You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Hard to ignite" Ball powder in 223
- Thread starter locknloader
- Start date
Notice there is no scientific material in last 30 years? To support your claim? because the problem is fixed.
I've learned to not argue with Unclenick, he's forgotten more than most of us will ever know. Just because Unclenik didn't provide you with more recent studies doesn't mean that studies aren't ongoing.
But here's some of the relevant research into the "primer/powder" interface as I like to call it, conducted within the last 30 years...
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1029744.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1008230.pdf
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a293974.pdf
There's more research out there, including the M118LR PIP and the Mk316 Mod0 research that both determined that extruded powder was a better choice for accuracy and performance from precision rifles, as well as the "lead free green bullet" research that determined the "hotter" lead styphnate free primers were just fine for ball powder ignition.
So, yes, it is still an issue. However ball powder works well for the bulk of military applications. Part of that is how we write the standards so that ball powder can meet them, and the other part is that we really don't need super tight accuracy standards for military weapon systems. 4 MOA is more than enough for combat accuracy from either an M4A1 or an M2 machine gun.
Ball powders also work well enough for dang near every civilian use too. Although after seeing my score differences shooting High Power with Power Pro 2000MR and Varget, I'm firmly in the Varget camp for competing in High Power. Part of that is me getting better as a marksman, but part of it is more consistent performance from Varget across temperature conditions and more consistent ignition.
Jimro
Varget has always been a solid all around powder in any of the cartridges it is suitable for to include 5.56/.223 and the 308. Metering on automatic powder chargers can just be time consuming is all. But its consistency in load development overcomes this if a good OCW plan was used. Now all that said I have been testing a few previously overlooked powders for my bolt guns in 5.56/223 ( Mossberg MVP LC) 308 (Savage 12FV) after putting together a 6.5 Grendel Bolt. While I love having multiple powders on hand, space is getting tight in my reloading area so the Middle Earth search for "one powder to rule them all" is getting underway. TAC and Varget are getting a lot of attention from me but AR COMP is beginning to raise my eye brow. For the pill range I use in each cartridge it is showing great promise after 1st round of OCW testing. No chrono data yet for me since I try not to chase speed but focus on precision. If when I am done and have a super precise load but lacks speed I catalog the recipe and then research more on a different powder.
Drop tubes help the larger stick powders settle into the cases better as mentioned above and another trick is an old electric toothbrush to help vibrate the case gently and settle it. Both work well.
Drop tubes help the larger stick powders settle into the cases better as mentioned above and another trick is an old electric toothbrush to help vibrate the case gently and settle it. Both work well.
9MMand223only
New member
Sorry Jimro, those 3 links do not prove ball powder has an ignition problem in pistols and rifles. But if this was a 120MM forum, I would say it has some weakness? That is zero correlation with rifles or handguns. Also, the first one, talks about the history, in discussion. It does not focus on ball powder, rather, the evolution of primer technology to become more reliable.
So No, it is no longer an issue. The argument is not about performance, its ignition.
Let me be clear, there is no issues with ignition of ball powders, today in the specification of intended use. There was decades ago, its no longer an issue.
This is a fact. Unless you want to argue low charge weights have ignition issues, and this would be the case to varying degrees, of all powders...which is why manufacturers test minimum loads, because depending on powder surface characteristics, they can be difficult to ignite (at low charge weights). Thus dangerous.
I don't think its arguing negatively, to point out facts.
The military is still using ball powder. If the studies say its an issue, why is it so widely used "today". Every powder has issues, but what matters is does it operate within intended specifications.
Jimro, I agree ball powder is not most accurate performance in precision rifles. But I do like AA2230, a lot, and its a top tier 223 powder.
remember, Unclenick said I would be "highly wrong". I am actually "highly" correct.
I will wait for the proof. Please provide direct comparison against extruded, or other, powder types under same conditions so we can all evaluate this problem. using same primers, etc.
it does not exist. There is no issue "today". Primers are cheap. How do we know the primer itself was not low output from quality control? What is the % of failures in a test of 100,000 rounds? What is acceptable failure rate of primers themselves in this test?
You will not find support of his statement. Unless you take it from say..reddit.
So No, it is no longer an issue. The argument is not about performance, its ignition.
Let me be clear, there is no issues with ignition of ball powders, today in the specification of intended use. There was decades ago, its no longer an issue.
This is a fact. Unless you want to argue low charge weights have ignition issues, and this would be the case to varying degrees, of all powders...which is why manufacturers test minimum loads, because depending on powder surface characteristics, they can be difficult to ignite (at low charge weights). Thus dangerous.
I don't think its arguing negatively, to point out facts.
The military is still using ball powder. If the studies say its an issue, why is it so widely used "today". Every powder has issues, but what matters is does it operate within intended specifications.
Jimro, I agree ball powder is not most accurate performance in precision rifles. But I do like AA2230, a lot, and its a top tier 223 powder.
remember, Unclenick said I would be "highly wrong". I am actually "highly" correct.
I will wait for the proof. Please provide direct comparison against extruded, or other, powder types under same conditions so we can all evaluate this problem. using same primers, etc.
it does not exist. There is no issue "today". Primers are cheap. How do we know the primer itself was not low output from quality control? What is the % of failures in a test of 100,000 rounds? What is acceptable failure rate of primers themselves in this test?
You will not find support of his statement. Unless you take it from say..reddit.
Gezze, y’all sound like a bunch of whining libs hatin’ on Trump.....
To the OP - the answer to your question is very simple: use published data, not opinions you read on the Internet. The manuals include tested data and will list the primer/powder combo. Will it always be perfect? Of course not, but it has more gravitas than what Bubba typed on his computer.
.
To the OP - the answer to your question is very simple: use published data, not opinions you read on the Internet. The manuals include tested data and will list the primer/powder combo. Will it always be perfect? Of course not, but it has more gravitas than what Bubba typed on his computer.
.