Hornady 124gr HP/XTP bullet length?

Status
Not open for further replies.

vaalpens

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
2,618
I am trying to compare some load data I have seen for this bullet with bullets I am currently loading. I would appreciate it if somebody who has some in stock can let me know what the bullet length is and also what the length of the bearing surface is.

It would be nice if there was database or list somewhere where this information is readily available.
 
Measured a couple and indeed they are .575-.576" long and bearing surface is approximately .310-.315". Bearing surface is not exact.
 
When i load them i use the vv data, for an oal of 1.142" total for the loaded round. Jp
 
9mm? I don't have any handy to physically check, but QuickLoad says they are .576" in length.

Sorry, yes I should have stated 9mm. Thanks for the information and it looks like the QuickLoad information matches some other responses I have received.
 
Measured a couple and indeed they are .575-.576" long and bearing surface is approximately .310-.315". Bearing surface is not exact.

rg1, than for the data. That matches some other data and the bearing surface is just so I have a better idea regarding nose/bearing surface ratio.
 
When i load them i use the vv data, for an oal of 1.142" total for the loaded round. Jp

Thanks. I see XTP's listed at around 1.045" to 1.142" for 9mm. VV is one of those powders I have not yet gotten into. They have been expensive lately, but hopefully the prices will come down and then maybe I'll try them out in the future.
 
Last edited:
VV is one of those powders I have not yet gotten into. They have been expensive lately, but hopefully the prices will come down and then maybe I'll try them out in the future.

If low cost is a driving factor in your reloading, you may wanna pass on the VV powders. They have always been expensive. At least in my four to five year experiance.
 
After I posted that link .... I looked up the XTP and their measurement does seem to long ... I'm not sure if Litzs measured that or someone else recorded it ... it is off according to the ones I have on hand ... I fairly sure the nominal size Hornady is shooting for is .575 +/- tool variances ....
 
Hornady has changed the profile of some of it's XTP pistol bullets since they were first introduced. Maybe that's the reason for the difference in length in the chart and today's 124 XTP-HP?
 
If low cost is a driving factor in your reloading, you may wanna pass on the VV powders. They have always been expensive. At least in my four to five year experiance.

My driving factor is not just cost, but it is also a hobby I enjoy. I will probably wait until I have identified my go to powders, then try out VV to see if it can topple a go to powder. I will always be trying out different combinations since it is a hobby for me. Thanks again for your response.
 
After I posted that link .... I looked up the XTP and their measurement does seem to long ... I'm not sure if Litzs measured that or someone else recorded it ... it is off according to the ones I have on hand ... I fairly sure the nominal size Hornady is shooting for is .575 +/- tool variances ....

JmnKirk, not a problem. That is why we "trust and verify". The bullet lengths are just a guideline for me. I am not at that point yet where I calculate net water capacity to make my decisions, but I do look at the lengths to understand the differences in load data. Thanks again for the help.
 
Hornady has changed the profile of some of it's XTP pistol bullets since they were first introduced. Maybe that's the reason for the difference in length in the chart and today's 124 XTP-HP?

Thanks for the info. That could explain it. Well at least the current length is shorter, especially if you loaded at the max based on the old length, if the length changed.
 
If I am not mistaken ... the Hornady XTP bullet was introduced about 1990 ... I have used them ever since I came across a box setting on a dealer selves ... for both .357 Magnum and the .44 Magnum ... I didn't start using .355 caliber until sometime around 2005 ... with the .357 Mag & .44 Mag, I just seated to the cannelure... the .355 XTP and the 357 SIG are very different from the others ... I seated them almost to the beginning of nose portion ... this gave me a OAL length of 1.140" and it has worked very good in my Model 31 Glock ...

Those earlier XTP sure could have changed profiles ... I do believe that they have been the same shape since 2005 or so ...
 
OAL:

These bullets have a fat ogive. I had a 9mm that needed OAL of 1.050 to chamber. When I checked the box, that was more or less exactly what Hornaday recommended. You might want to take that into consideration in your bullet comparison.

FWIW, I have worked up to beyond max in a Glock, and even at this short OAL, it worked fine. It's crazy how I can shoot a 124 gr jacketed bullet at 1.05" over 6.25 gr Unique (above max!), but the same gun can only handle 4.8 gr Unique behind a 124 gr cast at 1.15". That's 23% less powder.
 
Last edited:
The VV load data for both the 115gr and 124gr XTP bullets use the 1.142 OAL. This may or may not chamber freely in your pistol, depending on how the leade is cut: CZ pistols in particular have a reputation for short leades. If you are going to use the VV data, it is vital to do the "plunk" test on some test rounds to make sure the rounds chamber freely. If you have to seat deeper to fit your barrel, you will not be able to use the the VV maximum loads, since the reduced powder space will send pressures too high.
 
Am loading the 124 xtp to 1.113 col, specifically so they fit in short leade cz 75 compact.

Reportedly Hdy changed the profile of the 45 230 xtp recently, don't know about the 9mm 124 xtp.

Hdy changes the profiles too frequently over the years for my taste, sometimes it appears for the ease of manufacturing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top