Accubond vs Interbond

[Ehgbyf]

I am sorry if this question has been asked before but what are the differences between a hornady interbond and a nosler AccuBond? They look like they are very similar.

 

[DrMike]

The primary differences are technical--the InterBond has different metallurgical properties from the AccuBond. The bonding methods may vary slightly. The InterBond has a red tip; the AccuBond has a white tip. The former is made by Hornady; the latter by Nosler. Okay, after pulling your leg a bit, the bullets are very similar. They are designed to perform similarly and to retain weight. They each work well when placed where they belong.

 

[Ehgbyf]

Thanks. The accubonds have always done a great job for me in the field. Maybe the best whitetail bullet I have ever usedbut components are hard to find right now and I may be forced to use some inter bonds.

 

[Oldtrader3]

The AccuBond calibers that I have shot seem to be by in large, more accurate than the Interbonds in the same rifle?

 

[Laker_Taker]

I agree the accubonds seem to be a little more accurate but I did a little test shooting into reams of new printer paper I lined up a new box of it and shot into it at 100 yards. The AccuBond pretty much got destroyed and weight retention was 68% but was flat as a pancake. The interbond retained 91% and was a nice looking mushroom and it did penetrate a little farther. I also shot the TTSX into the same media and the mushroom head actually broke off and the shank out penetrated the mushroom head. All were shot from a 270 weatherby magnum using the same powder IMR7828 75 grains and all bullets were 130 grain pills. But my guns do have their favorite bullet/powder combo and I use all three bullets for hunting.

LT

 

[Mountain Goat]

AccuBonds have certainly been more accurate for me. See my post in product reviews regarding game I have taken with the AccuBond over the recent years.

 

[super-7]

They are very similar , of what I have noticed myself. I can ussually get either to shoot pretty well in most rifles. AB's are a bit longer with higher BC then IB's of the same weight. I believe this is do to internal difference in the core shape. My cut always are in the shop but I beleive the Ab is wider at the tip and narrows down toward the base. The IB is actually skinnier at the top and widens out near the base. I think this is why the IB is a tad shorter / less bc in the same weight as it has more lead in the wider base of the bullet. Both have been pretty good stout bullets any time I've used them. Going to be loading 180 IB's over RL-22 in the 300 bee here in the new year.

 

[FOTIS]

In my personal experience?
The accubonds are far easier to get to shoot!

 

[SJB358]

I haven't ran a ton of the Interbonds, but they were really awesome in my 270WSM in 130 grain variety. I didn't not any real difficulty getting them to shoot either, but small sample. They do seem to hold onto a little more weight, but mushroom wider. They were dynamite on deer though. Nothing to complain about them.

 

[DIXIE]

I haven't ran a ton of the Interbonds, but they were really awesome in my 270WSM in 130 grain variety. I didn't not any real difficulty getting them to shoot either, but small sample. They do seem to hold onto a little more weight, but mushroom wider. They were dynamite on deer though. Nothing to complain about them.

yep retain more weight, expand wider, penetrate less, less accurate - on average from what I've seen and heard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JD338]

Thanks. The accubonds have always done a great job for me in the field. Maybe the best whitetail bullet I have ever usedbut components are hard to find right now and I may be forced to use some inter bonds.

What caliber and weight are you using?
Have you tried SPS?

JD338

 

[tjen]

I agree the accubonds seem to be a little more accurate but I did a little test shooting into reams of new printer paper I lined up a new box of it and shot into it at 100 yards. The AccuBond pretty much got destroyed and weight retention was 68% but was flat as a pancake. The interbond retained 91% and was a nice looking mushroom and it did penetrate a little farther. I also shot the TTSX into the same media and the mushroom head actually broke off and the shank out penetrated the mushroom head. All were shot from a 270 weatherby magnum using the same powder IMR7828 75 grains and all bullets were 130 grain pills. But my guns do have their favorite bullet/powder combo and I use all three bullets for hunting.

LT

Remember the AB has by design a weight retention of 60% to 70% and that is for terminal performance that higher weight retaining bullets do not have. So that's not a destroyed bullet but it is a fine performing bullet.

 

[Mountain Goat]

My experience with the 130gr .277" AccuBond is that they do not, or at least did not, penetrate well at all. Had any of my shots been a quartering away angle, I'm not sure the bullet would have reached the vitals.

They did dispatch the deer and antelope quite handily, but no way did I see the AccuBond advantage.

 

[SJB358]

My experience with the 130gr .277" AccuBond is that they do not, or at least did not, penetrate well at all. Had any of my shots been a quartering away angle, I'm not sure the bullet would have reached the vitals.

They did dispatch the deer and antelope quite handily, but no way did I see the AccuBond advantage.

MG, not questioning your result's at all, but do you think any other bullet, other than a super premium like PT or Swift A-Frame would have done any better, in the penetration department? Just wondering.

I sorta think the same of the 140 AB on elk from my 270WSM. I think it is a great bullet, but I don't think it quite has the stuff for bigger bulls, on large bones. I took a big old, Idaho bull with it, it did the job, but I went to the 150 PT and have been happier with the results. The 140 AB does penetrate well, no doubt, but I feel better with extra beef when it comes to elk, especially from the smaller bores.

 

[Mountain Goat]

My experience with the 130gr .277" AccuBond is that they do not, or at least did not, penetrate well at all. Had any of my shots been a quartering away angle, I'm not sure the bullet would have reached the vitals.

They did dispatch the deer and antelope quite handily, but no way did I see the AccuBond advantage.

MG, not questioning your result's at all, but do you think any other bullet, other than a super premium like PT or Swift A-Frame would have done any better, in the penetration department? Just wondering.

I sorta think the same of the 140 AB on elk from my 270WSM. I think it is a great bullet, but I don't think it quite has the stuff for bigger bulls, on large bones. I took a big old, Idaho bull with it, it did the job, but I went to the 150 PT and have been happier with the results. The 140 AB does penetrate well, no doubt, but I feel better with extra beef when it comes to elk, especially from the smaller bores.

I agree, the 140gr AB seems to be much more stout than the 130gr. I posted my results in the Product Reviews section of the forum. Even on a broadside shot on deer, it did pass through.

I have had better results with the NBT, Gameking and Hornady Interlock as far as killing efficiency and penetration on deer size game. No, the animals weren't any more dead, but I think we all understand my point. These bullets certainly could have been recovered, but I am allergic to deer and have no interest in fishing through the innards.

I do think other "non-premium" bullets would have penetrated better as my past experince with other bullets certainly had mostly passthroughs.

 

[SJB358]

Fair enough MG. Makes sense to me.

 

[Mountain Goat]

I'm wondering if this particular lot of bullets had bonding issues? There were some early reports if this in the .338" version, but that was years ago, before the 130gr was evan available I believe. At any rate, I'll shoot up what I have and move on to the E-tip for this rifle.