Hornady ELD-X bullets

[drpbroun5]

Does anyone on the forum have any field experience with these new bullets? Is the BC that they claim accurate at long range according to their actual drops at distance (1000+ yds)? How do they act once they strike meat and skin? What do they do in an animal at both high and low terminal velocity? How would you compare them to Bergers, Accubond and Accubond LR bullets? I'm interested in primarily elk and mule deer. Thanks for the input.
Paul

 

[drpbroun5]

I hope Bryan Litz will weigh in on these bullets with his evaluation. For me, it is not only how they fly, as important as that is, but also how they perform once they hit a critter at various terminal velocities. ? I would think that Hornady would get some out in the field with real users so we all and they could have a practical use evaluation of these new bullets.

 

[Barrelnut]

Couple of good threads have been started on this:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...ting.com/articles/hornady-eld-x-bullets-1.php
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/hornady-eld-x-official-thread-161172/

 

[Jud96]

Hornady and Gunwerks have both extensively tested these bullets in the field. They have taken 70 game animals with the ELD-X and all were satisfactory results. I recently watched an episode of Long Range Pursuit where Gunwerks and Hornady staff members hunted antelope with the new bullets and took game from ranges of 500-1000+ yards, all one shot kills.

Also, I don't think their BCs can be much more accurate considering they used Doppler Radar to verify the ballistic coefficients and this is much more precise than any other method.

Here's the link to the article that references the 70 game animals taken with the ELD-X.
Exclusive: Hornady's New ELD Series Expanding Rifle Ammo

I want to say thanks to Barrelnut for posting the link to my thread, current and upcoming information for the Hornady ELD-X can be found there. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/hornady-eld-x-official-thread-161172/

 

[Darkker]

Take this for what you will.

Most of the propaganda around these is the marketing dept.
As you can read in ballistics books by McCoy, Harold Vaughn, etc, the boat tale is responsible for the bulk of the BC. That is not to say everything else is irrelevant, but a properly designed bullet shows the actual tip of the nose to be only worth .1-.2.

The greater issue at large is the improper use BC's on Hornady's part. For the type of bullets they are talking about, G1 is a poor description, and there certainly isn't A single G1 for them. Litz's more appropriate G7 already accurately describes how those bullets behave.

If you take one of Hornady's modern A-Max designs, the 30-cal 208gr; use Litz's tested data (G7). Fire that and the new 212gr ELD-X at the maximum 300WM velocity (Hodgdon 208 data for both) you will see that there is such a VERY minor difference in drift & Drop to 1k; as to be irrelevant to any Hunter.
Then slow them down to say the 30-06 velocity, and they are completely indistinguishable. Even though you are comparing the new "hotness" to a "melty" tipped bullet.

Brian's work already correctly describes the flight path of this style of bullet. Using an inappropriate single G1, does not.

Using new construction for hunting purposes, is well played; can't argue that if it is an improvement.
Also can't argue their point that building a gaping hollow point, that you plug with a $0.001 tip; IS much easier to do.

It just isn't magic.

 

[Pdvdh]

The greater issue at large is the improper use BC's on Hornady's part. For the type of bullets they are talking about, G1 is a poor description, and there certainly isn't A single G1 for them. Litz's more appropriate G7 already accurately describes how those bullets behave.

Hornady is providing G7 BC values for their ELD-X bullets. Were you unaware of that? G7 BC values are provided on Hornady's web site.

 

[Darkker]

That was part of my point, they finally figured it out.
With the exception of the new bullets, they still list a single G1 for everything else. Finally listing G7's, a redesign and a 30% price increase is the news; the tip is the distraction to what's happening.

The marketing dept. is giving us the old "just the tip" line

 

[Swamplord]

The ELD-X bullet has a few more things going than "just the tip"

Thicker jacket at the back and the Inter Lok ring was moved forward, I've used the old 180 gr Interlock Spire Points in a 300 Win mag on moose and blacktails with bang/flop every time, but in a 300 RUM it was blown to pieces, a thicker rear end will help that bullet stay together



isn't a thicker rear end in vogue these days ?

 

[Jud96]

The ELD-X bullet has a few more things going than "just the tip"

Thicker jacket at the back and the Inter Lok ring was moved forward, I've used the old 180 gr Interlock Spire Points in a 300 Win mag on moose and blacktails with bang/flop every time, but in a 300 RUM it was blown to pieces, a thicker rear end will help that bullet stay together



isn't a thicker rear end in vogue these days ?

It's all about that base!

 

[Rich Coyle]

We may get to see how the 6.5mm 143's work on pigs when started about 3,450 feet per second.

 

[Supermag]

Maybe it will make the 168 gr Amax's, that my 308 loves so much, cheaper at least.

 

[Bullseye]

Take this for what you will.

Most of the propaganda around these is the marketing dept.
As you can read in ballistics books by McCoy, Harold Vaughn, etc, the boat tale is responsible for the bulk of the BC. That is not to say everything else is irrelevant, but a properly designed bullet shows the actual tip of the nose to be only worth .1-.2.

The greater issue at large is the improper use BC's on Hornady's part. For the type of bullets they are talking about, G1 is a poor description, and there certainly isn't A single G1 for them. Litz's more appropriate G7 already accurately describes how those bullets behave.

If you take one of Hornady's modern A-Max designs, the 30-cal 208gr; use Litz's tested data (G7). Fire that and the new 212gr ELD-X at the maximum 300WM velocity (Hodgdon 208 data for both) you will see that there is such a VERY minor difference in drift & Drop to 1k; as to be irrelevant to any Hunter.
Then slow them down to say the 30-06 velocity, and they are completely indistinguishable. Even though you are comparing the new "hotness" to a "melty" tipped bullet.

Brian's work already correctly describes the flight path of this style of bullet. Using an inappropriate single G1, does not.

Using new construction for hunting purposes, is well played; can't argue that if it is an improvement.
Also can't argue their point that building a gaping hollow point, that you plug with a $0.001 tip; IS much easier to do.

It just isn't magic.

Again you seem to completely miss the point. This entire discussion by Hornady has nothing to do with BC. The reason they have steered all there technical discussion to Drag coefficient is to get away from the inherent problems and inaccuracy with BC. Any BC drag model. If the projectile shape and the drag coefficient versus Mach number of the projectile you are evaluating does not match the shape and Cd versus Mach of whatever standard you are comparing to you will have errors. End of conversation. G7 in general is a better approximation of a boat tail, modern ogive projectile than G1. Again BC is not the discussion here. The discussion is the fact that current polymer tips, under certain conditions are degrading significantly because of aerodynamic heating and negatively effecting the drag performance in flight. If you look at the drag coefficient plots that Hornady shows this is obvious. It is not gyroscopic stability or limit cycle yaw, or changing BC or any other buzz phrase that somebody wants to throw at the wall and confuse people. You can't create and maintain a yaw condition at the muzzle that is maintained for the entire supersonic flight of a projectile without the bullet becoming totally unstable and tumbling, which from looking at their data it is not. It's not possible without an external disturbance. The differences and change in the BC's as a function of velocity are well known They are a function of how well the standard and the subject bullets drag coefficient match. The change in the BC is gradual and does not happen near as fast or as soon as the drag is changing in Hornady' s data. BC is a simple minded approximation in order to simplify a very complex math problem and provide a simple, approximate way to calculate trajectories, period.

You need to re-read McCoy and what the graphs in his book show. The boat tail has a much greater contribution to total drag in the transonic than it does supersonic, Pg. 72. The length and shape of the ogive and the size of the meplat, the point, are the overwhelming contributors to supersonic drag, Pg. 70 and 71. Put a boat tail on a round nose and it still has terrible aerodynamics. That's why if you look at the plots you will see the conventional tipped bullet rapidly depart from the new tip from the muzzle and then the two beginning to come back together at low supersonic mach numbers.

