Ruger PCC 147 grain loads

[kalielkslayer]

So I’m picking my rifle up tomorrow. 10 day waiting period (sorry I live In California).

But I’ve been looking for 9-10 months. So I’m pretty stoked.

Kinda set on loading 147s. The 147s I currently have probably won’t be my final bullet, but I have 500 Nosler 147 grain hollow points, so I’ll start there.

I have a ton of brass but I have 1,100 pieces of new brass, mostly Starline I’ll start this project with.

The primary use for this gun will be self defense around the place. But it seems like a fun gun so I’m sure I’ll start some of the grands with it.

Just from memory, the powders I have are W231, W244, W296, Win WSF, Bullseye, TG, HS6, Zip, CFE Pistol, AA#7, VV 3N37, VV N110, H110, Silhouette.

I know some are too fast IMO, some are too slow, IMO. And some I only have a couple of lbs of, others I’m fat with.

I’ve been using HS6 and Silhouette in my 9mm Glocks.

But I’m trying to take advantage of the longer barrel.

I’m not looking subsonic since this state doesn’t allow silencers. But with this bullet it’ll probably be subsonic anyways.

Just looking for recommendations. You’re welcome to post the disclaimers on your loads, but I’ll always start low.

 

[Kaldor]

Its going to be rough pushing a 147 much beyond 1000fps. You generally run into pressure issues before you start to see velocity increases. Even loading a 147 with a stout load of CFE-P you generally end up right around a 1000fps from the testing Ive done. You will see a slightly elevated velocity with a longer PCC barrel, but youll run into pressure issues before you start to see higher velocities. A best solution is to load these with a fast powder like TiteGroup, and end up with a soft shooting load right around 980fps. Loads are pretty standard, 3.2-3.4gr of powder is where most of the loads end up being. And a great side effect? They will be very pleasant to shoot in a handgun.

If you want to chase velocity, my best suggestion is to go shopping at RMR and buy some 115 or 124gr bullets that you can really get some clear velocity gains with. Its pretty easy to push a 124 to 1100fps with CFE-P. 115s, its pretty easy to hit 1200fps. And these are from a 4" barreled pistol. Add in the fact youre running a PCC with a long barrel, you can probably add 100-150fps to that value.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

The Ruger uses a dead-blow action - sliding weight like the Winchester/Johnson Self-Loading rifles series - which *should* effectively hold the bolt closed while a longer-burning powder does it's work OR while a shorter-burning powder is exhausted, reduced to ash and gas, while the bullet moves down the barrel, still under pressure. The problem I've encountered with dead-blow actions in the past is, you have to overcome inertia to get the bolt moving, have enough "juice" to cycle the action, and not over-power the recoil spring or pound the buffer. That balance is the key and I suspect with the Ruger being balanced for WWB 9mm powders like HS-6 and Accurate No.7 will burn too long, resulting in ash and gas in your face, while TiteGroup, Zip and Bullseye will have to be pushed to the pressure edge to cycle reliably. W244 is an attractive prospect because it's flash suppressed with something a little cleaner than graphite. W231 and Silhouette are also good possibilities but I'm really not sure how they'll respond to a dead-blow action. When I was loading for the Winchester 1907 in .351SLR, I used mostly 2400 and IMR 4227 powders because it was what I had loading data for and I had lots of both powders. Those are both good options*, IMO, for heavy-weight 9mm BUT, only in something like a dead-blow action. If you decide later you want to go more "oomph!", take a second look at HS-6 and No.7 but, for reliable and clean, I think you'll be better off with W244 to start off.

* caveat - 2400 is unobtainium but IMR 4227 has been available even recently.

 

[kalielkslayer]

The Ruger uses a dead-blow action - sliding weight like the Winchester/Johnson Self-Loading rifles series - which *should* effectively hold the bolt closed while a longer-burning powder does it's work OR while a shorter-burning powder is exhausted, reduced to ash and gas, while the bullet moves down the barrel, still under pressure. The problem I've encountered with dead-blow actions in the past is, you have to overcome inertia to get the bolt moving, have enough "juice" to cycle the action, and not over-power the recoil spring or pound the buffer. That balance is the key and I suspect with the Ruger being balanced for WWB 9mm powders like HS-6 and Accurate No.7 will burn too long, resulting in ash and gas in your face, while TiteGroup, Zip and Bullseye will have to be pushed to the pressure edge to cycle reliably. W244 is an attractive prospect because it's flash suppressed with something a little cleaner than graphite. W231 and Silhouette are also good possibilities but I'm really not sure how they'll respond to a dead-blow action. When I was loading for the Winchester 1907 in .351SLR, I used mostly 2400 and IMR 4227 powders because it was what I had loading data for and I had lots of both powders. Those are both good options*, IMO, for heavy-weight 9mm BUT, only in something like a dead-blow action. If you decide later you want to go more "oomph!", take a second look at HS-6 and No.7 but, for reliable and clean, I think you'll be better off with W244 to start off.

* caveat - 2400 is unobtainium but IMR 4227 has been available even recently.

I didn’t list IMR 4227 but I have a couple of lbs of that as well. I was kinda holding that back for .357 in the Marlin. But like you said, 4227 has been available recently.

I’m not chasing velocity necessarily. I was just looking for a starting place. I have several manuals and will just do what I usually do, try to find common loads in 2 or more manuals. Then look at the bullet manufacture’s website and the powder manufacturer’s website.

I’ll probably steer towards one of the powders I have the most of.

I’ll like the W244 suggestion although it’s newer than any of my manuals.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I didn’t list IMR 4227 but I have a couple of lbs of that as well. I was kinda holding that back for .357 in the Marlin. But like you said, 4227 has been available recently.

I’m not chasing velocity necessarily. I was just looking for a starting place. I have several manuals and will just do what I usually do, try to find common loads in 2 or more manuals. Then look at the bullet manufacture’s website and the powder manufacturer’s website.

I’ll probably steer towards one of the powders I have the most of.

I’ll like the W244 suggestion although it’s newer than any of my manuals.

Yeah, definitely! I wasn't suggesting 4227 or 2400 in 9mm, just relating what I used in the Winchester 1907, a similar action design. Definitely look at the 9mm rifle data in the Lyman's manuals and go with published loads. I was thinking W244 because it's a mild W231 substitute with cleaner burn and (apparently) lower burn temperature. It *shouldn't* heat up your barrel like TiteGroup tends to do.

 

[kcofohio]

I haven't shot 147 gr. out of a carbine, yet. But if it were me, I'd go for the slower burning powders like AA#7, Silhouette, CFE-P powders. And develope a load in a handgun 1st. That way if your charge is too low, you'll lessen your chance of a stuck bullet in the carbine barrel. The pressure should drop slower with the slower powders.

Speer online data warns of not loading their 147 gr. bullet for a carbine. So be watchful if you decide on that bullet weight.

 

[Crosshair]

But I’m trying to take advantage of the longer barrel.

In a blowback action, you have to load light bullets to see a meaningful benefit. Trying to load 147s faster with slow powder will see much of the gas escape the breech. 115 grain and lighter, in my experience.

What you CAN do is load to minimize muzzle blast. No it won't be close to hearing safe, but it will be more pleasant to shoot.

 

[Kaldor]

I haven't shot 147 gr. out of a carbine, yet. But if it were me, I'd go for the slower burning powders like AA#7, Silhouette, CFE-P powders. And develope a load in a handgun 1st. That way if your charge is too low, you'll lessen your chance of a stuck bullet in the carbine barrel. The pressure should drop slower with the slower powders.

Speer online data warns of not loading their 147 gr. bullet for a carbine. So be watchful if you decide on that bullet weight.

147s are all I shoot from a 10.5" AR9, thousands of them. Both jacketed and coated. Never stuck a bullet at 980fps which is a common loading for 147s. Granted, OP isnt running a can, but 147s with a fast burning powder have little to no port bark and youre not getting gassed out.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Well, the Ruger PC9 isn't an AR-type action, or gas-operated, or simple blowback, either - it's a weighted dead-blow action, which is it's own critter.


figures from the Ruger manual, published open-access online at https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/PC-Carbine.pdf

Hey, @kalielkslayer , how would you feel about doing a write-up comparing all of the above powders loaded in short ladders (start .2- .3 above min and go up .2 or .3 to below max)? Kind of like one of @LiveLife 's "Myth Busting" articles... but interesting. (just kidding, those MB articles are awesome!)

I think this platform has a future - I know it has a past with the Winchester rifles - and it sure seems pretty flexible in all of the reviews I've read or seen. It already handles factory suppressor ammo (checked on yubertuber) so it should handle heavy weight bullets loaded for non-suppressed but still subsonic use. Not so sure about heavy supersonic. That might be a bit much for the bolt buffer.

 

[n2omike]

Its going to be rough pushing a 147 much beyond 1000fps.

Strongly disagree.

I have a 10.5" barrel AR in 9mm. Factory Winchester 147 grain FMJ was supersonic. I loaded a fairly light load (147 grain FMJ over 3.8 grain a of HP38/W231) and it was 980 fps in a 5" barrel pistol and 1060 fps in the AR.

A warmer load of HS6, etc will EASILY be supersonic in the rifle. Even pushing the max load of 4.0 to 4.1 grains of HP38 will be close. The load I used was extremely consistent. Velocities verified via a chronograph. It's happy. Note how consistent... It's mixed brass with RMR 147 FMJ.

Actual Chrono Data
Pistol: Canik META SFX w/5" barrel
993
982
990
994
988

Carbine: PSA AR9 w/10.5" barrel. Blowback with .308 spec recoil spring swapped in.
1060
1071
1060
1065
1068

 

[Crosshair]

Well, the Ruger PC9 isn't an AR-type action, or gas-operated, or simple blowback, either - it's a weighted dead-blow action, which is it's own critter.

It's a fancy blowback action.

The deadline does a couple things.
1. Reduces bolt bounce. (It does not eliminate it)
2. It spreads out the force over time when the bolt hits the back of the reciever. This, a) reduces felt recoil. b) keeps the bolt from beating the crap out of the reciever. c) slows the cyclic rate of the gun. Giving the magazine more time to present the next round.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

It's a fancy blowback action.

Dating from 1901. It's one of the earliest semi-auto rifle designs known.

 

[LiveLife]

Ruger PC9 ... it's a weighted dead-blow action

It's a fancy blowback action ... 1. Reduces bolt bounce. (It does not eliminate it)
2. It spreads out the force over time when the bolt hits the back of the reciever ... Giving the magazine more time to present the next round.

FWIW, blowback action AR based PCCs can be either "regular blowback" or "delayed blowback" and being customizable to tame the recoil for keeping front sight flatter for faster follow up shots - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/9mm-pcc-bolt-choice.903452/#post-12248344

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

FWIW, blowback action AR based PCCs can be either "regular blowback" or "delayed blowback" and being customizable to tame the recoil for keeping front sight flatter for faster follow up shots - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/9mm-pcc-bolt-choice.903452/#post-12248344

[sniff-sniff] Hmm... Is that a Myth Busting article I smell brewing?

Non-Delayed Blowback vs. Delayed Blowback (e.g. dead-blow, gas-impinged piston, etc.) vs. Locked Breech (e.g. tilting-block, roller-lock, rotating bolt, etc.) - 9mm PCC's. Might be interesting to see where each design maxes out and which is most efficient with reduced loads.

 

[jak67429]

My ruger pcc did not like 147 gr bullets. I tried a few powders and to get the accuracy and velocity I wanted, I got alot of blow back out the loading port and cycling issues. It works fine with 115 and 124 bullets both hollow points and coated lead.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

My ruger pcc did not like 147 gr bullets. I tried a few powders and to get the accuracy and velocity I wanted, I got alot of blow back out the loading port and cycling issues. It works fine with 115 and 124 bullets both hollow points and coated lead.

Would you mind listing some 147gr. of the powder/bullet combos you tried? Just curious at this point, not trying to hijack @kalielkslayer 's thread.

 

[LiveLife]

Hmm... Is that a Myth Busting article I smell brewing?

Really no need as countless 3-gunners and manufacturers like TACCOM have already done extensive testing.

My myth busting threads are usually triggered by persistent "notions" that need to be tested with measurable, repeatable objective data to either confirm or bust the myths.

My next myth busting thread I am thinking about doing is bullet setback difference to measure neck tension between straight seated bullets vs crooked seated bullets vs maybe use of "M"/NOE expander - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-runout-on-pistol-loads.904700/#post-12274124

 

[n2omike]

My ruger pcc did not like 147 gr bullets. I tried a few powders and to get the accuracy and velocity I wanted, I got alot of blow back out the loading port and cycling issues. It works fine with 115 and 124 bullets both hollow points and coated lead.

Not sure how it applies to the Ruger, but using the stiffer .308 (AR10) buffer spring smoothed my 9mm AR out tremendously. Worked a lot better. Doesn't bottom out the buffer spring nearly as hard. If you can do this or increase the bolt/buffer mass somehow... it may be happier.

I was getting some scorched brass... may have just been with the Winchester 147 grain supersonic factory loads with the stock spring? But I don't with the 3.8 grains of HP38 and the stiffer spring.

For anyone interested in this spring for an AR9, it's from JP Enterprises. Part # JPS-OSC.308 TUNED AND POLISHED BUFFER SPRING, .308 CARBINE. Came recommended by a variety of people. I just bought the spring... not the fancy buffer. $22.95 well spent.

Good Luck

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Really no need as countless 3-gunners and manufacturers like TACCOM have already done extensive testing.

My myth busting threads are usually triggered by persistent "notions" that need to be tested with measurable, repeatable objective data to either confirm or bust the myths.

