Accubond or LRX BT for Canada moose?

mozey

mozey

Long Time Member
Messages
3,052
This is a little bit of a continuation of my previous question:

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID22/4001.html

In a few weeks I'll be headed to BC for a Canada moose hunt. I'm taking my 300WSM. I've experimented with several loads and narrowed it down to two: 180-gr Accubond or 175-gr LRX BT. Both loads are getting me 3/4" groups, with the Accubond a very slight edge. BCs are nearly identical. Staying one grain under recommended max loads for RL-17 and Norma brass, the LRX BT has about 90 FPS more muzzle velocity and still has 2,500 lbs of energy at 400 yards vs 380 yards for the Accubond.

My question is, inside of 380 yards, other than about 20 lbs of energy, is there an advantage of one bullet over the other once it hits a moose? Too much splitting of hairs?

I give credit to being willing to try Accubonds to the discussion in the previous thread. Their accuracy is an unexpected surprise based on my previous experience with Partitions, which I could never get to group well. If I could get 3/4" accuracy with Partitions, my decision would already be made.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-17 AT 06:37PM (MST)[p]I should say that I've never hunted or shot at a moose before, so I have no experience to base this on.

Thank you for your insights.
 
Moose require the same bullet performance as an elk, IMHO.
I've shot then with sharp sticks, Barnes-X, Partitions and Fail Safes but never the Accubond but there no reason to think they wouldn't perform beautifully.

Zeke

#livelikezac
 
You are way overthinking this but I assume you are having fun doing so. :)
Take the AccuBonds.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-04-17 AT 12:52PM (MST)[p]"My daughter drew a moose tag a few years ago. She normally shoots s 243 but a buddy said she needed more gun so he loaned her his 338 Win (with a muzzle brake). His loads were 180 gr. Acccubonds. We finally found bullwinkle and had a 75 yard shot in thick timber. Problem is the moose is laying down, on big critters this is not the preferred shot. If we spook him and he takes a step, he is gone. I have her hold behind the shoulder and squeeze one off. It is a good hit and the moose is in shock. After 10 seconds he stands up so I tell to shoot again just to be safe. I am sure he is already dead and just doesn't know it yet. He takes 2 steps and falls over dead.
The autopsy showed that the first shot was a little far fore ward and hit the elbow. The bullet totally disintegrated. It never made it into the rib cage. If she had not shot the second time (through the lungs), we would have had to track a big black thing in heavy timber with a sore leg.
So what did we learn?
1)Laying down is a bad shot.
2)200gr. or 225gr. might have made a difference.
3)If I had loaded up some Barnes I am pretty sure the first shot would have made it through.
I am not slamming Accubonds (the second one that was well placed did the trick), but I am more comfortable with the Barnes."

The above is a re-post from a few years ago but if anything I am a bigger believer in the Barnes for one reason only......Bad shots.
Heaven forbid that you make one, (unintentionally of course), the solid copper LRX might lose some petals but will stay together enough to penetrate.
 
I agree with projp . The Barnes will do its job and penetrate into the vitals. Unlike other bullets that come apart on contact. They have never let me down.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-17 AT 10:32AM (MST)[p]>A bad shot is a bad
>shot, regardless of bullet. mtmuley

>

True, the shot might not change but with a better bullet the results quite often do.

Of course if you have never made a bad shot this doesn't apply to you.
 
I got into a big arguement with a guy here about this. He figured since the Berger VLD did such "carnage", it was better for a bad hit. Think what you want. A Barnes isn't insurance for a bad shot. mtmuley
 
>I got into a big arguement
>with a guy here about
>this. He figured since the
>Berger VLD did such "carnage",
>it was better for a
>bad hit. Think what you
>want. A Barnes isn't insurance
>for a bad shot. mtmuley
>

Never said it was "insurance".
The question was accubond vs Barnes.
If you hit the rib cage and don't hit a major bone the accubonds are great.
In my experience of shooting both bullets the Barnes have held together far better when hitting bone.
 
I made a bad shot once. Well a few years ago. We hiked up to a high mountain meadow. Layed down in the grass and watched the herd of elk in front of us. Waiting for the sun to come up a little higher. It was a spike unit so we where spotting the spikes in the herd. Well other hunters came up behind us and started shooting. I took a shot at a running spike. As soon as the spike went down . I knew what happened. I stopped my swing on the rifle as I pulled the trigger. Shot the spike back a little bit. Shot him right threw the ball sockets of his hips. That Barnes shot from my 338 win mag went threw both ball sockets and dropped the spike. The bullet exited the bull. His rear legs went straight back. He hit the ground like a ton of bricks . A younger teenage boy in our group ran out to the bull and shot him in the head. He was so excited to get a elk. I padded him on the back an congratulated him. Shooting a lesser bullet on my bad shot may have not come out as well.
 
projp, I'm betting your Accubond sample size is small. I too have experience with both, in fast magnum cartridges. To each his own I guess. mtmuley
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-17 AT 08:59PM (MST)[p]>projp, I'm betting your Accubond sample
>size is small. I too
>have experience with both, in
>fast magnum cartridges. To each
>his own I guess. mtmuley
>

My sample is weighted more to the Barnes but I have enough experience with the Accubonds to make a decision that I am comfortable with.
 
