Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Nosler long range accubonds

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    895

    Default Nosler long range accubonds

    Just cruised the Nosler web sight tonight and looked at their 2013 new products. They have high BC accubond bullets coming out.

    For instance, a .308 accubond 210g .730 bc. Compared to the current offering 200g accubond .588

    I am working up a 200 accubond load for the 300 RUM right now with hopes of accuracy to shoot to 500 yards. This new 210g bullet would be almost identical drop, and would improve wind drift at 10mph full value by 3 inches at 500 yards. Maybe not enough to jump up and down about yet. But it is exciting that there is another high BC hunting bullet out there besides the Berger grenades.

    http://cdn.nosler.com/PDFs/NOSLER-20...g-download.pdf

  2. #2
    Member marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,814

    Default

    With the introduction of the Hybrid line of bullets designed by Bryan Litz and the refinements in the VLD line Berger has really pushed the high BC bar to new levels. I think it will drive all major manufactures to improve their bullet shapes to increase BC's across the board. The higher BC values will aid all of us with less drop and drift under the same conditions. I'm glad to see Nosler has jumped into the higher BC ranks. The Accubond is a really nice option.

  3. #3
    Member wildwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kenai/Soldotna
    Posts
    450

    Default

    It seems to fall right in line with Sierra's MK 210's and Hornady's AMAX 208's--both of which have huge followings with long range shooters--hunters and competition for the higher BC's.

    I really like how the accubonds fly and perform--have shot the 180's out of a custom 300 RUM I just sold, and it was super accurate out to and past 500yrds with no problem. I use the 250gr accubonds in one of my 338's and it loves them. Shoot often out past 600 yrds with them and more than happy. This past season was able to see how the 250gr accubond performed on moose at 437 yards--very impressed with the penetration and controlled expansion. The bullet was recovered in the skin on the off shoulder.

    If I were hunting with a .308 caliber, whether 300 WM or RUM, I would certainly smile at the availability of a 210gr version of the accubond.
    Since the World is 2/3 Water and Only 1/3 Land, Figures the Good Lord Intended I Fish More Than I Plow.

  4. #4
    Member northernalberta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    315

    Default

    What do they mean by "G1 ballistic coefficient" vs. "G7 ballistic coefficient"?

  5. #5
    Member marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernalberta View Post
    What do they mean by "G1 ballistic coefficient" vs. "G7 ballistic coefficient"?
    The following information is cut from the Berger web site:

    A Better Ballistic Coefficient

    For centuries now, science has been helping us gain a more accurate understanding of our world. The branch of science we care about as shooters is known as ballistics. The science of ballistics is well developed and understood by those who study it, but the tools and information being used by average shooters is not necessarily optimal for the shooterís applications. In other words, there is a better, more accurate way for shooters to use ballistics to help them predict trajectories and hit targets. The purpose of this article is to present a better way for shooters to calculate ballistics.
    What is a Ballistic Coefficient?
    Most shooters, especially long range rifle shooters, are familiar with the Ballistic Coefficient (BC). Without getting into the math, Iíll define the ballistic coefficient in words as: The ability of the bullet to maintain velocity, in comparison to a Ďstandard projectileí. A high BC bullet can maintain velocity better than a low BC bullet under the same conditions. All measures of ballistic performance including drop and wind deflection are related to the bulletís ability to maintain velocity. In short; the higher the BC, the better the all-around ballistic performance of the bullet will be.
    How a Ballistic Coefficient is used
    Details of ballistic trajectories can be predicted with computer programs using all the relevant variables, including BC. As with all prediction programs; the accuracy of the outputs depends on the accuracy of the inputs. Here is where we have to examine the real meaning and implications of using a Ballistic Coefficient to characterize the bulletís ability to maintain velocity.
    Itís a relatively well known fact that the BC of a bullet is different at different velocities. Not many shooters know why it changes, or what the consequences are. To understand why a BC changes at different speeds, we have to go back to the definition of BC, which is: The ability of the bullet to maintain velocity, in comparison to a Ďstandard projectileí. Itís the Ďstandard projectileí part of the definition that we need to key in on. What is the Ďstandard projectileí? What does it look like?
    To date, the Ďstandard projectileí used to define BCs for the entire sporting arms industry is the G1 standard projectile. The G1 standard projectile which is shown in Figure 1 has a short nose, flat base, and bears more resemblance to a pistol bullet or an old unjacketed lead black powder cartridge rifle bullet than to a modern long range rifle bullet.

