CFE223 and 223 remington

[lugerstew]

Currently I've been doing a lot of testing of cfe223 in my savage 223, 26 inch barrel, 1 in 7 twist bolt action.
I have been testing 75g Hornady bthp, 77g Sierra hpbt, 80g Berger vld, and 82g Berger LR BTHP.
So far they have shot pretty well, averaging 1/2 to 1 1/2 moa groups, with the 82g Bergers shooting the best in my rifle.
Lately I have been reading a couple of posts on here that claim CFE223 can be made to ignite more consistently with magnum primers.
I have never used or even owned Magnum small rifle primers, always CCI 400.
Has anyone here ever did some side by side comparison with this powder and magnum and regular primers with the exact same load and actually proven this in their tests? If yes, I may be tempted to try some magnum primers, ha, if I can even find any, but would love to hear any comments.
Thanks

[603Country]

I haven’t tried CFE223 because I can’t find any. That said, some reloading books suggest magnum primers with H335, which I use a lot of. And recently I switched from CCI SRP to CCI 41 primers, which are a magnum primer, and I really can’t tell any difference in the accuracy. No chrono, so I can’t tell if there was a velocity change.

[Unkl Chuck]

I have used CFE223 in .223 Rem. Most of my shooting is with rifle caliber pistols and CFE hasn't yielded the best results, not bad but not the best. I have used magnum primers with CFE under .17 Rem with good results.
If you're going to try magnum primers, be certain to back your loads down and work back up. There will be pressure changes, but shouldn't be a problem if you are careful.
Good luck and stay safe.

[Nathan]

I have not really done a side by side, but I developed 223 groups with CFE223 and CCI400’s. Loads were pretty accurate, but seemed to be hard to fine tune. Occasionally, it would shoot bad groups with expected good loads.

Redeveloping around the CCI450’s created more consistently accurate groups. So, without much detailed comparison I changed and have been happy. #41’s were not as accurate as even the CCI400’s.

I would develop around 450’s and see if that makes you happy.

[Shadow9mm]

I am using cf223 with 223 and 55g bullets and will be testing some 75g bullets later this spring. I have found magnum primers to help it ignite more consistently. I talked to cci a while back, they recommended magnum or #41 for ar pattern rifles due to the free floating firing pin. They aslo advised the 450 and #41 were identical except for the angle of the anvil in the #41 was changed to make it harder to ignite.

55g hornady fmj 27.0g cfe223 col 2.20, moderate crimp. 16in ar platform.

Cci 400 avg 2937 sd 38.59 es74

Cci 450 avg 2915 sd 16.54 es 41

While it did not get the es down as fas as i would like its acceptable for my uses, and it cut the SD more than in half.

[totaldla]

I gave up on CFE223 because of it's temperature sensitivity -the most temp sensitivity of any powder I have used. I always used CCI450 and CCI41 primers and never tried it with CCI400.

[Shadow9mm]

My go to was benchmark, but I have not been able to get any in over 1yr. I was able to get about 10lb of cfe223 so thats what im using. I did heat testing on my final load, no pressure signs. So it may be a touch slow in the winter, but no ka-booms in the summer. I can live with that.

[Metal god]

I've used/tested it in AR loads but with only standard primers . I to found it inconsistent . I'd find what I thought was a good load only to find next time out it did not shoot as well . This was with multiple match bullets 69 , 75 and 77gr bullets .

I did get good velocities but my ES/SD was never as good as I thought they should or could be . This was years ago now so I don't remember any talk of using magnum primers at the time . Wish I had cause I would have tried it out although I'm not a big believer in small cases needing mag primers when not called for . There really is not that much powder to ignite in the 223 case . I can see switching to mag primers if using CFE-223 in larger cases like the 308 or 30-06 do to the doubling of the amount of powder needing to be burnt/ignited .

My ultimate conclusion was it was to temp sensitive . I still have 2lbs-ish so I'll likely try some magnum primers a some point and that's only cus I trust Shadow9mm's numbers , regardless that's way down on the priority list . For now CFE-223 is shelved until needed .

