Hornady describes difference between ELD-X and ELD Match

[Pharmseller]

The biggest thing that stood out to me is that the whole argument against using “match” bullets hinges on the base assumption that a “hunting bullet” must have high weight retention, minimal fragmentation, and complete penetration.

But the benchmark for a hunting bullet should be how well it kills animals, not how much weight it retains or how deep it penetrates in gel. They never really said the eldm doesn’t kill well, they just kept saying it doesn’t reliably retain weight and penetrate all the way through.

So if you don’t concede that “hunting bullet” and “weight retention” are synonymous, they really haven’t even presented an argument.

Really well stated.

 

[01Foreman400]

I listened to it and enjoy some of their podcasts. I thought in this podcast they explained into depth the differences between the 2 bullets. They don’t stand behind the ELD-M as a hunting bullet because it wasn’t “designed” as a hunting bullet. It’s clearly built different than the ELD-X bullet as you can see in pictures. Each lot isn’t checked like the ELD-X bullet either. They clearly don’t want to promote a match bullet that doesn’t meet their “quality control” standards of a hunting bullet. If someone wants to hunt with the ELD-M have at it. I’ve seen the results in this forum that they work. Folks getting all bent out of shape because they didn’t say it’s a great hunting bullet is comical. With that being said I don’t shoot any Hornady bullets. LOL

 

[RME]

Folks getting all bent out of shape because they didn’t say it’s a great hunting bullet is comical

I don't get it either. I don't see what difference it makes whether they recommend it or not. If a person wants to use it, go ahead and use it. As long as it's legal, literally nobody cares what bullet you hunt with. Sometimes I wonder if it's just the name Hornady that gets all the drama queens fired up regardless of the topic

 

[Q_Sertorius]

What’s interesting to me is that I believe I have seen comments from Form about inconsistent performance from ELDMs that bear out the truth in what Hornady is saying.

Edit - don’t get me wrong. I still use them in rifles that shoot them better than other bullets.

 

[Formidilosus]

I listened to it and enjoy some of their podcasts. I thought in this podcast they explained into depth the differences between the 2 bullets. They don’t stand behind the ELD-M as a hunting bullet because it wasn’t “designed” as a hunting bullet. It’s clearly built different than the ELD-X bullet as you can see in pictures. Each lot isn’t checked like the ELD-X bullet either. They clearly don’t want to promote a match bullet that doesn’t meet their “quality control” standards of a hunting bullet. If someone wants to hunt with the ELD-M have at it. I’ve seen the results in this forum that they work. Folks getting all bent out of shape because they didn’t say it’s a great hunting bullet is comical. With that being said I don’t shoot any Hornady bullets. LOL

I don't get it either. I don't see what difference it makes whether they recommend it or not. If a person wants to use it, go ahead and use it. As long as it's legal, literally nobody cares what bullet you hunt with. Sometimes I wonder if it's just the name Hornady that gets all the drama queens fired up regardless of the topic

It’s not about Hornady not saying they are acceptable for hunting. It’s about Hornady BS’ing customers.

There is a group of people here that are tired of the industry being disingenuous, purposely ignorant, outright lying, and/or gaslighting them.

 

[Pharmseller]

As long as it's legal, literally nobody cares what bullet you hunt with.

You haven’t run into the monometal Nazis.

“Lead bullets will kill everyone who eats the game you shot them with!”

 

[RME]

It’s not about Hornady not saying they are acceptable for hunting. It’s about Hornady BS’ing customers.

There is a group of people here that are tired of the industry being disingenuous, purposely ignorant, outright lying, and/or gaslighting them.

For what it's worth, I applaud your work in improving optics and other products and I'm looking forward to buying some of the new scopes. You're doing great work on that front, I'm not against companies making improvements.

In this particular case though, these are simply use recommendations and I think those descriptions i.e. disingenuous, purposely ignorant, outright lying, and/or gaslighting, are misapplied. They're telling us the results of their tests, they're describing in detail their design philosophy and the reasons behind their recommendations. If you or I disagree with those recommendations that’s all it is, a disagreement about their recommendations.

