Accubonds?

I haven't had a chance to use mine either. I bought a 257 wthby mag ss sub moa and 2 boxes of factory 110 accubonds. I have shot 1 box at paper and they are very accurate. I will have to wait till Nov. to try them on whitetail! Maybe someone else will chime in?
 
I just loaded some 140 gr Accubonds for my 7X57. I am going deer hunting next week and pig hunting in 3 weeks and will let you know. Yes, that means pics.

Years ago, I used to use Nosler Solid Base bullets, and when they quit making them I bought a few boxes of them (all I could find). Now I am at the end of the stash and decided to go for the next best thing. I sure miss those Solid base bullets!!!
 
I just got back from a mule deer trip and took one with a 150 gr accubond that my buddy loaded up for me. Just a smidge under max powder, so pretty hot.

Absolutely destroyed big bones and was recovered just under the skin. He is going to weigh the recovered bullet, but just eye-ballin it, it retained at least 80% of mass, mushroomed perfectly.

I was really impressed with the performance and would not hesitate to continue using them or reccomending them.
 
My brother got a bear with one two weeks ago, worked great.
went in right behind the near shoulder, through the ribs and shattered the far shoulder blade, stopping there.
The bear dropped dead in its tracks.

125yd shot 7mm mag 160 accubond factory winchester's
 
bullet referenced in my post above wieghed in at 100 gr after recovery. Not sure how much of the starting 150 gr is the ballistic tip, which obviously was gone.

Very happy with preformance.
 
260 grain Accubond in a .376 Steyr over H4895 - as expected

260 grain Acubond in a .376 Steyr (Dragoon with the short Scout barrel) over H4895 - as expected.

Chosen for price and availability in a sharp plastic point for point protection in the magazine with the slightly lighter weight for recoil reduction and for flatter trajectory than heavier and sturdier bullets.

No shots that really tested the bullet but then again I'm not sure much of a legal shot in the lower 48 really would except game farm exotics and shots into the paunch.
 
I just got back from an Ontario whitetail hunt. Two of us used Accubond bullets (factory federal premium). Both of us had similar results...

My deer was about 250lbs, broadside shot, 50 yds. 165gr., .308. The bullet entered just behind the right shoulder, pulverized the heart, shattered the opposite shoulder and exited. The exit wound was about as big around as my thumb. The deer fell flat to his face, and kinda scurried off about 30 yards before it died.

My buddy shot a bit smaller deer (~200lbs), slightly quartering, 50 yds. 160gr., 7mm Mag. The bullet entered just behind the right shoulder, and exited the opposite side a bit further towards the rear of the deer. This deer wheeled and ran off about 30 yards before it died.

In both cases the Accubond performed well. The deer both suffered massive internal injury and died very quickly. We both saw good, if not excellent, penetration on large whitetails. In my .308 (Sako 85) I had 1/2 moa accuracy (1 hole 3 shot groups).

One thing to note however is that both deer had almost no blood trail. We were hunting very dense forest and had some trouble finding very tiny amounts of blood. This was a bit of a surprise.

-nosualc
 
N - was there a pretty thick layer of fat on the deer? I think that is why I don't usually get a good blood trail on the mulies where we hunt - they (for the last few years at least) had a massive fat layer and I think it slows down the blood flow - at least where you can track it.
 
Wild, you're an insider so to speak. So what, according to your sales rep, is the difference between an Accubond and a Ballistic Tip other than the name and the color of its polycarbonate tip? I've gotten deer with Ballistic Tips and they remain dead despite the recent Halloween zombie scare but haven't used Accubonds except on paper. I'm kind of scared to change as I'm getting honest one inch groups reloading Ballistic Tips for the Grendel since I did its trigger job.
 
Just picked up my first box of AccuBond 180 gr./338s for my 338/06 today. The BTs in this same weight and cal. has been made osblete. I'm told that there is no diffrence between the two, and i hope that is true. The B.Ts. killed like lighting and droped whitetails like a sack of taters! That and the fact that i get 3/4" groups from them is a plus also. Side by side the only outside diffrence is the color of the tip. I'll be in the field with the AccuBonds and if there anything like the BTs were, i'll damn sure use them around here untill they no longer make them. I was sold on the BTs in this rifle and just hope the AccuBonds are even close to doing what the .338/180 BTs has done! New brass, new bullet, loading up rounds this weekend, going out and make her go boom- Its all good!!!
 
davidlandrum - I had not noticed wildly excessive fat on these animals, but they were large mature bucks in a very cold part of the world. Fat plugging is certainly a plausible explanation.

m&m - My interpretation of the literature is that the Accubond (AB) fits between the Ballistic Tip (BT); rapid expansion at the expense of penetration, and the Partition; deep penetration at the expense of expansion.

The AB is touted to have more controlled expansion than the BT, yielding better penetration, but not as much penetration as the Partion. This is accomplished by using a thicker jacket, and "bonding" the jacket to the bullet core.

I guess for me the bullet performed as advertised: plenty of pentration and expansion. I was just puzzled by the lack of blood, which would be hard to blame on the bullet. Maybe I need a .45/70;)

-nosualc
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top