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.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/13162051/6-5-147-eld-on-game

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.

Or the time it takes him to walk to the dead animal!! LOL

However jug tests do give an idea of how different bullets handle resistance to a standard media. For instance a Partition will penetrate more jugs than a Sierra Gameking. That said a bullet that does not perform well in jug testing will often not do well on animals.

IMO, dry media is too hard on bullets, water not hard enough. I’ve found a hard layer like 1.5-2” of particle board or dry media followed by 2’- 2.5’ of damp media, backed by dry media to catch anything that makes it through the damp portion, works really well.

John, while I readily admit that you have far more experience than I, with bullet performance on game as well as testing.....I have been witness too, and personally experienced far too many (one is too many) utter failures with cup and core bullets. I’m certain that cup and core bullets have come a ways since I “swore off” of them....but, in reading many posts, here and on other sites, there still “seem” to be a substantial number of failures. Yes, in many cases, the game was recovered....but, an autopsy showed complete bullet failure, and failure to exit,..... on a relatively “small” big game animal, with placement and bullet direction that should have given an exit.

Yes, often these bullets give dramatic results, on broadside, or “CNS” shots.....however, and I think you will agree on this.....not all shots presented or taken are optimum. For myself, family, and friends, I greatly prefer insurance with a “premium bullet”!

I have read many of your posts, realizing that you use and test a vast array of bullet designs and manufacturers. However, I must ask....if you had limited time, conditioning, hunting properties, game populations, and opportunity.....would you prefer a “premium “ bullet over a conventional cup and core? Respectfully memtb (Todd)

I have been able to test the 143 grain ELDx and the 147 ELDm on big hogs at point blank range with impact velocities near 3000fps.

I purposely drove bullets into shoulders or took quartering away shots to increase the odds of bullet failure. So far both bullets have reached the vitals and killed quickly every time.

I think that both can be used for hunting but would not try to rely on them to penetrate like a monolithic bullet. But if you place either into the vitals of a big game animal,they will do the job in my experience. I think of them about like I do Berger VLD hunting bullets,very accurate quick killers with reasonable penetration.

I haven't shot either into test media.

Highoctane,

101 years isn't quite what it takes for me to walk to big game I've shot--but often it takes me that long to retrieve them!

LOL...Just poking a little fun at ya...

David Petzal used to write about a testing target he called the Ballistic Buffalo. IIRC it was an outer layer of innertube, a layer of wet newspaper, 1/2" plywood, then more wet newspaper, plywood, wet newspaper and innertube.

Seems like it would be a lot of work to put together, but he seemed confident in the results.

I know Dave well, and he was confident in the results. But he always believed in bigger, heavier, stouter bullets for whatever kind of game. There's nothing wrong with that--if you can shoot the rifles well.

On two separate occasions, he asked me if a .243 Winchester was enough for mule deer, and if a .270 Winchester was enough for elk. The .243 question occurred on a mule deer hunt in eastern Montana, where he used a .30-06 with 180-grain Partitions. The second question was more general, but I know he later killed a mature bull neatly with a .270 Winchester and a 140-grain Fail Safe.

Dave is 11 years older than even me, and from "the East." He grew up in the cup-and-core. Elmer Keith era. Both are why he came up with a bullet test that's far more complex than required: Like a lot of people who live where hunting (or fishing) has to be "expeditionary," instead of local, he dinks around with other stuff during most of the year. I learned this from my mentor Norm Strung (one of Dave's mentors and guides) who grew up the New York city area, and moved West after high school, because he wanted to hunt and fish most of the year, not tie flies or work up handloads for 11+ months.

Thirty years ago Dave and I spent some time together shooting various kinds of "test media." He went on to develop the Ballistic Buffalo. I decided dry newspaper worked just as well as anything else, by comparing media results with bullet recovered from game.

I always prefered horses.

Phil Shoemaker has used beached (dead) whales. Whatever works.

From the evidence, water jugs are like broken clocks: They're correct once in a while.

Could be his Teutonic nature showing itself as well. He appreciates overly engineered things it seems.
I've enjoyed his stuff for years.

Yes, Dave likes "well engineered" stuff of all kinds. He's also a very entertaining writer.

John,

You and Dave are my two favorite living gun writers. I read Field and Stream because of him,I read other stuff because of you. Is your article on the 6.5 PRC out? I have one and there's not much load data out there. Looking forward to what you came up with.

I miss reading Norm Strung,John Wooters,and some others too. It would have been nice to have known them personally.

The 6.5 PRC article appeared a few weeks ago in the 2019 Hodgdon Annual Manual--which of course limits the data to Hodgdon and IMR powders. All the listed powders work, but a couple (Retumbo and IMR8133) work really well.

Thanks for the info, I'll look for a copy.

Testing bullets by using a dead whale certainly gives one a lot of medium to shoot into. Digging them out to examine them, if you could find them, could get one banned from the house for a long time.

When my daughter was a bout 4 or 5, her, me and Mom were digging clams and my daughter wanted to go play by some old drift wood. I didn't notice the dead beluga whale laying there by the old washed up tree. I saw it when she was about 10 feet from it and hollered at her to stop, she kept on going and jumped on the whale. It had holes in it that resembled big canker sores with slime dripping from them. I had a vision of her sinking down to her knees, fortunately she was a wee little thing and when she landed on it she bounced back and landed on the sand and each hole had a mini eruption. I ran over to her and some how she was not covered in the stinking stuff.

I think news paper medium sounds better to me, but and old knotted birch stump worked well for me to see how tough a bullet was. The hard cast .44, 45-70 and Barnes X bullets gave the best penetration. The 350 grain Hornady 45-70 load did surprise me with how well it held together, but it was not as good as the heavy jacketed 400 grain Alaska Bullet works load.

I used to keep the old chunk of birch knots in the back yard for blasting into, unfortunately my wonderful secluded home area attracted a golf course and they called the cops on me for shooting in my back yard. What has this country come to.....I was here long before a boring golf course showed up.

Definitely a member of the "Dry Humor" school. Listening to him talk is a bit like watching paint dry, but he's one of the few things I miss from sat tv.

Whales are tough to come by here, even harder than prairie dogs and caribou.

You can see some fair copies at Walmart, riding on those little carts.

That's funny right there. I don't care who y'are.

Have noticed the demographic difference in whale-weight between Wal-Mart and Costco customers. But Costco has much wider aisles, which obviously affects "aisle blockage." So the comparison may not be statistically significant.

Costco is definitely big sky country.

Wal-Mart definitely wins on tonnage.....