B.c. Crazy!

[Canhunter35]

There're each individual rifle to consider also. With my 300wby I switched from the 212eldx to the 200eldx, losing a lot of bc, but gaining 175fps because of magazine restrictions mostly. They shoot equally well, but it's a sporter barrel and a .5-.75moa is the norm for a group really limiting that rifles potential as a lr rig. But inside of 600 the 200 holds every advantage over the 212 because of the mv and that really is the range I'm comfortable with hunting to with that rifles particular accuracy. And realistically, I'm pretty sure I can get within 600 yards to most any animal lol.
I'm also using the 143 eldx instead of the 147eldm because I want maximum expansion when I shoot stuff. Maybe down the road I'll switch, they both shoot equally as well, but I've been happy with the 143 on coyotes and this year I have an antelope and whitetail to get plus my wife mule deer!

 

[elkaholic]

There're each individual rifle to consider also. With my 300wby I switched from the 212eldx to the 200eldx, losing a lot of bc, but gaining 175fps because of magazine restrictions mostly. They shoot equally well, but it's a sporter barrel and a .5-.75moa is the norm for a group really limiting that rifles potential as a lr rig. But inside of 600 the 200 holds every advantage over the 212 because of the mv and that really is the range I'm comfortable with hunting to with that rifles particular accuracy. And realistically, I'm pretty sure I can get within 600 yards to most any animal lol.
I'm also using the 143 eldx instead of the 147eldm because I want maximum expansion when I shoot stuff. Maybe down the road I'll switch, they both shoot equally as well, but I've been happy with the 143 on coyotes and this year I have an antelope and whitetail to get plus my wife mule deer!

I'm in agreement with your post but curious why you believe you get better expansion with the X?

 

[codyadams]

I'll throw this in for reference to the previous post....take notice of the cavity the polymer tip sits in. Not my pic, but someone made a useful cutaway of these two bullets, so I figured I would use it!!

 

[Canhunter35]

I'm in agreement with your post but curious why you believe you get better expansion with the X?

Two reasons:
First hornady says they'll expand down to 1300fps so logic tells me they'll really expand at more reasonable speeds. I've generally shot behind the front leg and bullets with lots of expansion capability have worked the best for me.
2nd reason I read a post by someone(I think it was you rich) who thought that the eldx may over expand because of the cavity in the nose that you thought they didn't need. I'm going off memory on that one, but that sounded good to me(whether it's right or wrong I guess I'll find out)
In my 300 I also thought it advantageous to have the interlock ring to toughen the bullet in case I hit a large bone on a big animal.
Saying all that the 168 amax out of my 308 is murder on light game. With time And experience with the eldx I may switch to eldm variants, but with two moose, an elk, and a dozen coyotes I've been quite happy with the performance.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

View attachment 101793
I'll throw this in for reference to the previous post....take notice of the cavity the polymer tip sits in. Not my pic, but someone made a useful cutaway of these two bullets, so I figured I would use it!!

Is it just the way the cut away was done or is the lead core in the x bullet Not uniform? Gotta be the way it was cut.

Steve

 

[Canhunter35]

Is it just the way the cut away was done or is the lead core in the x bullet Not uniform? Gotta be the way it was cut.

Steve

I would say it's the cut. By looking at the outside copper on the boattail I would say it's not an exact cross section

 

[elkaholic]

Two reasons:
First hornady says they'll expand down to 1300fps so logic tells me they'll really expand at more reasonable speeds. I've generally shot behind the front leg and bullets with lots of expansion capability have worked the best for me.
2nd reason I read a post by someone(I think it was you rich) who thought that the eldx may over expand because of the cavity in the nose that you thought they didn't need. I'm going off memory on that one, but that sounded good to me(whether it's right or wrong I guess I'll find out)
In my 300 I also thought it advantageous to have the interlock ring to toughen the bullet in case I hit a large bone on a big animal.
Saying all that the 168 amax out of my 308 is murder on light game. With time And experience with the eldx I may switch to eldm variants, but with two moose, an elk, and a dozen coyotes I've been quite happy with the performance.

I think the ELDM expands down to the same velocity as the x and the crimp to hold the core in the x does help a little, especially at higher impact. I think at distance it's a wash so I go with the higher b.c. and mass because it will perform farther than I want to shoot. I think either bullet is fine. I was just curious.
If anything, I think the m will expand more than the x since I've now shot them more. Look at the jacket to compare. The m stays thin down the jacket where the x thickens

 

[Canhunter35]

I think the ELDM expands down to the same velocity as the x and the crimp to hold the core in the x does help a little, especially at higher impact. I think at distance it's a wash so I go with the higher b.c. and mass because it will perform farther than I want to shoot. I think either bullet is fine. I was just curious.

I agree and luckily in my rifle and load the 143 and 147 are interchangeable(I just adjust my bc and my dope is spot on) and once I use my 143s up I may change

 

[yorke-1]

For the most part, in my long barreled hunting guns (24" +) I go with the highest BC bullet that will accurately shoot above 2900fps. For shorter barreled rifles and specialty pistols I try for the highest BC bullet that will accurately shoot over 2700 fps.