My next myth busting thread I am thinking about doing is bullet setback difference to measure neck tension between straight seated bullets vs crooked seated bullets vs maybe use of "M"/NOE expander - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-runout-on-pistol-loads.904700/#post-12274124

I figured the persistent statement that pistol loads are also best for carbine. I’ve seen that a lot and it sure was true for my Marlin Camp 9. I’m behind the times on 3-gun.
I’ll be looking for it. I use the NOE in .30, .32 and .35. Rifle only. In pistol the Lee PTED is good enough for the kind of shooting I do.

 

[kidneyboy]

The 2 Ruger PC9s I had preferred 124gr boolits at about 1100fps.
IMO #Kaldor is correct in post #2 regarding using Titegroup and running 147s in the 980fps range.

ETA - I had a HiPoint 9mm carbine at one point and the same held true for it.

 

[Kaldor]

Strongly disagree.

I have a 10.5" barrel AR in 9mm. Factory Winchester 147 grain FMJ was supersonic. I loaded a fairly light load (147 grain FMJ over 3.8 grain a of HP38/W231) and it was 980 fps in a 5" barrel pistol and 1060 fps in the AR.

A warmer load of HS6, etc will EASILY be supersonic in the rifle. Even pushing the max load of 4.0 to 4.1 grains of HP38 will be close. The load I used was extremely consistent. Velocities verified via a chronograph. It's happy. Note how consistent... It's mixed brass with RMR 147 FMJ.

Actual Chrono Data
Pistol: Canik META SFX w/5" barrel
993
982
990
994
988

Carbine: PSA AR9 w/10.5" barrel. Blowback with .308 spec recoil spring swapped in.
1060
1071
1060
1065
1068

I didnt saw it wasnt possible Im just saying there are better options.
Ive had 147 HiTeks running at 1100 fps. They are kind of a handful, and less than pleasant to shoot IMHO. Ive also had 115s running at 1600fps from a 10.5 barrel, thats a good time.

Good call on the 308 spring BTW. I run a Wolf XP spring in mine. I was worried about too much spring pressure and feeding issues. But if ended up really cutting that at the ear noise and keeping the bolt closed for just a fraction longer so you arent eating gas.

 

[Hugger-4641]

I loaded some 147tmj with 4.1gr of CFE-P and chronographed 1040fps in my Ruger PCC 9mm. No pressure signs and I'm sure I could go hotter, but I didn't desire to with these as I wanted to stay subsonic.

 

[kalielkslayer]

Would you mind listing some 147gr. of the powder/bullet combos you tried? Just curious at this point, not trying to hijack @kalielkslayer 's thread.

No problem, I’m listening too.

 

[kalielkslayer]

Well, the Ruger PC9 isn't an AR-type action, or gas-operated, or simple blowback, either - it's a weighted dead-blow action, which is it's own critter.
View attachment 1076171
View attachment 1076170
figures from the Ruger manual, published open-access online at https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/PC-Carbine.pdf

Hey, @kalielkslayer , how would you feel about doing a write-up comparing all of the above powders loaded in short ladders (start .2- .3 above min and go up .2 or .3 to below max)? Kind of like one of @LiveLife 's "Myth Busting" articles... but interesting. (just kidding, those MB articles are awesome!)

I think this platform has a future - I know it has a past with the Winchester rifles - and it sure seems pretty flexible in all of the reviews I've read or seen. It already handles factory suppressor ammo (checked on yubertuber) so it should handle heavy weight bullets loaded for non-suppressed but still subsonic use. Not so sure about heavy supersonic. That might be a bit much for the bolt buffer.

I’ll post as I go along.

But I’ll forewarn you, it won’t be as informative or interesting as MBs.

 

[Gordon]

i had the Ruger Charger out along with a few 9mm threaded pistols tis weekend developing a subsonic load for a couple suppressors. Was working with round nose FMJ 147 grain bullets and AA#7 powder. At 7 grains the Ruger went mostly super sonic at 3500 feet and 55 degrees . The pistols were occasionally supersonic. We dropped the charge to 6.7 and the pistols were subsonic and the Ruger had a couple super sonic . We dropped to 6.5 GRAINS OF aa#7 AND EVERYTHING WAS SUBSONIC , ALL GUNS FUNCTIONED WELL . We could hit right on with the Ruher Charger on the 50 yard targets and the load seemed to be about a 1000 fps according to previous velocity testing. 6.5 Grains of AA#7 is now locked in my Dillon dies. as the subsonic 9mm load. I would image the Ruger would easily take the max 147 grain load of 7.5 grains of AA#7 I found listed with a 1100 fps from a 4" barrel .