HAP 125 grain data/cycling issues

In lean times, you buy components when they are available.

I bought 500 9mm .356 125 grain Hornady Action Pistol bullets to load in 9mm brass. Hodgdon’s 9mm data for these bullets and Titegroup is 2.8 - 3.2 @ 1.069. This seemed considerably low. My load for 124 grain coated lead or plated with the same diameter is 4.0 Titegroup @ 1.075.

So, I loaded 10 test rounds @ 3.2 grains @ 1.07 and shot 5 in my P365 and 5 in my P320. Both guns cycled the five rounds fine and grouped them well. So, I went ahead and loaded all 500 at that charge and length. While shooting them (with the P320) my wife experienced a couple of stovepipes of empty brass that wouldn’t eject in the first 10 rounds and several more out of the 90 rounds she shot.

I’m gonna pull the 400 remaining rounds and reload them starting at 3.8 grains of Titegroup. I know they have their reasons but I think Hodgdon really dropped the ball on their data in this case. No way that a max load should fail to cycle my pistol. Live and learn I guess.

My conclusion: If you are loading 125 grain HAP for 9mm, test your load more than I did before settling on a powder charge. I’m afraid that the 124 grain XTP data is closer to where I should be. That’s kinda sketchy with a jacketed 9mm bullet @.356 (which is probably why the data is so conservative).

Anyway, I hope my experience helps somebody.

* Each charge was weighed. She wasn’t limp-wristing the gun. They were just crazy underpowered to the point that I can’t believe I didn’t notice in the initial test. That pistol has only done this one other time - while trying to find the lowest charge (with another projectile) that would reliably cycle it. Turns out, 3.6 grains of Titegroup under a 115 grain lrn is just a bit light.

Blue68f100 said:

What OAL are you at? You could shorten the length and it will build more pressure. Sure beats breaking than may down.

Click to expand...

I am using 1.07. Hodgdon and Hornady list 1.069.

Otto said:

So you’re going to exceed the maximum charge weight by 20% because you think you know better than Hodgdon? Do you even own a chrono?

Click to expand...

Yes, I own a chronograph. I have also loaded and shot tens of thousands of 115-124 grain 9mm bullets with Titegroup. I also am aware that Hornady used to list the 125 HAP with the 124 XTP in their data. I also have the testimony of several folks that load these same bullets at 4.0 - 4.1 grains with no issues. Hodgdon’s max load is a few thousand psi shy of +P range. I respected Hodgdon’s data and their max load wouldn’t cycle my gun. That was the whole point of this post.

Blue68f100 said:

Shorten a few by 0.010" and see if that helps. TG can pressure spike very quickly, so work slowly.

Click to expand...

I’m already at 1.07. There isn’t much further to go. My Sigs actually perform best with JHP loaded at 1.065.

Klaatu Barada Nikto said:

A decent chrono would help too. See what speed they are at now and then you'll know if the load is indeed too light, if so I'd do exactly what BlueFordTruck said and sneak up on the pressure by dropping the OAL in very minute increments.

Click to expand...

I own a pro chrono dlx. I haven’t had much of a need to chronograph 9mm range fodder. Years ago, a 124 grain coated lrn over 4.0 Titegroup got me 1050. I’ve used a ton of TG in 9mm and have never had an issue using Hodgdon’s data until now.

Blue68f100 said:

What OAL are you at? You could shorten the length and it will build more pressure. Sure beats breaking than may down.

Click to expand...

I’m at 1.07. There’s almost nowhere else to go. I pulled 100 last night. Piece of cake.

For those asking questions covered in my original post or defending Hodgdon’s data:

• I gave the details I did so that those with experience loading similar bullets would understand the situation.

• I used Hodgdon’s data presuming THEY knew better than me, knowing something was off.

• I wasn’t asking for advice, just hoping someone else could benefit from my situation.

• I would bet a great deal of money that most experienced reloaders don’t always chronograph their handgun range/practice ammo. I certainly don’t anymore.

• This will be the first time I have exceeded Hodgdon’s data. It is an unusual circumstance. THAT’S why I took the time to post.

• I am keenly interested in hearing from those that have actually loaded 125 HAP bullets in 9mm. For those that haven’t and yet have derogatory comments, please feel free to buy some, load ‘em at Hodgdon’s max charge and recommended COL, run ‘em in your gun and get back to me.

fxvr5 said:

Just as a FYI, the Hodgdon 125 HAP data looks a little off.

For example, their Titegroup data for 125 Sierra FMJ at 1.090 OAL is a start of 4.1 gr and a max of 4.4 gr.
Their Titegroup data for 147 gr XTP at 1.100 OAL is a start of 3.2 gr and a max of 3.6 gr.

Lyman's Titegroup data for a 124 gr XTP at 1.060 OAL is a start of 3.8 gr and a max of 4.1 gr.
Lyman's Titegroup data for a 125 gr Sierra JHP at 1.075 OAL is a start of 3.8 gr and a max of 4.2 gr.
Lyman's Titegroup data for a 147 gr Speer TMJ at 1.115 OAL is a start of 3.2 gr and a max of 3.6 gr.

My samples of 125 gr HAP bullets measure .574" long. A 124 XTP measures .573" long, so no practical difference in bullet length.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the data. That’s really helpful.

The major difference is the diameter of .356. 124 grain XTPs are .355. That’s what caused me to think maybe Hodgdon knew something I didn’t. Lead and plated bullets in 9mm are usually .356. Jacketed are usually .355. I can see how an extra thou in a hard jacket could increase pressure. It didn’t for me. I wasn’t gonna just treat ‘em like a .355 xtp without testing ‘em. I just wish I had shot more than ten of ‘em before calling ‘em good.

fxvr5 said:

Bullet diameter does not appear to affect things very much. Many years ago Speer did some tests (handgun) on bullet diameter and velocity and pressure, and concluded that bullet diameter (undersize and oversize) had no meaningful effect on either of these.

Click to expand...

I’d have to agree based on these and others’ experience, right? Thanks again for your help!

mdi said:

I don't think I'd try to control pressure by changing OAL. Sounds pretty haphazard to me (how many psi does .005" deeper seating change?). I just looked at the Hodgdon site and 125 gr loads and the HAP loads do seem low, but the pressure is higher than plain 125 gr jacketed loads with 1.2 gr less charge (max loads). I would just up the HAP loads until I got 100% cycling, just doing a few at a time, 20 rounds or so...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I never planned on changing COL. I reloaded 50 of the ones I’ve pulled with 3.8 TG @ 1.07 (same oal). I’ll report back after shooting these.

Blue68f100 said:

It would have been better to work up the load than just pick a number and load a bunch. Load 5-10 at one load and step up in 0.1gr increments. Then you can evaluate the loads and not be forced to break them down.

Decades ago before the internet I got burned a couple of time with min loads not cycling the gun. Bumping the OAL down increases pressure, just don't go below min OAL. You were not at max and below most starting loads so shortening was not going to be an issue. Now days I pretty much start in the low-middle of a load range if I'm using a powder I'm familiar with, working up from there. This eliminates the problem of gun function. If you replaced the springs and border line the problem will show up again.

Click to expand...

Yeah, If you had read my original post, you would have seen that I did load and shoot ten rounds to test function before going any further. You would have also discovered that those rounds were in fact at Hodgdon’s max for a 125 grain HAP in 9mm. Ten rounds wasn’t enough, true, but your implication that I just picked a powder charge and “loaded up a bunch” isn’t accurate.

I do, in fact, know what a charge ladder is. Having loaded and shot literally tens of thousands of 9mm projectiles over Titegroup, I don’t always do a fresh ladder for every new projectile. This comment, combined with your continued mention of reducing my oal when I already told you how short they are shows me that you either haven’t read or understood the information I provided.

Thank you for attempting to help me. Please feel free to share your experience with this particular projectile. I would welcome it. I would love to benefit from your other advice as well - once you demonstrate that you have actually read and understood this situation. Thanks again for your input!

PO2Hammer said:

My results.

The 124 XTP's measure .3548" with my good micrometer, the 125 HAP's .3559".

9mm Luger, FC brass, CCI 500, 4.2 grains Universal.

125 HAP @ 1.090" = 1,062 fps, 30 es.
124 XTP @ 1.090" = 1,048 fps, 17 es.

Shot a ship load of HAP's back in the 2000's in Glocks and CZ's, never saw any indication they needed lighter data.

Click to expand...

Now THIS is the kind of content I posted to get!! Thank you so much PO2 Hammer!

I see that Hodgdon’s max (for Universal) )for the Berry’s 124 is 4.4 and the Sierra 125 is 4.9, leading me to conclude that your 4.2 is conservative by comparison.

* Before anyone chimes in to say about PO2’s info “this is just some guy on the internet” please remember that in this context so are we all.