CFE Pistol Powder report - Page 2 - THR

Go Back   THR > Ammunition, Gear, and Firearm Help > Handloading and Reloading

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Thread Tools
Old August 12, 2014, 05:13 PM   #26
Contributing Member
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Posts: 4,853
Thanks CC & Kansasasquash
Ive got a new name for KansasSas:

"Young RC"
Disclaimer to noobs: Please do not mistake my post count for experience.
Potatohead is offline  
Old August 12, 2014, 09:06 PM   #27
Join Date: May 21, 2012
Posts: 11
I dont believe CFE helps with leading, only with copper fouling. But I may be wrong.
txwingnut is offline  
Old August 12, 2014, 09:26 PM   #28
Join Date: August 11, 2013
Location: Lander, WY
Posts: 22
txwingnut posted previously:
I dont believe CFE helps with leading, only with copper fouling. But I may be wrong.
You are correct txwingnut. CFE is supposed to help remove/eliminate copper fouling and not lead fouling. But for me at least that would probably a hard claim to verify since I've never noticed any copper fouling in my handguns.
CosmicCoder is offline  
Old August 12, 2014, 09:28 PM   #29
Join Date: July 22, 2012
Location: LV county KS
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by Potatohead View Post
Ive got a new name for KansasSas:

"Young RC"
Nah. rcmodel has probably forgotten more about firearms/reloading than I'll ever know. I've just had too MUCH free time the last year or so.

I'm sure when the next round of manuals are published there will be a good bit of CFE Pistol data floating around but I somehow doubt it will vary much from what Hodgdon has out out. Of course companies like Speer and Hornady will publish data for their own handgun bullets, but the Hodgdon data should be a good place to start.
KansasSasquatch is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 09:12 AM   #30
Join Date: July 12, 2014
Posts: 34
i did another comparison shoot of CFE. this time for .40 S&W. only did 4 powders this time. i was a little surprised because i been using IMR 4756 for 45acp with good results so i figured it would rank good with the 40. im thinking autocomp or cfe will be my .40 powders. havent been loading that caliber for long so i was wanting to do a comparison. I used 165 grain Xtreme RNFP HPCB which is their heavy plate base so i loaded on the high side. winchester cases,cci sp std. heres my results.

powder-----velocity---std dev--Ft lbs Energy--Power Factor
IMR 4756---1097-------28------440.81--------181.01
Autocomp-- 1069-------14------418.59--------176.39
therealwormey is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 02:05 PM   #31
Contributing Member
Join Date: March 9, 2013
Posts: 4,853
rcmodel has probably forgotten more about firearms/reloading than I'll ever know
I would say "true" to that...but I dont think RC has forgotten anything about handloading:
Disclaimer to noobs: Please do not mistake my post count for experience.
Potatohead is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 07:42 PM   #32
Join Date: April 6, 2011
Location: pa
Posts: 24
hey guys, i just finished shooting some strings w/ CFE Pistol and a 200gr cast swc. used a beta master while shooting. (10 rds per string in .2 gr increments)

since hodgdon was the only data i could find for it, that is what i used.

their data starts @ 7.4 grs. for a purposed 1047fps. i started at 7.2 and worked up to their max of 8.2 in .2 increments.

most forum posters are questioning whether at a lesser charge in order to get a slower velocity i.e. 850 fps., all the powder would be burned up. i will say that i did load a few @ 6.2grs and w/ an avg. velocity of 868 and i did not notice any unburned powder but the accuracy did suffer.

starting at 7.2 grs, w/ an avg vel. of 978
at 7.4 - avg. 992.5
at 7.6 - avg. 1012
at 7.8 - avg. 1029
at 8.0 - avg. 1051
at 8.2 - avg. 1080

as you can see, at 8.2 i did not get close to hodgdon`s top velocity of i believe of 1120.

accuracy wise, the best was 7.4 grs. i was shooting off a rest at 25 yds
with my DW Valor. out of the string of 10, all except 1 was inside 1.5in.!

