What is the most accurate 9mm ammo?

[saleen322]

...See the article below:

https://americanhandgunner.com/exclu...city-accuracy/

They load one test load with Power Pistol and the other is a load that does not use Power Pistol. It is not a surprise when the Power Pistol load groups better even if there is a little higher SD. It has consistently been the best powder for 9mm accuracy loads.

[kramden]

Try some Aquila 9mm. Comes in 115 and 124gr. Low priced and pretty good quality.

[krnitesite]

I tried various brands of ammo to find what my guns and I liked. After about 3500 rounds here is what I came up with.

FMJ - by the way, I carry 124 grain 9mm, so I practice with the same weight.

Winchester 124 grain NATO, and Speer Lawman 124 gr - both are far
more accurate than most, are reliable, and can be purchased for around
$10 per box.

HP - Fed. HST 124 gr., Speer Gold Dot 124 gr, Hornady Critical Defense 135 gr
plus P. I can get the Federal for about $19 per box of 50 and it works best in my handguns. Speer gold dot is tough to beat in my Scorpion.

[expendable]

Accuracy X has been using Atlanta Arms.
I haven't used any of it, but their results are hard to argue with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbWsFItQY9w

[stephen426]

I took my Sig P210 Target out to the range again last night. I forgot to bring different ammo to test out and was shooting the regular UMC (yellow box) stuff. While UMC runs a little dirty from my experience, it has always been very reliable and pricing is reasonable. I started at 7 yards where is where I tend to do most of my shooting with my carry gun (which I was shooting first). I know the gun is far more capable than I am, but at that distance, it was dead on and pretty much one ragged hold. Even at 10 and 15 yards, I was getting some very nice groupings. I will try to be sure to bring different types of ammo next trip out to see what difference it makes.

[CUBAN REDNECK]

I like Federal HYDRA-SHOK 124 grain. Never had a problem with it and have shot tons of it, literally. Feeds well in all my pistols. Some folks call it old technology, from the 1990's, but it works fine.

[Brit]

I carry 147g SXT Winchester Ranger HP ammo. Stamped Law Enforcement Ammunition.

Reasonable recoil, very accurate. But my Glock 17 magazine I carry as a spare Mag. For my Glock 19 4th Gen. pistol.
Has 17 rounds of WW 124g NATO hardball on board. Depending on the target, or where the targets are, ammo that is kind of good at punching through automobile tin, is good to have.
Seems like the SAS have had no trouble using Brit Sub Gun ammo in their pistols if my information is correct.

[wild cat mccane]

About every brand and model has been listed.

So the question should be, what isn't an accurate 9mm ammo?

[PPGMD]

Winchester White Box or Freedom Munitions 115gr plated RN, or well anything plated typically has horrible accuracy.

[pete2]

A machine rest tests accuracy of the gun and ammo. Nothing to do with how well one shoots. The machine rest can tell you what the best ammo is for a particular gun. if you are trying to hit the X-Ring at 50 yards and the gun/ammo combination you are using is only capable of 10 inch groups at 50 yards, you are in trouble. You ain't gonna win a match no matter how good you shoot.

[44 AMP]

So the question should be, what isn't an accurate 9mm ammo?

I considered making that the original question. But it occurred to me that it would be more useful for me to ask what people found the most accurate, not what people thought was crap. And to keep the list down to a somewhat manageable size.

Thanks for all the replies, most of them have been on topic, some have been useful, some less so...

To the OP what distance are you shooting these guns at?

sorry, I missed this question when it was posted and only noticed it just now, re-reading responses. We have not decided all distances but one will be the "standard" 25yd distance.

Thanks for all the replies about what you carry and why, what is ok and costs the least, what are the most accurate handloads and how to make them, and how the only thing that matters is where you hit,...etc.

Nice to know, but not what I asked. Just looking to see if any (reasonably) common factory load, no matter what type, shot the best groups from your guns, in your hands.

