Ball powder under cast???

[shooting on a shoestring]

It stems from my childhood, a bias against ball powders in rifles. Dad was shooting lots of 220 Swift, 22-250 and .243 Win. at prairie dogs, well for the long shots. He used 218 Mashburn Bee, 219 Donaldson Wasp, 222 and 223 for the under 200 yd shots. He never used ball powder b/c it would cause premature throat erosion in the high intensity rounds. I do recall a canister of Ball-C sitting on the shelf, but I never saw it used.

I started thinking about using ball powder under cast boolits in my old 30/30. It has iron sights and I often shoot it freestanding, unsupported. I've been trickling my 4895 and 4198 to weight for my 2000 + fps loads, but dropping charges of Unique or Herco for my 1500 fps loads. I shoot lots of the 1500 fps loads partly b/c I can load them quickly without trickling to weight. So I'm wondering if I could use Ball-C or H335 to get about 1800 to 2000 fps on 150 gr boolits and drop charges like I do for Unique.

Anyone have thoughts?

[44man]

Heat is heat is heat and it doesn't matter what powder it comes from. Match the burn rate and I don't think there is any difference. I have used tons of ball powders.
Much was said about the powder sandblasting the forcing cone on revolvers but my revolvers don't look any different from when 2400 was the only magnum powder. A ball is not any harder then a stick.

[Ricochet]

Ball powders generally burn cooler than IMR powders.

[Bass Ackward]

Ball powders generally burn cooler than IMR powders.


The translation on this is pressure is erratic unless used close to the intended purpose and they are harder to ignite. Neither is true for modern balls such as those by Ramshot.

I use powder as filler. So the bulkier it is the better off I am. I prefer stick in all but the fastest speed applications.

[AZ-Stew]

I remember when, back in the early 70s, a friend turned me on to ball powders. I like them far more than stick. These days, the first thing I work with in a new rifle is ball. Only if I can't find an accurate load do I go to stick. We have so many to choose from these days that there are few gaps in the burning rate spectrum that need to be filled with a stick powder option.

I'm starting to work on 30-30 cast loads in a Rem. 788, and my first choice in powder was 748. Now that I have a couple of decent moulds, I expect to be able to find an accurate load quickly. The only mould I had for .30 when I started was an old, discontinued Lee 190gr FP that has a long bore-riding surface. Since this surface is larger than bore diameter near the nose, it's a PITA to chamber rounds, and the interference caused by this condition results in lousy accuracy, likely from several secondary problems, such as inconsistent seating depth, damage to the bullet during chambering and who knows what else.

I recently picked up a couple of Lyman .30 moulds, and am waiting for one of the GBs, that will, hopefully, give me the accuracy I'm looking for. In any case, the first powders I'll load will be of the ball variety.

Reference back to the first paragraph, the friend who put me onto ball powders did so to help me with a Post-64 Winchester M70, heavy barrel .22-250 that wouldn't shoot worth a crap with any load other than one containing H-380 and a 52gr bullet that chronographed at 3750fps. In my book that qualifies as a high-intensity load. I shot thousands of rounds through it with no apparent effect on accuracy. I find the tales of old wives to frequently be inaccurate.

Regards,

Stew

[Ricochet]

The ball powders sure are easier to handle and load consistently.

I've long read of the inflexibility of ball powders, but you don't have to be on this board long to question the validity of that generalization. Folks on here routinely use ball powders in much reduced loads, the most extreme being the WC860 loads in standard military calibers. WC820's been used a lot in small loads that don't occupy much space in rifle cartridges and burn at low pressures. Haven't heard of anyone here blowing themselves up that way yet.

[1Shirt]

I started loading many years ago with Ball C L-2, at (if memory serves me right-3.75 a can), and still shoot a lot of it on P-Dogs. Have never had great luck with Ball powders and cast, but have not done a great deal of testing either. Do know that I have had problems with some ball powders on very hot days shooting P-dogs at temps around 100 degrees, with definate increased pressures. Accordingly, I pay a lot of attention to the discription of all the powders and if it is heat sensitive, I do not shoot it at over 75-80 degrees. Had a bad experiance with L'il Gun in K-hornet, on a very hot day. Blew a couple of primers and messed up extractor on my #3. Called Hogden about it, and they said that it was not known to be heat sensitive, but have now gone to H-110, in the same rifle, and not had a problem. However, I shoot it only in the a.m. on days when it is going to be a bit brutal.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[Bass Ackward]

The ball powders sure are easier to handle and load consistently.

I've long read of the inflexibility of ball powders, but you don't have to be on this board long to question the validity of that generalization. Folks on here routinely use ball powders in much reduced loads, the most extreme being the WC860 loads in standard military calibers. WC820's been used a lot in small loads that don't occupy much space in rifle cartridges and burn at low pressures. Haven't heard of anyone here blowing themselves up that way yet.


Ric,

The key phrase was the pressure range for which the powder was developed. WC820 was used for a cartridge running up to 45,000 psi. (30 Carbine) So it is designed to burn at what may be seen as cast pressures. Still this is no guarantee as you will see below. You must remember that these phrases came from an industry that still considers case load densities less than 60% to be dangerous.

But let's look at it. You had powders like Win630 that was just a hair faster than WC820 in burn rate that WAS pulled because it was erratic. To this day, you aren't supposed to reduce H110 or 296 because it is erratic and on record as blowing guns. One was a 308 in the 70s as I remember. That's just a hair slower than WC820.

That's both sides of WC820. But I'll bet there is someone out there reducing 296 today that says they ain't seen no problems yet. Reminds me of the old Warner Brothers Cartoon with the duck hitting artillery shells on an assembly line with a hammer and writing "dud" on the side.

Ya don't, till ya do.

[JeffinNZ]

I've burned a lot of W748 over the years in my .223 and various others we great success but it is no longer competitively priced here so I have flagged it.

Is it true that ball powders run best at top end pressures? I have read this somewhere. That being the case they are not well suited to reduced cast???

[felix]

True. Ball powders cannot be misused. This means if the powder is meant for 10K-15K cup, then it should be used in that range as a MINIMUM. That particular one would be WW231. Their upper limits are no different than the stick or flake powders for the most part, but there are exceptions in all powders. Some like to be pushed, others don't. It is fairly easy to determine, though. Run up the pressure until accuracy suffers, and back down to where the selected powder speed will deliver the ideal accuracy at a certain point, AND, at the same time, at plus and minus a grain for accuracy tolerance. If a powder won't do this, but shows good accuracy at only one set grainage, change the primer, and re-try for the required 3 point accuracy consistency. ... felix

[jtaylor1960]

Jim Taylor lists one of his favorite cast loads for the 30/30 and a 180gr RCBS flatnose bullet as 26.0grs. of H-335.

[MtGun44]

My best hunting load for .45-70 (which I will be taking to Wyoming
next week!!! can't wait!) is a heavy load of W748 under either
a RCBS 405 GC boolit or a Rem 405 bullet. Brian Pearce reports that
this load is safe in trapdoors with (IIRC) a 21,000 psi limit but is
accurate as heck.

Bill

[Bass Ackward]

It's hard to select a cast powder properly. And it's getting worse with designer powders. Bottom line is that you end up guessing. It burns differently in different situations.

One of the best examples of this lately is LilGun in the 44 Mag. Another ball in roughly the same powder speed class as WC820.

If you go to Hodgdon's own site and start with a 200 grain bullet, you will see that LilGun is slower than H110/296. Then go up with each bullet weight and watch it change right before your eyes as it goes from being a slower powder than H110/296 to a faster one in the SAME relatively small case design! And that's a modern ball, at pressures the way that the manufacturer is telling you to use it.


http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp


Now picture someone changing bullet weight and extrapolating load data for cast saying this should be OK. Start low and work up saves every time. We just have to test for ourselves and if we feel comfortable use it. So someone using WC820 for rifle purposes evidently feels comfortable using it in that particular case design. I would too, but not without a filler to hold it back so it can light the best it can. But you KNOW how I feel about fillers, so now you understand why I use bulkier sticks. :grin:

[shooting on a shoestring]

Gee gentlemen, thanks for the discussion. It looks like the issue has swung from throat erosion to erratic pressure/ignition problems. Alot can change in a couple of decades.

Yep it sounds like I need to explore some ball powders. Looks like I'll flip a coin between H335 and W748 to start with in my 30/30.

1Shirt, interesting, I just loaded my favorite 9.5 gr H110 in 50 of my Hornet cases under 225438, and was contemplating working up Lil'Gun. If I do procede with Lil'Gun loads, I'll certainly keep your post in mind.

Thanks again folks, I just love listening to firsthand experience.