What do you guys think of these smok'in loads?

One day while digging around on the powder shelf, I found a pound of Herco and a pound of HS-7 These are two powders I almost never use, must have got them in a garage sale or someplace, anyway, I hate to let good powder sit around and get bored so I decided to look up some uses for them.

Normally when I do this I go thru several sources and compile the data in a spreadsheet for further analysis. I also log data I see listed in old manuals and magazine articles and even some of what you guys post on the internet. These two have almost nothing available for 9mm (my current interest), but getting back to the story...

I had a couple of entries on my 9mm page for 115gr JHP with Herco, one was from the 1980 Hornady manual showing a Max of 7.1gr running 1200 fps and the other from a 1991 American Handgunner, "Taffin Tests" article showing a load of 7.0 gr hitting a reported 1391 fps! Now that is cooking along pretty good considering these days 1150 ~ 1250 is considered normal. Also notice the large difference between the load manual and the article. I don't have any OAL or bbl data but something don't seem quite right.

OK so I must have some feline in my genes cuz I got curious and made up a few using 115 XTP and 6.5gr Herco @ 1.09" . Out of my 4" they averaged 1357 fps !!! out of a 3" they were doing a respectable 1249fps. At .5gr under max I would have expected somewhat slower velocity. No signs of pressure and the brass was landing 4'@4pm from the gun.

For the HS-7 load, Speer #12 shows a max of 8.9gr with the 124 JHP at 1.12" for 1249fps. I put together some using Rem 124 JHP with 8.2gr @ 1.11" and they were clocking 1237 avg from the 4".

So far I am happy with these results. Both seemed to shoot fairly well, accuracy is acceptable for intended use and recoil is not noticeable, they also outstrip most other loads velocity wise. I have been looking for a way to push the XTP to ensure expansion, looks like this may be it.

The only thing I'm concerned about is the fact the data comes from an era when loads were run at higher pressure and thought to be safe but many were later reduced or dropped from the manuals.

Since these might be one of those and I haven't worked with these powders before, I thought I'd throw it out for opinions.

Whaddya think... worth working on some more or old obscure load data is too risky ?

When I started handloading, 7 grs of Herco used to be considered a fairly standard 9mm load. Over the years I knew several guys who used it, but I always thought it metered poorly in my measures, and I was a bit leery to use it in a case as small as the 9. It is bulky too.

I started using HS-6 in 9x19 for some reason, I can't recall why now, but I found it particularly accurate in several S&W autos I used to test it, and since my friends and I shot S&Ws more than anything else, I stayed with it. Subsequently, I have found that most other brands of 9s I shoot seem to do very well with HS-6. I don't have any experience with HS-7.

I usually refrain from making handloads for any pistol cartridge than produces velocities in excess of standard factory load ballistics. My theory on that, right or wrong, is that the guns are design to operate within certain parameters, and I am reluctant to push beyond that for the safety and longevity of both gun and me. In recent years, as you say, some old handloading data is no longer published, and certainly some factory loads seem a bit dumbed-down, particularly .357 and 44 Magnums. (When I first started shooting 44s, a 240 at 1180 almost would have been considered laughable.) So that subject is all over the place and everyone has their opinions. For me, a .45 is a 230 at 850-875 and a 9 is a 124 at 1150-1175. I try not to stray too far from those figures.

I'm not surprised at the velocity you have achieved with your load.
While you may be loading below the maximum charge you OAL is way to short for safety.
I load 115JHP bullets at 1.125" so I would consider 1.09" with your powder charge to be a high pressure load.
I think your velocities show this to be true.
I suggest a retest with the longer OAL and see what velocity you get with the longer loaded round.
I achieved similar velocities years ago with the short OAL but those loads were hot! The 9mm case is pretty thick and tapered and does not show lots of excess pressure unless the primer is flattened.
I would bet those cases will take more pressure to resize and you will have short primer pocket case life.
I beat up a 9mm pistol pretty good with hot reloads.
Just my $.02

Bruce

Bruce,
I didn't comment in my post about OAL as I wanted to see who spotted it and commented. Glad you brought it up.

I did consider OAL and was aiming for 1.125" when I started, however I believe the shape of the XTP prevents that from being realized as it is a compact design with sharply angled sides and truncated nose. The 115gr OAL is only .543". I measured the shank by setting the bullet on the anvil of a depth micrometer and adjusting the rod until it was as close as i could see to the olgive point of departure. This measured .288" which is comparable to other bullets and even shorter than many I have measured. In addition, the bullet wasn't seated all the way into the case as the lip was well short of that point. I would say the bullet was only seated about .23~.25" , which I believe is within reason for 9mm. (I have eyeballed factory ammo to make an estimate but haven't marked and pulled any oem ammo to determine what is normal... yet).

As for the 124 Rem. JHP, it is closer to a normal profile with a bullet OAL of .565" and a shank of .30", but also has a fairly flat nose thus the slightly shorter OAL from 1.12" in the data. It isn't seated any different than the other one,the shanks are almost the same as was their seating depth into the case, but due to its nose shape it measures a little longer.

I mark all my cases for later analysis, so I will look closely at them and take your advice to notice how they feel in the re-sizer.

Another indicator I have come to look at in the field, is how far the brass is thrown. Obviously a lighter load will lay them at your feet while a high pressure load will throw them to the next town. That's how I recently spotted the overpressure load from an old manual - it was throwing the cases 20' when a normal factory loading usually gets tossed about 4'~6' from my 4".

For comparison of hot factory loads, Speer Gold Dots usually land 10'~12' and Federal HST+P, 8'~10' with this gun.

The above 115 XTP with Herco fell at 4' and the HS-7 went 8-10', so I'm thinking that the 115 XTP Herco load is probably ok and the 124gr HS-7 is probably closer to max and I might back off it a tiny bit since I got the fps out of it I was looking for...

Thanks for bringing up the question of OAL, reiterating all of this helps me think about it more and cross check my notes for something I might have overlooked. It also helps me to validate some of my unscientific opinions with your knowledge and experiences too.

I'll play with the XTP's to see if I can get them a little longer, if math serves me this morning, the XTP nose is .022" shorter than the Rem, which accounts for most of the shortness in OAL. I'm gonna pull some factory ammo to measure if I can't find some loose ones.

--------------------------------
Thanks for your insights on HS-7, I appreciate the recollection. I may try some HS-6 when this jar is gone.
So far I have been hand dipping my test loads. I think my RCBS measure will handle it OK if I get to that point.

I hear ya on the theory business. I've rolled around similar thoughts and I certainly want to be on the safe side, but a couple things keep drawing me closer to that line. On one hand I realize that in the 50's and 60's, when this hobby was really getting started, there wasn't a whole lot of sophisticated test equipment like we have today. The CUP system was relied upon (maybe too much by some) as it was better than nothing (so is a paper cup in a sinking boat). People were pretty much flying by the seat of their pants and getting away with it. We also didn't have as many lawyers to support and if we did, most people wouldn't use them anyway, as they usually accepted the blame for being stupid. I think these two things are substantially responsible for the "dumbing down" of today's loads, whether from the factory or in the load data.

I'm not sure if the guns have gotten any weaker. If anything the steel has probably gotten better but there is the possibility of newer designs using less of it in critical areas in order to align with today's pressure expectations and also the ever important company bottom line. I don't know if this is the case, and I really want to doubt it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were discovered to be true.

Nevertheless, there are enough older guns that survived the previous eras of "overpressure" loads to make me question just how far one can approach the old load data and still be within reasonable safe limits. I do believe some of it is dangerous and shouldn't be used, but which ones?

The gun makers tested their guns to withstand what they understood the maximum pressures and contemporary loads to be, regardless of methods used to estimate that. If pressures were actually higher than what they thought, then that is testament to their craft and I don't think the guns will perform any less today. I'll bet your first 44 will shoot those same HV loads today as well as it did back in the day.

