CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade, bamachem

User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by dellet »

Starting from the beginning.

The first thing I noticed when I opened a one pound jug was that it looked like they shorted me a half pound of powder. It's not quite that bad, but seemed that way.

By comparison a sized empty case holds 24.5 grains of H110/296. The same case holds 26.3 grains of CFE BLk. It's a very dense powder.

It meters well, my Vintage RCBS powder measure was set up to throw 21.3 grains of 1680. I loaded it with CFE and weighed it. Basically 22 grains, I dropped ten charges and weighed them on a Gempro 250.
21.98, 21.98
21.90, 21.94
21.88, 22.08
21.98, 21.98
21.96, 22.00

Starting with heavy supers where I have questioned their load data pressure claims before.

175 SMK
19.5 grns
Rem. 7 1/2
2.215 COL

No chronograph readings, I was shooting at night at very short distance. I was interested in seeing the flash suppression qualities. I am happy to say that from a 24" barrel there was no flash when suppressed. A 16" had very minor flash. I did not shoot without the suppressor.

A sub sonic load was louder than I am used to for a bolt action.

Primers showed some flattening, more than I would have expected for only 37,400 psi.

For subs I was again interested in flash suppression and noise.
8" barrel
240 SMK
11.5 grn
Rem 7 1/2
2.255

First round had a fairly large flash, next two were just a few sparks, noise was moderate.

In order to get a fair trial for powder burn, cleanliness and blow back. I pulled my trigger group and stripped my bolt. Brass fresh from the tumbler (well maybe 6 mos ago)
Image

Image

I chose a load from the on line load data. I dropped the charge .3 grn because I wanted to test velocity in both an 8" pistol gas system and an 18" carbine. I did not want the 18" to go super( :lol: ). Five shot groups for both barrel lengths.

208 Hornady Amax
11.2 grn
Rem 7 1/2
2.255" COL

8" barrel pistol gas
771 fps
774 fps
813 fps
800 fps
881 fps

18" barrel carbine gas
1007 fps
801 fps
848 fps
896 fps
892 fps

The 8" barrel pistol gas in a word was uncomfortable to shoot without ear protection. Not quite 1680 loud, but considering the amount of snow on the ground to absorb the noise it was slightly obnoxious. I almost quit after two rounds.

The carbine gas system was not so bad, cycled and locked back with no problem. Considering the low velocity this is encouraging.

Image

I did not do the same detail cleaning on the carbine, so I only have a pic of the pistol gas components. This is the results of five shots. Not impressed would be the word of the day. I did not take a picture of trigger group, it was actually still very clean.

The table I shoot from is white, there was a fair amount debris on the table from the ejection port. Considering I was using a brass catcher, I would call it possibly excessive.

Image

Here is a target at fifty yards. It looks about like you would expect given the velocity spreads. The left side group that is marked was the 8" barrel, unmarked 18". One of the top two holes of the 18" barrel was a flyer by me, the other was I am sure just the load.

Suppressor used was TBAC Ultra 9

All in all for first impressions, I would say disappointment is the word best describing the experience. For a powder that was hyped as cleaner, quieter, less flash and any other thing you would expect in a powder specifically blended for a cartridge, it came up more than short.

In all honesty I do not shoot enough 1680 as a sub powder to compare the two without loading and shooting them side by side. I will say that it has all the qualities inherent to 1680 that drove me to work hard to find a substitute. It's hard an the ears and eyes. Did I forget to mention that gas proof goggles might not be a bad idea when shooting this powder?

It will be a very good powder for carbine length systems and probably lighter bullets.

Next step for me is to load some like I think they should be loaded, instead of the given data.

There is a possibility that the chronograph readings are not accurate. It was reasonably overcast when shooting, with plenty of snow. I have had trouble before with sunny and snow being too bright. A couple of known loads were within reason. I would of expected more velocity in 10" of barrel. More shooting will sort that out.

If I've missed anything or something you think I should try ask and Ill see what I can come up with as a test.

Edit to add.

Almost all loads for this powder call for it to be compressed, some quite a bit. Always let your loads stand for at least an hour and re measure the COL. If they are growing, you have too much compression. This powder does not compress easily.
Last edited by dellet on Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
User avatar
John A.
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:55 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by John A. »

You must've read my mind because I was just asking about this powder earlier today.

Looks like I have my answer, and I appreciate you for it.

No CFE for me, thanks.
When those totally ignorant of firearms make laws, you end up with totally ignorant firearm laws.
User avatar
cwlongshot
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:53 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by cwlongshot »

Thank you for another detailed report!
I have all but decided to pass on this powder even tho I was initially very excited about it. Since your turning me on the 1680 as a super vel powder and others postings proclaiming the "greatness" of this powder. I conclude its nothing more than a also ran and being more expensive, needing larger amounts its not as cost effective either.

