Hodgdon CFE 223 Powder in .308win

[jamross65]

Anyone any experience with Hodgdon CFE 223 powder in a rifle chambered for .308win? In particular with 150grn Hornady SP Interlocks, but any bullets for that matter?

Loaded up 40 rounds with the last of my Varget yesterday so need to get more powder. I haven't even tried theses in the rifle yet and may well stick to Varget if they perform well but this powder seems to produce good M/V on paper and as the barrel is only 19.5 inches long I thought it may be worth a try.

 

[JTO]

Same burn rate as IMR4064 which is mentioned in all my manuals for 150grn bullets in .308, but in longer barrels.

 

[nun_hunter]

I had a load using 49grains with a 150 grain SST which shot a 0.9 inch group at 147m. That wasn't anywhere near max as 49 was slightly compressed and as it was the first time I'd loaded compressed rounds I chickened out going higher so may have got a better group with a bit more velocity. I'm currently trying it with 168 Matchkings and IMR4350 with 165 gamekings. Which ever produces the best results I'll try with the other bullet too. I'm sure you'll get some good results with it.

 

[Muir]

Same burn rate as IMR4064 which is mentioned in all my manuals for 150grn bullets in .308, but in longer barrels.

Not according to Hodgdon. A quick look at the data shows them to be quite different powders.~Muir

https://www.hodgdon.com//wp-content/uploads/2017/01/burnratecolor.pdf

 

[Selous]

H4895 is worth a look in the 308 as well. Does well in my 20 in barrel with 130 TTSX. I have previously used N140 which has similar burn rate to varget but wanted to try something a bit quicker. Works well and I get 3000fps from a 46g charge.

 

[Laurie]

Burn rates for St. Marks Powder Co. manufactured ball grades are highly misleading. B-LC(2) has been shown alongside fast burning H4198, Benchmark, H322 and in a different context shown slower than the 4895s, VarGet, and even as slow as Viht N140.

The only useful pointer to application is what the manufacturer or distributor (Hodgdon) gives as loading data, and from that you can see that CFE has a very wide range indeed and generally gives very high MVs in most. It is in fact the canister version of the powder used in factory 204 Ruger ammunition and the 'copper eraser' feature was a key factor in Hornady proceeding with this design as there were worries of severe copper fouling killing this high MV project off - a reputation that almost did for the .17 Rem a generation or two before. Almost certainly though, General Dynamics / St. Marks which makes this and all other Winchester / Hodgdon ball / 'spherical' powders developed it in response to military needs and I imagine it's the canister version of something used in 7.62 or 5.56 milspec ammo.

I got very high MVs indeed and quite respectable results in 308 with various bullet weights, the lightest being 155gn. It is a typical ball type though in that it works best within a relatively narrow charge / pressure range. At a certain charge weight level, a small step gives a big MV kick and ES values tighten dramatically. Not that much higher and you're blowing primers. Do not use it in Lapua Palma small primer brass - even with magnum or BR primers it produces hangfires and the occasional complete misfire plus terrible results. So, it may need a pretty vigorous primer in LRP brass if stalking in very cold weather. If charges are too low, your barrel length will likely produce a fair old muzzle flash, another ball grade feature.

Some American users complain it is a 'dirty burner'. IME, it produces a lot of thick but soft fouling. A couple of patches with a decent bore solvent and the barrel is nearly clean - much better than many of the older ball grades that produce a hard coating. The 'copper eraser' feature does work - copper fouling is nil to minimal even at very high pressures and velocities.

 

[turner.jc1]

I use 49gr of CFE 223 with 150gr Game Kings in my .308, it shoots .25" with an COAL 2.805. This is mild load though, only going 2750fps at a QL predicted 51k psi.

 

[JTO]

Not according to Hodgdon. A quick look at the data shows them to be quite different powders.~Muir

https://www.hodgdon.com//wp-content/uploads/2017/01/burnratecolor.pdf

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjQps_P3LPMAhUEAsAKHa9YDbAQFggrMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lhs-germany.de%2Ffileadmin%2Fdateien%2Fdokumente%2FPulver%2F2013%2FBurning_Rate_Chart_LHS_2013.10.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHu_3LLcbAToYp0UzlB2wuLrMYb9g&sig2=sklTPG0Z42RSAFtD-9p1BA&cad=rja

 

[jamross65]

I use 49gr of CFE 223 with 150gr Game Kings in my .308, it shoots .25" with an COAL 2.805. This is mild load though, only going 2750fps at a QL predicted 51k psi.

