Issue with CFE223

[jo191145]

Different weight bullet, different powder charge, different fouling condition.
See how many rounds it takes for accuracy to go south, if it ever does that is.

[Darkker]

CFE is nothing more than good ol w-748 with even more anti copper fouling additive added.

Not quite, that is a canister blend of SMP842, 748 is a variation off the WC846/844 family.

[jo191145]

CFE is nothing more than good ol w-748 with even more anti copper fouling additive added.

Not quite, that is a canister blend of SMP842, 748 is a variation off the WC846/844 family.

Yeah your probably right. That was some bad choice of words on my part. I have 0 knowledge of what family of blends CFE owes its roots.
Just in my experience 748 in the 204 is one of the best powders to alleviate copper fouling problems. It was along those lines of personal reasoning I made that comment. A comment that probably sounds reasonable to no one but myself
Thanks for the correction.

[Darkker]

I completely agree that 748 does that job beautifully!!

As you pointed out, CFE has higher Tin/Bismuth compounds, as it comes from SMP842. Which is General Dynamics propellant for the Military Non-Toxic(all copper) 5.56 nato ammo.
748 is VERY close in characteristics to the 846 line, just contains the Tin/Bismuth components.

For your file of interesting(useless?) knowledge.....
The WC 846 original patent limit lists CaCO(acid stabilizer) at a max of 1%, with most lots coming well under that. Back when the 5.56 was in it's infancy, and the cyclic rate issue arose. They took the powders that were at the lower end of the spectrum and limited that amount to 0.25%. That lower end of the same powder was renamed WC844. Mind you these are the military/industrial versions. Hodgdon REFUSES to give you lot variation limits, BUT.... Try telling someone that H335 and BL-C are the same powder, and they will probably lose their mind.

[jo191145]

I completely agree that 748 does that job beautifully!!

As you pointed out, CFE has higher Tin/Bismuth compounds, as it comes from SMP842. Which is General Dynamics propellant for the Military Non-Toxic(all copper) 5.56 nato ammo.
748 is VERY close in characteristics to the 846 line, just contains the Tin/Bismuth components.

For your file of interesting(useless?) knowledge.....
The WC 846 original patent limit lists CaCO(acid stabilizer) at a max of 1%, with most lots coming well under that. Back when the 5.56 was in it's infancy, and the cyclic rate issue arose. They took the powders that were at the lower end of the spectrum and limited that amount to 0.25%. That lower end of the same powder was renamed WC844. Mind you these are the military/industrial versions. Hodgdon REFUSES to give you lot variation limits, BUT.... Try telling someone that H335 and BL-C are the same powder, and they will probably lose their mind.

Off the top of my head I can't come up with the instance of any knowledge being useless.

Ok I gotta ask. I know 760 and 414 are the same powders. I believe 110 has a sister but can't recall what that might be. But 335 and BL-C2 the same? I had to check hodgen and the differences seem real as opposed to 760 and 414 which usually has identical data.
Can you fill me in on that? Thanks

[Darkker]

H110's twin is Win 29-something(297?), sorry don't load pistols anymore.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556prop.html
Remember there are several "issues" to keep in mind here.
1) who made who.
Olin has been out of the propellant (and brass) game for quite a while. Hodgdon has switched powder suppliers a few times in my life, but the location (of ball powder) remains the same. What I do know is that WC846 & WC844 differ only in the potential for CaCO. Technically they are identical, but the original patent of 846 has a large allowable swing. Meaning they CAN be different, and CAN be the same.
2) Why ask why.
Was the production run contracted, or was the powder surplussed? If surplussed, why so? Hodgdon has only ever been a reseller/blender. So depending upon why the powder got to Hodgdon, and what they will allow, there can be differences.
3) testing and burn characteristics.
While QL is a nice tool for this, Hodgdon REFUSES to give info on what the BR variation is, our give him any useful info. Because of the contract dispute between Olin and Hodgdon, ANY current info for Win powders is from an outside tester, not those selling it. A powder of that era has a standard BR variation of about 5%. Meaning potentially a real difference of 10%(if you have a slow lot, and a fast one). That is why EVERY manual ever printed tells you to drop 10% and start over when changing powder lots.

Of you look at burn characteristics in QL from the powders that Hartmut tested (win & Hodgy ball powder), you can see that 748 appears to be slightly different. But only just. So it is my ASSumption that that is due to the anti copper agents. Grab all of your manuals over time, where you KNOW the company did their own recent pressure testing. For one example only, the Nosler manual (2nd most recent) and follow the 846/844 family lineage in all cartridges. They are within 5% of one another. Does that make them identical? Certainly not, see the argument against that above about blending. But it sure does play into my case of them being essentially the same, and from the same parent powder.

As another interesting bit of knowledge. French defense contractor Thales, via their ADI layer; contracted with US defense giant General Dynamics. They were after production help, and powder construction help. GD builds all Win/Hodgy ball powder in Florida. ADI builds Hodgy's extruded line.
Here is a little comparison chart they have since put out.

[Darkker]

http://www.adi-powders.com.au/handloade ... alents.asp

[jo191145]

More often than not this forum neglects to notify me of a reply so I offer a belated Thanks