INTRODUCING Accubond Long Range

[FOTIS]

So obviously the 168 would be great in my 7RM. Would the 150 shoot well out of my wife's 7mm-08?

Absolutely :mrgreen:

 

[usmc 89]

Nosler is pretty conservative with their BC's.

JD338

I am just waiting for litz to list his assessment on JBM ballistics. Conservative or optimistic still won't come out correctly in the algorithm.

 

[Joe King]

Nosler is pretty conservative with their BC's.

JD338

I am just waiting for litz to list his assessment on JBM ballistics. Conservative or optimistic still won't come out correctly in the algorithm.

If we can get the measurement specs for the bullets so you could use JBM's Modified Point Mass calc you wouldn't need to wait for Bryan to go over them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Nosler already has the BC published. Just load this thing up and shoot. Your rifle is the one that will ultimately tell you what the actual BC will be.

I'd just concluded shooting my final 1k competition for the year and I'm dumping Ballistic FTE and it's JBM Ballistic computer and go back with Exbal. I found that Exbal is more precise in calculating my actual drop.

 

[JD338]

I know some of you asked, the tip color is Gray.

JD338

 

[shoots_5]

Grey will work! But how cool would a camo tip have looked..... :mrgreen:

 

[Luv2Hunt]

I don't think you could go over about 110 grains in 257 and still get good stability in common twist rifles. Maybe even less weight.

 

[usmc 89]

Df, curious as to the exbal, I have used the jbm ballistics and found it spot on as long as the inputs were correct. I actually built the dope card for the sage flats match in jordan I won the night before I shot the course.I have found that litz has pretty accurate .bc listings.

 

[Joe King]

Df, curious as to the exbal, I have used the jbm ballistics and found it spot on as long as the inputs were correct. I actually built the dope card for the sage flats match in jordan I won the night before I shot the course.I have found that litz has pretty accurate .bc listings.

I do the same thing, print em out bring it to work and laminate it. allways been spot on for me as long as my inputs are good. No different than any of the better mobile apps, still junk in junk out.

 

[Guest]

Would it be realistic to think I could get the 210 ALR going the same velocity as my current 200 AB load in the 300 RUM? I'm getting 3,059-3100 using RL25 now.

Just may re-visit Retumbo powder again too.

Don

 

[.300winmag]

Most ballistics programs available today are very accurate, they're as a curate as the inputs put into them. Some have better features and formatting so it sort of comes down to preference. As far as the BC's listed I am a little skeptical, as the form factors of these bullets are below .9, it's not impossible to design a bullet with this low of a form factor but looking at all of Litz's data, there are only a few bullets in all three of his books combined that have form factors below .9 I am hopeful that the BC's are accurate but I have reservations. I will be giving these a try in my .300 though.

Does anyone know how Nosler calculates their BC's? How far are the distances between chronographs or microphones? And that brings up another question, are they calculated using time of flight or velocity change? Just curious if anyone knows.

 

[IdahoCTD]

Of the BC's listed the .270 150gr and the .30 cal. bullets are probably the most optimistic. With a tip the 210gr should be able to match or even slightly exceed the Berger 215gr with a .696 BC. So I could see .700+. If it's less than 5% off people are going to be ecstatic. Same goes for the .270 150gr and 190gr .30.

I'd really like to see a super high BC .30 cal bullet in the 230-240gr range that will compete with the .338 300's and stabilize in a 10" twist. I think .30 cal rifles are more accurate and the lower recoil, when compared to a .338, is always a bonus. It also wouldn't be hard to get them going 3000+fps. If you could get 3200fps out of them in a .30-.378 or similar case they would still expand to nearly 2000yds assuming the BC is equal to or higher than the 230gr Berger.

 

[.300winmag]

Of the BC's listed the .270 150gr and the .30 cal. bullets are probably the most optimistic. With a tip the 210gr should be able to match or even slightly exceed the Berger 215gr with a .696 BC. So I could see .700+. If it's less than 5% off people are going to be ecstatic. Same goes for the .270 150gr and 190gr .30.

I'd really like to see a super high BC .30 cal bullet in the 230-240gr range that will compete with the .338 300's and stabilize in a 10" twist. I think .30 cal rifles are more accurate and the lower recoil, when compared to a .338, is always a bonus. It also wouldn't be hard to get them going 3000+fps. If you could get 3200fps out of them in a .30-.378 or similar case they would still expand to nearly 2000yds assuming the BC is equal to or higher than the 230gr Berger.

I hope the BC"s are accurate, with a polymer tip it will help BC but ogive design plays a much bigger part. I'm not saying their BC's are inaccurate, but they seem like they have optimistically low drag. I hope they're accurate; but in Litz's studies and in other outside tests (including my own), they have been found to be a few percent high. Never the less, this is a very exciting release from Nosler.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

whether using a G1 or a G7, every bullet I ever shot still was not spot on, with the exception of 1, all the rest had to be tweaked to hit where I held.
and I almost always hit high so the bc had to be raised.
RR

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I've been shooting Noslers long enough to be able to say this I think...and I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I just believe in saying what you mean, meaning what you say, and trying not to be mean saying it...simple as that.

I'll bet a weeks pay the BC's are wrong, I knew it as soon as I looked at them...I have no idea where Nosler comes up with their numbers but I feel I can safely say its NOT by shooting them.

I've never known a Nosler bullet to meet its advertised BC...not a single one.

