Anyone tried the new CFE 223 POWDER

[Frank V]

There is data for it in the .308 too!

[darkker]

... And the Creedmoor, 204, 243, etc etc.
Hornady and Nosler have some data that Hodgy doesn't. Considering Dave Emary(Hornady head ballistician) came from General Dynamics as a powder designer... Pretty good bet he knows the powders.

[Texas10]

I just started using CFE223 in my .223 and found a very accurate node right at max recommended load under a 55 gr. V-Max per Nosler loading manual, and another just one grain below max. I am using Winchester Small Rifle primers and have read how a magnum primer is sometimes better or more consistent when used in conjunction with ball powder.
In my OCW work up, I shot 6 groups of 5 in round robin format on a 95 F day.

I anticipated that barrel temp would start to become a problem after approximately round 3, even with an average 5 minutes of cool down time between shots. My barrel begins to scatter shots at about 100 F, so with only a 5 degree differential, barrel cool down time starts to become un-manageable on a public range.

Evaluating the targets afterward, shots 1-3 produced tighter groups overall than shots 5-6.

Would using a magnum primer lessen the effects of temp rise? Or give me a decent node well below max charge so barrel temp rise would not be so quick?

Or should I just wait for the cooler temperatures of autumn to arrive?

[Scott Evans]

Since this thread won't die.
CFE223 is the canister version of SMP 842, which in one form or another has been around for close to 15 years now. It is the propellant General Dynamics has been tweeking for the 5.56 all copper ammo.
The specific way it cleans is with a series of Tin/Bismuth compounds. Those same cleaners have been (in different amounts) in Win 748 & H414/Win760/AA2700 for a very very long time. They were first discovered to keep copper fouling at bay, by the French around 1900. If you would like to read about it, grab a copy of "Hatcher's Notebook".

Anyway, the fouling will look like a very heavy, loose soot.

Also WC844 (H335) and later WC846 (BLC-2).

In my experience (varminting) these are some of the cleaner powders over a few hundred rounds, as long as you are in the upper pressure ranges. The old wives tale about 'all ball powders being dirty' I've never experienced.

[darkker]

Texas10,
99% of what people "know" about magnum primers is hooey. They didn't even exist until the 80's. The reason they did get created was Roy Weatherby., but not for the reason you think. He himself was tired of shooting his creations, and had begun MASSIVELY downloading them. Those big cases 75gr++ can be hard to light if you have low case fill. Then suddenly everyone forgot he was using surplussed powders in a a case 2.5 times a 270Win, but loading mild 270 loads; and we suddenly have the "knowledge" that ball powders are hard to light.
Mag primers have several aspects: briscance, hit particles, total gas output, output duration, temp, Pressure.
There is no standard, so without testing... Try it and see for yourself.

Scott Evans,
Not so grass-hoppa.
WC 846 has original patent date in the mid 1930's. From my MSDS going several decades, it does not have them; at least not while Olin still produced them.
WC844 IS WC846, there is only one recipe, but due to the process ingredients don't get mixed exact every time.
The original patent for 846 allowed up to 1% CaCO. Then in 1969 they lowered it to .25%. A year later in 1970 they further divided the amount and called the lower one 844. But 844 is merely an "as-built" off-shoot of 846. Unless you refuse to clean a gas system, AND shoot several hundred thousand rounds, the "differences" won't show.

As Olin no longer produces them, and they are no longer surplus. To think that when Hodgdon buys some toll milling time they ask for the 1930's formula is a bit short sighted. They ask for burning characteristics and curves. So those powders are almost assuredly updated in actual formula today.

Hodgdon has only ever been a solid reseller/blender. So "their powders" depend upon what was surplussed and why. This is one of the reasons why they won't tell you anything about burning variations, only the "drop 10%" caution. 10% is wide enough that they have a pretty significant leeway.
Those of us who were shooting SMP 842 surplus, prior to Hodgdon selling "CFE"; know about their variations.
The very first lots of CFE were essentially the uncut surplus we had been shooting. Then it disappeared for a bit, had a TON of advertising and press and was in supply again. The subsequent lots I've tested are VERY different from the first batches, and the surplus. There is a discussion among the early users over on a TN board. Those that think canister grade powder is ultra tight and has no lot variations were warning the world that the two powders were not the same.

[Scott Evans]

http://www.gd-ots.com/download/BALL%20POWDER%20Propellants.pdf

I *had* a St Marks/GD MSDS link but its been moved.

Here's a Hodgdon MSDS which calls out what St Mark's bulk formulas they redistribute-

https://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/MSDS%20Files/OEM%20Powders/OEM%20Powders_090111.pdf

[Texas10]

Darkker, you must be one of those lucky persons blessed with an eidetic memory! Interesting tail about Weatherby….maybe he was also the one who first experienced Secondary Explosion Effect (SEE) with his light loads and that's why he went to magnum primers. FWIW, I pay attention to your advise particularly closely, ever since you posted those pressure traces. You and Uncle Nick, and Froggy. Probably more combined years of experience wrapped up in you's guys heads than black powder has been around. LOL

Anyway, I see magnum primers mentioned a lot on 6mmBR site as well as Precision Rifle blog, so I think I will give it a try. Start low and work up. What can possibly go wrong? :o

BTW: the American Eagle AE223GTV ammo in 223 have magnum primers (#41 IIRC) under a half a case of ball powder as well as a lubed neck.

