CFE223 .223REM QL help

[tangolima]

Asking for favor from QuickLoad users.

I use GRT. Their CFE223 powder model seems way off. If you can run the following load on QL, it will help me out a lot.

Caliber: .223REM
Case volume: 31gr H2O
Barrel length: 18"
Bullet: Hornady 22760B, 62gr FMJBT
COAL: 2.25"
Charge: 27gr

GRT results
Peak pressure: 45,100 psi
MV: 2691fps

It is max load as per hodgedon
Peak pressure: 53,200psi
MV: 3200fps (24" barrel)

My Chrono result: 2925fps, which is inline with hodgedon considering the shorter barrel and gas port.

Glad that I didn't follow the GRT results and blindly went over 27gr. GRT is usually conservative (predicting faster MV), but not this one. I think the powder model has error.

Thanks in advance.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

With a weighting factor of .5 and start pressure of 3626 using your inputs, I get 2839 fps at 47,024 psi with a 103.5 % fill. That is with QL's/SAAMI default 28.8 case H2o capacity--your case capacity measurement of 31 gr brings velocity down to 2711 in QL. FWIW, QL's propellent burn (86.85%) and ballistic efficiency (21.9) values are not especially good in your combo.

[tangolima]

Thanks Stag. I'm afraid QL is similar to GRT, which doesn't match hodgedon data. GRT also indicated incomplete combustion (too slow burn rate). Haven't used cfe223 before. General consensus on web seems a good powder for the caliber.

Tools like QL and GRT are just simulation tools. We need to be cautious using their results, especially when it contradicts published data.

I'm glad I did. I actually had loaded up to 28gr as per GRT's suggestion. I started below 27gr as suggested by hodgedon. When I reached 27gr, I decided to stop. The load was too hot to continue going further.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

Is your case capacity really 31 gr H2O? When I used that figure QL returned almost exactly the same velocity GRT did. I've used QL for a pretty long time and have found my actual firing labradar data is usually very close to what QL predicts as long as I'm as precise as I can be with inputs.

I couldn't find 223 rem data anywhere for the 62 gr hornady bullet (including Hodgedon's reloading data online) BTW.

[tangolima]

Hodgedon online data center only says 62gr bullet. No other specific info.

31gr is the capacity I measured with lighter weight brass. MV and pressure goes up some if I reduce it. But it is not enough to change the big picture, I'm afraid.

Any data points from folks who have used this powder?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

Very interesting thread that relates to this on this very forum. Note the one CFE 223 outstanding load using 69 gr bullet
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...=562120&page=2

PS--I went to hornady's website and discovered the bullet--referred to as a specialty fmj bullet principally intended for target shooting. I've been so caught up in the "eld" world I didn't know these even existed, they are not referred to the manuals I have going back to the 8th edition--although they are in QL's database. In the "old days" it was the amax (vmax) that I knew as their premier accuracy .224 bullets.
pss--It looks to me like the two 62 gr bullets mentioned online at hodgdon are a barnes tac and swift scirocco. the hornady bullet is .781", the barnes .912" and the swift .928" The 24" barrel does make a pretty big difference in velocity and QL shows almost the same velocity as Hodgdon's data when accounting for the solid copper barnes design--but when I change the case capacity parameters by even just a couple of grains the velocities go up and down significantly. QL also shows (sorry, this is kind of fun for me, so forgive my indulging) at your higher case capacity the peak pressure drops off dramatically and for less time prior to the bullet exiting the muzzle.

[Marco Califo]

Hodgedon online data center only says 62gr bullet. No other specific info.

Hodgdon Reloading Data Center https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center specifically identifies three 62 grain 223 bullets:
62 gr Barnes All copper
62 gr Mil M855 (AKA SS109) This is FMJ with a steel penetrator cone inside the nose. Current NATO issue
62 gr SFT SCIR
The load date for the three is NOT interchangeable.

[stagpanther]

Hodgdon Reloading Data Center https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center specifically identifies three 62 grain 223 bullets:
62 gr Barnes All copper
62 gr Mil M855 (AKA SS109) This is FMJ with a steel penetrator cone inside the nose. Current NATO issue
62 gr SFT SCIR
The load date for the three is NOT interchangeable.

The steel penetrator is not listed for use with CFE 223 on the site as far as I can tell.

[stagpanther]

Another thing I discovered while poking around for info from Hodgdon--I think there is a spoof/scam site possibly masquerading as "the real McCoy."

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Marco Califo

Hodgdon Reloading Data Center https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center specifically identifies three 62 grain 223 bullets:

62 gr Barnes All copper

62 gr Mil M855 (AKA SS109) This is FMJ with a steel penetrator cone inside the nose. Current NATO issue

62 gr SFT SCIR

The load date for the three is NOT interchangeable.

