Question, been reloading for a while now. Just started to load 5.56 though, just never seemed cost effective but have all the stuff and why not? Asked around about some different powders, I have BLC-2 but everyone raved about CFE 223 so I bought some, worked up my ladders and went shooting. My max velocity on a standard AR barrel was only 2650 and that showed pressure signs on my case, any advice. And yes I checked the chrono with factory ammo and was getting around 3050 fps.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
velocity problems CFE 223
- Thread starter SMcCloud
- Start date
SMcCloud,
Welcome to the forum.
What bullet are you shooting and what COL are you seating it to? What charge weight and what case and primer are you using? What is the specific commercial round you are comparing your loads to? You said you had a standard AR, so I assume a 20" barrel, but it might avoid confusion by some it you confirm its length.
There are lots of possible explanations for what you are seeing, but without that basic information gross speculation is all we can provide. With that information, some pretty good extrapolations from published data can be made.
Welcome to the forum.
What bullet are you shooting and what COL are you seating it to? What charge weight and what case and primer are you using? What is the specific commercial round you are comparing your loads to? You said you had a standard AR, so I assume a 20" barrel, but it might avoid confusion by some it you confirm its length.
There are lots of possible explanations for what you are seeing, but without that basic information gross speculation is all we can provide. With that information, some pretty good extrapolations from published data can be made.
Details
(Bullet Hornady 55g BT-FMJ, barrel 16" 1:9, 25.5g to 27.3 g of cfe 223, CCI small rifle, case trimmed to 1.75, OCL I believe is 2.20) I am good with the speed if that is normal. I do agree speed isn't everything, it just seemed really low. I had just read about other people getting better than 3250 fps with this powder. I thought I had maybe gone way wrong.
(Bullet Hornady 55g BT-FMJ, barrel 16" 1:9, 25.5g to 27.3 g of cfe 223, CCI small rifle, case trimmed to 1.75, OCL I believe is 2.20) I am good with the speed if that is normal. I do agree speed isn't everything, it just seemed really low. I had just read about other people getting better than 3250 fps with this powder. I thought I had maybe gone way wrong.
FrankenMauser
New member
It sounds like one or more of three options:
1. Your scale is off.
2. You have a "slow" barrel.
3. You aren't reading the cases correctly. (Have any photos? I've mis-read case heads myself.)
----
In .223/5.56, CFE223 has run reasonably well for me. It's dirty (the grey bismuth residue gets everywhere); but it works. However....
I have also run a bit of CFE223 through 6x45mm (.223 Rem necked up).
My experience there is somewhat counter-intuitive.
Across the board, velocities have not been as good as expected. They're adequate, but not what other people claim; and that barrel seems to generally run only 30-40 fps shy of 'average' published velocities with other powders.
While I ran into pressure signs earlier than predicted (based on interpolated .223 data and data from other 6x45 owners), and earlier than QuickLoad predicts, I also found that even the 'hot' loads were incredibly filthy.
The only other powder that I have tested in an AR that ran as dirty as CFE223 in 6x45mm was Norma 200 in .475 Tremor. (Ridiculously unknown and very different cartridge, I know, but it's the closest "filth maker" comparison I have.)
After shooting those loads, pointing the barrel down and tapping the upper is like emptying a coal chute; and everything in the action is just covered in carbon and the 'grey' residue that is said to be a byproduct of the bismuth responsible for copper sequestration. Both loads are, in theory, running just a hair below max pressure.
All around unbelievably filthy. ...Which I would generally read as being under-pressure, but the 6x45mm loads should be at 52k+ psi.
That being said, I will admit that both of the above examples are somewhat outside of each powder's comfort zone. 6x45mm really needs a faster powder than CFE223. And .475 Tremor runs at 'low' pressure (35k psi), for which Norma 200 wasn't intended.
1. Your scale is off.
2. You have a "slow" barrel.
3. You aren't reading the cases correctly. (Have any photos? I've mis-read case heads myself.)
----
In .223/5.56, CFE223 has run reasonably well for me. It's dirty (the grey bismuth residue gets everywhere); but it works. However....
I have also run a bit of CFE223 through 6x45mm (.223 Rem necked up).
My experience there is somewhat counter-intuitive.
Across the board, velocities have not been as good as expected. They're adequate, but not what other people claim; and that barrel seems to generally run only 30-40 fps shy of 'average' published velocities with other powders.
While I ran into pressure signs earlier than predicted (based on interpolated .223 data and data from other 6x45 owners), and earlier than QuickLoad predicts, I also found that even the 'hot' loads were incredibly filthy.
The only other powder that I have tested in an AR that ran as dirty as CFE223 in 6x45mm was Norma 200 in .475 Tremor. (Ridiculously unknown and very different cartridge, I know, but it's the closest "filth maker" comparison I have.)
After shooting those loads, pointing the barrel down and tapping the upper is like emptying a coal chute; and everything in the action is just covered in carbon and the 'grey' residue that is said to be a byproduct of the bismuth responsible for copper sequestration. Both loads are, in theory, running just a hair below max pressure.
All around unbelievably filthy. ...Which I would generally read as being under-pressure, but the 6x45mm loads should be at 52k+ psi.
