Predator Masters using UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation.
PM Gear Moon & Weather

Welcome to the Predator Masters Forums
Be sure to visit the main Predator Master website at





PM Gear
PM Gear
PM Gear
The Official Predator Masters Search Engine
Loading

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#2227306 - 06/01/12 03:54 PM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: pcammo]
Tx Shooter Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 28
Loc: Houston, Tx
pcammo,

What was the results of the tests?

How temp-sensitive is CFE-223?

Top
#2227724 - 06/02/12 02:18 PM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Tx Shooter]
32tigguy32 Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 113
Loc: SW Wa
Almost 2 months, and counting. I am also awaiting the tests. It's been my experience throughout the years that ball powders were always dirtier than stick powders in my guns. Especially when comparing single and double base powders, and the graphite and/or nitro content, and in what amounts. Granted, I don't have access to, nor use, thingamajiggies that measure 14.2 gigawatts of thermocoupler torque on the 3rd day of the 2nd months' full moon,(no offense intended against you, pc) but my redneck simplicity, a good eye,(yep, just one) and common sense tells me what I've come up with to date. My VarGet experience has been that at the very least, insensitivity to temp, group size, and POA vs. POI has varied from lot to lot. Buy it in 8lb kegs so you can better maintain those variables. BL-C(2), a variant of the original ball powder used in .223/5.56 military loads is a very accurate and consistent powder in my guns. Dirty as [beeep] but the other 2 positives make up for it. H322 is very accurate and sometimes bests the performance of BL-C(2) in my guns, but runs so much cleaner. W748, also a variant of original military powder?, shoots well but dirties up like BL-C(2). Throw H380 in the dirty category. I've heard the same about 2230. It just adds up for me that the ball powders I use are all double-based, have plenty of graphite and nitro, and will always be dirtier than H322, RL-10x, and RL-15. Still waiting on the tests, pc. And I wouldn't recommend using a bore snake on any gun of value unless it's a rimfire, truck gun, or a beater. High-end rimfires are also excluded from the bore snake use list.


Edited by 32tigguy32 (06/02/12 02:24 PM)

Top
#2227727 - 06/02/12 02:25 PM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: 32tigguy32]
reb8600 Offline
Moderator

Registered: 10/13/04
Posts: 7923
Loc: Roy, Utah
Originally Posted By: 32tigguy32
BL-C(2), a variant of the original ball powder used in .223/5.56 military loads is a very accurate and consistent powder in my guns. Dirty as [beeep] but the other 2 positives make up for it.


Your experience with BLC-2 is different than mine and a lot of other people. Although I did find an accurate load for it (in late fall), come summer that changed. There is nothing consisitent about it. My groups opened up 2-3" and started showing pressure signs. It is not temperature tolerant at all. I would never recommend it to anyone that was going to be shooting in areas that have much change in temperatures.
_________________________

Top
#2227736 - 06/02/12 02:43 PM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: reb8600]
32tigguy32 Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 113
Loc: SW Wa
Originally Posted By: reb8600
Originally Posted By: 32tigguy32
BL-C(2), a variant of the original ball powder used in .223/5.56 military loads is a very accurate and consistent powder in my guns. Dirty as [beeep] but the other 2 positives make up for it.


Your experience with BLC-2 is different than mine and a lot of other people. Although I did find an accurate load for it (in late fall), come summer that changed. There is nothing consisitent about it. My groups opened up 2-3" and started showing pressure signs. It is not temperature tolerant at all. I would never recommend it to anyone that was going to be shooting in areas that have much change in temperatures.


reb,
trust me, I'm not a fan of it. I never recommended it to anyone. I just stated what my limited experiences were with it, as per the thread's subject. I won't be buying anymore of it in the future. The problem I have is that I have to get rid of it and the only gun I can run it in is one of my ARs. I should have edited my post to say "gun". It's the only one that shoots with it like I mentioned. Every single gun will love something another won't. It just so happens to love it and shoots lights out with it. 20s in the winter or 80s in the summer, that gun has only changed when changing bullet weight. It's the first and last bottle of it I will buy though because no other guns of mine like it and it's flat out dirty. I never ran it long enough in any of my other guns to see how consistent with temp it was in them. H322 is my do-it-all powder for all of my .22 caliber guns. That one I will recommend. In my experience, H380 is just how you described BL-C(2).

Top
#2228076 - 06/03/12 08:55 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Daze]
venatic Online
Moderator

Registered: 06/11/03
Posts: 6327
Loc: waco,tx
I too am looking forward to pcammo(John's) results with the temperature stability of that group of powders because I use them all.
After playing with the CFE223 in a half dozen guns now I will say that while the fouling residue left in the barrel is more than what I get with say the VihtaVuori powders which leave comparatively little,it is easily removed with just a couple of patches. I cannot attest to the fact that it removes copper because I was not getting signs copper in the guns prior to using it.
I don't mind running a so-called dirty burning powder in a bolt gun if it's easy to clean up which the CFE223 seems to be. I saw mentioned above Reloder 10X as clean burning..... not my experience at ALL... that is the toughest to remove from a barrel stuff I have ever seen.
_________________________


"Anyone taking up handloading necessarily plays with unknown factors and takes chances. But so does anyone who drives a car,goes to a cocktail party,eats in a restaurant,or gets married."

