Difference between JHP and XTP?

[Prof Young]

Loaders: What is the difference between 180grain 38 cal JHP and XTP?
The reason I'm asking is because I have some 180grain 38 Cal XTP but can't find more than two load formulas. I can find all kinds of formulas for 180 grain 38 cal JHP. Are they interchangeable?

Help!

Life is good.
Prof Young

 

[Marco Califo]

XTP is a Hornady brand name for their JHP's.
I would consider the data to be interchangeable for similar construction bullets of the same weight.

 

[Unclenick]

Prof Young,

What cartridge are you loading for? As Marco said, the same construction (cup-and-core), same weight, and, I would add, the same seating depth will give you the same results. Note that Speer Gold Dots have JHP form but are not cup-and-core but have a softer copper-plated jacket, so their loads are somewhat higher. Note that copper solid HPs are not JHPs, as they have no separate jackets, and their loads are lower to avoid going over pressure.

Usually, JHPs have a crimp cannelure. If you crimp into that cannelure, you will find the length of the bullet from the base to the cannelure is your seating depth. Otherwise, you can calculate it from the formula below and figure a hundredth of an inch difference here and there won't make a significant difference. But when you get much over that, it can start to change pressures significantly with some powder and cartridge combinations, particularly with short powder columns.

Seating Depth = Case Length + Bullet Length – COL

 

[GeauxTide]

Hornady XTP are not hollow points. They are a modified JSP, using proprietary plastic to initiate expansion. Killed a 9 point a couple of years ago with a 154 Interbond. Accurate, Deadly, Dependable.

 

[MarkCO]

XTP is a Hornady brand name for their JHP's.
I would consider the data to be interchangeable for similar construction bullets of the same weight.

Agree.

Hornady XTP are not hollow points. They are a modified JSP, using proprietary plastic to initiate expansion.

XTPs absolutely are JHPs. The Hornady Critical Defense, Flex Tips (FTX) have the rubber tips, ELD line has hard plastic tips, and they even have aluminum tips now.

 

[rc]

The generally accepted use of load data for the same bullet weights but different bullet make is to reduce 10% and work up. 180 grain bullets of the same size and profile generally can use the same data but there are differences in pressure depending on the bearing surface for a particular bullet. Bet Hornady's loading book has data for their bullet If this is for 357 mag, try H110 or 296. 180s are so heavy for the caliber you want the slowest powder possible. If that's for a 10mm or 40, I wouldn't worry about substituting data at all because that's a standard weight.

 

[Prof Young]

What is COL?

UncleNick:

Thanks for the formula but I don't know what COL is.

So much to learn.

Life is good.
Prof Young

 

[Marco Califo]

Cartridge Overall Length
There are bullet guages that will tell you if your ammo meets SAAMI specs. One dimension is COL, with the bullet seated. Here is an example, see last column:
A micrometer can be used to check COL

 

[rc]

The deeper a bullet is seated with a particular powder charge, the higher the pressure. Heavier longer bullets are pushed slower because of less powder volume and heavier bullet weight. With jacketed 357 and roll crimps you generally want to crimp into the standard crimp groove. COL in revolvers is not something you can do very much about compared with taper crimped rounds that have no need for such a groove.

 

[44 AMP]

but I don't know what COL is.

The problem with abbreviations is, one has to know the current context, to be sure of the applicability of the term.

COL is the current "short form" of COAL, which stood for CARTRIDGE Over All Length.

At one time people used COL as CASE overall length and COAL as CARTRIDGE overall length, but that usage has fallen out of favor and today COL means Cartridge over all length, only.

Back in the 70s Lyman used the term "maximum length (with bullet), and there was never any confusion about that referring to a loaded round.

COL is measured from the bottom of the case to the bullet tip. No other points are involved. Shape of the bullet is irrelevant. The forward most part of the bullet is the tip.

 

[Unclenick]

COL is the current "short form" of COAL, which stood for CARTRIDGE Over All Length.

Almost. Short a hyphen. Up until the 1948 Edition of Webster's 2nd unabridged dictionary, there were two spellings of overall. One was the single word, and the other was the hyphenated over-all. The single-word form meant taken altogether, as in "overall, he had a good life." The hyphenated spelling meant total length, as in, "the boat was nine feet over-all." So up until the post-WWII years, over-all, which has the two-letter initials o.a., was the correct spelling for cartridge length. But when Webster's 3rd came out in 1961, the hyphenated form was gone, and the single word form overall, which has the single initial o., was used for all meanings of the word. So C.O.A.L. are the initials for the old spelling, and C.O.L. are the initials for the modern spelling.

 

[44 AMP]

Thanks for the history, Uncle Nick.

My faith in dictionaries failed some time ago, I'm afraid. Like a lot of us, I was raised in a school system that treated the dictionary as if it were holy writ, and considered it to be the "be all, end all" and final arbiter of what was, and was not correct spelling and usage of language.

