Home

�shortstop? Ha, ha, that one never fails to make me laugh. I might be alone on that, though.

But speaking of failures, I�ve never successfully gotten a good discussion going on the merits vs. demerits of these two types of powders. And yet I still have so many lingering questions regarding them.

It seems to me that the double-based powders can provide more energy at lower pressure than the single-based powders, but at the cost of hotter temperatures. Is that right?

Or are double-based powders just juiced with nitroglycerin for extra energy but brewed to be slow so as not to blow up the gun?

And if the how�s and why�s don�t float your boat, hows about whys you uses one or the other? Or differences per field experience?

And are double-based more stable over time? Surely there was some stated reason(s) the US military switched from single based extruded to double-based ball; or was it just that the later's cheaper? And I presume that the Austrailian military uses single-based extruded what with ADI's presence. What does their Defence Department know that our Defense Department doesn't?

And I know this stuff isn�t everyone�s cup of tea, but since reloading is, in essence, rocket science for rednecks some of us redneck rocket scientists do enjoy considering the mechanics of our particular competing brands of solid fuel.

Any and all contributions appreciated. Thanks.

I have nothing to contribute but I'm really curious to see what the basic differences are other than what you stated.

Ball powders (almost always double-base) have a much longer shelf life than single-base. That's because the process involves a lot more washing and removal of residual acids (nitric and sulfuric, mostly). In single-base powders, there is sometimes enough residual acid that the powder eventually breaks down - especially if stored improperly.

As far as I'm aware, there has not yet been an instance of ball powder ever "going bad" through deterioration.

Double-base (DB) powders don't have to be made in spheres. There are flake and extruded DB powders. I believe that DB powders in flake or extruded form share the long shelf life of ball/spherical shaped powders, but that's only an educated guess.

In general, DB powders pack more energy per volume than single-base (SB). So if your cartridge is running out of room with single-base extruded powder, you might try switching to an extruded DB or perhaps even a spherical DB.

I've read advertising for SB powders that claimed they burn cooler, and I've read ads for DB powders that claimed THEY burn cooler - so that one's a wash for me. I doubt it makes very much difference, to tell the truth.

It's fairly well accepted, however, that SB powders are a bit more predictable as charge levels increase. That's why the Powley Computer works ONLY with DuPont/IMR-style powders, which are all SB.

Whoo-hoo! Thanks. I�ve asked this type of question before and gotten goose egg in response. I know this type of stuff bores most people but it doesn�t bore me. Keep it coming, for anyone willing.

If reloading was just about saving money I wouldn�t do it as my time is more valuable to me than some incremental savings that doesn�t about to much in the context of the time it takes to reload ammo. And for high-volume shooting a .22 rimfire can�t be beat and milsurp ammo isn�t far behind.

If reloading was just about shooting accurately I wouldn�t do it as my rifles are plenty accurate with most things I feed them.

If reloading was just about shooting projectile A, B, or C at velocity X, Y, or Z I wouldn�t do it because that can always be accomplished by buying another rifle for specific said task.

I enjoy reloading because it allows me to really get the most out of my rifle and to understand (to some extent) what is going on within the combustion chamber and the whole shooting experience. I suppose it similar to why some folks enjoy working on their car. So it is in that vein that I asked the question.

Also, I�m interested in personal experiences, and powder preferences and/or prejudices. Why do you, Mr. Typical 24hourcamper, prefer one to the other? (There�s no right answer to that, that�s your preference and yours alone.

I know with some double based powder (cough)RL22 for example(cough) I can get riproaring velocities but belch a flame halfway to the target. That�s no big deal, I suppose, but rather, just an observation.

What I find very interesting is that, per the data I�ve seen, double based powders can give higher velocities at lower pressures than their single-based counterparts. So what�s the downside? A hotter flame? Or is it really at lower pressures than equivalent single based powders? I ask because I�ve seen some load data from VV wherein their double-based powders are conspicuously absent from their load data on some older rounds. Is that a tacit admission that the pressures aren�t lower? This inquiring mind want�s to know.

Yeah, I know, this bores the nitroglycerine out of some of you. So sue me. Or jump back to the perennial 30-06 vs. 300 mag discussion(s).

Mike378, have ye a comment? I know ADI powders rule the roost in Australia, and rightfully so. But I understand that some folks use double base powders so I�m curious if you have a thought to share. Others too, of course, I�m just picking on Mr. 378 at the moment.

For what its worth, the double base Ball powders that are packaged under the Winchester brand say on the container cooler burning. Cooler burning in comparison to what they do not say.

I've pondered this question quite a bit. I don't have any good answers yet. It has been my belief that DB spherical powders burn hotter than SB extruded powders but I have also heard conflicting opinions on that. None of my rifles came with thermometers.

The reason I've pondered this is mainly for throat erosion. Do barrels last longer using spherical DB powders which may burn hotter but are perhaps less abrasive than the extruded SB powders? I dunno.

Not having the answers, I generally use what produces the best accuracy. Velocity should be close to whatever powder delivers top velocity but accuracy is far more important to me than getting that last 30 or 50 fps.

1flier

This discussion goes all the way back to when the French chemist, Vielle, and the famous Nobel were developing their powders. Vielle worked on single based and Nobel worked to develop his renowned double base Ballistite. The problem was controlling the burning rate so as to produce a useful propellant for centerfire cartridges.

Ball powder was developed to salvage tons of WW1 left-over powder that was going bad in storage. One of the attractive features of ball powder is that it is formed in water, thus making it safer to produce. Ball powders are all double base powders.

The Brits probably caught on to what Nobel was up to, and their double base powder was cordite.

Burning rate was eventually controlled by design of the granule shape and size, and the use of deterrent coatings. Early double base powders tended to have high nitroglycerin content and were erosive to barrels. This was corrected by reducing the nitro content. It was found that double base powders were very stable in storage.

Single base powders tend to be a little more predictable when working up loads. It is probably not a good idea to compress double base powders, as they have a reputation for pressure peaks under those conditions.

There is not much to choose from regarding barrel life when using conventional double base and single base powders. However, ball powders usually use dibutyl phthalate (SP?) as a deterrent, and this reduces the flame temperature. This is why military organizations have favored ball powders for machinegun use.

For the reloader, all of these canister grade powders will work. Some will always show better results under specific conditions than others. It is a good idea to rely on published reloading data that is the result of millions of dollars of testing by well qualified ballistic labs.

Ball powders are more accurate with Partitions and other other lead exposed base bullets, aren't they? (Due to the symmetry of the imprint on the lead versus the asymmetrical pattern left by the chunky extruded types.)

Sorry, that was a rather smart-@$$ed comment with not basis in fact that I am aware except that I have alway wondered if it matters that the lead gets deformed.

I tend toward extruded types of powder simply because I believe, based on my own experience, that they ignite and burn more consistently and reliably especially as temperatures decline. I am less concerned about the actual or advertised temp stability of the powders though and often use IMR.

Yo have it all wrong, klik. Ball powders are more accurate simply because the devil imps can't hold on to them as well as they can the extruded ones. They fall off and thus can't kick the bullet off target as it flies. I thought everybody knew that.