For the Nosler guys

[fredj338]

Does Nosler ever intend to make a super Partition by bonding the front lead core? Don't get me wrong, I love the original design, in fact it is all I currently hunt with (except my .404 for obvious reasons). Since you are making a bonded bullet anyway, why not a bonded Partition? Super Partition, Bonded Partition, AccuBond Partition? :lol:

 

[RogueRiver]

I am a big Partition fan having taken elk and bear with them but, I would buy them if made in 358 caliber. Partition would take cutomers away from barnes and a frame.

 

[fredj338]

Yeah Rogue, that's kind of my idea. I love the Partition, but could see the desirability & marketablity of a BonedPartition, The Bondition??????? Just the ticket for those realy fast movers up close.

 

[mshaffer]

If I were marketing the Nosler products I would most likely encourage you to look at the CT category of bullets that they offer. With the Partition Gold and the Fail Safe lines those pretty much close the gap between Partition and let's say what Barnes offeres in their X line. If you look at the slim offerings that Nosler offers in those CT lines I think we find the answer to "why no bonded Partition?" As much of a killer bullet as it may be, it would be darned expensive and there just isn't that much call for it.

 

[147 Grain]

Good Idea:

....If one desires a tougher bullet than current Partitions, then upgrade to the CT Failsafes.

 

[fredj338]

WHy would it be "damned expensive"? They lready have a bonding process, I would think it would be cheaper to manuf. than a Failsafe or PG. It would just add another step to the NP process & make a better bullet, IMO, than the PG. Come on Nosler guy!

 

[Greg Nolan]

We are all looking for the perfect bullet and I think you've hit on something that I would like to add to. OK, a bonded Partition, that would be like a Swift A frame but a bit more fragile up front instead of back to insure expansion. Now for the "dream big" part. What if? You added a plastic tip so it has better trajectory and accuracy than the A frame or protected point Partition and what if the heel of the bullet could be boat tailed ever so slightly more for even better trajectory. I've read that a flat based bullet is more accurate but us hunters don't care about competition accuracy and look how accurate the AccuBond is! Now if you'd just make one of those in .416 "VIOLA" perfection. :wink:

 

[fredj338]

The problem w/ changing the NP design is R&D, plus adding a BT or PT will make it longer & change the basic flight qualities, which I find plenty accurate for 400yd shooting. It would be very simple to just apply the bonding process to the nose section of the std. NP. Simple, very effective & affordable. BTW, they should make a bullet in .423 for my .404 jeffery, then I would be in hunting heaven. :shock:

 

[mshaffer]

WHy would it be "damned expensive"? They lready have a bonding process, I would think it would be cheaper to manuf. than a Failsafe or PG. It would just add another step to the NP process & make a better bullet, IMO, than the PG. Come on Nosler guy!

There would in fact be a considerable cost increase. If you were to gauge this by the cost difference of the BT versus the AccuBond, we are looking at 35%-65% cost increase on the box of bullets with the larger calibers having a higher percentage rise. Now that isn't much if we are looking at a .30 180gr but when we step up to the big boys in say the .375 class bullet you are looking at a price-per-box of 50 bullets going from roughly $35 to roughly $55. They would, no doubt, cost at least as much if not more than the Swift bonded H type frame bullets, and the Fail Safe bullets. In fact a 25ct box of Speer's Trophy Bonded Bear Claw in 375-250 costs the same as a 50ct box of Partitions in 375-260. That's a big marketing move to attempt. And with Nosler being the quality tight wads that they are, they would never pinch out anything that wasn't as close to perfect as they could feasibly get it. That means a lot of R&D and field testing, and market viability testing before the public would ever see it.

But who knows, maybe that's the next great new thing that they'll announce. :wink:

 

[RogueRiver]

There are no 35 cal bullets in the ct line, that I know about.

 

[fredj338]

Maybe not ms, the R&D has already been done on the bonding process. I would think they could bring them in under the Swift. Drop the CTPG & save some money there.