Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Are the Accubonds more accurate than the Ballistic tip?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="7ultra" data-source="post: 166590" data-attributes="member: 2152"><p>I've loaded and shot both out of my 7mm Remington Mag. 150 grain for the Ballistic Tip and 160 grain for the Accubond. I have shot two deer with the ballistic tip (35 yards and 100) and two with the accubond (20 yards and 100). At these close ranges, performance was really a non-issue, all were heart shots, two dropped in there tracks, two were dead running on there feet. I will say that the accubond seems a little more consistent with its expansion/performance. The buck I shot at 35 yards with the 150 BT had no external signs of bleeding. Pin holes for entry and exit. Open him up, and there was literally a softball sized hole on the exit side rib cage, under the skin. The buck I shot at 20 yards with the 160 AB did not have that much damage, noticeable exit hole, but no grenade blast under the skin. At 100 yards, it was interesting. BT was in and out, and actually didn't seem to expand all that much. Maybe it was shot location, but it simply hit the heart and left with about a X2.5 exit hole. The AB at 100 broke the onside shoulder, took the top f the heart off, gelled the lungs and from all appearances, left in uniform fashion. Chalk it up to shot placement, but the AB held together pretty well. On paper, both shoot well, with the nod going to the BTs, could always get them to shoot better. However, I hunt with ABs now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="7ultra, post: 166590, member: 2152"] I've loaded and shot both out of my 7mm Remington Mag. 150 grain for the Ballistic Tip and 160 grain for the Accubond. I have shot two deer with the ballistic tip (35 yards and 100) and two with the accubond (20 yards and 100). At these close ranges, performance was really a non-issue, all were heart shots, two dropped in there tracks, two were dead running on there feet. I will say that the accubond seems a little more consistent with its expansion/performance. The buck I shot at 35 yards with the 150 BT had no external signs of bleeding. Pin holes for entry and exit. Open him up, and there was literally a softball sized hole on the exit side rib cage, under the skin. The buck I shot at 20 yards with the 160 AB did not have that much damage, noticeable exit hole, but no grenade blast under the skin. At 100 yards, it was interesting. BT was in and out, and actually didn't seem to expand all that much. Maybe it was shot location, but it simply hit the heart and left with about a X2.5 exit hole. The AB at 100 broke the onside shoulder, took the top f the heart off, gelled the lungs and from all appearances, left in uniform fashion. Chalk it up to shot placement, but the AB held together pretty well. On paper, both shoot well, with the nod going to the BTs, could always get them to shoot better. However, I hunt with ABs now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Are the Accubonds more accurate than the Ballistic tip?
Top