New nolser 6.5 142 long range field test

Tikkam65

Tikkam65

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Bc
I have switched my swede load from 140 Amax to the new 142 x6.5 noslar longer range
with the .719 BC so far I was able to back down the powder and still retain 1000 FT lb at 1000 yards
and Riflecaddy did some penetration testing on a mulie deer , white tail and a spike elk
all three straight pass through
unbelievable penitrating power
 
The accubond? at what velocity is that G1 BC?

that's pretty good for a hunting round. From what I read the advertised BC is over estimated.

From my research in to the 6.5 most rounds dont get past .700 G1 without:
A serious Secant Ogive (the nosler 142 accubond here has what looks more tangent)
Around 160 grain weight.
2800+ fps
 
Bile said:
The accubond? at what velocity is that G1 BC?

that's pretty good for a hunting round. From what I read the advertised BC is over estimated.

From my research in to the 6.5 most rounds dont get past .700 G1 without:
A serious Secant Ogive (the nosler 142 accubond here has what looks more tangent)
Around 160 grain weight.
2800+ fps
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a hard time believing they could get a 140 class bullet that slippery. Thats a full point over the Berger 140 Hybrid.
 
Ok to answer a few questions
I travel to the United States often and the 142 accubonds are avliable in most stores
it's almost like each store has 3 boxes and I ended up picking up 9 boxes
I have target tested them all summer , tuning for 1060 yards
my grouping is 2.5 inches at 500 yards and 6 inches at 1060
i was running my swede with 49 grains RL 22 with a max at 2960 fps
this load was to hot and I was popping primers
so I reloaded to 46.5 RL 22 with the new accubonds and crono'd
at 2760 and my drop chart is perfect to the .719 BC
i will tell you this that bullet has nasty penitrating power
almost 2 much , it destroyed the front shoulder of a spike bull elk around 500 lbs
but he was a band flop dead
so the good news is these kill elk and I'm not looking for them in the woods
 
Ok the way I read this report is that the BC are very close but if your twist is wrong the bullet flight is unstable causing extra drag
reducing the BC
so from what I read the noslar 26 is a 1:8 twist I believe this bullet was designed for this rifle meaning if your a 1:8 I would assume it should stabilize and show the same results I'm seeing
 
Nosler264cal142grLRAccubond_zpsinkpxmrw.png
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Bile said:
The accubond? at what velocity is that G1 BC?

that's pretty good for a hunting round. From what I read the advertised BC is over estimated.

From my research in to the 6.5 most rounds dont get past .700 G1 without:
A serious Secant Ogive (the nosler 142 accubond here has what looks more tangent)
Around 160 grain weight.
2800+ fps
Click to expand...

The nosler's bc is complete baloney.
160 grain matrix vld's for the win, especially in the swede where you've got enough throat to seat them long and not limit powder capacity. It's the perfect projectile for a swede, most bullets have a heck of a jump, the 160's are right on the lands.
For something like a creedmoor or .260 where you don't have the capacity to optimize the 160 matrix, the berger 140 hybrid's are about as good as it gets.
 
Tikkam65 said:
Ok the way I read this report is that the BC are very close but if your twist is wrong the bullet flight is unstable causing extra drag
reducing the BC
so from what I read the noslar 26 is a 1:8 twist I believe this bullet was designed for this rifle meaning if your a 1:8 I would assume it should stabilize and show the same results I'm seeing
Click to expand...

Wrong and Sorta right. 1:8 twist will stabilize the heavies in all 6.5 calibers. Again the .719 BC is bull sheet.
 
I noticed the BC goof up when they first came out. Compare apples to apples... Check the other Nosler ABLR G1 G7 SD and lengths against each other and they all correspond in a sensible way except the 142 gr 6.5. When you make the comparisons it will look like the webmaster hit 7 instead of 6 and when sales took off they didn't want to fix it. Litz's number of .628 isn't far from a 7 for 6 typo which would have been .619
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom