AccuBonds vs Ballistic Tips - side by side comparisons

[slickyboyboo]

I've been shooting 165gr Ballistic Tips, through my 300 WM, for about 16 yrs now. I've recently been considering taking it out west for a mule deer/elk hunt, where a little more penetration from a 165 would be great. I don't want to switch from a 165 to a 180, because I am shooting consistent .375" or better groups at 100 yds, and I simply don't want to touch anything. My question is, has anyone done any side by side comparisons on Accubonds vs Ballistic Tips, as far as accuracy, and point of impact? I know both the 165 AB, and the 165 BT, both have the same B.C, and S.D, basically the only difference, is the OAL of the AB is 0.018" longer. In theory, they should shoot almost identical.

 

[BUNDUKI]

I shoot both AB and BT in my 300WM (180g) I found that the BT have the slight edge in Accuracy .35@100yds compared to .45 for the AB
I load both with 82.5g H1000 10thou out with Federal 215M primers in Lapua bass the average velocity is within 20fps of each other.

 

[J E Custom]

I've been shooting 165gr Ballistic Tips, through my 300 WM, for about 16 yrs now. I've recently been considering taking it out west for a mule deer/elk hunt, where a little more penetration from a 165 would be great. I don't want to switch from a 165 to a 180, because I am shooting consistent .375" or better groups at 100 yds, and I simply don't want to touch anything. My question is, has anyone done any side by side comparisons on Accubonds vs Ballistic Tips, as far as accuracy, and point of impact? I know both the 165 AB, and the 165 BT, both have the same B.C, and S.D, basically the only difference, is the OAL of the AB is 0.018" longer. In theory, they should shoot almost identical.

The Accubonds are very close to the Ballistic tips in accuracy and performance. With penetration
and bullet retained weight going to the Accubond.

The accuracy is also all most the same with a slight advantage to the Ballistic Tip (But not enough
to worry about).

In some rifles the Accubond will actually out perform the Ballistic Tip in both areas.

I have great luck with the Ballistic Tips on deer, but prefer the accubonds for Elk.

You can't go wrong if you try the ABs and if you don't like them stay with the Ballistic Tips.

J E CUSTOM

 

[13point]

My 7mm-08 shoots the same group size with both. The only difference I've noticed is the Ballistic Tips POI is 1" left of the Accubonds. The Accubonds I've shot deer with pass thru, even shoulder shots with the 7mm-08.

 

[loaders_loft]

I have used them as interchangeable in a 300 rum and a 35 whelen, equal accuracy and point of impact. the whelen and ballistic tip worked awesome on a mule deer doe last month.

 

[Shortmagman]

I am loading a 280 Rem with both 140 Accubonds and 140 Nosler BT. I found that with the exact same powder (RL-19) and load 57.0 grains my Remington 700 CDL shot the loads into almost the same point of impact and with almost the same accuracy-less than one inch at 100 yards. I was comfortable enough with these loads that I felt that I could take a shot with either load out to 400 yards without changing my scope. I took these loads to Nebraska on a deer hunt with the plan of using the BT's for long shots and the Accubonds for close shots. I shot my buck at 100 yards with the BT and was not totally happy with the results eventhough the buck only ran 30 yards. I found the copper jacket in the hide on the opposite side, after blowing up on the ribs going in. I would not have wanted to have shot an elk with this bullets. I know that it is possible that a 165 grain BT may have reacted differently.

I have loaded and shot deer with the 140 Accubonds and they do not act like the BT. I have yet to recover an Accubond from a deer, they have all exited after doing great internal damage.

 

[D.ID]

I know they should be and theory is they are but in my rifle: They just aint...My tikka in 300 wsm shooting 180s will group under .5" with ballistic tips and in contrast the accubonds shoot 1.25" or worse. The accubonds are the only 165+ bullet she does not like. Lucky for me because I don't like there prices anyway.

 

[hwy40]

I'm glad to hear that some shooters are having good results with both bullets. I have been using the 180bt for load development in my 300 RUM. One of my reloading buddies had suggested that they would perform identically. With Ballistic tips costing $19 per 50 vs. $32 for Accubonds it pays to use them interchangebly.

 

[Reelamin]

I'm glad to hear that some shooters are having good results with both bullets. I have been using the 180bt for load development in my 300 RUM. One of my reloading buddies had suggested that they would perform identically. With Ballistic tips costing $19 per 50 vs. $32 for Accubonds it pays to use them interchangebly.

I know this is a old thread, and just wanted to share my experiences on these bullets. It may help someone else is all. I have been using both bullets since they were introduced (yes I'm old) on both Deer, Elk, and Bear. We used to be able to buy the BT in boxes of 100 in any weight and caliber....ohhhh some of the old days I do miss. Those are the largest/toughest animals, and reality is I have used them for everything I have shot. I pretty much disregard everything but Elk and Bear as my experience has been any "standard soft point" factory bullet will easily and quickly kill Deer sized and down. The major and multiple noticeable failures on animal between these two bullets (ELK, BEAR) has been the BT and there have been many not just one. Yes, the BT has worked but also failed often. The AB performance on target has been consistent and much more effective. The answer the OP's question I have loaded for several (at least 5-6) rifles over the last 15 years that shot both bullets exactly the same with the exact same load. The velocity, POI, and trajectory etc. matched. I have had just as many not shoot to the same POI.

 

[baldhunter]

Ballistic Tips have gone through changes over the years.The early Ballistic Tips seemed to group a little different than Accubonds,but the ones I've shot recently seem to group the same to me.I've shot both and I tell you,I kind prefer the Ballistic Tip.The Ballistic Tip gives me just a tad larger wound channel.Not a lot larger,but just a tad larger and a little quicker kills on average.I'm getting exits with both bullets,so I can't compare weight retention.So really,either one is a good choice for me.This is from Nosler's FAQ's.Same bullet the only difference,one is bonded the other isn't.Accubond has just a little higher weight retention.

What is the difference between the Ballistic Tip® and the AccuBond®?

Externally, they look the same except for the tip colors, Ballistic Tip® bullets are color-coded by caliber while all AccuBond® bullets have white tips. Internally the Ballistic Tip® is not bonded and is designed for controlled expansion on medium game with approximately 50-60% weight retention. Conversely, the lead alloy core of the AccuBond® is bonded to the jacket. This bonding increases weight retention (65-70%) and slows expansion resulting in deeper penetration and enhanced bone-breaking potential in larger animals.