If everything you shoot does about the same, that's fine. If one, or two loads stand out from the rest by shooting better (smaller) groups, that's what I want to know.

Also looking for valid differences of opinion. such as:
"Womper's Red Box is great, shoots teeny-tiny groups in all my guns..."
"Womper's Red Box is crap, can't hit the broad side of a barn from any of my guns..."

but only if there is a "why" included explaining things.

Thanks for all the info so far, keep it coming!

[JohnKSa]

Winchester White Box...typically has horrible accuracy.

That hasn't been my experience. In some of my guns it actually shoots quite well.

When I was relatively new to handgun shooting, I was convinced that there was a big difference in accuracy amongst the various ammo brands and it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At some point (I can't remember all the details now) I ended up with a batch of really inexpensive steel-cased ammunition at an actual match and had to shoot the match with that ammo. It made no difference in the score that I could tell--that was a real eye-opener.

I do find that different guns have different preferences, but except in extreme cases, the preferences make relatively small differences. In other words, I might find that one gun shoots 25 yard groups with WWB that are 3.2" compared to 3.7 for the American Eagle while another gun shoots the American Eagle into 3" and the WWB into 3.6". I very rarely see situations where one ammo shoots groups that are a lot larger (say double) than when using another type of ammo.

Here's the result of a test I did awhile back. This is a 10 shot group fired at 15 yards using 6 different types of ammunition.

It measures 2" between the centers of the two shots that are farthest apart. Obviously all of the ammo is pretty accurate--and all of it shoots pretty close to the same point of aim.

By the way, the group was fired from the standing position with a Glock that I bought used. So this is real-world performance from a fairly typical autopistol, not benchrest results from some high-dollar target pistol.

I do agree that some guns really don't like plated ammo and that can result in really impressive inaccuracy. I've also run into some bargain-basement ammo with undersized bullets that hit the target sideways at 5-7 yards. But those kinds of issues are, by far, the exception rather than the rule.

[wild cat mccane]

So there you go.

Everything is accurate except white Box Winchester.

[PPGMD]

...I might find that one gun shoots 25 yard groups with WWB that are 3.2" compared to 3.7 for the American Eagle while another gun shoots the American Eagle into 3" and the WWB into 3.6".

Those are all pretty poor groups. At 25 yards 2" or less is preferred for any type of match shooting. 1" or less for bullseye shooting.

[JohnKSa]

Those are all pretty poor groups. At 25 yards 2" or less is preferred for any type of match shooting. 1" or less for bullseye shooting.

Well, without being too argumentative, there are some people who would say that "2 inches at 25 yards ... is more then good enough" for some kinds of match shooting, such as action pistol.

Anyway, what I'm talking about is the difference between the different types of ammo.

If I were doing more stringent evaluations, I might shoot from a rest using a pistol with match performance and then the groups would almost certainly be smaller--but the accuracy differences between the various types of ammo should be very similar to what I'm seeing now.

The post I was responding to characterized WWB accuracy as being "horrible" and that's not what I see at the range. What I see is that WWB accuracy is very comparable to other types of practice ammo, and not that different from even the premium SD ammo I sometimes shoot groups with.

[PPGMD]

So there is no chance that in the last 11 years that my position of the required accuracy for action pistol may have changed?

And that was my post and IME WWB is pretty bad, until the Federal Champion Plated stuff came out I thought it was the worst ammo that I had shot.

[JohnKSa]

Sure, anybody's view can change any time, but that doesn't change the facts:

First of all, group sizes in my initial post were provided as general examples for the purpose of pointing out the difference in accuracy, they were not intended to be strictly representative of the accuracy of either ammo nor were they quoted directly from my records. I've since gone back through my records and I see that I've managed to achieve 25 yard group sizes as small as 2.5" with WWB ammo.

