Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
evild

CFE and FMJ/Coated

Recommended Posts

Switching to CFE from TG due to excessive smoke, specially with coated. My chrono isn't working, and Ixm loading short so i have 1 load for my PCC, CZ, Glock and Canik. 

Anybody have loads close to these that have chroned? Semi educated guess at the load using published data and adjusting for COL

 

4.3 with RMR TC jacketed @ 1.050

4.3 with 124 Blue bullets 1.100

4.3  with 124 cadt from Lee mold, rn 1.075

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.3 sounds pretty light to me.  It's not apples to apples, of course, but it took me 5.0 grains of CFE-P to get a 124 gr Montana Gold JHP @ 1.075" to 130 PF out of a Walther P99c (3.5" barrel).  Obviously longer barrels and coated bullets will both result in higher velocities, but I'd want to chrono to be sure before relying on those loads to make minor with any cushion out of the pistols.  (I'd be pretty surprised if a PCC with a 16" barrel wouldn't make minor plus some - you could probably even back off the charge and still have a healthy cushion there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why CFE would be the replacement for TG.  They're not similar powders.  I have loaded CFE with only 115gr bullets, and it took 5.1gr with the 115gr Hornady HAP to get to 1080 feet/sec.  I'd expect about the same to get a 124gr coated lead bullet to a similar velocity, and I would expect it to take more than that, probably 5.3/5.4gr, to get a similar 124gr JHP to the same velocity, and 1060-1080 is is where I typically load 124/125gr bullets.  So I'd expect that depending on the 124gr bullet, I'd be somewhere between 5.0gr and 5.4gr to get it to the 9mm minor PF I'd want to use.

BUT I have seen a variety of people experience significant differences in chrono results with CFE, particularly when loading light, and if you're trying to use CFE for 9mm minor (not sure, you didn't say), you're loading light.

 

If this is for 9mm minor, I'd look to a different powder.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was ransom rest testing both CFE and Titegroup over the past weekend. The CFE did much better in groupings and I really liked how it felt. I was using 115g FMJ's w a  1.15" OAL. 5.0g was putting me at 1089 out of a 4.5" barrel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Load data for 124's on the hodgon site is as follows

 

BERB HBRN

OAL: 1.15"

Start: 4.9g    1,006 fps

Max:  5.5g      1,120 fps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IDescribe said:

I'm not sure why CFE would be the replacement for TG.  They're not similar powders.  I have loaded CFE with only 115gr bullets, and it took 5.1gr with the 115gr Hornady HAP to get to 1080 feet/sec.  I'd expect about the same to get a 124gr coated lead bullet to a similar velocity, and I would expect it to take more than that, probably 5.3/5.4gr, to get a similar 124gr JHP to the same velocity, and 1060-1080 is is where I typically load 124/125gr bullets.  So I'd expect that depending on the 124gr bullet, I'd be somewhere between 5.0gr and 5.4gr to get it to the 9mm minor PF I'd want to use.

BUT I have seen a variety of people experience significant differences in chrono results with CFE, particularly when loading light, and if you're trying to use CFE for 9mm minor (not sure, you didn't say), you're loading light.

 

If this is for 9mm minor, I'd look to a different powder.  ;) 

It's a replacement because it's not similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you loading these rounds for?  What's the application? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IDescribe said:

What are you loading these rounds for?  What's the application? 

Uspsa minor, pcc, CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had been using TG and got tired of the smoke, I'd look for something in a similar burn rate range, as TG is of an appropriate burn rate for 9mm minor, and given that smoke was an issue, I'd be inclined to try Alliant Sport Pistol first.

 

People use CFE Pistol for 9mm major, and generally speaking, powders suitable for 9mm major are poorly suited to 9mm minor. 

 

Food for thought.  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, IDescribe said:

If I had been using TG and got tired of the smoke, I'd look for something in a similar burn rate range, as TG is of an appropriate burn rate for 9mm minor, and given that smoke was an issue, I'd be inclined to try Alliant Sport Pistol first.

 

People use CFE Pistol for 9mm major, and generally speaking, powders suitable for 9mm major are poorly suited to 9mm minor. 

 

Food for thought.  ?

Can't find Sport pistol locally, it's actually what I really wanted, and thecnew Winchester powder. I seriously doubt I will feel a difference in recoil impulses between TG and CFE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much that.  It's the often dirty, inefficient, inconsistent burns you get with a powder that slow in a 9mm minor load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried Bullseye?  Much closer to the Titegroup burn rate.  I use CFE for 9-major.  At low charges it does not completely burn.  I find powder residue on the shooting bench infront of the muzzle.  Bump the charge to major and no more residue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chroned today. My semi educated guesstimation was close. 4.3gr yielded and average of 1020 within a few fps for all 3 bullets. 4.5gr was averaged 1045. 5 gr was an average of 1115. 4.5 it is.

