# Long Range Accubonds



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

Looks like Nosler is releasing a long range version of the accubond.
Pretty high BCs. Even higher than Bergers.

Bend, Ore. - October 31, 2012 - Nosler, Inc. is pleased to announce the release of their new line of AccuBond® Long Range bullets. Developed through a combination of bullet manufacturing techniques that are unique to Nosler, the design of the AccuBond®-LR allows for the highest B.C. possible in a bullet of the same caliber and weight. Designed with an optimum performance window ranging from 3,200fps to 1,300fps, the unique tapered jacket geometry and proprietary
bonding process of the AccuBond®-LR allow it to expand rapidly for effective energy transfer and significant tissue damage while retaining sufficient weight to ensure deep penetration into the vitals. The AccuBond® bonding process allows the AccuBond®-LR to perform reliably on game throughout the entire velocity range, eliminating the problem of being "too close" often encountered with other high-B.C. bullets. The high-performance boat tail, long ogive, and polymer tip combine to make the AccuBond®-LR the sleekest, flattest- shooting, bonded, hunting bullet ever created. The ogive of the AccuBond®-LR is designed to provide excellent accuracy in a wide variety of firearms without the necessity of being loaded close to or in contact with the lands. The new AccuBond®-LR will be packaged in 100 count boxes, and will initially be available in the following calibers and weights.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Geeeeze those are amazing BC's for a hunting bullet!


-DallanC


----------



## jpolson (Jun 12, 2011)

Good BC's out of an actual hunting bullet. Hopefully this will slow down the morons that still try to convince us that a berger is a hunting bullet.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

What is the G1 vs G7 column? I have not seen two different BC's before. Why so heavy? Is that just the nature of any long distance bullet?


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

The G1 is based on a standard flat based round nose bullet.
The G7 is based on a longer boat-tailed and pointer bullet.

This link explains it alot better if you want to read.

http://02b0516.netsolhost.com/blog1/200 ... efficient/


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I would say that the G1 column is the Balistic Coefficient and the G7 column is the Sectional Density of the bullets. 

But I could be wrong. 

As for the weight the longer a bullet is the better the BC usually is, so with extra length for a higher BC comes extra weight


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Bring these babies on! The best killing/flying big game bullet on the market just got even better. Other premiums might be good, but these bullets are phenomenal.---------SS


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

After further research on this topic from the always trust wikipedia I now know that G1 and G7 are just different ways of calculating BC, G1 being the most commonly cited formula. What has me really scratching my head is how the BC increases with the larger calibers when I always remembered it being just the opposite as a larger diameter would seem to drag more. The definition being provided here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient. I understand math pretty well, but where the diameter squared (squared being the key making .308 turn into .0949 or a smaller figure) being denominator. It just has me confused; what is a real world example. Is it is simple as describing the drag coefficient as a related term? Such as, a 700 lb elk in a sled with all of the same conditions would drag much harder in an 18" wide sled compared to a 30" wide sled as there is more surface to spread out the weight? Secondly, why do the higher weight bullets have higher BC? Are these all tested at a constant velocity? I am confused as to why mass would be the numerator. Thanks guys!


----------



## jpolson (Jun 12, 2011)

BC is not purely air resistance. It accounts for the ballistics of the projectile as a whole. The d squared in the denominator causes an exponential decrease in the BC as the diameter increases. A real world example would be a fat guy and a skinny guy standing in a wind storm. The force on the fat guy would be much larger than on the skinny guy. That is why I don't go out in the wind. 
The heavier bullets for a given diameter have more mass and will "resist" deceleration from air resistance more effectively, therefore the BC increases as mass increases for a given diameter. Er...something like that.


----------



## Squigie (Aug 4, 2012)

Critter said:


> I would say that the G1 column is the Balistic Coefficient and the G7 column is the Sectional Density of the bullets.
> 
> But I could be wrong.
> 
> As for the weight the longer a bullet is the better the BC usually is, so with extra length for a higher BC comes extra weight


Follow the link in mtrunner260's post.
It explains the difference quite well.

