Eld-x vs Eld-m testing

[BKM]

Looks like this test was clear ballistic gel not the organic kind. That definitely makes results questionable

 

[Lou270]

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






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.







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




You do not understand what you are writing.

You lost me a bit here. I thought we were talking hunting bullets. I don’t see what FBI testing has to do with that. Please correct me if I am wrong but it is a 5 or 6 test with bare gel, clothing, some barriers, etc and there is a min and max penetration limit with majority of goal to fall in penetration window? Is it different between handgun and rifle? I have only seen handgun criteria that I remember though I have seen rifle bullet results but never paid attention if different criteria. I have no doubt that if a manufacturer wants to be in running for FBI/other contracts or at this point even to show the public they pass whether they get selected or not they do and publish results for that bullet/ammo using fbi protocol.

It would surprise me to learn that Hornady ran their .308 180 sst through the fbi test or Nosler ran their 180 accubond. Any case, I am not sure what shooting through a windshield or specifically limiting penetration to a window, for ex, has to do with killing an elk or deer. I have seen some bullets that cross over to tacitcal world get tested but again, what does FBI protocol have to do with hunting. It is set up for a different set of careabouts. There are of course parallels because you are trying to put a hole in something.

As to my comment about gel testing I agree if you introduce some barrier like auto glass the bullets will show up mangled in the test. The bullets with features added to handle the barriers will perform terminally more similarly across tests whether barriers are there or not, no? That is reason FBI added these tests and manufacturers add the features. For ex, I read Hornady updated their jackets and added goop in hollow point to do better in fbi tests Rifle bullets for hunting are no different. Features are added to make a bullet perform a certain way.

Lou

 

[ScreamingPotato]

I am not sure what shooting through a windshield or specifically limiting penetration to a window, for ex, has to do with killing an elk or deer.
Lou

Man, if that truck with the Texas plates is parked between me and the Elk it's nice have confidence in the projectile.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

. There are of course parallels because you are trying to put a hole in something.

You don't say..........

 

[eoperator]

I put little stock in ballistic gel vs what goes in game.

A 108eh i recovered from a deer last year looked strikingly the same as the 108eh recovered from gel a few weeks later.

Do you have any experience with gel to be critiquing it?

 

[Lou270]

A 108eh i recovered from a deer last year looked strikingly the same as the 108eh recovered from gel a few weeks later.

Do you have any experience with gel to be critiquing it?

No, but there is boat load of info on gel out there. I don’t find bare gel tests paricularly useful or even ones where somebody puts in an old bone as no bullets I have recovered look so nice. Gel is to simulate muscle tissue and the best known way to try and do repeatable scientific testing with which may be useful for comparing one bullet to another but I have never just hit muscle when I shot something either. If I am curious about a bullet I typically shoot a few pigs. The gel tests always show nice, pigs not so much. I don’t know what “barrier” test that would correlate to in the fbi tests Maybe autoglass or something between auto glass and wood tests. I think somebody needs to dream up an eqivalent big game barrier test. I have some of the 308 168 hornady amax loads and see hornady has their fbi stuff on website. If it ever stops storming when I am ranch will try and see what it does on a pig or 2

Lou

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

ELDX ELDM and SST bullets all kill big game animals very dead. SST doesn’t “penetrate” quite as strongly as the Xs and Ms but still does a fantastic job in destroying vitals and creating very large internal wounds/bleeding. Surprisingly, the SST has actually had the most “bang flops” and usually has slightly more catastrophic damage to internals on large game animals.

I switched from “traditional” bullets to ELDM, ELDX, and SST in 2014 for big game hunting. I’ve lost count on the number of dead big game animals with each of these bullets in various .243 and .264 chamberings. Average between myself and the couple folks that I kill with is roughly 40 big game animals per year. So figure somewhere around 400ish dead deer, elk, antelope, moose, etc.

Hunt with any of these bullets confidently.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I don't know about gel tests but live animals become unalive real quick with ELD-M bullets.

Mature 7 point Bull elk with broken main beam
Steyr Pro Hunter 7RM 25.6" barrel 1:9" twist.
162gr ELD-M, Peterson brass. Loaded by Unknown Munitions
330yd broadside. One shot double lung with exit. On the ground and dead within 30yd and seconds.



Here are his lungs. I wouldn't want to get hit with one.

 

[Pharmseller]

ELDM/Eldx WGAS?

P

 

[Wrench]

I remember reading that I should use a partition or a frame back in the 80s because cup and core were to thin. I couldn't afford that fancy stuff so I shot cup and core.

I went through the swift, tsx, partition only phase and the match bullet phase.

Ive found that if I plan my bullet upset and rifle velocity and my shot placement correctly...they all work fine. I have pushed a 365 hardcast lengthwise through a deer at a whopping 800fps impact velocity. It all works.

 

[ddowning]

No, but there is boat load of info on gel out there. I don’t find bare gel tests paricularly useful or even ones where somebody puts in an old bone as no bullets I have recovered look so nice. Gel is to simulate muscle tissue and the best known way to try and do repeatable scientific testing with which may be useful for comparing one bullet to another but I have never just hit muscle when I shot something either. If I am curious about a bullet I typically shoot a few pigs. The gel tests always show nice, pigs not so much. I don’t know what “barrier” test that would correlate to in the fbi tests Maybe autoglass or something between auto glass and wood tests. I think somebody needs to dream up an eqivalent big game barrier test. I have some of the 308 168 hornady amax loads and see hornady has their fbi stuff on website. If it ever stops storming when I am ranch will try and see what it does on a pig or 2

Lou

You keep going rounds here. It is relevant what the velocity is at impact. Shoot a coyote with a 55 grain sierra gk sbt. Velocity 3650ish. At 40 ft. DRT, at 250 yards, runners, at 400+ yards, good luck. The difference was/is impact velocity and the resulting effect on expansion. Just recovering bullets from dead deer and elk tells very little pertinent info. We don't know if the shot was at 20 yards with a 30/378 Weatherby or 600 yards with a 308 Winchester.

 

[180ls1]

ELDX ELDM and SST bullets all kill big game animals very dead. SST doesn’t “penetrate” quite as strongly as the Xs and Ms but still does a fantastic job in destroying vitals and creating very large internal wounds/bleeding. Surprisingly, the SST has actually had the most “bang flops” and usually has slightly more catastrophic damage to internals on large game animals.

I switched from “traditional” bullets to ELDM, ELDX, and SST in 2014 for big game hunting. I’ve lost count on the number of dead big game animals with each of these bullets in various .243 and .264 chamberings. Average between myself and the couple folks that I kill with is roughly 40 big game animals per year. So figure somewhere around 400ish dead deer, elk, antelope, moose, etc.

Hunt with any of these bullets confidently.

Yup. 130 sst's out of my .270 has been absolutely money. I use the M's now in different chamberings but all are perfect for hunting.

 

[KenLee]

Man, if that truck with the Texas plates is parked between me and the Elk it's nice have confidence in the projectile.

Shit, I'll shoot out my own windows if he's big enough!

 

[Lou270]

You keep going rounds here. It is relevant what the velocity is at impact. Shoot a coyote with a 55 grain sierra gk sbt. Velocity 3650ish. At 40 ft. DRT, at 250 yards, runners, at 400+ yards, good luck. The difference was/is impact velocity and the resulting effect on expansion. Just recovering bullets from dead deer and elk tells very little pertinent info. We don't know if the shot was at 20 yards with a 30/378 Weatherby or 600 yards with a 308 Winchester.

Dont know what your point is. The manufacturers will tell you what their bullet is designed to do including impact velocity for expansion. I also don’t understand last point. If you can’t learn something from autopsy and recovered bullet from game need to keep trying. That is probably why so many people believe religiously on gel testing. Gel is the best tool for job available and it works great. But it does not equate to the dynamic situation a bullet encounters. It is useful to help design a bullet and keep track of performance in manufacturing. However, bullet/ammo guys have learned long ago to field test hunting bullets before release and not rely on gel The main reason people use gel for any testing is because it is not practical to do it on live game (or cadavers) not because it tells you something equivalent let alone better

For ex, I did some reading on the fbi test. They want a min of 12” and a max of 18”. The 12” is from

“The 12-inch figure was arbitrary, but also based on satisfactory results obtained in the field with the .38 Special Winchester X38SPD, Remington R38S123 and Federal 38G 158-grain all-lead HP rounds. That level of performance deemed essential and the bureau also wanted that level of performance to be maintained as closely as possible in all of the various test conditions, bare gelatin being the baseline, then light clothing, heavy clothing, sheet metal, etc.”

The 18” is from:
We also know that, after years of correlation with autopsies that bullets that penetrate 18" of gel tend to not exit people all the time. 18" gel penetration bullets tend to lodge between the ribs and skin of the back.

So, the 12-18” of penetration the FBI looks for are based on how field proven loads penetrate in people. Shoot those same loads in gel and get a number to compare to. Should note they are not saying that 18” in tissue=18” in gel. They said bullets that do not exit happen to penetrate 18” in gel. So the gel is not telling them anything. They are using the gel as a way to compare loads to a standard set in gel based on field results. There is absolutely zero equivalency to this and big game hunting.

Lou

 

[Formidilosus]

Dont know what your point is. The manufacturers will tell you what their bullet is designed to do including impact velocity for expansion. I also don’t understand last point. If you can’t learn something from autopsy and recovered bullet from game need to keep trying. That is probably why so many people believe religiously on gel testing. Gel is the best tool for job available and it works great. But it does not equate to the dynamic situation a bullet encounters. It is useful to help design a bullet and keep track of performance in manufacturing. However, bullet/ammo guys have learned long ago to field test hunting bullets before release and not rely on gel The main reason people use gel for any testing is because it is not practical to do it on live game (or cadavers) not because it tells you something equivalent let alone better

For ex, I did some reading on the fbi test. They want a min of 12” and a max of 18”. The 12” is from

“The 12-inch figure was arbitrary, but also based on satisfactory results obtained in the field with the .38 Special Winchester X38SPD, Remington R38S123 and Federal 38G 158-grain all-lead HP rounds. That level of performance deemed essential and the bureau also wanted that level of performance to be maintained as closely as possible in all of the various test conditions, bare gelatin being the baseline, then light clothing, heavy clothing, sheet metal, etc.”

The 18” is from:
We also know that, after years of correlation with autopsies that bullets that penetrate 18" of gel tend to not exit people all the time. 18" gel penetration bullets tend to lodge between the ribs and skin of the back.

So, the 12-18” of penetration the FBI looks for are based on how field proven loads penetrate in people. Shoot those same loads in gel and get a number to compare to. So the gel is not telling them anything. They are using the gel as a way to compare loads to a standard set in gel based on field results. There is absolutely zero equivalency to this and big game hunting.

Lou

Nothing you are writing about is factually correct. I can go line by line, statement by statement, but it will be pointless- you will not admit that you are ignorant of the subject, nor change your mind.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Dont know what your point is. The manufacturers will tell you what their bullet is designed to do including impact velocity for expansion. I also don’t understand last point. If you can’t learn something from autopsy and recovered bullet from game need to keep trying. That is probably why so many people believe religiously on gel testing. Gel is the best tool for job available and it works great. But it does not equate to the dynamic situation a bullet encounters. It is useful to help design a bullet and keep track of performance in manufacturing. However, bullet/ammo guys have learned long ago to field test hunting bullets before release and not rely on gel The main reason people use gel for any testing is because it is not practical to do it on live game (or cadavers) not because it tells you something equivalent let alone better

For ex, I did some reading on the fbi test. They want a min of 12” and a max of 18”. The 12” is from

“The 12-inch figure was arbitrary, but also based on satisfactory results obtained in the field with the .38 Special Winchester X38SPD, Remington R38S123 and Federal 38G 158-grain all-lead HP rounds. That level of performance deemed essential and the bureau also wanted that level of performance to be maintained as closely as possible in all of the various test conditions, bare gelatin being the baseline, then light clothing, heavy clothing, sheet metal, etc.”

The 18” is from:
We also know that, after years of correlation with autopsies that bullets that penetrate 18" of gel tend to not exit people all the time. 18" gel penetration bullets tend to lodge between the ribs and skin of the back.

So, the 12-18” of penetration the FBI looks for are based on how field proven loads penetrate in people. Shoot those same loads in gel and get a number to compare to. So the gel is not telling them anything. They are using the gel as a way to compare loads to a standard set in gel based on field results. There is absolutely zero equivalency to this and big game hunting.

Lou

Buddy. Reading comprehension clearly isn’t the strong suit here… I’ve been very guilty of this on this very site myself with topics. Read a little closer to the posts here.

 

[TxxAgg]

Tagged