Nosler 130gr Ballistic Tip-VS-Nosler 140gr Accubond

[Wide 8 Point]

I am getting ready to start reloading 130gr Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet's for my 270 cal rifle.Here is my question?The 130gr Ballistic Tip, with it's Ballistic Coefficient of .433 and it's Sectional Density of .242...And then there is the Nosler 140gr Accubond with it's Ballistic Coefficient of .496 and it's Sectional Density of .261---And the Accubond being 10 grains heavier ,but having a lot better Ballistic Coefficient and better Sectional Density. If both bullet's are traveling at -say-2900 fps .And I am shooting out to 500 yard's ,Witch bullet would drop more and by how much.I think from what I am reading from you all .The Accubond is a better bullet.For close up work for sure.With 60% to 70% weight retention.I think I have read on Nosler's web site,that the BT take's 1600 fps to bust,and the AB take's 1800 fps to bust.The 270 is still going about 1900 fps at 500 yard's ,so that should not be a problem.I know the Accubond is heavier, but I am wondering if it will not still out fly the 130gr BT? Thank's for your help people. Semper Fi !!!!!!!

[jimbob86]

Why would your 130 gr bullet be leaving the gun at 2900 f/sec? You downloading? 130 at 3100 (24 inch barrel) is the standard factory loading.

The difference in drift between a .433 BC bullet leaving at 3100 f/sec and a .496 BC bullet at 2900 f/sec at 500 yards is less than an inch. Difference in drop is less than 4 inches. PII (Preoccupation w/ Inconsequential Increments) has set in.

I am not a fan of ballistic tips.... having helped butcher a deer shot through the hind quarters with one..... messy.

[bamaranger]

Launched at the same velocity, I'd have to say technically the longer, heavier 140 would me MARGINALLY flatter, but.......consider some of the following.

+1 to the 130 supposed to be somewhat faster, which should make it MARGINALLY flatter inside of 300, where most of us shoot deer (heck, I believe inside 150)

+1 to hair splitting, 140 v. 130, not worth the mental energy for me.

The Accubond and the B-Tip are two entirely different type of bullets. The bonded slug is intended for larger game say maybe elk. The B tip is ideally a deer bullet. I'd have to say especially in .270.

500 yd is a long way to lob a bullet at game

I'd be tempted to hunt which ever gave me the best accuracy/group at 100, if I had both on hand.

[FrankenMauser]

I am not a fan of ballistic tips.... having helped butcher a deer shot through the hind quarters with one..... messy.

Deer are not supposed to be shot in the hind quarters. Don't blame the bullet.

I saw less than 1 pound of meat saved from the hind quarters of an antelope a few years ago. It was shot with a 100 grain Remington Core-Lokt, from a .243 Winchester. Any bullet, when used incorrectly, will give undesirable results.

Don't shoot deer in the ass.


Wide 8 Point:
If you're hunting deer-sized game, use the BT. If you're hunting larger game, use the Accubond (if you like it). Wondering about the rest is a waste of time and energy.

[nate45]

^^

+1 FrankenMauser could not have said it better my self. Your don't shoot deer in the azz comment mirrored my thoughts exactly.

[sserdlihc]

Don't shoot deer in the ass.

Funniest thing I've read all morning!

[hooligan1]

I'm going to get me a hunter orange T-shirt printed to say JUST THAT!!

DO NOT SHOOT DEER IN THE ASS!!!!! it'll go over good in the public land that my family hunts !!

[jimbob86]

*I* did not shoot the deer in the ass .... I just helped the culprit salvage what was left of this deer ...... I seriously doubt that he planned on buttshooting that deer .... it just worked out that way.

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

*I* did not shoot the deer in the ass .... I just helped the culprit salvage what was left of this deer ...... I seriously doubt that he planned on buttshooting that deer .... it just worked out that way.

Understood.

My point was:

Any bullet, when used incorrectly, will give undesirable results.

You were knocking a bullet's performance, even though it was used in an absolutely incorrect manner, well outside its designed use.

Using monolithic solids to take lung shots on deer will result in very poor performance. Small holes, little tissue damage, and very little blood to get the shooter on the trail. Sure, it will die, but the hunter probably wont ever find the animal.
It's not the bullet's fault. It was used in a manner for which it wasn't designed.

Using Varmint Grenades for shoulder-breaking shots on Elk won't do much good, either. Massive tissue damage on the surface... but the bone may not even be reached by the projectile. It'll probably die from infection...
It's not the bullet's fault.

Using Ballistic Tips for butt shots is just as bad. The bullet can't work its magic, if it is employed in an incorrect manner. Blame the hunter, not the bullet.

[Osageshooter]

I have used both of these in my 270. Both perform well and trajectory is probably too close to make much of a difference. I would tend to go with the 140 because it will buck the wind SLIGHTLY better on long shots. It will generally penetrate better than a BT, but on deer and antelope it may not be enough difference to notice. The BT's strength is that it expands well even at ranges where the velocity of the bullet has fallen off. It is very accurate. I have seen one instance of a shoulder shot resulting in a complete fragmentation with no exit and no shoulder meat. That was with a 300 mag, and I no longer use the BT's with the magnums.

[publius]

140 accubond. Trajectory will be similar. I am not a big fan of the 130gr. bullet in the .270, especially in a rapidly expanding bullet like the BT. I know the 130 is the long time "standard" load for the .270 but I feel it's too light. I am a big fan of premium bonded ammo that leaves an exit wound. This makes the Accubond superior in every way in my book.