7.6 was next - pretty much the same except for 3.

after that, from 7.8 to 8.2 they all fell inside 3in. w/ 2 flyers.

it seems that at a higher velocity, accuracy suffers a bit but not too bad.

going to try some 9mm string sometime at a future date. let you know.
lx2008 is offline  
Old August 19, 2014, 08:46 PM   #33
Join Date: January 28, 2011
Posts: 53
I don’t know if if it’s “cleaner” or “dirtier” than other powders or if it really cleans out copper fouling. Those things are kind of irrelevant when you are running out of powder to load your 45 acp and the powders you usually use cannot be found. So I tried some with my cast 230 grain LFN bullets. I am casting my bullets using a 230 grain Long Flat Nose (LFN) mold made by LBT and using the LBT soft blue lube. My brass is an unsorted mix of various headstamps and I use CCI large pistol primers.

Some observations:

I don’t get the velocities Hodgdon claims out of any of my guns with this powder. I shoot both full size 1911 with a 5 inch barrel and a compact with a 4 inch barrel.

In the 230 grain 45 ACP, Hodgdon lists 2 bullets, a 230 Lead Round Nose (LRN) and the Hornady 230 grain jacketed flat point. Oddly enough, Hodgdon specifies the same OAL (1.20) for both even though the LRN is a much longer bullet and would therefore be seated deeper into the case giving less room for the powder. The max charge for the Hornady flat nose listed is greater than the max for the LRN.

When my cast flat nose bullets were loaded (OAL 1.20”) at the max charge listed for the LRN, I only got 809 fps (Std Dev 15) with my full size 1911. A factor contributing to the lower than predicted velocity was probably that my 230 flat nose bullets are much shorter than the LRN bullets. Using the same OAL gave a much shallower seating depth with my bullets. I would hazard a guess that having more room for powder in the case gave lower pressures and therefore lower velocity.

Since I was trying to achieve the “standard” velocity of 830 fps for my 230 grain bullet, this was unsatisfactory.

Since my cast bullets were even shorter than the Hornady FP jacketed bullets, I reasoned that it would be safe to cautiously venture into the load data for the Hornady bullets.

To make a long story short, with 6.5 grains of CFE Pistol I was able to get 827 fps (Std Dev 8.5) even in my compact while staying below the max charge. Earlier in this thread, CosmicCoder reported 828 fps with the same load using LRN bullets. I tried a test with 0.2 grains more powder than this, but I started to get more erratic velocity readings on my chronograph. I interpreted this as a sign to back off and stay with the 827 fps load.

DISCLAIMER I found this load to be safe in MY gun, using the bullets that I cast and lubed with LBT soft blue lube, and loaded with the components specified. My compact gun is rated by the manufacturer for +P and +P+ ammo. I do not recommend this load for anyone else’s gun. As any reputable reloading manual will tell you, start with the minimum load and cautiously work up your loads while paying meticulous attention for any signs of excessive pressure.

Last edited by TommyD45; August 19, 2014 at 09:13 PM.
TommyD45 is offline  
Old August 20, 2014, 03:30 AM   #34
Join Date: August 19, 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 243
I have done a few loads of CFE with Xtreme plated bullets. Unfortunately, the day I shot them I was having a slight issue with my chrono so I did not get complete data for some of the loads. Below is what I have.

All loads were Winchester small primers in RWS cases, bullets seated to 1.225 OAL. Gun used was a Witness 45 4.5" barrel. Population of 5 each unless otherwise noted.

230gr RN, 6.2gr, 709fps, 10.3sd
200gr SWC, 7.2gr, 800fps, 4.4sd (only 3 shots registered)
200gr RN, 7.2gr, 741fps, 21.8sd
200gr HP, 7.2gr, 746fps, 19.9sd
200gr HP, 7.4gr, 797fps, 22.7sd

For what it is worth. In other powders I have noticed roughly 30 fps less velocity with small primers. Also, expect more velocity out of a 5" barrel.

So far I like the CFE powder. My powder of choice for 45acp has been Titegroup, but I am a relative newcomer to reloading and am still learning. :-)
Toprudder is offline  
Old August 20, 2014, 05:04 PM   #35
Join Date: June 4, 2008
Posts: 413

Mo Bullet 200 GR LSWC, 5" 1911

rduckwor is offline  
Old November 6, 2014, 08:42 PM   #36
Join Date: June 6, 2013
Posts: 328
Anyone have results for CFE and 9mm

Curious if anyone has done more test with CFE Pistol and 9mm (124gn) bullets, JHP,FMJ, Plated HP.

I see a lot of people discussing BE 86, what happened to CFE Pistol?

Lefty TSGC
LeftyTSGC is online now  

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.