I think there is some room in the data between now and then to work with, as long as you pay attention to the details (like OAL and seating depth mentioned above). If you notice the gun starting to be beaten and heavier recoil springs won't compensate, then it's time to back off the load.

For example a full size gun can handle the above XTP load but I'm not as comfortable shooting it one of the smaller pocket guns since it tosses the brass 10' and that indicates the slide is recoiling at a higher velocity when the ejector is hit, possibly hammering the gun. This load might be fine if required for use but not for practice.

One will never know is the answer. There are too many variables. It's like taking a hot rod out to a windy road.... how fast can YOU go today?

please bear with my wordy explanations, most of you old timers know this stuff but some new readers might need a little more info - also if I get it wrong... 'splain it to me one more time... I might need a little more info too.

OAL is one of those things that reloaders are always messin with. With regards to semi-auto pistols, It can affect the feeding reliability and with most loads it will affect pressure. Many of the competition shooters get away with higher than normal powder loads because they load the bullet OAL longer and thus increase the case volume. This allows a little more room for the expanding gas to fill and the bullet a little more time to start moving, thus hopefully reducing peak pressure. Seating too deeply will have the opposite effect, sometimes more than we would like, resulting in a kaboom. not good. In some of the very old manuals they show the depth to seat the bullet in the case instead of the finished OAL. A little harder to set up for but makes perfect sense to me.

Many manuals cite different OALs for their loads but how much of that is dependent on the bullet used and how does that apply to the bullet you are using. Hand-loaders easily can get into the habit of substituting one bullet for another as long as the weight and materials are about the same. Is this promoting a false sense of security? According to some it is. If you look closely at some load manuals, they will list two very similar bullets but their max loads will be significantly different (.1 or .2 grains is not significant (IMO) but I consider that .3 to .5 is). Why is that? do they just want to have a lot of data listed so you will buy their manual and so they need to be a little different for the sake of variety? maybe. But maybe the shape of the bullet has something to do with it too. Some bullets have a longer shank (the bore dia. surface where all the friction congregates). This is one of the reasons to start low and work up. Your bullet could have more friction than the one in the book and pressure could be higher because of it.

As discussed above, even starting lower than max is no guarantee pressure still won't be excessive, you probably have no accurate way to tell. This is where your guessing ability come into play.

So in defense of my 115gr XTP load having a shorter-than-normal OAL,(and to satisfy my curiosity), I decided to see if I can estimate its validity based on bullet parameters compared to common factory ammo I have on hand. I don't have any OEM 9mm 115gr JHP as I generally use 124gr & 147gr JHP, but I do have 115gr FMJ which is often listed in the manuals with the same OAL as JHP (I question this as the HP is often shorter than a FMJ, but we must use something). For comparison, I have come up with examples of Blazer (Brass), American Eagle, Remington and Federal Champion loadings.

Below is the pre-misson group lineup

First, lets take some measurements on my XTP and the OEM loaded ammo, then I'll break it down for a look at the bullets:
X- 115 XTP - cOAL=1.092" CLBT=.338" (case lip to bullet tip)
B- 115 Blazer - cOAL=1.149" CLBT=.402"
A- 115 Amer.Eagle - cOAL=1.151" CLBT=.398"
R- 115 Rem - cOAL=1.106" CLBT=.358"
F- 115 Federal - cOAL=1.147" CLBT=..392"
Well, except for the Rem-UMC, these FMJ are well over the recommended 1.125" usually seen.

I used a kinetic puller to start the bullets and a collet to finish them but the Federal decapitated itself on the first whack and the AE on the the 2nd which tells me they have almost no crimp. The other two took 6 to 8 good whacks to get the bullet out far enough to use the collet, they have a pretty good crimp (Blazer and Remington). I also weighed the powder while I was at it. Remington uses 4.0gr of a very dark, shiny, irregular edged, flat spherical powder that looks something like Zip. The other three use a powder that looks a lot like Bullseye. Blazer has 4.4gr, AE uses 4.3 and Federal also uses 4.3gr.

