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
300 RUM, 200 AccuBond + Retumbo Results:
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="Jon A" data-source="post: 28270" data-attributes="member: 319"><p>Here's a bunch of them recovered from 2900 to 3300+ fps:</p><p></p><p> <img src="http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Accubonds1.JPG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p> <img src="http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Accubonds2.JPG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p> <img src="http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Accubonds3.JPG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>As you can see, they don't look that much different. As the velocity increased, they simply got a little bit shorter and shed a bit more of their weight. Their frontal diameters remained virtually constant. At the front of the mushroom they were all right around .48". On some of the lower velocity impacts the overall diameter was a bit more because the nose jacket hadn't broken off or folded tightly against the shank yet. This didn't seem to affect penetration much though. I think the area right at the front of the bullet is probably the determining factor there. But the higher velocity bullets did penetrate slightly more—the opposite of how the X and Sciroccos did. Although I would guess an impact that simulated a hard hit at close range might have increased the penetration of the XLC over the "normal range" test had some of the petals come off. I would also guess such an impact with the Scirocco would make it look like you've seen in other tests here—totally inside-out, without very good penetration. But that's just my conjecture....</p><p></p><p>Like I said before, each bullet does different things better. For the all around performer, I think the Accubond will suit me well.</p><p></p><p>It will open up easily at extreme ranges with minimal resistance. The Scirocco is probably even better in this respect. A shot on a deer at long range clean through the lungs? I'd guess a Scirocco will do more damage and kill more quickly. That's a good bullet for this application. I'm not so sure the XLC is. Both the other bullets are making huge wound channels before the XLC is even opened up. I don't feel it would be a good choice for this situation.</p><p></p><p>Elk in the *** at 20 yards? That's what X bullets are made for. They are they obvious choice (in my test at least, I'd expect the Failsafe to be similar). Extreme penetration. The AccuBond isn't going to do quite as well in this situation but it will beat the pants off the Scirocco—or any other "standard" bullet for that matter I'm convinced. While it won't be an X bullet, it should get the job done. It isn't going to flatten out like a pancake, it isn't going to come apart, it's simply going to expand to about 1.5 times its diameter, hold about 2/3 of its weight and keep going—much like the Nosler Partitions I used for so long.</p><p></p><p>So, it looks--at least to me from my testing--like this bullet will be a good terminal performer in about any situation in which I could put it. Maybe not the best for that particular situation, but it should get the job done.</p><p></p><p>Here's a pic of them all lined up:</p><p></p><p> <img src="http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/BulletFullLineUp.JPG" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>Of course none of this means a **** thing if you don't hit where you're aiming.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon A, post: 28270, member: 319"] Here’s a bunch of them recovered from 2900 to 3300+ fps: [img]http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Accubonds1.JPG[/img] [img]http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Accubonds2.JPG[/img] [img]http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Accubonds3.JPG[/img] As you can see, they don’t look that much different. As the velocity increased, they simply got a little bit shorter and shed a bit more of their weight. Their frontal diameters remained virtually constant. At the front of the mushroom they were all right around .48”. On some of the lower velocity impacts the overall diameter was a bit more because the nose jacket hadn’t broken off or folded tightly against the shank yet. This didn’t seem to affect penetration much though. I think the area right at the front of the bullet is probably the determining factor there. But the higher velocity bullets did penetrate slightly more—the opposite of how the X and Sciroccos did. Although I would guess an impact that simulated a hard hit at close range might have increased the penetration of the XLC over the “normal range” test had some of the petals come off. I would also guess such an impact with the Scirocco would make it look like you’ve seen in other tests here—totally inside-out, without very good penetration. But that’s just my conjecture.... Like I said before, each bullet does different things better. For the all around performer, I think the Accubond will suit me well. It will open up easily at extreme ranges with minimal resistance. The Scirocco is probably even better in this respect. A shot on a deer at long range clean through the lungs? I’d guess a Scirocco will do more damage and kill more quickly. That’s a good bullet for this application. I’m not so sure the XLC is. Both the other bullets are making huge wound channels before the XLC is even opened up. I don’t feel it would be a good choice for this situation. Elk in the *** at 20 yards? That’s what X bullets are made for. They are they obvious choice (in my test at least, I’d expect the Failsafe to be similar). Extreme penetration. The AccuBond isn’t going to do quite as well in this situation but it will beat the pants off the Scirocco—or any other “standard” bullet for that matter I’m convinced. While it won’t be an X bullet, it should get the job done. It isn’t going to flatten out like a pancake, it isn’t going to come apart, it’s simply going to expand to about 1.5 times its diameter, hold about 2/3 of its weight and keep going—much like the Nosler Partitions I used for so long. So, it looks--at least to me from my testing--like this bullet will be a good terminal performer in about any situation in which I could put it. Maybe not the best for that particular situation, but it should get the job done. Here's a pic of them all lined up: [img]http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/BulletFullLineUp.JPG[/img] Of course none of this means a **** thing if you don’t hit where you’re aiming. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
300 RUM, 200 AccuBond + Retumbo Results:
Top