let's talk cfe223
- Thread starter xandi
- Start date
In my Stage Model 6H which is a 1/8 24" heavy barrel with a 5.56 chamber it works quite well with heavy bullets such as 69 and 77 grain. Ramshot Tac is a bit more accurate but CFE is a close second.
Looked at my spread sheets and for some reason I don't have a lot of chrono data for it. Guess I'll add it to my "To Do" list.
Looked at my spread sheets and for some reason I don't have a lot of chrono data for it. Guess I'll add it to my "To Do" list.
xandi,
I haven't noticed that CFE223 is a dirty powder. I find it shoots cleaner than most of the older powders. In my bolt action with a 1:9 twist, it shoots clearer than H335 and H322 and just a bit cleaner than N133 with bullets 55b grains and lighter. It shoots way better than H322 and about as well as H335, but not quite as accurately as N133.
In my semi auto .223 that shoots 77 grain bullets, it shoots a whole lot cleaner than R-15, H4895, and Varget and a bit cleaner than N140. It shoots as accurately as any of them. It is the only powder I had tried that shoots accurately with the heavy and light bullets in my two rifles.
I haven't noticed that CFE223 is a dirty powder. I find it shoots cleaner than most of the older powders. In my bolt action with a 1:9 twist, it shoots clearer than H335 and H322 and just a bit cleaner than N133 with bullets 55b grains and lighter. It shoots way better than H322 and about as well as H335, but not quite as accurately as N133.
In my semi auto .223 that shoots 77 grain bullets, it shoots a whole lot cleaner than R-15, H4895, and Varget and a bit cleaner than N140. It shoots as accurately as any of them. It is the only powder I had tried that shoots accurately with the heavy and light bullets in my two rifles.
98 220 swift
New member
I have had bad accuracy with it in every bullet weight I tried in my bull barreled 24" 1-8" except 75 gr amax. It did show some promise there yesterday on my first attempt at the 75gr bullets. The velocity has been very high with 52 and 55gr bullets. I don't have my data with me but I remember a 3400 fps 52 gr load. ( I could be wrong I need to check my data when I get home). But the velocity spread was terrible if I remember correctly over 100 fps with 5 shots
of course accuracy was terrible. Also used it in 308 and got some very high velocity with 168 gr bullets (2800 fps) but once again accuracy was poor. Most likely I will try some more testing with the 75gr bullets but I am sure I will burn the rest of the pound in plinker 55gr loads for my other AR.
of course accuracy was terrible. Also used it in 308 and got some very high velocity with 168 gr bullets (2800 fps) but once again accuracy was poor. Most likely I will try some more testing with the 75gr bullets but I am sure I will burn the rest of the pound in plinker 55gr loads for my other AR.If I remember correctly, Nosler only makes a 60 grain Partition and a 64 grain bonded bullet in .223. The 60 should shoot accurately in a 1:9 twist barrel but the 64 might depend on the rifle. The 64 grain should stabilize, but some rifles are finicky. Both should shoot just fine in a 1:8 twist.
If your twist is 1:8 or faster, your should be able to shoot a 75 grain Hornady A Max bullet accurately.
The 69 grain and 77 grain bullets I shoot in my Les Baer 1:8 twist .223 are match bullets so I am not really up on heavy .223 hunting bullets.
If your twist is 1:8 or faster, your should be able to shoot a 75 grain Hornady A Max bullet accurately.
The 69 grain and 77 grain bullets I shoot in my Les Baer 1:8 twist .223 are match bullets so I am not really up on heavy .223 hunting bullets.
JeepHammer
Moderator
Its as carbon dirty as Win 748,
Its almost as accurate as Varget or Benchmark, but not as clean.
It doesn't seem to be super Temprature sensitive like Win 748.
Don't get me wrong here, it does the job quite well,
And it will do a remarkable job of cleaning copper,
But there is simply no substitute for a well made, well broken in barrel.
