Bullet choice for cow elk

[35WhelenAI]

I may be wrong however what I'm seeing is the praises of the ELD on more or less broadside shots. Haven't heard of an angle presentation and running a
it diagonally through to get to the vitals whether from the front or rear. Those are legitimate shots. Any experience on quartering shots folks can share?

 

[Formidilosus]

Heading out to Chama, NM on Monday for late season cow hunt. Taking my Springfield Waypoint in 6.5 creedmoor (I shoot it better than my heavier caliber rifles). Rifle shoots both Hornady 143 gr ELD-X and Barnes LRX 127 gr very well. Any thoughts on which is a better choice? Leaning towards the ELD-X just because it's heavier...

Having seen the results of quite a few animals, as in dozens, between those two bullets- ELD-X and it’s not even close. That’s at all ranges. The ELD-X creates a much larger wound channels and has no problems getting through “shoulders”. The idea that a “shoulder” will stop that bullet is nonsense.

Actually had a hornady rep tell me that the ELD-X bullet is a great long range bullet, and if you have a perfect broadside shot into the heart area on elk sized game it performs amazing. But anything less than a a perfect broadside shot and it does not perform nearly as well. They had failures in testing with quartering shots and thick bone. I’ve gone to Barnes bullets myself the TTSX, I used to shoot Hornady rounds but had a lot of failures with them.

Stop listening to that rep then. Hornady do not have “failures” in testing going through bone with the 143gr ELD-X.

Please describe your failures with Hornady bullets.

The ELD-X will be fine as long as you're taking perfect broadside shots and doing the best you can to avoid heavy bones or muscles. The LRX will give you a little insurance on reaching the vitals if you screw up.

The ELD-X is fine on any shot that traverses the chest and it has no issue going through “heavy bone or muscles”. The LRX gives slightly more penetration at the cost of greatly reduced wound channels size.

Thanks for all these great case studies. I always find people’s field reports of bullet performance to be way more informative than any of the manufacturer’s stats, even though it’s just anecdotal evidence.

But they’re not case studies. What your reading is mostly regurgitated myth from hunting camp or listening to too many podcasts. Elk are not bulletproof and all the push for deep penetrating, narrow wounding bullets is what causes people to think elk are so tough and that magnums are needed.

I may be wrong however what I'm seeing is the praises of the ELD on more or less broadside shots. Haven't heard of an angle presentation and running a
it diagonally through to get to the vitals whether from the front or rear. Those are legitimate shots. Any experience on quartering shots folks can share?

No. I’ve seen 9 elk die in the last two seasons from 6.5’s and soft bullets- most were 143gr ELD-X. From less than 100 to 735 yards they work as they are supposed to and kill very well. To your front or rear shot statement- the last elk was a double lung full penetration, it turned and walked; the second shot was quartering through the thickest part of the left rear quarter and exited square through the right femur and out the other side. A couple elk before that had a rear end shot as well. Both elk dropped immediately as spine shot animals do.

 

[Formidilosus]

Of the people saying there is some issue with the 143gr ELD-X on elk- any elk, how many have you killed with that bullet and how many have you killed with a Barnes? What were the results?


I’m just trying to figure out this magical thing people say that elk have. I’ve killed a few, I have no issue killing them whether it’s with a 22cal, 6mm, 6.5, 7mm, 30cal, or 338. From close to way beyond what anyone has spoken of here. All the issues I’ve seen from elk have been because of people shooting them around the edges, not because of caliber or cartridge.

 

[theleo91386]

Having seen the results of quite a few animals, as in dozens, between those two bullets- ELD-X and it’s not even close. That’s at all ranges. The ELD-X creates a much larger wound channels and has no problems getting through “shoulders”. The idea that a “shoulder” will stop that bullet is nonsense.



Stop listening to that rep then. Hornady do not have “failures” in testing going through bone with the 143gr ELD-X.

Please describe your failures with Hornady bullets.





The ELD-X is fine on any shot that traverses the chest and it has no issue going through “heavy bone or muscles”. The LRX gives slightly more penetration at the cost of greatly reduced wound channels size.





But they’re not case studies. What your reading is mostly regurgitated myth from hunting camp or listening to too many podcasts. Elk are not bulletproof and all the push for deep penetrating, narrow wounding bullets is what causes people to think elk are so tough and that magnums are needed.





