Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Discussion about rifles in 300 AAC BLACKOUT (7.62x35mm), hosted by the creator of the cartridge.

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade

User avatar
AP2020
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by AP2020 »

Ok..Ok..one more.

So the best thing a sales guy ever told me in my engineering career....

"You know Nito.....sometimes it amazes me that some engineers will spend 10 hours of engineering time (billable) to save $50 on a project..."

yeah...true story....kinda puts things in perspective.. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

gotta hit the sack fellas....hopefully an Ohio deer's lungs has a date with one of my 300 gr. 45-70 subsonic bullets tomorrow...
YouTube Channel > https://www.youtube.com/user/ArchersParadox2020NRA Life,Pro Staff Pulsar Night Vision Sightmark,Video Productions for Lehigh Defense,Odin Works,Luth-AR,Hodgdon/IMR Powder
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by dellet »

I'm going to be very interested to see what a few of the members here have to say about this powder. Only putting it up against products made by the same manufacturer is in a word, pointless. It needs to be ran against the powders it's trying to compete with to have any merit.

Saying it runs better than 4227 and 4198 in an over gassed system doesn't have much meaning.

Honestly, this is why I don't pay attention to reviews that are dependent on clicks.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
User avatar
cwlongshot
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:53 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by cwlongshot »

I must say, when I first learned of a cartridge specific powder for our beloved 300 blk I was excited and 1005 in line to grab a # to try.

NOW, well frankly NOT SO MUCH. :shock: I don't really want a powder that requires my to use MORE of it to achieve what I get now using less powder that's less expensive. I recently acquired a couple pounds of Alliant MP300 and first loadings are very positive. I don't know I "need" another powder.

Any one you that have seen my loading bench... knows I ain't very tight spending $$ on things I like.

I also must say, and its a personal critique Nito. I got a chuckle after watching your video on the 194g Max Expansion LEHIGH bullet. You made the claim early on of being a "Precision reloader" but after watching how you did things... I .. Well frankly you came off as pompous to me.
BUT since reading posts here where you straight forward and HUMBLY replied to a inquiry's about hows and whys. Then your open admissions as to that actual experience. Has me re thinking my first impression. Good job man.

I hope you had better luck than I did today... 17 degrees and snowing...I had a nice sit but saw nuttin...

Image
Image

CW
A Bolt, Single Shot and a few M$Rs

Join me on RUMBLE! Https://rumble.com/user/cwlongshot

https://youtube.com/channel/UCBOIIvlk30qD5a7xVLfmyfw

I PROUDLY SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT & OUR TROOPS
Guest762
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 848
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:14 pm
Location: ARKANSAS

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by Guest762 »

yondering wrote:
AP2020 wrote:
plant.one wrote:thats a lot of unburnt powder for only 45 rounds! :shock:


Being a newbie suppressor owner....would closing off the adjustable gas block help?
Maybe a little but not much; those unburnt powder kernels are coming out of the barrel mostly after the case ejects, due to backpressure in the suppressor.

The fact that the powder kernels are there in the first place is what bothers me. (They aren't "unburnt" really, just partially burned.) It means that powder isn't burning cleanly enough to turn all the kernels to gas and ash. Often that's a function of low pressure and/or poor ignition, but I don't know about this new powder.
My 4227 loading look nothing like that. cant say I've ever even seen any unburnt powder much less a mess like that.
User avatar
MMA10mm
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by MMA10mm »

TMD wrote:
AP2020 wrote:From Hodgdon Powder Burn Rate chart.

Image
Fast on the burn rate chart than RE7 yet requires almost 2 more grains for the same velocity. Ok I'm confused
This right here. TMD nailed it.

Also, look at the pressure numbers on the loads which were screen-shotted and posted. 35,000psi with 20+ grs of powder? Hodgdon has obviously stuck this powder on the burn rate chart where they think it should go, per the name/target-market.

My guess is, the engineers at St. Marks (this powder has many hallmarks of their products) could have hit the mark if the marketing guys at Hodgdon had stayed out of the way... Oh well, I still have AA9, W296, and W680 to work off of...
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by dellet »

There are a lot of things that don't make sense about the published numbers. if you look at the loads for 168, 175, and 189 grain bullets

168 Hornady HPBT max

20c 1887fps 41,800 psi

175 SMK max

19.5c 1821fps 37,400 psi

180 speer sp max

19.3 1799fps 51,200psi

What bothers me about the numbers is that you have similar weight bullets with a similar charge weight. the problem is when you don't compress it, you can have a huge pressure spike.

Note the difference between the pressures of the 175 and 180 loads. .2 less powder under 5 grains more bullet gives you a 50% increase in pressure or 17,000 pounds.

What happens if you don't compress the 19.5 under the 175 SMK?

I actually called Hodgdon on this and the answer was less than helpful. basically I was told not to deviate from the data.

So I asked about the load work up for the 175 SMK, will I have 51K plus pressure at 19.3 grains without compression like the 180 grain load? No answer.

I asked if this powder lost firing pressure under compression. No answer

I was told again not to deviate from the data. I then asked which Speer bullet was actually used for testing since I could find lengths for seven different Speer 180 grain soft points. The difference in bullet lengths being more than .250". He could not tell me which bullet was used, and that he was not there to argue.

I told him I was not there to argue, only looking for information to keep me safe and that he clearly could not provide it.

Until we can get some real world results, from people experienced with the cartridge, and based on the numbers published, which in my phone call Hodgdon swore by, this powder looks reasonably volatile, possibly unsafe. When you can have jump from 37.400 psi to 51,200 with 5 grains of bullet weight while reducing the charge .2 grains, there is a huge potential for a problem.

I am guessing their numbers are wrong. If not and you are relying on compression to keep you from blowing stuff up someone will get hurt.

Look at all max loads, for every bullet. All max loads are compressed and the pressure numbers are low. If we can trust the load data for the 180 grain Speer compared to the others, the danger will be in the point when you are near max load, but the powder is not compressed. You can expect a pressure spike.

The load data is now online with Hodgdon.

I really hope I am making something out of nothing. I have an email sent on Monday that has gone unanswered. My phone call was an exercise in futility.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
User avatar
Netpackrat
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:06 am

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by Netpackrat »

dellet wrote:I was told again not to deviate from the data. I then asked which Speer bullet was actually used for testing since I could find lengths for seven different Speer 180 grain soft points. The difference in bullet lengths being more than .250". He could not tell me which bullet was used, and that he was not there to argue.
That's rich. "Don't deviate from the data which I will not supply to you."
User avatar
bangbangping
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:34 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by bangbangping »

dellet wrote:I am guessing their numbers are wrong.
I am guessing that you are right. The numbers are a bit crazy.
User avatar
Jim Timber
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2348
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:55 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Hodgdon CFEBLK Powder

Post by Jim Timber »

Not behaving linear at near max, and spiking prior to reaching a peak charge that's safer... That's a big flaw.

If you're a big ammo company and have a piezo test barrel, this might not be an issue. For the guy reading primers and ejector marks, this isn't acceptable.
https://squareup.com/market/SimpleThreadedDevices
https://www.facebook.com/SimpleThreadedDevices
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 119 guests