Accubond Accuracy Issue

[Phil_700]

I loaded 6 test rounds for my Remington 700 in .280 Rem caliber, 22" barrel. Brass is once fired Remington, bullets are 140 gr Accubond, primers CCI 200, powder IMR 4350. Bullets seated .030" off lands. I loaded 2 at 53.0 grs, 2 at 53.5 grs and 2 at 54.0 grs. Distance was 100 yards and shooting was done from a nice bench, on sand bags like I have done for 40 years. The results were absolutely shocking to me. I have never had any of my hand loads group that bad. Distance between the 2 holes from 53.0 grs was 2.375", between the 53.5 grs was 1.75" and distance between the 54.0 grs was 3". I thought something had happened to the rifle. I fired a 3 shot group with factory Remington 140 gr Accutip bullets and could cover the group with a quarter. Now I have been loading Ballistic Tips for years in several different rifles and they always grouped great. I worked up a load for my Remington 700 Sendero 7mm Mag last year with the 160 gr Accubonds and it was a tack driver. Have any of you ever had a rifle "hate" Accubond bullets? Seeing how bad they shot, would it even be worth the time to try different seating depths, powders, primers, etc? Or is it that obvious this 700 just don't like Accubonds? Please look at the two pictures. Any opinions or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

That looks like a severe weather report. How long between shots? Did you shoot a known good load in there to get a baseline afterwards to see if something was broke?

 

[RegionRat]

Yes, some bbls can show a “hate” for some bullets while doing very well with their favorites.

Before giving up, try looking at a wider seating depth sweep at your best guess for velocity. Some bullets won’t behave well at all unless they are in their favored jump zone. No guarantees they will match or exceed your favorites, but I agree what you got now is awful.

 

[jplahr]

I had to use RL-22 to get my .280 Remington 700 to shoot. That was the only powder that worked. Try starting with a seating depth .010 short of the lands and move back .010 at a time. Accubord the always shot good for me.

 

[HTSmith]

Only question I can think to ask is did you start with a really clean barrel? Sometimes it can take a factory barrel several rounds to come in.
Beyond that I would just move on to another bullet. I've had good luck with Accubond's in my 260 Remington and they were not very sensitive to seating depth. Your powder charges look to be in range and it shoots good with other bullets. I'm thinking your barrel just doesn't like them. (Understand this is coming from an old dude who's running low on primers so I'm not too patient these days)

 

[Phil_700]

That looks like a severe weather report. How long between shots? Did you shoot a known good load in there to get a baseline afterwards to see if something was broke?

I know my post may be a little confusing but, if you will read it again it will answer your question. That 2nd picture showing the nice group was with factory Remington bullets AFTER the hand loads were shot.. So it's obvious there's nothing wrong with the rifle.

 

[Phil_700]

Only question I can think to ask is did you start with a really clean barrel? Sometimes it can take a factory barrel several rounds to come in.
Beyond that I would just move on to another bullet. I've had good luck with Accubond's in my 260 Remington and they were not very sensitive to seating depth. Your powder charges look to be in range and it shoots good with other bullets. I'm thinking your barrel just doesn't like them. (Understand this is coming from an old dude who's running low on primers so I'm not too patient these days)

Yes my barrel was very clean during this trial. Not only did I do a carbon cleaning process on the barrel, I also done a copper removing process before I went to shoot. The barrel was as clean as I could get it. LOL

 

[Phil_700]

Here is a little more information. I did have flat primers with all 3 powder charges. Velocity with 53.0 grs was 2883, with 53.5 grs was 2888 and 54.0 grs was 2927. By the way, the factory Remington's clocked 2787 fps. There was also a noticeable increase in recoil with my hand loads vs the Remington factory loads.

