"Hard to ignite" Ball powder in 223

locknloader · January 1, 2019, 07:40 AM

How do you know if a powder is "hard to ignite" and you are having ignition issues?

I often see that ball powder for 223 is "hard to ignite" and that military rounds use a magnum primer to ensure ignition with the ball powder.

How is this trait expressed?

Do you get a hang fire, does the round not even fire or get stuck in the barrel, etc...

std7mag · January 1, 2019, 08:24 AM

Lock,

The military uses magnum primers because it absolutely has to go off. They use them in the 7.62X51 (308) also.
Personally i have never had an issue with using standard small rifle primers with ball powder in the 223 Rem.

Some people will even use standard primers in the 7mm Rem Mag. Claims are better ES/SD.

zeke · January 1, 2019, 08:50 AM

Can only speak to the one ball powder am using alot, 748. Never had any hang fires/etc, but noticed a distinct improvement in accuracy when using Rem 7 1/2 in 223 and Fed 215/CCI 34 in 308. The improvement was over standard Fed primers, and haven't done any comprehensive testing of multiple primers.

Also shoot in colder temps, and accepted the writings about use of magnum primers with ball powder in colder temps. Frankly have never done or read about a comparison in below zero temps.

Am thinking that maybe the phrase "harder to ignite" could also be synonymous with "providing consistent ignition" or something similar.

Am betting there is several on this forum who may know about actual detailed testing, perhaps by the military.

locknloader · January 1, 2019, 08:58 AM

@zeke, I shoot in cold weather which is what made me ask this. Right now I am using H322 which is a stick powder but I’d like to try ball powder eventually. Sounds like no harm in using mag primers ALL the time with 223 and 308 rounds?

Nathan · January 1, 2019, 09:17 AM

I had really high SD’S and groups were a little big with cci 400’s. Switched to CCI450’s and redeveloped the load....SD’s dropped and groups shrank.

zeke · January 1, 2019, 09:19 AM

Can't speak for all situations/powders. While i get excellent accuracy with 748, there are considerations. Especially if you shoot in hot/cold weather. 748 is temp sensitive, and if you load it for max in cold weather, than shoot it in 90 degrees, it likely will be over pressure. Am not on the ranges when it is very hot out. With one exception, am always using a harder cupped mag primer with 748. 30-30 is the exception, accuracy went away with mag primer. Like my loads to work well with all the types of rifles used. Rem 7 1/2 and CCI 34 satisfies this, including semi autos with floating firing pin.

If you load it for upper level in hot temp, in cold the velocity will drop noticeably. This is very noticeable at longer ranges with 308. Have adapted to this with testing, but have a good stock of the powder, proven loads worked up in multiple cartridges and ball powders are very handy when loading large number of accurate rounds in 223/308. 748 was easier/cheaper to find during the shortages.

There are lots more temp tolerant powders now, and if i was starting over or considering changing, would be checking out more temp tolerant powder. Am not very experienced with the other ball powders, but they may have similar traits. Am also not very familiar with heavy bullet loads in 223, or over 175 grains in 308.

And my spelling/word usage is at times, mediocre. Most times it just be bad.

Bfglowkey · January 1, 2019, 09:28 AM

TAC seems to be a good choice for heavy 223 pills. But for temp insensitive options try IMR 8028 XBR or good ole VARGET.

locknloader · January 1, 2019, 09:48 AM

@bfglowkey I have varget but does not look like it will meter well. What is your experience with varget metering on lock and load setup?

Also what would you consider a heavy bullet in 223? I pretty much shoot 62 grain exclusively, sometimes 55gr.

Stats Shooter · January 1, 2019, 09:49 AM

Like others have said, it isn't that you will get misfires or hang fires. For the most part, it is that magnum primers offer more consistent ignition at the expense of higher starting pressure. I have also found a moderate crimp helps with ball powder ignition.

In auto loading. 223, magnum primers offer a harder cup like the cci 450 which helps mitigate the risk of slam fires over the softer small rifle primers. Magnum large rifle primers do not offer the same benefits over stand as they are both the same in that respect.