[stagpanther]

5.56/223 is one of the hardest cartridges for me to load for, slight variations between barrel chambers/freebores and COAL seem to have dramatic effect on consistencies, even if a load works great in one rifle it might (probably) won't in another. Looking through my records it seems I've had my more consistent results using AA2230 and 8208 xbr.

[GeauxTide]

CFE223 has a burn rate similar to BLC(2). I use CFE223 in my Grendel with outstanding results. Consider that you're lighting less than 30gr of powder and Mag primers WILL increase pressure by as much as 5k.

[lugerstew]

Thanks for all the advice and info, I too am just using this stuff up because I was able to snag 5 pounds of it and it also shoots ok in my 308. But like some have said it does seem to be finnicky from load to load, inconsistent Sd and es, and high Sd's most the time.
It also seems to me to be very temperature sensitive, not because I have developed in cold weather and shot it in hot weather, but because while going thru a ladder test etc., I notice big velocity changes by only letting the round cook in the chamber for a few seconds longer or shorter than the previous rounds.
I really like the way it meters though, not sure if I will buy more, but I still want to find some magnum small rifle primers and give them a try, of course by working up slowly, and maybe even obtain some large rifle magnum primers, just to try them in my 308 that also gets ho hum results with this powder.
If the damn wind ever stops blowing here in Colorado, I have about 4 boxes of cfe223, 223 brass and coal tests to try, and still have about 3 pounds of this stuff to see if I can ever call it a go to powder.
Thanks again

[std7mag]

I doubt you'll call it a "go to" powder.
@unclenick had some info for using magnum primers with CFE223.

Speedy, yes.
Temp sensitive, definitely!
Accurate? Not that great.

I've switched over to Alliant PP2000MR with 69 &70gr bullets for 24" barrel 1:9 twist.

[FrankenMauser]

I bought an 8-pounder of CFE223 about 7 years ago.
I still have more than 7 lbs left.

It is filthy and disgusting, and it never shot well enough for me to come home from a trip and think, "I need to load some more of that immediately."

I ended up reaching for Ramshot TAC far more often.
(Though, I haven't loaded any .223 in quite some time.)

Now that I run everything suppressed, whenever possible, the filth is even more apparent, and on more surfaces.

[reynolds357]

I love CFE 223. From what I have seen,b it is not temp sensitive, at or near max load. It's a mess at reduced pressure. High velocity deviation at lower pressures. Even though it looks dirty, the cosmetic mess is not barrel fouling. I have shot 250 rounds of 5.56 x 45 through my White Oak barrel with no cleaning and no accuracy loss. Only primer I have used is Rem 7 1/2 BR.

[Shadow9mm]

I have found it does leaver heavier fouling due to the copper remover in it, however I have found the fouling cleans up easily, its softer if that makes any sense.

[9MMand223only]

CFE223, one of the most overrated powders for use in 223. Low Tier choice.

AA2520 completely superior, so is TAC, Alliant Varmint, or so many others, you name it. Who cares AT ALL about copper fouling. Marketing term with no real meaning.

This is AR15 use. ANY powder can go out and shoot 2000 rounds in in 1 day, without cleaning and it will shoot it. I don't mind its not temp sensitive, because again, temp sensitive is another completely overrated topic. And I mean COMPLETELY overrated.

You don't believe me" Go to Camp perry and look at all the people doing well, and winning with horrible temp sensitive powders.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by 9MMand2230nly

Who cares AT ALL about copper fouling. Marketing term with no real meaning.

I had serious trouble with copper fouling in my DCM M1-Garand with its original military barrel. Right about round number 40, right in the middle of the slow fire phase of the National Match Course it would suffer a substantial drop-off in precision, going from 9s and 10s and Xs to 7s and 8s and 9s all due to copper buildup in just in front of the throat. At Camp Perry, it would literally take the whole evening of constant rewetting with Sweet's from before dinner to bedtime to get the copper out for the next day's match, only to have the same thing happen over again. Mitigating that copper buildup was the sole reason I started using moly-coated bullets back then (early '90s).