Jack O'Connor 1963


Top
#2228744 - 06/04/12 02:46 PM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: venatic]
pcammo Offline
Die Hard Member II

Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 1686
Loc: Helena, MT
I am sorry to be so long in response. Most of the CFE-223 that I had ordered was backordered for six weeks. It is also apparent that many replicate tests are needed before any conclusions are statistically relevant. I still have much testing to perform, but here are some general trends that seem to be significant. Much of this information we take as obvious, but I wanted to be thorough:

Ball Powders Tested: CFE-223, X-Terminator, H-335, BL-C(2), and TAC
NC/NG Stick Powders Tested: N-530, N-560, R-22
NC/DNT Stick Powders Tested: H-4831, Varget

Test conditions: Ambient 45-60 F, Freezer -31 F

General Observations:

1- Velocity changes disproportionately less than pressure as the temperature of the firearm and loaded cartridge change.

2- Temperature sensitivity in one cartridge does not translate to temperature sensitivity in another cartridge.

3- In this comparison, the larger cartridge was less temperature sensitive than the smaller. (a data set of only two)

4- Magnum primers do tend to mitigate temperature sensitivity in both cartridges tested.

5- The NC/DNT stick powders were the only statistically different powders in terms of pressure or velocity dependence on temperature (Varget in both cartridges and H-4831 in the Gibbs).

6- X-Terminator, and TAC will likely (after more replicates) show less sensitivity than CFE-223, H-335, and BL-C(2) at least in regards to velocity dependence on temperature in the 6x45.

7- In both cartridges; loads in the 62+ KPSI range (at ambient temperature) showed disproportionately less change (Pressure and Velocity) at the low temperature test.

Sorry I don’t have more at this time.
John

Top
#2229600 - 06/06/12 12:08 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Daze]
venatic Online
Moderator

Registered: 06/11/03
Posts: 6327
Loc: waco,tx
Good stuff. Thanks for the update.
_________________________


"Anyone taking up handloading necessarily plays with unknown factors and takes chances. But so does anyone who drives a car,goes to a cocktail party,eats in a restaurant,or gets married."

Jack O'Connor 1963


Top
#2229806 - 06/06/12 11:59 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Daze]
Darkker Offline
Die Hard Member

Registered: 01/20/09
Posts: 557
Loc: Dry Side of Washington
Yes, thank you for the update!
#2 tends to go with my original premise of tuning for a specific cartridge. Can't wait for more info, thanks again!

Top
#2230777 - 06/08/12 08:16 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Darkker]
KAZ Offline
Predator Master

Registered: 06/03/12
Posts: 90
Loc: TEXAS
Great infomation! I'm loving CFE223 as it is producing sub 1/2" with 55gr ZMAX and 77gr SMKs in my AR. All work done in cooler April/May months before our hot Texas summer gets rolling which is looking like next week. So temp sensistivity is a concern as loads with this powder did not work until I approached the hign end of data. Regards
_________________________
LIFE MEMBER NRA
LIFE MEMBER TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION
MEMBER MARINE CORPS LEAGUE
MEMBER SECOND ADMENDMENT FOUNDATION

Top
#2231114 - 06/09/12 12:27 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: venatic]
32tigguy32 Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 05/16/11
Posts: 113
Loc: SW Wa
"I saw mentioned above Reloder 10X as clean burning..... not my experience at ALL... that is the toughest to remove from a barrel stuff I have ever seen." -venatic


venatic,

I think my post said:

"It just adds up for me that the ball powders I use are all double-based, have plenty of graphite and nitro, and will always be dirtier than H322, RL-10x, and RL-15."

Nothing mentioned about RL-10x being clean burning, just cleaner than BL-C(2). The way RL-10x acted in your experience is the exact way w748 and BL-C(2) acted in mine. They reminded me of the carbon ring that's left over from triple7 in my muzzleloader.

Top
#2549398 - 09/28/13 09:04 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Daze]
Nitro-Express Offline
New Member

Registered: 09/27/13
Posts: 4
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
I've used a few pounds of CFE 223, in a 222 Remington, a 350 Remington Magnum, and a 8mm x 57 Mauser. I'm not convinced it actually does the CFE part well but it does give top or near top velocity in the calibers I've tried it, within acceptable pressure limits. As with any new powder, the data is new also. It's nice to get data that is truly new.

One poster above, explained the core differences between ball and stick powder rather well, but received unwarranted flak over his explanation. In general terms, historically, the biggest challenge for smokeless powder was slowing the burn rate. Once that was solved, H870 was the slowest ball powder I ever used, they next went after other issues. So we now have specialty powders, and after loading Leverevolution in the 35 Remington, I'm grateful for the new developments in powder manufacturing.

