Bullet Performance; Low Velocity ELD-X, Terminal Ascent, or Accubonds?

[grappling_hook]

GI, I think you are overlooking something important with how these polymer-tipped lead core bullets create tissue damage. I'm guessing you are imagining the bullet expanding into a mushroom shape, with the wound channel created being the same diameter as the mushroomed bullet, and therefore the bullet with the widest mushroom being the one causing the most damage; it's not like that. The wound channel created by the bullet will not be the same diameter as the diameter of the bullet at its widest finished diameter, and with the three you are mentioning specifically, it's going to be quite a bit bigger. How much wider depends a lot more on the bullet construction than the bullet diameter after it's expanded and lost a lot of bits of lead and copper. Some of the soft fragmenting bullets create a fat football-shaped wound channel inside the animal that is multiple times wider than the bullet diameter. That's all to say, I'd try not to get caught up in small differences in expansion diameter.

 

[260madman]

Given the 6.5 is a .257" or "quarter bore", expansion in the context of 1.5x bullet diameter is .257 x 1.5 = .3855". These calculations are using the formula for area, and calling it diameter. A .257" bullet expanded to 1.5x does not leave a hole measured in hundredths of an inch.

6.5 = .264”. That .007 is HUGE! Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

OP needs to go with a TMK or ELDM.

 

[35WhelenAI]

6.5 = .264”. That .007 is HUGE! Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

OP needs to go with a TMK or ELDM.

Lol, absolutely my bad. The conversion from 6.5mm to inches is .256". The correct diameter for what we are talking about is .264". I am not worthy!

 

[4ester]

I’ve been thinking about trying a light for caliber Hammer Hunter bullet pushed pretty hard. Seems like they are performing well for others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eoperator]

I’ve been thinking about trying a light for caliber Hammer Hunter bullet pushed pretty hard. Seems like they are performing well for others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what I did with my 18" 308 & 124 hammers @3150fps, but I consider it to be a 300-400yrd max load. No on game performance yet.

Years ago I hunted with 308 125gr sierra with very good results.

 

[robtattoo]

I have a small sample size with the federal TA out of my Cross. I went to South Texas this year on a hunt and shot two Javelina one at 300 yds one at 250 yds. Both expanded well and dropped them where they stood. One whitetail at 150 yds dropped where he stood. All bullets expanded well and exited. Can't help you out on elk size game.

No offense intended, but you say that "All bullets expanded well & exited"

If they exited, how exactly can you know that they expanded well?

 

[Lawnboi]

I don’t subscribe to the distorted diameter of the bullet for the most part meaning squat. Bullets designed to expand efficiently for killing create wound channels much wider than 1.5x their diameter. Overall I think wider is automatically better it’s kind of bologna.

And regardless of the manufacturers literature, 2k fps at target Is what I shoot for. I’d run the numbers on all your bullets, see where they drop below 2k and go from there.

That’s not even bringing up the fact that your essentially lobbing sails out of that rifle, wind is going to make a huge difference, best practice calling it if a 4-500 yard shot is the task at hand.

 

[nobody]

There's a youtube channel called Ultimate Reloader that I like to watch. They did a series of videos where they test bullet performance in ballistics gel. In one of them, they test a 143 ELDX vs a 140 ELDM out of a creedmoor. Long story short, at muzzle velocity, there wasn't really much difference between the -X and -M as far as expansion, penetration, and weight retention. There were differences, no doubt, but not the types of differences marketing would lead you to believe.

Then they worked up some low velocity loads and tested them at 2200 and 1800 FPS. At 2200, they were basically identical. But at 1800 FPS the ELDX had what I would call a 100% failure to perform appropriately for a hunting bullet. Zero expansion whatsoever, the projectile could've almost been reloaded. But the ELDM opened up enough that I would consider it appropriate for something like a mule deer or coues at extended ranges. So, with the higher velocity performance almost matching, the ELDM actually outperformed the ELDX in these metrics under these testing conditions and arguably has a wider performance range as far as expansion is concerned.