Thanks for your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I re-tested a load workup of CFE over the weekend. 20 rounds of each charge weight from 5.0 to 5.4g (2 shot groups of 10 rounds each) @ 25 yards from a ransom rest. I was using Hornady 115 FMJ's and starline brass, 1.15" oal. This was my second testing just to confirm my first test before deciding to start bulk loading this powder. Again it shot great and im a new convert to CFE.

 

The only oddity that I ran into and this isnt necessarily a bad thing is that it seems to like the lower charge weights. All the other powders ive tested so far; normally shoot better in the faster ranges. The CFE in both test had the best groups for me at 5.0g around 1090 fps / 125 power factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, PhillySoldier said:

The only oddity that I ran into and this isnt necessarily a bad thing is that it seems to like the lower charge weights. All the other powders ive tested so far; normally shoot better in the faster ranges. The CFE in both test had the best groups for me at 5.0g around 1090 fps / 125 power factor. 


There's a reason your 1090 might be the more accurate load that has nothing to do with the powder liking light loads.
 

I don't have time to explain it in detail right now, but above and below the sound barrier is a "transonic range" that you want to stay out of for the sake of accuracy -- the range runs from maybe maybe 15-20 feet/sec below the sound barrier to 15-20 feet/sec above.  You want the bullet to start off fast enough (high enough over the sound barrier) that the bullet does not decelerate into that range before striking the target.  If it passes into that range, it gets pushed around by a destablizing bow wave of compressed air, affecting accuracy negatively.  Everyone has seen pictures of videos of fighter jets going transonic -- it looks like the fighter jet is passing through a disc of water vapor.

Go look at high end .22 target ammo.  There's a reason 99% of it is 1100 feet/sec or slower -- it's so that it starts off UNDER the transonic range and takes that out of the equation.

 

So the reason your bullet liked the "light load" is not necessarily that it likes light loads, it's the you loaded it slow enough that it left the muzzle under the transonic range, whereas the few tenths you went above it took into the transonic range, or it took it above the transonic range, and it decelerated into the transonic range before getting to the target. 

Again, target ammo is generally 1100 feet/sec or under, OR it starts off WAY over supersonic so it doesn't fall into that transonic range.  For example, for 50 yard Bullseye, it's common to drive 115gr bullets over 1200 at the muzzle, so it's still  above the transonic range at the target.

Edited by IDescribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting but wondering why its the only one out of five powders that had this effect in that velocity range then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run CFE at 1400 fps with a 124gr (major) with no accuracy issues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, IDescribe said:

 

 

Edited by IDescribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PhillySoldier said:

Interesting but wondering why its the only one out of five powders that had this effect in that velocity range then

 

Because there's more that feeds into accuracy than just that.  I'm not saying that anything that decelerates into the transonic range is automatically inaccurate.  And I'm not saying that that is THE defining factor in this case.  I'm simply saying that there is a possible explanation (and I am sure many possible explanations) as to why your load did best at 1090 OTHER THAN simply CFE liking light loads.  Something you see ALL THE TIME in the forums is people seeing a correlation between two things and bassuming that correlation means the one thing caused the other.  I see it all the time in both ammo tuning and trouble-shooting.  CFE Pistol MIGHT like light loads.  Or you might have had the faster loads going transonic and affecting accuracy negatively.  Or that bullet with CFE PIstol in that pistol has an accuracy node from 1075-1095 because... mysterious inexplicable physics.  All you can really say with a sample size of one is that CFE Pistol at a light load didn't kill accuracy in this particular case.  ;) 

NOW, if you want to test 15 different bullets of different weights and types and you discover that with 12 of the 15 bullets, the most accurate load was at 85% +/- 3%  of max load, then we can start to say "Hey, CFE Pistol really seems to do well with light loads."  And if you want to conduct that test, please come back and share the results.  I'd be interested to see it.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, IDescribe said:

NOW, if you want to test 15 different bullets of different weights and types and you discover that with 12 of the 15 bullets, the most accurate load was at 85% +/- 3%  of max load, then we can start to say "Hey, CFE Pistol really seems to do well with light loads."  And if you want to conduct that test, please come back and share the results.  I'd be interested to see it.  :) 

 

Im not debating anything you are saying. This is all a learning experience for me and I am trying to understand WHY the results seem different in this one instance. I dont believe I implied that the results would be the same for other projectiles. But yes I will be testing other projectiles in the future. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I run Blue TC 125gr with 4.4 CFE pistol.

 

Out of my production guns, 130PF

Or if my PCC (taccom ulwbarrel), 135PF

 

But it is very dirty (unburnt powder) at light PF... I am switching powders ASAP.

Edited by armedmoose
Words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some data from a few years ago.  I was experimenting with different loads.  I continue to use Titegroup.

Screenshot_20180802-101654_Chrome.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got to shoot a decent amount today. CFE is just as smokey as TG with coated bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i use TG for my minor Loads with 3.8grn and CFE Pistol for my open loads at 6.8grn.  i use cfe because of the mid burn and the price i can get it at.  i want to switch to N320 though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×