Firstly, 'Grats on the good hunting! Generally my experience agrees, and I'm fortunate (or inexperienced) enough to have spent little time following up game. I was taught to wait for a few minutes before following an animal in the event it ran after the shot. the rationale being it would bed down and stiffen up, reducing the probability of being lifted on approach. This has proved good advice, and usually I arrive at the end of a blood trail to find an expired animal.
It did not go so well for my uncle one year. He shot an elk, and spent the rest of the day chasing it. High lung shot, .260, Barnes TSX, pencil hole through the chest cavity.
Shot placement could have been better, but so could have bullet performance. Examining the evidence we all agreed that it would have been a better day for those involved had the bullet expanded and caused more trauma in the lungs. Maybe I'm off base comparing a Barnes-x failure to the ELD-X results Tikkashooter contributes
I appreciate this kind of comparison. The assertion of 'shot placement' being the issue here appears overly dismissive. Could be my ignorance here, maybe there's something I don't know?
I understand that ELD-m and -x are differently constructed. I happen to like Accubonds. Based on my experience shooting accubonds through deer, the results here seem to suggest ELD-m is more frangible and and ELD-x is tougher and slower to expand than my 'baseline'.
... Or is this just my confirmation bias at work?