That's not "horrible" accuracy by generally accepted standards, even if you now believe that 2" is the maximum acceptable group size for "any type" of match shooting. From what I can tell, the vast majority of shooters would be very happy to be able to work with inexpensive practice ammo that is capable of shooting 2.5" groups at 25 yards.

And even that group size isn't likely to be representative of the true accuracy potential of the ammo since it was fired from the standing position, using a stock DAO type pistol I purchased used.

Second, and this is really the main point--regardless of whether or not you now take the stance that 2.5"-3.5" groups at 25 yards is "horrible accuracy"--the fact still remains that in my experience with several types of autopistols, the accuracy of WWB is quite comparable to most of the other practice type ammo currently on the market.

In other words, if you want to make the claim that all inexpensive practice ammo provides "horrible accuracy" because your threshold for acceptable accuracy is 2" or less at 25 yards, then while I would disagree with your standard, at least your argument would make sense.

But I have seen no evidence that WWB provides significantly worse accuracy than is typical of the various types of inexpensive practice ammo on the market and lots of evidence in various pistols to show it performs very similarly.

[zeke]

Back when I could see/shoot well enough to notice a difference, always used Win Q4172 to test a 9mm pistol's accuracy. It is the most consistently accurate factory ammo, outside of expensive hp rounds, tried in years. It uses/used win 115 gn exposed lead hollow base bullets, which led me to buy those bullets in bulk to reload. In comes in a white 50 round box, but is not the same bullet used in other "white box" 9mm loads.

And yes the info may be a tad dated as have not bought any factory 9mm rounds in over a decade.

[PPGMD]

In other words, if you want to make the claim that all inexpensive practice ammo provides "horrible accuracy" because your threshold for acceptable accuracy is 2" or less at 25 yards, then while I would disagree with your standard, at least your argument would make sense.

I don't keep extensive records of useless data like that. I remember buying all the cheaper 9mm ammo at Wal-mart. Then it was CCI Blazer Brass, WWB, and Remington JHP.

Remington's JHP shot the best but were a little too expensive for my practice budget. CCI Blazer shot the second best. With WWB bring significantly larger. I even shot WWB a lot during the 2009 ammo crunch (as beggers can't be choosers), in addition to the sub-par accuracy I noticed that it had the highest rate of QC failures including badly seated bullets, upside down bullets, upside down primers, and in one case no bullet whatsoever. Where as CCI Blazer Brass I had zero QC failures.

*shrug* Believe me, don't believe me, I honestly don't care. But those are my experiences with WWB, and are worth exactly what you paid for them.

[rpenmanparker]

There are two factors. inherent accuracy of the rounds and match to the gun. So the most accurate 9mm rounds in your gun may be different, no, most likely will be different than the most accurate in mine. I suggest you buy maybe three brands of match competition ammo, just one box each. Run them through your gun after fouling it and warming it up with cheaper stuff. Five, five round groups on five individual clean targets so there is no ambiguity about the results. Which one gives you the best result? Then what you most likely will want to do is use that result as a standard to find a cheaper, everyday variety that will give nearly the same result.

In case you were wondering, I am a chemist. It is all about the experiment for me.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

There are two factors. inherent accuracy of the rounds and match to the gun. So the most accurate 9mm rounds in your gun may be different, no, most likely will be different than the most accurate in mine. I suggest you buy maybe three brands of match competition ammo, just one box each. Run them through your gun after fouling it and warming it up with cheaper stuff. Five, five round groups on five individual clean targets so there is no ambiguity about the results. Which one gives you the best result? Then what you most likely will want to do is use that result as a standard to find a cheaper, everyday variety that will give nearly the same result.

In case you were wondering, I am a chemist. It is all about the experiment for me.

If you're going to shoot 25 shots, shoot them into one group. A sample of five can produce misleading results. Shooting all the rounds into one group gives you a better idea of dispersion.

As a chemist, I'm sure you can appreciate the benefit of a larger sample size, or at least you can if you've taken statistics classes.

