M14 Forum


CFE 223 Yay Nay ?

This is a discussion on CFE 223 Yay Nay ? within the Ammunition forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; Read carefully. Originally Posted by stainless1911 If you are NOT the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > Ammunition


Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old January 19th, 2012, 07:44 PM   #16
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 1,046
Read carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
If you are NOT the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail is prohibited.
You ARE the intended recipient.

Now let's see what they sent you...


And they're bluffing, anyway. Neither Hogden nor their lawyers are in any position to "prohibit" anything.

Bimmer is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 20th, 2012, 11:54 AM   #17
Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Helena, Montana
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
NOTICE – This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential, or sensitive information intended only for the use of the identified recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this e-mail and all attachments from your computer system.
The "prohibited" part is what is on our communications. You know what prohibited means - We do not allow it! There are no state law or federal codes we are aware of to give it bite.
Just intimidating sounding.
And, yes you ARE the intended recipient. :)

jameydan is offline  
Old January 20th, 2012, 12:35 PM   #18
Squad Leader
 
stainless1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Davisburg
Posts: 230
Good point. Just being careful

.................................................. ......................

From me to them.

Hi there, I have used your powders in the past, and will use them again.

I want to start loading for the M1A Socom 16 Springfield Armory pretty soon, and was intrigued by this new powder that you have that is supposed to reduce copper fouling. I am pretty new to the M1A platform, and to rifle reloading in general, but one thing that I have learned about recently, is that these gas operated guns have to operate on a specific pressure range for those gas systems to operate properly. Certain powders can actually damage these rifles. Some of the guys online said that they are concerned with the powder being too slow.

I think you might have better luck in sales if you develop some data on port pressures so that people aren't afraid to use this powder in thier rifles. I'm certainly not going to try anything unproven in any of my guns, it is considered foolish to do so.

Here's the link to the discussion, it might be helpful to your company to hear first hand from your customers what we are saying about your products, and any imput or comments would be welcomed and appreciated.

.................................................. ......................

From them to me

In the 70 years we have been in business, we have never developed any data based on port pressure for a gas gun: nor has anyone else. At times, firearms designers modify their designs to function with a specified burn speed or gas production rate.



Years ago, the military adopted the M1 Garand as the main battle rifle. It was a semi auto, gas powered, 30-06 chambered firearm with a closed gas system. Along with the development of the M1 Garand was the development of a suitable powder to power the projectile to the specified velocity, with the specified pressure and gas production. The results are legendary. It did not take long for the government to determine that the use of powders significantly slower in burn speed could cause over pressurization of the closed gas system and the operating rod may be bent. For this reason, all powder approved for use by our military in the 30-06 must be of a correct burn speed for the M1 Garand and the closed gas system it uses.



When the M1A/M14 was brought out in the 7.62x51mm cartridge, the design of the gas system was modified from the older Garand gas system to a more modern open gas system that was not susceptible to over pressurization like the Garand system. In the M14, the gas system takes the amount of gas it needs to operate the rifle and all excess gas is dumped to the outside atmosphere. This is rather like a safety valve. The 7.62x51mm cartridge would not function properly with slower burning powders anyway so there was and is no problem. You can use any data you want and you will not damage the firearm. The system may fail to function should you choose to use a very low gas production powder but this will not damage the firearm itself.



Commercially available semi-auto rifles sold to the general public for hunting by companies like Remington and Browning and Winchester use similar open gas systems so that the owners of those firearms can buy ammo off of the shelf and not have to worry about damaging an expensive firearm.



When it comes to modern firearms built on the AR platform, we must assume that the makers of these firearms have learned the lessons of the past and that they make their gas systems suitable for virtually all ammunition by staying with an open gas system. We know this is true of the standard gas impingement system of the AR as excess gas vents into the action of the firearm. Tappet or piston driven AR systems that are commonly available are open systems dumping excess gas or closing the gas ports off when adequate gas volume has been captured to function the firearm.



In this very long explanation I have attempted to say that the “experts” on the internet forums generally are self proclaimed and at time annoying, inaccurate and/or dangerous. Often, opinions are expressed as facts without knowledge or regard to the truth.



In all honesty, we do not have the time to spend reading and responding to forums. The internet has become the largest source for misinformation on the shooting sports that exists. Our experience goes back many years and we have found that trying to respond to all of the myths, lies, misunderstandings is much like a dog chasing his tail, never ending and never producing good results.



As far as producing more sales by providing port pressure data goes, I doubt very much that there would be a single pound of additional product sold due to the presence of that information. There is no standard on the placement of gas ports in the barrel, no standard for the diameter of the ports, nor the diameter, length or conformation of a gas tube.



I am not certain what you consider “unproven” but I’m sure you’ll know it when you see it. Considering this powder has been around in military use for a few years now in several applications would not serve to prove the powder suitable. As far as that goes, it seems you do not trust us or our lab to develop safe, reliable data so I guess you are left with the boys in the forum to provide ”proof” for you.



From your last paragraph you must assume we are ignorant of firearms and the propellants used in them. You also assume that we have no idea what people are saying about our products. That’s pretty sad. Hodgdon powder company has done more to provide advanced propellants to sporting shooter than any other company in history. We work closely with ammo makers, gun makers, military and other governmental agencies as well as top shooters in every shooting discipline. We travel to more shooting events, industry shows and training programs than any other company in our industry. We must be doing pretty well at keeping up with the needs and wants of shooters as we have been the largest supplier of sporting powders to recreational shooters in the world for many years. We have listened and will continue to listen to the shooting world and we will continue to innovate, research and develop new products that will improve the safety, satisfaction and success of our customers.

