Potatohead
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 5,375
Ive got a new name for KansasSas:
"Young RC"
CFE Pistol Powder report
- Thread starter lx2008
- Start date
- Status
Ive got a new name for KansasSas:
"Young RC"
CosmicCoder
Member
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.
--
CC
KansasSasquatch
Member
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.
therealwormey
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 62
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
CFE---------1112-------12------452.95--------183.48
Bullseye-----1030-------13------388.61--------169.95
powder-----velocity---std dev--Ft lbs Energy--Power Factor
IMR 4756---1097-------28------440.81--------181.01
Autocomp-- 1069-------14------418.59--------176.39
CFE---------1112-------12------452.95--------183.48
Bullseye-----1030-------13------388.61--------169.95
Potatohead
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 5,375
I would say "true" to that...but I dont think RC has forgotten anything about handloading
:
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.
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.
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.
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:
Toprudder
Member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
