Difference between Accubond and Ballistic Tip?

Evil_Dark

Evil_Dark

Regular
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Hi there, I achieved to work a load with the Ballistic tip for my 30-06 in 165gr. I've found my sweet spot at 45.5gr of IMR 4895.

But the I've hit the empty shelve at my local store, so the guy there told me that Accubond in 165gr was pratically the same (regardless of after impact), so if I swap those bullets with the same powder load it would be the same on the target...

Looks damm similar physically, and the ballistic coefficient is the same... (BC: 0.475)

Any input?

Dark
 
I have found the velocity to be virtually the same, but some rifles show a slight change in point of impact, using the exact same powder charge.
 
I have found the BT way more accurate than the ABond in 30-06 and 165 grain and also in the 270 130 grain. I used the same powder charge and same jump.
 
Last edited:
You load for the bullet weight not who made it or its construction. Look at Nosler's site and you'll find the same data for a BT as an AccuBond. And 165's and 168's.
 
sunray said:
You load for the bullet weight not who made it or its construction. Look at Nosler's site and you'll find the same data for a BT as an AccuBond. And 165's and 168's.
Click to expand...

yes, but there is no guarantee that they will shoot to the same point of impact or shoot the same group size.
 
I have .30 caliber Bal Tip and Accubd. When I put them side by side, I find, to my eye, that there's a slight difference in profile. The Bal Tip ogive seems more profiled. So the side of the bullet with a .308 diameter seems longer on the Accubond.
It would't surprise me that the same load of powder would give more pressure with an Accubond than with a Bal Tip because of the longer friction surface.

Take note that my Ballistic Tip are the older type, sold in 100 ct boxes
 
sunray said:
You load for the bullet weight not who made it or its construction. Look at Nosler's site and you'll find the same data for a BT as an AccuBond. And 165's and 168's.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the form of the bullet also comes into play - eg. shank/body length - so that a bullet with more area in contact with the barrel will generate higher pressures that a bullet with less, all other things being equal. For example, a Berger VLD bullet compared to one of the same weight with a more traditional profile.
 
Nosler has beefed up the jacket on their "hunting" Ballistic tips in the last while.

When the Accubond first came out, it had a heavier jacket than did the equivalent Ballistic Tip.
This meant that the Accubond was a touch longer than the same weight Ballistic Tip.
I noticed this difference in my 270. I compared 2 bullets side by side, and the AB was noticeably longer overall in the 140 grain weight.

With the new hunting BT, I believe the difference is gone. This does not mean they will shoot exactly the same, of course.
Rifles can be fickle, showing a marked preference for one bullet over the other, almost identical, offering.

Regards, Dave.
 
sunray said:
You load for the bullet weight not who made it or its construction. Look at Nosler's site and you'll find the same data for a BT as an AccuBond. And 165's and 168's.
Click to expand...

Wow. So you would recommend the same published powder charge for any Ballistic Tip, Accubond, E-Tip, TSX, TTSX, Partition, A-Frame etc etc as long as the bullets were of the same bullet weight? Bullet construction doesn't matter? In your opinion?

You are basically giving advice that could have life-changing effects on someone's life. Newsflash- different bullets have different physical qualities that affect things like chamber pressures. A basic lead-filled bullet does not respond the same as a solid copper bullet or a partitioned bullet.

Time for you to switch up your signature. How about this- 'Knowledge and Experience don't count. Just make it up as you go along'
 
Last edited:
horseman2 said:
You sure added a lot to what sunray said!
He never mentioned TSX nor TTSX!
He quoted from the Nosler book where they group their 165 and 168 grain bullets under similar loadings.
Click to expand...

Here's the first sentence in Sunray's post, 'You load for the bullet weight not who made it or its construction.'

That takes in any bullet made as long as they weight the same.
 
Varmit said:
Here's the first sentence in Sunray's post, 'You load for the bullet weight not who made it or its construction.'

That takes in any bullet made as long as they weight the same.
Click to expand...
He posts so much misinformation , that I would be shocked if anyone actually takes anything that he posts seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom