Not getting published velocities for 5.56 with 55gr fmj / CFE223 - Page 2

FrankenMauser · March 8, 2014, 12:50 AM

I'd really like to know where you got your data.
Neither the Hornady 7th, nor the Hornady 8th list CFE223.
Unless I missed something, I haven't seen any supplemental data released by Hornady, either.

Even so...
Hornady used a 26" Remington 700 for their .223 load testing. Your 16" AR isn't even going to be close.
If you try Hodgdon, it's the same thing - a 24" bolt action, not a 16" AR15.

Where's this 20" Bushmaster data you're talking about?

terrybarb3 · March 9, 2014, 03:21 PM

I pulled my original data from Hornady's 9th Edition manual
Page 157 for 5.56mm NATO
States they used a 20" Bushmaster XM15-E25
On page 158 they state 3250fps for a max charge of 27.5gr CFE223,,, and 3200fps for a 27.0gr charge of CFE223

I agree with group size trumping speed. I took my two Bushmasters out today and chronographed them again. The 15" (has the factory flash to make it 16") is the original that I got the 2859fps
My older Pre-Ban bushmaster with an actual 16" barrel actually clocked around 25fps faster on CFE powder.

What was really crazy is that the older true 16" barrel rifle clocked an avg 120fps faster than the new one (15" plus flash) with my Varget loads.

The posts here are very interesting. My initial concern was how was I getting such drastic velocity drops as my family shoots my reloads and I effort to make very safe reloads. I will tweak them loads down (NOT GOING UP on this powder) to find the most accurate. But I got 8lbs of the CFE223 for $120 and if it cleans the copper out as advertized,,, then its a great deal for us.

One thing I'm super impressed with is how well CFE223 meters through my Dillon 550. Most consistant dropping powder I've used.

FrankenMauser · March 9, 2014, 04:17 PM

Thanks. I completely forgot about the 9th edition, since it was essentially a downgrade from the 7th and 8th editions, for the average reloader.
My mistake.

terrybarb3 · March 9, 2014, 05:16 PM

Sorry Frank, I don't follow your point on your"essentially a downgrade" comment and average reloader.

Please elaborate

FrankenMauser · March 10, 2014, 12:00 AM

A lot of cartridges were dropped for the 9th edition.
Very few cartridges were added.
Most reloaders I've talked to, and most reviews I've seen, didn't like the new format (including me).
Quite a few discontinued bullets were dropped from the 9th edition (even though they could still be found on store shelves at the time).
And, some of the popular cartridges that usually have a lot of data available actually had several powders and/or bullets dropped for the 9th edition.

Less data, almost nothing new for cartridges that were in the 8th edition, and twice the price.

I wasn't trying to imply that anyone that owns one was dumb to buy it. It is simply the case that the overall impression (in quite a few reviews and discussions) is that the 9th edition is not beneficial to a reloader that has the 7th or 8th edition, unless they want Hornady-specific data for .17 Hornet or .300 AAC, or data for one of the new wonder powders. Discussions here on TFL left most of us feeling like Hornady kicked the 9th edition out the door to make a few extra bucks off the small number of new powders, bullets, and cartridges that were introduced after the 8th edition was sent to the publisher, rather than to provide something that was a real upgrade from the 8th edition.

The 9th edition .300 AAC data, for example, wasn't even all that new. It was barely expanded from the .300 Whisper data that was already in the 8th edition. They just added a little data to it, moved it to the rifle section, and renamed it.

terrybarb3 · March 14, 2014, 01:19 PM

Thanks for clarifying Frank. I bought it because it had the CFE223 data that my older volumes didn't. But, as this thread has pointed out, I now take velocities and other points of comments in reloading manuals with a grain of salt. Trying to attaing those published claims can ruin a great gun and bottom line is, great groups over great velocity wins. (I've got a 22-250 if my need for speed presses).
Thanks again for the very valuable information on this post. I settled on a 26.5gr of CFE223 behind my 55gr fmj. They shoot great and no pressure dangers

Clark · March 14, 2014, 01:30 PM

I don't use load books anymore, I work up my own loads from starting points I make up.

I feel lucky when I get CFE223 to go off.
So far I have just used it for wildcat case forming and barrel break in.
It seems only semi flammable.

March 8, 2014, 12:50 AM	#26
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	I'd really like to know where you got your data. Neither the Hornady 7th, nor the Hornady 8th list CFE223. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen any supplemental data released by Hornady, either. Even so... Hornady used a 26" Remington 700 for their .223 load testing. Your 16" AR isn't even going to be close. If you try Hodgdon, it's the same thing - a 24" bolt action, not a 16" AR15. Where's this 20" Bushmaster data you're talking about? __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

March 9, 2014, 03:21 PM	#27
terrybarb3 Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 43	My rifles are Bushmaster 15" & 16" barrels I pulled my original data from Hornady's 9th Edition manual Page 157 for 5.56mm NATO States they used a 20" Bushmaster XM15-E25 On page 158 they state 3250fps for a max charge of 27.5gr CFE223,,, and 3200fps for a 27.0gr charge of CFE223 I agree with group size trumping speed. I took my two Bushmasters out today and chronographed them again. The 15" (has the factory flash to make it 16") is the original that I got the 2859fps My older Pre-Ban bushmaster with an actual 16" barrel actually clocked around 25fps faster on CFE powder. What was really crazy is that the older true 16" barrel rifle clocked an avg 120fps faster than the new one (15" plus flash) with my Varget loads. The posts here are very interesting. My initial concern was how was I getting such drastic velocity drops as my family shoots my reloads and I effort to make very safe reloads. I will tweak them loads down (NOT GOING UP on this powder) to find the most accurate. But I got 8lbs of the CFE223 for $120 and if it cleans the copper out as advertized,,, then its a great deal for us. One thing I'm super impressed with is how well CFE223 meters through my Dillon 550. Most consistant dropping powder I've used.

March 9, 2014, 04:17 PM	#28
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	Thanks. I completely forgot about the 9th edition, since it was essentially a downgrade from the 7th and 8th editions, for the average reloader. My mistake. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

March 10, 2014, 12:00 AM	#30
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	A lot of cartridges were dropped for the 9th edition. Very few cartridges were added. Most reloaders I've talked to, and most reviews I've seen, didn't like the new format (including me). Quite a few discontinued bullets were dropped from the 9th edition (even though they could still be found on store shelves at the time). And, some of the popular cartridges that usually have a lot of data available actually had several powders and/or bullets dropped for the 9th edition. Less data, almost nothing new for cartridges that were in the 8th edition, and twice the price. I wasn't trying to imply that anyone that owns one was dumb to buy it. It is simply the case that the overall impression (in quite a few reviews and discussions) is that the 9th edition is not beneficial to a reloader that has the 7th or 8th edition, unless they want Hornady-specific data for .17 Hornet or .300 AAC, or data for one of the new wonder powders. Discussions here on TFL left most of us feeling like Hornady kicked the 9th edition out the door to make a few extra bucks off the small number of new powders, bullets, and cartridges that were introduced after the 8th edition was sent to the publisher, rather than to provide something that was a real upgrade from the 8th edition. The 9th edition .300 AAC data, for example, wasn't even all that new. It was barely expanded from the .300 Whisper data that was already in the 8th edition. They just added a little data to it, moved it to the rifle section, and renamed it. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

March 14, 2014, 01:19 PM	#31
terrybarb3 Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 43	CFE223 recipes Thanks for clarifying Frank. I bought it because it had the CFE223 data that my older volumes didn't. But, as this thread has pointed out, I now take velocities and other points of comments in reloading manuals with a grain of salt. Trying to attaing those published claims can ruin a great gun and bottom line is, great groups over great velocity wins. (I've got a 22-250 if my need for speed presses). Thanks again for the very valuable information on this post. I settled on a 26.5gr of CFE223 behind my 55gr fmj. They shoot great and no pressure dangers

March 9, 2014, 05:16 PM	#29
terrybarb3 Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 43	Sorry Frank, I don't follow your point on your"essentially a downgrade" comment and average reloader. Please elaborate

March 14, 2014, 01:30 PM	#32
Clark Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Location: WA, the ever blue state Posts: 4,678	I don't use load books anymore, I work up my own loads from starting points I make up. I feel lucky when I get CFE223 to go off. So far I have just used it for wildcat case forming and barrel break in. It seems only semi flammable. __________________ The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books." "Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist. Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?