Fast enough for stalking distances. The barrel on this rifle has been finished at 20". I just loaded up some 150grn Interlocks and the COAL is 2.85 to get close to the lands but they won't fit in the magazine (barley too long) at that length. I seem to remember having this issue with my last .308 and ended up using Sierra 150grn GK too as the bullet shape is different and the ogive allowed for a longer round to the ogive but still fitted the magazine. The most accurate round I loaded then was a 150grn SST but could only single load due to length of round but it was incredibly accurate at that length. When i seated it slightly deeper the accuracy dropped off slightly but it still shot sub 1/4". That was out a blueprinted Remington and 20" Pac Nor super match grade barrel. This rifle has a cut riled barrel fitted by Dennis Groom who did a bit truing to the action as well. I'm hoping for good results. This powder caught my eye though when doing a wee bit research to see what alternatives there were to Varget, which is all I've used in previous (3 of them) .308's.

 

[Laurie]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...wuLrMYb9g&sig2=sklTPG0Z42RSAFtD-9p1BA&cad=rja

All that tells you is how misleading burn rate charts are and how careful you have to be in drawing any conclusions about a powder's suitability from them. I probably have 8 or 9 burn rate charts on file and some powders change position dramatically depending on which you look at. As I said in an earlier post this particularly applies to Hodgdon 'spherical' grades manufactured by General Dynamics / St. Marks Powder Co. of which CFE is one.

 

[Muir]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...wuLrMYb9g&sig2=sklTPG0Z42RSAFtD-9p1BA&cad=rja

The manufacturer / distributor of both powders.~Muir
https://www.hodgdon.com//wp-content/...nratecolor.pdf

 

[A Guy Out West]

I see it is right next to BL C2, that powder has been a dandy in my .308. How about the copper cleansing aspect? Is it noticeable?

 

[JTO]

Burn rates for St. Marks Powder Co. manufactured ball grades are highly misleading. B-LC(2) has been shown alongside fast burning H4198, Benchmark, H322 and in a different context shown slower than the 4895s, VarGet, and even as slow as Viht N140.

So, it gets curiouser and curiouser the more you look at it.

 

[JTO]

https://www.hodgdon.com//wp-content/...nratecolor.pdf

Burn rate appears close to Varget and IMR4320 , both of which appear in Nosler's data for 150grn bullets. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

[JTO]

Interesting read here: Varget vs CFE 223 in 308

 

[Muir]

Frankly, I love 4064. I use it in my hunting & match loads and whats more, the US Government specifies it for their 168 and 175 grain match and "Special Purpose" loadings of the 308. Universally accurate in my 308's.~Muir

 

[Southern]

IMR-4064 is excellent across a wide range of bullet weights in the .308 Winchester - so much good data for match loads, why look any further, if you can obtain the powder?

IMR-4166 is almost a match for it, so that is one I want to try next in the .308 Win, as I live and shoot in areas with very wide temperature swings.

A friend has tried CFE223 in his .308 Win and loved the velocity and accuracy with no fouling. He is very experienced loader and good shot ( former world record holder in bench rest, and a sniper in Vietnam, where he loaded is own .300 Win Mag). He said CFE223, like most spherical powders, started ramping up pressure quickly as it approached maximum book loads, and flattening primers, especially with 165 and 168 grain bullets. So, for him, it is a 150-gr bullet powder, which is not surprising, since it was designed for the US military for the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. Temperature insensitivity, especially hot chambers from lots of shooting, clean burning and low copper fouling for hundreds of rounds, are very good characteristics.

It is a bit slower than 4064, 4895 and Varget, so it has a bit too much gas pressure and volume for hot match loads in a gas gun like the M-14 or Garand. Since 4895 works for those, I will stay with it and 4064. But for a bolt action with 130 to 155 grain bullets, It seems to offer a lot of potential. Time will tell how hard hot loads are on the throat.