I know I will get some yeah right on this one but a couple of years back I had the wierdest experience with a 140 AB in a 270.
I shot a nice 11pt buck at 75yds while he was in his bed tight right behind the shoulder. The deer just rolled over showing me his white belly. I strolled on over to view his rack. When I reached down and grabbed his rear leg to pull his head out of some brush, he pulled back. Like a fool I had left my gun in the truck, thinking the deer was dead. The buck struggled to his feet and staggered off, leaving a good blood trail. Make a long story short, after a little while to let the deer die, I took up the blood trail. I followed it about 300 yds and lost it in heavy brush. Now the good part. One of my twin sons shot a nice buck 11 days later with a muzzledloader about a half mile from where I had shot my buck. While skinning the buck he found a perfectly expanded 140 AB in the off shoulder hide from a previous entrance wound. Upon examining the rack, I deduced this was the same buck. The buck was in poor shape but was still on his feet and traveling the property we were hunting. The bullet penetrated well and did all you could ask of a bullet. I have shot several deer with accubonds and not had any complaints except this incident. Any bullet you use is going to (fail)due to Murphy's law or not so good shot placement. Give the Accubond a break, it is a great bullet.
Perhaps a better understanding of how the Accubond is designed to work will help
Quoting from NRA's American Rifleman from their May, 2004 issue:
"While other bulletmakers tout 90 percent weight retention from their bonded bullets, Nosler took a different approach. Its goal is deeper penetration, even at the sacrifice of weight retention. The problem with bonded bullets that are designed for high weight retention is that they quickly form a large frontal area that impedes penetration. Nosler designed its bullet to have about 60 to 70 percent weight retention. That obviously means that it will lose some weight. That's because it's designed to shed some of the expanded bullet material to keep the frontal area of the Accubond bullet a little smaller than some other bonded bullets. Accubond is designed for early expansion, but rather than tear completely apart as a Ballistic Tip often will, the Accubond's petals are designed to fold back tighter against the bullet shank. This makes a slightly smaller diameter mushroom to allow deeper penetration."
With this in mind the Accubond can do a lot of damage inside before exiting with a small exit hole. Of course, I don't know if this is what happened since I was not there.
Your results might vary. Personally I like the heavier for caliber bullets like the 200 gr Accubonds in 30 caliber and the 160 Accubonds in 7mm caliber. Have not shot that much game with them yet though.
This then is me not doing my homework. When I first tried the Accubonds I was desperate as time was counting down to an Antelope hunt last year and I needed something ACCURATE. I tried the MKs and the GKs and could not hold the groups inside 2" at 100 yards. I don't shoot that bad and anybody could have had that rifle at a great discount. When I tried the Accubonds it was like a light from on high shone on the target, three little holes almost touching at 100 yards. I thought "NOW THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!" I was so happy with the accuracy and the fact that the rifle COULD shoot that load well, I never bothered to consider what I SHOULD shoot with that load. So, according to what Nosler says, out of my rifle, on two Antelope bucks (one at 367 yards and the other just shy of 500 yards) their product performed exactly as it was designed to. My opinion of the Accubonds has changed significantly. I believe that I was comparing apples to oranges when I put them up against the MKs. That was not a fair comparison, and of all the things I like about LongRangeHunting.com, illumination is on the top of the list. And what really matters is Nosler's product enabled me to make ethical shots on game at what many would consider a range too far to shoot, and I have two trophies to hang on my wall and a freezer full of good meat to feed my family this winter. Thank you Nosler.
Well, Chuck, I will eagerly wait for your flaming session to begin by the experts. Let's see, your buck made it 300 yards while you tracked it, then was found ELEVEN days later, was shot by one of your sons, and you determined that it was the same buck you shot as you recovered a "perfectly mushroomed 140 Accubond" on the offside...."
Hmmmm, how did you determine it was a 140 AB? WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??!!!!
Yea, you're right, I'm gonna call total BS on this one...
As one of the members may put it, you may think you never screw up, but your shot placement must be questioned!!! You have fallen under a misconception in this case. YOU ARE TO BLAME!!!
There are a few expert members (edge, loaders loft, ridge runner, and BossHoss), that will surely be posting soon to back up my view on this one as you know as well as WE do that your story is simply impossible. Can't happen bud.
You see WE know that when you put a bullet in the boiler room and it, let's see, how did you put it, ..."The bullet penetrated well and did all you could ask of a bullet"...and it did this???, well, the deer dies, PERIOD, as the bossman so eliquently puts it (we thrive on absolutes here without exception)....and this implication means it dies NOW. I get such chuckles from posts like yours, Mr. Boyer.
