Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Accubond Performance

  1. #1

    Default Accubond Performance

    After a horrible experience with Scirrocco's, I have switched to 200gr Accubonds out of my 300 Ultra. This is my moose load, but it needs to work on Grizzly in Caribou Hills too. I have had two run-ins in the past two years! What is everyone's experience with the Accubond so far?


    Thanks,

    TEJAS

  2. #2

    Default

    What was your experience with the Scirrico's?

    The Accubonds are not very mixed reviews with some saying the performance is just not there and others saying that they have been seeing tumbling in flight at long ranges (I think the latter comment actually came off of this site from Mike on a deer hunt on Kodiak)

  3. #3

    Default

    Huge bull at 40 yards broadside. Shot#1, directly in the center of the shoulder, spun the bull 90 degrees where he stood for thirty seconds with his butt to me and head down. Bull takes off running, Shot#2 hits him in the guts and travels foward and exits opposite shoulder low with no visible effects. The bull still running, Shot#3 hits mid-neck but high not hitting bone with no visible effects. The bull continues to run but goes down 50 yards later. Upon my approach he tries to get up and I put Shot#4 into his neck right behind the head at five yards. Obviously this was a lights out shot. My problem is Shot#1 center punched both shoulders and was found underneath the hide on the off side. It only retained 137gr and left basically a 30-35cal hole through the shoulders and lungs with no bloodshot meat or distruction of anything! Shots#2 and 3 had same results with only a quarter size exit hole. The load I was using does about 3250fps and was 180gr.

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by isteelhead View Post
    Huge bull at 40 yards broadside. Shot#1, directly in the center of the shoulder, spun the bull 90 degrees where he stood for thirty seconds with his butt to me and head down. Bull takes off running, Shot#2 hits him in the guts and travels foward and exits opposite shoulder low with no visible effects. The bull still running, Shot#3 hits mid-neck but high not hitting bone with no visible effects. The bull continues to run but goes down 50 yards later. Upon my approach he tries to get up and I put Shot#4 into his neck right behind the head at five yards. Obviously this was a lights out shot. My problem is Shot#1 center punched both shoulders and was found underneath the hide on the off side. It only retained 137gr and left basically a 30-35cal hole through the shoulders and lungs with no bloodshot meat or distruction of anything! Shots#2 and 3 had same results with only a quarter size exit hole. The load I was using does about 3250fps and was 180gr.
    Congrats on the nice bull. I gotta tell ya, this doesn't sound like a bullet failure story to me. You punched through two moose shoulders and two moose lungs on shot one and didn't wait for him to die. Your running away shot through the paunch and lots of other moose inards and on to the tundra waiting beyond is one hell of a bullet success story. You first neck shot was a "poor choice of target/missed vitals" shot so doesn't really count.

    Moose take a lot of time to expire, they have very big lung cavities.

    If there is a failure here I would say there wasn't enough bullet weight to start with. With a 180 grain bullet, after impact velocity of 3200 fps on a moose shoulder, to stay together at all is indicative of a strong bullet. What did this bullet look like when dug out? By the way that is 76% weight retention, not bad for all that travel. Your moose was dead after round one, he just didn't want to die there.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  5. #5
    Member walk-in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    771

    Default I agree

    I agree with Murphy. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think all you needed to do was wait for the first bullet to do its job. And a heavier bullet wouldn't be a bad idea either. I think a lot of guys expect animals to drop immediately when they are hit. That is by far the exception rather than the rule.
    None of that answers your question, though. I loaded up some Accubonds for my '06 last year, but I haven't shot anything but paper with them so far, so I can't comment on hunting performance. Accuracy seems fine.

  6. #6

    Default

    Yea! Murphy is right, that was great bullet preformance. Sometimes an animal will die immediately and sometimes they don't. Scirocco, AccuBonds are great stuff but I would have chosen a heaveir bullet and it would have been a Partition or A-Frame or Northfork or Trophy Bonded Bear Claw.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  7. #7

    Default

    I have only used AccuBond on deer and it was a killer, shot a seven point last year with 180gr AccuBond and it was a quarting shot. He hit the ground and died right there. But a White Tail is not a moose either.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default Just to clear things up...