No. I’ve seen 9 elk die in the last two seasons from 6.5’s and soft bullets- most were 143gr ELD-X. From less than 100 to 735 yards they work as they are supposed to and kill very well. To your front or rear shot statement- the last elk was a double lung full penetration, it turned and walked; the second shot was quartering through the thickest part of the left rear quarter and exited square through the right femur and out the other side. A couple elk before that had a rear end shot as well. Both elk dropped immediately as spine shot animals do.

Sorry if we upset your fanboy sensibilities. "Failures" with the ELD-X are the same as with any Hornady bullet that uses their Interlock technology. When expansion reaches the ring the core and jacket separate. It happens with the original Interlock, the SST, and the ELD-X.

Advocating shooting elk with a 22 is the same as shooting them with a 338 casts doubts on your "elk hunter extrodinare" resume. Same as you trying to marginalize the on game performance of the two bullets being discussed. The amount of energy a bullet has is finite. You can't have a substantially larger wound cavity without substantially reduced capabilities in regards to penetration.

I fail to see why people think elk are so magical that they need to have an explosion go off in their chests to kill them. That's some complete rooky nonsense.

Sent from my H1A1000 using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Sorry if we upset your fanboy sensibilities.

There is no fanboy. Again, have you killed with both? If so how many with each? What were the results?

I’ve used and seen both used quite a bit. The difference between them with pure lung shots has been an average of 80+ yards of travel after the impact for the LRX (like nearly all monos) versus less than 30 yards for the ELD-X (like nearly all rapidly upsetting projectiles). Time from first impact in lungs to incapacitation- that is on the ground, no movement- is 20-30 seconds on average for the Barnes, about 10 for the ELD-X.

Unless the CNS is effected, monos are slow killers.

"Failures" with the ELD-X are the same as with any Hornady bullet that uses their Interlock technology. When expansion reaches the ring the core and jacket separate. It happens with the original Interlock, the SST, and the ELD-X.

That is not a failure unless you believe what a bullet looks like after it has killed, determines how well it killed. How well it killed is what determines how well it killed. How it looks afterwards and how much weight retention is marketing BS.

Advocating shooting elk with a 22 is the same as shooting them with a 338 casts doubts on your "elk hunter extrodinare" resume.

It’s almost like it would be good if there were a massive thread discussing killing large animals, repeatedly and consistently with 223’s…

Please point out where I stated anything about my elk hunting ability?

Same as you trying to marginalize the on game performance of the two bullets being discussed. The amount of energy a bullet has is finite. You can't have a substantially larger wound cavity without substantially reduced capabilities in regards to penetration.

That is incorrect, and “energy” isn’t what determines a bullets behavior nor the tissue damage that results. It is true that a mono such as the LRX will penetrate deeper than the ELD-X, but not nearly as most presume. It’s 5’ish inches on average. And the cost for that is substantially, and measurably less wound diameter that is seen in time to incapacitation when large sample sizes of animals are seen.

I fail to see why people think elk are so magical that they need to have an explosion go off in their chests to kill them. That's some complete rooky nonsense.

Im sure you’ve killed more no doubt, but bullets that destroy more tissue kill quicker. The 143gr ELD-X destroys significantly more tissue than the LRX, especially as impact velocity drops below 2200’ish FPS. The oft “well it gives a margin off error if your shot isn’t perfect” is also incorrect. I’ve seen and trailed hundreds of gut shot animals, and on average the ones that were shot with controlled expansion, deep penetrating bullets travel farther and react visably less than ones shot with rapidly expanding/fragmenting bullets.

The LRX is not a “bad” bullet, and I don’t even personally use the ELD-X in 6.5 generally. My response was because of a bunch of people stating things that were incorrect- ELD-X lack of penetration through bone/muscle, perfectly broadside shots, etc; and seems to be based on what the heard or read from others that have never done it- deep penetrating bullets needed or “better than rapidly expanding ones, etc.

 

[Holocene]

I just got back from a successful cow elk hunt in Nevada last week and faced a similar situation as the OP.

I wanted to shoot the 127-grain Barnes LRX, but either 1) couldn't find them or 2) didn't want to pay scalper prices on Gunbroker.

So, I ended up shooting the Hornady 143 grain ELD-X because they were accurate, available, and suitable for the mid to long distance I expected to shoot.

