I haven't read every post in this thread but I think I get the jist of the debate. First of all, until they are proven, it's only hype! One thing that will be proven is that the b.c. is greatly exagerated! YOU CAN NOT HAVE A BULLET THAT HAS A THICKER JACKET, AND A LARGER MEPLAT WITH A SIMILAR SHAPE TO OTHER BULLETS THAT HAVE A THIN JACKET AND SMALL MEPLAT AND COME UP WITH A HIGHER B.C.! That being said, Nosler has a good reputation for manufacturing good bullets, and I think this may be one. I am not too concerned about bonding messing up the lower velocity expansion as I have not neccessarily found that to be true in my own bullets. There are other factors that are more important. I say this not knowing exactly which bonding method they use? Anyway, it will be interesting to see some of the results that come in. I am sure there will be a lot of testing with all the interest that has been generated between the two main camps! (controlled expansion vs fragmentation). I personally feel there is a need for both and have often said that there is no perfect bullet for every situation. I think that when all is said and done, Nosler has probably come up with an improvement on the AB by extending the range a little. This isn't a bad thing, but it won't replace all other bullets!.........Rich
I never said the high published bc was not kool-aid. I agree 100% that they are published much higher than reality. We all have enough experience to know this. My point is that there are so many members here that have stated that they are all but worthless in every category and that is where I am having a wait and see attitude. It just blows my mind that so many would pass such negative judgements without even so much as laying their hands in them. Published bc kool-aid? Absolutely. Overall performance? Remains to be seen.
As for me, I would be happy with a 190 with near 190 VLD bc that will have more reliable expansion. Maybe these will maybe they won't, but I am excited to try them to see. Hell, 1300'sec? I'm skeptical too but I'd be very happy with 1500-1600 versus the 1800 needed for many other popular hunting bullets. It opens more doors for my 308s.
Am I drinking the bc kool-aid? He'll no. Do I believe they will be close to VLDs? I hope so. If they're not, I'd be happy if they were at least as good as the SMK with the added bonus of reliable expansion unlike the 190SMK. At least for my experiences. Am I drinking the overall performance kool-aid? Damn straight I am. Tastes good too. If the kool-aid turns out to give me a stomach ache then I'll quit drinking it and go back to what I currently use.
I greatly look forward to your results because I know you will give them a good shake down and make an objective report.
That said, the only 2 bullets that currently interest me in the 308 are the 200 gr CEB's and the 230 gr Hybrids which I'll be testing in a new RUM when I get it and the 130 LR AB does not interest me as there are a number of better 6.5 LR bullets out there.
On terminal potential, I have only one experience with with a 180 AB and that was @ 200 yds from a 300 WSM on a cow elk. The bullet entered and struck the lower spine and basically exploded leaving about a soft ball size exit. I recovered an 8 gr lead fragment from the exit area. So I have always been a little skeptical on reliable controlled expansion from an AB. I have heard similar stories. With Nosler's claim of 1300 fps expansion it makes me even more skeptical.
You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it.
~ John Quincy Adams
Where was that poll? Can I vote 3 times for over 1000, 4 or 5 for 801 to 1000, and a 1/2 a dozen for 601 to 800?
Perhaps there will be a poll after this next hunting season where you can respond to multiple animals harvested at various ranges.
Originally Posted by Broz
Have you ever group tested Accubonds or other bonded bullets at 1500 yards? Especially from two separate lot numbers?
With the current line Accubonds I wouldn’t group test them at 1200 yards even from the same lot.
Originally Posted by Broz
I think my point was not clear. They are going for a market share related to long range and advertising very high BC's and expansion velocities below any bullet I am know of. If 500 yards is long range, and these BC's and expansion velocities are a step in the right direction for 500 yards shots, then I am out of line with my train of thought.
I equate the term “long range” on packaging the same as “fresh fish” in a restaurant window. To date I still havn't figured out how the term “fresh fish” relates to the quality of the fish. Some say fresh is out of the water and into the fying pan, others say never frozen and more claim not older than three months……So what the heck is fresh fish anyway. I’m confident the new LR Accubonds will produce more “fresh fish” taste compared to their current product.
Michael and others. My intent is not to bash and please don't take it that way. I have just heard "these new bullets will take over the long range hunting market" too many times. I actually load some AB's in a few rifles, just not my long range rigs. Like I said before I like the AB for it's intended purpose. I decided to look past the claims of a BC over .1 higher than I believe they will test out, and a low end expansion rating well below what we have seen with thin jacketed non bonded lead core bullets, and concentrate on what I see as some of the other important challenges for this bullet.
I was offered some to test, But I declined the kind offer. I want to hear what you guys say first, then I will decide if it is worth the time, barrel life and powder to stray from what is working for me.
I just hope some of you guys testing take them past 800 or 1000. We have a google of good choices for 300 to 400 yard bullets that work good. But I would not label those as "long range"
Good luck boys! I hope they are everything you wish them to be.
Michael and others. My intent is not to bash and please don't take it that way. I have just heard "these new bullets will take over the long range hunting market" too many times.
Never took your intent as "bashing" at anytime. Looking at the new LR Accubond design and pictures they sure do appear to be a better product with improving performance compared to their current AB lineup. As far as BC and minimum expansion velocity I'm not too concerned with their marketing and labeling terminology. I won't use them if the bullets don't perform to what I need them for regardless of how well they perform in other ballistics arenas. But I'm still betting they will perform better than their current lineup and that lineup has a large audience.
I think that Nosler is digging themselves into a hole myself. They are claiming things such as Really high BC and really low expansion velocity. They are jumping into the longrange realm of shooting/hunting (really for the first time) and claiming this stuff. If all of what they are hyping up isn't true then they are just going to look stupid to the longrange hunting bunch. If its all true (I highly doubt it) then they are going to expand their customer numbers by quite a bit.
To tell you the truth, I would almost believe that they did this because their "normal" 100-600 yard customers were moving to other bullets. So they made this "New LR accubond", hyped up the BC and min expansion velocity to bring the larger pool of mid range shooters back to the accubond.
Even if the BC and other stuff they hyped up turns out not to be true, it will still draw a crowd because:
1. The bullet "looks" cooler than the old accubond.
2. Tons of hunters out there believe what they see on BoTW and think its gospel.
3. Good advertising works no matter what the product is. (Look at Obama for example)