    Isteelhead,

    I'm not endorsing the AccuBond, Scirroco or the Interbonds for moose. I just don't think your performance was bad at all. I have not taken anything except one deer with the AccuBond and it was very good performance from an '06. I have no other experience with them but am always glad to hear how they do in the field and under what conditions, etc. just as you relayed.

    I think that moose are in the bigger bullet category, they are so big and so tough, they really take a pounding. Probably the toughest ungulate we hunt.

    I think your right to go to a 200 grain bullet and I would for the A-frame, Partition, North Fork as beartooth suggested.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  9. #9

    Default

    I agree with most everything said to a point. The neck shot was an inch and a half from the spine. The reason I shot him in the neck is he had reached the edge of dense woods and I didn't want him getting in there. I saw the first shot center punch the shoulder so I knew he was dead. I've been a nosler man forever, the accubond was not introduced yet when I switched to the scirrocco. The weight retention was good and the bullet looked like a classic mushroom, but at the time I think they were claiming 90% retention. This is my problem with this experience, there was absolutely no wound channel, just an index finger size hole all the way through. You could of dang near ate clear up to the bullet hole. I might as well of used a solid. I like to see more devastation in my wound channels. I believe this is important when you need to put an animal down in a hurry such as a moose near water.

  10. #10

    Default

    I don't want to turn this into a "bash the scirrocco" thread. I want to hear about real world experience with the Accubond as I will never use the Scirrocco again for anything.

  11. #11

    Default

    the only time I have ever used one hunting was in a 260 Rem and it was a 130 grain. It past all the way through but did not leave a good exit hole and the deer went a little over a 100yds. I was not impressed with its ablity at the 260 velocities to open up enough. The deer was a doe and she weighed only 122 pounds. I stop using them in the 260 and went to a ballistic tip and solved my problem.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  12. #12

    Default

    I hear ya Beartooth. All I ever used was Ballistic Tips. I killed almost 60 animals with those until the gun writers and others convinced me they weren't any good for anything bigger than a coyote.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by isteelhead View Post
    I hear ya Beartooth. All I ever used was Ballistic Tips. I killed almost 60 animals with those until the gun writers and others convinced me they weren't any good for anything bigger than a coyote.
    I know what you mean about writers telling us they aren't much good for anything above a coyote and I am not recommending this but shot a 220 pound hog at 125yds with a ballistic tip and it was a quartering shot. The hog was had it butt to me and I hit it on the right side in the last rib and the 165gr ballistic from my 30-06 travel all the way through the heart lung area, between the shoulders and ended up in the neck just under the skin on the opposite side of the hog. On top of that it picked the hog up off it's feet and it fell right where I shot it. But let us remember that velocity is so important when it come to any bullet. That would not have happened like that out of my 300WBY. The Ballistic tip would not have had that penatration because the velocity was to great. Just pick a bullet that will open up whether up close or far off and will stay together when you hunt a moose and you will kill him in good order.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by isteelhead View Post
    I agree with most everything said to a point. The neck shot was an inch and a half from the spine. The reason I shot him in the neck is he had reached the edge of dense woods and I didn't want him getting in there. I saw the first shot center punch the shoulder so I knew he was dead. I've been a nosler man forever, the accubond was not introduced yet when I switched to the scirrocco. The weight retention was good and the bullet looked like a classic mushroom, but at the time I think they were claiming 90% retention. This is my problem with this experience, there was absolutely no wound channel, just an index finger size hole all the way through. You could of dang near ate clear up to the bullet hole. I might as well of used a solid. I like to see more devastation in my wound channels. I believe this is important when you need to put an animal down in a hurry such as a moose near water.
    I agree with you, I want a more destructive path for my bullet also. Normally bonded bullets, Woodleigh, Kodiak, and Swift A-frame, will expand rather quickly then push through with this expansion and do much more damage. The faster you drive them the bigger they get and then of course penetration is limited by this expansion. The exception to this is the A-frame which has a bulkhead half way up the shank, it will expand the front quickly but penetrate deeper because of the long unexpanded bottom half.