    The reason why the BC of a modern long range bullet changes so much at different velocities is because modern bullets are so different in shape compared to the G1 standard that its BC is based on. In other words, the drag of a modern long range bullet changes differently than the G1 standard projectile, so the coefficient relating the two (the ballistic coefficient) has to change with velocity.
    There are several ways to manage the problems caused by the dependence of BC on velocity. One way is to use a G1 BC thatís averaged for the speed range youíre interested in. This will get you close, but what if the BC of the bullet is advertised for a speed range thatís different than what youíre interested in? Itís not easy to adjust the BC for different average velocities. Another way to deal with the problem of a velocity dependant BC is to give the BC in several velocity Ďbandsí (Sierra bullets uses this approach to advertise the BCs of their bullets). This can be an accurate approach, but it leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. For example, many shooters donít understand why there are different BCs and choose the wrong one. Furthermore, not all ballistics programs allow you to input multiple BCs. In short; the use of the non-representative G1 standard (Figure 1) to define BC is responsible for the velocity dependence and associated problems with BCs.
    A better standard for long range bullets
    If you look at the G1 standard projectile again in Figure 1, you might think; ďitís too bad there isnít a standard thatís more representative for modern long range bulletsĒ. In fact, there are several standard projectiles, all with different shapes, that are much more representative of modern long range bullets than the G1 standard. The standard that bears the closest resemblance to most modern long range bullets is the G7 standard, shown in Figure 2.