Next we will look at the bullets, notice that I marked the seating depth with a sharpie. I will measure from the base to that line. None of the bullets look alike below the case line. Blazer uses a hollow base, AE has a thicker jacket with an old style exposed lead core, Remington has a thinner jacket with a larger exposed core and the Federal Champion is a TMJ design.

Measuring them I came up with the following
B- bOAL= .600" Shank=.275" SD=.20" (Seating Depth -bullet base to case lip line)
A- bOAL= .601" Shank=.280" SD=.22"
R- bOAL= .553" Shank=.250" SD=.20"
F- bOAL= .558" Shank=.250" SD=.165"
X- bOAL= .543" Shank=.275" SD=.201"

We can cross check these old eyes of mine and the above SD by subtracting the CLBT measured earlier from the bOAL.
B- .600-.402=.198" (close to .20)
A- .601-.398=.203" (somewhat close)
R- .553-.358=.195" (close to .20)
F- .558-.392=.166" (very close)
X- .543-.338=.205" (good enough for govt. work)

Hey what do you know... I think my seating depth is pretty good after all and it doesn't appear I'm increasing pressure any more than factory (due to seating depth).

Thanks for the imputes to get me doing something on a lazy Sunday. I guess you could say this was my day to BARF.

Note: pics may not appear in-line where they should but are attached showing the loaded rounds lined up, the bullet bases and the bullets lined up with their watermarks.

I've never used either of those powders. I tried to find some hs-7 once but was told they don't make it anymore. If that's true it seems kinda pointless to come up w/ a great load. If it helps hornady lists 6.4g of hs7 as a max for the 124 gr. bulllet. The 115gr [email protected] is actually .015 longer than the length listed in my latest hornady manual and .040 longer than listed in my old hornady manual from 1993 (a COL that caused major feeding problems). I've been tempted to kick out the length and put in more powder as well but have seldom done so as I've mostly reloaded for CZ's which have no leade and because of safety concerns. Isn't this precisely what VV does though? Don't people do it all the time w/38 super comp? I don't really feel like I have the experience needed to try this but it sounds like you know what you're doing. If you get them too long you may run into feeding problems as I'm sure you well know. I too have been tempted to use the older manuals. I don't know why but some of them seem pretty wimpy; It seems like this is especially true w/ faster burning powders. There are loads in my hornady manual that are so weak the brass won't even eject from the pistol. My latest hornady manual says win 231 and AA2 are among the best performers for 9mm but when you look for a load using those powders w/ the 124gr bullet there are none listed, which explains why I don't buy hornady manuals anymore. Hodgdon lists a max load of 6.8 gr of hs6 w/ a 125gr sierra but says it only produces 27,100 psi; how does that work?

Herco is one of my standby powders. It is bulky and difficult to throw a double charge without being noticed. It does good work in the 44 special, 40 S&W as well as the 9mm.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

It works just great. That is what I was referring to in my first post. It is not the most economical load that has ever been devised for 9mm, but I have used that powder and charge weight extensively and have always had good luck with it using 115-124 gr bullets. I would rather see the pressure at 27K than at 32K.

Even at 6.3gr Herco almost fills the case to the mouth and is a compressed load once you seat the bullet ( I just loaded up a hundred and was able to bump them out to 1.100"). I dipped a case full and carded the top and weighed it at 7.5gr so that is the max a case can hold and there has to be some room for the bullet!

Since Herco is still in production I think this could have potential and now I can work on the accuracy aspect. The initial load of 6.5 wasn't bad with 4 shots in 1.25" and the flyer opening it up to 2 1/2", all centered on the target, considering I was more interested in chrono data this session.

... oh! sorry - you were talking about HS-6 not big flakey.

I happened to find an old target this morning. To my surprise, it was fired with a load using HS-7, so I guess I do have some experience with it in 9x19 after all. I won't mention the details because I really can't remember anything about it, but it was with a 124-gr bullet, and was fired with a Beretta 92. Considering that I am not the best hand with a 92F, the target was really pretty good. If you are interested in a load with particularly slow burning powder, you might look into it a bit more. For my purposes, I will stay with HS-6.

