Is the Hornady HAP the same as JHP

[Ghost In The Fog]

I am trying to find load data for 125 Gr. JHP. In reading the Hodgdon loading FAQ I a reading what I believe to be that they are the same and they have load data provided for the 125 Gr. HAP. Are the the same? Can the info for the HAP be used to load a JHP of the same weight?

I am using 700X powder.

If so, Lyman's 49th edition is WAY off on their 125 Gr. JHP data. They say 3.8 to 4.2- and COL of 1.075

The Hodgdon site says 2.9 to 3.4 COL 1.069

I test fired rounds yesterday from 3.7 to 4.2 and they all felt way to strong.

Help?

Thank you.

 

[Rule3]

No, they are different bullets Don't use LEE the nullet was not made when LEE data was copied from somewhere,

What caliber? 9mm? the load data may be the same for 124 gr but the COL may be different. I have Hornady #8 and they do not list it. it may be in Hornady #9

HAP = action pistol

XTP extreme terminal performance

 

[Grump]

I've seen Hornady's ads saying the only difference between XTP and HAP bullets is the notching at the hollow point and maybe something else. I haven't yet seen a HAP but suspect that if there is a flat exposed lead nose, then the profile would be different to make up for the extra lead in the HP space. Gotta take it away somewhere else.

On the other hand, if the HAPs retain the HP, the profile is likely identical.

Me, I'd compare the length of the bearing surface, and load them identical so long as the bullet bases are at the same depth inside the case.

Oh, perception of recoil is a lousy indicator of whether a load is too hot. You really don't know anything useful about those loads until you know how fast they are going.

 

[RAT807]

HAP = Target bullet as in reduced loads. Most load data you find will show much lower charges. The bullet is not designed to expand!

XTP = Self Defense type bullet, designed to expand, load data will show higher powder charges.

Hornady designed these bullets for two different tasks.

 

[higgite]

The HAP and XTP are both hollow points. The HAP is basically an XTP without the slits in the jacket that encourage expansion. In 9mm, both the HAP and XTP come in 115 gr, .355" diameter. The 124 gr XTP is also .355" in diameter, but the 125 gr HAP is .356". FWIW, I have shot 115 gr HAPs with 4.5 gr of W231 at 1.08" COL. I haven't shot the 125 gr HAPs, but if I did I would use Hornady's starting load for the 124 gr XTP as basis for working up a load. ymmv

 

[Toprudder]

I would say they are not the same. I remember looking in the Hornady manual at either 9mm or 45, and saw different dimensions and seating depths between the HAP and the supposedly equivalent XTP. I think it was 45.

 

[Grump]

Go over to the Brian Enos forums and you'll see that some people are shooting large quantities of HAP bullets, some of them at insane velocities.

No one local has ever stocked them to my knowledge. Guess mail order is the way to go...hate to pay shipping though.

 

[Metal God]

Modeled after the legendary XTP bullet design, HAP (Hornady Action Pistol) bullets are further refined into the perfect competition projectile. While XTP bullets use folds and a cannelure to aid in controlled expansion and terminal performance, we have eliminated these from HAP bullets leaving only a sleek and balanced projectile with a protected nose that aids in consistent and reliable feeding in autos.

I emailed Hornady about that very thing last year ( same bullet and weight ) . They replied that there 124gr XTP data can be used for the 125gr HAP . I did just that and had no issues .

The reason I contacted them is Hodgdon has the 125gr HAP data but it shows it starts 1+ grains lower then other comparable bullets on there site . There start was .5gr less then Hornady's start load for the 124gr XTP . With a total between min an max only being .7gr . That extra .5gr for a total difference of 1.2gr did not seem right to me so I contacted Hornady and asked

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I'm surprised Hornady told you to use their XTP load data. The Hornady load manual I have is the 9th Edition and does not list the HAP bullet, only the XTP bullet. Hodgdon's online load data lists a 125gr Sierra JHP, a 125gr LRN and 125gr HAP bullet. Not only is the data for the HAP bullet lighter than the data for the JHP bullet, it's lighter than the LRN bullet data, considerably lower. Take a look for yourself. I was always told not to use JHP or FMJ load data with a HAP bullet. http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

 

[Metal God]

I did look at it . It's the very reason I contacted Hornady . Hodgdon web site as you said has the HAP at a much lower stating point . I thought that's what I wrote above but the written word is not one of the better things I do .

I guess I could contact Hodgdon and ask why there data is so low but felt contacting Hornady was enough . Sorry I can't post the actual email . I tried to find it but it was deleted some time ago .

EDIT:

Well I found what I emailed and there response in an old thread I started at TFL on 3-29-15 http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=560937&highlight=hornady+125gr+hap

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

There total response was ,

The 124gr XTP data will work fine for this.

 

[Havok7416]

One grain variation will not make a difference for load data. Also as the HAP is the exact same thing as an XTP - it just won't reliably expand - you can load it to the same OAL.

