6.5 Creedmoor/260 for Deer, Elk, and whatever else.....

[Taudisio]

I think they’re functionally basically the same bullet, at least subject to the same manufacturing variations and resultant variation on target which is more important than their minor construction differences.

I’m certain every maker has lot to lot variation, it just seems like Hornady’s variations show up in animals more. And I say that as someone who shoots Hornady bullets more than any other maker by a large margin and have hunted with interlocks and SSTs and interbonds and eldx and eldm and SST-ml and Vmaxes.

They are close, @Formidilosus has pointed out that the eld-x has a small space in the nose between the copper and tip that doesn’t have lead in it, where the eldm can be filled with lead completely. He pointed out that this has caused issues with the eldm (rarely though) and it has been more prevalent in certain calibers and grain weights. I can’t recall exactly where it was said and shown. I believe it was in one of the new heavy TMK threads.

 

[M4Madness]

I've been hunting whitetail deer for quite a while with a Ruger American Predator .260 Rem with good results. Believe it or not, it'll shoot 120-grain Sierra Pro Hunters sub-moa all the way out to the 500 yards I've tested it. It's hard to imagine a soft point being that accurate.

I'll probably be using a .25 Creedmoor next season with 128-grain ELD-X bullets -- if I can convince myself that they'll perform satisfactorily.

 

[Formidilosus]

Okay so more recently than my problems of the same nature, ODD. It's so weird too me how in 2025/2026 we are so sophisticated, but can't get something to function the same as simple as a piece of lead/copper WEIRD.

Well, at the same time it is harder to get bullets to behave across the board consistently all the time; and yet not hard because some companies do. The issue here is Hornady being consistently inconsistent with everything.
But it isn’t limited to Hornady or ELD-M’s either- most bullets have issues at times. The difference is that AMAX’s really didn’t, and issues with early ELD-M’s were not a thing.

Even with the issues noted; ELD-M’s have no more issues than Berger’s, and the vast majority of other manufacturers hunting bullets.

 

[Chris in TN]

They are close, @Formidilosus has pointed out that the eld-x has a small space in the nose between the copper and tip that doesn’t have lead in it, where the eldm can be filled with lead completely. He pointed out that this has caused issues with the eldm (rarely though) and it has been more prevalent in certain calibers and grain weights. I can’t recall exactly where it was said and shown. I believe it was in one of the new heavy TMK threads.

That's what I meant by 'minor construction differences'. In the grand scheme of all the ways bullets have been put together, the difference between the X and the M is minor.

Well, at the same time it is harder to get bullets to behave across the board consistently all the time; and yet not hard because some companies do. The issue here is Hornady being consistently inconsistent with everything.
But it isn’t limited to Hornady or ELD-M’s either- most bullets have issues at times. The difference is that AMAX’s really didn’t, and issues with early ELD-M’s were not a thing.

Even with the issues noted; ELD-M’s have no more issues than Berger’s, and the vast majority of other manufacturers hunting bullets.

Do you think Hornady's problem here is simply one of scale, with a really high level of output, attempting (successfully?) to dominate the market, at the expense of consistency?

(Don't get me wrong, ELDMs have worked fine to me, I just don't have a small fraction of the sample size you or a lot of others do, who eventually seem to get a batch that won't expand or won't hold tight vertical at long range; I hear that complaint from random strangers at the range too often to be coincidence)

 

[Formidilosus]

That's what I meant by 'minor construction differences'. In the grand scheme of all the ways bullets have been put together, the difference between the X and the M is minor.

Do you think Hornady's problem here is simply one of scale, with a really high level of output, attempting (successfully?) to dominate the market, at the expense of consistency?

Maybe. But more that the design of ELD-M’s and somewhat X’s give less margin for error in all aspects. I.E.- super aggressive designs with very long slender noses, Heatshield tip, no gap around the tip, and potentially thicker around the nose to help with bullets coming apart in flight.

(Don't get me wrong, ELDMs have worked fine to me, I just don't have a small fraction of the sample size you or a lot of others do, who eventually seem to get a batch that won't expand or won't hold tight vertical at long range; I hear that complaint from random strangers at the range too often to be coincidence)

I take about zero credence to what hunters/shooters say. The reason being that the moment you start asking technical questions abut terminal ballistics or for details of bullets “failing” it becomes abundantly clear that they don’t understand the first thing about what bullets do in tissue.

 

[Dobermann]

Well, at the same time it is harder to get bullets to behave across the board consistently all the time; and yet not hard because some companies do. The issue here is Hornady being consistently inconsistent with everything.
But it isn’t limited to Hornady or ELD-M’s either- most bullets have issues at times. The difference is that AMAX’s really didn’t, and issues with early ELD-M’s were not a thing.

Do Hornady know this, and are doing a Leupold?

 

[Chris in TN]

Maybe. But more that the design of ELD-M’s and somewhat X’s give less margin for error in all aspects. I.E.- super aggressive designs with very long slender noses, Heatshield tip, no gap around the tip, and potentially thicker around the nose to help with bullets coming apart in flight.

I've been guilty myself of being part of that and making purchase decisions based on BC above all else, and I'm learning that going out to the ragged edge of design in order to maximize that last few points of BC, isn't worth it.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do Hornady know this, and are doing a Leupold?

Sort of. Their answer is the ELD-M isn’t a “hunting” bullet- so it doesn’t matter. However, what it really is, is that people are buying bullets due to the BC written on them- not their actual performance in totality. That BC number sells a lot of bullets that a more terminally consistent, but lower BC bullet would not. Combine that with the low observable numbers of issues, and it’s just not a thing to them.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've been guilty myself of being part of that and making purchase decisions based on BC above all else, and I'm learning that going out to the ragged edge of design in order to maximize that last few points of BC, isn't worth it.

100%. I was the champion of BC 20 years ago, and I’ll still take what I can get- but all that matters is a good BC, solid consistent performance terminally, and predictable behavior in flight.

 

[J.B.]

I take about zero credence to what hunters/shooters say. The reason being that the moment you start asking technical questions abut terminal ballistics or for details of bullets “failing” it becomes abundantly clear that they don’t understand the first thing about what bullets do in tissue.

To educate myself, what sort of questions are you asking?

 

[Castle Rock]

Do Hornady know this, and are doing a Leupold?

Yes they do, hence the podcasts about your groups are too small and seating depth doesn’t matter.
A maxs and early ELDMs were great, but shit is just flying out the door these days

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes they do, hence the podcasts about your groups are too small and seating depth doesn’t matter.

What does that have to do with it?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Yes they do, hence the podcasts about your groups are too small and seating depth doesn’t matter.
A maxs and early ELDMs were great, but shit is just flying out the door these days

I don’t follow the logic? Are they trying to tell us to shoot more of their bullets by using statistically significant sample sizes? Or to shoot fewer of their bullets by not chasing insignificant differences?