Berry's 220gr & CFEBLK Powder Load Testing

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade, bamachem

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

Re: Berry's 220gr & CFEBLK Powder Load Testing

Post by dellet »

plant.one wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:16 pm so you ended up with three plinker grade loads that shoot about 2" at 50 yds in two different guns with a (relatively) cheap plated plinking grade bullet using what is probably one of the worst subsonic powders for this caliber available and you're disappointed in the bullet? also after this one very basic test (3 test loads in each gun) with no chrono data you're giving up.


i mean.. i get it if you cant get more to test with easily... but i would have tried a different powder to start with seeing as all the reports of CFEblk just not performing well as a sub powder even with high quality bullets.



im just suggesting that abandoning a bullet when you started with a deficit on the powder choice probably isnt very fair to the bullet.
I didn't like that powder, or bullet 5 years ago, and my opinion hasn't changed one bit! :shock:
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
TRshootem
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 1:13 am
Location: Montana

Re: Berry's 220gr & CFEBLK Powder Load Testing

Post by TRshootem »

Yep, pretty much a lousy choice of powder for subs, regardless of the heavy pill sent down the tube. Now, stuff the little case full under some 130- 150gr bullets with a magnum primer and you will be keepin the jug of CFEBLK. 1680, if one can find any, is just that much better overall. I have never used that Berry bullet, nor was I encouraged to do so by any long in the tooth reloading cranks. My own cast and powder coated heavies do what I expect of them...cheap and accurate enough to suit the subsonic load need.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 166 guests