Please muddy the waters for me

[vaalpens]

I have received some 9mm Hornady 125gr HAP bullets in a PIF from jell-dog and Dudedog to test. Some of these bullets were tested in 357sig, and I now have 30 left to try in 9mm.

5 Of the 30 will be loaded with jell-dog's accurate BE-86 load.

The remaining 25 will be used to load 4 loads of 5, test them at 15 yards, then chrono the most accurate load with 5.

Currently I am looking at the following load data to select from:
Longshot, 1.069" COL, 3.9gr to 4.4gr (Hodgdon load data)
CFE Pistol, 1.069" COL, 4.2gr to 4.8gr (Hodgdon load data)
AutoComp, 1.069" COL, 3.6gr to 4.1gr (Hodgdon load data)
700-X, 1.069" COL, 2.9gr to 3.4gr (Hodgdon load data)

I have tested in the past some bullets from Midway which looks the same as the HAP bullets, but just never worked in 357sig. These were tested in 9mm using:

PowerPistol, 1.065" COL, 5.1gr to 5.6gr (Real Guns load data. Went over MAX)
Unique, 1.065" COL, 4.2gr to 4.5gr (real Guns load data)

The only other powder not listed already that I have available to use is Bullseye.

Please feel free to suggest a load range I can add to the above ranges I have already listed. Also please include the load data source since it will be used as part of my decision making process.

With 20 bullets to find an accurate load, the pressure is on me to select the load data that is going to get me to a reasonable accurate load with limited load workup.

I know more data will just make it more difficult to pick a load, but that is what makes handloading fun.

 

[Sunray]

"...20 bullets to find an accurate load..." Not enough. There are 6 loads to be tested for group using LongShot. 7 with the CFE, etc. etc.
You need to work up the load from the start load of each powder going up by .1 with at least 5 rounds per load, just for group. You're short 5 bullets to do that.
"...then chrono..." Really tells you nothing but the average velocity. Velocity isn't as important as accuracy. You can skip that for now.

 

[vaalpens]

"...20 bullets to find an accurate load..." Not enough. There are 6 loads to be tested for group using LongShot. 7 with the CFE, etc. etc.
You need to work up the load from the start load of each powder going up by .1 with at least 5 rounds per load, just for group. You're short 5 bullets to do that.
"...then chrono..." Really tells you nothing but the average velocity. Velocity isn't as important as accuracy. You can skip that for now.

I am in agreement with your statement, but sometimes you just want to try something out and get a feel what it could do.

My statement regarding finding an accurate load was:

...load data that is going to get me to a reasonable accurate load with limited load workup

Using AutoComp an an example, I would load 3.6gr, 3.8gr, 4.0gr, 4.1gr, pick the best grouping and do a chrono load.

I have done this now with different bullets and the limited workup has it's own challenges and satisfaction. It adds to my collection of data, and it allows me find bullets that I would probably purchase in the future, at a fraction of the cost of buying 500 and then trying them out.

 

[Mad Chemist]

Your Autocomp loads seem too light.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

I run all of my 124gr Autocomp loads in the low 5ish gr range. I doubt that 3.6gr will cycle your gun.

Something very strange is going on with the Hogdgon data for the HAP bullet. If you look at all the other data listed it doesn't add up. The HAP data is substantially lighter.

 

[vaalpens]

Your Autocomp loads seem too light.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

I run all of my 124gr Autocomp loads in the low 5ish gr range. I doubt that 3.6gr will cycle your gun.

Something very strange is going on with the Hogdgon data for the HAP bullet. If you look at all the other data listed it doesn't add up. The HAP data is substantially lighter.

I appreciate the feedback. I wasn't completely happy with the low Hodgdon data, so it is one of the reasons I started the thread, hoping there was other published load data that confirms or debunk the Hodgdon data.

Since this is a limited load workup, I would prefer to stick with published load data.

Good job muddying the water for me. Just as I asked.

The HAP bullets are on the longer side (.575"), plus the COL is 1.069", but I'm not sure thet generates that much pressure.

 

[Artofgolf]

.. hoping there was other published load data that confirms or debunk the Hodgdon data....

I think MadChemist is on the right track ~ load is a bit light. Not really published data but, here goes......
Reading through Sweeney's Reloading for Handgunners pp 125, he lists the Hornady 124gr XTP (HAP's little brother) @ 1.06" OAL using 4.7gr of Autocomp, yielding 1041 fps through his Beretta M-92 with a 129 PF.
Hope this helps....

 

[Ironicaintit]

You arent going to run them through the chrono, while you run the accuracy tests?

I bet you'll end up buying more bullets to continue testing. I easily run through 20 rounds, just finding the weight I like with just one powder!

 

[vaalpens]

I think MadChemist is on the right track ~ load is a bit light. Not really published data but, here goes......
Reading through Sweeney's Reloading for Handgunners pp 125, he lists the Hornady 124gr XTP (HAP's little brother) @ 1.06" OAL using 4.7gr of Autocomp, yielding 1041 fps through his Beretta M-92 with a 129 PF.
Hope this helps....

Thanks for the information.

This is more in line with what I expected, especially looking at the CFE Pistol MAX of 4.8gr. I found that AutoComp normally makes the same velocity as CFE Pistol with .1gr or .2gr less powder.

Since the 4.7gr will be outside the max, it probably means I will take AutoComp out of the running.

The 700-X load will be below minor, so that leaves me to choose between:
Longshot, CFE Pistol, Bullseye, Unique and Power Pistol.

 

[vaalpens]

You arent going to run them through the chrono, while you run the accuracy tests?

I bet you'll end up buying more bullets to continue testing. I easily run through 20 rounds, just finding the weight I like with just one powder!

It really depends on where I do my accuracy test if I can run it through the chrono at the same time or not.

I will definitely add HAP to my list of bullets to further evaluate when I have worked through what I have, but it will have to get in line behind two other bullets that I like. Both bullets tested well with the sample packs/PIF's I received. The bullets are:
Zero 124gr FPFMJ (loads great and accurate in 357sig. I haven't tested it in 9mm)
Nosler Sporting Handgan Pistol 124gr JHP (loads great and accurate in 357sig. I haven't tested it in 9mm)

 

[vaalpens]

I just saw a post from member "JO JO" in another thread where the following image from the Hornady manual was attached. I know the bullet shown is the Hornady 124gr HP XTP, but it is very similar to the Hornady 125gr HAP, so I ma going to include the data in this post. The Autocomp numbers are much better than what is listed on the Hodgdon site.

Unique, 4.0gr to 5.0gr, COL 1.060"
AutoComp, 4.2gr to 4.9gr, COL 1.060"
Power Pistol, 4.3gr to 5.7gr, COL 1.060"

Jo JO, hope you are ok with me using your posted image.

 

[Mad Chemist]

The HAP bullet is designed as an affordable alternative to the XTP for practice and matches. I think the Hogdgon data may be watered down to keep the loads within the minor PF range.

I know for a fact that the min load they have listed would not have cycled my S&W Shield since it stove-piped on heavier loads. Autocomp is similar to Power Pistol in that it runs better at higher pressures and it behaves well at the upper end.

I call to Hornady may help clear things up or it may muddy the water even further.

If it were me I would load them at the bottom of the load range for the 124gr XTP and work up carefully.

 

[vaalpens]

The HAP bullet is designed as an affordable alternative to the XTP for practice and matches. I think the Hogdgon data may be watered down to keep the loads within the minor PF range.

I know for a fact that the min load they have listed would not have cycled my S&W Shield since it stove-piped on heavier loads. Autocomp is similar to Power Pistol in that it runs better at higher pressures and it behaves well at the upper end.

I call to Hornady may help clear things up or it may muddy the water even further.

If it were me I would load them at the bottom of the load range for the 124gr XTP and work up carefully.

I have loaded bullets that looked exactly the same as HAP, from Midway, with the same length and everything up to 5.6gr Power Pistol. For now I am leaning towards using Power Pistol for this limited load workup since I have some experience in Power Pistol with HAP type bullets.

I did send a question to Hornady regarding load data for the 125gr HAP, but have not called them yet or received a response.

For this load I should probably make sure that I can chrono and test for accuracy at the same time. That will give me an additional different load to test.

My possible test loads will be: 5.0gr, 5.2gr, 5.4gr, 5.6gr, 5.7gr with a COL of 1.065".

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[Dudedog]

I might be tempted to use 2 powders one fast- 700X one slow-Longshot, or since you are using BE86 it might be interesting to see how CFE-P compares to BE86, 2 "new" powders from different companies.
When I loaded my HAPs I hadn't checked Hogdons site lately so I did not have "HAP" data, I used the 124 FMJ data that they listed at a longer OAL than Hodgdon or Hornady lists for the HAPs.
I see Hornady is listing them at 1.06 OAL, Hodgdon at 1.069 both on the short side. What OAL did jell-dog use?

 

[vaalpens]

You can always rely on Dudedog to oblige and muddy the waters for me.:banghead:

I thought I decided not to include 700-X in my decision making, but now it seems I'll have to put it back. I will probably not go with the fast and slow powder sugestion, but 700-X is always one of my favorites in 9mm, and is very shootable and accurate.

If I go with 700-X, then chrono work will probably not be a priority, so I can rather just look at loading 5 different loads and test them for accuracy. These are going to be soft shooters in 700-X, which is not always a bad thing.

 

[Dudedog]

It looks like jell-dog used 1.11 with his HAP load. I still can't find my notes with the HAP info. (wrote it down but apparently did not enter it into the computer) :banghead:
I was thinking about 1.10 is what I used.

Eagerly awaiting the results no matter which way you go.

You did ask about muddying the waters.

 

[grogetr]

The HAP bullet is .356" where the XTP is.355". Will this raise the pressure and be the reason the loads are lighter? Also why do they use such a short OAL, I thought you wanted the bullet close to the lands and use the plunk test to determine. I can get 1.130" and pass plunk test.

 

[vaalpens]

It looks like jell-dog used 1.11 with his HAP load. I still can't find my notes with the HAP info. (wrote it down but apparently did not enter it into the computer) :banghead:
I was thinking about 1.10 is what I used.

Eagerly awaiting the results no matter which way you go.

You did ask about muddying the waters.

Dudedog, thank for going the extra mile to help me out making a decision, but there is no need to try and find the COL you used. I have loaded the similar bullet ar 1.065" before, and will probably go with the 1.069" COL if I pick one of the Dodgdon powders.

Looks like the pressure is on me to make a decision and perform.

 

[sellersm]

Well, *if* you had it, I'd recommend Ramshot Silhouette powder. But since you don't, I'll agree that AutoComp seems to work best at the upper end.

So I suggest you use the AutoComp data from the Hornady manual as mentioned in post #10 above.

 

[vaalpens]

The HAP bullet is .356" where the XTP is.355". Will this raise the pressure and be the reason the loads are lighter? Also why do they use such a short OAL, I thought you wanted the bullet close to the lands and use the plunk test to determine. I can get 1.130" and pass plunk test.

grogetr, Thanks for the comments. You make some good points, especially the difference in diameter.

If I change the COL then I really need to work up the loads since the load data pressures are based on the published COL. With my limited workup, the plan is to stick to the published data even if the COL is not optimal for accuracy.

 

[LiveLife]

why do they use such a short OAL, I thought you wanted the bullet close to the lands and use the plunk test to determine. I can get 1.130" and pass plunk test.

If I change the COL then I really need to work up the loads since the load data pressures are based on the published COL. With my limited workup, the plan is to stick to the published data even if the COL is not optimal for accuracy.

