Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
CFE223 in cold weather??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ChrisTeam2" data-source="post: 2907109" data-attributes="member: 123937"><p>Mike, thank you for putting out that data sheet.</p><p></p><p>In my experience, using Temp. stable powders is a huge time saver if one is seeking accuracy and precision, for any caliber... Attached is an independent study which looks at the <em>Temperature Insensitivity of Varget, IMR 4166, IMR 4046 and Vihtavuori N140 for .308 Win F-TR. Please draw your own conclusions with this study, but... </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>For me, as I live in AZ, if I go to sub-zero Temperatures for any applications with 308, I will not be using CFE-223. It would be a waste of time as for accuracy and precision the rifle loads would have to be completely redone with CFE-223 whereas my accuracy node in .308 offers about 30 fps variance in the sweet spot (that I have tested so far) which one would probably not find with CFE-223 across daytime temperature shifts in sub-freezing temperatures: per my records, 1.7 fps/degree from previously published data. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>I do use CFE-223 in my 5.56 NATO loads for mid range practice and recreation but one has to keep a log of the velocity changes and given a choice I heavily favor the use of H4895 (Temp. Stable .23 fps/degree, published data) for both 5.56mm and .308. Due to H4895 unavailability over the past 3+ years, Varget seems like a good alternative (to H4895 or CFE-223 which NOT temp. stable), although N-140, IMR-4166 and IMR-4016 may also be good alternatives with decent Temp. stability based on the attached study; not inclusive of other Temp. stable powders which could also do the job... </em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ChrisTeam2, post: 2907109, member: 123937"] Mike, thank you for putting out that data sheet. In my experience, using Temp. stable powders is a huge time saver if one is seeking accuracy and precision, for any caliber... Attached is an independent study which looks at the [I]Temperature Insensitivity of Varget, IMR 4166, IMR 4046 and Vihtavuori N140 for .308 Win F-TR. Please draw your own conclusions with this study, but... For me, as I live in AZ, if I go to sub-zero Temperatures for any applications with 308, I will not be using CFE-223. It would be a waste of time as for accuracy and precision the rifle loads would have to be completely redone with CFE-223 whereas my accuracy node in .308 offers about 30 fps variance in the sweet spot (that I have tested so far) which one would probably not find with CFE-223 across daytime temperature shifts in sub-freezing temperatures: per my records, 1.7 fps/degree from previously published data. I do use CFE-223 in my 5.56 NATO loads for mid range practice and recreation but one has to keep a log of the velocity changes and given a choice I heavily favor the use of H4895 (Temp. Stable .23 fps/degree, published data) for both 5.56mm and .308. Due to H4895 unavailability over the past 3+ years, Varget seems like a good alternative (to H4895 or CFE-223 which NOT temp. stable), although N-140, IMR-4166 and IMR-4016 may also be good alternatives with decent Temp. stability based on the attached study; not inclusive of other Temp. stable powders which could also do the job... [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
CFE223 in cold weather??
Top