What's the diff between ball and stick ammo

[Librarian]

Moved to ammo and reloading forum, where I expect the powder experts usually hang out.

[FLIGHT762]

Ball powders are "double base " powders. Stick powders are "single base".

They are made from slightly different materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

[kris smith]

Ok best answer yet flight 762 thank you U

[GSwain]

Russ69 has it right, ball powders meter better, but can be harder to ignite properly, whereas flake powder and stick powder tend to be easier to ignite, but are harder to meter. If you are going for precision with flake or stick powder, a powder trickler is a good idea. For example, im using ball surplus powder in 30-06, so im using a magnum primer to make sure i have more consistent ignition. ALWAYS work up your own loads slowly though.

[Divernhunter]

The first m16's in Nam had trouble as the gun was developed with stick powder ammo. One of its many troubles that got many of our guys killed was that the mil then used ball powder in the ammo and it left more of a residue in the chamber especially on rapid fire(full-auto). This would cause a jam and require cleaning which the mil had thoughtfully not provided with the weapon. This can become a real problem when you are in a firefight and/or being run over by gooks, as they were called. This trouble was partly solved with A) cleaning kits B) chroming the chamber/barrel and C) the forward assist as a fix for a design flaw.

Now about the powders: Ball powder is harder to light thus the recomedation to use mag primers. It also meters so much better than stick powders thus is great for progressives(and any others in my mind). It does burn cooler and thus is somewhat easier on barrels, so this come into play more with rapid firing weapons. Also ball powders are not as good for tracer rounds for the same reason. It is an excellent choice for reloading.

Stick powders burn hotter and thus are better for tracer rounds. They are harder to get to meter real well. This causes many people to throw a short charge and trickle it up to the desired amount. The electronic powder measure/scale combo makes this much easier. However it is still a one at a time method. This is fine unless you want quanity. The regular powder measures(RCBS Uniflow and such) do an ok job with them but some people want more. Stick powders will more often not spec a mag primer. Some cartridges with large amounts of powder(such as Weatherby) still spec a mag primer with stick powders. Actually the Fed 215M which is the hottest primer was developed for the weatherby cartridges to start with. Stick powders are an excellent choice for reloads also.

Then you have real short stick powder that meaters like ball powder. Then there is the flake powders which are more like the ball in metering. Then there is the flattened ball powders which are just like regular ball powders.

[G-Man WC]

Shape and burn rate. -g

[CZ93x62]

Specific to the early M-16 failures with ball powder......per C.E. Harris in "American Rifleman" ~20 years ago, the cause for the "carbon freeze" in the M-16 was narrowed down to a calcium carbonate additive in the ball powder formula. This calcium carbonate functioned as an ablative coating on bores of high-stress/full-auto barrels, but was contra-indicated in the M-16/Stoner system. The use of "C/C" was discontinued in 5.56 x 45 propellant.

I use ball/spherical, rod/stick, and flake powders extensively. Most ball powders and many flake powders are double-based, meaning they use both nitro-cellulose and nitroglycerine as active ingredients. Most stick powders are single-base, meaning they use nitro-cellulose as an active ingredient.

A loading manual is a reloader's best friend.

[bubbapug1]

[QUOTE=Divernhunter;8163507]The first m16's in Nam had trouble as the gun was developed with stick powder ammo. One of its many troubles that got many of our guys killed was that the mil then used ball powder in the ammo and it left more of a residue in the chamber especially on rapid fire(full-auto). This would cause a jam and require cleaning which the mil had thoughtfully not provided with the weapon. This can become a real problem when you are in a firefight and/or being run over by gooks, as they were called. This trouble was partly solved with A) cleaning kits B) chroming the chamber/barrel and C) the forward assist as a fix for a design flaw.

QUOTE]

somewhat urban myth and a good example on how some disinformation just won't die...the real story is in post #22

[SpaceMan]

I know alot of bench shooters that like ball for precision reloading while using tricklers. It's also more consistent in your powder measure. Burn rates are also different as stated many times. I just talked to a guy that said he prefers ball over stick because of how it stacks in the casing, meaning it takes less space for the same amount of powder. I don't know why that mattered to him but to each his own. Im loyal to my stick powders but I do want to try that CFE 223 powder if I can ever find it in stock around here. In the end I see it all to be personal preference for what ever reason it may be. Try them both out, see what you like and don't 1st hand.

[Ike Arumba]

Russ69 has it right, ball powders meter better, but can be harder to ignite properly, whereas flake powder and stick powder tend to be easier to ignite, but are harder to meter. If you are going for precision with flake or stick powder, a powder trickler is a good idea. For example, im using ball surplus powder in 30-06, so im using a magnum primer to make sure i have more consistent ignition. ALWAYS work up your own loads slowly though.

Does a magnum primer cause a problem when the manual doesn't call for it? Last week I tried some reduced loads of 7.62x54r, using 80%, 70%, and 60% of max H4895 (a stick powder). The weaker loads were somewhat position dependent, in that tipping up the cartridge before firing to get the powder back at the primer, would shoot higher at 100 yards than if the cartridge were tipped down first. I was wondering if a magnum primer would reduce the spread by getting the tipped-down powder started more quickly.

[klewan]

[QUOTE=bubbapug1;8164561]

The first m16's in Nam had trouble as the gun was developed with stick powder ammo. One of its many troubles that got many of our guys killed was that the mil then used ball powder in the ammo and it left more of a residue in the chamber especially on rapid fire(full-auto). This would cause a jam and require cleaning which the mil had thoughtfully not provided with the weapon. This can become a real problem when you are in a firefight and/or being run over by gooks, as they were called. This trouble was partly solved with A) cleaning kits B) chroming the chamber/barrel and C) the forward assist as a fix for a design flaw.

QUOTE]

somewhat urban myth and a good example on how some disinformation just won't die...the real story is in post #22

It was the calcium carbonate that was the powder related problem with the M16. The Ordnance Dept. in the mid 50's wanted to use ball powder in all the small arms. Somebody came up with a method to extract the nitrocellulose from cannon powder, which the govt. had thousands of tons lying around. They added 20 pounds of CC to a ton of powder to neutralize the acids used in the reclamation process, they could get most of the acid out, but there was always a residue that would corrode the brass.

Calcium carbonate is the active ingredient in Tums; you know the stuff you take for an acid stomach.

It took until about 1969 for the Ordnance people to figure out that 1% CC was too much; it would condense out of the gas coming back thru the gas tube and eventually cause an obstruction on the wall of the tube that would cut down the gas flow and pressure. Gas operated rifles don't work without the designed flow and pressure.

So they cut CC back to 1/4% and no more powder problems. IRRC, the difference between WW846 and WW844 is the CC content.

This still left the lack of cleaning and no chromed chamber and bore to be dealt with....

[Divernhunter]

You can call it a urban myth but I have several friends who died in Nam due to the "unban myth". Yes it was a problem with the powder spec plus not chroming the chamber/barrel, no cleaning kit and lack of the forward assist. I remember the early M16 all to well. It is no myth but it is something the goverment did not want out to the public especially when the country was turning against the war. I remember well.
One of the troubles with the M16(even to this day) as a COMBAT rifle in all conditions is it is built all too tight. It shoots accurate but all you need is MOM(minute of man) out to approx 300 yards at the most(especially in Nam). The AK was a better designed weapon for this purpose. It maye be loose(as designed) but it could be used by anyone(IE untrained etc) in any conditions such as buried in dirt etc for weeks then picked up and would fire when you pull the trigger. Not so with the M16. It would shoot MOM and with more punch.
To this day the servicemen has to clean and lube(overly) the thing(M16/M4) every chance they get to try to be sure it will work when they need it. Not so with the M14/M1Garand/AK etc. I might add they do not need a forward assist to be reliable.

[CZ93x62]

No, sir--carbon freeze was no myth and no joke. I remember the press accounts of the failures, at an age when I figured I would be headed in harm's way shortly.....and wanted a reliable rifle in an effective caliber to fight with. Even in my early teens I didn't think much of rat rounds being used to fight armed men with. I'm still none too fond of the idea, though expanding bullets add some authority to the equation. Clearly--the idea of the 5.56/M-16 as an appropriate combat caliber/rifle originated in the same place that 38 Special as an adequate police sidearm was ginned up--a place where the decision-makers weren't being shot at.

[sargenv]

There was a question about Magnum primers and whether they were needed in reduced charge weights.. the general consensus is that if you change components, you should back down the powder level by about 10% and see if this impacts pressure and then work your way back up. The exception is where you are using H110/296 for pistol rounds as you are usually instructed to use the exact charge or back down by only 5% since using too little of that slow burner can cause too low a pressure or a hangfire could develop.

Some people find that using Magnum primers in reduced charge weights of powder result in a better burn of the reduced charge making for a more consistent velocity and a smaller extreme spread. I've not done any research into this as yet, but other people have had this experience.

I know some pistol competitors that use small rifle primers for all of their reloading. It's down to doing the research and seeing if your firearm likes it or not, or if it can reliably ignite said primer.

[sonnyt650]

I've used lots of Hodgdon's H322, H4895, and Varget; and all are stick powders of the "Extreme Rifle Powder" variety meaning their burn characteristics didn't change much with ambient temperature. That's the extruded powder benefit versus spherical powder's easy to meter benefit according to Hodgdon's marketing materials. Actually all I can say for certain (like to shoot, not experiment) is that the stick powders perform as indicated for me throughout the year with no glaring change in POI similar to what I've seen for different bullet velocities during ladder testing. I believe we all agree that stick doesn't meter as well, can anybody confirm that ball powders perform differently at different temperatures?