Most accurate bullet weight for 9mm Glock.

R

Runs With Fire

New member
I've heard it said by quite a few people that the most accurate loads for their Glock 9mm happen to have a 124 grain bullet. We're talking basic FMJ. I haven't shot much 124 so I don't know what I think. It's for a Glock 19. What is your experience.
 
Well, in the first place, a JHP will average more accurate than a FMJ.

Apart from the defensive/practice distance stuff, like if you are shooting GSSF where they keep score, nothing to do but shoot the gun and see.
 
I've heard it said by quite a few people that the most accurate loads for their Glock 9mm happen to have a 124 grain bullet. We're talking basic FMJ. I haven't shot much 124 so I don't know what I think. It's for a Glock 19. What is your experience.
Click to expand...

The first thing to do is for you to go and shoot more with your gun in your hands. This is the only way that you can learn what ammo your gun likes best or what bullet weight you and the gun prefer.

Guns, even Glocks, are not identical. Slight differences in the manufacturing tolerances produce slightly different results when shooting. It's also the case that not all ammo, even from the same manufacturer, always performs the same.

So is 124 gr. the most accurate for Glocks? It doesn't matter what 100 fellas say. It's what you do that matters. Get some ammo and find out for yourself.

Anything less than 10 yards doesn't really tell you much about accuracy.

tipoc

It's also important to shoot different weight bullets, and bullet types, from different manufacturers.
 
I think the individual brand of bullet is more important than weight. Some guns will show a preference for certain brands/weights. Choosing accurate ammo is more important than trying to choose the most accurate bullet weight.

A 115 gr Hornady bullet may prove to be the most accurate bullet you test in a specific gun. But 115 gr Winchester may prove to be the least accurate with various 124 and 147 gr bullets falling somewhere in between. The results from another seemingly identical gun could be very different.
 
I think 124 is more accurate in my Beretta so I shoot them in everything. I haven't shot my G19 enough to say one way or the other.
 
I have found 124 grain to be the most accurate and best "feeling" bullet weight in all my 9mms. Shoots smooth, accurate, and reliable.
 
124 gr. what? Ball, jhp, flat nosed? By what manufacturer?

Those things make a difference. the bullet weight is only one factor of several.

tipoc
 
I've shot the three most popular bullet weights and never found a huge difference in accuracy. In my Glocks, my choice is 115 JHP for defense, so I practice with 115 FMJ.

The 124s and 147s do see use in my AR pattern guns.
I
 
"124 gr. what? Ball, jhp, flat nosed? By what manufacturer?
Those things make a difference. the bullet weight is only one factor of several.
tipoc"

Guess you didn't read the OP. Might want to do that.
 
In my experience, decent ammo should shoot 3" five-shot groups in a Glock at 25 yards--maybe a little better if you get a good ammo/gun mix. It can be a lot worse with ammo the gun doesn't like or with just plain poor quality ammo.

I haven't noticed that the bullet weight makes a big difference--variances in different types of ammo (brand, loading, etc.) seem to make larger differences.

If you can shoot 3" five shot groups at 25 yards using your Glock with a particular type of ammo, then I don't think you need to worry about the bullet weight.
 
^^^^
This.

Not to be argumentative, but most people (from what I've seen at the range over the last 20+ years) can't reliably hit a playing card at 7 yards, no matter how much time or what gun you give them. That includes even with a rifle.

Personally, without a rest or some type of cheat I doubt I could reliably shoot 3-inch groups @25 yards off-hand with any defensive handgun in my safe regardless of whether I was using my best reloads or the most expensive match-grade ammo currently available. 5- or 6-inch groups if I got some practice in, maybe. But I can reliably hit a 50 cent piece (1.2 inches) at 10 yards. Regardless of bullet weight or shape, brass or steel case.

And I'm far from a great shooter, nor do I own high-end pistols. I simply practice regularly with what i've got and that's it.
 
Last edited:
I generally use 124 gr ammunition in my pistols, including Glocks, when I can get it (I’m not so picky these days). I would not make the broad claim that one bullet weight is more accurate than another in most pistols or even in one brand.

I think when people complain about the accuracy of 115 gr 9mm they are basing that off of their experience with cheap, affordable 9mm. The more affordable 9mm is typically 115 gr, but that ammunition is also using cheaper powders and has looser QC standards. Cheap 9mm is not usually 124 gr.

My point is it’s not apples to apples. When I’ve shot 115 gr vs. 124 gr from the same manufacturer I can’t really notice a difference on targets out to say 15 yds typically, 25 yds at the most. If I shot further than that regularly maybe I would have noticed something different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think most people would have a hard time shooting 3" groups at 25 yards with a Sig 210 let alone a glock!
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative, but most people (from what I've seen at the range over the last 20+ years) can't reliably hit a playing card at 7 yards, no matter how much time or what gun you give them.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the point.

If you can't shoot to that level, then worrying about which bullet weight shoots best in the gun is a waste of time.

If the shooter can't approach the capability of the gun/ammo combination, then making the gun/ammo combination a little bit more accurate provides almost no practical benefit.