If you are pursuing accuracy and reloading for one pistol, determining the max/working OAL/COL first then conducting powder work up while monitoring accuracy trends would be better for determining the most accurate load as you would only be focusing on one reloading variable of powder charge adjustment instead of two variables of powder charge and OAL adjustments.

Exception to this is when developing lighter recoil, lower velocity/chamber pressure target loads using lower powder charges. To increase neck tension for more consistent initial/max chamber pressures, I will use shorter than working OAL and seat the bullet base deeper to compensate for lower powder charge used.

For utmost accuracy, I want to minimize high pressure gas leakage around the bullet as the bullet jumps from the case neck to the start of rifling (and case mouth/neck seal with the chamber faster) so I load as close to the rifling as I can. While 1.135" works with lower powder charges using faster burn rate powders, I used longer 1.160" with slower burn rate powders to optimize for accuracy - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9924922#post9924922

Since you are using relatively slower burn rate powders, you will likely experience optimal powder burn at high-to-near max load data. Because JHP/HAP bullet profile will seat the bullet base deeper in the case neck, I would calculate the max case powder fill so as to not compress powder charges -

So as grogetr suggested, I would:

- Determine the max/working OAL
- Determine the max case powder fill for the working OAL
- Check to see if any of the max load data would compress powder charge
- Conduct powder work up while monitoring accuracy trends

 

[vaalpens]

If you are pursuing accuracy and reloading for one pistol, determining the max/working OAL/COL first then conducting powder work up while monitoring accuracy trends would be better for determining the most accurate load as you would only be focusing on one reloading variable of powder charge adjustment instead of two variables of powder charge and OAL adjustments.

Exception to this is when developing lighter recoil, lower velocity/chamber pressure target loads using lower powder charges. To increase neck tension for more consistent initial/max chamber pressures, I will use shorter than working OAL and seat the bullet base deeper to compensate for lower powder charge used.

For utmost accuracy, I want to minimize high pressure gas leakage around the bullet as the bullet jumps from the case neck to the start of rifling (and case mouth/neck seal with the chamber faster) so I load as close to the rifling as I can. While 1.135" works with lower powder charges using faster burn rate powders, I used longer 1.160" with slower burn rate powders to optimize for accuracy - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9924922#post9924922

Since you are using relatively slower burn rate powders, you will likely experience optimal powder burn at high-to-near max load data. Because JHP/HAP bullet profile will seat the bullet base deeper in the case neck, I would calculate the max case powder fill so as to not compress powder charges -

So as grogetr suggested, I would:

- Determine the max/working OAL
- Determine the max case powder fill for the working OAL
- Check to see if any of the max load data would compress powder charge
- Conduct powder work up while monitoring accuracy trends

bds, Thanks for taking the time add your wisdom to this thread.

I understand what you and grogetr are telling me to do to get the best accuracy, but in this case I have 25 bullets to make the best out of it, and collect the best data I can collect to save for another time. In a perfect situation I would have enough bullets to work up the load based on my max working/OAL and making adjustments on the way.

In this case I need to pick existing load data that makes sense to me, and evaluate what I get. Then one day when I decide to buy some HAP bullets, then I will have a starting point and start my load workup from there.

You make a good point regarding the slower powders needing to be loaded towards the higher and max load data. This is probably why I am leaning towards the suggestion from Dudedog to use 700-X.

700-X is a faster powder and from my experience it is normally accurate at the lower range. The SD/ES number are normally good without having to work it up to the higher charges. I would have liked to use Bullseye also, but I could not find 125gr HAP specific load data for this limited workup.

I always look at the max case powder fill. It is just one of the thing I have learned on this forum. I have a simple spreadsheet calculation I use, and if my charge is going to be close to my calculated max fill, then I would actually verify it by using your method of calculating max fill.