I only use either bonded core or mon-metal bullets for hunting so that does influence my decisions. My ranges are limited to whatever range my specific gun/load combo will stay above around 1900fps impact velocity. If my setup can't make the range I want, I'll just move to either a different spot or grab a different gun.

 

[Hand Skills]

I think the ELDM expands down to the same velocity as the x and the crimp to hold the core in the x does help a little, especially at higher impact. I think at distance it's a wash so I go with the higher b.c. and mass because it will perform farther than I want to shoot. I think either bullet is fine. I was just curious.
If anything, I think the m will expand more than the x since I've now shot them more. Look at the jacket to compare. The m stays thin down the jacket where the x thickens

Great thread revival. I appreciate and agree with many of the insights posted, old and new.

At the risk of derailing a great thread, I thought there was reported to be an air pocket in the eld-x to promote more rapid pneumatic actuated expansion.

Here is an alternate cross section courtesy panhandle precision;

Back to the subject at hand, I have found it interesting how BC shares an inverse relationship with energy transfer. It's fascinating how hard flat point and round nose bullets can hit at low velocity (<2000fps). They seem to expand faster and wider than pointy bullets. Now I'm not suggesting we should use round nose bullets for LR, but it's just another example of how higher BC is not always an advantage.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Great thread revival. I appreciate and agree with many of the insights posted, old and new.

At the risk of derailing a great thread, I thought there was reported to be an air pocket in the eld-x to promote more rapid pneumatic actuated expansion.

Here is an alternate cross section courtesy panhandle precision;

View attachment 101797

Back to the subject at hand, I have found it interesting how BC shares an inverse relationship with energy transfer. It's fascinating how hard flat point and round nose bullets can hit at low velocity (<2000fps). They seem to expand faster and wider than pointy bullets. Now I'm not suggesting we should use round nose bullets for LR, but it's just another example of how higher BC is not always an advantage.

This is right on in regard to the low bc bullets. Fact is bc makes very little diff under 500y. You could shoot high bc bullets backwards out to 500y nearly with the same drop and drift. Depending on the cartridge of coarse. The definition of long range plays a big role in this discussion as well. I've been playing with long range (1000y plus) for a long time and I still have not changed my thinking that 300y is a long shot. You have to have your stuff together to make a 300y shot. Even though bc is not a consideration. This I think is part of what Rich was getting at when he first started this thread.

Steve

 

[tim_w]

This is right on in regard to the low bc bullets. Fact is bc makes very little diff under 500y. You could shoot high bc bullets backwards out to 500y nearly with the same drop and drift. Depending on the cartridge of coarse. The definition of long range plays a big role in this discussion as well. I've been playing with long range (1000y plus) for a long time and I still have not changed my thinking that 300y is a long shot. You have to have your stuff together to make a 300y shot. Even though bc is not a consideration. This I think is part of what Rich was getting at when he first started this thread.

Steve

That is very well said and IMO envelops the original point of the thread. Spot on.

 

[elkaholic]

My bad on the void in the ELDX tip! When they first came out, I was told that and passed it on. I should have checked for myself! GOSSIP

 

[memtb]

I am as much a promoter for high b.c. as most of you for long range hunting as being of high importance, but lets talk realistically here! First of all, we all realize the benefit of b.c. for long range for less bullet drop and wind drift, higher retained energy, and better expansion due to higher retained velocity. Having stated these truths, what I am concerned about is that some of the new, less experienced, shooters can easily get caught up in the b.c. craze and bypass some very good and often "better performing" bullets for there hunting bullet selection. I think the main reason for this occurring is, what exactly is long range? First of all, it depends upon what rifle, cartridge combo are you using and what is the intended game animal? We have people shooting elk with everything from 6mm's to 375's and larger with mv's of 2500' to over 3500'+! There are obvious differences here in what long range should be. Also the question becomes, is long range 400 yards or over 1000? For some of us who have worked our way up over a period of years, it may be 1000 yards or more. For some of the newer long range guys, it may well be 400-500 yards. The first consideration should not ALWAYS be b.c.! It is my belief that there are several better choices out there that were made for hunting that are being overlooked for higher b.c. bullets. Most of the time this occurs with capable long range elk rifles. Let's use the 300 WM for an example: Why do we need a super high b.c. bullet in the 100 to even 700 yard range which will likely perform far less reliably than a moderately high b.c. bonded bullet which is made for hunting? Most of the shooters that are qualified to take 1000 yard shots are realistically shooting most game at far less than that with bullets that are likely inferior to what is available. I'm only throwing this out there to make us think a little more clearly and especially to help the new guys not get caught up in the "b.c. at all cost" mentality that I think is a danger that currently exists. I know this is coming from a high b.c. hunting bullet maker, but from my stands, I know pretty much what my range is going to be. What do you guys think?.........Rich

I like to get as much of both as I can,but bullet quality "trumps" BC......every time! memtb