Hornady 115 Projectiles

[PhillySoldier]

My current load is 5.0g CFE with Hornady 115 FMJ's. I want to start working up some test loads so I can compare against Hornday 115 HAP's and XTP's. Im gonna do a full ladder of each but wondering if there is an offset adjustment for each projectile type to use?

 

For example with the FMJ's I tested from 5.0g to 5.9g. Should I stick to this same weight range for both the HAP's & XTP's or is there a +/- adjustment range I should use?

[Hi-Power Jack]

Philly, what is your actual objective ?

 

What are you looking for ?

 

You say you want to compare Hornady 115 FMJ vs their HAP's and XTP's - not sure what you 

mean by that ???    Looking at velocity ?   Accuracy ?

[PhillySoldier]

I have tested 115 FMJ's from 5.0 - 5.9g of CFE. Shooting 20 rounds of each increment - two 10 rnd shot groups @ 25 yards from a ransom rest and measuring the different shot group sizes. I want to run similar tests with HAP's & XTP's.

 

Im just wondering if I should keep load the exact same weight ranges of 5.0 - 5.9g or if perhaps the hollow points tend to have some difference and I should be starting lower or higher. Just looking for a starting charge weight to use. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by PhillySoldier

[Droot]

Same charges.

 

I found as you get lower in charge, ES goes up. My accuracy load is 5.0 with a 115 HAP @ 1.169". I have a long lead.

 

It's only 929 fps with a 100 fps ES, but smallest groups.

 

It will not cycle completely if limp wristed

 

David

 

 

 

 

[MemphisMechanic]

He was asking if you’re loading these for a specific purpose.

 

Hornady bullets are very very expensive for tossing downrange; no one runs them in USPSA for this reason. Places like PrecisionDelta do quality FMJs much more cheaply.

[superdude]

2 hours ago, PhillySoldier said:

I have tested 115 FMJ's from 5.0 - 5.9g of CFE. Shooting 20 rounds of each increment - two 10 rnd shot groups @ 25 yards from a ransom rest and measuring the different shot group sizes. I want to run similar tests with HAP's & XTP's.

 

Im just wondering if I should keep load the exact same weight ranges of 5.0 - 5.9g or if perhaps the hollow points tend to have some difference and I should be starting lower or higher. Just looking for a starting charge weight to use. 

 

Differences in what?  We can't respond unless you tell us what 'differences' you're talking about.

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, superdude said:

 

Differences in what?  We can't respond unless you tell us what 'differences' you're talking about.

I assume he means shoulder length etc? They may have to be seated deeper to chamber so there may be a need to reduce charge some

[Steve RA]

The more things you change between loads, the less you'll actually learn, comparison wise.

[PhillySoldier]

I was just looking to see if there were any known min to max charge weights for the hap and xtp projectiles or use the same data as the fmj's

[Ssanders224]

34 minutes ago, PhillySoldier said:

I was just looking to see if there were any known min to max charge weights for the hap and xtp projectiles or use the same data as the fmj's

 

JHPs are, in general, longer than their FMJ counterparts. 

 

So, loaded to the same cartridge OAL, and powder charge, you will achieve a higher velocity. 

If changing from FMJs, to JHPs of the same weight, I would go down .2 or .3 grains and start there. 

 

Also, check out Precision Delta.  You will find that their 115 JHPs perform exactly like the XTPs, at a much more attractive price. 

http://www.precisiondelta.com/

[superdude]

2 hours ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

JHPs are, in general, longer than their FMJ counterparts. 

 

 

In 9mm bullets, JHP are generally shorter than their FMJ counterparts.

 

Hornady 115 XTP  .545"

Hornady 115 HAP .543"

Hornady 115 FMJ .551"

 

Winchester 115 JHP .543"

Winchester 115 FMJ .575"

 

Sierra 115 JHP  .510"

Sierra 115 FMJ .535"

 

Remington 115 JHP .532"

Remington 115 FMJ .558"

 

Zero 115 JHP .525"

Zero 115 JHP-Conical .545"

Zero 115 FMJ .550"

 

[Hi-Power Jack]

4 hours ago, PhillySoldier said:

 any known min to max charge weights for the hap and xtp projectiles or use the same data as the fmj's

 

Every time you change bullets, you need to run The Plunk Test again,

and play with OAL - start over working up your powder charge, with 

a Chrono, of course.

 

As Ss and Su (above) mentioned, each bullet is different length

and might need a different COL.

 

But, basically, the amount of powder should be very similar, as

a starting point     

[Ssanders224]

2 hours ago, superdude said:

 

In 9mm bullets, JHP are generally shorter than their FMJ counterparts.

 

Hornady 115 XTP  .545"

Hornady 115 HAP .543"

Hornady 115 FMJ .551"

 

Winchester 115 JHP .543"

Winchester 115 FMJ .575"

 

Sierra 115 JHP  .510"

Sierra 115 FMJ .535"

 

Remington 115 JHP .532"

Remington 115 FMJ .558"

 

Zero 115 JHP .525"

Zero 115 JHP-Conical .545"

Zero 115 FMJ .550"

 

 

Blah... thanks.

Too much going on when I posted, and I answered the same question regarding .40 via email 15 min earlier. 

 

Correct, in 9mm JHPs are generally shorter.  

[PhillySoldier]

Thanks all. 

[Droot]

Hornady lists one chart for All types of bullet one weight. They list individual OAL for each bullet.

David

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[zzt]

PS, start lower.  It has been my experience that some strange things happen in the accuracy department.  Accuracy increases and decreases in turns as you go up and down the ladder.  For example, my former bullseye load for 45 was a 200gr LSWC under 3.7gr e3 and WLP.  I had always found the best accuracy with different powders to be in the 775~800fps range with 200 LSWCs.

