In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Glock 26 ammo

7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
edited January 2015 in Ask the Experts
What's the best ammo to shoot out of a Glock 26 in terms of accuracy?

Or at least what's the best bullet weight for accuracy?

In my opinion the 115 gr. bullets are perfect for the Glock 17.
115 gr. bullets have done well for me in the Glock 26, but I feel like a heavier bullet might perform a little bit better.

Your thoughts gentlemen?

Comments

  • Options
    tsr1965tsr1965 Member Posts: 8,682 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    7.62,

    It all depends on the gun and the ammunition. The 26 being a cut down 17, otherwise everything else is the same, including barrel type, and twist.

    Heavier bullets, are usually pushed by slower burning powder, which would not do as well for overall performance. The slower burning powder needs more bullet weight, and/or a longer barrel to utilize its full potential.

    On the other hand, if you were tailoring a load, using a heavier bullet, you could use a faster powder to compensate for that, to come out on top.

    I too, like the 115's in the shorter 9mm factory loads for my 19, and my S&W, M&P Shield. I usually stick to the Speer GDHP for all of my 9mm's, including a Cammander sized Wilson Super Grade, and a Ruger P95. I do use ball ammo for most practice and training sessions.

    The only way you can tell the BEST is to test several loads for reliability, and accuracy.

    Best

    EDIT 1

    quote:I'd say the accuracy can be the same, depending on individual gun "preferences," no matter what the bullet weight.

    It cant be both...it has to be one or the other. Each firearm is its own individual...even if they are made from the same lot of barrels, recievers/frames, and slides. They will all be slightly different.

    The OP asked what is the BEST...
  • Options
    competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
    7.62,

    It all depends on the gun and the ammunition. The 26 being a cut down 17, otherwise everything else is the same, including barrel type, and twist.

    Heavier bullets, are usually pushed by slower burning powder, which would not do as well for overall performance. The slower burning powder needs more bullet weight, and/or a longer barrel to utilize its full potential.

    On the other hand, if you were tailoring a load, using a heavier bullet, you could use a faster powder to compensate for that, to come out on top.

    I too, like the 115's in the shorter 9mm factory loads for my 19, and my S&W, M&P Shield. I usually stick to the Speer GDHP for all of my 9mm's, including a Cammander sized Wilson Super Grade, and a Ruger P95. I do use ball ammo for most practice and training sessions.

    Best


    The barrels (lock up and lug placement) are different between the 17 and 26. The 26 is more accurately described as a "cut-down 19," not a cut-down 17. (You can drop a 19 barrel in a 26 and have an "extended length barrel" in the 26, but you cannot put a 17 barrel in a 26 or a 19 since the locking-lug is in a different position on the 17 barrel.)

    I agree with the rest of what you said. With the shorter barrel on the 26, generally, with factory-loaded ammunition, you'll get better bullet energies with lighter bullets (like the 115 grain) as opposed to heavier (such as 126 and 147 gr.) ones.

    I'd say the accuracy can be the same, depending on individual gun "preferences," no matter what the bullet weight.

    Personally, since my Glocks (17, 19 and 26) are being used for self-defense, they are usually loaded with Corbon 115gr DPX rounds. For practice, I just shoot 115gr ball.


    EDIT to comment on "beantownshootah's" comment: quote:...I don't think there is really all that much performance difference between these two. 124 grain loads are a little slower, 115 a little faster. But the difference in weight between the two is less than 10%. . .its really not much at all.

    I think either weight is perfectly fine; I've personally carried both (and also 147), and in my opinion, people spend **WAY** too much time worrying about "which loads".

    That's especially true, when you check the ballistics tables. The fact is that most of the loads from the different companies fire similar weight bullets at similar velocities. All the "standard' 115 grain loads are pretty similar, all the 124, all the +P, etc. You do get a little bit of a "step up" when you go to what might be termed "super premium" +P ammo (eg Grizzly, Corbon, Buffalo Bore, Double-Tap), but within that category, performance between the different makes is also roughly comparable.


    I agree with pretty much everything else you've said -- it's particularly true what you said about the intended use of a Glock 26. In keeping that use in mind, I'd note that the energy of the bullet is the critical element in stopping a threat in a self-defense situation.

    There is significant variability -- particularly with rounds used in a very short barrel, like that in the G26 -- in the energy from different 9mm rounds. Energies can range from around 250 ft-lbs, up to roughly 450 ft-lbs. That's a big difference, and could be a significant factor if a 9mm handgun was being used in a self-defense application. I'd say reviewing and choosing a 9mm round for a handgun to be used for self-defense should be done carefully.
  • Options
    rsnyder55rsnyder55 Member Posts: 2,526 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree, the G17 barrel will not work in a G26.

    What type of accuracy are you looking for or expecting? I shoot just about everything through my G17 and G26 and nothing really stands out as exceptionally good or bad.

    Glocks were built for reliability and function and therefore precision accuracy may suffer. I do notice that most professional shooters who compete with Glocks appear to replace everything except the frame.
  • Options
    62fuelie62fuelie Member Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    You might consider the Speer Gold Dot +p "Short Barrel" load, 124 grain - their part # 23611. It has worked very well for me in my Kahr PM-9 and Compact Springfield XD.
  • Options
    Sig220_Ruger77Sig220_Ruger77 Member Posts: 12,748 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have yet to own a 9mm that won't shoot Winchester 115 grain Silvertips or just plain 115 grain "White Box" ammo well. I see no need to carry anything other than that for concealed carry.

    I have some 147 grain stuff in my nightstand 9mm, but that is a full-size with a light on it, so the added weight helps with the snap when the wife shoots it.

    Jon
  • Options
    dcs shootersdcs shooters Member Posts: 10,969
    edited November -1
    I got the best out of mine with a 124-5gr.
  • Options
    beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    What's the best ammo to shoot out of a Glock 26 in terms of accuracy?

    Or at least what's the best bullet weight for accuracy?

    In my opinion the 115 gr. bullets are perfect for the Glock 17.
    115 gr. bullets have done well for me in the Glock 26, but I feel like a heavier bullet might perform a little bit better.

    Your thoughts gentlemen?


    IMO, you're asking the wrong question. If you want more accuracy chuck your Glock 26 and buy a SIG P210. (Or at least a Glock 17 with one of those super-long barrels and a match-like trigger) [;)]

    Glock 26 is a short barrel subcompact gun intended for concealed carry. Its not built for accuracy, and for what it its intended to do, high levels of accuracy aren't necessary. Unless you're using this for some sort of accuracy based competition, **ANY** factory ammo should be more than accurate enough for your purposes.

    EG, the difference in intrinsic group size between "the best" and "average" 9mm defensive ammo at 10 yards will probably be well under an inch. . . .effectively no real world difference, and not worth your worrying about. I have yet to try/see any 9mm defensive load that I thought wasn't ACCURATE enough for carry.

    If you really want to identify "the best" ammo, you'd have to personally blind test 20(+) types of ammo, with your particular gun. IMO, not worth the time, money, or effort. Any ammo where you can keep a tight group is going to be accurate ENOUGH. . .and if you can't keep a tight group, that's probably because you need more practice (not better ammo!).

    In terms of which bullets to use, I think 124 grain is "the standard" in defensive ammo, but most of the (so-called) "match" 9mm luger is loaded with 115 grain bullets.

    I'd say 115 is probably POTENTIALLY more accurate (since there appear to be more match grade bullets made in that weight), but it really comes down to which bullets, which loads, and your particular gun. Again, you can't generalize, if you REALLY want to know which is "most accurate" you'd have to test individual loads in your individual gun.

    In terms of which ammo is "the best", again, maybe contradicting most of the "conventional wisdom" on this, honestly, I don't think there is really all that much performance difference between these two. 124 grain loads are a little slower, 115 a little faster. But the difference in weight between the two is less than 10%. . .its really not much at all.

    I think either weight is perfectly fine; I've personally carried both (and also 147), and in my opinion, people spend **WAY** too much time worrying about "which loads".

    That's especially true, when you check the ballistics tables. The fact is that most of the loads from the different companies fire similar weight bullets at similar velocities. All the "standard' 115 grain loads are pretty similar, all the 124, all the +P, etc. You do get a little bit of a "step up" when you go to what might be termed "super premium" +P ammo (eg Grizzly, Corbon, Buffalo Bore, Double-Tap), but within that category, performance between the different makes is also roughly comparable.

    You can see here for first rough takes on different makers loads:
    http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm.php

    The only thing I'd add here, is that in my opinion, there probably is *some* benefit to using a modern expanding bullet, rather than FMJ. 9mm is a pretty high penetration round. . .in a world of lots of background and high-litigation, reducing that a little bit seems like a good idea.
  • Options
    beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by competentone
    I agree with pretty much everything else you've said -- it's particularly true what you said about the intended use of a Glock 26. In keeping that use in mind, I'd note that the energy of the bullet is the critical element in stopping a threat in a self-defense situation.

    There is significant variability -- particularly with rounds used in a very short barrel, like that in the G26 -- in the energy from different 9mm rounds. Energies can range from around 250 ft-lbs, up to roughly 450 ft-lbs. That's a big difference, and could be a significant factor if a 9mm handgun was being used in a self-defense application. I'd say reviewing and choosing a 9mm round for a handgun to be used for self-defense should be done carefully.


    Well "some say" that energy is the single most important factor with regards to (mythical) "stopping power", though personally, I don't buy it. . .IMO its simply more complicated than that, especially with handgun bullets that all have relatively low energies and can vary pretty widely in bullet design, diameter, and weight.

    Since kinetic energy is proportionate to the SQUARE of velocity, smaller lighter bullets in a given caliber tend to pack higher kinetic energies. In other words, energy is inversely related to to bullet weight. IE, if you want maximum kinetic energy from a 9mm luger round, you can get it using 90 grain (or lighter) bullets. But is that REALLY want you want?

    EG, Grizzly markets a 90 grain 9mm +P with a claimed 1550 fps muzzle velocity (and I believe it). So that's 480 lbs of kinetic energy, basically beating everything else I've ever seen in the caliber. Is this the single best defensive round for 9mm luger?

    I could see how light/fast might be of benefit in *certain* situations (eg recoil tends to be lighter, trajectory flatter, etc), but does anyone really think that this particular round is a better "stopper" than (say) their 115 grain round at 1350 fps, or 124 grain versions of same at about 1250 fps? I just don't think that's the case. Light bullets start off with high energies, but they also shed energy quickly and they may offer limited penetration.

    Again, IMO, there is plenty of room to debate which round/rounds are "the best" but when it comes down to it, the ones that have spent the millions of dollars on testing, and who issue these rounds to their soldiers/officers pretty much all go with 124 or 115 grain ammo. Since we've already established that within a given "class" of ammo by weight/type the loads are all fairly similar, in MY opinion, there simply CAN'T be that much performance difference between them. At best, it comes down mostly to bullet design.

    If you're using a platform with a short barrel (eg Glock 26) then sure, it makes perfect sense to go with a load optimized for short barrels. That said, however, pretty much ALL of these loads use fast burning powders, and they're ALL effectively designed for use in pistols. I'm pretty skeptical that you can create a load that performs "better" in a 3" bbl, vs a 5" one.

    So despite the marketing claims here, its not really clear to me how much actual benefit there is with any nominal "short barrel" load. I'm certainly willing to be convinced, but I'm not going to be until I see actual chronograph data of these "short barrel" loads vs other premium-type ammo of similar weight.
  • Options
    competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah


    Well "some say" that energy is the single most important factor with regards to (mythical) "stopping power", though personally, I don't buy it. . .IMO its simply more complicated than that, especially with handgun bullets that all have relatively low energies and can vary pretty widely in bullet design, diameter, and weight.