That being said, I will admit that both of the above examples are somewhat outside of each powder's comfort zone. 6x45mm really needs a faster powder than CFE223. And .475 Tremor runs at 'low' pressure (35k psi), for which Norma 200 wasn't intended.
I have had problems with both CFE223 and H110 not burning, at all.
CFE223 in 260Rem with Lapua 308 Palma brass, 120 gr bullet, with CCI 550 primer.
H110 with 45Colt with Large Win pistol primer, 250 gr bullet.
This is so horrible, one wants to understand it and take corrective action that it never happen again.
CFE223 in 260Rem with Lapua 308 Palma brass, 120 gr bullet, with CCI 550 primer.
H110 with 45Colt with Large Win pistol primer, 250 gr bullet.
This is so horrible, one wants to understand it and take corrective action that it never happen again.
I know this is not specifically about CFE223 but I have had good luck with Accurate 2495 on Hornady 55gr. I am shooting from a DPMS AR15 with a 16" barrel. I have never crono'd them I just play with the load until I get the group I want relative to the recoil level. Not scientific at all put it can put a nice group on target without a lot of adjustment between shots. It sounds like it's a ton cleaner than CFE223. I have been curious about CFE223 but think I will stay away.
CFE223 is actually toward the slow end of the suitable powders for .223.
I bought some but haven't loaded with it since the hoped for prairie dog hunt fell through.
BTW I'm not at all surprised with your velocities from a 16" barrel. I think a LOT of AR shooters would be disappointed if they knew what velocities they were getting with their carbines.
I use a chronograph and load to an expected velocity level as long as pressures are safe.
I bought some but haven't loaded with it since the hoped for prairie dog hunt fell through.
BTW I'm not at all surprised with your velocities from a 16" barrel. I think a LOT of AR shooters would be disappointed if they knew what velocities they were getting with their carbines.
I use a chronograph and load to an expected velocity level as long as pressures are safe.
reading case head
The primers are not just flat but smashed flat. All my reloading exp up to this point has been .338 lapua, 30-06, 300 win mag and .308. This is the smallest load I have ever played with but still have never seen primers flattened out like these. I try to stay away from max loads, I have seen pressure signs before but there is no doubt in my mind I have pressure problems. I appreciate all the advice guys, I know I can always count on other reloaders.
The primers are not just flat but smashed flat. All my reloading exp up to this point has been .338 lapua, 30-06, 300 win mag and .308. This is the smallest load I have ever played with but still have never seen primers flattened out like these. I try to stay away from max loads, I have seen pressure signs before but there is no doubt in my mind I have pressure problems. I appreciate all the advice guys, I know I can always count on other reloaders.
With both QuickLOAD and my Excel estimator that works off Hodgdon and Lyman data, I get the estimate that if your gun and barrel met SAAMI test barrel dimensions, you would get about 2834 fps (QuickLOAD) and 2837 fps (my estimator). The pressures look like 45,067 psi (QuickLOAD) and 48,995 psi (my estimator). If your velocity number is accurate (and do try putting the chronograph at least 15 feet away, just in case powder particles from incompletely burned powder are influencing matters).
But I doubt that's the problem. I expect your velocity is accurate because I expect your chamber is a 5.56 chamber or a Wylde chamber that is on the long side of headspace. You may also have a different cross-sectional area than the SAAMI barrel. In QuickLOAD, for example, if I adjust the powder burn rate down 3%, which is the manufacturers lower lot tolerance, and the as-fired case capacity up to 32 grains, which I've seen in from generous chambers, I get 2638 fps, which is lower than your results (so your's isn't as bad as I've seen). Pressure is down considerably in that case (36600 psi).
So what you probably have is low pressure. I still don't know the make of case you are using, but except for a few, like PMP, their capacities don't vary much, with military having the most (contrary to popular rumor, the converse of which only applies to 7.62 cases). Under some slightly unusual circumstances, low pressure can flatten a primer too. One element of that occurrence is having longish headspace. What happens is, the extra headspace allows the primer to back out further than in a tight fit, and if pressure is low, it takes "a while" (by firing event standards) for the case head to start to stretch back to the breech. If the pressure is very low, the case head backs up and the primer cup is strong enough to hold its shape until the head gets back there and reseats it. But you can, in a long headspace chamber, get to a point where there is not enough pressure to stretch the head to reseat the primer quickly, but is enough to start inflating and bulging the backed-out portion of the primer cup if it is backed out far enough. And then, when the case head is pushed back against the bolt face and tries to reseat the primer, it flattens the wider diameter of the bulged portion. About the only way I know to tell the difference between high pressure mushrooming and this kind of low pressure mushrooming is the former usually exhibits cratering around the primer indentation, while the latter has a smoothly radiused primer indentation and no cratering.
So, here's what you need to do to tell which situation you've got. You need to neck size and single-load and fire one of your already fired cases and see if the primer still flattens out a lot or not. If not, low pressure flattening was what you had. To neck size, if you don't have a neck sizing die, just run the case far enough into the chamber to size the neck part of the way, but not touch the sides of the case.