Thanks again for all your information, and my apologies to the OP if I've seemed to hijacked this thread.

[Frank V]

I'm still getting great accuracy from CFE223 so far it's my go to powder for the .223!

[darkker]

Interesting tail about Weatherby….maybe he was also the one who first experienced Secondary Explosion Effect (SEE) with his light loads and that's why he went to magnum primers.

Anyway, I see magnum primers mentioned a lot on 6mmBR site as well as Precision Rifle blog,

Roy certainly wasn't the first to note secondary ignitions, that gets discussed way back in Hatcher's Notebook. In recent fame, Charlie Sisk of Sisk rifles started blowing the ends of barrels of his rifles from them. And we've Pressure Traced them in a 308. Isn't just a hazard of ball powder, or even simply slow powder. Jacket construction can be a big part of it. When Speer tells you to NOT use traditional data for the Deep Curls, you better believe them.

Also watch out for the "knowledge" found on Precision blogs. Even they aren't immune to marketing stupidity. Just finished a series of tests and did a review on ones claim of loading a new magic 150gr bullet to 130gr speeds without pressures.
Spoiler alert....
It's not true.

[Frank V]

I remember reading about secondary pressure excursions back in the 60s just after the .300 Win Mag. came out. I think they decided it was due to loading way down with slow powders such as 4831. Back then we didn't have all the powders we have now.

[Ron Eagle Elk]

I've been using CFE223 for a while because I couldn't find Varget. I'm shooting a S&W AR15 with a BCM 20 inch upper. I usually clean my guns after every range visit so I didn't notice any copper removal, but there was no copper fouling either. I'm getting .5 to .75 inch 5 shot groups at 100 yards using 23.5 grains of CFE223 pushing 77 grain SMK's. Like someone else said, it meters very well. Don't have any gaps in your powder handling as this stuff will find a way out.

[Texas10]

Darkker,

Yep, read your article. Found it very interesting and so I've posted a link below.

Sounded a bit too good to be true, what they were claiming, and I enjoyed a little "show and tell" with factual data.

Here it is for anyone who wants to read.

https://www.shootersforum.com/handloading-procedures-practices/100625-flatline-bullets-part-deux-pressure-episode.html

[darkker]

Frank V,

Yes, the cartridges that have a well documented and INfamous history with random and wild pressure excursions are:
7mm RM
243 Win

I'm sure there are others, but they are the usual suspects.

Texas,

Yes,
Far too much fluff and BS gets "promoted" and people swallow hook-line-sinker. There are new tweeks and developments coming out all the time, but they are only that. Radical advancements from very un-radically advanced powders don't exist.

[Frank V]

Frank V,

Yes, the cartridges that have a well documented and INfamous history with random and wild pressure excursions are:
7mm RM
243 Win

I'm sure there are others, but they are the usual suspects.

Texas,

Yes,
Far too much fluff and BS gets "promoted" and people swallow hook-line-sinker. There are new tweeks and developments coming out all the time, but they are only that. Radical advancements from very un-radically advanced powders don't exist.


I have found the .243 to be particular as to which case you use too. If you work up a load in one case don't just assume it'll be ok in a different case.
I like the .243, but I'm careful to watch my cases & not mix them.;)

[LoneWolf]

I have found the .243 to be particular as to which case you use too. If you work up a load in one case don't just assume it'll be ok in a different case.
I like the .243, but I'm careful to watch my cases & not mix them.;)
Yep. 41.5grs of H4350 no problem with Hornady brass, but hard bolt lift with Rem brass.

[FW Conch]

Guys shooting the 6.5 Grendel like it for more velocity. I haven't found any yet, maybe next month?

[windy]

I like it for the 25-35; not the top-end load, which my rifle tends to scatter, but at right around 26 grains I found nice groups that were hitting about 1" higher at 100 yards than the gray-box factory winnies. I like the idea of keeping the pressures down; my old gal was made about 1926 and though she wasn't shot much before I got her, she sure is making up for lost time now! No, it doesn't do my bore cleaning for me, but I'm pretty sure the build-up doesn't happen as fast as it used to. Now if I could just find some loads for my old '92 32-20 tat worked as well as 2400, I'd be a happy camper!
windy

[Frank V]

I am having trouble finding Varget, but CFE223 seems to be available?

[darkker]

Are you asking if CFE is available??

CFE is made in Florida, Varget is made in Australia. Two different defense contractors build those powders, so what one is doing affects when a little production order for Hodgdon will get built.

[Frank V]

Are you asking if CFE is available??

CFE is made in Florida, Varget is made in Australia. Two different defense contractors build those powders, so what one is doing affects when a little production order for Hodgdon will get built.

No what I was saying is that I haven't seen Varget on my dealers shelf in about 5 months.
I have found CFE223 at another store about an hour & a half drive from here.
Some powders are slowly trickeling in & BLC2 seems to be one in that burn range that is easier to get.