Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[hereinaz]

I guess the U.S. Army lied to me for many years. Is the above what they told you in all of the International Humanitarian Law and Law of War training you attended? I also never once laid eyes on a bullet that wasn't an FMJ.

Interpretation of the law, and what is taught in seminars as doctrine, isn't always the law. Heck, the Supreme Court interprets laws differently all the time.

As a lawyer, I can say there is NEVER an easy answer when... its why people hate lawyers of course. So when "its only FMJ" is the policy interpretation, but it doesn't say FMJ in the actual "law", that is what level the people teaching knew of or wanted to repeat.

Its why some went back to what it actually said, rather than just repeating the same thing.

 

[carsonkeys]

Next is terminal max effective range. I’ll explain in the next list what that means, but let’s just start with a expansion/upset that creates at least a 1 to 1.5 inch wide permanent wound channel.

Using the same two bullets (147gr ELD-M and 140gr Accubond), the ELD-M needs 1,750fps +/- impact velocity to achieve that. The Accubond needs 1,900fps +/- to do the same. Using the above rifle and conditions (SAC) the differences are as follows-

140gr Accubond 440 yards-
View attachment 255795


147gr ELD-M is 810 yards-
View attachment 255796


By using a match bullet (at least this one) you’ve increased your terminal effective range by nearly double.

It’s not so much that I “like” match bullets, as much as it is that certain ones create a lot of tissue damage and thus kill faster. And by proxy, because they do create so much damage, you can shoot smaller cartridges and still maintain more than adequate performance. However match projectiles are all over the map in how they behave terminally. Some are big varmint bullets, some don’t expand or upset at all, and some are in the middle.

I’m not a fan of using big cartridges and then because they cause too much meat loss, throttling them back with certain bullets (300 mags and monos for instance). It’s makes much more sense to me to find the smallest round that when using optimized bullets, gives me the terminal effects that I want. Also, for the below, understand that I am looking for performance from each round from muzzle to as far as possible. I kill a lot of animals close, but I also kill quite a bit at distance as well.




Yes, I do favor appropriate match bullets at all ranges and impact velocities in general, though I use quite a bit of non match bullets as well. While an extremely frangible bullet may not be ideal at 40 yards, it’s workable and will kill cleanly close, while killing much better at distance. But a deep penetrating bullet creates narrow wounds, especially at distance, and drastically shortens the effective range.




If the projectile for a given impact velocity is chosen correctly, there is no issue with match bullets even at higher velocity. They’re going to fragment, but as long as the combo is appropriate, they easily go through shoulders.




The 180gr ELD-M is probably my first choice. But the 162gr ELD-M and X, 175gr X, the Sierra 160gr TMK, and the heavier Bergers starting with the 168gr, will all do what I want if I’m shooting bigger 7mm’s including the 280AI.
Larger calibers follow the same path- usually the heaviest Hornady ELD-M or X, Sierra TMK, or Berger.




Very much so. The four main lines I use are the previously mentioned Hornady ELD-M and X, Sierra TMK, and Bergers. They fragment violently and the way to reach acceptable penetration is through heavier bullets (well, more bullet to fragment).

Hey Form,

You mentioned that the 147 ELD-M needs +/- 1,750 FPS at impact to maintain acceptable terminal performance. My question is how you've come to that conclusion?

To be clear, I'm not questioning the validity of the statement. More specifically, I'm wondering if the same holds true for the 140 ELD-M (my 6.5 seems to like both) and what that window looks like for for a 178 ELD-X from my 30-06?

Is 1,750 FPS standard across the entire ELD-M line or is that specific to the 147? How about the ELD-X? Is there literature that I'm clearly not privy to that states a rounds terminal effective range?

 

[Formidilosus]

Hey Form,

You mentioned that the 147 ELD-M needs +/- 1,750 FPS at impact to maintain acceptable terminal performance. My question is how you've come to that conclusion?

To be clear, I'm not questioning the validity of the statement. More specifically, I'm wondering if the same holds true for the 140 ELD-M (my 6.5 seems to like both) and what that window looks like for for a 178 ELD-X from my 30-06?

Is 1,750 FPS standard across the entire ELD-M line or is that specific to the 147? How about the ELD-X? Is there literature that I'm clearly not privy to that states a rounds terminal effective range?

Testing results and animals. Both the ELD-M and X’s need +/- 1,800fps impact to upset. Of course some will upset every once in a while at 1,600, and some won’t at 1,900fps. That’s generally common across those two lines.

 

[carsonkeys]

Testing results and animals. Both the ELD-M and X’s need +/- 1,800fps impact to upset. Of course some will upset every once in a while at 1,600, and some won’t at 1,900fps. That’s generally common across those two lines.

