Ball powders are faster and less costly to make than extruded and flake powders

[westernrover]

There was a tremendous innovation that occurred when the manufacturing of ball powders was introduced. Ball powders could be made at less expense and greater safety than extruded and flake powders. Hand loaders understand that extruded powders still have some advantages, including a tendency toward greater temperature stability and the availability of single-base formulations. Double-base ball powders often offer lower costs and better volumetric metering. I believe they also have a more robust supply chain and aren't as likely to run out during peak demand. The defense department recognized the process for producing ball powders was both more affordable and easier to sustain in periods of peak demand. Production of ball powder takes less than 2 days versus a weeks-long process for extruded. So they invested heavily in it so that now the supply chain is even more robust. 99% of small arms ammunition for the US Defense Department uses ball propellants, as does 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortars.

Hodgdon and today's "Alliant" are not manufacturers of powders. They are brands. The ball powders of both brands are manufactured at St. Marks by General Dynamics and the extruded and flake powders of both brands are manufactured by New River Energetics at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant operated by BAE Systems. Besides that, both brands import a great many propellants from foreign plants, none of which are made by Hodgdon or Alliant.

Powder prices are not generally a function of brand, but of the type of manufacturing process and its costs, as well as market factors like supply and demand. The supply chain can be affected by geopolitics and the global economy, and demand is affected particularly by (US) domestic politics and the domestic economy. However, the St. Marks ball powder plant was once owned by Olin and it produced many of the powders for its Winchester brand. That brand has since been licensed to Hodgdon who market both the Winchester ball powders and their own brand ball powders. Alliant offers some ball powders from St. Marks like their Power Pro powders. However, many more of Alliants powders are from the New River Energetics (Radford) plant, because their former parent company Alliant Techsystems (ATK) operated that plant prior to their spinning out the Alliant brand to Vista Outdoor and the Radford contract going to BAE. Besides that, many of Alliants powders come from costly sources in Belgium and Switzerland, whereas Hodgdon's imported powders are more likely to come from Australia where the exchange rate is more favorable.

 

[higgite]

Oookay. Is there going to be a pop quiz?

 

[MEHavey]

Quiz/Question #1: What was one of the prime factors for M16 failures in the field when first introduced ?

 

[earlthegoat2]

Quiz/Question #1: What was one of the prime factors for M16 failures in the field when first introduced ?

 

[AJC1]

There was a tremendous innovation that occurred when the manufacturing of ball powders was introduced. Ball powders could be made at less expense and greater safety than extruded and flake powders. Hand loaders understand that extruded powders still have some advantages, including a tendency toward greater temperature stability and the availability of single-base formulations. Double-base ball powders often offer lower costs and better volumetric metering. I believe they also have a more robust supply chain and aren't as likely to run out during peak demand. The defense department recognized the process for producing ball powders was both more affordable and easier to sustain in periods of peak demand. Production of ball powder takes less than 2 days versus a weeks-long process for extruded. So they invested heavily in it so that now the supply chain is even more robust. 99% of small arms ammunition for the US Defense Department uses ball propellants, as does 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortars.

Hodgdon and today's "Alliant" are not manufacturers of powders. They are brands. The ball powders of both brands are manufactured at St. Marks by General Dynamics and the extruded and flake powders of both brands are manufactured by New River Energetics at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant operated by BAE Systems. Besides that, both brands import a great many propellants from foreign plants, none of which are made by Hodgdon or Alliant.

Powder prices are not generally a function of brand, but of the type of manufacturing process and its costs, as well as market factors like supply and demand. The supply chain can be affected by geopolitics and the global economy, and demand is affected particularly by (US) domestic politics and the domestic economy. However, the St. Marks ball powder plant was once owned by Olin and it produced many of the powders for its Winchester brand. That brand has since been licensed to Hodgdon who market both the Winchester ball powders and their own brand ball powders. Alliant offers some ball powders from St. Marks like their Power Pro powders. However, many more of Alliants powders are from the New River Energetics (Radford) plant, because their former parent company Alliant Techsystems (ATK) operated that plant prior to their spinning out the Alliant brand to Vista Outdoor and the Radford contract going to BAE. Besides that, many of Alliants powders come from costly sources in Belgium and Switzerland, whereas Hodgdon's imported powders are more likely to come from Australia where the exchange rate is more favorable.

2000mr seems like I need to give it a try. I like tac, but not a ball powder fanboi....

 

[irving]

Thanks for the information. Interesting, and good to know.

 

[Docendo Discimus]

Quiz/Question #1: What was one of the prime factors for M16 failures in the field when first introduced ?

Direct impingement design

 

[MEHavey]

Quiz/Question #1: What was one of the prime factors for M16 failures in the field when first introduced ?

Direct impingement design

Negatron

DI works fine -- and has done so for now 60 years when the rifle is even moderately maintained.

However ....McNamara's green eyeshade mafia substituting ball powder for extruded "because it was cheaper" violated both the original design, and the express direction of the designer when he found out about it.

The ball powder at the time was both dirtier (leading to faster fouling), caused a cyclic rate of 1,000 rnds/min in a rifle designed for 700 to 800, had a pressure curve that ripped rims off cases when trying to extract (causing fatal jams),* and both the bolt itself & disconnector would crack/break from the higher velocity/impact from the higher cyclic rate. ( fatal failure again)

Other than that, the early ball powders/M16 matchup was a great idea.


* (Custer's troop would find themselves with similar problems)

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Good read. Thanks for sharing. I like TAC and H335 for 223. CFE 223 i don't get as a accurate load from.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Olin-Olsen Ball powder process was originally devised to salvage the nitrate values of leftover WWI naval gun propellant. Explosion and fire at Lake Denmark/Picatinny “disposed” of a lot of that but the method is fast, safe, and cheap with raw materials, too.
Note that Radford and St Marks are about it for US smokeless powder, DuPont having turned over IMR powder production to a Canadian plant.

 

[tominboise]

Negatron

DI works fine -- and has done so for now 60 years when the rifle is even moderately maintained.

However ....McNamara's green eyeshade mafia substituting ball powder for extruded "because it was cheaper" violated both the original design, and the express direction of the designer when he found out about it.

The ball powder at the time was both dirtier (leading to faster fouling), caused a cyclic rate of 1,000 rnds/min in a rifle designed for 700 to 800, had a pressure curve that ripped rims of cases when trying to extract (causing fatal jams),* and both the bolt itself & disconnector would crack/break from the higher velocity/impact from the higher cyclic rate. ( fatal failure again)

Other than that, the early ball powders/M16 matchup was a great idea.


* (Custer's troop would find themselves with similar problems)

Does this mean all ball powders are bad?

 

[MEHavey]

Does this mean all ball powders are bad?

"The ball powder at that time...."

Since then, the chemistry has changed, and buffer system was modified/heavier & dampened.
Moreover, it was a system problem that was modified w/o regard to the end game.

"The reasons to switch to WC846 were (not un)sound. What was unsound was the decision to switch propellants
without full testing in the intended weapons system before fielding. "

 

[westernrover]

Negatron

DI works fine -- and has done so for now 60 years when the rifle is even moderately maintained.

However ....McNamara's green eyeshade mafia substituting ball powder for extruded "because it was cheaper" violated both the original design, and the express direction of the designer when he found out about it.

The ball powder at the time was both dirtier (leading to faster fouling), caused a cyclic rate of 1,000 rnds/min in a rifle designed for 700 to 800, had a pressure curve that ripped rims of cases when trying to extract (causing fatal jams),* and both the bolt itself & disconnector would crack/break from the higher velocity/impact from the higher cyclic rate. ( fatal failure again)

Other than that, the early ball powders/M16 matchup was a great idea.


* (Custer's troop would find themselves with similar problems)

That story has been well rehearsed in the saga of the M-16, but it doesn't add up.

First of all, the ball powder wasn't just "cheaper," it was available. The simple-minded are inclined to think McNamara's DoD just consisted of incompetent bureaucrats looking to cheap-out and save a buck. The facts are that DuPont could not supply enough of the extruded propellant. My post explained why. It takes too long to produce and is not easily adapted to rapid increases in demand. Extruded powder is a recipe for shortages. The DoD turned to Olin Mathieson to provide WC 846, which they could do in abundance via their East Alton, IL ball powder plant (which was relocated/replaced by St. Marks due to St. Louis metro area growing too close). Other factors that made WC846 more attractive were the lower chamber pressures, increased velocity, and increased cyclic rate.

We still have WC 846. It's sold as BL-C(2). It does not, as a single factor, jam direct impingement rifles like the AR-15. This is easy for anyone to verify. In fact, it's a great powder and one of the favorites for 5.56x45 in DI AR-15's. It was reported to have increased the cyclic rate of the M-16, which I have already mentioned could have been seen as desirable. That's something I haven't personally verified through no lack of earnestness on my part.

Today, ball powders are the primary propellant for nearly all DoD M-16's and M-4's and even the M249 SAW which are all direct-impingement. They use ball propellants almost exclusively, and the particular propellant they use is pretty much the same exact thing. They use WC844 which was originally just a particular lot of WC846 that had a slightly faster burn rate. Ball powder production results in some lots with a slightly faster or slightly slower burn rate. They get blended to average them out. My understanding is WC844 was and is basically the faster lots of WC846 unblended. WC844 would be comprised of less deterents (inert ingredients that slow the combustion of the nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine). In any event, there's no evidence that these powders result in unacceptable fouling of DI actions today.

