Looks like I need to pull some 9mm bullets

M

Metal god

New member
Although I have many thousands of rifle rounds loaded under my belt . I just started reloading for 9mm and 45 acp . I've not shot them yet . I have been using my Sierra and Hornady manuals as well as the powders web site for my data . I'm using Barry's platted bullets and Hornady 125gr HAP bullets .

Hornady does not have the load data for the HAP and neither does Sierra . How ever it did not seem unreasonable to use there 124gr bullet data which are close to one another . Now that in it self MAY be a mistake (well in this case it was) but when loading rifle if you look at a couple manuals and a online source . You get a pretty good idea where to start and stop if the spesific bullet is not in the data .

Here was my mistake for sure . When I first looked at the Hodgdon web site I either did not notice they had a box to click on for 125gr bullets or I was fixated on using the 124gr data from the books and just clicked that weight . I just went back to the Hodgdon website to look around and check data when I noticed the 9mm 125gr data available . That data has the Hornady 125gr HAP bullet :cool: right . Well yes it is because it turns out there data for that bullet starts almost a full gr less then the starting point of the 124gr bullets . Not only that it maxes out pretty quick . It turns out I started my loads .1gr higher then the max load for the 125gr HAP and went over 1.0gr higher then MAX :eek:

What's crazy about this is I was to test those rounds today after I shot in the High power service rifle competition . How ever when my alarm went off today at 5am I said screw getting up this early , I'm going back to sleep . At this very moment I should be blowing up my gun at the range :o

So after calling my self out in this forum I so love . I ask why is there such a huge difference in what appears to be very similar bullets ?

Hodgdon website
Hornady 125gr HAP using Auto comp= min 3.6gr - max 4.1gr


Hornady manual
124gr HP-XTP which is the bullet they copy or mirror for the HAP = min 4.2gr - max 4.9gr using Auto comp

Sierra manual does not have Auto comp but if you look at the burn rates of many powders that come before and after each other in other manuals You can see where it should fall in the sierra manual for the 124 and 125gr bullets . That area to me looks right in line with the Hornady manual .

What gives here ? Is there any chance the HAP is loaded down do to the fact it is designed for competition and you tend not to load your competition loads hot . FWIW The pressure the Hodgdon website is showing are lower with the HAP bullet as compared to just about all others listed . In the ball park of 1200psi to 3000psi difference :confused:
 
Last edited:
While 1 grain difference in the bullet weight does make a difference for most loads, the OAL for the longer bullet will. I am not familiar with the HAP bullets, but would guess they are lead or plated (that's why they are 125 and not 124). The XTP is a JACKETED bullet and jacketed bullets require more push to get them started and down the barrel, that is why the HAP requires less gun powder. If your GUN is rated for the max PSI for XTP's I see no problem with the loads up to 4.4 grains which is the middle of min and max for a jacketed bullet. I would be a bit more careful with any loads above the 4.4 level.

If anything I would knock down the rounds (impact hammer time) for those loaded 1 grain over max and start over with those.

Jim
 
OAL, meaning more or less combustion space because of seating depth?
Click to expand...

Although I understand the quote . The OP is only about charge weight and how I started .1gr above max of the only published data I found on this bullet and finished one whole grain above max . even though the bullet is Very close to another Hornady bullet I have data for and based my loads off of . see below

http://www.hornady.com/store/HAP-Hornady-Action-Pistol

Here is the bullets description

The bullet engineered with the competitive shooter in mind. Hornady began with a bullet legendary in its accuracy - the Hornady XTP - and redesigned it as the perfect competition projectile. While the XTP uses folds and a cannelure to aid in expansion and increase terminal performance, expansion is meaningless in competition. So, the folds and cannelure are gone from the HAP (Hornady Action Pistol) bullet.

Because jamming can cost a competitive shooter the match, Hornady placed the HAP's pure lead core inside a copper jacket that protects the nose, ensuring smooth feeding. And like the XTP, the core of the HAP bullet is cold swaged from pure lead to give it amazing consistence, balance and stability in flight. T
Click to expand...

You can clearly tell it's a jacketed bullet and not plated by the look and feel of it . It seems as if it is a real nice bullet . I will be pulling most of these I loaded but I plan on contacting Hornady and asking why the load data is so different .
 
Last edited:
I have tried to figure out how much AutoComp you used but can't quite wrap my head around it. Did you start at 4.2 and stop at 5.1? That's what it appears you are saying.

I'm using 4.4 grains of AutoComp under a 124 HiTek coated lead semi wad cutter with no problems. I tested from 4.2 to 5.0 and found my best group at 4.4 grains.

I wouldn't worry if your loads are within all the parameters of the bullet makers manual.
 
Change the OAL and the pressure changes. They were questioning whether the lenghts were different between the two loads. For example when looking at two sources sometimes you will see less powder under the same bullet but same pressure or velocity. Then you note the OAL differs. Less powder in less space(shorter lenght) produces same pressure/velocity as more powder in mord space. But not always.
 
Look like you are a little over Hornady Max. How many did you load? I'd likely be inclined to break down the 5.0 and 5.2 and down load them th 3.8 and 4.0 IF ii had any concern about over pressure. I just started loading with AutoComp myself so my experience is limited along with finding load info for this new powder.
 
hmm well I had not thought of that but only because they all have different tips/noses so the OAL is not really telling me how deep the buulets are seated in the case . How ever maybe the HAP are in fact seated deeper to function in the hundgun better for competition .

EDIT : well the HAP OAL is 1.069 the XTP is 1.060 and the fmj-fp is 1.050 only the round nose is longer OAL 1.150 . Those numbers screw me over as well I went with the XTP OAL of 1.060 . So my loads are not only hot they are seated .009 deeper then they should be. I'm just going to pull them all and start over:mad:

I loaded 5 rounds of each charge
 
Last edited:
Pull 9mmbullets

Serf..... DIFFERENT PARAMETERS come from different testing facilities using different guns/barrels/data, etc.... What may be a deeper-seated bullet [shorter OAL] in one barrel/setup, doesn't necessarily mean higher pressures if that combination is fired in another setup. It's all relevant. Different/same OALs of different bullets can still have the same bullet SEATING DEPTH[ amount of bullet body in the case], and IF----READ THAT "IF", the bullets have the SAME composition, and if the only difference is the BULLET length itself [noses and ogives differ] with the bullets having the same bearing surface, the pressure will most likely be the same with the same powder/load data. Go by the specifics in the manual and use the same components [gun, barrel length, etc.] if at all possible--which more often than not will be difficult to do-- so at least go with the manufacturer's guide for the products you're using.
You mentioned BERRY's bullets.... Did you use the same data for them as for the HAPs? BERRY's suggested using data for lead or cast bullets for their plated bullets due to the relatively soft composition of their plated rounds. Using data for jacketed bullets could raise pressures. Just sayin'. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes in the 40+yrs. reloading, and I learned pretty quick what NOT to do.....LONG AGO. NOW, I go by the book. It's the best way. GOOD LUCK!

WILL.
 
Last edited:
Berrys suggestion is conservative. I have loaded other brands of plated bullets......Raniers for several deckades and Berrys plateing is as thick as some jacketed bullets so I load them as jacketed.
 
Did you use the same data for them as for the HAPs? BERRY's suggested using data for lead or cast bullets for their plated bullets due to the relatively soft composition of their plated rounds. Using data for jacketed bullets could raise pressures. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I did not load the HAP's as if they were Barry's platted . I knew they are jacketed bullets . As such I thought I could use the same data for jacketed bullets from the same manufacturer that weighed 1 grain less .

I did go to Barry's web page before I started and got there info . Barry's does not have any load data but as you can see below They do recommend some very specific things

From Barry's web site : We do not research or publish the load data, but you can use any published load data for a jacketed or lead bullet as long as it is the same weight bullet. Any of the load data books or the powder manufacturers’ website should have that information for you, as long as you keep them under 1250 fps for our standard bullet or 1500fps for the bullets designated as TP (thick plate).

We recommend using hard cast load data or start with mid-range jacketed data. Make sure data is below 1250fps unless you are using a Thick-Plated bullet that we list a higher max velocity for like the 9mm 124gr HBRN-TP that can be shot to 1500fps in open class guns like a .38 Super. Keep in mind that since our plated bullet has the same pressure curve as a hard cast bullet, the published cast data will be very close to what you will get with our plated bullets. If you use Jacketed data with our plated bullets you can get from 5% - 8% increase in velocity using that data.
Click to expand...

FWIW I did email Hornady today and asked what data I should use for there 9mm 125gr HAP bullet . They have been pretty good in the past returning my email questions . They likely will respond by the end of the week .
 
Last edited:
BERRY's

HART; MG.... You may very well be correct in the [current] plating thickness of BERRY's bullets, However, I loaded them when the first hit the scene, and they were so soft I could deform/scratch them with my thumbnail. They weren't all that accurate so I haven't tried them in a few years. For that, I stand corrected. RANIER's bullets though,...even for being plated are far and above BERRY's. I've gotten 39+ inches penetration in thoroughly soaked newspaper stacks from my .444 Marlin/BALLARD rifling @ 20 yds. and 300gr HP@ a chronoed 2255 FPS, and they still expand at 1380 FPs from my SBH and R'Hawk in the same medium. Not as much as the .444. But between dime/nickel size. So far I've not been able to recover a bullet from any one of six deer taken with either the .444 or the SBH or R H. All through-and-through broadside-behind the shoulder hits.
WILL
 
a HAP is a modified XTP, starts life with the same jacket and the same lead. I don't understand the pressure difference with equal powder charges. no need to seat the bullet any deeper, and def not deep enough to constitute a full grain less powder ending up with similar pressures. I may have to write hornaday and see if I can understand this.
 
HOR. HAP bullets.

SKIZZ.... I did just that this past week when I received some 115 gr. HAPs from CTD to go along with a .357 Sig. and 9MM conversion barrels for my G35. I noticed that there were also some HAPs in .356 cal. too. I couldn't find any data in my HORNADY 9th Edition manual for the .355 HAP either in 9MM or .357SIG., let alone the .356 cal. Their manual shows the HAPs, but on page 106, between the 9MMs (.355) and the 38s (.357) they show the 121 & 125gr .356 HAPs. The only data I found for these(.356) were for the .38 SUPERs and then they were all-inclusive w/.355 &.357 bullets of various XTPs, FMJs,(both FPs and RNs) in 124-125gr wgts. only....not the 115gr. HAPs.

When I asked HORNADY about the .356.-124gr. vs. .355-124gr. in the 9MM and .357 SIG barrel, I was told to start low and work up w/the .356s. Go Figure. I know from experience that some 9MMs can have bores larger than .355( my LLAMA IXA Gov't. mod. bought in '77 has a .357 bored barrel, and I load/shoot .38/.357 bullets through it. Took me forever to find that out.)
What I am trying to say is; You have to try and work with different combo(s) to see what's right for your particular set-up.
WILL.
 
Call em up--I've never had a problem getting a ballistics expert from any of the manufacturers on the line (including hornady) to give me the dope I needed. I think you're right to be concerned, always better when someone else does the testing when pushing the boundaries.:)
 
I actually crunched a 115 grain 9mm Berrys in my press to see how they would fair...that plating is plenty thick...now as to the difference with the specks the OP has hic specks do not jive for how I load with other powders for 9mm. I use HS6, Red Dot, Green Dot or Unique for 9mm and I use the same powder weights for hollow points or solids I use horady xtps for my carry ammo and berrys or a bullet that I cast for practice and I can tell you for a fact that as long as the OALs and powder and bullet weights are the same there will be no difference.

Infact I use a lee mold and 105 grain bullets for .380. 9mm and within a caliber I keep the same powder weight for the 115s and 105s and it make no difference.
 
UPDATE

Hornady emailed me back :

I wrote ,

Hi I'd like to know what load data to use when loading your 9mm 125gr HAP bullet . I have and use your manual 9th ed but it does not have the HAP load data . Can I use the 124gr XTP data in the manual
Click to expand...

There response was ,

The 124gr XTP data will work fine for this.
Click to expand...

Well there it is there . I'm glad I did not pull all the bullets . I did start too but only pulled the two highest charges . I assume they mean I can use the seating depth of the XTP as well so no need to change that .

I'll be testing these out on Friday ;)
 
I'd be interested in an after action report on the HAP loads compared to the Berry's. I have used Berry's for several years, but never tried the HAP bullets.

Will you be testing just for function or will you test for grouping from a bench rest? Five rounds seems to be a small number for group testing of pistol cartridges (although I confess I only load seven rounds per step myself).
 
Last edited:
Well I've never done hand gun rounds but thought five was enough to start . How ever after a little reading It appears not really . My plan was and still is to test them like I test new AR loads . Load one round in the mag and with the slide locked back . Let the slide fly home loading the round . Fire and see if the slide locks back . Repeat that step one more time . Then load the remaining three rounds in the mag and firing all three rounds to check function . I will be using a rest and trying to shoot a nice group at the same time . I'm even thinking of using a very cheap rail mount laser for testing . I have a hard time keeping the front sight in focus when shooting pistols

Once I find a load that cycles and groups well I'll load 10 more to confirm the first test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top