Tried the New Hodgdon CFE powder

venatic

Active member
I loaded 10 rounds for two different .223's with the new CFE powder and went to the range just to give it a whirl.
I have a great load for my Savage Predator with VV133 and the 52gr Berger Varmint bullet. It averages 3350fps from the 22 inch barrel and even with the Nikon Coyote reticle still usually shoots about 1/2 inch at 100. The new load with the CFE shot to the EXACT same POI and my 5 shot group came in at .545 with 3 of those at .303 so I was quite happy with those results. Speed was just slightly under my old load running just over 3300fps which is fine.

My next load was for the Remington 700 VF with a 26 inch barrel and since I had just worked up a new load with VV530 and the 53gr VMax I used CFE with that bullet/brass/primer combination to see how they compared. The velocity was about where the Hodgdon data said it would be. I averaged 3410fps for 10 rounds which again was ever so slightly under my VV530 load which averages 3440fps.
I had installed a new scope so I was tinkering with adjustments while chrongraphing but shot a 3 shot group that was one small hole and the 4&5 shots brought it out to .630. I shot another 3 shot group that was .520 but I will say that the wind was probably the culprit on that last 3 shots.
I cleaned both guns before going to the range and both cleaned up easily as the VV133 and VV530 are very clean burning. The CFE left more black carbon but still cleaned up quickly with minimum effort with a soak of Foam and about 3 patches. I really cannot say if the copper remover part of the equation is valid or not. My Savage used to copper badly but even after soaking with the foamer stuff I got no copper BEFORE I shot the CFE in the barrel so I guess it is finally broke in and picks up minimal copper.
Thought I would pass on what little info I have and I think I will be buying more if it works as well in the .204 and the TAC .20 too.
 
please post 204 info when you do that--got one coming from SD and 35bergers intend to start with cfe223 and 4895--thanks--gonna try it in 6x45 later too--thanks
 
Originally Posted By: SmokelessIs there any room to push up the CFE load, or are you max?

Sounds real promising though.

The loads were not showing any signs of high pressure in my two rifles and I used data from Hodgdon website.
Here is the info


http://hodgdon.com/new_prod.html

One reason I wanted to try it was I bought two 8lb containers of H335 about 3 years ago really cheap 80.00 for both and used that powder for loading for close friends and family but just finished off the last of it and thought I might try this for my general use powder and it sure looks like a good candidate. It will be CFE223 or I may go with XTerminator. I like the CFE 223 because they say it will also work for the 22-250. We shall see.
 
Good stuff, I was looking to try this powder being as anal retentive as i am about cleaning my sticks... BUT since I clean about every 50 rounds, I'm not certain it would benefit my needs, I guess there is only one way to find out!!!
 
Some good info there. I'm still not sure about this stuff myself, especially when Benchmark and 8208 work so well. But the tinkerer in me keeps saying Try a Pound.
 
I too have been playing with CFE and have tried it in 3 different AR set ups. First up was my 20" 1/8 Sabre middy. At 1oo yds, the first 3 shots went into .215. 4 @ .530 and 5 @ at .775. This was with 52 gr. Sierra HP, 205M, 28 gr. and seated to 2.240. 28 above, 10mph wind and bright(blinding) sun on 10" of snow...excuses.

Next up was 68 gr. Hornady BTHP in the same rifle. 5 shots into .520, with 3 making a .275 clover leaf. This charge was 25.0 gr. on top of 205M and seated @ 2.235.

50 gr. V-Max put 4 into.580, with the fifth shot going wide at 1.4". I was getting a little jazzed
smile.gif
A side note, this is a very accurate barrel and why I started with this one.

My 16" 1/9 LW carbine seems to like the 55 V-max. Wind and cold drove us off, so resume that one later. So far this little pencil barrel likes the 55 V-max, Tac load mentioned below.

My new BHW 16" P3 barrel break in with CFE was hampered by cold and wind. I did find that considerable carbon fouling was present in these first 20 rounds, but cleaned up nicely with no sign of copper. So far, this barrel has shown a preference for the 55 V-max and 25,5 gr. of Tac. Newer data shows that to be over max...so work up.

My buddy has fired a bunch of CFE in his .308 5R and with 175 gr. match loads. Accuracy has been outstanding and copper fouling almost nil. The carbon fouling appears to lube the bore as stated in the powder specs.

