30 cal 168 grain BT vs ABLR

Does anyone have the ballistic drop, velocity, etc to compare the two at the same velocity?

What sort of point blank range improvement would I see with the ABLR in say a 30-06?

I use this calculator when trying to look at this stuff .

http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

I assume you mean the 190 ABLR?

The 168 BT actually has better point blank range than the 190 ABLR out of a 30-06. I assumed 2900 fps for the 168 BT and 2700 fps for the ABLR. When zeroed for 275 yards the BT has 2 inches less drop at 400 yards.

Strike this--I see Nosler came out with a 168 ABLR

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 168 ABLR will have less drop than the 168 BT, but not noticeable until past 400 yards. The 168 ABLR has a BC of .598 while the 168 BT has a BC of .490

I re-ran the numbers, assuming 2900 fps for both bullets. The 168 ABLR has one inch less drop at 400 yards than the 168 BT.

Beyond 400 the ABLR will continue to fly flatter, and at 600 yards there is a difference of about 5 inches. But you are still looking at 60 (!) inches of drop at 600 yards, when zeroed at 225 yards.

The ABLR will also drift less in the wind, but for hunting I don't see the advantage of the ABLR. You gain minute trajectory improvement but also have a more frangible bullet for close impact shots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

joelkdouglas":1erz7mm0 said:

The ABLR will also drift less in the wind, but for hunting I don't see the advantage of the ABLR. You gain minute trajectory improvement but also have a more frangible bullet for close impact shots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I believe that the Ballistic Tips are more frangible than the AccuBond Long Range bullet at close range.

TackDriver284":l9t4bstg said:

joelkdouglas":l9t4bstg said:

The ABLR will also drift less in the wind, but for hunting I don't see the advantage of the ABLR. You gain minute trajectory improvement but also have a more frangible bullet for close impact shots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I believe that the Ballistic Tips are more frangible than the AccuBond Long Range bullet at close range.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I would like to learn more about them both!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TackDriver284":1mytywym said:

joelkdouglas":1mytywym said:

The ABLR will also drift less in the wind, but for hunting I don't see the advantage of the ABLR. You gain minute trajectory improvement but also have a more frangible bullet for close impact shots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I believe that the Ballistic Tips are more frangible than the AccuBond Long Range bullet at close range.

Click to expand...

I would bet there isn't too much difference between those two honestly. Most of the recovered ABLR's we have seen around here will usually dump 50% or more on full speed impacts which is about the same as the BT's mostly.

It would be cool to see them ran side by side into some sort of media. Alot of folks have touted that 168 BT as a pretty tough bullet.

Recently realized that I've come perilously close to running through my supply of 165 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullets. Did a lot of practice with them last year, and some hunting.

I still have a few hundred 165 gr Partitions, but... I really liked the way the 165 Ballistic-Tips worked last year...

Have a few boxes of 168 E-Tips on hand... And a few hundred 180 gr Partitions...

No, I guess I don't need to try the new long-range Accubonds! :mrgreen:

Guy

SJB358":1s3x93ao said:

TackDriver284":1s3x93ao said:

joelkdouglas":1s3x93ao said:

The ABLR will also drift less in the wind, but for hunting I don't see the advantage of the ABLR. You gain minute trajectory improvement but also have a more frangible bullet for close impact shots.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I believe that the Ballistic Tips are more frangible than the AccuBond Long Range bullet at close range.

Click to expand...

I would bet there isn't too much difference between those two honestly. Most of the recovered ABLR's we have seen around here will usually dump 50% or more on full speed impacts which is about the same as the BT's mostly.

Click to expand...

SJB, That is true that both are great bullets. I love the BT and use them in my 308 and 7mm Rem Mag. Upon reading the articles about the AB and ABLR, it has the bonding process unlike the BT, so I assumed it would hold a tad better than the BT. My words don't hold any merit because I have never experimented the ABLR on animals yet, it was just my opinion. It would be interesting to see results on the ABLR on game and ballistic gel. This is a copy and paste about ABLR.

"Nosler AccuBond Long Range Bullets were specifically developed for the increasing popularity of long range hunting. Nosler's unique manufacturing techniques allow them to produce a rapidly expanding bonded hunting bullet with the highest Ballistic Coefficient possible in a bullet of the same caliber and weight. The bonding process eliminates the issue of being too close, a problem often associated with many of the other high B.C.hunting bullets. AccuBond Long Range Bullets' long, sleek ogive was designed to produce outstanding accuracy in a wide variety of firearms without the necessity to be loaded close to or in contact with the lands."

