Hornady ELD-X Official Thread

The bullet had massive expansion at extended range shot from a pistol. What happens when it hits an elk at 2900 fps from a saum?

I shared the same worry with the Accubonds out of my 300AX initially on shots inside 200-300 yards since its in the 2900-3100fps range on impact at those ranges. Time will tell more on how these bullets take higher velocity impacts.
 
I wouldn't use the bullet on elk anyway. My 6.5 Sherman will spit them out for deer and antelope only. I have a 325 WSM for short range elk work and a 338 LM for longtime elk work.
We seem to have similar tastes. :cool:
I'm putting together a 6.5 Sherman Shortmag for deer, antelope, etc. Planning to use the 143 gr ELD-X.
For bigger stuff, I have an 8mm Rem Mag. On the one hand, I wish there was an ELD-X in .323". On the other hand, maybe I need a tougher bullet for that anyway. (I have 200 gr AccuBonds and want to try some 220 gr A-Frames.)
 
I use the 200 gr accubonds in my 325 WSM. I bet those 220 gr Aframes would be absolute hammers.

My 6.5 Sherman will be done here pretty soon. Will have to order the dies from elkoholic and then the loading process with the 143 eldx begins. I have 3 lbs of RL26 to try out so it should work out well. I have a coues deer hunt in New Mexico that I am going to break the rifle in on.
 
That was some of the least conclusive terminal performance pics I've seen, if you don't open them up you have an entrance and exit, you know next to nothing of how the bullet performed IMO!!
 
Yeah, they clearly indicate that you should expect some degradation at high velocity and low yardage:

With high velocity, 0-400 yard impact, the bullet continually expands throughout its penetration path. The thick shank of the jacket and high Interlock® ring keep the core and jacket together providing 50-60% weight retention.
If I am looking at Bull Moose hunting at 0-50 yards, or Kodiak Bear in heavy Brush...this is just not the bullet, or even the caliber offerings I am going to pick.

That said, from day one of the launch, I questioned in some of their promotional You-tubes....

Why the technology could not be used in the solid GMX line. ?

If their tip material development is superior, there is no reason the other lines won't benefit? The difference in cost has to be mere pennies per bullet.

Its the kind of technology that you immediately pass on to customer across your product line and differentiate your entire brand from the competition.

If I am GM, and I find that can increase mileage by 5% by changing the airflow design (wind ****) on my corvette.... do I only advertise it for that car?
Heck no...it is about 10$ worth of plastic bolted on the underside of any car...of course I immediately implement it on every car I sell.

Just my opinion. This seems like an excellent bullet for what it was designed...but there is no reason not to incorporate the benefits to other bullet lines with different design priorities. The returns might not be dramatic, but they will still be there at almost no cost. Just obvious to me.

Take for example the 7mm Rem Mag 139 gr GMX Superperformance

Starting at 3190 muzzle and ending at 2253 at 500 yards. Compared to the new 162 gr ELD-X:
So it starts out at 250 faster and ends at only 33 faster at 500 yards due to lower weight and worse BC.

However, during this entire flight it is seeing slightly higher temps. the entire flight...it is still cooking along at 500 yards...obviously if the plastic is melting, the accuracy and long range BC of this GMX load is going to be compromised according to the Hornady literature.

The 162 ELD-X is obviously great at the lower drag and greater expansion at long range, but the 139 gr GMX could certainly see every benefit described for the new tip material for people who Need, or want the benefits of solid core.
 
Last edited:
Why the technology could not be used in the solid GMX line. ?

If their tip material development is superior, there is no reason the other lines won't benefit? The difference in cost has to be mere pennies per bullet.
Agree. I'd love to see this tip replace the other tips on all the Hornady bullets.
 
Yeah, they clearly indicate that you should expect some degradation at high velocity and low yardage:

If I am looking at Bull Moose hunting at 0-50 yards, or Kodiak Bear in heavy Brush...this is just not the bullet, or even the caliber offerings I am going to pick.

That said, from day one of the launch, I questioned in some of their promotional You-tubes....

Why the technology could not be used in the solid GMX line. ?

If their tip material development is superior, there is no reason the other lines won't benefit? The difference in cost has to be mere pennies per bullet.

Its the kind of technology that you immediately pass on to customer across your product line and differentiate your entire brand from the competition.

If I am GM, and I find that can increase mileage by 5% by changing the airflow design (wind ****) on my corvette.... do I only advertise it for that car?
Heck no...it is about 10$ worth of plastic bolted on the underside of any car...of course I immediately implement it on every car I sell.

Just my opinion. This seems like an excellent bullet for what it was designed...but there is no reason not to incorporate the benefits to other bullet lines with different design priorities. The returns might not be dramatic, but they will still be there at almost no cost. Just obvious to me.

Take for example the 7mm Rem Mag 139 gr GMX Superperformance

Starting at 3190 muzzle and ending at 2253 at 500 yards. Compared to the new 162 gr ELD-X:
So it starts out at 250 faster and ends at only 33 faster at 500 yards due to lower weight and worse BC.

