Wilds

Either one will knock the fire out of those critters if you do your part...

If it were my choice though, I'd pick the .270 with a hard runnin' X and call it good 'nuff.

But that's just me.......

stubblejumper

The thing with Nosler ballistic tips is that they vary greatly by caliber and bullet weight.Nosler has modified specific ballistic tips considerably to make them tougher,yet left others quite soft.I have had great luck with the 140gr -.284" ballistic tip,yet a friend had terrible luck with the 130 gr .277" ballistic tip over expanding and coming apart at high velocity.The recent version of the 180gr-.308" ballistic tip is very tough,while earlier versions were quite soft.I have recovered very few 140gr-7mm ballistic tips,but those that I did recover retained about 40% of their original weight.These were bullets that struck both front shoulders by accident,and shattered them.They lost over half their weight,but even when striking solid bone at very high velocity,they certainly did not explode like a varmint bullet.I have also recoved a few 140gr-7mm partitions with similar shot placement,and they only retained about 60% of their original weight.The best bullet that I have found for retaining weight when striking bone at high velocity is the barnes tsx which usually retains about 90% of it's original weight.

driftrider

I didn't know that. I always just figured that the BT were only really good for the standard velocity cartridges. I've use the .224 55gr BT's in my .22-250's with great success, but they are most definately a varmint bullet. I've only shot one groundhog with that BT, but it sure made one heck of a mess. But Nosler advertizes the hunting BT's as being thin jacketed and rapid expanding bullets.

Learn something new every day.

Mike

stubblejumper

I sectioned a .308" -180gr ballistic tip and compared it to a sectioned .308"-180gr accubond and the picture is posted below.The jackets appear identical in thickness.I recovered a .308" -180gr ballistic point after it passed through both shoulders of an elk and it still retained 120 grains.

eldeguello

The .270 has a .277"-.278" groove diameter. 7mm's are .284" (in the U.S.) but can be anywher from .284" to .288" in European cartridges. There are LOTS of 7mms, so I assume by 7mm you mean a 7mm Remington Magnum?? Shooting a 150-grain Nosler Partition or other tough, deep-penetrating .277" bullet at a MV of 2800 FPS or more, the .270 Win. is plenty gun for anything in North America except the great bears, and quite a few of these have been killed with the .270 as well. I love the .270, used it for years, and would not be too put out if I still had to hunt with one.

These days, I use a 7mm Remington Magnum. Mine has a 26" barrel, and shoots the 175-grain Nosler Partition bullet at a MV of 3050 FPS using 70 grains of IMR 7828 in Winchester cases. Obviously that is a little more powerful than a .270, and it does a very good job! Yet either one fails if you put the bullet in a bad spot! There is NO CARTRIDGE in this world that can be fired from the shoulder by a human that will compensate for poor shooting!

eldeguello

Yes, the jackets, etc., are all the same. What sets the two apart, and this is A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, is that the Accubonds have BONDED cores. They therefore retain their cores on impact, and give very different terminal performance.

It is entirely possible for a NBT bullet to hold together and give very impressive penetration, as you noted. But it is also possible for it to blow up after relatively little penetration on relatively light game. It has done this frequently for a lot of people. Of course, this performance is due to impact velocity, and after the NBT has a chance to slow down, or if it was launched at non-magnum speeds to begin with, it is much more likely to perform as yours did.

On the other hand, the Accubond will perform as desired more frequently, and is less sensitive to how fast it was launched and its final impact velocity. It is also priced lower than the Partition type bullet, which it more closely resembles performance-wise.

Here's something to ponder:

From Nosler's site.

Partition:
Minimum Impact Velocity for Reliable Expansion- 1800 fps
Maximum Impact Velocity for Reliable Expansion- N/A


Ballistic Tip:
Minimum Impact Velocity for Reliable Expansion- 1600 fps
Maximum Impact Velocity for Reliable Expansion- 3000 fps


AccuBond:
Minimum Impact Velocity for Reliable Expansion- 1600 fps
Maximum Impact Velocity for Reliable Expansion- N/A

stubblejumper

I launch the 140gr at 3500fps out of my 7mmstw rifles,and the 180gr ballistic point at 3340fps out of my 300ultramags.My shots varied from 20 yards to 480 yards and not one bullet out of a total of about two dozen 140gr,and nine 180gr has failed to penetrate.Impact velocities in many cases were well above 3000fps and in some cases exceeding 3400fps.

DM

I want to see what the foreward sections look like, also are you sure both jackets are the same alloy and hardeness? They may be, but many times they aren't...

DM

stubblejumper

I left the colored points in place for the picture so that people could see that the bullets were indeed the accubond and ballistic tip.When I ground away the entire cross section,the jackets looked identical.As to the alloys and hardness,I can't say,but I can tell you that the ballistic point did not shed it's core even though it is not bonded.And according to Nosler,the difference between the two is that the accubond has a bonded core.They mentioned nothing about alloys or hardness.

JagMagMan

Just a personal preference, I don't care for the .270. I know that it is a great cartridge, just don't like it! The 7MM RM is a great choice, and the .280 Rem. is not far behind!If you go with the 7MM RM, I'd use a lighter bullets on deer size game and heavy bullets on big game!
I know that there is no such thing as "going too fast to expand." But, at close range, the heavier 7MM bullets do not expand well on deer size game!