Bonded Bear Claw vs Accubond and Interbond
- Thread starter Meander
- Start date
fisrtcoueswas80inches
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,648
Michael, well said! i shot the accubond out of my gun and it would not shoot worth a POOP!!! but the bear claw shoots 3 shots touching out of my gun!
casey
casey
R
redrabbit
Guest
If you look at sectioned bullets, the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw, manufactured by Speer, is solid for about the rear 40%, the forward jacket is thicker than that of the Nosler AccuBond or the Hornady InterBond, and thus it retains more weight.
However the Accubond has a higher ballistic coefficient than the Bear Claw, measured values of 0.450 vs 0.346 for 180 grain 30 caliber bullets. This difference in b.c. doesn't make much of a difference out to 400 yards with a 250 yard zero, elevations of -14.1" vs -15.7" (180's @ 3000fps).
However the Accubond has a higher ballistic coefficient than the Bear Claw, measured values of 0.450 vs 0.346 for 180 grain 30 caliber bullets. This difference in b.c. doesn't make much of a difference out to 400 yards with a 250 yard zero, elevations of -14.1" vs -15.7" (180's @ 3000fps).
fisrtcoueswas80inches
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,648
180's at 3,000fps thats haulin ass if its a non magnum caliber
casey
casey
R
redrabbit
Guest
Nosler publishes a bc of .507 for the 180 AccuBond, and Speer publishes a bc of .357 for the 180 BearClaw. The numbers of .450 and .346 are what Rick Jamison determined from shooting over chronographs and reported in a magazine(Petersen's Hunting, July 2004) What value is closer to reality? G1, G2, manufacturers' published, or what Jamison calculates? I don't know. My rifle probably isn't precise enough, nor I accurate enough under field conditions, to determine at 400-600 yards which value is differentially meaningful.
But what this means to me, is that after choosing a load and calculating trajectory at various ranges, I need to verify what the ballistics program says by shooting, make modifications, and practice with that load.
Doug/Red Rabbit
But what this means to me, is that after choosing a load and calculating trajectory at various ranges, I need to verify what the ballistics program says by shooting, make modifications, and practice with that load.
Doug/Red Rabbit
R
rost495
Guest
Doug
Great post. Its not because Federal makes it, that the bearclaw holds together. Its how its made. And that is the same with the rest of what you post. IE you can calculate the BC on 3 different days in 3 different guns and get 9 different answers with the same load. Its ok to use to compare with but after that you have to have picked a bullet capable of doing the job. Not simply on a real or hoped for or calculated BC. I have seen some calculations come really close to doppler fired results by the AMU at 1000 yards. Others are way off.
But if my memory serves me correctly none of my drop tables have been accurate all the way out unless I shoot them and prove them. I personally believe it can have to do with the barrel node vibration pattern and how the bullet leaves the barrel(what point in the osciallation pattern). I say that because I've shot the same brand gun with everything about the same and the same bullet and MV and end up with different drops off the 300 yard table.
Jeff
Great post. Its not because Federal makes it, that the bearclaw holds together. Its how its made. And that is the same with the rest of what you post. IE you can calculate the BC on 3 different days in 3 different guns and get 9 different answers with the same load. Its ok to use to compare with but after that you have to have picked a bullet capable of doing the job. Not simply on a real or hoped for or calculated BC. I have seen some calculations come really close to doppler fired results by the AMU at 1000 yards. Others are way off.
But if my memory serves me correctly none of my drop tables have been accurate all the way out unless I shoot them and prove them. I personally believe it can have to do with the barrel node vibration pattern and how the bullet leaves the barrel(what point in the osciallation pattern). I say that because I've shot the same brand gun with everything about the same and the same bullet and MV and end up with different drops off the 300 yard table.
Jeff
1
147_Grain
Guest
I love Nosler's AccuBond, which I believe is a better all-around bullet than Hornady's InterBond.
For starters, the AccuBond is more aerodynamic. I.E. 30 caliber 180-gr. AccuBond has a BC of .509 versus .480, enabling more downrange energy on target.
Moreover, a Nosler Technician recently reported that in comparison to the InterBond, the AccuBond not only expands more than the InterBond (providing more shock), it also penetrates more by shedding shrapnel along the way to the point where the slightly smaller bullet actually penetrates more than the larger mushroom on the InterBond.
Average AccuBond retained weight is confirmed at about 66% and Hornady claims the InterBond averages around 92% - 94% with results from hunters reported at around 85%.
The AccuBond's design took 4 1/2 years in the making.
I like this bullet because it provides excellent expansion and its unique ability to slowly shed weight enables it to penetrate more than the competition, so you get the best of both worlds.
With that said, both bullets holdup and penetrate better than their Swift counterpart; I wouldn't feel inferior with using either one on Big Game.
http://www.nosler.com/accubond.html
