Nosler Ballistic Tip vrs Accubond or Partitions

[H&Hhunter]

Accubond is, nothing more then the partition with a higher bc

That is not technically correct. Accubonds perform much like a partition on game but are an entirely different construction, using a tapered jacket and a bonded core.

Accbonds do not contain a partition.

 

[entropy]

It's not grammatically correct either.

Accubond is, nothing more then the partition with a higher bc

The sentence requires no comma.
It would be more correct to say the Accubond combines the polymer tip of the Ballistic Tip, with a base section that performs similarly to the Partition, but does away with the actual partition.

 

[Chuck R.]

Accubonds and Partitions would do the job in your 300 but as of a couple of months ago they've hard to come by and the prices have gone up a lot. TTSX's have been more obtainable, cheaper and will do exactly what you want out of a 300.

You can find them, just have to be quick with the credit card. In the last 6 months I've managed to get 4 boxes of .308 180BTs, and 3 boxes of 180 ABs in prep for an elk hunt in a couple years. It's much, much cheaper to practice with the BTs. 200 Partitions are available, but $$$.

Now IF I could find some .264 130 ABs my life would be complete...

 

[Nature Boy]

Accubond is, nothing more then the partition with a higher bc

Accubonds are consistently more accurate in every load I’ve tested compared to Partitions but I admittedly go way overboard in my pursuit of accuracy in hunting loads.

Both are efficient killers of game, which is what matters

 

[wombat13]

Deleted. I see someone else already made my point.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Partitions are constructed more for penetration, breaking through bone, and still hiding together,...

This isn't exactly true. Partitions are designed with a cup and core front half that often gets utterly destroyed and/or lost (core) as the bullet penetrates and opens, and then only the back portion holds together. Weight loss can be considerable with Partitions.

 

[H&Hhunter]

This isn't exactly true. Partitions are designed with a cup and core front half that often gets utterly destroyed and/or lost (core) as the bullet penetrates and opens, and then only the back portion holds together. Weight loss can be considerable with Partitions.

My experience with partitions mirrors this.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Here are some recovered Partitions from recent hog hunts. The only one retaining most of its weight failed to expand for some unknown reason. Many tumbled after losing their front core and so petals bent back ended up being re-bent forward.

 

[old heeler]

This isn't exactly true. Partitions are designed with a cup and core front half that often gets utterly destroyed and/or lost (core) as the bullet penetrates and opens, and then only the back portion holds together. Weight loss can be considerable with Partitions.

I use both and both (Accubond/Partition) 30 cal have same Optimum Performance Velocity. The back holds together better on Partition because of the Crimp Lock.

Nosler manual #9 page 22/23 shows picture at same velocity for both. and WR.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I use both and both (Accubond/Partition) 30 cal have same Optimum Performance Velocity. The back holds together better on Partition because of the Crimp Lock.

Nosler manual #9 page 22/23 shows picture at same velocity for both. and WR.

Yes, but my comment was in regards to partitions holding together, not what their optimum performance velocity was, and they actually don't hold together very well. The front portion is pretty sacrificial. I did not comment on performance velocity.

I honestly think the back holds together better because the partition keeps the back lead chamber from expanding with the rest of the front portion of the bullet. The crimp lock helps because the back portion is cup and core as well, but the partition protects the rear portion.

 

[HowieG]

I shot a mule deer buck in the right side back ribs while he was quartering away from me at 80 yards. My intent was for the shot to angle forward into the lungs. The bullet was a 120 grain Ballistic Tip from a 260 Remington Tikka T3. Muzzle velocity is 2900 fps. The bullet hit in the area of the last four ribs and exploded on contact. Luckily, fragments of ribs pulverized the liver. The deer jumped around in a circle, but basically didn't go anywhere. Then he dropped. Lucky for me because my two follow ups at the moving deer missed. The bullet failure was total. I never found any of the bullet except for little bits of jacket and lead. The only damage to the deer was to the back ribs on the right side and the liver. The deer bled out.

The 6.5mm 120 BT is a wonderful bullet for target shooting out of my gun, and might work fine on deer at a distance, but not at close range. I am tending towards the 130 Accubond now although that BT load would probably be fine on pronghorn.

 

[HowieG]

I have done extensive testing. The only partition I have tried is the 6mm 85 grain out of my 243 (600 Mohawk). Wonderful ballistics out of that 18.5 inch barrel, including a SD of 8.9 fps. Unfortuntely, my gun just does NOT like to group that bullet. It doesn't particularly like the 90 Accubond either.

My 260 shoots both the GMX and Barnes TTSX okay, but it likes the 130 Accubond better. Testing will proceed with that rifle (Tikka T3) since I recently turned it from a short action into a long action where I can seat the bullets out to the rifling. The barrel has a long throat.

I tested the 50 grain TTSX in my 22-250 Cooper M54. It shoots that bullet well. If I ever shoot big game with a 22, that will be the gun.