Is an ELD-M basically just a tipped berger?

This subject always baffles me. Why would any company in the business waste time to produce purpose specific target and hunting bullets if they had one bullet design that was ideal for both?

It would make zero sense business wise.
 
It's probably your computer's settings. I had no problem reaching them. Or do a simple search using "John Barsness Berger Bullets". Here's another of John Barsness articles featuring bullets that changed hunting, and how they continued to evolve. https://bergerbullets.com/articles/john-barsness-modern-bullet.pdf
I don't generally have any problems clicking links. Makes no sense but that's the goblins of the internet.

Same problem with this one and I have no problem getting to Berger's site directly.

1645012947321.png
 
This subject always baffles me. Why would any company in the business waste time to produce purpose specific target and hunting bullets if they had one bullet design that was ideal for both?

It would make zero sense business wise.
The answer is everyone one is looking for a better mouse trap. And because one tool doesn't always do all jobs. We could make the same argument for cartridges.
 
The answer is everyone one is looking for a better mouse trap. And because one tool doesn't always do all jobs. We could make the same argument for cartridges.
Well if they were making a bullet their own research showed to be ideal for both hunting and target shooting they'd own the market for both with a single bullet.

There's a reason these companies spend so much money developing purpose specific bullets.
 
While I agree with his writings in most cases, gelatin isn't a big elk/moose or Bear. I've never seen bones in those gelatin models. That's one important factor they leave out. IF and only if boneless meat is hit would these tests be accurate.
Yes I agree gel tests aren't an apples to apples comparison to game. i never made such a claim. That's also address in the first article. Shoulder shots and other various shot were made in the first article.
 
Yes I agree gel tests aren't an apples to apples comparison to game. i never made such a claim. That's also address in the first article. Shoulder shots and other various shot were made in the first article.
I don't think any of us indicated you did.

Something is up between here and their site, I can't open it at all right now.
 
I don't think any of us indicated you did.

Something is up between here and their site, I can't open it at all right now.
I don't know. The google search results I posted might help. Or could try again later.
 
Well if they were making a bullet their own research showed to be ideal for both hunting and target shooting they'd own the market for both with a single bullet.

There's a reason these companies spend so much money developing purpose specific bullets.
This is an interesting thing. Bullets are marketed for specific purposes, even developed for specific purposes. There are so many things that we enjoy in this world that were invented or discovered "accidentally". Maybe that's a lot of what's going on, maybe these target bullets tend to be an extremely good hunting bullet but the company never intended that. So they build a super consistent bullet that will perform well under a number of conditions, but they never test it's terminal ballistics. They send it out, people use it, then people start hunting with it out of sheer curiosity. Then you have a bullet that ends up performing well on game even though that wasn't its intention. Just a thought, what if?
 
This is an interesting thing. Bullets are marketed for specific purposes, even developed for specific purposes. There are so many things that we enjoy in this world that were invented or discovered "accidentally". Maybe that's a lot of what's going on, maybe these target bullets tend to be an extremely good hunting bullet but the company never intended that. So they build a super consistent bullet that will perform well under a number of conditions, but they never test it's terminal ballistics. They send it out, people use it, then people start hunting with it out of sheer curiosity. Then you have a bullet that ends up performing well on game even though that wasn't its intention. Just a thought, what if?
I used too hunt with a 168 gr Nosler International bt match bullet in my 300 wby , because I didn't know better now I do . There is just as many game animals run off and die too never be found that drop in there tracks that are shot with a match bullet . I would bet a ribeye steak on that .
 
I used too hunt with a 168 gr Nosler International bt match bullet in my 300 wby , because I didn't know better now I do . There is just as many game animals run off and die too never be found that drop in there tracks that are shot with a match bullet . I would bet a ribeye steak on that .
Same with a hunting bullet. It's called shooter error.
 
Last edited:
I used too hunt with a 168 gr Nosler International bt match bullet in my 300 wby , because I didn't know better now I do . There is just as many game animals run off and die too never be found that drop in there tracks that are shot with a match bullet . I would bet a ribeye steak on that .
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is true for every match bullet and I'm not suggesting it is. But perhaps, some of these "match" bullets that were "only designed for punching paper" tend to end up having **** good terminal ballistics. It's it said that's what started Bergers hunting line? People were happy with their consistency from the bench so they started hunting with them. Some slight changes were made to help them be more reliable and Berger started a hunting line.
 

Recent Posts

Top