Powder - ball vs. stick

[Merc]

What are the pros and cons regarding ball vs. stick gun powder?

I've been reloading Hodgdon BL-C(2) ball powder in .303 British and .30-06 Springfield and have had fairly decent results in my old milsurp (No. 4 Mk 1*, M1917 and 03-A3) but I've never tried anything else.

A fellow shooter I recently met at the range claims that he hasn't had any luck with ball powder in a modern rifle and gets better results with stick powder so obviously, there are differences to consider.

Interesting note: A few years ago, I bought a few boxes of old 1952 RA .30-06 military ammo at an estate sale and I pulled one of the bullets in order to see what kind of powder they used. It was the stick variety. Was stick powder the typical military powder used in WW1, WW2 and Korea? If so, what is the modern equivalent? Is it any better than BL-C(2) in a milsurp rifle?

Merc

[bruce]

Stick. Ball. It doesn't matter. Some of the very best accuracy results on target come with both types of powders. Proof? Simply look at what the winners are using in high level benchrest competition. Those folks know what it takes to get consistently excellent small groups firing a variety of calibers. Every rifle will demonstrate better on target results with some particular combination of reloading components. Your acquaintance's experience simply reflects what are the results he has obtained with his rifle. Whatever type rifle he's using, the next 10 produced that day would almost certainly produce different results. As a case in point, I have been using varioius IMR stick type powders since 1979. Results were always excellent regardless of the rifle/caliber. I started using ball powders in1982... BLC-2. In several .223/5.56mm rifles it produced outstanding results. It was also much easier to meter accurately in a standard powder measure compared to the stick powders. The same is true of the Winchester ball powders. WW-748 is excellent in .308 Winchester. For some applications 748 works outstandingly in .30-06.

Just a thought. Have not used BLC-2 in .30-06 or .303 British. Shortages of availability of usable powders for reloading during the current fed. administration required many of us to try powders that would not normally been our first choice. For short range vintage military rifle matches as well as some deer hunting I have used WW-748. Works extremely well in M-1 Garand as well as 03 and 03-A3 rifles. Not my choice for highest possible velocities w/ heavy bullets. However, in a variety of rifles in has proven to be an extremely consistent performer using bullets up to 168 gr. Worth trying out. Begin with starting loads published in reputable reloading manuals. Work up for best accuracy and desired velocity. Very likely you will be pleased with the results. HTH. Sincerely. bruce.

[Merc]

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.

[Tuna]

Stick powders were used from the very beginning of the 30-06. By WW2 the standard powder was IMR4895 a stick powder still used today by reloaders for their 30-06 ammo used in M1 Garands. IMR 4895 was the standard till the military switched production of the 30-06 to ball powders during Viet Nam.

[m1ashooter]

I use ball powders for no other reason then it meters well.

[Merc]

I've been shooting BLC-2 with 150 gr FMJ-BT bullets in the M1917 and the 03-A3, both of which are .30-06 caliber, without any accuracy issues. I won't complain about hitting a 6" group on a 12" target at 100 yards with open sights.

I'm also shooting BLC-2 in the scoped No. 4 Mk 1* .303 caliber accurately, but it seems to prefer flat based 150 gr. bullets which are mostly available in soft points. Accuracy falls off quite a bit with a larger FMJ-BT 174 gr. bullets. Not totally sure if it's the powder or the bullet.

Merc

[bruce]

Just a few more hopefully useful thoughts. Have found it easier to get good on target results w/ older military rifle using flat based bullets rather than boattails. Perhaps w/ a new barrel it wouldn't matter. But older rifles normally do not have as new barrels. The flat based bullets have given better results. For short ranged shooting where trajectory and wind drift is not a huge issue, very much like quicker burning powders. Charge weights are less... for slightly less recoil, sometimes noticeably so. If only shooting at 100 yds., consider looking at some of the various pistol powders. C.E. Harris wrote an article entitled, "The Load." It details a number of reduced power loads with various bullet weights that allow one to get more utility out of a rifle. Have personally used his suggested load of Red Dot in the .30-06 using various service weight bullets as well as commercially produced cast lead bullets. On target results have been uniformly excellent in every respect. HTH. Sincerely. bruce.

