Page 1 of 2

Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Mon May 13, 2019 8:06 pm
by 308loader
Called Hornady looking for 150gr FMJ load data for CFE BLK. The "tech" said the powder was too new, and they have no data. Have any of you tried this bullet powder combo? If so what did you use for COL and start charge? I see that Sierra has a FMJ that is close to the Hornady's but I don't know the difference in projectiles, can I trust sierra's load data for a Hornady bullet? Not married to this combo, but have plenty of projectiles on hand. First time loading with CFE black, not sure where to start.

I'm new to this forum, but not too new to reloading. been falling down the rabbit hole for 5 years or so. I'm used to having a starting place and published data for the cartage's I load. Any input would be appreciated.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 8:58 am
by dellet
A good place to start would be Hornady’s OAL, and either Sierra’s or Hodgdon’s starting load. Then work up to where you’re happy with velocity and accuracy.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:23 am
by plant.one
hornady had an error in 9th edition for the 300 blk and the 150 fmjbt... so you can find their recommended OAL for that projo on their published Errata pdf on the website, along with several other of their 150gr projectiles if you dont have a copy of 10th edition to reference in your reloading library.

https://press.hornady.com/assets/pcthum ... 02177.pdfv

however they do not offer any published data for CFE BLK in either 9th or 10th edition for that projectile.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 6:24 pm
by NeverBlue
For reference, here’s a pic of those loaded for 300AAC.
Image

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 7:08 pm
by 308loader
so you suggest using hodgdon start load for an IB bullet (witch is longer than FMJ) and seat to Hornady oal? would that not change the case volume and their for start load? sierra has a 150FMJ with a much lower start than hodgdon in their book. anyone know the difference in these FMJ bullet profiles? would I be better off with their data than assuming hodgdons start is for a different bullet? or am I just overthinking the whole thing.

Thanks for the Pic, I know what they look like loaded with H110. just not with CFE BLK.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 7:50 pm
by NeverBlue
Those are likely loaded w/IMR4227.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 10:26 am
by dellet
308loader wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 7:08 pm
so you suggest using hodgdon start load for an IB bullet (witch is longer than FMJ) and seat to Hornady oal? would that not change the case volume and their for start load? sierra has a 150FMJ with a much lower start than hodgdon in their book. anyone know the difference in these FMJ bullet profiles? would I be better off with their data than assuming hodgdons start is for a different bullet? or am I just overthinking the whole thing.

Thanks for the Pic, I know what they look like loaded with H110. just not with CFE BLK.
Your problem is not "thinking too much", it's that you are thinking. :shock:

Most people either do way less, or way more than you are doing. Those that do less, get in trouble. Those that do more have better success.

How do you know using Hornady data for the 150 FMJ will change the load density of Hodgdon data?

Why is overall length a bullshit data number?

If you can answer those two questions, everything else will fall into place. :mrgreen:

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 1:57 pm
by TRshootem
Dellet answered your query with a question, one requiring stepping back to the start. Choose an OAL that is similar to printed data, use the start load or something in between. I will note that, using that bullet, you can't get enough of that powder in the case to be harmful...unless seated deeper beyond the cannelure on compressed charges.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 5:32 pm
by 308loader
ok, for the most part I have answered my own question. what I was trying to get at was the simple principle that the more bullet you shove into a case the less case volume is left for powder. seems simple right? For example hodgon's data uses a IB bullet that is 1.260 in length, I want to substitute the IB with a FMJ that is 1.123 in length. the IB being .137 longer than the FMJ leaves me with more case volume than the IB at the suggested COL for the IB. Is that enough to be a significant change in pressure I don't know. At least it is a more then case volume rather than a less then.

The Sierra 150 FMJ that does have data for CFE BLK seems more interchangeable with the Hornady as far as length of bullet goes. sierra is at 1.110 in length and Hornady is 1.123, difference of .013. not perfect but better than .137. bullet profile is probably different tip to OJIVE, but I should be no where near the lands.

Re: Hornady 150gr FMJ - CFE BLK

Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 6:31 pm
by dellet
308loader wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:32 pm
ok, for the most part I have answered my own question. what I was trying to get at was the simple principle that the more bullet you shove into a case the less case volume is left for powder. seems simple right? For example hodgon's data uses a IB bullet that is 1.260 in length, I want to substitute the IB with a FMJ that is 1.123 in length. the IB being .137 longer than the FMJ leaves me with more case volume than the IB at the suggested COL for the IB. Is that enough to be a significant change in pressure I don't know. At least it is a more then case volume rather than a less then.

The Sierra 150 FMJ that does have data for CFE BLK seems more interchangeable with the Hornady as far as length of bullet goes. sierra is at 1.110 in length and Hornady is 1.123, difference of .013. not perfect but better than .137. bullet profile is probably different tip to OJIVE, but I should be no where near the lands.
If you take that one step further and compare the seated depth, the measurement that really has some meaning, it sorts itself out.

Case + bullet - OAL = seated depth

Hodgdon 150 IB
1.365 + 1.260 - 2.235 = .390

Hornady 150 FMJ
1.365 + 1.123 - 2.090 = .398

Note the shorter bullet actually has MORE bullet in the case, causing MORE pressure.

Bullet length - bullet length = COL change.

1.260- 1.123 = .137

Hodgdon COL
2.235 - .137 = new AOL 2.098
Hornady OAL 2.090.

Here it has less in the case, it can go either way when you substitute

.008" difference +/- in seated depth on a starting load won't be noticeable, probably not even on a max load.

Since you don't know the profile difference between a Sierra and Hornady, It's better to use Hornady length. Without going through notes, I can tell you that the Hornady bullet will hit the lands at a shorter length than the Sierra, and it is shorter than you would think for both.

When you are substituting bullets and even a good idea on any load data no matter where it came from, Seated depth or how much bullet in the case, compared to base to ogive where the bullet hits the lands are the two number you need to know. COAL will not tell you either, that's why I call it a bullshit number.

If you loaded the Hornady 150 FMJ to the COL in the Hornady 9th edition, you would jam the bullet deep enough into the lands to blow primers on starting data. This is why you don't trust ANYONE's data. Make your own measurements.

Here's the corrections to the 9th edition.
https://press.hornady.com/assets/pcthum ... 702177.pdf

Your thinking was spot on, and will keep you safe. Just needed to go one step further

Edit to add forgotten link