Bullet choice for cow elk

[Formidilosus]

Mind explaining the difference in wound patterns?

There are exceptions however in general the ELD-M’s create a round basketball shape wound, whereas the TMK is football shape with a tail. ELD-M’s will make a slightly wider, yet shallower wound. The TMK will create a slightly (barely) narrower wound with the bullet base penetrating a couple inches farther.

 

[TxxAgg]

Tagged

 

[woods89]

This comes up so often, and always goes in the same direction, it seems. We really need a thread on soft bullets and 6.5 Creedmoors. I've got some pics, and some of you others have a lot more. It'd be a great reference and companion for the 223 thread.

 

[Brooks]

After guiding elk hunters in New Mexico for some time and have seen many elk go down, from what I’ve seen it’s hard to beat a Barnes TSX or Nosler partition or accubond !

 

[35WhelenAI]

After guiding elk hunters in New Mexico for some time and have seen many elk go down, from what I’ve seen it’s hard to beat a Barnes TSX or Nosler partition or accubond !

Sums it up well. It matches my experience in the field seeing at least one elk a year for the past quarter century whether my own elk or someone in the hunting party. Partitions, Core-Lokts, Power Points, Barnes X, TTSX.

Looking for a "long range" projectile seems to bring it right back around to a different type of construction with respect to bullets that have a super high BC when all is said and done.

You guys that have had the success with the ELD type bullets, is it primarily in a situation where you aren't out hiking around and face the potential of a shot at short range when you least expect it?

Meaning most of the shots are from being posted up and watching an area where the animals are relatively undisturbed, expected to be at longer range and the likely hood of a short range encounter is low.

The pictures show great results. I don't have the opportunity where I hunt to go much past 400 yards. The BC and velocity with the Barnes bullets I pretty much exclusively use get the job done. Seems like that's what we're after, whether it goes a distance measured in small numbers and drops or falls on the spot I've seen them both with the X.

I absolutely see the benefits of a heavy for caliber projectile, typically velocity isn't that high to begin with and the bullet isn't overstressed upon impact. That's where the element of sectional density still means a lot, especially when talking about bullets of more or less conventional construction. Sectional density was the measuring stick for a long time and still can be. With monos sectional density does play by different rules.

 

[SEPTEMBERCALLS]

Hey guys, New to posting on this forum but, have been rifle/archery hunting for the last 25 plus years. My father in-law shoots a 6.5 Swede with similar ballistics to the Creedmoor and I've never seen an elk or deer that he's shot with the 140 gr. Accubonds go more than 200 yds.... He kills deer every year and a cow or a bull most every year and is yet to wound one and i can't remember an elk that's made it over 150-200 yds. He only shoot to 400 yds. max and most are in the 200 or less yd. range. Devastating round in the right hands... Just my 2 cents

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

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.

Just out of curiosity what bullet would be optimal for killing with a 300WM in your view woth the same principles applied to the 6.5cm/eldx combo?

 

[Formidilosus]

Just out of curiosity what bullet would be optimal for killing with a 300WM in your view woth the same principles applied to the 6.5cm/eldx combo?

You mean maximized wounds? If so, 178gr and 195gr ELD-M’s, and 195gr TMK. These all produce extremely large wounds, but at impact speeds above 2,600fps or so, the 178gr ELD-M can be horrific. On pure broadside rib shots with deer it’s not terrible- 4-5” exits, chest cavity completely pulped, usually a popped diaphragm. But if it so much as touches bone…. stick a basketball in the hole and/or lose that entire half of the animal.

I’ve killed more animals with 300WM’s than any other, and with most bullets on the market. The 300mag, 178gr AMAX/ELD-M combo is the only combination I’ve seen that if the bullet is placed somewhere in the body cavity- anywhere in the cavity, it’s almost a certain drop on 200+ pound mammals.

 

[woods89]

This comes up so often, and always goes in the same direction, it seems. We really need a thread on soft bullets and 6.5 Creedmoors. I've got some pics, and some of you others have a lot more. It'd be a great reference and companion for the 223 thread.

Thread started in the firearms section. If anyone want to post their experiences it would be great.

 

[TNKnoxville]

Last year I used a 220 grain ELDX at 2795 fps from my 300 Win mag. good results on a bull elk at 505 yards (pass thru) and a mule deer at 100 yards, no pass thru dropped in its tracks.

Formidilosus does the heavier 220 ELDX help with the explosiveness of this bullet type at shorter ranges??? I don't typically shoot over 500 yards and was considering changing bullets to something better suited to shots less than 400 yards.

I'm shooting a Browning XBolt Max Long Range, heavy barrel, 1/8 twist. It seems to like most bulltes at least at 100 yards. Was thinking of going to a TTSX. Your thoughts????

 

[35WhelenAI]

Last year I used a 220 grain ELDX at 2795 fps from my 300 Win mag. good results on a bull elk at 505 yards (pass thru) and a mule deer at 100 yards, no pass thru dropped in its tracks.

Formidilosus does the heavier 220 ELDX help with the explosiveness of this bullet type at shorter ranges??? I don't typically shoot over 500 yards and was considering changing bullets to something better suited to shots less than 400 yards.

I'm shooting a Browning XBolt Max Long Range, heavy barrel, 1/8 twist. It seems to like most bulltes at least at 100 yards. Was thinking of going to a TTSX. Your thoughts????

I would definitely want to look at the Barnes TTSX. You can use a lighter bullet, gain some velocity which Barnes bullets thrive on as opposed to the long range bullets that come apart. I'm beginning to see the usefulness thru these discussions of the long range bullets at long range. With that said, 400 yards is almost a quarter-mile and TTSX or LRX would be super.

The TTSX with the polycarbonate tip has a very large opening compared to the TSX or original X. It expands right now without destroying on side tissue excessively and creates a path of lung chunks and heart chunks before it goes out the other side on broadside shots. Where I do believe the Barnes has an advantage is if it's a quartering shot especially at closer range and the bullet has to travel other than broadside through the animal.

In my experience, a key function of the Barnes bullet that I've seen is it cuts the tissue as it makes it into nice large chunks rather than bludgeoning it with a round mushroom. Internal velocity of the Barnes bullet is higher through the animal which leads to long consistent incapacitating wound channel versus the basketball or volleyball size initial damage with more frangible bullets. Again, they all work when it's a nice broadside presentation, whether on side meat damage is important or not that's left up to each individual. However the Barnes makes a great choice when it's not the perfect presentation.

 

[TNKnoxville]

Thanks. So far shots have been broadside, double lung, ribs. Not sure how the 220 grain ELDX will hold up on a shoulder!!!!!

 

[3325]

I have no experience with the 6.5 but I do have experience with the Nosler Partition.

The Nosler Partition has never been a bad choice for me.

A brief internet search shows that Nosler has a Partition in 6.5 at 140 grains.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Thanks. So far shots have been broadside, double lung, ribs. Not sure how the 220 grain ELDX will hold up on a shoulder!!!!!

Definitely there have been differening thoughts on that in this thread and in about every thread in the history of bullet discussion. Whether vitals are turned to mush or chunked into multiple pieces, they no longer function as of that instant. Its academic as the brain loses oxygen at the same point, because the lungs cease to work at the same point in time. Losing shoulder meat and a lot of the rib sheath meat to immerse hands in slime made of vital tissues versus picking out chunks of lungs and keeping most of the shoulders is up to each individual. Reality is I do go for broadside shots behind shoulder, I also know sometimes I may get a shoulder if the animal moves slightly or if it is not fully stationary.

 

[gholson1]

Interested as well

Sent from my SM-S767VL using Tapatalk

 

[35WhelenAI]

I have no experience with the 6.5 but I do have experience with the Nosler Partition.

The Nosler Partition has never been a bad choice for me.

A brief internet search shows that Nosler has a Partition in 6.5 at 140 grains.

The Partition is a fine bullet. It's designed to shed the front core. In that respect it's frangible as it enters the animal. What the partition gives is a bullet diameter hole going out the other side that can help with a trail. But they will do better on angling shots vs a traditional bullet that has to go through something besides the vitals first as the rear core stays intact.

In my experience, on side tissue damage with respect to meat is no different than a typical cup and core bullet, which is to say there is a decent amount.

Great bullet, seen a number of deer and elk in the field that succumbed to them. On side lung damage is in the realm of liquefication, off side lung damage not nearly as dramatic but equally put out of commission at the same time the first one was liquefied.

 

[Wolf_trapper]

I've never shot the 130 TMK but I might give them a try after reading this.

 

[Formidilosus]

Formidilosus does the heavier 220 ELDX help with the explosiveness of this bullet type at shorter ranges??? I don't typically shoot over 500 yards and was considering changing bullets to something better suited to shots less than 400 yards.

Yes. Lower impact velocity reduces upset with all bullets. The ELD-X already is slightly reduced in tissue damage compared to like contradicted ELD-M’s due to the ELD-X not shedding as much weight. There’s nothing wrong with an ELD-X under 400- there is no range that I would prefer “tougher” bullet.

I'm shooting a Browning XBolt Max Long Range, heavy barrel, 1/8 twist. It seems to like most bulltes at least at 100 yards. Was thinking of going to a TTSX. Your thoughts????

I do not prefer monos in general. They produce narrow wounds for caliber. That is, a 180gr Barnes TTSX will produce a narrower wound than some .224 and 6mm bullets. So why would I out up with recoil, just to arbitrarily choke it down? The misconception here that smaller calibers give smaller wounds which is laughable when actual results are seen, or that the softer bullets don’t penetrate through bone and muscle, which is again laughable.

 

[Formidilosus]

Where I do believe the Barnes has an advantage is if it's a quartering shot especially at closer range and the bullet has to travel other than broadside through the animal.

This is a myth/misconception told and retold by manufacturers and writers. Heavy for caliber cup and cores do not have a problem through bone and muscle. Yes, small frontal diameter projectiles (monos) penetrate deeper than wide frontal diameter bullets (controlled expansion lead). The frontal diameter is primarily the driving factor here, and because they produce smaller frontal diameters they crush less tissue. High weight retention means less fragmentation, and fragments act as secondary wound channels- larger wounds.

In my experience, a key function of the Barnes bullet that I've seen is it cuts the tissue as it makes it into nice large chunks rather than bludgeoning it with a round mushroom. Internal velocity of the Barnes bullet is higher through the animal which leads to long consistent incapacitating wound channel versus the basketball or volleyball size initial damage with more frangible bullets.

How are you determining the bolder portion?

The other point that you are incorrect about, is a lot of the heavy for caliber frangible bullets act similarly to Partitions- the front fragments, the shank penetrates.

Again, they all work when it's a nice broadside presentation, whether on side meat damage is important or not that's left up to each individual. However the Barnes makes a great choice when it's not the perfect presentation.

None of the bullets I have mentioned here have any issues on quartering shots. None.

 

[woods89]

I've never shot the 130 TMK but I might give them a try after reading this.

I've only used them on 2 animals, but with the above pics I just might start using them exclusively. I thought maybe they were a little light for elk but that appears to not be the case. I have to lean on 156 Bergers a bit with RL 16 and, funny as it may sound, as mentioned above there is definitely reduced recoil dropping to 130s. I also have a lot of H4350 on the shelf, which would work great with those TMKs.