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

CFE and FMJ/Coated

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, PhillySoldier said:

I recently ransom rest tested n320. I wasnt impressed by it specially at the increased price point. 

Keep in mind that the match as YOUR gun. Powders, bullets, even primers can perform drastically different from gun to gun. 

 N320 can be beat but it takes an awfully big stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is my gun and results only that i was sharing. For as much as it was recommended; I expected it would do better. At double the price, im kinda glad it didn't. In my testing; CFE outperformed it. 

 

I enjoy ransom rest testing and will continue to test different things. So far CFE has shown to do best (in my gun) but i will switch to something else if that proves better. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, the below data/PF was gathered using a G-34. This information is critical IMO when discussing PF. For example, same load in my 34 has a substantial different PF than out of my PCC due to the longer barrel. 

 

I use a Lee load master. 

4.5g CFE, 124 BBI= 134 Avg PF

4.2g CFE, 124 BBI= 128 Ave PF

3.9g CFE, 124 BBI= U/K (Need to Chrono but noticeably softer shooting) Shot close to 600 in a level 2 state match sat and sun and not one issue. This is my load I like the most and if it makes PF for USPSA matches I will use it. However, I still want to lower the PF for steel challenge matches and loaded 50, 3.9g CFE, 147 X-treme last night. Need to chrono but I am looking for it to be about 125-126 PF at 860 FPS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed you're possibly making PF with 3.9gr. I'm like the poster above and need almost 5gr to make PF out of my G34 with a 124. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went through 2 lbs of this powder, havec2 left but I tried Clean Shot and I'm sold on it. Side by side comparasion it feels way softer than CFE and TG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been using CFE-P for a few bullets. Chrono at 15’ all using mixed cases and WSPP. I used some Berry’s 147 and Summers 145 HiTek but the coated are less than the Berry’s plated and the Summers had to be seated to deep for the CZ. 

 

The Shadow 2 

135 Bayou RN .356

4.1gr CFE-P

1.10 COL

 

Shoots about 132PF at 70* and pretty accurate. 

 

135 Blue TC .355

4.1gr CFE-P

1.130 COL

 

Shoots about the same PF but not as accurate to me.

 

125 Blur TC .356

4.5gr CFE-P

1.130 COL

 

About a 127PF at 27* so I’ll add a 10th and then try for accuracy and maybe play with COL. 

 

I’m  fairly certain I’m switching to 125gr loads as they are easier to load to fit the CZ and work in my other guns as well. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read all of this and the many similar posts on powders and their effect on accuracy, I have to ask this question;

 

Assumptions:

 

brass, primer and bullet are 100% the same.

after loading the completed cartridges, OAL, crimp, and other physical specs are 100% the same

the velocity 10’ in front of the barrel is 100% the same

the velocity at  target impact is 100% the same

basically isolating and making the only variable the  powder brand

 

why would one  be any more accurate than another?

 

I get a bit confused when I read all these posts about one powder over another and how they seem to affect accuracy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HesedTech said:

 

why would one  be any more accurate than another?

 

 

The term the physicists and engineers use is magic;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to conceptualize because you are wondering -- if the bullet leaves leaves the barrel at the same velocity, what could it matter how it got to that velocity.  You are correct -- the answer is that it doesn't matter how it gets to that velocity.  But you're thinking of how the powder affects the wrong thing.

 

It's not about how that powder pushes the bullet down the barrel.  It's about how energy is distributed/imparted to the gun and barrel while the bullet is passing down it, and how different powders do THAT differently;)

I may have just made that up.  Someone should check my references.  ;)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i

 

I totally understand the idea of powder burn timing vs length of barrel, basically longer barrel slower powder to allow bullet to accelerate longer, but when we’re talking about 4” what’s there to brag about!  Yep joke. 

 

My my question is really basic, if one powder takes 4 grains and another 3.5 to accelerate the bullet to the same velocity won’t the accuracy be identical?  

 

The only variable I can think of is possibly the amount of initial vs barrel exit gas pressure behind the bullet may effect the bullet flight dynamics as it leaves the barrel. Wobble, gas leaking around bullet ... but I think that would then change the flight characteristics and therefore the velocity as it approached target. 

 

Oh well, personally I think for most minor (and probably major) applications the “fixed” variables I mentioned have the greatest effect. 

 

Yep over thinking this and if someone could provide measurable and repeatable empirical data that CFE, or some other powder, was actually more accurate I’d jump on that in a heart beat. I need all the help/magic I can get with being accurate. 

 

But as Mr. Anderson says so often, I need to “get to work!”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HesedTech said:

 

My my question is really basic, if one powder takes 4 grains and another 3.5 to accelerate the bullet to the same velocity won’t the accuracy be identical?  

 

 

The answer is no, the accuracy won't be identical.  This is demonstrable and repeatable.

 

Your all else equal premise leaves out that the barrel is oriented identically from shot to shot.  It's not.  The burn affects that.  There is slack between barrel and slide, slide and receiver, and the muscles, cartilage, and bone trying to hold it all identically every time.  Metals vibrate, and all the metals and tissues flex.  How the burn progresses changes all of that.  And some powders do a better job of imparting all of the different energies at the same levels at the same moments in the same directions from shot to shot than do others.  And although it just occurred to me in this moment, I would imagine some of that vibration in the barrel is imparted to the bullet and carried into flight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 8:18 AM, IDescribe said:

 

The answer is no, the accuracy won't be identical.  This is demonstrable and repeatable.