[rpenmanparker]

Originally Posted by 74A95

If you're going to shoot 25 shots, shoot them into one group. A sample of five can produce misleading results. Shooting all the rounds into one group gives you a better idea of dispersion.

As a chemist, I'm sure you can appreciate the benefit of a larger sample size, or at least you can if you've taken statistics classes.

Yes, and I do that all the time. But there is an inherent problem with it. If you obliterate the bullseye with a big hole, than you can't expect to aim each shot at the same spot. That causes a systematic error in the results. They will be enlarged due to the floating POA. You are better off doing 5X5 and averaging the averages of each group. It is not such a big deal if the POI is different than the POA, I guess, but I still think that 5X5 is a better plan. Also one bad shot will spoil the whole 25 if you are going for absolute group size. But the average of averages will reduce the affect of the bad shot. It isn't sensible to have a group of 25 spoiled by one errant shot. You could delete it as an aberration, but that is another story. Averaging of groups of fewer shots is a much better idea. It would be different if the outcome you were looking for were average distance from the center of the group, but even then you wouldn't know the placement of every shot due to many going through the existing hole. And overall group size is a very different matter anyway.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker

Also one bad shot will spoil the whole 25 if you are going for absolute group size. But the average of averages will reduce the affect of the bad shot. It isn't sensible to have a group of 25 spoiled by one errant shot. You could delete it as an aberration, but that is another story. Averaging of groups of fewer shots is a much better idea. It would be different if the outcome you were looking for were average distance from the center of the group, but even then you wouldn't know the placement of every shot due to many going through the existing hole. And overall group size is a very different matter anyway.

If your goal is to ensure that your absolute group sizes are small, just shoot one shot groups.

The point of putting more shots in one group is to see how the gun shoots that ammo. If it throws one now and then, that's what you want to know. It helps you determine how consistently the gun shoots that ammo. That's the point of shooting groups. You might exclude that information if you shoot a small number of rounds per group.

[JohnKSa]

CCI Blazer shot the second best.

I've had good luck with CCI Blazer, except in my CZ pistols which don't seem to like aluminum cases. Going back and checking my records it looks like the CCI Blazer and the WWB, at least in my guns, shot very comparable groups with maybe a tenth of an inch advantage overall going to the CCI.

If you're going to shoot 25 shots, shoot them into one group.

I agree that this makes a lot of sense if you're shooting from a machine rest, or if the shooting setup is otherwise designed to insure that shooter error is virtually eliminated and that there's some way to maintain a good aiming point even after a significant number of shots have hit the target.

But for shooting from the standing position, I think that more groups with a smaller number of shots per group is going to be a lot more reasonable.

If your goal is to ensure that your absolute group sizes are small, just shoot one shot groups.

I think that's a mischaracterization. The goal isn't to make the groups as small as possible, it's to make them representative.

If shooter error is a contributor and the shooter makes one bad shot, then the entire 25 shots is now telling you a lot about the shooter and the bad shot but very little about the gun or the ammo. If, on the other hand, the shooter fires 5 groups and averages the results, the single bad shot spoils only one group and the overall average should still be fairly representative.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If shooter error is a contributor and the shooter makes one bad shot, then the entire 25 shots is now telling you a lot about the shooter and the bad shot but very little about the gun or the ammo. If, on the other hand, the shooter fires 5 groups and averages the results, the single bad shot spoils only one group and the overall average should still be fairly representative.

The average of several 5-shot groups only tells you the average of several 5-shot groups, and that's a completely arbitrary statistic.

If the point is to determine how you, your gun or ammo perform, the most important statistic is the largest group, not the average or the smallest.

The potential error of shooting multiple groups is that their POI might be in different regions of the target/bullseye. The better way to assess accuracy with this method is to then overlap the bullseyes and look at the dispersion of shots from all the groups together. Then use that widest spread as the meaningful statistic.

There is a problem with taking multiple small samples. They can, by chance, not represent the actual performance you're really trying to test.