    As you can see, the G7 standard projectile, with its long boat tail and pointed ogive bears a much stronger resemblance to a modern long range bullet than the G1 standard projectile. As a result, the BC of a modern long range bullet thatís referenced to the G7 standard is constant for all velocities! In other words, a trajectory thatís calculated with a ĎG7 BCí doesnít suffer from the same velocity dependence problems and inaccuracies as calculations that are made with a G1 BC.
    Another benefit of using G7 BCís is that it allows a more fair comparison between bullets. For example, consider two .30 caliber 168 grain match bullets from different manufacturers. Even if both projectiles are identical in shape and weight, itís possible for them to have different advertised BCs if the BCs are calculated for different velocities. For instance, if one of the bulletís BC is calculated for a 3000 fps (muzzle velocity) and the other is calculated for an average velocity between 3000 fps and 1500 fps, then the BC thatís based only on muzzle velocity will be higher, but less relevant for long range shooting than the average BC. In other words, the two bullets actually have the same BC, but the Ďsmoke and mirrorsí that results from the velocity dependence of G1 BC creates the illusion that one bullet is better than the other. If you considered the G7 BC of the two bullets, it would be the same for all speeds.
    You may observe that not all bullets look more like the G7 standard, and thatís true. For the short, flat based, blunt nosed bullets, the G1 standard is actually more representative. For that reason, BCs for flat based bullets should continue to be referenced to the G1 standard. In other words, the G7 BC is better for boat tailed bullets, while G1 BCs are better for flat based bullets.
    Why were we stuck with G1 for so long?
    One obvious difference between G1 BCs and G7 BCs is that the numeric value of the G7 BC is lower than the numeric value of the G1 BC. For example, if a bullet has a G1 BC of .550, the G7 BC will be close to .282 (same bullet). Even though the G7 BC of .282 is a much more accurate representation of the bullet at all speeds, the numeric value of the G7 BC is lower. If you know anything about marketing, then itís obvious why weíve been stuck with G1 BCs for so long. Since the G1 standard projectile is the highest drag standard, BCs referenced to that standard will be higher than BCs referenced to any other standard. As we know, when it comes to marketing, the facts and quality of information is often compromised in order to present a more favorable advertisement. For many years, bullet makers have known(*) that the G1 standard is a poor standard for long range bullets but continue to use it. Why? One reason is because itís believed that the first company to advertise G7 BCs will Ďconfuseí people, and the lower numeric value of the G7 BC will push people away from their product.
    Itís easy to understand the fear of being the first to do something new. It will take time to explain and it may hurt sales at first. Thatís OK. At Berger Bullets we are committed to the success of shooters. Mostly that means making the best bullets possible. That commitment also includes providing shooters with the most suitable and accurate information so they can use those bullets most effectively. Bergerís commitment to the shooter is why we are making the leap to G7 referenced BCs. The change will take time to get used to, but in the end, shooters will be empowered to make better informed decisions about their equipment. In the end, shooters will be able to calculate more accurate trajectories. In the end, the other bullet companies will follow and provide G7 BCs for their long range bullets because itís the right thing to do. In the end, this change will mean greater success for shooters.
    (*-Sierra bullets wrote an article which acknowledges that G7 referenced BCs are more appropriate for modern long range bullets: http://www.exteriorballistics.com/eb...oefficient.pdf )
    Using the G7 BC: Calculating trajectories
    Most modern ballistics programs are being created with the ability to use BCs that are referenced to different standards (G1, G5, G7, etc). Calculating a trajectory with a G7 BC is as simple as selecting ďG7 BCĒ in the program, and giving the program a G7 BC instead of a G1 BC. All the other inputs are handled the same. There are many free ballistics programs that can calculate trajectories using G7 BCs including the well known free online calculator from JBM (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.0.cgi). The JBM program is extremely accurate when given accurate inputs. JBMís page also has links to free ballistics programs that can be downloaded and run on your computer when not connected to the internet. One program thatís free for download and has the ability to use G7 BCs is AlBal (http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/software/software.html).
    Using the G7 BC: Comparing bullets
    One way that BC is used by shooters is to compare the relative performance of bullets. Comparing bullets by BC is only possible if the BCs are referenced to the same standard. For example, if you know the G1 BC of one bullet is .500, and the G7 BC for another bullet is .230, itís impossible to tell which is better just from the BCs. Since other bullet companies donít yet advertise G7 BCs for their bullets, how is it possible to compare other brands bullets to Bergerís G7 BC? Ideally, one tester would test the bullets from all the companies using the same method, and report the G7 BCs. I have recently completed such a study and the test results including G7 BCís for over 175 bullets of all major brands are published in one book. The book is called: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting and is available from Applied Ballistics, LLC (http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/...files/Book.htm). I began the testing and writing of this book 2 years before I became the Chief Ballistician for Berger Bullets. I used the same test procedure (repeatable within +/- 1%) to measure the G1 and G7 BCs for all brands of bullets so meaningful comparisons can be made between brands.
    Conclusion
    Science has a good track record as a method for reaching accurate conclusions. Ballistics is the science of shooting, and the use of the G1 standard has been a glaring error in the way that we shooters apply our science. For too long now, the unfortunate influences of marketing and advertising have kept us from being able to use our science to its fullest potential. As part of our commitment to the success of shooters, Berger Bullets is bringing the application of small arms ballistics out of the marketing hype and G1 dark ages and offering accurate and properly referenced G7 BCs for our long range bullets.
    All of the pieces are now in place for shooters to take full advantage of this more accurate kind of BC. Berger now provides G7 BCs for our bullets. The book: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting provides G7 BCs for all other brands of bullets. Ballistics programs are available that can calculate trajectories using the G7 BCs. In conclusion; everything is now available for shooters to take immediate advantage of this new type of BC and do everything that was possible with the old G1 BCs, only better.
    Bryan Litz
    Ballistician

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernalberta View Post
    What do they mean by "G1 ballistic coefficient" vs. "G7 ballistic coefficient"?
    Bottom line is that the G1 BC was used for a different shape bullet than the more modern low drag, high BC bullets being made now. The G7 profile more accurately represents the trajectories of the low drag bullets, especially over longer distances.