I'll link the videos below, but between these videos and my own experiences, I've switched from the -X to the -M. Between performance, availability, and price, I don't think I made the wrong choice. I guess I'll find out this fall (hopefully)!

 

[35WhelenAI]

Videos are informative!

Loading slow and checking for expansion leaves what I think is an important element unaccounted for, bullet spin. Formula is muzzle velocity x 720/twist rate.

3000 fps mv, 1:10 twist, 216,000 rpm beginning rotation
1800 fps mv, 1:10 twist, 129,600 rpm beginning rotation

That is a huge difference.

Bullet spin does not fall off to a large degree as the bullet slows down, the spin of the bullet needs to be accounted for with consideration to on-game performance, and also with respect to expansion in gel tests. Slower spin gives less outward force as it penetrates, and slower spin means less stability to the bullet which could compromise its ability to stay on course and/or expand as it was designed. Their low speed testing shows bullet deflection. Now, run those into a shoulder to cover the inadvertent hit that happens in the field before hitting the gel...

To illustrate what spin does here is a pic. I've shot Barnes monos for almost 30 years. Of the very few I have recovered, the petals have the tips bent from bullet rotation in the animal. You would see the same thing on most any recovered Barnes (or other) mono on this forum as well. This pic is of .358 X's in 200 gr and 250 gr. Recovered, unfired and the 200 TTSX shown for comparison (took the pic years ago when starting to load the 200 TTSX). Zoom in to see the petal twist.

 

[HandgunHTR]

There's a youtube channel called Ultimate Reloader that I like to watch. They did a series of videos where they test bullet performance in ballistics gel. In one of them, they test a 143 ELDX vs a 140 ELDM out of a creedmoor. Long story short, at muzzle velocity, there wasn't really much difference between the -X and -M as far as expansion, penetration, and weight retention. There were differences, no doubt, but not the types of differences marketing would lead you to believe.

Then they worked up some low velocity loads and tested them at 2200 and 1800 FPS. At 2200, they were basically identical. But at 1800 FPS the ELDX had what I would call a 100% failure to perform appropriately for a hunting bullet. Zero expansion whatsoever, the projectile could've almost been reloaded. But the ELDM opened up enough that I would consider it appropriate for something like a mule deer or coues at extended ranges. So, with the higher velocity performance almost matching, the ELDM actually outperformed the ELDX in these metrics under these testing conditions and arguably has a wider performance range as far as expansion is concerned.

I'll link the videos below, but between these videos and my own experiences, I've switched from the -X to the -M. Between performance, availability, and price, I don't think I made the wrong choice. I guess I'll find out this fall (hopefully)!

Ballistics gel tests are good, but they don't tell the whole story. The good stuff on any game animal is tucked in behind bones. While match bullets will act similarly in soft tissue, if you clip the shoulder or even center punch a rib on a bigger animal and all bets are off. That is why you want a bullet with better construction and/or a bonded core. Animals move all the time. Especially if you are shooting them at long range. That bullet is hanging in the air for a good bit. There is no way to ensure that the bullet will only hit where you aim. Plan for hitting where you don't aim. That means using a bullet that will perform even if you center punch the shoulder.

 

[35WhelenAI]

That echoes what I said in post #29 above, run those bullets into a shoulder before the ballistic gel. If they knew what they were about they would also know that rotational speed of the bullet plays a part in terminal performance and stability in the animal at any range. Low speed muzzle velocity impacts are a poor test. Making no mention of that (if they even know that) in their test video with the low speed impact and the obvious deviation of the bullet path shows lack of understanding of what they were trying to show in the first place, IMO.

 

[nobody]

Ballistics gel tests are good, but they don't tell the whole story. The good stuff on any game animal is tucked in behind bones. While match bullets will act similarly in soft tissue, if you clip the shoulder or even center punch a rib on a bigger animal and all bets are off. That is why you want a bullet with better construction and/or a bonded core. Animals move all the time. Especially if you are shooting them at long range. That bullet is hanging in the air for a good bit. There is no way to ensure that the bullet will only hit where you aim. Plan for hitting where you don't aim. That means using a bullet that will perform even if you center punch the shoulder.

Basically, what I'm getting at with sharing this info is that the Match and ELDX did not perform any differently from one another. One is marketed as a hunting bullet, and one is not. Yet their performance is identical. And at low impact velocity, such as that seen at extended distances which is what the OP asked for in this case, the Match bullet actually performed better in these tests.

Even the guys performing the tests acknowledged that the test was flawed because it didn't take things like bone into account, but under ideal, easily testable circumstances, the ELDX failed to perform. All testing is flawed in some way, but this gives an idea of what you can expect. It's a single data point, nothing more.

This is why you have to understand how your bullet performs on impact. You can shoot a tough monolithic or bonded core bullet at game and sure, it'll stay together if you hit the shoulder. But what happens if you impact game at extended ranges/low impact velocity? The bullet will fail to expand because tougher bullets require higher impact velocities in order to cause the bullet to open up and upset properly. You make the argument of planning to hit where you don't aim, like in the shoulder. But what if you're a "high shoulder shot" guy and end up hitting right in the pocket with your Barnes LRX at 1900 FPS and there's no bone to impact? Is it still going to open up properly?

All bullets are a tradeoff, I think that's the key to understand here. I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm just bringing up another point of view. I know guys kill lots of stuff with lots of different bullets every year.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Definitely I wasn't taking your great post as stirring the pot. I agree a bonded or mono isn't the best long distance choice unless velocity can be kept up.

With respect to them making a "production" of a test, there were flaws which some are admitted to and some are omitted. To my eye it's more about the production than it is about the test. They seemed more excited about the ballistic gel and how it moved around than many of us did when we were younger and saw our first set of boobs.

 

[Huntin_GI]

Definitely I wasn't taking your great post and stirring the pot.

With respect to them making a production of a test there were flaws which some are admitted to and some are omitted. To my eye it's more about the production than it is about the test. They seemed more excited about the ballistic gel and how it moved around than many of us did when we were younger and saw our first set of boobs.

I watched the videos and kinda felt the same way. Wish they had propped up a should blade in front of the gels. Even something domestic would've done the trick.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I watched the videos and kinda felt the same way. Wish they had propped up a should blade in front of the gels. Even something domestic would've done the trick.

Grocery stores around the nation have meat departments that have bones.

No disrespect to the thought of the test in and of itself, however too many variables that don't translate to the field in my estimation.

 

[bdan68]

150 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip would be a good one to try, in my opinion. Some available here:

308 Winchester 150gr Ballistic Tip Hunting Ammunition (20ct) (BLEM)

308 Winchester 150gr Ballistic Tip Hunting Ammunition (20ct) (BLEM)

www.shootersproshop.com

 

[805Bowhunter]

The 175 TAs have done great out of my 06. They seem impossible to find these days though.

Anyone have any luck getting the 175s?

 

[Hschweers]

The 175 TAs have done great out of my 06. They seem impossible to find these days though.

Anyone have any luck getting the 175s?

Not sure on -06, but I check federal’s site for .308 a couple of times a week and they have TA in stock 75% of the time. Would think you’d be able to catch em with -06 in stock after a few weeks - it’s not like it’s an obscure cartridge they’re not producing.

 

[805Bowhunter]

Not sure on -06, but I check federal’s site for .308 a couple of times a week and they have TA in stock 75% of the time. Would think you’d be able to catch em with -06 in stock after a few weeks - it’s not like it’s an obscure cartridge they’re not producing.

Thanks for the heads up. I am on there pretty frequently but not frequently enough. Part of my love for the -06 is availability of ammo but even these days its rough...should also note that I am a California resident lol.

Thanks again bud.