Anyone using Hornady ELD Match for LR hunting?

[Ryan Avery]

IMO when one makes an argument for a "non hunting" bullet (as advertised) to be as good a game killer as a "game" bullet, given the time, trouble and testing put into them by the manufacturer they are dancing with the devil, so to speak

Pretty obvious you have never used these bullets on game? They are “deadly”

 

[Formidilosus]

IMO when one makes an argument for a "non hunting" bullet (as advertised) to be as good a game killer as a "game" bullet, given the time, trouble and testing put into them by the manufacturer they are dancing with the devil, so to speak

How many animals have you killed with these devil bullets?

 

[ckleeves]

IMO when one makes an argument for a "non hunting" bullet (as advertised) to be as good a game killer as a "game" bullet, given the time, trouble and testing put into them by the manufacturer they are dancing with the devil, so to speak

The problem is the manufactures in their “testing” have no idea how the bullet is being used. A perfect example is the triple shock. It’s a well known “hunting bullet” but when it comes down to a lower velocity impact I’m putting my money on “non hunting bullet” to be a MUCH better game killer.

The Accubond Long range is advertised as a hunting bullet but after shooting a few elk with them a few years ago I’ll gladly take a “non hunting bullet” over them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deerkiller]

How many animals have you killed with these devil bullets?

NONE - My point is not to condemn them but to clarify for myself and others what exactly they do ? I've killed many elk in my time, since 2012 I've averaged 4+ per year, always hunt with others with similar success rates so seen many kills, I've also used a lot of different bullets, often just for that reason - I've had a Berger VLD 7mm 140 class from a 7mm RM shoot through an average size black bear, lungs at 200 yards leave a nickel size pass through holes, which according to here ain't supposed to happen - WE used Bergers for 2 seasons of single tag cow hunts and stopped using them due to what we saw as terminal performance - 500 yards is "long range" for us (personal choice) with the occasional "a bit farther" shot when conditions are optimal - TTSX, Accubond, Federal Premium, Etips are what we have used since the VLD distasteful performance days, all of these bullets say on the box "BIG GAME BULLETS", have not seen this on "M" bullet boxes, and so you ridicule ME on my question ? EXTREMELY INTERESTING …. I understand you test and see results at a "shooting center", MAYBE you get the opportunity to participate in culling hunts or such, have no idea - A bad shot is just that, a BAD SHOT but when I read all this long range "speak" about how "match bullets are the killingest bullets out there" yada yada yada I can't help but have some bells go off - There are lots of hunters and shooters who see way more kills than I do and many more who kill more game than I do but I'm somewhere north of above average and take exception to the challenge you are laying out
Although "dancing with the devil" may not have been THE cliche' to use your response seems sort of "outa of line" to me

 

[deerkiller]

The problem is the manufactures in their “testing” have no idea how the bullet is being used. A perfect example is the triple shock. It’s a well known “hunting bullet” but when it comes down to a lower velocity impact I’m putting my money on “non hunting bullet” to be a MUCH better game killer.

The Accubond Long range is advertised as a hunting bullet but after shooting a few elk with them a few years ago I’ll gladly take a “non hunting bullet” over them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the only bullet company I have ANY knowledge about in that realm is Nosler, they seem to go to great lengths to get as many reliable folks hunting as they are able - I understand the bullet development stages are much like any other product R&D, Accubond LR bullets are no different - One thing Nosler (in particular" has tried to do is clarify what a bullet is designed to do upon impact - We all know how that can go in today's world of instant information, often taken out of context and more often I suspect not read at all just hearsay passed on and on ...
In most of today's hunting it's sort of difficult to begin saying "ok, I'll not shoot over 300 yards today" or even better "OK, I'm not gonna shoot anything closer than 700 yards today" but as silly as this sounds that seems to be what we are doing with our bullet choices

 

[Formidilosus]

I've had a Berger VLD 7mm 140 class from a 7mm RM shoot through an average size black bear, lungs at 200 yards leave a nickel size pass through holes, which according to here ain't supposed to happen - WE used Bergers for 2 seasons of single tag cow hunts and stopped using them due to what we saw as terminal performance

While all bullets will display weird behavior at some point, if you are saying a Berger VLD only made a nickel sized wound through lungs at 200 yards.... well you either got the one in a million, or


What performance on elk did you see? What bullets specifically, what were the wound sizes and locations, penetration, etc.

