CFE 223 powder

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
 
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!
 
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
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top