As a side note: I did explore using a bigger gun for elk, so borrowed a Fierce 300 WM and an original Christiansen Arms 300 WSM from my uncle and my groups with those rifles at 200 yards were twice as large as my groups at 400 yards with my Tikka T3x 6.5cm. Over and over. Even though the scopes on both his rifles (Swaro Z6i and an older Swaro 4-12 Habicht) were far better than my little Leupold VX II 3-9x33 Ultralight, I still shot the smaller gun much better so it got the nod for this hunt.

On day two of the hunt, I sent two 143 grain ELD-X bullets into a cow elk at about 200 yards. After the first shot, the elk stood there hunched and looking sick. I put another one into her ASAP and she stood there about 10 seconds and fell over dead. Both shots were broadside and high lung.

Both bullets stopped against the far hide. Weight retention was 103.8 gr (73%) and 102.0 gr (71%) and death was quickest I've seen on a big game animal shot in the lungs.

I would use this bullet again on cow elk as it performed exactly as designed.

 

[Formidilosus]

I would use this bullet again on cow elk as it performed exactly as designed.

That is consistently what is seen with that bullet. And, it’ll do the same on bulls.

 

[mmw194287]

I don’t even personally use the ELD-X in 6.5 generally

I'm sure you've mentioned it elsewhere, but is that because you prefer the 147 ELD-M in 6.5?

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm sure you've mentioned it elsewhere, but is that because you prefer the 147 ELD-M in 6.5?

My preference for killing is the 140gr ELD-M, 143gr ELD-X, and 147gr ELD-M. Roughly in that order which also is “softest” to “hardest”. However they’re are all so similar that I really don’t care which I use. Having said that, I am really liking what we’re seeing with the 130gr TMK now that we’ve started using it more- deer and a couple elk this year. If it continues, that will most likely be my preference for the 6.5. Wound channel size of the 130r TMK is quite large and the lower recoil from the 130gr is just enough to make spotting your own impacts more consistent.

If impact velocity can be maintained above 2,050fps or so, the Berger 130gr Hybrid AR OTM is fantastic. Unfortunately we shoot quite a few animals at ranges below that speed and insufficient upset occurs.

 

[bluetick78]

I've seen 8 elk killed in the last 2 seasons ('20 and '21) with Eld-x bullets. 5 with 30 calibers launched from 30-06, 3 from 6.5's. All of them were good, ethical, clean lung shots; all of them died quickly and traveled 10 yds or less. I don't know what the hell more people are after. Instant lightning-like death with the animal cut, wrapped and flash frozen in a butcher box?? I ve killed elk with Sierra boat tails, hornady interlocks, Speer hot-cor's, Berger VLD's, ELD-x....etc, etc. They all kill elk very quickly if the shot placement is ethical and the shooter can do his job. Barnes, E-tips, and other mono's haven't offered the quick, ethical kills that a sportsman should thirst for so I stopped using them. Next up is the 147 eld-m out of a 6.5 PRC. I'm sure it'll do just fine.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Sorry if we upset your fanboy sensibilities. "Failures" with the ELD-X are the same as with any Hornady bullet that uses their Interlock technology. When expansion reaches the ring the core and jacket separate. It happens with the original Interlock, the SST, and the ELD-X.

Advocating shooting elk with a 22 is the same as shooting them with a 338 casts doubts on your "elk hunter extrodinare" resume. Same as you trying to marginalize the on game performance of the two bullets being discussed. The amount of energy a bullet has is finite. You can't have a substantially larger wound cavity without substantially reduced capabilities in regards to penetration.

I fail to see why people think elk are so magical that they need to have an explosion go off in their chests to kill them. That's some complete rooky nonsense.

Sent from my H1A1000 using Tapatalk

Yup. I have shot big game animals with Hornady Interlock's and Barnes X bullets, there's a difference. It's not sitting on my couch that I'm coming up with this. A long consistent wound channel stands a better chance of coinciding with the vitals if the shot isn't perfectly broadside. Not debatable in my opinion . Barnes is the better choice for more situations than a Hornady in my experience. So I use them. Others use Hornady's. No big deal, I just know what I feel most comfortable with for the largest variety of shot presentations where I hunt.

I've seen 8 elk killed in the last 2 seasons ('20 and '21) with Eld-x bullets. 5 with 30 calibers launched from 30-06, 3 from 6.5's. All of them were good, ethical, clean lung shots; all of them died quickly and traveled 10 yds or less. I don't know what the hell more people are after. Instant lightning-like death with the animal cut, wrapped and flash frozen in a butcher box?? I ve killed elk with Sierra boat tails, hornady interlocks, Speer hot-cor's, Berger VLD's, ELD-x....etc, etc. They all kill elk very quickly if the shot placement is ethical and the shooter can do his job. Barnes, E-tips, and other mono's haven't offered the quick, ethical kills that a sportsman should thirst for so I stopped using them. Next up is the 147 eld-m out of a 6.5 PRC. I'm sure it'll do just fine.

With respect, that is my point. A shoulder hit broadside through the animal or a clean shot through the rib cage in the Hornady is going to do great. Dead animal and "fast". Every animal I've pointed a Barnes bullet at has died too. Broadside shots and quartering shots that took 4 feet of animal to capture the fully expanded bullet with 100% weight retention and vital destruction. Anybody had an ELD that's going diagonally through an elk and stopped under the hide on the far side? I posted 2 X- Bullet pics earlier in this thread that have done that. Only two I've ever recovered and it took 4' of elk that were DOA.

The long range craze has brought out bullet designs that work well in my opinion for a long range. I guess I can't speak to super long range so maybe my thoughts are not applicable to this discussion.

However, bump the ELD into of the shoulder of an elk at 100 yards, probably a dead animal but something no one has talked about and that is the amount of meat that is rendered unusable with certain bullet construction characteristics. I found it desirable not to carve off half a shoulder of blood shot. I have seen Partitions and Core-Lokt's do that at 100-150 yds, folly to say an ELD won't also. Barnes bullets or better yet mono bullets in general don't have that unfortunate side effect. Sure there's some meat lost but the difference is hard to argue in favor of the mono. Half a shoulder is more meat flash frozen at the butcher.

I've harvested a 10 elk and a few muleys with the Barnes X of different varieties over 25 years. As well two elk with the 250 grain Hornady spire point from the 35 Whelen AI. Hornady's "liquefy" in the lungs where as the Barnes breaks them into big chunks. Fellas, there's no difference in that performance with respect to a dead animal. Neither type of destruction allows any further function of said lungs. I know the Barnes will perform with less advantageous shot presentation and ensure success versus a bullet that expands fast entry and tapers the wound channel after losing weight.

My first 4 elk were with the Original X before nostalgia set in and I went to the 250 Hornady, to hunt with a cup and core bullet in the weight that the Whelen is famous for. Went back to the Barnes and chose the TTSX for the last 6 elk. .358 200 TTSX @2925 fps is the holy grail of elk bullets for my needs in my experience using both.

But please, understand, I share what works for me, and respect anyone who has had success on their own terms with what they've chosen to use. But we all have opinions, or better yet, experience, and that's what facilitates discussion.

 

[woods89]

My preference for killing is the 140gr ELD-M, 143gr ELD-X, and 147gr ELD-M. Roughly in that order which also is “softest” to “hardest”. However they’re are all so similar that I really don’t care which I use. Having said that, I am really liking what we’re seeing with the 130gr TMK now that we’ve started using it more- deer and a couple elk this year. If it continues, that will most likely be my preference for the 6.5. Wound channel size of the 130r TMK is quite large and the lower recoil from the 130gr is just enough to make spotting your own impacts more consistent.

If impact velocity can be maintained above 2,050fps or so, the Berger 130gr Hybrid AR OTM is fantastic. Unfortunately we shoot quite a few animals at ranges below that speed and insufficient upset occurs.

If you're so inclined, I'd love to see the results you had with 130 Tmk in a little more detail, especially with elk.

 

[kboatman107]

I only have experience with the 143 eldx but watched my bro n law shoot a cow last year and it spun a 180 and fell over. So that’s what we’ll be using in the future.

 

[Formidilosus]

If you're so inclined, I'd love to see the results you had with 130 Tmk in a little more detail, especially with elk.

All have exited, looks like a larger version of the wound created by the 77gr TMK.

Entrance at 328 yards, slight quartering to, 2,405fps impact through the dreaded “shoulder”-


Exited through ribs, 18-20” penetration-



Approx a 6-7” crush cavity in chest.

Here’s a pic that shows that the TC effects before a bit of cleanup-




456 yards, 2,220fps impact, ribs-






This elk was shot after the first during a slight pause, it started moving after the shot again and was shot once more on the move, again 460’ish yards, through the thickest and densest muscle, and centered the thickest and densest bone in an elk- the femur

 

[Formidilosus]

Mule deer 373 yards (IIRC), 2,350fps impact, quartering away, entrance in back of ribs/behind diaphragm-




Exit-






What was left of the lungs-



The liver. You can see the permanent crush cavity, but also the tears from the temporary stretch as well-

 

[woods89]

All have exited, looks like a larger version of the wound created by the 77gr TMK.

Entrance at 328 yards, slight quartering to, 2,405fps impact through the dreaded “shoulder”-
View attachment 357259

Exited through ribs, 18-20” penetration-
View attachment 357260


Approx a 6-7” crush cavity in chest.

Here’s a pic that shows that the TC effects before a bit of cleanup-
View attachment 357261



456 yards, 2,220fps impact, ribs-
View attachment 357262

View attachment 357263



This elk was shot after the first during a slight pause, it started moving after the shot again and was shot once more on the move, again 460’ish yards, through the thickest and densest muscle, and centered the thickest and densest bone in an elk- the femur

View attachment 357268

Looks great, and very similar results that I saw on the 2 whitetails I killed with that bullet.

I used 156 Bergers this fall on a bull, and they worked great, but I could easily be convinced to use those TMK on everything.

 

[Formidilosus]

For the people who are going to say that these bullets destroy a lot of meat- yes. That’s the point. You can not have “quicker killing” and less tissue damage. Heavy for caliber, rapidly fragmenting projectiles have no problems penetrating through bone or muscle, and destroy a tremendous amount of tissue. That is why they kill so emphatically. With off places hits, they result in noticeably and measurably shorter recoveries.


The answer isn’t to say well “such and such bullet does too much damage, I’ll use a bullet that does less”. That’s like taking a V8 and ripping out spark plugs because it’s too fast. It makes no objective sense to neuter a cartridge. The answer is to maximize the wound channel of any given combo, and if the maximized wound is too much, drop down in cartridge/caliber until a maximized combo is acceptable and reap all the benefits that come with less recoil. It’s why the 223/77gr TMK is such a fantastic killer- extremely shootible, watch every impact through the scope, quick follow up shots, and wound channels are fantastic- they are still too much for most people.

 

[Formidilosus]

Looks great, and very similar results that I saw on the 2 whitetails I killed with that bullet.

I used 156 Bergers this fall on a bull, and they worked great, but I could easily be convinced to use those TMK on everything.

It’s is quickly becoming the one for me/us in 6.5’s for killing. ELD-M’s and TMK’s have similar wounding performance, though the shape of the wound and overall behavior differs slightly. I tend to prefer the TMK wounds to ELD-M’s. I had a bit of experience with the 130gr TMK before the last couple of seasons, but the lower BC kept me looking elsewhere. However the inability to get the 143gr ELD-X by a couple of friends, and seeing more testing of the TMK led us to doing more work with them. The BC is fine, they track very predictably in flight all the way to transonic, and seem to be solid through it, the lower recoil helps watch impacts, and terminally they are TMK’s.

 

[woods89]

It’s is quickly becoming the one for me/us in 6.5’s for killing. ELD-M’s and TMK’s have similar wounding performance, though the shape of the wound and overall behavior differs slightly. I tend to prefer the TMK wounds to ELD-M’s. I had a bit of experience with the 130gr TMK before the last couple of seasons, but the lower BC kept me looking elsewhere. However the inability to get the 143gr ELD-X by a couple of friends, and seeing more testing of the TMK led us to doing more work with them. The BC is fine, they track very predictably in flight all the way to transonic, and seem to be solid through it, the lower recoil helps watch impacts, and terminally they are TMK’s.

Sounds great. And I personally will deal with a bit of trimming to get those fast and decisive kills.

 

[carsonkeys]

ELD-M’s and TMK’s have similar wounding performance, though the shape of the wound and overall behavior differs slightly. I tend to prefer the TMK wounds to ELD-M’s.

Mind explaining the difference in wound patterns?