The Berger 156 EOL is done

[Calvin45]

I concur. Going from 140 Bergers to the 147 eld-m, I was extremly underwhelmed in the 13 or so critters I killed with them. I know it wasn't designed as a hunting bullet, but I was hoping it would do better. When observing a couple ballistic gel tests, it essentially followed what I observed. Inconsistency. Even if the 156 has a lower bc than the 147, which according to berger and applied ballistics, it is better, I would still use the berger based on terminal performance.

If you already have a good load with the 140's, it may not be worth the time and load developement. I'll post a ballistics chart here of drop and drift with the 140 elite hunter, 147 eld-m, and the 156 projected bc at velocities from say my .260 AI (similar to a 6.5x284), a 6.5 cm, and a .264 wm, though the differences will be the same because velocity differences will be similar, you will see there isn't a huge gain in trajectory, and while it is a step up from the Berger 140, the trajectory difference isn't necessarily massive. Also there is a difference in energy, though again, not huge. In my .260 AI, 600 yard energy is 1756 ft. lbs with the 140 eh, and at projected velocity with the 156, is 1861 ft. lbs with the EOL.

So is it worth new load developement? That is for the individual to decide. If elk was a main target, the extra sectional density and energy wouldn't hurt. If I was building a new 6.5 hunting rig and I wanted to use Bergers, it would be built around the 156. That is the way I look at it.

Maybe this holds true in the 6.5 and other smaller calibers, but in the 30s the 208 amax and now eld has developed a solid reputation as something of a death ray. The 225 should be more of a good thing.

 

[dok7mm]

My 1:7.5" 6.5SS barreled action should be ready from Axisworks in a week or two. Built it expecting a 1:7.5" minimum requirement, not 1:8", so it should absolutely love the new 156.

Guess that means my current 1:8" 6.5SS might get to try them too. It sure loves the 140 HVLD & 150 SMK already though, so probably just stick with those in it. 800+ rounds down that barrel, don't need to start another load for it when it is getting long in the tooth.

I'm four weeks out from my 6.5 SS, if I'm lucky. My 6.5 Sherman is 8 twist, so I'm hoping it will work well. It's been a long wait, but if Berger did it right, I'm okay. Looking forward to reading results, especially on 6.5 Sherman and the SS users.

Add on: I'm using up the last of my 143 eld-x bullets to form some new cases for the 6.5 Sherman. They are good for that. Remember the big hullabaloo about them??????

 

[Calvin45]

I would believe what Brian Litz says with caution.

Hey, not challenging or arguing or anything, just legit interested in this as from my point of view litz' word is the last word on such matters. Can you provide the source article or link to his findings?

 

[Deleted member 25294]

I saw a huge performance gap, three rounds into one mule deer buck with a 143 and not one made it more than half way through the chest at 250-300 yards from a creedmore, I've never had a 140 Berger stop in a deer nor have I ever shot one twice with a Berger. I lost a cow but we never could find her so can't say for sure but at the range all I had in my scope was elk, won't be shooting a 180 ELDM and got feed back from another couple of guys on the 180 also and they were not working at all, blowing up on elk in a bad way, I know a couple guys who lost bulls that we found them horn hunting and the hits were good the bullet performance not, a couple customer had some love but over all most are going back to Bergers.

I'll leave it at this, a quick recap of last seasons humane kills with Eld's.
And we do this every single year.

147 eld-m @ 940 with my 6.5 saum

My buddies bull 143 eldx @ 280

180 eld-m @ 430 with my 7-300 wsm, 4" exit hole extremely impressive terminal performance!

My whitetail, 147 eld-m at 220yards with the saum.

my wife's little buck (last day of the season) with a 147 @ 75 yards from my Saum.
Way too close with either that bullet or a berger if you hit a shoulder, she didn't.

 

[aushunter1]

Some very solid takes there mate

 

[Edd]

............. from my point of view litz' word is the last word on such matters. Can you provide the source article or link to his findings?

Well said, exactly my point. Corroborating or contradicting his findings is difficult to impossible. That raises the caution flag to me.

I would guess Hornady has some technical knowledge on the subject also. So when AB contradicts them, that raises a caution flag.

A while back another individual, can't remember his name, that did work in the same field made some comments on this website. AB jumped on him like a Democrats on Trump. That type of behavior raises a caution flag.

The way AB handled themselves when Hornady first started using doppler, like the cute girl in the office that gets snooty when the boss hires another cute girl, raises a caution flag.

