INTRODUCING Accubond Long Range

[Pdvdh]

Love to hear when these will become available. --Ben

Spring 2013 based on one post I read on the Nosler Forum.

 

[Greyfox]

I'm really excited about the 270, 165. My WSM shoots the current Nosler 140 BT's and Accubomds very well. Can't wait to try them.

 

[brentc]

The B.C.'s look really optimistic. I wonder if they'll live up to it.

 

[IdahoRedneck]

The B.C.'s look really optimistic. I wonder if they'll live up to it.

Thats me too...... Would be interested in that 210 30 cal and the 165 270.... But I am skeptical of the bc's.
Wonder if Brian Litz will chime in and offer an opinion on their bc numbers...

They look good on the calculator with those numbers thats for sure

 

[Browninglover1]

Thats me too...... Would be interested in that 210 30 cal and the 165 270.... But I am skeptical of the bc's.
Wonder if Brian Litz will chime in and offer an opinion on their bc numbers...

They look good on the calculator with those numbers thats for sure

Where are the 165's for the 270 mentioned? The ad on the first post only shows them in a 150.

 

[Joe King]

brentc The B.C.'s look really optimistic. I wonder if they'll live up to it.

Thats me too...... Would be interested in that 210 30 cal and the 165 270.... But I am skeptical of the bc's.
Wonder if Brian Litz will chime in and offer an opinion on their bc numbers...

They look good on the calculator with those numbers that's for sure

I have Applied Ballistics and 2 Nosler manuals, give me a little time and I'll put up some comparisons between Noslers advertised BC and what Brian found it to really be.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

It is very unlikely that the BC's are much more than 10% off...the average for Ballistic Tips in Bryan's test was 6.33%...with Nolsers lighter for caliber bullets being overestimated the worst....if you remove the light for caliber bullets from the average, its much better.

The worst was the 120 grain 7mm bullet...at 12.7%
The 117 grain 257 bullet...........................at 10.76%
And the 125 grain 30 caliber Ballistic Tip at ...9.58%

The 200 grain 30 caliber partition deserves a mention here...because Nosler actually UNDERESTIMATED that one by 3.99%...its advertised BC is .481, Litz came up with .501

And the BC's Nosler has on these new bullets are still pretty darn good even if you subtract 10%.

I have not (yet) read Bryans books...but I did find parts of his testing online...and what I understand from it is that the light for caliber bullets are overestimated the most (in most cases)....I'm guessing thats an issue with the computer program that spits out the BC's...and it wasn't only Nosler, all except for Sierra had some pretty bad numbers (Nosler was the worst though)...kinda tells you who actually shoots their bullets to come up with BC's, or at least that was my impression...could be wrong.

Sorry...I couldn't help myself...had to defend Nosler a little, they sure have filled my freezer enough times to earn it.

 

[Joe King]

That didn't take long, I believe that Nosler's BC's are generated, I know that Brian found the BC's he listed by testing. I only intended this to be kind of a general guideline so we could have an idea of what to really expect, not so sure you could even use it for that. Any way here you go

cal
bullet
Advertised BC
Tested BC
% difference
264
140gr AB
509G1
.487G1
4.3%
264
120gr BT
.458G1
.418G1
8.7%.
277
140gr BT
.456G1
.444G1
2.6%
277
140gr Partition
.432G1
.405G1
6.3%
284
150gr BT
.493G1
.447G1
9.3%
284
175gr Partition
.519G1
.453G1
11%
308
180gr AB
.507G1
.481G1
5.1%
308
200gr AB
.588G1
.524G1
10.9%

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Those numbers aren't the same as I found here... http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA554683

The 180 AB is shown to be .493 actual BC...

EDIT:...but that does fall within Bryans 1% error range that he gave himself...were these 2 different tests?

 

[Topshot]

Is it April 1st?

No sign of this on the Nosler web site!

 

[CogburnR]

Hopefully the terminal performance is better than the regular Accubond. The thinner jackets should help a lot.

The Accubonds I've used so far were very accurate. I'm excited to try a few!

 

[IdahoRedneck]

Where are the 165's for the 270 mentioned? The ad on the first post only shows them in a 150.

whoops your right.......... Perhaps a case of "you c what ya want"... I like the heavy for caliber pills

Joe, interesting thanks for looking them up. I have thought very seriously about buying Brians book just havent got er done yet......

 

[Joe King]

Those numbers aren't the same as I found here... http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA554683

The 180 AB is shown to be .493 actual BC...

EDIT:...but that does fall within Bryans 1% error range that he gave himself...were these 2 different tests?

Their getting their BC numbers off of JBM ballistics, and using (Litz) samples, not sure how though, I can't seem to find a BC listed for any bullet labeled (Litz). At any rate the numbers their using are generated from Bryan's tests anyway. Glad I have Brian's book to pull the numbers directly from, sure made it a lot easier.

I dunno about others but it makes me appreciate Brian's efforts more.

 

[Joe King]

whoops your right.......... Perhaps a case of "you c what ya want"... I like the heavy for caliber pills

Joe, interesting thanks for looking them up. I have thought very seriously about buying Brians book just havent got er done yet......

DO IT, no buy both their worth itgun)