There?s not a dime?s worth of difference between an AB, TSX, Partition, A-Frame, Trophy Bonded, or any of several other well-constructed bullets on elk.

Find the one your rifle likes best and go hunting.
 
I have never used Accubonds, I have mainly been a Barnes fan. I have a friend that used Accubonds for a long time and we chased a lot of wounded animals, losing a a few well hit cow elk. I have switched to Hornady Interlock based on a article by one of the Weatherby ammo guys. I shoot 130 grain SP Weatherby ammo out of my 270. The longest recovery was 20 yards, I have killed elk, deer and bear with the rifle over the past 5 years.
 
Well...One cow we did find was hit somewhat high in the front shoulder and the Accubond came apart, broke the shoulder but that was it. It was a well placed shot, any other bullet would have dropped the cow.
 
Somewhat high in the front shoulder. One cow recovered. Your bud needs more time behind a rifle sounds like. And how in the Hell could you know "any other bullet" would have dropped the cow? These bullet threads are hilarious. mtmuley
 
>If there were only two bullets
>available on earth, Accubonds and
>Barnes, I would absolutely choose
>the Accubonds.

Do you mind me asking why?
 
The Accubond is capable of both close range, high velocity impacts, and longer range impacts as well. If you do some looking around, I bet you'll find in tests that the penetration isn't heavily swayed towards the Barnes. If you want a mono that penetrates like crazy, look at the Hammers. mtmuley
 
I will say that the Accubonds my friend was using was right around when they came out, 2001 or 2002 if I remember correctly. Maybe they have changed since then, but back then they sucked.
 
I've used them since the day they were available in several cartridges. The 200 grain .30 was first. Still using it 14 bulls later. mtmuley
 
LOL--Wow, where was all this discussion when I was making the decision? For the record, based on the first four or so posts above, I switched to the ABs. But then I read an article comparing the two bullets (plus a couple others) by a guy who had killed several moose. According to him, both are excellent choice for moose, but if he had to choose, this particular author stated that he would use the LRX in case his only option was to smash through bone. Because this hunt was/is potentially a OIL for me, I changed my mind once again and loaded up a bunch of the LRX, and took them to British Columbia with me. Per my chronograph, the 175-grainer's MV out of my 300 WSM was averaging just under 3,200 fps using RL-17. End result was a dead moose:

641201003171812resized.jpg


Now for the rest of the story. My first shot, walking broadside at 125 yards, hit right in the crease behind his shoulder, about 1/3 the way up--just like my pappy taught me to do some 40+ years ago. It passed though both lungs and exited. It was definitely a fatal shot, yet the bull showed no sign that he was hit, and took off like a freight train through the 5' to 6' tall brush. At that stage, I wasn't even sure I'd hit him, and my guide was yelling in my ear to shoot again. It's hard to explain what it's like standing on your tippy toes trying to see over the brush and shoot at something that you can only see the top of its back as it's running away from you at break-neck speed, but somewhere between shots 2 thru 4 my guide yelled "You hit in the rump!" I hit it in the @#@#in rump?!? During all of this freakin rodeo, it occurred to me that I was probably shooting over his back and I need to aim a little lower at the brush line. Just beyond 300 yards he was starting to slow a little, and he also turned a little giving me more of a broadside target. My fifth shot smashed through his spine and dropped him like a sack of bricks. My guide was whooping it up and trying to high five me, but I was still flustered by what had just happened. That was not how I had envisioned that it would all go down.

Anyway, when we did the autopsy on the moose, he was hit three times, and all three shots were complete pass throughs. My first shot was definitely a fatal shot, but I'll never know how far the bull would have gone before he tipped over. I do know it was at least 200 yards. So now I'm wondering how fast and how far he would have been able to go had I shot him with a 180 grain Accubond instead?

I do tend to agree the Barnes is the better performer if you're going to hit large bones, but what about when you have a perfect broadside shot that doesn't hit anything but lungs and ribs? Based on what just happened to me with this moose, I think in that particular situation I'd rather be shooting an Accubond. Hopefully I'll get more learning opportunities...
 
Congrats on a great bull! Moose are big tough animals . I don't think there is a magic bullet the just kills by touch. Animals often hit in the heart or lungs may go a little before tipping over. Spine or neck shots are the ones that dump them in there tracks. But can be a bit risky. It sounds like you did your part and put it in the boiler room ! To bad your spotter/guide didn't call the shot for you. Making you nervous that you may have missed. I have a guide friend that hunts bears in Alaska. Actual carries a rifle and shoots right after the customer shoots. He says they don't want to have to track the animal. I never thought I would like my guide shooting my animal. But it makes life easy on the guide. Congrats again on a successful hunt !!!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Couple Bucks Shared in the Scouting Photo Contest
00small30958185.jpg
EA502C7D-F463-44AB-B8FF-8E22A1810545.jpeg
38362147-885D-4499-AA6D-2DD5255B05EF.png
IMG_6652.jpeg
IMG_3692.jpeg
Morning the Dead Humans
61C667D4-C8D0-4870-9E93-11BEA76E7DD8.jpeg
0BB2EF7C-AA58-4D63-8EEB-FDC2701C854D.jpeg
IMG_8099.jpeg
IMG_0149.jpg
20210817_143910.jpg
Back
Top Bottom