Anyone used CFE BLK for 5.56 ammo?

[gbw]

Probably hopeless, but:

I have a pound of Hodgdon CFE BLK that I'd like to use loading 5.56 62gr FMJ to use in a standard AR or possibly an AR pistol, also in 5.56.

Does anyone have any sources for load data for this combo? Hodgdon doesn't list 5.56/.223 with this powder, although they list some others that seem similar.

Just wondering, thanks.

 

[Texas10mm]

CFE Black was designed for the 300 Blackout. 300 Blackout is normally loaded with magnum pistol powders. Similar powders would be Lil' Gun, 296, H110, MP300, A1680, A5744, RL-7, A2200, IMR 4227. I doubt you'll see much 5.56 data for these similar to CFE Black powders.

5.56 is loaded with rifle powders.

There's a DAMN good reason Hodgdon doesn't have CFE BLack data for the .223.

 

[Kaldor]

I think you would see magnum pistol data with CFE Black before 223
Its way to fast to use in a 223. Even the 4198s just barely are fast enough for an AR.

 

[Bfh_auto]

There is data for 222. Nothing for 223 though. I had thought about using it with 35 grain bullets.

 

[archangel2003]

It's been a while since I called somebody out and pissed them off, but here we go.
They list 222 for both CFE 223 and CFE BLK, and 222 is a slightly shorter version of the 223 so the round fits the same bore and basic application.
Texas 10mm, Saying that "There's a DAMN good reason Hodgdon doesn't have CFE BLack data for the .223" sounds disingenuous as you are either making a guess, or an assumption, either way, your statement makes you sound like you do not understand how the different gun powders work in relation to pressure, burning speed and barrel length.

When you look up 357 Magnum for pistol data and rifle data in most reloading manuals, IT'S THE SAME DATA ALL USING PISTOL POWDERS!
Pistol powders will work in rifles, it's just less efficient, just like using a moped engine in a 3800 lb full sized car will get you where you want to go eventually, just not as fast as you would want or expect.

The only reasons I can think of is that per pound of powder, you have to buy more CFE 223 powder for the same number of shots as CFE BLK.
Perhaps they also assume differing barrel lengths like .223 in a 24" barrel and 222 in a 16" barrel?
Hodgden lists the CFE 223 and the CFE BLK for the 222.
222 using the 50 grain projectile and CFE BLK uses 15.8 grains (@2744 ft/s @41,500 PSI) to 18.7 grains (@3026 ft/s @49,400 PSI).
222 using the 50 grain projectile and CFE 223 uses 24.1 grains (@2970 ft/s @35,200 PSI) to 26.2 grains (@3268 ft/s @47,600 PSI).
Either powder will work for 5.56, it's just a question of do you want faster powder for a shorter barrel or slower powder for a longer barrel and do you want the case to be more "full" of powder or less, and does the extra 200+ fps matter to you.
It's just that
BLK powder burns faster, reaching a higher pressure quicker, while using less powder, but looses some top end velocity as it quits burning sooner and stops accelerating the bullet for a longer distance before it leaves the barrel.
223 powder burns slower, reaches a lower total pressure but gains some top end velocity as it keeps burning for a longer time pushing the bullet at it's top pressure for a longer distance while in the barrel.
I'm betting
CFE 223 would also work better in a .223 that is in a 24 inch barrel than a 14 inch barrel
and
CFE BLK would also work better in a .223 that is in a 14 inch barrel than a 24 inch barrel

Just for reference.
If you refer to the data in the Richard Lee Second Edition of Reloading and compare the 222, 223 and 222 Magnum as they are the same basic case just each one being slightly longer version of the other shorter one and being able to hold a little more powder.
They are all using the same powder H4198 and the same 63 grain projectile.
The 222 shows case length @ 1.700" and 1.68cc useful case capacity uses a range of 16 to 18 grains of powder.
The 223 shows case length @ 1.760" and 1.87cc useful case capacity uses a range of 18 to 20 grains of powder.
The 222 Magnum case length @ 1.850" and 1.89cc useful case capacity uses a range of 18,5 to 20.5 grains of powder.

 

[AJC1]

It's been a while since I called somebody out and pissed them off, but here we go.
They list 222 for both CFE 223 and CFE BLK, and 222 is a slightly shorter version of the 223 so the round fits the same bore and basic application.
Texas 10mm, Saying that "There's a DAMN good reason Hodgdon doesn't have CFE BLack data for the .223" sounds disingenuous as you are either making a guess, or an assumption, either way, your statement makes you sound like you do not understand how the different gun powders work in relation to pressure, burning speed and barrel length.

When you look up 357 Magnum for pistol data and rifle data in most reloading manuals, IT'S THE SAME DATA ALL USING PISTOL POWDERS!
Pistol powders will work in rifles, it's just less efficient, just like using a moped engine in a 3800 lb full sized car will get you where you want to go eventually, just not as fast as you would want or expect.

The only reasons I can think of is that per pound of powder, you have to buy more CFE 223 powder for the same number of shots as CFE BLK.
Perhaps they also assume differing barrel lengths like .223 in a 24" barrel and 222 in a 16" barrel?
Hodgden lists the CFE 223 and the CFE BLK for the 222.
222 using the 50 grain projectile and CFE BLK uses 15.8 grains (@2744 ft/s @41,500 PSI) to 18.7 grains (@3026 ft/s @49,400 PSI).
222 using the 50 grain projectile and CFE 223 uses 24.1 grains (@2970 ft/s @35,200 PSI) to 26.2 grains (@3268 ft/s @47,600 PSI).
Either powder will work for 5.56, it's just a question of do you want faster powder for a shorter barrel or slower powder for a longer barrel and do you want the case to be more "full" of powder or less, and does the extra 200+ fps matter to you.
It's just that
BLK powder burns faster, reaching a higher pressure quicker, while using less powder, but looses some top end velocity as it quits burning sooner and stops accelerating the bullet for a longer distance before it leaves the barrel.
223 powder burns slower, reaches a lower total pressure but gains some top end velocity as it keeps burning for a longer time pushing the bullet at it's top pressure for a longer distance while in the barrel.
I'm betting
CFE 223 would also work better in a .223 that is in a 24 inch barrel than a 14 inch barrel
and
CFE BLK would also work better in a .223 that is in a 14 inch barrel than a 24 inch barrel

Just for reference.
If you refer to the data in the Richard Lee Second Edition of Reloading and compare the 222, 223 and 222 Magnum as they are the same basic case just each one being slightly longer version of the other shorter one and being able to hold a little more powder.
They are all using the same powder H4198 and the same 63 grain projectile.
The 222 shows case length @ 1.700" and 1.68cc useful case capacity uses a range of 16 to 18 grains of powder.
The 223 shows case length @ 1.760" and 1.87cc useful case capacity uses a range of 18 to 20 grains of powder.
The 222 Magnum case length @ 1.850" and 1.89cc useful case capacity uses a range of 18,5 to 20.5 grains of powder.

Guessing that a powder will properly work the action on a semi is just that. The load may work great and send the bullets down range just great but fail to produce the proper gas volume or pressure to make the gun cycle properly. A good load not only shoots well but provides proper function. In a revolver or other rifle that is not gas operated a load that shoots may be just fine. Damage to the garand can happen to a gun that shoots good and cycles the action. Resisting the urge to go outside the manual is strong for good reasons. I do it, but I dont encourage others to do the same as I have no idea of their level of experience or technical acumen.

 

[archangel2003]

I would think the type of action is a side issue.
When the .222 was developed in 1950, it was primarily a bolt/lever action cartridge, not gas operated semi-auto, so was the .223 when it was developed in 1957 as a small mid-western varmint cartridge, but until it was used as the test round for the AR-15 when it came about in 1964, the type of action was never a concern as the action is designed to work within the design specification of the specific cartridge it is intended to use.

The 30-06 used in bolt action rifles was around long before the semiautomatic Garand was developed, and even though the Garand needs, or prefers, a specific weight bullet to function optimally, it's still one of the basic 30-06 rounds.

We can not assume that a round, be it the .223 or any other, will be used only in a gas operated firearm.

Basically, if the powder works for a certain bore diameter, bore length, cartridge size and pressure range, it can work for others of a similar size.

If they both work for the .222, assuming the barrel length is similar, they will both work for the .223, and the reverse is true.
The same goes for the 30-06 and the .308, they are similar in design, and if a powder works well with one, it will work for the other.

I will concede that NATO designated rifle cartridges are assembled around specific parameters that are intended for military use, and I feel it can be assumed that they will primarily be used in military style gas operated firearms.

 

[Texas10mm]

Action has everything to do with it.

The majority of .223 is burnt in AR platform rifles.

If the CFE-BLK load won't work the action then it's of no use. That's probably the reason that Hodgdon didn't include loads for it.

 

[Metal God]

This seems to be one of those , just because you're correct Archangel it doesn't make you right . CFE black's burn rate would suck loading in 5.56 cartridges IMO . Could it be used , sure in a pinch with some real limitations on bullet weights and velocities but can you get some bullets down range in your 5.56 chambered AR sure . It would be very close to the last choice of usable powders I'd consider . It doesn't seem to be that far off from H-110/296 so lets load some of that up to in the old M-16 what the hell since it "can" be done , must mean GTG :-(

 

[AJC1]

View attachment 936407

This seems to be one of those , just because you're correct Archangel it doesn't make you right . CFE black's burn rate would suck loading in 5.56 cartridges IMO . Could it be used , sure in a pinch with some real limitations on bullet weights and velocities but can you get some bullets down range in your 5.56 chambered AR sure . It would be very close to the last choice of usable powders I'd consider . It doesn't seem to be that far off from H-110/296 so lets load some of that up to in the old M-16 what the hell since it "can" be done , must mean GTG :-(

In a completely unrelated matter I finally see alliant steel on the burn rate chart and my curiosity for 357 mag loads only grows. Thanks for your post.

 

[Bfh_auto]

View attachment 936407

This seems to be one of those , just because you're correct Archangel it doesn't make you right . CFE black's burn rate would suck loading in 5.56 cartridges IMO . Could it be used , sure in a pinch with some real limitations on bullet weights and velocities but can you get some bullets down range in your 5.56 chambered AR sure . It would be very close to the last choice of usable powders I'd consider . It doesn't seem to be that far off from H-110/296 so lets load some of that up to in the old M-16 what the hell since it "can" be done , must mean GTG :-(

IMR4227 will run an over gassed AR with 52 gr bullets. If I remember correctly, velocity was around 2500. This is far from a good load. CFE-BLK would be only slightly better.
Like you said. Just because you can...