 

Your all else equal premise leaves out that the barrel is oriented identically from shot to shot.  It's not.  The burn affects that.  There is slack between barrel and slide, slide and receiver, and the muscles, cartilage, and bone trying to hold it all identically every time.  Metals vibrate, and all the metals and tissues flex.  How the burn progresses changes all of that.  And some powders do a better job of imparting all of the different energies at the same levels at the same moments in the same directions from shot to shot than do others.  And although it just occurred to me in this moment, I would imagine some of that vibration in the barrel is imparted to the bullet and carried into flight.

 

 

Thank you for your contributions on this thread. Can you recommend a resource for further reading? In particular loading for above/below the sound barrier. Is this somehow tied into conversations that I see sometimes on finding "nodes" when handloading? I have generally avoided this aspect of cartridge development. Thanks again.

 

ON EDIT: One other thing. I know that using a light bullet requires a bigger load to make a particular bullet speed compared to a heavy bullet. In my case I have some (about 12 pounds) of CFE pistol that I don't know what to do with. I'm interested in 9mm minor only and was going to experiment this spring with a load that might work and I know results depends on other factors but do you think this is a fools errand and I should stick with faster powders? Not trying to be lazy, really, but I'm getting the impression that from this and others things I have read elsewhere that getting minor pf with slow powders is not easy. Thanks and sorry for rambling on.

Edited by firewood

Share this post


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

 

Thank you for your contributions on this thread. Can you recommend a resource for further reading? In particular loading for above/below the sound barrier. Is this somehow tied into conversations that I see sometimes on finding "nodes" when handloading? I have generally avoided this aspect of cartridge development. Thanks again.

 

ON EDIT: One other thing. I know that using a light bullet requires a bigger load to make a particular bullet speed compared to a heavy bullet. In my case I have some (about 12 pounds) of CFE pistol that I don't know what to do with. I'm interested in 9mm minor only and was going to experiment this spring with a load that might work and I know results depends on other factors but do you think this is a fools errand and I should stick with faster powders? Not trying to be lazy, really, but I'm getting the impression that from this and others things I have read elsewhere that getting minor pf with slow powders is not easy. Thanks and sorry for rambling on.


Additional reading:  About staying above/below the sound barrier, or more specifically about the transonic range, you can google "ballistic co-efficient," "transonic range," or "bullet coefficient of drag" and get peer-reviewed info. It is also discussed in Fryxell's guide to casting bullets: From Ingot to Target -- the first place I read about it.  Also, you should look for sites where pistol accuracy is THE thing.  Generally speaking, competitive shooting is the sport where your competition will do everything they can to help you beat them.  If you want to know about action shooting, this forum is the place to go, but accuracy is not king here.  If you want to ride the coat-tails of benchrest rifle shooters, Accurateshooter.com is the place to go.  If you want to learn about bullet casting, Castboolits is the site to browse.  And for ANYTHING pure accuracy PISTOL-related, I'd recommend you browse and read at the Bullseye-L forum first, and TargetTalk second.  Any time you're reading forums, you need an eye and ear for who to pay attention to, but these sites are treasure-troves for learning.  There are people shooting bullseye who will test a particular bullet in particular guns with different powders, multiple times, varying crimp, varying OAL, case trimming or not, uniforming primer pockets and flash-holes, or not, mixed brass or not, EVERYTHING you can think of all tested on a ransom rest, and discussing what accurizing measures work and are worthwhile. 

Transonic range is not tied directly to nodes.  For some reason (clearly, it's magic), some guns will tighten precision/groups with certain bullet/powder combos when the average velocity falls into certain ranges.  I will tell you that my CZ-75 ShadowLine is most accurate with every 124/125gr bullet I've tested when the average velocity falls between 1060 and 1080.  Don't know why, but it has been repeatable this far regardless of combination.  My VP9, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care about velocity.  It cares about other things, like bullet to barrel fit, but I don't see velocity nodes.

I suspect velocity nodes is mostly about finding the right velocity for the right bullet at a particular twist rate, but we are into the realm of magic with that.  Can't tell you WHY anything in that regard.

 

Part of velocity nodes with rifles is about barrel harmonics.  I have no idea what kind of impact that has with 3.5 to 5-inch pistols barrels at action pistol distances, but with 29-inch barrels at 600 yards, it matters.  ;)    

 

 

Regarding your Edit:

Lighter bullets do not need more powder than heavy bullets to make the same velocity -- they need less.  What they DO need more powder for than heavy bullets is reaching the same power factor.  Big difference.


Slow powders make 9mm minor velocities just fine.  It's just that they take more powder to do it, and they do it with very inefficient burns.  It's a dirty wasteful path, that involves marginally more recoil, though you won't notice the recoil difference on a stage.  Plenty of people are using CFE for 9mm minor.  You can do it.  But the fact that people are using CFE for 9mm major is a good indication that it's not ideal for 9mm minor.  ;)  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...