9MMand223only · January 1, 2019, 11:34 AM

I have probably 10,000 rounds using a combination of CCI Small rifle primers and Remington 7.5, using ball 223 powder, never had any ignition issue, and I do not think what you are saying is actually real. Is there some sort of scientific proof or scientific paper to support a claim that ball powder has ignition issues? I highly doubt it. And how would you determine if its the powder, when you do not know if the primer was bad or the firing pin strike was slightly too light, this is hard to judge.

**Unclenick** · January 1, 2019, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

Is there some sort of scientific proof or scientific paper to support a claim that ball powder has ignition issues? I highly doubt it.

You'd be highly wrong. Military ordnance has studied this stuff to death. They have machines that measure ignition delay, heat and energy output rates and even the infrared and ultraviolet light spectra emitted by primers. There are sensitivity tests (h-tests) where a 3.94 oz weight is dropped onto a fixed firing pin from different heights to produce different impact energies and qualifying primers have to go off or not go off within standard deviations either side of the 50% firing rate point within certain drop heights. There is a whole huge lot qualifying process that requires samples of thousands of primers before a lot is accepted as qualified, including firing tests for powder ignition down to -65°.

To get some of the flavor, Google up and read MIL-P-46610E. It's from 1967 but gives you a sense of how thorough qualification testing is. It's only gotten more comprehensive since then.

Google up and read REPORT MDC A0514, from McDonnell-Douglas. The 1970 version gives primer reconsolidation recommendations from Olin and Remington of 0.002-0.006". Then when you get to the April 1982 revision you find Naval Ordnance at Indian Head (NOIH) has revised and narrowed it to 0.002-0.004" because extensive testing showed that improved reliabiilty.

But for a first overview of the nature of the beast, the best primer on primers is probably this article by Allan Jones who worked in primer development at CCI, and who explains they changed their magnum primer formulation in 1989 specifically to address these problems. Obviously, they had to study the matter and do testing to come up with the change. He explains a lot about the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by locknloader

How do you know if a powder is "hard to ignite" and you are having ignition issues?

For the average shooter a chronograph and group size are the basic indicators. Velocity SD's are higher when ignition is irregular for any reason. Groups get larger beause the time between when the primer pressurizes the case and when the powder pressure peaks becomes variable, letting small movements and vibrations and shooter problems like poor follow-through all have more time to point the muzzle somewhere else.

Quote:

I often see that ball powder for 223 is "hard to ignite" and that military rounds use a magnum primer to ensure ignition with the ball powder.

Military rounds have to function at -65°F to be operable at higher aircraft altitudes. It takes more energy to ignite powder at low temperature, and this is the primary reason, AFAIK. Military ballistically and functionally compatile ammunition is loaded to tighter velocity standards than SAAMI standards call for (±30 fps vs. ±90 fps) and has not only to stay under the familiar maximum pressure, but also has to meet gas port pressure requirements. All three have to be possible to do with a particular powder before it qualifies for use in a load, as well as the extreme temperature firing specs. If a primer let them down in any of these areas it would be disqualified. The accuracy requirements, however, are not stringent by match handloading standards, so that is not going to have the focus it does with a civilian match shooter.

Ball powders are harder to ignites because they control progressivity of the burn entirely by deterrent concentration. Where stick powders apply deterrent to the outside of a grain so it tends to burn mainly from inside perforations outward to grow the burning surface area to get progressively greater speed of gas production, the spherical grain is burning inward and always having a smaller and smaller burning surface. So the only way to get them to make gas faster as they burn is to grossly slow down the burn rate of the exterior of the grain and have the deterrent penetrate the grain in concentration that decreases with the depth of the burn so the powder grain burns enough faster to outpace the shrinking surface area and make gas at a progressively higher net rate up to the point the grain gets too small even for that strategy to work.

Note that modern spherical chemistry used in Western's Ramshot line claims to have overcome the ignitability problem high surface deterrent coating and penetration levels cause, and claim you do not need magnum primers with their producty. I would still recommend testing for yourself in your gun and chambering and with your bullet selection to be sure.

Quote:

How is this trait expressed?

