Powder - ball vs. stick

[Merc]

What are the pros and cons regarding ball vs. stick gun powder?

I've been reloading Hodgdon BL-C(2) ball powder in .303 British and .30-06 Springfield and have had fairly decent results in my old milsurp (No. 4 Mk 1*, M1917 and 03-A3) but I've never tried anything else.

A fellow shooter I recently met at the range claims that he hasn't had any luck with ball powder in a modern rifle and gets better results with stick powder so obviously, there are differences to consider.

Interesting note: A few years ago, I bought a few boxes of old 1952 RA .30-06 military ammo at an estate sale and I pulled one of the bullets in order to see what kind of powder they used. It was the stick variety. Was stick powder the typical military powder used in WW1, WW2 and Korea? If so, what is the modern equivalent? Is it any better than BL-C(2) in a milsurp rifle?

Merc

[bruce]

Stick. Ball. It doesn't matter. Some of the very best accuracy results on target come with both types of powders. Proof? Simply look at what the winners are using in high level benchrest competition. Those folks know what it takes to get consistently excellent small groups firing a variety of calibers. Every rifle will demonstrate better on target results with some particular combination of reloading components. Your acquaintance's experience simply reflects what are the results he has obtained with his rifle. Whatever type rifle he's using, the next 10 produced that day would almost certainly produce different results. As a case in point, I have been using varioius IMR stick type powders since 1979. Results were always excellent regardless of the rifle/caliber. I started using ball powders in1982... BLC-2. In several .223/5.56mm rifles it produced outstanding results. It was also much easier to meter accurately in a standard powder measure compared to the stick powders. The same is true of the Winchester ball powders. WW-748 is excellent in .308 Winchester. For some applications 748 works outstandingly in .30-06.

Just a thought. Have not used BLC-2 in .30-06 or .303 British. Shortages of availability of usable powders for reloading during the current fed. administration required many of us to try powders that would not normally been our first choice. For short range vintage military rifle matches as well as some deer hunting I have used WW-748. Works extremely well in M-1 Garand as well as 03 and 03-A3 rifles. Not my choice for highest possible velocities w/ heavy bullets. However, in a variety of rifles in has proven to be an extremely consistent performer using bullets up to 168 gr. Worth trying out. Begin with starting loads published in reputable reloading manuals. Work up for best accuracy and desired velocity. Very likely you will be pleased with the results. HTH. Sincerely. bruce.

[Merc]

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.

[Tuna]

Stick powders were used from the very beginning of the 30-06. By WW2 the standard powder was IMR4895 a stick powder still used today by reloaders for their 30-06 ammo used in M1 Garands. IMR 4895 was the standard till the military switched production of the 30-06 to ball powders during Viet Nam.

[m1ashooter]

I use ball powders for no other reason then it meters well.

[Merc]

I've been shooting BLC-2 with 150 gr FMJ-BT bullets in the M1917 and the 03-A3, both of which are .30-06 caliber, without any accuracy issues. I won't complain about hitting a 6" group on a 12" target at 100 yards with open sights.

I'm also shooting BLC-2 in the scoped No. 4 Mk 1* .303 caliber accurately, but it seems to prefer flat based 150 gr. bullets which are mostly available in soft points. Accuracy falls off quite a bit with a larger FMJ-BT 174 gr. bullets. Not totally sure if it's the powder or the bullet.

Merc

[bruce]

Just a few more hopefully useful thoughts. Have found it easier to get good on target results w/ older military rifle using flat based bullets rather than boattails. Perhaps w/ a new barrel it wouldn't matter. But older rifles normally do not have as new barrels. The flat based bullets have given better results. For short ranged shooting where trajectory and wind drift is not a huge issue, very much like quicker burning powders. Charge weights are less... for slightly less recoil, sometimes noticeably so. If only shooting at 100 yds., consider looking at some of the various pistol powders. C.E. Harris wrote an article entitled, "The Load." It details a number of reduced power loads with various bullet weights that allow one to get more utility out of a rifle. Have personally used his suggested load of Red Dot in the .30-06 using various service weight bullets as well as commercially produced cast lead bullets. On target results have been uniformly excellent in every respect. HTH. Sincerely. bruce.

[Tuna]

Many military rifles have a rate of twist that is a bit fast for boat tail bullets and these rifles shoot better with flat based bullets. The M1 Garand used a 1 in 10 twist and the M14 used a 1 in 12 twist which would work better with the boat tail. I have heard some say oh my rifle likes boat tails and maybe it does but the vast majority don't.

[psteinmayer]

I'm currently using H4895 in my M2 Match loads for my Garand. 44.0 grains with a CCI #34 mil-spec primer and a Nosler 168 gr HPBT Match bullet. Shot a 98-2X at the Garand match in prone. Works pretty well for me!

[Parashooter]

I'm currently using H4895 in my M2 Match loads for my Garand. 44.0 grains with a CCI #34 mil-spec primer and a Nosler 168 gr HPBT Match bullet. . .

What makes these called "M2 Match loads"? Is it the bullet weight (similar to USGI M2 AP)?