I am so very happy that Nosler decided to offer these bullets, and even with the inaccurate BC's...they're still the best thing going for their intended purpose...and I mean that.

But Nosler "should" realize the market they're aiming for with these...and who their competition is and what they offer (accurate bullets, accurate BC's)...if they want these new bullets to get going without getting bogged down by bad reviews from inaccurate drop data...they really "need" to find a way to get their BC's accurate....OR....just plain admit that they are only predicted BC's and let the user go into this with their eyes wide open and no great expectations....all that is to say, I REALLY want these bullets to be the greatest thing since sliced bread!

And its not only Nosler...all bullet manufacturers except Berger have this problem.


But I don't really care about "other" bullet makers...I'm a dedicated Nosler guy and I'm not changing....I'm just trying to make a point here...that these bullets would get past their "growing pains" much faster if the customers buying them had realistic expectations as far as range cards go...I believe the terminal performance WILL be there.

But, I'm just a truck driver...not a sales rep...so what do I know...except that nobody wants these bullets to succeed worse than me.


Respectfully and sincerely,
Ridgerunner665

 

[.300winmag]

There are a number of reasons why your shots could have impacted high, any error in air density (alt, pressure, humidity, temp) has the same affect as an erro in BC. So if youre 3% off on BC, it would be the same as if you had 3% off on air density. Scopes don't track perfectly, meaning your scope could be moving a little more than 1/4 MOA per click and that could translate to perceiving a low BC, chronographs are not exact, a good chronographs will be within +\- 15 fps and you have to remember to adjust you mv to what it actually is, since your measure with a chronograph at 10-15 feet in front of the muzzle. Also, if you shoot across a chronograph at 5 degrees off paralle from the sensors, it will cause an 11 fps error in the reading for a bullet moving at 3000 fps. It's all statistics and finding your least uncertain variable and fixing it. Using lit.'s BC's are best ad hey have been compared to Doppler radar tests and found to be within a few percent. In my calculations I use litz's G7's BC's find the correction factor for my scope adjustment, use a kestrel for atmospherics and also adjust for the ~15 ft. Measurement for MV and have had very good success with trajectory prediction software. Very little fine tuning is required if you take the time to make every effort possible to minimize error. It takes more time but it does take more effort.

My point is that in trajectory prediction, a lot of errors are attributed to BC because they are difficult to measure, but often times there are several other opportunities for error to be induced that are over looked, and thus, a genuine BC may be adjusted in order to compensate for the the compoundig errors that are overlooked. I'd highly suggest reading Apolled ballistics for long range shooting and accuracy and precision for long range shooting by Bryan Litz's for a better understanding of all of the variables involved in long range shooting. They explain everything in laymans terms and make it very relevant for increasing your success. I've read them all and also formally studied ballistics in course work. For most people, reading a book like Robert McCoys Modern exterior Ballistics is not useful for increasing long range success, even though it is relevant, it is too complex, Litz's books are geared to get a basic understanding of ballistics and show you how to extrapolate these concepts and improve success I'm long-range shooting.

 

[.300winmag]

Ridge runner, +1 for your last post.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

And yours too 300winmag...

Accurate BC's are not easy to get...and what you said about the little things such as atmospheric conditions, not being parallel to the chrono, etc...are all 100% spot on.

There must be a way to get decently accurate BC's without Bryan Litz and dopplar radar though...because Sierra does a pretty good job of it, not sure what method they use...

 

[.300winmag]

Sierra only has a 300 yard range, but they shoot their BC's at high velocity, then back off the powder charge shoot them at lower velocity, then back off the charge again and shoot them at lower velocity and so on. This simulates long range. They then add velocity bands to the G1 BC's they calculate. BC's are related to velocity (Mach number to be specific, so if you think about it, Mach number is related temp and thus BC's are related to temp) so they change with velocity. Sierra has recognized this for a Lon time and has attempted to provide accurate BC's for this reason. The G1 BC's vary much more with modern bullets because the G1 drag model is drastically different than modern bullets geometry. The G7 is typically a much ether fit. Also, if you look at sierra's BC's and compare them to Litz's, they are pretty close, not a 100% but within a few percent. Most bullet manufacturers only publish high velocity BC's as they look better (for marketing) and aren't necessarily a false number, they just are the whole story so to speak. I'm with you though, have been a Nosler fan for a very long time, I I hope these bullets take off!!!

 

[Desert Fox]

Df, curious as to the exbal, I have used the jbm ballistics and found it spot on as long as the inputs were correct. I actually built the dope card for the sage flats match in jordan I won the night before I shot the course.I have found that litz has pretty accurate .bc listings.

I inputed exactly all the the pertinent data exactly the same. Took both to the range and made a comparison. The JBM is half MOA short when compared with Exbal at 1K and beyond. It get worst the farther you shoot.. The Exbal Data mirrored the trajectory of both my 338 Lapua Ackley shooting the 300 grain SMK and my 6.5-47 Lapua shooting the 130 grain Berger VLD using the factory published BC.

Here's my 20 shot group from last weekend 1 K competition. Exbal was calling for 24 MOA come up from my 110 yards zero whereas Ballistic FTE with it's JBM Powered computer from my I-phone that I was using call's for 23.5 MOA. Two more clicks would have centered all my shots.

Not much difference at 600 yards...only less than quarter MOA as you can see in my 600 yards Zombie Night shoot. This is my 308 shooting the 178 grain A-Max.