Also, get some CCI 450 primers to try and work the load back up. These primers are magnum primers, but they were formulated by CCI for spherical propellants, which are harder to light that stick powders, generally speaking. It won't hurt anything, plus the 450's cups are formed from 0.025" brass sheet, while the 400 is formed from 0.020" brass sheet, so they have slightly thicker cups and that's another way to fight low pressure flattening.
Again relying on QuickLOAD, even under the best circumstances, 223 CFE is much closer in burn rate to BL-C(2) than to H335. The significance of that is that BL-C(2) is a canister grade (controlled burn rate grade sold for handloading) of WC846, a ball powder developed for 7.62 NATO, and H335 is canister grade WC844, which is a faster burning version of WC846, developed for 5.56 ball ammunition when it was determined that WC846 was too slow for 556 ball. CFE-223's burn rate is between the two powders, but closer to the too-slow WC846. So if I were you I would at least pick up some 62 grain bullets and see if you can't get closer to normal performance with those.
What was said earlier also applies. If you look at Hodgon's data for this cartridge, you will note that the test barrel is 24" long. That's the standard test barrel length for 223. Anytime you see a velocity published by an ammo maker with no barrel specified, you can assume a 24" barrel for this cartridge. A 16" barrel loses about 9-10%, so a published 3300 fps will be about 3000 fps from a 16" barrel. The bullet is spending a bit less time under pressure and being accelerated. Also note that with a short barrel, the slower the powder, the more muzzle flash and blast you get. You might actually turn out to be better off working up to maximum loads of Reloader 10X to cut some of that extra muzzle behavior down.
But I doubt that's the problem. I expect your velocity is accurate because I expect your chamber is a 5.56 chamber or a Wylde chamber that is on the long side of headspace. You may also have a different cross-sectional area than the SAAMI barrel. In QuickLOAD, for example, if I adjust the powder burn rate down 3%, which is the manufacturers lower lot tolerance, and the as-fired case capacity up to 32 grains, which I've seen in from generous chambers, I get 2638 fps, which is lower than your results (so your's isn't as bad as I've seen). Pressure is down considerably in that case (36600 psi).
So what you probably have is low pressure. I still don't know the make of case you are using, but except for a few, like PMP, their capacities don't vary much, with military having the most (contrary to popular rumor, the converse of which only applies to 7.62 cases). Under some slightly unusual circumstances, low pressure can flatten a primer too. One element of that occurrence is having longish headspace. What happens is, the extra headspace allows the primer to back out further than in a tight fit, and if pressure is low, it takes "a while" (by firing event standards) for the case head to start to stretch back to the breech. If the pressure is very low, the case head backs up and the primer cup is strong enough to hold its shape until the head gets back there and reseats it. But you can, in a long headspace chamber, get to a point where there is not enough pressure to stretch the head to reseat the primer quickly, but is enough to start inflating and bulging the backed-out portion of the primer cup if it is backed out far enough. And then, when the case head is pushed back against the bolt face and tries to reseat the primer, it flattens the wider diameter of the bulged portion. About the only way I know to tell the difference between high pressure mushrooming and this kind of low pressure mushrooming is the former usually exhibits cratering around the primer indentation, while the latter has a smoothly radiused primer indentation and no cratering.
So, here's what you need to do to tell which situation you've got. You need to neck size and single-load and fire one of your already fired cases and see if the primer still flattens out a lot or not. If not, low pressure flattening was what you had. To neck size, if you don't have a neck sizing die, just run the case far enough into the chamber to size the neck part of the way, but not touch the sides of the case.
Also, get some CCI 450 primers to try and work the load back up. These primers are magnum primers, but they were formulated by CCI for spherical propellants, which are harder to light that stick powders, generally speaking. It won't hurt anything, plus the 450's cups are formed from 0.025" brass sheet, while the 400 is formed from 0.020" brass sheet, so they have slightly thicker cups and that's another way to fight low pressure flattening.
Again relying on QuickLOAD, even under the best circumstances, 223 CFE is much closer in burn rate to BL-C(2) than to H335. The significance of that is that BL-C(2) is a canister grade (controlled burn rate grade sold for handloading) of WC846, a ball powder developed for 7.62 NATO, and H335 is canister grade WC844, which is a faster burning version of WC846, developed for 5.56 ball ammunition when it was determined that WC846 was too slow for 556 ball. CFE-223's burn rate is between the two powders, but closer to the too-slow WC846. So if I were you I would at least pick up some 62 grain bullets and see if you can't get closer to normal performance with those.
What was said earlier also applies. If you look at Hodgon's data for this cartridge, you will note that the test barrel is 24" long. That's the standard test barrel length for 223. Anytime you see a velocity published by an ammo maker with no barrel specified, you can assume a 24" barrel for this cartridge. A 16" barrel loses about 9-10%, so a published 3300 fps will be about 3000 fps from a 16" barrel. The bullet is spending a bit less time under pressure and being accelerated. Also note that with a short barrel, the slower the powder, the more muzzle flash and blast you get. You might actually turn out to be better off working up to maximum loads of Reloader 10X to cut some of that extra muzzle behavior down.