    I don't know what behavior is expected from these new plastic tipped bonded super spitzers. I thought the AccuBond was an improved ballistic tip. Maybe. The BT was a very explosive bullet even in the 180 grain 30 cal at 2800 fps. It was a very effective bullet for deer sized critters, but when the quarry got bigger they failed to get to the vitals with high impact velocity. They still worked for elk if the velocity wasn't too high. If the AccuBond would just add a couple hundred fps to its usable impact velocity over the BT and enable its use against heavier animals, and still maintain that gilt edge accuracy, it would be a very useful bullet.

    The Scirroco (sp) must have had a problem or two because it is now advertised as "improved" over the original. I don't know much about it. It was less accurate than the A-frames in the calibers I tried. I'm a firm believer in matching the bullet to the game and the velocity but we don't get good info on these new ones, it's just try it and see how it works. We can learn from your experience, thanks.

    I don't blame you for taking any of the shots, I wouldn't have let him run into a slew or the thickets either. I wouldn't have taken a neck shot because I suck at finding neck bones, I don't study enough moose carcasses. They are just so big, they don't show signs of good hits very often.

    I will say that a moose will respond better to a 300 grain 375 than a 200 grain 30 cal. You can get their attention, but they still stay up for a while.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  15. #15
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Murphy,

    What do you think about the 260 grain Accubond? I'm using that bullet for my 375 H&H. My spring black bear combo.

  16. #16

    Default

    I am not murphy but you are going to kill that black bear in short order. I think it would be a great bullet for black bear. You have good weight, it is a bonded bullet, and good velocities with the 375. I am looking forward to Murphy's insight on this one I could be all wet.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  17. #17
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Forgot to add I would be using this setup over bait.

  18. #18
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Here is a post that I posted on another thread a while back. The recovered bullet wieghs 140gr. 70% weight retention wich is what Nosler claims. Haven't put one through a shoulder or two yet on a moose. Blew right through a sheep at 400 yds though.
    -----------

    I'm no expert but here's my experience this year. My Kimber 325 shoots the factory Win 200 grain Accubonds sub moa at 100yds. I shot a sheep at about 400yds, uphill hit him a little low, upperleg, through the brisket, out the far shoulder. I think the bullet tumbled up cuz it exited kind of high compared to where it entered the brisket. Did some major damage but not sure it was excessive considering. My buddy used my gun also to shoot his ram at about 200yds. Poked a nice little hole right through him. Broke a rib going in and out. A few weeks later I shot a bull moose at about 350 yds. Hit him in the hump, broke his spine and recovered the bullet under the hide. Lost a little meat to bloodshot, to be expected but nothing that made me freak out when I skinned him. Here's the bullet I recovered from the bull.


  19. #19

    Default Swift

    Not exactly what the change was but Swift doesn't sell Sirroco bullets now they have a NEW and IMPROVED bullet the Sirroco ll. Might be the difference your looking for!
    " Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."

    On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !

  20. #20

    Default

    Shot a couple black bears (one at 7 yds and one at 400 yds) and a sheep (725 yds) with 7MM 140 gr Accubonds. Rifle a Tikka T3 in 7mm RM. Haven't recovered any bullets yet - all were pass throughs. The sheep didn't go far (15 yds). The 7 yd bear travelled about 20 yds. The 400 yd bear traveled about 45 yds. All animals broadside shots through the ribs behind the front shoulders. They shoot accurately out of both of my 7mm RM's, and the evidence to date is the on-game performance has been fine also. Can't comment on weight retention since I haven't recovered one yet. I'm switching to 160 gr Accubonds this year, since they shoot a little better than the 140s in one of my Tikkas. I'll benefit two ways, the way I see it. Less meat damage because of the slower muzzle velocity with any game taken at closer ranges and; less wind drift and greater retained velocity and energy (due to the higher ballistic coefficient) on game taken at long range (+500 yds).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •