Terminal performance of the 6.5mm 140 eld-match (pics)

[Mr. Magoo]

I have a question- not flaming or criticizing, legitimately curious, and want to talk about failures and successes, if its allowed in this thread. Why are y'all using match bullets? (I know part of the answer is they work but I want to dig deeper). Is their performance markedly better on small thin skinned game than regular hunting bullets at modest velocity? Are hunting bullets not opening up as much for you and you're getting runners? Hunting bullets not accurate enough?

Reason I'm asking is I'm a huge proponent of quick kills, both for the ethical part and the fact that the meat tastes better if they don't run.

I've not had the runners that I see in alot of hunting videos...hunt mostly elk- it would seem deer are tougher because all of my elk have been bang flops with lung shots from a .270 and 130 grain core lockts (which i would consider a medium tough bullet compared to match bullets) except for one 300y shot where I hit the shoulder bone, ripped through the heart, but hit no lung. The deer I see running in these videos for anywhere from 10 steps to 50 yards + are usually doing so with proper shot placement and damaged vitals but is it just lack of velocity and extreme shock because the bullets didnt ooen up as much as they would with an elk, causing the running?

I know alot of shooters are recoil sensitive and shoot smaller guns but that can't be all of it- the damage is there.

Heck, in my dads later years he shot his last elk with a 7.62x39 and it worked fine.

 

[sea2summit]

Magoo, some of my loads are the results of hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds in development/testing/practicing/competing not to mention plinking and hunting. Why would I give all that up to develop a load for another bullet if I know my load so well? If I was hunting animals more than 400# I'd probably spend the time to develop a load with a more sturdy bullet design but for a ~250# and smaller animal (human size) I think match bullets perform perfectly well.

 

[cajun]

What powder? Haven't been able to get them moving that fast out of the C.

I'm guessing R26. It's about 150 fps faster than H4350. Berger has data on their site.

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

I have a question- not flaming or criticizing, legitimately curious, and want to talk about failures and successes, if its allowed in this thread. Why are y'all using match bullets? (I know part of the answer is they work but I want to dig deeper). Is their performance markedly better on small thin skinned game than regular hunting bullets at modest velocity? Are hunting bullets not opening up as much for you and you're getting runners? Hunting bullets not accurate enough?

Reason I'm asking is I'm a huge proponent of quick kills, both for the ethical part and the fact that the meat tastes better if they don't run.

I've not had the runners that I see in alot of hunting videos...hunt mostly elk- it would seem deer are tougher because all of my elk have been bang flops with lung shots from a .270 and 130 grain core lockts (which i would consider a medium tough bullet compared to match bullets) except for one 300y shot where I hit the shoulder bone, ripped through the heart, but hit no lung. The deer I see running in these videos for anywhere from 10 steps to 50 yards + are usually doing so with proper shot placement and damaged vitals but is it just lack of velocity and extreme shock because the bullets didnt ooen up as much as they would with an elk, causing the running?

I know alot of shooters are recoil sensitive and shoot smaller guns but that can't be all of it- the damage is there.

Heck, in my dads later years he shot his last elk with a 7.62x39 and it worked fine.

I know for me, I've seen more damage and quicker kills with match bullets than some of the other hunting bullets Ive used such as corlockt, partition, etc. Atleast on thin skinned game like deer and bear. They aren't that hard to kill so a tough bullet is just unnecessary. I cannot comment on elk as I've never hunted them.

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

New test bullet is the 120 nosler bt. I found a partial box of 18 in my stash of stuff I never use. Threw 44 grains of h4350 in and shot a .75 moa. Good enough for testing it's killing potential. Just don't have enough of then to really crank the velocity up and develop a load. My estimate velocity is 2900 in my little 22in barrel.

 

[LVJ76]

I have a question- not flaming or criticizing, legitimately curious, and want to talk about failures and successes, if its allowed in this thread. Why are y'all using match bullets? (I know part of the answer is they work but I want to dig deeper). Is their performance markedly better on small thin skinned game than regular hunting bullets at modest velocity? Are hunting bullets not opening up as much for you and you're getting runners? Hunting bullets not accurate enough?

Reason I'm asking is I'm a huge proponent of quick kills, both for the ethical part and the fact that the meat tastes better if they don't run.

I've not had the runners that I see in alot of hunting videos...hunt mostly elk- it would seem deer are tougher because all of my elk have been bang flops with lung shots from a .270 and 130 grain core lockts (which i would consider a medium tough bullet compared to match bullets) except for one 300y shot where I hit the shoulder bone, ripped through the heart, but hit no lung. The deer I see running in these videos for anywhere from 10 steps to 50 yards + are usually doing so with proper shot placement and damaged vitals but is it just lack of velocity and extreme shock because the bullets didnt ooen up as much as they would with an elk, causing the running?

I know alot of shooters are recoil sensitive and shoot smaller guns but that can't be all of it- the damage is there.

Heck, in my dads later years he shot his last elk with a 7.62x39 and it worked fine.

I've put 3 partitions on a coues deer and like nothing, all 3 in the boiler room and deer still ran 100+ yds. Have had several run quite a bit before dying using tougher bullets.

But when we have used the A-Max, SST and Ballistic Tips, all of which are soft bullets, deer don't go far, and without destroying the shoulders. Berges which I'm still kind of new to, has also worked great.

These bullets are more forgiving, but like any bullet, they all have limitations, and if you use it correctly, it won't fail you.

 

[Petey308]

Great post, and I've meant to chime in for a while now. In the meantime I've tried to keep up with all the comments. So after reading most of them, I decided to just give my 2 cents regarding using these types of bullets for hunting and the things I've learned and what has proven to ensure best results and with reliability and consistency. It boils down to impact velocity, amount of resistance upon impact, shot placement, and bullet mass. Not understanding these things and using a version with insufficient mass for a particular impact velocity and/or shot placement where impact resistance would be too much is when it's been more common to see poor results occur and "failures". It's not exactly fair to call it a failure though when I'd argue in most cases the bullet was used outside its particular limits. Many times it boils down to just simply not understanding those limits and staying within them. It doesn't mean they're a bad bullet in general to use for hunting either. When used properly, they work, and they work emphatically. Thousands of instances have been recorded. It's indisputable at this point.

Are there other bullet types that work well too? Absolutely. Do some of them excel in certain applications better than a softer constructed match/target bullet? Definitely. Every bullet type has its strengths and weaknesses and applications it's better at. So let's not get confused and take this as "my bullet is better than yours" or "my preference is better than yours" or "what you're doing isn't as good as what I'm doing". I don't for a second believe that's what's being said here or implied. It's also not what I'm saying or implying.

So anyway, here's a more brief approach of mine regarding these types of bullets:

Bullet MASS rule of thumb with soft/frangible lead core bullets (not to be confused or used with other bullet types):

What's most important with soft constructed lead core bullets such as Hornady ELDM, Sierra TMK/SMK, Bergers, Barnes Match Burner, etc, is having sufficient mass so that there's enough bullet to do the job they need to do.

A soft constructed bullet like that is going to come apart really well, in general (as I think most know and agree with), and with higher impact velocities and also higher resistance upon impact, that effect is increased. So you need a sufficient amount of mass so that as the bullet is expanding and shedding weight from the forces being put upon it after impact, it won't end up coming completely apart before it does it's job properly. Hopefully that makes sense.

A shorter/lighter version with less overall mass may come apart at such a high rate and without retaining enough significant material, before it can do sufficient wounding or to a sufficient depth, that it results in an animal that runs a long ways and possibly gets away from you or doesn't even die at all.

A longer/heavier version with more mass will still shed weight pretty rapidly upon impact, but because it has more material and mass total to work with, it'll end up traveling further and doing more damage in the end. What is left after it slows down on its rate of expansion and shedding of weight and material will still have a good deal of forward momentum too thanks to the increase in starting mass and will also ensure a good amount of hydraulic force is still being applied as it penetrates.

So with all that said, I tend to use the figure of sectional density as a rule of thumb to determine if the bullet has sufficient mass. It's not the same way people have looked at SD for years though. I don't believe much of that crap, as most of it comes from misunderstandings and lumping all bullet types together. I'm simply using SD as my way to determine sufficient bullet weight/mass for a particular caliber. I'm not saying sectional density by itself if the focus and alone determines the outcome. It's just been a better and more linear number to use to help ensure you have sufficient mass for a given bullet caliber size. Going off of bullet weight alone can be confusing and misleading.

My rule of thumb for most medium sized game species, and when using a soft constructed bullet, is to start with at least an SD of .260 for best reliability, consistency, and overall favorable results. For large game, like really large deer, elk, moose, etc I prefer .280 or more.

You can easily find a particular bullet's SD with this formula:

**Bullet weight / 7000 / caliber / caliber = SD**

So an example would be a 123gr .264" bullet:

123/7000= 0.017571428571429

0.017571428571429/.264= 0.066558441558442

0.066558441558442/.264= 0.252115308933491

So rounded down, the SD is .252

A further example would be something like a .308" 168gr TMK, which has an SD of .253 and then a .308" 155gr, which has an SD of .233 (so definitely on the low end). One thing to consider is as impact velocity lowers, so will the rate of expansion. So for a 500+ yard shot, either of those would actually work great because impact velocity would be much lower and help balance out expansion rate vs penetration. Close range shots would be dicey though due to the increase in impact velocity and overall resistance they'd encounter.

A 175gr .308" bullet would have an SD of .264 and would be the lightest I personally would be confident with for scenarios where close shots are probable.

If lighter bullets are all you can find, a tougher constructed bullet might be a better choice. One with as high of a BC you can find so that calculated impact velocity at your max range is still 1800fps or higher, if possible, due to how those type of bullets typically behave. That's a different subject though lol.

Also, you can have good results with these types of bullets even with less mass than desired when loaded in cartridges that aren't pushing to high MV's to begin with. For example, that 123gr bullet from a Grendel would be a lot better even at close range than from a Creedmoor or other larger cartridge. Impact velocity will be lower and rate if expansion will be lower as a result.

Hopefully this is helpful. I'll add some pictures of my own showing a bunch of actual close range shots to show they still work very well as closer ranges and at higher impact velocities, and with everything I've said taken into account. Even plenty of pass throughs.

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

Great post, and I've meant to chime in for a while now. In the meantime I've tried to keep up with all the comments. So after reading most of them, I decided to just give my 2 cents regarding using these types of bullets for hunting and the things I've learned and what has proven to ensure best results and with reliability and consistency. It boils down to impact velocity, amount of resistance upon impact, shot placement, and bullet mass. Not understanding these things and using a version with insufficient mass for a particular impact velocity and/or shot placement where impact resistance would be too much is when it's been more common to see poor results occur and "failures". It's not exactly fair to call it a failure though when I'd argue in most cases the bullet was used outside its particular limits. Many times it boils down to just simply not understanding those limits and staying within them. It doesn't mean they're a bad bullet in general to use for hunting either. When used properly, they work, and they work emphatically. Thousands of instances have been recorded. It's indisputable at this point.

Are there other bullet types that work well too? Absolutely. Do some of them excel in certain applications better than a softer constructed match/target bullet? Definitely. Every bullet type has its strengths and weaknesses and applications it's better at. So let's not get confused and take this as "my bullet is better than yours" or "my preference is better than yours" or "what you're doing isn't as good as what I'm doing". I don't for a second believe that's what's being said here or implied. It's also not what I'm saying or implying.