    Since kinetic energy is proportionate to the SQUARE of velocity, smaller lighter bullets in a given caliber tend to pack higher kinetic energies. In other words, energy is inversely related to to bullet weight. IE, if you want maximum kinetic energy from a 9mm luger round, you can get it using 90 grain (or lighter) bullets. But is that REALLY want you want?

    EG, Grizzly markets a 90 grain 9mm +P with a claimed 1550 fps muzzle velocity (and I believe it). So that's 480 lbs of kinetic energy, basically beating everything else I've ever seen in the caliber. Is this the single best defensive round for 9mm luger?

    I could see how light/fast might be of benefit in *certain* situations (eg recoil tends to be lighter, trajectory flatter, etc), but does anyone really think that this particular round is a better "stopper" than (say) their 115 grain round at 1350 fps, or 124 grain versions of same at about 1250 fps? I just don't think that's the case. Light bullets start off with high energies, but they also shed energy quickly and they may offer limited penetration.

    Again, IMO, there is plenty of room to debate which round/rounds are "the best" but when it comes down to it, the ones that have spent the millions of dollars on testing, and who issue these rounds to their soldiers/officers pretty much all go with 124 or 115 grain ammo. Since we've already established that within a given "class" of ammo by weight/type the loads are all fairly similar, in MY opinion, there simply CAN'T be that much performance difference between them. At best, it comes down mostly to bullet design.

    If you're using a platform with a short barrel (eg Glock 26) then sure, it makes perfect sense to go with a load optimized for short barrels. That said, however, pretty much ALL of these loads use fast burning powders, and they're ALL effectively designed for use in pistols. I'm pretty skeptical that you can create a load that performs "better" in a 3" bbl, vs a 5" one.

    So despite the marketing claims here, its not really clear to me how much actual benefit there is with any nominal "short barrel" load. I'm certainly willing to be convinced, but I'm not going to be until I see actual chronograph data of these "short barrel" loads vs other premium-type ammo of similar weight.



    No, the adoption of the "NATO" round in 9mm (124gr ball ammo) was NOT the result of extensive testing that determined that was the "best" round for incapacitating a human.

    There is nothing "mythical" about some of the studies (I've read them going back to the 1960s) that have examined the incapacitating capabilities of handgun rounds.

    Energy, most broadly defined, is "the ability to do work." The "work" in the case of bullets is to wound/kill through the destruction of tissues and organs. This destruction requires penetration -- which requires energy.

    I'm not saying all else should be ignored and one should only focus on energy, but there are real differences in 9mm rounds, including significant variability in energies of the projectiles -- and those differences can be important when choosing a self-defense round.

    While there are certainly some rounds being sold with more "marketing hype" than facts, it is not all just "marketing."
  • Options
    MG1890MG1890 Member Posts: 4,649
    edited November -1
    Age old debate.

    Consider this: Probably 99.9% of our own combined experience of "lethality" of ammunition was garnered from shooting game animals, mainly big game animals.

    There are tried and true observations. For over 150 years low velocity, large sectional area bullets provided reliable big game kills, especially when coupled with heavy weights.

    Also, we know that shot placement is truly the #1 consideration of all discussions about lathality.

    In the smokeless powder era, we have learned that high velocities coupled with moderate weight, expanding, weight retaining bullets are super reliable on big game.

    So, why wouldn't these same (3) approaches be relevant to personal defense?

    #1 - Shot placement
    #2 - Either a low velocity, heavyweight bullet with a large frontal area; or,
    #3 - A higher velocity, controlled expansion bullet regardless of frontal area.

    #1 and #2 or #1 and #3 should work equally well.
  • Options
    toolmaniamtoolmaniam Member Posts: 3,213
    edited November -1
    My 26 likes any 115 grain round I put thru it. At 7 yds. Which is typical combat range it stacks them on top of each other. At 25 yds. It still prints under 2 inch groups.
Sign In or Register to comment.