Ball vs Extruded powder.......

[Mr. 16 gauge]

......in a semiauto. If I remember correctly, the U.S. army had problems with the M16 in Vietnam jamming due to a problem with powder, and switched to the other type.....does anyone know if was ball and then they switched to extruded, or vice versa? Also, did this have any impact on any other gas operated semiauto or full auto firearms, such as the M-14? Thanks in advance.

[Rocky Raab]

The military 5.56mm round was originally developed using an extruded powder. After the military bought the gun, it changed the spec to ball powder - against the objections of the gun designer.

Because ball powder burns a bit cooler, and has more deterrent coating, it tends to create more fouling, and fouling that's harder to remove. Worse, the early M-16s didn't come with ANY cleaning gear, and the incorrect myth was that they never needed cleaning. Lives were lost because of that misinformation and supply goof.

Since then, both the rifle AND the ball powder have been changed to eliminate the problem. Cleaning gear was developed, too.

You needn't worry about ball powder in any gun today. Normal cleaning takes take of what minimal fouling still accumulates.

[Mil Dot]

If I recall correctly they went from ball to extruded due to the ball burning dirty. Of course, the first M-16's were also billed as " no clean" rifles ... the cleaning kits are in the mail ... someone wasn't living in reality.

I saw it on the history channel.

[Jack]

If you're worried about using ball powder in a gas gun, don't be.
Ball powders are quite a bit different than they were in the 1960's- when ball powders were relatively new.
I've been using ball powder (AA2520) in an M-1 Garand for quite a while now, and a lot of rounds, with no problems.
On the M-1 and M14 systems, the critical thing is to get the right burning rate powder, not what shape the grains are in. 4895 and 4064 in extruded, and AA2520 and some others in ball powder, and you'll be fine. Most manuals will tell you what's appropriate for the M-1/M-14 system.
If today's ball powders are dirtier than extruded, I can't tell, and I use ball powder whenever possible, in everything from 38 wadcutter pistol loads to the 264 Win Mag.

[Adam Helmer]

Mr 16 gauge,

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. I got my first M16 in July 1965 and we were told a few MYTHS:
1. The projectile goes so fast, no sight adjustments are needed after initial zero.
2. The powder burns so clean, no cleaning is necessary after firing.
3. This (.223) round is more powerful and devastating than the .308 in the M14.

As I understand it: Eugene Stoner developed the gun using IMR4475 powder and the first cartridges were so loaded. Along came Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara, who learned the government had on hand huge stocks of Ball WC-846 powder for loading .308 ammo. Strange decreed the "existing stocks of powder on hand would be used to load .223 ammo" at government ammo plants.

The Ball WC-846 powder had a different burning rate and the pressure curve was further forward down the barrel and on the direct impingement gas system of the M16 and burned dirtier than the initial IMR powder. The cyclic rate of the M16 went up and the gung dumped on the bolt carrier and bolt was like tar. Rounds stuck in the M16 chambers, extractors tore through the case cannelure of fired rounds and GIs died in combat.

Finally a few things happened: GIs got cleaning kits, the powder type used in the ammo went back to designer Eugene Stoner's specs and McNamara faded away.

Adam

[Rocky Raab]

Thanks, Adam. I was fairly sure I had it pretty close to factual. You nailed it down.

I got my first one a bit later - 1971. Mine was the aircrew version CAR-15 with the very short barrel and collapsible stock. LOUD little booger, but much handier to try to wedge into a cockpit.

By then it was a very reliable weapon. I cleaned mine more than I shot it, but when I needed to shoot it, it always worked to perfection.

Adam's comments about the powder burn rate versus bolt cyclic rate are spot on. If I wanted to keep an M-16 or any civvie variant running happily and problem-free today, I'd feed it something like 4198, H322 or AA 2015.

[Adam Helmer]

Rocky,

You had it right from the get go, I just put a little more meat onto the bones.

Our M16s did not have the Forward Assist for positive bolt closure, as you know, that came later. It is hard to believe that was 40 years ago. Be well.

Adam