Again, thanks for the info.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

This is a great thread and pretty fascinating stuff, thanks to everyone who is contributing. What it's making me do is rethink my .223 practice rifle / big game rifle paradigm. I think the basics are sound that I should have matching rifles, but I had been thinking of trying to keep the .223 cheap, and get a really nice "hunting" rifle. Sounds like I should make them at least equally nice and plan on carrying the .223 for everything until I get up to bull elk size.

 

[ATL]

I have chosen the 6.5 147 ELDM as my primary hunting bullet for the 6.5 Creedmoor. Identifiable elements of the 147 ELDM maximize my rifles performance more than any bullet specifically designed for hunting. MY reason for choosing this match bullet for hunting are:

Construction - I have faith in the ELDM's tipped bullet design expanding consistently from shot to shot down to 1800 fps.

Sectional Density - for close range shots with a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps, the heavy for caliber 147 ELDM delivers enough lead for more than sufficient penetration and wounding. I have no fear of "complete bullet blow up" at Creedmoor velocities on broadside shot angles with this bullet.

Impressive BC - The high BC allows the 147 ELDM to be effective beyond my expected maximum shot distance of 650 yards. The bullet does not drop below 1800 fps until 850 yards at 7000' DA. The decreased wind drift is nice as well.

Accuracy - In my rifle the 147 ELDM has been extremely accurate and easy to to find a load with. This bullet provides confidence I will hit what I am aiming at. As a bow hunter I have learned shot placement is everything.

Hornady sells the 147 ELDM bullet loaded in their LE 6.5 Creedmoor ammunition (TAP line), item #81505. You can find test documentation (PDF) on their site for this ammunition, designed to meet FBI protocal, tested and recommended by NTOA, according to Hornady. To me this indicates the bullet should be more than adequate for game animals of a reasonable size and proper shot placement. As mentioned by an earlier post, with Hornady marketing the 147 ELDM for LE/military use, I would think they would be hesitant in recommending it for hunting too.

I am primarily a bow hunter, but I did use the 147 ELDM on a rifle antelope hunt in WY recently. Shot distance was 460 yards, impact on point of left shoulder, full penetration with exit through offside ribs. Left shoulder/leg bone and internal organs were destroyed, resulting in a very dead antelope.

I do not know if another bullet would better meet my needs, but the research I have done to date indicates the 147 ELDM provides more performance than I require with my 6.5 Creedmoor, and most importantly I am confident in its performance.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

If there is a large amount of fragmentation, how would you minimize the chance of lead contamination in the meat? Just ensuring shot placement is adequate distanced or are the fragments large enough that they can be removed.

 

[woods89]

If there is a large amount of fragmentation, how would you minimize the chance of lead contamination in the meat? Just ensuring shot placement is adequate distanced or are the fragments large enough that they can be removed.

I can't remember ever finding a fragment, but my sample size isn't that big, either.

I don't want to get into a lead/non lead discussion but I don't worry about it. On a recent Meateater podcast Jim Heffelfinger presented some info on lead absorption that was quite interesting. He said metallic lead as found in bullets is not easily absorbed in the time it spends in the digestive tract, and is not comparable to, say, lead in paint or gasoline from years ago. I've shot lead bullets for a long time, and his data pretty much laid any anxieties to rest for me. Even as a fan of mono's he said human lead absorption is not a compelling argument for him.

Obviously I trim damage around bullet channels, but my guess is most people will see much worse effects from Doritos than lead in meat.

It is a decision everyone makes for themselves, though, and I have no problem respecting people who decide lead bullets aren't for them.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

@woods89 I assume this is the article?

Health Risks of Lead in Venison: Gray Toxin or Red Herring? | Deer & Deer Hunting

Find out if bird biologists' concerns about the effects of lead in venison on human health are legitimate or just an effort to save birds.

www.deeranddeerhunting.com

Good stuff in there, and I didn't mean to derail the discussion, to me it just naturally ties in to the discussion - some match bullets perform extremely well as hunting bullets because of both their ballistics and their terminal performance, but their terminal performance is different than conventional bullets. As you note, everyone has different risk parameters for their lead exposure, in my case I've got little kids so I'm a bit more sensitive in that regard.

 

[woods89]

@woods89 I assume this is the article?

Health Risks of Lead in Venison: Gray Toxin or Red Herring? | Deer & Deer Hunting

Find out if bird biologists' concerns about the effects of lead in venison on human health are legitimate or just an effort to save birds.

www.deeranddeerhunting.com

Good stuff in there, and I didn't mean to derail the discussion, to me it just naturally ties in to the discussion - some match bullets perform extremely well as hunting bullets because of both their ballistics and their terminal performance, but their terminal performance is different than conventional bullets. As you note, everyone has different risk parameters for their lead exposure, in my case I've got little kids so I'm a bit more sensitive in that regard.