Man, it was all you, you pulled the shot, flinched, something. That deer would have DIED right there man if you did your part, right guys?
Edge? Ridge Runner? Hello? Bosshoss....????
Go ahead, tell Chuck he's FOS, after all, his NONPROVEN story is bunk!! NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM!!! FLAME ON!!!
Hmmmmmmm This one sounds pretty bizarre! I am sorry but to put it nicely this is something that I would have to see with my own eyes. First a 270 at 75 yds!!!! Jezzz the hydrostatic shock at the impact point would be enough to jell a considerable amount if not all of the shoulder muscle on the impact side.
If you were to have hit the lungs at that range the deer would have never been able to get up and run more than a few hundred feet. With no lungs only blood comes out of the nose---not a pretty site. Feral hogs look like they are spewing a red cloud when running and blowing blood into the air and when they finally go down they will continue to bleed through the nose--drowning in ones blood is not a pretty way to go...
The Truth Is Not Always Good For Business!!
Hicks, thats been my experience with accubonds, for light thin skinned game they're really not needed unless you think you get a close shot and hit a shoulder at very high velocity.
You've heard 2 accounts of them failing, 1) just a properly placed shot cause the shooter knows it was with no recovery or evidence that the hit was good, but the bullet failed, just cause.
2) a deer shot with an accubond that was found 11 days later with a perfectly mushroomed accubond on the off shoulder.
a few things to think about what path could a bullet take and end up mushroomed perfectly on the offside shoulder and he's still on his feet 11 days later? only 1 that I know of and its not a broadside shot, and chances are slim he'd survive it. sure if you clip a lung a deer could survive for a time, but in order to clip a lung and the bullet ends up on the shoulder on the other side, you've also hit the liver, penetrated the diaphram, since its no longer pressurised the guts are pushing against the heart and lungs suffocating him.
Back far enough with a hard quartering away shot to clip the back enge of the offside lung and you've hit the paunch, this is certain death.
I'm not one to say anyone is lying about anything but I also use deductive reasoning and common sense along with 37 years of deer hunting experience in one of the highest deer density areas in the country to filter much of what I read.
Hicks I feel the accubond is a great product. The design allows for a controlled mushroom and then begins shedding weight which according to Nosler creates secondary wound channels. This bullet typically does not make a really large mushroom, which allows it to penetrate better than some bullets with higher weight retention. It does make sense, but I would think a larger mushroom and higher weight retention might be better in some cases.
I would recommend trying a 154 Grain interbond. It is a higher weight retention bullet than the Accubond and expands with a larger mushroom, for a shot like you described it might give better results. The 154 Grain interbond also has a .525 BC which actually outperforms the 160 grain Accubond in both trajectory and wind drift due to its higher initial velocity.
Different people have different definitions. As two people can witness the same incident (not just talking about hunting here) & each have different perceptions as to what happened. That’s just the way it is.
Define bullet failure. Bullets are made to fly through the air & hit the intended target. Competition bullets have finished here but "game" bullets are designed to continue & “make something die". If the deer was shot & found (killed) did the bullet fail? Some may make a perfect shot on a deer; it hit the ground like hamburger but find the core & jacket separated. Some yell bullet failure. Some others buy more of those bullets!
As everyone in the thread has coincided, many things can happen in "field" conditions. Also agreed, anything can “fluke” once in a while. That is why I don't understand why people believe in absolutes. One has stated (several times) that there are no absolutes but ABSOLUTLY believes what he believes? (I wonder how minds & toes keep from colliding sometimes...) If anyone has ever shot & lost an animal, are you absolutely sure you didn't fluke the shot, hit a twig, blade of grass, a large insect in the air that that deformed or deflected the bullet path? Maybe the shoulder “raked” the bullet? If this did happen, does this mean the bullet failed? If the core & jacket are together in perfect mushroom would it still be failure.
(Unless Darwin was wrong about how long it takes to evolve) I see no reason how any living creature could live very long (doesn’t have to be immediate) with a hole in both lungs. Mammals breath air, if they don't... they die. They utilize lungs to get oxygen to the brain, if they don’t they die (brain damage). Let’s review: If there are no longer any lungs… what happens??? It’s that simple. I just don't see whitetails evolving gills that fast...
Back on track with the post: I have killed about 20 deer with the AB's, they have preformed well. Although I have had 2 (both 140gr .284") not exit ~110 lb whitetails. However, both dropped on the spot (I'm seeing a pattern in this thread), but neither got up & ran afterward.