Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Conrad]

You ga e detail to jacket thickness on ELDX vs ELDM. They are both tipped bullets….

I was just curious if you had sectioned a bullet like a 130 “OTM” as Berger markets/calls it vs an elite hunter bullet. I realize they are both open tipped. I have not shot anything with Elite Hunters so I was curious if they open a little faster than some of Berger’s other bullets.

 

[Formidilosus]

You ga e detail to jacket thickness on ELDX vs ELDM. They are both tipped bullets….

I was just curious if you had sectioned a bullet like a 130 “OTM” as Berger markets/calls it vs an elite hunter bullet. I realize they are both open tipped. I have not shot anything with Elite Hunters so I was curious if they open a little faster than some of Berger’s other bullets.

Yes they do. I’m almost positive your questions have been discussed in this thread.

 

[Conrad]

I’m sure they have just jumped onto the post regarding nuances and figured I’d ask. Thanks.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Guys that like to shoot the Berger’s on Rokslide very often run a fine wire bit in the nose to improve consistency and eliminate any foreign material. This is an extra step that is avoidable with a tipped bullet like the ELDS and TMKS.

 

[Natebonebusta]

@Formidilosus convinced me to go to the 130 TMK’s for the 6.5 Creedmoor after doing some reading here. After listening to podcast 35 at least 6 times it has made me reconsider how I approach looking for a hunting bullet. Heck, I can load those 130’s in my 6.5 Grendel, and as long as I keep it above 1800fps I still get the same results!

 

[deltadukman]

Well I guess my reading comprehension sucks. I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of people on this forum preferred the 147 eld-m vs. the 143 eld-x in the 6.5's.

 

[Castle Rock]

They did last week

 

[Castle Rock]

I prefer the 130 because it shoots flatter and opens up faster

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Well I guess my reading comprehension sucks. I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of people on this forum preferred the 147 eld-m vs. the 143 eld-x in the 6.5's.

the 6.5 kill thread definitely seems to have more kills with the 147 than the 143.

 

[wind gypsy]

You ga e detail to jacket thickness on ELDX vs ELDM. They are both tipped bullets….

I was just curious if you had sectioned a bullet like a 130 “OTM” as Berger markets/calls it vs an elite hunter bullet. I realize they are both open tipped. I have not shot anything with Elite Hunters so I was curious if they open a little faster than some of Berger’s other bullets.

Berger used to not have seperate match and hunting vld lines. They eventually created the "target" line with slightly thicker jackets largely because fast twist rates, long barrels, and high barrel temps were resulting in jacket failure in match applications.

The "OTM" line seems seems more created such that it can be used in military applications, associated magazine and barrel twist constraints, and I'm not sure Jacket thickness is more aligned with hunting or match lines but likely more towards match.

 

[Chode223]

Berger used to not have seperate match and hunting vld lines. They eventually created the "target" line with slightly thicker jackets largely because fast twist rates, long barrels, and high barrel temps were resulting in jacket failure in match applications.

The "OTM" line seems seems more created such that it can be used in military applications, associated magazine and barrel twist constraints, and I'm not sure Jacket thickness is more aligned with hunting or match lines but likely more towards match.

Pardon my ignorance, but I’m still a bit confused as to why the folks who know tend to prefer the tipped bullets vs the OTM / Berger style.

You would think that the 3-6” of neck / penetration before disruption would be ideal given the concerns and reports of some of these bullets ‘blowing up’ on shoulders or bone.

Is that right? Or is it simply that the ‘blowing up’ thing is a bit of an urban legend or outlier?

My 6.5 cm really likes the Berger elite hunter 140, but does great with factory eld too. Trying to figure out which direction to go this fall.

 

[Marbles]

Pardon my ignorance, but I’m still a bit confused as to why the folks who know tend to prefer the tipped bullets vs the OTM / Berger style.

You would think that the 3-6” of neck / penetration before disruption would be ideal given the concerns and reports of some of these bullets ‘blowing up’ on shoulders or bone.

Is that right? Or is it simply that the ‘blowing up’ thing is a bit of an urban legend or outlier?

My 6.5 cm really likes the Berger elite hunter 140, but does great with factory eld too. Trying to figure out which direction to go this fall.

The "blowing up" on bone simply doesn't happen.

 

[wind gypsy]

Pardon my ignorance, but I’m still a bit confused as to why the folks who know tend to prefer the tipped bullets vs the OTM / Berger style.

You would think that the 3-6” of neck / penetration before disruption would be ideal given the concerns and reports of some of these bullets ‘blowing up’ on shoulders or bone.