Yes, that's the one.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I had lost track of this thread. It is a jewel. While I better understand why some hunters may opt for a match bullet, I'll still stick with those that the manufacturer recommends for hunting.

 

[hereinaz]

I had lost track of this thread. It is a jewel. While I better understand why some hunters may opt for a match bullet, I'll still stick with those that the manufacturer recommends for hunting.

Embrace the power of "AND" so you can shoot Berger match grade hunting bullets.

Just messing around, LOL.

This is a good thread to help people choose what they want to shoot.

 

[Castle Rock]

77 TMK Recovered from a shoulder shot approx 200 lb deer at 375 m (420 yard)
Muzzle velocity 3200 FPS, impact velocity about 2300
found under the skin on the off side flank maybe 26 inches of penetration
Them target bullets won’t work, no way in hell, the box says that they are only good for paper

 

[Castle Rock]

Took those photos out, they didn’t come out right, will attach soon

 

[KsRancher]

TTT. From what I am reading in this thread, the 168gr SMK out of a .308 will perform fine on elk? The reason I am asking is it the only thing I can find that my gun shoots decent. I will try the 165gr Gameking "if I can find some"

 

[Formidilosus]

TTT. From what I am reading in this thread, the 168gr SMK out of a .308 will perform fine on elk? The reason I am asking is it the only thing I can find that my gun shoots decent. I will try the 165gr Gameking "if I can find some"

While they will kill, I don’t think anyone has suggested SMK’s.

 

[Southforkguy]

I've had tremendous luck, worth mentioning my uncle had as well for hundreds of ills with 150 grain soft points. Why are these archaic rounds poo-pooed? They generally hold together, mushroom well and effectively kill game. He was .308 I am a 7mm 08 or a 7mm mag

 

[Wrench]

There is no perfect bullet for all conditions. You may have to make compromises. Choose something appropriate for your target animal(s) under the conditions that you are most likely to encounter while hunting. It sucks but you may just have to learn to pass on a shot if you, your rifle, your scope, and/or your ammo are not up to the very specific task at hand.

If most shots are likely to be close, then you don't need a bullet designed for ultra long range. Conversely if most shots are likely to be way out there, then a conventional bullet may be insufficient for the task.

If you are running bullets tough enough to punch through a shoulder, then aim for the shoulder. But if you miss and hit lungs be aware that you may have a tracking job. Conversely if you use a "softer" bullet then aim for the lungs. If you miss and hit shoulder, you have to be aware that you may have a mess on your hands.

As far as bullet weight, it depends. Does the lighter bullet meet (or exceed) your accuracy, distance and velocity requirements? What about the heavier bullet? Overall does either edge out the other despite both meeting/exceeding your requirements?

I'd wager that a sizable portion of bullet "failures" are less about the bullet and more about the shooter taking a shot that they should have passed on.

Here are a couple of examples.

1) Bull elk at 500 yards and I only have a shoulder shot. With my 6.5 PRC running 147 gr ELD-M, I'd have to take a pass since it is likely that the bullet may have penetration issues. But if I had my 300 WM running 180 gr TTSX, I'd take the shot as it is a much tougher bullet and is unlikely to have an issue penetrating the shoulder. -- Change the target to include the lungs and I'd take the shot with the PRC. Extend the distance by 200 yards, and I'd have to take a pass on the shoulder shot with this 300 WM (insufficient fps to reliably expand).

2) Black bear at 600 yards and I have a lung shot. With my 300 WM running 190 gr Berger, I'd take the shot as there's plenty of velocity for the bullet to reliably expand when it hits the lungs. With my 308 Win running 178 gr ELD-X, I'd have to pass as the bullet is down to 1650 fps at that distance so it is highly unlikely that my bullet will expand and I'd have to go after a wounded and mad bear. I'd also have to pass with my 30-06 (168 gr TTSX) on this shot as it'd be at 1750 fps at that distance. It could expand as it is only 50 fps under the published minimum, but it is too big a risk. -- Change to shoulder only and it'd be a pass with the 300 WM. Shorten the distance and I'd take the shot with the 308 or 30-06.

Here is an elk scapula, on and offside that I shot at more than 1.5x what you are quoting. That was a 142smk or 140match burner...I can't remember now. That is as shoulder as it gets and resulted in an instant bang flop.

 

[stealthgoat]

Is there any similar ballistic gel test data on the newer SSTs?

 

[eric1115]

While they will kill, I don’t think anyone has suggested SMK’s.

Would you have any reservations about using the 168 TMK out of a .308 for an all-purpose hunting bullet?