I see it now. There are 2 loads. However they all deviate quite a bit from the QL/GRT results. It doesn't change the big picture.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Marco Califo]

The steel penetrator is not listed for use with CFE 223 on the site as far as I can tell.

They (Hodgdon) identify it by M855, that is the round with the penetrator.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Very interesting thread that relates to this on this very forum. Note the one CFE 223 outstanding load using 69 gr bullet

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...=562120&page=2



PS--I went to hornady's website and discovered the bullet--referred to as a specialty fmj bullet principally intended for target shooting. I've been so caught up in the "eld" world I didn't know these even existed, they are not referred to the manuals I have going back to the 8th edition--although they are in QL's database. In the "old days" it was the amax (vmax) that I knew as their premier accuracy .224 bullets.

pss--It looks to me like the two 62 gr bullets mentioned online at hodgdon are a barnes tac and swift scirocco. the hornady bullet is .781", the barnes .912" and the swift .928" The 24" barrel does make a pretty big difference in velocity and QL shows almost the same velocity as Hodgdon's data when accounting for the solid copper barnes design--but when I change the case capacity parameters by even just a couple of grains the velocities go up and down significantly. QL also shows (sorry, this is kind of fun for me, so forgive my indulging) at your higher case capacity the peak pressure drops off dramatically and for less time prior to the bullet exiting the muzzle.

Indeed. The brass powder volume is very close to 31gr H2O. Powder charge is 25gr. I bet the QL/GRT results will deviate from that by quite a bit.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tangolima]

You are right, Stag. The powder volume does change the pressure significantly. In order to get close to hodgedon pressure, I will drop the volume to 29gr. Even with barrel extended to 24", MV is still 100fps lower. Better but I still feel funny about this one.

I will be more cautious when dealing with cfe223.

Thanks.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

They (Hodgdon) identify it by M855, that is the round with the penetrator.

I'm aware of that--my point was it is not listed by Hogdon as having a powder load using CFE 223--but the Tac and Scirocco are.

[stagpanther]

You are right, Stag. The powder volume does change the pressure significantly. In order to get close to hodgedon pressure, I will drop the volume to 29gr. Even with barrel extended to 24", MV is still 100fps lower. Better but I still feel funny about this one.

I will be more cautious when dealing with cfe223.

Thanks.

I may be right. I was kinda hoping Unclenick would be along to provide expert comment. BTW, I couldn't help but notice also that there is a significant compression of the loads as well using those figures between 29 and 31 grains of capacity. I have on a few occasions experienced declining velocity when "packing in" an incremental charge well above and beyond 100%.

[totaldla]

If I recall my use of CFE223, it was the most temp sensitive powder that I have EVER used (and I've used a lot). Temperature plays a big role.

[tangolima]

Thanks. I have test fired a few more batches since. It does feel sensitive to temp. I will bear that in mind. It is not a powder I would have chosen myself. I have 2lb of it, together with 2lb of benchmark, as part of a deal. I think I like benchmark better for .223 rem or 6.5 grendel.

I will use it up in a few months. Then it will move on to Accurate 2230. I bought 8lb of it, because it was cheap.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Unclenick]

Sorry not to comment earlier. I was tied up with declarations and being deposed in a patent dispute and not getting much web time.

Losing velocity with powder packing can happen just because the spaces between grains are getting smaller under compression. This forces ignition gases to flow through smaller spaces between the grains on their way from the flash hole to the top of the powder column. That can result in the powder at the bottom starting the bullet (and the rest of the powder) down the bore before ignition can spread as far as it would have done with bigger spaces between grains.

The GRT model is actually pretty good, but you have to get all your ducks in a row and include powder burn rate tolerances. First, note the Hodgdon data is for a Swift Scirocco bullet. These have very heavy jackets that result in their start pressure being higher than standard cup and core bullets. QL and GRT both use 250 bar (3626 psi) for standard cup-and-core bullets, but QL used 270 bar (3916 psi) and GRT uses 280 bar (4061 psi) for Sirocco bullets. The Hodgdon data uses Winchester cases. The capacity of Winchester brass has varied a little over time, and since Hodgdon didn’t report capacity, I used 30.1 grains, as reported for Winchester in this article. Finally, QL and GRT both use data from purchased powder samples which Hodgdon holds to ±3% burn rate tolerance on either side of nominal values. Hodgdon has access to reference powder in the middle of that range to develop loads with, so one of the first things I did was raise GRT’s CFE223 combustion factor (burning rate factor in QL), Ba, to 0.5551 (3% above the default value) in case the Hodgdon lot was that much faster.