 

[vaalpens]

I actually just did some testing with 9mm HAP 125gr bullets on Monday, but I used CFE Pistol. I used the Hodgdon load data. Following is my min and max loads:

9mm, 3.9" barrel
COL: 1.069"
Hornady, 125gr, HAP, CFEpistol, 4.2gr, CCI500
Average: 910
ES: 36
SD: 14.7
Force: 230
PF: 113
Velocities: 924, 918, 902, 918, 888

9mm, 3.9" barrel
COL: 1.069"
Hornady, 125gr, HAP, CFEpistol, 4.8gr, CCI500
Average: 1052
ES: 36
SD: 14.8
Force: 307
PF: 131
Velocities: 1027, 1063, 1063, 1056, 1051

With the same weight bullet, I think it is really going to come down to your COL and the length of the bullet. If your bullet is similar in length to the HAP, then that can explain what your are feeling.

The length of the HAP bullet is around .575".

 

[higgite]

I'm surprised Hornady told you to use their XTP load data. The Hornady load manual I have is the 9th Edition and does not list the HAP bullet, only the XTP bullet. Hodgdon's online load data lists a 125gr Sierra JHP, a 125gr LRN and 125gr HAP bullet. Not only is the data for the HAP bullet lighter than the data for the JHP bullet, it's lighter than the LRN bullet data, considerably lower. Take a look for yourself. I was always told not to use JHP or FMJ load data with a HAP bullet. http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

Actually, Hornady told me the same thing that they told Metal God when I asked.

Using the link you posted to Hodgdon, in 9mm, 125 gr, I see them showing a Sierra FMJ (not JPH), a LCN (not LRN) and the Hornady HAP. That aside, I'm thinking the reason they show a lighter load for the HAP than for the others is because the HAP is seated shorter than the others, but I might be wrong.

 

[Dudedog]

I did't have the "HAP" data when I loaded mine so I used a longer OAL about 1.10 and normal (125 SIE RN) charges with HP38, Universal and WSF.

The HAP data lists OAL at 1.069 a shorter OAL than some of the other bullets.
I was wondering if this was one reason the charges were lower. Another reason might be that HAPs are .356 dia not .355.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

One grain variation will not make a difference for load data. Also as the HAP is the exact same thing as an XTP - it just won't reliably expand - you can load it to the same OAL.

I never meant 1gr made a difference, I was told the bullet construction was different so the data was different. If that's not true it's good to know.

 

[vaalpens]

I did't have the "HAP" data when I loaded mine so I used a longer OAL about 1.10 and normal (125 SIE RN) charges with HP38, Universal and WSF.

The HAP data lists OAL at 1.069 a shorter OAL than some of the other bullets.
I was wondering if this was one reason the charges were lower. Another reason might be that HAPs are .356 dia not .355.

It must be the combination of length of bullet and the .356 dia.

I was actually surprised to see how close my chrono results were to the Hodgdon data. (Using my MAX: 4.2gr = 924 vs 956, 4.8gr = 1063 vs 1096)

One of the reasons why I went with 1.069" COL was to also validate the Hodgdon data since everybody felt that their charges were low.

 

[Toprudder]

I don't have any 9mm Hornady bullets, but I do have the 185gn XTP and 185gn HAP bullets (relabeled under Midway's name). Any way that I can think of to measure these, they appear to be identical except for the flutes added to the nose to allow the petals to form and expand.

However, I have the Hornady manual, and they show photos and information in the front of the manual for most of their bullets. They don't list the 45 185gn HAP, but they do list the 230gn versions of XTP and HAP - they appear to be the same. However, the information and photos for the 9mm 124gn XTP and 125 HAP appear to be very much different. They clearly describe the 125gn HAP as being 0.356" diameter. I would be hesitant to use the XTP data for the HAP in this instance.

I find it interesting the the Hornady manual does not list load data for the 125gn HAP. If it could use the same load data as the XTP, I would think they would list it along with the other two bullets they have listed that share the same load data as the XTP.

 

[Metal God]

I think the diameter differences as well as the seating depth issues are valid points . I can only speak to what I was told by Hornady

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Pressures will change by a lot with small changes in seating depth with the 9mm, that I know for sure.

 

[Ghost In The Fog]

Thank you everyone for your help and input.
Before I start to ramble, and y’all have no idea what I trying to say, here are the questions I am trying to get answered in my post below:

1) How do I see signs of too much pressure? (Remember, I am brand new to this and have a pretty thick skull)
2) Do I use the FMJ or HAP C.O.L for my JHP's? I know it's only a difference of .031 but does that matter?
3) Are you tired of my questions yet?


