Eld-x vs Eld-m testing

[Elite]

I know ballistic gel is not the same as animal tissue and vitals but I found this article interesting. I figured the eld-m would have created a larger wound channel at slow impact velocity

Hunting -vs- Match Bullets Part 2: Down-Range Velocity – Ultimate Reloader

ultimatereloader.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luked]

If I remember right @Ryan Avery has said that the M should stand for Murder because of the way the ELD-M kills

 

[mlevimadden]

Thanks for sharing. I’m surprised the wound channels were better for the ELDX at the lower velocities when the ELDM has a thinner jacket.

 

[Pharmseller]

I use the X version in 7mm-08 and 7mm Rem Mag, M in .223 Rem.

Very happy with the results thus far.




P

 

[passinggas33]

Am I reading the article correctly in that the ELDM exited the gel at the lowest speed? Pretty sure that would impact the “study” dramatically. I know it’s not cheap or easy but if truly trying to compare apples to apples he should have redone this part of the test in my opinion.

 

[KenLee]

Thanks for sharing. I’m surprised the wound channels were better for the ELDX at the lower velocities when the ELDM has a thinner jacket.

Speaking of slow, the M performs great from a lowly Grendel pistol

 

[ElPollo]

I know ballistic gel is not the same as animal tissue and vitals but I found this article interesting. I figured the eld-m would have created a larger wound channel at slow impact velocity

Hunting -vs- Match Bullets Part 2: Down-Range Velocity – Ultimate Reloader

ultimatereloader.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hard to say much from a sample size of 1 bullet at each speed. Bullet performance is not an absolute. At minimum you need a sample of 30 of each bullet and speed combo to make statements about differences between them. The testers also did not use the FBI methodology for gel tests (real organic gel at a controlled temp and calibrated for penetration depth).

That said folks who have used a lot of these generally say that there is effectively no difference to in performance between the ELDM and ELDX on game when you are comparing similar calibers and similar speeds.

 

[Lou270]

I put little stock in ballistic gel vs what goes in game. The gel is too uniform and supports even expansion vs what a bullet experiences in game. It is basically an averaging of soft animal materials. Weaknesses in bullet design are not shown at all and recovered bullets always look really nice. Very few cup and core bullets reovered from game look like they do when recovered from gel. A soft bullet that may shatter when hitting something harder than average in game may not shatter when penetrating the “average” density of ballistic gel. A bullet that starts to tumble due to density change may experience more expansion (if nothing that checks expansion) on one side and tear apart or veer off vs correcting.

Gel is a tool and makes for nice marketing pictures whether showing the temporary cavity or recovered bullet. At best you only have an idea from gel how a bullet performs when nothing you hit in game exceeds the density of the gel and the density is consistent (a meat shot maybe)

Bullets with specific features to limit expansion and retain weight are much more likely to have a similar terminal shape regardless of what they encounter during penetration. Tapered jackets, partitons, bonding, monos. Think swift aframe, partiton, accubond etc.. The end result is a more predictable outcome. This means nothing other than the bullet is more likely to retain the same basic shape/mass during penetration regardless of what is experienced during penetration. Also note, I am not saying predictable terminal performance is always better. This predictabity is stupid to not have it in certain circumstances (dangerous game) but there is a lot of grey area outside of those cases. You may be trading off something else like BC, accuracy or even a wider wound but don’t kid yourself you are not trading something off.

Case in point, In this comparison the eldx has some thickening of jacket to prevent premature break up. That feature may not become apparent in this test. You may also shoot a bunch of animals and not miss it but it is there. Why Hornady says use eldx to hunt and if use eldm do so at own risk.

Lou

 

[Formidilosus]

I put little stock in ballistic gel vs what goes in game. The gel is too uniform and supports even expansion vs what a bullet experiences in game. It is basically an averaging of soft animal materials. Weaknesses in bullet design are not shown at all and recovered bullets always look really nice.

I have been apart of a lot of legit terminal ballistics testing both gel and live tissue, and that is not my experience, or the experience of those I am around at all. Point in fact, multiple joint US gov/DOD projects found that properly done gel testing to FBI spec is very predictive of bullet performance in live tissue.
Bare gel, or gel with heavy clothing has been a near 1 for 1 analogous for straight lung and soft tissue shots- usually the difference is a bit deeper penetration in the chest. The FBI plywood test shows what to expect when hitting larger bones, and the auto glass portion is an absolute worse case scenario.

Very few cup and core bullets reovered from game look like they do when recovered from gel.

Again- not my experience at all. That’s actually one of the things that is done- place two bullets in someone hand, one from gel and one from live tissue and ask them which is which.

A soft bullet that may shatter when hitting something harder than average in game may not shatter when penetrating the “average” density of ballistic gel.

Thats the reason for the barrier protocols that should be utilized.

Gel is a tool and makes for nice marketing pictures whether showing the temporary cavity or recovered bullet. At best you only have an idea from gel how a bullet performs when nothing you hit in game exceeds the density of the gel and the density is consistent (a meat shot maybe)

Properly done, calibrated organic 10% gel testing is the best media for predicting bullet performance in tissue. That has been demonstrably proven repeatedly.

Case in point, In this comparison the eldx has some thickening of jacket to prevent premature break up. That feature may not become apparent in this test. You may also shoot a bunch of animals and not miss it but it is there. Why Hornady says use eldx to hunt and if use eldm do so at own risk.

Lou

That is not why Hornday says to not use ELD-M’s. ELD-M performance is near identical to ELD-X, with slightly deeper penetration with the X’s in some scenarios (the 147gr 6.5 is an exception). Hornady knows exactly what ELD-M’s do in tissue, and they market it to non hunting use in live tissue.

 

[Lou270]

I have been apart of a lot of legit terminal ballistics testing both gel and live tissue, and that is not my experience, or the experience of those I am around at all. Point in fact, multiple joint US gov/DOD projects found that properly done gel testing to FBI spec is very predictive of bullet performance in live tissue.
Bare gel, or gel with heavy clothing has been a near 1 for 1 analogous for straight lung and soft tissue shots- usually the difference is a bit deeper penetration in the chest. The FBI plywood test shows what to expect when hitting larger bones, and the auto glass portion is an absolute worse case scenario.




Again- not my experience at all. That’s actually one of the things that is done- place two bullets in someone hand, one from gel and one from live tissue and ask them which is which.




Thats the reason for the barrier protocols that should be utilized.




Properly done, calibrated organic 10% gel testing is the best media for predicting bullet performance in tissue. That has been demonstrably proven repeatedly.




That is not why Hornday says to not use ELD-M’s. ELD-M performance is near identical to ELD-X, with slightly deeper penetration with the X’s in some scenarios (the 147gr 6.5 is an exception). Hornady knows exactly what ELD-M’s do in tissue, and they market it to non hunting use in live tissue.

I honestly don’t know why it is controversial that bullets recovered from game don’t look like gel tests. If you don’t think this is common or have had uncommonly good luck and not seen it yourself, google is your friend. I would say if you are not seeing this in your testing the protocols don’t match big game hunting

What I do know is that I have recovered personally bullets over the years, worked for few years helping in an x-b in laws game processing shop and the cup and core bullets were a lot of times in a mangled mess and did not look like the expanded mushrooms pulled from gel where even if somebody puts in a “bone” or some equivalent.

Now - where in the course of the animal dieing did these horribly deformed bullets fail? They didn’t. But it did not have predictable terminal behavior either as I guarantee no gel test a maker made would give them a “pass”.

As for Hornady eldx vs eldm for hunting those are their words, not mine. Again, the protocols for fbi are apparently not the same to Hornady for hunting

Lou

 

[huntnful]

I have been apart of a lot of legit terminal ballistics testing both gel and live tissue, and that is not my experience, or the experience of those I am around at all. Point in fact, multiple joint US gov/DOD projects found that properly done gel testing to FBI spec is very predictive of bullet performance in live tissue.
Bare gel, or gel with heavy clothing has been a near 1 for 1 analogous for straight lung and soft tissue shots- usually the difference is a bit deeper penetration in the chest. The FBI plywood test shows what to expect when hitting larger bones, and the auto glass portion is an absolute worse case scenario.




Again- not my experience at all. That’s actually one of the things that is done- place two bullets in someone hand, one from gel and one from live tissue and ask them which is which.




Thats the reason for the barrier protocols that should be utilized.




