Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[wyosam]

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.

People who don’t know what they are doing and make no effort to learn shoot all kinds of bullets, in fact they probably shoot what is cheapest (likely not copper). That’s a bad argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PBBananaHammock]

People who don’t know what they are doing and make no effort to learn shoot all kinds of bullets, in fact they probably shoot what is cheapest (likely not copper). That’s a bad argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The cheapest is lead and would therefore be banned. So no they wouldn’t shoot that if forced into copper.

I have no desire to derail this thread, so I’m leaving the copper discussion to anyone of the many, many other copper/environment threads there likely are… but you won’t see me in those either because they make me want to stick my head in an oven.

 

[wyosam]

The cheapest is lead and would therefore be banned. So no they wouldn’t shoot that if forced into copper.

I have no desire to derail this thread, so I’m leaving the copper discussion to anyone of the many, many other copper/environment threads there likely are… but you won’t see me in those either because they make me want to stick my head in an oven.

I didn’t bring it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PBBananaHammock]

I didn’t bring it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re right, that was my mistake. So I’m correcting it by leaving it at that.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

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.

In big game animals nobody will be able to tell the difference.

In what I’ve seen on ballistics gel and ply wood tests with reduced loads simulating various impact velocities, going back to when these bullets came out up until very recently, general performance has a slight edge favoring the ELDX.

Again, nothing that anyone would be able to distinguish in big game organs, scapula, or ribs. Shoot what shoots the best out of your gun.

 

[BjornF16]

In big game animals nobody will be able to tell the difference.

In what I’ve seen on ballistics gel and ply wood tests with reduced loads simulating various impact velocities, going back to when these bullets came out up until very recently, general performance has a slight edge favoring the ELDX.

Again, nothing that anyone would be able to distinguish in big game organs, scapula, or ribs. Shoot what shoots the best out of your gun.

What’s the consensus on 103 ELD-X vs 108/109 ELD-M?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

What’s the consensus on 103 ELD-X vs 108/109 ELD-M?

No experience with the 109s.

103 ELDX and 108 ELDM is also nearly indistinguishable. Keep in mind that this is on basic approximated 10% homemade gelatin that would not meet a “standardization”. It’s easy to make at home though, and provides good enough info for what my immediate group has seen when translating to dead animals.

Performance on 1/4” ply wood and homemade gel with both bullets is very good. Neither upsets as violently as the 95 SSTs however, both penetrate deeper on average and wound channels are more consistent, especially with gel placed behind plywood instead of in front.

I would confidently hunt with any of those 3 bullets, shooting the SSTs in slower twist barrels and the ELDM and ELDX in faster twist. I generally shoot whichever is the most accurate in the gun or what I can get in the same lot number out of factory ammo.

 

[Unckebob]

Most people would not see a difference in animals. However, between those- if both are laying side by side, I will choose the 143gr RLD-X first.






Haha. How/why so?

Listening to the podcast, I had a vision of a 1/2 dowel rod poking through an animal.

It simply cannot do as much tissue damage as something with a wider wound channel.

 

[D L]

This definitely should be a sticky. A bunch of great info and posted in a way that’s easy to understand. I’ve been hanging out and learning here for a while now, reading all the various threads helped me to finally come to a decision on a new rifle/caliber combo after months of information constipation. I just discovered and read this thread today and it’s got to much good info in it to be hidden.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Not exactly a match bullet, but I finally got around to submitting a question to Nosler about their 115 (.257) and 120 (.284) ballistic tips. This was based on some discussions on here about the 95 NBT (.243) and anecdotal evidence from a thread on LRH about the 120. Here is my question and their response, YMMV.

New submission for form NOS Contact Us​

Question About: Reloading Question
Email Address:
Name:
How can we help you?: My understanding is that the 95 grain (.243) NBT was designed for large game hunting, specifically elk in the .243 Win. Is the jacket thickness of the 115 grain (.257) NBT and the 120 grain (.284) NBT similarly designed? I've heard anecdotally that the 120 NBT is supposed to have a thicker jacket designed for large game (elk), but I'd appreciate your confirmation for both. I own both a 25-284 and 7-08, and I'm considering the 115 and 120 respectively for my next elk hunt. I reload exclusively for both of these rifles and would appreciate any feedback you may have.

NOS Contact Form Response:
Thank you for reaching out to Nosler with your inquiry regarding bullet selection. The Ballistic Tip was more designed for deer sized game and might not give you the depth of penetration needed for game animals the size of elk. For .25 caliber, we'd recommend using the 110gr AccuBond, 115gr and/or 120gr Partition as these bullets were designed to have higher weight retention for deeper wound channels. For the 7mm-08, we'd recommend the 140gr or 150gr Partition or AccuBond.