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

I'm honestly alittle disappointed myself. I was hoping for .7. I guess if you think about it this is meant for hunting and it's going to expand. So really a .67 bc bullet that's 156 grains for the 6.5 is going to hit pretty hard and in theory, perform very well at long distance. I think we get too caught up in the BC numbers sometimes. I've killed enough deer and bear with the eld line to know they are killers so I'll be sticking with those, but I wouldnt have a problem giving these a go.

Well said, exactly my point. Corroborating or contradicting his findings is difficult to impossible. That raises the caution flag to me.

I would guess Hornady has some technical knowledge on the subject also. So when AB contradicts them, that raises a caution flag.

A while back another individual, can't remember his name, that did work in the same field made some comments on this website. AB jumped on him like a Democrats on Trump. That type of behavior raises a caution flag.

I'll say that I've tested enough of the eld line to know if they arent 100% accurate then it's pretty dang close. Atleast with my rifles out to 1,000. After the way AB handled themselves when hornady first started using doppler, they'll never get a penny of my money.

 

[Edd]

....... After the way AB handled themselves when hornady first started using doppler, they'll never get a penny of my money.

I forgot about that, I'm going to add it to my post.

 

[bigngreen]

[/Quote"blackaj, post: 1664060, member: 25294"]I'll leave it at this, a quick recap of last seasons humane kills with Eld's.
[/QUOTE]

That's awesome for you but I'm not going to keep shooting a bullet that I don't have good luck with, some guys did have good luck with them but dang there were some messes too, just means some of us go back to what was working awesome and others found another that works for them.

 

[Deleted member 25294]

[/QUOTE]That's awesome for you but I'm not going to keep shooting a bullet that I don't have good luck with, some guys did have good luck with them but dang there were some messes too, just means some of us go back to what was working awesome and others found another that works for them.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, shoot what you prefer.
I'm not a one bullet guy myself, I shoot a variety of bonded and mono's for closer ranges, and am having really good accuracy with Berger 215's in my 300 NM.
I'm sure the 156 will kill very well, and who knows.. I may try them sometime.
Probably gonna stay with the 147's though.

 

[codyadams]

I'll say that I've tested enough of the eld line to know if they arent 100% accurate then it's pretty dang close. Atleast with my rifles out to 1,000. After the way AB handled themselves when hornady first started using doppler, they'll never get a penny of my money.

Not defending the way applied ballistics has behaved themselves in any way, honestly I haven't payed any attention to it or seen it, likely I just wasnt looking at the proper threads to see it. But when you run numbers, have you actually seen how little difference there is in impacts from what hornady says vs what applied ballistics says for bc's? In reality, if we are running anything less than top tier optics, or unless our chronograph systems have ZERO error, or if we adjust our velocity to match our impacts ANY, then the error could be in our equipment, not the hornady vs applied ballistics B.C. . And even then, small up or down drafts in the air or other environmentals could also make it different and match/not match our come ups from our calculators. If you run the applied ballistic custom drag curve for the 147 (roughly .315 G7), and compare it with the average of the 3 different bc's listed on hornady's site for the bullet at different velocities (.334 G7, this is what AB does when they list a g7 bc), and again compare that with the mach 2.25 bc, the highest velocity B.C. that hornady lists (.351 G7), out to 1000 yards, the difference is so minimal that it is somewhat comical it's even being argued over. From the .351 G7 to the AB custom drag curve, there is a difference of 6.3" of drop and 3.91" of wind drift in a 10 mph wind at 1000 yards. When you average the velocity range of the 3 bc's that hornady lists, as AB does with their listed G7 bc's, the difference is now 2.7" of drop and 1.68" of 10 mph drift, again, at 1000 yards.

Let me put it a different way, if you increase the velocity of the AB load with a .315 bc by 16 fps, it matches exactly the numbers of the .334 bc at 1000 yards. If you increase it by 39 fps, it matches exactly the numbers of the .351 bc at 1000 yards. The majority of us shoot loads that have an e.s. in the teens to low twenties.....if the center of your 4.5" 3 shot group at 1000 yards tends to be an inch and a half to two inches low/high of POA, how are you going to know if it's the AB b.c. vs hornady b.c., your drop calculator, air temp or wind differences, a tail or head wind, paralax, mirage, your shooting abilities, your optics tracking abilities, a hot barrel, your own loaded ammunition, the way you supported the rifle for your shots.......This is a deep rabbit hole people. Or are you just going to add or subtract 10 fps to your calculator, or add or subtract 1 click at extended ranges, of hold roughly an inch higher or lower at 1000 yards?