Properly done, calibrated organic 10% gel testing is the best media for predicting bullet performance in tissue. That has been demonstrably proven repeatedly.




That is not why Hornday says to not use ELD-M’s. ELD-M performance is near identical to ELD-X, with slightly deeper penetration with the X’s in some scenarios (the 147gr 6.5 is an exception). Hornady knows exactly what ELD-M’s do in tissue, and they market it to non hunting use in live tissue.

This always cracked me up. On their law enforcement page, Hornady touts the ELDM has having excellent terminal performance. But then they don’t recommend it for hunting animals. People are just medium sized animals haha.

I think I’m like 20 animals in with the ELDM’s and they’ve been super consistent with terminal performance across all yardages and animals

 

[Reburn]

People are just medium sized animals haha.

EDIT: I read you wrote game animal not just animal. My fault.

Medium sized NON game animals.

Defintion of game animal - an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law.

Definition of GAME ANIMAL

an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

To the best of my knowledge there is not a season on people.

 

[Grundy53]

As for Hornady eldx vs eldm for hunting those are their words, not mine. Again, the protocols for fbi are apparently not the same to Hornady for hunting

Lou

Hornady says that so you buy the ELDx for hunting and the ELDm for target. They get to sell twice as many bullets that way. It's about money. Not weather the ELDm works on game or not. Plus there are implications for the military and police.



Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Grundy53]

Medium sized NON game animals.

Defintion of game animal - an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law.

Definition of GAME ANIMAL

an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

To the best of my knowledge there is not a season on people.

But we are made out of the same stuff...

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Medium sized NON game animals.

Defintion of game animal - an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law.

Definition of GAME ANIMAL

an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

To the best of my knowledge there is not a season on people.

Some of us can be pretty sporty though. I may have been considered a game animal when I was younger.

 

[wesfromky]

But we are made out of the same stuff...

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Long pig...

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Medium sized NON game animals.

Defintion of game animal - an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law.

Definition of GAME ANIMAL

an animal made legitimate quarry by state or other law… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

To the best of my knowledge there is not a season on people.

Which means what in this context?

I think this, the result of a 147eldm 6.5 creed through plywood, would work on game or non-game animals.

 

[Formidilosus]

I honestly don’t know why it is controversial that bullets recovered from game don’t look like gel tests. If you don’t think this is common or have had uncommonly good luck and not seen it yourself, google is your friend. I would say if you are not seeing this in your testing the protocols don’t match big game hunting

I don’t need google- I have watched thousands of test shots through bare gel and barriers, and thousands of live tissue shots.

What I do know is that I have recovered personally bullets over the years, worked for few years helping in an x-b in laws game processing shop and the cup and core bullets were a lot of times in a mangled mess and did not look like the expanded mushrooms pulled from gel where even if somebody puts in a “bone” or some equivalent.

I have no idea where you are getting your information or belief in what legit gel testing shows, but isn’t what you are saying. Have you participated in legit FBI spec’d gel testing? Bullets are mangled all the time in legit testing- auto glass is the most destructive barrier a bullet can pass through.

Now - where in the course of the animal dieing did these horribly deformed bullets fail? They didn’t. But it did not have predictable terminal behavior either as I guarantee no gel test a maker made would give them a “pass”.

What? Literally every legit manufacturer tests their bullets to FBI spec- which means through all 5 barriers.

As for Hornady eldx vs eldm for hunting those are their words, not mine. Again, the protocols for fbi are apparently not the same to Hornady for hunting

Lou

You do not understand what you are writing.

 

[Reburn]

Which means what in this context?

I think this, the result of a 147eldm 6.5 creed through plywood, would work on game or non-game animals.
View attachment 720893

Which means humans are non game animals not game animals. Thats all I was pointing out. Words mean things.

I dont know what else your looking for as I am unclear as to what your trying to ask. I never said anything about bullets working different in game animals vs non game animals.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Which means humans are non game animals not game animals. Thats all I was pointing out. Words mean things.

I dont know what else your looking for as I am unclear as to what your trying to ask. I never said anything about bullets working different in game animals vs non game animals.

Ok. I guess I was unsure what the relevance or correlation was to the discussion (bullet performance in ballistic gelatin and animals.)

That's all.