Not a surprising answer, but I'm still a little disappointed that there wasn't a little more meat in their response.

 

[TJudeB]

I had the opportunity to harvest a 150lb Doe with the 108 eld M in 6 arc… holy heck does this bullet do work. The shot was just over 100 yards. Upon inspection of the vitals, the heart was split in half and both lungs were soup. Might be my new favorite round. Pictured is the entrance side

 

[hereinaz]

I had the opportunity to harvest a 150lb Doe with the 108 eld M in 6 arc… holy heck does this bullet do work. The shot was just over 100 yards. Upon inspection of the vitals, the heart was split in half and both lungs were soup. Might be my new favorite round. Pictured is the entrance side

More evidence to add to the pile. It’s very convincing when you see it first hand!

 

[Shraggs]

Not exactly a match bullet, but I finally got around to submitting a question to Nosler about their 115 (.257) and 120 (.284) ballistic tips. This was based on some discussions on here about the 95 NBT (.243) and anecdotal evidence from a thread on LRH about the 120. Here is my question and their response, YMMV.

New submission for form NOS Contact Us​

Question About: Reloading Question
Email Address:
Name:
How can we help you?: My understanding is that the 95 grain (.243) NBT was designed for large game hunting, specifically elk in the .243 Win. Is the jacket thickness of the 115 grain (.257) NBT and the 120 grain (.284) NBT similarly designed? I've heard anecdotally that the 120 NBT is supposed to have a thicker jacket designed for large game (elk), but I'd appreciate your confirmation for both. I own both a 25-284 and 7-08, and I'm considering the 115 and 120 respectively for my next elk hunt. I reload exclusively for both of these rifles and would appreciate any feedback you may have.

NOS Contact Form Response:
Thank you for reaching out to Nosler with your inquiry regarding bullet selection. The Ballistic Tip was more designed for deer sized game and might not give you the depth of penetration needed for game animals the size of elk. For .25 caliber, we'd recommend using the 110gr AccuBond, 115gr and/or 120gr Partition as these bullets were designed to have higher weight retention for deeper wound channels. For the 7mm-08, we'd recommend the 140gr or 150gr Partition or AccuBond.

Not a surprising answer, but I'm still a little disappointed that there wasn't a little more meat in their response.

Over the years and similar discussions with their tech folks (not just nosler), it is so ingrained the large game need tough controlled expansion for deep penetration. It’s as rigid without the legal liability to asking about use of a non listed powder.

Ymmv, I would have already replied that I did not ask for advice on your opinion of an elk bullet and do not plan on shooting either of those. Please direct me to a technician or engineer who can actually answer my original questions. Thank you.

Edit, the 95 bt is never a bad choice in 243 minus long range. I see Form is killing a lot with the 95 tmk…

 

[slatebuilder]

With the understanding that heavy for caliber match bullets make the best wound channels. Where do wound channels from bullets such as Remington corelokts, hornady interlocks, federal blue box soft points, “the other basic inexpensive soft point type ammo etc” stack up compared to mono’s?

 

[Harvey_NW]

With the understanding that heavy for caliber match bullets make the best wound channels. Where do wound channels from bullets such as Remington corelokts, hornady interlocks, federal blue box soft points, “the other basic inexpensive soft point type ammo etc” stack up compared to mono’s?

From what I've gathered, somewhere in between. Those interlocked/bonded bullets typically have some jacket fragmentation with impact and expansion, but the base and core are designed to stay intact with the expanded frontal section (the "mushroom"), and are intended to deliver more penetration. They're obviously effective killing bullets, but some of them have the BC of a dining table not optimal for longer ranges.

 

[Okie_Poke]

With the understanding that heavy for caliber match bullets make the best wound channels. Where do wound channels from bullets such as Remington corelokts, hornady interlocks, federal blue box soft points, “the other basic inexpensive soft point type ammo etc” stack up compared to mono’s?

From what I've gathered, somewhere in between. Those interlocked/bonded bullets typically have some jacket fragmentation with impact and expansion, but the base and core are designed to stay intact with the expanded frontal section (the "mushroom"), and are intended to deliver more penetration. They're obviously effective killing bullets, but some of them have the BC of a dining table not optimal for longer ranges.

I think of bullets like the interlock as between the ELDs and bonded bullets. I don’t know that they fragment per se, but in my experience they lose more weight than a bonded bullet, and those pieces are doing something. But, they seem to hold together better than ELDs at closer ranges/higher impact velocities. Standard velocity cartridges and cor-lokts/interlocks have accounted for a lot of game at “traditional” ranges.

I just found this thread. It’s been an interesting read.