What's the straight dope on Accubond Long Range performance?

[pharmseller]

My brother and I have Tikka T3 Lite ss rifles chambered for 7mm Rem Mag. My brother likes the BC of the NABLR and wants me to work up a load for him using the 168 or 175, whichever has the best accuracy.

I've read about inconsistent bullet performance, particularly at closer ranges. I know the bullets were developed for long range applications, but you never know when that bull is going to step out at 80 yards.

I also have 160 NAB as well as 160 Partitions. I prefer the standard models but then again I'm not good enough to shoot past 400 yards.

My brother's rifle really likes the HSM factory stuff loaded with 180 gr Bergers but they only do about 2750 MV.

So what kind of experience does the forum have with the NABLR?




P

 

[gerry]

I have only used the 129 gr ABLR at 2900 fps from a 260 Rem on 3 deer I really stretched them out on my longest shot of 60 yards :lol: They worked fine with all bullets exiting without too much damage considering what they hit. I had no problem finding accuracy and ended up with a load .110" from the lands.

I think they work fine for their intended purpose of long range shooting but still will retain around 40% on a close range shot. That's the trade off I guess not super tough at close range but still adequate to get into the vitals in order to expand way out there.

For me the standard AccuBond and Ballistic Tip will expand properly a lot farther out than I ever want to shoot but are tougher up close in the case of the AccuBond especially where the vast majority of animals are taken. While the ABLR works fine I have ended up going back to the other bullets.

 

[sask boy]

I am also heading down to my room to start loading for my nephews 7mm mag. He has shot 160gr. Accubonds for a number of years & it has always done exactly what is supposed to do & that is great terminal performance & accuracy.
This year we a going to try the 168gr. ABLRs as he would like to start shooting longer distances :wink:.
I am going to try 2 different powders IMR4350 & RL22.
I will post my results next week I hope.

Blessings,
Dan

 

[Charlie-NY]

If you're not shooting past 400yds then I don't see any benefit to the ABLR. Last week I took 4 deer in NC. They were taken at 365yd, 361yd, 355yd, and 144 yds; all with the 160 AB from my 7WSM. The 3 longer shots dropped them right in the bean field were they were standing. The 144yd, 7 point buck ran about 40 yds after taking a broadside chest shot.
The 160's have been shooting 1/3 MOA at 300 yds in my rifle. I can't imagine what the ABLR could do better. However, like everyone else, I just can't help but test new bullets as they become available. I have been working up a load for the 175 ABLR but didn't quite have it ready for the trip so I used my old stand-by load with the 160's. I might add that all of the 160's I've been shooting at targets and game have been "seconds" which I bought from SPS. Accuracy and terminal performance have been exceptional.

 

[PJGunner]

This is all very interesting. I've been trying to find a load for my .280 Rem. that will give me the accuracy I seek. I have the velocity (3010 FPS) but not the accuracy. Did some seating depth tests day before yesterday and see some promise with three different settings. I'll load up five rounds of each later this afternoon and test them out as soon as possible, weather permitting. (Too much wind)
I'm also going to try them in two different rifles chambered to the 7x57. I'd like to use one or the other for my elk hunt later this year. If those bullets are that "fragile" at the higher speeds from the magnums, maybe they'll work just fine in the 7x57 and .280. I'm getting too old to keep having the slats kicked out from under me and the .280 is heavy at close to ten pounds and the 7x57 has never kicked all that hard regardless of how hot a load I shot in them. 8)
Paul B.

 

[pharmseller]

If you're not shooting past 400yds then I don't see any benefit to the ABLR. Last week I took 4 deer in NC. They were taken at 365yd, 361yd, 355yd, and 144 yds; all with the 160 AB from my 7WSM. The 3 longer shots dropped them right in the bean field were they were standing. The 144yd, 7 point buck ran about 40 yds after taking a broadside chest shot.
The 160's have been shooting 1/3 MOA at 300 yds in my rifle. I can't imagine what the ABLR could do better. However, like everyone else, I just can't help but test new bullets as they become available. I have been working up a load for the 175 ABLR but didn't quite have it ready for the trip so I used my old stand-by load with the 160's. I might add that all of the 160's I've been shooting at targets and game have been "seconds" which I bought from SPS. Accuracy and terminal performance have been exceptional.

I don't plan on shooting past 400 but my brother does. He practices regularly and has the equipment to match.



P

 

[Wincheringen]

I used a 6.5MM 129 grain one on my Mule buck this year. I expected a much longer shot as I'm hunting open prairie, but this one stopped just shy of 125 yards. I'm sighted in for a 300 yard zero, so I knew I needed to hold low in the chest. I ended up hitting the top of the spine and the bullet did a tremendous amount of damage.

I'm shooting a 6.5 Creedmoor which doesn't have high velocity to begin with, however a hot rod 7 is probably going to make that bullet blow up at close range. I wouldn't worry about it on deer, but if a tougher animal is targeted, I would stick with the AB or BT, both have thicker tapered jackets.