Today, G. David Tubb sells Tubb Dust, which is an hBN powder additive that, in the process of firing, coats the bore to prevent copper build-up. He developed it by having top shooters use it and he says many of them won't load without it now. This is also because of the observable decline in precision that occurs with the build-up of copper fouling. So it's a real thing. Much, much worse in some bores than in others (a couple of folks here have mentioned having guns that started to have precision drop off after just 20 rounds because of it). The effect gets more noticeable as precision gets higher. Benchrest competitors see it first.

So it's a thing. But that still begs the question of whether it is best to fight it with the powder maker's additives, which I gather cause a lot of sooty fouling, or with moly or hBN-coated bullets (extra steps and bother), or with Tubb Dust (gets all over the powder hopper and everything it touches; very fine and slippery). Individual shooters have to decide that for themselves.

[GeauxTide]

If any of you want to unload your CFE223, I'm your Huckleberry.

[Shadow9mm]

I have 2 rifles that copper foul QUICKLY, TC Compass, which will leave a fair bit of copper after around 20-30rnds, and a Henry lever gun in 44mag, which will coat the entire barrel in copper after around 50rnds. My other guns don't seems to have nearly as much issue. However I do use Bore Tech Eliminator bore cleaner, which removes copper and turns blue. Every gun I own will have at least a little copper fouling after 50rnds or so of shooting, unless I am shooting lead....

[Unclenick]

Even the moly-coated bullets left a little copper, but just streaks instead of a rifling-filling luger of the stuff just ahead of the throat. Mainly, the coatings and treatment just hold it down to a tolerable buildup rate.

[9MMand223only]

Sorry, if you read my text, I was strictly talking about "AR15's" which don't care at all about marketing stuff like "Copper eraser". Its literally useless.
Sweets is good. I think Butches Bore shine is slightly better, but both those are really toxic. I really like Bore Tech Eliminator its super super good.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

Sorry, if you read my text, I was strictly talking about "AR15's" which don't care at all about marketing stuff like "Copper eraser". Its literally useless.
Sweets is good. I think Butches Bore shine is slightly better, but both those are really toxic. I really like Bore Tech Eliminator its super super good.

I have had great luck with bore tech eliminator as well. I have also tried their CU+2 dedicated copper remover, and it works quite well. I found their C4 carbon remover to be lackluster and will stick with slip2000 carbon killer. Both eliminator and CU+2 having no odor and being safe to leave in the barrel for extended periods is fantastic. I usually use the eliminator first, and if it needs it follow up with the CU+2 once the carbon and fouling it out of the way.

Worst case I resort to JB bore past and bore bright.

[9MMand223only]

Hi Bro. I tried the Bore tech bore paste, https://www.boretech.com/products/btck-40002

Chameleon Gel, and that works perfect.

Bore tech, I would say, right now, is leading the field in cleaning.

[Shadow9mm]

Interesting. Read the instructions said to use the gel AFTER Eliminator or c4 or cu+2 to remove loose fouling first. And to use one of them to remove the gel whrn done. Also said to scrub in 2in sections with a special patch when cleaning.

Seems like a bit much, jb bore paste is a lot easier to use.

[Unclenick]

Think of JB or Iosso mixed with some chemical cleaners to assist the mild abrasive. I don't know what is gelling it, but any of the precipitated silicas will do it and would polish. Maybe diatomaceous earth would work; have to try that.

Originally Posted by 9MMand223only

Sorry, if you read my text, I was strictly talking about "AR15's" which don't care at all about marketing stuff like "Copper eraser".

Maybe we are talking past each other. I am talking about barrels that copper so fast it starts to spoil your score in the middle of a match. As far as I know, they can be found in any high-power rifle caliber.

I believe all the copper reducing powder additives were first developed for military ammunition because the issued bore cleaners never removed it very well. In any event, they are common now. Most all the Alliant Reloader series except RE7 have them, as well as Alliant's AR Comp. All the new IMR Enduron powders and all the Vihtavuori rifle powders have them, as do most of the Norma powders. And then there are the several Hodgdon powders that have them, plus the new Winchester StaBALL 6.5 powder. There won't be any getting away from them in rife propellants, soon. If QuickLOAD's database is accurate, the Lovex powders don't employ them yet, so you could buy Shooter's World powders and not run into them. Yet.