[Tuna]

Many military rifles have a rate of twist that is a bit fast for boat tail bullets and these rifles shoot better with flat based bullets. The M1 Garand used a 1 in 10 twist and the M14 used a 1 in 12 twist which would work better with the boat tail. I have heard some say oh my rifle likes boat tails and maybe it does but the vast majority don't.

[psteinmayer]

I'm currently using H4895 in my M2 Match loads for my Garand. 44.0 grains with a CCI #34 mil-spec primer and a Nosler 168 gr HPBT Match bullet. Shot a 98-2X at the Garand match in prone. Works pretty well for me!

[Parashooter]

I'm currently using H4895 in my M2 Match loads for my Garand. 44.0 grains with a CCI #34 mil-spec primer and a Nosler 168 gr HPBT Match bullet. . .
What makes these called "M2 Match loads"?:icon_scratch: Is it the bullet weight (similar to USGI M2 AP)?

[PhillipM]

There are some new IMR powders with an SC suffix, which means short cut. I'm going to get around to experimenting with 8208

[nf1e]

Shots on a 20 dot target at 100 yds. using .308 in M14 type scoped rifle the end of last month. BL-C 2 with 168 gr smk and 210M primers work great. Every shot to the left has been attributed to a hitch in the equipment. I stuck a new unitized gas cylinder on the rifle the night before the shoot and neglected to polish the front band where it contacts the tensioner. Correction has been made and next weekend improvements should be noted.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0535_zpsfco5pmjx.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0535_zpsfco5pmjx.jpg.html)

This is a plot of the hits on the 1" targets for development purposes. Looks like I need to raise the elevation 1 click.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0540_zps6ze0jcmb.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0540_zps6ze0jcmb.jpg.html)

This is my current precision M-14. Bula Defense XM21 with Bula med weight NM Barrel. Almost all parts are Bula. Scope is MK4 LRT 8.5 - 25 all sitting in a JAE gen 3 stock.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0529_zpsv7kdgzsh.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0529_zpsv7kdgzsh.jpg.html)

Semper Fi
Art

[S.A. Boggs]

There are some new IMR powders with an SC suffix, which means short cut. I'm going to get around to experimenting with 8208
30 years ago IMR=8208 was surplus and I bought many an 8lb keg for $48 @ the Columbus, Ohio gun show. If I remember right it was pulldown from 5.56 tracer. Sure wish powder was available and reasonable now.
Sam

[Merc]

Many military rifles have a rate of twist that is a bit fast for boat tail bullets and these rifles shoot better with flat based bullets. The M1 Garand used a 1 in 10 twist and the M14 used a 1 in 12 twist which would work better with the boat tail. I have heard some say oh my rifle likes boat tails and maybe it does but the vast majority don't.

I knew there had to be a reason. I'm happy to be able to shoot these old rifles with a respectable degree of accuracy. They are a link to history and they impress me every time I take them to the range.

[jjrothWA]

Have used both stick (4895IMR) & both BLC@ & WW748 (ball) for M1, M1A,& ar15, for over the course NMC and hunting. Have had no problem withloads.
Switched to the ball powder for ease of measuring through RCBS powder measure.

[PhillipM]

Have used both stick (4895IMR) & both BLC@ & WW748 (ball) for M1, M1A,& ar15, for over the course NMC and hunting. Have had no problem withloads.
Switched to the ball powder for ease of measuring through RCBS powder measure.

I'll give it that. I've loaded a bunch of what is supposed to be BLC (2) , surplus WCC 746, and it measures perfectly down to less than a tenth of a grain.

[PhillipM]

30 years ago IMR=8208 was surplus and I bought many an 8lb keg for $48 @ the Columbus, Ohio gun show. If I remember right it was pulldown from 5.56 tracer. Sure wish powder was available and reasonable now.
Sam

You just taught me something I did not know. Thank you!

[psteinmayer]

What makes these called "M2 Match loads"?:icon_scratch: Is it the bullet weight (similar to USGI M2 AP)?

Sorry Para, that is just how I refer to them... didn't mean to confuse no one. I started with M2 Ball cases (Lake City 68). The Match is because I am using the Nosler Match bullets and I'm shooting them in matches. I should have said "My Match Loads" and left the M2 out of it.

[Ken in Iowa]

30 years ago IMR=8208 was surplus and I bought many an 8lb keg for $48 @ the Columbus, Ohio gun show. If I remember right it was pulldown from 5.56 tracer. Sure wish powder was available and reasonable now.
Sam

IMR8208 was developed by DuPont in the mid-1960s to resolve the shortcomings of the Olin WC846 ball powder in use with 5.56 ammo at the time. It was truly an American success story. By the late 1960s, Olin finally sorted out the issues and the cheaper WC844 emerged as the standard 5.56 powder. 8208 was discontinued and surplused.

One or two lots of surplus 8208 became quite popular with the benchrest crowd. If memory serves, it was sold through Thunderbird Cartridge Company as TCC322. The small, short grain size was quite a revelation in that it metered very well- a great attribute to high speed factory loading and reloaders alike!

When the surplus powder was used up, Hodgdon was approached to start production of a replacement. ADI in Australia was tapped to develope and produce a modernized version incorporating the same attributes of Varget such as temperature insensitivity. IMR8208XBR was the result.

Loading data from Hodgdon shows the versatility of this powder which is slightly faster than 4895. Its slower burning cousins are Varget and H4350.

[Ken in Iowa]

Stick powders were used from the very beginning of the 30-06. By WW2 the standard powder was IMR4895 a stick powder still used today by reloaders for their 30-06 ammo used in M1 Garands. IMR 4895 was the standard till the military switched production of the 30-06 to ball powders during Viet Nam.

Ummm, Winchester used ball powder in WWII to load 303 and 30/06 ammunition. Hodgdon sold some surplus powder after the war as Ball C and 380 respectively. The modern newly manufactured commercial versions are BLC2 and H380.

[Tuna]

Winchester or was it Western? Western was developing a ball powder for the M1 carbine round during WW2. But I have never found any information on them developing or using a ball power for the 30-06.

[Ken in Iowa]

As of 1935, the company name was Winchester-Western.

[bruce]

Have used both since 1980. Both ball and stick give excellent results when the load is tailored to the rifle. Must say some of the most accurate loads I've ever developed used ball powders. With a progressive press, I prefer to use only ball powders since metering consistency is superior compared to stick powders. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[Darreld Walton]

I loaded 'stick' powders exclusively for many years, until I finally broke down an brought a Dillon 550 home.....still load stick powders on a single stage, but my big volume 'blowin' up the hillside' loads in the progressive now get 748.

[Tuna]

Just so one knows it was Western that owned Winchester. Winchester powders were made for them by Western and sold as Winchester. Again I have not found any reference to Western making a ball powder for 30-06 during WW2.

[Merc]

Many military rifles have a rate of twist that is a bit fast for boat tail bullets and these rifles shoot better with flat based bullets. The M1 Garand used a 1 in 10 twist and the M14 used a 1 in 12 twist which would work better with the boat tail. I have heard some say oh my rifle likes boat tails and maybe it does but the vast majority don't.

What you're saying is interesting. When I pulled the bullet from the 1952 RA .30-06 cartridge, I found that it contained stick powder and a flat base 150 gr bullet. I have been shooting .30-06 150 gr FMJ boat tail in the M1917 and the 03-A3 with what I'd call good results in the M1917 but not as good in the 03-A3. My Enfield No. 4 Mk. 1* definitely prefers the flat based bullets. Boat tails come in FMJ but found flat base in soft point, at least so far, still looking. I just bought a box of FMJ-BT for reloading the .30-06 cases. Next time I'll try to find flat base.

[p246]

I know I have talked about a couple of No 4s that shoot boattails very well. However to clarify in the 20 ish L.E.s I own they are the only two. I have not found a No 1 yet that digested boat tails well. It might be out there but I don't own it.


I use the heck out of Varget, I just like that powder. For the magnums I use Retumbo. I started with H 1000 but struggled to find it and could always find Retumbo, sometimes in 1 pound bottles but I could always find it. Let's hope the short powder days are over for a while.