OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
That was a nice hi-res video, but loooooooong. I'm looking forward to part 2 when they have a different Ruger PCC.
Pistol caliber carbine poll / semi-autos only
- Thread starter chicharrones
- Start date
- Status
That was a nice hi-res video, but loooooooong. I'm looking forward to part 2 when they have a different Ruger PCC.
I've seen two other vids with trigger reset issues.
In the video he mentions that the age and condition of his mags may be at least partly to blame. He may be on to something (or maybe not). I recently tested mine straight out of the box with brand new Korean mags. The only issues I had were from underpowered ammo (2 total) from a batch that turned out to be underpowered in several guns.
Granted, my.gun represents a sample of one, as does the one in the video, but until I can do further testing that's the only data point I can offer. I do have some 147 grain bullets loaded up to try in the Ruger and I would think those would choke it up if anything. We shall see.
If you look at how the rounds are positioned, the wobble in the mags doesn't change the feed angle very much and IMO likely has a minimal effect on chambering.
OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Today.
Today I finally broke in the CX4.
I fired at paper targets at 40 yards and 100 yards trying out the SR and LR marked rear sight and sighting in. Also sighting in the Bushnell TRS-25 at both 40 and 100 yards.
The ammo I had on hand was PMC 115 grn FMJ, Remington UMC 115 grn FMJ, and Freedom Munitions 124 grn FMJ (new, not remanufactured).
The CX4 did not like the Freedom Munitions ammo. It shot low and gave 6 to 8 inch groups at 40 yards.
The 115 grn ammo of both brands gave as small as 3 inch groups at 40 yards and 8 inch groups at 100 yards. I did not try the 124 grn at 100 yards as I didn't think it would hit paper.
Maybe, just maybe I could have tightened up the groups if I had my better glasses on or had a magnified scope. I shot my friend's Henry .22WMR lever gun with cheap 4x scope today at that 100 yards and got 3" groups without trying hard.
I think the reality is that I knew what to expect in a 9mm PCC with a pencil barrel and unmagnified sights. And that expectation is a 50 yard gun for close range shooting that can also hit a 12" square target at 100 yards if needed.
One neat thing was how quiet the gun was. It was quieter to me than the .22WMR rifle from the shooting position. More recoil, yes. But I could hear the firing pin go "ding" with each fall of the hammer.
Speaking of recoil, that blowback action let you know you fired something stronger than a rimfire, but it sure was friendly. Just a light push on the shoulder and also no cheek slap. The CX4 let you know that you fired a real gun but it was so easy on the body.
Reliability was flawless with the two 15 round mags and the two 20 round mags I have for it. Insert a magazine, release the bolt, and pull the trigger until empty.
Last edited:
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Thanks for report. I got my Ruger PC Carbine this afternoon. Hope to get it out for a range session on Saturday. Will take the JRC Takedown along too for a side-by-side comparison. I have shot and like the JRC, but on aesthetics alone, I already prefer the non-AR form factor of the Ruger. The JRC has eaten everything I've fed it thus far. Hope the Ruger proves as reliable!
I'll try to get some side-by-side pics up soon, too.
I'll try to get some side-by-side pics up soon, too.
someguy2800
Member
That's what I really like about my 9mm carbine, there is more oomph there than say a 22 mag, but with ear muffs on it sounds like its powered by compressed air. Almost like a super powerful and accurate paintball gun. Tons of fun.
someguy2800
Member
I found this humorous. I got this in my email today, step right up to bid on the gun that didn't work!
OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Hopefully it goes back to Ruger first!
I'm intrigued by that Ruger PC carbine. That Hickcock video makes me nervous. I'm going to wait a little see if they need to work any bugs out. Well that and I can't afford one right now.
I'd love to see Magpul or someone make some nicer looking stocks for it.
I'd love to see Magpul or someone make some nicer looking stocks for it.
I have heard stocks are in the works. For what it's worth to you, mine runs fine. I will be doing more testing soon with 147 grain bullets, but it really depends what you want to get out of the gun in the first place.
weblance
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 912
I have found that 124 gr ammo gives stronger felt recoil than 115 gr. The original 9mm weight was 124 gr, and in my experience 124 runs very well in my PCCs
mstreddy
Member
Chicharrones, I like the peep sight. I played a little with the SR and LR options but at 25-50 I didn't notice too much of a difference. I'm having the same issues with my glasses. I struggle to find the right position for getting that crisp, clear, front sight. A red dot is good for getting there, on target, but not for groups. Hitting that steel at 100 is easy though and fun.
I could probably mount a scope on it, but I'm happy as they are.
I'm going to have to do some group work with the Storm soon. I actually packed it for the range a week or two ago, but got tied up in helping some folks and didn't even break it out of the bag.
So, are you happy with your Storm?
BTW, I may have a spare used USGI mag or two around here for you. I'll check next week.
OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Absolutely, yes! It is small, light, and pleasant to shoot. On top of two 15 round and two 20 round Beretta mags, I have two 20 round Mec-Gars on the way. Plus another charging handle as I want a handle for each side of the gun.
The trigger, while a bit stiff, has some take up but no creep. Heavy triggers can mask creep, although you know that I pulled the trigger group apart a week or so ago to eliminate a hitch in the trigger from the factory. The hitch is gone and all works very well.
I want to do more experimenting with the SR and LR rear peep as I really couldn't notice a difference at 40 yards with either one. I did leave the rear sight on LR at 100 yards, but my eyes (and glasses) blurred the front sight into 1.5x it's actual width. Which if I focused really hard I could make the front sight the same width as the 12" W x 18" H target paper at 100 yards.
My eyes were a problem with the red dot at 100 yards, too. That particular Bushnell's dot has a little tail on one side due to my glasses/eyes. So the dot was about as big as the 6" wide 8-ring on the targets I was using, even though the dot is supposed to be 3 moa.
I know I didn't buy the CX4 to be a 100 yard gun, but I sure am tempted to put one of my magnified scopes on it and give it another go to see what the gun can do with "better vision".
I'm going to save the rest of that Freedom Munitions 124 grain for some outdoor plinking that I should be doing with some co-workers in a few weeks at one of their hunting leases. It's going to be a literal blast.
Last edited:
mstreddy
Member
Congrats!
I'm glad to hear you are happy with it.
And, yeah, it doesn't get easier with the glasses! For pistol shooting, I had my eye doc set up a prescription safety glasses graduated to typical pistol front sight distance and far distance. It doesn't work for the rifle sights. I think I'm going to have to get a set for rifle length!
I'm still trying to pick a red dot system that doesn't break the bank, and isn't total garbage. I had one of the early gen Eotechs that was shipped back to them on the recall/return a year or so ago. The .40 Storm has another Eotech on it, but I'm leery of buying another one. I recently picked up an Aimpoint as I'm used to them from my AF issue M4. It's good, but that's a bunch of $$ to put on three or four rifles/carbines. Right now it's on one of my ARs. I also have a TruGlo that I want to test out, but haven't had the chance.
Enjoy that carbine!
I'm glad to hear you are happy with it.
And, yeah, it doesn't get easier with the glasses! For pistol shooting, I had my eye doc set up a prescription safety glasses graduated to typical pistol front sight distance and far distance. It doesn't work for the rifle sights. I think I'm going to have to get a set for rifle length!
I'm still trying to pick a red dot system that doesn't break the bank, and isn't total garbage. I had one of the early gen Eotechs that was shipped back to them on the recall/return a year or so ago. The .40 Storm has another Eotech on it, but I'm leery of buying another one. I recently picked up an Aimpoint as I'm used to them from my AF issue M4. It's good, but that's a bunch of $$ to put on three or four rifles/carbines. Right now it's on one of my ARs. I also have a TruGlo that I want to test out, but haven't had the chance.
Enjoy that carbine!
OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I'm intrigued by the Vortex Spitfire Prism 1x due to the fact the eye piece has a quick focus ring on it. Not to mention the DRT reticle. Except the eye relief needed probably won't let it work with the CX4 rear sight position. Oh well, it's too heavy for a lightweight carbine anyway so no real loss I suppose.
Crosshair
Member
The 1x is a stupid fun optic. I have 3 of them now.I'm intrigued by the Vortex Spitfire Prism 1x due to the fact the eye piece has a quick focus ring on it. Not to mention the DRT reticle. Except the eye relief needed probably won't let it work with the CX4 rear sight position. Oh well, it's too heavy for a lightweight carbine anyway so no real loss I suppose.
Corn-Picker
Member
There are +P loads that make over 600 ft-lb from a 16” barrel, that’s where I would start assuming they work well in the firearm. I’d probably run the 90 grain traveling at 1750 fps because I think that higher velocity and lower recoil is a good combination
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/megraphs/9mm.html
I think it depends on what you want to do with it
Lighter faster projectiles are going to have a flatter trajectory, and you probably can hit targets a little farther out than with 124gr - 147gr projectiles. On the other hand, there is enough barrel length there to give 147gr and 150gr bullets more velocity than they'd get coming out of a handgun. I think that means more reliable expansion and better terminal ballistics.
Crosshair
Member
That's not how it works with blowback actions.
With the heavier bullets you get little to no increase. The bolt moves back too far and you loose the gas seal at the breech. All you do is throw more gas and powder out the ejection port. You would need to increase the mass of the bolt.
You get good increases with the lighter bullets because they are faster and out the bore before the bolt has moved back to lose the seal.
I have actually been looking into tungsten bolts that will fit in place of the stock charging handle screw.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Won't do a full range report here, but will say I got the new Ruger to the range today. All I had were two brands of 115 grain FMJ, but it worked flawlessly with Glock 15- 17- and 33-round magazines. Didn't shoot for groups today, but had no trouble hitting a 10-inch steel gong with the ghost-ring sights at 50 yards. As I suspected, I like the more traditional form factor way more than the JRC's AR style. I only bought the JRC because I had given up hope on Ruger coming out with a Glock-compatible PCC. Now that they have, I may not keep the JRC.
OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
That'd be a hard decision for me to make. Is your JRC also a takedown model?
OP
OP
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
Yes, it is. Came with the JRC sling pack. I might just throw it in the trunk for a while.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll