Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Norma BondStrike, TipStrike, and J&A Abram bullets
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Petey308" data-source="post: 2634217" data-attributes="member: 106845"><p>Hello sir. I wanted to make a few points, if I could, about this. Hopefully this doesn't come off as snobbish or anything like that. I don't want to sound like that at all, and ultimately if what you or anyone else is doing is working for you, by all means don't change just because someone said something different.</p><p></p><p>So anyway, in your post you say you switched bullets not because they weren't killing fast and very well, but because you perceive that a bullet shouldn't experience core separation, and if it does it's automatically not a good thing (essentially). If I'm putting words in your mouth, I'm not meaning to, that's just how I read it.</p><p></p><p>My perception is that you have good evidence to make a case, through experience and results, that the ELDM worked great, and no definitive proof to make a case that core separation is overall bad. To that extent, you also have no definitive proof that core retention is overall better, just that it appears to allow for more penetration, which is true. That's why a bullet such as the ELDX or other tough constructed bullet, especially bonded bullets, tends to pencil through under an impact velocity of around 1800fps. The ELDM, on the other hand, will still expand well down to at least 1400fps and usually lower. And where most of the trouble comes from with softer constructed bullets is when using one with insufficient sectional density and/or placing it where it experiences too much resistance upon impact and/or impacts at too high of a velocity. Heavy for caliber is always the way to go for best results with bullets like the ELDM.</p><p></p><p>I get where this logic comes from. It's common. I thought the same way once, and did so for years. But then I started realizing there was no reason to keep assuming bullets that don't exit are bad when they consistently result in quick and clean kills. It was time to start accepting that non-pass throughs were acceptable when you could indeed ensure sufficient internal trauma, especially with a shutdown of the CNS. I'm not saying it always works, because it doesn't. You still need to know how the limitations work and ensure you're within them. Things like sufficient sectional density, within ideal impact velocity range, adjusting shot placement as necessary to ensure impact resistance is not too much or too little, etc. That's the whole point of a lot of my threads regarding bullet construction and comparisons.</p><p></p><p>This is meant purely as food for thought and I'm not really trying to push anything on you or anyone else or argue or say you or anyone else is wrong or anything like that, so I hope you don't take it like that. It's not even really directed at you. Your comment was just a good example to build off of.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Petey308, post: 2634217, member: 106845"] Hello sir. I wanted to make a few points, if I could, about this. Hopefully this doesn’t come off as snobbish or anything like that. I don’t want to sound like that at all, and ultimately if what you or anyone else is doing is working for you, by all means don’t change just because someone said something different. So anyway, in your post you say you switched bullets not because they weren't killing fast and very well, but because you perceive that a bullet shouldn’t experience core separation, and if it does it’s automatically not a good thing (essentially). If I’m putting words in your mouth, I’m not meaning to, that’s just how I read it. My perception is that you have good evidence to make a case, through experience and results, that the ELDM worked great, and no definitive proof to make a case that core separation is overall bad. To that extent, you also have no definitive proof that core retention is overall better, just that it appears to allow for more penetration, which is true. That's why a bullet such as the ELDX or other tough constructed bullet, especially bonded bullets, tends to pencil through under an impact velocity of around 1800fps. The ELDM, on the other hand, will still expand well down to at least 1400fps and usually lower. And where most of the trouble comes from with softer constructed bullets is when using one with insufficient sectional density and/or placing it where it experiences too much resistance upon impact and/or impacts at too high of a velocity. Heavy for caliber is always the way to go for best results with bullets like the ELDM. I get where this logic comes from. It's common. I thought the same way once, and did so for years. But then I started realizing there was no reason to keep assuming bullets that don't exit are bad when they consistently result in quick and clean kills. It was time to start accepting that non-pass throughs were acceptable when you could indeed ensure sufficient internal trauma, especially with a shutdown of the CNS. I’m not saying it always works, because it doesn’t. You still need to know how the limitations work and ensure you’re within them. Things like sufficient sectional density, within ideal impact velocity range, adjusting shot placement as necessary to ensure impact resistance is not too much or too little, etc. That’s the whole point of a lot of my threads regarding bullet construction and comparisons. This is meant purely as food for thought and I’m not really trying to push anything on you or anyone else or argue or say you or anyone else is wrong or anything like that, so I hope you don’t take it like that. It’s not even really directed at you. Your comment was just a good example to build off of. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Norma BondStrike, TipStrike, and J&A Abram bullets
Top