There are quite a few different "standard projectiles" that can be used as the 'model' for an equation.
G1 happens to be the most common, but also a poor fit for many modern projectiles. (Most of the BCs you see listed by bullet manufacturers for boat tail or long-nose spitzer bullets are complete BS; because the G1 model just doesn't provide an a good reference.  )
G7 is a good 'VLD' model, but doesn't work well with flat-based bullets.

In addition, the BC changes as the bullet's velocity changes. The closer the bullet conforms to the shape of the model projectile, the closer you can predict those changes. The less the bullet conforms to the model projectile, the less you can predict the changes. So, using the closest fit for the model projectile in the equation is quite beneficial.

Bullet manufacturers are hesitant to list anything but G1 BCs because most people don't understand them, to begin with. And, since the G1 calculations almost always provide a higher number than other models, it looks better on paper.

But, some of the other options are: (same list you'll find in that wikipedia link)
G1 or Ingalls (flat base, 3 calibers long, 2 calibers tangential ogive - established in 1881 for artillery) (semi-pointed)
G2 (Aberdeen J projectile)
G5 (short 7.5° boat-tail, 6.19 calibers long tangent ogive)
G6 (flatbase, 6 calibers long secant ogive)
G7 (long 7.5° boat-tail, 10 calibers tangent ogive)
G8 (flatbase, 10 calibers long secant ogive)
GL (blunt lead nose)

Note that the G5 and G6 models are the most appropriate for most modern flat-base, bevel-base, or short boat tail rifle bullets; but almost no one uses them. Again... it's to avoid confusion.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

I'm not sure I would completely trust the B/Cs published. I would imagine Berger or one of the other companies will debunk this soon enough. Nosler has been notorious for overly "optimistic" B/C's in the past.


----------



## Squigie (Aug 4, 2012)

gwailow said:


> I'm not sure I would completely trust the B/Cs published. I would imagine Berger or one of the other companies will debunk this soon enough. Nosler has been notorious for overly "optimistic" B/C's in the past.


I said the exact same thing in several other discussions of these new bullets, and people jumped all over me for being a "Nosler hater". :roll:

I'm right there with you. I don't believe those BCs. I suspect they're computer model predictions of the highest attainable BC for the maximum design velocity of each bullet. But... Nosler won't respond to any inquiries. So, we have to wonder, until some one does some serious testing.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Squigie said:


> ..... So, we have to wonder, until some one does some serious testing.


Leave that to Berger. Computer model testing looks great on paper (err... screen) but it never truly can duplicate physical testing at the range.

Work out solution by hand using those BCs and watch how you are way off down range. There is no better way to prove or disprove computer results.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Squigie said:


> I suspect they're computer model predictions of the highest attainable BC for the maximum design velocity of each bullet. But... Nosler won't respond to any inquiries. So, we have to wonder, until some one does some serious testing.


Really easy to compute the real-world value, you only need muzzle and 100 yard velocities. PointBlank will compute the real BC.

-DallanC


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Dallan is right, and I have had much better luck using Nosler's published data than several other of the premium bullet makers. While BC is often embellished for marketing purposes, with today's competition, I can't imagine that they will fudge too much. I bet they are +- a couple percent. Besides, the old Accubonds already flew better and killed just as good as any other premium bullet, so any improvement will just further the gap between them and the others. I am not loyal to Nosler, I would change bullets in a second if someone else came up with something better, so far, noone has.---------SS


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Don't rifling marks on bullets change the BC so that all mathematically derived BC's are incorrect as soon as you actually put the bullet down a barrel?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Cooky said:


> Don't rifling marks on bullets change the BC so that all mathematically derived BC's are incorrect as soon as you actually put the bullet down a barrel?


You are absolutely correct cooky. Most people will tell you it's minimal but the rifling affects the bullet's aerodynamics quite a bit. That's why it was stated that the BCs in the table were computer modeled. Now all the little boys and girls know why the same bullets don't perform the same in different rifles.
Reloaders develope loades for their rifles and non reloaders test all types of factory ammo.


----------