My calculation is that I should be able to get to 4.1gr of 700-X at 1.069" COL, or 4.5gr at a COL of 1.1". Experience has shown me that if I calculate it using your method, then the max will normally increase by a 10th or so.

For now I am still leaning towards a one-time load of 5 different loads using 700-X; 3.0gr, 3.1gr, 3.2gr, 3.3gr, 3.4gr with a COL of 1.069".

 

[Toprudder]

The HAP bullet is .356" where the XTP is.355". Will this raise the pressure and be the reason the loads are lighter? Also why do they use such a short OAL, I thought you wanted the bullet close to the lands and use the plunk test to determine. I can get 1.130" and pass plunk test.

That is my take on it. Also, the HAP has to be loaded to a short COL compared other 124/125 gn bullets, at least the ones I have plunked in my guns.

 

[vaalpens]

Just a quick follow-up regarding my planned loads for the 125gr HAP's.

I finally decided to go with the Hodgdon load data for the 125gr HAP bullet using CFE Pistol.

I am sticking with the actual Hodgdon load data and will test the loads through a chrono and also at 10yards for accuracy. I will report back once I tested the loads, and hopefully we can all learn something from these loads.

The load data I am using is:
Hornady 125gr HAP, COL 1.069"
5 loads of 5 each using 4.2gr, 4,4gr, 4.6gr, 4.7gr and 4.8gr of CFE Pistol

Thanks again for all the suggestions I received.

 

[vaalpens]

I was able to test the PIF HAP bullets from jell-dog and Dudedog today. I also tested the suggested load from jell-dog using BE-86.

The loads were all tested using my sig SP2022 with a 3.9" barrel @10yards from a rest. I don't think my shooting was that great today, but I think it can be attributed to using new glasses which put my front sights back in focus again, but the target more out of focus. I will probably need to increase the size of my target to give me something better to aim at.

First is the load using the load data from jell-dog. SD/ES numbers are good and so is the velocity. The grouping was not that great, but that is just me trying to find the target.

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
COL: 1.110"
Hornady, 125gr, HAP, BE86, 5gr, CCI500
Average: 1020
ES: 18
SD: 6.6
Force: 289
PF: 127
Velocities: 1020, 1028, 1021, 1024, 1010
Group: 1.73"

The next loads are all using CFE Pistol with the load data COL of 1.069". The lower loads were not bad grouping wise, but as I have seen before, CFE Pistol starts performing better with increased pressure.

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
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
Group: 1.18"

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
COL: 1.069"
Hornady, 125gr, HAP, CFEpistol, 4.4gr, CCI500
Average: 957
ES: 22
SD: 8.1
Force: 254
PF: 119
Velocities: 956, 948, 970, 959, 954
Group: 1.63"

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
COL: 1.069"
Hornady, 125gr, HAP, CFEpistol, 4.6gr, CCI500
Average: 1012
ES: 29
SD: 12.3
Force: 284
PF: 126
Velocities: 1002, 1019, 1031, 1010, 1002
Group: 2.29"

The following load produced the best SD/ES numbers, and also the best grouping.

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
COL: 1.069"
Hornady, 125gr, HAP, CFEpistol, 4.7gr, CCI500
Average: 1033
ES: 9
SD: 3.6
Force: 296
PF: 129
Velocities: 1038, 1031, 1029, 1036, 1033
Group: 1.13"

9mm, SP2022, 3.9"
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
Group: 1.31"

This concludes my testing using the HAP PIF bullets.

Thanks again for all the advice leading up to this final test.

 

[Dudedog]

using new glasses which put my front sights back in focus again, but the target more out of focus.

Went thru that. I decided the same thing, I would rather trade having sharper sights for sharper targets.

It gets better after you get used to it. Since the targets were never really sharp for me in the first place after a bit I don't even notice that much that they are not as sharp as when wearing my prescription shooting glasses.
Money well spent IMO.
(of course part of it was vision insurance money )

Might just be my guns/loads but I have had better results with CFE than with BE86.