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
Testing the 142 LR Accubond
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="BryanLitz" data-source="post: 1099994" data-attributes="member: 7848"><p>bigd,</p><p></p><p>My test results on the 129 and other LRAB's can be seen here: <a href="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results-137554/" target="_blank">http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results-137554/</a></p><p></p><p>I didn't have any 142's at the time of that test which is why they weren't included then.</p><p></p><p>My guess is that Nosler is testing their BC's over 100 yards, at high velocity. This is why their advertised G1 BC's are so much higher than the averages over long range. This is one of the problems with G1 BC's; what's technically correct over 100 yards and high velocity is practically useless over long range. You'll notice that they also advertise G7 BC's for their Long Range Accubonds, which are not nearly as far off from my test results because G7 BC's don't change as much with velocity. If everyone used their G7 BC's, they wouldn't be nearly as far off as they are with the G1's.</p><p></p><p>Another aspect that Nosler is suffering from is the reality that the longer bullets have faster twist requirements than what many shooters are using so the BC's in some cases are depressed even more thru marginal stability (there's more info on the in the post linked above). Nosler does cite recommended twist rates, but even they are slower than optimal in some cases and they're not shown on the bullet boxes and are difficult to find online.</p><p></p><p>-Bryan</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryanLitz, post: 1099994, member: 7848"] bigd, My test results on the 129 and other LRAB's can be seen here: [url]http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results-137554/[/url] I didn't have any 142's at the time of that test which is why they weren't included then. My guess is that Nosler is testing their BC's over 100 yards, at high velocity. This is why their advertised G1 BC's are so much higher than the averages over long range. This is one of the problems with G1 BC's; what's technically correct over 100 yards and high velocity is practically useless over long range. You'll notice that they also advertise G7 BC's for their Long Range Accubonds, which are not nearly as far off from my test results because G7 BC's don't change as much with velocity. If everyone used their G7 BC's, they wouldn't be nearly as far off as they are with the G1's. Another aspect that Nosler is suffering from is the reality that the longer bullets have faster twist requirements than what many shooters are using so the BC's in some cases are depressed even more thru marginal stability (there's more info on the in the post linked above). Nosler does cite recommended twist rates, but even they are slower than optimal in some cases and they're not shown on the bullet boxes and are difficult to find online. -Bryan [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Testing the 142 LR Accubond
Top