Great Podcast on terminal performance.

[fordy]

Gday revolting peasant

Question. Anyone actually using these on game. @fordy please?
ELD-M bullets referenced in the podcast.
How is the bullet path? Is it straight line penetration?
I get the podcast "I don't care what the bullet ends up looking like, how did it perform. What does the necropsy show for damage".
But where does it end up?

Reason for my question. Some of my old past experience with some match bullets used for hunting showed once the bullet became unstable in flesh, the bullet path went unpredictable. Way off course. Straight one time and next boomerang.

I have used and provided blood tracking dogs for years, so I got to recover game and see some "bullet failures" other may seldom/never see.

Great questions & I like how your approach is along with your history as you will have seen what some stuff that makes you go mmmm & assuming that's made you cautious on your approach & I totally understand that & well done for not accepting & questioning/ asking & I say do that to everyone myself included
Please accept my apologies in advance I will not delve deeper in this thread as there is some very very good information from the base of how a projectile works other information one needs to delve a little deeper with but I will send a pm

For those that want to know am I against eldm or any target bullet on game for that matter
No way as it does have advantages but those who can use that to their benefit are in the minority imo & need to be careful on which brand for that specific application
Yes not all frangible are equal just the same as all bonded all monos

Finding out where they fail is also a extremely important aspect of knowing the pill's strengths also imo of course or should I say our strengths & this podcast I really like the base of this ,
Combine that with parts from fackler, rathcoombe , fbi etc & you have a extremely good idea of where pills strengths & weaknesses are then we can apply them better in the field & that's nothing to do with shot placement that's all terminal !!!!

Once again I'm sorry I'm not more specific on the eldm for others but another thread another day I'll happily delve deeper

Cheers

 

[Wyo37]

Well one elk tag filled with the 6 creed. Small 6pt bull, 218yds. Went 30yds and piled up. Didn't open up the body cavity, but dead is dead. Even "knocked him off his feet" on impact. I didn't get any pictures, for that I apologize.

Had a 320 6pt at 503yds through some timber, but unfortunately by the time I saw him and grabbed the gum he moved off. Didn't think twice about shooting him at that distance with my setup.

Now to do the unimaginable, kill another elk with a "mouse gun" and mAtcH boolits.

 

[bultinkle]

What bullet are you shooting?

I'm hoping you can get some wound pics next time but I know it's a pain and I rarely end up doing it lol

 

[Wyo37]

108eldm

For the cow tag I will definitely get pics.

 

[idcwby]

108eldm

For the cow tag I will definitely get pics.

Any pictures of the cow?

 

[Wyo37]

Any pictures of the cow?

Unfortunately nope. Never got one. Was out yesterday but couldn't find any, the weather was awful. The wind owned me a few weeks ago. Made a terrible wind call at 544 and missed. Wind was blowing the exact opposite direction at the animal vs. where I was.

I have until Dec 31st, but I doubt I get out again.

 

[MEdude]

Not sure what you are saying. The clear gels meet the same BB penetration tests. Are you saying that data derived from clear gel testing is invalid? How do you know that.

I can't speak to what others are saying, as I do not know their intent.

What I do understand is that those who rely on clear gel testing, are obtaining results that do NOT adhere to industry standards, and would make the conclusions from such testing, speculative at best.

I come to this conclusion by reading research papers that have examined this question.

Here is a sample…

https://static.hornady.media/site/hornadyle/files/ballistic-gelatin-comparisons-1-3.pdf

 

[nralifer]

I can't speak to what others are saying, as I do not know their intent.

What I do understand is that those who rely on clear gel testing, are obtaining results that do NOT adhere to industry standards, and would make the conclusions from such testing, speculative at best.

I come to this conclusion by reading research papers that have examined this question.

Here is a sample…

https://static.hornady.media/site/hornadyle/files/ballistic-gelatin-comparisons-1-3.pdf

Gel testing will never be able to exactly replicate antual wound injuries because there are too many valiables in every shot. What gels do is give fairly accurate data on expansion velocity. As far as extent of internal injury and types of injury gels were not designed for that. They are too uniform in internal structure. What is clear is that bullets that don't expand well in gels also fail frequently in vivo. We have found an increase in the percentage of one shot kills and kills at distances that ballistic software would predict with reasonable accuracy what the terminal impact velocity was when our bullets are used. Gel data has also given us insights into reasons why our competitors' bullets expand less reliably and require higher impact velocity to expand.

