# Nosler Accubond Field Tested



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

For a long time, the Nosler Accubond has been my first choice for big game hunting. Over the last ten years, I have killed lots of animals with several different calibers using this bullet. I can count on one hand the number of these bullets that I have recovered, so when I got one back this year, I did a little review to see how honest the folks at Nosler were regarding the design and performance of this bullet. I shot a big whitetail buck with a 160 grain Accubond launched at 3150 fps from my 7MM Dakota. The shot was 190 yards and the buck was angling away from me headed down a trail. The shot hit the last rib and angled through the vitals before breaking the offside shoulder and coming to rest beneath the skin at the base of the neck. The deer hobbled 50 yards before falling over. 

Once the recovered bullet was cleaned up, it retained 100 of the original 160 grains of weight for 62% retention. This is right in line with Nosler's advertised rates. While I am very happy with the performance of the bullet, I did notice that the mushroom that I retrieved did not appear the same as the advertised pictures on the Nosler website and that even though there was no separation, that there was no where near as much lead bonded to the petals of the mushroom as advertised. My bullet actually looked more like the advertised pictures of the Partition.......which is not a bad thing. 

All and all, I think that this recovered bullet confirms that these bullets are the real deal and that the folks at Nosler have created some of the best big game bullets available.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I worked up a load this summer for my 7STW that pushes that same 160grn bullet at 3225fps. No pressure signs but good accuracy so I figured thats what I could be happy with. I havent shot it yet on game, but your post makes me pleased to hear it held up as it did. Great report!


-DallanC


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks for the info! Have you ever tried the Barnes? Barnes advertises 96% weight retention. Why do you prefer the Accubond? I am just interested in learning, thanks again for sharing!


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

huge it could be the price or the all copper bullets do not mushroom like a jacketed bullet. i use the nosler accubond myself and do like the accuracy i get from them, to date I have killed one animal with them.

do some research and look at the bullets that have been tested and at times you will see that only the tip of the copper bullet has been bent over.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I have used Barnes bullets and currently use the 180 TTSX in my 300Win because they shoot the best. I have killed a handful of animals with Barnes bullets in 30, 7MM, and 25 caliber and all worked well. My biggest peave with the Barnes is their long range performance. I do alot of longer shooting especially for practice and have found that the Barnes don't perform as well at ranges past 500 yards. I don't know if they use a different model for BC calculations or what, but I've experienced a hard time trying to graph ballistics with their bullets. On the flip side, I have a load for 225 Accubonds in my 338 RUM that hovers around MOA at 1000 yards. This is extremely good performance for a hunting bullet. All in all, I don't think you can go wrong with either bullet. I tend to just let the rifle choose during load developement and the Barnes is always on the playlist.-----------SS


----------



## ultramagfan2000 (Nov 27, 2009)

Thanks for posting this springvilleshooter. I've always wondered how the Accubonds compared to the Hornady interbonds. I have yet to see a recovered interbond retain the 90% weight retention claim, it's always down around 60-70 percent right there with the Accubonds. I'm going to have to try the Accubonds.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Availibility is my biggest complaint with Nosler Accubonds. I worked up a load for my 7 mag with 160 gr. Accubonds a couple years ago and now that my supply is running low, they are on backorder everywhere I looked. In the end, I reverted back to my old reliable 162 gr. Hornady BTSP......they may not have the bullet weight retention as the new generation of bullets, but dead is still dead.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks for the info guys! I am curious to see your ballistic chart for 1,000 yards. I look at mine and it is falling 16 inches from 200-300 yards. What kind of speed to you have and such?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> Thanks for the info! Have you ever tried the Barnes? Barnes advertises 96% weight retention. Why do you prefer the Accubond? I am just interested in learning, thanks again for sharing!


I spent HUNDREDS of dollars trying to get Barnes bullets to shoot. Anytime the velocity started getting up where its supposed to be accuracy would go right to crap. FAAASSSSTTTT bullets but 3-4" groups at 100 yards aint going to cut it. I had 140grn XLC's going 3600fps ... they were just doing it sideways though :shock: This is on a rifle with a 6.5-20x scope.

Tried a TON of different tests with 4831, 4350, 7828, RL19, RL22, RL25, H1000 ... none of the XLCs shot worth a ****, even when loading them up hot or well below book values. I used cheap standard green remington corelok's as control loads, those would shoot .75MOA but XLCs were over 3". Shot the Federal Safari A-Frames, those were 1.25".

I did kill a few elk with 140XLCs though, one had an exit hole the size of your fist after being hit with a 3400fps bullet at 60yards, the other had a pinhole in, pinhole out. I examined the lungs when I got it cleaned and didn't see any sign of expansion. It died because it was hit perfectly but the lack of expansion bothered me enough I've never used Barnes bullets since.

If people are looking for 7mm Barnes bullets, expecially the old discontinued blue 140grn XLC's and some Tripleshocks, I have some I'll sell or trade for something else.

-DallanC


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

3,600? Wow! Which caliber, in the STW?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> 3,600? Wow! Which caliber, in the STW?


Yes... its one powder hungry SOB lemme tell you. Had to move the crony a good +20ft from the muzzle too... the blast would blow the sky screens off 8)

Here ya go Huge, scroll down 2/3 of the way to the "blue" bullet. 3600fps wasnt all that much over their published max. FAASSSST bullets... if you can get any accuracy out of them

http://www.barnesbullets.com/copper_man ... 2c28a5bda8

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Dallan, that is interesting on what you have found with the Barnes bullets. I on the other hand love them out of my .340 Weatherby. Perhaps the weight to bullet diameter is what helps. I have been shooting the 225 grain X bullet and now the TSX bullet and have found them to group quite well. As for recovering a bullet to see how it performed I haven't except for digging them out of the dirt, they have been all pass throughs on the several elk that I have killed with them, and they were all one shot kills. 

I have heard of problems with the XLC's because of the coating. From what I understood was that the diameter of the bullet was not constant. Now if that was because of the coating or the bullet I don't know. I did have a .340 load worked up using 185 grain XLC's at 3400 fps that was quite accurate but the pressure was erratic with them so I quit using them.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Cool! From extrapolating (in my head) the velocity the minimum 87 grn is 3,200 and 92 max is 3,381 to get 3,600 yo must be going over 100 grains? That is a lot of powder! At that speed I guess I can see how you can get out there for a real poke. I just ran a quick ballistic chart, to zero at 500 it is about 11 high at 300, pretty impressive ballistics.

I bought some brass from a guy who had a Barnes that kept 97% of the weight and was a perfect petalled out shot. I am guess that he was not shooting at 3,600.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Dallan, here is another question for you. Have you ever measured the diameter of one of the 140 gr XLC's? For a strange reason known only to me 10 years or so ago I happen to have a box of them. I checked them and they measured out to .280". I also have some Sierra 130 gr boattailes and they measured .279.5 and some Barnes 140 gr Tipped TSX measure .279. Right now I don't have any other bullets to compare it to but could that extra 1/2 of a thousand of a inch on the XLC make a difference in your rifle? I know that it is very little but that could be the problem.

I edited the measurements, I screwed up the first time. -)O(-


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huge29 said:


> Cool! From extrapolating (in my head) the velocity the minimum 87 grn is 3,200 and 92 max is 3,381 to get 3,600 yo must be going over 100 grains?


Woah hold on there now, lets just run through that math of yours as I'm not entirely sure where those numbers are coming from 

Barnes manual shows 140grn XLC's using RL 25 powder, have a minimum load of 80.0grns at 3367fps (most normal rifles would KILL to be at this velocity... and its the minimum 8) ). Max is 85.0grns at 3577fps :shock: .

I mentioned the 3600fps, that is only 23fps higher than their recommended max load. If memory serves... and its been YEARS now since I've used any barnes products, my STW was under their fps for the same powder amounts. I believe I was in the range of 86 to 86.5grns of RL25 to hit 3600fps in MY rifle. Everyone needs to work up their own loads of course.



> That is a lot of powder! At that speed I guess I can see how you can get out there for a real poke. I just ran a quick ballistic chart, to zero at 500 it is about 11 high at 300, pretty impressive ballistics.


I never, ever sight in any rifle that has a trajectory of more than 3.5" above line of sight... but yea, with those bullets and their high BC are very flat shooting bullets.

Too bad they shot terribly in my rifle. Dont matter how fast they are if you dont know where they are going.

Back to the OP, really looking forward to trying the 160grn accubonds in the field.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> Dallan, here is another question for you. Have you ever measured the diameter of one of the 140 gr XLC's? For a strange reason known only to me 10 years or so ago I happen to have a box of them. I checked them and they measured out to .280". I also have some Sierra 130 gr boattailes and they measured .279.5 and some Barnes 140 gr Tipped TSX measure .279. Right now I don't have any other bullets to compare it to but could that extra 1/2 of a thousand of a inch on the XLC make a difference in your rifle? I know that it is very little but that could be the problem.


Could have very well been the problem, dunno never thought to check diameters at the time. People online kept singing praises about how well they shot for them, so I just kept buying boxes of them and trying all kinds of various powders in different amounts.

Honestly, if I could just buy factory Remington ammo I would have bought a case of it and never touched the barnes bullets.

-Dallanc


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Back to the original topic - killed several elk and oryx with AB's. Perform exceptionally well. If I don't use AB, then the other choice is a Partition. The internal wound channel from an AB is devastating - almost too good, but the exit (if there is one) wound isn't much more than twice the bullet diameter.


----------