Cleaning for target/hunting shooters that actually clean the barrel properly won't have the issues the military has with thousands of rounds being fired in a fire fight between cleanings...
I find CFE expensive first of all,
And need for the copper removal properties almost non-existent when a bore has been properly prepared and broken in, all making that barrel much easier to clean in the first place.
CFE does a good job on scratched & chatter marked bores,
A surprisingly good job of removing copper,
But it still makes for a carbon mess in things that still needs cleaning.
Its almost as accurate as Varget or Benchmark, but not as clean.
It doesn't seem to be super Temprature sensitive like Win 748.
Don't get me wrong here, it does the job quite well,
And it will do a remarkable job of cleaning copper,
But there is simply no substitute for a well made, well broken in barrel.
Cleaning for target/hunting shooters that actually clean the barrel properly won't have the issues the military has with thousands of rounds being fired in a fire fight between cleanings...
I find CFE expensive first of all,
And need for the copper removal properties almost non-existent when a bore has been properly prepared and broken in, all making that barrel much easier to clean in the first place.
CFE does a good job on scratched & chatter marked bores,
A surprisingly good job of removing copper,
But it still makes for a carbon mess in things that still needs cleaning.
I'm not sure CFE223 is dirty, but it does leave a strange looking black "dust" in the bore. Not sure what it is, but it doesn't affect performance, and it does make things easier to clean as it claims. The best 100 yard group I have ever shot was while using CFE223. 0.44 inch at 100 yards. Believe it or not, this was with a NEF Handi Rifle heavy barrel in .223. I paid $200 for the rifle, put a $90 WalMart scope on it, and got this good of a group. Normally, I get just over half inch groups, but this 0.44 group must have been when the planets were in prefect alignment, or just a fluke, not sure which, but I'll take it.
NorthernBlue
New member
My results from using CFE223 for the first time.
Superfast work up today before we went hiking. Placing this here in case someone else is looking for data on CFE223
It was about 45 degrees out and about 65% RH, calm winds. Rifle was a Ruger AR556, chamber is 5.56, 16" barrel, 1/8 twist, non-chrome lined. I loaded each of the 5 loads into a mag and shot them with about 1 or 2 seconds between each shot, maybe 60 seconds between each loading. None of that load each round by hand, let it cool for 1 minute for each round and 5 min between each load.
I shot 5 factory loaded 55 gr Remington UMC FMJ rounds to confirm the chrono worked,
1) 2898 fps
2) 2743 fps
3) 2836 fps
4) 2911 fps
5) 2772 fps
Then I shot my reloads. They are 55gr FMJ bullets from 223bulkbullets.com over 26.5, 27, 27.5, and 27.8 gr of CFE223 and lit with a CCI 450 primer.
These rounds will end up being used for shooting steel and doing drills/practice, so I will probably end up using one of the lighter loads as they operated just fine.
26.5
1) 2715 fps
2) 2699 fps
3) 2666 fps
4) 2614 fps
5) 2640 fps
27
1) 2824 fps
2) 2699 fps
3) 2801 fps
4) 2693 fps
5) 2693 fps
27.5
1) 2818 fps
2) 2842 fps
3) 2772 fps
4) 2812 fps
5) 2818 fps
27.8
1) 2898 fps
2) 2842 fps
3) 2836 fps
4) 2873 fps
5) 2886 fps
All the groupings were about 1 to 1.5 inches at 50 yards. I didn't have the most stable setup, nor am I the best shot. The front of my Ruger AR556 was on a sand bag, and only my left elbow was on the table as the sandbag didn't provide enough clearance for the grip so my right side was off the table.
All the different loads seemed to shoot well and I didn't see any signs of overpressure or hard extractions.
Photo of the stock UMC casings
Photos of the rest in order of charge from smallest to largest.