As a youth I accepted this, automatically. Later on, after actually reading the fine print at the front of several dictionaries, i discovered by their own admission that the definitions are not absolute, and are based on the general usage and current popular definitions.

So, as a famous fictional pirate once said, "not rules, more loike guidelines, really...."

every field has their own jargon, and technical fields have the most, particulary today, with more acromyns and abbreviations than ever before.

It's a mixed up, muddled up world, and sometimes, knowing where a term came from is useful understanding why it is what it is, and where it is properly used.

 

[Shadow9mm]

GeauxTide

Your thinking of either lever revolution, critical defense, or dritical duty. Xtp is a tradition jhp.

 

[stagpanther]

I think I might know where the OP and Geauxtide are coming from in their responses; they might not be totally incorrect in their observations that the xtp is not the same thing as a JHP--at least what JHP in the "traditional sense" means. Bullets like the gold dot, golden saber and the xtp are what I would call "full jacket protected hollow point" because their jacket fully covers the bullet all the way to the front/meplat of the bullet--the jacket is integral to the expansion characteristics of the hollow point--whereas a traditional hollow point; even those called jacketed hollow points (like Nosler's handgun bullets) might have a jacket but it is not necessarily bonded all the way to the front of the bullet, so the lead hollow point is in a sense an "exposed" spire of lead which can possibly have issues in chambering in some handguns.

 

[GeauxTide]

Thanks, Stagpanther. Great explanation. XTP are protected point. Hollow points are "HOLLOW"

 

[cdoc42]

Here is a definition obtained from Microsoft's "A.I." research option:

"Hornady XTP bullets and JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) bullets are both types of handgun ammunition. The main difference between the two is that XTP bullets are designed to expand upon impact, while JHP bullets are designed to penetrate a target1.

XTP stands for “eXtreme Terminal Performance” and is a hollow point bullet with a tapered jacket that controls expansion1. The tapered jacket allows the bullet to expand uniformly, creating a larger wound channel and increasing stopping power1.

JHP bullets, on the other hand, have a hollow point in the nose of the bullet that allows it to expand upon impact2. This expansion creates a larger wound channel and increases stopping power2.

In summary, both Hornady XTP and JHP bullets are designed to expand upon impact and create larger wound channels. However, XTP bullets have a tapered jacket that controls expansion, while JHP bullets have a hollow point in the nose of the bullet that allows it to expand upon impact."

I will add a personal experience. Early in my handloading career, I fired a Speer .44 Mag bullet from my Ruger SuperBlack Hawk at a can of purchased Chili that was too horrible to eat. I missed the can because the bullet went about 3 feet to the left of my point of impact. I looked at the gun to find the barrel had ruptured about 2 inches from its origin. Split like a piece of bamboo. Ruger replaced the barrel, and after some discussion to convince them I was not in the liability mood, the possible explanation was the copper jacket was too thin for the velocity I was using and it left a ring of copper that occluded the barrel right at the point where the split occurred.

This is even more of an issue with the .454 Casull. Note that Hornady makes an XTP and an XTP-Mag. The reason is the jacket is thicker in the "Mag" for use in higher velocity handguns. Freedom Arms will suggest the use of their bullets for that reason without explaining it.

 

[Marco Califo]

Berry's makes plated hollow‐points. They do indeed expand nicely fired into water jugs, when loaded at Berrys recommended velocities, which are very achievable. Many Youtube videos. They are much cheaper ($21 per 100) than XTPs, GDHP, etc.
https://www.berrysmfg.com/product/bp-45-452-185gr-hhp

 

[44 AMP]

Any bullet that has a jacket, and any kind of hole, depression or where the lead core does not extend to the tip of the bullet, flush with the jacket may be referred to as a "hollow point".

Match rifle bullets with that tiny hole at the tip are hollow points. Hollow points are most frequently made to increase bullet expansion, but its not an absolute thing.

Whether there is an exposed lead nose, or the jacket covers it, if there is a hole (or even a dimple pretending to be a hole), it's a hollow point in general terms.

 

[stagpanther]

I believe the Berry's is generally a thin jacket coat and they do not recommend it for hunting applications (AFAIK); I use them frequently for lower-power low cost plinking applications for which they work very well--but I don't think they are appropriate for the same use parameters as a bullet like the xtp. The xtp I think is a great bullet and up to the job of self defense and hunting. I've used the FTX--but I don't like the funkiness of trimming cases and then figuring out how to keep them segregated from other "normal" cases.

I take that back. I just looked at the Berry's you actually linked and it does look like a step forward to a genuine hunting/self-defense bullet--I didn't know these had been developed by them. looks like the same kind of full jacket and serrated to promote expansion like the xtp, golden saber etc.

 

[stagpanther]

it's a hollow point in general terms.

So then is a Berger match grade VLD rifle bullet--but what I think is at issue here is the difference between a jacket which may still leave an exposed lead nose of the bullet and the use of the jacket which does more than just cover the lead--it's functionally different in performance. I think it's valid to at least be aware of those differences and what the implications on use are.