One other step I had to take was creating the 62-grain Sirocco in GRT. It happens that while I was at the NRA Annual Meeting’s gun show, I bought a Swift databook and was able to pull it from that. (I also confirmed that QL’s database information on the bullet matched.) So, with the 30.1-grain case capacity, 25.9 grains of CFE223 adjusted to Ba=0.5551, and 4061 psi start pressure, GRT gave me:

53,559 psi
3097.1 fps

Hodgdon says:
53,700 psi
3110 fps

I say, close enough.

QL, with its slightly lower start pressure, but using that same Ba, gives:

52,029 psi
3112 fps

So, QL got closer on velocity, but was a little low peak pressure. At a previous NRA Annual Meeting, I was lucky to be able to discuss pressure some with Dr. Ken Oehler, who pointed that most measurements aren’t much more accurate than about 5% anyway. So, that the QL value is 3% lower is not significant in my view.

So, now the question is, with the models corrected as best we can, what will happen with your Hornady bullet in place of the Sirocco? I don’t see your bullet on Hodgdon’s site, so it may be discontinued, but it is in QL’s DB, so I can copy it over to GRT. This resulted in a velocity drop from 3097.1 to 3005.5 fps and a peak pressure drop from 53,559 psi to 46,679 psi. In QL, Velocity dropped from 3112 fps to 3034 fps, and the pressure from 52,029 to 46,300 psi.

I hope that helps sort things out.

[stagpanther]

Were you accounting for tested data out of 24" barrel and the OP's 18" AR barrel? When I did a search on hogdon's site for 62 gr bullets using CFE 223 it came up with the barnes TAC x and the scirroco; I assumed the OP was using the barne's data for comparison.

[tangolima]

Didn't have much time to tinker. Put in the Unclenick's suggestions; higher Ba, lower volume, higher initial pressure. Pressure rised to 57k psi.

Then put in the particulars of my rifle; bullet jump 0.06", gas port 0.05" diameter at 10", 90F. Pressure drops to 55k psi. MV goes to 2840fps. My labradar read 2950fps. That's with powder charge of 27gr.

The load feels a bit hot, even without visible pressure signs. The brass looks better than a lot of once-fired I have seen. It groups alright, 1moa at 150yd. But for the sake of cautiousness, I'm lightening it to 26.8gr.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Shadow9mm]

I understand you are trying to compare loads between QL and GRT, however don't forget to look at Published data as a baseline as well.

Hornady has data for this load right
Hornady 11th

223 load data
62g hornady fmj
COL 2.229
CFE223, max 27.3

5.56 nato
62g hornady fmj
col 2.229
CFE223, max 27.7

While in theory pushing the bullet further out to decrease the jump could increase the pressure, the increased case volume should decrease the pressure although perhaps not proportionally.

Might I ask why you are seating out so far with the 62g?

[tangolima]

It was first attempt to develop a load with the powder. I usually go with max COAL that fits magazine. However I always find out bullet jump. In this case, the bullet jump is 0.06", which is quite normal.

26.8gr, 27gr, and 27.2gr seemed to present good grouping potential. I decided not to shoot other loads up to 28gr. 27gr was picked for optimum COAL search. 2.23" was chosen. It shot slight better than 1.5" at 150yd, or 1 moa.

Thanks for the Hornady data. My 8th edition doesn't have it, and that's why I went to hodgedon. What are the MVs? My rifle has NATO 5.56 chamber. I'm going to reshoot 26.9gr, 27gr, 27.1gr with 2.23" COAL, so will see.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Shadow9mm]

223, 26in barrel
27.4g 3200fps
26.8g 3100fps
26.2g 3000 fps

5.56 nato 20in barrel
27.7g 3150fps
27.2g 3100fps
26.3g 3000fps

[tangolima]

Great. My load is not too bad then. It is pretty inline with the data. Thanks.

-TL

PS I have tinkered GRT trying to match labradar results better. Wasn't very successful. I still have doubts on the powder models. The powder seems more energetic and burns faster than what the model predicts. It is not very nice. Funny thing is QL and GRT models seem similar. They copied from each other?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stagpanther]

I'm not saying QL is the greatest--I'm not especially fond of the new upgrade purchasing program where it costs a pretty penny and you don't know what you are actually getting (and find out a few weeks later that a new update just came out)--but hey, that's internet capitalism. Labradar has its quirks too, but I find it accurately correlates pretty closely to QL "predictions" most of the time. QL usually is within 50 fps +/- of most load recipes I cook up and is correlated by my labradar results. The labradar results I can generally input into a ballistics calculator and shots get pretty close to predicted trajectory projections. UN knows the actual science and engineering behind this stuff, I admit I need and use these as a crutch.