Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters ELD X and ELD M, can the M be used for hunting? Picture of both.

I found this on the web and really enjoy pictures of grinded bullets. For those who have shot both the X and M in their 6.5 CM, which do you prefer for hunting? No interlock ring on the M and notice the difference in hollow point cavity if the tip was removed and jacket thickness.

After firing (143 grain) one ELD-X from a 6.5 Creed @approx 20 yards.....I question, should it be used for hunting? memtb

I've seen a couple of 143's, using Hornady factory ammo, used on big-bodied mule deer from the 6.5 Creedmoor, one at 101 yards, the other at 311. Both worked what I consider very well.

The 311-yard shot took place first, when my old friend Holt Bodinson shot an angling away buck in the middle of the left ribs. At impact the buck did the mule-kick, then trotted about 30-35 yards before keeling over. The bullet was found, perfectly mushroomed, in the right shoulder, retaining 74% of its weight.

I made the 101-year shot, at a slightly smaller-bodied buck, which was standing broadside in some Gambel oak brush. The brush covered his ribs, so I aimed for the shoulders, and at the shot the deer collapsed right there. The bullet had broken both shoulders, and was found under the hide of the far shoulder, with the core and jacket less than an inch apart. Apparently it made it through the near shoulder intact, but on the second the jacket peeled back a little beyond the Interlock ring, so the core fell out. Together the two pieces weighed 60.5% of 143 grains.

Dunno exactly how big the deer were, but got an even 100 pounds of boned meat off mine. Holt's was noticeably bigger.

That picture looks misleading, seems like they ground away more of the 147 than the 143 giving the look of a thicker jacket on the 143. Maybe it’s just me.

First I am not a gunwriter. Second, I've never shot a milk jug so take that into account. I think I've taken 9 elk, 5 wolves, and maybe 8 pronghorn with the 143 eld-x. Ranges have been from about 50 yards to right at about 400. I have been pretty happy with performance. I think all but 3 bullets exited. At the speed I'm shooting them (2815 fps) they perform well and shoot wonderful. The couple times that bullets did not exit I didn't recover slugs, as I didn't try. I have not shot the M version in any weight or variety. For me I wouldn't want the jacket any lighter or expansion any more rapid, so I haven't tried the M version. Lots of folks have taken plenty of game with the M though. For me the 143 eld-x has worked just fine.

I have only used the ELD-X but by looking at the cross section I think the ELD-M = A-Max and the M version is an Interlock/A-Max hybrid or a long range SST. The A-Max works well for hunting in certain configurations such as 22 cal. 75 gr. and 105 6mm especially for longer ranges or if you want a fragmenting bullet at shorter ranges. All of them are fairly frangible except the Interlock. Even the M version the ring is so close to the base there will not be much core left if heavy bone is encountered.

My thought is why would you use the M when the X is available except for extended ranges? But this comes back to the basic question of what won't kill a deer?

Maybe I, actually my granddaughter, just happened to get a box of bad cartridges. Our only test was water jugs, entered 3rd jug.....the largest was a partial jacket and tiny piece of core. The weight was probably similar to that of a .177 cal lead pellet. Maybe, I’ve got “hard water”! memtb

Factory loaded 143eldx and factory loaded 147m shot into water filled milk jugs at 40 yards. It’s been a while since I shot them and I’m not certain which one was the 143 (think it was the bottom one) but I really don’t think there was enough difference to matter.

Man, just how far away was that deer!? Hyper-range hunting?

I hunted with the 147 this year and took five bucks, between 10 and 140 yards. At Creed speeds, they go right though deer.

Wesley2, That’s a lot more than I recovered from my water jug test! memtb

Thanks for throwing those pics up. Pretty interesting

memtb and Wesley2,

I have mentioned this before on the Campfire, but water jugs are one of the least satisfactory methods of testing bullets--unless you just want to see how a certain bullet penetrates water jugs.

Most of us, however, desire a test that comes close to simulating how bullets act when they hit big game. I started playing with a bunch of different kinds of test media in the 1980's, and eventually came up with dry newspaper for comparing how bullets expand and penetrate when they hit bone bigger than ribs. This was discovered through comparing bullets actually recovered from animals shot in substantial bone, with various kinds of media. (Oh, and I usually shoot dry newspaper at 25-30 yards, both to stress bullets as much as possible, and because it's easy to place shots precisely at that range, allowing me to shoot several bullets into a stack. This allowed me to either compare how different bullets penetrate in the same stack, or see if the same bullet always acts pretty much the same way.)

A lot of people use wet newspaper for bullet testing. This works OK for simulating rib shots, but isn't hard enough on bullets to simulate bone shots. The truth is that just about any expanding bullet comes out mushroomed perfectly when tested in wet newspaper.

Ballistic gelatin also works very well for simulating rib shots, but I still have a big supply of wax Test Tubes, which I use now and then because they retain the shape of the wound channel better.

I would guess there are two problems with water jug testing. First, while animal tissue contains a lot of water, it isn't ALL water. Second, and probably more important, animals don't come in sections, with an air gap in between (unless, of course, we're trying to shoot through several big game animals, not generally the case.) All bullets can tumble after hitting something, and I suspect they often tumble between the jugs, which might be much harder on jacketed bullets when a sideways or backwards bullet hits the next jug.

If you prefer not to believe this, fine. But it's quite obvious from the field results provided on this thread that your jug tests did NOT simulate what happens when ELD-X's hit animals.

Long-range shooting is just too easy any more. The next frontier is conquering the space/time continuum. Mule deer is way ahead of his time.

Yep, the only way to do this accurately is to carefully section it through it's central axis, from top to bottom AND side to side. Probably best to just shoot a few critters and see if you like them.

Maybe it was his birthday?

A lot of people imagine that all jacket materials are of similar hardness and pliability, and that all cores are made of the same materials. This just isn't true. Comparing sectioned bullets is only valid if you know the compositions of the jackets and the cores. "Target" bullets often use core material of pure lead or something close to pure lead while "hunting" bullets run the gamut from pure lead to up to 6% antimony, which makes for a VERY hard lead core on a jacketed bullet. Keep these things in mind. Jackets which are annealed after forming steps are far more pliable and deform far more easily than those that haven't been annealed after forming. This stuff matters.

“Probably best to just shoot a few critters and see if you like them.“

Did it.

Liked them.

That’s all that matters.




P

I've used the 143gr. ELD-X on a mature mule deer buck, numerous whitetail does and a handful of pigs-- good to great performance on all.

I've used the 147gr. ELD-M on a hog and at least one doe that I can recall. Not enough of a sample to say much other than, if you use it with some common sense, it will work fine.