 

[DrMike]

I've used the 150 grain .284 ABLR on two big game animals--a 6X6 elk at ~75 yards and a 4X4 mule deer at about 50 yards. The bullet performed precisely as expected in either instance. I have no hesitation using this bullet on game up close and personal. I am equally confident that should the situation require me to shoot at a distance, the load and the bullet is up to the task.

 

[Wis65x55]

If In am correct, boat tail bullets have no advantage until shooting distance exceeds 350Yards. At that distance, my shooting confidence is heading south too dam fast!

 

[pharmseller]

The paucity of responses leads me to believe the NABLR does not have much of a following, at least in 7mm Rem Mag.




P

 

[SJB358]

Just my opinion and contrary to some who have used them on elk and whose opinions I value really highly but the ABLR doesn't seem nearly as robust as a plain AB or a PT. having seeing PTs get shredded on elks leg bones and a few ABs, they look very similar to the same sorta Bullets I'd pull out of the old water jug test.

Now the ABLRs have really been small after recoveries in my testing and I worry a little about penetration on heavy leg joints. I don't purposely shoot to destroy them but if I'm aiming for that opposite leg to hammer an elk I want a bullet that'll get there.

Saying that it's light years tougher than a Hornady or Sierra and folks use them all the time to topple elk so your certainly a step up beyond plain old C&C Bullets.

They seem much better suited to the reason they were made, LR hunting. Since I'm not an extreme LR shooter, the plain old ABs and PTs work fine. Just depends on what your standard of good is and how you want your Bullets to act.

 

[gerry]

The paucity of responses leads me to believe the NABLR does not have much of a following, at least in 7mm Rem Mag.
P

I think a lot of us have tried them but don't shoot at extreme range much so prefer the regular AccuBond and Partition. I would also think the percentage of hunters who shoot at extreme range is quite low as well. Lot's of good products out there that compete with the ABLR.

 

[Wyo7200]

I was reading each response and was starting to think the same thing Gerry mentioned. Looks like there are a lot of hunters and harvesters here. Maybe check out langrangehunting.com forum? I've only shot paper out to 200 so I couldn't tell you anything new. What I found interesting, is that they are cheaper than AB's. Maybe after this season more people will have stories/ reports.

 

[jmad_81]

I have taken several critters with the ABLR.

I took a realy nice Idaho buck at 475 with a 150 ABLR out of my 280 AI doing 3100, dropped him. Pretty impressed.

Took another Idaho buck @ 80 yards with the same load the next year. Shot both front shoulders, he stood up on his hind legs and fell over backwards. He never moved again. Bullet exited, and was not nearly as messy as I was expecting.

A buddy took a cow elk @ 80 yards with the 168 ABLR out of my 280AI doing 2940 fps.Quartering towards us, hit on the point of the shoulder. couldn't find a exit on the far side rib cage. She went 15 yards and pile up. This one has me a bit puzzled still.

My wife just took her first bull with a 168 ABLR out of her 284 Winchester doing 2780 fps. This thing shoots lights out. She hit him right in the center of the front shoulder @ 680 yards, dumped him. Found the bullet under the hide on the far side after it punched through the offside shoulder.

I personally really like them. They can be a bit tricky to get to shoot, but they shoot and kill quick.

 

[adccoyote428]

So far on paper they shoot better than the standard accubonds.

 

[lhsako]

The paucity of responses leads me to believe the NABLR does not have much of a following, at least in 7mm Rem Mag.

> I'm a strict Partition man for elk, moose,bears.


P

 

[Guy Miner]

The paucity of responses leads me to believe the NABLR does not have much of a following, at least in 7mm Rem Mag.




P

I suspect that what you're seeing is a result of the ABLR being a fairly new bullet - and a lot of guys (like me) simply haven't gotten around to trying them yet.

I've got a good supply of my favorite hunting bullets - am satisfied with the performance and accuracy - so am not in a big hurry to try something else. Quite content with what I've got.

Given time, I think we'll see more reports on the AccuBond Long Range bullets.

Guy

 

[FOTIS]

They are softer than the regular AB's for sure!

 

[shoots_5]

They certainly are softer than a standard hunting bullet. But that is as we know by design so that they will still expand down to 1300fps. In my opinion they are an exceptional compromise to the struggle of finding a bullet that will both expand on game way the hell out there and also not grenade on game if you are presented with a 50 yard shot. If you don't have plans of taking a shot beyond 400 yards then there's probably no point in using the LR version vs a standard AccuBond or Partition.

Only thing I've killed with them so far is a coyote at 225 yards with a 129gr ABLR from my 260. I ran it through about 3/4th's of the dog as it was going away from me. Granted it's just a coyote but it exited with a nice 3/4" hole in its upper right chest. Entrance was the left hip. Dog didn't even twitch on the way down!

I've shot them out to 1000 yards so far and have had quite good accuracy. Not quite as good accuracy wise as the 140 Berger hybrid load I have, but for hunting I trust the ABLR more than the Berger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RiverRider]

I'll likely never try LRABs, but it has been interesting to find out how shooters and hunters have received it. It sounds to me as though Nosler has stuck to the traditional bullet performance paradigm (hold together, penetrate straight and deep, hopefully achieving an exit) as much as possible and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the Berger "performance" model.