NOTICE – This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential, or sensitive information intended only for the use of the identified recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this e-mail and all attachments from your computer system.


.................................................. ....................

My response to them

Thank you for your detailed response. I had no idea that the military had been using this powder, I thought, as advertised, that it was a new product. I have learned something about powders and rifles from this email, but it did come with a condescending overtone. My point of writing was not to condemn, nor challenge, it was to open communication and to confirm or deny questionable information. As I have said in my first email, I have used Hodgdon powders before, and intend to use them again, but some of this discussion has left me a little cold.

I had hoped to post this response on the thread, but it appears that by your disclaimer at the bottom, that posting your response would be against the wishes of your company, so I will respect that.

stainless1911 is offline  
Old January 20th, 2012, 01:00 PM   #19
Designated Marksman
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: WA State
Posts: 574
I guess asking Hodgdon questions about their product is verboten. Sounds like a nerve got hit eh??? Thanks for trying. Think I'll just stick to 4895.

mustanggt is offline  
Old January 20th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #20
Squad Leader
 
stainless1911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Davisburg
Posts: 230
Me too.

stainless1911 is offline  
Old January 20th, 2012, 02:07 PM   #21
Rest in Peace
 
TexIndian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,063
According to that message, there has never been a problem with port pressure in any M14/M1A because the 'relief valve' would prevent any kind of damage. In fact, they say it is impossible (and always has been) to damage an M14 with excess pressure.

I will admit that I have never personally tested port pressures in any way, nor have I ever had a rifle damaged by excessive pressures. But everything I've ever seen by countless M14 experts warns of the dangers of excessive port pressure. Is it possible that every single expert I've ever heard about is perpetrating an internet rumor (even before the internet existed)? I think not. I'm guessing that all the guys that have spent their lives building and repairing our guns knows a bit more about them than this guy at Hodgdon. They just got a black eye in my book.

TexIndian is offline  
Old January 20th, 2012, 05:03 PM   #22
Squad Leader
 
10mmShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 291
Talking

OP for me I just like to keep it simple the M-852/M-118 cartridges uses/used a SMK 168/175 and IMR 4895 in Lake City brass, no need to mess with 70 years of history. Thats all I need to know. That combo works great in my weapon. Good luck with new powder

10mmShooter is offline  
Old February 4th, 2014, 02:46 PM   #23
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 3
Varget Burn rate

ACORDING TO THE HODGDON BURN RATE CHART, VARGET IS IN THE PROPER RANGE,JUST A BIT FASTER THAN w-748 WHICH HORNADY SAYS
IS THE SLOWEST YOU SHOULD USE IN A GAS GUN. BLC 2 IS TOO SLOW
AND CFE 223 IS EVEN WORSE. THE BEST BURN RATE, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK IS ALLIANT RELOADER 15. I THINK ILL TRY SOME OF THAT !

nam vet is offline  
Old February 4th, 2014, 03:00 PM   #24
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by nam vet View Post
BLC 2 IS TOO SLOW
How about turning OFF the "caps lock"?!

And I'm confusing not arguing, but I thought that BLC was for service rifles like the M14 and AR...

Bimmer is offline  
Old February 4th, 2014, 03:41 PM   #25
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,016
Does Ron Smith have a bother that handles customer service at Hogdon?

Damn, don't pose any questions, just fork over the money!

m1476251 is online now  
Old February 4th, 2014, 07:07 PM   #26
Lifer
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 4,326

Awards Showcase

I say NAY, but its your rifle and money..........

Phil McGrath is online now  
Old February 5th, 2014, 05:56 PM   #27
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 3
I have been reloading for my M1A scout since late 2011, and have found CFE 223 powder
to be ok. BUT the loads listed are plenty strong. Always use starting loads and work up,
looking for pressure signs. When testing loads I try to shoot a couple of factory loads first,to help detect excess recoil. the load that works well for me is a Hornady 165gr bullet
with 46gr of CFE 223 on a Winchester military 2010 case and a Winchester primer.
A MUST, is to trim the cases to 2.010 (mil spec) and be sure your primer is below flush
to help prevent a slam fire. My primers end up looking like a fired factory case , and not deformed.
As I read in the post with a reply form Hodgdon, I think the port pressure problem is more with the Garand closed gas system, and not so much with the M1A and its vented gas system. Mine has a vent hole under the gas cylinder, and have never had a bent operating rod with any of the many types of ammo ive fired, but then maby ive been lucky !

nam vet is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > Ammunition



Search tags for this page
cfe 223
,
cfe 223 308 loads
,

cfe 223 burn rate

,
cfe 223 forum
,
cfe 223 in m1a
,
cfe 223 m1a
,
cfe 223 powder burn rate
,
cfe burn rate
,
cfe pistol burn rate
,
cfe223
,
cfe223 burn rate
,
cfe223 vs blc2 for the 308
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freedom Munitions first impressions(308 & 223) heyjowee Ammunition 9 November 7th, 2013 09:12 AM
Springfield M1A socom II yay or nay? McLovin Modern M14 12 August 30th, 2011 04:21 PM
Winchester RANGER 223 Ammo Recall Explained TampaSsgt Ammunition 0 March 6th, 2011 03:05 PM
Experts YAY or NAY charlesPOSTLEwade The M14 5 December 20th, 2009 05:21 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List