As to the seating depth issue, I stick very close to whatever the bullet manufacturer publishes. I do not consider the 9 and .40SW good candidates for too much experimenting with seat depth.

I believe HS-7 is the same as WW571. Several years ago I used up some WW571 left over from shotshell reloading in 9mm. I used the data from the W-W 14th Edition reloading manual but do not remember the specifics. I used up less than a pound of WW571.

HS6 and Winchester 540 are one in the same. So, any old hoard of 540 can be put to use as HS6. BTW 6.0gr. of 540/HS6 is my P95DC Rugers favorite diet.

How that works is you are comparing apples and oranges just like most reloaders do. Why do I say this?
1. The number you gave is the peak pressure, which is important because it can blow up the container (gun).
2. The speed the bullet has out the muzzle is determined by the total integrated area under the pressure curve while the bullet is in the barrel, not just by the peak pressure.

__________________
Science plus Art

I've loaded and fired thousands of 9mm rounds using 6.3 grains of Herco under a 115 grain bullet. These have been fired through many different 9mm semiautomatic pistols and performed wonderfully in all of them. Mostly I use bulk Winchester 115 gr JHP bullets. For self defense I prefer to carry factory ammo, but I'd be confident that this load would do if that's all I had on hand. Years ago I had problems with a Speer 115 gr JHP bullet on that load in my Glock 19. For some reason the spent cases would stovepipe. The solution was to quit using the Speer 115 gr bullet. I've used this load with the XTP 115 gr JHP with no problems.

Thanks for that info, it gives me confidence that dropping .2 gr was the right direction. I think I will still have plenty of fps for the XTP to expand reliably.
That was my original concern... I don't think one can count on XTP to consistently expand at less than 1000 fps all of the time and Gold Dots are often out of stock even at 2x the price of XTP (one of my favorites in any caliber).

I searched old data to give me some ideas for 1200~1250 fps+ with the 115 and enough room from max that I wasn't pushing the envelope pressure wise.(trying to ballpark some factory specs too). I was happy when it turned out to be a powder I had on hand that I had no clue what to use it for.

Although I tend to like ball powders I am starting to view those big flakes with a fond eye.

125,

I'm glad you like the load I use. Loading for 9mm and .44 Mag is why I started reloading. The 6.3 grains of Herco is what I consider my standard load for 9mm with a 115 grain bullet.

The 6.3 grains of Herco under a 115 grain bullet load comes from the Sierra Handgun Reloading Manual 3rd Edition @ 1989. It's their recommended "Hunting Load" and rated at 1250 fsp from their gun. I do not have a chronograph, so I cannot attest to velocity; but the load has a snap to it and is very accurate.

After reading your reply to my post I looked through the 9mm I have on hand and found 15 rounds of W-W factory 115 grain Black Talon in a partial box of my handloads. I had forgotten I had those, but I'd be as confident in my handloads as I would be with the old BT ammo.

Well I was able to go out to the wash and give it a quick 10yd chrono session off the tailgate with a sandbag under my hand, I like what I see especially out of this old 4"...

shot fps = 1289, 1294, 1299, 1305, 1295,
Avg = 1296 fps
ES = 16 SD=6
pretty darn good for from a cardboard container with Hercules on the label


Thanks again

That looks good. Thanks for posting that. Do you recall the overall length? Looking in the Alliant data they show about 1180 FPS with a 115 FMJ, so I am wondering if you have seated the XTP bullet a little deeper, raising the velocity and pressure a bit?

Just what we discussed above, I bumped them to 1.10" with the same amount of bullet in the case as the factory stuff I measured above.

Here is the primer of the 6.5gr load so I expect 6.3 to be less pressure. Can't say how many times the case has been reused and other than I have a scratch in my breech, Do you see anything wrong with this ???

I have certainly seen worse! Thanks for the OAL info.

Great work 125. I love it when someone proves the load I've used for years is good!