More testing with different bullets and primers will happen when it warms up a bit. 10 above this morning! Thanks.
 
I bought a pound shortly after reading on here that it was available. I tried it in a couple of my 223's and accuracy was very acceptable, probably with room for improvement. I'm wanting to try it in my 308 and 204 but have'nt had the chance to try it as of yet. Still confused about the copper fouling part though.
 
Originally Posted By: SmokelessVenatic,

What were the SD,s over the chrono with CFE?

The two loads were 30 and 34 SD .

Got two loads with the CFE for my two 6X45mm's and a load for the 22-250 as well but it is too windy/rainy here to try it today.
I may give it a try early tomorrow before heading out of town.
 
Last edited:
Shot loads thru my 22-250 with 52gr Berger it ran about 3870-3900fps which is pretty good for a 24 inch barrel. Shot good too.

It was very impressive in the 6X45mm as well pushing the 75gr bullets 3093 from a 24 inch barrel and 2938fps from an 18 inch barrel.
 
Without re-typing my several other posts about this...
If the "Carbon Erasing" properties are what you are after, CFE223 has the same MSDS that Win 748 & Win 760 have had for at least 20 years. Made in the same plant, by the same people.

The Tin compound, which is the fouling reducer, is in the same quantity as well.

Can't prove it, but due to a licensing/marketing "issue", it is my personal belief(take it for what you paid) that CFE223 IS Win 748. And Superformance is Win 780 Supreme.
 
Darkker I tend to beleieve as you it maybe the same as WW 748 or maybe BLC-2 with some newer coatings or maybe magic pixie dust.
smile.gif
Having never tried either of those two powders for some reason I just thought I would give this stuff a run just to see if it was worth keeping around. I do notice that the recommended load data for the CFE 223 is higer than the WW748 and the BLC-2 which may just be the fact that they worked up new pressure testing on it and data on the other two similar powders is older testing.
 
I read a post on another forum where a guy thru a charge of cfe 223 in his powder measure that was set up for w748 (or blc2, I forget which one, but I pretty sure it was w748)and the charge weight was significantly different. In other words,the same volume of cfe 223 compared to w748 (or blc2) was significantly different weights, leading him to believe they are not the same powder.
 
It's lack of testing. About a month back I made a ton of calls to Hodgy, and here is the skinny.

If you look at the Hodgy website for Win 748 data, it is horribly lacking. As one example, 55gr bullets in the 223. The FOREVER match load was 26.6gr. The MAX listed now is less than that, but look at the MAX pressure....35K!!?? [beeep]?

The deal is that Winny/Ohlin sold their powder plant(in St. Marks, FL) a long time ago. They then sold the "marketing rights" to the powder, to Hodgdon. The(according to Hodgy) contract says that Hodgy will support and sell the brand. The testing, and loading info will come from Winny/Ohlin. It is quite obvious that Winny/Ohlin is really only interested in the royalties; especially since they themselves are only middle men now. Due to this frustration for Hodgy, I suspect(but can't prove) that Superformance, & CFE223 is "their" way of getting around the deal; much like with the H414 Vs. Win 760. BL-C(2) is in fact a different animal than the Win powders. BL-C(2) had a VERY nasty lot consistency problem around 1-2 years ago. Maybe they are looking to replace it... Who knows

Lot variation is a very REAL thing. H414, is EXACTLY Win 760. According to Nosler's most current reloading book the 243Winchester loaded with 55gr bullets shows DIFFERENT loads with those 2 powders. My specific lot of 760 is in the middle of those two sets of data, but closer to the H414 info.

I have copies of the MSDS from General Dynamics(St. Marks, FL) from about 20 years ago. Hodgy provides the current ones for ALL of their ball powders. They all come from St. Marks. The MSDS are ALL THE SAME, 20 years ago, AND today.
 
Originally Posted By: DarkkerIt's lack of testing. About a month back I made a ton of calls to Hodgy, and here is the skinny.

If you look at the Hodgy website for Win 748 data, it is horribly lacking. As one example, 55gr bullets in the 223. The FOREVER match load was 26.6gr. The MAX listed now is less than that, but look at the MAX pressure....35K!!?? [beeep]?

The deal is that Winny/Ohlin sold their powder plant(in St. Marks, FL) a long time ago. They then sold the "marketing rights" to the powder, to Hodgdon. The(according to Hodgy) contract says that Hodgy will support and sell the brand. The testing, and loading info will come from Winny/Ohlin. It is quite obvious that Winny/Ohlin is really only interested in the royalties; especially since they themselves are only middle men now. Due to this frustration for Hodgy, I suspect(but can't prove) that Superformance, & CFE223 is "their" way of getting around the deal; much like with the H414 Vs. Win 760. BL-C(2) is in fact a different animal than the Win powders. BL-C(2) had a VERY nasty lot consistency problem around 1-2 years ago. Maybe they are looking to replace it... Who knows

Lot variation is a very REAL thing. H414, is EXACTLY Win 760. According to Nosler's most current reloading book the 243Winchester loaded with 55gr bullets shows DIFFERENT loads with those 2 powders. My specific lot of 760 is in the middle of those two sets of data, but closer to the H414 info.

I have copies of the MSDS from General Dynamics(St. Marks, FL) from about 20 years ago. Hodgy provides the current ones for ALL of their ball powders. They all come from St. Marks. The MSDS are ALL THE SAME, 20 years ago, AND today.


Hodgy??? How cute.

The problem with your theory is that Sierra also lists the same load, and the reason is - 748 is a powder that is way too slow for the 223 and 55gr combination..

748 is slower than 4320, which is slower than 4064, which is slower than 4895 (either of them), which is slower than TAC, which is slower than IMR 8208-XBR, which is the right burning speed for the 223-55gr combination.

So the problem with your theory is that:

1 - Sierra has to be in on the conspiracy deal too - and Sierra does not use anyone else's load data, and

2 - 748 is just too damm slow for the 223-55gr combination, and that's why the pressure can't get high enough, and the velocity is low..

Well... nice try.

Hodgy... Ha!



 
Originally Posted By: CatShooter

748 is slower than 4320...

2 - 748 is just too damm slow for the 223-55gr combination, and that's why the pressure can't get high enough, and the velocity is low..

Well... nice try.

Hodgy... Ha!






When did W748 become slower than IMR4320?? Have you ever loaded .223 with W748 and 50- or 55-grain bullets? I can assure you: W748 is not "just too damm slow for the 223-55gr combination." Most charts I have ever consulted show W748 to be right there in H335's neighborhood.

Here's an excerpt from one such chart:

76. Winchester 680
77. Norma N200
78. Accurate 1680
79. Vihta Vuori N133
80. Hodgdon H4198
81. IMR 4198
82. Scot Brig 4197
83. Accurate XMR 2015
84. Scot Brig 3032
85. Alliant RL7
86. IMR 3031
87. Hodgdon Benchmark
88. Norma N201
89. Scot Brig 322
90. Hodgdon H322
91. Ramshot X-Terminator
92. Accurate 2230
93. Winchester 748
94. Alliant RL10X
95. Hodgdon BLC-2
96. Accurate 2460
97. Hodgdon H335
98. Ramshot TAC
99. Hodgdon H4895
100. Accurate XMR 2495
101. Alliant RL12
102. IMR 4895
103. Scot Brig 4065
 
Originally Posted By: RiverRiderOriginally Posted By: CatShooter

748 is slower than 4320...

2 - 748 is just too damm slow for the 223-55gr combination, and that's why the pressure can't get high enough, and the velocity is low..

Well... nice try.

Hodgy... Ha!





When did W748 become slower than IMR4320?? Have you ever loaded .223 with W748 and 50- or 55-grain bullets? I can assure you: W748 is not "just too damm slow for the 223-55gr combination." Most charts I have ever consulted show W748 to be right there in H335's neighborhood.

Here's an excerpt from one such chart:

76. Winchester 680
77. Norma N200
78. Accurate 1680
79. Vihta Vuori N133
80. Hodgdon H4198
81. IMR 4198
82. Scot Brig 4197
83. Accurate XMR 2015
84. Scot Brig 3032
85. Alliant RL7
86. IMR 3031
87. Hodgdon Benchmark
88. Norma N201
89. Scot Brig 322
90. Hodgdon H322
91. Ramshot X-Terminator
92. Accurate 2230
93. Winchester 748
94. Alliant RL10X
95. Hodgdon BLC-2
96. Accurate 2460
97. Hodgdon H335
98. Ramshot TAC
99. Hodgdon H4895
100. Accurate XMR 2495
101. Alliant RL12
102. IMR 4895
103. Scot Brig 4065

http://www.imrpowder.com/burn-rate.html
 
Back
Top