As stated, I feel we often put too much into the numbers that manufacturers print on a box. A .315 bc vs .350 bc means literally inches at 1000 yards, which very few of us kill game at that range. Look at your average distance you take game at, mine happens to be slightly over 600 yards, and see really how much difference there is in bc numbers. Applied Ballistics, Hornady, it doesnt matter to me. They both provide a tool that I use to put lead in meat at extended ranges, and they both work. With either one, we need to validate our drops to ensure we make good hits. Many times that includes making minor adjustments. And right there, any argument between the two is somewhat invalid. If either were perfect, we would never validate drops.

Just stuff to think about.

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

Not defending the way applied ballistics has behaved themselves in any way, honestly I haven't payed any attention to it or seen it, likely I just wasnt looking at the proper threads to see it. But when you run numbers, have you actually seen how little difference there is in impacts from what hornady says vs what applied ballistics says for bc's? In reality, if we are running anything less than top tier optics, or unless our chronograph systems have ZERO error, or if we adjust our velocity to match our impacts ANY, then the error could be in our equipment, not the hornady vs applied ballistics B.C. . And even then, small up or down drafts in the air or other environmentals could also make it different and match/not match our come ups from our calculators. If you run the applied ballistic custom drag curve for the 147 (roughly .315 G7), and compare it with the average of the 3 different bc's listed on hornady's site for the bullet at different velocities (.334 G7, this is what AB does when they list a g7 bc), and again compare that with the mach 2.25 bc, the highest velocity B.C. that hornady lists (.351 G7), out to 1000 yards, the difference is so minimal that it is somewhat comical it's even being argued over. From the .351 G7 to the AB custom drag curve, there is a difference of 6.3" of drop and 3.91" of wind drift in a 10 mph wind at 1000 yards. When you average the velocity range of the 3 bc's that hornady lists, as AB does with their listed G7 bc's, the difference is now 2.7" of drop and 1.68" of 10 mph drift, again, at 1000 yards.

Let me put it a different way, if you increase the velocity of the AB load with a .315 bc by 16 fps, it matches exactly the numbers of the .334 bc at 1000 yards. If you increase it by 39 fps, it matches exactly the numbers of the .351 bc at 1000 yards. The majority of us shoot loads that have an e.s. in the teens to low twenties.....if the center of your 4.5" 3 shot group at 1000 yards tends to be an inch and a half to two inches low/high of POA, how are you going to know if it's the AB b.c. vs hornady b.c., your drop calculator, air temp or wind differences, a tail or head wind, paralax, mirage, your shooting abilities, your optics tracking abilities, a hot barrel, your own loaded ammunition, the way you supported the rifle for your shots.......This is a deep rabbit hole people. Or are you just going to add or subtract 10 fps to your calculator, or add or subtract 1 click at extended ranges, of hold roughly an inch higher or lower at 1000 yards?

As stated, I feel we often put too much into the numbers that manufacturers print on a box. A .315 bc vs .350 bc means literally inches at 1000 yards, which very few of us kill game at that range. Look at your average distance you take game at, mine happens to be slightly over 600 yards, and see really how much difference there is in bc numbers. Applied Ballistics, Hornady, it doesnt matter to me. They both provide a tool that I use to put lead in meat at extended ranges, and they both work. With either one, we need to validate our drops to ensure we make good hits. Many times that includes making minor adjustments. And right there, any argument between the two is somewhat invalid. If either were perfect, we would never validate drops.

Just stuff to think about.

I get where your coming from and understand all that. I use the 4dof and it's generally extremely close. I havent compared the BCs. But like you said, a guest of wind up or down, the SD in your loads, makes things so you'll probably never know the difference in the which BC you use as long as its close. I didnt say their BCs were wrong.

 

[L.Sherm]

As stated, I feel we often put too much into the numbers that manufacturers print on a box. A .315 bc vs .350 bc means literally inches at 1000 yards, which very few of us kill game at that range.

Cody as far as I'm concerned you just nailed it squarely between the eyes on that paragraph.

 

[Farmerboy78]

Man, I may have to rebarrel my 6.5-06 soon. It has about 1700rds on it. It's an 8.5 twist bartlein that eats 140gr vld @ 3015fps. May go to an 8 twist to be able to shoot both.