If you read the Allan Jones article I linked to above, you will learn something about this. The velocity spread I mentioned is one. Jones also describes a rejected formulation that caused ignition delays of tens of milliseconds that could certainly let a barrel move some. That same thing can happen with inadequate priming or if you don't seat your primers to "set the bridge" (aka, reconsolidation) by squeezing the anvil down into the pellet the 0.002-0.004" past the point of anvil contact with the floor of the primer pocket that NOIH found best. Probably 90% of ignition problems can be fixed by proper primer seating, so you want to be sure you can do that first before you spend money on different primers. If you can't measure it, try just seating the primers rather hard.

"There is some debate about how deeply primers should be seated. I don’t pretend to have all the answers about this, but I have experimented with seating primers to different depths and seeing what happens on the chronograph and target paper, and so far I’ve obtained my best results seating them hard, pushing them in past the point where the anvil can be felt hitting the bottom of the pocket. Doing this, I can almost always get velocity standard deviations of less than 10 feet per second, even with magnum cartridges and long-bodied standards on the ’06 case, and I haven’t been able to accomplish that seating primers to lesser depths."

Dan Hackett
Precision Shooting Reloading Guide, Precision Shooting Inc., Pub. (R.I.P.), Manchester, CT, 1995, p. 271.

lordmorgul · January 1, 2019, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by locknloader

@bfglowkey I have varget but does not look like it will meter well. What is your experience with varget metering on lock and load setup?

Also what would you consider a heavy bullet in 223? I pretty much shoot 62 grain exclusively, sometimes 55gr.

I haven’t shot any Varget loads yet but I do have some and compared its ability to meter by volume from Lee Autodisk and the Lee powder thrower in 223 relative volumes, Neither was great... similar variations in weight to doing the same with H4895 and both are similar in appearance as chopped stick powders. Seems like it’d be better to load them by weight only for 223, the larger the total volume you’re metering (like for 30-30, 308, 30-06) the better those are going to do weight vs volume because the variations caused by packing the stock powder into a fixed volume cell when side wall area to stick length is a small ratio.

Finer chopped powder like Accurate LT-32 meters better for me at least so volume to weight stays better each throw and I feel like I’ve got a better chance at consistency using the volume thrower.

Andrew - Lancaster, CA
NRA Life Member, Calguns.net contributor, CGF / SAF / CRPA / FPC / NAGR / NRA-ILA contributor, USCCA member

locknloader · January 2, 2019, 07:39 AM

@unlcenick appreciate your response, always have the answer and the history to it, you rock!

@lordmorgul - I noticed the same thing when choosing which powder to use with 223 (have varget, H322,H4895 to choose from). They were all stick powders but the H322 was smallest and I had no issues with metering. I’ll have to at least give it a try and see how bad the weight varies from each throw for varget/H4895, For 223 I’m mostly shooting inside 100yrd on gongs so don’t need killer accuracy. When I start making some 308 rounds will probably load them all by hand since I’ll be going for accuracy with those.

Metal god · January 2, 2019, 06:17 PM

I've been of the opinion that ball powders ignite just fine in small cases like the 223rem . Again my opinion is that you'll likely get issues when loading ball powders in large cases that hold much more powder to ignite like the 300 WinMag .

I personally ran duplicate load developments using 55gr FMJ and H-335 powder with the same headstamped brass from the same rifle ( AR ) , only difference was standard vs magnum CCI primers . I'm to lazy to go to my reloading room to look at those notes but do know the SD/ES of the magnum primers were higher then the standard primers . There was a difference in average velocity as well but don't recall the velocity differences off the top of my head .

**Unclenick** · January 2, 2019, 06:33 PM

Sometime in the 1920's, Hatcher was using two similar burn rate powders to develop a load that that year's National Match ammunition. One was a coarse grain powder (IMR 1186, I expect, that the arsenal loading equipment could only hold to a span of 1.7 grains. The other was a short stick powder the arsenal loading equipment could hold to a span of 0.6 grains. Yet, in testing, the former load repeatedly produced better accuracy, so the coarse powder was selected and several records were set with that ammunition that year.

Today that seems like wild lack of charge weight control, but the weight isn't always everything. Stick powders can pack a lot more than spherical powders can. As the grains become more tightly packed, it gets hard for the flame front to propagate between them, so the effective burn rate is reduced. That tends to compensate for the charge weight error.

The Lee Perfect measure seems to do fairly well with stick powders for me. If you want the tightest weight from volumetric dispensing of stick powder, that will set you back more.

COSteve · January 3, 2019, 01:58 PM

Like many, I use a lot of Remington 7½ primers. They have the same cup thickness as the CCI 450. I've used them with ball powder, W748, H335, and TAC, and they work very well providing good ignition and very tight groups. In fact, the Lyman Manual 47th Edition lists them as a small rifle "magnum" primer which suggest they have a similar ignition capability of the CCI 450 which is a magnum primer also.

After many years of chrono'g 16 different pistol and rifle calibers, I found that when using ball powders, magnum primers produce slightly higher velocities and more consistent SDs. I have a Dillon 650 and use mostly ball powders so now I make up all of my loads using magnum type powders.

I talked to one of CCI's CS people a number of years ago and she got out their specs and told me that CCI's SR primer is identical to their SPM primer so I use them in all my pistols and leverguns using small primers. I use WSR primers (Winchester doesn't make a SR magnum as they claim that their SR actually produces a 'magnum like' flame) for my plinking 5.56, and Remington 7½ primers in my precision and long range 5.56. For large rifle calibers, I use Win LRM or Remington 9½M primers. It sure saves on the inventorying of components.

T. O'Heir · January 3, 2019, 02:02 PM

Your manual will tell you to use a magnum primer for that specific powder. Magnum primers are good when shooting in extreme cold too. Of course, there's no chart that defines what constitutes extreme cold.

Stats Shooter · January 3, 2019, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Today that seems like wild lack of charge weight control, but the weight isn't always everything. Stick powders can pack a lot more than spherical powders can. As the grains become more tightly packed, it gets hard for the flame front to propagate between them, so the effective burn rate is reduced. That tends to compensate for the charge weight error

I posted some tests about this a while back when I was duplicating the Federal Gold Medal Match load. I found that there was no appreciable difference between hand weighed 4064 and throwing it. I dont think that this result is always the case, but I do believe there are powders and cartridges which self correct for weight via volumetric differences in burn rate.

9MMand223only · January 3, 2019, 07:38 PM

Actually.

HTML Code:

[QUOTE]You'd be highly wrong. Military ordnance has studied this stuff to death. They have machines that measure ignition delay, heat and energy output rates and even the infrared and ultraviolet light spectra emitted by primers. There are sensitivity tests (h-tests) where a 3.94 oz weight is dropped onto a fixed firing pin from different heights to produce different impact energies and qualifying primers have to go off or not go off within standard deviations either side of the 50% firing rate point within certain drop heights. There is a whole huge lot qualifying process that requires samples of thousands of primers before a lot is accepted as qualified, including firing tests for powder ignition down to -65°.

To get some of the flavor, Google up and read MIL-P-46610E. It's from 1967 but gives you a sense of how thorough qualification testing is. It's only gotten more comprehensive since then.[/QUOTE]

You are actually incorrect. "if applied to today" as I did. All of the information you have provided to prove I was incorrect is totally obsolete data NOT based on current materials used. But sure, in the 1960's it had a failure rate that was observable.

Notice there is no scientific material in last 30 years? To support your claim? because the problem is fixed.

There is no issue with ball powder and ignition "TODAY" with modern materials.

Metal god · January 3, 2019, 11:48 PM

Quote:

There is no issue with ball powder and ignition "TODAY" with modern materials.

haha LOL , yep there was a problem so they had to fix it . Just because they figured out how to negate it , does not mean ball powder is now easier to ignite . It's still just as hard to ignite , you now need to use special products for it not to be an issue .

Where's the faceplant emoji when you need it

Jsnake711 · January 19, 2019, 03:21 PM

For. 223 since its so cheap to load, I just use Winchester printers with h335. Works pretty good.

Jimro · January 19, 2019, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Notice there is no scientific material in last 30 years? To support your claim? because the problem is fixed.

I've learned to not argue with Unclenick, he's forgotten more than most of us will ever know. Just because Unclenik didn't provide you with more recent studies doesn't mean that studies aren't ongoing.

But here's some of the relevant research into the "primer/powder" interface as I like to call it, conducted within the last 30 years...

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1029744.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1008230.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a293974.pdf

There's more research out there, including the M118LR PIP and the Mk316 Mod0 research that both determined that extruded powder was a better choice for accuracy and performance from precision rifles, as well as the "lead free green bullet" research that determined the "hotter" lead styphnate free primers were just fine for ball powder ignition.

So, yes, it is still an issue. However ball powder works well for the bulk of military applications. Part of that is how we write the standards so that ball powder can meet them, and the other part is that we really don't need super tight accuracy standards for military weapon systems. 4 MOA is more than enough for combat accuracy from either an M4A1 or an M2 machine gun.

Ball powders also work well enough for dang near every civilian use too. Although after seeing my score differences shooting High Power with Power Pro 2000MR and Varget, I'm firmly in the Varget camp for competing in High Power. Part of that is me getting better as a marksman, but part of it is more consistent performance from Varget across temperature conditions and more consistent ignition.

Jimro

Bfglowkey · January 20, 2019, 07:10 AM

Varget has always been a solid all around powder in any of the cartridges it is suitable for to include 5.56/.223 and the 308. Metering on automatic powder chargers can just be time consuming is all. But its consistency in load development overcomes this if a good OCW plan was used. Now all that said I have been testing a few previously overlooked powders for my bolt guns in 5.56/223 ( Mossberg MVP LC) 308 (Savage 12FV) after putting together a 6.5 Grendel Bolt. While I love having multiple powders on hand, space is getting tight in my reloading area so the Middle Earth search for "one powder to rule them all" is getting underway. TAC and Varget are getting a lot of attention from me but AR COMP is beginning to raise my eye brow. For the pill range I use in each cartridge it is showing great promise after 1st round of OCW testing. No chrono data yet for me since I try not to chase speed but focus on precision. If when I am done and have a super precise load but lacks speed I catalog the recipe and then research more on a different powder.
Drop tubes help the larger stick powders settle into the cases better as mentioned above and another trick is an old electric toothbrush to help vibrate the case gently and settle it. Both work well.

9MMand223only · January 22, 2019, 08:57 PM

Sorry Jimro, those 3 links do not prove ball powder has an ignition problem in pistols and rifles. But if this was a 120MM forum, I would say it has some weakness? That is zero correlation with rifles or handguns. Also, the first one, talks about the history, in discussion. It does not focus on ball powder, rather, the evolution of primer technology to become more reliable.

So No, it is no longer an issue. The argument is not about performance, its ignition.

Let me be clear, there is no issues with ignition of ball powders, today in the specification of intended use. There was decades ago, its no longer an issue.

This is a fact. Unless you want to argue low charge weights have ignition issues, and this would be the case to varying degrees, of all powders...which is why manufacturers test minimum loads, because depending on powder surface characteristics, they can be difficult to ignite (at low charge weights). Thus dangerous.

I don't think its arguing negatively, to point out facts.

The military is still using ball powder. If the studies say its an issue, why is it so widely used "today". Every powder has issues, but what matters is does it operate within intended specifications.

Jimro, I agree ball powder is not most accurate performance in precision rifles. But I do like AA2230, a lot, and its a top tier 223 powder.

remember, Unclenick said I would be "highly wrong". I am actually "highly" correct.

I will wait for the proof. Please provide direct comparison against extruded, or other, powder types under same conditions so we can all evaluate this problem. using same primers, etc.

it does not exist. There is no issue "today". Primers are cheap. How do we know the primer itself was not low output from quality control? What is the % of failures in a test of 100,000 rounds? What is acceptable failure rate of primers themselves in this test?

You will not find support of his statement. Unless you take it from say..reddit.

TX Nimrod · January 23, 2019, 09:54 AM

Gezze, y’all sound like a bunch of whining libs hatin’ on Trump.....

To the OP - the answer to your question is very simple: use published data, not opinions you read on the Internet. The manuals include tested data and will list the primer/powder combo. Will it always be perfect? Of course not, but it has more gravitas than what Bubba typed on his computer.

.

January 1, 2019, 07:40 AM	#1
locknloader Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2017 Posts: 164	"Hard to ignite" Ball powder in 223 How do you know if a powder is "hard to ignite" and you are having ignition issues? I often see that ball powder for 223 is "hard to ignite" and that military rounds use a magnum primer to ensure ignition with the ball powder. How is this trait expressed? Do you get a hang fire, does the round not even fire or get stuck in the barrel, etc...

January 1, 2019, 08:24 AM	#2
std7mag Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2013 Location: Central Taxylvania.. Posts: 3,609	Lock, The military uses magnum primers because it absolutely has to go off. They use them in the 7.62X51 (308) also. Personally i have never had an issue with using standard small rifle primers with ball powder in the 223 Rem. Some people will even use standard primers in the 7mm Rem Mag. Claims are better ES/SD. __________________ When our own government declares itself as "tyrannical", where does that leave us??!! "Januarary 6th insurrection". Funny, I didn't see a single piece of rope...

January 1, 2019, 09:19 AM	#6
zeke Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 1999 Location: NW Wi Posts: 1,671	Can't speak for all situations/powders. While i get excellent accuracy with 748, there are considerations. Especially if you shoot in hot/cold weather. 748 is temp sensitive, and if you load it for max in cold weather, than shoot it in 90 degrees, it likely will be over pressure. Am not on the ranges when it is very hot out. With one exception, am always using a harder cupped mag primer with 748. 30-30 is the exception, accuracy went away with mag primer. Like my loads to work well with all the types of rifles used. Rem 7 1/2 and CCI 34 satisfies this, including semi autos with floating firing pin. If you load it for upper level in hot temp, in cold the velocity will drop noticeably. This is very noticeable at longer ranges with 308. Have adapted to this with testing, but have a good stock of the powder, proven loads worked up in multiple cartridges and ball powders are very handy when loading large number of accurate rounds in 223/308. 748 was easier/cheaper to find during the shortages. There are lots more temp tolerant powders now, and if i was starting over or considering changing, would be checking out more temp tolerant powder. Am not very experienced with the other ball powders, but they may have similar traits. Am also not very familiar with heavy bullet loads in 223, or over 175 grains in 308. And my spelling/word usage is at times, mediocre. Most times it just be bad. Last edited by zeke; January 2, 2019 at 10:00 AM.

January 2, 2019, 06:17 PM	#14
Metal god Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2012 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 6,876	I've been of the opinion that ball powders ignite just fine in small cases like the 223rem . Again my opinion is that you'll likely get issues when loading ball powders in large cases that hold much more powder to ignite like the 300 WinMag . I personally ran duplicate load developments using 55gr FMJ and H-335 powder with the same headstamped brass from the same rifle ( AR ) , only difference was standard vs magnum CCI primers . I'm to lazy to go to my reloading room to look at those notes but do know the SD/ES of the magnum primers were higher then the standard primers . There was a difference in average velocity as well but don't recall the velocity differences off the top of my head . __________________ If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; January 3, 2019 at 03:07 AM.

January 2, 2019, 06:33 PM	#15
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	Sometime in the 1920's, Hatcher was using two similar burn rate powders to develop a load that that year's National Match ammunition. One was a coarse grain powder (IMR 1186, I expect, that the arsenal loading equipment could only hold to a span of 1.7 grains. The other was a short stick powder the arsenal loading equipment could hold to a span of 0.6 grains. Yet, in testing, the former load repeatedly produced better accuracy, so the coarse powder was selected and several records were set with that ammunition that year. Today that seems like wild lack of charge weight control, but the weight isn't always everything. Stick powders can pack a lot more than spherical powders can. As the grains become more tightly packed, it gets hard for the flame front to propagate between them, so the effective burn rate is reduced. That tends to compensate for the charge weight error. The Lee Perfect measure seems to do fairly well with stick powders for me. If you want the tightest weight from volumetric dispensing of stick powder, that will set you back more. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 1, 2019, 08:50 AM	#3
zeke Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 1999 Location: NW Wi Posts: 1,671	Can only speak to the one ball powder am using alot, 748. Never had any hang fires/etc, but noticed a distinct improvement in accuracy when using Rem 7 1/2 in 223 and Fed 215/CCI 34 in 308. The improvement was over standard Fed primers, and haven't done any comprehensive testing of multiple primers. Also shoot in colder temps, and accepted the writings about use of magnum primers with ball powder in colder temps. Frankly have never done or read about a comparison in below zero temps. Am thinking that maybe the phrase "harder to ignite" could also be synonymous with "providing consistent ignition" or something similar. Am betting there is several on this forum who may know about actual detailed testing, perhaps by the military.