However, during this entire flight it is seeing slightly higher temps. the entire flight...it is still cooking along at 500 yards...obviously if the plastic is melting, the accuracy and long range BC of this GMX load is going to be compromised according to the Hornady literature.

The 162 ELD-X is obviously great at the lower drag and greater expansion at long range, but the 139 gr GMX could certainly see every benefit described for the new tip material for people who Need, or want the benefits of solid core.


Changing the tips on the GMX line isn't going to make it a long range bullet. Putting them on the 155 or 168 30 cal AMAXs isn't going to make them good long range bullets either. Doing this would be like putting racing slicks on a Toyota Prius in an effort to make it a race car. You can do things to a hot rod to make it a better hot rod but you can't make a Prius a hot rod. They took the new tips and put them into the AMAXs that were already good long range bullets to make them better long range bullets.
 
Changing the tips on the GMX line isn't going to make it a long range bullet.

Yes, but as I have already shown with the 7mm example, many of the GMX are indeed already very adequate, (if not specifically designed to achieve absolute maximum), long range bullets.

The 180 gr GMX 30 cal is another excellent example.

Yeah, the new tip is not going to make it a 1600 yard bullet.

But if it increases the accuracy, and BC between 300 and 600 yards; What is not to like?

The logic of only using on the very longest just doesn't hold. If we were only interested in the absolute very longest range shot possible; We would only be shooting 416 Barret and above.

Everything else is merely incremental, evolutionary improvements.

Either it works, or it doesn't. Yeah, on some bullets and some calibers the difference in overall performance might be undetectable ( lost within the noise of normal distribution of variation of more dominate factors) ...but in many cases(the examples I cited) the benefits should be as great as for the current ELD line.
 
Yes, but as I have already shown with the 7mm example, many of the GMX are indeed already very adequate, (if not specifically designed to achieve absolute maximum), long range bullets.

The 180 gr GMX 30 cal is another excellent example.

Yeah, the new tip is not going to make it a 1600 yard bullet.

But if it increases the accuracy, and BC between 300 and 600 yards; What is not to like?

The logic of only using on the very longest just doesn't hold. If we were only interested in the absolute very longest range shot possible; We would only be shooting 416 Barret and above.

Everything else is merely incremental, evolutionary improvements.

Either it works, or it doesn't. Yeah, on some bullets and some calibers the difference in overall performance might be undetectable ( lost within the noise of normal distribution of variation of more dominate factors) ...but in many cases(the examples I cited) the benefits should be as great as for the current ELD line.

Solid bullets such as the GMX do not expand well at the longer ranges. So putting a tip on a GMX is not very beneficial when most shooters and hunters using it won't be shooting it beyond 400 yards.
 
So putting a tip on a GMX is not very beneficial when most shooters and hunters using it won't be shooting it beyond 400 yards.

Yeah, but they already do(put a ballistic tip on their GMX)...just talking about using the best material per their own research.

Like I say, just incremental, not revolutionary.

With the continuous push to eliminate lead, it is only a matter of time before you have no choice.

I understand and accept your expertise and am not disputing why it was implemented here FIRST.

Just see no reason not to rapidly replace existing material. There is no down side that I can see.
 
Sorry fellas, it might say in this thread but being some 120 or so pages I haven't the time to read all the posts. My question is, how accurate are Hornady's BC claims for their ELD-X bullets? I notice that the 200 grainer has a BC of .625 and the 220 grain has a BC of .650, however, it's the odd-ball 212 grainer that bucks the trend with the highest BC of .673!

Now, they (gun writers, forum members etc) claim that Nosler have over quoted the BC on their 210 Grain Accubond Long Range Bullet of .730, when, in reality, it's more like .620 (I've read). How accurate is the published BC on the Hornady ELD-X's, is the 212 grainer really the BC king? Thanks.
 
Sorry fellas, it might say in this thread but being some 120 or so pages I haven't the time to read all the posts. My question is, how accurate are Hornady's BC claims for their ELD-X bullets? I notice that the 200 grainer has a BC of .625 and the 220 grain has a BC of .650, however, it's the odd-ball 212 grainer that bucks the trend with the highest BC of .673!

Now, they (gun writers, forum members etc) claim that Nosler have over quoted the BC on their 210 Grain Accubond Long Range Bullet of .730, when, in reality, it's more like .620 (I've read). How accurate is the published BC on the Hornady ELD-X's, is the 212 grainer really the BC king? Thanks.

The 212 is much sleeker than the 200. I can't vouch for the 220s shape or form but if it seems like the 212 is disproportionately higher than the 200, it's because the 212 is noticeably more streamlined.

I've shot the 178 ELDX to 1006. My experience is limited with them so I don't want to say for a certain that the published BC is accurate but I will say that it is extremely promising and it is in fact miles ahead of the 178 AMAX. I used .535G1 and was right on. Again though, it was one session. I need more time with it to say for sure. I do feel confident. I was shooting my rifles over the chronograph and recording atmospheric conditions at the time. My proven loads were right on so I'm reasonably confident I was doing everything right that day.
 
I have shot the 143 ELDX in my 6.5 SS out to 1400 yards and they seem to be
SPOT ON! They are also very accurate and I really like what I am seeing expansion wise especially at distance.....Rich
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top