 

In yet another attempt to reduce recoil, I started reducing the charge.  The 3.7/WLP load 798fps with a n SD of 9.42.  It was very accurate.  At 3.6gr the SD opened to 11.85 and accuracy was reduced.  Same with 3.5.  This is what happened with every other powder I had used.  The at 3.4gr, something changed.  SDs dropped to 5.35 and accuracy was superb.  Swapping a CCI 300 for the WLP dropped the SD to 4.95 with the same accuracy.  I don't know if this is barrel harmonics, voodoo, or what, but I do know I have an accurate bullseye load at 726fps.  8000 rounds later I have no incentive to change.

 

I found similar in 40sw.  At 172PF my pistol only liked 165, 175 and 180gr projectiles.  They were accurate, and the 135s and 155s were horrible.  I decided to use that pistol for Steel Challenge and worked up loads between 109PF and 132PF.  The heavier projectiles were no longer accurate.  It turned out that a 155 at 126PF was the best.  Go figure.

[PhillySoldier]

20 hours ago, zzt said:

PS, start lower.  It has been my experience that some strange things happen in the accuracy department.  Accuracy increases and decreases in turns as you go up and down the ladder.  For example, my former bullseye load for 45 was a 200gr LSWC under 3.7gr e3 and WLP.  I had always found the best accuracy with different powders to be in the 775~800fps range with 200 LSWCs.

 

Yeah I seem to have a hell of a time trying to figure out my starting points. If I start low, then I wind up needing to go home and load more higher and vice versa. Last test I ran, my OAL was longer than the published data and I still winded up running higher in velocity that it and having to go home and load another batch lower. Cant seem to win with that... 

 

I loaded the XTP's last night; 20 rnds each of every 0.1g increment from 5.0-5.9g.  After plunk testing the XTP's I had to lower the OAL to 1.075". Wow I dont even want to know how much more I would have to reduce that to fit my CZ's. I probably shouldve started with an even lower charge weight.

 

I really gotta start just making a couple "targeting rounds" and running over the chrono to get my starting point(s). But Im always trying to run and complete my tests in single trip rather than multiple sessions. (it usually winds up multiple sessions anyway). As mentioned I made up 200 rounds; 20 in every 0.1g increment. I'll shoot it in 0.2g increments though till the results narrow down whats working best and then switch to the 0.1g increments. Thats my attempt at getting it all done in 1 session rather than 2. I'll just shoot off whatever's left over at the end of the test. 

 

As to the comment on reducing recoil;  there is a test I want to run soon to compare different weighted recoil springs and recoil reducers. With the ransom rest there is a pivot hinge on it that allows the gun to be pushed back (flipped up is probably a better description) when fired. I wanna measure how far its pushed back and compare the results and see if there is any noticeable difference as well as see if it changes shot group size or not. Ive tried recoil reducers in the past and whereas I definitely noticed a difference in a smaller 3" barrel I honestly couldnt tell if there was a difference in a longer barreled / full sized gun or if it was just more of a placebo affect. 

 

Anyway I have the 115 HAP's to load tonight still. 

 

 

 

[Hi-Power Jack]

6 hours ago, PhillySoldier said:

 

I loaded the XTP's last night; 20 rnds each of every 0.1 gr increment from 5.0-5.9g. 

 

 

If I'm just starting out, I load every 0.3 grains - just to get a quick feel for velocity.

 

Some people bring along some basic reloading equipment with them to the range,

and load up different weights/OALS right on the spot, to see the differences.  Have

the cases all sized, flanged and primed - just need to add powder and seat the bullet.

 

That way, if you load up 5.0 - 5.9 at home, and 5.0 is too fast, you can load some

4.7's real quick and see what that measures.   Or, 4.4's,if necessary.  Or load a

different OAL to check that out.

 

I didn't have to worry since I used to shoot on my own property.   Now, it's a

37 mile trip, each way, so it's nice to cut out a trip or two     

 

 

[PhillySoldier]

56 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

If I'm just starting out, I load every 0.3 grains - just to get a quick feel for velocity.

 

Some people bring along some basic reloading equipment with them to the range,

and load up different weights/OALS right on the spot, to see the differences.  Have

the cases all sized, flanged and primed - just need to add powder and seat the bullet.

 

That way, if you load up 5.0 - 5.9 at home, and 5.0 is too fast, you can load some

4.7's real quick and see what that measures.   Or, 4.4's,if necessary.  Or load a

different OAL to check that out.

 

I didn't have to worry since I used to shoot on my own property.   Now, it's a

37 mile trip, each way, so it's nice to cut out a trip or two     

 

 

 

I agree but its 70-100lbs of gear im carting and about an hour to get set up plus 20 settling rounds; as well as the extra day and range trip to finish.

 

Its just easier for me to waste the extra rounds and load everything. Ill shoot it in 0.2-0.3g to start. Then switch to the lower increments when i see what area is working best.

 

All the left over ammo ill just shoot at the end or put away for plinkers

[PhillySoldier]

Grrr started at a low 5.0g and velocity started at 1150 fps. I tested the 5.0 - 5.9 but gotta go load from 4.5 - 4.9 now to finish the test

[Hi-Power Jack]

8 minutes ago, PhillySoldier said:

 5.0g  at 1150 fps. gotta go load from 4.5 - 4.9 now to finish the test

 

Not really.   I like PF132 (115 gr at 1150 fps).   Might be a great place to stop     

[PhillySoldier]

Usually I would agree but testing the same load previously except w fmj's; my best shot groups were at like 1080 fps.