IMHO its 1680 ish, and as I have many pounds of 1680 in my magazine, I consider it a old friend. I have burned more than 8 # in the last 10-12 Years.

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
User avatar
rebel
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7285
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Moonshine Country

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by rebel »

Dirty, Loud and dense. Not good words to describe someone or a new powder :lol:
Seems as if it has an enormous gas volume though. I agree that if folks can put up with the grime, this may be a viable carbine gas choice.
You can't beat the mountain, pilgrim. Mountains got its own way.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by dellet »

I am not ready to give up on the powder. I think it's just mis-understood :mrgreen:

Thinking back while writing things up, it's possibly more that the load data sucks. It seems that Hodgdon went out of their way to get the lowest pressures possible from an already low pressure powder. Seating deeper should increase burn rate and quiet It down. It was really reasonable to shoot in the carbine system, so that may be where it really shines.

Figuring out what it takes to get the ES under control will be the first step.

Another issue may be with solid copper or brass bullets, generally speaking they work better with higher pressures. Lots more to do before a final decision on if I buy more.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
TMD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1464
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:35 am
Location: San Angelo, TX

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by TMD »

I was really hopeful when word of this powder first leaked out but from what I read so far I'm not very impressed. I'm not even sure I want to try it out.
User avatar
bangbangping
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2695
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:34 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by bangbangping »

dellet wrote:18" barrel carbine gas
1007 fps
801 fps
848 fps
896 fps
892 fps
Awesome results! :lol: That's probably good for a foot and half vertical at 200.

Thanks for the write up, dellet. You confirmed my lack of compelling need to try it.
Alphawolf082
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:30 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by Alphawolf082 »

Thanks for the write up; good initial info.

It helps me in sticking with my impression that I'm one of the lucky ones whose barrel seems to really like H110 for supers and 4227 for subs, at least as far as cycling and noise are concerned. Something else may be more accurate, but reports like this help me stay lazy. 8)
User avatar
kassenz
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:48 am
Location: Seattle

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by kassenz »

Thanks for the range report
Really a good read

I just got done reading about this powder:
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/147 ... zkt9syxa6x

and want to try it out once I burn thru the 2lbs of H110 and IMR4227 I have

But, my question is, how will it work with 44 Mag and 44 Special?
I was able to find data for 300blk, but nothing so far for my suppressed TC Contender with 10" barrel with AAC TiRant

Since this works with both 240gr Subs, and 110gr Supers, according to http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/ then I wonder if there is any data available for this new powder for other larger calibers?
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts

Post by dellet »

Spent a little more time with CFE today, learning the quirks of the powder.

I have probably written it off as a short barrel/pistol gas powder. It is just too loud for me and there are to many better choices.

In a carbine gas I think it has some real potential. The added burn time, longer dwell really tames the noise and cuts down on the amount of powder blow back. There is very low port and muzzle pressure. Still a fair amount of gas.

I wanted to see how light of a bullet that could be cycled, I run an 18" 1/10 twist carbine gassed rifle, port size is .110" with a M16 Lmt enhanced BCG and a JP heavy/tungsten captured spring using the heaviest spring. I set this rifle up for hot supers, I've done a lot to slow down the bolt speed as much as possible.

The fun news is that with this setup I was able to have full function shooting Hornady 150 fmj #3037 bullets when suppressed. This might end up being a very good powder for carbine gassed guns.

Now for the bad news.

Still struggling with high spreads.

Right now my feeling is that this is a powder that needs to be compressed. The initial loads in the original post were by the book. 208 Amax, 11 grains at 2.260". ES in the hundreds. Accuracy in the inches at 50 yards.

I seated the 150 fmj's at the cannelure. 11grn 2.040" COL. Although I had lock back on empty, I had possibly the highest ES/SD numbers in recorded history. An ES of 353, SD 133. The group on the right of the pic below is much better than those numbers indicate. It is only fifty yards, I am quite sure at 100 I would measure it in feet.

Image

The group on the left, starts showing some promise.

Back to the Hornady 208 Amax. 11.5 Grains 2.195 COL.

I started this load like I do many. I always record where the bullet will touch the powder. In this case, with 11.5 grains in the case, bullet seated on the powder, COL is 2.220". I put .025" compression on the powder.

Last week's load of 11 grains at 2.255" had an ES just over 200 fps.

This week 11.5 grains at 2.195" had and ES 56, SD 21. There was one odd round that had a very low velocity. when I discounted that as a possible loading error the ES dropped to 24, SD 10. these are numbers that are a reasonable to start with. The change in the group from last week to this reflects that. Again 5 shots at fifty, for reference that is a 1" dot.

I am feeling a little better about the powder and will try to run a couple more loads this weekend. I need to drop some speed, these were cracking at 25 degrees. It is somewhat encouraging tho.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 99 guests