9mm 115 HAP loads using CFE pistol?

[David Crash]

I have been searching for loads using 115 grain HAP bullets and CFE pistol powder. I cant find data on the 115 but I found some on the 125s. I know they are close weights but I would rather not start with to light a load. Does anyone have any data on this combination?

 

[Tom S.]

Did you look on the Hodgdon website? Shows starting load of 5.3 grains and max load of 5.9 grains.

 

[chief915]

Set your sights on pistol reloading data | Hodgdon Reloading

 

[David Crash]

The bullet listed is the Speer gold dot. I am using the Hornady Action Pistol bullet. From other known data the HAP seats deeper and generates higher pressure thus, looking for specific data on the HAP/XTP (data is interchangeable).

 

[chief915]

My 9th edition Hornday reloading manual doesn't show that particular bullet, or list CFE Pistol powder for that matter...... Maybe call Hornady's tech line?

 

[scooter123]

I cannot remember if the Hornady HAP is a RN or FP bullet. If it's a round nose use the data for the Speer Gold Dot and add 0.025 inch to the overall length. By doing this you'll compensate for the longer length of a 9mm RN in comparison to the Gold Dot.

BTW, my past experience with Gold Dots and Hornady XTP bullets has been that both feature lengths of the bullets that are quite close. So many time's I can simply use data for either bullet. However I just started reloading the 9mm and don't have any of either brand of hollow point right now, what I have are Extreme and Berry's RN plated bullets. Based on published data for SR7625 I've worked up a load at 1.145 inch using data provided for the Gold Dot and a RN FMJ in the Lee manual. Thought process in working up the particulars was that Hodgdon lists an OAL of 1.125 inch for the GDHP, Lee lists an OAL of 1.125 inch for the XTP, and Hornady recommends an OAL of 1.100 for the plated RN and 1.075 for the XTP in their #9 manual. Mixing all this together had me deciding that a length of 1.145 inch would be a good starting point and 300 rounds downrange has proven this to be an accurate and somewhat soft shooting load with a powder charge just 1/10 grain over the starting point. BTW, I'll admit that I'm probably being a bit conservative in my OAL length choice but long is always safer when starting out. The worst case potential for being too long is feed issues and a very minor risk of a squib. Load too short and you can spike the pressure and blow out a case head, something that is generally very frightening and potentially damaging to both pistol and shooter.

 

[David Crash]

Using some data that I saw else where I did a couple of test today with the HAP 115 bullets and CFE pistol. I loaded 5.0 Grains of CFE and loaded to COAL of 1.1 , It felt a little on the soft side and soot was on the case. I also did a load with 5.2 grains and it felt a little better and was a bit cleaner. I think I am going to test some at 5.4grains, that should put me in the sweet zone.

The bullet on the left is the HAP. The right is the Gold Dot. Both of these are 115 Grains. The shoulder is very different from each other and effects the loading depth and max powder loading.

 

[David Crash]

I have worked up an accurate load using 5.4 grains. It's not to hot for my practical shooting match and very accurate.

 

[MasterTech1960]

I am running the 115 gr down the barrel with 5.6 gr of CFE pistol . Worked this load up by starting at 5.2gr s. I have found accuracy to be better on the upper end of the charge table with this powder .

 

[BLUEDOT37]

From other known data the HAP seats deeper and generates higher pressure thus, looking for specific data on the HAP/XTP (data is interchangeable).
. . . . .
Using some data that I saw else where I did a couple of test today with the HAP 115 bullets and CFE pistol. I loaded 5.0 Grains of CFE and loaded to COAL of 1.1
. . . . .
The bullet on the left is the HAP. The right is the Gold Dot. Both of these are 115 Grains. The shoulder is very different from each other and effects the loading depth and max powder loading.

.

Don't make reloading for your autoloader more difficult than it needs to be.

Concerning the Hornady 115gr XTP/HAP COAL": Hornady #8 lists the COAL" for this bullet at 1.075" for ALL (12) powders listed. The COAL" is NOT dependent on the powder used.

You can always set the COAL" longer than what's listed in the reloading data just as long as the round: 1)- passes the "plunk test" in your barrel's chamber, 2)- feeds properly in your magazine &, 3)- does not exceed SAAMI max. COAL" (1.169") for the cartridge. (I always load mine as longer as possible & still pass all three.)

If you follow the above rules you can simply reference the listed COAL" listed in the manual and use the corresponding powder load data when using bullets of the same weight & general construction.

The bullet's shoulder, or ogive, will affect the round's max. COAL" particularly if your barrel has a short leade. Just another good reason to ALWAYS do a "plunk test" when you handload a new bullet for the first time. Once you determine the length needed record it & use it in the future & forego the plunk test with that exact bullet.

You can not always find the exact same combination of components in published guide. You have to be flexible & use what data is available among sources, in this case Hornady & Hodgdon's data, along with your own resources.

.

 

[PhillySoldier]

Was doing a search on CFE which bought me to this old thread - so sorry for the bump. The last couple months I have been ransom rest testing different powders - two 10 round shot groups per weight charge @ 25 yards. My testing was with hornady 115 fmj's so far but looking to test with HAP's next, which is how I found this thread. Most seem to like this at around 5.6g of CFE which seems a bit high to me. Im loading long at 1.15" oal and 5.6g would put me around 1,200 fps out of my gun. And this seems to contradict what Ive seen others writing but my testing shows the best groups occurring at the lower velocities of around 1090 fps (5g for me). I even did a second day of re-testing to confirm just cause Ive never seen it like the lower velocities more.

 

[Nevada Ed]

My 115gr load is between #7 and #9 posts..........
since I don't normally give out powder weights on a forum.

It is accurate in a 3", 3.5" and a 5" barrel for a standard target loading.
As mentioned, starting loads have soot on the case and I have yet
to get top accuracy from a "Full load" of CFE from a 115 to a 147gr 9mm bullet.
However it is one of my TOP powders for light standard target loads in all bullets.

Tight groups.

 

[Hasbeen1945]

.

Don't make reloading for your autoloader more difficult than it needs to be.

Concerning the Hornady 115gr XTP/HAP COAL": Hornady #8 lists the COAL" for this bullet at 1.075" for ALL (12) powders listed. The COAL" is NOT dependent on the powder used.

You can always set the COAL" longer than what's listed in the reloading data just as long as the round: 1)- passes the "plunk test" in your barrel's chamber, 2)- feeds properly in your magazine &, 3)- does not exceed SAAMI max. COAL" (1.169") for the cartridge. (I always load mine as longer as possible & still pass all three.)

If you follow the above rules you can simply reference the listed COAL" listed in the manual and use the corresponding powder load data when using bullets of the same weight & general construction.

The bullet's shoulder, or ogive, will affect the round's max. COAL" particularly if your barrel has a short leade. Just another good reason to ALWAYS do a "plunk test" when you handload a new bullet for the first time. Once you determine the length needed record it & use it in the future & forego the plunk test with that exact bullet.

You can not always find the exact same combination of components in published guide. You have to be flexible & use what data is available among sources, in this case Hornady & Hodgdon's data, along with your own resources.

.

Now even if you use the same components as your manual used in its testing. The chance of you having the same lot numbers as the original tester are astronomical.
That does not even count the firearm used in the test. Ever barrel is a little different. Ever chamber etc.
All this being said the data only gives you a good starting point.