Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Winchester StaBall 6.5

I did some testing today with StaBALL 6.5 in the 7mm-08. I chose the 7mm-08 to start with because the velocity’s looked crazy fast. I came up way short on speed with all bullets tried and hit presser with others before max. I was using different components so I understand that things will change but I’ll be interested in seeing other people’s results. I’ll be posting results soon in the reloading section.

Its been years but stable was what I called TAC. I may not remember correctly though.

Those that need ball to load on Dillon should be aware I've run a lot of Varget and RL15 and fair amounts of N540 on Dillon with never an issue and winning matches as we went...

Have mentioned this before, not just here but in my chapter on powder/temperature in GUN GACK II, but temp-stability depends to a certain extent on the specific cartridge/bullet combo--and whether the temperature is colder or warmer. This is reduced considerably (especially in warmer temps) with powders designed and advertised to be temp-stable. But it still can vary some

TAC is very temp-stable with the right cartridge/bullet combinations, especially .223/5.56 and .308/7.62x51, the rounds for which it was designed. Outside those and similar applications it isn't so temp-stable.

Have found the same thing with ancient IMR4350. In some applications (such as 300-grain bullets in the .375 H&H) it has proven very temp-resistant in my tests. In other apps not so much

The Ramshot powder I've found the most temp-stable in my tests across a pretty wide variety of cartridge/bullet combinations is Big Game. Have also found it very accurate overall, which is why it's one of my favorite powders.

One thing I have NOT found, however, is that any powder advertised as designd to be temp-stable does not perform that way--at least at colder temps. ALL powders gain some velocity (and hence pressure) at much above 70 Fahrenheit. How much they gain often depends, again, on a particular application.

Tag

LOL

I just joined this forum.

I also just got some of this Staball 6.5 powder at a Virginia gunshow yesterday.

The powder is supposed to have a burn rate of similar to IMR4350. It’s rate seems to vary from IMR4451 powder to as slow as IMR4831.
So it may be a perfect powder for 6.5mm for most medium capacity cartridges. Hence the name “6.5”

I’m trying it today in one of my 6.5x55mm rifles today. I usually use one of my favorite powders RL22 with 120gr. Ballistic Tips.

In my 6.5 Swedes, RL22 has been GREAT powder and has proved to me to be very “temperature tolerant”! Virginia’s temperatures generally vary between 25 to 95+ Degrees Fahrenheit during our hunting seasons. (summer ground hogs to late season deer hunting).

I guess the “Winchester/Hodgdon” people wanted a “ball” powder with the popular slower burn rate like the 4350 powders, that was CLEAN, more Temperature insensitive, that would fill a small capacity Creedmore case. (looking for that ultimate powder for a small bore, smaller capacity case..... but STILL have a useful burn rate range, enabling it to be used in a wide variety of other cartridges.

So I expect it to be good for anything from a .243 Winchester, on up to and including a 30-06.....
(not to forget some of the medium capacity Magnum cartridge cases too.... like a 338 or 358 belted magnums, for instance...)
Anything that IMR4350 could be used for, I guess.

It’s biggest competitor could be IMR4451.
(which has also worked well for me in a variety of cartridges for me).


For those interested, I’ll report on my testing of this new Staball 6.5 powder. (of course, that will be in several cartridges, over the next six months.... when the Luray, Virginia temperatures start approaching the 90 degree PLUS mark)



Joe

Winchester powders is owned by Hodgdon in my understanding, so I’d be willing to bet a cup of coffee to a donut this new wonder powder is something else rebranded to pick up on the 6.5 craze. But I’ve been wrong before and I can prove it. Happy Trails

So how would rebranding make a powder that wasn't copper fouling reducing and temperature stable become both?

Don’t know but Hodgdon has copper fouling reducing spherical propellants like CFE223 already. Marketing can make chicken salad out of chicken schidt pretty regularly. Happy Trails

That's why I emphasized the and.

Just picked up a copy of the newest Hodgdon Annual Manual band they list the burn rate between Hybrid 100 V and VihtaVuori N550. Slower than H4350.

No testing; only “jesting”.

OR

The “gist” of the “jest” is that there has been no test.

Anyone tried this powder in 6.5x55 at commercial action loads?

I probably will, soon after the batch I ordered yesterday shows up. Have been asking at several local stores but so far none has had any, but came across a good deal on an Internet site so got out the credit card.

I bought some of this powder awhile back to try it. It worked very well on several 6.5 and .260 loads. I shot one, 1/4-inch, three-shot group at 200, with 147 ELDMs in my Creed. It is another good option, but not necessarily a game-changer, as I said before. A buddy of mine was out at my house shooting to 530 a couple of days ago. He was shooting some 153 A-tip seconds, that he got at Hornady. In one of his five-shot strings, three shots were in less than 1 1/2 inches. The other two opened up, but that is not unusual at that range and in a bit of wind.

I used the max load as per Hodgdon data for the bullets that I shot. I think (if I remember right) the velocity is around 2665 for the 153 and 2740 or so with the 147. I think that it is going to work really well as another option.

I haven't tried all these powders mentioned. I have in the past used most of the IMRs, such as 4350 and 48x5731 and all between. 4350 was my go to .308 powder for anything from 150 grain 168 grain bullets.

4831 has been my go to powder for my .270 for everything from 130 grain up to 160s.

But for smaller cases I've found a new wonder powder, RL-17. It has given me fantastic velocity with 115 grain bullets in my 2 ..25 calibers, .250 Savage and .257 AI. I've read and heard about its amazing performance in .243s, 6mm Remingtons, and.308s. Now that I have a 7x57 I'm wondering how it will perform in that. But getting back to the OP question, I've heard from more than a few that RL-17 is very temperature stabil in a lot of cartridges. Has anybody else heard this?

I've had great results from R17 with several rounds also. I have to seat my bullets pretty deep in this new Creedmoor, so I can get enough R26 etc in it to mess with. Now I'm playing with this StaBall/110 HH combo. If I can pick the right primer for my cases...Fed215 is almost "too big" in Nosler cases and Win LRMs are same in Hornady cases....I'm going back to BR2s....sheesh.

Just tried it in one of my 6.5X55s.... this one is a Model 70 Featherweight, 22” barrel.

So far it’s outstanding powder as far as accuracy.

On a cold 37 degree day, a 43grs. and a 44grs. charges with a Hornady 129grs. SST, proved to be vary accurate at 50 yards. 4 shot groups with either charge punch big ragged holes measuring 1/4” to 3/8” in size. For me that’s good!

It seemed to compare burn rate/pressure wise to IMR4831.

IMR4350 (44grs.) gave me max pressure signs (in this Model 70 Rifle), and 3/4” Groups.
But 44grs. of STABALL gave me considerably tighter groups and “normal” high pressure signs (no cratering, and reasonable case web expansion).

The best part is that the POIs (Point Of Impact) were all the same!

With the same bullet with IMR4831 powder (46grs. charge), the POI was the same at 50 yards as the other loads tried with IMR 4350 and STABLL powder.
But that 46grs. charge of IMR4831 powder proved to me to be a maximum charge in my Model 70.

The big surprise that day (other than the great accuracy and assumed velocities and reasonable pressures with this STABALL 6.5 powder), was the bad performance with a can of IMR4955 powder.

My research of that powder and also using the burn rate charts made that powder appear to me to be comparable to H4831 powder.
But the experiments the other day suggested that powder is also comparable to IMR4831.

So unless I have a bad lot of that stuff, that is too fast.... I’m going to treat it more like IMR4831 powder and NOT the slower H4831 powder.

So to date....
I suggest to all... BE CAREFUL using the IMR4955 powder in the 6.5X55mm! It seems to be faster than what the burn rate charts and the Hodgdon load data suggest.

Tomorrow I plan on doing more testing with the IMR4955, and STABALL 6.5 powders.

Both STABALL and IMR4955 show good accuracies.

But without a doubt.... so far the STABALL powder seems to be everything they say it is!

It almost seems too good to be true in my 6.5X55 Model 70.
I look forward to trying it in my other 6.5X55 rifles, in addition to a bunch of other rifles of mine.
AND I will report back about my experience with this great (so far), powder.



Joe

So,what did your chronograph say?

Hodgdon manuals and data switches back and forth between CUP and PSI frequently depending on which system was in use when data was collected.