January 1, 2019, 08:58 AM	#4
locknloader Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2017 Posts: 164	@zeke, I shoot in cold weather which is what made me ask this. Right now I am using H322 which is a stick powder but I’d like to try ball powder eventually. Sounds like no harm in using mag primers ALL the time with 223 and 308 rounds?

January 1, 2019, 09:17 AM	#5
Nathan Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2001 Posts: 6,331	I had really high SD’S and groups were a little big with cci 400’s. Switched to CCI450’s and redeveloped the load....SD’s dropped and groups shrank.

January 1, 2019, 09:28 AM	#7
Bfglowkey Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2018 Posts: 302	TAC seems to be a good choice for heavy 223 pills. But for temp insensitive options try IMR 8028 XBR or good ole VARGET.

January 1, 2019, 09:48 AM	#8
locknloader Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2017 Posts: 164	@bfglowkey I have varget but does not look like it will meter well. What is your experience with varget metering on lock and load setup? Also what would you consider a heavy bullet in 223? I pretty much shoot 62 grain exclusively, sometimes 55gr.

January 1, 2019, 09:49 AM	#9
Stats Shooter Senior Member Join Date: August 26, 2016 Location: North Dakota Posts: 1,636	Like others have said, it isn't that you will get misfires or hang fires. For the most part, it is that magnum primers offer more consistent ignition at the expense of higher starting pressure. I have also found a moderate crimp helps with ball powder ignition. In auto loading. 223, magnum primers offer a harder cup like the cci 450 which helps mitigate the risk of slam fires over the softer small rifle primers. Magnum large rifle primers do not offer the same benefits over stand as they are both the same in that respect.

January 1, 2019, 11:34 AM	#10
9MMand223only Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2014 Posts: 283	I have probably 10,000 rounds using a combination of CCI Small rifle primers and Remington 7.5, using ball 223 powder, never had any ignition issue, and I do not think what you are saying is actually real. Is there some sort of scientific proof or scientific paper to support a claim that ball powder has ignition issues? I highly doubt it. And how would you determine if its the powder, when you do not know if the primer was bad or the firing pin strike was slightly too light, this is hard to judge.

January 2, 2019, 07:39 AM	#13
locknloader Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2017 Posts: 164	@unlcenick appreciate your response, always have the answer and the history to it, you rock! @lordmorgul - I noticed the same thing when choosing which powder to use with 223 (have varget, H322,H4895 to choose from). They were all stick powders but the H322 was smallest and I had no issues with metering. I’ll have to at least give it a try and see how bad the weight varies from each throw for varget/H4895, For 223 I’m mostly shooting inside 100yrd on gongs so don’t need killer accuracy. When I start making some 308 rounds will probably load them all by hand since I’ll be going for accuracy with those.

January 3, 2019, 01:58 PM	#16
COSteve Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2009 Posts: 1,344	Like many, I use a lot of Remington 7½ primers. They have the same cup thickness as the CCI 450. I've used them with ball powder, W748, H335, and TAC, and they work very well providing good ignition and very tight groups. In fact, the Lyman Manual 47th Edition lists them as a small rifle "magnum" primer which suggest they have a similar ignition capability of the CCI 450 which is a magnum primer also. After many years of chrono'g 16 different pistol and rifle calibers, I found that when using ball powders, magnum primers produce slightly higher velocities and more consistent SDs. I have a Dillon 650 and use mostly ball powders so now I make up all of my loads using magnum type powders. I talked to one of CCI's CS people a number of years ago and she got out their specs and told me that CCI's SR primer is identical to their SPM primer so I use them in all my pistols and leverguns using small primers. I use WSR primers (Winchester doesn't make a SR magnum as they claim that their SR actually produces a 'magnum like' flame) for my plinking 5.56, and Remington 7½ primers in my precision and long range 5.56. For large rifle calibers, I use Win LRM or Remington 9½M primers. It sure saves on the inventorying of components.

