Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics

Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics Applied Ballistics


Reply

200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8  
Old 06-22-2003, 07:10 AM
MAX MAX is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 263
Re: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

Brent, thanks for taking the time to post this. Very nice! [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-22-2003, 02:50 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,091
Re: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

I've never hosted a video before, Brent but I'm willing to give it a shot. How about you send me the best one of the three and I'll see if I can get it working.

Anyway, thanks for doing the test. It looks like this will be a fine all around bullet.

Dry magazines at the muzzle is a torture test. I did the same years ago and Nosler Partitions would hold together (of course) but they would be all flattened/twisted/distorted. The biggest part of a Ballistic Tip you'd find would be the solid base/boattail. The fact that these held together keeping an average of over 50% of their weight tells me you don't ever have to worry about them comming appart.

The water is probably a more realistic test. Those you shot into water look about exactly how I would want them to look. They held together well but they expanded down a long way on the shank. This tells me that there was a whole bunch of expanding going on to get the bullet to that point which is what you'd want at the muzzle. If they weren't expanded that far down I'd worry that they wouldn't open up sufficiently at long range.

It will be really interesting when you do this test at various ranges when you switch to the water tank. Then you could take a pic of recovered bullets fired from the muzzle, 200 yds, 400, 600, 800, etc.... That would be cool. [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

Thanks for the load data as well. That's the most I've seen for this bullet. Did any of those loads give you noticable pressure signs (bolt lift, ejector mark, etc)?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-22-2003, 05:04 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Palmer, Alaska
Posts: 2,539
Re: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

Jon,

I'll email you the vidio of the first shot there.

The expansion up close pushing the nose all the way back and leaving a descent shank length below indicates to "me" it will work at most any range well. Beyond what range it leaves something to be desired is yet to be determined. Up close it should work great still. If it would have held 70% weight up close like that, I'd be using a more fragile bullet at closer to 1000 yards for sure but all looks well so far.

Don't hold your breath for the 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,900 and 1000 yard water test... it may take me some time to get all set up for it yet. I'll be testing other bullets types at the same time too, so it should be very interesting to say the least. I'd like to make a setup that I could stick cardboard or poster board baffles across the container at 6" increments to see just what's happening in the "wound channel" and how far the bullet and it's fragments each penitrate. This could require a fiberglass lined wooden box with retainers siliconed in place... could take some time but, I already have the glass and wood to make it up.

PSI signs:

I didn't mention it above but, all those loads were using Fed 215M primers too. It also bears repeating that the OAL is real long too!! Any reduction in OAL and pressure could climb, and in my experience it would climb substantially if reduced to merely 3.66", maybe by as much as 5 to 10 kpsi so be carefull with the data provided here. I'll test it at a shorter OAL of 3.66" as soon as I can and let you all know what happened.

Bolt lift was absolutely normal on all loads tested but, it usually is up to about 70-75 kpsi though. These were FL sized cases with minimal shoulder bump, NK sized cases may have shown stiffness signs a bit sooner, but not very much sooner... in my experience.

Slight primer cratering was all I could make out, that was only "felt" on the top load of each RL22, 4350 and RL25 (lot # 25180). By sliding (rubbing) the tip of your index finger across the caseheads, you can feel a snag if there is any "edge" to the crater in the primer. The sensitivety in your fingertip will pick the raised edge up instantly if it exists, and more often than not it shows up just before stiff bolt lift starts to occur, this is with the 210 and 215 primers in "most" of my rifles anyway.

I mark all the case heads and primers completely with a black marker before doing load work up. The amount of black wiped off after they're fired and extracted indicates how much bolt thrust is rising "relatively" and shows a clear ejector mark if present. Prior ejector marks or "protrusions" will show up "shiny" on a lower load and give a false indication if not indexed to the ejection port side before firing so a new one will be made over the ejector plunger.

I did get a slight "showing" of brass color under the ejector with the top load for RL22 and 4350, barely more so than the color showing on the rest of the casehead from the thrust itself. PSI was just starting to get high enough to exibit this but, it would have been unnoticable without first marking the casehead black.
__________________
Brent Moffitt
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-23-2003, 01:50 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,091
Re: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

Well, I have no idea if this will work or not, but try this link:
http://www.jonaadland.com/Accubond.avi
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-23-2003, 03:58 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Palmer, Alaska
Posts: 2,539
Re: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

Hey Jon, thanks! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

I downloaded it to see how it worked, took ten minutes on this slow ass dial-up connection but that was over twice as fast as it took me to send it to you. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Norton scanning all the incomming and outgoing mail must slow it down I guess.

It works.

I've not figured out how to load them up onto Imagestation yet?????? [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]
It seems it's an .AVI type format and I have not a clue how to convert it to MPEG or something else that works, if one even can, so I gave up on it.

Don't laugh when ya all see how bad I torture my sky screens. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[ 06-23-2003: Message edited by: Brent ]
__________________
Brent Moffitt
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-28-2003, 06:08 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort

BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: 200gr Accubond comparison test of sort
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What powder for 200gr Accubond in .300 Win mag? Duff Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 10 12-10-2012 01:46 PM
200gr. Accubond .300 Win Mag Magnum61 Long Range Hunting & Shooting 7 12-10-2012 12:24 PM
200gr. Accubond vs. 200gr. Sierra Game King: 300 Win Mag Magnum61 Long Range Hunting & Shooting 6 01-22-2010 01:10 AM
30 cal 200gr. Accubond ZSteinle Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 12 11-24-2008 03:49 PM
200gr Accubond strikes again Brent Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 4 09-21-2003 03:16 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC