I was looking at this new powder and was really impressed by its ability to handle so many bullet weights in the 300 WSM (look at the Hodgdon / Winchester site - 125gr all the way past 220 gr!). Has anyone here used it in their other compact / short magnum? I may write them asking for advisement on its use in the 325 WSM, but I am interested to see what others have experienced with it. The powder looks to have a lot of potential!

I have some loaded up for a trial run. Its also the 300 WSM and I am going by Hodgdon's data also. I'm using WW brass/Fed 215M/Barnes 150 TTSX. It looks like 69-71ish with similar burn rate Ball Powders across the Board. I'm going to find out, hopefully Tuesday, just how accurate it is. I am also loading Big Game from the Barnes data. I like the old WW760 but I found it loses too much for me when the temps get really cold. Its been said that the WSM was "designed around" WW760 with top, high pressure loads. I like to run around 64K for any round listed from SAAMI 2 65K. I don't shoot enough to try and save every shot a case can give me, nor do I anneal. So my "Bar" is accuracy as fast as I safely can get it, ha. I'll report back as soon as I can.

Thanks! 760 is great and all, but looking at loads the Staball seems more versatile. Starting pressures and velocities are lower, maximum pressures are about the same but velocities are higher though it takes more powder. Since 760 does so well with the short mags, and the Staball seems to improve upon it in the 300 WSM, I am very interested in getting more Staball performance info for all the short mags. Maybe Hodgdon will respond if I ask them... I'll write them tonight.

I received reply regarding other compact magnums. They did not completely answer my question but partially did, only to say no testing on the 325 was forseeable:
"I can add your request to a database that our ballistican keeps. This helps us determine what people are wanting . It is somewhat doubtful any further testing will be done for 325 wsm given its limited commercial success. Given that we did not develop data for any of the IMR Enduron rifle powders it does not look good for this one."
Well, at least it kind of drops a clue for Staball's orignins- it's from IMR Enduron family. This puts it being related to Varget / IMR4166, H4350 / IMR4451, H4831 / IMR4955... at least according to accurateshooter.com. Strangely, I see the Staball to be like Superformance v2; load data and performance is very similar for certain projectile weights.

So I guess I will have to carefully try some myself if I want to see results, will post results when done.

Hodgdon didn't do anything but blow hot air up your arse.

StaBall is a ball powder from the St. Marks facility of General Dynamics, down in Florida. The "Enduron" line is from the General Dynamics facility up in Quebec. That facility was formerly owned by IMR, but in the past several years was completely rebuilt and revamped. Along with the updates came ingredient changes to lose some of the things on the various international "naughty lists". The updated formulations gave rise to marketing magic, known as "Enduron technology"....
Remember how they told you "they" created the awesomeness known as CFE223, from American Military tech? Yeah well, that powder is SMP-842, and was in production for well over a decade prior to them buying up all the surplus auctions. The base Tin ingredients used for copper cleaning, is French military tech from about 1900. Feel free to read about it in Hatcher's Notebook.... It's also been in Winchester branded ball powder since their inception in the 1930's. The addition of some Bismuth compounds is new tech, but it isn't US military; it's private defense contractor tech from GD.

Hodgdon does very little actual pressure testing "in-house", and a good portion (used to be most of) of what they test is with copper crushers. Those being somewhat more helpful than a magic eight ball, you won't get any data for something progressive (like Superformance).

If you want Superformance data, look in Hornady's manuals. Remember they hired Dave Emary(now ret). Dave was a powder tech for General Dynamics prior to them. Dave knows what he built, far better than Hodgdon knows what a lot of surplussed powder they bought; is capable of.

Thanks Darkker,

Insightful as always.

Maybe the tech did some sort of fuzzy association. Ah well, @Darkker you seem well read on the subject. Perhaps you have come across Staball results in the other short magnum's you can reference?
Unfortunately the one local store that did stock it was out of 1lb bottles the other day when I went, so for now I'll have to read about what others' results... I'm at that stage in life where I don't get much roam time so it will be a while before I go there again.

Sorry Esteban, haven't had a chance to wrap my claws around it yet.
Am fully planning on hooking up the Pressure Trace and going to town, just need to get to the winter and not slammed at work.

That clue conclusion doesn't follow.

Let me paraphrase the response you received: "The 325 is so unimportant in the marketplace that we didn't waste the time and expense of a testing program when Enduron showed up, so what makes you think we'd do one for Staball?"

It's more of a consequence of the marketing agreement.
"Winchester" is owned by Olin, who hasn't had any manufacturing capability for a long time now.
The agreement between Olin and Hodgdon is essentially that if Olin provides data for the Winchester branded powders, Hodgy will sell and publish what is provided.

You may remember a while ago, something like 5-10 years ago now, essentially all Winchester powder data disappeared from the Hodgdon site; or was supremely low pressure. The story went that Olin hadn't sent any new data in a very long time, so Hodgdon reverted to the original supplied to prove a point; rather than spending their own money for testing.

That's probably not the entire truth, but covers the gist. So if Olin doesn't supply a ton of data and hodgy doesn't have a huge demand worth their investment; probably don't hold your breath for them to supply it right out of the gate.

Western has been on an interesting path for the past couple years, don't know if that means they aren't doing as much pressure testing for outside companies (like Hodgdon) or what exactly.
You may notice they still show SDS and info for Eurenco powders, but it's actually been General Dynamics powders for several years.

Cheers

I had a few days off so I made a second trip out to the store, picked up 2 lb to try. Need to finish preparing brass before I can load.
On the menu: Winchester new and Nosler 1x brass, Gnix LRM's, Speer 150 HC, Lapua 180 Naturalis, Nosler 200 AB, and Sierra 220 GK.
It will be some time before I am able to provide the results summary.

Just ran up a load in my CA Ridgeline 300WSM with Staball and the 181g Hammer Hunter.

2x fired Nosler Brass, annealed and neck sized
Federal 215M primers
181g Hammer Hunter
66g Staball 6.5 powder (barrel on my rifle typically a little hot, usually a couple grains below max loads)
2.890 Coal (.015 off the lands)

Average velo across a five round group was 3116, ES of 20.
Group size 0.94" at 100 yards

@Bill
Those appear to be excellent results! For clarity, was this out of a 24" barrel? BTW that is close to max on their E-tip data... I have no idea if Hammer's tend to run higher or lower pressure / engraving resistance.
Thanks for the Contribution!

That is correct. 24" barrel 1:10 twist

I managed to get the first two sets done. Results were good, just checking velocity only. I think the chronograph was a bit inconsistent due to setup, weather, and muzzle proximity.
Temp: ~88°F
150gr Hotcore:
Distance to lands: ~.020"
Nosler 1x fired brass: 2917 @ 66 gr
Wincheser new brass: 2891 @ 66, 2967 @ 66.5 ..skip.. 3052 @ 70, 3081 @ 70.5 --> 3157 @ 71.5 [stopped - no need for higher velocity for this bullet]

Temp: ~88°F
180gr Lapua Naturalis
Distance to lands: ~.050"
Nosler 1x fired brass: 2764 @ 61 gr
Winchester new brass: 2733 @ 61, 2803 @61.5, 2908 @ 62, 2822 @ 62.5, 2846 @ 63, 2855 @ 63.5, 2911 @ 64, 2853 @ 64.5, 2881 @ 65, 2909 @ 65.5, 2904 @ 66, 2942 @ 66.5, 2972 @ 67 [stopped, would not want to go higher without pressure measurement equipment]

Overall I am really pleased with the performance thus far in the 325 WSM, especially with the hotcores. I think the Lapuas could be pushed up quite a bit higher but I'd want some measurements taken to check that load and anything beyond that if it could go further. No major plunger marks or other obvious signs noted but I don't lend much confidence in those visual-only inspections anyways, at least on the upper end. For me a definite plunger mark and swipe will appear as that is what the Double Tap 160's all do. It may be a while before I get results on the remaining sets given it's 110+ for several weeks ahead, but, ya never know.

Hodgdon has not included any load data for the 325 WSM in the 2020 Annual Manual. Further, there is no StaBall specific data for the 270 WSM or the 300 WSM is this manual.

@OSU. That is strange. Maybe the 300 WSM missed the publishing cutoff date (it's on their website(s)). Oddly, I don't see Staball listed for the 270 WSM... perhaps they didn't test it. I wish they would publish "tested, but do not recommend for XYZ reasons" for the ones that did get tested but were not satisfactory. Oh well. Maybe someone with Quickload could advise a range, though even with that I wouldn't be sure if the powder data was in the software as of yet.

I did see the 300 WSM on Winchester's powder website but the 270 WSM data did not show for StaBall 6.5.

I wonder what a phone call to the boys up there would turn up?

@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.