I recently had a AR built for me with a 1-12 twist barrel, float tube, I could go on and on. Anyway, I plan on using 52,53, and 55grain bullets. What powders work better, stick or ball? I have H Varget on hand, WIN748, AA2460, AA2520, H335. I've heard that ball powders really foul up the action and barrel, and that stick powders are cleaner. Any thoughts on this matter?
thanks Jeff

I only use Ball powder in my AR-15, it's what the Military uses too. They switched from stick powder because stick powder cause gas system problems. H-335, and AA-2230 work great with 55gr and under bullets.

Ball is best. There are many ball powders-check out the load manuels

BL(C)(2) or however it's listed is the powder developed by the US Dept. of Defense for the AR.

There is, evidently, a BL (C) . . . . which is the first line of ball powders used by the military for the AR. the (C)(2) is the "improved" stuff.

H-335 is also excellent.

What are your loads you are using for 55gr. bullets using ball powders?
Thanks Jeff

I use 26grs of AA-2230, or 26.5grs of H-335.

The Armalite rifle as orginally designed by Eugene Stoner was designed for ball powder. The military loaded the rounds with stick powder as that was what they used in the greatest quantity. They didn't ask Stoner if it would work.

It didn't.

The stick powders were responsible for a greater accumulation of carbon in the action. That combined with other factors caused the "stink" in congress after it's adoption,and it's bad reputation with some folks.

Any ball powder is better than a stick powder. I've used just about every ball powder on the market. Some work better than others. I like the WW748 the best, with Accurate Arms powders after that. Work with AA's book for a starting load.

Regards,

Eric

I try to use light loads for 100 yard target shooting. I have found stick powders are more accurate with half filled cases.I like 4895 best.
Steve

I am shooting 25.0 gr WC844, which is supposed to be the same as H335, under a 55gr bullet. I am getting about 3150 fps out of a M4.

I have a question of my own. For the 2230 power, has anyone used this vs H335, and which is more accurate? There is a show this weekend, and one powder vender will have an 8# jug of 2230 (new powder) for $75.00. Not only is this a pretty good price, but no hazmat on the shipping.

Jeff, Eugene Stoner designed the Ar-15 to be used with IMR propellents---------not ball type powders.

{partial Quote}
With these requirements in mind, Stoner began. To meet the 500 meter standard, Stoner had the Remington Arms Company increase the capacity of their .222 Remington cartridge to fire a 55-grain bullet at 3300 feet per second. With the new round, known as the .223 Remington, Stoner started work on the rifle. His first attempt was of a conventional design that was uncontrollable when fired fully-automatically, so he created a scaled-down AR-10.6
The new Stoner rifle took ideas and other smaller details from many rifles and combined them into one design: the locking system from the M1941 Johnson rifle, the use of a hinged receiver and the buffer system from the FAL, the straight in-line stock from the T-25 and the direct gas system of the Swedish M42 Ljungman rifle, which eliminated several moving parts and made the rifle simpler to operate and cheaper to manufacture.7 Because the new cartridge allowed him to use aluminum alloys and plastics, Stoner's new rifle, the AR-15, weighed only 6.35 pounds(2.89 kilograms) empty. But Stoner also made some mistakes. Stoner did not feel a need to have the AR-15's barrel chrome-plated, especially since ArmaLite didn't possess the capability to plate the barrel, but Army research after World War II had shown the benefits of having a chrome-plated barrel and chamber on rifles designed for automatic fire and Army declared after the M14's adoption that all subsequent rifles would have chrome-lined barrel and chambers.8 In developing the AR-15's cartridge, Stoner used a type of gunpowder known as IMR powder. With the IMR powder, the AR-15 was highly reliable, but the Army was now in the process of converting to the use of ball type powder in its cartridges, which was cheaper to produce and had wholly different ballistic characteristics.9 The only major problem with the prototype AR-15 design was that it wasn't fully developed before Army testing began nine months later on 31 March 1958. Ordnance engineers and ArmaLite designers didn't see eye-to-eye from the start, but the AR-15 proved to be a workable design and the Infantry Board report stated a fully-developed AR-15 would be a suitable replacement for the M14 rifle. But later tests showed some problems. Rainwater in one AR-15 barrel cause it to burst when fired. Stoner redesigned and strengthened the barrel, but Ordnance engineers said the problem still remained, due to the .22-caliber size of the barrel. It was also at this time when Stoner learned several of his rifles were set to the Army Arctic Test Board and reliability problems were noted there. Stoner went to Alaska to find the problems with the AR-15 were caused by Army personnel, who disassembled the rifle and reassembled it improperly. Stoner asked for a new test trial because of the way the AR-15 had been mishandled.10 The Army then began to stonewall Stoner over the suitability of the AR-15, but said if the AR-15 was built to fire a new .258 caliber round which the Ordnance department now stated was the best cartridge, it may be suitable. Additionally, the Army Chief of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor, did not favor the AR-15 and recommended continued production of the M14. Because of this treatment and its desire to recoup its $1.45 million development expense, Fairchild sold its rights to the AR-15 to Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company for $75,000 cash and a 4.5% royalty on subsequent rifle sales in December, 1959. In 1960, ArmaLite was reorganized and Stoner left ArmaLite during this reorganization.The use of ball gunpowder left a very sticky residue in the barrel and the gas tube of the M16. Since the barrel wasn't chrome-plated and no cleaning equipment and/or lubricants were available, it hardened quickly and soon made the rifle inoperable. The residue also caused spent casings to become stuck in the chamber and the rifle suffered a rim shear extraction failure, where the bolt's extractor tore off a portion of the end of the spent casing, leaving the rest of the case stuck in the chamber. Because of the ball gunpowder's ballistic characteristics and the rifle's buffer's light weight, the M16 fired fully automatically with a cyclic rate of between 850-1000 rounds per minute, well in excess of the normal 750-850 rounds per minute. Compounding this comedy of errors was the lack of training and instruction given to those troops who were issued the M16.22

Beginning on 15 May 1967, the problems were investigated by a Congressional subcommittee, headed by Representative Richard Ichord, a Democrat from Missouri. After seeing the M16 malfunction firsthand during tests at Fort Benning and Camp Pendleton and traveling to Vietnam to assess the problems, the Ichord Subcommittee report, issued in late June, 1967, stated "the much-troubled M16 rifle is basically an excellent weapon whose problems were largely caused by Army mismanagement."23 To correct the M-16's fouling problems, the formulation of the ball gunpowder used in the 5.56mm M193 Ball cartridge was changed by reducing the level of calcium carbonate(CaCO3 - limestone, used as an acid neutralizer to extend shelf life) from 1% to .25%, less than half the amount shown to clog the M16's gas tube. A new heavier weight buffer was developed to reduce cyclic rates back to normal. A cleaning kit was developed, along with a new buttstock able to store the cleaning kit in the rifle. Finally, a massive training program on how to properly maintain the M16 was instituted and made use of a rifle maintenance comic book.24 With the major operational problems finally solved, the next most pressing problem was how to get more rifles into the hands of troops needing them. Two additional contractors, Harrington & Richardson and the Hydramatic Division of General Motors Corporation, were awarded contracts to produce the M16/M16A1. With the operational and production problems resolved, the M16/M16A1 began to operate with great reliability.

[ 12-28-2002, 18:36: Message edited by: TBS ]

To ask whether to use ball or stick powders is simplistic at best. There are so many other variables that such a question is misleading. There are many excellent powders for use in the .223 Remington or 5.56mm Nato cartridges, both stick and ball types. Perusal of the appropriate loading manuals will certainly help you make a choice based on your personal prejudices.

The comments made referring to the "inappropriate" use of stick powders in the 5.56 cartridge in early fielding of the system are correct to a point. The problem was not that it was a stick powder but that:

• The powder used contained more calcium than that used in development of the gas system.
• The troops were under the impression that this was a "self-cleaning" firearm because it had been promoted by some as low maintenance.

Because, the increased calcium in the powder caused increased deposits in the action itself due to the direct action gas system AND the troops did not clean their rifles there were major problems. Two major corrective actions were taken:

• Changed the powder to one with less calcium content and yes it was a ball powder.
• Teach the troops to clean their rifles and to assiduously supervise that cleaning.

These two actions rectified the problem. Other minor changes over the years have improved the system and there is now little likelihood that a properly maintained rifle with a good magazine will malfunction.
You will still hear veterans talk of that crummy M16 that won't work half the time just as you will still hear them talk about inaccurate, hard kicking .45s.

IME, either ball or stick powders work well if an appropriate powder is used. In my own, pre-forward assist rifle, there were no problems with either W748 (BL-C(2)) or IMR 4895 or H4895.

Thanks for the info.

You may want to take a look at Ramshot's X-Terminator and TAC. Both have applications for .223 in the bullet weights you listed. Both are ball, clean burning and temp insensitive.

I've read that Black Hills uses TAC in their .223 ammo and by all accounts it burns remarkably clean. I've also read it was spec'ed as a powder for miltary usage in semi-auto gas guns, so clean burning properties and temp insensitivity were mandatory characteristics specified.

In my mind, given that you're reloading, ball powders make so much more sense since they meter much better than stick powders. Once your measure is set correctly, just throw away and don't bother checking weights. You caneasily maintain +/- .1g using ball, something that you can't always do with stick, especially if it's longer grained stick. JMHO.

Ramshot's Website

Martindog

You can buy WC-844 or WC-846 surplus powder really cheap, I got 32lbs delivered for $235.

TBS,

I stand corrected.

I took a survey at our service rifle compitition and most of us use W748 driving varying bullets. I have also used 4064 a stick powder with very excellent results. I shoot an HBAR with one in seven which will handle the 80 grain Berger bullets.