It has been supposed that the increased cyclic rate resulting from the use of WC846, combined with a lack of a chromed chamber and any cleaning is what caused the reported failures. It's been reported that soldiers were advised that cleaning was unnecessary due to a misconception based on Colt's marketing propositions, and they were not provided adequate cleaning kits.

Curiously, the M249 has a normal cyclic rate the same as the M16A1 -- about 700 to 800 rounds per minute. But the SAW has an "adverse" selector that increases the cyclic rate to 950–1,150 rounds per minute and is used, "only in extreme environmental conditions or when heavy fouling is present in the weapon's gas tube." The way I understand this is that the cyclic rate is only increased under normal conditions and this setting is used to maintain the cyclic rate under conditions that it would otherwise drop under. Let me know if you need this tested.

We know that ball powder wasn't selected by the DoD because they were cheapskates. They had supply of ball and extruded was unavailable. See if you don't experience the same come the next wave of demand.

So was ball powder the prime factor for M16 failures? Certainly not as a single factor. It could have been a combination of:
Ball powder + Direct Impingement + Increased Cyclic Rate + No cleaning + No chrome plated chamber

Take any one of those other factors out, and it's doubtful there would have been an issue. On the other hand, if extruded single-base powder were used, but we had a DI action, high cyclic rate, a pitted chamber and did not clean the gun, it seems like extruded powder would not have been the gun's salvation. I'll test it if anyone is willing to supply the materials.

"The express direction of the designer." I don't believe Stoner was involved in the M-16's design or specification. He was frustrated when he found out about it, but he wasn't involved. He had designed the AR-10 and then moved on. James Sullivan and Robert Fremont developed the AR-15 by scaling the AR-10's design down to suit the .223 Remington cartridge. They were responsible for the bolt, carrier, and gas system design. They both left Armalite in 1961 and Stoner was not involved with Colt who supplied the M-16.

We also can't ignore the factor of bias that was strongly against the M-16 and in favor of the M-14. There's an abundance of evidence that bias resulted in the undermining of the M-16. To what degree this resulted in actual sabotage or contributed to the perception of any failures, I am insufficient to judge.

 

[Walkalong]

However ....McNamara's green eyeshade mafia substituting ball powder for extruded "because it was cheaper" violated both the original design, and the express direction of the designer when he found out about it.

And they decided a chrome bore wasn't needed as well.

 

[MEHavey]

simple-minded are inclined to think McNamara's DoD just consisted of incompetent bureaucrats

No one said that. Reread op cit post #12 post if/as necessary

So was ball powder the prime factor for M16 failures

No one said that either.
Reread "What was one of the prime factors ...?"

Today, ball powders are the primary propellant for nearly all DoD M-16's and M-4's and even the M249 SAW which are all direct-impingement.

Again, reread Post 12"...the chemistry has changed..., and so has the rifle.

For myself (and my progeny) having lived that rough patch back in 60s -- and then the last 15 years in the sandbox,
it's now a fine combat rifle, fed by fine ball propellants, and even better projectiles...
But NONE of them are the same.
And NONE of them were tested in a live-fire/systems*environments when "OSD" decided to issue them as primary battle rifles ... back then.

We knew it then...

https://www.astrotx.com/M-16A1%20Rifle.pdf

* and our troops (part of the system) are vastly different now as well -- in part because of it.

 

[JohnMc]

No one said that. Reread op cit post #12 post if/as necessary


No one said that either.
Reread "What was one of the prime factors ...?"


Again, reread Post 12"...the chemistry has changed..., and so has the rifle.

For myself (and my progeny) having lived that rough patch back in 60s -- and then the last 15 years in the sandbox,
it's now a fine combat rifle, fed by fine ball propellants, and even better projectiles...
But NONE of them are the same.
And NONE of them were tested in a live-fire/systems*environments when "OSD" decided to issue them as primary battle rifles ... back then.

We knew it then...

https://www.astrotx.com/M-16A1%20Rifle.pdf

* and our troops (part of the system) are vastly different now as well -- in part because of it.

Thanks for the link to that manual, I dig it, man. (seriously, it's a nice slice of history)

 

[kcofohio]

My understanding about extruded powder is that with EPA regs., it would be too expensive to produce in this country and be in compliance. So it was outsourced to other countries. It was already costlier before hand.

 

[Charlie98]

My understanding about extruded powder is that with EPA regs., it would be too expensive to produce in this country and be in compliance. So it was outsourced to other countries. It was already costlier before hand.

EPA regs are a lot of reasons why some manufacturing has been outsourced to other countries.

 

[MEHavey]

I don't "think" EPA-regs were the reason back in the early 60s.
It was more suitable powder availability for the req'd velocity.

To give the Devil his due (WesternRover take note):
See https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/01/09/jim-sullivan-m16-vietnam/

 

[243winxb]

There was a tremendous innovation that occurred when the manufacturing of ball powders was introduced.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2865729A/en Tin Dioxide added to ball powder. 1955. Olin Corp.

Furthermore, in some cartridges, particularly those made for use in match competition where uniform accuracy, velocity, pressure and other ballistic characteristics are a requisite, it I has been found that cartridges containing such powder charges are frequently unsuitable. This disadvantageous property is most apparent when cartridges are fired in a gun pointed downwardly and the powder is positioned near the bullet and away from the primer. Often be- 1 cause of these disadvantages, it has been impossible to 1 use the same propellant in cartridges of different calibers and in some instances, it has been impossible to use powder from the same lot in cartridges of the same caliber but having different types of projectiles. It is therefore an object of this invention to provide a 1 novel smokeless powder grain having improved ballistic

 

[entropy]

You don't have to test a clean SAW on 'adverse' setting, MEHavey, I did that in 1987 when they were first issued to the 7th. Sounded like an MG42, so 1100 rpm is an accurate guess. We only did a few short bursts as it would rapidly accelerate wear, and as these were brand spanking new (and borrowed from another unit for familiarization purposes) we weren't going to do so.

 

[Jim Watson]

Alliant still makes extruded powder at Radford. Lots of them if you consider that round flakes are just extruded and cut very very short. They import their slow burning rifle powder, though.

I read that one source of trouble with early Ball powder M16 ammo was the use of calcium carbonate to neutralize residual acid in the "lacquer." Limestone in your gas tube is not good. The CaCO3 content was reduced, then eliminated; I assume the powder mill compensated by more washing, but I don't know for sure.

You should write your specifications tightly.
An AMU shooter said they would pull a bullet whenever they got in a new shipment of factory match .223. If it were loaded with Ball powder, they would shoot it standing, sitting, rapid at 200-300 yards. If it had been loaded with extruded powder, they saved it for 500-600 yard prone slow fire because they expected it to be more accurate.
Which was my experience in F class. I liked the way ball powder measured, but almost any extruded powder was more accurate in my rifles. I settled on Varget and at the time did not have to worry about the next shipment from Australia.

American Handgunner had a piece on the police department that got in a fresh batch of pistol ammo and found it had a dazzling muzzle flash that their old inventory did not. Pulled bullets showed distinctly different powder type and amount for the same velocity. But they had not put in a requirement for flash inhibited powder.

 

[MEHavey]

use of calcium carbonate

That is correct.
As previously mentioned, neither the current powders, nor the guns now used are what they were issued as "back then."

 

[Otto]

Ten years ago…
1 lb of Varget was $20
1 lb. of Winchester Super Target was $17
Thats not a huge deference between extruded and ball. Times have changed apparently.

Today…
Varget is $49
WST is $42
It’s the same difference (15%) as it was a decade ago.

* these prices were derived from Powder Valley

 

[Hellbender Bob]

No one has said anything about metering.

Ball powders are far and away the easiest powder to get a consistent throw from a powder throw, trickler, an auto trickler, or a progressive throw on Blue. I try to stick with ball powders on all pistols so I can run solid on a Dillon. CFE .223 is a ball rifle powder that gives me less than 1/10 grain consistency on a Blue. I just see no point in trying to do progressive with stick powders. I know people do it and swear by it, but it's not for me. The swings in weight are simply unacceptable. I'd run that CFE powder in a progressive for 5.56 for competition.
Even with all the mods I have to underthrow stick powder on a Chargemaster and hand trickle to the correct weight. Most of us are left with the unreasonable expense of a Promethius or other multi-thousand dollar auto trickler to get precision throws without weighing every charge. Obviously this isn't a big deal if you're hunting and shooting a few dozen cartridges a year, but if you are competing in two day matches, with 250 round course of fire, several hours more time per week weighing every charge starts to add up over a year(s).

Winchester Staball 6.5

StaBALL 6.5 is the world’s first temperature-insensitive BALL® Powder, stable in extreme-hot-or-cold. Ideal for 6 & 6.5 Creedmoor, 6GT, 7MM-08, 270 Win. and more.

shop.hodgdon.com

I'm not moving from 4064 till this has been out and I can see how other people's experiments go, but if this ends up having the same attributes as temp stable stick powders there would be no reason not to switch to it based on the way it meters alone.

QED