Is that right? Or is it simply that the ‘blowing up’ thing is a bit of an urban legend or outlier?

My 6.5 cm really likes the Berger elite hunter 140, but does great with factory eld too. Trying to figure out which direction to go this fall.

Im pretty sure most deer are less than a 1’ wide in the lower chest where many aim. The idea that a bullet could penetrate over half the way through without disrupting is not enticing.

On the flip side, the “blowing up” scenario where people see messy entrance wounds still typically have much deeper penetration than some make it out to seem.

See posts #43 and 48 on page 3 for more visual context.

 

[Bluumoon]

I’ve been trying to educate @COparkswildlife on instagram on their misguided push to encourage copper bullets. This thread has some great reference material

 

[Chode223]

Im pretty sure most deer are less than a 1’ wide in the lower chest where many aim. The idea that a bullet could penetrate over half the way through without disrupting is not enticing.

On the flip side, the “blowing up” scenario where people see messy entrance wounds still typically have much deeper penetration than some make it out to seem.

See posts #43 and 48 on page 3 for more visual context.

Yeah. I see your point. It’s just hard to sort through all the info on the forum right now. Lots of interest and contradictory and evolving information like the below:

 

[35WhelenAI]

I don't doubt bullets that "blow up" penetrate and make a clean kill, but why have a messy loss of meat when you don't have to? It's up to each guy to decide, and I'm all for that. 30 years of success and seeing 50+ elk taken (my own or others) with all manner of bullets answers that question for me.

To me, it's not about whether a copper bullet or a frangible lead bullet is going to make a difference in the success of the hunt from what I have seen in the field. The lead versus copper is about folks being afraid of not having a choice.

What is the misguided attempt to push copper bullets? Each person can make their own decision, and if the CPW takes a side, that's no different than us taking a side. Their side is based on environmental factors, which is to be expected. Folks that shoot frangible lead bullets are not going to change their mind, despite the toxicity of lead and documented meat loss because that is what free choice allows them.

Groups ( of individuals, CPW, DOW, etc) are going to take a side of the fence and stick to it. Hunt with what you want and let your conscience/mindset be your guide.

 

[Shraggs]

I don't doubt bullets that "blow up" penetrate and make a clean kill, but why have a messy loss of meat when you don't have to? It's up to each guy to decide, and I'm all for that. 30 years of success and seeing 50+ elk taken (my own or others) with all manner of bullets answers that question for me.

To me, it's not about whether a copper bullet or a frangible lead bullet is going to make a difference in the success of the hunt from what I have seen in the field. The lead versus copper is about folks being afraid of not having a choice.

What is the misguided attempt to push copper bullets? Each person can make their own decision, and if the CPW takes a side, that's no different than us taking a side. Their side is based on environmental factors, which is to be expected. Folks that shoot frangible lead bullets are not going to change their mind, despite the toxicity of lead and documented meat loss because that is what free choice allows them.

Groups ( of individuals, CPW, DOW, etc) are going to take a side of the fence and stick to it. Hunt with what you want and let your conscience/mindset be your guide.

Hmm. You’ve seen and participated in all of these threads - copper has less tissue damage. It’s not opinion. You prefer them, np especially in a midbore far as I’m concerned.

I’m not in Colorado, but completely agree misguided. You nailed it - environmental influence…. I cannot imagine anyone trusting a government entity to push something, wreaks of an agenda that has zero merit and aimed at a different goal.

Jmo

 

[35WhelenAI]

Very true, environmental issues drive things. I started using copper long before that as you've seen in other threads. I've no hesitation with it and good/great success. That lead is now an environmental issue only makes me more confident from experience when lead gets put by the wayside.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

I’ve been trying to educate @COparkswildlife on instagram on their misguided push to encourage copper bullets. This thread has some great reference material

Keep up the good fight. I dread the day if CO ever forces copper.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

Very true, environmental issues drive things. I started using copper long before that as you've seen in other threads. I've no hesitation with it and good/great success. That lead is now an environmental issue only makes me more confident from experience when lead gets put by the wayside.

Copper sucks with short barrels, small cartridges, and extended ranges. Thus forcing more people to: A) shoot higher recoiling rifles that they won’t practice with increasing their chance for wounding; or B) also increase the chance of wounding because they won’t know the velocity limitations of copper and will continue using short barrels, small cartridges, and taking pot shots at ranges they aren’t capable of making…

An increase in wounded animals that escape and aren’t retrieved/tagged sounds like a net negative for the environment and the animals in it.

Use copper if you want, especially if you know its limitations. Just don’t force it on the general public because the general public’s ballistic ignorance and lack of practice isn’t changing anytime soon.