115, 124, 147gr. Oh My!

R

RobertJohnston

New member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Guelph, ON
New Ruger PC9 owner here ( first firearm ever).
I’ve been searching around for the best grain to run through the PC9. I have come to understand that the 147 grain just may be the best for this particular gun. Am I mistaken? Thoughts?

Thanks,
Robert
 
Last edited:
I picked up a Ruger PC Carbine earlier this year and I've put about 750 rnds through it so far. CCI Brass 115 and 124 gr, Winchester 115gr White Box, Winchester 115 gr HP, and STV Tech Scorpio 124 gr.... it's all shot good, no malfunctions with any of it. I generally just shoot what every is least expensive... it all seems to shoot the same for me.
 
RobertJohnston said:
New Ruger PC9 owner here ( first firearm ever).
I’ve been searching around for the best grain to run through the PC9.
Click to expand...

FWIW, "grain" is a unit of weight. You wouldn't ask what, "pound" to use would you?

The correct wording is, "what weight bullet should you run through the PC9?"

The answer to that question is, there is no "best" bullet weight, they will all work.
 
I have shot a pile of factory 147 grain'ers in 9mm PCC and they seemed to shoot very well. There really isn't any velocity gain with the longer barrel according to my chrony.
 
PCCs don't really care about bullet weight as much, you just miiight run into feeding issues with the flat nose 147s. 115s and 124s are the same basic round nose shape, and will typically have fewer feeding issues. And considering 147s are always more expensive (When buying factory), you're probably better off with 124s.
 
I am probably in the minority here in that 147gr (either Federal Syntech TSJ or Magtech FMJ) seem to be more slightly more accurate in both my PC Carbine and my FX9. However, once in a blue moon I seem to get the FTE in my FX9, but we're talking once every two years maybe.

My PC Carbine seems to perform fine with 124gr as well (again Syntech TSJ, S&B, Federal AE, Winchester WW, CCI Blazer, etc.). It is not as accurate as the 147s - I don't know why.

As for 115gr, I know everyone uses the term "snappy" with them, but I really don't notice a difference in using them on my PC Carbine (aluminum handguard, adjustable stock model) between 115 and 124 - not sure if it's because I hang all sorts of accessories like flashlights, magnifier, angled foregrips, etc. off of it increasing what is already a more front heavy carbine, but 115 seems ok.

All the above that I have used are brass cased, not aluminum.

The only thing I will say is that the PC Carbine with some kinds of defensive ammo, seem to not play well, but due to cost, it hasn't been a huge sample size (maybe 20-40 rounds) - some feed issues particularly. Could be the mag too, I don't know (Glock magwell, Glock, PMAG, and ProMags). And regardless of ammo, the last round bolt hold open with the Glock mags and magwell are not reliable at all, compared to using a Ruger magwell and a Ruger mag.
 
124 works best for me. I've heard someone describe 115 as "submachine gun ammo". And I've had a lot of FTF when I picked up some 147 a long time ago.

Does 147 exist as an accuracy bullet, or do folk choose them to get power factor at less velocity? Wondering why all three are strong on the market.
 
I daily drive with 87 octane.
Spare gas in jerry cans I fill with 91 octane and add stabilizer.
If I list my truck and have people take it for a test drive I fill it with 93 octane.

Same with 9x19. 115 gets it done, 124 is the standard, 147 feels GREAT for special occasions.
 
old303 said:
124 works best for me. I've heard someone describe 115 as "submachine gun ammo". And I've had a lot of FTF when I picked up some 147 a long time ago.

Does 147 exist as an accuracy bullet, or do folk choose them to get power factor at less velocity? Wondering why all three are strong on the market.
Click to expand...

I am neither an expert nor knowledgeable on this, but for me the choice of 147gr, aside from good performance from the two guns I use that shoot it, is the fact that my HD ammo happens to be 147gr (Federal HST and Speer Gold Dot). So naturally I would mate my range and practice ammo with that I have set aside for HD. It just so happened that the range ammo in 147gr performs very well with my guns. 147gr is subsonic too, but maybe in a HD situation, it may be easier on the ears (though that is likely the least of the person's problems when faced with that situation). I also have since watched some test videos and read up on ballistics testing and it seems like the 147gr excels in both penetration and expansion.

That said, I believe the original NATO standard for 9mm Luger was 124gr. I am sure that is the best of both worlds option.

115gr is interesting. My FX9 manual recommends its exclusive use initially (and maybe by extension long term), though I have found in both my PC Carbine and FX9, the 115gr's accuracy via different brands is not as good as my 147gr. I concede that this may just very well be the best mating between my particular gun and a particular weight of ammo. Others may have the opposite experience.
 
I have seen pretty modest increase in velocity when running factory 147 through different carbines. 100fps more or less is typical whereas 115/124 can see up to a 300fps increase. All shoot well enough for me across every gun I have owned. I used to buy 115 because it was cheapest.
 
Last edited:
CV32 said:
The Magtech 147 gr subsonic was a great performer in my FX-9.
Click to expand...

Agreed 147 subs on steel are so much fun. Super quiet then after a bit you hear the steel ring.
I found 250 PC coated 147's used the Min load that cycled . I laughed at how quiet they were.
Its a shame we cant run mufflers on our PCC's in Kanada
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom