What is the most accurate 9mm ammo?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JohnKSa]

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

I suppose that choosing to fire 5 shot groups and average 5 of them is just as arbitrary as choosing to fire 25 shots into a single group. The result of either one is only representative of the results of that particular procedure.

Similarly, someone firing 40 shots in a single group, or choosing to average three 10 shot groups should expect to find that the results of their arbitrary choices will not be representative of firing a 25 shot group or choosing to average five 5 shot groups.

Of course, all of that is really neither here nor there.

The point is that if you shoot a large number of shots into one group and make one mistake, it is the mistake that is going to dominate the results. If you fire more groups and average the results, a single mistake can only affect one group and the effect of averaging will reduce the impact of that mistake in the overall results.

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.

If the point is to determine how you, your gun or the ammo perform on average, then the important statistic is the average performance.

If the point is to determine how you, your gun or the ammo perform in the worst case, then, of course, the most important statistic is the largest group.

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

The nice thing about the averaging process is that if you take enough samples, the odds become good that the average results are representative of the typical performance for that particular course of fire.

On the other hand, if you put all your eggs in one basket and that result turns out to be atypical, you have spent a lot of work on a result that doesn't tell you much.

 

[74A95]

The point is that if you shoot a large number of shots into one group and make one mistake, it is the mistake that is going to dominate the results. If you fire more groups and average the results, a single mistake can only affect one group and the effect of averaging will reduce the impact of that mistake in the overall results.If the point is to determine how you, your gun or the ammo perform on average, then the important statistic is the average performance.

If you are aware of a mistake, the 'called flier', you don't include that shot in the group measurement.

If you make a mistake that you aren't aware of, then how do you label a shot a mistake if you are not aware of it being a mistake? Logic says you can't. You have to include it because it might not be a mistake. It might be an accurate reflection of the gun/ammo.

The only 'mistakes' that count are the ones you know are mistakes, and they should be excluded from the measurement.

The nice thing about the averaging process is that if you take enough samples, the odds become good that the average results are representative of the typical performance for that particular course of fire.

How many samples do you have to take?

 

[JohnKSa]

If you are aware of a mistake, the 'called flier', you don't include that shot in the group measurement.

If you know for sure you made a mistake AND you know for sure which shot on the target was the mistake then I suppose it would make sense to discount that shot and shoot another one to make up for it. Except of course if the goal is to evaluate the worst case performance, in which case the mistake probably shouldn't be eliminated since it certainly contributed to a worst case performance.

I'm not really in favor of trying to pick and choose which shots to keep and which ones to leave out when shooting groups because...

If you make a mistake that you aren't aware of, then how do you label a shot a mistake if you are not aware of it being a mistake?

Well said.

There's also the situation where you know you made a mistake but you're not sure which shot on target it is. Maybe the "flier" that is high and right is the mistake you know you made, or maybe it's telling you about an ammo problem or a gun problem, and the actual mistake wasn't actually as bad as you thought it was. Once you start trying to pick and choose shots or groups, then you're never really sure if the numbers are telling you about how the shooting is going or if they're telling you how good you are at throwing away shots or groups to make the results come out the way you want them to.

How many samples do you have to take?

A simple and effective way to know if you have enough is to stop when the average isn't changing significantly any more. If all the groups are fairly consistent then it will stabilize very rapidly.

Or, you could just pick a number of groups you want to shoot and pick the number of shots per group that seems reasonable to you and go for it. Five shot groups are pretty common for handgun accuracy evaluation and averaging a handful of those should provide decent results. You'll see that approach commonly used in published reviews.

I've seen much larger group shot counts used for accuracy evaluation, but only with machine rests, or when some similar technique is used to take the shooter out of the equation as much as possible.

 

[saleen322]

I shoot handgun groups to test ammo and the gun and they are always 5-shot. Using a mechanical rest you still have to change magazines and I always check the torque on the rest when I change mags. If you move the gun in the rest changing mags and/or change torque on the screws it will change the impact point from previous groups which has nothing to do with the performance of the ammo-firearm combination. If the gun shoots a 2" group @ 50 yards and then after the magazine change it shoots a 2.25" group but the group center moved an inch left, the inch move had nothing to do the firearm or ammo but moved because of disturbing the rest. In testing you have to do your best to remove all of the outside variables and get to just the gun and ammo. If I shot 50-shot groups you will be wasting ammo more than getting information. Now if you are testing the rest, your procedures will change to reflect that. YMMV

 

[74A95]

I shoot handgun groups to test ammo and the gun and they are always 5-shot. Using a mechanical rest you still have to change magazines and I always check the torque on the rest when I change mags. If you move the gun in the rest changing mags and/or change torque on the screws it will change the impact point from previous groups which has nothing to do with the performance of the ammo-firearm combination. If the gun shoots a 2" group @ 50 yards and then after the magazine change it shoots a 2.25" group but the group center moved an inch left, the inch move had nothing to do the firearm or ammo but moved because of disturbing the rest. In testing you have to do your best to remove all of the outside variables and get to just the gun and ammo. If I shot 50-shot groups you will be wasting ammo more than getting information. Now if you are testing the rest, your procedures will change to reflect that. YMMV

What kind of mechanical rest are you using? And why do you feel compelled to check the torque after changing mags? Is the rest's grip on the gun so poor?