 

[Gary in MD]

So the barrel was squeaky clean when you started with the hand loads and then you fired the factory stuff? A lot of factory barrels need to have some fouling before they “settle down”.
I wouldn’t give up, try some different seating depths, maybe 10 thou and 50 thou off the lands.
If that didn’t work, I’d try a slower powder.
Those accu bonds should shoot better than that.
Gary

 

[Phil_700]

So the barrel was squeaky clean when you started with the hand loads and then you fired the factory stuff? A lot of factory barrels need to have some fouling before they “settle down”.
I wouldn’t give up, try some different seating depths, maybe 10 thou and 50 thou off the lands.
If that didn’t work, I’d try a slower powder.
Those accu bonds should shoot better than that.
Gary

That's correct Gary, barrel was clean when I started. But, if you will notice, the last 2 Accubond shots at 54.0 grs of powder was 3" apart. Then the very next 3 factory Remington shots were right together. It's hard to believe the barrel would have immediately "settled down" at that moment. But you have a great suggestion and I appreciate the reply. I see a lot of people prefer IMR 4831 in the .280 Rem. Looking at this powder burn rate chart, the 4831 is 8 steps below (slower) than the IMR 4350. Main reason I wanted the IMR 4350 to work is, that's what I shoot in one of my 7mm Rem mag rifles. As you know, powder is very hard to find right now and I had some 4350, but no 4831 on hand. Thanks

 

[MislMan]

Looks like you need to slow down your handloads to match up with the velocity of the factory loads.

 

[AckleymanII]

My 280's got fed 160g, IMR 7828, fed 210's, 2900 fps, stock remington sporters with 24" barrels. Load right out of the nosler #4 manual

Amazing accuracy with 160g sierra btsp, and a Mack Daddy deer load.

R#19 shot better with the 140g Nosler ballistic tips, and the same in the accubonds did not shoot as well...go figure? Lot# of bullets can be very different. I never had any failures with the ballistic tips on deer and killed two bull elk with the first type of 140g ballistic tip, which was the latest and greatest at that time. Those two bulls hit the ground fast, one never kicked, the other kicked one hind leg maybe three times with no effort to even raise his head.

In the 280, the 160-168g bullet with IMR 7828 with fed 210's is worth building a rifle around.

If you start shooting those 160g Sierra's on deer and hogs, you will be hard hard to talk into using other bullets till you start shooting long range.

 

[std7mag]

I tried the regular Accubonds.
Couldn't get them to group worth a darn.
And i really wanted them to shoot!
Tried seating depths, action truing. Nothing worked.
Really boggled me as the Ballistic Tips shoot great!
Swiched over to ABLR, & Ballistic Tips.

 

[lotech]

I gave up on Accubonds. I've tried them in eight or ten different cartridges from 6mm Rem. through .300 Magnums. I did develop some accurate loads but accuracy was never consistent. Something else always worked better, usually a Barnes or Sierra.

 

[fourpower]

I loaded 6 test rounds for my Remington 700 in .280 Rem caliber, 22" barrel. Brass is once fired Remington, bullets are 140 gr Accubond, primers CCI 200, powder IMR 4350. Bullets seated .030" off lands. I loaded 2 at 53.0 grs, 2 at 53.5 grs and 2 at 54.0 grs. Distance was 100 yards and shooting was done from a nice bench, on sand bags like I have done for 40 years. The results were absolutely shocking to me. I have never had any of my hand loads group that bad. Distance between the 2 holes from 53.0 grs was 2.375", between the 53.5 grs was 1.75" and distance between the 54.0 grs was 3". I thought something had happened to the rifle. I fired a 3 shot group with factory Remington 140 gr Accutip bullets and could cover the group with a quarter. Now I have been loading Ballistic Tips for years in several different rifles and they always grouped great. I worked up a load for my Remington 700 Sendero 7mm Mag last year with the 160 gr Accubonds and it was a tack driver. Have any of you ever had a rifle "hate" Accubond bullets? Seeing how bad they shot, would it even be worth the time to try different seating depths, powders, primers, etc? Or is it that obvious this 700 just don't like Accubonds? Please look at the two pictures. Any opinions or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.View attachment 1211813View attachment 1211814

As i live in Oregon i have been able to get accubonds when able i want! I have tried them in a number of different rifles and calibers. What a waste of time. They all shot for me just like you. Get some bergers and enjoy shooting again!

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Accubonds and accubond long range work very well for me

 

[INTJ]

I too have never had great accuracy from Accubonds. They were accurate enough to do the job and terminal performance was excellent, but always mediocre accuracy wise.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Heres 3, 3 shot accubond groups proving my deer load

 

[JFrank]

The Nosler guide has you over max on that particular powder

 

[Phil_700]

The Nosler guide has you over max on that particular powder

Yes that is correct but, my 1992 Hodgdon #26 manual says 54.0 is max load.