January 3, 2019, 02:02 PM	#17
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	Your manual will tell you to use a magnum primer for that specific powder. Magnum primers are good when shooting in extreme cold too. Of course, there's no chart that defines what constitutes extreme cold. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

January 19, 2019, 03:21 PM	#21
Jsnake711 Member Join Date: January 18, 2019 Posts: 95	For. 223 since its so cheap to load, I just use Winchester printers with h335. Works pretty good.

January 20, 2019, 07:10 AM	#23
Bfglowkey Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2018 Posts: 302	Varget has always been a solid all around powder in any of the cartridges it is suitable for to include 5.56/.223 and the 308. Metering on automatic powder chargers can just be time consuming is all. But its consistency in load development overcomes this if a good OCW plan was used. Now all that said I have been testing a few previously overlooked powders for my bolt guns in 5.56/223 ( Mossberg MVP LC) 308 (Savage 12FV) after putting together a 6.5 Grendel Bolt. While I love having multiple powders on hand, space is getting tight in my reloading area so the Middle Earth search for "one powder to rule them all" is getting underway. TAC and Varget are getting a lot of attention from me but AR COMP is beginning to raise my eye brow. For the pill range I use in each cartridge it is showing great promise after 1st round of OCW testing. No chrono data yet for me since I try not to chase speed but focus on precision. If when I am done and have a super precise load but lacks speed I catalog the recipe and then research more on a different powder. Drop tubes help the larger stick powders settle into the cases better as mentioned above and another trick is an old electric toothbrush to help vibrate the case gently and settle it. Both work well.

January 22, 2019, 08:57 PM	#24
9MMand223only Senior Member Join Date: November 30, 2014 Posts: 283	Sorry Jimro, those 3 links do not prove ball powder has an ignition problem in pistols and rifles. But if this was a 120MM forum, I would say it has some weakness? That is zero correlation with rifles or handguns. Also, the first one, talks about the history, in discussion. It does not focus on ball powder, rather, the evolution of primer technology to become more reliable. So No, it is no longer an issue. The argument is not about performance, its ignition. Let me be clear, there is no issues with ignition of ball powders, today in the specification of intended use. There was decades ago, its no longer an issue. This is a fact. Unless you want to argue low charge weights have ignition issues, and this would be the case to varying degrees, of all powders...which is why manufacturers test minimum loads, because depending on powder surface characteristics, they can be difficult to ignite (at low charge weights). Thus dangerous. I don't think its arguing negatively, to point out facts. The military is still using ball powder. If the studies say its an issue, why is it so widely used "today". Every powder has issues, but what matters is does it operate within intended specifications. Jimro, I agree ball powder is not most accurate performance in precision rifles. But I do like AA2230, a lot, and its a top tier 223 powder. remember, Unclenick said I would be "highly wrong". I am actually "highly" correct. I will wait for the proof. Please provide direct comparison against extruded, or other, powder types under same conditions so we can all evaluate this problem. using same primers, etc. it does not exist. There is no issue "today". Primers are cheap. How do we know the primer itself was not low output from quality control? What is the % of failures in a test of 100,000 rounds? What is acceptable failure rate of primers themselves in this test? You will not find support of his statement. Unless you take it from say..reddit.

January 23, 2019, 09:54 AM	#25
TX Nimrod Senior Member Join Date: November 27, 2009 Location: Zona Posts: 423	Gezze, y’all sound like a bunch of whining libs hatin’ on Trump..... To the OP - the answer to your question is very simple: use published data, not opinions you read on the Internet. The manuals include tested data and will list the primer/powder combo. Will it always be perfect? Of course not, but it has more gravitas than what Bubba typed on his computer. .