Picking an elk bullet: 180 NAB vs 168 ABLR in 30-06

[Okie_Poke]

I'm definitely over-thinking this, I know. But, I still want to know your thoughts. Here's my dilemna. I've got a Colorado rifle elk hunt coming this fall. I will be taking my 30-06. I am a longtime fan of the 180 Accubond but decided to try a couple new bullets this spring just to see if anything shot better. I tried the 168 ABLR and the 178 ELDX. The latter didn't shoot very well (suprisingly), but the ABLR grouped about the same as the 180s out of my rifle.

180 Accubond:



168 ABLR:



Should I go with the tried-and-true 180, or try the 168? I will not likely shoot past 1/4 mile, if even that far, so my inclination is to leave the long range bullet for the folks who shoot long range. I'm as likely to get a shot in the timber on this hunt as I am across a big park, though both are certainly a possibility. Looking at ballistic tables, the 168 is slightly better at the ranges I'm likely to shoot but not by enough to really get me excited. At Colorado elevation, both will retain sufficient velocity to expand past my effective range as well.

Which would you pick and why?

 

[35WhelenAI]

180 AB. With the velocity advantage of only 85 fps for the 168 ABLR, I always pick more bullet weight if ballistics downrange would be basically identical (and carry the necessary velocity for expansion as you have noted) as bullet weight never changes, it's a constant. Out to 400 yds which is the very sensible goal you have that's what I would use. Also 180 AB wins given the 10 shot string data you posted with respect to consistency.

 

[keystone112]

180 looks like the better option to me. If someone wants to leverage the benefits of the long range bullets, the 30-06 might not be the best choice.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I see there are four votes but only two replies. For the fellas that chose the 168ablr, let's hear it!

 

[sndmn11]

Same powder?


Oooop I see h4350.

Whichever is cheaper.

 

[aachey]

I'd prefer the AB over the ABLR since it's a tougher bullet. Probably not as much of a concern at 06 speeds. I'm sure with a well placed shot both will do their job.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

180g accubond any day out of the 30-06 I shot an aoudad at around 310 yards with my 18” 30-06 and the 180g accubond, one shot did him in. Last September I used the same setup on my biggest moose yet and it worked perfectly. I’d use the 180g AB out of a 30-06 on pretty much anything (within reason).

 

[35WhelenAI]

5 votes for the 168 ABLR... 4 for the 180 AB. Only 180 AB folks posting up. Serious, I want to understand the choice of the 168 ABLR in the parameters the op shared. We all can learn something.

 

[3325]

If you’re shooting an ‘06 and you’re not sure what you want, you want 180s.

There can be good reasons to go heavier or lighter in ‘06. Just be sure you have one of those reasons.

 

[sndmn11]

Whichever is cheaper.

Serious, I want to understand the choice of the 168 ABLR

BC
Velocity
Wider velocity window
Wind drift
all jump out on paper.

 

[rayporter]

180

 

[3325]

Looking at ballistic tables, the 168 is slightly better at the ranges I'm likely to shoot but not by enough to really get me excited.

Are you a good enough rifleman to make those ballistic tables mean something in the field? Cold (or hot), out of breath, hungry, muscles shaking, tired, excited at seeing an elk (maybe the elk of a lifetime), all while shooting from an improvised field position?

It’s a rhetorical question. You don’t owe me an answer. But you owe yourself one.

 

[3325]

BC
Velocity
Wider velocity window
Wind drift
all jump out on paper.

The words “on paper” jump out at me. See Post #12 above.

 

[35WhelenAI]

BC between the two bullets and the velocity he achieved is negligible inside of 400 yards. Well within the expansion window on either bullet given an 85 ft per second differential at the muzzle.. the 180 is a much more consistent load based on his 10 shot strings and bullet weight is always a constant. That's data, not on paper.

 

[sndmn11]

The words “on paper” jump out at me. See Post #12 above.

Doesn't post #12 apply to anytime, anywhere, anyplace, any bullet, any cartridge? The hunter still has to hunt up to the point of being and shooter, then they still have to shoot.

You, and @35WhelenAI , overlooked the most important part of my list however; the cost. A person can buy 50% more of the ABLRs and work towards addressing post #12 off paper towards the "that's data" statement.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Doesn't post #12 apply to anytime, anywhere, anyplace, any bullet, any cartridge? The hunter still has to hunt up to the point of being and shooter, then they still have to shoot.

You, and @35WhelenAI , overlooked the most important part of my list however; the cost. A person can buy 50% more of the ABLRs and work towards addressing post #12 off paper towards the "that's data" statement.

I appreciate the dialogue, I'm not sure what buying more bullets has to do with the more consistent load he has developed with the same powder? It's about as apples apples as it can get. The 180 seems to be the better choice.

 

[sndmn11]

I appreciate the dialogue, I'm not sure what buying more bullets has to do with the more consistent load he has developed with the same powder? It's about as apples apples as it can get. The 180 seems to be the better choice.

More practice.

You had previously stated that the velocity difference and BC difference are negligible inside 400yds, but you are planting your flag on standard deviation/extreme spread of 10 shots?

Anytime someone can practice their craft, properly, they will be ahead of where they were. That's why my first reason was to choose the cheaper bullet.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I'm following your reasoning, thanks for clarifying.

With that said, 71% difference in extreme spread, and 52% difference in standard deviation are notable. Those numbers may or may not tighten up but I would doubt they will switch places.

 

[TaperPin]

The Accubond retains most of its weight and the ABLR sheds half its weight at normal hunting ranges we’re talking about. Obviously it depends on if you like a fragmenting bullet or not.



At these ranges the Nosler Partition is also a good choice. Most guys I know who have switched from Partitions to Accubonds like the Accubond and it works just as well. However, it isn’t necessarily better. I like Partitions because it’s fun to tease the young guys with this old bullet.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Are you a good enough rifleman to make those ballistic tables mean something in the field? Cold (or hot), out of breath, hungry, muscles shaking, tired, excited at seeing an elk (maybe the elk of a lifetime), all while shooting from an improvised field position?

It’s a rhetorical question. You don’t owe me an answer. But you owe yourself one.

On the one hand, I appreciate the sentiment behind this question. Field shooting is not shooting from a bench on a flat range, and the shooter’s limitations are usually more in play than those of the cartridge or bullet. Definitely so for me, hence the 400-450 yard limitation (max) and my general ambivalence toward the slight ballistic advantage of the 168. I know I suck, especially at calling wind.

On the other hand, though, isn’t this backwards? All else equal, wouldn’t the bullet with better wind deflection be more of a benefit to the shooter who can’t shoot the difference? Isn’t a 6 mph gun (however slightly) more forgiving on wind calls than a 5 mph gun?

Not trying to be argumentative. I agree practice from field positions and realistic understanding of my limits from various positions is imperative, regardless of the bullet.