 

[Hand Skills]

We have found an increase in the percentage of one shot kills and kills at distances that ballistic software would predict with reasonable accuracy what the terminal impact velocity was when our bullets are used.

 

[MEdude]

Gel testing…………………………

If testing was done in lemon Jell-o, instead of FBI grade 10% calibrated gelatin, the legitimacy & conclusions of said test would likely be called into question.

Seems gel tests, using non-industry standard uncalibrated clear gel, have initiated a similar lack of confidence.

To be clear, I am not saying anything about the effectiveness or lack-there-of regarding products that you may represent.

What I am pointing out is, if one want to cite "testing" as part of a sales pitch, an accepted standard testing protocol would possess much greater merit.

Just an opinion.

 

[Huntnful]

If testing was done in lemon Jell-o, instead of FBI grade 10% calibrated gelatin, the legitimacy & conclusions of said test would likely be called into question.

Seems gel tests, using non-industry standard uncalibrated clear gel, have initiated a similar lack of confidence.

To be clear, I am not saying anything about the effectiveness or lack-there-of regarding products that you may represent.

What I am pointing out is, if one want to cite "testing" as part of a sales pitch, an accepted standard testing protocol would possess much greater merit.

Just an opinion.

My wound channels on animals with ELDM's look exactly like the FBI Gel test results Hornady has posted on their law enforcement page. I think a calibrated gel test is an excellent comparison.

 

[stazmania]

These cup and core match bullets that magically kill today may have better aerodynamic performance getting to the animal but at the target/animal they perform just like the cup and core bullets of yesteryear.

 

[Pdvdh]

These cup and core match bullets that magically kill today may have better aerodynamic performance getting to the animal but at the target/animal they perform just like the cup and core bullets of yesteryear.

Hahaha... With respect to terminal performance, I tend to agree. Primary difference I see is the initial violent shrapnelling of match style bullets (frangible due to their paper thin jackets). The nose of match bullets literally explode at high impact velocities, like varmint bullets. To compensate for this immediate loss of bullet weight, the tactical modification from varmint bullets for use on large game sized animals, is to use longer shanked, heavier-for-caliber match style bullets. The forward nose is gonna be violently blown away at high velocity impacts. So the longer shank tactic is... cross your fingers and hope some of the elongated rear bullet shank remains intact during initial high velocity shrapnelling of the nose. If so, as penetrating bullet velocity slows, the remaining bullet shank retains enough mass to penetrate deeply enough to reach into the vitals of a larger game animals.

The negatives from my experiences and perspective? 1) The violent explosive shrapnelling of the nose of the match style bullets causes meat destruction on muscle hits exceeding my tolerance. Apple stroodle. Like prairie dogs blown to smitherines, 2) Lose too much bullet shank during high velocity shrapnelling and risk inadequate penetration on BIG bodied large game & predators, 3 Match-style bullets with their thin jacket extending to the nose tip, leaving only a small or non-existent hollowed hole (AKA Burger) , sometimes fail to expand and shoot through the animal in full-metal-jacket fashion, increasing the odds of nonrecovery. Tipped match style bullets help ensure expansion, IMO.

There's no question that advertisement and promotional marketing of products are vital to product sales and success. Which is why it's hard to find a box of anything on the grocery store shelves not including the two words "new" and "improved".

 

[bultinkle]

One of the biggest frustrations with the "hunting with match bullets" conversations is they are argued as one homogenous design.

They are not all the same, and they do not all perform the same in tissue. Eldms don't perform the same as scenars, berger hybrids don't perform the same as SMKs, TMKs don't perform the same as norma golden targets.

All are match bullets, all are designed differently, and none are able to be generalized as "match bullets do ____" and have any useful value in actual conversation.

The common concept of weak jackets with match bullets goes out the window the second you talk about Bergers, as it's quite literally the opposite. Same with scenars, both a hybrid and a scenar is a tougher thicker bullet than a vld hunting. All of this has to talked about on the ground level. What does each bullet do. Down to the caliber and weight. A 155 tmk is not a 77tmk is not a 195 tmk.