We can agree to disagree on this. I just don’t see anything untoward going on here.

 

[JGRaider]

Covtard Hornady and his bullets are dead to me........

 

[dårlig jeger]

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.

What exactly is "quartering hard?" Is that like when I see a Sidney Sweeny commercial?

Seriously though, why does everyone go to this magical shot angle that is somehow impossible? You mean to tell me that animal never presented or will present any other angle than HARD (so hard bro) quartering? It just appeared and will disappear without presenting any other shot?

 

[alexnelon]

I'm not sure how much willful misleading is really going on, I just think it's a huge problem that the "authoritative voices" on bullets mostly all seem to subscribe to the idea that ideal bullet performance is simply boring a 1/2" hole from stem to stern, and using any bullet that doesn't do that is some kind of moral failure.

If you think that a wound the size and shape of a garden hose is always best in every situation, you're not going to recommend a bullet that makes a wound the size and shape of a 16oz beer can.

The problem is they're wrong AND incorrigible.

 

[rharbaugh]

Sierra is going to show and state that TMK’s are excellent in tissue.

New leadership that made them actually test TMK’s in proper gel, and that cares more about demonstrable reality than tired beliefs.

i'm not saying you're wrong, however their website / product description doesn't explicitly state this at the moment

"Tipped MatchKing bullets are designed for target shooting and are not recommended for most hunting applications." - from the 116 TMK product description

based on your insights, can we expect to see these new TMK gel tests published soon-ish?

 

[Lou270]

I'm not sure how much willful misleading is really going on, I just think it's a huge problem that the "authoritative voices" on bullets mostly all seem to subscribe to the idea that ideal bullet performance is simply boring a 1/2" hole from stem to stern, and using any bullet that doesn't do that is some kind of moral failure.

If you think that a wound the size and shape of a garden hose is always best in every situation, you're not going to recommend a bullet that makes a wound the size and shape of a 16oz beer can.

The problem is they're wrong AND incorrigible.

I see your point, but hunting bullets don’t drill holes as you infer. Most of them except certain monos shed some or significant weight and create large wounds. I have used about all of them and I scratch my head when I see statements like this. They just don’t totally come apart and leave some base to keep penetrating. Even monos create much larger than diameter wounds when impact velocity is at least moderatly high. A classic btip or sst make huge wounds and have a thickened base to penetrate. If somebody wants to use a bullet that comes apart that is fine, but each type has some pros/cons.

Lou

 

[Whitefox82]

What exactly is "quartering hard?" Is that like when I see a Sidney Sweeny commercial?

Seriously though, why does everyone go to this magical shot angle that is somehow impossible? You mean to tell me that animal never presented or will present any other angle than HARD (so hard bro) quartering? It just appeared and will disappear without presenting any other shot?

Well, I imagine a quartering away shot to be one where the far front shoulder is not obstructed by the facing hind leg(ham). If in a 90 degree turn the animal can go from perfectly broadside to facing directly away, then it would be in that 15-45 degree turned range. 0-15 degrees would still be virtually broadside. “Quartering hard” is like that 60 degree realm where you’d need to make contact with the very front of the hind leg to go through the center of chest cavity. That shot selection would be totally up to you but it could also be a second shot if your first hit was poor and needed to get another round into the animal before it’s out of sight. And in a heavily timbered area it is not out of reason to think that it could be your only shot available. This is a completely reasonable hunting scenario and it’s up to the individual to determine if it’s an ethical first shot based off their setup. If I’ve learned anything from this thread it’s that I need to use descriptive words carefully because guys will try and tear anything they disagree with apart and put words in your mouth. Avoid words like “all, every, need” etc . Like professional protesters on the picket lines. Again, I do not condone ass shots! Some of you have said you have faith in match bullets penetrating from that 60 degree angle shot. Thats fine, you likely have more experience using them than I do. I simply don’t have the faith in them that some of you do.