Here's an example.

Let's say that a shooter is capable (under absolutely perfect conditions--using a gun/ammo combination that is perfectly accurate--group sizes of zero from a bench) of shooting 8" groups at 25 yards.

With a gun/ammo combination that is capable of 4" groups at 25 yards, the overall group size (gun/ammo & shooter combination) will be, on average, 8.9".

With a gun/ammo combination that can do 2.0" groups, the overall group size will be 8.3", on average.

Making the gun/ammo combination TWICE as accurate--going from 4" to 2" groups only changed the overall group size by about 0.6", on average at 25 yards. That's an overall improvement of only about 7%.

Now let's change things and give the gun/ammo combination and the shooter comparable capability. So now, let's say the shooter can do (under perfect conditions) 4" groups at 25 yards.

With a gun/ammo combination that is capable of 4" groups at 25 yards, the overall group size (gun/ammo & shooter combination) will be, on average, 5.7".

With a gun/ammo combination that can do 2.0" groups, the overall group size will be 4.5" on average.

Now making the gun/ammo combination twice as accurate changes the group size by 1.2", on average--that's double the improvement we saw before. And if you look at it in terms of a percentage improvement, it's over 20%.

Here is the thing to keep in mind.

If the performance level of the shooter is not generally similar to the performance level of the gun/ammo combination, then the shooter error is dominating the equation and the gun/ammo combination are contributing much less to the overall group size than the shooter. In a situation like that, it doesn't make sense to concern one's self with incremental improvements in the gun or ammo in terms of accuracy.

But once the performance level of the shooter starts to get close to the capability of the gun/ammo combination, we see that they begin to contribute roughly equally to the group size and now it does make sense to start thinking about finding ammo that's a little more accurate.
 
JohnKSa said:
Quote:
I think most people would have a hard time shooting 3" groups at 25 yards with a Sig 210 let alone a glock!
Quote:
Not to be argumentative, but most people (from what I've seen at the range over the last 20+ years) can't reliably hit a playing card at 7 yards, no matter how much time or what gun you give them.
That's exactly the point.

If you can't shoot to that level, then worrying about which bullet weight shoots best in the gun is a waste of time.

If the shooter can't approach the capability of the gun/ammo combination, then making the gun/ammo combination a little bit more accurate provides almost no practical benefit.

Here's an example.

Let's say that a shooter is capable (under absolutely perfect conditions--using a gun/ammo combination that is perfectly accurate--group sizes of zero from a bench) of shooting 8" groups at 25 yards.

With a gun/ammo combination that is capable of 4" groups at 25 yards, the overall group size (gun/ammo & shooter combination) will be, on average, 8.9".

With a gun/ammo combination that can do 2.0" groups, the overall group size will be 8.3", on average.

Making the gun/ammo combination TWICE as accurate--going from 4" to 2" groups only changed the overall group size by about 0.6", on average at 25 yards. That's an overall improvement of only about 7%.

Now let's change things and give the gun/ammo combination and the shooter comparable capability. So now, let's say the shooter can do (under perfect conditions) 4" groups at 25 yards.

With a gun/ammo combination that is capable of 4" groups at 25 yards, the overall group size (gun/ammo & shooter combination) will be, on average, 5.7".

With a gun/ammo combination that can do 2.0" groups, the overall group size will be 4.5" on average.

Now making the gun/ammo combination twice as accurate changes the group size by 1.2", on average--that's double the improvement we saw before. And if you look at it in terms of a percentage improvement, it's over 20%.

Here is the thing to keep in mind.

If the performance level of the shooter is not generally similar to the performance level of the gun/ammo combination, then the shooter error is dominating the equation and the gun/ammo combination are contributing much less to the overall group size than the shooter. In a situation like that, it doesn't make sense to concern one's self with incremental improvements in the gun or ammo in terms of accuracy.

But once the performance level of the shooter starts to get close to the capability of the gun/ammo combination, we see that they begin to contribute roughly equally to the group size and now it does make sense to start thinking about finding ammo that's a little more accurate.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, completely agree. Thx for clarifying.
 
Yep, I can see competition bullseye (precision pistol) shooters talk about accuracy differences from different 9mm loadings from a David Sams Beretta, but not the average shooter from a Glock at defensive distances!;)
 
While every handgun is an individual with preferences as to bullet type and weight, I've found that 9mm 124-125 gr FMJ's or HP's do better than other weights in both a Gen lll Glock 19 and a 23 with a Storm Lake 9mm bbl. mounted.

That said, the same holds true for a Browning HP, a Sig P226, P229, P225A1, and a P290, as well as a Colt Series 70 9mm. It's not much, about 1/2" at 25 yds group improvement off a rest, but it's there.

If all you're shooting is at defensive distances out to 15 yds, bullet weight makes no practical difference from combat stances. It may make a difference, however, in impact points. All of my 9's are zeroed for ~124 gr bullets, but I do occasionally shoot 115's and find that they vary in impact point by up to 2" at 15 yds.

YMMv, but if you're buying range fodder, for defensive practice, 115's make sense from a $ standpoint. Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top