Nosler Bullet Wish List
- Thread starter JD338
- Start date
tjen":2lbx725q said:
Both Partition's already exist, as do the 200 and 225 gr AccuBond's. A 250 AB may have some merit, but I also like thoughts ona 275 gr. PT.. It's purely selfish in a sense, but one reasons I don't have a .35 caliber something, is that there is no NPT with a Sectional Density above .280. Always seemed a bit odd to me that there isn't, as most every other medium bore (except 8mm) has one in the .300 SD range.
I don't know what a 220 gr BSB would do in the in the .358 Win., or the .350 RM, that the AB's in 200, and 225 grainers wouldn't? Although, some sort of FP for use in tubular mags. might be a good thing, albeit, I suspect a very limited market today. Would the existing market warrant the the cost? I can't say,,,it would take more info and analysis, that only Nosler's marketing staff has access to. But I would think not at present.
The 200gr and 225gr AB does not fit in most 358win magazines it was not designed with the 358win or 350rem in mind with their short OCL. I realy do not want a 200gr for them either not enough SD.
The 225gr Pt works just fine in either the 350rem or the 358win but its costly. So we continue to ask for a Bonded bullet designed for 358/350 that will work at their max OCL.
There is some who want a 270gr 358 bullet for the whelen and 35 cal mags and either the PT or AB would work fine for them. If thats close in work or verylong range in a 358mag.
And finely the lonely 35rem deserves a nosler and a Solid Base Flat point would be perfect
Thats why I stated the bullets nosler makes and what nosler needs to make in the 358 caliber. And you added the 275gr to that list.
The 225gr Pt works just fine in either the 350rem or the 358win but its costly. So we continue to ask for a Bonded bullet designed for 358/350 that will work at their max OCL.
There is some who want a 270gr 358 bullet for the whelen and 35 cal mags and either the PT or AB would work fine for them. If thats close in work or verylong range in a 358mag.
And finely the lonely 35rem deserves a nosler and a Solid Base Flat point would be perfect
Thats why I stated the bullets nosler makes and what nosler needs to make in the 358 caliber. And you added the 275gr to that list.
OU812
Handloader
- Apr 18, 2006
- 2,099
- 2
I want a 220 NP for the 8mm caliber.
tjen":uww8hkqq said:
I understand tjen,,,wasn't meaning to be critical of your post persay,,,, sorry. I also did not look real close at the COAL aspect. I just guessed looking at the manual with the 225 SBT Sierra GK being shown for both the .358 and ,350,,figuring the AB would be close, but it's not upon further research,,,my mistake! I do believe the 275 would have some merit as does your thoughts. I guess I should have been a little more explicit on my main thoughts, with the other aspect. That being the cost effectiveness, with a limited market niche. I have no idea what Nosler runs for one batch, but suspect it's quite high. I'm just not sure the profit margin for the tooling expense, is there for them to run what we all want when dealing with a limited niche. In a sense, it's one of those calibers that just never really gained the popularity it deserves. As we all can see, the bulk of the shooting market these days is built around speed. In the grand scope of things, and reality of it is, there just are not many using any of the 35's mentioned. I'm just saying I can understand, why such are not being produced. However, all mentioned would indeed be nice!
CMBTshooter
Handloader
- Jun 8, 2011
- 479
- 0
- Thread starter
- #67
- Nov 4, 2004
- 24,480
- 6,895
A 8mm 220 gr AB and a 8mm 220 gr PT would put Nosler up front for the 8mm market.
JD338
JD338
DrMike
Ballistician
- Nov 8, 2006
- 37,011
- 5,290
Some heavy bullets in the .323 would certainly be welcomed by a growing number of shooters. The advent of the 325WSM ensures a market, I should believe. Who knows, if these bullets were available, we might see a revival of the 8RM?
Woodycreek
Handloader
- Aug 2, 2007
- 2,240
- 0
I'm all for the 220 in the 8mm as long as I get my .30 cal 220AB :lol:
I would be down for either one of the 220's!
I would also really like to see a 250 grain AccuBond for the 358's or a 275 grain PT... Either one of those would be pretty nice too. Oh and once again, a 300-350 grain PT for the 45-70 and a 250-300 grain PT for the 44 caliber shooters! We need a tough bullet! How are we supposed to shoot the hefalumps in WY without tough old PT's?!
I would also really like to see a 250 grain AccuBond for the 358's or a 275 grain PT... Either one of those would be pretty nice too. Oh and once again, a 300-350 grain PT for the 45-70 and a 250-300 grain PT for the 44 caliber shooters! We need a tough bullet! How are we supposed to shoot the hefalumps in WY without tough old PT's?!
.300winmag
Handloader
- Oct 17, 2011
- 660
- 1
I'd like to see some heavy weight (200+ grain) .30 caliber accubonds with longer, shallower boat tails, say 7 to 8 degree .7-.8 caliber long boat tails and longer ogives. This will definitely appeal to the guys shooting longer distances with the big .30 cals.
RJR-51":ej26j8ui said:
Whew! Yeah, I like the sounds of that one right there! I have a couple rifles it would get some play with!
Scott, your right buddy. I am actually fairly excited to try it out. Might have to pull the VXIII off the 270WSM and send it to Leupold for a CDS dial. Might put it back on the 25-06 when it returns.
jason miller
Handloader
- Sep 4, 2012
- 292
- 0
There was one suggestion on here that I would like to see: the .308" 200 grain ballistic tip.
Most people shooting a 200 grain .308" bullet are running them under 3,000 fps(my 30-06 likes them at 2690). I think the construction of a ballistic tip would be more than enough at these velocities and with such a long bullet.
And after shooting a 168 ballistic tip started at 2892 fps and a 200 AccuBond started at 2650 fps into the same box of magazines at 100 yards, I further believe that the AccuBond construction isn't needed in this case. The 168 ballistic tip retained 86.8 grains, or 51.66%, while the 200 AccuBond retained 106.6 grains, or 53.33%. The AccuBond barely out-penetrated the ballistic tip. A 180 Partition at 2710 out-penetrated the 200 AccuBond by a significantly larger margin than the 200 AccuBond out penetrated the 168 ballistic tip.
I understand that developing an entirely new bullet meant that profit margins were probably better for Nosler by making it an AccuBond instead of a ballistic tip. But they already reverse-engineered most accubonds from existing ballistic tips. And a 200 grain ballistic tip would be more than tough enough for me, I would rather pay ballistic tip prices than AccuBond prices, a slightly shorter bearing surface would mean my pressure would drop at least a little on a load that's accurate at a velocity that is potentially over ideal pressure, and I'm willing to admit that I'm vain enough to simply prefer a green tip over a white tip.
While I'm on .308" bullets, I think a 168 AccuBond would sell well. I probably wouldn't buy any, especially after seeing how well a 168 ballistic tip held up, but I bet the general public would buy tons. Long range shooting is huge right now and seeing "168" automatically makes people envision 600 yard pokes across canyons or fields. And the current crop of 165/168 bullets from Berger, Hornady, and Sierra don't really have very high B.C.'s. I think Sierra actually makes a 155 that is more aerodynamic than their 168...
One bullet I see mentioned often is a 175 AccuBond in 7mm. I agree that a heavier AccuBond would have selling potential. But if it were my decision, I'd try a really aerodynamic 168 or 180 AccuBond in 7mm. I have read more than once of questionable performance from 7mm 168 and 180 Bergers- as in worse performance compared to other Bergers in different diameters. The popular alternative is a 162 A-Max, which I can assure you doesn't do all that great even out at 445 yards when shot into a box of magazines from my 7mm RM. I wouldn't want to use one on anything bigger than a whitetail.
If Nosler were to market a "long range" AccuBond for the 7mm, 162, 168, or 180 grains are probably the most appealing to the consumer. Most people probably automatically think "short to medium range elk/moose bullet" when they think of any 175 grain 7mm bullet. The 168 LRX that Barnes tried to introduce didn't stand much chance because Barnes's bullets aren't ever going to be as aerodynamic with their grooved shank and also because they don't expand as widely or as reliably at lower velocity. But that same idea just might work if Nosler tried it with their accubonds.
And while we're on the subject, I think simply using a 160 AccuBond and making the shank longer, like they seem to have done with some of their other heavy for caliber accubonds, isn't the answer. Furthermore, I don't believe all of Nosler's currently published ballistic coefficients. Many bullets have the same or very similar ogives and boat tails through their weight range in each caliber, while ballistic coefficients vary by a huge amount. The 200 and 225 grain accubonds in .338" come to mind. Berger has shown that two bullets of the same nose and tail profile in the same caliber with slightly different weights don't vary all that much. I would be willing to admit I'm wrong if real proof were offered. It would be awesome if Nosler actually listed real, confirmed ballistic coefficients instead of computer predictions.
The last bullet I see potential in is the heavier 6mm ballistic tip/AccuBond. Most people have mentioned 105 grains. That probably won't stabilize in half of people's .243 or 6mm Rem rifles; just like the 105 A-Max. And there really isn't anything wrong with a 105 A-Max for pronghorn or small deer if it stabilizes in your rifle. But a 100 grain ballistic tip or AccuBond that has a B.C. in the .450+ range would probably sell like hotcakes. I know I would buy some as soon as I use up my current .243" supply.
Most people shooting a 200 grain .308" bullet are running them under 3,000 fps(my 30-06 likes them at 2690). I think the construction of a ballistic tip would be more than enough at these velocities and with such a long bullet.
And after shooting a 168 ballistic tip started at 2892 fps and a 200 AccuBond started at 2650 fps into the same box of magazines at 100 yards, I further believe that the AccuBond construction isn't needed in this case. The 168 ballistic tip retained 86.8 grains, or 51.66%, while the 200 AccuBond retained 106.6 grains, or 53.33%. The AccuBond barely out-penetrated the ballistic tip. A 180 Partition at 2710 out-penetrated the 200 AccuBond by a significantly larger margin than the 200 AccuBond out penetrated the 168 ballistic tip.
I understand that developing an entirely new bullet meant that profit margins were probably better for Nosler by making it an AccuBond instead of a ballistic tip. But they already reverse-engineered most accubonds from existing ballistic tips. And a 200 grain ballistic tip would be more than tough enough for me, I would rather pay ballistic tip prices than AccuBond prices, a slightly shorter bearing surface would mean my pressure would drop at least a little on a load that's accurate at a velocity that is potentially over ideal pressure, and I'm willing to admit that I'm vain enough to simply prefer a green tip over a white tip.
While I'm on .308" bullets, I think a 168 AccuBond would sell well. I probably wouldn't buy any, especially after seeing how well a 168 ballistic tip held up, but I bet the general public would buy tons. Long range shooting is huge right now and seeing "168" automatically makes people envision 600 yard pokes across canyons or fields. And the current crop of 165/168 bullets from Berger, Hornady, and Sierra don't really have very high B.C.'s. I think Sierra actually makes a 155 that is more aerodynamic than their 168...
One bullet I see mentioned often is a 175 AccuBond in 7mm. I agree that a heavier AccuBond would have selling potential. But if it were my decision, I'd try a really aerodynamic 168 or 180 AccuBond in 7mm. I have read more than once of questionable performance from 7mm 168 and 180 Bergers- as in worse performance compared to other Bergers in different diameters. The popular alternative is a 162 A-Max, which I can assure you doesn't do all that great even out at 445 yards when shot into a box of magazines from my 7mm RM. I wouldn't want to use one on anything bigger than a whitetail.
If Nosler were to market a "long range" AccuBond for the 7mm, 162, 168, or 180 grains are probably the most appealing to the consumer. Most people probably automatically think "short to medium range elk/moose bullet" when they think of any 175 grain 7mm bullet. The 168 LRX that Barnes tried to introduce didn't stand much chance because Barnes's bullets aren't ever going to be as aerodynamic with their grooved shank and also because they don't expand as widely or as reliably at lower velocity. But that same idea just might work if Nosler tried it with their accubonds.
And while we're on the subject, I think simply using a 160 AccuBond and making the shank longer, like they seem to have done with some of their other heavy for caliber accubonds, isn't the answer. Furthermore, I don't believe all of Nosler's currently published ballistic coefficients. Many bullets have the same or very similar ogives and boat tails through their weight range in each caliber, while ballistic coefficients vary by a huge amount. The 200 and 225 grain accubonds in .338" come to mind. Berger has shown that two bullets of the same nose and tail profile in the same caliber with slightly different weights don't vary all that much. I would be willing to admit I'm wrong if real proof were offered. It would be awesome if Nosler actually listed real, confirmed ballistic coefficients instead of computer predictions.
The last bullet I see potential in is the heavier 6mm ballistic tip/AccuBond. Most people have mentioned 105 grains. That probably won't stabilize in half of people's .243 or 6mm Rem rifles; just like the 105 A-Max. And there really isn't anything wrong with a 105 A-Max for pronghorn or small deer if it stabilizes in your rifle. But a 100 grain ballistic tip or AccuBond that has a B.C. in the .450+ range would probably sell like hotcakes. I know I would buy some as soon as I use up my current .243" supply.