    I would take Nosler's BC claims with a grain of salt. Brian Litz' calculations based on actual test firing showed an average BC of .524 for the 200 AB in the 3000-1500 fps range. Bergers 210 VLD has a G1 Bc of .631, I seriously doubt that Noslers 210 AB has a BC higher than that. Good for Nosler that they are coming out with higher BC bullets, but their claims are probably quite exaggerated.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palmer Area
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Anyone developed a load using H1000 and the 150 grain 7mm Accubond LR for the 7mm Rem Mag? Nephew in AZ has an elk hunt early December and wants to try this out. Thanks for any leads. Nosler web site shows a similar load for the 7mm STW (mine) but not the 7mm Rem Mag.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    1,179

    Default

    I have been playing with the 200 E-tip in my 338WM and so far I have not found any load that meets my standards! Good luck!

  9. #9
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    I don't know of any one who has actually been able to get their hands on 150 ALR's. I have 4 rifles that I hope to try the various 7mm bullets in.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palmer Area
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    I don't know of any one who has actually been able to get their hands on 150 ALR's. I have 4 rifles that I hope to try the various 7mm bullets in.
    My nephew managed to get 100 rounds each of the 150 grain for his wifes .270 and his 7mm Rem Mag. I used IMR 4350 for the .270 with great results but he is determined to get loads for his using H1000 since I have lots of that and powder is so darned hard to come by these days.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BackwoodsJoe View Post
    Anyone developed a load using H1000 and the 150 grain 7mm Accubond LR for the 7mm Rem Mag? Nephew in AZ has an elk hunt early December and wants to try this out. Thanks for any leads. Nosler web site shows a similar load for the 7mm STW (mine) but not the 7mm Rem Mag.
    Nosler shows a starting charge of 64 gr of IMR 7828 which is a little faster than H1000. I think you would be quite safe starting there and working up. My guess is that a max load of H1000 pushing 150 gr bullets will be close to max case capacity.
    "You will never know how much it cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it."
    ~ John Quincy Adams

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palmer Area
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Thanks for the help. I will work up an array of test loads to see which one shoots best in his rifle. My brother used the .270 with the AccuBond LR 150 gr to take a desert whitetail last weekend at 209 yards. Neck shot and the deer never moved - died on the spot. Apparently these rounds do what Nosler says they will.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BackwoodsJoe View Post
    Thanks for the help. I will work up an array of test loads to see which one shoots best in his rifle. My brother used the .270 with the AccuBond LR 150 gr to take a desert whitetail last weekend at 209 yards. Neck shot and the deer never moved - died on the spot. Apparently these rounds do what Nosler says they will.
    I would recommend the 168 0r 175 out of the 7 RM if the rifle has the twist. The ABLR's have a thin jacketed nose that sheds a lot of mass. Slower and heavier would be better IMO.
    "You will never know how much it cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it."
    ~ John Quincy Adams

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palmer Area
    Posts
    12

    Default

    I fired several of the 150's using test loads of IMR 4350 at 426 yards and they stayed on target but the issue of controlled expansion and mass retention does not come into play on paper. Thanks again.

  15. #15

    Default

    Here is a thread you might find interesting. The OP is usiing 175's and H1000 in a 7mm/300 WSM.

    http://www.longrangehunting.com/foru...cubond-122601/
    "You will never know how much it cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it."
    ~ John Quincy Adams

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Palmer Area
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Thanks for the lead. Loading up an array to test in the nephews rifle in a few minutes. He can shoot them Sunday through a chronograph to a target. That way I can calculate trajectory for various ranges.

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

    Default

    I got some 168s on the way finally. Been wanting to try these in both my rifles chambered for 7 WSM. I have RL22, RL25, and Magpro to experiment with and see which combo works the best.

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
  •