This is the exit on a spike with the 168 Ball. Tip from my .308 last season at 185 yards. Got to love the size of it. Great expansion right there. 2750 fps

No worries Mark, we sit in the same chair as I haven't taken a single animal with the ABLR but have taken quite a few with the Ballistic Tips. I have shot a bunch of the ABLR's into water jugs though, and they are bonded, but most of that front end will go away and leave a small, but pretty adequate expanded base/mushroom. If they shoot though, I can't see any good reason not to use them. Mike has taken some game with them and a few others around here as well and report good stuff up to elk as far as I know. I had a heckuva time getting them to be consistent (in a few rifles and cartridges) a few years ago, but I could probably circle back and try them again.

SJB, currently I have the 150 ABLR loads with IMR4350 sitting in the ammo box for the 7mm Magnum since last week and I just hope that they shoot, I do hear that the ABLR is pretty fussy to get to shoot for some fellas. I hope I am not one of those.

TackDriver284":28ud2d5a said:

SJB, currently I have the 150 ABLR loads with IMR4350 sitting in the ammo box for the 7mm Magnum since last week and I just hope that they shoot, I do hear that the ABLR is pretty fussy to get to shoot for some fellas. I hope I am not one of those.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I tried them in the 7mm WSM, 7mm Rem Mag, 270 WSM, and 300 Weatherby. Tried a few powder combo's with each and would get some excellent groups at distance and the next time they would fall apart. I am not sure what the deal was but I may circle back around and try them again and see what happens.

I am looking forward to seeing what happens for you with your 7.

I have some of the 168's I plan to try in the near future in 308 and 30-06 for starters.

I tried 129's and 142's in my 6.5CM and initially the results were unimpressive at best. However, I remembered other posts here saying to shorten the OAL so the bullet had more jump. I shorted the OAL with both bullets by .025 from the book length and they shot very well averaging .5-.6ish groups. I picked this amount using the SWAG method and it worked for me although YMMV.

Were I loading anything else with ABLR's (which I will) I intend to start with this formula and see what happens.

Ron

FWIW, when I received my initial shipment of 7mm 150 GR ABLR, I loaded up a handful of 280AI shells and hit the range. 3 shots went well ll under an inch, made a slight zero adjustment and hit the bean fields to test them out on crop damage deer. I shot a big doe at 275 yards and pole axed her on the spot, beans still in her mouth. My buddy shot a second doe with my rifle at 380 yards and she went straight down.
I'm getting 3100 fps muzzle velocity and I never tried to improve the load. Just lucky I guess.

JD338

Thanks for the input.

Ran the two thru the Hornady Calc and there didn't seem any real difference out to 400 yards.
The ABLR are supposed to open at 1300 fps, the BT's at 1800 or so (if I remember right).

That may make a difference if some are shooting smaller cartridges or at very long distance.

I have several hundred of the BT's, so I guess I don't need to be in a hurry to buy the seconds of the ABLR
they have at the Shooters Pro Shop.

They have some of the new 220 BT's for the Blackout Subsonic loads too.

Like Scotty, I was never able to get the ABLR to shoot like I expected. However I have had great luck with the AB. At game ranges there is really not a lot of difference.

I run the ABLR in my 6.5x55 to 2800 fps. I run the same bullet in my 264 WM to 3250. I use the 90 gr AB in my 243. All three have taken game. The only bullet I recovered was the 2nd shot on my bull elk at 137 yards with the 264. What was left weighed in at 60 grains (142 original) and penetrated the pelvis and about 5 feet of elk, stopping on the inside of the off shoulder. All others have been complete pass-throughs with exit wounds looking like the one TackDriver posted above.
In my 30-06 and 308 I'm running 165 GK's for now.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthrea ... ow_femurs_

I like the .308 168gr NBT for my 308's and 06!

Guy Miner":3t1rv4zm said:

Recently realized that I've come perilously close to running through my supply of 165 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullets. Did a lot of practice with them last year, and some hunting.

I still have a few hundred 165 gr Partitions, but... I really liked the way the 165 Ballistic-Tips worked last year...

Have a few boxes of 168 E-Tips on hand... And a few hundred 180 gr Partitions...

No, I guess I don't need to try the new long-range Accubonds! :mrgreen:

Guy

Click to expand...

Guy, you seem pretty well versed on these in the .308 caliber. Why is there a 165 BT and a 168 BT? Surely there is more of a difference than just 3 grains of weight? Is the 168 a tougher constructed bullet?