CFE223 vs TAC in AR15 and 62gr bullets

GlockHead77 · April 17, 2012, 08:03 AM

Hello Everyone,

I am a long time lurker but first time poster. I have learned a great deal from all of you who contribute to this forum and now that I have some data worth sharing am giving a little back. Thank you all for this fantastic forum. Please keep up the quality discussions.

I know there are a lot of us interested in the new Hodgdon CFE223 powder so I have some chronograph results to share. I will also include data using Ramshot TAC for comparison.

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

Rifle: AR-15, 18" barrel, mid length gas port, 1:8 twist, 556 NATO
Components: CCI small rifle primers, mixed brass trimmed to ~1.745", pulled MK318 bullets (62gr), Lee FCD set to 5/8 of a turn past just touching, OAL 2.200".
Chronograph: CED M2 (approximately 12' from muzzle)

Hodgdon CFE223: 10 shot strings
Note - Hodgdon does not provide 556 NATO load data which is what I am loading for so I took the 223 Rem data and extrapolated it to a max load for 556 NATO. ...I realize this is not a recommended practice.

Charge Avg fps
23.5gr 2438.1
24.5gr 2541.3
25.5gr 2700.6
26.5gr 2825.6
27.5gr 2960.1
556 Recipe 3 Chrono Data.png

Ramshot TAC: 5 shot strings

Charge Avg fps
24.5gr 2819.2
25.0gr 2885.8
25.5gr 2940.8
26.0gr 3010.8
26.5gr 3035.4
27.0gr 3081.8
556 Recipe 1 Chrono Data.png

My thoughts on this comparison is that CFE223 is just too slow burning of a powder for this setup ... at least when its compared to TAC. It might be the right powder for heavier bullets, but in this comparison, TAC is the clear velocity winner. Both powders metered extremely well (Hornady LNL) and burned cleanly and completely.

As for the accuracy of these loads, I am not the right person to make a judgement on this. My experience with shooting rifles and reloading rifle ammunition is far too limited.

HJ857 · April 18, 2012, 04:16 PM

Good first post, I'm a bit surprised the thread hasn't gotten any action though.

It seems to me that CFE223 is meant to compete against TAC but is more obvious about the anti fouling aspect of the powder.

My testing with TAC shows that it works better with heavier bullets. I'm currently using it with a 53 grain Vmax and it works but I'm not getting the velocity I really want - I'm getting 3180 fps but hoped for 3200 or more in an 18" barrel. It works great for 69 and especially 77 grain Match Kings.

If CFE isn't going to beat TAC with a 62 grain bullet, I'd be surprised it would beat it with a heavier bullet.

It's also hard to believe that it could be better than TAC at eliminating copper fouling.

wingman · April 18, 2012, 08:45 PM

I've had excellent accuracy results with CFE223 in my AR, some groups .550 but overall average .875, using a sierra 52 gr match, I target shoot only so I'm not concerned with velocity only accuracy, the powder makes cleaning the barrel super easy.

Will Lee · April 18, 2012, 09:36 PM

I am a hunter and target practice to sharpen my skills.
Here is a load I use in my Bushmaster Varminter, Ramshot X-Terminator with a COL of 2.240, shot at 100 yards.

I am currently testing CFE-223 and you can see the results in this form posted as "CFE-223 1st test Rang Report"

sourdough44 · April 19, 2012, 04:08 PM

For the most part I use TAC with 55 grn & up then Exterminator for 50 grains & down in the 223. There is overlap where they meet at about 52 grains, use either.

bfoosh006 · April 23, 2012, 10:25 PM

HJ857, I'm not trying to derail this post, but where have you read that TAC has anti-fouling qualities ? I've seen this mentioned here (TFL.com ) before , but I've never read anything from Ramshot stating this.

And I think CFE223 should develop the faster speeds, I e-mailed Hodgdon about the propellent and possible barrel wear. ( Not a chance, as-per Hodgdon ) here is an excerpt

"This powder was developed at the request of the Department of Defense for use in the M4, M16 and the M249 SAW light machine gun. It has been used for over 2 years by our military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way they would allow nor would it be possible to provide a powder that ate the barrel out of a weapon."

So I'd tend to believe it is possible, I'd try it with a regular 'ole 62gr M855 Bullet and maybe some 77gr.

I wonder if the Mil. is using some form of it behind the new lead-free 62gr ....

HJ857 · April 25, 2012, 08:43 AM

Hmm. Good question. I don't see anything now either. I've been using TAC for quite a while and I seem to recall that copper suppression was one of the key aspects of the newer Ramshot powders. All I can find now are anecdotal references.

I can report from my use in both chrome lined and stainless barrels that I don't see any evidence of copper fouling with 69 and 77 grain SMKs, Varmint Nightmare 55 grain SPs, and VMaxs. By way of comparison I used to load 69 SMKs and the Varmints with Reloder 15 and in the chrome lined bore it would copper foul something fierce.

But it looks like I can't back that up with hard evidence anymore. Could be totally wrong.

April 17, 2012, 08:03 AM	#1
GlockHead77 Junior Member Join Date: April 17, 2012 Posts: 6	CFE223 vs TAC in AR15 and 62gr bullets Hello Everyone, I am a long time lurker but first time poster. I have learned a great deal from all of you who contribute to this forum and now that I have some data worth sharing am giving a little back. Thank you all for this fantastic forum. Please keep up the quality discussions. I know there are a lot of us interested in the new Hodgdon CFE223 powder so I have some chronograph results to share. I will also include data using Ramshot TAC for comparison. CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information. Rifle: AR-15, 18" barrel, mid length gas port, 1:8 twist, 556 NATO Components: CCI small rifle primers, mixed brass trimmed to ~1.745", pulled MK318 bullets (62gr), Lee FCD set to 5/8 of a turn past just touching, OAL 2.200". Chronograph: CED M2 (approximately 12' from muzzle) Hodgdon CFE223: 10 shot strings Note - Hodgdon does not provide 556 NATO load data which is what I am loading for so I took the 223 Rem data and extrapolated it to a max load for 556 NATO. ...I realize this is not a recommended practice. Charge Avg fps 23.5gr 2438.1 24.5gr 2541.3 25.5gr 2700.6 26.5gr 2825.6 27.5gr 2960.1 556 Recipe 3 Chrono Data.png Ramshot TAC: 5 shot strings Charge Avg fps 24.5gr 2819.2 25.0gr 2885.8 25.5gr 2940.8 26.0gr 3010.8 26.5gr 3035.4 27.0gr 3081.8 556 Recipe 1 Chrono Data.png My thoughts on this comparison is that CFE223 is just too slow burning of a powder for this setup ... at least when its compared to TAC. It might be the right powder for heavier bullets, but in this comparison, TAC is the clear velocity winner. Both powders metered extremely well (Hornady LNL) and burned cleanly and completely. As for the accuracy of these loads, I am not the right person to make a judgement on this. My experience with shooting rifles and reloading rifle ammunition is far too limited. Last edited by GlockHead77; April 17, 2012 at 08:44 AM.

April 18, 2012, 04:16 PM	#2
HJ857 Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2007 Posts: 447	Good first post, I'm a bit surprised the thread hasn't gotten any action though. It seems to me that CFE223 is meant to compete against TAC but is more obvious about the anti fouling aspect of the powder. My testing with TAC shows that it works better with heavier bullets. I'm currently using it with a 53 grain Vmax and it works but I'm not getting the velocity I really want - I'm getting 3180 fps but hoped for 3200 or more in an 18" barrel. It works great for 69 and especially 77 grain Match Kings. If CFE isn't going to beat TAC with a 62 grain bullet, I'd be surprised it would beat it with a heavier bullet. It's also hard to believe that it could be better than TAC at eliminating copper fouling.

April 18, 2012, 08:45 PM	#3
wingman Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2002 Posts: 2,108	I've had excellent accuracy results with CFE223 in my AR, some groups .550 but overall average .875, using a sierra 52 gr match, I target shoot only so I'm not concerned with velocity only accuracy, the powder makes cleaning the barrel super easy.

April 18, 2012, 09:36 PM	#4
Will Lee Member Join Date: November 30, 2011 Location: North Texas Posts: 99	I am a hunter and target practice to sharpen my skills. Here is a load I use in my Bushmaster Varminter, Ramshot X-Terminator with a COL of 2.240, shot at 100 yards. I am currently testing CFE-223 and you can see the results in this form posted as "CFE-223 1st test Rang Report"

April 19, 2012, 04:08 PM	#5
sourdough44 Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: WI Posts: 621	For the most part I use TAC with 55 grn & up then Exterminator for 50 grains & down in the 223. There is overlap where they meet at about 52 grains, use either.

April 23, 2012, 10:25 PM	#6
bfoosh006 Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Posts: 1,089	HJ857, I'm not trying to derail this post, but where have you read that TAC has anti-fouling qualities ? I've seen this mentioned here (TFL.com ) before , but I've never read anything from Ramshot stating this. And I think CFE223 should develop the faster speeds, I e-mailed Hodgdon about the propellent and possible barrel wear. ( Not a chance, as-per Hodgdon ) here is an excerpt "This powder was developed at the request of the Department of Defense for use in the M4, M16 and the M249 SAW light machine gun. It has been used for over 2 years by our military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way they would allow nor would it be possible to provide a powder that ate the barrel out of a weapon." So I'd tend to believe it is possible, I'd try it with a regular 'ole 62gr M855 Bullet and maybe some 77gr. I wonder if the Mil. is using some form of it behind the new lead-free 62gr ....

April 25, 2012, 08:43 AM	#7
HJ857 Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2007 Posts: 447	Hmm. Good question. I don't see anything now either. I've been using TAC for quite a while and I seem to recall that copper suppression was one of the key aspects of the newer Ramshot powders. All I can find now are anecdotal references. I can report from my use in both chrome lined and stainless barrels that I don't see any evidence of copper fouling with 69 and 77 grain SMKs, Varmint Nightmare 55 grain SPs, and VMaxs. By way of comparison I used to load 69 SMKs and the Varmints with Reloder 15 and in the chrome lined bore it would copper foul something fierce. But it looks like I can't back that up with hard evidence anymore. Could be totally wrong.