Guy Miner
Master Loader
- Apr 6, 2006
- 17,773
- 5,946
RidgeRunner - with this "Not like the "old" Accubonds were poor at long range..."
I was trying to say that the regular Accubonds weren't poor at long range. I always thought of them as very capable long range bullets. You and I agree, I just didn't word it well.
Could be why I've got 100 of them loaded up over H4350 for my .300 WSM right now. The 200 grainers.
It will be interesting to see if the new long-range versions are a lot better than the originals for my purposes. They surely do promise to be slicker with those high BC's... That could be real good, as long as they're as accurate as the originals too.
Nice shooting BTW!
Guy
I was trying to say that the regular Accubonds weren't poor at long range. I always thought of them as very capable long range bullets. You and I agree, I just didn't word it well.
Could be why I've got 100 of them loaded up over H4350 for my .300 WSM right now. The 200 grainers.
It will be interesting to see if the new long-range versions are a lot better than the originals for my purposes. They surely do promise to be slicker with those high BC's... That could be real good, as long as they're as accurate as the originals too.
Nice shooting BTW!
Guy