Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Staball 6.5 in WSM's and Other Compact Magnums

@OSU Maybe. They weren't too much help with my inquiry about 325 but as far as I know the 270 WSM is a bit more popular. They did do the conventional 270 through 150 grain bullets and results looked good, certainly was no slouch. Maybe past 150 they had too much powder crowding. Given the 270 WSM is reputedly "more efficient" and "gains" over the traditional 270 certainly has me interested in knowing performance results.

I hear what you’re saying. I have some brass and should try loading some to see how it performs.

I picked up a can of it and this winter I am going to try it in my 30-06 and 6.5 Creedmoor and drum roll, a .348 Ackley Improved with 250 grain bullets. The .348 Ackley case reminds me of a .300 WSM.

On random thought, checked the search engine for postings. Found this one at Long Range Hunting, copying here so as to compile topic information.
Title: "Staball 6.5 in 270 WSM", 5 June 20

U/N Coldfinger: "Got shooting 270wsm with badly fouled and pitted barrel. I tried Winchester Staball 6.5 no data on it but I see it’s a slower burn rate than H&Imr 4350. I shot 57 grains behind a 130 grain Berger classic hunter on top of a Fed 215 match primer. Nice 1/2” group but very sooty cases all the way to the base. Any suggestions? It’s the first time I’ve ever pulled a load out of my butt so to speak! I assume the soot is from not enough powder to properly seal chamber with the brass."

The other users indicate that he may be underloaded. No follow-up posting of chrono data to date. So some people are out there trying it. If I come across other info I'll attach to this thread.

The weather has finally cooled so I had a chance to run another set. 24" XPR 325 WSM
Temp: ~90°F
200 gr NAB
Distance to lands: ~.086"- farther than desired but had to for magazine
Nosler 1x fired brass: 2593 @ 60 gr
Winchester new brass: 2512 @ 60, 2503 @ 60.5, 2591 @ 61, 2594 @ 61.5, 2612 @ 62, 2613 @ 62.5, 2645 @ 63, 2645 @ 63.5 (possible error), 2690 @ 64, 2729 @ 64.5, 2732 @ 65, 2747 @ 65.5, 2769 @ 66. [Stopped as this series is based on the Hodgdon's data for the 300 WSM.]
While not scientific, I did not have case expansion to contact the chamber wall all of the way down, nor did I have any ejector marks / swipes on the brass. I think this series could go a bit further, maybe all the way up to 70 grain... but going that far out warrants pressure measurement equipment.

This series is a bit disappointing in the velocities vs. those posted for the 300 WSM, but there are some good things. One is knowing there is more head room to go with this rifle. Also not disappointing was the gain consistency for the series. Over the 13 points on the new brass, the average gain was 43 fps/grain and the R-square was 96% (!). It's also nice to know a range for milder loads if I ever want them in the future. Back to my comment about case expansion and pressure signs- primers looked the same at 60 vs 66 grain; chamber contact marks on the brass were complete / even around the circumference and about .25" above the case head at minimum load (60 gr). At the max tested load (66 gr), the chamber contact went all the way to the extractor groove for about 25% of the circumference, whereas the remaining 2/3 showed to still look clean up to about .200 above the case head. The location / transition above this where the case stopped stretching so much can be felt by hand.

Anyways, I hope others may find this helpful. Last series to do for now is the 220gr GK, but I'm not sure of when I will get that one done.

I bought one pound and started some development in my .300 WSM with 200 grain partitions and velocities were at or above book values and significantly above QL predictions. I could not get any type of accuracy in the upper range of charges. The only accuracy node I could find was at speeds that I could easily achieve with other powders so I didn't go any further. I thought Staball may be the way to finally make good use of the 200's in the .300 WSM, but not so much. If I was loading for something like a baited bear hunt where a 2 MOA group would suffice, the velocity gain + temp stability would definitely be worth another look.

Out of curiosity about what work they did for reloading data of the "new" 6.8 Western I took a look at Hodgdon data to see what they had posted. Boy they tested and posted a lot of powders and bullet weights for their new 6.8 humdinger (110 to 170 gr bullet, 19 powders); it kind of pisses me off to see my beloved 325 get so neglected. Anyways, Staball was right in there with 4831, Superformance, and H100V in the 6.8 Western. Makes sense to me in a way. Apparently I still have those 220 gr loads mentioned above still just sitting there waiting to test. I may as well get to it before it gets too hot around these parts so, more data to come soon-ish.

I’ve worked up a load for my 300 WSM using 65.5 gr of StaBALL and 165 gr. Barnes TTSX. I did the Saterlee method to find a node and fine tuned from there, and then played with seating. 65.4 gr. Gave me a hard bolt lift every time after firing. 65.5 gr. and the bolt lift was fine. At .125” off the lands I finally got a .95” 3 shot group at 100 yards. I’m going to do one more test with it, but if I get a hard bolt opening with the 65.5 gr load like I’d did at 65.4 gr or the group opens up, I’m calling it quits. I got spoiled working up a load for my 270 WSM and my .338 WM, each with totally different powders though.

Well a little update. I settled on .150” off the lands and 65.5 gr of 6.5 StaBALL for my .300 WSM load. No issues with a stiff bolt at all when I played around some more with seating depth and stayed at 65.5 gr. With that being said, I loaded enough up for practice and hunting for this fall. I will see how my 6.5 Creedmoor likes the StaBALL, but I know my rifle can shoot better with other loads and get more velocity. I was getting good results with IMR 4320, but abandoned it when I found out it was discontinued. I still have enough for about 60 rounds though, so maybe I will test it out a little more.

Or you could take the rest of that 4320 and make a claymore for when shtf! 😆😆😆

I may have to do that with the StaBALL. Options...

Hudge thanks for the data. That jump seems kind of far, reminds me of a post I read where another had to do similar with monometals. Ah well. Hopefully I will get a chance to shoot and post more data in the near future.

The E-tips will have a higher pressure than the Hammers as they have a greater bearing surface. The Hammers radius-ed driving bands reduce pressure and surface area even though initially the design was to reduce turbulence and increase the BC.

Part of my issue is that it’s a Tikka T3, so I’m limited on COAL due to magazine length. .086” off the lands is as short I can go with this particular bullet.