Superfast work up today before we went hiking. Placing this here in case someone else is looking for data on CFE223
It was about 45 degrees out and about 65% RH, calm winds. Rifle was a Ruger AR556, chamber is 5.56, 16" barrel, 1/8 twist, non-chrome lined. I loaded each of the 5 loads into a mag and shot them with about 1 or 2 seconds between each shot, maybe 60 seconds between each loading. None of that load each round by hand, let it cool for 1 minute for each round and 5 min between each load.
I shot 5 factory loaded 55 gr Remington UMC FMJ rounds to confirm the chrono worked,
1) 2898 fps
2) 2743 fps
3) 2836 fps
4) 2911 fps
5) 2772 fps
Then I shot my reloads. They are 55gr FMJ bullets from 223bulkbullets.com over 26.5, 27, 27.5, and 27.8 gr of CFE223 and lit with a CCI 450 primer.
These rounds will end up being used for shooting steel and doing drills/practice, so I will probably end up using one of the lighter loads as they operated just fine.
26.5
1) 2715 fps
2) 2699 fps
3) 2666 fps
4) 2614 fps
5) 2640 fps
27
1) 2824 fps
2) 2699 fps
3) 2801 fps
4) 2693 fps
5) 2693 fps
27.5
1) 2818 fps
2) 2842 fps
3) 2772 fps
4) 2812 fps
5) 2818 fps
27.8
1) 2898 fps
2) 2842 fps
3) 2836 fps
4) 2873 fps
5) 2886 fps
All the groupings were about 1 to 1.5 inches at 50 yards. I didn't have the most stable setup, nor am I the best shot. The front of my Ruger AR556 was on a sand bag, and only my left elbow was on the table as the sandbag didn't provide enough clearance for the grip so my right side was off the table.
All the different loads seemed to shoot well and I didn't see any signs of overpressure or hard extractions.
Photo of the stock UMC casings
Photos of the rest in order of charge from smallest to largest.
Stats Shooter
New member
I have used CFE -223 in 5.56 loads and 7.62x51. I have also used Varget , IMR 4320, Benchmark, BLC2 and most of the Alliance powders....here are my observations
1: It is not as clean as Benchmark but not as dirty as win or some of the IMR powders
2: It is not as temp sensitive as Winchester or alliant powders, but is more temp sensitive than the hodgdon extreme powders like Benchmark or H4831 etc.
3: It meters like water.... seriously like water! With longer cut extruded powders I can sometimes see .1 grain differs or more in high volume cases from like H1000 or 4831 (non SC) but CFE-223 meters exactly where I set my RCBS powder meter no matter how full the container is.
4: it is just as accurate as any powder including Benchmark etc. Which means it burns as consistently as any others .
5: it gives better velocity on larger pills than most other powders. In my AR-10 16" barrel I get 2700 fps with 165 grain Sierra game kings....that's only 100 fps below the 24" test barrel and the group average was .67". It also made a very speedy load using 62 grain pills in my 20" piston driven Ruger SR 5.56 varmint.
The only time I would hesitate to use it is if it failed to fill the case but that is the same for any powder. Because a full case means a consistent burn no matter how the case is tilted
Bottom line is, for small pills like 150 grains an below in .308 and 55 and below in .223 I use Benchmark....for larger pills I use CFE- 223
1: It is not as clean as Benchmark but not as dirty as win or some of the IMR powders
2: It is not as temp sensitive as Winchester or alliant powders, but is more temp sensitive than the hodgdon extreme powders like Benchmark or H4831 etc.
3: It meters like water.... seriously like water! With longer cut extruded powders I can sometimes see .1 grain differs or more in high volume cases from like H1000 or 4831 (non SC) but CFE-223 meters exactly where I set my RCBS powder meter no matter how full the container is.
4: it is just as accurate as any powder including Benchmark etc. Which means it burns as consistently as any others .
5: it gives better velocity on larger pills than most other powders. In my AR-10 16" barrel I get 2700 fps with 165 grain Sierra game kings....that's only 100 fps below the 24" test barrel and the group average was .67". It also made a very speedy load using 62 grain pills in my 20" piston driven Ruger SR 5.56 varmint.
The only time I would hesitate to use it is if it failed to fill the case but that is the same for any powder. Because a full case means a consistent burn no matter how the case is tilted
Bottom line is, for small pills like 150 grains an below in .308 and 55 and below in .223 I use Benchmark....for larger pills I use CFE- 223
JeepHammer
Moderator
Haven't shot a ton of it, so take this for what its worth...
Took a friend's rifle with HORRIBLE copper fouling viewed with a bore scope,
(He read that some champion shooter never cleans his rifle, went that way)
Groups opened up like crazy, like 4" crazy...
Shot about 150 CFE rounds, groups tightened up, copper was reduced to very little, just a few smears.
I have to agree with 'Dirty', but more like soot, not hard carbon, pretty easy to clean.
Haven't worked up a 'Sweet' load yet, but rifle started shooting about 1" groups again after a good cleaning and 250-300 CFE rounds.
The 'CFE' part seems to do its job, which supprised me, I thought it was a marketing line of crap.
Took a friend's rifle with HORRIBLE copper fouling viewed with a bore scope,
(He read that some champion shooter never cleans his rifle, went that way)
Groups opened up like crazy, like 4" crazy...
Shot about 150 CFE rounds, groups tightened up, copper was reduced to very little, just a few smears.
I have to agree with 'Dirty', but more like soot, not hard carbon, pretty easy to clean.
Haven't worked up a 'Sweet' load yet, but rifle started shooting about 1" groups again after a good cleaning and 250-300 CFE rounds.
The 'CFE' part seems to do its job, which supprised me, I thought it was a marketing line of crap.
Stats Shooter
New member
Jeephammer:
Its nice to know that it does what it says it will do. The only carbon build up from CFE-223 I have found is on the piston of my piston driven AK's and AR's. But that seriously happens with ALL powders including the ultra clean types like Benchmark.
So it seems like it would be a good idea, if you do not typically use CFE-223, to have a few hundred on hand and shoot them every now and then. But I also use Montana Extreme Copper Killer which does a good job cleaning copper out of a fouled barrel.
Its nice to know that it does what it says it will do. The only carbon build up from CFE-223 I have found is on the piston of my piston driven AK's and AR's. But that seriously happens with ALL powders including the ultra clean types like Benchmark.
So it seems like it would be a good idea, if you do not typically use CFE-223, to have a few hundred on hand and shoot them every now and then. But I also use Montana Extreme Copper Killer which does a good job cleaning copper out of a fouled barrel.
JeepHammer
Moderator
Montana used to be .50 BMG and it does a quick job, but it stinks.
I'm still cleaning, no matter what the other guys say, can't stand to put a dirty rifle in the rack...
I'm still cleaning, no matter what the other guys say, can't stand to put a dirty rifle in the rack...
Stats Shooter
New member
I wouldn't say Montana Extreme stinks, but I have opened the cap and waved it under my brothers nose ha-ha....that ammonia smell is very strong.
Marco Califo
New member
The ammonia is an active ingredient. It attacks copper (but not steel).
Swabbing with a patch wet with ammonia will turn the patch blue if copper is in the bore.
Swabbing with a patch wet with ammonia will turn the patch blue if copper is in the bore.
I tried 20 rounds of .223 55g bullet in my 16" AR-15 and it had quite a kick. Measurement was 27g. I typically used IMR 4891, 20g, and the kickback was not as bad. Accuracy was about the same with both powders.
Cabella's has CFE223 for $24.99 a bottle, while IMR 4891 was $32.99.
This equals out as follows:
IMR - .106 per load
CFE - .127 per load
Since I'm all about cost effective plinking, I stuck with IMR.
Cabella's has CFE223 for $24.99 a bottle, while IMR 4891 was $32.99.
This equals out as follows:
IMR - .106 per load
CFE - .127 per load
Since I'm all about cost effective plinking, I stuck with IMR.