So anyway, here's a more brief approach of mine regarding these types of bullets:

Bullet MASS rule of thumb with soft/frangible lead core bullets (not to be confused or used with other bullet types):

What's most important with soft constructed lead core bullets such as Hornady ELDM, Sierra TMK/SMK, Bergers, Barnes Match Burner, etc, is having sufficient mass so that there's enough bullet to do the job they need to do.

A soft constructed bullet like that is going to come apart really well, in general (as I think most know and agree with), and with higher impact velocities and also higher resistance upon impact, that effect is increased. So you need a sufficient amount of mass so that as the bullet is expanding and shedding weight from the forces being put upon it after impact, it won't end up coming completely apart before it does it's job properly. Hopefully that makes sense.

A shorter/lighter version with less overall mass may come apart at such a high rate and without retaining enough significant material, before it can do sufficient wounding or to a sufficient depth, that it results in an animal that runs a long ways and possibly gets away from you or doesn't even die at all.

A longer/heavier version with more mass will still shed weight pretty rapidly upon impact, but because it has more material and mass total to work with, it'll end up traveling further and doing more damage in the end. What is left after it slows down on its rate of expansion and shedding of weight and material will still have a good deal of forward momentum too thanks to the increase in starting mass and will also ensure a good amount of hydraulic force is still being applied as it penetrates.

So with all that said, I tend to use the figure of sectional density as a rule of thumb to determine if the bullet has sufficient mass. It's not the same way people have looked at SD for years though. I don't believe much of that crap, as most of it comes from misunderstandings and lumping all bullet types together. I'm simply using SD as my way to determine sufficient bullet weight/mass for a particular caliber. I'm not saying sectional density by itself if the focus and alone determines the outcome. It's just been a better and more linear number to use to help ensure you have sufficient mass for a given bullet caliber size. Going off of bullet weight alone can be confusing and misleading.

My rule of thumb for most medium sized game species, and when using a soft constructed bullet, is to start with at least an SD of .260 for best reliability, consistency, and overall favorable results. For large game, like really large deer, elk, moose, etc I prefer .280 or more.

You can easily find a particular bullet's SD with this formula:

**Bullet weight / 7000 / caliber / caliber = SD**

So an example would be a 123gr .264" bullet:

123/7000= 0.017571428571429

0.017571428571429/.264= 0.066558441558442

0.066558441558442/.264= 0.252115308933491

So rounded down, the SD is .252

A further example would be something like a .308" 168gr TMK, which has an SD of .253 and then a .308" 155gr, which has an SD of .233 (so definitely on the low end). One thing to consider is as impact velocity lowers, so will the rate of expansion. So for a 500+ yard shot, either of those would actually work great because impact velocity would be much lower and help balance out expansion rate vs penetration. Close range shots would be dicey though due to the increase in impact velocity and overall resistance they'd encounter.

A 175gr .308" bullet would have an SD of .264 and would be the lightest I personally would be confident with for scenarios where close shots are probable.

If lighter bullets are all you can find, a tougher constructed bullet might be a better choice. One with as high of a BC you can find so that calculated impact velocity at your max range is still 1800fps or higher, if possible, due to how those type of bullets typically behave. That's a different subject though lol.

Also, you can have good results with these types of bullets even with less mass than desired when loaded in cartridges that aren't pushing to high MV's to begin with. For example, that 123gr bullet from a Grendel would be a lot better even at close range than from a Creedmoor or other larger cartridge. Impact velocity will be lower and rate if expansion will be lower as a result.

Hopefully this is helpful. I'll add some pictures of my own showing a buck of actual close range shots to show they still work very well as closer ranges and at higher impact velocities, and with everything I've said taken into account.

View attachment 405820View attachment 405821View attachment 405822View attachment 405823View attachment 405824View attachment 405825View attachment 405826View attachment 405827View attachment 405828View attachment 405829

Good stuff. As always thankyou for your input!

 

[lancetkenyon]

What powder? Haven't been able to get them moving that fast out of the C.

H4350

 

[Mr. Magoo]

Lots of good info here, thanks for taking the time to type a solid answer, and staying cordial.

Funny thing happened today. Got a call from my cousin who owns land next to my place, wanted to know if he could shoot a deer that walked off of his place onto mine. Said that was fine (i know he'd reciprocate). I wasnt there, but my brother said it took three shots between 2 guys to bring the deer down and it was no more than 150 yds. That is consistent with the caliber of hunters we have in our neighborhood.

There is far more thought that goes into cleanly harvesting animals here than any other place I've seen, it's nice to see.

 

[Kimber7man]

New test bullet is the 120 nosler bt. I found a partial box of 18 in my stash of stuff I never use. Threw 44 grains of h4350 in and shot a .75 moa. Good enough for testing it's killing potential. Just don't have enough of then to really crank the velocity up and develop a load. My estimate velocity is 2900 in my little 22in barrel.

I don't think you'll have any problems with those bullets on deer. That's a good bullet

 

[2buffalo]

If the perfect shot does not presented itself why would you even take it I've passed up more shots than I've taken in the last 40 years discipline is what it's about not bullet choice

I will not derail the OP's post so I will say my piece and check out of the conversation. Different areas of the country/world have different terrain, environments, game populations, etc. I grew up tracking animals in the snow and still hunting. The terrain is mountains with hardwoods and softwoods of varying densities. This type of hunting requires knowledge of game behavior, reading tracks, and the ability to shoot off hand at targets that are not posing for you. If the game sees you before you see it the game of cat and mouse is on and the animal is nervous because it knows it is being hunted. This is in an area that does not have the game density of many places throughout the world. This isn't glassing vast open areas or sitting in a blind or stand hunting. I have done all these and enjoy them all but they are not even remotely the same. This personal experience has formed my opinion that a hard deep penetrating bullet is my preference no matter how I am hunting. I do not shoot at game at 1,000 yards so I don't need or want a softer bullet. Although I do respect the guys who put the time in and practice at those distances to make those shots. I don't have ranges close enough to me to practice enough to feel comfortable with that. My two longest kills have been a mule deer in Wyoming just under 600 yds and a Whitetail in Alberta at just over 450 yds. This a range I feel comfortable. The Alberta deer was quartering away walking through a clear cut and would appear and disappear through brush as it was walking. I shot it with a 270 with a Barnes TTSX bullet. Shot him in the back of the ribcage and came out the shoulder. Dropped in his tracks and didn't even wiggle. That is why I use bullets constructed in a way that I feel comfortable shooting game that isn't posing. To each his own.

 

[FEENIX]

Thats ok if you disagree. It doesn't change the fact this bullet flat out works. This bullet kills very swiftly. If I thought it wouldn't kill animals quickly, I wouldn't use it.

I didn't start this so people can say how terrible it is to use match bullets. I understand how to use them, and their limitations. So please let's not turn this thread into an argument over match/"hunting" bullets.

That's a tall order/wishful thinking, Brother, but you already know that. That's the beauty of having plenty of personal choices of bullets for their personal preferences and intended purpose.

 

[FEENIX]

This is what Nathan Foster had to say about the 140 amax which is the older version.

For longer range hunting using the swede, no other bullet can compare to the performance produced by the Hornady 140 grain A-Max. This bullet is best suited to lighter bodied deer under 80kg (180lb) and gives optimum results at impact velocities below 2600fps (beyond 75 yards) which allows the A-Max to shear into large fragments rather than smaller, less lethal particles. Wounding caused by the A-max at ranges of between 300 and 400 yards is such that both exit wounds and bleeding from exit wounds can be easily observed through the hunter's scope. The A-Max has a BC of .550 and produces wide wounding for clean, extremely fast killing out to 500 yards (2000fps), continuing to produce adequately wide wounding at 1800fps, out at the 600 yard mark.

Nathan has done exhaustive testing on terminal performance and his work is impressive.

If you want a little more conventional bullet the eldx holds up better.

Nathan rocks!