I ask, because I can walk out right now and put a Berger VLD into an animal and it will create massive tissue damage. I know exactly what will happen. It’s not even a question.

and so you ridicule ME on my question ? EXTREMELY INTERESTING …. I understand you test and see results at a "shooting center", MAYBE you get the opportunity to participate in culling hunts or such, have no idea -

Asking whether you have any experience in what you are pontificating is not ridicule- it’s a question. And generally when someone gets irate at that question, it’s already answered. When someone says “but it’s not a hunting bullet”, they might as well have said “I have no experience in this matter”.

No, I do not work at a “shooting center”, though we shoot a lot. And yes, I have killed animals. Somewhere between “a lot” and “more than smallpox”. Between depredation, culling, and hunting I am way into three digits on game animals with Berger’s. Same with ELD-M’s. And SMK’s. And TSX’s.


There is no magic with any of them, they all exhibit certain behavior in tissue and save for the SMK, it’s generally very consistent. What an ELD-M does terminally is well known, and was before most people even knew the bullets existed. They may not be marketed for hunting animals, but they work very well in tissue.

Although "dancing with the devil" may not have been THE cliche' to use your response seems sort of "outa of line" to me

Asking whether you’ve used match bullets on animals is out of line?


I do not talk about things I do not have a lot of experience with, and therefore would expect that if I derided something that someone would ask if I had actually used it. They should also ask how much, and what kind of use.

 

[deerkiller]

While all bullets will display weird behavior at some point, if you are saying a Berger VLD only made a nickel sized wound through lungs at 200 yards.... well you either got the one in a million, or


What performance on elk did you see? What bullets specifically, what were the wound sizes and locations, penetration, etc.

I ask, because I can walk out right now and put a Berger VLD into an animal and it will create massive tissue damage. I know exactly what will happen. It’s not even a question.




Asking whether you have any experience in what you are pontificating is not ridicule- it’s a question. And generally when someone gets irate at that question, it’s already answered. When someone says “but it’s not a hunting bullet”, they might as well have said “I have no experience in this matter”.

No, I do not work at a “shooting center”, though we shoot a lot. And yes, I have killed animals. Somewhere between “a lot” and “more than smallpox”. Between depredation, culling, and hunting I am way into three digits on game animals with Berger’s. Same with ELD-M’s. And SMK’s. And TSX’s.


There is no magic with any of them, they all exhibit certain behavior in tissue and save for the SMK, it’s generally very consistent. What an ELD-M does terminally is well known, and was before most people even knew the bullets existed. They may not be marketed for hunting animals, but they work very well in tissue.




Asking whether you’ve used match bullets on animals is out of line?


I do not talk about things I do not have a lot of experience with, and therefore would expect that if I derided something that someone would ask if I had actually used it. They should also ask how much, and what kind of use.

Well first, "massive tissue damage" says little to me, a grenade causes "massive tissue damage", multiple hits from a full auto weapon causes the same and so does the front end of a 3/4 T truck at 50 mph -

Then there's the "devil bullet" comment, not needed and not commensurate with what I asked - it seemed condescending to me but then what do I know …..

I understand that you feel that you have much more experience killing stuff than the rest of us or me, maybe you do, that's not really the point I was trying to get an answer to here which you seem to have missed - killing stuff and killing something you are going to eat can be and often are subjective topics and since you didn't address my comments re: long or "longer" range and what bullet does what & how it does it, my question seems unanswered - although life and wild animals are unpredictable I prefer killing an animal I plan to eat, often times quite a distance from roads and vehicles, using a bullet that is ….. "predictable" and maybe I'm naïve but shooting a thin jacketed frangible, albeit it very accurate, bullet because it causes subjectively more tissue damage than a more specifically engineered projectile makes less sense than calling a projectile a "devil bullet" (your term, not mine)
I don't assert irrefutable knowledge about things I don't have a lot of experience with but I will ask questions and sometimes challenge a statement as fact that doesn't appear necessarily true
While on the "accurate" note I'll say that somewhere back I recall reading your comments on "accuracy" and 3 shot, 5 shot & 10 shot groups and calling one's rifle or shooting "accurate", and my point ? Most modern hunting rifles with modern HUNTING bullets can attain your proclaimed 10 shot accuracy with practice so why use a "target" bullet for hunting ? Just to prove a point ? Big game animals deserve more IMO...….
I've also read, to the point of shear exhaustion, about Accubonds and Partitions "blowing up" on impact, haven't seen many such comments re: hunting with target bullets
READ CAREFULLY ALL: I AM NOT CONDEMNING LONG RANGE KILLS ON BIG GAME so please don't ridicule or attack me …...save that for another time when my foot is stuck in my mouth

 

[Ryan Avery]

Well first, "massive tissue damage" says little to me, a grenade causes "massive tissue damage", multiple hits from a full auto weapon causes the same and so does the front end of a 3/4 T truck at 50 mph -

Then there's the "devil bullet" comment, not needed and not commensurate with what I asked - it seemed condescending to me but then what do I know …..

I understand that you feel that you have much more experience killing stuff than the rest of us or me, maybe you do, that's not really the point I was trying to get an answer to here which you seem to have missed - killing stuff and killing something you are going to eat can be and often are subjective topics and since you didn't address my comments re: long or "longer" range and what bullet does what & how it does it, my question seems unanswered - although life and wild animals are unpredictable I prefer killing an animal I plan to eat, often times quite a distance from roads and vehicles, using a bullet that is ….. "predictable" and maybe I'm naïve but shooting a thin jacketed frangible, albeit it very accurate, bullet because it causes subjectively more tissue damage than a more specifically engineered projectile makes less sense than calling a projectile a "devil bullet" (your term, not mine)
I don't assert irrefutable knowledge about things I don't have a lot of experience with but I will ask questions and sometimes challenge a statement as fact that doesn't appear necessarily true
While on the "accurate" note I'll say that somewhere back I recall reading your comments on "accuracy" and 3 shot, 5 shot & 10 shot groups and calling one's rifle or shooting "accurate", and my point ? Most modern hunting rifles with modern HUNTING bullets can attain your proclaimed 10 shot accuracy with practice so why use a "target" bullet for hunting ? Just to prove a point ? Big game animals deserve more IMO...….
I've also read, to the point of shear exhaustion, about Accubonds and Partitions "blowing up" on impact, haven't seen many such comments re: hunting with target bullets
READ CAREFULLY ALL: I AM NOT CONDEMNING LONG RANGE KILLS ON BIG GAME so please don't ridicule or attack me …...save that for another time when my foot is stuck in my mouth

The question still remains.... How many animals have you shot with a target bullet? You don't want to listen.

Those of us that have shot lots of animals with both, especially elk, see a clear advantage with target bullets on animals near and far.

 

[deerkiller]

The question still remains.... How many animals have you shot with a target bullet? You don't want to listen.

Those of us that have shot lots of animals with both, especially elk, see a clear advantage with target bullets on animals near and far.

Ryan, I succinctly answered that question early on, the response was "NONE" but that still isn't the point
Can you say that I have condemned that use ? I'm questioning it not condemning it, actually not even questioning it at this point as I think there are and will continue to be divided schools on the subject, that's all good - Here's a question …. go on a DIY moose hunt in AK, shoot a legal bull moose with a stated "target bullet" that "ruins" some of the meat - AK game wardens are notorious for citing hunters for wasting meat on kills (even ribcage), how would one argue that ? I'm not condemning, I'm suggesting a case scenario,
call it "a devil's advocate questioning the devil bullet" if you want, I may be argumentative but I'm not criticizing or condemning, that's not my intent - I never liked to be the parent that told my kids "because I said so" I suppose …..

 

[wind gypsy]

Ryan, I succinctly answered that question early on, the response was "NONE" but that still isn't the point
Can you say that I have condemned that use ? I'm questioning it not condemning it, actually not even questioning it at this point as I think there are and will continue to be divided schools on the subject, that's all good

People are questioning you because you indicated a number of people who kill lots of stuff are "dancing with the devil" for having differing opinion/experience than manufacturer marketing.

IMO when one makes an argument for a "non hunting" bullet (as advertised) to be as good a game killer as a "game" bullet, given the time, trouble and testing put into them by the manufacturer they are dancing with the devil, so to speak

 

[ckleeves]

To be honest I think there is probably less meat loss with some of the “target bullets” then with deeper penetrating bullets. Normally you see a small entrance, then massive trauma inside the cavity past the rib meat and not as much damage to the offside as a harder bonded bullet (in some cases).

The moose we shot in AK there was no meat loss whatsoever from the target bullets (215 hybrids) we were using.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Broz]

The FACT is , at least from the 100's of big game animals I have been involved with killing. A bullet labeled "Target Bullet" of fragmenting design, all things considered, kills faster than the bullets labeled "Premium Hunting" bullets. That's why I call them the bullets I use "Premium killing bullets" Many "Target" or "Match" bullets do a better job at all distances than the solider less expanding bullets. By that what I mean is, the fragmenting bullet kills well up close and at slowed velocities of longer shots. The fact is if a bullet slows to the point where it won't expand, or does not expand enough, this where the big wrecks happen. The ones where you will spend the rest of your hunt sick to your stomach looking for the animal that ran off to die with a small hole through both lungs. I choose a bullet based on what I know will work best under the worst conditions. That is usually a long shot where my percentage is higher to be off the perfect mark, or velocity has slowed for impact, yet the bullet still has a lot of expansion or fragments. But these bullets still kill like lightning up close. If you are off the mark, a fragmenting bullet will cover your butt. A non or less expanding bullet will not help you here.

As for meat loss. Well that is entirely on the shooter. Meat loss is 100% about impact velocity and shot placement. If you shoot square into the front shoulder up close, and don't expect meat loss, well .... OK lol. Shoot behind the shoulder into vitals and meat loss will be minimal with any bullet. And I promise, much less than the animal you find two days later with that small hole through both lungs from the bullet that did not expand. I know, I use to shoot those bullets and I lived it. But not once since I switched to "Premium Killing Bullets"

The bottom line is, destroyed vitals kill, and kill quickly. A fragmenting bullet with whatever name you want to hang on it does this best at a much wider node of impact velocities.

Jeff

 

[deerkiller]

People are questioning you because you indicated a number of people who kill lots of stuff are "dancing with the devil" for having differing opinion/experience than manufacturer marketing.

I've already conceded that was a poor choice of words and to be fair that's not exactly what I said

 

[deerkiller]

To be honest I think there is probably less meat loss with some of the “target bullets” then with deeper penetrating bullets. Normally you see a small entrance, then massive trauma inside the cavity past the rib meat and not as much damage to the offside as a harder bonded bullet (in some cases).

The moose we shot in AK there was no meat loss whatsoever from the target bullets (215 hybrids) we were using.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/QUOTE
OK, THAT is good intel IMO

 

[deerkiller]

The FACT is , at least from the 100's of big game animals I have been involved with killing. A bullet labeled "Target Bullet" of fragmenting design, all things considered, kills faster than the bullets labeled "Premium Hunting" bullets. That's why I call them the bullets I use "Premium killing bullets" Many "Target" or "Match" bullets do a better job at all distances than the solider less expanding bullets. By that what I mean is, the fragmenting bullet kills well up close and at slowed velocities of longer shots. The fact is if a bullet slows to the point where it won't expand, or does not expand enough, this where the big wrecks happen. The ones where you will spend the rest of your hunt sick to your stomach looking for the animal that ran off to die with a small hole through both lungs. I choose a bullet based on what I know will work best under the worst conditions. That is usually a long shot where my percentage is higher to be off the perfect mark, or velocity has slowed for impact, yet the bullet still has a lot of expansion or fragments. But these bullets still kill like lightning up close. If you are off the mark, a fragmenting bullet will cover your butt. A non or less expanding bullet will not help you here.

As for meat loss. Well that is entirely on the shooter. Meat loss is 100% about impact velocity and shot placement. If you shoot square into the front shoulder up close, and don't expect meat loss, well .... OK lol. Shoot behind the shoulder into vitals and meat loss will be minimal with any bullet. And I promise, much less than the animal you find two days later with that small hole through both lungs from the bullet that did not expand. I know, I use to shoot those bullets and I lived it. But not once since I switched to "Premium Killing Bullets"

The bottom line is, destroyed vitals kill, and kill quickly. A fragmenting bullet with whatever name you want to hang on it does this best at a much wider node of impact velocities.

Jeff

Thank you Jeff, that is about as succinctly put as I could ask for - Which is your preferred bullet, Bergers ?

 

[deerkiller]

so, I ordered some Hammer Hunter bullets, kinda spendy but seem to be some kind of "compromise" for this discussion IF they actually do what they are advertised to do - I'm sort of in a no man's land with Bergers for my 338/06AI as I see it and besides I don't like the taste of lead any more, makes my mouth dry …..

 

[Formidilosus]

Well first, "massive tissue damage" says little to me, a grenade causes "massive tissue damage", multiple hits from a full auto weapon causes the same and so does the front end of a 3/4 T truck at 50 mph -

Destroyed vitals are what kills. The more tissue destroyed, the faster death happens.

I’m not sure what your point is here? Is it that “match” bullets such as ELD-M’s and Berger VLD’s don’t kill well? Or that they cause too much damage?

I understand that you feel that you have much more experience killing stuff than the rest of us or me

No. And this is a weak argument. I work on facts and reality- I do not bring feelings to any of this.

killing stuff and killing something you are going to eat can be and often are subjective topics and since you didn't address my comments re: long or "longer" range and what bullet does what & how it does it, my question seems unanswered - although life and wild animals are unpredictable I prefer killing an animal I plan to eat, often times quite a distance from roads and vehicles, using a bullet that is ….. "predictable" and maybe I'm naïve but shooting a thin jacketed frangible, albeit it very accurate, bullet because it causes subjectively more tissue damage than a more specifically engineered projectile makes less sense than calling a projectile a "devil bullet"

Again- what are you asking? Not being rude, but your sentences run into one another, and it is difficult to tease out what is a question, and what is a statement.


Trying here. Yes, there can be differences between purely the best killing bullets and preferences in meat saving.


What comment (question?) about “long or "longer" range and what bullet does what & how it does it” did you ask?


Those thin jacketed, frangible, accurate bullets you are railing against are the MOST predictable bullets made. They only “hunting” bullet that is as predicable across a range of velocities is a probably a Partition. The “hunting” bullets with the most failures in testing and use are monolithics like TSX’s, E Tips, GMX’s, etc. To the tune of failure to expand adequately (greater then caliber size) around 20-30% of the time when impact velocity is below 2300’ish FPS. A person may not like how ELD-M’s work in tissue, but they are very predictable.



At long range tissue damage is what you are looking for. A heavy for caliber Berger VLD will penetrate through an elks humerus at 50 yards before fragmenting and causing massive damage to the vitals, and it will do the same at 500. And the same at 700. And all the way down to between 1,900-1,800fps impact velocity. No “hunting” bullet will do that. Partitions and Accubonds are generally fine bullets on game, but wound channels, and consequently “killing” ability suffer at long ranges. Not to mention their relatively poor BC makes hitting less likely, and drops velocity retention goes down even farther. 0-500 yards- sure. Maybe farther depending on speed and which bullet.

Monolithics? Nah. Most people would not like how little they expand below 2,400fps impacts. If they saw how small the wound channel actually is, even fewer would like them. Yes they kill, and yes there may be a an exit wound bigger than bullet size (which is to be expected even if no expansion occurs if one understands how bullets behave in tissue), but broadheads kill too.

I don't assert irrefutable knowledge about things I don't have a lot of experience with but I will ask questions and sometimes challenge a statement as fact that doesn't appear necessarily true

What doesn’t appear true to you?

While on the "accurate" note I'll say that somewhere back I recall reading your comments on "accuracy" and 3 shot, 5 shot & 10 shot groups and calling one's rifle or shooting "accurate", and my point ? Most modern hunting rifles with modern HUNTING bullets can attain your proclaimed 10 shot accuracy with practice so why use a "target" bullet for hunting ?
Just to prove a point ? Big game animals deserve more IMO...….

Again, you’re not making sense here. Or at least I’m not u deratanding what you are getting at. That hunting bullets can be precise? Of course. Who said otherwise?

The reason for using bullets like ELD-M’s and Berger is because they KILL BETTER. They have higher hit rates at distance, they damage more tissue at low velocities, and they are more predictable at most velocities.




It seems your premise is that “hunting” bullets kill better. If so- no, they do not. When large numbers of animals are killed with both conventional bullets and some match bullets- there is a clear difference in time to incapacitation, distance traveled after the hit, and the animals reaction.

 

[Broz]

Thank you Jeff, that is about as succinctly put as I could ask for - Which is your preferred bullet, Bergers ?

Mostly I have hunted with Bergers, I have used them since my wrecks with Barnes. But last years I took 4 animals with Hornady ELD's and I have been testing Cutting Edge Bullets and will be logging some terminal data with them this year as well. I truly believe Cutting Edge Bullets are simply the best lathe turned bullets out there. Bar none.

 

[deerkiller]

Mostly I have hunted with Bergers, I have used them since my wrecks with Barnes. But last years I took 4 animals wit Hornady ELD's and I have been testing Cutting Edge bullets and will be logging some terminal data with them this year as well. I truly believe Cutting Edge Bullets are simply the best lathe turned bullets out there. Bar none.

I will check them out too - thank you

 

[Broz]

so, I ordered some Hammer Hunter bullets, kinda spendy but seem to be some kind of "compromise" for this discussion IF they actually do what they are advertised to do - I'm sort of in a no man's land with Bergers for my 338/06AI as I see it and besides I don't like the taste of lead any more, makes my mouth dry …..

I have yet to ever , not even once, get one fragment to my table with Bergers or any fragmenting bullet. Even when the shot was off the mark and hit shoulder meat. I believe that is mostly myth with some piss poor meat processing added in. I can not even begin to tell you how many big game animals we (my wife and family and friends) have eaten and never one fragment ever.