 

[Scot E]

Again you seem to completely miss the point. This entire discussion by Hornady has nothing to do with BC. The reason they have steered all there technical discussion to Drag coefficient is to get away from the inherent problems and inaccuracy with BC. Any BC drag model. If the projectile shape and the drag coefficient versus Mach number of the projectile you are evaluating does not match the shape and Cd versus Mach of whatever standard you are comparing to you will have errors. End of conversation. G7 in general is a better approximation of a boat tail, modern ogive projectile than G1. Again BC is not the discussion here. The discussion is the fact that current polymer tips, under certain conditions are degrading significantly because of aerodynamic heating and negatively effecting the drag performance in flight. If you look at the drag coefficient plots that Hornady shows this is obvious. It is not gyroscopic stability or limit cycle yaw, or changing BC or any other buzz phrase that somebody wants to throw at the wall and confuse people. You can't create and maintain a yaw condition at the muzzle that is maintained for the entire supersonic flight of a projectile without the bullet becoming totally unstable and tumbling, which from looking at their data it is not. It's not possible without an external disturbance. The differences and change in the BC's as a function of velocity are well known They are a function of how well the standard and the subject bullets drag coefficient match. The change in the BC is gradual and does not happen near as fast or as soon as the drag is changing in Hornady' s data. BC is a simple minded approximation in order to simplify a very complex math problem and provide a simple, approximate way to calculate trajectories, period.

You need to re-read McCoy and what the graphs in his book show. The boat tail has a much greater contribution to total drag in the transonic than it does supersonic, Pg. 72. The length and shape of the ogive and the size of the meplat, the point, are the overwhelming contributors to supersonic drag, Pg. 70 and 71. Put a boat tail on a round nose and it still has terrible aerodynamics. That's why if you look at the plots you will see the conventional tipped bullet rapidly depart from the new tip from the muzzle and then the two beginning to come back together at low supersonic mach numbers.

+ 1. Great summary!

 

[BryanLitz]

Guys,

Here's a post I made in another forum on this subject; most of the points address questions that have been discussed here.

In the video, Hornady observes the BC to drop at long range. In response to that...
It's well established and understood that BC's are velocity dependent based on the comparison of a bullets drag to the standard model (G1, G7, etc). A bullet that's perfectly stable and not melting in flight will have it's G1 BC fall off as it slows down; that's just normal for all modern LR rifle bullets, not just those with plastic tips.

Also, there are numerous explanations to the observed convex drag curves. This paper (http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2010/ARL-TR-5182.pdf) is a full aerodynamic work up the government did on the M855 round showing its dynamic instability, pitching/yawing, etc. In other words, some bullets fly with what's called 'limit cycle yaw', which is a coning motion that acts sort of like a trim angle to keep the bullet in equilibrium. Flying at a small coning angle adds drag which, depending on the damping exponents, can result in a convex drag profile. One aspect of bullet design that is known to have an effect on the magnitude of limit cycle yaw is boat tail design. Steep BT's tend to fly with larger limit cycle yaw, the 168 SMK being the most popular example of a bullet that exhibits dynamic instability at supersonic speed. The whole line of Nosler Ballistic Tips and Accubonds have steep BT's, as well as many of the Hornady Amax and Vmax line. The steep BT's on these bullets could cause convex drag curves.

The amount of limit cycle yaw a bullet has depends a lot on its gyroscopic stability, which is tied to twist rate. The Hornady paper doesn't say the barrel twist used for the testing. If, for example, the 7mm 175 Hornady and the 7mm 175 Nosler LRAB were both fired from the same twist barrel, it could just be a matter of the Nosler not getting fully stabilized and flying with larger limit cycle yaw angles which creates the convex drag curve etc. I've measured this very thing (higher drag and lower BC's from the muzzle) for bullets fired with marginal stability. The Nosler LRAB's in particular are longer bullets that require faster than standard twist to stabilize.

Another strange thing about the 'melting tip' theory and the convex drag curves is that the drag curves are shown to be convex beginning at the muzzle. They talk about the tips melting in flight, at long range, for heavy high BC bullets that maintain higher speed for longer flight (vs. a varmint bullet that slows down quickly). That makes sense, but then why are the drag curves convex beginning at the muzzle? It seems to take no time at all for the tips to 'melt' and affect the drag.

Setting aside the 'melting tips' theory for a moment; consider the positives.

Hornady has come out with a new line of high BC, heavy for caliber bullets which should be good for long range.

They are providing G7 BC's for these bullets. Based on Hornady's measurement of G7 BC's of some Berger bullets matching my measurements nearly identical, I'm guessing that the G7's Hornady is putting out for their new bullets are very accurate.

I'll continue exploring the melting tip theory vs. other theories that fit the data.

-Bryan