Here we go....
I spoke with a live person at Hodgdon yesterday and I am beginning to get a better understanding.
He told me that I can use any load data for flat nose, jacketed or JHP for my 125 Gr. 9mm JHP.
That part I understand now. 125 Gr. is 125 Gr. As long as it is the same type of bullet.

What I don't understand is COL. He suggested I use the data on their site for the Sierra FMJ- Okay so far- Starting load at 3.0 to 3.6 max

What I don't understand and didn't ask because I didn't think of it until after I got home and pulled up the load data is the COL.

If I am using JHP isn't the bullet profile different for JHP than FMJ?
Example using the Hodgdon website data- for 9mm 125 Gr.
FMJ = 1.090
HAP = 1.069
If it is the same bullet, why the different COL?

If 9mm is such a high pressure load, doesn't it matter if I shorten the COL? I know both my Glocks will cycle 1.140 COL no problem, but why would I start long and work my way down? (Some have suggested I start at 1.120 and work my way down) BUT- how do I know where to stop?
I don't have a chronograph but I am trying to find one. I am guessing that would be the ideal way to figure all of this out.

What are the sign of too much pressure? How do I know too far before it happens? -Yes, I know not to go shorter than the 1.069 and actually that's what I loaded my original 18 test rounds to.

For such an exact science I m not feeling very, well, um, exact.

Thank you again for listening,
Brad

 

[Havok7416]

COL is often determined by your magazine in a semi auto. Unless you get drastic (say under an inch) it won't matter much unless your charge is already at/near max. In that case, back the charge off a bit.

 

[JimKirk]

Fairly sure that I have shared this with Vaalpens some time back ...

I have shot a couple of 500 boxes of the 125 grain HAP in the 357 SIG ... Glock Model 31

I used the same load of W540(HS-6) with both, it was near the top of the load chart but not the Max load listed ... Max load is (Hodgdon Data)9.0 grs in the SIG and my powder measure was throwing 8.8 grs .. close enough ...

I loaded both bullets with the same die and did not move the seater die stem ... both bullets seated to the same average length(1.140") and the flat bore riding section of both appeared the same as far as the amount sticking out of the case ... I did not try to measure that. Both used the same brand brass(Speer) ... once fired ...

Velocity for both were very near each other .. I don't have my note handy but I'm fairly sure the XTP was at Average 1358 fps and the HAP was at 1347 fps ... so very close in velocity...

I could observe no difference in the appearance of the primer and the ejection distance out of the Glock 31 was almost the same spot ...

I have no pressure testing equipment ... so there could have been a difference in chamber pressure ... if so there was not enough to cause flat/flatten primers ... I have observed those in some other loads .. Both loads used the Remington 5.5(5 1/2) primers ...

Just passing along my experience so far ... YMMV

 

[vaalpens]

Not even JHP bullets are the same.

I did a chrono test earlier this week where I tested two different JHP's with the same amount of powder, 5.5gr of Longshot:

The first bullet was the RMR 124gr expanding JHP. The length of this bullet is about .581", and I loaded it to a COL of 1.100". The bullet diameter is .3555".

9mm, 3.9" barrel
COL: 1.100""
RMR, 124gr, JHP, Longshot, 5.5gr, CCI500
Average: 1085
ES: 25
SD: 10.1
Force: 324
PF: 134
Velocities: 1093, 1071, 1088, 1096, 1080

The second bullet I used was the MG 125gr JHP. This bullet is marketed as a 357sig, bullet but can also be loaded in 9mm. The length of the bullet is about .550", which is .031" shorter than the RMR bullet. The bullet diameter is .355". The COL I loaded this bullet to was 1.070", which is .030" shorter than what the RMR was loaded, but should result with about the same seating depth or available powder capacity in the case.

9mm, 3.9" barrel
COL: 1.070""
MG, 125gr, JHP, Longshot, 5.5gr, CCI500
Average: 1096
ES: 27
SD: 10.8
Force: 333
PF: 137
Velocities: 1093, 1093, 1093, 1116, 1089

As you can see from the number above that two different bullets using different COL's performed about the same, because I adjusted my COL based on the length of the bullet. If I loaded the MG to the same COL as the RMR, then I assume the velocity of the MG would come down since there would have been less pressure.

I think Dudedog posted some chrono data once showing how the velocity change (pressure) based on a difference in COL for the same bullet. I will see if I can find it and add it to my response.

Decide on a COL, make some calculations, and then if the your bullet will be seated lower in the case than the HAP, then start with a lower powder charge. If your bullet will be seated in the case a bit higher, then you should be able to start at the same MIN powder, or maybe a bit higher.

Good luck and be safe.

 

[Toprudder]

I don't think anyone in this discussion has said anything about plunk testing the bullet. What is the longest the bullet can be seated before it fails the plunk test?

Different bullets will have different shapes, and this determines, in large part, how long of a COL you can have. Magazine fit, and reliable feeding can also affect the COL, but those will only reduce the COL from the longest length that will plunk.