stick vs ball

[wareaglemarine]

I'm new to reloading, if two rounds are loaded identically (same caliber, bullet, primer, powder amount) with the only difference being one is loaded with stick and the other with ball powder, in general?

[Shoney]

What is your question?

All powders, whether ball or stick, have diiferent burn rates. Therefore there is no general answer. Without specifying particular powders for comparison, you cannot derive a general difference or similarity.

[awaveritt]

Not sure what you're asking. Please elaborate and we'll try to help.

[Jim243]

Then you are in trouble, Ball power for pistol, stick for rifle. Unless you are the US army and use ball powder in your 5.56, but then again if you were in Vietnam that too was part of your problem, the M-16 was manufactured to use stick and the army thought that ball would be cheaper.

[wareaglemarine]

I understand that all the different powders have different burn rates, I was just wondering what the basic difference is between stick and ball, and if the charges of each would be about the same. I was in the Marine Corps and am loading 5.56, to start. Thanks for the help.

[kwells6]

what type of weapon are you loading for?

[wareaglemarine]

Smith & Wesson M&P15, 16" 1:9 twist

[kwells6]

oh, another AR fan... try factory fodder first. especially Horn. TAP in 75 gr, not the 55gr

[Sport45]

Welcome to TFL waereaglemarine!

Generally speaking (very generally), spherical powders are a bit harder to light than stick powders of similar burn rates. But you can find loads for either for most rifle cartridges. For .223Rem Ramshot TAC is good (spherical) as is Varget (stick, or extruded).

"Ball", I believe, is actually a Winchester trademark for their spherical or flattened spherical propellants.

[wareaglemarine]

Thanks Sport45, that's all I was wondering; and Kwells6, my M16 did very well in Iraq in 04 (USMC infantry, Fallujah among other places)- shot hundreds of rounds without one malfunction under definitely not the cleanest conditions - so yeah I'm definitely a fan of a good AR.

[kwells6]

I've carried them before (hunting and mil) and never did like the things. to each thier own

[Shoney]

As a general rule of thumb, particularly when loading 223, use a magnum primer with ball powders. Ignition of ball powders is much better with the magnum primers.

Jim243 wrote:
Then you are in trouble, Ball power for pistol, stick for rifle.

That is simply not true.

Ball powders are used in almost all rifle cartridges, even some large capacity cases. And some stick (extruded) powders are used in pistols(example: 4227 in 357Mag as one.) .

[wncchester]

"...difference being one is loaded with stick and the other with ball powder, in general?"

First, not a whole lot. There are differences but it's a matter of degrees.

Generally, ball powders burn cooler so barrels last longer, that's the real reason the military wanted to use it. A lot of competitive shooters like it for the same reason. It tends to be a tad harder to ignite so many folk use magnum caps but that's not entirely necessary in small cartridges. It seems to have a narrower range of pressures in which it burns well so obtaining good accuracy can be bit touchy but ball powders flow like water so it's easy to obtain a fairly precise charge weight without trickling.

Stick powders tend to be more forgiving of peak pressure ranges to get good accuracy. It tends to be easier to ignite. Not always true, especially in large capacity cases of really slow powders but that won't apply to your .223 stuff at all. And it's slightly higher burn temps WILL scorch throats faster. Tubular powders are large grained - the smallest are coarse compaired to ball - so precision charges often need to be individually weighted for precision BUT the wider pressure tolerance range makes that less important than some believe for these powders.

We pays our money and takes our choice. I usually make my choice on the accuracy obtainable and live with the disadvantages, but I don't shoot large volumes of anything either. If I did that I'd likely find the best working ball powder and just drop the charges without weighing, it really ain't all THAT particular!

[Unclenick]

Ditto Wncchester. The only things I can think to add are that it is usually easier to get accuracy from a nearly full case (generally true, but especially with spherical propellants). Many ball powders are dense enough that it takes a slower one to fill the case equally with a faster burning stick. The slower powder further adds to the ignition and pressure sensitivity.

Magnum primers are what military cartridges use, but that is partly because they have to worry about function at very low temperatures, and not due to powder choice. Same going all the way back to .30-06. A lot of Lake City M2 ball was loaded with a fairly large grain spherical propellant.

You may find your gun likes standard primers better with your powder choice? It's not a certainty either way. When I used Accurate 2520 (spherical) in my M1A one year, I found it liked Federal 210M primers best, but that I had to deburr the flash holes in the cases for best performance in that combination. Doing so cut my bench group size from 1.2 to 0.7 moa, where I had never seen deburring make a difference to group size with stick powder in that gun. The load was also not a very good case filling load, which added to the ignition sensitivity.

Bottom line, be prepared to do some experimenting. Among spherical powders, heavier bullets (the 69 grain and 77 grain Sierra MatchKings, especially) over Winchester 748 Ball® powder in Winchester cases with Winchester primers, have an excellent match load performance history in the AR. Glen Zediker likes that combination, among others.

[Ifishsum]

I do tend to use stick powder in larger rifle cartridges but I didn't necessarily choose it because of that characteristic - more so because I prefer Hodgdon's "Extreme" powders for hunting loads (I think they are all stick powders).

I do tend to favor ball powders in rifle rounds that I load in larger quantities, because of it's metering qualities. I first started using BL-C(2) with my .204 Ruger because when the first (limited) data came out for that new cartridge, that particular powder had the greatest potential to approach factory velocities. I also use it to load my AR .223 ammo because it meters great through the powder measure, allowing me to load much faster on my single stage set up without having to weigh out each individual charge.

[Mike Irwin]

Well, at the very basic level, stick and ball are really different manufacturing processes for getting to the same end product.

Ball powders VERY generally tend to have a somewhat higher energy content so you can use a bit less of them to achieve the same results as a extruded stick type powder, but that is FAR from a definite statement.

Also, stick powders, especially the IMR stick powders, tend to be more forgiving of operator error in loading.

What it really comes down to, though, is operator preference. I tend to prefer stick powders for most of my rifle reloading as I've worked with them for many years and my rifles tend to get somewhat better accuracy with stick powders.

[azredhawk44]

I've used stick and ball in my M14 loading (and AR-15 though I only have a few hundred .223 rounds under my belt).

The most accurate powder I've used so far is AA2520, which is a ball powder. My shots were fired late spring in Arizona, with approximately 80 degree temperatures.

Several years back I tried messing around with a couple pounds of H335, another ball powder. I shot all those in late fall through early spring, temperatures around 50 degrees or so. Accuracy was nowhere near as good as with my failsafe: IMR-4895, a stick powder.

If I were sighting in a load for a hunt and wanted to go from a nice 60-70 degree range temperature to 30-40 degree hunting temperatures, I'd use a stick powder. If I were going to a competition and knew my temperatures would be relatively constant between sight-in and match shooting, I'd use ball.

Primers used were CCI #34 large rifle military primers.

The end result of my informal experimentation?

-I buy a jug of AA2520 whenever I can find it. I love that stuff. I'll shoot it in the spring and fall when the temps are moderate.
-That being said, the bulk of my ammo is done with 8lb jugs of IMR4895. When my rifle's zero with this powder only varies about a minute or so from winter to summer... I have to honor that consistency.

[wareaglemarine]

thanks for all the help guys, just trying to make sure I don't blow up my rifle or my face!

[brickeyee]

thanks for all the help guys, just trying to make sure I don't blow up my rifle or my face!

Use a few good loading manuals and cross check as much as you can among powder, bullet, and other manuals.

There is no hard answer to your question since the same exact powder is not available in both forms.

[Unclenick]

You won't likely blow it up. Just observe a sort a general rule, faster powders with lighter bullets, and you'll tend to get better accuracy, IME. For example, in either .222 or .223, I've never found a more accurate short range (200 yards and under) combination than the 53 grain flat base Sierra MatchKing and IMR 4198 powder, the powder Stoner designed the AR action around. True, it won't meter as accurately as Accurate 1680 (a similar speed spherical), but it fills the case much better. Accurate 2230 is a slower spherical that also fills the case well, but it takes 20% more charge weight (and cost) to match 4198 velocity with that light bullet. It also is known to cause secondary muzzle pressure spikes with the light bullets. I've used it in the past, despite that concern, and just didn't get equal accuracy until bullet weight was in the over-60 grain range. Like most slower powders, it needs more bullet inertial mass to build pressure working against.

In Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher tells of one year trying two powders for National Match ammunition in the .30-06 that were similar to what is now IMR 4320. One was a coarse stick and the other a fine grain cut. The arsenal loading equipment could meter the fine stuff to an extreme spread of about 0.6 grains (+/- 0.3 grains), but could only meter the coarse sticks to an extreme spread of 1.7 grains (+/- 0.85 grains). Worse than any handloader's measure made today would do. Despite that, in a machine rest, the ammunition loaded with the coarse powder consistently gave better accuracy. So, it was selected for that year's NM load and several records were set with it.

Hatcher concluded ease of ignition of the coarse powder, which allows the flame front to travel between grains more easily than they can through smaller spaces, was responsible. I think there is likely more to the dynamic than just that, but it goes to show that what you are sure will make the most difference ain't always so. You need to experiment and find your own sweet spot loads. Today there are a number of powders with SC (short cut) grain versions out there to answer demand for better metering from measures. Hatcher's experience has always made me wonder if that might not, ironically, prove to be a self-defeating "improvement"?