Hornady 124grns 9mm issue

[Reeferman]

Found some Hornady 124grn round nose for sale at gunstore so thought I would try them.
Went with HS-6 with load data from Hornady 9th edition. Started with 5.4grns and wouldn't cycle slide on 1911. Bumped up to 5.7grns and might cycle one but second one won't.
Hornady calls for 5.1 to 5.9 grains of HS-6 with 1.150 COL.
I recently got Hornady 10th edition and they have discontinued this bullet. I haven't tried going to 5.9grns yet but don't think its going to make a lot of difference. It sounds and feels like a really light load.
Anyone else use this combination?

 

[snakeye]

Hogdon website shows HS- 6 is 6.0 to 6.6 for the Berry 124 grain bullet which close enough for the Hornady. Since you have already started low just keep working the ladder up until 6.6

 

[SC_Dave]

Hogdon website shows HS- 6 is 6.0 to 6.6 for the Berry 124 grain bullet which close enough for the Hornady. Since you have already started low just keep working the ladder up until 6.6

Does it matter if the bullet is hollow based or not? I've never loaded hollow based and i'm watching this thread because I'm considering switching from 115 gn to 124.
SCD

 

[Reeferman]

I did see that on Hodgdons site. Also I didn't know these bullets had a lead base like they do. Wonder if that's why Hornady discontinued them?
Also couldn't hit the side of the proverbial barn with these as they are.

 

[Walkalong]

It's a typical 9MM cup and core 124 Gr FMJ with an open base. Nothing special. (124/125 doesn't matter)

Hodgdon's online data for a Sierra 125 Gr FMJ is:

Hodgdon HS-6 .355" 1.090" 6.4 1,131 25,600 CUP 6.8 1,169 27,100 CUP

That is exactly what you need.

 

[Reeferman]

It's a typical 9MM cup and core 124 Gr FMJ with an open base. Nothing special. (124/125 doesn't matter)

Hodgdon's online data for a Sierra 125 Gr FMJ is:



That is exactly what you need.

Yup I saw that one as well. Going to load a few at 6.0 and a few at 6.2 and see how they are. Just wanted advice from some of you with more experience. Or should I go right to 6.4?

 

[Walkalong]

Start at 6.4.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Start at 6.4.

I agree, start with 6.4gr.

 

[Walkalong]

And ArchAngelCD is an HS-6 expert.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Nada, not an expert but it's been said I should change my name to ArchAngelHS-6 lol

 

[Reeferman]

I used HS-6 with 115 XTP 9mm and it worked really well using Hornady data. Thought it would work as well with 124 but not so much. Will try some starting at 6.4 and see how they work.

 

[rfwobbly]

Start at 6.4.

....and note that the load data quoted 1.090" as the test OAL, so you'll want to shorten up your OAL from 1.150" to something more useful like 1.125".

 

[Reeferman]

So what COL should I use 1.150, 1.090 or somewhere in between especially with mid and upper charge?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

He said to try 1.125" but check the round in you barrel, the plunk test.

 

[LiveLife]

So what COL should I use 1.150, 1.090 or somewhere in between especially with mid and upper charge?

With 115 gr FMJ/RN, I usually load shorter at 1.130"-1.135" to increase neck tension or longer to not compress powder charge.

With 124 gr FMJ/RN, I usually use 1.145" or longer at 1.150"-1.160" if I am using fluffy powders so as to not compress powder charge.

Most barrels will accommodate 115/124 gr FMJ/RN loaded to SAAMI max of 1.169" but use your barrel to determine the max/working OAL that works with your pistol.

 

[Walkalong]

....and note that the load data quoted 1.090" as the test OAL, so you'll want to shorten up your OAL from 1.150" to something more useful like 1.125".

Yes, something in that neighborhood. I generally use 1.130 to 1.135 for 9MM RN plated or jacketed. (115 & 124/5 Gr) Have been known to go to 1.140 to 1.145, and I am sure there are some really blunt RN that could be shorter than even 1.125, but that would be a good starting point.

 

[Reeferman]

At 1.150 they plunk in my barrel. I'll split the difference and see how they do.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

If they plunk in your barrel they are fine. No need to shorten them.

 

[Reeferman]

I know Hornady seem to have slightly lower loads than the powder oem's but I've never had an issue like this with any of the other calibers I load or with 9mm 115 XTP. They all shoot just fine.

 

[rfwobbly]

At 1.150 they plunk in my barrel. I'll split the difference and see how they do.

If they plunk in your barrel they are fine. No need to shorten them.

In my testing, 9mm bullets seem to be more accurate when the bullet is seated into the case between 0.20" to 0.25" deep. I'm not really sure why, but I have 2 theories. First one says that, like NASA rockets, you want to light the engines off, wait for a short time, and then blow the explosive bolts. Deeper seating simply keeps the bullet in-place just a fraction of a second longer allowing meaningful pressure to build.

Second theory is that without the bullet being seated deep enough into the case to make the entire cartridge physically rigid, the bullet can get knocked off axis as it slams into the feed ramp. This would be obvious with a seating depth of 0.01", and probably not so obvious with a depth of 0.10". And too, bullet exterior material would also make a difference.

Or maybe it's a combination of the two ? What is clear, is that it's not simply enough to seat the bullet to any depth and announce it perfection.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I and many others consider it good practice to load ammo to the longest length within SAAMI specs that the magazine and barrel will allow. It is true sometimes changing the bullet depth will increase accuracy but IMO that would take a lot of testing to find on top of all of the other variables. I don't remember which pistol we had that required a shorter OAL of 1.125" but there was one. I think my son's Taurus that needed a cartridge that short so I was loading all my 9mm ammo to that length.

Then there are those guns where the ammo will plunk just fine and fit in the guns magazine but just won't feed correctly from the magazine. Most times it's the fault of the bullet shape and some require a very short COAL to feed reliability.

I guess my point is don't just pick a bullet seating depth, have a reason for doing so.

 

[Reeferman]

Well I loaded some at 6.4 grains and 1,150 COL. Will be a couple days before I get to the range to see how they do.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Well I loaded some at 6.4 grains and 1,150 COL. Will be a couple days before I get to the range to see how they do.

I can't wait for the range report.

 

[hdwhit]

Walkalong wrote:
And ArchAngelCD is an HS-6 expert.

Good to know.

Is there by chance someone who is an HP-38 expert?

 

[Walkalong]

Well, he has shot a ton of that too.