When the "fit" is right, a lot of the dirty burning and inconsistencies disappear. I had horrible results loading ball powder in my 223, until I switched primers. I now have a good load with a 40 gr Nosler, BL-C(2) and a CCI 450. Once the heat is there, powder like HS-6, H335, BL-C(2) and others burn clean and work well. Of course, there main advantage is their ability to meter well.

By the way HS-6 is WW540, Hodgdon marketed it as a pistol powder, WW as a shotgun powder. ADI powders are rebadged as Hodgdon. Military powders are relabeled and so on. It does get confusing, especially when there is conflicting data. For example, H414 and WW760 are the same powder, yet a lot of manuals will list loads for each and the data is different. Same powder, different batch, different results, or perhaps just a "placebo" effect. Who knows.

There are a bunch of powders available, each seems to have a niche, and it seems when I get a really good recipe, they discontinue making it.

The Germans had a powder for the 8x57 that gave exceptional velocity and very little flash, not available and not duplicated, why not, mysterious.

Top
#2549663 - 09/28/13 10:33 PM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Nitro-Express]
trshootem Offline
Predator Master

Registered: 01/12/04
Posts: 60
Loc: Helena, MT
pcammo, I believe we may have spoken a bit one day about such matters. CFE was the starting point so I will add that the fouling does clean up easily, the Copper reducing chemistry does do as stated, and it does excel in velocity gains. My 22-250 barrel had a bit of moly/copper layering, felt with a cleaning stroke. I used CFE and 50 gr V-max's for all last summer on sage rats and found the copper and moly patch was smoothed out, with very little copper present after long strings of vermin combat. This is my experience.

In regard to Win powders, flash suppression was the primary goal, copper abating chemistry being a more recent objective by military contracts.

A couple years ago, I experienced a lesson on cold weather and H335. Using 205M primers and shooting moly coated 50 gr. TNT bullets in .223, at nearly 20 below, the 27 gr. load was very eratic and lacking in power to kill coyotes as close as 100 yds. This sent me on a heating/freezing test regimen, primer and powder selection and data collection. I had a background in QC/QA in manufacturing and applied some design of experiment to my quest. The first obvious result was the case size/caliber had just as much input as a primer in smaller cases. I made the mistake of testing more than one case size and made myself crazy with so much conflicting info. I also arrived at several different conclusions about primers and powder combos. I do not argue with conventional internet wisdom about the various attributes of primers, several being more alike than not and different than most posted opinion.

Top
#2549729 - 09/29/13 08:28 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Nitro-Express]
CatShooter Offline
PM senior

Registered: 01/24/02
Posts: 9094
Loc: The Socialist Republic of CT.
Originally Posted By: Nitro-Express

It does get confusing, especially when there is conflicting data. For example, H414 and WW760 are the same powder, yet a lot of manuals will list loads for each and the data is different. Same powder, different batch, different results, or perhaps just a "placebo" effect. Who knows.



"Who knows???"... Da' shadow dooo!

Is to be expected that different testers will get different results when working with, or compiling loading information.

If you take the same lot of powder, and distribute it among 50 skilled people (labs, manufacturers, etc), they will all come up with different max loads, different maximum velocities, different velocities for the same weigh of powder, different pressures for the same weight of powder, and different anything you are looking for.

It is because they are using different barrels, different chambers, and different operators, who are using different evaluation skills...

... and NONE of it applies to you, because your gun is not like theirs.

Ammunition loading is an art, NOT a science, no matter how hard we try to make it the latter.
_________________________
CatShooter
Spring has sprung, da' creek has riz, I wonder where dem kitties is.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty...

NRA Life member since 1965

Top
#2576512 - 11/24/13 10:04 AM Re: CFE 223 powder [Re: Daze]
Smokey99 Offline
New Member

Registered: 10/17/13
Posts: 9
Loc: SC
FWIW: 24" 1:8 Wylde .223: 200 yds., 60F, no wind - CFE223 23.5 (2505 fps), 24.0 (2590), 24.5 (2656) pushing 75 gr Hornady (H2279). All three groups 8 to 10". Did 1MOA with 68 gr (H2278) in 16" 1:8 and 20" 1:9 Wylde.

REVISING!!!! That was a new upper. After re-testing at 300 yds. and not hitting the target, I used my trusty Dewey's rod and found the twist to be 1:12! Sucker shot 4" group at 300 yds with XM193. Manufacturer has replaced upper with the correct 1:8. Will report back soon.


Edited by Smokey99 (12/22/13 07:31 AM)

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Moderator:  Jack Roberts, venatic 

Forum Stats
48096 Members
83 Forums
286547 Topics
2708797 Posts

Max Online: 3771 @ 02/03/14 09:55 PM
Today's Birthdays
bigdale, Jarrett Holly, joel person, LiveTheHunt, northway, SKFOOTER, Terry N., uplandwest8, whitey21

© Predator Masters™, All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.