, and no they do not need to be shot at warp speed to work.
Similar threads
