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
.277 140g Accubonds
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="Fiftydriver" data-source="post: 2671781" data-attributes="member: 10"><p>Sounds like the Accubond performed exactly how its supposed to. A little surprised you only had 42% retained weight as i have seen 55-60% in most of my results and with dramatically faster chamberings but in the end, the Accubond is designed to transfer extreme energy within the first 10" of penetration and hold together enough to get through the vitals. In my testing, the standard accubond far outperformed the partition, however, again, the velocity ranges my wildcats work at are pretty high. Above 3200 fps muzzle velocities and the paritions will often fail completely on impact because the partition ruptures. Once this happens, the rear core is blown out the back and penetration stops nearly instantly.</p><p></p><p>with moderate impact velocity the partitions do better.</p><p></p><p>again, sounds like the accubond performed exactly how its supposed to. The nice thing at closer range, if your worried about hitting heavy bone, dont hit heavy bone, at closer ranges this is generally easy to do by avoiding the onside shoulder impact.</p><p></p><p>in my testing i have found the accubonds to be far more consistent then the partition and the hornady interlocks not even in the same category of either of these.</p><p></p><p>if you want to intentionally aim for heavy bone, you may want to consider a Hammer or Barnes bullet. Lots of good options there but again, the results your seeing look pretty normal for an accubond of that weight range other the. A bit less retained weight from what is average for these bullets.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fiftydriver, post: 2671781, member: 10"] Sounds like the Accubond performed exactly how its supposed to. A little surprised you only had 42% retained weight as i have seen 55-60% in most of my results and with dramatically faster chamberings but in the end, the Accubond is designed to transfer extreme energy within the first 10” of penetration and hold together enough to get through the vitals. In my testing, the standard accubond far outperformed the partition, however, again, the velocity ranges my wildcats work at are pretty high. Above 3200 fps muzzle velocities and the paritions will often fail completely on impact because the partition ruptures. Once this happens, the rear core is blown out the back and penetration stops nearly instantly. with moderate impact velocity the partitions do better. again, sounds like the accubond performed exactly how its supposed to. The nice thing at closer range, if your worried about hitting heavy bone, dont hit heavy bone, at closer ranges this is generally easy to do by avoiding the onside shoulder impact. in my testing i have found the accubonds to be far more consistent then the partition and the hornady interlocks not even in the same category of either of these. if you want to intentionally aim for heavy bone, you may want to consider a Hammer or Barnes bullet. Lots of good options there but again, the results your seeing look pretty normal for an accubond of that weight range other the. A bit less retained weight from what is average for these bullets. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.277 140g Accubonds
Top