Do any of you deliberately try and load with one of these types of powder?

I consciously avoid anything but single base to the extent that when I compare data I automaticaly discount the double base and ball data and compare the top single base powders.

Why? I want to minimise muzzle flash, heat, barrel wear and I don't shoot long distance or in quantities to need a meter.

Do you think it makes any odds?

It is my understanding that Olin Ball powders, which are double-based formulas, burn cooler and give longer barrel life, than single-based stick powders of comparable burning rates due to their deterrent coatings. For example, if you used WW 760 instead of IMR 4350 for equal pressure loads, the ammo loaded with WW 760 would give less heat and barrel wear than that loaded with IMR 4350. I don't consciously select a powder based on these considerations though, since my interest is in optimizing velocity and accuracy performance. I find that in a given bullet/case/primer combination, the best accuracy and velocity performance could come from any one of the three types of powders. Some of the Norma and Vv high-energy powders which produce great performance have a nitroglycerine content, as do some of the Alliant powders, for which there are no single-base substitutes (Bullseye, Unique, 2400, etc.).

I suppose I really don't even consider double or single (or triple) base when selecting powder. My priorities for my hunting calibers are:

* stability (temp variations)
* lot-to-lot consistency
* accuracy
* clean burning
* velocity
* metering

Price really doesn't come into it for my hunting loads, but it does with my plinking loads and my 223 loads. Anything I burn up in a big hurry, sometimes, needs to be cheap. FWIW, Dutch.

I look for double base and ball propellants because they burn cooler at similar pressures and they are stable over longer time on the shelf. They meter easily and give consistant results when used in appropriate loads. If I was going to use my loads in EXTREME temps - especially very cold - I would switch to single base propellants because in extreme cold conditions double base powders can detonate catastrophically. But all my shooting is done in teens up to 90 degrees. Consistant results are what I am after - I get this with Hodgdon double base powders. Lot to lot consistancy seems as good as any.

PaulS

I went thru that ball powder craze and still have some ball C around. The Ball powder I have used is dirty, hard to ignite and not flexible with ligher loads. I use imr powders only.

I have blown primers with AA2015 and I flushed it.

My favorite powder is surplus 4831 however. I have shot a lot of it up and still have some left. It must be 40 years old now and it still works great.

To be honest I don't think powder matters much in accuracy. I also don't give a hoot for maximum velocity and I just reach for a larger case for that.

I use whichever works best for any application. I have had some bad experiences with compressed loads in rifles using ball powders. Loads that worked great when fresh started turning in high pressures after sitting on the shelf for a few years.
Don, you are really dating yourself! I cried crocodile tears when I used the last of my surplus 4831. One of the many gun stores I frequented as a kid used to keep 100# cardboard barrels of the stuff out on the shop floor. You brought in your coffee can or whatever and the guy would weigh it out for you with a baby scale. I bought it 10# at a time for 1.00$/pound. Always wondered what would have happened if someone walked in and flipped a cigarette into one of those barrels.
C.G.B.

I like stick powders like IMR4350, H4831, Norma MRP, and Re 22, BUT, I have had good results in some specific loads with WW 760, WW 748, and H414.

There seems to be some confusion here between single- and double-base powders and extruded vs. ball (or sperical, as Hodgdon was forced to call them). Double based (nitrocellulose + nitroglycerin) powders can be found in both extruded and ball forms (as well as flake). Most, but not all, ball powders are double-base. Single base powders have nitrocellulose alone as the "active" ingredient, and are most common in "stick" or extruded powders.

The single-base powders tend to act in a somewhat more linear fashion, with increases in pressure and velocity (while not necessarily proportional) consistent with increases in powder volume.

Double-base powders may be less consistent in pressure vs. volume, and also seem to be more likely to shift in effective burning rate with the volume of case, size of bore, and weight of bullet. As an example, H335 (WC 844) appears similar in burning rate to BL-C2 (WC 846) in a .223, but is demonstrable faster in a .375 H & H.

Years ago, ball powders had a deterrent coating that helped them burn cooler, an thus extend barrel life in automatic weapons (which is why they were developed for the military, as well as their manufacture method being "continuous" as opposed to "batch" like the extrudeds.) As sporting use became as important as military use, the ball manufacturers modified the deterrent coating to lessen the barrel deposits, which probably did away with the "cooler burning" advantages of balls.

I use them both, and for metering purposes try to find a ball which works well when loading large volumes, as in varmint loads in a .223. For hunting loads, I typically weigh each charge anyway, so don't mind using a coarse stick powder, if it works well. There are some exceptions -- WC 872 works wonders in my .264 and 7mm STW.

Use the powder which gives you the best velocity and accuracy in a particular gun. You'll never know the difference in barrel life.