Hornady describes difference between ELD-X and ELD Match

[EastHumboldt]

I have a question. Do ELDMs typically group significantly better than ELDXs? Out of the same gun. I realize that whatever response I get will be mostly anecdotal which is ok.

 

[Pharmseller]

It just doesn't seem that hard to follow along.

Yes they have tested terminal ballistics on the match bullets.

They do not test each Lot of production Ms. They do test each Lot of production Xs.

You MIGHT buy a Lot of Ms that grenade or don't expand for various reasons.

I shot 147eldms last season and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them again.

So lot-to-lot variation in ELDM is significant enough to render one lot inadequate and another sufficient? This idea is concerning with regards to manufacturing quality control.

 

[RancherJohn]

The reason they don’t acknowledge the M as a hunting bullet is because in REAL hunting scenarios there are too may variables for it to fail. Not everyone shoots 600+ yards, where impact velocity is moderate to low and you have the time for a broadside only shot.
Imagine you drew a once in a lifetime elk tag and on the last day of the hunt you final have your target bull in dense timber at 100 yards and it’s quartering hard. You either need to go through the ham or front shoulder at high impact velocity to reach vitals. Will you feel confident in your bullet?

Have you ever put a tape measure to an elk? For any realistic/ethical shot angle at appropriate velocities, you will have zero issues. No reason to invent a scenario to try to prove a point.

What I’m saying is…
Will it work great every time?
I plan my bullet choice based off of ALL hunting scenarios.
I’m not going to convince any of you to stop using “murder” bullets. They certainly work but, at the same time, the shooter needs to show extreme restraint in certain circumstances.
I won’t hesitate to take a quarter away shot with my 300 win shooting 200gr terminal ascent. I know I’m getting to the vitals.
I think the very fact that so many here get soooo offended by the mentioning of their sub 130 grain match bullets not being an ideal hunting choice(not even by the very manufacturer) for larger game proves the point that they too know this but for whatever reason like the “sniper murderer” feeling they get off them. Maybe shooting critters with match bullets is more dramatic when watching them die on social media? IDK…my hands are in the air, but don’t tell me it’s for the animal.
Also, I don’t like eating lead.

I don't see people getting offended, I see scoffing at the idea of claiming a bullet isn't tested when they have previously published testing data and market the bullet to LE as creating large wound cavities. In addition, many have personally shot animals with ELDMs and had zero issues. It has only been in the last few years that inconsistencies in manufacturing QC have reared their heads, which I think we can all agree is both frustrating and unacceptable to then turn around and market said bullets as "Match Grade".

I also see the ego-based chest thumping from some about "I told you so, muh magnum doesn't have this problem, I have to show no restraint on shot placement, you only do X because of social media". Be better, and understand the irony in claiming that you'll punch a shot through the largest mass of edible tissue on an elk but won't do another thing because you want to eat what you kill.

 

[JF_Idaho]

So lot-to-lot variation in ELDM is significant enough to render one lot inadequate and another sufficient? This idea is concerning with regards to manufacturing quality control.

I guess it depends what you mean. They allude that they are adequate for shooting matches, targets, etc but are not checked for reliable expansion.

Personally I've never held hornady in high regard as far as quality control.

 

[Grizzle]

Not sure about in the states but in Canada eldx are 30-50% more expensive than eldm so their claim that they are essentially the same price is pretty overstated.

 

[Sponge]

6). They do test ELD-M’s, but their QC and materials vary so much that all lot# of bullets don’t perform well, and only use certain lots that test well in gel in their TAP ammo

My guess (emphasis on guess) is they test ELD-M lots in gel as needed to meet TAP demand. As a business that seems focused on margins, I doubt they would test if not needed. I'd be real curious how often a lot fails that spec - on occasion, or frequently?

New leadership that made them actually test TMK’s in proper gel

any chance that gets published for us commoners to see?

So lot-to-lot variation in ELDM is significant enough to render one lot inadequate and another sufficient? This idea is concerning with regards to manufacturing quality control.

They are saying there is greater uncertainty on performance in tissue with ELD-Ms, and for use on animals some lots may be insufficient (in their opinion/experience). From past podcasts, it sounds like they do accuracy QC testing for all ELD-M lots, and accuracy & gel QC testing on all ELD-X lots.

 

[One300wsm]

These guys test a lot of stuff.

 

[streamerfish]

The reason they don’t acknowledge the M as a hunting bullet is because in REAL hunting scenarios there are too may variables for it to fail. Not everyone shoots 600+ yards, where impact velocity is moderate to low and you have the time for a broadside only shot.
Imagine you drew a once in a lifetime elk tag and on the last day of the hunt you final have your target bull in dense timber at 100 yards and it’s quartering hard. You either need to go through the ham or front shoulder at high impact velocity to reach vitals. Will you feel confident in your bullet?

If its quartering away enough that I have to legit shoot it in the a** cheek I'm passing, and I have no faith at all in any hunting cartridge/bullet combo to go through the ham, guts, into the chest cavity...... I'll go for head/neck at that range if I can, if not...I will wait or pass, its not life or death. Not a shot I'm willing to take period.

Front shoulder, yeah, no problem, I've never seen a shoulder stop anything 6mm or bigger. Full confidence in whatever bullet I'm using that its going through.

 

[MuleyFever]

I agree with you on most your points. I absolutely don’t take angled shots given the choice, but when hunting very seldom are shot angles perfect.

I would disagree and say its very seldom that you can't get a broad side shot. I can't even remember a time I shot an animal that wasn't broad side or only slightly quartering and presenting a clear path to the vitals.

 

[One300wsm]

Have you ever put a tape measure to an elk? For any realistic/ethical shot angle at appropriate velocities, you will have zero issues. No reason to invent a scenario to try to prove a point.



I don't see people getting offended, I see scoffing at the idea of claiming a bullet isn't tested when they have previously published testing data and market the bullet to LE as creating large wound cavities. In addition, many have personally shot animals with ELDMs and had zero issues. It has only been in the last few years that inconsistencies in manufacturing QC have reared their heads, which I think we can all agree is both frustrating and unacceptable to then turn around and market said bullets as "Match Grade".

I also see the ego-based chest thumping from some about "I told you so, muh magnum doesn't have this problem, I have to show no restraint on shot placement, you only do X because of social media". Be better, and understand the irony in claiming that you'll punch a shot through the largest mass of edible tissue on an elk but won't do another thing because you want to eat what you kill.


View attachment 1036229

View attachment 1036227

View attachment 1036252

I’m not chest thumping just stating from experience and I shoot stuff with a bunch of different bullets.
This year and last year I tried mostly ELD-M and Berger with good results with no really bad shot placements either.
I loaded some of these 155 ELD-M in 300 WSM 3150 fps killed a Dall last year @ 325 Ribcage DRT.
I killed a bull elk last year with a 208 ELD-M 300 WM 2950 fps @ 275 Ribcage DRT.
Wife killed bull elk last year with 208 ELD-M 300 WSM 2800 fps @ 475 low shoulder broadside ran down hill 50 yards.
I killed 2 whitetails bucks last year with 208 ELD-M 308 win 2300 fps both over 250 yards Ribcage both ran about 35-50 yards. Wife killed two whitetails bucks last year 115 Bergers 6CM 2900 fps @ 75/225 Ribcage both ran 50ish yards.
I killed a Desert sheep this year 156 Berger 6.5 RPM 2975 fps @ 700 yards Ribcage DRT.
I’ve shot a number of animals with Ballistic Tips, Accubond, Partition,TTSX, LRX, Makers, Parkers, Berger, FTX, SST, ELD-X and ELD-M.
Mono’s, Accubond, Partition like bone and speed.
They all kill if you don’t screw up.
Shot placement, shot placement and shot placement is key.

 

[Hondo64d]

Scientific testing requires a controlled medium (ballistic gel) vs random shots on random animals at random velocities.



They are experts in designing bullets to kill game and have clearly done testing on how different bullet designs perform.

Eldx> Eldm

• Eldm ok on small to medium sized game. Not tough enough for larger game because of erratic performance depending upon what it strikes inside the animal.
• SST and Interlock bullets pretty much ignored
• BTHP - extremely erratic performance on gel.
• If people do want to hunt with Match bullets, avoid the BTHP and ATIP.
• Polymer Tipped Match bullets (including a bullet from Sierra) better than either.

As one of them said, the Eldx is harder to manufacture than the Eldm. Yet, they cost about the same.

Why not get the better tool for the job?

I listened to the rest of the podcast, and nowhere did the Hornady guys acknowledge that they had ever even tried ELD-Ms on game. I do not agree with you that a synthetic ballistic gel provides more accurate results on how a given bullet will perform on big game than actually shooting big game with the same bullet. The Hornady guys definitely had an agenda for this podcast, and I am very disappointed that they didn’t provide objective results from both sides of the argument.

John