CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade, bamachem

User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6963
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by dellet »

johnhefley wrote:Again, Dellet, wow! Thanks.

I'll have to give it a try. I'm using standard Redding dies, so it'll be a little bit more work, but not much.

I just did a quick read on Nosler's website about calculating case fill density. So I have a VAGUE idea what it is.

Did you measure and arrive at your own powder bulk density and case capacity for your calculation?

I've searched high and low for CFE BLK powder bulk density, and can't find it anywhere.

jh
Semi educated wild ass guess. SEWAG.

100% density = "0" airspace. That's what you got when you worked the bullet into the powder.

If you looked at the Nosler load data, they are one of the very few that give an actual fill/density rate, instead of compressed or not. It's a very handy thing to know about.

If you look at the 220 grain load with similar charge weights a 10% change in density is close enough to 1 grain, across most of the powders. 1% = .10 grain.

One grain 1680 is 107 fps using 1680, but on all those powders it's probably 70-80 fps as average. For estimating purposes .10 grain=10 fps is close enough for me to estimate.

But look at 1680. 13 grains is 104%. Look in the specs at "case holds". 13.1 grains water with that bullet at that depth. The density of 1680 is very close to water, H110 is a bit closer, you can see the same relationship for the 110 bullet below. I use these powders as a comparison for density. Will a case hold more or less than H110.

The easy way to know more exact density is something like Quickload. It calculates it for you, as long as it has the powder in it's data base

Image

Image

These are just small tricks that help pick powders. One of the reasons I like N120 is that it takes more powder to reach the same velocity as 1680 and it has more bulk. Most powders work better with a higher density. So with a low charge weight I have a better chance at 100% fill with a bulkier powder. That's where CFE missed the mark. It's not very stable at low density loads, High ES, and it is a very high density powder. It takes less weight, that fills less space, to hit a good sub velocity. So unless you have a long bullet you have low density.

Low density, also generally means low pressure and that means lower burn rate and more carbon left behind, runs dirty.

Low pressure loads tend to have higher muzzle/port pressure so they are louder. Some of that can be reduced with an adjustable block.

Just keep working that load and keep twice as many notes as you think you might need. When you can get the ES under control it can be a very accurate powder. It just is frustrating to get there.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
johnhefley
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:29 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by johnhefley »

All good stuff, Dellet. Thanks!

My earliest loads with CFE BLK were indeed louder than I expected. And I was loading the bullets longer, and definitely NOT compressing the powder. And it was running VERY dirty.

As I continue tweaking, and compressing, it seems that the loads ARE getting a bit quieter. I've only run about 40 rounds through it this week, so it remains to be seen if it's running any cleaner.

In many areas of my life, I'm a pretty good note taker. Unfortunately, I don't have a "reloading journal." So my notes are spread around on different snippets of paper, notepads, and legal paper. Time to go to the craft store and buy some journals so I can organize the notes all in one place.
jh
popper
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:09 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by popper »

I was shooting 170PB & 182 GC with cfeblk in 10" pistol. 16 gr for both. Accuracy was good and noise was no worse than H110. Neither is a compressed load. Nothing like Unique.
Smurky
Silent Operator
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:22 pm
Location: Democratic Peoples Republik of Dane County Wisconsin

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by Smurky »

johnhefley wrote: Unfortunately, I don't have a "reloading journal." So my notes are spread around on different snippets of paper, notepads, and legal paper. Time to go to the craft store and buy some journals so I can organize the notes all in one place.
jh
I had the same problem, bought some loose leaf 3 hole ruled paper a put it all in a 3 ring binder now so have gotten better. I have a 3 hole punch to punch holes in the Redding Forms I use for each load. I also added tabs for all the calibers to help organize it. Now if I could efficiently bookmark all of Dellet's and others tips I'd be in business. :P
CT70
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 11:26 am

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by CT70 »

This is probably redundant but thanks for all the homework you have done on the CFE. I'm glad not to be the only one who thought it was uncomfortably loud. Loaded 190 Hornady Sub-x and Sierra 190 Matchking 12.0 gr. Loud and SD and ES not even close to acceptable. Also velocity
about 100 fps lower than book. I am shooting out of Daniel Defense M4ISR. (' barrel, pinned/welded 7" suppressor attached. Pistol length gas system.
Did you come up with a sub powder for heavy bullets that you liked for my approximate set up?

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
Bearusmc
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:07 am

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by Bearusmc »

Great info. I'm posting so I can find this again.
Sagia12
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2023 5:43 pm

Re: CFE 300 BLK first thoughts update 1/28/17

Post by Sagia12 »

Thank you , great information , :!:
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests